Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association 0021-9010/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241
A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior Reeshad S. Dalal
Job performance is increasingly being seen to encompass constructs such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and counterproductive work behavior (CWB). To clarify the OCB–CWB relationship, a meta-analysis was conducted. Results indicate a modest negative relationship ( 0.32). The relationship strength did not increase appreciably when the target of the behavior (the organization vs. other employees) was the same. Moreover, OCB and CWB exhibited somewhat distinct patterns of relationships with antecedents. The OCB–CWB relationship was moderated by the source of the ratings, the presence of antithetical items, and the type of response options. An employee-centric perspective is proposed whereby both OCB and CWB are perceived as adaptive behavior. Implications for organizations are discussed. Keywords: organizational citizenship behavior, counterproductive work behavior, meta-analysis, deviant behavior, job performance
Job performance is so important to industrial– organizational (I/O) psychology that it is often simply referred to as “the criterion.” The traditional view restricts the performance space to what Borman and Motowidlo (1997) call task performance—that is, “the effectiveness with which job incumbents perform activities that contribute to the organization’s technical core” (p. 99). Although it has long been recognized that job performance is multidimensional (Austin & Villanova, 1992; Schmidt & Kaplan, 1971), only more recently has the research literature (e.g., Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, 1997; Campbell, 1990; Organ & Paine, 1999) acknowledged the role of employee work behaviors that fall outside the rubric of task performance. Borman and Motowidlo (1997) have reasoned that such behaviors are important because they “shape the organizational, social, and psychological context that serves as the catalyst for task activities and processes” (p. 100). Some researchers (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002; Sackett, 2002; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000) have suggested that there are three broad performance domains: task performance, organizational cit-
This research was funded by the Center for Human Resources Management, University of Illinois; the Seymour Sudman Dissertation Award from the Survey Research Laboratory, University of Illinois; and the Field Research Fund of the Industrial/Organizational Psychology Division, University of Illinois. This article is based on a portion of Reeshad S. Dalal’s doctoral dissertation at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Some of the analyses were also presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, Illinois, April 2004. I thank Tatana Olson for helping to code the primary studies. Charles Hulin and Carra Sims very kindly commented on drafts of this article. I am also grateful to Marcus Crede, Michael Bashshur, and the many other ´ researchers who willingly shared their theses and unpublished data. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Reeshad S. Dalal, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, 703 Third Street, West Lafayette, IN 47097. E-mail: email@example.com 1241
izenship behavior (OCB), and counterproductive work behavior (CWB). There has been much interest in the relationship between the latter two domains (Bennett & Robinson, 2002; Bennett & Stamper, 2001; Dunlop & Lee, 2004; Fisher & Locke, 1992; Fox, Spector, Goh, & Bruursema, 2003; Hunt, 1996; Jermier, Knights, & Nord, 1994; Kelloway, Loughlin, Barling, & Nault, 2002; Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002; Organ & Paine, 1999; Puffer, 1987; Sackett & DeVore, 2001; Sackett, Berry,...