Seminar Management and Entrepreneurship
According to past and current literature, what is the relationship between Job Satisfaction and
Organizational Citizenship Behavior?
submitted to the
Institute of Marketing and Management
Department of Management and Entrepreneurship
Prof Dr. Artur Baldauf
Supervisor:
Simone Schweiger
University of Bern
Faculty of Business, Economics, and Social Sciences
Department of Business and Economics
Fall Semester 2022
By
Aleksandra Laura Pierzak
Dorfstrasse 11, 4613 Rickenbach SO
21-128-061
078 205 27 23
aleksandra.pierzak@students.unibe.ch
Minh-Khanh Vu
Könizstrasse 39A, 3008 Bern
15-123-334
079 256 70 04
minh-khanh.vu@students.unibe.ch
Bern, February 2023
Table of Content
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 3
THEORETICAL FOUNDATION .......................................................................................................................... 4
THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR ................................................................. 4
OCB IN THE CONTEXT OF ORGANIZATION THEORY ........................................................................................................ 4
THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF OCB AND JOB SATISFACTION .................................................................................. 9
OCB AND JOB SATISFACTION IN THE CONTEXT OF SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY .................................................................... 9
METHODS .................................................................................................................................................... 12
SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW IN MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH ...................................................... 12
CONCEPTUAL BOUNDARIES ..................................................................................................................................... 16
OCB in the context of various theories ........................................................................................................ 16
The Definition of Job Satisfaction in the context of OCB ............................................................................. 17
SCOPE OF THE REVIEW AND COMPREHENSIVE SEARCH ................................................................................................. 19
Setting the Inclusion Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 19
Comprehensive search ................................................................................................................................ 21
Additional Search Strategies ....................................................................................................................... 23
APPLYING THE INCLUSION CRITERIA .......................................................................................................................... 24
Quality Assessment ..................................................................................................................................... 24
DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................ 25
RESULTS....................................................................................................................................................... 26
GENERAL RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................ 26
Publication Distribution .............................................................................................................................. 26
LITERATURE ANALYSIS: THEMES AND TRENDS ............................................................................................. 28
THE FIRST CONCEPTUAL DEFINITION OF OCB AND JOB SATISFACTION ............................................................................. 28
THE RE-REINTERPRETATION OF THE SATISFACTION-CAUSES-PERFORMANCE ..................................................................... 32
THE INTERPLAY OF JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF OCB ................................. 33
THE EXPANSION OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON JOB SATISFACTION AND OCB ..................................................................... 35
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: IT’S CONSTRUCT CLEAN-UP TIME ................................................................... 38
THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF JOB SATISFACTION AND OCB AFTER THE CLEAN-UP .................................................... 43
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 45
LIST OF REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 47
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................... 52
Introduction
A satisfied worker is an effective worker. We propose that most employers would agree with
this statement. However, a long history of organizational research showed that the relationship
between individual satisfaction and productivity is at best tenuous or often even absent.
However, what if an underlying factor has a higher impact on productivity?
It has been 46 years since Dennis Organ (1977) initially attempted to understand these as-yetunnamed behaviors as a better representation of “performance” in the satisfaction-causesperformance hypothesis in his paper A Reappraisal and Reinterpretation of the SatisfactionCauses-Performance Hypothesis. This initial research led to further investigation in the context
of scientific disciplines of Organizational Behavior and Industrial-Organizational psychology
but also numerous disciplines and subdisciplines. Thus, this paper will review the past and
present research on the relationship between Job Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship
Behavior and evince its conceptual development.
This Systematic Literature Review seeks to address the following research question: According
to past and current literature, what is the relationship between Job Satisfaction and
Organizational Citizenship Behavior?
Our SLR has been divided into four parts. The first describes the development of the concept
of OCB in the context of organization theory. Afterward, the chapter focuses on the theoretical
explanation of the relationship between OCB and Job Satisfaction. Additionally, the
relationship between these two components is presented in the context of Social Exchange
Theory. The second chapter is concerned with the methodology used for this SLR. The third
chapter deals with analyzing the literature we selected after the predefined quality assessment.
The final chapter draws upon the entire thesis, tying up the various theoretical and empirical
strands to answer the proposed research question, and includes a discussion of the implication
of the findings to future research into this area.
Theoretical Foundation
The Conceptual Development of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
It has been 46 years since Dennis Organ (1977) initially attempted to understand these as-yetunnamed behaviors as a better representation of “performance” in the satisfaction-causesperformance hypothesis in his paper A Reappraisal and Reinterpretation of the SatisfactionCauses-Performance Hypothesis. According to Organ (1977), an insufficient effort has been
made to explain the logic underlying the satisfaction-causes-performance hypothesis. Further,
empirical findings offer little evidence to support such a view. The standard canon of his
colleagues was that there was hardly any evidence that employees sought to reciprocate their
benefactors (Organ, 1977). For example, the organizational psychologists Lawler and Porter
proposed that any correlation between job satisfaction and job performance only appears when
rewards for job success are involved (Bateman & Organ, 1983).
In contrast to this assumption, Organ examined and defended the belief of some manager
practitioners that job satisfaction impacts job performance (Organ, 1977; Organ, Podsakoff, &
MacKenzie, 2006). By drawing on the concept of satisfaction-causes-performance, Organ
proposed a distinction between quantitative measurements of output or productivity and other,
more subtle forms of employee contribution that often are not included in measures of
individual output (1977). Therefore, performance does not necessarily follow directly from
satisfaction in a functional relationship.
However, it was not until 1983 when Organ and his colleagues Ann Smith and Janet Near
introduced the term “Organizational Citizenship Behavior.” Later, Organ described
Organization Citizenship (OCB) as follows: “[…] 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. By discretionary, we mean that the
behavior is not an enforceable requirement of the role or the job description, that is, the clearly
specifiable terms of the person’s employment contract with the organization; the behavior is
rather a matter of personal choice, such that its omission is not generally understood as
punishable” Klicken oder tippen Sie hier, um Text einzugeben..
OCB in the context of Organization Theory
OCB research has drawn on a wide range of theoretical perspectives. According to Dennis
Organ, OCB can be seen in the context of Organization Theory, such as Leader-Member-
Exchange Theory, Williamson and Transaction Cost Economics, and Ouchi’s analysis of
Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). Based on this and
other theories (e.g., Roethlisberger & Dickson 1939; Katz & Kahn 1966), Organ initially
attempted to understand these as-yet-unnamed behaviors as a better representation of
“performance” in the satisfaction-causes-performance (Organ et al., 2006). His focus was on
general job satisfaction in the light of the Exchange Model and the Social Exchange Theory.
Additionally, Konovsky & Organ (1996) have attempted to study the concept of OCB while
basing it on the concept of the Big Five. It is the theory used by many psychologists who
believe that five primary dimensions can be identified while speaking about personality:
openness to experience, consciousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (Costa &
McCrae, 1992). The authors found that two dimensions, conscientiousness, and agreeableness,
positively correlated to OCB (Konovsky & Organ, 1996).
These analyses of previous organization theories and Exchange and Social Exchange Theory
were used to develop their conception of Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and its relation
to Job Satisfaction. Thus, the next section will analyze them to fully understand their impact
on OCB and the literature used for this SLR.
Chester Barnard
In 1938, Chester Barnard published his book The Functions of the Executive. In his work,
Barnard defined the concept of organizations as “associations of cooperative efforts” (Barnard,
1938, p. 4, as cited in Organ, 1988, p. 15). Consistent with this notion, he emphasized the
necessity of a person’s “willingness” to contribute to cooperative schemes as an essential
condition. However, for Barnard, “willingness” was more than joining an organization
contractually and performing in a neatly defined position (Organ, 1988a). The focus was
instead on that human disposition that creates a generalized, spontaneous tendency among a
group of people to engage in cooperative efforts. In addition, this characteristic of
“willingness” differs from effectiveness, ability, or value of personal contributions; according
to Barnard, it implies self-abnegation (Organ, 1988a). Organ (1988) also notes that a further
quality is the wide range of intensity variation among individuals; its intensity cannot be
constant. Hence, it is inevitably intermittent and fluctuating (Organ, 1988a).
Barnard distinguishes between the terms, organization, and informal organization. For
Barnard, creating an organization is a “bottoms up” process; there exists “spontaneous
organizations,” and all larger organizations are composed of numerous small organizations.
His assumption contradicts the general understanding of creating a corporate organization at
that time, where a company is first established and then subdivided into smaller units. Hence,
an organization starts at a low level and successively accumulates (Organ, 1988a). He also
applied this “bottoms up” process to authority (Organ, 1988a). As a formal authority system
emerges, an informal organization legitimizes and stabilizes it. Barnard highlights the
importance of not overloading an authority system. He argues that the more spontaneously
necessary contributions can be secured from “willingness,” the less strain formal authority will
have to endure. Hence, more people will accept authority systems as reasonable and
appropriate (Organ, 1988a).
In sum, a fundamental aspect of an organization process is the “willingness to cooperate,”
which varies across and within individuals; it varies based on satisfaction arising from
associational attractiveness and the intrinsic and extrinsic benefits that accrue from the
organization process (Organ, 1988a). Following this conclusion, Organ (1988) sees this
definition and other ideas in The Function of the Executive as a determinant of OCB.
Roethlisberger and Dickson
Management and the Worker (1939) by Fritz Jules Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson is
an account of a research program conducted by the Western Electric Company (Roethlisberger
& Dickson, 1939). It is one of the significant chronicles of the Hawthorne studies, which in
turn have set in motion the Human Relations school of management and organizational theory
(Organ, 1988a). In their work, Roethlisberger and Dickson organized the various studies in a
coherent and chronological order and, most importantly, commented on the data with various
interpretations. As a basis for interpreting the results, they employed concepts from the
behavioral sciences (anthropology, sociology, clinical psychology) (Organ, 1988a). Hence, for
Organ (1988), this work can be seen as defining a “behavioral” or Human Relations framework
for organization analysis.
In the same vein as Barnard (1938), Roethlisberger and Dickson differentiated between formal
and informal organizations (Organ, 1988a). According to the authors, the formal organization
“[…] includes the systems, policies, rules, and regulations of the plant which express what the
relations of one person to another are supposed to be in order to achieve the task of technical
production effectively” (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1964, p. 558, as cited in Organ, 1988, p.
19). However, they also noted that “[…] there is something more to the social organization
than what is formally recognized … the formal organization cannot take account of the
sentiments and values residing in the social organization by means of which individuals or
groups of individuals are informally differentiated, ordered, and integrated” (Roethlisberger &
Dickson, 1964, p. 559, as cited in Organ, 1988, p. 19). Following this definition of informal
organization, the authors also wrote: “[…] informal social organization exists in very plant and
can be said to be a prerequisite for effective collaboration. Much collaboration exists at an
informal level, and it sometimes facilitates the function of the formal organization”
(Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1964, p. 559, as cited in Organ, 1988, p. 20). Based on these quotes,
Organ (1988) concludes that their understanding of collaboration and informal contain the
essence of OCB. Additionally, he emphasizes the importance of Roethlisberger and Dickson’s
discussion of the term sentiments. The authors define sentiments as the underlying dimensions
of attitudes, values, and feelings that affect an informal organization (Organ, 1988a).
Organ notes that their definition is comparable to the understanding of attitudes in literature
before 1988, where job attitudes and job satisfaction are often used interchangeably. Hence,
Roethlisberger and Dickson’s contribution can be interpreted as an implication that job
satisfaction determines job performance (Organ, 1988a). However, the critical problem with
this explanation for Organ (1988) is that their conception of sentiments cannot adequately
equate with the current definitions of “job satisfaction.” Moreover, their construct
“sentiments,” while incorporating an individual’s sense of aggrievement or malaise, also refers
to participants’ subjective frames of reference because of their environment. (Organ, 1988a).
Katz and Kahn
The Social Psychology of Organizations, written by Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn (1966),
provides the researcher with a comprehensive behavioral analysis of organizations based on
the open system model (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). Katz and Kahn (1966) argued
that an effective organization presupposes three types of required behaviors from the
participants. First, organizations must attract and then keep the people within the organizational
system. Secondly, the authority must demonstrate dependable role performance, meeting as
well as meeting or exceeding certain minimum standards for both quality and quantity (Organ,
1988a; Organ et al., 2006; Williams, 1988). This behavior will then promote, thirdly, an
“innovative and spontaneous behavior: performance beyond role requirements for
accomplishments of organizational functions” (Katz & Kahn, 1966, p. 337, as cited Organ,
1988). In the third category, members cooperate, take actions that protect the organization and
its sub-system, suggest original ideas to improve the organization, self-training for additional
responsibility, and create a favorable external climate for the organization (Organ, 1988a;
Williams, 1988). According to Katz and Kahn, these spontaneous or extra-role behaviors are
so subtle and undramatic that participants hardly ever feel the need to take them into account
for it. Its counterpart in-role behavior are actions that an individual is supposed to exhibit as
part of their job or position in an organization. This type of behavior is on the other hand easy
to notice (Organ et al., 2006).
Further, the authors propose that these three different patterns of necessary behaviors have their
origin in various motivational patterns: System rewards, individual instrumental rewards, and
intrinsic rewards (Organ, 1988a; Organ et al., 2006). The system rewards aids to; “[…] accrue
to people by virtue of their membership in the system” (Katz & Kahn, 1978, p. 410). Although
this reward is designed to assist in recruiting potential contributors, it does not incentivize inrole performance above minimum expectations (Katz & Kahn, 1978). The objectives of
individual instrument rewards are to provide incentives for employees to perform above their
minimally acceptable levels in their assigned roles but not to provide a motivational basis for
their performance outside of those roles (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Even though intrinsic rewards
for the fulfilment of the task can provide a sustained level of high-quality output, they do not
necessarily link individuals to the system as well as they do not promote supportive behavior
(Katz & Kahn, 1978). Hence, while all three forms of behavior are essential, they are not
elicited by the same factors. Furthermore, organizational devices that increase one contribution
may deplete the other (Organ, 1988a).
Despite the argument that system rewards are not able to cause incremental performance within
the system, the authors note that such rewards can contribute to a higher frequency of
cooperative relations with members if they increase the attractivity of the organization. To
achieve this result, the administration of system rewards should be fair and not create invidious
distinctions between individuals and groups. (Katz & Kahn, 1978). The authors conclude that
organizational effectiveness depends on extra-role behavior, which cannot be prescribed or
mandated for a specific job in advance (Bateman & Organ, 1983).
According to Organ (1988), both authors suggest that something like a “sense of citizenship”
has a mediating effect on system rewards. A sense of citizenship that shifts into a willingness
to contribute beyond contractual obligations. Thomas Bateman and Dennis Organ (1983) later
referred to this act as “citizenship” behaviors due to the absence of a better term. Additionally,
based on Katz and Kahn’s theory, they also noted that this behavior is likely to be valued by
supervisors, partly because it facilitates their jobs and allows them to devote more time and
energy to more substantive tasks. The fact that they cannot “require” such supra-role
citizenship behaviors will likely make them value it even more (T. S. Bateman & Organ,
1983a).
To conclude that job satisfaction (or, at least, the state of mind that determines job attitudes)
can influence such behavior Bateman and Organ (1983) differentiate between two
fundamentally different motivational frameworks: Social Exchange Theory and a series of
social psychological experiments. Hence, the next section will analyze the Social Exchange
Theory that has led to the definition of Job Satisfaction in the context of OCB. However, to
fully comprehend the theories’ impact, it is also crucial to know how the relationship between
Job Satisfaction and OCB was developed.
The Conceptual Development of OCB and Job Satisfaction
As described above, the term “Organizational Citizenship Behavior” was first defined by
Organ and his colleagues Ann Smith and Janet Near in 1983 (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Moreover,
the authors were also the first to analyze the causes of OCB, finding job satisfaction the best
predictor (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Further, Smith and her
colleagues revealed two distinct underlying factors: interpersonal OCB (OCB-I) and
organizational OCB (OCB-O) (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). This assumption was later
empirically supported by Organ and Ryan later empirically supported this assumption in their
meta-analysis; job satisfaction and related positive attitudes are more likely to affect OCB than
productivity or overall performance (Organ & Ryan, 1995). Further studies looking into
various determinants of OCB, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, views of
justice, state or trait personality characteristics, and leadership behaviors, have been conducted
because of this work (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). Organ (1980) has also focused,
once again, on the social psychological exchange theory to investigate the correlation between
job satisfaction and job performance, which consists, among others, of OCB.
OCB and Job Satisfaction in the context of Social Exchange Theory
According to social exchange theory, people will try to do something regarded as “extra” while
being offered certain conditions in return. However, the employee may not be able or available
to reciprocate by increasing work output or by solving the problem in a creative way. As
discussed above, citizenship behaviors of this type are more likely to be within the person’s
control and, therefore, are more likely to serve as a salient mode of reciprocity (Bateman &
Organ, 1983). This theory claims that individuals decide to invest their time in social
interaction because they believe it might benefit them in the future (Cropanzano & Mitchel,
2005). In line with this theory, Organ (1988) claims that individuals who are more satisfied
with their job believe that their engagement in extra or non-obligatory tasks will be noticed and
will eventually bring them benefits. The author also mentions several aspects of social
cognition theory, which suggests that people constantly process and interpret information about
themselves and the world (Organ, 1988a). The theory has been touched upon by investigating
which role personal beliefs about oneself play in the correlation between job satisfaction and
job performance. Organ (1988) also used Equity Theory to explain the correlation between
these two variables. The theory argues that employees tend to compare their input (for example,
the amount of work) with the output they get back with those of the other employees who are
like them (Adams, 1965). Therefore, Organ (1988) assumes that unfair treatment and,
consequently, low job satisfaction can also lead to an unwillingness to take any extra action for
the company.
To fully comprehend the theoretical references of the papers used for this Systematic Literature
Review, the next section will describe Peter Blau’s analysis on the Social Exchange Theory.
Blau
In his work Exchange and Power in Social Life, Peter Blau (1964) contributes to the
understanding of social structure by analyzing the social processes that govern the relationship
between individuals and groups. He emphasizes that social and interpersonal relationships are
the outcomes of a history of exchange (Organ et al., 2006). Throughout his analysis of social
structure, Blau (1964) refers to concepts such as exchange, reciprocity, imbalance, and
power. By this definition, an exchange can be either economic or social (Organ et al., 2006).
The underlying principles of economic exchange are as follows: Each participant knows what
will be exchanged and when this transaction will occur. Regardless of who offers the
commodity or service for exchange, each commodity or service has an independent value.
Furthermore, this type of exchange is not dependent on trust since it only must last until the
transaction is complete (Blau, 1964; Organ et al., 2006).
Contrary to this, Blau (1964) asserts that the social exchange differs from the strictly economic
exchange in several important ways. Furthermore, he notes that social exchange is a: “[…]
voluntary actions of individuals that are motivated by the returns they are expected to bring
and typically do in fact bring from others” (Blau, 1964, p. 91). Social exchange creates diffuse
future obligations that cannot be precisely specified (Blau, 1964). Therefore, exchanged items
cannot be negotiated but must be handled at the discretion of the exchanger. Since it is
impossible to ensure that a favor will be returned properly, social exchange relies on trusting
others to fulfill their commitments (Blau, 1964). Moreover, Blau (1964) notes that social
exchange leads to feelings of gratitude, oblation, and trust, which are absent in pure economic
exchanges. As opposed to economic exchanges, social exchanges do not have a definite price
associated with them in the form of a single quantitative medium of exchange (Blau, 1964).
This further explains why social obligations cannot be determined. Thus, social exchange
requires individuals to approach it with a sense of understanding, mutual respect, and faith that
the exchange will be beneficial to both parties.
There are a few reasons why it would be important to take these particulars into consideration.
First, they have made an important contribution to the existing organizational literature.
Second, all the previous works led to the development of the concept of OCB. Finally, the
discussed works explain the OCB phenomenon from different perspectives and in different
concepts (Organ et al., 2006).
Based on the theoretical foundation above, the proposed research question can be seen as an
analysis, respectively replication of previous studies, and therefore relates to the past and
current state of research.
Methods
Systematic Literature Review in Management and Organizational Research
Reviewing literature is an essential part of any research project. In many cases, however, many
literature reviews lack thoroughness and are not done as genuine investigatory science.
David Tranfield and David Denyer use the following quote to define the essence of a systematic
review: “[…] is an efficient technique for hypothesis testing, for summarizing the results of
existing studies, and for assessing the consistency among previous studies […]” (Petticcrew,
2001, p. 9 as cited in Denyer & Tranfield, 2008, p. 674). Following this argumentation, a
systematic review is an evidence-based methodological approach that locates existing studies
and selects and evaluates contributions, analyses, and data relevant to the research question
(Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003). Hence, this Systematic Literature Review aims to report
the evidence in a way that enables reasonable conclusions to be drawn about what is known
and what is not. In contrast to a traditional literature review, a systematic review is a selfcontained research project that examines a clearly defined question based on existing research.
Additionally, systematic reviews have distinct and exacting principles that set them apart from
other review methods (Denyer & Tranfield, 2008). Denyer and Tranfield (2008) propose four
critical principles for a standard systematic review template: replicable, exclusive, aggregative,
and algorithmic. Later, the authors (2008) compared these principles with those proposed for
systematic management and organizational research reviews.
According to Denyer and Tranfield (2008), an SLR in this field is often the first step in
completing a scientific research project, and it is typically presented as either a brief
introduction to an empirical study or an extensive description of the literature in question.
However, due to the fragmentation of the field in management and organization studies and its
transdisciplinary nature, it poses particularly challenging research challenges (Tranfield et al.,
2003). In this field, many distinct subfields can generate questions, hypotheses, methodologies,
and conclusions (Baligh et al., 1996; Denyer & Tranfield, 2008). Regarding agenda and focus,
Tranfield et al. (2003) argue that management research is a nascent field. Following this
argument, researchers in subfields are often unaware of the work in related fields and can
detach themselves from identification with the whole (Denyer & Tranfield, 2008).
Consequently, management research does not enjoy the same consensus on research methods
or convergence on a research question compared to more mature disciplines, such as medicine
or engineering (Denyer & Tranfield, 2008).
Based on these methodological challenges, Denyer and Tranfield (2008) propose the following
revised principles for management and organization studies: Transparency, inclusivity,
explanatory, and heuristic nature.
Transparency
This first fundamental principle states that documenting the review methods facilitates
transparency (Tranfield et al., 2003). For this purpose, Denyer and Tranfield (2008) propose
three aspects of transparency in an SLR. To begin with, reviewers should be transparent about
the methods and processes they employ during the review process (Denyer & Tranfield, 2008).
By doing so, readers will be able to precisely determine its scope and boundaries (Tranfield et
al., 2003). An adequate review protocol allows the reviewer to obtain feedback on the proposed
methods and identify any apparent errors or omissions that should be rectified or amended
(Denyer & Tranfield, 2008). Therefore, this SLR will include a methodology section that
allows readers precisely to determine the study’s scope and boundaries. However, Denyer and
Tranfield (2008) also noted that a systematic review protocol does not imply that the methods
used are irreversible.
Further, protocols should not restrict the review process, and it is quite common for reviewers
to modify them during the review process (Denyer & Tranfield, 2008). Second, transparency
involves presenting the reviewer’s conclusions and recommendations clearly in relation to the
evidence they have gathered. The third element of transparency requires the reviewer to
disclose the assumptions that underlie the review. To achieve this goal, Denyer and Tranfield
(2008) suggest researchers engage in mindful questioning of priori beliefs regarding the scope
and implications of relevant research. Thus, the authors of this SLR must reflect on the initial
hypotheses of the reviewed papers and consider if they are appropriate and valid to the research
question.
Inclusivity
There are times when authors of articles, even those published in some of the most prestigious
journals, fail to provide sufficient information regarding the methods used to collect and
analyze data. As a result, it may be impossible to evaluate the quality of the study. Data
collection and analysis methods are also inconsistent within management and organization
studies. Research studies rarely address the same questions, and samples differ by population,
size, study context, and data reported.
To address this issue, Denyer and Tranfield (2008) recite Boaz and Ashby (Boaz & Ashby,
2003), who suggest selecting articles based on the criterion fit for purpose rather than using a
hierarchy of evidence to select articles; this allows for notions of appropriateness to added to
the appraisal of research as a result of removing the technocratic preoccupation with elegant
research designs. Similarly, Pawson (2006) recommends that researchers simply ask whether
the literature retrieved adds any relevant information to their knowledge base. Denyer and
Tranfield (2008) noted that Pawson’s approach does not adhere to a hierarchy of evidence.
Only through synthesis can a study’s value be determined (Pawson, 2006). In this process,
researchers evaluate each study’s contribution to theory building by prioritizing the
interpretations and explanations of the original researchers, not just their results (Denyer &
Tranfield, 2008). In summary, researchers can distinguish between studies that provide
meaningful evidence and those that do not, enabling them to make informed decisions about
using the literature in their research.
Explanatory
As a third fundamental principle, Denyer and Tranfield (2008) address the complex question
concerning synthesis. The authors analyze alternative approaches to meta-analysis as a method
of synthesis. In this regard, they refer to narrative reviewing and the use of the metaethnographic approach of Noblit and Hare (Denyer & Tranfield, 2008). As a result of the use
of these approaches, evidence is synthesized in a more generalized manner, and narratives are
constructed because of these approaches (Denyer & Tranfield, 2008; Estabrooks, Field, &
Morse, 1994; Sandelowski Margarete, Docherty, & Emden, 1997). Interpretive and
explanatory synthesis involves extracting descriptive data and examples from individual
studies and assembling them into a cohesive whole (Denyer & Tranfield, 2008; Hammersley,
2004). Thus, in reviewing studies, the reviewer is responsible for contrasting the evidence,
which may be quantitative, qualitative, or theoretical, from one study with another (Denyer &
Tranfield, 2008). Similarly, Pawson (2006) argues, in contrast to aggregative synthesis, that
interpretive and explanatory syntheses take a proactive and creative approach beyond
describing evidence (Denyer & Tranfield, 2008). In this process, new concepts are introduced
and reinterpreted while maintaining the integrity of the original study (Pawson, 2006). Thus,
the synthesis offers a plausible explanation of the study findings rather than a replicable
hypothesis (Denyer & Tranfield, 2008).
Heuristic
Lastly, the fourth core principle concludes that a systematic review in management will provide
insight into what works and why or how the relationship occurs (Denyer & Tranfield, 2008).
However, despite its abstract nature, Denyer and Tranfield (2008) note that the practitioner
may view it more as an example of design. Moreover, as organizational settings can be
complex, such outcomes are likely to be heuristic in nature (Denyer & Tranfield, 2008). The
authors (2008) also underline that although heuristic rules may assist in solving a problem, they
cannot guarantee a detailed solution. Outputs of systematic reviews in management and
organization studies instead result in rules, recommendations, guidelines, or prototype
protocols (Denyer & Tranfield, 2008). For the authors (2008), as opposed to providing a
detailed solution to a specific problem, they may help progress toward a solution. Moreover,
heuristic rules almost always require informal judgment or experience to contextualize their
application (Denyer & Tranfield, 2008). Consequently, reviewing the existing scientific
publications in management and organization theories can provide managers and practitioners
with the knowledge necessary to develop solutions to their professional challenges (Denyer &
Tranfield, 2008; Denyer, Tranfield, & van Aken, 2008).
Because this SRL conducts literature research about a field in management and organizational
research, we will follow the revised principles for management and organization studies.
Further, to build a comprehensive database of the relationship between Job Satisfaction and
OCB in management and organization research, we have pre-defined several aspects of the
SLR process before applying it to the search strategy. The following section will describe them
in further detail.
Conceptual Boundaries
The SLR process begins with the research objectives and setting conceptual boundaries ((Wang
& Chugh, 2014; Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003). Therefore, this SLR’s objectives and
conceptual boundaries were defined. As there are multiple definitions of OCB in the existing
literature, the authors of this SLR have decided to choose one as the primary definition this
SLR is based on. Organ introduced this definition in 1988. He claims that OCB can be
understood 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” (Organ, 1988, p. 4).
OCB in the context of various theories
Organ (2008) has presented the OCB concept with a five-factor model. These factors are
altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, civic virtue, and sportsmanship. LePine, Erez & Johnson
(2002) agreed with Organ’s (1988) view of OCB, as their study found no better way to describe
the concept than this five-dimensional model. This view of OCB is also supported in the work
of Bateman and Organ (1983). The authors describe OCB as a dischargeof duties that do not
lie in one’s job description. They underline, however, that this behavior is not noticeable
regarding the person’s productivity. Hoffman, Blair & Woehr (2007) also point out the
discretion of OCB, meaning that this behavior is not easily identifiable. Podsakoff, Mackenzie,
Paine & Bachrach (2000) explained more in-depth how “discretionary” can describe one’s
behavior. The authors clarify that the fulfillment of the tasks that could be omitted without any
consequences occurs under this description. That aligns with Organ’s (1988, 1990) view that
“discretionary behavior” can be recognized by that, that it is not included in the system of
rewards of a company. On the other hand, Organ (1997) indicates that the OCB of an individual
contributes to the organization’s effectiveness.
Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fetter (1990) has further developed Organ’s (1988) OCB
view. The argumentation provided by the authors is the extension of the previously mentioned
Organ’s (1988) OCB definition. Podsakoff et al. (1990) extended the model proposed by Organ
(1988) by adding a sub-level to each dimension.
With time, diverse types of OCB have started to be identified. Berry, Li & Gardner (2011)
have identified the distinction between OCB directed toward individuals and OCB directed
toward organizations. Carpenter, Berry & Houston (2017) have, on the other hand,
differentiated between self-rated and other-rater Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Based
on this brief explanation, we have decided to use Dennis Organ’s definition of OCB (see The
Development of the Definition Organizational Citizenship Behavior).
The definition of OCB that is going to be used in terms of this SLR is the definition of Organ
(1988).
The Definition of Job Satisfaction in the context of OCB
According to Organ (1988), it has begun to be expected that the term “job satisfaction” started
to become a synonym for “job attitude,” and at the same time, there are the same variables used
to measure both concepts. All the definitions of job satisfaction (Smith, Kendall & Hulin, 1969;
Smith et al., 1976, p. 6) assume that job satisfaction directly reflects one’s emotional state.
Nevertheless, Organ (1988), refers to James Campbell’s (1976), who proved in her study that
job satisfaction cannot be measured entirely the same as happiness. Secondly, Organ also
mentions Andrews and Withey (1976), which confirmed that job satisfaction should be
measured differently. More specifically, the authors detected that job satisfaction should be
measured while using factors related to cognitive processes, such as a deliberate evaluation of
external circumstances. In contrast, Happiness should be measured while basing on one’s
emotional state. The study of Organ & Near (1985) confirmed this finding.
In this regard, Organ (1988) refers to Zajonc (1980), who suggests that cognition and affect are
not as close together as they used to be. Based on this suggestion, Organ (1988) goes further
into studying the issue of cognition by reviewing the study of Folger (1986), where the social
cognition theory was developed. Organ (1988) also examined the distribution of job
satisfaction responses, previously analyzed by Smith et al. (1976). Their results showed that
there is usually a negative skew in job satisfaction scores. Therefore, negative responses are
more prevalent than positive or neutral responses (Organ, 1988).
This whole analysis leads to the conclusion that job satisfaction can depend less on the
employee’s emotional state and more on how the person thinks about their job in relation to
what they believe is fair or reasonable (Organ, 1988). This conclusion suggests that an
employee’s satisfaction with their job may be influenced by their expectations and perceptions
of what is fair or reasonable rather than just their emotional response to their job.
Bateman & Organ (1983) have decided to study the correlation between job satisfaction and
OCB1. The study is going to be analyzed more in depth as well as compared with other studies
later.
However, the authors (1983) measured job satisfaction while focusing on the effect and not
cognition. Two main reasons are given why one should think that job satisfaction and OCB are
correlated. The first one was previously explained (see Theoretical Foundation) social
exchange theory. Employees might feel that the organization invests in them and tries to treat
them well, leading to the OCB doing more of what is expected from them. The employees’
assumption could lead to OCB because the employees might be more likely to feel motivated
to do something in return for the dynamic organization (Bateman & Organ, 1983). The second
reason given by Bateman & Organ (1983) is a collection of psychological experiments, in this
case by Rosenhan, Underwood, & Moore (1974). The experiments have shown that people are
more likely to decide they can decide for fulfilling the tasks that are not required from them
/required from them, but which positively influence the organization while being in a positive
emotional state. Therefore, if job satisfaction is measured with affection, there is a link between
job satisfaction and OCB.
Organ (1988) pointed out that despite many theories regarding job satisfaction, therefore,
knowing how to measure it, there were still some gaps in the literature that needed to be filled.
One of the most challenging tasks was linking existing theories to the typical “behaviors.” Even
though there are existing resources to find it out.
These conceptual boundaries will help us to clarify what we mean by speaking about OCB and
Job Satisfaction what will increase the understanding of this SLR.
1
The authors called it “employee citizenship” in the paper due to lack of terminology at this time.
Scope of the Review and Comprehensive Search
This systematic review follows this definition, in which the authors have set pre-specified
relevance and quality criteria for the selection/inclusion of studies. This paper follows an
evidence-based methodological approach based on collecting and analyzing non-numerical,
more specifically, qualitative data. Based on this, the data collection method will mainly be
secondary research: collecting existing data in scientific journals, and books (Bhandara, 2022).
By employing qualitative modes of inquiry, we attempt to illuminate previous and current
literature that aligns with the research question. This approach aims to qualitatively summarize
and evaluate previous work to answer the research question.
However, some general limitations of the Systematic Literature Review should be mentioned
too. Data collection is based on search engines. Therefore, all articles which do not match the
set criterium are eliminated. This way, some valuable and useful works can be eliminated
because they do not match the search criteria. At the same time, some papers can be described
with unsuitable keywords, which would also lead to the inclusion of inappropriate work.
Setting the Inclusion Criteria
Systematic reviews aim to locate, select, and appraise as much relevant research as possible to
answer the particular review question (Denyer & Tranfield, 2008). Hence, this SLR uses the
following databases to collect the necessary data to answer the research question: Jstor, EBSCO
Host Research Databases (Business Source Ultimate), Google Scholar, and ProQuest. Due to
the difficulties with access, the Web of Science database was not used.
Search Boundaries
In an initial attempt, we only selected articles from journals with a VHB Ranking of B or higher
were considered. We have also controlled whether the journals were rated with a three or higher
in the Academic Journal Guide 2021. It is beneficial to include this criterion because it allows
researchers to identify which journals are of excellent quality and can be trusted. Therefore, it
is not necessary to re-evaluate the quality of papers published in trusted journals. Thus,
including the two rankings can simplify the quality assurance process for researchers, saving
time and resources.
Search Terms
A search usually starts with examining citation databases using search strings, keyword
grouping, and applying search conventions (Tranfield et al., 2003) . The main keyword used
was “organizational citizenship behavior.” However, the alternatives, such as the abbreviation
“OCB” and the British spelling “organisational citizenship behaviour” were included as well
with the use of the Boolean operator “OR.” This operator suggests that the results must include
at least one of the keywords. The use of Boolean operators has been significant because of their
ability to make searches more efficient and accurate (Denyer & Tranfield, 2008). It also gives
the possibility to search while using multiple keywords simultaneously. The other Boolean
operators are “AND,” “NOT,” or “AND NOT.” Operator “AND” informs the search engine
that the results need to contain all the keywords. Two other operators have the same function.
We may choose either of them, depending on our search engine. “NOT” and “AND NOT”
mean that the searched articles must not contain any phrases or keywords placed after these
operators (Scells, Zuccon, Koopman, & Clark, 2020; Jesson et al., 2007). Regarding our SLR,
the Boolean operator “AND” has always been used between the searched keywords. The use
of operators “NOT” and “AND NOT” was not necessary in the comprehensive search of this
Systematic Literature Review because there were other criteria of exclusion set, which will be
discussed later in the method section.
Another vital mention of operators is Simple Operators. They include truncation characters as
“*” and “?”. They allow us to find relevant keywords with multiple endings. Due to the
specificity of our main keywords, this type of operator was not included in the comprehensive
search. The other type of Simple Operators, such as “?” helps us find the articles using
American and British spelling. In the case of our SLR, the already Boolean operator was used
to identify both British and American keywords. The Simple Operator “?” was not necessary.
The second most used keyword was “job satisfaction” while also taking into consideration the
alternatives like “work satisfaction” or “employee satisfaction.” The other keywords that aimed
to lead to the good articles were “systematic literature review” (including its abbreviation:
“SLR”), “meta-analysis,” and “antecedents.” All the keywords were combined with the
“organizational citizenship behavior” one while using the other Boolean operator “AND.”
The appearance of the keywords was taken into consideration as well. The regarded appearance
of the keywords was title, abstract, and full text. Therefore strings “TI,” “AB,” and “TX” were
used (Ebesco Connect, 2020). These abbreviations serve as codes in the EbescoHost search
engine. However, they also work in other databases. Therefore, we have decided to stick to
them while using multiple search engines. While using the primary keyword that is
“organizational citizenship behavior,” “TI” and “AB” were used the most. That allowed us to
find the articles connected to the OCB and omit the articles only mentioning organizational
citizenship behavior. The string “AB” was the most used for the other keywords. Using the
string “TI” with the other keywords could eliminate many essential articles while using the
string “TX” could cause the search of many irrelevant publications.
Cover Period
Finally, our research question is about analyzing past and current literature, that analyze the
relationship between Job Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Therefore, we
have not set a cover period for the publications during our search process.
Comprehensive search
The search inclusion criteria differed slightly in every database due to their specificities.
However, the following criteria were included for every database: full-text availability,
including references, peer-reviewed, English language, no time limit concerning the cover
period, and possible access to the publications.
Regarding EBSCO Host Research Databases (Business Source Ultimate), ProQuest Database,
and Jstor, the other inclusion criteria were that the publication must be an article from an
academic journal. In terms of Google Scholar, also other publications, such as books, were
included. That results in the fact that the searches in this database are more numerous than in
the others. For example, while searching the “organizational citizenship behavior” keyword
together with the “systematic review” one (both occurring anywhere in work) under the
condition that only review articles occur, the number of results was 17600. Adding the “TI”
string to the first keyword has eliminated many results and led to 131.
While using EBSCO Business Source Ultimate Database, there were additional criteria in
which subject specification was included. The selected subjects were organizational behavior,
job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, OCB research, citizenship, behavior,
collectivism, health outcome assessment, performance, personality, satisfaction, social
participation, transformational leadership, chi-squared test, hypothesis, cross-sectional
method, gender differences, individualism, moderation, organizational justice, performance,
resistance to change, satisfaction, social participation, and trust. The subjects were not chosen
altogether but combined differently to find the most relevant articles. However, applying the
additional subject criteria in this database has narrowed the search results significantly.
“Organizational citizenship behavior” in the title and “job satisfaction” in the abstract has
brought 83 results. The exact keywords but with additional subject criteria resulted in 20 and
4 search results. “Organizational citizenship behavior TI” combined with the keyword
“antecedents TI” while including only specific subjects, has led to 10 search results.
Regarding ProQuest electronic database, additional subject specifications were included in the
search criteria. The chosen subjects were organizational aspects, organizational behavior, and
job satisfaction. Similarly, as in the case of the previously mentioned database, this subject
specification has guaranteed that the results were relevant to the topic. While using the
“organizational citizenship behavior” in the title and limiting the subjects to organizational
aspects, and organizational behavior, 112 results occurred. Limiting the subjects to “job
satisfaction” only brought 48 results. While searching “organizational AND citizenship AND
behavior TI” and “job AND satisfaction TX” together, 219 results occurred. To ensure the
results were appropriate, the subject “organizational aspects” was the only one included. That
led to 66 results. Doing the same but including only the job satisfaction subject has yielded
only 17 results. However, it has allowed us to identify articles directly connected to the
relationship between OCB and job satisfaction.
In the JS database, the searchers were limited to articles from journals related to Management
& Organizational Behaviour, Public Policy & Administration, and Labor & Employment
Relations. This limitation allowed us to find articles about OCB related to the topic of this SLR
and exclude articles that are, for example, purely psychological. Thanks to this limitation
regarding journals, there was no need to require the second keyword to appear at least in the
abstract because full-text word occurrence could also be sufficient. The most results (75) came
from the “organizational citizenship behavior TI” keyword search combined with the “job
satisfaction TX” keyword. The main keyword appearing in the title, combined with the
“antecedents TX” has resulted in 65 articles. Similarly, the “antecedents AB” as the second
keyword has brought six results. Combining “organizational citizenship behavior TI” and the
“job satisfaction AB” has brought only four results.
After the initial comprehensive search, both authors were able to develop an overview of all
available evidence to answer the proposed research question. In addition to the search strategies
described, we have developed additional search strategies to increase our database.
Additional Search Strategies
To have an extensive database, we continued searching for other papers not detected during
the initial search. To achieve a more efficient search process, the researchers used the website
Connected Papers. Founded in 2008, Connected Papers provides researchers and applied
scientists with an innovative visual tool for finding and exploring relevant papers. It uses a
database of millions of papers and allows users to quickly explore and find papers relevant to
their field of work, using a visual representation of the papers and their connections. Connected
Papers also includes a powerful search engine and advanced filtering options to help users
narrow their search results (Eitan, Smolyansky, Harpaz, & Perets, 2022). Thus, the authors of
this SLR used Connected Papers to visualize the research landscape for a specific topic, with
the ability to quickly identify key influencers, papers, institutions, and more. The resulting
landscape is connected to other papers with nodes, representing academic papers related to the
original paper. The size of the nodes represents the number of citations, and its color classifies
the publishing year. Additionally, papers with a common theme have strong connecting lines
and clusters. However, the reader is advised that this visualization does not represent a citation
tree; papers are arranged according to similarity (Eitan et al., 2022).
Other papers could be identified and selected based on the created landscape following our
inclusion criteria. For example, we initially searched for Dennis Organ’s paper, A Reappraisal
and Reinterpretation of the Satisfaction-Causes-Performance Hypothesis from 1977. Based on
our search, Connected Paper built a graph (see Appendix A). Furthermore, Connected Papers
offers links to the websites regarding Organ’s paper: Semantic Scholar, Publisher page, and
Google Scholar.
The first website Semantic Scholar is a free, AI-powered research tool for scientific literature,
which shows how many papers have cited Organ’s paper, its references, and related papers (see
Appendix B). Concerning the total citation, Semantic Scholar distinguishes between Highly
Influential Citations, Background Citations, Methods Citations, and Results Citation. This
illustration allows researchers to find other papers relevant to their research question(s). The
second website Publisher page forwards the researcher to the journal’s webpage, where the
paper was initially published. Regarding our example, the website led us to JSTOR, where we
could find all the relevant information for our list of references and other related papers from
the same journal. Lastly, Google Scholar offered us similar information as the first website
Semantic Scholar and showed us whether we could access the paper through the University of
Bern.
Thus, we were able to detect other papers related to our research question and included them
in our database. Furthermore, to increase the interrater reliability, we discussed the pre-defined
inclusion criteria for the proposal and adjusted it if necessary. The application of the re-defined
inclusion criteria will be described in the next section.
Applying the Inclusion Criteria
After our comprehensive search and the additional search processes, we developed a deeper
understanding of OCB and Job Satisfaction. However, the comprehensive search showed that
OCB and Job Satisfaction were not only a topic in management and organization research but
also in other scientific fields. Hence, some papers would not contribute any relevant scientific
findings to our research question. Consequently, we only included papers within the context of
management and organization research in our database. Additionally, the papers also have to
resonate with the following thematic criteria: publications that focus on the development of
OCB, describe Job Satisfaction as one of the antecedents of OCB and review the relationship
between Job Satisfaction and OCB.
Furthermore, to increase the interrater reliability, we discussed the pre-defined inclusion
criteria for the proposal and adjusted it if necessary. The application of the re-defined inclusion
criteria will be described in the next section.
Quality Assessment
After the Comprehensive search and the re-definition of the inclusion criteria, we started to
independently read the studies and decide which to include in this SLR based on the selection
criteria described above. Additionally, we applied a two-phase selection process based on the
suggestions offered during the Introduction Session and the website Scribbr (Hofer, 2022;
Turney, 2022). First, the authors read and evaluated each study based on the criteria given, and
those that met the criteria were included in the SLR. Afterward, we shared the selected papers
and read the full texts. Afterward, we discussed any discrepancies between their evaluations
and, if needed, took a vote to determine if the study should be included or not.
Finally, both agreed on which papers will be included in the data extraction and analysis. A
consideration of the journal’s reputation and impact factor was also made in order to ensure
the paper’s credibility.
Data Extraction and Analysis
To have an overview of all articles that were found, an Excel table was created. It contains the
following columns: title, author(s) names, journal name, year, ABS ranking, VHB ranking,
citations Semantic Scholar, highly influential citations Semantic Scholar, background citations
Semantic Scholar, methods citations Semantic Scholar, results citations Semantic, citations
Google Scholar, citations Scite, supporting citation statements Scite, mentioning citation
statements Scite, contrasting citation statements Scite, references Semantic Scholar, peerreviewed (yes/no), references Scite, abstract, keywords, the definition of OCB, definition of
job satisfaction, industry/context, research question, hypothesis, key findings, theoretical
perspective(s), methodology, qualitative/quantitative, sample, included to our SLR (yes/no)
and date of searching. This excel table follows, for the most part, the recommendation that was
introduced during the Introduction Session of the Seminar on Management &
Entrepreneurship (Hofer, 2022).
Additionally, we have also included the number of citations by Semantic Scholar, Google
Scholar, and scite for every selected article, if possible. This will give us a better understanding
of the relevance of the article and its influence in the research field. Additionally, it will allow
us to compare different articles in terms of popularity and significance more easily.
Results
General Results
To identify scholarship on the relationship between OCB and Job Satisfaction, we have applied
several search strategies as described above. In sum, a total of 31 publications were included
in this Systematic Literature Review. The first step in answering our research question is to
describe the data. We will then analyze the data to determine if our hypothesis is supported.
Publication Distribution
Figure 1 shows the distribution of our selected papers between 1977 and 2022. The highest
number of our selected articles was published in the years 1988 and 2007 with a total number
of 3. However, it is important to note that this figure is not a depiction of general publications
about the relationship between OCB and Job Satisfaction, due to our search boundaries. This
figure presents the deception of the publications that were included in our SLR, instead.
Figure 1 Number of Publications per Year
The selected 31 publications were issued in 14 different journals (see figure 2) that met our
standards concerning its AJG and VHB Ranking. The journal with the highest number of
articles is Journal of Applied Psychology with a total of 7 publications. Two other journals
with the second highest number of articles were Journal of Organizational Behavior and
Academy of Management Journal. The journal with the third highest number of articles is
Journal of Management with a total of 3 publications. This one is followed by the Human
Performance journal with a total of 2 publications. The rest of the journals (10 of them)
included one publication each.
Figure 2 Number of Journal Name/Publisher
Additionally, the total of 31 collected papers were analyzed in terms of methodology being
used (Figure 3). The authors of 6 papers decided on Meta-analysis. There is also a significant
number of authors (8 papers in total) collecting their data with the help of questionnaires and
surveys. The other dominant method is literature review. 6 of the analyzed papers are based on
this methodology. The other, less used, methodological approaches are, among others,
longitudinal two-wave panel design, Usefulness Analysis and Necessary Condition Analysis.
Every methodology that is not equal to the three the most often used, makes 3% of the whole.
Figure 3 Number of methodologies
being used
Literature Analysis: Themes and Trends
Our research question focuses on the conceptual development of the relationship between Job
Satisfaction and OCB in the past and current literature, what is the relationship between Job
Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior? Thus, we investigated this development
through analysis of the relationship and the researchers’ theoretical references.
The first Conceptual Definition of OCB and Job Satisfaction
First, the analysis of the terminology used to describe OCB shows that prior to the publication
of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature and Antecedents by Smith, Organ, and Near
in 1983, there was no “official” definition of this. The starting point of this literature search
was Organ’s (1977) paper A Reappraisal and Reinterpretation of the Satisfaction-CausesPerformance Hypothesis (see The Conceptual Development of Organizational Citizenship
Behavior). Organ's (1977) subliminal contribution to the paper was not classified as OCB, nor
did the author consider further examination of such a contribution. The fundamental goal of
the author was to appeal to professional colleagues so that they would not be too harsh on
management practitioners (Organ, 1977). In their view, job satisfaction is one of the most
critical factors affecting employee performance. To reconstruct the satisfaction-causesperformance assumption back then, Organ referred to contemporary theoretical and empirical
studies in the context of the exchange model and the environment, and social exchange and
reciprocity (e.g., Blau, 1964).
Later, Bateman and Organ (1983a) decided to study the correlation between job satisfaction
and citizenship behavior. According to organizational psychologists (Lawler & Porter, 1967 as
cited in Bateman & Organ 1983), there is no correlation between job satisfaction and job
performance when satisfaction is contingent on performance. They claim that job satisfaction
and job performance only correlate if the reward for the superior performance causes the
satisfaction (Bateman & Organ, 1983a). Contrary to this assumption, Bateman and Organ
(1983a) used a Job Descriptive Index with a sample of employees in a major midwestern state
university to measure job satisfaction while focusing on the effect and not cognition. According
to the authors (1983a), there were two main reasons given why one should think that job
satisfaction and citizenship behavior are correlated. The first reason refers to Blau’s Social
Exchange Theory and Katz and Kahn (see: theoretical part). Employees might feel that the
organization invests in them and tries to treat them well. Following this assumption, this type
of behavior could lead to citizenship behavior because the employees might be more likely to
feel motivated to do something in return for the organization that is engaged (Bateman &
Organ, 1983a; Blau 1964). Secondly. Bateman & Organ (1983) analyzed several conducted
psychological experiments (e.g., Rosenhan, Underwood, & Moore 1974). The experiments
have significantly shown that people are more likely to decide on the moves that are not
required from them, but which influence the organization in a positive way, while being in a
positive emotional state. (Bateman & Organ, 1983a). Therefore, if job satisfaction is measured
with the use of affection, there is a link between job satisfaction itself and citizenship behavior.
Considering this, Bateman & Organ (1983) indicate that there is a relationship between
supervision and job satisfaction that can be expected. Thus, the authors studied the correlation
between job satisfaction and citizenship behavior while considering the aspect of supervision.
They used a static and cross-lagged analysis to test the relationship between citizenship
behavior and the various facets of job satisfaction, as well as a summated measure of overall
satisfaction.
The study of Bateman & Organ (1983) led to three main findings. First, the correlation between
job satisfaction and citizenship behavior is stronger than between job satisfaction and
performance. Second, the static correlation between job satisfaction and citizenship behavior
failed the test of causal inference, which means that the relation between job satisfaction and
citizenship behavior was shown as unsupported. As a possible explanation, the authors have
given the period of their conduction, meaning 6 weeks, which might be too short for the
functional relationship to occur. However, there are other possible explanations. Bateman &
Organ (1983) referred to Kenny (1975) who claims that this result does not automatically lead
to the rejection that job satisfaction and citizenship behavior are not directly correlated. Instead,
both variables might correlate with a third variable instead. Bateman & Organ (1983) suggest
that the third variable could be supervision, that has been already mentioned before.
Presumably, successful supervision might lead to increased job satisfaction but at the same
time it might also lead to an increase in citizenship behaviors.
Overall, Bateman & Organ (1983) found out that there was correlation between job satisfaction
and citizenship behavior. However due to the limitation of the study, Bateman and Organ
(1983), were skeptical about validity of their Job Descriptive Index as the measure of job
satisfaction Therefore, the authors call out to the scholars to resolve this issue.
In the same year, Smith, Organ, and Near continued Bateman and Organ’s study with
interpretation of findings and ideas from Roethlisberger and Dickson’s publication
Management and the Worker (1939) and Katz and Kahn (1964) (see Theoretical Foundation).
The authors analyzed the nature of citizenship behavior and its antecedents. Smith, Organ, and
Near (1983) attempted to examine whether characteristic mood states can explain "good
citizenship" behavior, as well as whether specific environmental factors and individual
differences variables can predict citizenship behavior independently. For this purpose, they
developed an organizational citizenship behavior measurement with 16 items, which included
the factor altruism and generalized compliance. Afterwards they conducted a study with a total
of 422 samples from two banks of a large midwestern city using a Principal-Factor Analysis in
order to measure OCB. Although, they used the term citizenship behavior to describe Katz and
Kahn’s understanding of a sense of citizenship, Organ (2017) later acknowledged that it was
Ann Smith who introduced the term OCB with her development of an organizational
citizenship behavior measurement.
There are at least two dimensions to citizenship behavior, as indicated by the results. Altruism,
or the act of helping a specific individual, and Generalized Compliance, a form of conscientious
citizenship that is more impersonal. Interestingly, Job Satisfaction, as a measure of chronic
mood state, was directly associated with Altruism but not Generalized Compliance. Both
dimensions of OCB were directly affected by the variable rural background. Other variables
differed in their predictive power across the two dimensions of citizenship behavior. Based on
these results the authors (1983) conclude that there must be two different forms of citizenship
behaviour: Altruism and General Compliance. Altruism can be understood as the help for the
person that is in need, which is usually connected to the specific situation or context (Smith et
al., 1983). Thus, altruism can be also understood as a type of behavior that is not motivated by
the expectation of receiving any external rewards or benefits (Smith et al., 1983). Smith et al.
(1983) study’s results indicate that altruism is equal to job satisfaction, due to the fact how
strongly it is influenced by the positive emotional state. On the other hand, the results suggest
that General Compliance can be strongly distinguished from Altruism. General Compliance
refers to the feeling of inner obligation to do the right things (Smith et al., 1983). Hence, a
person might decide on some gestures just to avoid any kind of negative consequences.
However, the authors (1983) note that they did not study the continual linkages what could
cause the results to be not reliable.
In sum, both studies (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith et al., 1983) indicate job satisfaction to
be a stronger predictor of OCB than traditional measures of job performance, such as
productivity or in-role behaviour. However, more recent publications do not always consider
job satisfaction as the best predictor. Their arguments will be explained in the next part.
Stephan J. Motowidlo (1984) further investigated these conclusions by exploring relationships
between job satisfaction and other behavioral characteristics related to altruism within the
workplace. To measure this relationship, the author conducted a self-report questionnaire in a
large utility company. This was part of a broader study designed to evaluate the effectiveness
of a training program for managers. The participants were asked to complete the questionnaire
two times. Ultimately, the author could use a sample varying in size from 122 to 132 since not
everyone submitted the survey. Based on previous conclusions (Smith et al. 1983; Bateman
and Organ 1983; Aderman 1972; Cunningham et al. 1980; Isen et al. 1976; Isen and Levin
1972; Rosenhan et al. 1981), Motowidlo's research indicates that individuals who behave more
considerately and sensitively toward others express positive affect and job satisfaction
(Motowidlo, 1984). Providing personal services and satisfying others through personal contact
is likely to be especially important in jobs requiring interpersonal sensitivity and consideration
(Motowidlo, 1984). Therefore, job satisfaction may be a more significant determinant of
effectiveness in many types of management and teaching positions, in the healthcare sector, as
well as in the direct selling industry. It is important to note, however, that this significance does
not apply to those jobs that do not require personal sensitivity and consideration for success
(Motowidlo, 1984).
Sheila M. Puffer (1987) later used this conclusion (Smith et al. 1983; Motowidlo, 1984) to
identify two types of non-task behavior, prosocial and noncompliant, and tested some of their
antecedents as well as their relation to work outcomes. In order to answer her hypotheses, the
author did a literature review, and conducted a survey about sales performance in 12 stores of
a California retail furniture chain. Sheila M. Puffer (1987) later used this conclusion (Smith et
al. 1983; Motowidlo, 1984) to identify two types of non-task behavior, prosocial and
noncompliant, and tested some of their antecedents as well as their relation to work outcomes.
Based on the hypotheses, the author did a literature review and surveyed sales performance in
12 stores of a California retail furniture chain. The data were collected from
three sources: company records, store managers provided assessments of salespeople’s
prosocial and non-compliant behaviors, and salespeople completed a questionnaire.
The results of the regression analysis indicate that prosocial and non-compliant behaviors are
distinct kinds of non-task behavior that are influenced by different perceived situations but
share a common basis in achievement motivation.
The Re-Reinterpretation of the Satisfaction-Causes-Performance
All these described scientific distributions and others led to Organ’s (1988b) publication of A
Restatement of the Satisfaction-Performance Hypothesis. The author reviewed and compared
recent evidence in support of his conclusion from his past work A Reappraisal and
Reinterpretation of the Satisfaction-Causes-Performance.
In order to accomplish this, Organ reviewed recent empirical work, which we have analyzed
above (see Bateman & Organ, 1983; Blau, 1964; Motowidlo, 1984; Organ, 1977; Puffer, 1987;
Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Most of his references have investigated the correlation between
extra-role contributions as "performance" and satisfaction in the workplace. The literature
review led him to conclude that the part of job satisfaction that relates to OCB is more closely
related to cognitive appraisals and assessments than to the actual or typical mood state now.
Based on this conclusion, Organ (1988) points out that current researchers use the terms job
satisfaction and job attitudes invertible. Hence, he refers to psychological researchers (e.g.,
Berkowitz, 1980) who define attitude in terms of cognitive and affective components. Thus,
Organ (1988) concludes that it is not unreasonable to assume that job satisfaction measures
reflect cognitions as well as affect in roughly equal measure. Based on this conclusion, he uses
several publications (e.g., Locke, 1976; Smith, Kendall, and Hulin,1969; Campbell, 1976;
Zajonc 1980; Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman 1959; Folger 1986) in order to analyze
satisfaction as fairness. The author analyzes their conclusions in the context of Equity Theory
(Adam, 1965) and Katz and Kahn’s (1978) definition of an extra-role behavior. Based on his
analysis, much of the job satisfaction that overlaps with OCB is associated with cognitive
evaluation and appraisal, as opposed to a typical mood state or current status (Organ,
1988b). As a result, the type of appraisal reflected should be regarded as an expression of the
person's opinion concerning the level of fairness or justice he finds in his relationship with the
organization (Organ, 1988b).
Accordingly, Organ (1988) proposes that the most plausible explanation for the correlation of
Job Satisfaction and OCB is that OCB varies positively with a person's perception that fairness
has been attained in the organization's relationship with the employee.
The interplay of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in the context of OCB
Larry Williams and Stella Anderson (1991) later uses these contribution (see Bateman &
Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988, 1989; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983) and Katz and Kahn’s theory to
prove that the OCB is one of the key factors in achieving organizational efficiency and
therefore success. Williams & Anderson (1991), also similarly to Smith et al. (1983) decided
to focus on the different dimensions of OCB and mentioned Altruism and Job compliance.
However, Williams & Anderson (1991) do not decide to use this dimensionality. The idea
behind the use of dimensionality is the same, meaning different types of OCB can have
different antecedents. Williams & Anderson (1991) have decided on the OCB-O and OCB-I
type of dimensionality. OCB-O describes extra gestures that are beneficial to the organization.
OCB-I, on the other hand, describes that behaviors that influence just an individual at first, but
its consequence can lead to the benefit of the organization. OCB-I dimension can be
comparable to the Altruism and OCB-O dimension as the General Compliance in the Smith et
al. (1983). Williams & Anderson (1991) claim that the dimensionality used in other studies
mixes OCB-I with OCB-O and therefore could not be entirely reliable.
The authors aim to prove that the OCB is something different to the performance itself and the
job-related behaviors. The second goal set by Williams & Anderson (1991) was to find out
how the different elements of job satisfaction as well as organizational commitment can predict
both dimensions of OCB. Their aim is to study more in-depth that, what Organ (1977) has
explained so the affective and cognitive measures of job satisfaction.
Thus, they conducted a Factor Analysis of Performance Items with a total sample of 172
employees of various organizations from a midwestern city who were attending evening MBA
classes at local universities. Williams & Anderson (1991) conclude that OCB-I, OCB-O and
in role behavior (IRB) are all just different types of performance. What is more, all the
dimensions somehow coexist. 20 item performance assessment however showed, in most of
the cases an item is connected just to one dimension. That would suggest that this threedimensional model can be considered as the reliable one. Additionally, all three dimensions
are relatively strongly correlated to each other. That confirms how different in fact they are.
What is more, Williams & Anderson (1991) found that cognitive predictors were important
even when controlling for IRB, which is an alternative explanation for the findings in previous
studies. The same was case for OCB-I and OCB-O. Therefore, as it was already visible in
Organ`s (1977) and Konovsky & Organ (1996) findings, cognitive component has more
abilities to predict any form of OCB. This means that the previous studies might have
mistakenly measured in-role performance instead of OCB. Williams & Anderson (1991)
eliminated this possibility in their studies. The authors underline also that the variable related
to job external cognition seemed to be more correlated with the OCB, than the variable of pay
cognition that was used in the study of Organ and Konovsky (1989). However, the results of
the Williams & Anderson (1991) regarding the external component were once again in line
with these of Organ and Konovsky (1989). It is since external component (in the study from
1989, considered as pay cognition) turned out to correlate with OCB-O.
One year later, Organ (1990) further investigated his findings (see above) in The Motivational
Basis of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. His study analyzes dispositional, affective, and
cognitive components of components of satisfaction. His literature is heavily based on his and
other researcher’s prior contributions and theoretical references (see above). The goal of
Organ`s study was to review the concept of OCB (both its theory and the measure) and to
investigate its dynamics more in depth. Organ (1990) has mainly decided to take a closer look
at the antecedents of OCB. To achieve the goals of the study, the author used two theoretical
models. First one of them mirrors the interactions between Affect, Job Satisfaction and OCB.
The second model, on the other hand, shows the interactions also between Affect, Job
Satisfaction OCB but Cognition is there additionally included. The first model presents the
situation when the OCB is influenced by the affect. In the case of the second model, it is the
opposite, OCB is influenced mostly by the cognition there.
Organ (1990) concludes that cognition controls the measures of job satisfaction to the big
extent. What is more, job satisfaction may in fact be equal (I.e., equally measured) to the
cognized fairness (Organ, 1990, p. 61). These findings can lead to the conclusion that unfair
treatment from the side of organization can lead to the decrease in OCB, what is in line with
the claims of the Konovsky & Organ (1996) as well as Williams & Anderson (1991).
The Expansion of Empirical Research on Job Satisfaction and OCB
It has been demonstrated in the previous subchapter that there is relationship between
satisfaction and OCB has been consistently investigated in many studies since 1983. Several
studies have additionally tried to identify other antecedents of OCB, such as other attitudinal
variables and individual differences. Based on this assumption, we have included the following
two papers into our SLR to analyze whether this assumption is correct (Dyne, Graham, &
Dienesch, 1994; Robinson & Morrison, 1995)
Dyne et al. (1994) indicated that work behavior is gaining a steady level of attention. The
authors mention also that there were numerous publications dealing with the concept of OCB
(Smith, Organ, Near, 1983; Williams & Anderson, 1991; Bateman & Organ, 1983; MacKenzie,
Podsakoff, Fetter, 1991; Motowidlo, 1984). Dyne et al. (1994) points out that these publications
have a common theme in that they aim to identify work behaviors that contribute to
organizational effectiveness in the long term, however, might be not always seen by the
traditional studies focusing on the evaluation of job performance.
Thus, van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch (1994) mentioned classical philosophy and modern
political theory. According to the theory, active citizenship syndrome is the combination of
several beliefs and behavioral tendencies (e.g., Inkele, 1969). The authors (1994) explain that
as the extension of this theory, one can expect organizational citizenship to be a concept
comprised of several dimensions and therefore several different substantive categories that are
interrelated. The authors (1994) set two goals for this study. The first is introduction of a
nomological network for OCB and re-consideration of the concept. The second goal is to
develop an instrument that could develop the concept of OCB further. Dyne et al. (1994)
decided on factor analysis. The answers of 950 workers from diverse companies were
collected.
Based on these results, it appears that OCB can be conceptualized as multidimensional. In
addition, the results provide strong support for the notion that covenantal relationships mediate
loyalty, functional participation, and social participation.
Sandra L. Robinson and Elizabet Wolfe Morrison (1995) on the other side, emphasize that the
OCB theory has bases on an employee-employer contract, as well as in the notions of
reciprocity and equity that are associated with it (see Organ, 1988; 1990). Robinson &
Morrison (1995), however, have not explained the correlation between this contract and OCB.
It was examined in their study whether a violation of an employee's psychological contract is
linked to misconduct on the part of their employer regarding the employee's civic virtues.
Psychological contracts are views about what is expected from an employee and employer on
the part of the employer. Robinson & Morrison (1995) collected the fate from 126 MBA
students in the three points of the time. Individuals who felt their employers had not met their
employment obligations in the second point of the time, were less likely to engage in civic
virtue behaviors in the third point of time. Trust appeared to be a mediator. These results could
help the managers to cause the workers to perform OCB.
These two studies support Ryan and Organ’s (1995) observation that the term OCB has been
investigated in various contexts. The goal of the authors (1995) study was to construct a
literature review focused on attitudinal and dispositional OCB antecedents. The main study the
authors (1995) focused on is the one of Borman & Motowidlo (1993). Although Borman &
Motowidlo (1993) have focused on contextual performance, the whole concept is anyway like
OCB one. Borman & Motowidlo (1993) pointed out that the employees who decide to do fulfill
tasks that do not lie in the job description contribute to the effective functioning of the
organization. That is why contextual performance can be seen as like OCB. Borman &
Motowidlo (1993) explain that these extraordinary contributions have a neutral value that is
shared among different occupations and work organizations, while task performance varies
from organization to organization. Borman & Motowidlo (1993) also indicate that the
diversification of contextual and task performance is significant because of the different causes
both might have. Task-related knowledge, skills, and abilities are expected to be antecedents
of task performance. On the other hand, the factors that affect dispositions are believed to be
antecedents of contextual performance.
This is in line with the analysis of Organ & Ryan (1995). However, they give much more
attention to the attitude as well as to personality that one has in terms of the OCB antecedents.
Organ & Ryan (1995) propose that, as with Borman and Motowidlo (1993), task performance
will be influenced largely by ability. Borman & Motowidlo (1993) suggest that OCB is of value
to the organization when it is related to dispositional factors rather than task performance. The
authors (1993) claim that dispositional factors “prove to be more useful than they have been to
date” (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, p. 1 as cited in Ryan & Organ 1995). If attitudes and
morale factors such as job satisfaction are related more to OCB than to in-role performance,
then there is a need to consider the organizational practices that human resources departments
have.
Ryan & Organ (1995) decided to conduct meta-analysis out of the literature they have
collected. Most of the studies have focused on the two-dimensional view (meaning altruism
and compliance) of OCB that was introduced by Smith et al. (1983).
The results of the study of Ryan & Organ (1995) indicate that OCB is highly predictive of job
attitudes. Additionally, the correlation between job satisfaction and OCB is more significant
than the one between job satisfaction and in-role performance. Ryan & Organ (1995) note also
that OCB correlates with the rest of attitudinal measures at roughly the same level as
satisfaction. Dispositional measures barely correlate with OCB. However, it is not the case of
consciousness. The moderator that seems to be meaningful is self-assessed OCB and OCB
assessed by others. The findings seem to be universal and are therefore not restricted to the
occupational group. These results are in line with the findings of Smith et al. (1983).
Konovsky & Organ (1996) recall some of the early studies that focused on OCB (e.g., Bateman
and Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ and Near, 1983). These studies suggest that job satisfaction is
the best antecedent to OCB. Konovsky & Organ (1996), mention however, that there are more
actual studies suggesting that it is not the case (Farh, Podsakoff and Organ, 1990; Moorman,
1991). These studies on the other hand, show that fairness is a more accurate antecedent. The
argument for that is the job satisfaction measures are based on fairness (Konovsky and Pugh,
1994). Konovsky & Organ (1996) assert that thanks to the help of both job satisfaction and
fairness ather strong and widespread attitude towards the context of work has been captured. It
is however, not clear how these results should be interpreted. Considering that disposition is a
significant predictor of work attitudes, it may also influence occupational behavior; thereby,
disposition (and therefore not contextual attitudes) could serve as an explanatory factor for the
correlation between OCB and work attitudes. All in all, the study of Konovsky & Organ (1996)
decided that the goal of their study was to find out whether fairness and OCB are in fact
correlated. The second goal was to find out whether, dispositional elements (Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness and Equity Sensitivity) could serve as a mediator.
In order to achieve these goals Konovsky & Organ (1996) conducted regression analysis. The
data was collected with the help of administrative and professional employees of the hospital.
The aim of this analysis was to determine the difference between dispositional and attitudinal
factors in terms of influencing OCB. The authors (1996) found that their assumptions
confirmed and the fairness as well as satisfaction is related to OCB. At the same time, there is
a link between the Conscientiousness and Altruism. There was also a correlation between
Agreeableness and three parts of OCB found.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It’s Construct Clean-Up Time
The accumulated empirical evidence, according to Organ (1997), causes scientists to rethink
the defining characteristics of the OCB. A consideration of OCB as "extra-role", "beyond the
job" or “ unrewarded by the formal system” no longer seems to be helpful. In Organ's view, a
more tenable position would be one that defines OCB in a similarly contextual manner to what
Borman and Motowidlo (1993) identified as contextual performance. Organ bases his critics
on the conclusion of the study Extra-Role Behaviors: In Pursuit of Construct And Definitional
Clarity Over Muddied Waters. The authors of this paper, Van Dyne, Cummins, & McLean
Parks (1995), conducted a substantial review of construct definitions and nomological
networks related to OCB. Several issues were discussed by the author, including (1) the overlap
between a number of constructs, including extra-role behavior, prosocial organizational
behavior, principled organizational dissent, and whistleblowing, (b) an argument for the utility
of the larger construct, and (c) plausible antecedents and consequences associated with
redefined extra-role behavior categories.
In a similar vein, Organ reviewed past
empirical research (e.g., Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Morrison, 1994; Organ, 1977; van Dyne
et al., 1995) to analyze the persistent issues that have been identified with regard to the 1988
working definition of organizational citizenship behavior (see The Conceptual Development
of Organizational Citizenship Behavior).
As a result of his review, Organ concludes that a formidable challenge awaits us in developing
a more precise understanding of what we mean by OCB, which he defines as "performance
that supports the social and psychological environment in which task performance occurs."
Secondly, he mentions the issue of the level of analysis. Most of the research in OCB and
related fields has focused on the contributions made by individuals and their antecedents. Few
studies have examined the group or organizational level, but almost exclusively in a
straightforward aggregative, and descriptive manner. Therefore, these processes must be
further analyzed in future research. Despite some encouraging data supporting the relationship
between OCB and systemic performance, very little analysis has been conducted on how OCB
achieves these effects. Organ also observes that his and Bateman's description of OCB in Job
Satisfaction and the Good Soldier: The Relationship Between Affect and Employee
"Citizenship was greatly influenced by the fading characteristics of past type of organization
from the one currently in existence. In order to preserve the value of OCB as much as possible,
the refinements suggested here and by others will hopefully be beneficial.
In a similar vein of Organ (1997), Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Pain, and Bachrach (2000) referred
to Van Dyne, Cummins, Mc Lean, and Parks (1995) who detailed how much empirical research
neglected the construct validity. Rather than defining the nature of organizational citizenship
itself, the literature has focused more on understanding how organizational citizenship relates
to other constructs. This SLR will, however, only discuss their findings regarding job
satisfaction in the context of the validity of the OCB.
In this regard, they critically reviewed the literature on organizational citizenship behavior as
well as related constructs. Based on their Literature Review and Meta-Analysis, the authors
concluded that job attitudes, task variables, and different types of leader behavior are more
strongly associated with OCBs than other antecedents (Podsakoff et al., 2000). It was found in
the study that job satisfaction, perceptions of fairness, and organizational commitment were
positively related to citizenship behaviors, in accordance with Organ and his colleagues (e.g.,
Bateman & Organ, 1983; Moorman, 1991; Moorman, Niehoff, & Organ, 1993; Organ, 1988,
1990a; Smith et al.,1983). Additionally, trust in the leader and job satisfaction have been
discussed as mediators of the effects of articulating a vision on OCB (Podsakoff et al., 2000). In
order to understand how the leaders’ behavior affect OCBs, future research needs to be
conducted carefully. Unfortunately, and despite the existence of three published OCB metaanalyses (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996a; Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000), fundamental questions remain concerning the OCB
construct itself and how it relates to its dimensions (Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998; Motowidlo,
2000). There was no systematic comparison between the different dimensions of OCB, nor any
systematic comparison between them with other variables in the broader nomological network,
despite the fact that the three previous meta-analyses investigated relationships among
dimensions of OCB and a variety of correlates (Lepine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002).
As a part of the present study, LePine, Erez, and Johnson (2002) intended to critically evaluate
the nature and dimensionality of the OCB construct within the context of the research that has
been conducted since its emergence in the early 1980s. Based on existing research on OCB,
the author describes how investigators have implicitly defined OCB in relation to its
dimensions and then performed a meta-analysis. The purpose of this study is to examine
whether the various dimensions of OCB are differentially related to other variables of interest
(e.g., job satisfaction).
First, the author reviewed the literature on the OCB construct and the development of the most
popular dimensional framework (e.g., Barnard, 1938; Bateman & Organ, 1983; Borman &
Motowidlo, 1993; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Organ, 1988, 1997; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983; van
Dyne, Cummins, & McLean Parks, 1995) In reviewing the existing research on OCB, some
insight was gained into how scholars have implicitly defined OCB in terms of its dimensions.
Their meta-analysis, based on 76 studies, indicates that most of the dimensions are strongly
related and that their relationships are equivalent to the predictors most frequently considered
by
OCB
scholars
(job
satisfaction,
organizational
commitment,
fairness,
trait
conscientiousness, and leadership support) (Lepine et al., 2002). Therefore, OCB dimensions
as currently operationalized by the majority of scholars should be viewed as imperfect
indicators of OCB. To support this concept, it may be beneficial to define OCB explicitly as a
latent construct. There has been no explicit discussion of this concept in the literature to
date. As an alternative explanation for their findings, the authors (2002) offered several
possibilities. Possible explanations for this phenomenon include correlations between method
variances and incomplete sets of predictors or criteria. Thus, the authors (2002)encourage
scholars to consider these alternative perspectives. This is because the definition of OCB has
evolved to be more consistent with contextual performance and because there may be practical
reasons to consider behavioral dimensions separately. As a whole, more effort needs to be put
into developing theories that can guide the measurement and analysis of OCBs. Such theories
should explicitly define OCB in terms of its dimensions.
Later, Brian Hoffman, Carrie Blair, John Meriac, and David Woeher (2007) referred to Jeffrey
LePine, Amir Erez, and Diane Johnson's conclusions regarding the dimensionality of the OCB
construct. It is important to note, however, that the authors noted one limitation in their
review. In their study, LePine, Erze, and Johnson (2007) did not analyze OCB as a single latent
factor. In addition, they did not examine the relationship between a latent OCB factor and
associated attitudinal measures. It was rather a rational analysis of the correlations between the
OCB dimensions that led them to their conclusions.
The authors investigate the construct validity of the organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB)–task performance distinction by conducting a quantitative review of the OCB literature
(e.g., Bateman & Organ, 1983; Lepine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002; Organ, 1997; Organ &
Ryan, 1995).
A meta-analytical evaluation of observed relationships among measures of OCB, as well as the
dimensionality of the OCB constructs, was conducted in a similar vein to previous research
(Lepine et al., 2002). Furthermore, they aim to examine the observed relationship between
OCB and task performance, as well as between OCB, task performance, and measures of job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and three dimensions of organizational justice
(Hoffman, Blair, Meriac, & Woehr, 2007). Furthermore, the authors (2007) incorporated these
variables both in their meta-analysis and the confirmatory factor analytic model tests.
According to their findings, OCB is characterized by a single factor that is distinct from task
performance but is strongly related to it. Furthermore, the differential relationships between
OCB and task performance, as well as the fact that OCB consistently explains significant
variance in attitudinal correlates beyond task performance, highlight the importance of
incorporating OCB into the evaluation of job performance (Hoffman et al., 2007). Although
these findings are relatively positive, there is still a small overlap between OCB and
attitudes. The objective of this meta-analysis is to promote awareness of issues associated with
current procedures for assessing OCB as well as research to enhance the construct validity of
work performance measures(Hoffman et al., 2007).
Prior research has examined a range of predictors of OCB in order to tailor organizational
practices to improve its development, according to Neil Fassina, David Jones, and Krist
Uggerslev (2008). Among the most significant attitudinal predictors of OCB (see Organ &
Ryan, 1995) are employees' perceptions of fairness and job satisfaction (see Bateman & Organ,
1983). Despite the large correlations between perceived fairness and job satisfaction, some
researchers question whether perceived fairness and job satisfaction play an essential role in
predicting OCB (see Organ, 1988b, 1989). In order to explain these relationships, three
possible theoretical explanations have been proposed. OCB may be related to job satisfaction
because (a) it is a direct antecedent distinct from fairness (see Organ & Ryan, 1995), and (b) it
is a mediator of fairness-OCB relationships because fairness is a common predictor of job
satisfaction and OCB (Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ, 1990).
Despite the contrasts outlined above, neither perspective has been directly compared. Thus,
theory and research development on OCB and its predictors have been stymied, and guidance
for managerial practice has been limited. Consequently, the authors (2008) sought to clarify
the roles of job satisfaction and perceived fairness in predicting OCB.
In the course of their literature review, the authors found 45 studies and 50 independent samples
(N = 13923). To clarify the role of perceived fairness and global job satisfaction in predicting
OCB, the authors performed a meta-analysis and a path analysis. There were four models
tested: full mediation, partial mediation, spurious effects, and independent effects
models. Across all five dimensions of OCB, the results supported the independent effects
model. A regression analysis of all five OCB dimensions revealed that job satisfaction
accounted for a unique variance after accounting for perceived fairness. Moreover, the
OCB dimensions related to job satisfaction and the other types of justice were also predicted
by at least one type of fairness (Fassina et al., 2008).
Based on meta-analyses, the authors (2008) provided empirical evidence that global job
satisfaction and perceived fairness can be used to predict OCB. According to the authors, after
controlling for three types of perception of justice, global job satisfaction explains variance in
Organ's (1988a) five aspects of OCB. Moreover, it has been found that at least one type of
perceived fairness is associated with variance in the OCB dimensions that are incremental to
job satisfaction as well as the remaining types of fairness (Fassina et al., 2008). In order to
better understand how job satisfaction and justice perceptions are related to OCB, researchers
are encouraged to investigate possible mechanisms. To diagnose employee decisions to engage
in OCB, practitioners are encouraged to monitor employees' perceptions of justice alongside
their perceptions of global job satisfaction.
The conceptual development of Job Satisfaction and OCB after the clean-up
After the section described above, we have selected several papers which were published
afterwards in order to see how the correlation between Job Satisfaction has been seen in the
relation to OCB in recent years.
Ning, Crant & Liang (2010) decided to study job satisfaction and OCB from a slightly different
perspective, meaning with the leader-member exchange and procedural justice climate, as
moderators. The authors (2010), similarly to Fassina et al. (2008), used the models in order to
test their hypothesis. Ning et al. (2010) found out that employees who maintain a high-quality
relationship with their supervisors, tend to show more of OCB and be more satisfied with their
jobs. What is more, the employes who were seen as these with proactive personalities are more
likely to get involved in organizational activities. This relationship has, however, procedural
justice climate as a moderator. Ning et al. (2010) bring new light to the OCB-job satisfaction
relationship and prove that there are many more factors playing significant roles.
Berry, Li & Gardner (2011), similarly to Ning, Crant & Liang (2010), paid more attention to
personality in terms of relationship of OCB and task performance. They have used personality
models consisting of five factors. They found out that previously discussed Conscientiousness
and Agreeableness correlate with OCB. The findings are in line with the ones of Fassina et al.
(2008) because it turned out that these two factors from personality model correlate much
stronger with OCB than with the task performance. That leads to the conclusion that personality
traits might generally play a bigger role in OCB than in task performance. Additionally,
personality traits seem to be a better antecedent of OCB, than job satisfaction is. Gottfredson
& Aguinis (2017) also focused on the value of the relationship between leaders and their
followers. The authors confirmed that the fair and generally positive behaviour from the side
of the leader improves the performance of the follower (Gottfredson & Aguinis, 2017).
Contrary to this focus, Johnson (2014) started to investigate job satisfaction in a different
context than so far, meaning in the context of the fair behaviors. The following literature
follows these steps. (2014) have decided to deepen the knowledge about self-rating and otherrating OCB. The benefits of the other-rating OCB are that the supervisors are usually better
informed about the behavior of at work just because it is part of their tasks (Carpenter et al.,
2014). That is why their evaluation of OCB can be considered as a good predictor. Furthermore,
the OCB of workers can be directed towards the supervisors as well as their colleagues.
Consequently, this measure of OCB can be also considered as legitimate (Carpenter et al.,
2014). Therefore, other-rating OCB seems to be generally more objective and accurate than
self-rating one. Carpenter et al. (2014) suggests in this case that the effectiveness of the
common predictors of OCB, such as, job satisfaction, might be overrated.
Garg, Punia, and Jain (2019), on the other hand, focused on another context of the job
satisfaction, meaning its correlation with the workplace spirituality. OCB is considered as a
mediator here. Thus, the authors (2019) assume that there is a positive relationship between
three variables mentioned here. However, it is important to mention that job satisfaction can
appear also without workplace spirituality, therefore it is only an optional antecedent (Garg et
al., 2019). Yoon, Bono, Yang, Lee, Glomb & Duffy (2022) continue the discussion started in
the study of Naval et al. (2019). The focus lies, however, on well-being instead of on the
workplace spirituality and on the positive as well as negative affect, instead of on-the-job
satisfaction (Yoon et al., 2022). Job satisfaction was not completely ignored here. The results
suggest that positive affect is positively correlated with well-being and therefore also with job
satisfaction. Additionally, the study points out several mental health consequences of the
positive and negative affect.
Guinot, Monfort & Chiva (2021) put their focus on the issue of the improvement of the wellbeing of the employee at work through the increase of motivation as well as satisfaction. The
authors (2021) particularly investigated the issue of decision making in the participative style
and how this type of deciding influence job satisfaction. The authors (2021) conclude that when
the decisions are made together (I.e. participative), job satisfaction increases. Trust has turned
out to be a mediator in this case.
Conclusion
We have separated our selected literature into four chapters. First, we described how the link
between Job Satisfaction and OCB was developed and defined. All these described scientific
distributions and others led to further empirical researchers. Hence, we next analyzed
publications who reinterpreted prior findings. In the third section, we analyzed the papers who
reviewed the interplay of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in the context of
OCB. Thus, we were able to show that there is relationship between satisfaction and OCB has
been consistently investigated in many studies since 1983. Several studies have additionally
tried to identify other antecedents of OCB, such as other attitudinal variables and individual
differences. Hence, we investigated the expansion of empirical research on Job Satisfaction
and OCB. However, the accumulated empirical evidence causes scientists to rethink the
defining characteristics of OCB. Following this, we studied publications who criticized
assumptions that were outdated and highlight limitations of prior contribution. Based on this,
these researchers proposed that the construct of OCB must be reviewed and adjusted to
temporary needs of organizations. Lastly, we introduced contemporary publications who tried
to analyze the relationship of Job Satisfaction with other theoretical aspects, subdisciplines, or
another context
After the analysis of our selected papers, we were able to illustrate the growing research of the
OCB since its introduction as it contributes to the success of the organization. Therefore, also
the interest in job satisfaction and its relation to OCB has increased. The collected literature,
however, looks at the OCB phenomenon and its correlation to OCB from different
perspectives. At the same time, the scholars often present contradictory opinions and therefore
there is still a need for investigation of the concept of OCB and how exactly it should be
measured. The definition of the term depends on when the research was published. Therefore,
the relationship between Job Satisfaction and OCB has never stopped being studied, opposed,
criticized, and re-evaluated. Thus, study generally add to the general knowledge about OCB as
well as its antecedents. That is why the concept of OCB itself has never stopped developing.
Lastly, it is important to underline the norm impact of Dennis Organ in the investigation and
development of Organizational Citizenship Behavior.
It is already noticeable that OCB is a rather broad, unclear, and undefined concept. That is what
causes the limitation to the topic and, therefore, to our Systematic Literature Review. A
compromise between the generalization and specification of the OCB concept has not been
found yet. The measurements of OCB differ across the studies. The existing literature has
focused more on studying the correlations between OCB and other concepts instead of focusing
on clarifying the concept of OCB itself. The problem of concept unclarity has emerged
because, in many cases, it is difficult to distinguish which tasks are obligatory and which are
additional ones. What is more, a person fulfilling additional tasks might do them just because
of the assumption that the tasks are obligatory. That can be the case mostly with new workers.
Therefore, it happens that scholars assume that the extra role for one person is also the extra
role for the other person, but unfortunately, it is not always the case
The recommendations for the future research would be to popularize the OCB knowledge and
encourage the organizations to use found solutions in practice. Additionally, it would be good
to deepen the research regarding the OCB antecedents in order to understand what causes
employees to behave this way. At the same time, it would be beneficial to find out how to
achieve OCB by the employers but at the same not to decrease their individual performance.
We would also recommend finding out what underlines job satisfaction and how this one
should be increased. Finally, it would make sense to study further the correlation between job
satisfaction and OCB as there are still many different theories.
List of References
Barnard, C. I. 1938a. The Functions of the Executive (30th Anniversary). Cambridge,
Massachusetts, and London, England: Harvard University Press.
Barnard, C. I. 1938b. Chapter XV: The Executive Functions.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. 1983a. Job Satisfaction and the Good Soldier: The
Relationship Between Affect and Employee “Citizenship”. Academy of Management
Journal, 26(4): 587–595.
Bateman, Thomas S, & Organ, D. W. 1983. Job Satisfaction and the Good Soldier: The
Relationship between Affect and Employee “Citizenship.” Source: The Academy of
Management Journal, vol. 26. https://about.jstor.org/terms.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. 1983b. Job Satisfaction and the Good Soldier: The
Relationship Between Affect and Employee “Citizenship”. Academy of Management
Journal, 26(4): 587–595.
Bhandara, P. 2022, June. What is Qualtitative Reserach | Methods & Examples.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York, London, Sidney : John
Wiley & Sons, Inc. .
Boaz, A., & Ashby, D. 2003. Fit for purpose? Assessing research quality for evidence based
policy and proctice. no. 11, London. https://studylib.net/doc/18498353/fit-for-purpose--king-s-college-london.
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 in
organizations: 71–98. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Carpenter, N. C., Berry, C. M., & Houston, L. 2014. A meta-analytic comparison of selfreported
and
other-reported
organizational
citizenship
behavior.
Journal
of
Organizational Behavior, 35(4): 547–574.
Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I. S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. 2011. The five-factor model
of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 96(6): 1140–1166.
Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. 2008. Producing A Systematic Review. The Sage handbook of
organizational research methods (Sage Publicat): 671–689. Sage Publications Ltd. .
Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., & van Aken, J. E. 2008. Developing Design Propositions through
Research Synthesis. Organization Studies, 29(3): 393–413.
Dyne, L. van, Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. 1994. Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
Construct Redefinition, Measurement, and Validation. Source: The Academy of
Management Journal, vol. 37. https://www.jstor.org/stable/256600.
Eitan, A. T., Smolyansky, E., Harpaz, I. K., & Perets, S. 2022, October 20. Connected Papers.
https://www.connectedpapers.com/terms.
Estabrooks, C. A., Field, P. A., & Morse, J. M. 1994. Aggregating Qualitative Findings: An
Approach to Theory Development. Qualitative Health Research, 4(4): 503–511.
Fassina, N. E., Jones, D. A., & Uggerslev, K. L. 2008. Relationship clean-up time: Using metaanalysis and path analysis to clarify relationships among job satisfaction, perceived
fairness, and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 34(2): 161–188.
Garg, N., Punia, B. K., & Jain, A. 2019. Workplace Spirituality and Job Satisfaction: Exploring
Mediating Effect of Organization Citizenship Behaviour. Vision: The Journal of
Business Perspective, 23(3): 287–296.
Gottfredson, R. K., & Aguinis, H. 2017. Leadership behaviors and follower performance:
Deductive and inductive examination of theoretical rationales and underlying
mechanisms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(4): 558–591.
Guinot, J., Monfort, A., & Chiva, R. 2021. How to increase job satisfaction: the role of
participative decisions and feeling trusted. Employee Relations: The International
Journal, 43(6): 1397–1413.
Hammersley, M. 2004. Some questions about evidence-based practice in education. In G.
Thomas & R. Pring (Eds.), Evidence-Based Practice in Education: 133–149.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Hofer, J. 2022. Introduction Session HS2022, Seminar in Management & Entrepreneurship.
Institut für Unternehmensführung.
Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J. 2007. Expanding the criterion
domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92(2): 555–566.
Johnson, R. E., Lanaj, K., & Barnes, C. M. 2014. The good and bad of being fair: Effects of
procedural and interpersonal justice behaviors on regulatory resources. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 99(4): 635–650.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations (2nd ed.). New York,
London, Sydney: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. .
Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. 1996. Dispositional and contextual determinants of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(3): 253–
266.
Lepine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. 2002. The nature and dimensionality of organizational
citizenship behavior: a critical review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.52.
Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. 2010. The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and
organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95(2): 395–404.
Motowidlo, S. J. 1984. DOES JOB SATISFACTION LEAD TO CONSIDERATION AND
PERSONAL SENSITIVITY. Academy of Management Journal, 27(4): 910–915.
Organ, D. 1988a. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Solider Syndrome.
Lexington
Books.
https://archive.org/details/organizationalci0000orga/page/n6/mode/1up.
Organ, D. 1988b. A Restatement of the Satisfaction-Performance Hypothesis. Jornal of
Management, 14(4): 547–557.
Organ, D. 1997. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It’s Construct Clean-Up Time. Human
Performance, 10(2): 85–97.
Organ, D., & Ryan, K. 1995. A Meta-Analytic Review of Attitudinal and Dispositional
Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4): 775–
802.
Organ, D. W. 1977. A Reappraisal and Reinterpretation of the Satisfaction-CausesPerformance Hypothesis. Source: The Academy of Management Review, 2(1): 46–53.
Organ, D. W. 1989. THE MOTIVATIONAL BASIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL
CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12: 43–72.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 2006. Organizational citizenship
behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Organizational Citizenship
Behavior:
Its
Nature,
Antecedents,
and
Consequences.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231082.
Pawson, R. 2006. Evidence-Based Policy, A Realist Perspective (1st ed.), vol. 1. London,
Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. 2000. Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and
Suggestions for Future Research. Journal of Management, 26(3): 513–563.
Puffer, S. M. 1987. Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and work performance among
commission salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4): 615–621.
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. 1995. Psychological Contracts and OCB: The Effect of
Unfulfilled Obligations on Civic Virtue Behavior. Source: Journal of Organizational
Behavior, vol. 16. https://about.jstor.org/terms.
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. 1939. Management and the worker : an account of a
research program conducted by the Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works,
Chicago. Chicago: Hawthorne Works.
Sandelowski Margarete, Docherty, S., & Emden, C. 1997. Qualitative metasynthesis: Issues
and techniques. Research in Nursing & Health, 20(4): 365–371.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature
and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4): 653–663.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. 2003. Towards a Methodology for Developing
Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review *.
Turney, S. 2022, June 15. Systematic Review | Definition, Example & Guide.
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/systematic-review/.
van Dyne, L., Cummins, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. 1995. Extra-Role Behaviors: In Pursuit Of
Construct And Definitional Clarity (A Bridge Over Muddied Waters). Research in
Organizational Behavior, 17: 215–285.
Wang, C. L., & Chugh, H. 2014. Entrepreneurial Learning: Past Research and Future
Challenges. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(1): 24–61.
Williams, L. J. 1988, August. Affective and non affective components of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment as determinants of organizational citizenship and in-role
behaviors. Dissertation , Indiana University.
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(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305.
Yoon, D. J., Bono, J. E., Yang, T., Lee, K., Glomb, T. M., et al. 2022. The balance between
positive and negative affect in employee well‐being. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 43(4): 763–782.
Selbständigkeitserklärung Gruppenarbeit
„Wir erklären hiermit, dass jeder von uns an dieser Arbeit mit selbständigen Teilen beteiligt war. Wir
erklären ferner, dass wir keine anderen als die angegebenen Hilfsmittel benutzt haben. Alle Stellen, die
wörtlich oder sinngemäss aus Quellen übernommen wurden, haben wir als solche kenntlich gemacht.
Es ist uns bekannt, dass andernfalls der Senat gemäss Art. 36 Abs. lit. r Gesetz über die Universität
(UniG) vom 05.09.1996 zum Entzug des aufgrund dieser Arbeit verliehen Titels berechtigt ist.“
Bern, 01.02.23, Aleksandra Pierzak
Bern, 01.02.23, Minh-Khanh Vu
Appendix
Appendix A: Connected Paper graph of A Reappraisal and Reinterpretation of the SatisfactionCauses-Performance Hypothesis, Dennis Organ 1, 1977. Retrieved from:
https://www.connectedpapers.com/main/40d8262b07e1919e8587a93614558c40285660b1/AReappraisal-and-Reinterpretation-of-the-Satisfaction%20Causes%20PerformanceHypothesis/graph. Viewed 26. February 2023.
Appendix B: Semantic Scholar for A Reappraisal and Reinterpretation of the SatisfactionCauses-Performance Hypothesis, Dennis Organ 1, 1977. Retrieved from:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-Reappraisal-and-Reinterpretation-of-theOrgan/40d8262b07e1919e8587a93614558c40285660b. Viewed 26. February 2023.