Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

Abstract

The Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale developed by Larry J. Williams and Stella E. Anderson (1991) represents one of the foundational psychometric instruments in industrial and organizational psychology. Designed to bifurcate extra-role discretionary behaviors based on their intended beneficiary while simultaneously contrasting them with formal task execution, the scale measures three distinct behavioral dimensions: Organizational Citizenship Behaviors directed toward specific individuals (OCBI), Organizational Citizenship Behaviors directed toward the organization as a systemic entity (OCBO), and In-Role Behaviors (IRB). Comprising 21 items evaluated via a 5-point Likert-type response format, the instrument was engineered to resolve critical psychometric and conceptual ambiguities surrounding the operationalization of extra-role performance versus mandated job performance.

Empirical evaluations across diverse occupational cohorts have consistently established the scale’s robust psychometric properties. Internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) typically range from .61 to .88 for OCBI, .70 to .80 for OCBO, and .80 to .94 for IRB. Confirmatory factor analyses across decades of organizational research have repeatedly verified the empirical distinctiveness of the three-factor latent structure against alternative nested and unidimensional specifications. The instrument exhibits extensive convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity, demonstrating significant relationships with affective commitment, job satisfaction, perceived organizational support, procedural and distributive justice, leader-member exchange, and objective employee turnover rates. Applicable across self-, peer-, and supervisor-rating modalities, the Williams and Anderson instrument remains an indispensable benchmark for researchers and practitioners examining contextual performance, prosocial organizational behavior, and individual performance evaluation.

Keywords

Organizational Citizenship Behavior, OCBI, OCBO, In-Role Behavior, Contextual Performance, Job Performance, Williams and Anderson, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Psychometrics, Prosocial Behavior, Counterproductive Work Behavior, Workplace Performance Measurement

Authors

The instrument was developed by:

• Larry J. Williams, Ph.D. — Professor of Management and Director of the Consortium for the Advancement of Research Methods and Analysis (CARMA), Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University (previously at Purdue University and Virginia Commonwealth University). Specialization: Structural equation modeling, research methods, and organizational behavior.
• Stella E. Anderson, Ph.D. — Professor of Management, Walker College of Business, Appalachian State University. Specialization: Employee voice, leadership development, contextual performance, and organizational citizenship dynamics.

Purpose

In contemporary organizational research, evaluating job performance strictly through formal, contractually mandated outputs captures only a fraction of an employee’s total contribution to organizational effectiveness. Historically, performance appraisals struggled to separate activities explicitly prescribed in job descriptions from discretionary prosocial actions that facilitate organizational functioning. The primary purpose of the Williams and Anderson (1991) instrument is to provide an empirically validated, theoretically sound measurement tool capable of disentangling discretionary organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) from formal in-role behaviors (IRB), while taxonomically dividing OCB into target-specific operational dimensions.

Prior to the introduction of this scale, literature surrounding organizational citizenship behavior—largely pioneered by Dennis Organ and colleagues—conceptualized OCB along five broad dimensions: altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue. While conceptually rich, researchers frequently observed severe multicollinearity among these factors, difficulty replicating the five-factor latent structure across disparate occupational settings, and persistent overlap with core task performance. Williams and Anderson resolved these psychometric tensions by synthesizing the construct around the targeted recipient of the action: whether the discretionary behavior immediately assists a fellow colleague or directly serves the systemic organization.

In research contexts, the scale enables structural equation modeling of antecedents (e.g., transformational leadership, organizational justice, emotional intelligence, job autonomy) and outcomes (e.g., team efficacy, customer satisfaction, turnover intentions, objective unit productivity). In applied clinical-organizational and human resource development contexts, the instrument provides diagnostic granularity. It allows organizations to conduct multi-source (360-degree) feedback assessments, identifying individuals who excel at core task execution but neglect interpersonal facilitation, or conversely, employees whose high prosocial orientation cushions organizational morale despite average technical task metrics.

Psychological Construct

The instrument operationalizes performance through three interrelated yet conceptually distinct latent constructs:

1. Organizational Citizenship Behavior Directed Toward Individuals (OCBI)

OCBI encompasses discretionary, interpersonal behaviors that immediately benefit specific coworkers, colleagues, or supervisors, and thereby indirectly contribute to the wider organization. These actions represent interpersonal facilitation and relational support that occur outside formal job descriptions. Key behavioral indicators include assisting absent coworkers by maintaining workflow continuity, voluntarily helping peers with excessive workloads, providing technical or operational guidance to incoming personnel, and demonstrating active listening and empathetic engagement when coworkers face personal or professional distress. OCBI functions as the social glue within workgroups, mitigating friction, enhancing collaborative cohesion, and buffering workplace stress.

2. Organizational Citizenship Behavior Directed Toward the Organization (OCBO)

OCBO consists of behaviors that directly benefit the organization as an impersonal system. These actions reflect general compliance, systemic stewardship, and proactive adherence to institutional order that exceeds minimal contractual compliance. Manifestations of OCBO include maintaining exceptional attendance habits, providing advance communication when absence or tardiness is unavoidable, scrupulously conserving organizational equipment and financial resources, refraining from time-theft activities (such as taking unauthorized extended breaks or conducting extensive personal business on company time), and adhering to informal workplace norms created to preserve operational harmony. Rather than aiding a specific person, OCBO strengthens institutional efficiency, reduces overhead costs, and stabilizes operating procedures.

3. In-Role Behavior (IRB)

In-Role Behavior represents core task performance—the activities, duties, and responsibilities that are formally recognized by the organization’s explicit compensation and reward system and codified within standard job descriptions. IRB reflects whether the worker possesses the requisite technical competence and conscientiousness to fulfill primary operational obligations. Items measure whether the employee adequately completes assigned duties, fulfills explicit job obligations, avoids catastrophic operational negligence, and actively engages in tasks that directly govern formal performance appraisal scores. Including IRB in the same instrument allows investigators to empirically model the shared variance between task and contextual performance, demonstrating that citizenship actions are distinct from direct task compliance.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of Williams and Anderson’s scale is primarily anchored in Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). According to social exchange frameworks, organizational employment encompasses two fundamentally divergent transactional patterns: economic exchanges and social exchanges. Economic exchanges are characterized by explicit, tangible, legally binding contractual obligations where specific behaviors are exchanged for immediate extrinsic rewards (such as wages and formal benefits). In-Role Behaviors (IRB) represent the behavioral fulfillment of this economic contract.

In contrast, social exchanges involve open-ended, non-contractual socioemotional transactions characterized by unspecified obligations, mutual trust, and subjective valuation. When employees perceive benevolent institutional treatment, equitable procedural justice, and supportive supervisory leadership, they experience psychological obligations to reciprocate beyond the limits of their written employment contracts. Because formal reward systems cannot explicitly compel or enforce non-prescribed behaviors without altering the fundamental nature of the employment agreement, employees reciprocate favorable treatment through discretionary citizenship behaviors.

Furthermore, Williams and Anderson integrated cognitive appraisal models of job attitudes. They posited that overall job satisfaction and organizational commitment are multidimensional constructs possessing both cognitive (evaluative) and affective (emotional) components. Affective appraisals—reflecting emotional attachment and organizational identification—serve as proximal cognitive drivers for discretionary actions. If an employee feels affectively committed to a specific supervisor or peer group, social exchange reciprocity channels behaviors into interpersonal helping (OCBI). Conversely, if the employee evaluates the macro-organization as fair, supportive, and legitimate, reciprocation manifests as institutional stewardship and systemic compliance (OCBO).

Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the Williams and Anderson scale has been confirmed across hundreds of empirical studies spanning multiple decades.

Construct and Discriminant Validity

In their seminal study, Williams and Anderson (1991) administered the 21 items alongside measures of intrinsic/extrinsic job cognition, affective and continuance organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that a three-factor latent model (OCBI, OCBO, IRB) provided a significantly superior fit compared to single-factor or two-factor models (e.g., combining OCBI and OCBO into a single omnibus citizenship factor, or combining OCBO and IRB into a generalized compliance factor). Across subsequent psychometric investigations (e.g., Van Dyne & LePine, 1998; Podsakoff et al., 2000), discriminant validity between OCBI and OCBO was systematically verified through average variance extracted (AVE) values exceeding inter-construct squared correlations, establishing that target-directed citizenship behaviors are statistically and operationally distinguishable.

Convergent and Criterion-Related Validity

Validity investigations have demonstrated predictable nomological networks:

• Predictors: OCBI and OCBO correlate positively and significantly with perceived organizational support (POS), perceived supervisor support (PSS), transformational leadership, procedural justice, and employee internal locus of control (Funderburg & Levy, 1997; Randall et al., 1999).
• Turnover Intentions: Both OCBI and OCBO correlate negatively with voluntary turnover intentions and actual turnover behaviors (Thompson & Werner, 1997; Williams & Anderson, 1991), supporting the premise that highly engaged organizational citizens develop deeper organizational embeddedness.
• Task Performance: IRB demonstrates strong convergent correlations with objective task metrics, formal supervisor ratings of competence, and overall performance evaluations, while remaining statistically distinct from OCBI and OCBO.
• Multi-Source Rater Divergence: Funderburg and Levy (1997) revealed vital nuance when comparing rating sources: while self-ratings of OCBI correlated positively with an internal locus of control and participatory supervisory style, peer ratings of the same focal individuals exhibited differing patterns, highlighting the presence of distinct perceptual lenses across organizational observation sources.

Reliability

The reliability of the Williams and Anderson instrument has been corroborated across numerous occupational settings, organizational structures, and national cultures.

Internal Consistency

In the original 1991 validation study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were established as follows:

• OCBI: α = .88
• OCBO: α = .75
• IRB: α = .91

Subsequent independent studies have reported consistent internal reliability coefficients:

• Funderburg and Levy (1997) reported alpha values of .86 for OCBI, .70 for OCBO, and .80 for IRB across multi-source ratings.
• Thompson and Werner (1997) observed alpha coefficients of .84 (OCBI), .73 (OCBO), and .94 (IRB).
• Van Dyne and LePine (1998) documented alpha reliabilities ranging from .82 to .88 for citizenship dimensions and .89 to .92 for in-role behaviors.
• Morrison and Phelps (1999) reported coefficients of .85 for OCBI and .75 for OCBO.

Overall, internal consistency estimates consistently exceed the recommended .70 threshold for research and clinical diagnostic standards, with in-role behavior subscales frequently surpassing .90.

Test-Retest Stability

Longitudinal field studies employing cross-lagged panel designs have observed high longitudinal stability over 3-month and 6-month intervals, with test-retest correlations typically oscillating between .65 and .78. This indicates that while citizenship behaviors are subject to fluctuations in mood and workload, baseline organizational citizenship behavior functions as a stable individual-difference pattern under steady employment conditions.

Factor Analysis

Williams and Anderson (1991) performed exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate their hypothesized 3-factor structure.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Principal components analysis with orthogonal and oblique rotations demonstrated that all 21 items loaded cleanly onto their three hypothesized latent factors without substantial cross-loadings:

• The 7 OCBI items loaded significantly onto Factor 1 (loadings ranging from .54 to .78).
• The 7 OCBO items loaded cleanly onto Factor 2 (loadings ranging from .46 to .73).
• The 7 IRB items loaded strongly onto Factor 3 (loadings ranging from .62 to .86).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Williams and Anderson tested multiple competing latent models to determine structural fit. A single-factor model (collapsing all 21 items into a global performance factor) demonstrated unacceptable fit: χ²(189) = 1124.63, GFI = .62, AGFI = .54, RMSR = .14. A two-factor model separating task (IRB) from general citizenship (combining OCBI and OCBO) also exhibited poor fit: χ²(188) = 687.42, GFI = .77, AGFI = .72. Conversely, the hypothesized three-factor model yielded robust model fit:

• Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) > .90
• Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) > .87
• Root Mean Square Residual (RMSR) < .06
• Statistically significant drop in chi-square compared to restricted nested models (Δχ² test, p < .001)

Contemporary reassessments of the scale utilizing modern robust maximum likelihood estimation (MLR) and fit thresholds (CFI ≥ .95, TLI ≥ .95, RMSEA ≤ .05, SRMR ≤ .06) continue to confirm the mathematical superiority of the three-factor model.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale (OCBS)
• Original Authors: Larry J. Williams and Stella E. Anderson (1991)
• Target Population: Working adults across private, public, non-profit, and academic sectors
• Administration Type: Can be administered as a self-report instrument, peer/coworker-report, or direct supervisor-report
• Total Number of Items: 21 items
  • Organizational Citizenship Behavior Directed Toward Individuals (OCBI): 7 items (Items 1–7)
  • Organizational Citizenship Behavior Directed Toward the Organization (OCBO): 7 items (Items 8–14)
  • In-Role Behavior (IRB): 7 items (Items 15–21)
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neutral (Neither Agree nor Disagree)
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring and Transformation:
  • Reverse scored items: Items 10, 11, 12 (OCBO dimension) and Items 20, 21 (IRB dimension) must be reverse-coded (1 → 5, 2 → 4, 3 → 3, 4 → 2, 5 → 1) prior to calculating scale scores.
  • Subscale scores are derived by calculating the arithmetic mean or sum of the items within each dimension.
  • Scores should not be merged into a single omnibus total; OCBI, OCBO, and IRB must be examined as independent continuous dimensions to preserve construct validity.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was originally published in 1991 in the Journal of Management (Table 1, p. 606). The copyright is held by the Southern Management Association and published through SAGE Publications. The instrument was developed for scientific, non-commercial research in academic and educational environments. Researchers wishing to reproduce, republish, or commercialize the scale items in institutional assessment batteries or commercial consulting tools must request formal permission through the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) or directly from SAGE Publications. For standard non-commercial master’s theses, doctoral dissertations, and academic field studies, the measure is traditionally accessible through appropriate scholarly attribution and standard academic citation.

References

• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. John Wiley & Sons.
• 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 (pp. 71–98). Jossey-Bass.
• Funderburg, S. A., & Levy, P. E. (1997). The influence of fairness and supervisory style on organizational citizenship behavior: An examination of the relationship between self- and peer-ratings. Journal of Business and Psychology, 12(2), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025078517226
• Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623
• Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.5465/257011
• Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books.
• 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
• Randall, M. L., Crapanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(2), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199903)20:2<159::AID-JOB881>3.0.CO;2-7
• Thompson, C. A., & Werner, J. M. (1997). The impact of work-family conflict and contextual factors on organizational citizenship behaviors and turnover intentions. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.
• Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predict validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.5465/256902
• 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/10.1177/014920639101700305

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)