Deviant and Citizen 1

The Deviant Citizen: Clarifying the Measurement of OCB and its Relation to CWB

Suzy Fox Human Resources and Industrial Relations Loyola University Chicago

Paul E. Spector Department of Psychology University of South Florida

Deviant and Citizen 2

The Deviant Citizen: Clarifying the Measurement of OCB and its Relation to CWB

Voluntary Work Behavior (VWB) is an umbrella term referring to two faces of extra-role behavior in organizations: Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB). Counterproductive Work Behavior covers a wide range of volitional behaviors that harm or are intended to harm a work organization or its members (Spector & Fox, 2005). Various aspects of CWB have been studied as work aggression (Fox & Spector, 1999; Neuman & Baron, 2005), deviance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995), revenge (Bies & Tripp, 2005), retaliation (Folger & Skarlicki, 2005), mobbing (Zapf & Einarsen, 2005), and bullying (Rayner & Keashly, 2005), among others. With rare exceptions (see Bies & Tripp, 2005; Folger & Skarlicki, 2005), the underlying assumption has been that CWB is dysfunctional and harmful. This assumption is beginning to be challenged in the CWB research community (Fox, 2005; Galperin & Burke, 2006; Warren, 2003). At the same time, over the past 25 years researchers have studied (and struggled to define) Organizational Citizenship Behavior, initially conceptualized by Organ (1988) as individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization (p. 4). Although the OCB construct has been substantially expanded (e.g., Graham, 1991) and realigned with related constructs such as contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Organ, 1997), we have chosen to return to the earlier definition, in order to draw a sharper contrast with both CWB and in-role task performance. Just as CWB researchers are questioning the assumption that CWB is necessarily dysfunctional for organizations and their members, OCB

Deviant and Citizen 3 researchers are beginning to question the assumption that these extra-role behaviors necessarily contribute to organizational effectiveness (e.g., Hunt, 2002). These common views of CWB as uniformly harmful and OCB and uniformly helpful has promoted the idea that these forms of behavior are reciprocal, with individuals who frequently engage in one tending to avoid engaging in the other (Sackett, 2002). Indeed several studies that have investigated CWB and OCB in combination have concluded that they are negatively correlated (e.g., Dineen, Lewicki, & Tomlinson, 2006; Lee & Allen, 2002). However, as pointed out by Dalal (2005) there are several methodological issues that cast doubt on the reciprocal idea. In a meta-analysis, he showed that the relationship between CWB and OCB is substantially affected by item overlap between measures of both, whether an agreement or frequency response is used, and whether self-reports or other-reports are utilized. Relationships are strongest with item overlap, agreement, and other-reports. Furthermore, not every study has found negative relationships (see Marcus, Schuler, Quell & Hmpfner, 2002). To the extent that the counterintuitive phenomena of helpful CWB and harmful OCB harmful are occuring, and the methodological problems in existing studies have yielded incorrect conclusions, the assumption that CWB and OCB are reciprocal is called into question. The objective of the current study was to test whether CWB and OCB are reciprocal, that is, correlated negatively and oppositely related to the same variables. We used as our theoretical basis, the Voluntary Work Behavior framework (Spector & Fox, 2002), in which CWB and OCB are viewed as parallel and opposite forms of Extra-Role Behavior (see Figure 1). Expectations drawn from this framework as well as the literature (e.g., Dineen et al., 2006; Lee & Allen, 2002) are that CWB and OCB would be reciprocal in that they are negatively correlated, and that

Deviant and Citizen 4 antecedents such as job stressors and job-related emotions would be related to CWB and OCB in opposite directions. Insert Figure 1 about here

However, a fundamental challenge to empirical efforts to demonstrate relationships between CWB and OCB lies in the instruments and methods that have been used to measure OCB (Dalal, 2005). We will proceed to argue that the commonly used measures of OCB contain so many item overlaps with CWB measures, that correlations found between the two variables are almost by definition spurious. An alternative instrument (the OCB-Checklist or OCB-C) was developed, in order to focus on behaviors that employees themselves view as above and beyond role requirements, and which do not reflect the mere absence of counterproductive work behaviors. By eliminating items that reflect in-role behavior, and more importantly the absence of CWBs, we argue that this new OCB-C provides a cleaner test of relationships between CWB and OCB (and their respective antecedents) than do the currently used measures. If inverse relations between CWB and OCB remain even after the potentially contaminating items are removed, that would provide stronger support for the Voluntary Work Behavior framework.

OCB Measurement Issues Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) has been among the more hotly contested constructs over the past 25 years of Organizational Behavior research. Organs (1988) early, concise definition of OCB (see above) has driven much of the work in the field. The key delimiters of OCB, behaviors that are voluntary or extra-role, non-rewarded, and organizationally functional, have been revisited and contested for nearly two decades. Organ

Deviant and Citizen 5 himself (1997) substantially reconceptualized OCB. In distinguishing OCB from the domain of required task performance, Organ has replaced the extra-role and non-reward delimiters with task-related versus contextual (or social maintenance) characteristics, which is more similar to Borman and Motowidlos (1993) contextual performance than to the original definition of OCB. Other revisions of OCB include expansion into the domain of political and communal citizenship (Graham, 1991) and discriminant relationships with counterproductive or anti-role work behaviors (Spector & Fox, 2002). To those are added a number of related, variously overlapping constructs, including prosocial organizational behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993), extra-role behavior (Katz, 1964;Van Dyne, Cummings & McLean Parks, 1995), pro-role behavior (McLean Parks & Kidder, 1994), and organizational spontaneity (George & Brief, 1992). The purpose of this paper is not to argue that there should be one definitive, ascendant conceptualization of OCB. Rather, researchers must be mindful and explicit in choosing the parameters of the OCB-related construct they are investigating. Perhaps more importantly, the measures they use must reflect the definition and key parameters of their OCB construct. And herein, we submit, lies the key problem challenging this field of study. Whereas early studies tended to use the scale introduced by Smith, Organ, and Near (1983), more recent empirical studies of OCB have used scales developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990), Moorman and Blakely (1995), and Williams and Anderson (1991), among others. The Podsakoff et al. scale is the most-used measure of OCB based on Organs (1988) five dimensions of OCB: altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, conscientiousness, and civic virtue (LePine, Erez & Johnson, 2002). This instrument has good

Deviant and Citizen 6 reliability and factorial validity, and with the possible exception of civic virtue, overall appears to have good content validity in terms of representing Organs five conceptual domains. However, a closer inspection of the actual items in each of the four above-mentioned scales illustrates several of the key challenges to conceptual clarity that permeate the OCB literature. Table 1 presents sample items from these OCB instruments that illustrate these challenges. They include a disconnect between the assessment and conceptualization of OCB, item overlap between OCB and CWB (that is, an item in which failure to engage in CWB is scored as OCB), the inclusion of items that are more reflective of personality than behavior, and a management rather than employee view of what constitutes citizenship. Insert Table 1 about here

Divergence of Conceptual Definition and Operationalization. These instruments have sometimes been used in studies where the theoretical conceptualization of OCB differs from those for which the scales were originally developed. Van Dyne, Cummings and McLean Parks (1995) argue that many researchers seek to stretch definitions of constructs (e.g., extra-role behavior, OCB, and prosocial organizational behavior) to subsume related constructs. They criticize several OCB researchers for examining constructs that do not represent the theories supposedly being tested, or using instruments that do not measure the constructs that they are intended to measure (p. 226). Thus some studies presuming to test Organs (1997) redefinition of OCB (or alternatively prosocial behavior or contextual performance) use the same or similar scales as early OCB studies, thereby failing to reflect the definitional distinctiveness of the constructs (see also Vey & Campbell, 2004).

Deviant and Citizen 7 Item Overlap. It may be argued that some items in these OCB scales lie outside the conceptual domain for which they were intended. Of key interest are item overlaps between OCB and CWB measures, which can be expected to substantially affect variable correlations (see Dalal, 2005). That is, many of the items reflect an absence of counterproductive (or anti-role) work behaviors (CWB), rather than a presence of behaviors that exceed roles or requirements. Table 1 illustrates several examples of OCB items that are actually reverse-worded or reversecoded CWB items that also appear in CWB scales. For example, three of the four OCB scales include Takes undeserved breaks (reverse-coded) or Does not take extra breaks; compare this to the Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C, Spector, Fox, Penney, Goh, Bruursema, & Spector, 2006) item Taken a longer break than you were allowed to take. The Willams and Anderson (1991) scale includes Conserves and protects organizational property , while the CWB-C includes Purposely wasted your employers materials/supplies and Purposely damaged a piece of equipment or property. The Podsakoff et al. (1990) item, Does not abuse the rights of others, is similar to several CWB-C items covering starting rumors, being nasty, insulting, threatening, and making fun of coworkers and clients. Similarly, the critical question of whether OCB covers in-role or extra-role domains is reflected in additional items that appear to tap in-role, required, or expected behavior, and thus blur the distinction between OCB and task performance. Such items ask about good attendance or doing job tasks unusually well. The inability of subject matter experts to distinguish between in-role and extra-role behaviors (Morrison, 1994; Vey & Campbell, 2004) has been interpreted as evidence for fuzzy conceptual distinctiveness, whereas it could alternatively be argued that the items themselves engender this fuzziness.

Deviant and Citizen 8 Behaviors Versus Personality. The B in OCB clearly refers to behavior, and thus scales to assess it should ask about behavior itself and not other things. Some of the items of the Podsakoff et al. (1990) scale involve beliefs or attributions about the persons behavior and/or motives which seem more reflective of personality than behavior itself (see Table 1). For example, the item Always focuses on whats wrong, rather than the positive side, seems to be more an indicator of negative affectivity than of performance. A more clearcut behavioral checklist asking about what the person has actually done would be preferable to items asking one organization member to make attributions about the behaviors or personality of another. The accuracy and relevance of attributions of intention have been challenged in the extra-role literature (Bolino, Turnley & Niehoff, 2004; Van Dyne, Cummings & McLean Parks, 1995), particularly when the respondent is rating the behavior of others (e.g., supervisor, subordinate, or peer). Who Defines Citizenship? Most of the OCB literature has taken a managerial perspective from which both the theory and measurement of OCB were developed. The early Smith, Organ and Near (1983) scale resulted from interviews with managers, who were asked to identify instances of helpful, but not absolutely required, job behavior (p. 656). Much of the subsequent substantive development viewed OCB as a wish-list of behaviors that are desired, but cannot be required, by employers. This is quite different than behaviors that are intended by the actor to help the organization, its social system, or organizational members (e.g., Brief & Motowidlo, 1983, defining prosocial organizational behavior; Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995, defining extra-role behavior). OCBs are assumed to be helpful to the organization. It is not always clear, however, who gets to do the assuming, how we determine if a given behavior is in fact helpful, and to whom it is helpful and/or harmful.

Deviant and Citizen 9 If the phenomenon of interest is a set of behaviors desired by management, then intention should not be the focus; if the phenomenon of interest is the extent to which employees perform behaviors that they believe are above and beyond expectations or obligations, then it is the actors (employees) rather than the supervisors (employers) who should distinguish in-role from extra-role behaviors. A key reason Organ (1997) and other scholars have abandoned the in-role/extra-role delineation of OCB is the empirical evidence that employees have difficulty distinguishing between them, and that employees and managers have different perceptions of which behaviors are in-role and which are extra-role (Morrison, 1994; Organ, 1997). We suggest that the problem may not be conceptual fuzziness, but rather that many of the items used in these studies reflect unclear distinctions between in-role and extra-role behaviors, or reflect differences between the perspectives of employees and their supervisors. We agree with Vey and Campbell (2004), who lament that the same scales are being used by researchers with two very different notions of OCB those who view the difference between in-role and extra-role as critical, and those whose redefinition of OCB has eliminated that difference as a delineator. Measurement of OCB The key argument of the current paper is that if OCB is viewed as qualitatively distinct from in-role performance and from counterproductive work behaviors, then measurement of OCB should not include items that reflect high levels of in-role behaviors or the absence of counterproductive work behaviors. Similarly, if the substantive concern of the research focuses on phenomenological characteristics of OCB such as personal, interpersonal, climate, justice, emotion- and stress-related antecedents and responses, then the definition of OCB and the items that reflect it should be employee- rather than employer-centered.

Deviant and Citizen 10 To summarize, the soft spots (Organ, 1997, p. 86) in OCB research may be due not so much to conceptual differences among researchers, but rather to four basic problems with the instruments commonly used in empirical studies. 1) The scale used has not always matched the theoretical conceptualizations underlying the OCB study. 2) Rather than measuring above and beyond behaviors, many OCB items measure in-role task performance or the absence of counterproductive work behaviors. 3) Rather than offering specific behavioral criteria, many OCB items require respondents to make attributional judgments of intention. 4) Items are derived from theory and empirical studies that typically were based upon supervisors rather than job incumbents perceptions of required versus discretionary contributions. The current study utilized an alternative measure of OCB that was developed in response to the four criticisms outlined above. The first purpose was to develop such a scale and demonstrate its distinctiveness from CWB. CWB was measured with the 45-item Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C), a measure that has been used in a number of prior studies (Spector, Fox, Penny, Bruursema, Goh & Kessler, 2006). In addition to a global CWB score, this scale can be broken down into two dimensions reflecting Robinson and Bennetts (1995) distinction between deviance targeting the organization (CWBO) and persons in the organization (CWBP). Alternatively, a finer-grained breakdown provides five subscales (abuse toward others, production deviance, sabotage, theft, and withdrawal), representing distinct domains of research in the industrial/organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and human resource management literatures. Turning to OCB, before we could undertake this study we had to address a concern with the available measures of OCB. If the distinctiveness of OCB and CWB were to be a core

Deviant and Citizen 11 assumption of the study, the presence of OCB items reflecting an absence of CWB and additional items tapping in-role task performance would surely confound the results. This concern had previously been expressed by Lee and Allen (2002) and by Kelloway et al (2002), who responded in part by selectively retaining from existing scales only those items they judged to be nonoverlapping. We chose instead to develop a new checklist of OCB items that would parallel the format of the CWB-C, but that would eliminate reverse-coded or reverse-worded CWB items. This measure was developed on the basis of earlier definitions (e.g., Bateman & Organ, 1983; Katz, 1964; Smith, Organ & Bateman, 1983) of a construct comprising volitional, extra-role behaviors--behaviors that go beyond the expectations and requirements (formal, social, or psychological) of the job, and that help or intend to help the organization or its members. The new OCB-Checklist (OCB-C) is a behavioral checklist derived from hundreds of examples submitted by employees of voluntary, helpful behaviors at work that go above and beyond the call of duty. This checklist has the advantages that it is behavioral (that is, does not ask supervisors to make belief- or personality-based attributions for employee behaviors), focuses on behaviors that employees themselves view as above and beyond role requirements, and does not reflect the mere absence of counterproductive work behaviors. Integrative Model of Voluntary Work Behavior Spector, Fox, and colleagues have studied Counterproductive Work Behavior as a special case of behavioral strain in a job stress framework. Drawing upon apparent parallels between CWB and OCB, Spector and Fox (2002) expanded this to an integrative model of Voluntary Work Behavior (Figure 1), in which CWB and OCB follow parallel, but reciprocal paths. Environmental factors such as stressors are appraised, leading to positive or negative emotional responses. Contingent upon a number of intermediary factors (including baseline emotional

Deviant and Citizen 12 traits, personality, control beliefs/perceptions, and personal and social resources), negative appraisal and subsequent negative emotions are more likely to continue the stress process, leading to behavioral strain, which we define as CWB. A different appraisal leading to positive emotional response is more likely to proceed as eustress, enhancing the likelihood of OCB. Support for these distinct expectations abounds in the CWB and OCB literatures. As noted earlier, CWB and OCB has been shown to be negatively correlated (see Dalal, 2005 for a review). CWB has been associated with negative phenomena, experiences, and perceptions. These include organizational constraints, interpersonal conflict, perceived injustice, supervisory bullying, low control, negative emotions, frustration, and job dissatisfaction (Fox & Spector, 1999; Fox, Spector & Miles, 2001; Fox & Stallworth, 2005; Neuman & Baron, 1998; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). OCB, dimensions of OCB (e.g., altruism and compliance), and related constructs (e.g., prosocial organizational behavior, contextual performance, and organizational spontaneity) have been associated with positive phenomena, experiences, and perceptions. Predictors include positive mood and emotion, perceived justice, job satisfaction, leader behaviors, and leader-follower trust (George & Brief, 1992; Moorman, 1991; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter, 1990; Williams & Anderson, 1991). Our second purpose with this research was to test our model of voluntary work behavior to see if we could provide support for the reciprocal nature of CWB and OCB, using scale in which the measurement issues described earlier were addressed.

Study 1 Self-report survey data were collected from a convenience sample of full-time employees representing a variety of occupations in several organizations in Chicago and Tampa. The dual

Deviant and Citizen 13 purpose of this study was 1) to examine relations among CWB, OCB and their respective antecedents, and 2) to employ and refine the new measure of OCB derived directly from theory and employee-contributed critical incidents. We chose self-reports as the most appropriate means of assessing behavior, given Dalals (2005) findings that other sources of data such as supervisors were subject to halo and lack of discriminant validity. The Integrative Stressor-Emotion Model of Voluntary Work Behavior (Figure 1) summarizes expectations that job stressors predict negative emotion and dissatisfaction, as well as higher levels of CWB; negative emotion and dissatisfaction in turn predict CWB. Conversely, positive emotion and job satisfaction predict higher levels of OCB. Finally, CWB and OCB will be inversely related, specifically between OCB-Person and CWB-Person, and between OCBOrganization and CWB-Organization, respectively. A complete test of the VWB model is beyond the scope of this paper, which focuses on the relations among the behaviors themselves. Therefore only the latter portion of the model was examined in Study 1. H1. Negative emotion will be directly related to CWB-P and CWB-O. H2. Positive emotion and job satisfaction will be directly related to OCB-O and OCB-P. H3. CWB-P will be inversely related to OCB-P and CWB-O will be inversely related to OCB-O. Method. The research team distributed surveys in five organizations in Chicago and Tampa. In addition, students enrolled in a Master of Science in Human Resources program in Chicago, all full-time employees and mostly managers, distributed the surveys to employees in their respective organizations. Of the 169 respondents, 24.4% were men and 75.6% were women; 26.4% were managers and 73.6% were non-managerial employees. No further demographic data were collected due to the sensitive nature of the questionnaire items.

Deviant and Citizen 14 Measures. The Job-Related Affective Well-Being Scale (JAWS), developed by Van Katwyk, Fox, Spector, and Kelloway (2000), measured a wide range of emotions experienced at work. Each item asks employees to indicate how often any part of the present job has made them feel a particular emotion (e.g., anxious, enthusiastic, or furious). A positive emotions score was obtained by summing the scores on the 10 positive affect items, with high scores representing high levels of positive emotion on the job. A negative emotions score was obtained by summing scores on the 10 negative affect items, with high scores representing high levels of negative emotion on the job. Counterproductive work behavior was assessed with a 45-item behavioral checklist (CWB-C: Spector et al., 2006). Each item asks the employee to indicate how often he or she has done each of the behaviors on their present job. The five response choices range from 1 = "never" to 5 = "every day". Items were categorized as either behaviors targeting the organization or people (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Fox, Spector, & Miles, 2001). As discussed above, Organizational Citizenship Behavior was measured with a new instrument driven by the original conceptualization of OCB. This measure was designed to have a clean set of behavioral items that are viewed by employees as helpful extra-role behaviors, and that exclude reverse-worded CWBs. Thirty-eight employed graduate students and alumni of Masters of Science in Human Resources and MBA programs were instructed to generate as many examples as they could remember of themselves or people with whom they worked engaging in organizational citizenship behaviors in their workplace. OCB was defined for them as follows: Sometimes people at work may make extra efforts that go above and beyond the call of duty. They may do things to help other individuals (e.g., Volunteered to pick up a

Deviant and Citizen 15 coworker at the airport) or to help the organization (e.g., Stayed late to finish up work that had to be done). A total of 214 items were generated. After redundancies were eliminated, like items were consolidated, and a couple of unusable suggestions were eliminated (helped save a coworker from eternal damnation), we were left with a 42-item checklist. Interestingly, not a single instance of a reverse-worded CWB was submitted. To parallel the CWB-C (and consistent with existing OCB research, such as McNeely and Meglino, 1994 and Williams, & Anderson, 1991), two subscales were created, representing OCB directed toward the organization (OCBO) and OCB directed toward persons in organizations (OCBP). Items were assigned to these two categorized based on ratings by 22 subject matter experts (MSHR and MBA students, not the same students who had submitted the initial items). Here only items were retained for which there was at least 70% agreement among the raters, resulting in a 15-item OCB-O and a 14-item OCB-P subscale. The global OCB variable retained all 42 items.

Results. Contrary to hypotheses derived from the model, and contrary to at least modest negative relations between CWB and OCB summarized above from the research literature, we found virtually no inverse relations between CWB and OCB. On the contrary, as shown in Table 2, employees who reported high levels of CWB also reported high levels of OCB, particularly behaviors that helped or harmed other people in the organization (r=.20, p<.01). Relations between CWB-O and OCB-O were non-significant. Furthermore, the expected relations between positive and negative emotion and behavioral outcomes were contradicted. While, as expected, negative emotion predicted CWB-O

Deviant and Citizen 16 (r=.39, p<.001) and CWB-P (r=.19, p<.05), there was no significant correlation between either positive emotion or job satisfaction and OCB. However, contrary to any predictions in this or prior studies, negative emotion was directly related to both OCB-P and OCB-O (r=.21 and r=.22, p<.01). Insert Table 2 about here Clearly there was a need to investigate whether these surprising results were due to an idiosyncratic sample, the new OCB measurement instrument, or to a substantive aspect of employee behavioral choices that had heretofore gone unrecognized. A second study was conducted in an effort to confirm and refine our understanding of these unexpected relationships. Study 2 The objectives of Study 2 were to confirm the findings of Study 1, to break down the OCB measure into finer-grained categories (as Spector et al., 2006 had done with the CWBChecklist) in order to more specifically link OCB and CWB behaviors, and to compare and contrast these CWB-OCB patterns with the negative relationships reported in the literature between CWB and the commonly used Podsakoff et al. (1990) OCB scale. Method. Participants were 278 employed individuals recruited from university classes, who filled out the CWB-C, the OCB-C, and the Podsakoff et al. (1990) scale. Measures. As in Study 1, counterproductive work behavior was assessed with the Counterproductive Work Behavior Checklist (CWB-C). As described in Spector et al., 2006, for a finer-grained analysis this checklist was broken down into five theoretically grounded subscales: abuse (CWB-ABU), production deviance (CWB-DEV), sabotage (CWB-SAB), theft (CWB-THE), and withdrawal (CWB-WIT).

Deviant and Citizen 17 Organizational Citizenship Behavior was measured with two instruments: the 24-item Podsakoff et al. (1990) scale, which was broken down into five subscales: altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue, and the new OCB-Checklist (OCBC). In order to get a feel for a possible refinement of the OCB-C into finer-grained categories, several exploratory factor analyses were conducted on the Study 1 data. It appeared that a 3factor solution resulted in the best breakdown into logically and theoretically coherent categories, which we labeled EX (volunteering for extra work or putting in extra time), CW (helping coworkers with work or job tasks), and CP (helping coworkers with nontask related personal issues). To be consistent with our approach linking our scale development with perceptions of subject matter experts, we asked 21 MSHR and MBA students (non-overlapping with study participants or Study 1 item raters) to sort the OCB items into these three categories. Retaining items with at least 70% agreement among the raters, we ended up with a 9-item OCBEX, 11-item OCB-CW, and 10-item OCB-CP subscale. The global OCB variable retained all 42 items. The resulting OCB-Checklist, including categorization of items into two sets of subscales (O/P and CP/CW/EX) are presented in Table 3. Insert Table 3 about here

Results. Table 4 presents descriptive statistics for all Study 2 variables. As Table 5 shows, the pattern of positive CWB-OCB relationships, particularly involving helping and hurting persons in the organization, was replicated when the Fox-Spector OCB-C measure was used. As in Study 1, OCB-P was positively related to CWB-P (r=.26, p<.001). While OCB-O was not significantly related to CWB-O, it was related to CWB-P (r=.22, p<.001), and OCB-P

Deviant and Citizen 18 was related to CWB-O (r=.20, p<.001). To further clarify the types of CWB and OCB behaviors that seemed to correspond, zero-order correlations were examined between the 3 OCB subscales and the 5 CWB subscales. CWB-Abuse (which equates to abusive behaviors targeting persons in the organization) was positively associated with all three categories of OCB: helping coworkers personally (r=.23, p<.001), helping coworkers with work problems (r=.19, p<.001), and volunteering for extra work or putting in extra time (r=.14, p<.01). Looked at from the other side, OCB-CP (helping coworkers personally) was positively associated with CWB-ABU (r=.23), CWB-SAB (r=.16) and CWB-WIT (r=.15). In addition, only OCB-EX (volunteering for extra work) confirmed the expected association with job satisfaction (r=.22, p<.0001). None of the other forms of OCB were related to satisfaction. In contrast, a dramatically different pattern of negative correlations was found when the global CWB and subscales of the CWB-C were correlated with the Podsakoff et al. (1990) OCB (POD-OCB) scale and subscales (see Table 6). All subscales of the POD-OCB were significantly inversely related to all subscales of CWB, as predicted by theory and past research; in most cases, the correlations were significant at the p<.001 level. All subscales of the POD-OCB were significantly related to job satisfaction as well. Finally, Table 7 illustrates the relations between the new OCB-C and the POD-OCB global scales and their subscales. Although, as shown above, these two measures correlate oppositely with CWB and job satisfaction, they correlate positively with each other (r=.34, p<.001). In fact, all POD-OCB subscales with the exception of Sport and Courtesy (and of Conscientiousness with OCB-CP) were positively related to all OCB-C subscales. Insert Tables 4 through 7 about here

Deviant and Citizen 19 Discussion As dramatic as these different results from the two OCB measures appear, we submit that they are not unexpectedat least not the negative correlations between CWB and the Podsakoff measure of OCB. The presence of overlapping items discussed above makes these relationships almost inevitable. What we find puzzling, and of critical importance to better understanding the nature of peoples behavioral choices at work, is the consistent positive relationship between behaviors that help or intend to help coworkers with personal and work problems, and behaviors that hurt or intend to hurt coworkers. These two studies are exploratory, and the OCB-C itself is still in the process of clarification and validation. Nevertheless we believe these dramatic results cry out for further research, to disentangle methodological difficulties and substantive phenomena that may truly challenge our existing understanding of CWB and OCB. We conclude with a few conjectures about the causes and nature of these positive CWB-OCB relationships. Conjectures and Propositions: Social Loafing, Type A Personality, and Job Stress. These two studies suggest, counter-intuitively, that employees who go out of their way to help their coworkers may also be more likely to treat their coworkers abusively and to reduce their own productivity in turn. This is consistent with anecdotal accounts, particularly among high-achieving managers and executives. The first author gives workshops on job stress, bullying, and counterproductive work behavior to adult students enrolled in graduate courses, executive MBA programs, and Executive Education, in which the students generate lists of the most stressful aspects of their jobs, and their own reactions to these stressors. One of the original motivations for this research was the frequent comment by executives/students that incompetent coworkers were among their most acute stressors, and that they are forced to take

Deviant and Citizen 20 up the slack by working longer hours, taking on additional tasks, correcting poorly done work, and so forth. Some have admitted to helping out these coworkers with less than perfect grace. They are quick to justify their admitted incivility toward these coworkers. These reported incidents are consistent with the empirical data presented in this paper, suggesting that employees who perceive themselves as offering time and effort to help their coworkers may at the same time speak abusively to and about them. Three lines of research in social psychology, organizational behavior, and personality psychology may provide starting points for further research of these anecdotal phenomena. Social Loafing. One possible explanation for this may be found in recent work on social loafing. It has long been a tenet of social psychology that under certain circumstances (low task visibility and lack of evaluation of individual effort), some individuals may reduce their contributions to the group effort, resulting in overall group process loss (Latane, Williams, & Karkins, 1979). However, recent work (e.g., Liden, Wayne, Jaworski & Bennett, 2004) suggests that when some workers perceive social loafing by their teammates, their productivity may increase, which may be attributed to a social compensation effect. This in turn may be perceived as an added work stressor, leading to the negative emotions and counterproductive work behaviors as predicted by the Stressor-Emotion Model of CWB (Fox, Spector & Miles, 2001). Depending upon the employees attributions of causes of the coworkers inadequate contributions, the negative emotions and/or behavioral responses might well be directed toward the very coworker the employee is helping. Particularly where the employee perceives the opportunity to get back at the coworker who is seen as creating problems, this would be a case of direct aggression (Buss, 1961 cited in Neuman & Baron, 2005). Further research that

Deviant and Citizen 21 investigates the linkages between social loafing, compensatory behaviors, OCB and CWB would be most interesting. Type A Personality. Type A is a personality characteristic that seems relevant to both CWB and OCB behavioral patterns. Type A includes a number of facets, including hostility, competitiveness, time urgency, and an excessively strong desire to achieve or accomplish many things (George & Brief, 1992, p. 204). Ganster (1986) summarizes research findings that Type A employees are hyper-sensitive to subjective work stressors. Kushmir and Melamed (1991) found that Type A workers reported working longer hours, and showed higher stress symptoms than Type B workers, particularly under conditions of high workload and low personal control. Links have been demonstrated between Type A personality and severe forms of CWB, that is, overt aggression, obstructionism, and expressions of hostility (Baron, Neuman & Geddes, 1999). This would suggest that a Type A individual would be more likely to report CWB-P behaviors that is, the kinds of behaviors targeting other persons in the organization. Singh and Singh (1999) found that Type A leaders are less likely to report using participative, nurturant, or nurturant task styles of leadership. Ganster, Schaubroeck, Sime and Mayes (1990) found that Type A supervisors had higher-performing work groups, but that their subordinates also reported higher levels of somatic complaints, depression, and other chronic irritation. Taken together, this research suggests that Type A employees may be less likely to patiently wait while their presumably less-competent coworkers complete their work tasks. They may rush in to help, which in turn they may perceive as increasing their own workloads and stress levels. These same Type A individuals may have a generally less nurturant supervisory style, and their additional help may create a climate of heightened stress for their work groups. The stress processes experienced by the Type A individual and the coworkers or subordinates,

Deviant and Citizen 22 and the accompanying uncomfortable climate, may contribute to actual and perceived behaviors that fall under the rubric of counterproductive work behaviors, particularly those targeting other persons. This in turn may set into motion the spiral of incivility documented by Andersson and Pearson (1999). Further research should investigate these proposed linkages between Type A personality, behaviors classified as helpful to the organization and its members, and counterproductive work behaviors and climates. Job Stress. A new perspective is beginning to look at negative consequences of OCB on organizational and employee well-being which may well translate to an intensified linkage between OCB and CWB. Researchers are suggesting that employees may engage in OCB out of self-serving, even counterproductive motives, or, alternatively, may engage in OCB following CWB in order to assuage guilty feelings or make amends (Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Bolino, Turnley & Niehoff, 2004). Some types of OCB (e.g., individual initiative) may increase work overload and job stress (Organ & Ryan, 1995), precipitating negative outcomes for the individual engaging in OCB, including role overload and work-family conflict (Bolino & Turnley, 2005). Given the robust linkage in the research literature between job stress and CWB (e.g., Spector & Fox, 2005), we propose that this may be a key path linking some forms of OCB with CWB. In addition, some types of OCB may be attributed to self-serving, impression-management motives, which in turn may be linked to those personal CWBs that involve taking credit for others work and taking on tasks to make others look bad (Bolino, Turnley & Niehoff, 2004), or volunteering for extra duties to avoid normal duties (what might be included in our CWB category of Production Deviance). Finally, Bolino et al (2004) suggest that one consequence of OCB may be coworkers resentment of employees who engage in OCB for the unwanted aid, or being made

Deviant and Citizen 23 to look bad. Again, we suggest this may contribute to the spiral of incivility and overall counterproductive work climate. Limitations of the Study discuss Dalal and use of self-reports as being more accurate.] Summary and Implications The positive relations between CWB and OCB demonstrate the complexity of extra-role behavioral choices. Under-contributions or productivity problems of an individuals coworkers may simultaneously increase that individuals work efforts, while setting in motion a stressoremotion process leading to abusive behavior directed toward the under-producing coworker. Similarly, work process problems may elicit behaviors designed to overcome the constraints or improve the processes of the work unit, but this in turn may be perceived as additional work demands, putting into motion the stress process leading to CWB. Personality characteristics such as Type A, generally associated with industriousness and conscientiousness, may prove detrimental in a teamwork environment or in supervisor/subordinate dyads, when one employee is unable or unwilling to delegate or share work tasks, preferring to take on additional tasks rather than waiting for incompetent or inefficient coworkers or subordinates to complete them. The overall effects of these linkages are mixed, with enhanced productivity potential accompanied by the likelihood of greater overall process loss, stress, and the dynamics of a hostile work environment. Further research is clearly indicated, to determine whether characteristics for which we typically select and promote our employees, such as conscientiousness and contributions beyond requirements, might come with an unexpected and problematic price tag. References

Deviant and Citizen 24 Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999).Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452-471. Baron, R. A., Neuman, J. H., & Geddes, D. (1999). Social and personal determinants of workplace aggression: Evidence for the impact of perceived injustice and the type A behavior pattern. Aggressive Behavior, 25, 281-296. Bateman, T.S. & Organ, D.W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee "citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595. Bennett, R.J. & Robinson, S.L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349-360 Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Niehoff, B. P. (2004). The other side of the story: Reexamining prevailing assumptions about organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 229-246. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 740-748. Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2005). The study of revenge in the workplace: Conceptual, ideological, and empirical issues. In S. Fox, & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 65-81). Washington, DC: APA Press.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection (pp. 71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Deviant and Citizen 25 Brief, A.P. & Motowidlo, S.J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710-725.

Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 12411255.

Dineen, B., R., Lewicki, R. J., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2006). Supervisory guidance and behavioral integrity: Relationships with employee citizenship and deviant behavior. Journal? 91, 622-635. Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2005). Beyond counterproductive work behavior: Moral emotions and deontic retaliation vs. reconciliation. In S. Fox, & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 83-105). Washington, DC: APA Press.

Fox, S. (2005). The good, the bad (and this may get ugly): Do good citizens perform counterproductive work behavior? Academy of Management, Honolulu, August, 2005.

Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915-931.

Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stresssors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291-309.

Deviant and Citizen 26 Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2005). Racial/ethnic bullying: Exploring links between bullying and racism in the US workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 438-456.

Galperin, B. & Burke, R.J. (2006). Uncovering the Relationship between Workaholism and Workplace Destructive and Constructive Deviance: An Exploratory Study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 331-347.

Ganster, D. C. (1986). Type A behavior and occupational stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8, 61-84.

Ganster, D.C., Schaubroeck, J., Sime, W.E. & Mayes, B.T. (1990). Unhealthy leader dispositions, work group strain and performance. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings: 191-195.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310-329.

Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, 249-270.

Hunt (2002)

Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Sciences, 9, 131146.

Deviant and Citizen 27 Kelloway, E. K., Loughlin, C., Barling, J., & Nault, A. (2002). Self-reported counterproductive behaviros and organicational citizenship behaviors: Separate but related constructs. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 143-151.

Kushnir, T., & Melamed, S. (1991). Work-load, perceived control and psychological distress in type A/B industrial workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 155-168 (14 pages).

Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Social loafing. Psychology Today, 13, 104-110.

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142.

LePine, J.A., Erez, & Johnson, D.E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52-65.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Jaworski, R. A., & Bennett, N. (2004). Social Loafing: A Field Investigation. Journal of Management, 30, 2004, 285-304.

Marcus, B., Schuler, H., Quell, P., & Hmpfner, G. (2002). Measuring counterproductivity: Development and initial validation of a German self-report questionnaire. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 18-35.

Deviant and Citizen 28 McLean Parks, J. & Kidder, D.L. (1994). Til death do us partChanging work relationships in the 1990s. In C.L. Cooper & D.M. Rousseau (Eds.). Trends in organizational behavior, Vol. 1. Chichester; NY: Wiley.

McNeely, B.L. & Megline, B.M. (1994). The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 836-844.

Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845-855.

Moorman, R.H. & Blakely, G.L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127-142.

Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41, 351-357.

Morrison, E.W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employees perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543-1567.

Deviant and Citizen 29 Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (2005). Aggression in the workplace: A social-psychological perspective. In S. Fox, & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior; investigations of actors and targets (pp. 41-64). Washington DC: APA Press.

Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24, 391-419.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85-97.

Organ, D. W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. Journal of Management, 14, 547-557.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

Rayner, C. & Keashly, L. (2005). Bullying at work: A perspective from Britain and North America. In S. Fox & P.E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 271-296). Washington, DC: APA Press.

Deviant and Citizen 30 Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572.

Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensionality and relationshps with facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 5-11. Singh, S., & Singh, R. (2001). Type A behaviour pattern and leadership style. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 27, 137-141.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434-443.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behaviour: Its nature and antecedents Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. 2005. The stressor-emotion model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox, & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151-174). Washington, DC: APA Press.

Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 269-292.

Deviant and Citizen 31 Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? [references]. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446-460.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L. & McLean Parks, J.M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters). In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17), pp. 215-285. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press

Vey, M.A. & Campbell, J. P. (2004). In-Role or Extra-Role Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Which are we Measuring? Human Performance, 17, 119-135.

Warren, D. E. (2003). Constructive and destructive deviance in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 28, 622-632.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.

Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2005). Mobbing at work. escalated conflicts in organizations. In S. Fox, & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 237-270). Washington, DC: APA Press.

Deviant and Citizen 32 Figure 1. An Integrative Stressor/Emotion Model of Voluntary Work Behavior (CWB and OCB).

Negative Emotion / Job Dissatisfaction

Counterproductive Behavior (CWB)

Control Perceptions Appraisal/ Interpretation

Environment

Personality

Positive Emotion / Job Satisfaction

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

Deviant and Citizen 33 Table 1. OCB Items in Question. Challenge Attribution/ Personality Attribution/ Personality CWB (R) CWB (R) CWB (R) CWB (R) CWB (R) CWB (R) CWB (R) CWB (R) CWB (R) CWB (R) CWB (R) CWB (R) CWB (R) CWB (R) CWB (R) CWB (R) CWB (R) CWB (R) In-role In-role In-role In-role In-role In-role In-role In-role Scale Item

PMMF Believes in giving an honest days work for an honest days pay PMMF Always focuses on whats wrong, rather than the positive side PMMF PMMF PMMF PMMF PMMF PMMF PMMF PMMF SON SON SON SON SON SON WA WA WA WA MB MB MB PMMF PMMF PMMF SON WA Does not take extra breaks Obeys company rules and regulations even when no one is watching Is the classic squeaky wheel that always needs greasing (R) Consumes a lot of time complaining about trivial matters (R) Tends to make mountains out of molehills (R) Tries to avoid creating problems for co-workers Does not abuse the rights of others Takes steps to try to prevent problems with other employees Takes undeserved breaks (R) Coasts toward the end of the day (R) Great deal of time spent with personal phone conversations (R) Does not take unnecessary time off work Does not take extra breaks Does not spend time in idle conversation Takes undeserved work breaks (R) Great deal of time spent with personal phone conversations (R) Complains about insignificant things at work (R) Conserves and protects organizational property Performs his/her duties with unusually few errors Performs his/her job duties with extra-special care Always meets or beats deadlines for completing work Keeps abreast of changes in the organization Attends meetings that are not mandatory, but are considered important Reads and keeps up with organization announcements, memos, and so on Punctuality Passes along information to co-workers

Note: MB = Moorman and Blakely (1995) PMMF = Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) SON = Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) WA = Williams and Anderson (1991)

Deviant and Citizen 34 Table 2. Study 1 Correlations of Emotions, Satisfaction, CWB and OCB CWB CWBO CWBP OCB OCBO OCBP Pemot Nemot Jobsat * p<.05 CWB (.85) .91*** .81*** .18* .11 .24** -.17* .35*** -.27*** CWBO (.78) .49*** .13 .04 .21** -.19* .39*** -.34*** CWBP OCB (.79) .19* .17* .20** -.08 .19* -.10 ***p<.001 OCBO OCBP Pemot Nemot Sat

(.94) .91*** .91*** .03 .23** .03

(.85) .72*** .04 .21** .09

(.87) .06 .22** 0

(.91) -.51*** .62***

(.88) -.57***

(.82)

**p<.01

Note. CWB-O and OCB-O are behaviors that target the organization. CWB-P and OCB-P target persons in the organization. Global CWB and OCB include all items, respectively.

Deviant and Citizen 35 Table 3. OCB-C Items and Subscales

2-category P/O P P O O P O P P O P P P P O O P O O O O O O O O P O P P EX CW CW P 3-category CP/CW/EX CP CP CP CW CW CW CP EX CP CP CP CP CW

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

Helped co-worker with personal matter such as moving, childcare, car problems, etc. Picked up meal for others at work Picked up or dropped off co-worker at airport, hotel, etc. Drove, escorted, or entertained company guests, clients, or out-of-town employees. Took time to advise, coach, or mentor a co-worker. Helped co-worker learn new skills or shared job knowledge. Covered a co-workers mistake. Helped new employees get oriented to the job. Lent a compassionate ear when someone had a work problem. Bought Girl Scout cookies or other fund raising items from a co-worker (or their child). Used own vehicle, supplies or equipment for employers business. Lent a compassionate ear when someone had a personal problem. Lent money to a co-worker. Contributed and/or sent cards/flowers for co-worker birthdays/special occasions. Lent car or other personal property to co-worker. Changed vacation schedule, work days, or shifts to accommodate co-workers needs. Offered suggestions to improve how work is done. Offered suggestions for improving the work environment. Finished something for co-worker who had to leave early. Helped a less capable co-worker lift a heavy box or other object. Came in early or stayed late without pay to complete a project or task. Helped a co-worker who had too much to do. Volunteered for extra work assignments. Took phone messages for absent or busy co-worker. Tried to recruit a person to work for your employer Worked weekends or other days off to complete a project or task. Informed manager of co-worker's excellent performance. Brought work home to prepare for next day. Volunteered to attend meetings or work on committees on own time. Developed extracurricular activities for co-workers (e.g., sport team) Said good things about your employer in front of others. Gave up meal and other breaks to complete work. Brought candy, doughnuts, snacks, or drinks for co-workers. Organized office celebrations for holidays and co-workers' birthdays, retirement, etc. Volunteered to work at after-hours or out-of-town events. Volunteered to help a co-worker deal with a difficult customer, vendor, or co-worker. Gave a written or verbal recommendation for a co-worker. Went out of the way to give co-worker encouragement or express appreciation. Decorated, straightened up, or otherwise beautified common work space. Spent extra time helping a co-worker prepare/edit/rehearse a presentation or paper. Assisted a co-worker with device or equipment such as computers, copy machines, etc. Defended a co-worker who was being "put-down" or spoken ill of by other co-workers or supervisor.

CW EX CW EX CW EX CW EX EX

EX CP CP EX CW

2-Category subscales: O=targets the organization P=targets persons in the organization 3-Category subscales: CP=helping coworkers personally or socially CW=helping coworkers with work or job tasks EX=volunteering for extra work or putting in extra time

Deviant and Citizen 36 Table 4. Study 2 Descriptive Statistics for CWBC, OCBC, OCB-Pod, and Satisfaction Variable CWB (global) CWB-person CWB-organization CWB-ABU CWB-DEV CWB-SAB CWB-THE CWB-WIT OCB (global) OCB-person OCB-organization OCB-CP OCB-CW OCB-EX POD-OCB (Global) POD-Altruism POD-Conscien POD-Sport POD-Courtesy POD-Civic Job satisfaction Possible Range 11-55 23-115 22-110 18-90 3-15 3-15 5-25 4-20 42-210 14-70 15-75 10-50 11-55 9-45 24-168 5-35 5-35 5-35 5-35 5-28 3-18 Mean 61.87 28.41 33.46 24.39 3.98 3.65 5.90 7.15 104.00 34.21 36.71 22.74 31.00 20.74 131.45 28.05 27.78 27.80 28.44 19.31 13.44 SD 15.6 8.2 9.0 7.3 1.6 1.2 1.9 2.6 28.9 10.1 10.8 7.3 9.3 7.1 18.3 5.0 4.9 5.4 5.4 5.2 4.1 Coeff. Alpha 94 91 89 89 69 60 70 69 95 87 89 82 90 83 90 87 77 80 88 77 93

Deviant and Citizen 37 Table 5. Study 2 Correlations of CWB and OCB: Global constructs and two sets of subscales, using the CWB-Checklist and the new OCB-Checklist. CWB CWB OCB (Global) OCB .21*** (Global) OCB-O .16* OCB-P OCB-CP .25*** .22*** CWB O .14* .07 .20** .18** .11 .02 CWB P .24*** .22*** .26*** 23*** .17** .17** ***p<.001 CWB ABU .24*** .20** .27*** .23*** .19** .14* CWB DEV .04 .00 .09 .07 .03 -.06 CWB SAB .09 .03 .14* .16** .05 .00 CWB THE .09 .05 .07 .07 .01 .07 CWB WIT .10 .07 .13* .15* .09 .04 JOB SAT .09 .14 .02 .05 .02 .22***

OCB-CW .16** OCB-EX * p<.05 .10 **p<.01

Deviant and Citizen 38 Table 6. Study 2 Correlations of CWB and OCB: Global constructs and subscales, using the CWB-Checklist and the Podsakoff OCB instrument. CWB OCB PODOCB (Global) PODAltruism PODConscien PODSport PODCourtesy PODCivic * p<.05 CWB (Global) -.42*** -.26*** -.43*** -.31*** -.30*** -.24*** CWB O -.47*** -.29*** -.48*** -.32*** -.29*** -.32*** CWB P -.29*** -.17** -.29*** -.23*** -.25*** -.11 ***p<.001 CWB ABU -.29*** -.16** -.29*** -.24*** -.25*** -.14* CWB DEV -.41*** -.27*** -.35*** -.30*** -.26*** -.30*** CWB SAB -.31*** -.16** -.26*** -.25*** -.26*** -.20*** CWB THE -.43*** -.34*** -.44*** -.18** -.32*** -.22*** CWB WIT -.34*** -.21*** -.46*** -.15** -.20*** -.20*** JOB SAT .39*** .23*** .32*** .28*** .19** .36***

**p<.01

Deviant and Citizen 39 Table 7. Study 2 Correlations of OCB-C (New) and OCB (Podsakoff et al) OCB-C POD OCB PODOCB (Global) PODAltruism PODConscien PODSport PODCourtesy PODCivic * p<.05 OCB (Global) .34*** .42*** .24*** .01 .12 .37*** OCB O .32*** .38*** .27*** .01 .11 .38*** OCB P .28*** .36*** .17** -.01 .09 .27*** ***p<.001 OCB CP .24*** .28*** .11 .01 .06 .27*** OCB CW .32*** .42*** .21*** .02 .14* .33*** OCB EX .34*** .36*** .31*** .01 .13* .41***

**p<.01