655668

research-article2016
HRDXXX10.1177/1534484316655668Human Resource Development ReviewRose

Integrative Literature Review

Human Resource Development Review
2016, Vol. 15(3) 295­–316
Examining Organizational © The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Citizenship Behavior in the [Link]/[Link]
DOI: 10.1177/1534484316655668
Context of Human Resource [Link]

Development: An Integrative
Review of the Literature

Kevin Rose1

Abstract
Over the past three decades, scholarship on organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB) has grown tremendously and now enjoys a place of relative importance in the
managerial, behavioral, and psychological literature. Researchers have traditionally
focused their attention on understanding the nomological network of OCB, including
its antecedents, predictors, correlates, and outcomes. Such work has also expanded
to include cross-disciplinary investigations in areas such as health care, education,
public organizations, and service industries, to name a few. Despite the relative
prominence of OCB in other literature bases, OCB receives only minimal attention
in the field of human resource development (HRD). The purpose of this integrative
literature review was to examine and synthesize the available literature on OCB with
specific consideration to the aims of the HRD field, namely, performance and learning
and development. I present a synthesis of the relevant literature and conclude with a
proposed research agenda and implications for HRD theory and practice.

Keywords
organizational citizenship behavior, performance, learning and development, human
resource development

Many employees understand the idea of going “above and beyond” their prescribed
work duties. Although this kind of workplace behavior can take many forms, Organ
(1988b) described specific kinds of extra-role behaviors known as organizational

1University of Louisville, KY, USA

Corresponding Author:
Kevin Rose, College of Education and Human Development, University of Louisville, 1905 S. 1st Street,
Room 336, Louisville, KY 40292, USA.
Email: [Link]@[Link]
296 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

citizenship behaviors (OCBs). In his original conceptualization, OCBs had three distinct
characteristics: (a) they are behaviors outside of an individual’s role prescription, (b)
they go unrewarded in a formal sense, and (c) they contribute to organizational effective-
ness. Since this original conceptualization, research into this phenomenon has allowed
scholars of organizational and employee behavior to refine the definition of OCB and
subject the overarching theoretical domain to rigorous empirical scrutiny. Even just 14
years after his original conceptualization, Organ (1997) noted that his original descrip-
tion was “mightily influenced by fading attributes of a different kind of organization
from the one we see taking shape now” (p. 96). Implicitly embodied in Organ’s notion is
that the evolution of workplace dynamics, social structures, and environments creates
opportunities and needs to continually refine and reassess even the most established
theoretical axioms.
Thus, an extensive and still growing body of knowledge focused on OCB has
emerged (e.g., Bergeron, Ostroff, Schroeder, & Block, 2014; Cole, Carter, & Zhang,
2013; Hu & Liden, 2013; Sommer & Kulkarni, 2012). In many regards, OCB is seen
as a proxy for measuring the otherwise difficult to measure phenomenon of employee
performance (Dalal, Baysinger, Brummel & LeBreton, 2012; Humborstad, Nerstad, &
Dysvik, 2014; Pawar, 2013) as employee performance is often a central focus in
empirical scholarship. OCB, therefore, becomes one of several dimensions of an
employee’s at-work behavioral performance (Werner, 2000). In a similar vein, studies
have often relegated OCB to a somewhat peripheral status in the quest to understand
greater detail about a more prominent phenomenon (see, for example, Cohen, Turan,
Panter, Morse, & Kim, 2014; Mattson, Hellgren, & Göransson, 2015). This “margin-
alization” is, of course, acceptable given the concept of OCB has matured into a more
stable theory. However, renewed or emerging interest in OCB may still benefit some
fields of study, such as human resource development (HRD), particularly with HRD’s
focus on employee and organizational performance. For this reason, this review was
conducted to examine the extant OCB literature that may have important connections
to the theory and practice of HRD.
A search of article titles and abstracts for the phrase “organizational citizenship
behavior” in the four journals of the Academy of Human Resource Development
(Human Resource Development Quarterly, Human Resource Development Review,
Human Resource Development International, and Advances in Developing Human
Resources) reveals that only a total of 13 articles appear across all four journals.
Although this does not encompass the entire breadth of HRD research, it is an indica-
tion of the inattention to OCB in the HRD field. Therefore, the purpose of this article
is to examine the literature on OCB through the lens of HRD with special attention
given to performance and learning and development. It should be noted that OCB
research is not ignored by HRD scholars, but given the relative absence of OCB as a
central focus in all but a handful of articles, this remains an area where HRD can make
an important contribution to the theoretical domain of OCB.
This article is organized into the following sections. First, some background on
OCB is provided as well as some grounding in HRD’s focus on both performance and
learning. Next, I detail the methodology used to seek literature on OCB. Then, a
Rose 297

synthesis of the relevant body of literature is presented. Finally, I offer several impli-
cations for HRD theory and practice as well as proposed directions for future research.

Theoretical Background and Rationale

OCB has enjoyed a great deal of research attention particularly in the managerial
and behavioral science fields (Dekas, Bauer, Welle, Kurkoski, & Sullivan, 2013;
Fassina, Jones, & Uggerslev, 2008; Turnipseed & Wilson, 2009). As such, its defini-
tion and attributes have been revised as new theoretical understandings and empiri-
cal evidence have been put forward. As previously noted, the changing nature of
organizations and workplace dynamics forces scholars to continually revise and
refine all theoretical and conceptual areas of study. Organ (1997) admitted two
decades ago that the nature of work had changed even since his seminal research. We
can safely assume that these changes have no doubt influenced the nature of OCB
and point to the need for further understanding and continuous research. The domain
of OCB continues to be a fruitful ground for research as well as for practical applica-
tion and understanding given the importance of social connections in organizations
(Jain, Giga, & Cooper, 2011) and the impact of individuals’ behaviors on the overall
functioning of the organization (Coldwell & Callaghan, 2014; X. Liu & Van Dooren,
2015). Connecting this domain more explicitly to the HRD discipline can be simi-
larly fruitful.
In many ways, the field of HRD is considered a multidisciplinary field, drawing
from the domains of psychology, economics, and systems theory (Swanson & Holton,
2009). Perhaps because of the multidisciplinary nature of HRD, a unifying definition
of what HRD is and does is difficult to elicit. Furthermore, Lee (2001) argued that
defining HRD is often not only problematic but also undesirable. Nevertheless, there
is at least some agreement as to what the primary foci of the field are or should be. In
B. Hamlin and Stewart’s (2012) analysis of 24 definitions of HRD, they found four
“core purposes”: improving individual or group performance; improving organiza-
tional performance; developing knowledge, skills, and competencies; and enhancing
human potential and growth (p. 211). These results seem consistent with Swanson and
Holton’s (2009) position that HRD focuses on “individual and organizational learn-
ing” and “individual and organizational performance” (p. 4) as well as Ruona and
Gibson’s (2004) notion that organizational learning may be a “hallmark” (p. 58) of the
field of HRD. Therefore, for this article, I utilized a definition of HRD that includes a
focus on both performance and learning and development.
These definitions proffered provide seemingly good rationale for a focus on social
and organizational constructs that lead, both directly and indirectly to individual,
group, and organizational performance. Examples of the kinds of constructs that have
been addressed in HRD research include leadership (Alagaraja, Cumberland, & Choi,
2015; Gilley, Dixon, & Gilley, 2008; R. G. Hamlin, 2004; Rose, Shuck, Twyford, &
Bergman, 2015), coaching (Ellinger, Ellinger, & Keller, 2003; Kim, 2014), employee
engagement (W. Kim, Kolb, & Kim, 2013; Shuck & Wollard, 2010), and organiza-
tional learning (Jacobs & Park, 2009). Although these are certainly not all the
298 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

constructs of interest to HRD, it illustrates that the field retains an interest in those
issues that share a connection to performance in some way.
Moreover, HRD also focuses on learning and development in a variety of capaci-
ties. Self-directed learning, organizational learning, and learning interventions (among
others) have been the focus of HRD research. These important aspects of organiza-
tional work connect, in their own ways, to individual and organizational performance
as well. The relative emphasis in HRD on the broader areas of performance and learn-
ing and development is used to frame and organize this review. To structure the pro-
cess of inquiry and critical synthesis in this examination, two broad research questions
guided this work:

Research Question 1: What is the relationship between OCB and individual,

group, and organizational performance?
Research Question 2: What is the relationship between OCB and individual,
group, and organizational learning and development?

Understanding OCB from an HRD perspective may help shed light on this phenome-
non as well as contribute to both scholarship and practice in the field. To do this, an
integrative literature review on OCB was conducted with particular regard to the two
primary foci of HRD—learning and performance. The methods of the investigation
are detailed in the following section.

Method
To better understand the connection between OCB and HRD, an integrative literature
review methodology was chosen as an appropriate means for conceptualizing these
areas. Although these three fields of inquiry may be considered mature, Torraco (2005)
noted that an integrative literature review could still generate useful new interpreta-
tions, syntheses, and conceptualizations of the domains in question. Using Swanson
and Holton’s (2009) and B. Hamlin and Stewarts’s (2012) notions about the foci of
HRD, a set of keywords were developed for the literature search process. To address
Research Question 1, I utilized keywords such as employee performance and organi-
zational effectiveness. For Research Question 2, I used keywords such as organiza-
tional learning, knowledge management, and self-directed learning. A full list of
keywords is included in Table 1.
I chose to include three databases in the keyword search process: ABI/Inform,
EBSCO Academic, and PsycINFO. Only peer-reviewed, academic journal articles
were included in the search parameters (book chapters, conference proceedings, and
trade publications were excluded) and included both conceptual or theoretical articles
as well as empirical articles. To limit the number of false positive results, the keywords
were searched in only the titles and abstracts of articles and not the full text. For
example, a search for the keywords organizational citizenship behavior and organiza-
tional learning would produce any article with both the keywords appearing in either
the title or the abstract of the article or both. No date limit was placed on the search.
Rose 299

Table 1. Search Results.

Database

Keywords ABI/Inform EBSCO Academic PsycINFO

Organizational performancea 31 15 29
Corporate performance 0 0 0
Firm performance 4 0 2
Group performance 6 2 6
Team performance 7 3 8
Unit performance 6 1 4
Employee performance 19 5 17
Individual performance 5 0 6
Organizational learning 0 1 0
Employee learning 0 0 0
Employee development 2 1 4
Knowledge sharing 7 0 6
Knowledge management 0 0 0
Self-directed learning 0 0 0
Training and development 1 0 3
Employee development 1 1 4
Organization developmentb 1 0 0
Change management 0 0 0
Human resource development 3 0 4
Subtotals 93 29 93
Total (including duplicates) 215
aThe terms effectiveness and productivity were also used as synonyms for performance.
bBoth organization and organizational were used in conjunction with development.

The software program Mendeley was used to store, organize, and categorize all the
articles. All duplicate articles were removed resulting in a total of 119 articles to be
reviewed. I employed a staged review process (Torraco, 2005) whereby each abstract
was first examined for proper fit according to the research questions; articles that did
not fit the research questions were discarded. The second stage of the review consisted
of an in-depth reading and analysis of all remaining articles. In total, 68 articles were
selected for inclusion in this integrative review.

Emergent Themes From the Literature

Several themes emerged from the literature aligned with the objectives and research
questions proposed in this review. Again, these themes centered around the core pur-
poses of HRD that I chose to use in this review, namely performance and learning and
development. One of the major topics of research attention was the matter of OCB’s
connection to performance and in that stream, the literature seemed to focus on three
300 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

distinct “levels” of performance—organizational, unit or team, and individual. The

next theme addressed the second research question—the connection between OCB
and learning and development. The results and synthesis of this literature review are
organized around these themes and seek to specifically address the two research ques-
tions presented.

Organizational Performance
Since its original conceptualization, OCB has been thought to impact organizational
performance by acting to “lubricate the social machinery of the organization” (Smith,
Organ, & Near, 1983, p. 654). Understanding exactly how individual-level behaviors
impact organizational-level outcomes, however, is challenging both from a theoretical
and empirical perspective. Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997) undertook a review of
available empirical research that attempted to understand the linkage between organi-
zational performance and OCB. At the time their article was published, relatively little
research existed in this area, yet promising evidence was found nonetheless. Their
work highlighted several important ways in which OCB could impact performance at
the organizational level:

•• enhancing coworker productivity,

•• enhancing managerial productivity,
•• freeing resources up for more productive purposes,
•• reducing the need to devote scarce resources to purely maintenance functions,
•• serving as an effective means of coordinating activities between team members
and across work groups,
•• enhancing the organization’s ability to attract and retain the best people by mak-
ing it a more attractive place to work,
•• enhancing the stability of organizational performance, and
•• enhancing an organization’s ability to adapt to environmental changes.

Since that time, extant research generally supports some of their claims and under-
scores the importance of the “social machinery” and its influence on performance. For
example, Jain et al. (2011) investigated the relationships between OCB, social power,
and organizational effectiveness. Overall, they found support for the idea that OCB
creates a positive social environment at work and enables other forms of employee
behavior and performance. In short, employees work better in environments where
they can get help, are supported by peers, and feel a sense of connectedness. Moreover,
exhibiting OCB may strengthen the social ties in organizations, leading directly or
indirectly to performance outcomes (Bolino, Turnley, & Bloodgood, 2002). Although
this notion seems to make sense anecdotally, the specific role of OCB in these social
processes should be underscored.
OCB has often been conceptualized as a sort of linking mechanism between various
antecedents and either performance or outcomes that impact performance. Two theo-
retical views seem to have emerged in this regard. First, OCB can be seen as creating
Rose 301

the conditions favorable to inducing organizational performance. And second, OCB

can be seen as directly influencing an organization’s performance. Thus, researchers
have focused on the antecedents that are connected with OCB, such as transforma-
tional leadership (Boerner, Eisenbeiss, & Griesser, 2007; Chun, Shin, Choi, & Kim,
2013), high performance work systems (Evans & Davis, 2005), and trust in coworkers
and supervisors (Singh & Srivastava, 2009). However, confounding evidence exists
for these kinds of relationships. For example, Singh and Srivastava (2009) noted that
trust in supervisor and coworkers was an important predictor of OCB. However,
Menges, Walter, Vogel, and Bruch (2011) found evidence that even in low-trust envi-
ronments, employees may still engage in high levels of OCB even if employees cannot
predict whether their coworkers will reciprocate OCB gestures. Furthermore, the
implication that OCB directly influences firm performance is generally supported
(Chun et al., 2013; Sun, Aryee, & Law, 2007), but contradictory evidence exists. In
one particular study, OCB was found to be unrelated to a non-financial measure of
organizational performance (Fisher, McPhail, & Menghetti, 2010).
Another important aspect in the relationship between OCB and organizational per-
formance is the directionality of that relationship. Most research assumes a unidirec-
tional relationship between OCB and organizational performance, where OCB
influences organizational performance, but performance does not influence OCB. Koys
(2001) provided evidence supporting this notion. His study, which provided robust,
longitudinal data, indicated that variables such as OCB and employee satisfaction influ-
ence organizational performance, as measured by customer satisfaction and profitabil-
ity, in a meaningful way. However, Bachrach, Bendoly, and Podsakoff (2001) were able
to show through experimental methodology that perceptions of good organizational
performance led to higher ratings of OCB. This contradiction not only presents poten-
tial limitations when conducting research on OCB but also presents an opportunity to
understand its directionality more fully. This should remain an important consideration
when testing relationships between OCB and other contextual variables.
Drawing from more generalized management literature, some scholarship has
focused on the connection between OCB and performance in a specific industrial or
organizational context. In these cases, organizational performance may be defined dif-
ferently or may be defined with the specific context in mind. In schools, for example,
a reasonable indicator of that organization’s performance is student achievement.
OCB of employees, in this case teachers, shares a positive connection with student
outcomes (DiPaola & Hoy, 2005), similar to research findings in the for-profit sector.
Moreover, consistent with previous findings, the social environment that is created by
principals influences teachers’ enacting of OCB and subsequent student achievement
indicators (Zeinabadi, 2014). Similarly, research conducted in a governmental setting
finds that the OCB–performance relationship holds true even there (S. Kim, 2005),
and Chahal and Mehta (2011) theorize that the same relationship exists in the health
care sector. In the service sector, both Bienstock and DeMoranville (2006) and Hopkins
(2002) indicate positive relationships with OCB and performance measures.
In line with Organ’s (1983) original definition, OCB has been generally shown to
have a positive relationship with organizational performance. Evidence indicates that
302 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

this relationship happens for a variety of reasons, but that generally positive behaviors
lead to positive outcomes for both individuals and, ultimately, the organization. It can
reasonably be assumed that although individual-level behaviors contribute to organi-
zational functioning, they perhaps have their most direct impact at the team, unit, or
department level of the organization.

Group and Team Performance

Scholars in OCB research have also focused attention on the formation and operation
of OCB within group contexts. For many employees, the work group or team context
provides the most immediate collective environment where OCB is enacted and has a
potential impact on performance. In congruency with organizational-level research,
scholarship in this area has focused on whether the performance of OCB impacts
group-level outcomes (Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997). Various studies
have provided support for this proposition (see, for example, Ehrhart, Bliese, &
Thomas, 2006; Podsakoff et al., 1997), although issues of group dynamics (Choi & Sy,
2010), conflict (Choi & Sy, 2010), and leadership (Cole et al., 2013) provided new and
interesting frames through which to view OCB and its outcomes.
Indeed, various issues specific to working in groups provide challenging and con-
tradictory evidence that OCB is useful in the group context. Podsakoff et al. (1997)
provided some of the first empirical evidence that individually enacted OCB effect
group-level performance outcomes. However, their results were not entirely consistent
and, in fact, they found that the OCB–performance relationship did not always hold
up. Later research showed similar results (Dunlop, Lee, & Patrick, 2004); in each case,
it was theorized that the context of the group or the nature of their work might influ-
ence whether or not OCBs were exhibited or even helpful. One aspect of group or
teamwork that influences the impact of OCB is the degree to which the work being
carried out necessitates interdependence among group members (Bachrach, Powell,
Collins, & Richey, 2006; Tjosvold & Yu, 2004). Recall that OCB is described as ben-
eficial social behavior, therefore, work that requires little social interdependence may
not benefit from OCB. For example, groups with highly interdependent tasks gener-
ally benefit from OCB, but in those where tasks are independent, “OCB may actually
degrade group performance” (Nielsen, Bachrach, Sundstrom, & Halfhill, 2012,
p. 686). Bachrach, Powell, Bendoly, and Richey (2006) reported findings consistent
with this notion and theorized that the performance of OCB where it is not necessary
or desired may induce lower levels of motivation. In other words, there are times when
employees do not need or want help from coworkers and receiving help anyway is not
only a waste of effort, but harms overall group performance. The same seems to hold
true not only for task interdependence, but also for the individual versus collective
nature of goals in the group (Tjosvold & Yu, 2004) in that shared goals benefit from
OCB, but individual goals do not.
Other group issues influence the nature of OCB as well. Here, I focus on conflict
among members (Choi & Sy, 2010) and level in the organization (W. Liu, Gong, &
Liu, 2014). Choi and Sy (2010) examined the relationship between task conflict and
Rose 303

relationship conflict and OCB, and found that relationship conflict predicted lower
levels of OCB whereas task conflict predicted higher levels of OCB. This interesting
finding indicates that group members might see task conflict as an indicator of involve-
ment and interest and increase their extra-role behaviors accordingly. In a similar vein,
it is thought that OCB may vary based on the stage of group formation it finds itself in
(Chou & Garcia, 2011) or the perceived motives of group members engaging in OCB
(Banki, 2010). Even the structure of a department or work group can have an influence
on the OCB of its members (DeGroot & Brownlee, 2006) and ultimately, the perfor-
mance of the group. In addition, the leadership of the team plays an important role in
the exhibition of OCB by acting congruently with team or group values (Cole et al.,
2013) and by being aware of how their relationships with subordinates are perceived
by individual group members (Hu & Liden, 2013).
It has been noted that there is a theoretical and conceptual distinction between indi-
vidual OCB enacted in a group setting and the collective OCB of a group (Choi & Sy,
2010; W. Liu et al., 2014). Bommer, Dierdorff, and Rubin (2007, as cited in Choi &
Sy, 2010) note that these distinctions are an important consideration for understanding
how OCB operates in the group environment. The social dynamics of groups create
norms and expectations of its individual members, which influence individual behav-
ior. Thus, OCB performed in groups may differ based on the group culture and,
because of this, group OCB “should be considered distinct from individual OCB (or
its average)” (Ehrhart et al., 2006, p. 160). This distinction is an important one for at
least two reasons. First, the way in which these behaviors are measured should be
determined by whether the research focuses on group behavior or individual behavior.
And second, empirical evidence about group-level OCB may differ from individual-
level OCB.

Individual Performance
Organ (1988b) described OCB as a kind of employee extra-role “performance” that
goes formally unrewarded. However, there has been considerable debate as to whether
OCB can truly be described as “unrewarded” in the context of the overall picture of an
individual’s performance. Although OCB does appear to be distinct from in-role per-
formance (P. Kim & Lee, 2012) and deviant extra-role behaviors (Dunlop, Lee, &
Patrick, 2004), it may still be considered in the overall evaluation of an employee’s job
performance. Evidence suggests that managers generally will ascribe more relevance
to in-role performance (Barksdale & Werner, 2001), but will take into account both
in-role performance and OCB when evaluating employee job performance and giving
performance ratings (Dunlop, Lee, & Patrick 2004; Moideenkutty, Blau, Kumar, &
Nalakath, 2005). Specifically, managers may view employees who go above and
beyond their role prescriptions as powerful contributors to the team and the organiza-
tion. This is especially true of work contexts that benefit from OCB, such as environ-
ments that require a great deal of interdependence (Bachrach, Powell, Bendoly, &
Richey, 2006). In addition, OCB provides an informal mechanism to evaluate an
employee’s motivation for remaining loyal to an organization (Shore, Barksdale, &
304 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

Shore, 1995). However, employees may also engage in OCB not for altruistic or self-
less purposes, but as a way to appear more committed and loyal to the organization,
thus influencing their supervisor’s rating of their performance. Research suggests that
although increased OCB does generally result in higher performance ratings, employ-
ees who enact them for selfish reasons may, in fact, get lower performance ratings
(Halbesleben, Bowler, Bolino, & Turnley, 2010). Moreover, employees who engage in
OCB where these kinds of behaviors are not particularly beneficial may be engaging
in fruitless behavior. Similar to the findings of Nielsen et al. (2012), there are specific
work contexts where “such pro-active behaviors [i.e., OCB] are not particularly desir-
able” (Hunt, 2002, p. 155). These include contexts in which there is limited task inter-
dependence (Bachrach, Powell, Collins, & Richey, 2006), where job tasks are
routinized (Hunt, 2002), and organizations reward individual rather than collective
behavior (Bergeron et al., 2014). As an example, Bergeron et al. (2014) concluded that
faculty in research universities who are generally rewarded for individually focused
behaviors (e.g., publishing) should engage in less OCB, especially OCB directed
toward their employing organization. Doing so can be seen as wasted time and effort
because OCB is not recognized or rewarded in this type of system.
In most employment contexts, however, OCB is still regarded as a set of individual
behaviors that employers deem desirable (Vigoda, 2000). Cultivating and predicting
these behaviors has become an important focus for both practitioners and scholars.
Generally, positive kinds of cognitive and affective employee variables (such as
employee satisfaction, justice perceptions, and organizational commitment) influence
greater performance of OCB (Koys, 2001; Sani & Supriyanto, 2013; Shore et al.,
1995). Likewise, employee involvement in work processes and job enrichment both
contribute to greater levels of OCB (Cappelli & Rogovsky, 1998). Even with part-time
employees, organizational commitment can engender greater OCB (Cho & Johanson,
2008). Of particular interest to the field of HRD, however, could be the notion that
among the many predictive variables of organizational citizenship, employee engage-
ment has been described as “the most important cognitive-affective predictor of OCB”
(Dalal, Baysinger, Brummel, & LeBreton, 2012, p. 314).
It seems clear that OCB has an important part to play in the perception of employee
performance and linking that performance to group and organizational performance.
In most cases, employers would be well served to create conditions under which
employees might more frequently, and more authentically, engage in OCB. Although
these behaviors have been demonstrated to have strong, positive connections with
performance outcomes, there are perhaps more indirect, but still meaningful ways in
which these behaviors influence the effective operating of the organization. Given
HRD’s focus on learning and development, it is important to explore possible OCB
influences in these areas as well.

Learning and Development

Although the field of HRD maintains a clear focus on performance at various levels,
there is a simultaneous and no less important emphasis placed on learning
Rose 305

and development in the workplace context. Two themes seemed to emerge from the
literature with regard to the relationship between OCB and learning and development.
The first theme includes aspects of learning that include formal training as well as
various developmental activities and interventions (e.g., mentoring). The second
theme related to organizational learning and knowledge sharing.
In a very broad sense, employee development shares a positive relationship with
OCB, but the developmental experiences differ (Maurer, Pierce, & Shore, 2002).
Gavino, Wayne, and Erdogan (2012) found empirical support for the relationship
between OCB and the developmental interventions of performance management,
opportunities for advancement, and opportunity to participate in decision making.
However, their study revealed only a marginal relationship between OCB and training
opportunities, which is consistent with findings from Shen, D’Netto, and Tang (2010)
as well. Similarly, Hopkins (2002) found a positive relationship with OCB and devel-
opmental activities, which included “special projects” and “challenging assignments”
(p. 8) such that employees who were provided with these extra opportunities were also
more likely to exhibit OCB. One possible reason for this relationship is that employees
who perceive getting an extra benefit from the organization will reciprocate by per-
forming positive job behaviors outside of their formal duties (Pierce & Maurer, 2009).
This relationship holds true for contingent (temporary) employees as well (Kuvaas &
Dysvik, 2009). Again, the idea is that individuals who receive developmental opportu-
nities reciprocate positive extra-role behaviors back toward the organization. Maurer
et al. (2002) provided an alternative view, however, positing that engagement in devel-
opment opportunities (particularly those outside of the individual’s prescribed role) is
a form of OCB itself.
Constructive feedback and mentoring are two specific developmental mechanisms
worth noting. First, constructive feedback shares a positive relationship with OCB
(Sommer & Kulkarni, 2012). It is thought that high quality, critical feedback increases
the receiver’s feelings of respect by the feedback giver as well as being recognized as
a kind of developmental opportunity for further improvement. Thus, the receiver
increases their citizenship behavior in reciprocation. The second developmental pro-
cess worth highlighting is mentoring. Supervisors may be more willing to mentor
employees who exhibit OCB, although, as previously mentioned, OCB performed out
of selfish intent (Halbesleben et al., 2010) decreases the likelihood that the supervisor
will mentor that employee (Lapierre, Bonaccio, & Allen, 2009). The connection
between OCB and mentoring extends into and beyond the mentoring relationship as
well. Ghosh, Reio, and Haynes (2012) suggested that employees in a mutually sup-
portive mentoring relationship extend these behaviors to employees outside of the
mentor–mentee dyad. Thus, OCB directed toward coworkers increases for those in a
mentoring relationship.
Another important consideration for HRD is the nature of knowledge dissemination
and organizational learning that occurs by individual employees. There is broad sup-
port that OCB and knowledge sharing are positively related (Al-Zu’bi, 2011; Lin &
Hsiao, 2014; Ramasamy & Thamaraiselvan, 2011; Teh & Yong, 2011) or that knowl-
edge sharing is itself a form of citizenship behavior (Yu & Chu, 2007). However, the
306 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

conditions that might encourage this relationship are largely unexplored. One excep-
tion is the work of Jo and Joo (2011) whose work indicated that organizational learn-
ing culture might facilitate the positive relationship between OCB and knowledge
sharing. Nevertheless, understanding the contextual facilitators of knowledge sharing
and OCB and a more explicit understanding of this relationship is important for orga-
nizational effectiveness (Evans & Davis, 2005).

Implications and Future Research Directions

The purpose of this integrative literature review was to locate and synthesize the avail-
able scholarship on OCB as it relates to a twofold understanding of the central foci of
HRD: performance and development. A consistent finding in the literature was that
OCB is generally positively related to performance outcomes at the organizational,
group, and individual levels. Organ (1988a) posited that this behavior–performance
connection rested on the theoretical foundations of social exchange (Blau, 1964). In
essence, organizations thrive on their formal and informal social systems, relying on
individual actors in the system to perform functions both prescribed to them by the
system as well as behaviors outside of delineated job roles. When organizations treat
employees well, often by focusing on the intangible aspects of work—trust, respect,
concern, for example—employees reciprocate by engaging in behaviors that are out-
side of their role prescriptions. Similarly, when a supervisor takes the time to mentor a
subordinate or provide constructive feedback, employees partake in this exchange by
offering effort that is above and beyond what is minimally required of them. Because
this kind of exchange can be costly in terms of time, energy, and effort, certain circum-
stances may cause people and organizations to benefit less from OCB. In situations
where “getting the work done” rests largely on individual rather than collective efforts,
OCB may be only marginally beneficial to the success of the system.
The benefit of OCB extends into the area of learning and development as well and,
therefore, seems central to HRD’s focus. Empirical evidence supports a strong connec-
tion between OCB and knowledge sharing, an important aspect of organizational
learning (Ramasamy & Thamaraiselvan, 2011; Sun et al., 2007). Furthermore, a cul-
ture of organizational learning may increase employees’ enactment of OCB, particu-
larly with regard to learning and developmental activities (e.g., knowledge sharing,
communities of practice, innovation). What remains unclear is whether those kinds of
activities are, themselves, a type of OCB or if they should be considered distinct
employee behaviors. In sum, OCB appears to be important to the central purposes of
the field of HRD. Although some scholarship in HRD has drawn upon OCB research,
there are opportunities for furthering our understanding of this phenomenon, which
will be elaborated in the following section, and its connections to other factors of
import, such as leadership, engagement, and learning behavior. In addition, practical
implications exist for improving how these behaviors are recognized, enacted, and
understood by organizations and employees. I also include several propositions for
furthering research in this area.
Rose 307

Implications for Theory and Research

Empirical and theoretical work on the domain of OCB has been mainly concentrated
in the disciplines of management science, organizational behavior, and industrial psy-
chology. Because these fields themselves inform and support the theory and practice
of HRD, OCB has not been wholly ignored within the HRD field. Yet, further under-
standing of the OCB phenomenon in connection with issues of interest to the HRD
field could prove fruitful. Formal workplace learning, for example, might be enhanced
by individuals who exhibit OCB beyond knowledge sharing. It might be interesting to
consider whether individuals who “go above and beyond” in their job tasks might also
do the same in a workplace learning environment and help their fellow coworkers
learn. If this is so, and if these behaviors fall outside of a person’s job role, these
behaviors might be considered a type of learning citizenship such that these behaviors
are discretionary, go formally unrewarded, and contribute to organizational or indi-
vidual learning. This notion is likely highly related to the idea of informal learning
(Marsick & Watkins, 2001), with the emphasis placed on the individual engaging in
outwardly focused, prosocial teaching and learning behavior. Thus, the following
proposition is forwarded:

•• Employees exhibit specific kinds of learning citizenship behaviors, such that

they proactively help others learn without a need for formal recognition from
the organization or others for their efforts.

Much of the research connected with OCB has been focused on the antecedent
conditions that enable and encourage the manifestation of these behaviors. In general,
evidence seems to support that OCBs are performed when positive conditions exist for
them, harkening to Fredrickson’s (2001) broaden-and-build theory and, as discussed
earlier, social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). Anecdotally, however, there seem to be
adverse circumstances that could also lead to OCB, particularly behaviors directed
toward individuals. These adverse circumstances could range from organizational
downsizing to poor supervision or dysfunctional leadership and many other areas.
While social exchange (Blau, 1964) might explain that employees in adverse organi-
zational circumstances might withdraw their OCB, other theories might provide a dif-
ferent way of considering these behaviors. Namely, social network theory (Scott,
2013) or team member exchange theory (Seers, 1989) could provide avenues to con-
sider how and why employees could come together during stressful or threatening
times. Using a distal versus proximal approach to frame this issue, some research
questions that might be interesting are as follows:

•• The nature and performance of OCB in adverse organization, team, or group

situations differs from how OCBs are enacted in times of relative calm. This
difference may be influenced by the context in which adversity is happening:
the organization (distal) versus the team or group (proximal).
308 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

Another issue that has received particular attention is the changing nature of work.
For many employees, the way in which work gets done has shifted dramatically with
the advent of virtual and remote teams. It has been noted previously that the type of
work changes the nature of OCB (Dekas et al., 2013), so it would be interesting to
investigate how OCB might be carried out in virtual settings.

•• The amount of OCB and way in which the behaviors are exhibited differ in
virtual teams when compared with non-virtual teams.

Similarly, as organizations continue to offer flexible work arrangements as a benefit to

employees, there would seem to be a positive connection to OCB. However, because
of the social nature of OCB, enacting them in this kind of arrangement could be chal-
lenging given the need for some of these behaviors to be enacted with others in physi-
cal proximity.

•• Flexible working arrangements could influence the way in which OCBs are
performed because of the differing social dynamics in these settings.

Last, HRD scholars might be poised to extend our understanding of the theoretical
domain of OCB by examining the conceptual and empirical relationships between
OCB and areas of particular importance to the field such as employee engagement and
leadership. Certainly, other areas of interest exist for both HRD practitioners and
scholars, but perhaps there is particular salience around engagement and leadership
given the relative importance of these two topics to the HRD field. As previously
noted, engagement has been described as an important predictor of OCB (Dalal et al.,
2012). Furthermore, although connection between OCB and leadership has been
examined previously (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Euwema,
Wendt, & van Emmerik, 2007), there is still important work to be done to understand
this relationship more fully, particularly in regard to workplace learning and perfor-
mance. Thus, I propose the following:

•• Perception of leadership influences performance of OCB, which in turn impacts

workplace performance and workplace learning.

Implications for Practice

The nature of OCB requires that these behaviors remain discretionary. That is, employ-
ees must retain the sense that engaging in behaviors outside of their job roles is a mat-
ter of choice and is not required of them. At the same time, organizations and teams
obviously benefit from these behaviors, so encouraging their performance is enticing
from a managerial perspective. As tempting as it might be, leaders should not attempt
to force the kinds of behaviors that might be described as OCB. This is antithetical to
the very notion of what an OCB is and why employees exhibit them. Conversely, when
these behaviors are absent, it can be an indication of an imbalance in the perceived
Rose 309

exchange between the organization and the individual. A supervisor who is aware of
this connection may be readily able to spot the withdrawal of OCB and properly inter-
vene to prevent further damage. Any intervention on the part of a leader, however,
should not have a focus simply on increasing the prevalence of OCB. This stance is
myopic. Rather, a savvy leader understands that OCB is an indicator of the social and
psychological undercurrents in a team or organization. Therefore, by examining the
prevalence or absence of these behaviors, managers can make diagnostic decisions
about the well-being of their teams and employees.
Furthermore, this connection between what the organization provides and what the
employee gives is important to understand. An even greater challenge to managers and
supervisors is to be aware of the specific processes, interventions, and benefits that
either bolster an employee’s willingness to engage OCB or detract from it. For exam-
ple, providing developmental opportunities for employees is a positive endeavor, but
those opportunities should be explicitly purposed for learning and growth and not
simply as “extra work” for the individual. In one sense, the activity could be seen as a
reduction of resources—time, energy—by the organization, thus inciting OCB with-
drawal. In another sense, these activities can be seen as contributing to growth and
development, encouraging reciprocal OCB behavior. To be sure, there are instances
when tasking an employee with more duties or giving them more work to complete is
necessary and unavoidable. The key point is to ensure that employees retain a sense of
the balance between give and take in the employer–employee relationship.
Leaders must also be aware of circumstances where OCBs are neither desired
nor contribute to organizational effectiveness. In settings where goal and task inter-
dependence are low, such that employees do not need to rely on each other as much
as other situations, OCBs can actually harm productivity and effectiveness.
Likewise, if the reward system of the organization ignores extra-role contributions,
engaging in them too much can actually detract from an employee’s overall objec-
tive performance. In a sense, although OCBs can be good for the organization,
prescribed jobs must still get done. When employees are distracted from their in-
role behavior, it can ultimately be harmful. Therefore, performance appraisal mech-
anisms and feedback processes should give consideration to these kinds of behaviors
and impacts. A leader who surmises that an employee is engaging in too many extra
roles, albeit otherwise positive behaviors, should address this situation by ensuring
that the in-role work is still being accomplished according to set standards of per-
formance. It is likely more beneficial to focus on the employee’s in-role perfor-
mance and ensuring that the work gets done rather than specifically discouraging
extra-role behaviors.

Conclusion
This integrative review sought to uncover conceptual, theoretical, and empirical con-
nections between OCB and performance and learning/development, important areas
for HRD scholars and practitioners. OCB has been demonstrated to share a strong,
positive relationship with performance at multiple levels. First, OCB contributes to the
310 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

performance of the organization through the social systems that exist in any given
workplace. Second, the work of teams and groups is directly enhanced, particularly in
teams that are highly internally dependent upon its members. Last, OCB contributes to
an individual’s performance by indicating to others that this person is helpful, reliable,
and cooperative. Furthermore, OCB can be an important determinant of the knowl-
edge-sharing intentions of employees. Developmental activities such as workplace
learning, mentoring, and productive feedback can enhance OCBs.

Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank the conference and journal reviewers for their critical and con-
structive feedback. In addition, I would like to acknowledge the contributions of Drs. B. Shuck,
M. Bergman, and A. Kostakis in the preparation of this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

References
Alagaraja, M., Cumberland, D. M., & Choi, N. (2015). The mediating role of leadership and
people management practices on HRD and organizational performance. Human Resource
Development International, 18, 220-234. doi:10.1080/13678868.2014.997139
Al-Zu’bi, H. A. (2011). Organizational citizenship behavior and impacts on knowledge shar-
ing: An empirical study. International Business Research, 4, 221-227. doi:10.5539/ibr.
v4n3p221
Bachrach, D. G., Bendoly, E., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2001). Attributions of the “causes” of group
performance as an alternative explanation of the relationship between organizational citi-
zenship behavior and organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
1285-1293. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1285
Bachrach, D. G., Powell, B. C., Bendoly, E., & Richey, R. G. (2006). Organizational citizen-
ship behavior and performance evaluations: Exploring the impact of task interdependence.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 193-201. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.193
Bachrach, D. G., Powell, B. C., Collins, B. J., & Richey, R. G. (2006). Effects of task interde-
pendence on the relationship between helping behavior and group performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91, 1396-1405. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1396
Banki, S. (2010). Is a good deed constructive regardless of intent? Organization citizen-
ship behavior, motive, and group outcomes. Small Group Research, 41, 354-375.
doi:10.1177/1046496410364065
Barksdale, K., & Werner, J. M. (2001). Managerial ratings of in-role behaviors, organizational
citizenship behaviors and overall performance: Testing different models of their relation-
ship. Journal of Business Research, 51, 145-155. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00061-2
Rose 311

Bergeron, D., Ostroff, C., Schroeder, T., & Block, C. (2014). The dual effects of organizational
citizenship behavior: Relationships to research productivity and career outcomes in aca-
deme. Human Performance, 27, 99-128. doi:10.1080/08959285.2014.882925
Bienstock, C. C., & DeMoranville, C. W. (2006). Using manager reports of employee behavior
to investigate the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviors and customers’
perceptions of service quality. Services Marketing Quarterly, 28, 103-118. doi:10.1300/
J396v28n01_06
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S. A., & Griesser, D. (2007). Follower behavior and organizational per-
formance: The impact of transformational leaders. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 13(3), 15-26. doi:10.1177/10717919070130030201
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the cre-
ation of social capital in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 27, 505-522.
Bommer, W. H., Dierdorff, E. C., & Rubin, R. S. (2007). Does prevalence mitigate rele-
vance? The moderating effect of group-level OCB on employee performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 1481-1494. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.28226149
Cappelli, P., & Rogovsky, N. (1998). Employee involvement and organizational citizenship:
Implications for labor law reform and “lean production.” Industrial & Labor Relations
Review, 51, 633-653. doi:10.2307/2525012
Chahal, H., & Mehta, S. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of organisational citizenship
behaviour (OCB): A conceptual framework in reference to health care sector. Journal of
Services Research, 10(2), 25-44.
Cho, S., & Johanson, M. M. (2008). Organizational citizenship behavior and employee perfor-
mance: A moderating effect of work status in restaurant employees. Journal of Hospitality
& Tourism Research, 32, 307-326. doi:10.1177/1096348008317390
Choi, J. N., & Sy, T. (2010). Group-level organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of demo-
graphic faultlines and conflict in small work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
31, 1032-1054.
Chou, S. Y., & Garcia, D. C. (2011). Group organizational citizenship behavior in the stages
of group development. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(10), 3-15.
doi:10.5539/ijbm.v6n10p3
Chun, J. S., Shin, Y., Choi, J. N., & Kim, M. S. (2013). How does corporate ethics contrib-
ute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of collective organizational com-
mitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 39, 853-877.
doi:10.1177/0149206311419662
Cohen, T. R., Turan, N., Panter, A. T., Morse, L., & Kim, Y. (2014). Moral character in the
workplace. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 943-963. doi:10.1037/
a0037245
Coldwell, D. A. L., & Callaghan, C. W. (2014). Specific organizational citizenship behav-
iours and organizational effectiveness: The development of a conceptual heuristic device.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 44, 347-367. doi:10.1111/jtsb.12046
Cole, M. S., Carter, M. Z., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Leader-team congruence in power distance
values and team effectiveness: The mediating role of procedural justice climate. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 98, 962-973. doi:10.1037/a0034269
Dalal, R. S., Baysinger, M., Brummel, B. J., & LeBreton, J. M. (2012). The relative impor-
tance of employee engagement, other job attitudes, and trait affect as predictors of job
312 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 295-325. doi:10.1111/j.1559-

1816.2012.01017.x
DeGroot, T., & Brownlee, A. L. (2006). Effect of department structure on the organizational
citizenship behavior-department effectiveness relationship. Journal of Business Research,
59, 1116-1123. doi:10.1016/[Link].2006.09.020
Dekas, K. H., Bauer, T. N., Welle, B., Kurkoski, J., & Sullivan, S. (2013). Organizational citi-
zenship behavior, version 2.0: A review and qualitative investigation of OCBs for knowl-
edge workers at Google and beyond. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27,
219-237. doi:10.5465/amp.2011.0097
DiPaola, M. F., & Hoy, W. K. (2005). Organizational citizenship of faculty and achievement of
high school students. High School Journal, 88(3), 35-44. doi:10.1353/hsj.2005.0002
Dunlop, P. D., Lee, K., & Patrick, D. (2004). Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship
behavior, and business unit performance: The bad apples do spoil the whole barrel. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 25, 67-80. doi:10.1002/job.243
Ehrhart, M. G., Bliese, P. D., & Thomas, J. L. (2006). Unit-level OCB and unit effectiveness:
Examining the incremental effect of helping behavior. Human Performance, 19, 159-173.
doi:10.1002/job.243
Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., & Keller, S. B. (2003). Supervisory coaching behavior,
employee satisfaction, and warehouse employee performance: A dyadic perspective in the
distribution industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14, 435-458. doi:10.1002/
hrdq.1078
Euwema, M. C., Wendt, H., & van Emmerik, H. (2007). Leadership styles and group organi-
zational citizenship behavior across cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(8),
1035-1057. doi:10.1002/job.496
Evans, W. R., & Davis, W. D. (2005). High-performance work systems and organizational
performance: The mediating role of internal social structure. Journal of Management, 31,
758-775. doi:10.1177/0149206305279370
Fassina, N., Jones, D., & Uggerslev, K. (2008). Meta-analytic tests of relationships between
organizational justice and citizenship behavior: Testing agent-system and shared-variance
models. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 805-828. doi:10.1002/job.494
Fisher, R., McPhail, R., & Menghetti, G. (2010). Linking employee attitudes and behaviors with
business performance: A comparative analysis of hotels in Mexico and China. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 29, 397-404. doi:10.1016/[Link].2009.10.021
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The
broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
Gavino, M. C., Wayne, S. J., & Erdogan, B. (2012). Discretionary and transactional human
resource practices and employee outcomes: The role of perceived organizational support.
Human Resource Management, 51, 665-686. doi:10.1002/hrm.21493
Ghosh, R., Reio, T. G. J., & Haynes, R. K. (2012). Mentoring and organizational citizenship
behavior: Estimating the mediating effects of organization-based self-esteem and affective
commitment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23, 41-63. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21121
Gilley, A., Dixon, P., & Gilley, J. W. (2008). Characteristics of leadership effective-
ness: Implementing change and driving innovation in organizations. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 19, 153-169. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1232
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Bowler, W. M., Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2010). Organizational
concern, prosocial values, or impression management? How supervisors attribute motives
Rose 313

to organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1450-

1489. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00625.x
Hamlin, B., & Stewart, J. (2012). What is HRD? A definitional review and synthesis of the HRD
domain. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35, 199-220.
Hamlin, R. G. (2004). In support of universalistic models of managerial leadership effectiveness:
Implications for HRD research and practice. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15,
189-215. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1098
Hopkins, K. M. (2002). Organizational citizenship in social service agencies. Administration in
Social Work, 26(2), 1-15. doi:10.1300/J147v26n02_01
Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2013). Relative leader–member exchange within team contexts: How
and when social comparison impacts individual effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 66,
127-172. doi:10.1111/peps.12008
Humborstad, S. I. W., Nerstad, C. G. L., & Dysvik, A. (2014). Empowering leadership,
employee goal orientations and work performance: A competing hypothesis approach.
Personnel Review, 43, 246-271. doi:10.1108/PR-01-2012-0008
Hunt, S. T. (2002). On the virtues of staying “inside of the box”: Does organizational citizenship
behavior detract from performance in Taylorist jobs? International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 10, 152. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00202
Jacobs, R. L., & Park, Y. (2009). A proposed conceptual framework of workplace learning:
Implications for theory development and research in human resource development. Human
Resource Development Review, 8, 133-150. doi:10.1177/1534484309334269
Jain, A. K., Giga, S. I., & Cooper, C. L. (2011). Social power as a means of increasing personal
and organizational effectiveness: The mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior.
Journal of Management & Organization, 17, 412-432. doi:10.5172/jmo.2011.17.3.412
Jo, S. J., & Joo, B. K. (2011). Knowledge sharing: The influences of learning organization
culture, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18, 353-364. doi:10.1177/1548051811405208
Kim, P., & Lee, J. H. (2012). The influence of collectivism and rater error on organizational
citizenship and impression management behaviors. Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal, 40, 545-555. doi:10.2224/sbp.2012.40.4.545
Kim, S. (2005). Individual-level factors and organizational performance in government organi-
zations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 245-261. doi:10.1093/
jopart/mui013
Kim, S. (2014). Assessing the influence of managerial coaching on employee outcomes. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 25(1), 59-85. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21175
Kim, W., Kolb, J. A., & Kim, T. (2013). The relationship between work engagement and perfor-
mance: A review of empirical literature and a proposed research agenda. Human Resource
Development Review, 12(3), 248-276. doi:10.1177/1534484312461635
Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior,
and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel
Psychology, 54, 101-114. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00087.x
Kuvaas, B., & Dysvik, A. (2009). Perceived investment in permanent employee development
and social and economic exchange perceptions among temporary employees. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 39, 2499-2524. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00535.x
Lapierre, L. M., Bonaccio, S., & Allen, T. D. (2009). The separate, relative, and joint effects
of employee job performance domains on supervisors’ willingness to mentor. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 74, 135-144. doi:10.1016/[Link].2009.01.005
314 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

Lee, M. (2001). A refusal to define HRD. Human Resource Development International, 4, 327-
341. doi:10.1080/13678860110059348
Lin, R. S., & Hsiao, J. (2014). The relationships between transformational leadership, knowledge
sharing, trust and organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Innovation,
Management and Technology, 5, 171-174. doi:10.7763/ijimt.2014.v5.508
Liu, W., Gong, Y., & Liu, J. (2014). When do business units benefit more from collective
citizenship behavior of management teams? An upper echelons perspective. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 99, 523-534. doi:10.1037/a0035538
Liu, X., & Van Dooren, W. (2015). How to measure leader’s impact on organizational perfor-
mance: Implications from the comparative case study. Public Organization Review, 15,
193-206. doi:10.1007/s11115-013-0268-1
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, 2001(89), 25-34. doi:10.1002/ace.5
Mattson, M., Hellgren, J., & Göransson, S. (2015). Leader communication approaches and
patient safety: An integrated model. Journal of Safety Research, 53, 53-62. doi:10.1016/j.
jsr.2015.03.008
Maurer, T. J. I., Pierce, H. R., & Shore, L. M. (2002). Perceived beneficiary of employee devel-
opment activity: A three-dimensional social exchange model. The Academy of Management
Review, 27, 432-444.
Menges, J. I., Walter, F., Vogel, B., & Bruch, H. (2011). Transformational leadership climate:
Performance linkages, mechanisms, and boundary conditions at the organizational level.
The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 893-909. doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.07.010
Moideenkutty, U., Blau, G., Kumar, R., & Nalakath, A. (2005). Relationship of organiza-
tional citizenship behavior and objective productivity to managerial evaluations of per-
formance in India. International Journal of Commerce & Management, 15, 221-229.
doi:10.1108/10569210580000198
Nielsen, T. M., Bachrach, D. G., Sundstrom, E., & Halfhill, T. R. (2012). Utility of OCB:
Organizational citizenship behavior and group performance in a resource allocation frame-
work. Journal of Management, 38, 668-694. doi:10.1177/0149206309356326
Organ, D. W. (1988a). A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. Journal of
Management, 14, 547-557. doi:10.1177/014920638801400405
Organ, D. W. (1988b). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human
Performance, 10, 85-97. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2
Pawar, B. S. (2013). A proposed model of organizational behavior aspects for employee per-
formance and well-being. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 8, 339-359. doi:10.1007/
s11482-012-9193-7
Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job B\behaviors: The
mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 327-
340. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786079
Pierce, H. R., & Maurer, T. J. (2009). Linking employee development activity, social
exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Training and
Development, 13, 139-147. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2419.2009.00323.x
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. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.262
Rose 315

Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior

on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human
Performance, 10, 133-151. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1002_5
Ramasamy, M., & Thamaraiselvan, N. (2011). Knowledge sharing and organizational citizen-
ship behavior. Knowledge and Process Management, 18, 278-284. doi:10.1002/kpm.385
Rose, K., Shuck, B., Twyford, D., & Bergman, M. (2015). Skunked: An integrative review
exploring the consequences of the dysfunctional leader and implications for those
employees who work for them. Human Resource Development Review, 14, 64-90.
doi:10.1177/1534484314552437
Ruona, W. E. A., & Gibson, S. K. (2004). The making of twenty-first-century HR: An analysis
of the convergence of HRM, HRD, and OD. Human Resource Management, 43, 49-66.
doi:10.1002/hrm.20002
Sani, A., & Supriyanto, A. S. (2013). Role of procedural justice, organizational commitment
and job satisfaction on job performance: The mediating effects of organizational citizenship
behavior. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(15), 57-67.
Scott, J. (2013). Social network analysis (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 118-135. doi:10.1016/0749-
5978(89)90060-5
Shen, J., D’Netto, B., & Tang, J. (2010). Effects of human resource diversity management
on organizational citizen behaviour in the Chinese context. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 21, 2156-2172. doi:10.1080/09585192.2010.509622
Shore, L. M., Barksdale, K., & Shore, T. H. (1995). Managerial perceptions of employee
commitment to the organization. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1593-1615.
doi:10.2307/256845
Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foun-
dations. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 89-110. doi:10.1177/1534484309353560
Singh, U., & Srivastava, K. B. L. (2009). Interpersonal trust and organizational citizenship
behavior. Psychological Studies, 54, 65-76. doi:10.1007/s12646-009-0008-3
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its
nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.68.4.653
Sommer, K. L., & Kulkarni, M. (2012). Does constructive performance feedback improve
citizenship intentions and job satisfaction? The roles of perceived opportunities for
advancement, respect, and mood. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23, 177-201.
doi:10.1002/hrdq.21132
Sun, L. Y., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. (2007). High-performance human resource practices, citi-
zenship behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 558-577. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.25525821
Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F. (2009). Foundations of human resource development. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Teh, P. L., & Yong, C. C. (2011). Knowledge sharing in is personnel: Organizational behavior’s
perspective. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 51(4), 11-21.
Tjosvold, D., & Yu, Z. (2004). Goal interdependence and applying abilities for team in-role
and extra-role performance in China. Group Dynamics, 8, 98-111. doi:10.1037/1089-
2699.8.2.98
316 Human Resource Development Review 15(3)

Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human
Resource Development Review, 4, 356-367. doi:10.1177/1534484305278283
Turnipseed, D., & Wilson, G. (2009). From discretionary to required: The migration of orga-
nizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 15, 201-
216. doi:10.1177/1548051808326037
Vigoda, E. (2000). Internal politics in public administration systems: An empirical examination
of its relationship with job congruence, organizational citizenship behavior, and in-role per-
formance. Public Personnel Management, 29, 185-210. doi:10.1177/009102600002900203
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Leadership style, organizational politics, and employees’ perfor-
mance. Personnel Review, 36(5), 661-683. doi:10.1108/00483480710773981
Werner, J. M. (2000). Implications of OCB and contextual performance for human resource
management. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 3-24. doi:10.1016/S1053-
4822(99)00036-4
Yu, C. P., & Chu, T. H. (2007). Exploring knowledge contribution from an OCB perspective.
Information & Management, 44, 321-331. doi:10.1016/[Link].2007.03.002
Zeinabadi, H. R. (2014). Principal-teacher high-quality exchange indicators and student achieve-
ment: Testing a model. Journal of Educational Administration, 52, 404-420. doi:10.1108/
JEA-05-2012-0056

Author Biography
Kevin Rose, EdD, is an assistant professor of organizational leadership and learning at the
University of Louisville. Before beginning his faculty role, he worked in various training and
development areas including executive education and small business development. He is active
in organizations such as the Academy of Human Resource Development and the American
Association of Adult and Continuing Education. His research focuses on understanding and
improving the lives of people at work, with emphasis on constructs such as organizational citi-
zenship behaviors, leadership, and engagement.