Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Abstract

The Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Scale, initially formulated by Dennis W. Organ and operationalized by C. Ann Smith, Dennis W. Organ, and Janet P. Near in 1983, represents a foundational psychometric instrument within industrial-organizational psychology and management science. Designed to capture discretionary workplace contributions that transcend formal job descriptions, the instrument distinguishes between two primary dimensions: Altruism (behaviors immediately oriented toward helping specific individuals with organizationally relevant tasks) and Generalized Compliance (impersonal conscientiousness and adherence to internalized norms of order, punctuality, and systemic resource preservation). Comprising 16 operational items evaluated along a 7-point Likert-type continuum ranging from 1 (“Never”) to 7 (“Always”), the measure serves as an empirical cornerstone for evaluating non-contractual performance dynamics. Psychometric evaluations consistently demonstrate high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .86 to .91 for Altruism and reaching .91 for Generalized Compliance across multiple organizational samples. Structural and criterion-related validity analyses confirm that the construct is empirically distinct from technical core task performance, supervisor interpersonal liking, and general affective valence, while serving as a robust predictor of employee retention, perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange (LMX), and macro-level organizational effectiveness.

Keywords

Organizational Citizenship Behavior, OCB, Altruism, Generalized Compliance, Extra-Role Behavior, Contextual Performance, Dennis Organ, Social Exchange Theory, Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Job Performance

Authors

The scale was conceptualized and empirically validated by:

• C. Ann Smith — Department of Management, School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington.
• Dennis W. Organ — Professor Emeritus of Personnel and Organizational Behavior, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington. Widely acknowledged as the foundational theorist of organizational citizenship behavior.
• Janet P. Near — Professor Emeritus of Management, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington. Prominent scholar in business ethics, whistle-blowing, and organizational functioning.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Organizational Citizenship Behavior scale is to identify, quantify, and analyze the individual behaviors that lubricate the social and structural machinery of an organization, yet fall outside the remit of formal contractual obligations or direct compensation systems. In industrial-organizational psychology, standard performance appraisals historically suffered from criterion deficiency by focusing predominantly on core technical requirements—the discrete operational duties codified in formal job descriptions. Organ and colleagues recognized that organizations are inherently fragile social systems that cannot anticipate every contingency through formal rules; rather, sustainable systemic performance relies upon spontaneous, cooperative gestures.

From a research perspective, the instrument facilitates rigorous inquiry into the antecedents and consequences of contextual work behaviors. Scholars employ the scale to examine how leadership styles (such as transformational leadership or servant leadership), cognitive-affective work attitudes (job satisfaction, organizational justice perceptions, affective commitment), and structural job characteristics influence an employee’s propensity to exert extra effort. In applied organizational settings, human resource professionals and organizational consultants leverage the instrument to diagnose organizational climate, assess team cohesion, analyze cultural health, and evaluate the relational impacts of major organizational transitions, mergers, or leadership interventions.

Crucially, the scale addresses the theoretical necessity of distinguishing between in-role performance (enforceable work duties) and extra-role performance (discretionary behavior whose omission is not penalized). By providing an objective measurement framework, the instrument allows researchers to demonstrate empirically that prosocial, cooperative behaviors systematically aggregate over time and across individuals to enhance operational efficiency, reduce administrative overhead, foster interpersonal trust, and enhance collective social capital.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct of Organizational Citizenship Behavior is conceptualized 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. Rather than reflecting an inherent personality trait, OCB represents a behavioral manifestation of psychological investment and social reciprocity. The original 1983 operationalization isolates two primary sub-dimensions:

1. Altruism (Prosocial Interpersonal Helping)

Altruism within the OCB framework represents discretionary behaviors directed specifically toward assisting identifiable individuals—such as colleagues, supervisors, or subordinates—with organizationally relevant tasks or interpersonal difficulties. This dimension captures face-to-face assistance that eases another person’s immediate strain. Specific behavioral operationalizations include voluntarily assisting a coworker carrying a heavy operational workload, orienting new personnel beyond basic administrative requirements, helping colleagues catch up after an illness or absence, and proactively aiding a supervisor with complex tasks. Altruism reflects an immediate, empathetic, and prosocial orientation that directly strengthens horizontal and vertical dyadic work relationships.

2. Generalized Compliance (Impersonal Conscientiousness)

Generalized Compliance represents a more impersonal, internalized orientation toward organizational citizenship. Rather than targeting specific individuals, it encompasses conscientious adherence to systemic rules, norms, and operational standards, even in the complete absence of surveillance or enforcement. Employees displaying high generalized compliance manifest behaviors that respect the organization’s time, capital, and operational tempo. Examples include maintaining exceptional punctuality, avoiding idle or personal conversations during critical working hours, refusing to take undeserved or extended breaks, providing timely advance notice when absence is unavoidable, and sustaining productivity through the end of the working shift. This dimension captures an internalized social contract wherein the individual respects and preserves the organization as a corporate entity.

In subsequent theoretical refinements (e.g., Organ, 1988; Williams & Anderson, 1991), these two dimensions laid the foundational framework for the widely adopted taxonomy distinguishing between OCB-I (behaviors directed primarily toward individuals, evolving from Altruism) and OCB-O (behaviors directed toward the organization as a whole, evolving from Generalized Compliance).

Theoretical Framework

The development of the OCB construct is anchored in several foundational traditions across sociology, organizational behavior, and social psychology:

1. Chester Barnard and Daniel Katz’s Behavioral Systems Theory

The conceptual origins of OCB trace directly to Chester Barnard’s seminal work The Functions of the Executive (1938), which argued that an organization can survive only if its participants exhibit a dynamic “willingness to cooperate.” This premise was expanded by Daniel Katz (1964) and Katz and Robert L. Kahn (1966) in their open systems model. Katz posited that effective organizations require three distinct classes of behavior: (a) inducing individuals to enter and remain within the system, (b) meeting or exceeding dependable role performance as defined by job descriptions, and (c) engaging in innovative and spontaneous activity that goes beyond formal role requirements. The Smith et al. (1983) OCB instrument directly operationalizes Katz’s third behavioral imperative.

2. Social Exchange Theory and the Norm of Reciprocity

The motivational core of OCB is grounded in Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) and Alvin Gouldner’s (1960) norm of reciprocity. Economic exchanges are explicit, contractual, and immediate: an employee performs a defined task in exchange for an agreed-upon wage. Social exchanges, conversely, involve unspecified obligations without immediate or guaranteed tangible returns. When employees perceive high fairness, organizational justice, and supportive supervisory leadership, they experience cognitive and affective indebtedness. Because core job descriptions strictly dictate technical output, employees strategically utilize discretionary citizenship behaviors—which remain under their personal control—as the primary currency to reciprocate positive organizational treatment.

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the OCB scale has been extensively documented in four decades of empirical investigation.

Construct and Discriminant Validity

In their initial validation, Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) gathered data from 422 employees and their direct supervisors across a broad spectrum of manufacturing, financial, and service organizations. Exploratory factor analyses established clear separation between Altruism and Generalized Compliance items, confirming that interpersonal helping is psychometrically distinct from internalized compliance. Subsequent critical investigations established discriminant validity between OCB and related constructs:

• Distinct from In-Role Task Performance: Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997) conducted confirmatory factor analyses demonstrating that supervisor ratings of Altruism load onto distinct latent factors separate from core employee task performance ratings.
• Distinct from Interpersonal Liking: Wayne et al. (1997) further established that Altruism is empirically separable from a supervisor’s subjective personal liking for an employee, demonstrating that OCB ratings capture concrete behavioral variance rather than mere halo effects.
• Distinct from Affective States: Organ and Ryan (1995) performed a meta-analysis showing that OCB dimensions demonstrate unique variance independent of general positive affectivity or neuroticism.

Convergent and Criterion-Related Predictive Validity

Extensive empirical studies have evaluated the nomological network of the 16-item scale:

• Relational & Leadership Predictors: Altruism and Generalized Compliance correlate strongly and positively with Leader-Member Exchange (LMX; r values typically ranging from .30 to .45), perceived organizational support (POS), and supervisor developmental experiences (Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey, & Toth, 1997; Wayne et al., 1997).
• Attitudinal Antecedents: Affective commitment and perceived procedural and interactional justice demonstrate consistent moderate-to-strong positive associations with both subscales (Organ & Ryan, 1995).
• Organizational Consequences: High scores on Altruism and Generalized Compliance significantly predict higher rates of promotion, superior comprehensive performance appraisals, and lower voluntary turnover intentions (Wayne et al., 1997; Cropanzano et al., 1997). At the business-unit level, aggregate OCB scores significantly predict objective productivity, customer satisfaction, and lower operating expenses (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000).

Reliability

The psychometric stability of the Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) scale has been validated across diverse operational environments. Internal consistency reliability metrics for the subscales consistently exceed established psychometric thresholds (such as Nunnally’s .70 and .80 criteria):

• Altruism: In the initial validation by Smith et al. (1983), the Altruism dimension yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .91 across diverse worker cohorts. Subsequent replications by Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey, and Toth (1997) and Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997) documented coefficient alphas ranging from .86 to .91.
• Generalized Compliance: The Generalized Compliance dimension yielded an alpha coefficient of .86 in the developmental study by Smith et al. (1983), and achieved an alpha of .91 in the structural evaluation reported by Wayne et al. (1997).

Inter-rater reliability has also been scrutinized. Because OCB can be evaluated via supervisory ratings, coworker peer ratings, or self-reports, multi-source assessment studies demonstrate moderate-to-high inter-rater concordance (correlations generally between .40 and .65 between supervisory and peer ratings), confirming that these behaviors are externally observable and stable across observers.

Factor Analysis

The dimensional architecture of the instrument was originally established through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and later corroborated through rigorous confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Original Exploratory Factor Analysis (Smith et al., 1983)

Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) subjected an initial pool of behavioral statements collected from organizational managers to principal factor analysis with orthogonal (varimax) and oblique rotations. The analysis yielded a distinct two-factor solution accounting for the preponderance of common variance:

• Factor 1 (Altruism): Marked by high primary loadings (ranging from .55 to .84) for items specifically capturing interpersonal helping behaviors (e.g., helping absent coworkers, orienting new personnel, assisting heavy workloads). Cross-loadings on the compliance factor remained negligible (< .25).
• Factor 2 (Generalized Compliance): Marked by high primary loadings (ranging from .52 to .79) for items assessing systemic norm adherence, punctuality, and time management (e.g., not coasting at day’s end, avoiding unnecessary personal phone conversations, punctual arrival).

Confirmatory Factor Models and Model Fit

Subsequent psychometric evaluations utilizing structural equation modeling (SEM) confirmed that a two-factor oblique model provides superior fit relative to a unidimensional “general citizenship” model. For instance, in structural assessments conducted by Wayne, Shore, and Liden (1997) and Cropanzano et al. (1997), CFA models testing the distinctiveness of Altruism, Generalized Compliance, Core Task Performance, and Affective Commitment revealed robust goodness-of-fit indices (e.g., Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > .92, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual [SRMR] < .06, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] < .06). Competing nested models collapsing Altruism and Compliance into a single latent factor exhibited significant degradation in chi-square fit statistics (Δχ², p < .001), corroborating the theoretical necessity of treating interpersonal helping and systemic compliance as distinct latent dimensions.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The structural characteristics and administration parameters of the tool are summarized below:

• Test Type: Multi-dimensional behavioral rating inventory (applicable as a supervisor-report, peer-report, or self-report instrument; standard research practice prioritizes supervisor- or coworker-reports to avoid common method variance).
• Format: Paper-and-pencil or secure electronic survey administration.
• Total Item Count: 16 items (7 Altruism items and 9 Generalized Compliance items).
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert-type response format:
• 1 = Never
• 2 = Rarely
• 3 = Occasionally
• 4 = Sometimes
• 5 = Frequently
• 6 = Usually
• 7 = Always
• Subscale Structures:
• Altruism Subscale: 7 items measuring direct interpersonal assistance.
• Generalized Compliance Subscale: 9 items measuring adherence to systemic rules and conscientious work habits.
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
• Three items in the Generalized Compliance dimension represent counterproductive or non-compliant behaviors and must be reverse-scored (R) prior to score aggregation: “Takes undeserved breaks”, “Coasts toward the end of the day”, and “Great deal of time spent with personal phone conversations”. Reverse transformation on a 1–7 scale is performed using the standard algorithm: New Score = 8 - Original Score.
• Dimension scores are derived by calculating the unweighted arithmetic mean of the respective constituent items (producing an index from 1.00 to 7.00 for each dimension).
• A global composite OCB score can be computed by averaging all 16 items (following reverse-scoring), though maintaining subscale independence is strongly recommended for structural research.
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 8 minutes per rated employee.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Organizational Citizenship Behavior scale was originally published in 1983 in the Journal of Applied Psychology. The formal copyright for the original article and psychometric items is held by the American Psychological Association (APA).

• Academic Research Use: In accordance with standard academic fair-use guidelines, scholars, graduate students, and behavioral researchers may reproduce and administer the scale items for non-commercial, scholarly research without direct royalty fees, provided full academic attribution is rendered to Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) and the APA.
• Commercial and Organizational Consulting Use: Deployment of the scale within commercial diagnostic platforms, executive coaching systems, for-profit assessment suites, or human resource consultancy software requires formal copyright clearance and licensing authorization from the American Psychological Association Permissions Office.

References

• Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Harvard University Press.
• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
• Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(2), 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199703)18:2<159::AID-JOB795>3.0.CO;2-D
• Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623
• Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830090206
• Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
• Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books.
• Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600307
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.653
• Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82–111. https://doi.org/10.5465/257021
• 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), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630001700305

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)