Gender roles and organizational citizenship behaviors - IngentaConnect

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-2413.htm

GM 28,7

Gender roles and organizational citizenship behaviors: effects on managerial evaluations

380

Sean M. Cameron

Received 12 October 2012 Revised 13 March 2013 17 March 2013 Accepted 4 April 2013

Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois, USA, and

Joel T. Nadler Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, Illinois, USA Abstract Purpose – Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) are defined as non-required workplace behaviors that have potential positive organizational impact. This study examined gender roles and differences in employee evaluations based on OCB participation. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – College students (n ¼ 160) rated male and female managers, who did or did not participate in OCBs, on the evaluation of behaviors and possessed gendered traits (agentic and communal). Additionally, participants rated the gendered nature of OCBs. Findings – OCB participation had a direct effect on managerial ratings and OCBs were perceived to be more feminine than masculine. Gender did not predict differences in ratings; however, women were seen as more likely to participate in OCBs compared to men. Additionally, the gender roles associated with OCBs were measured and OCBs were perceived to be mostly feminine in nature. Research limitations/implications – The results indicated the importance of OCBs in managerial ratings and established that OCB behaviors are more aligned with stereotypes of women than men. Gendered expectations regarding OCB behaviors may further bias subjective workplace evaluations. Originality/value – This is the first study to establish the perception that OCBs as commonly categorized in research studies are perceived to be associated with feminine behaviors. OCBs had a strong effect on evaluations of managers and OCBs are more associated with feminine gender roles. Keywords Performance, Gender, Managers, Gender stereotypes, Management roles, Organizational behaviour Paper type Research paper

Gender in Management: An International Journal Vol. 28 No. 7, 2013 pp. 380-399 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1754-2413 DOI 10.1108/GM-10-2012-0074

Gender roles regarding masculine (agentic) and feminine (communal) behaviors expected of men and women can bias perceptions of employees and managers (Eagly and Carli, 2007). Gender-based incongruent behaviors (men acting relationally/women acting aggressively) often result in stereotype based bias in evaluations of performance (Eagly and Karau, 2002). Men are expected to act aggressively and decisively while women are expected to act more relational and communal (Schein, 2001). Further supporting the importance of gender roles, stereotypes of successful managers and stereotypes of men are more similar than stereotypes of women and successful managers (Schein et al., 1996; Stockdale and Nadler, 2010). The end result is that after adjusting for experience, education, performance, and seniority, men make more than women for the same jobs and men are more likely to be promoted and awarded larger raises than women (Bayard et al., 2003; Blau and Kahn, 2003; Eagly and Carli, 2007). Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) are positively related to both performance appraisals and organizational outcomes (Organ et al., 2006).

Intuitively many aspects of OCBs seem to mirror the communal aspects of female gender roles such as helping, consideration, and loyalty. Kidder and Parks (2001) suggested that OCBs map on to gender roles. This study examines if the performance of OCBs differentially affects employee evaluations of men and women and further examines the feminized and masculinized nature of various types of OCBs. OCBs: history and current conceptualization OCBs are optional pro-social behaviors of an individual, aside from official job requirements and duties which are not necessarily present in a job description and benefit others and the organization (Organ et al., 2006). OCBs have been shown to be positively related to organizational success (Dunlop and Lee, 2004; Organ et al., 2006). Although OCBs are not a part of employee’s job description, research indicates OCBs can influence managerial evaluations (Podsakoff et al., 2000; Whiting et al., 2008). Reasons OCBs influence employee evaluations include a belief that OCBs are essential to the success of the organization, voluntary participation in OCBs being perceived as a sign of organizational dedication, and general expectation that OCBs should be performed and therefore aggregated into overall job performance (Organ et al., 2006). Whiting et al. (2008) suggest research has indicated that OCBs are often as equally important to workplace performance appraisals as actual task performance. Research into OCBs has evolved since the onset of study into these behaviors. Originally what became known as OCBs were examined under the term “cooperation”. Cooperation was noted as the activity which employees engaged into benefit their colleagues and was considered a spontaneous and inherent behavior in which employees could chose to participate. Additionally, cooperation was considered to be influenced by the workplace culture and environment (Smith et al., 1983). Researchers were interested in the effect of cooperation on the organization and the reasons why employees participated in the behavior. OCB research evolved beyond cooperation to include the constructs of altruism and generalized compliance. Altruism was defined as the characteristic attributed to behaviors that were specifically performed to benefit a coworker (Smith et al., 1983). Generalized compliance, on the other hand, was considered less direct behavior that benefitted others and the organization; the “good soldier syndrome” (Smith et al., 1983). Employees participating in altruism were considered to be helpful towards their coworkers and those who engaged in generalized compliance were perceived as pursuing extrinsic approval for their efforts targeting the organization as a whole. Today research of OCBs has evolved into over 30 characterizing dimensions of behavior (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Many similarities have been found among the various OCB dimensions. Therefore, it has been suggested that future research focus on particular aspects in order to reduce confusion and increase the understanding of OCBs (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Organ (1994) suggests categorizing OCBs into the following five dimensions: altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. This conceptualization of a five dimensional model of OCBs is still commonly utilized (Organ et al., 2006). Organ et al. (2006) provides a framework of OCBs within these five primary dimensions. Employees engaging in altruism will help coworkers without a desire for recognition or reward. Conscientiousness, or behaviors which benefit the organization rather than individuals, is closely linked to the generalized compliance construct

Effects on managerial evaluations 381

GM 28,7

382

mentioned earlier. Employees exercising conscientiousness are timelier and more focused at work. Courtesy involves the consideration of one’s personal actions on coworkers. Employees engaging in courtesy will take a proactive stance to avoid causing hardship for other employees. Sportsmanship slightly differs from other OCBs in that employees engaged in this behavior will refrain from negative actions that affect coworkers or the organization. An employee exhibiting sportsmanship is more likely to be tolerant of inconveniences and impervious to gossiping. Civic virtue also benefits the organization directly and includes active involvement in organizational governance. Those who practice civic virtue are more concerned with organizational policies and staying involved with issues important to organizational flow. Gender stereotypes in the workplace Gender stereotypes exist within the workplace and affect the perception of male and female behavior within an organization (Cooper and Lewis, 1995). Additionally, the way in which males and females behave can be influenced by these stereotypes and the manner in which their behavior is evaluated. Biernat and Manis (1994) suggest that shifting standards theory highlights why men and women may be perceived differently despite being engaged in similar behaviors. Biernat and Manis found that when a stereotype exists, disseminating two groups on the same measurement, an a priori expectation of a difference is perceived by the evaluator. This suggests that men and women, performing OCBs equally, may be evaluated differently based on the stereotypical perception of how women and men are supposed to act based on gender roles. Subjective ratings, in comparison to objective, may be especially affected by the gender of the employee (Bowen et al., 2000). The gender of the employee may affect ratings as those being evaluated are compared to others within their group rather than to an established standard for the behavior (Biernat and Manis, 1994). Instead of female employees being evaluated on an established rating they are compared to the rater’s existing stereotypes of women. For example, when using a Likert-type scale to rate an employee’s performance, a rater may give a similar rating to two employees completing the same task. The rater may “strongly agree” that both the man and woman are performing as they should. The use of subjective measures (e.g. strongly disagree to strongly agree) draw upon the participant’s perception of what each attribute on the scale represents. Raters will often shift the end anchors of a scale to be in line with their perceptions of the referent group (in this case gender) used to judge the person under evaluation (Biernat and Manis, 1994). Therefore, Biernat and Manis (1994) suggest ratings may vary due to differences in the standards used in subjective assessment which are less likely to be observed when ratings have an objective outcome or use. So a woman may be subjectively rated higher than a man, due to the rater comparing the woman to other women and the man to other men. However, when the rating criterion is instead presented objectively, such as a pay raise recommendation or promotion ranking, the rater is more likely to now consider a specific applicant against all other applicants (across genders) in making comparisons. The woman’s subjective accomplishments may be compared to other women, and thus over valued compared to a similarly performing male and through shifting standards resulting in the woman being rated higher on the subjective rating, but the man being promoted.

Gender roles consist of both the ideas individuals have of the opposite gender and the ideas individuals maintain regarding themselves. Kidder (2002) states that gender roles develop over time in societies and led to the consensus amongst the population regarding these roles. As cultural stereotypes of gender and gendered work roles develop, individuals subscribe to these commonly held ideals. Gender roles include both descriptive (how men and women act) and prescriptive (how men and woman should act) stereotypes and interact with gendered stereotypes regarding work roles such as perceived masculine (construction worker) and feminine (nurse) typed occupations (Rudman and Glick, 2001). Eagly and Karau (2002) suggest that gender roles and work roles are comprised of both descriptive and injunctive norms. Common perceptions regarding the expected actions of particular group members are considered to be descriptive norms. In contrast, injunctive norms, similar to prescriptive stereotypes, are the common beliefs of what members of a particular group should be doing (Eagly and Karau, 2002). Social role theory suggests that these injunctive norms persist in the workplace ascribing agentic qualities to men and communal qualities to women. Therefore, men should exhibit agentic traits of assertiveness and women should exhibit communal traits of compassion (Eagly and Karau, 2002). Social role theory also known as role congruity theory shines light on the problems of gender stereotypes. The theory suggests that in tasks requiring agentic qualities women face a challenge, in comparison to men on the same task, of meeting a higher standard. Women who exhibit agentic traits are judged less noteworthy due to the agentic qualities being incongruent with the expected norms of behavior for a female employee (Eagly and Karau, 2002). Women who conform to the stereotype of a leader may be rated poorly in evaluations due to the conflict between the expected work role of leadership (agentic behaviors) and the expected gender role of women (communal behaviors). In contrast, men are not expected to behave communally and are therefore not penalized for lacking in this area when they take on agentic traits. However, women to conform to the work role of leadership must demonstrate agentic behaviors that are incongruent with their gender role in order to be seen as performing leadership tasks as well as men. This comes at a cost for women who are then perceived to be less communal leading to perceptions of unlikability and thus lower evaluation ratings. OCBs and gender stereotypes Research from Lovell et al. (1999) suggests that employees who participate in pro-social behaviors (OCBs) are more likely to be rated higher in performance evaluations than employees who do not participate in OCBs. The more often an employee engages in OCBs the higher their rating on the evaluations. Unfortunately a precipice exists for female employees. Although overall, employees who performed OCBs were rated higher on evaluations, female employees continued to experience lower ratings than those of male coworkers (Lovell et al., 1999). Further analysis found that women were participating more often than men in altruistic behaviors yet the evaluations did not reflect this higher OCB performance. Raters were generally attending to the greater number of OCBs performed by women and employees (men or women) who performed OCBs more often were rated higher. What was troubling was that despite women outperforming men on OCB participation the men were given higher ratings on overall job performance (Lovell et al., 1999). Allen and Rush (2001) found that OCBs performed


GM 28,7

384

by women may go unappreciated because it is perceived as expected and congruent with gender role expectations. On the other hand, not being expected by gender roles, OCBs may be highly noticeable and appreciated by raters when performed by a man. Johnson et al. (2009) found that women are also more comfortable with a larger portion of overall performance being ranked from OCB participation compared to men. These studies taken together suggest that women are more likely to perform OCBs and are more willing to have OCBs utilized in rating the performance; however, men are more likely to benefit from performing OCBs. Williams and Anderson (1991) proposed that OCBs can be divided into two constructs: behaviors which benefit individuals (OCB individual (OCBI)) versus behaviors which benefit the organization (OCB organizational (OCBO)). OCBI includes individually benefitting behaviors such as altruism and courtesy and OCBO includes the organizationally geared behaviors of sportsmanship, civic virtue, and conscientiousness. Organ et al. (2006) also suggest that OCBs can be further condensed into three broad categories; individual behaviors (OCBI), organizational behaviors (OCBO), and inter-role behaviors (IRB). IRBs are conscientiousness behaviors that focus on how an individual conducts their inter role work behaviors. IRBs can be seen as going above and beyond the expected work related tasks in a way that benefits both other individuals and the organization as a whole. Kidder and Parks (2001) categorized OCBIs and OCBOs into feminine versus masculine OCBs, respectively; suggesting gender roles play significantly into the perception of these behaviors amongst male and female workers. Same gender OCBs were considered in-role while opposite gendered OCBs were considered extra-role. Therefore, in work roles deemed masculine, such as management, male employees considered OCBOs to be in-role (Kidder and Parks, 2001). In relation to role congruity theory, this leads to the possibility for evaluation ratings of women, based on participation in OCBs, to suffer as women who perform organizationally-categorized OCBOs may be perceived as neglecting more individually focused, and consequently more communal, OCBIs. Research by Farell and Finkelstein (2007) supports the idea that OCBOs may be considered extra-role for females. Men who were employed as laboratory technicians were anticipated to participate in acts of civic virtue more often than their female coworkers. An additional study also found that women, within a gender-neutral job, were more likely to be engaged in the OCBI of altruism and men were more likely to be engaged in the OCBO of civic virtue (Farell and Finkelstein, 2007). Additionally, Heilman and Chen (2005) found that OCBs were more expected from women than men and those women who did not participate in OCB behaviors were rated lower on performance evaluations as a result. These studies provide further support for the separation of OCBs into individual and organizational components and that these dimensions map onto traditional perceptions of gender roles. Allen (2006) disparately describes the view that employees engaging in OCBs may hinder or enhance promotional chances depending on which behaviors are performed. Male employees who participated in both OCBOs and OCBIs received higher promotional opportunities than equally participatory women. In this instance men were more likely to be promoted no matter which OCBs were performed. It is possible that the OCBs performed by men were more unexpected and thus more salient in the minds of the evaluator. Allen’s (2006) findings further support role congruity theory

(Eagly and Karau, 2002) and prescriptive and descriptive stereotyping (Rudman and Glick, 2001). The gendered stereotypical expectations of particular careers may influence the expectations of OCBs between male and female workers. For instance, past research indicates that when expectations of job requirements between men and women are rated similarly, OCBs were expected more from women in gender-neutral occupations (Allen and Rush, 2001). This has the potential to create a difference in baseline expectations. In a profession where women and men are rated equally on task performance but expected to perform OCBs at different levels, bias in evaluations may be present. Women are expected to perform OCBs more frequently, and if they do not, are evaluated more poorly in comparison to men. On the other hand, men who perform more OCBs might be seen as more participatory than expected hereby giving an evaluative advantage. Current research The relationship between gender stereotypes, OCB participation, and employee evaluations is an area that needs further study. Gender stereotypes have been found to affect employee evaluations both in experimental settings (Eagly and Karau, 2002) and real world performance ratings (Bowen et al., 2000). Specific dimensions of OCBs can be conceptualized as more or less congruent with men and women’s gendered expectations of behavior (Kidder and Parks, 2001). Additionally, women can be under credited for OCBs while men can be over credited for the same behaviors (Allen and Rush, 2001). The extent that certain dimensions of OCBs are perceived as masculine or feminine as well as the gender differences in perceptions of OCBs are both areas needing further exploration. This study examined which OCBs are perceived as masculine or feminine. OCBI (altruism and courtesy), OCBO (civic virtue and sportsmanship) and IRB (conscientiousness) scale items were rated on a feminine to masculine scale. Additionally, this study examined the effects of gender and the effect of performing or not performing OCBs had on employee evaluations and perceived gender traits (possessing agentic or communal traits). This research intended to provide more insight into the gender stereotyping associated with OCBs and how OCBs themselves may be seen as gender specific behaviors. Hypotheses H1. OCBs will differ in perceptions of masculinity and femininity; specifically OCBI will be perceived to be more feminine. H2. Managerial evaluations will be affected by perceived participation in OCBs and by the gender of the managers in the scenarios. Specifically, female managers will be evaluated the lowest when perceived to be not participating in OCBs compared to men. Men who are perceived as performing OCBs will be rated higher compared to other men and women. H3. Managers who do not participate in OCBs will be rated lower on communal traits (social behaviors) and higher on agentic traits (task behaviors). This relationship will be reversed for managers who do participate in OCBs. Additionally, women will be seen as less communal than men when


GM 28,7

performing OCBs (as OCB behavior will be more expected more from women compared to men as predicted by social role theory (Eagly and Karau, 2002)). H4. In previous research women were rated as being more participatory in OCBs (Lovell et al., 1999). Therefore, women performing OCBs will be more easily recognized as performing OCBs compared to men.

386 Methods Participants Students (n ¼ 160) attending a Midwestern university completed the study for college course extra credit. The participant’s average age was 22 (SD ¼ 2.86) and consisted of 38 percent men and 62 percent women. The sample consisted of primarily junior, senior, and graduate students (95 percent of the sample). The sample was primarily White (70 percent), followed by Black (22 percent), then Hispanic/Latino (2 percent), the remainder (6 percent) reporting other ethnicities. The average number of jobs held by the sample was 4.62 (SD ¼ 3.06) and the average longest time working a particular job was an average of 28 months (SD ¼ 20.30). Only 3 percent of the sample had not previously held a job. The sample contained some managerial experience with 15 percent of the participants reported having served as a manager at some time. Procedure An experimental design was utilized for this study to examine the effects of specific OCB behaviors on evaluations of an employee and potential differences due to gender of the target. As gender was a primary variable of interest, an experimental design using scenarios was utilized. Student evaluators were used as the scenario described typical activities associated with a retail position that students would have familiarity with (87 percent of the participants reported having worked at least one retail job). Additionally, retail was chosen based on 2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics data indicating that 44.1 percent of retail managers in the USA were women (BLS, 2010) suggesting that retail management is a relatively gender neutral occupation. Participants within classes were given a pen and paper survey packet containing all of the study’s materials including one of four written work place scenarios. Participants were randomly given one of the four survey packets that only varied in which scenario was within; male performing OCBs, male not performing OCBs, female performing OCBs, and female not performing OCBs. The one page single spaced scenarios prepared for this study were identical with the exception of the two manipulated variables; gender and OCB participation (see Appendix). The scenario depicted a dependable and punctual manager of a retail department store. Gender was manipulated through the use of names (Julie, Thomas) and pronouns (him, her) within each of the four scenarios. OCB participation was manipulated through a series of incidents that could result in a manager exhibiting or not exhibiting an OCB in response. In all of the four scenarios the initial information presented was that the manager (male or female) arrived to work to discover that the previous manager on duty had called in sick creating a possible conflict for the now acting manager’s after work plans. Duties of the manager on duty included:

[. . .] making sure the general appearance of the store, and the store’s bathrooms, is clean, the coolers and refrigerators are operating within a safe temperature, and dealing with customer and employee issues if a particular department’s manager is not available.

Additionally, in all four scenarios it was clearly stated that the manager completed all managerial duties. The scenarios then described the manager encountering a series of situations beyond their specified work tasks in which they either did or did not participate in OCBs. The occurrences were chosen to emulate the five types of OCBs: altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, sportsmanship, and civic virtue (Organ et al., 2006). In each of the five short situations presented, the manager either demonstrated an OCB in response to the situation or did not. Thus, in each of the four experimental scenarios five incidents were related, with the only difference being whether the manager performed the OCB or did not. An example of an OCB incident (sportsmanship) within the scenario was “Julie (Thomas) approaches a group of fellow managers who are complaining about the extra work today.” The OCB condition continued “and instead of joining-in she (he) smiles and mentions how it could always be worse” and in the non-OCB condition “agrees with them, and adds that it could not possibly get any worse.” An example of an OCB (altruism) incident was: On her (his) way back to the clothing department she (he) passes the front office and notices that a cashier seems very upset. The cashier’s drawer is off by $20.00. The cashier is in tears and afraid they are going to lose their job.

The OCB condition continued “Julie (Thomas) consoles the employee as she (he) helps them to recount the money.” Comparatively, and example of non-OCB participation continued “Julie (Thomas) has work to do in her (his) own department and does not take the time to assist the cashier.” Participants read the scenario and then rated the manager on an evaluation measure, agentic and communal traits, and OCB participation. The evaluation of the employee was measured using a scale measuring likeliness to promote, likability, and competence using statements rated on a 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree scale. Examples include; “I found this person to be very likable”, “this person is a successful employee”, and “I would be very likely to promote this person”. These items were adapted from Bowles et al. (2007) research which found a consistently high level of internal validity across three studies (Cronbach’s a over 0.90). These nine items were submitted to a principle component analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation (n ¼ 160) and all the items loaded on a single component that explained 81 percent of the variance (factor loadings ranging from 0.856 to 0.931). The PCA analysis indicated that one single construct was being measured. The nine items had a very high internal consistency in the current study with a Cronbach’s a of 0.97 and were aggregated into a single score evaluating the manager described in the scenario. Participants rated the manager under evaluation regarding their possession of certain agentic and communal traits. Each trait was rated on how well it described the manager on a 1 “not at all” to 7 “perfectly” scale. Agentic and communal terms were adapted from Rudman and Glick (2001). The six agentic traits included terms such as “decisive” decisive and “uncooperative.” The six communal traits included terms such as “warm” and “reasonable”. Both scales had high internal consistency. The communal scale had a Cronbach’s a of 0.97 and the agentic scale an a of 0.93.


GM 28,7

388

Participants were then asked to rate the manager under evaluation on their use of OCBs. A scale of OCB behaviors was adapted from Organ et al. (2006) and included the five types of OCBs featured in the manager scenarios. Statements were rated on a 1 – “strongly disagree” to 5 – “strongly agree” scale. Items (24) included “helps others who have been absent”, “does not take extra breaks”, and “Does not abuse the rights of others”. The OCBs overall scale had a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.92). Participants also were asked, after a distracter task, to rate a list of 21 OCB behaviors taken from Organ et al. (2006) on a feminine to masculine scale. These items were divided into three broad subscales; OCBI, OCBO, and OCB IRB. Three items aimed at addressing total actual participation in OCBs were not used. Each item was rated on a 1 – “very feminine”, 4 – “neither feminine nor masculine” and 7 – “very masculine” scale. Additionally, participants were asked a series of manipulation check questions. None of the sample missed questions regarding the OCB manipulation; however, a portion of the sample did not attend to the gender of the manager. The sample used for this study represented the portion of the sample which correctly identified both manipulations (88 percent of the original sample). Finally, participants were asked demographic questions and debriefed regarding the study. Results Preliminary analysis Participants’ age, gender and work experience were first included in each analysis to determine if they were related to any of the variables of interest. Participant age, gender, and work experience was not related to any of the hypothesized dependent variables. Additionally, participant age, gender, and work experience did not significantly interact or co-vary with any of the hypothesized independent variables. The hypotheses were thus analyzed without the addition of participant variables. Hypothesis 1 It was hypothesized that Organ’s et al. (2006) OCBI scale items would be rated as more feminine. Of the seven OCBI scale items, 86 percent were rated as significantly more feminine (Table I). Out of the seven OCBO items, only one was significantly more masculine but three items (43 percent) were rated as significantly more feminine. Also, of the seven inter-role behavior items, none were perceived as significantly more feminine but three (43 percent) were rated significantly more masculine. Overall, of the 14 OCB items, nine (64 percent) were rated significantly more feminine. Significance tests were conducted using single sample t-tests comparing each item’s rating to the scale’s mid-point of four “neither feminine nor masculine”. Participants saw four dimensions as having items that were more feminine included items representing altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, and conscientiousness. H1 was generally supported, OCBIs were perceived as predominantly feminine. Hypothesis 2 A gender by OCB participation interaction was hypothesized. It was expected that women who did not participate in OCBs would be rated lower than men on the employee evaluation measure. The results did not support H2 as there was only a significant large main effect of OCB participation on evaluation ratings of managers,

Item from Organ et al. (2006) OCBI 1. Helps others who have been absent * * * 2. Helps others who have heavy workloads 3. Assists supervisor with their work (when not asked) * * * 4. Takes time to listen to co-workers’ problems * * * 5. Goes out of way to help new employees * * * 6. Takes a personal interest in other employees * * * 7. Passes along information to co-workers * * * OCBO 8. Attendance at work is above the norm 9. Gives advance notice when unable to come to work * 10. Takes undeserved work breaks * * 11. Great deal of time on personal phone conversations * * * 12. Complains about insignificant things at work * * * 13. Conserves and protects organizational property 14. Adheres to informal rules devised to maintain order IRB 15. Adequately completes assigned duties 16. Fulfills responsibilities specified in job description 17. Performs tasks that are expected of them 18. Meets formal performance requirements of the job 19. Engages in activities that directly affect their evaluation * * 20. Neglects aspects of the job they are obligated to perform * * 21. Fails to perform essential duties * *

Mean

SD

Gendered

3.31 4.09 3.65 2.78 3.33 3.36 3.57

1.14 1.20 1.17 1.31 1.19 1.17 1.15

Feminine

4.05 3.83 4.27 3.24 3.60 4.09 4.04

1.12 1.00 0.98 1.80 1.17 0.93 0.93

4.12 4.03 4.06 4.04 4.20

0.83 0.89 0.97 0.83 0.83

Masculine

4.14

0.64

Masculine

4.13

0.53

Masculine

Feminine Feminine Feminine Feminine Feminine


Feminine Masculine Feminine Feminine

Notes: Significantly different from the neutral score of 4 at: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01 and * * * p , 0.001; n ¼ 160

F(1,156) ¼ 133.64, p , 0.001, partial h 2 ¼ 0.54. Managers who participated in OCBs (M ¼ 4.44, SD ¼ 0.09) were rated higher than those who did not (M ¼ 2.61, SD ¼ 0.10). Gender (F(1,156) ¼ 0.08, p ¼ 0.78) and the interaction between gender and OCB participation (F(1,156) ¼ 0.17, p ¼ 0.63) were not significantly related to evaluation ratings. H2 was not supported. Gender was not related to evaluation ratings of managers that participated or did not participate in OCBs. OCB participation had a large effect on managerial ratings; managers that did not perform OCBs were rated almost two points lower on a five point evaluation scale. Hypothesis 3 It was hypothesized that managers who do not participate in OCBs would be rated lower in communal traits and higher on agentic traits. Additionally, it was hypothesized that women would be seen as less communal than men when performing OCBs and women would be seen as more agentic than men when not performing OCBs. There was a large significant main effect of OCB participation on communal traits, F(1,156) ¼ 257.43, p , 0.001, partial h 2 ¼ 0.62, and agentic traits, F(1,156) ¼ 168.51, p , 0.001, partial h 2 ¼ 0.52. Managers who participated in OCBs were rated high on communal traits (M ¼ 5.81, SD ¼ 1.13) and low on agentic traits (M ¼ 1.86, SD ¼ 1.05), compared to those who did not participate in OCBs who were seen as

Table I. Masculine and feminine ratings of OCB items

GM 28,7

390

low on communal traits (M ¼ 2.85, SD ¼ 1.19) and high on agentic traits (M ¼ 4.19, SD ¼ 1.20) (Figure 1). Gender did not have a significant effect on perceptions of communal traits (F(1,156) ¼ 0.07, p ¼ 0.80) or agentic traits (F(1,156) ¼ 0.37, p ¼ 0.55). Additionally the interaction between gender and OCB participation was not significant for either communal traits (F(1,156) ¼ 0.59, p ¼ 0.44) or agentic traits (F(1,156) ¼ 0.00, p ¼ 0.97). H3 found further strong support for the effects of OCB participation on perceptions of employees, but did not find the expected gender differences or interactions. Men and women were rated equally communal when performing OCBs and likewise where seen as less communal and more agentic when not performing OCBs. Hypothesis 4 It was hypothesized that women performing OCBs would be more easily recognized as performing OCBs compared to men. There was a significant large effect of OCB participation on perceptions of the manager participating in OCBs, F(1,137) ¼ 278.47, p , 0.001, partial h 2 ¼ 0.67. OCB participating managers were rated as performing more OCBs (M ¼ 3.78, SD ¼ 0.44) than managers that did not perform OCBs (M ¼ 2.44, SD ¼ 0.53). There was a significant main effect of gender on overall OCB participation, F(1,137) ¼ 6.09, p ¼ 0.02, partial h 2 ¼ 0.04. Female managers were perceived as being more participatory in OCBs across conditions (M ¼ 3.23, SD ¼ 0.82), compared to males (M ¼ 3.06, SD ¼ 0.83). The interaction between gender and OCB participation was not significant, F(1,137) ¼ 0.05, p ¼ 0.82. H4 was supported, women in both the participating and non-participating OCB conditions were rated higher than men on OCB participation. Examination of the five subscales of the OCB participation scale did not find any substantial differences to the results of the overall scale. Discussion Evidence from previous studies indicated that managers value and highly rate employees who perform OCBs (Borman and Motowidlo, 1997). This study’s findings are consistent with past research. Managers who did not participate in OCBs were rated significantly lower in overall evaluations than managers who did participate. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Figure 1. Manager communal and agentic traits by OCB participation

0 Communal

Agentic

Participated in OCBs

Communal

Agentic

Did not Participate in OCBs

Additionally, employees that participated in OCBs were seen as communal and those that did not participate in OCBs were seen as agentic. Not only did OCBs affect perceptions of organizational citizenship, this study finds further evidence that OCBs spill over to specific task focused ratings supporting the importance of OCBs in employee evaluations. Gender stereotypes affect perceptions and expectations of employees within organizations. Allen and Rush (2001) suggest that there is more of an expectation for women to perform OCBs compared to men in the workplace. The associations of OCBs with the female gender role and higher expectations of women performing OCBs have serious implications for women in the workforce. Managerial expectations for behavior may be different for OCBs as it is expected or considered the norm for women to perform more OCBs, especially OCBIs, and therefore these behaviors may go unnoticed. OCBs performed by men may be more salient and attended to more than when performed by women and therefore may have a larger positive impact on the performance appraisals of men. Although this study did not find a gender difference in the effects of OCB participation, a strong relationship existed with participating in OCBs and evaluation ratings. Additionally, OCBs were seen as generally more feminine suggesting a relationship with gender role stereotypes. H1 expected that OCBIs would be perceived as more associated with feminine than masculine stereotypes. Our research sought to increase the literature on overall gender perceptions of OCBs. Past research has suggested a gender roles split amongst Organ’s (2006) three OCB model. Kidder and Parks (2001) suggested altruism and courtesy as feminine and conscientiousness, civic virtue, and sportsmanship as masculine. The findings of this study suggested otherwise. The current research discovered an even larger difference amongst these behaviors. The majorities of all rated OCBs were perceived as feminine or gender neutral. Participants considered the majority of OCB sub-dimensions to be feminine or neutral. The results of the current study do not strongly mirror Kidder and Parks (2001) categorization of OCBI as feminine and OCBO as masculine. The fact that the majority of OCBs were rated as more feminine has interesting implications relative to the effects gender roles have on employee evaluations (Eagly and Karau, 2002). It is also interesting that more negatively worded items aligned with stereotypical behaviors of men and women. For instance, the negatively worded IRB items represent behaviors stereotypically representative of men (e.g. fails to perform essential duties) and the negatively worded OCBO items represent behaviors stereotypically representative of women (e.g. great deal of time on personal phone conversations). Additionally, recent research indicates that antithetically written OCB items, or items that need reverse coding, cause confusion for raters (Spector et al., 2010). Furthermore, antithetical items may overlap with elements of counter-productive work behaviors diverging from the OCB construct entirely. It is possible that this confusion existed within this study. The negatively worded conscientiousness and IRB items may have been perceived as less feminine. It is possible that more items may have been femininely attributed had these items been stated positively. H2 expected OCB participation to have a greater positive impact on evaluation ratings of men compared to women. Gender was not found to interact with OCB participation on evaluation ratings. However, the main effect of OCB participation on evaluation ratings supports the past research indicating OCBs


GM 28,7

392

influence on evaluations. It is unclear as to why, in this study, gender did not influence the raters’ decisions as has been found in other studies (Allen and Rush, 2001; Lovell et al., 1999). One possible explanation resides in the use of subjective rather than objective evaluations. The lack of the gender by OCB interaction may have been masked by the use of subjective scales. Evaluations using subjective scales have been found to conceal stereotypes (Biernat and Fuegen, 2001). Subjective scales are often used in social science research to evaluate behaviors or perceptions of behaviors (Biernat et al., 1991). The term subjective scales refers to the use of Likert-type response format scales. Biernat et al. (1991) provides evidence that objective scales (e.g. promotion, hiring, raises in dollars) are more influenced by gender stereotypes. Within this study raters used subjective scales when evaluating managers on OCBs. Evaluation ratings were based on perceptions not an objective list of rankings. Shifting standards theory (Biernat et al., 1991) has suggested that, when raters use subjective measures for evaluation, comparisons are often made within groups (comparing women to the expectations of other women and men to the expectations of other men) thus creating a non-standardized criteria. Without an objective standardized rating for evaluation the influence of gender stereotyping may be masked (Biernat and Fuegen, 2001). Objective measures, on the other hand, focus attention on the individual separate from any group comparisons. Biernat and Fuegen (2001) found that object measures are actually more vulnerable to group stereotypes biasing judgments. An additional reason for a lack of interaction may have been due to OCB overload. The scenarios were constructed and pre-tested to ensure that the manager described completed all expected job related tasks regardless of OCB participation. However, in following Organ et al.’s (2006) five factor model of OCB participation, the scenarios did include five total situations in which the manager provided support above and beyond expectations or not. In retrospect, it is possible that the scenarios strongly focused on OCB participation and therefore obscured possible smaller gender effects. The differences in ratings of non-participatory managers versus those who participated indicate that the OCB condition may have overshadowed any more subtle effects of gender role expectations. H3 expected that managers who did not participate in OCBs would be seen as more agentic and less communal than managers participating in OCBs. Further, it was expected this benefit of participating in OCBs would be less for women compared to men. The results for participatory managers on agentic and communal qualities followed a similar pattern. Participatory managers were considered higher in communal qualities and lower in agentic qualities and the opposite trend was found for non-participatory managers. Role congruity theory (Eagly and Karau, 2002) would suggest that non-participatory women would have been rated lower on communal traits in comparison to men as the expectations would be greater for women to perform such behaviors. Also it would seem likely for participatory men to be rated higher on communal traits, in comparison to women, due to saliency of unexpected participation. Gender interactions were not found and again the strong effects found resulting from OCB participation may have obscured more subtle gender effects. H4 predicted that OCB behaviors would be more easily identified when performed by women as they would be in congruence with gendered role expectations. Although it was predicted that the participation in OCBs would be more advantageous for men

(it would play a stronger role influencing evaluation ratings), it was also expected that OCBs would be more easily identified when performed by women. Women were rated as more participatory in OCBs than men. This occurred whether the female manager was evaluated in an OCB participatory or non-participatory condition. This further supports the findings of H1, OCBIs were more associated with female gender roles. Raters suggested that the majority of OCBs were feminine or neutral in nature and rated women higher in OCBs than men. It would seem plausible then that the same raters who found OCBs to be feminine also were more likely to recognize and identify OCBs when a female manager was performing OCBs. This study aids in understanding the possible influences of OCBs in employee evaluation. For instance, previous research has suggested that certain OCBs are more in-role for women and therefore perceived as feminine. It has been suggested that women will be expected more often than men to perform the behaviors (Allen and Rush, 2001) while not receiving the benefits of OCB participation. In the current study participants indeed rated women as more participatory but not higher in evaluations. Past research also indicates that OCBs can influence overall evaluation measures as much and often more-so than task performance (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993; MacKenzie et al., 1991; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994; Werner, 1994). While this may be true, the results of this study did not show an evaluative bump in evaluation ratings for women despite more recognition for OCB. This study provides a continued effort to better understand how OCBs influence employee evaluations. The results of the current study present an alternative perspective to past research on the gendered-nature of OCBs. Kidder and Parks (2001) suggested categorization of behaviors (altruism and courtesy) aligned with OCBI as in-role for women and categorizations of behaviors (sportsmanship and civic virtue) aligned with OCBO as in-role for men. The results of this study suggest otherwise as participants did not rate any OCBI and only one OCBO as masculine and the majority of the behaviors were rated as feminine. Highlighting the inherent issues of the shifting standards theory (Biernat et al., 1991), here is where the disparity lies. Women, regardless of being noticed for their participation, were not evaluated at a higher level than men. It would seem to reason that if an employee was recognized as participating more often in OCBs, which are linked to employee evaluations, a higher rating would follow. Hence, there exists a problem if the raters attribute the majority of OCBs as feminine, recognize the participation of OCBs more amongst female managers, yet still evaluate women similarly to men overall. The phenomenon of women being rated higher on important characteristics than men, but still being rated equally on final determinations of performance, has been found by past research (Shore, 1992). Shore found that women were rated higher in performance skills but did not benefit in either ratings of potential (in a student sample) or in actual career advancement (a working sample). In reality, the gender effect may well be not that women are rated lower than men, but that perceptions of women should result in higher ratings than men that are not materializing. Men are rated as equal to women in spite of women being seen as having higher levels of desirable performance based traits such as OCBs.


GM 28,7

394

Limitations and future directions Limitations exist within this study as the portrayed managers were only placed within one context, retail management. Kidder and Parks (2001) have suggested that evaluations are not only influenced by the gender of the person being rated but also depend upon the gender perceptions of the behaviors and the gendered nature (occupational sex segregation) of the profession (Stockdale and Nadler, 2013). It is possible that the profession of retail manager may not have been perceived as gender-neutral by the student sample. The 2009 US Department of Labor Statistics rated retail management in the top ten most common professions for American women, but women were still underrepresented compared to men. Retail was primarily chosen due to its familiarity to the study’s sample, college students. Future studies should examine OCB behaviors in both male and female dominated professions. Scenario research has been shown to have mundane realism when specific scenarios are used and are followed by attitudinal questions (De Cremer and van Knippenberg, 2004). However, a common criticism of scenario research is its lack of applicability to real world work settings (Landy, 2008). Scenario based research does provide valuable information regarding decision-making and allows for experimental control and the examination of issues of causation. The focus of this study was perception of OCBs and perceptions of managers utilizing OCBs, as such a college student sample was used. However, many of the students evaluating the manager in the scenarios lacked experience in employee evaluation (only 15 percent had experience as a manager). College students generally have had work experience and past reviews of the literature have found that when the experimental manipulations mirror work college students are familiar with students provide valid evaluations (Nadler and Stockdale, 2012). However, moving forward, research should be conducted utilizing working samples of managers from different organizational levels beyond the entry level that student are more familiar with. The largest limitation of this study was the relatively powerful effect of the OCB manipulation (partial h 2 ranging from 0.52 to 0.67) that explained over 50 percent of the variance in employee evaluation, agentic and communal ratings, and OCB ratings. This suggests that the depiction of OCBs in the scenarios may have been overly emphasized. It is suggested that future OCB scenarios balance depictions of OCB with other aspects of the work related tasks. Additionally, none of the participants misidentified whether or not OCBs had been present in the scenario they read; however, over 10 percent of the original participant pool did not correctly identify the gender of the manager described in the scenario. Although this strongly supports the importance of OCBs impact beyond expected task performance in perceptions of employees, it may have obscured more subtle expectations based on gender. In addition to examining specific subsets (instead of representing all five sub-dimensions as was done within this study) of OCB behaviors future studies need to reduce the salience of OCB behaviors allowing for possible gender effects to be detected. Also, examination of OCB dimensions in isolation may help discover the effects gender may play in ratings of the workplace behaviors. Past research as well as this study has found support for OCBs being perceived as more feminine. It is also important that future research focus on gender in relation to specific citizenship behaviors. Also, subjectivity versus objectivity of evaluations seems to affect the saliency of stereotyping. In the future, research using more objective

scales (e.g. behavioral checklists, promotion decisions, pay raise in dollars) could be conducted to examine differences between more subjective and more objective evaluations. Finally, future research could explore reward system differences based on expectations of predominately feminine perceived OCB stereotypes. Conclusions This study extends research on the effect of OCBs on employee evaluations. Previous research has indicated the effect OCBs have on the evaluations of employees (MacKenzie et al., 1993; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Whiting et al., 2008). The present findings confirm that participation in citizenship behavior, considered beneficial to the organization, is also beneficial to the employee in the form of better evaluation ratings. Employees, whether they were male or female, upon participation of OCBs were given higher ratings than employees who did not participate in OCBs. Predictions made about gender influencing the ratings did not materialize and highlight the potential intricacy of gender effects and OCBs. Special attention should be paid in future studies to the gender perception of the career and the saturation of citizenship behaviors presented to the rater. Organizations using OCBs as evaluative criteria of employees should exercise caution. The results of this study suggest that possible differences exist in rater perceptions when considering OCBs as part of the evaluative criterion. The current study highlights potential differences in the previous understanding of how OCBs are perceived by raters. While in the past it has been indicated that OCBIs and OCBOs were split (OCBI being considered in-role for women; OCBO being considered in-role for men) between gender role perceptions. This study suggests otherwise. What is of most interest is the fact that the majority of OCBs were rated feminine or neutral. Most items perceived as more masculine were in-role behaviors indicating negligence on task relevant (agentic) behaviors. Kidder and Parks (2001) suggested that gender stereotypes would place the OCBs of altruism and courtesy into a feminine category while placing civic virtue and sportsmanship into male classifications. The current study does not support this idea but rather proposes that most OCBs are considered feminine in nature. This finding alone needs to be explored more thoroughly. Reflecting back to the results of Allen (2006), men participating in either OCBIs or OCBOs received more promotional opportunities than participating women, while considering the current study underlines a large concern possibly surrounding OCBs and employee evaluations. The feminine perception of OCBs applied to role congruity theory suggests OCBs completed by women would be expected as in-role behaviors. Citizenship behaviors performed by men would likewise be considered extra-role and therefore be more salient and more likely to result in higher employee evaluations. This research highlights that despite being recognized as more participatory in OCB performance than men, women were not evaluated more positively as a result. In conjunction with the finding that the majority of OCBs were considered feminine, this suggests expectancy for the citizenship behaviors may indeed vary by gender. OCBs are positively regarded on an individual and organizational level in most workplaces. Managers who are recognized as being high in OCBs are rated higher in experimental studies and OCBs are related to higher evaluation rating in real world samples (Organ et al., 2006). Communal traits in general and OCBs in particular are more associated with women’s gender roles. However, successful management is more


GM 28,7

396

associated with masculine gender roles and agentic traits (Schein, 2001). Gender disparity does exist in many higher prestige occupations and in pay gap across most professions; both favoring men. In light of the gendered nature of perceptions of OCBs, further research is needed not only from a practitioners’ viewpoint of reducing bias to ensure the best employees are promoted, but also from a perspective of social justice. References Allen, T. (2006), “Rewarding good citizens: the relationship between citizenship behavior, gender, and organizational rewards”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 36, pp. 120-143. Allen, T. and Rush, M. (2001), “The influence of rate gender on ratings of organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 31, pp. 2561-2587. Bayard, K., Hellerstein, J., Neumark, D. and Troske, K. (2003), “New evidence on sex segregation and sex differences in wages from matched employee-employer data”, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 21, pp. 887-922. Biernat, M. and Fuegen, K. (2001), “Shifting standards and the evaluation of competence: complexity in gender-based judgement and decision making”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 37, pp. 707-724. Biernat, M. and Manis, M. (1994), “Shifting standards and stereotype-based judgments”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 66, pp. 5-20. Biernat, M., Manis, M. and Nelson, T.E. (1991), “Stereotypes and standards of judgment”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 485-499. Blau, F.D. and Kahn, L.M. (2003), “Understanding international differences in the gender pay gap”, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 21, pp. 106-144. Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1993), “Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance”, in Schmitt, N. and Borman, W.C. (Eds), Personnel Selection, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 71-78. Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1997), “Introduction: organizational citizenship behavior and contextual performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 10, pp. 67-69. Bowen, C., Swim, J.K. and Jacobs, R.R. (2000), “Evaluating gender biases on actual job performance of real people: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 30, pp. 2194-2215. Bowles, H.R., Babcock, L. and Lai, L. (2007), “Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiation: sometimes it does hurt to ask”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 103, pp. 84-103. Cooper, C.L. and Lewis, S. (1995), “Working together: men and women in organizations”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 29-31. De Cremer, D. and van Knippenberg, D. (2004), “Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: the moderating role of leader self-confidence”, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, Vol. 95, pp. 140-155. Dunlop, P.D. and Lee, K. (2004), “Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behavior, and business unit performance: the bad apples do spoil the whole barrel”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 67-80. Eagly, A.H. and Carli, L.L. (2007), Through the Labyrinth: The Truth About How Women Become Leaders, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Eagly, A.H. and Karau, S.J. (2002), “Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders”, Psychological Review, Vol. 109, pp. 573-598.

Farell, S. and Finkelstein, L. (2007), “Organizational citizenship behavior and gender: expectations and attributions for performance”, North American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 81-96. Heilman, M.E. and Chen, J.J. (2005), “Same behavior, different consequences: reactions to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, pp. 431-441. Johnson, S., Holladay, C. and Quinones, M. (2009), “Organizational citizenship behavior in performance evaluations: distributive justice or injustice?”, Journal of Business & Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 409-418. Kidder, D.L. (2002), “The influence of gender on the performance of organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 28, pp. 629-648. Kidder, D.L. and Parks, J. (2001), “The good soldier: who is s(he)?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, pp. 939-959. Landy, F.J. (2008), “Stereotypes, bias, and personnel decisions: strange and stranger”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, Vol. 1, pp. 379-392. Lovell, S.E., Kahn, A.S., Anton, J., Davidson, A., Dowling, E., Post, D. and Mason, C. (1999), “Does gender affect the link between organizational citizenship behavior and performance evaluation?”, Sex Roles, Vol. 41, pp. 469-478. MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Fetter, R. (1991), “Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salesperson’ performance”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 123-150. MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Fetter, R. (1993), “The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 70-80. Nadler, J.T. and Stockdale, M.S. (2012), “Workplace gender bias: not between just strangers”, North American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 14, pp. 281-292. Organ, D.W. (1994), “Personality and organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Management, Vol. 20, pp. 465-478. Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P. and MacKenzie, S. (2006), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences, Sage, London. Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1994), “Organizational citizenship behaviors and sale unit effectiveness”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, pp. 351-363. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S., Paine, J. and Bachrach, D. (2000), “Organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, pp. 513-563. Rudman, L.A. and Glick, P. (2001), “Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash towards agentic women”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 57, pp. 743-762. Schein, V.E. (2001), “A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 57, pp. 675-688. Schein, V.E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T. and Liu, J. (1996), “Think manager-think male: a global phenomenon?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17, pp. 33-41. Shore, T.H. (1992), “Subtle gender bias in the assessment of managerial potential”, Sex Roles, Vol. 27, pp. 499-515. Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P. (1983), “Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature and antecedents”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68, pp. 653-663.


GM 28,7

398

Spector, P.E., Bauer, J.A. and Fox, S. (2010), “Measurement artifacts in the assessment of counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: do we know what we think we know?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95, pp. 781-790. Stockdale, M.S. and Nadler, J.T. (2010), “The ‘think manager/think male’ stereotype and familiar managers”, paper presented at Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, New Orleans, LA, June. Stockdale, M.S. and Nadler, J.T. (2013), “Paradigmatic assumptions to disciplinary research on gender disparities: the case of occupational sex segregation”, Sex Roles, Vol. 68, pp. 207-215. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010), Employed Persons by Detailed Occupation and Sex, 2009 Annual Averages, available at: www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-table112010.pdf Werner, J.M. (1994), “Dimensions that make a difference: examining the impact of in-role and extra-role behaviors on supervisory ratings”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 98-107. Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and Pierce, J.R. (2008), “Effects of task performance, helping voice, and organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93, pp. 125-139. Williams, L. and Anderson, S. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp. 601-617. Appendix Scenario: (female/male) (OCBs/no OCBs) ( Julie/Thomas) works at a large retail store in Madison, Wisconsin. (She/He) has been the manager of the clothing department for seven years and has also managed several other departments over the past ten years. ( Julie/Thomas) is a punctual and dependable employee. The store has an Manager on Duty (MOD) system that requires all managers to be placed in a rotation requiring the designated manager to be in charge of other duties within the store. These duties include, but are not limited to: making sure the general appearance of the store and store’s bathrooms is clean, the coolers and refrigerators are operating within a safe temperature, and dealing with customer and employee issues if a particular department’s manager is not available. Department managers are assigned to one day per week that they are required to act as MOD. Managers are required to find a replacement for their MOD duties if they are going to be absent. ( Julie/Thomas) is MOD on Tuesdays. ( Julie/Thomas) is scheduled to work on Fridays in the morning. When (she/he) arrived at work (she/he) found out that the MOD for Friday called in sick and would not be at work. Unfortunately ( Julie/Thomas) has a lot of work to do in (her/his) department today and has plans for Friday afternoon when (she/he) gets off work. Taking on the absent manager’s MOD duties would no-doubt result in (her/his) falling behind on work and being late for (her/his) date in the afternoon. Without the MOD the day will be stressful for everyone working at the store. ( Julie/Thomas) also remembers the non-mandatory meeting scheduled for this morning about the volunteer mentor program designed to help new employees (and scoffs but decides not to attend/and is excited to be involved). On (her/his) way to (her/his) department ( Julie/Thomas) approaches a group of fellow managers who are complaining about the extra work today (“agrees with them, and adds that it could not possibly get any worse/and instead of joining-in (she/he) smiles and mentions how it could always be worse”). ( Julie/Thomas) takes a break and while in the restroom discovers the toilet paper is out and there is trash on the floor. ( Julie/Thomas) knows the bathroom is scheduled to be cleaned in an hour and (she/he) (“therefore ignores the mess/replaces the toilet paper and cleans up the trash anyway”). On (her/his) way

back to the clothing department (she/he) passes the front office and notices that a cashier seems very upset. The cashier’s drawer is off by $20.00. The cashier is in tears and afraid they are going to lose their job. ( Julie/Thomas) (“has work to do in (her/his) own department and does not take the time to assist the cashier/consoles the employee as (she/he)helps them to recount the money”). There are several other things that happen today that are not part of ( Julie/Thomas)’s normal routine (“but (she/he) cannot help because (she/he) has (her/his) own work to do/but (she/he) takes the time to help when (she/he) can”). ( Julie/Thomas) is really tired from all (her/his) work (“and takes the allowed extra break in the afternoon/and does not take an extra break in the afternoon). The work day ends and ( Julie/Thomas”) is able to make (her/his) date on time. Corresponding author Joel T. Nadler can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
