Journal of Business and Psychology (2022) 37:263–281

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09743-6

ORIGINAL PAPER

Revisiting Reciprocity: How Accountability, Proactivity,

and Interpersonal Skills Shape Obligations to Reciprocate Citizenship
Behavior
Erich C. Dierdorff 1 & Robert S. Rubin 1

Accepted: 9 March 2021 / Published online: 25 March 2021

# The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Across two studies, we directly test the widely held tenet in the scholarship of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) that
individuals choose to engage in OCB as a result of felt obligations to reciprocate. We further examine how obligations to
reciprocate operate against a backdrop of relevant contextual factors (accountability) and individual differences (proactive
personality and interpersonal skill). Using an experimental method, we find evidence supporting the proposition that reciprocity
obligations increase OCB engagement and that these effects are amplified by contexts high in accountability and when individ-
uals possess high levels of proactive personality. In a subsequent field study, we find further corroborating evidence for the
effects of reciprocity obligations on OCB and reaffirm the moderating influences of proactive personality and accountability.
Overall, the convergent evidence supports the causal relationship between reciprocity obligations and OCB, as well as explicates
the conditions under which this foundational effect operates across individuals and varying contexts.

Keywords Organizational citizenship behavior . Reciprocity . Proactive personality . Interpersonal skills

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is inextricably
linked to the context of work, where these prosocial, discre-
tionary actions are described as contributing to the “mainte-
nance and enhancement of the social and psychological envi-
ronment that supports task performance” (p. 91, Organ, 1997).
Because this behavior contributes to, and is shaped by, work
context, social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) has been widely
applied as a central conceptual framework in the OCB litera-
ture (Bolino & Grant, 2016; Van Dyne et al., 1994; Zellars &
Tepper, 2003). Social exchange theory is valuable for under-
standing OCB because it not only articulates when individuals
are likely to engage in socially oriented behavior in the work-
place, but also proposes why such behavior is supported
* Erich C. Dierdorff
edierdor@depaul.edu
Robert S. Rubin
rrubin@depaul.edu
1 (Deckop et al., 2003; Korsgaard et al., 2010), the central con-
Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Driehaus College
of Business, DePaul University, 1 E. Jackson Blvd., DePaul Center
7034, Chicago, IL 60604, USA
within the broader context of interpersonal interactions in
the workplace (Organ et al., 2006).
Fundamental to the concept of social exchange is the more
specific notion of reciprocity, which refers to a pattern of
mutually contingent exchanges. These reciprocal exchanges
form the basis of a norm of reciprocity that “evokes obliga-
tions toward others on the basis of their past behavior” (p. 170;
Gouldner, 1960). In the workplace, such obligations to recip-
rocate are thought to be a primary force that shapes individ-
uals’ role expectations and, ultimately, the actions they choose
to perform as part of their work roles (Katz & Kahn, 1978). As
such, reciprocity obligations have been widely invoked as a
key explanatory mechanism for understanding why individ-
uals engage in OCB (Lester et al., 2008; Organ, 1990). In fact,
the theoretical supposition that the norm of reciprocity is a
causal mechanism underlying OCB is nearly axiomatic in
extant scholarship.
Despite the widespread supposition that reciprocity obliga-
tions are an important antecedent to OCB, our current under-
standing of the reciprocity–OCB relationship remains limited
in two significant ways. First, with a few notable exceptions
ceptual focus of the majority of past research has been toward
the overall quality of social relationships, rather than an
264
explicit focus on reciprocity obligations. For example, several
studies have supported the positive relationship between OCB
and perceptions of supportive or high-quality relationships
with one’s peers, supervisor, and organization (e.g., Lynch
et al., 1999; Masterson et al., 2000; Ozer, 2011; Settoon
et al., 1996; Smith et al., 2020; Wayne et al., 1997). The
theoretical interest of such research, however, resides in ex-
amining the nature of social exchanges among individuals, not
the direct influence of reciprocity within these exchange rela-
tionships. As an example, though firmly rooted in social ex-
change theory, studies that reveal positive associations be-
tween OCB and leader-member exchange emphasize the gen-
eral quality of exchange relationships as opposed to the spe-
cific influence of reciprocity itself.1 Such approaches are valu-
able because they depict the connection between high-quality
interpersonal relationships and OCB, yet tell us little about the
precise antecedent role that reciprocity obligations play in
performing OCB.
Second, and more significant, is that the relationship be-
tween reciprocity obligations and OCB has largely been stud-
ied without regard for the work context in which this relation-
ship exists. The overall paucity of contextual examinations is a
significant concern for OCB research in general (Bommer
et al., 2007) and is particularly important for research that
invokes social exchange theory because the theory necessarily
involves a focus on situational contingencies. That is, one of
the basic tenets of social exchange theory is that social situa-
tions generate normative definitions or “rules of exchange”
among individuals (Emerson, 1976). This stipulation places
a primacy on the social or interpersonal elements of context,
which is among the reasons for its value in understanding an
inherently prosocial behavior such as OCB. Yet, these mutual
exchanges are not only linked to social context, but exist in a
broader context of work that also entails salient asocial ele-
ments (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Obligations to reciprocate with
OCB therefore occur within a general milieu that is comprised
of more than just interpersonal features. For example, it has
been long recognized in role theory (Biddle, 1979) and more
recently in theories of work context (Johns, 2006) that influ-
ential elements of work context extend to the structural and
informational features of the discrete task context (Morgeson
& Dierdorff, 2011). Consistent with this supposition, research
has shown that elements of task context often exert
1 Cortina, 2008; Motowildo et al., 1997), others have noted that
This conceptual focus derives from the assumption that leader-member ex-
change (LMX) relationships are a result of reciprocal and favorable interper-
sonal interactions (see Dienesch & Liden, 1986). The emphasis on the overall
quality of social exchanges is also apparent in measures of LMX, which
consist of general dimensions such as contribution, affect, loyalty, and profes-
sional respect (Liden & Maslyn, 1998), rather than specific items that assess
reciprocity obligations in the LMX relationship. Finally, a basic premise of
LMX theory is that employees who have “higher quality LMX relationships
‘pay back’ their leaders by engaging in citizenship…” (p. 269, Ilies et al.,
2007) and yet, the obligation to reciprocate high-quality LMX with OCB is
largely assumed rather than directly assessed.
J Bus Psychol (2022) 37:263–281
moderating influences on OCB (e.g., Dierdorff et al., 2012;
Farh et al., 1990; Rubin et al., 2013). Taken collectively, the
preceding theory and research suggest that by constraining
contextual examinations to only social elements renders in-
complete our present understanding of how social exchange
and reciprocity obligations influence OCB.
With the above in mind, the purpose of the current research
was to examine the causal linkages between the norm of rec-
iprocity and decisions to engage in OCB, and how work con-
text creates boundary conditions for these causal linkages.
Work role performance is a function of the person and the
context of work (Hattrup & Jackson, 1996), and this fact has
been recognized in social exchange approaches applied to
OCB (e.g., theory of other orientation; Meglino &
Korsgaard, 2004, 2006). We thus followed this interactionist
approach by incorporating relevant individual differences
(Tett & Burnett, 2003) and a mutually corresponsive situation-
al variable (Ostroff & Schulte, 2007). In essence, OCB is
discretionary workplace behavior (Organ, 1988) involving ac-
tions that are affiliative and promotive in nature (Van Dyne
et al., 1995). As such, scholars have argued that relevant indi-
vidual differences include the proficiency to effectively be-
have in a cooperative or prosocial manner (Dudley &
Cortina, 2008; Grant & Mayer, 2009) as well as the tendencies
toward achievement and initiating change at work
(LePine et al., 2002; Bergeron et al., 2014; Parker, 1998).
Consistent with these arguments, we examined two personal
attributes that reflect how effectively individuals interact with
others (interpersonal skill) and their behavioral tendencies for
achievement and change (proactive personality). As men-
tioned above, OCB is thought to be a consequence of reci-
procity obligations and, thus, arises from normative situational
rules of social exchange. This implies that mutually corre-
sponsive situations would be task contexts where external,
normative cues are more (or less) prevalent. We examined this
stipulation by studying how levels of accountability in the task
context, which reflect external cues of evaluation and justifi-
cation of one’s actions, impinge upon the reciprocal ex-
changes that predict OCB.
The specific integration of interpersonal skill, proactive
personality, and accountability into the examination of the
effects of reciprocity obligations on OCB offers several con-
tributions. First, although scholars have identified the interper-
sonal skill as an important antecedent to OCB (Dudley &
empirical verifications of this supposition are sparse. For ex-
ample, Bolino and Grant (2016) observed, “there has also
been surprisingly little attention given to the role of knowl-
edge, skills, and abilities as drivers of prosocial behaviors and
an influence on their effects” and more detailed examinations
are “sorely needed” (p. 35). Second, while ample research has
demonstrated a connection between proactive personality and
prosocial behaviors like OCB (Spitzmuller et al., 2015), the
J Bus Psychol (2022) 37:263–281
role that reciprocity plays in this connection remains largely
untested even though research shows that employees often
take the initiative to engage in helping behavior (Grant et al.,
2009). Finally, previous research has revealed rather equivo-
cal results for the associations between accountability and
OCB. This has led scholars to call for more nuanced exami-
nations of the influences of accountability (Hall et al., 2017) as
well as for specific examinations of accountability as a con-
textual moderator of individual performance of OCB (Rubin
et al., 2013).
Our multi-method research consisted of two studies. Our
first study comprised two samples (N1 = 146, N2 = 265) and
used an experimental vignette methodology (Aguinis &
Bradley, 2014) demonstrating that individual differences in
proactive personality and situational differences in account-
ability are key moderators of the antecedent effects of reci-
procity obligations on decisions to engage in OCB. We then
conducted a second study using a field sample (N = 300) to
replicate and extend our experimental findings. This second
study’s results confirm the norm of reciprocity hypothesis,
replicate the moderating roles of accountability and proactive
personality, and further demonstrate a more nuanced connec-
tion between reciprocity, accountability, and interpersonal
skills when understanding individual performance of OCB.
Taken collectively, our results provide causal evidence for
the norm of reciprocity effect on decisions to engage in
OCB and reveal the conditions under which this foundational
effect operates across individuals and elements of work
contexts.
Study 1: The Effects and Boundary Conditions
of Reciprocity Obligations on OCB
A central proposition of social exchange theory is that a series
of interdependent and contingent interpersonal interactions
generates obligations toward others (Emerson, 1976). In work
settings, the application of social exchange theory presumes
that workers form distinct exchange relationships with others
(e.g., direct reports, coworkers, supervisors) and that these
social connections hold implications for work-related behav-
ior because individuals feel obligated to return the benefits
they receive from others (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).
This obligation is referred to as the norm of reciprocity and,
from a social perspective, entails the expectation or “rule” of
behaving in a reciprocal manner toward other social actors
(Gouldner, 1960). One way the social obligation to recipro-
cate manifests is when one acts to repay a benefit received
from another person (Blau, 1964). This form of expectation
has been referred to as a “paying you back” obligation and
reflects the internalized acceptance of a social norm or pre-
ferred way to act: in this case, the norm of reciprocity as it
pertains to OCB (Korsgaard et al., 2010; Perugini et al., 2003).
265
The obligation to reciprocate is central to understanding
why individuals engage in OCB because these behaviors are
a key way that individuals contribute to the social context of
the workplace as well as fulfill the social obligations that result
from ongoing social exchanges (Cropanzano & Mitchell,
2005; Organ, 1988). For example, research has generally sup-
ported the notion that individuals are more likely to engage in
OCB when they work in contexts of high-quality social ex-
changes with their leaders or the organization in general
(Eisenberger et al., 2001; Masterson et al., 2000), as well as
when receiving OCB from their coworkers (Deckop et al.,
2003). These studies offer indirect support that social ex-
change relationships are positively correlated with whether
or not individuals will perform OCB.
Responding to reciprocity obligations by engaging in OCB
is consistent with a functional approach to understanding why
individuals perform these behaviors (Rioux & Penner, 2001),
where OCB can be utilized to satisfy goals such as maintain-
ing mutually beneficial social relationships (Halbesleben &
Wheeler, 2011). As such, OCB is an important way individ-
uals can fulfill the obligation to reciprocate the benefits re-
ceived from others in the workplace, especially if those bene-
fits are in the form of assistance or support (Bowling et al.,
2005; Deckop et al., 2003). Even more so, the felt pressure to
reciprocate reflects a norm of reciprocity and stems from the
dissonance that is created by the inequity of the social ex-
change (Adams, 1965). Individuals typically strive to resolve
this dissonance by allocating resources to the relationship
(Perugini et al., 2003) so as to avoid debt in social exchanges
(Blau, 1964). Along these lines, research has found that when
individuals feel that they are receiving more than reciprocat-
ing, they tend to increase cooperation (Clark & Sefton, 2001)
and engage in more OCB (Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2011).
The above theory and related research suggests that the reci-
procity obligations should prompt individuals to perform
OCB.
& Hypothesis 1: Obligations to reciprocate increase deci-
sions to engage in OCB.
Individual and Contextual Moderators of Reciprocity
Obligations
Beyond the individual propensity to reciprocate, essential to
all work role enactment is the premise that elements of work
context are likely to impinge upon the extent to which behav-
ior is displayed. Within the OCB literature, work context has
demonstrated considerable potency in delineating the confines
in which citizenship behavior is enacted. One category of
work context that bears relevance to OCB is referred to as task
context (Johns, 2006). Task context describes the structural
and informational elements of the work environment in which
266
roles are performed (Morgeson & Dierdorff, 2011). Prior re-
search has revealed considerable influence of task context,
including factors that augment (e.g., autonomy) and attenuate
(e.g., ambiguity) OCB (Dierdorff et al., 2012; Podsakoff et al.,
1996; Podsakoff et al., 1997).
In the present study, we focus on the potential influence of
a prototypical task context variable, namely, accountability.
Accountability reflects the extent to which “one’s decisions or
actions will be evaluated by a salient audience and that re-
wards or sanctions are believed to be contingent on this ex-
pected evaluation” (p. 134; Hall & Ferris, 2011). As Hall et al.
(2017) noted, accountability goes beyond an expectation of
evaluation and incorporates the belief that one’s performance
requires an “account-giving” or explanation of one’s work.
Thus, a primary outcome in contexts of heightened account-
ability is that individuals typically increase their awareness of,
and attentiveness to, external performance standards. It is thus
unsurprising that some research finds strong accountability
contexts are associated with increases in role strain (Hall
et al., 2006) and decreases in prosocial behaviors like OCB,
as employees narrow their attentional capacity to focus on task
performance directly linked with visible rewards or results
(Mitchell et al., 1998; Rubin et al., 2013). Yet at the same
time, other research has shown the positive effects of account-
ability on OCB (Hall et al., 2009; Hall & Ferris, 2011).
Regarding these mixed results, Hall et al. (2017) suggest that
the relationship between accountability and OCB “is compli-
cated and warrants further empirical scrutiny” (p. 10). We
posit that more clarity can be achieved when one considers
how causal mechanisms involved in the social exchange pro-
cess are likely impacted by environments high in
accountability.
Social exchange theory holds that over time, the rules of
social exchange create a “normative definition of the situation
that forms among or is adopted by the participants in an ex-
change relation” (p. 351, Emerson, 1976). These normative
definitions become internalized and reciprocity obligations
become progressively guided by such norms. In high account-
ability contexts, the adherence to internalized reciprocal
norms is likely amplified as accountability shines a spotlight
on the normative rules of social exchange. In this sense, high
accountability contexts create “strong situations” whereby in-
dividuals are likely to interpret appropriate courses of action in
uniform ways and regulate behavior accordingly (Meyer et al.,
2010; Mischel, 1977). Thus, in conditions of high account-
ability, reciprocity obligations likely increase as contextual
cues for desired behavior are more readily visible to others.
We therefore argue that accountability magnifies the effects of
reciprocity on decisions to engage in OCB.
& Hypothesis 2: The relationship between the obligation to
reciprocate and OCB is amplified in conditions of high
accountability.
J Bus Psychol (2022) 37:263–281
Though certain task contexts can increase the salience of
social exchanges, individuals can differ in how they tend to
react to these environmental norms (Cropanzano &
Mitchell, 2005). Social exchanges, especially those
reflected by reciprocity obligations, essentially represent
work situations where the need take action is created (i.e.,
to behave reciprocally). This suggests that action or
approach-oriented dispositions are relevant to social ex-
changes. One such dispositional construct is that of proac-
tive personality, defined as a person’s propensity to initiate
change in work situations (Bateman & Crant, 1993).
Proactive individuals look for opportunities to act, demon-
strate initiative, take action, and seek to control their envi-
ronments, whereas individuals who are low in proactivity
tend to be relatively passive and content to endure their
circumstances (Crant, 2000). Proactivity is thought to en-
hance effectiveness in part because proactive individuals
are more likely to both recognize and create conditions that
facilitate their performance (Greguras & Diefendorff,
2010). Research has generally supported this supposition,
with meta-analytic evidence of positive relationships be-
tween proactive personality and task performance
(Thomas et al., 2010), and facets of OCB such as voice
and taking charge (Fuller & Marler, 2009). In addition,
Bergeron et al. (2014) found proactive personality was pos-
itively related to the frequency with which individuals per-
form OCB.
These previous empirical findings indicate that individ-
uals with higher proactive personality are more likely to
engage in OCB. Relevant to the current study, we argue
that proactive personality is also likely to factor into the
process whereby individuals fulfill reciprocity obligations
with OCB. As noted above, individuals with higher proac-
tive tendencies are more likely to seek control of their
situations, search the environment for information and op-
portunities, and take action to affect change in their work
situations. These behavioral tendencies are likely to ampli-
fy the effects of increased reciprocity obligations on deci-
sions to perform OCB. For example, not fulfilling the norm
of reciprocity is akin to failing to “control” the expected
social exchange within the work situation. Moreover, the
proclivity to search for information makes proactive indi-
viduals more attuned to the social cues in their work situ-
ations (Ashford & Black, 1996; Ashford & Cummings,
1985), which would include noticing that others have ex-
tended help and the concomitant obligation to repay such
help. Finally, the tendency to proactively take action is
known to facilitate the incorporation of discretionary be-
havior into one’s performance of work (Morrison &
Phelps, 1999; Parker, 1998). For these reasons, we hypoth-
esize that the effects of reciprocity obligations will be
stronger when individuals are higher in proactive person-
ality as compared to those lower in this disposition.
J Bus Psychol (2022) 37:263–281
& Hypothesis 3: The relationship between the obligation to
reciprocate and OCB is amplified for individuals with
more proactive personalities.
Study 1: Method
Participants and Design
Two samples were collected for study 1. The first sample was
used to examine the efficacy of our experimental vignette
methodology (i.e., testing the experimental manipulation of
reciprocity obligations) and to provide initial evidence perti-
nent to Hypothesis 1. Participants in the first sample were 146
individuals enrolled in a graduate school of business at a uni-
versity in the Midwestern United States who volunteered to
participate and earned extra credit across multiple sections of a
management course. The mean age of the sample was 31.4
and 56% was female. In terms of work experience, 91% of the
sample had more than 5 years of experience and 65% with
more than 8 years. As discussed below, results were favorable
and supported the manipulation of reciprocity obligations.
A second sample was collected and used to provide repli-
cation evidence for Hypothesis 1, as well as direct tests of
Hypotheses 2 and 3. This second sample consisted of partic-
ipants recruited from the United States using Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk (Rand, 2012). A total of 265 individuals
comprised this second sample. The mean age of the sample
was 36.34 (SD = 11.61), 45% was female, and 81% had more
than 5 years of work experience. The racial composition of the
sample was 82% White, 6% Black, 9% Asian, and 3% indi-
cated “other.” Several quality control checks were used to
detect careless responding (Meade & Craig, 2012). First, in-
structions specified that individuals have at least 2 years of
work experience, which allowed a crosscheck with a survey
item asking years of work experience. Second, full completion
of all study measurements was required and verified. Third,
responses more than one standard deviation below the average
study completion time were flagged for review. Finally, we
examined within-person response patterns to ensure that indi-
viduals, especially those with fast response times, were not
simply providing identical ratings on consecutive items or
other careless patterns (e.g., strict increasing/decreasing se-
quences). No participants were identified as careless
respondents.
General Procedure
Our approach followed recommendations for an experimental
vignette study design (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014). Participants
were first informed that the experiment was intended to study
how people make decisions at work and provided a brief
267
description of the required task. After indicating they under-
stood and agreed to proceed, participants were randomly
assigned to read the experimental vignettes. After reading
the assigned vignette, participants were asked to indicate the
likelihood they would perform OCB, followed by other items
that measured the manipulation, demographics, and other
study 1 variables. The experimental vignette conditions used
in sample 1 and sample 2 are provided in the Appendix.
Beyond tests pertinent to our three hypotheses, we also exam-
ined the possibility of an additional three-way interaction be-
tween reciprocity obligations, accountability, and proactive
personality. This supplemental analysis was exploratory in
nature.
Procedure and Measures (Sample 1)
A single-factor between-subjects design with random assign-
ment was used in sample 1, where we manipulated the inten-
sity of reciprocity obligations.
Experimental Conditions We created three distinct vignettes
that described work situations where the extent to which one’s
coworker had helped on previous projects was varied in order
to manipulate the intensity of reciprocity obligations. After the
vignettes, individuals were presented with a decision to offer
their coworker help on a new project with which the coworker
was struggling to complete the assigned tasks. We were care-
ful to minimize other factors that could influence the vignette
manipulations. For example, other scenario details were held
constant across the three vignettes, a prior “history” was
established with the coworker (2 years of working on other
projects), and the new project’s tasks were described as inde-
pendent (versus interdependent) in nature. In the high
obligation condition, the coworker (named “Tom”) was de-
scribed as regularly helping on tasks that were specifically
assigned to the participant such that the coworker had helped
much more in the past compared to the participant. The low
obligation condition described the participant as regularly
helping to complete the coworker’s assigned tasks such that
the participant had helped much more in the past than the
coworker. The equal obligation condition described previous
helping to be evenly distributed (i.e., the coworker and partic-
ipant had previously helped each other equally).
OCB Intentions The dependent variable measured participants’
intentions to perform OCB and was derived from the interper-
sonal citizenship behavior scale by Settoon and Mossholder
(2002). Three items from this scale were used along with the
initial prompt, “How likely is it that you would…” These
items included “assist Tom [the coworker’s name] with the
assignments, even when assistance is not directly requested,”
“go out of your way to help Tom with project-related prob-
lems,” “take on extra responsibilities in order to help Tom
268
complete work assignments,” and “help Tom when he is run-
ning behind in his work activities.” The items were rated using
a 5-point scale: 1 = extremely unlikely, 2 = unlikely, 3 =
somewhat likely, 4 = likely, and 5 = very likely. Coefficient
alpha for the scale was .91.
Manipulation Check Participants rated an item that served as
the manipulation check for the experimental conditions for
reciprocity obligations. This item read, “In the scenario,
Tom gave me a great deal of help on past projects” and was
rated using a 5-point agreement scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2
= disagree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, 4 = agree, 5 =
strongly agree).2
We expected that intentions to perform OCB would be
stronger in the high obligation condition compared to the
equal and low obligation conditions. Comparing means across
the three conditions supported the manipulation (F = 128.40,
df = 2, p < .01, η2 = .64). In the high obligation condition,
participants’ ratings were higher than both the equal and low
conditions (high obligation: M = 4.32, SD = .59; equal obli-
gation: M = 3.43, SD = .73; low obligation: M = 2.05, SD =
.92). Importantly, ratings for the manipulation check were
significantly higher in the high obligation condition compared
to the low obligation condition (t = 15.79, df =114, p < .01)
and the equal obligation condition (t = 6.15, df = 88, p < .01).
Manipulation check ratings were also significantly higher in
the equal obligation condition than in the low obligation con-
dition (t = 7.09, df = 84, p < .01). With supportive evidence
from sample 1, we proceeded to conduct our experimental
design using the second sample.
Procedure and Measures (Sample 2)
The design was 2 × 2 full factorial between-subjects experi-
ment with random assignment where we manipulated reci-
procity obligations and levels of accountability. Participants
were randomly assigned to read one of four different vignettes
that described work situations where reciprocity obligations
and levels of accountability were manipulated (see the
Appendix). Consistent with the construct definitions of ac-
countability (Frink & Klimoski, 1998; Hochwarter et al.,
2003), we manipulated this contextual factor by varying the
level of performance visibility and required justification of
one’s actions in the vignettes.
The dependent variable was again intentions to perform
OCB and the same 3-item scale was used. Participants also
2 < .01 and t = 8.56, df = 114, p < .01, respectively). Participants
We elected not to use a more explicit manipulation check, such as “did you
feel a sense of obligation to Tom (Avery),” in order to avoid creating a biasing
demand characteristic that would too obviously queue respondents to “felt
obligations” and thus overtly convey our hypotheses possibly resulting in a
significant threat to inference validity (i.e., reactivity). Our approach to this
manipulation check is also consistent with prior experimental work on felt
obligations (e.g., Korsgaard et al., 2010).
J Bus Psychol (2022) 37:263–281
rated two items used for manipulation checks. Similar to sam-
ple 1, the first item read, “In the scenario, Avery [the co-
worker’s name] gave me a great deal of help on past projects”
which checked for the manipulation of reciprocity obligations.
The second item was a manipulation check for accountability
and read, “In the scenario, my individual actions were highly
visible to my boss and coworkers.” Both items were rated
using a 5-point agreement scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 =
disagree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly
agree). Means tests indicated that both manipulations were
effective. For the reciprocity obligation manipulations, the
high obligation condition was significantly higher than the
low condition (high obligation: M = 4.70, SD = .52; low ob-
ligation: M = 1.85, SD = 1.02; t = 27.99, df =250, p < .01). For
the accountability manipulation, the high accountability con-
dition was significantly higher than the low accountability
condition (high accountability: M = 4.57, SD = .56; low ac-
countability: M = 1.82, SD = .57; t = 38.80, df =250, p < .01).
Proactive personality was measured using a 6-item scale
(Claes et al., 2005). Participants were asked to indicate the
accuracy with which each item described them using a 5-
point scale (1 = very inaccurate, 2 = inaccurate, 3 = neither
inaccurate nor accurate, 4 = accurate, 5 = very accurate). The
six items were as follows: “if I see something I don’t like, I fix
it”; “no matter what the odds, if I believe in something I will
make it happen”; “if I believe in an idea, no obstacle will
prevent me from making it happen”; “I excel at identifying
opportunities”; “I am always looking for better ways to do
things”; and “I love being a champion for my ideas, even
against others’ opposition.” Coefficient alpha was .86.
Results and Discussion
Hypothesis 1 predicted that when faced with a situation where
the norm of reciprocity creates stronger reciprocity obliga-
tions, individuals are more likely to decide to perform OCB.
Results from both samples provided evidence to test this hy-
pothesis. Across the three obligation intensity conditions in
sample 1, the likelihood of engaging in OCB significantly
varied (F = 37.12, df = 2, p < .01, η2 = .34), with the highest
likelihood of performing OCB in conditions with higher rec-
iprocity obligations (high obligation: M = 4.55, SD = .77;
equal obligation: M = 4.07, SD = .69; low obligation: M =
3.20, SD = .99). Moreover, participants in the high obligation
condition were significantly more likely to perform OCB than
those in either the equal or low conditions (t = 2.91, df = 88, p
in the equal obligation condition also indicated they were
more likely to perform OCB compared to the low condition
(t = 4.25, df = 84, p < .01). Results from sample 2 replicated
these results. In sample 2, reciprocity obligations significantly
related to individuals’ likelihood to engage in OCB (high
J Bus Psychol (2022) 37:263–281 269

5
obligation: M = 4.44, SD = .51; low obligation: M = 3.00, SD
= .89; t = 16.27, df = 264, p < .01). Taken collectively, results 4.5
fully support Hypothesis 1 and indicate that reciprocity obli-
gations are causally antecedent to an individual’s intentions to 4
perform OCB.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that accountability would moderate 3.5 Low Accountability
High Accountability
the effects of reciprocity obligations on an individual’s deci-
3
sion to engage in OCB. Results from a two-way analysis of
variance supported this proposed interaction (see Table 1).
2.5
Simple effects analysis further indicated that reciprocity obli-
gations exerted significant effects across both accountability 2
conditions (high accountability: F(1, 266) = 188.26, p < .01; Low Obligation High Obligation
low accountability: F(1, 266) = 91.85, p < .01), with pairwise Fig. 1 Interaction between reciprocity obligations and accountability on
mean differences showing higher obligations associated with decisions to perform OCB (study 1)
higher intent to perform OCB (high accountability condition:
Δ mean = 1.69, 95% CI [1.49, 1.93]; low accountability con- higher intentions to perform OCB for individuals with low
dition: Δ mean = 1.18, 95% CI [1.42, .94]). Simple effects proactive personality (−1 SD) with a mean difference of
analysis also showed that accountability had significant ef- 1.71 (95% CI = 1.48, 1.94), as well as for individuals with
fects in the high obligation condition (F(1, 266) = 5.14, p < high proactive personality (+1 SD) with a mean difference of
.05), with a pairwise mean differences showing higher obliga- 1.26 (95% CI = 1.03, 1.49). The form of this moderation is
tion associated with higher intent to perform OCB (Δ mean = shown in Fig. 2 and indicates that the effects of reciprocity
.28, 95% CI [.04, .52]). However, the effects of reciprocity obligations are accentuated when individuals are high in pro-
obligations were equal in the low accountability condition active personality. These results fully support Hypothesis 3.
(F(1, 266) = 3.46, p > .05; Δ mean = .23, 95% CI [−.01, We additionally explored the possible combined effects of
.48]). Figure 1 displays this interaction, indicating that con- reciprocity obligations, accountability, and proactive person-
texts high in accountability amplify the effects of reciprocity ality on decisions to engage in OCB. Results from this post
obligations on decisions to engage in OCB. hoc exploratory analysis did not support a significant three-
Hypothesis 3 predicted that proactive personality moder- way interaction among these variables (SS = 1.13, F(1, 266) =
ates the effects of the obligation to reciprocate. Table 2 shows 2.62, p > .10).
the results relevant to this hypothesis from a two-way analysis In sum, the results from study 1 provide direct evidence for
of variance with a covariate. The interaction term between the norm of reciprocity proposition on individuals’ decisions
reciprocity obligations and proactive personality was signifi- to engage in OCB. Our findings indicate that when one’s
cant (p < .05). Note that we included terms for both account- obligation to reciprocate is increased due to previous contri-
ability and reciprocity obligations because our design was full butions from others in the workplace, the likelihood of offer-
factorial whereby each condition varied on both of these fea- ing OCB increases. These results contribute causal evidence
tures. A model without accountability terms corroborated the to the associations found in prior OCB research that has been
significant interaction between reciprocity obligations and cross-sectional in nature. Further, study 1 results demonstrate
proactive personality (SS = 2.67, F = 5.97, p < .05). that personal and situational attributes shape this main effect.
Pairwise mean differences from the model shown in Table 2
indicated that reciprocity obligations were associated with
Table 2 Effects of reciprocity obligations and proactive personality on
OCB in study 1
Table 1 Effects of reciprocity obligations and accountability on OCB in Source df SS F Partial η2
study 1
Reciprocity condition 1 144.82 335.57** .56
Source df SS F Partial η2
Accountability condition 1 .02 .04 .00
Reciprocity condition 1 136.97 271.48** .51 Proactive personality 1 14.66 33.96** .12
Accountability condition 1 .04 .06 .00 Reciprocity × accountability 1 5.09 11.78** .05
Reciprocity × accountability 1 4.28 8.49** .03 Reciprocity × proactive personality 1 3.21 7.43** .03
Error 262 132.19 Error 260 112.20

Model R2 = .52 Model R2 = .59

**p < .01 **p < .01
270
5
4.5
4 stands to reason that the extent to which an individual accu-
3.5 Low Proactive Personality
High Proactive Personality
3
2.5
2
Low Obligation High Obligation
Fig. 2 Interaction between reciprocity obligations and proactive
personality on decisions to perform OCB (study 1)
In contexts of high accountability where one’s performance is
highly visible to others, our results suggest reciprocity obliga-
tions are even more likely to promote OCB. Individuals with
more proactive personalities also appear more likely to offer
OCB in general; yet, when presented with the obligation to
reciprocate, this dispositional propensity increases the likeli-
hood of OCB.
Although the experimental results of study 1 enhance in-
ternal validity and inferences of causal ordering, such designs
do raise questions about the generalizability of observed ef-
fects. We thus conducted a second study using a field sample
to seek corroboration of the main effects for reciprocity obli-
gations and the moderating effects of accountability and
proactivity. We further extended this analysis by examining
another individual difference variable, this time focusing on a
malleable attribute that is also relevant to social interactions
(interpersonal skill).
Study 2: The Interplay between Reciprocity
Obligations and Interpersonal Skill
Consistent with an interactionist approach, we have argued
that both individual and situational factors shape social ex-
change relationships and, in particular, the positive effects of
reciprocity obligations on decisions to engage in OCB. In this
second study, we used a field sample to again test the moder-
ating roles that accountability and proactive personality play
in the relationships between reciprocity obligations and OCB.
We further tested how individual differences in interpersonal
skill augment the links between reciprocity and OCB. We also
applied a more generalized approach to reciprocity by using
an equity-based (Adams, 1965) conceptualization of reciproc-
ity obligations, taking into account the overall inputs and re-
ceived benefits from one’s coworkers (versus help received or
given on past projects as in study 1). Finally, we extended our
criterion from decisions to perform OCB to managerial ratings
of OCB.
J Bus Psychol (2022) 37:263–281
A primary supposition throughout our previous rationale is
that performing OCB is an inherently social process steeped in
complex interpersonal exchanges (Organ et al., 2006). Thus, it
rately diagnoses and responds to reciprocal cues in the social
environment is governed in part by that person’s interpersonal
skill. In its broadest form, interpersonal skill involves “goal-
directed behaviors, including communication and
relationship-building competencies, employed in interperson-
al interaction episodes characterized by complex perceptual
and cognitive processes, dynamic verbal and non-verbal inter-
action exchanges, diverse roles, motivations and expectan-
cies” (p. 81; Klein et al., 2006). More specifically, the Klein
et al. (2006) interpersonal skill taxonomy suggests the uni-
verse of interpersonal skills is categorized in one of two broad
dimensions: communication-based or relationship-based
skills. Communication-based interpersonal skills span written,
oral, non-verbal, active listening, and assertive forms of com-
munication, whereas relationship-based skills span coopera-
tion, coordination, trust, intercultural sensitivity, service ori-
entation, self-presentation, social influence, conflict resolu-
tion, and negotiation.
Individuals with strong interpersonal skill are more likely
to be sensitive to social interactions and have increased
knowledge of the norms that dictate socially appropriate be-
havior (Riggio, 1986). Within social exchanges, these in-
creased social sensitivities afford interpersonally skilled indi-
viduals the advantage of being able to accurately assess social
cues and determine the extent to which the norm of reciprocity
exists in various work situations. In doing so, interpersonally
skilled people often maintain high-quality interpersonal rela-
tionships (Segrin & Taylor, 2007), as they fulfill their role in
upholding socially normative behavior.
Given the interpersonal nature of OCB, previous scholars
have correspondingly proposed that proficiency related to co-
ordinating with others, social perceptiveness, perspective-tak-
ing, and conversational skills are likely to account for variation
in OCB (Dudley & Cortina, 2008; Motowildo et al., 1997).
Although empirical research testing these conjectures is quite
limited, there is some related evidence suggesting that some
facets of interpersonal skill promote increased cooperation
needed for task proficiency (Ferris et al., 2001; Morgeson
et al., 2005) and facilitate more effective interpersonal interac-
tions connected to job performance (Ozer, 2011). A study by
Ellington et al. (2014) also found that interpersonal skill was
positively associated with the frequency with which OCB is
performed. Taken collectively, research on interpersonal skill
and related evidence from OCB studies suggest that these attri-
butes are likely to accentuate the effects of reciprocity obliga-
tions on OCB. The primary reason for this prediction is because
interpersonally skilled individuals are more likely to accurately
interpret normative reciprocal cues and, thus, more effectively
return OCB to fulfill these social exchange obligations.
J Bus Psychol (2022) 37:263–281
& Hypothesis 4: The relationship between the obligation to
reciprocate and OCB is amplified for individuals with
higher interpersonal skill.
Study 2: Method
Participants and Design
Participants for study 2 were 300 incumbents enrolled in a
part-time Masters of Business Administration program for
working professionals at a large university in the Midwest.
Mean age of the sample was 34.25 and 46% was female.
The average tenure in their current jobs was 3.28 years (SD
= 2.44) and the average years of overall work experience was
6.32 (SD = 3.71). The average tenure with their current man-
ager was 2.49 (SD = 1.45). Data were collected using two
surveys that were administered 5 weeks apart. The first survey
measured reciprocity, accountability, proactive personality,
and demographics. The second survey was a multisource in-
strument that measured OCB and interpersonal skill.
Measures
Reciprocity Obligations We operationalized reciprocity obli-
gations using an equity-based approach similar to previous
studies that have examined reciprocity in the workplace
(e.g., Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2011; Smets et al., 2004; Van
Dierendonck et al., 2001). This variable was measured with a
4-item scale that asked, “overall, how much effort do you feel
you put into relationships with your coworkers,” “overall,
how much do you feel your coworkers put into relationships
with you,” “how much benefit do you feel you receive from
the relationships that you have your coworkers,” and “how
much benefit do you feel your coworkers receive from their
relationships with you.” Items were rated using a 5-point scale
from very little (1) to very much (5). To calculate reciprocity
obligations, a score was created by subtracting the ratio of
coworker benefits to coworker inputs from the ratio of self-
perceived benefits to the self-perceived inputs. Perfectly equi-
table environments are indicated by scores of zero. Positive
values indicated participants were receiving relatively more
benefits compared to the effort they invested in social relation-
ships at work (i.e., high reciprocity obligations), whereas neg-
ative values indicated participants were receiving relatively
less benefits compared to the effort they invested (i.e., low
reciprocity obligations). Coefficient alpha was .80.
Accountability This variable was operationalized with a 6-
item scale described by Rubin et al. (2013), which is based
on a longer measure by Hochwarter et al. (2003). The scale
asked participants to rate the following items using a 5-point
271
scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree): “I am held
very accountable for my actions at work”; “if things at work
do not go the way that they should, my boss will let me
know”; “my boss holds me accountable for all of my deci-
sions; my job requires that I often have to explain why I do
certain things at work”; “in the grand scheme of things, my job
is very important”; and, “my co-workers, subordinates, and
bosses closely scrutinize my efforts at work.” Coefficient al-
pha for this measure was .82.
Interpersonal Skill This variable was operationalized with sev-
en items that were rated by participants’ coworkers. These
ratings were collected as part of a developmental multisource
feedback project and all ratings were anonymous to ensure
candor and confidentiality on the part of the respondents.
Items correspond to the broad dimensions of interpersonal
skills represented by Klein et al. (2006). Coworkers were
asked to rate how descriptive seven interpersonal behaviors
were of the target individual using a 5-point scale (1 = not at
all descriptive to 5 = very descriptive). The interpersonal skill
items were as follows: “works well in team settings”; “builds
rapport with others inside the organization”; “displays sincere
interest in others”; “shows empathy toward others”; “builds
strong relationships with industry professionals outside his/
her own organization”; “knows a wide range of people who
can get the job done.” ICC(1) was .54 and .92 for ICC(2),
suggesting support for a rating target effect and the aggrega-
tion of coworkers’ ratings (LeBreton & Senter, 2008).
Proactive Personality This variable was assessed with the
same 6-item scale used in study 1. The coefficient alpha in
this study was .81.
OCB This variable was operationalized with supervisor ratings
using an 8-item scale described by Dierdorff et al. (2012) and
based on the summary dimensions of citizenship behavior
identified by Coleman and Borman (2000). Scale items were
as follows: “takes advantage of developmental opportunities”;
“demonstrates initiative”; “shows strong commitment toward
her/his work”; “endorses, supports, or defends organizational
objectives”; “works with others to effectively resolve con-
flicts”; “engages in behavior that benefits the organization as
a whole”; “manages group activities responsibly and effec-
tively”; and, “helps other organizational members.”
Coefficient alpha for this scale was .94.3
3
The OCB measure we used spans discretionary behavior that is directed at
different targets, such as the job, other individuals, or the organization. It could
be that reciprocity obligations are primarily linked to OCB that is strictly
interpersonal in nature. We thus reexamined our data using only the three
individual-focused items to measure our criterion. The level of support for
each of our predictions was unchanged. The statistical significance and direc-
tions of individual parameter estimates in these tests were consistent with those
using the full OCB scale.
272 J Bus Psychol (2022) 37:263–281

Results and Discussion Table 4 Main and interactive effects of reciprocity obligations on OCB
from study 2

Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations, and zero-order Predictor Step 1 Step 2 ΔR2
correlations among study 2 variables. Obligation intensity was
positively related to supervisor-rated OCB performance (r = β SE β SE
.25, p < .01), thus offering evidence of the generalizability of Reciprocity .11** .03 .12** .03
the effects found in the prior experimental study.
Accountability −.06* .03 −.06* .03
Accountability was negatively related to supervisor-rated
Proactive personality .12** .03 .13** .03
OCB (r = −.15, p < .05), whereas proactive personality and
Interpersonal skill .09** .03 .09** .03 .19**
interpersonal skills were positively related to supervisor-rated
Reciprocity × accountability .06* .03
OCB (r = .31 and .30, p < .01, respectively). Table 4 shows
Reciprocity × proactive personality .08* .04
multiple regression analysis results from study 2. Similar to
Reciprocity × interpersonal skill −.04 .04 .03**
study 1, we again expected a main effect of reciprocity obli-
gations on OCB and that this effect would be conditioned by N = 300
accountability and proactive personality. Results in Table 4 *p <.05
fully support these predictions, with a positive main effect for **p < .01
reciprocity obligations (β = .11, p < .01), and a significant
interaction term between reciprocity obligations and proactive
personality (β = .08, p < .05) as well as between reciprocity Although interpersonal skill failed to moderate the effects
obligations and accountability (β = .06, p < .05). The forms of of reciprocity obligations on OCB, both reciprocity obliga-
moderation are depicted in Figs. 3 and 4. Replicating study 1 tions and interpersonal skill showed main effects on OCB
results, these plots show that both accountability and proactive and the effects of reciprocity obligations were conditioned
personality amplify the effects of reciprocity obligations on by accountability. Because individual behavior like OCB oc-
performance of OCB. curs within a work context that has both social and asocial
Hypothesis 4 predicted individuals’ levels of interpersonal elements, it may be that accountability could play a role in
skill moderate the main effect of reciprocity obligations on the relationships among reciprocity obligations, interpersonal
OCB such that the relationship would be amplified for more skill, and OCB. To examine this possibility, we conducted a
interpersonally proficient individuals. Interpersonal skill post hoc analysis that explored a three-way interaction be-
exerted a significant and positive main effect on OCB (β = tween reciprocity obligations, interpersonal skill, and account-
.09, p < .01). However, the interaction term between interper- ability. Results from this exploratory analysis showed that this
sonal skill and reciprocity obligations was not statistically interaction was significant (β = −.06, p < .05, one-tailed). The
significant (β = −.04, p > .10) and thus failed to support form of this interaction is shown in Fig. 5. One noticeable
Hypothesis 4. We also examined a model with only an inter- trend suggested by this moderation is that, when reciprocity
action term for reciprocity obligations and interpersonal skill obligations increase, the likelihood of engaging in OCB gen-
(i.e., not interaction terms for proactivity and accountability). erally increases except when individuals possess low levels of
This model did not reveal a significant interaction between interpersonal skill and are in low-accountability contexts. In
reciprocity obligations and interpersonal skill (β = −.48, SE this situation, increased obligation to reciprocate diminishes
= .029, t = −1.64, 95% CI = −.11 to .01). the performance of OCB by these individuals.

Table 3 Means, standard deviations, and correlations for study 2

variables General Discussion
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4
Using a multi-method approach across two studies, we find
1. Reciprocity obligations .20 .72 convergent evidence to support reciprocity obligations as an
2. Accountability 3.16 .81 −.13* underlying mechanism affecting when individuals choose per-
3. Proactive personality 4.12 .80 .06 .04 form OCB. We further find that the effects of reciprocity ob-
4. Interpersonal skill 4.07 .85 .08 −.11* .43** ligations are conditioned by specific individual and situational
5. OCB 4.30 .52 .25** −.15** .31** .30** factors. Here, we examined the personal attributes of proactive
personality and interpersonal skill, as well as situational dif-
N = 300 ferences in accountability. We chose these variables to ac-
*p < .05 count for the fact that OCB is an inherently discretionary
**p < .01 and prosocial workplace behavior (Organ, 1988; Van Dyne
J Bus Psychol (2022) 37:263–281 273

5.00
Low Accountability assumed to be antecedents in previous OCB scholarship, ev-
4.75 High Accountability idence for this supposition has been predominately correla-
4.50 tional in nature. Even a cursory examination of the host of
4.25 OCB studies that have invoked social exchange theory will
quickly reveal warnings of causal interpretation. Thus, results
4.00
from study 1, along with evidence from Korsgaard et al.
3.75 (2010), represent relatively rare empirical results that help to
3.50 affirm the fundamental antecedent effect of reciprocity obli-
3.25 gations on decisions to perform OCB.
Drawing on role theory and an interactional approach, re-
3.00
Low Reciprocity High Reciprocity sults from study 1 show that the effects of reciprocity obliga-
Fig. 3 Interaction between reciprocity obligations and accountability on tions on OCB do not exist in isolation, but rather are moder-
OCB (study 2) ated by individual and situational factors. We found that work
contexts characterized by high levels of accountability signif-
et al., 1995) and that reciprocity obligations are shaped by icantly moderated the relationship between high reciprocity
normative rules of social exchange arising in part from exter- obligations and a person’s decision to engage in OCB. This
nal cues (Emerson, 1976). suggests that when individuals work in environments where
Using an experimental vignette approach, results from our performance is highly visible and externally evaluated, their
first study empirically establish the primary link between rec- adherence to the norms of reciprocity are amplified. With
iprocity obligations and decisions to perform OCB. regard to individual differences, study 1 also demonstrates that
Participants in the high obligation condition chose to perform obligations to reciprocate with OCB are significantly stronger
OCB at significantly higher rates than those in the low obli- for individuals with high levels of proactive personality. This
gation conditions. These results suggest that when individuals finding is consistent with the propositions that proactive per-
receive help from others in the workplace, they will recipro- sonality augments reciprocal behavior and that proactive indi-
cate with OCB. Such a finding supports the widely held theory viduals are more likely to recognize and manage interactions
that individuals internalize the norm of reciprocity as a form of at work situations (Grant & Ashford, 2008).
moral acting or social responsibility (Blau, 1964; Perugini In study 2 using a field sample, we sought to replicate the
et al., 2003) and that this social norm obligates them to re- effects we observed for reciprocity obligations, accountability,
spond to others’ past behavior by “paying it back” with OCB. and proactive personality, as well as extend our examination
At first blush, these results may appear unsurprising. Yet, it is to an additional moderator that reflects a person’s interperson-
important to note that evidence confirming reciprocity obliga- al competence. The results again confirm the norm of reci-
tions as direct antecedents to OCB is both essential and much procity hypothesis and replicate the positive moderating roles
needed in the OCB literature. As Cropanzano and Mitchell of accountability and proactive personality in the relationships
(2005) noted in regard to the effects of social exchanges, between reciprocity obligations and OCB. With regard to in-
“one could plausibly argue that a series of contingent ex- terpersonal competence, we argued that such skills are funda-
changes alter the interpersonal relationship or that an interper- mental to reciprocal obligations and thus, high levels of inter-
sonal relationship alters the series of contingent exchanges” personal skill would amplify the relationship between reci-
(p. 888). That is, though social exchanges have long been procity and OCB. However, our results did not support this
predicted moderation. While interpersonal skill was positively
5.00 related to performing OCB, it failed to moderate the relation-
Low Proactive
Personality
ship between reciprocity obligations and OCB. One reason for
4.75
this finding could be that reciprocity obligations hold enough
4.50 High Proactive
Personality
influence to promote OCB regardless of an individual’s level
4.25 of interpersonal skill. That is, the effects of social exchanges
4.00
on OCB appear to be consistent across individuals even
though individuals may differ with regard to their effective-
3.75
ness at navigating interpersonal interactions at work. Another
3.50 reason could stem from our measurement of interpersonal
3.25 skill. Interpersonal skill represents a broad set of specific com-
munication and relationship-building skills. Although the
3.00
Low Reciprocity High Reciprocity items we used align with broad interpersonal skill dimensions,
Fig. 4 Interaction between reciprocity obligations and proactive the measure was not exhaustive and could introduce content
personality on OCB (study 2) deficiency. This deficiency may have lowered our ability to
274
Fig. 5 Three-way interaction 5.00
between reciprocity obligations,
4.75
accountability, and interpersonal
skill on OCB (study 2)
4.50
4.25
4.00
3.75
3.50
3.25
Low Reciprocity
detect sufficient displays of interpersonal skill and contributed
to the lack of moderation in our data.
Another explanation for the lack of moderation by inter-
personal skill could be that this personal attribute is “activat-
ed” (Tett & Burnett, 2003) by other situational cues beyond
reciprocity obligations. We explored this possibility in a post
hoc analysis that revealed a more complex relationship (see
Fig. 5). Results here suggest that reciprocity obligations, in-
terpersonal skill, and accountability interact to shape how rec-
iprocity affects the performance of OCB. In particular, when
obligations are high, strong interpersonal skill generally am-
plifies the effects of reciprocity on OCB regardless of levels of
accountability. Yet, we also find that accountability has a
buffering effect such that in high accountability contexts, the
positive relationship between reciprocity obligations and
OCB remains even for those individuals low in interpersonal
skill. It is also interesting to note that the relationship between
interpersonal skill, accountability, and OCB also appears to
turn particularly deleterious when those weak in interpersonal
skill work in low-accountability contexts, where our results
indicate that these individuals perform less OCB even when
obligations to do so are high. This latter finding suggests ac-
countability may facilitate the recognition of social cues that
are inherent to social exchanges, especially for individuals that
are the least skilled in this regard. In other words, accountabil-
ity might compensate for lower interpersonal skill, at least in
terms of fulfilling norms of reciprocity related to OCB.
Although the results presented in Fig. 5 are suggestive of a
more complex relationship, these findings should be
interpreted in light of the exploratory nature of this analysis,
which require further consideration and replication in future
research.
Theoretical Implications
It is important to recognize that our studies are squarely fo-
cused on the obligation to reciprocate (i.e., paying you back)
rather than what has been termed expected reciprocity or
“paying me forward” (Korsgaard et al., 2010). Expected rec-
iprocity describes when one contributes to an exchange
J Bus Psychol (2022) 37:263–281
Low Interpersonal Skill-Low Accountability
High Interpersonal Skill-Low Accountability
Low Interpersonal Skill-High Accountability
High Interpersonal Skill-High Accountability
High Reciprocity
relationship to ensure the receipt of future benefits from an-
other person. This is an important distinction because a sub-
stantial amount of OCB scholarship has been concerned with
the various sources of motivation that propel individuals to
perform OCB (e.g., impression management, prosocial
values, concern for others). Some of this literature posits that
people engage in OCB in a calculated, self-interested manner
(Bolino, 1999), whereas the obligation to reciprocate has been
characterized as an internalized, automatic response to social
norms (Korsgaard et al., 2010). Our results may offer a bridge
between these perspectives by suggesting that engagement in
OCB often involves simultaneous considerations of both felt
obligations and expectations of future benefits (i.e., paying
back and paying forward) and, more importantly, these moti-
vations are likely to vary across different contexts. For in-
stance, we find that under conditions of high obligation, high
accountability contexts consistently amplify decisions to en-
gage in OCB. This suggests that individuals respond to both
self-interest (i.e., enhancing performance in the eyes of others)
and feelings of social obligation (i.e., paying someone back)
to uphold the norm of reciprocity.
Our results also help to clarify the rather mixed findings in
previous literature examining relationships between account-
ability and OCB. Study 1 results suggest that decisions to
perform OCB are greater under conditions of high obligation
than low obligation regardless of the level of accountability,
although accountability does substantially accentuate the ef-
fects of reciprocity obligations. It is interesting to note the
possible paradox between the essential definitional notion of
OCB as discretionary action and the supposition that account-
ability reflects contextual pressure to regulate one’s behavior.
Our results reinforce OCB as volitional even when such dis-
cretionary behavior occurs in a context of high accountability.
This suggests that the environmental pressures concomitant
with accountability may more generally extend to expecta-
tions of an account-giving for any work behavior rather than
specifically linked to OCB. Another plausible interpretation is
that this pattern shows feelings of accountability may be acti-
vated by feelings of obligation. Such a supposition is consis-
tent with Hall et al. (2009) who noted that a phenomenological
J Bus Psychol (2022) 37:263–281
framework of felt accountability is based on how people per-
ceive and enact accountabilities, which includes:
“…not only formal aspects of their jobs (what is found
in their written job descriptions) but also informal as-
pects of their work (what is not officially required but
what employees think that they need to do, given the
norms in the workplace)” (p. 383).
Accountability, therefore, is more likely to be felt when
individuals perceive that the norm of reciprocity is in play
and, in the absence of such obligatory feelings, individuals
may ignore or experience less accountability. Thus, previous
equivocal findings of both positive and negative relationships
between accountability and OCB may be due in part to the fact
that an essential third variable (i.e., reciprocity obligations)
has not been directly measured.
While certain task contexts, such as those high in account-
ability, increase the salience of social exchanges, individuals
differ in how they tend to react to these environmental norms.
We proposed that proactive personality is one such individual
difference because it reflects the extent to which people seek
control, search the environment for opportunities, and take
action to affect change in their work situations. The significant
interaction between proactive personality and reciprocity ob-
ligations supports this conjecture and is consistent with the
supposition that those high in proactive personality are more
attuned to social cues in their work situations (Ashford &
Black, 1996). Interestingly, our findings also show that pro-
active personality seems to propel individuals toward OCB
across both high and low obligation conditions (see Fig. 2).
Thus, while it is clear that high obligation results in more OCB
overall and that this effect is amplified by proactivity, it also
appears that individuals with high proactive personality seem
to be less hampered by whether or not others have offered
citizenship. That is, congruent with the notion that proactivity
is indicated by “anticipatory actions” and a “do what it takes”
disposition (Grant & Ashford, 2008), our results show that
proactive individuals tend to engage in OCB even in the ab-
sence of strong norms of reciprocity (albeit at lower levels
than when reciprocity obligations are high). Such a conclusion
is further extended by the lack of evidence we found for a
three-way interaction among accountability, proactive
personality, and reciprocity obligations, suggesting that
proactive individuals may often engage in OCB irrespective
of situational constraints. Overall, the evidence we accumulate
regarding the role of proactivity extends Korsgaard et al.
(2010) by suggesting that obligations to reciprocate may be
amplified by other dispositions beyond a strictly prosocial trait
such as the concern for others.
Finally, our results from study 2 pertaining to the influence
of interpersonal skill offer unique contributions to both social
exchange theory and OCB scholarship. As we noted earlier,
275
very little attention has been given to the role played by inter-
personal proficiency in previous OCB research, despite the
fact that this behavior entails a social process rich in complex
social exchanges. The evidence we find coupled with other
OCB research (e.g., Ellington et al., 2014; Morgeson et al.,
2005) points to the value of incorporating a skill-based focus
on personal attributes to augment the heavy personality trait–
based focus of prior OCB and social exchange theory schol-
arship (Chiaburu et al., 2011; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).
The nuanced exploratory results we find showing that inter-
personal skill, accountability, and reciprocity intertwine to
predict OCB further highlight the importance of simulta-
neously attending to individual attributes and the contexts in
which individuals work, a point long echoed by an interac-
tional perspective (see Terborg, 1981).
Implications for Practice
Our results point to several managerial implications for those
interested in increasing OCB. Managerial interventions that
foster prosocial norms of reciprocity, communicate the value
of prosocial behavior, equip individuals with the skills needed
to recognize and perform OCB, and enhance personal ac-
countability are suggested by our findings. For example, or-
ganizational socialization tactics could be used to enhance
prosocial values over self-interest (Van Maanen & Schein,
1979) and such tactics have been found in meta-analytic re-
search to promote role clarity (Bauer et al., 2007). Increasing
role clarity serves to reduce the ambiguity around desired job
behavior, and ambiguity has been put forth as an important
situational antecedent to proactive and discretionary actions
(Grant & Ashford, 2008). In addition, work design efforts that
seek to imbue jobs with relational characteristics such as task
significance (Grant, 2007) can increase social connectedness
and feelings of the importance of one’s work, both of which
enhance prosocial motivation and behavior (Grant, 2008).
Because skills are malleable attributes (Lievens & Sackett,
2012), our results also suggest that training interventions that
inculcate interpersonal competence in the form of interperson-
al skills are likely to foster OCB and build the capacity to
recognize social cues that underlie norms of reciprocity.
Results further suggest that creating feelings of account-
ability through explicit performance management techniques
(e.g., results-based goals, electronic performance monitoring)
without regard to social norms may not successfully facilitate
OCB. In fact, some research finds that increasing accountabil-
ity produces diminishing returns on OCB (Hall & Ferris,
2011). Put differently, managers would be well advised to
use techniques that enhance feelings of felt obligations
through interventions such team charters, which establish ex-
plicit social norms of cooperation and collaboration (Mathieu
& Rapp, 2009). Without fostering mutual feelings of obliga-
tion and norms of reciprocity, the benefits of accountability
276
we find may not extend to performance effectiveness. Finally,
when implementing any intervention to boost OCB, managers
must be aware of the potential trade-off that exists for overall
performance effectiveness, where several studies have shown
that too much OCB can detract from task proficiency
(Ellington et al., 2014; Rapp et al., 2013; Rubin et al., 2013).
Limitations and Future Directions
We focused on the obligation to reciprocate in conceptualizing
the norm of reciprocity and how it operates on decisions to
perform OCB. As noted earlier, social exchange theory also
posits another type of regulatory expectation in the form of
expected reciprocity. Unlike the obligation to reciprocate
(paying you back), this expectation of “paying me forward”
has been proposed to involve different motivational states and
modes of reasoning that are more rational and self-interested
in nature (Meglino & Korsgaard, 2006). Thus, whether the
moderation effects we find for accountability, interpersonal
skill, and proactive personality generalize to this type of reg-
ulatory expectation is an issue for future research. We specu-
late that such moderation is likely to generalize, as account-
ability heightens the visibility of social exchanges regardless
of the direction of reciprocity, proactive personality reflects
tendencies to act strategically and preemptively (i.e., rational-
ly) to ensure future benefits for oneself, and interpersonal skill
indicates levels of individual proficiency to navigate the social
context within which one works.
Another boundary of our research stems from our focus on
reciprocity obligations specifically connected to one’s co-
workers. While relationships with one’s coworkers are argu-
ably among the most proximal social aspects of work, other
sources of reciprocity obligation are possible. For example,
LMX research has found the quality of relationships with
one’s supervisor is positively related to OCB (Ilies et al.,
2007) and thus, future research could examine if the effects
we find similarly manifest when obligations are linked to
one’s supervisor. There are other features beyond reciprocity
obligations that can describe the nature of interpersonal inter-
actions with one’s coworkers. For example, interdependence
reflects the degree to which one’s task performance is recip-
rocally contingent on the performance of others (Dierdorff &
Morgeson, 2007) and is positively related to OCB (Bachrach
et al., 2006). Research has also shown that the overall extent to
which coworkers engage in OCB in general shapes whether or
not individuals perform OCB themselves (i.e., “OCB norms”;
Bommer et al., 2007). Such evidence points to the need for
future research that integrates different sources of reciprocity
obligation as well as the varying nature of interpersonal inter-
actions in which social exchanges take place. Similarly, our
measure of interpersonal skill drawn from a multisource in-
strument may have been insufficient to fully capture the
breadth of interpersonal skill dimensions. Although the items
J Bus Psychol (2022) 37:263–281
appropriately assessed broad dimensions of interpersonal skill
(communication and relationship-building skills), our predic-
tion relied on theoretical suppositions regarding socially rich
interactions that require a heavy dose of social perceptiveness
and social aptitude and could require additional measurement
to assess in full.
In examining individual differences, we focused on proac-
tive personality and interpersonal skill. Proactive personality
entails behavioral tendencies to show personal initiative to-
ward one’s work situation in general, not just in a prosocial
manner. Research has found personality traits related to
prosocial tendencies are associated with increased obligations
to reciprocate with OCB (e.g., other orientation; Korsgaard
et al., 2010), as well as increased performance of interpersonal
behavior (e.g., psychological collectivism; Dierdorff et al.,
2011; Jackson et al., 2006). Future studies could examine
how proactivity and these kinds of prosocial traits interrelate
and incrementally predict feelings of obligation and OCB.
Along these lines, our evidence for interpersonal skill suggests
that attributes that capture a person’s capability to accurately
perceive social information are valuable to explore. For exam-
ple, cognitive complexity, which reflects the ability to differ-
entiate social information in a multidimensional manner
(Bieri, 1955), seems particularly salient to recognizing norms
of reciprocity and the variety of social exchanges that pervade
the workplace.
Our focus was restricted to a specific facet of work context,
which is more proximal to a person’s work role than other
broader facets that depict organizational characteristics. It
may be that certain organizational cultures shape the effects
we found for reciprocity obligations, proactive personality,
interpersonal skill, and accountability. For instance, cultures
emphasizing cooperation, teamwork, service orientation, in-
novation, or personal responsibility would seem especially
relevant in this regard. Indeed, recent evidence reveals that
more “constructive configurations” of organizational values
(high levels of human relations, innovation, and market focus,
with a moderate level of bureaucracy) promote individual
OCB through affective commitment and psychological em-
powerment (Marinova et al., 2019). Thus, future work that
integrates organization-level factors with individual reciproc-
ity and OCB seems warranted.
Finally, though we conducted an experimental study to
promote causal interpretations and used vignettes that alluded
to a “history” of reciprocity (or lack thereof), this study is best
characterized as emphasizing a single exchange event. Our
field study took a broad approach to capture the general levels
of reciprocity obligations in the workplace. Although exam-
ining single exchange events is a concern for a large propor-
tion of research using social exchange theory, it is important to
recognize that social exchanges develop over time, and thus
exert cyclical effects where relational benefits can be a result
or a resource for any given exchange. Our results should be
J Bus Psychol (2022) 37:263–281
considered in light of this limitation. Future longitudinal re-
search is needed to understand how individual differences and
work contexts impinge upon exchange relationships and
OCB.
Although social exchange theory is widely invoked to ex-
plain various forms of prosocial behavior, empirical examina-
tions of the effects of reciprocity obligations on the perfor-
mance of OCB and the boundary conditions of these influ-
ences are strikingly sparse. Not only do our results strongly
affirm the role that reciprocity plays in prompting OCB and
corroborate prior correlational studies, they extend this extant
literature by explicating the situational and individual condi-
tions under which this foundational effect operates.
Appendix 1. Study 1 Experimental Vignettes
(Sample 1)
High Obligation Condition Tom has been at the company for
about as long as you and has been working in your department
for about 2 years. You have had the chance to work with him
and other coworkers on several different projects during this
time. On these projects, it was a regular occurrence for Tom to
help you out with tasks that were specifically assigned to you.
In fact, it is safe to say that he has helped you more often than
you have helped him.
You are now working once again with Tom and a few other
coworkers on another project. Although everyone is working
on the same project, tasks are individually assigned to each
person and are independently completed. This means that you
can finish your assignments on your own without waiting for
input or help from others.
The current project is about halfway through and you are
diligently working on your assignments. You notice that Tom
seems to be struggling to complete his project assignments.
Low Obligation Condition Tom has been at the company for
about as long as you and has been working in your department
for about 2 years. You have had the chance to work with him
and other coworkers on several different projects during this
time. On these projects, it was a regular occurrence for you to
help Tom on tasks that were specifically assigned to him. In
fact, it is safe to say that you have helped Tom more often than
he has helped you.
You are now working once again with Tom and a few other
coworkers on another project. Although everyone is working
on the same project, tasks are individually assigned to each
person and are independently completed. This means that you
can finish your assignments on your own without waiting for
input or help from others.
The current project is about halfway through and you are
diligently working on your assignments. You notice that Tom
seems to be struggling to complete his project assignments.
277
Equal Obligation Condition Tom has been at the company for
about as long as you and has been working in your department
for about 2 years. You have had the chance to work with him
and other coworkers on several different projects during this
time. On these projects, it was a regular occurrence for Tom
and you to help each other on task assignments.
You are now working once again with Tom and a few other
coworkers on another project. Although everyone is working
on the same project, tasks are individually assigned to each
person and are independently completed. This means that you
can finish your assignments on your own without waiting for
input or help from others.
The current project is about halfway through and you are
diligently working on your assignments. You notice that Tom
seems to be struggling to complete his project assignments.
Appendix 2. Study 2 Experimental Vignettes
(Sample 2)
High Obligation, High Accountability Condition Avery has
worked at the company for about as long as you and has been
working in your department for about 2 years. You have had
the chance to work with Avery and other coworkers on several
different projects during this time. On these projects, it was a
regular occurrence for Avery to help you out with tasks that
were specifically assigned to you. In fact, it is safe to say that
Avery has helped you more often than you have helped
Avery.
You are now working once again with Avery and a few
other coworkers on another project. Although everyone is
working on the same project, tasks are individually assigned
to each person and are independently completed. This means
that you can finish your assignments on your own without
waiting for input or help from others.
Similar to previous projects, your department will again
follow a project management process that requires clear plan-
ning, execution, and evaluation of all task assignments. This
means that the success and failures of your actions and deci-
sions are highly visible to your boss and coworkers. Your boss
relies on this information to evaluate your performance and
determine outcomes such as raises, bonuses, and promotions.
The current project is about halfway through and you are
diligently working on your assignments. You notice that
Avery seems to be struggling to complete assigned tasks.
High Obligation, Low Accountability Condition Avery has
worked at the company for about as long as you and has been
working in your department for about 2 years. You have had
the chance to work with Avery and other coworkers on several
different projects during this time. On these projects, it was a
regular occurrence for Avery to help you out with tasks that
were specifically assigned to you. In fact, it is safe to say that
278
Avery has helped you more often than you have helped
Avery.
You are now working once again with Avery and a few
other coworkers on another project. Although everyone is
working on the same project, tasks are individually assigned
to each person and are independently completed. This means
that you can finish your assignments on your own without
waiting for input or help from others.
Similar to previous projects, your department will again
follow a project management process that allows individuals
to accomplish their own tasks as they see fit. This means that
project work is very self-directed with little oversight or eval-
uation of your actions by your boss and coworkers.
The current project is about halfway through and you are
diligently working on your assignments. You notice that
Avery seems to be struggling to complete assigned tasks.
Low Obligation, High Accountability Condition Avery has
worked at the company for about as long as you and has been
working in your department for about 2 years. You have had
the chance to work with Avery and other coworkers on several
different projects during this time. On these projects, it was a
regular occurrence for you to help complete tasks that were
specifically assigned to Avery. In fact, it is safe to say that you
have helped Avery more often than Avery has helped you.
You are now working once again with Avery and a few
other coworkers on another project. Although everyone is
working on the same project, tasks are individually assigned
to each person and are independently completed. This means
that you can finish your assignments on your own without
waiting for input or help from others.
Similar to previous projects, your department will again
follow a project management process that requires clear plan-
ning, execution, and evaluation of all task assignments. This
means that the success and failures of your actions and deci-
sions are highly visible to your boss and coworkers. Your boss
relies on this information to evaluate your performance and
determine outcomes such as raises, bonuses, and promotions.
The current project is about halfway through and you are
diligently working on your assignments. You notice that
Avery seems to be struggling to complete assigned tasks.
Low Obligation, Low Accountability Condition Avery has
worked at the company for about as long as you and has been
working in your department for about 2 years. You have had
the chance to work with Avery and other coworkers on several
different projects during this time. On these projects, it was a
regular occurrence for you to help complete tasks that were
specifically assigned to Avery. In fact, it is safe to say that you
have helped Avery more often than Avery has helped you.
You are now working once again with Avery and a few
other coworkers on another project. Although everyone is
working on the same project, tasks are individually assigned
J Bus Psychol (2022) 37:263–281
to each person and are independently completed. This means
that you can finish your assignments on your own without
waiting for input or help from others.
Similar to previous projects, your department will again
follow a project management process that allows individuals
to accomplish their own tasks as they see fit. This means that
project work is very self-directed with little oversight or eval-
uation of your actions by your boss and coworkers.
The current project is about halfway through and you are
diligently working on your assignments. You notice that
Avery seems to be struggling to complete assigned tasks.
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–
299). Academic Press.
Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for
designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology
studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351–371.
Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational
entry: The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81(2), 199–214.
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1985). Proactive feedback seeking:
The instrumental use of the information environment. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 58(1), 67–79.
Bachrach, D. G., Powell, B. C., Bendoly, E., & Richey, R. G. (2006).
Organizational citizenship behavior and performance evaluations:
Exploring the impact of task interdependence. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(1), 193–201.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of
organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103–118.
Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S.
(2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization:
A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 707–721.
Bergeron, D. M., Schroeder, T. D., & Martinez, H. A. (2014). Proactive
personality at work: Seeing more to do and doing more? Journal of
Business and Psychology, 29(1), 71–86.
Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory: Expectation, identities, and behaviors.
Academic Press.
Bieri, J. (1955). Cognitive complexity-simplicity and predictive behavior.
The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(2), 263–268.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good
soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24(1),
82–98.
Bolino, M. C., & Grant, A. M. (2016). The bright side of being prosocial
at work, and the dark side, too: A review and agenda for research on
other-oriented motives, behavior, and impact in organizations.
Academy of Management Annals, 10, 599–670.
Bommer, W. H., Dierdorff, E. C., & Rubin, R. S. (2007). Does prevalence
mitigate relevance? The moderating effect of group level OCB on
employee performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50,
1481–1494.
Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., & Swader, W. M. (2005). Giving and
receiving social support at work: The roles of personality and reci-
procity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(3), 476–489.
Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I. S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011).
The five-factor model of personality traits and organizational
J Bus Psychol (2022) 37:263–281
citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96(6), 1140–1166.
Claes, R., Beheydt, C., & Lemmens, B. (2005). Unidimensionality of
abbreviated proactive personality scales across cultures. Applied
Psychology, 54(4), 476–489.
Clark, K., & Sefton, M. (2001). The sequential prisoner’s dilemma:
Evidence on reciprocation. The Economic Journal, 111(468), 51–
68.
Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the underlying
structure of the citizenship performance domain. Human Resource
Management Review, 10, 25–44.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of
Management, 26(3), 435–462.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An
interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.
Deckop, J. R., Cirka, C. C., & Andersson, L. M. (2003). Doing unto
others: The reciprocity of helping behavior in organizations.
Journal of Business Ethics, 47(2), 101–113.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader–member exchange mod-
el of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of
Management Review, 11, 618–634.
Dierdorff, E. C., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Consensus in work role
requirements: The influence of discrete occupational context on role
expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1228–1241.
Dierdorff, E. C., Bell, S. T., & Belohlav, J. A. (2011). The power of “we”:
Effects of psychological collectivism on team performance over
time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 247–262.
Dierdorff, E. C., Rubin, R. S., & Bachrach, D. G. (2012). Role expecta-
tions as antecedents of citizenship and the moderating effects of
work context. Journal of Management, 38(2), 573–598.
Dudley, N. M., & Cortina, J. M. (2008). Knowledge and skills that facil-
itate the personal support dimension of citizenship. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1249–1270.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L.
(2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42–51.
Ellington, J. K., Dierdorff, E. C., & Rubin, R. S. (2014). Decelerating the
diminishing returns of citizenship on task performance: The role of
social context and interpersonal skill. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 99(4), 748–758.
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of
Sociology, 2, 335–362.
Farh, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for
organizational citizenship behavior: Leader fairness and task scope
versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, 16, 705–721.
Ferris, G. R., Witt, L. A., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2001). Interaction of
social skill and general mental ability on job performance and salary.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1075–1082.
Frink, D. D., & Klimoski, R. J. (1998). Toward a theory of accountability
in organizations and human resources management. In G. R. Ferris
(Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management
(Vol. 16, pp. 1–51). JAI Press.
Fuller, B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-
analytic review of the proactive personality literature. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 75(3), 329–345.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary state-
ment. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a
prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393–
417.
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire?
Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and
productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48–58.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at
work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34.
279
Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors:
prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predic-
tors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(4), 900.
Grant, A. M., Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2009). Getting credit for
proactive behavior: Supervisor reactions depend on what you value
and how you feel. Personnel Psychology, 62, 31–55.
Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2010). Why does proactive per-
sonality predict employee life satisfaction and work behaviors? A
field investigation of the mediating role of the self-concordance
model. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 539–560.
Halbesleben, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2011). I owe you one: Coworker
reciprocity as a moderator of the day-level exhaustion–performance
relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(4), 608–626.
Hall, A. T., & Ferris, G. R. (2011). Accountability and extra-role behav-
ior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 23(2), 131–144.
Hall, A. T., Royle, M. T., Brymer, R. A., Perrewé, P. L., Ferris, G. R., &
Hochwarter, W. A. (2006). Relationship between felt accountability
as a stressor and strain reactions: The neutralizing role of autonomy
across two studies. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11,
87–99.
Hall, A. T., Zinko, R., Perryman, A. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2009).
Organizational citizenship behavior and reputation mediators in
the relationships between accountability and job performance and
satisfaction. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15(4),
381–392.
Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., & Buckley, M. R. (2017). An accountability
account: A review and synthesis of the theoretical and empirical
research on felt accountability. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 38, 204–224.
Hattrup, K., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). Learning about individual differ-
ences by taking situations seriously. In Individual Differences and
Behavior in Organizations (pp. 507–547). Jossey-Bass.
Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Accountability at
work: An examination of antecedents and consequences. Annual
Meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member
exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92(1), 269–277.
Jackson, C. L., Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P.
(2006). Psychological collectivism: A measurement validation and
linkage to group member performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(4), 884–899.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational be-
havior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386–408.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations
(2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Klein, C., DeRouin, R. E., & Salas, E. (2006). Uncovering workplace
interpersonal skills: A review, framework, and research agenda. In
G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of in-
dustrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 80–126).
Wiley & Sons, Ltd..
Korsgaard, M. A., Meglino, B. M., Lester, S. W., & Jeong, S. S. (2010).
Paying you back or paying me forward: Understanding rewarded
and unrewarded organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95(2), 277–290.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about
interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational
Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimen-
sionality of organizational citizenship behavior: a critical review and
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52–65.
Lester, S. W., Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2008). The role of
other orientation in organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 29(6), 829–841.
280
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader–
member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale develop-
ment. Journal of Management, 24, 43–72.
Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2012). The validity of interpersonal skills
assessment via situational judgment tests for predicting academic
success and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
97(2), 460–468.
Lynch, P. D., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1999). Perceived organiza-
tional support: Inferior versus superior performance by wary em-
ployees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 467–483.
Marinova, S. V., Cao, X., & Park, H. (2019). Constructive organizational
values climate and organizational citizenship behaviors: A configu-
rational view. Journal of Management, 45, 2045–2071.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000).
Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair
procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of
Management Journal, 43(4), 738–748.
Mathieu, J. E., & Rapp, T. L. (2009). Laying the foundation for successful
team performance trajectories: The roles of team charters and per-
formance strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 90–103.
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in
survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455.
Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, A. (2004). Considering rational self-
interest as a disposition: Organizational implications of other orien-
tation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 946–959.
Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2006). Considering situational and
dispositional approaches to rational self-interest: An extension and
response to De Dreu (2006). Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6),
1253–1259.
Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Hermida, R. (2010). A review and synthesis
of situational strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of
Management, 36(1), 121–140.
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D.
Magnusson & N. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads:
Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Erlbaum.
Mitchell, T. R., Hopper, H., Daniels, D., Falvy, J., & Ferris, G. R. (1998).
Power, accountability, and inappropriate actions. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 47, 497–517.
Morgeson, F. P., & Dierdorff, E. C. (2011). Work analysis: From tech-
nique to theory. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 3–41). APA.
Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H., & Campion, M. A. (2005). Selecting
individuals in team settings: The importance of social skills, person-
ality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Personnel
Psychology, 58(3), 583–611.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work:
extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of
Management Journal, 42(4), 403–419.
Motowildo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of
individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human
Performance, 10(2), 71–83.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Lexington
Books.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship
behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12(1), 43–72.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct
clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85–97.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006).
Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and
consequences. Sage.
Ostroff, C., & Schulte, M. (2007). Multiple perspectives of fit in organi-
zations across levels of analysis. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.),
Perspectives on Organizational Fit (pp. 3–70). Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
J Bus Psychol (2022) 37:263–281
Ozer, M. (2011). A moderated mediation model of the relationship be-
tween organizational citizenship behaviors and job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1328–1336.
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of
job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 835–852.
Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., Presaghi, F., & Ercolani, A. P. (2003). The
personal norm of reciprocity. European Journal of Personality,
17(4), 251–283.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). A meta-
analysis of the relationships between Kerr and Jermier’s substitutes
for leadership and employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 380–399.
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997).
Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of
work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262–
270.
Rand, D. G. (2012). The promise of Mechanical Turk: How online labor
markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments. Journal of
Theoretical Biology, 299, 172–179.
Rapp, A. A., Bachrach, D. G., & Rapp, T. L. (2013). The influence of
time management skill on the curvilinear relationship between or-
ganizational citizenship behavior and task performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 98(4), 668–677.
Riggio, R. E. (1986). Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 649–660.
Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational
citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of applied
Psychology, 86(6), 1306–1314.
Rubin, R. S., Dierdorff, E. C., & Bachrach, D. G. (2013). Boundaries of
citizenship behavior: Curvilinearity and context in the citizenship
and task performance relationship. Personnel Psychology, 66(2),
377–406.
Segrin, C., & Taylor, M. (2007). Positive interpersonal relationships me-
diate the association between social skills and psychological well-
being. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(4), 637–646.
Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality and
relationship context as antecedents of person-and task-focused inter-
personal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(2), 255–267.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in
organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader–member ex-
change, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology,
81(3), 219–227.
Smets, E., Visser, M. R., Oort, F. J., Schaufeli, W. B., & Haes, H. J.
(2004). Perceived inequity: does it explain burnout among medical
specialists? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(9), 1900–
1918.
Smith, R. W., Kim, Y. J., & Carter, N. T. (2020). Does it matter where
you’re helpful? Organizational citizenship behavior from work and
home. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Advance online
publication, 25, 450–468. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000181.
Spitzmuller, M., Sin, H. P., Howe, M., & Fatimah, S. (2015).
Investigating the uniqueness and usefulness of proactive personality
in organizational research: A meta-analytic review. Human
Performance, 28, 351–379.
Terborg, J. R. (1981). Interactional psychology and research on human
behavior in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 6(4),
569–576.
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based
interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(3), 500–517.
Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Employee
proactivity in organizations: A comparative meta-analysis of emer-
gent proactive constructs. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 275–300.
J Bus Psychol (2022) 37:263–281
Van Dierendonck, D., Schaufeli, W. B., & Buunk, B. P. (2001). Burnout
and inequity among human service professionals: A longitudinal
study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 43–52.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational
citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and val-
idation. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 765–802.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean-Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role
behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. In L. L.
Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215–285). JAI Press.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organiza-
tional socialization. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (pp. 209–264). JAI Press.
281
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organiza-
tional support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange per-
spective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82–111.
Zellars, K. L., & Tepper, B. J. (2003). Beyond social exchange: New
directions for organizational citizenship behavior theory and re-
search. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 22, 395–424.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.