OrganizatiOnal Citizenship BehaviOr in the 21st Century

Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the 21st Century: How Might Going the Extra Mile Look Different at the Start of the New Millennium? Jaron Harvey, Mark C. Bolino and Thomas K. Kelemen

Abstract For decades organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has been of interest to scholars and practitioners alike, generating a significant amount of research exploring the concept of what citizenship behavior is, and its antecedents, correlates, and consequences. While these behaviors have been and will continue to be valuable, there are changes in the workplace that have the potential to alter what types of OCBs will remain important for organizations in the future, as well as what types of opportunities for OCB exist for employees. In this chapter we consider the influence of 10 workplace trends related to human resource management that have the potential to influence both what types of citizenship behaviors employees engage in and how often they may engage in them. We build on these 10 trends that others have identified as having the potential to shape the workplace of the future, which include labor shortages, globalization, immigration, knowledge-based workers, increase use of technology, gig work, diversity, changing work values, the skills gap, and employer brands. Based on these 10 trends, we develop propositions about how each trend may

Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Volume 36, 51–110 Copyright © 2018 by Emerald Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0742-7301/doi:10.1108/S0742-730120180000036002

51

52

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

impact OCB. We consider not only how these trends will influence the types of citizenship and opportunities for citizenship that employees can engage in, but also how they may shape the experiences of others related to OCB, including organizations and managers. Keywords: Organizational citizenship behavior; twenty-first century workplace; employee trends

In 2017, the Journal of Applied Psychology celebrated the first century of this important journal’s existence, and one of the most important research themes over this period was employee job performance (Kozlowski, Chen, & Salas, 2017). As described by Organ (1988) and Organ, Podsakoff, and MacKenzie (2006), organizational scholars have long argued that successful organizations are reliant on employees who will not only complete their formal tasks proficiently, but also engage in voluntary and spontaneous behaviors that support their coworkers and the organization more broadly. For instance, Barnard (1938) argued that organizations need employees who are willing to cooperate with other employees, serve the organization, and contribute to its overall purpose; likewise, he emphasizes the importance of securing the “loyalty of desirable persons” (p. 94) who will support the organization in these ways. Similarly, in their account of the Hawthorne studies, Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939) identified a fundamental distinction between the formal organization (which is reflected by the control systems, policies, rules, and regulations that facilitate task accomplishment) and the informal organization (which is reflected by the sentiments, values, and relationships among individuals and groups); furthermore, they emphasized that the informal social organization is “a necessary prerequisite for effective collaboration” and argued that it is often the case that “collaboration exists at an informal level, and it sometimes facilitates the functioning of the formal organization” (p. 559). Finally, Katz (1964) in his seminal essay on the “motivational basis of organizational behavior” noted that effective organizations not only need employees who will “carry out their role assignments in a dependable fashion,” but that there must also be “innovative and spontaneous activity in achieving organizational objectives which go beyond role specifications”; further, he argued that employee innovation, creativity, spontaneous cooperation, and protective behavior are all “vital to organizational survival and effectiveness” and that an organization “which depends solely upon its blueprints of prescribed behavior is a very fragile social system” (p. 132). However, while organizational scholars have long recognized the importance of these types of behaviors that involve cooperation and other acts that are often outside of employees’ formally assigned job duties, it was not until the late 1970s and the early 1980s that researchers began to think about them, measure them, and investigate them in more systematic ways. In 1977, Organ argued that previous conceptualizations of job performance were too narrow, and that researchers

OCB in the 21st Century

53

who seek to understand the link between job satisfaction and job performance must conceptualize the latter more broadly. Specifically, he noted that job performance is often very narrowly defined as “productivity,” when organizations may care about things like “regular attendance, predictability, following the rules, ‘not making waves,’ avoidance of hassles, cooperation, and generalized tendencies toward compliance,” and he further noted that “such behaviors represent the glue which holds collective endeavors together” (Organ, 1977, p. 50). Bateman and Organ (1983) published the first empirical examination of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and demonstrated that employees who were satisfied with their jobs engaged in higher levels of OCB, including behaviors like protecting organizational property, training and helping others to perform their jobs better, taking a personal interest in other employees, coming up with new ideas for handling work, cooperating well with those around them, refraining from complaining and finding fault with other employees, and so forth. Since this initial study, research on OCB has increased exponentially. Indeed, by 2014, over 2,100 articles on OCB had been published, according to Podsakoff, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Maynes, and Spoelma (2014). Generally speaking, researchers in organizational behavior tend to favor the OCB label, and they make a distinction between in-role (i.e., formally prescribed) job performance and OCB; somewhat differently, human resource management (HRM) scholars often use the contextual performance label and make a distinction between contextual behavior, which supports the broader organizational social and psychological environment within which task performance occurs, and task performance, which is the performance of formally assigned tasks that contribute to the organization’s technical core. Organ (1997) even argued that it might be better to redefine OCB as synonymous with contextual performance or “contributions to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports task performance” (p. 91) in order to address critiques regarding the definition of OCB (e.g., Morrison, 1994, Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995) with regard to it being beyond role requirements (i.e., extra-role) and unrewarded. More recently, though, Organ et al. (2006) returned to a definition closer to the original conceptualization; specifically, they define OCB as: “Individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization” (p. 3). Often researchers contrast OCB with task performance when defining it. For instance, Bolino, Hsiung, Harvey, and LePine (2015) state: In contrast to task performance or in-role behavior, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) refers to employee behavior that is more discretionary, is less likely to be formally linked with organizational rewards, and contributes to the organization by promoting a positive social and psychological climate. (p. 56)

Thus, while OCB is sometimes hard to define, researchers “know it when they see it.” Although OCB and related constructs have been studied intensively over the past 40 years, as described earlier, management scholars had recognized long

54

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

before that a successful organization needs employees who are willing to go the extra mile. However, the world of work has changed since the 1930s, or even the 1980s, and researchers have identified several trends that will characterize the workplace of the twenty-first century. Naturally, this raises the question of whether going the extra mile will look different in the future, and answering this question could have important implications for our understanding of OCB and its nature, antecedents, and consequences both in the present and in the future. In this chapter, then, we discuss the ways that labor shortages, globalization, immigration and migration, diversity, changing work values, and other trends may affect OCB in the future. In doing so, we hope to lay the groundwork for future theoretical and empirical studies of OCB and how researchers and practitioners conceptualize it in the years to come. Our chapter is organized as follows. First, we provide an overview of OCB and its various forms and review research that has identified its antecedents and its consequences for organizations. In addition, we also discuss research on the personal consequences of OCB, highlighting both its potential benefits and costs. Next we discuss 10 trends that will shape the workplace of the twenty-first century: labor shortages, globalization, immigration and migration, knowledgebased work, gig and freelance work, diversity, changing work values, increased use of technology, the skills gap, and employer brands. Additionally, we discuss the implications of each of these trends for OCB in the workplace of the future and develop propositions that summarize their implications. Finally, we identify avenues for future research on OCB and briefly discuss some potential practical implications for organizations and managers.

OCB in the Twentieth Century Early research on OCB tended to focus on helping (often labeled “altruism”) and generalized compliance, which is less interpersonal and involves behaviors like following rules, showing up regularly and on time, and not wasting time while at work (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Over the years, researchers identified a number of different conceptual frameworks that proposed different (but often very similar) types of OCB. Table 1 summarizes some of the taxonomies and key types of OCB that have been identified in prior research. Most notably, Organ (1988) discussed five types of OCB – altruism (helping others), conscientiousness (being punctual and reliable), sportsmanship (refraining from complaining), courtesy (touching base with others), and civic virtue (being involved) – and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) developed a 24-item scale to measure these behaviors. A short time later, based on political science theories regarding behaviors that are critical for civic citizenship in society, Van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch (1994) identified five different types of OCB – loyalty (defending the organization), obedience (being punctual and complying with rules), social participation (being involved), advocacy participation (being outspoken), and functional participation (taking on additional responsibilities and pursuing training) – and developed a 34-item scale to measure them.

55


Table 1. Types of OCB. Author(s) (year) Smith et al. (1983) Organ (1988) and Podsakoff et al. (1990)

Van Dyne et al. (1994)

Moorman and Blakely (1995)

Podsakoff et al. (2000)

Coleman and Borman (2000)

Williams and Anderson (1991) Van Dyne and LePine (1998) Farh et al. (1997)

Dekas et al. (2013)

Measures/Types of OCBs Altruism (helping others) General compliance (following rules and punctuality) Altruism (helping others) Conscientiousness (being punctual and reliable) Sportsmanship (refraining from complaining) Courtesy (touching base with others) Civic virtue (being involved) Loyalty (defending the organization) Obedience (being punctual and obeying rules) Social participation (being involved) Advocacy participation (being outspoken) Functional participation (taking on additional responsibilities) Interpersonal helping (helping others) Individual initiative (being outspoken) Personal industry (being punctual and careful in their work) Loyal boosterism (defending and promoting the company) Helping behavior (helping others and giving assistance) Sportsmanship (not complaining) Organizational loyalty (defending the organization) Organizational compliance (following rules) Individual initiative (being proactive) Civic virtue (being involved) Voice (speaking up about concerns) Interpersonal citizenship performance (helping/cooperating with coworkers) Organizational citizenship performance (supporting, defending the organization, and following rules) Job/task conscientiousness (persisting with extra effort to complete tasks) OCB-I (citizenship behaviors aimed at individuals) OCB-O (citizenship behaviors aimed at organization) Helping (affiliative citizenship behavior) Voice (challenging citizenship behavior) Sportsmanship (specific to Western cultures) Courtesy (specific to Western cultures) Interpersonal harmony (specific to Chinese cultures) Protecting company resources (specific to Chinese cultures) Identification with company (universal OCB-similar to civic virtue) Altruism (universal OCB-helping others) Conscientiousness (universal OCB-being punctual and reliable) Helping (helping coworkers) Voice (speaking up about concerns) Civic virtue (being involved) Social participation (engaging in work-related activities) Employee sustainability (encouraging good health)

In yet another effort, Moorman and Blakely (1995) identified four different types of OCB that overlap substantially with behaviors identified in prior work – interpersonal helping, individual initiative (being outspoken), personal industry (being punctual and careful in their work), and loyal boosterism (defending and promoting the company) – and developed a 20-item scale to measure them. At least two attempts have been made to combine the many different types of

56

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

OCB into a narrower set. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000) argued these various OCBs fall into seven dimensions: helping behavior, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, organizational compliance, individual initiative, civic virtue, and voice. Coleman and Borman (2000) used multiple methods (e.g., content sorting, factor analysis, multidimensional scaling analysis, and cluster analysis) to collapse 27 different OCBs into three broad dimensions of citizenship performance: interpersonal citizenship performance (e.g., helping/ cooperating with coworkers), organizational citizenship performance (e.g., supporting and defending organizational objectives and following rules and procedures), and job/task conscientiousness (e.g., persisting with enthusiasm and extra effort to successfully complete task activities). In addition to identifying different types of OCB, some researchers spent time refining existing measures. Some of these efforts focused on contrasting specific types of OCB. Most notably, Williams and Anderson (1991) developed a measure that differentiates OCB directed at other individuals (OCB-I) from OCB directed at the organization (OCB-O), and their distinction between OCB-I and OCB-O remains very influential in citizenship research (Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). Other researchers have focused on contrasting OCB which is interpersonal or affiliative with OCB that is challenging. For instance, Van Dyne and LePine (1998) developed an OCB scale that measures helping (affiliative citizenship) and voice (challenging citizenship). In an effort to understand if OCB is different across cultures, Farh, Earley, and Lin (1997) developed a Chinese OCB scale and determined that some types of OCB are culturally specific (i.e., emic) – for Western cultures this includes sportsmanship and courtesy – and for Chinese cultures this includes interpersonal harmony and protecting company resources. Other dimensions were determined to be etic (i.e., universal): identification with the company (similar to civic virtue), altruism toward colleagues, and conscientiousness. Finally, Dekas, Bauer, Welle, Kurkoski, and Sullivan (2013) recently developed the 23-item OCB Knowledge Worker Scale (OCB-KW Scale), which assesses five types of OCB – helping, voice, civic virtue, social participation, and employee sustainability – that are, in fact, remarkably similar to those that have been identified in prior work, aside from employee sustainability, which describes employee behaviors that seek to improve the employee’s personal health and well-being or support other employees’ efforts to stay healthy and positive. Despite the many different types and measures of OCB, there has been relatively little consistency in the types of OCB that researchers tend to investigate. Further, in a meta-analysis, LePine, Erez, and Johnson (2002) found that the various types of OCB are highly correlated and share common correlates, such that there may be little value in distinguishing between them. Nevertheless, as discussed by Bolino and Grant (2016), there is still relatively little consistency in how researchers operationalize OCB, with some researchers focusing on specific types of OCB (e.g., helping or voice), other researchers focusing on broader categories of OCB (e.g., OCB-I and OCB-O and challenging and affiliative OCB), and others using measures that are an aggregate or average of many different types of OCB (e.g., the average of conscientiousness, sportsmanship, civic virtue,

57


courtesy, and altruism). Recently, Klotz, Bolino, Song, and Stornelli (in press) demonstrated that there may also be value in conceptualizing OCB using a profile model, in which employees engage in different patterns of OCB. Their work suggests that employees in different organizations may engage in different patterns of citizenship, depending on the organizational context. This raises the larger question of whether researchers should be using established measures in their entirety, as they are often expected and encouraged to do, or if it makes more sense to develop organization-specific measures of OCB that best capture the broader notion of what OCB means within the organizational context in which they are being investigated. Given that the nature of OCB in the twentyfirst century is changing, it may mean that our approach to measuring OCB should change as well. This is a point we return to when addressing directions for future research regarding the development and use of OCB measures that are best suited for assessing OCB in the future. Regardless of how OCB is conceptualized and measured, though, in this chapter, when referring to OCB, we are speaking of the employee behavior generally be considered “beyond the call of duty” and involving behaviors that help other specific individuals, that help the organization, that could involve complying with organizational rules or challenging them in constructive ways, and might involve acting in ways or performing tasks at such a high level or with so much care that it exceeds what might normally be expected of employees. Eliciting OCB – Key Antecedents Given that OCB is thought to be essential for organizational success, most research, particularly early on, focused on how to elicit such behavior. While it is beyond the scope of this chapter to summarize all of this research, we briefly review some of the key antecedents of OCB. To organize this discussion, we use the framework introduced by Rioux and Penner (2001), who argued that there are three citizenship motives that explain OCB: prosocial values motives, organizational concern motives, and impression management motives. That is, research on the antecedents of OCB indicates that employees go the extra mile because they care about other people, they care about the organization, or they want to look like a dedicated employee. In addition, we add a fourth category to this list of motives – namely, duty or obligation – as some employees engage in OCB because they feel like they should or must do so. These motives are useful for classifying the various antecedents identified in prior research. Below, then, we briefly discuss some of these antecedents of OCB, a summary of which is found in Table 2.

Prosocial Values Motives As just noted, prior research suggests that employees are often willing to engage in OCB, primarily OCB that is interpersonal or directed at other individuals, because they care about others and want to improve their well-being. Most research consistent with this perspective focuses on specific individual differences

58

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

Table 2. Antecedents of OCB. Antecedent

Key Findings/Ideas

Prosocial values

Many different personality traits that describe individual’s prosocial propensity (i.e., concern for other, prosocial personality, agreeableness, and collectivism) are correlated with the performance of OCB Employees are more likely to engage in OCB when in a positive mood Prosocial values can also interact with traits or others citizenship motives (organizational concern and impression management) to influence OCB Organizational Employees engage in OCB due to social exchange concern relationships; the better an organization treats an employee the better an employee’s attitudes (job satisfaction, commitment, and involvement) and therefore an increased motive to perform OCB Organizational justice is also an important predictor of OCB. When an employer meets his or her promises to employees OCB increases, and conversely when promises are not kept OCB decreases. Good leader member exchanges and positive leadership styles like transformational leadership, authentic, ethical, trustworthy, and supportive increase the performance of OCB Impression Employees use OCB to enhance their image and management use them to improve manager ratings during promotion decisions Impression management motives strengthen the relationship between prosocial values and affiliate OCBs, but not challenging; however, in a Chinese sample impression management motives weakened the relationship between prosocial values and OCB-I, so culture is important for impression management motives Duty or The personality trait of conscientiousness which obligation describes an individual who is dutiful, reliable, goal oriented, and so forth is positively related to OCB Often employees cannot distinguish between what is in-role versus extra-role; therefore, employees often engage in OCB because they think it is part of their job Employees can also engage in OCB due to pressure to do so

Author(s) (Year) McNeely and Meglino (1994), Penner et al. (1997), Ilies et al. (2009), and Moorman and Blakely (1995) Lee and Allen (2002) Grant and Mayer (2009) and Takeuchi et al. (2015) Organ (1990), Bolino and Turnley (2003), Diefendorff et al. (2002), and LePine et al. (2002) Colquitt et al. (2013); Zhao et al. (2007); Turnley et al. (2003); Coyle-Shapiro & Conway (2005) Ilies et al. (2007); Choi (2009), Mo and Shi (2017), Podsakoff et al. (1990), Walumbwa et al. (2010), and Wang et al. (2005) Bolino (1999), Hui et al. (2000), and Yun et al. (2007) Grant and Mayer (2009) and Takeuchi et al. (2015)

Chiaburu et al. (2011) and Organ and Ryan (1995)

Morrison (1994), Kim et al. (2013), and McAllister et al. (2007) Bolino et al. (2010)

or employees’ personality traits. Thus, there is evidence that OCB is correlated, albeit weakly, with personality traits like concern for others (McNeely & Meglino, 1994), prosocial personality (Penner, Midili, & Kegelmeyer, 1997), agreeableness (Ilies, Fulmer, Spitzmuller, & Johnson, 2009), and collectivism (Moorman & Blakely, 1995). Likewise, employees are more willing to engage in OCB when in


59

a positive mood (Lee & Allen, 2002). Other studies suggest prosocial values may interact with other traits and citizenship motives in affecting OCB (e.g., Grant & Mayer, 2009; Takeuchi, Bolino, & Lin, 2015). Overall, then, this stream of studies supports the idea that employees engage in more citizenship when they feel motivated to help others owing to their mood or disposition. Organizational Concern Motives The bulk of research on OCB antecedents suggests employees are more willing to contribute organizational success through OCB when they care about and feel attached to the organization. Indeed, it is arguable that social exchange theory has most often been used to explain why employees engage in OCB (Organ, 1990). When organizations treat employees well by giving them satisfying jobs, interesting work, treating them fairly, fulfilling their psychological contracts, supporting them, and so forth, employees are more willing to repay the organization by going beyond the call of duty (Bolino & Turnley, 2003). Consistent with this idea, studies suggest high levels of job attitudes, like job satisfaction, job involvement, and affective organizational commitment are positively related to OCB (e.g., Diefendorff, Brown, Kamin, & Lord, 2002; LePine et al., 2002). Indeed, when employees perceive that their organization supports them and lives up to their various commitments, they are more likely to engage in OCB (Coyle-Shapiro & Conway, 2005). Likewise, organizational justice in its different forms is a good predictor of citizenship behavior (Colquitt et al., 2013). However, when the employer breaches their employees’ psychological contract, employees tend to reduce their citizenship behaviors (Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski, & Bravo, 2007), particularly those that are more organizationally focused (Turnley, Bolino, Lester, & Bloodgood, 2003). Finally, there is an evidence that leaders influence how employees feel about their organization, and research links a number of positive leadership styles with increased OCB. Specifically, when leaders develop high-quality exchange relationships with followers, those subordinates are more likely to perform OCB (Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007), and OCB is more common among followers with transformational, authentic, ethical, trustworthy, and supportive leaders (e.g., Choi, 2009; Mo & Shi, 2017; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005). Impression Management Motives Bolino (1999) argued that employees may also engage in OCB because they want to enhance their image at work and developed a theoretical model explaining how certain situations (e.g., an upcoming performance review) or personality traits (e.g., careerism) could increase employees’ motivation to alter the frequency, type, timing, or targeting of their OCB to make them look more dedicated to the organization. Consistent with this idea, Hui, Lam, and Law (2000) found that bank employees who considered engaging in OCB important for being promoted were more likely to both engage in OCB prior to the promotion decision and reduce their OCB after being promoted. Further, Yun, Takeuchi, and Liu (2007) found

60

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

that employees concerned with making a good impression were more likely to engage in OCB-O, and that self-enhancement motives were positively related to both OCB-O and OCB-I when role ambiguity was high. In a study looking at the interaction between prosocial and impression management motives, Grant and Mayer (2009) found that impression management motives strengthened the relationship between prosocial motives and three types of affiliative and organization-focused OCB (helping, courtesy, and initiative), but not a challenging type of OCB (voice) that could potentially harm the employee’s image. Building on this study by examining all three citizenship motives in an Asian context, Takeuchi et al. (2015) found something slightly different. Specifically, they found that impression management motives weakened the relationship between prosocial values motives and OCB-I; further, they found a three-way interaction in which impression management motives weakened the positive relationship between prosocial values and organizational concern motives on OCB-I (but not OCB-O), suggesting that impression management motives may have different implications in cultures that are more collectivistic. Overall, then, impression management motives have also proven relevant to understanding why employees engage in OCB. Duty or Obligation Another set of antecedents suggests employees may engage in OCB owing to a sense of duty, obligation, or compulsion. Notably, one of the personality traits that is most strongly and consistently associated with OCB is conscientiousness, a Big Five trait that captures the degree to which employees are thorough, dutiful, careful, reliable, organized, goal-oriented, and industrious (Chiaburu, Oh, Berry, Li, & Gardner, 2011; Organ & Ryan, 1995). However, some research also indicates that some employees engage in OCB because they feel these extra-role behaviors are part of their required jobs – that is, that they are, in fact, in-role behaviors. Morrison (1994) demonstrated that employees view many OCBs as part of their job, and that this perception increased their likelihood of engaging in such behaviors. Subsequent studies have shown that role cognitions or breadth perceptions (i.e., whether OCBs are seen as a required part of one’s role) are important for understanding when and why employees engage in OCB (e.g., Kim, Van Dyne, Kamdar, & Johnson, 2013; McAllister, Kamdar, Morrison, & Turban, 2007). Recent studies have also shown that even when employees consider engaging in OCB to be beyond the call of duty, they may nonetheless feel pressured to engage in such behavior. Specifically, Bolino, Turnley, Gilstrap, and Suazo (2010) found that citizenship pressure was associated with higher levels of OCB, especially among employees who were less conscientious and unmarried. Thus, employees may sometimes engage in OCB because they feel compelled to out of a sense of duty or obligation. Consequences of OCB Whereas researchers initially focused on identifying the antecedents of OCB, more recently there has been an increased emphasis on understanding the implications


61

of OCB for both individuals and organizations. Given that the outcomes of OCB have been the focus of at least two meta-analytic reviews (Podsakoff et al., 2009, 2014), we only briefly summarize some of the key findings in these areas. First, we discuss research focused on the personal implications of OCB for individuals. While early studies emphasized the positive consequences of OCB for employees, more recent work, which we summarize, recognizes that going the extra mile can have both positive and negative implications for an employee’s career and personal life. Second, we highlight the findings of studies examining the link between OCB and indicators of workgroup and organizational-level performance. Table 3 summarizes key findings on the individual and organizational consequences of OCB. Implications of OCB for Employees A number of studies have sought to understand how engaging in OCB can affect employees’ performance evaluations and career prospects (Podsakoff et al., 2009). Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Hui (1993) and Podsakoff et al. (2000) posited several reasons why supervisors may give better performance evaluations to employees who are good organizational citizens, including reciprocity/fairness norms dictating that employees who go the extra mile be repaid by supervisors and implicit performance theories leading supervisors to believe that good citizens must also be high performers; likewise, it is possible that supervisors feel more positively about employees who engage in OCB or that citizenship behavior stands out and is more readily recalled or accessible than task performance, leading supervisors to focus on OCB when evaluating employee performance (Podsakoff et al., 2000). In one of the earliest studies on this topic, Werner (1994) found that OCB-I, but not OCB-O, positively affects managerial evaluations; however, in his study, the effects of task performance on such evaluations were nearly three times as strong. In subsequent studies, however, researchers have found more substantive relationships between OCB and performance. Indeed, based on their meta-analytic findings, Podsakoff et al. (2009) concluded that the relationships between, “OCBs and job performance ratings are, for the most part, quite comparable with the relationships between task performance and job performance ratings” (p. 129). However, supplemental analyses indicate that the source of OCB and task performance ratings can affect these relationships. When ratings of task performance and OCB are obtained from a different source, then task performance has a stronger impact on the evaluations of job performance, which is consistent with the arguments made by Bergeron (2007). Researchers have also examined the link between OCB and another individual outcome that has important implications for organizations – namely, withdrawal behavior in the form of turnover and absenteeism. Most notably, Chen, Hui, and Sego (1998) argued that employees who engage in low levels of OCB are more likely to be thinking about leaving their organization, and consistent with this argument, they found that OCB was negatively related to both turnover intentions and actual turnover. Based on a similar logic, Podsakoff et al. (2009) also found that OCB was negatively related to absenteeism. Thus, a lack of OCB on

62

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

Table 3. Outcomes of OCB. Consequences of OCB Positive employee outcomes

Key Findings

OCB, particularly OCB-I, can improve managers ratings of employee’s performance and career prospects The performance of OCB can predict a decrease in employee turnover and absenteeism, as a decrease in OCB can indicate withdrawal from the organization The performance of OCB increases an employee’s salary increases, promotions, public recognition, and appointments to high-profile positions On a daily level, the performance of OCB can be energizing to an employee, and can increase mood, positive affect, vigor, and personal resources Negative However, OCB can also impede progress of employees employee as it can get in the way of task performance. It outcomes particularly hurts employees whose progress is based on outcome-based rewarded systems OCBs, like individual initiative, that require time and extra effort can lead to job stress, role overload, and work–family conflict Further, pressure to engage in OCB can lead to job stress, work–family conflict, and turnover intentions OCB can also lead to citizenship fatigue, especially among employees who have low support from their organization Some performance of OCB can be depleting, not replenishing, and can lead to unethical and counterproductive work behaviors The daily performance of OCB can decrease goal attainment which leads to hurt job satisfaction and stress Group and OCB, although an individual level phenomena, organization can increase group and team performance as outcomes spontaneous, cooperative behavior is key to organizational performance OCB contributes to the structural, relational, and cognitive social capital of an organization, and can also enhance an organization’s absorptive capacity In a meta-analysis, OCB was positively associated with subjective and objective measures of performance in organizations Groups are also positively impacted by OCB; however, it is important that they are interdependent There is also a curvilinear relationship with group performance and challenging OCB, and there must be high levels of affiliative OCB for challenging to help performance Some research suggests that the relationship between OCB and workgroup performance is unrelated

Author(s) (Year) Podsakoff et al. (1993, 2000, 2009) and Werner (1994) Chen et al. (1998) and Podsakoff et al. (2009) Allen and Rush (1998)

Bergeron (2007), Bolino et al. (2012), Glomb et al. (2011), Lam et al. (2016), and Koopman et al. (2016) Bergeron (2007) and Bergeron et al. (2013, 2014)

Bolino and Turnley (2005) and Halbesleben et al. (2009) Bolino et al. (2010) Bolino et al. (2015)

Klotz and Bolino (2013), Bolino and Klotz (2015), and Yam et al. (2017) Koopman et al. (2016)

Katz (1964), Podsakoff et al. (1997, 2000), and Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997) Bolino et al. (2002) and Hart et al. (2016) Podsakoff et al. (2009)

Podsakoff et al. (2013), Bachrach et al. (2006), and Nielsen et al. (2012) MacKenzie et al. (2011)

Bolino et al. (2016)


63

the part of employees may be an indicator that they are withdrawing and detaching from their organization. Researchers have also discussed and investigated some of the larger career implications of being a good organizational citizen. Allen and Rush (1998) showed that employees who engaged in OCB were more likely to be recognized for rewards, such as salary increases, promotions, public recognition, and appointments to high-profile projects. However, it is not clear that engaging in OCB is a definitive way to quickly climb the career ladder. Bergeron (2007) argued that because task performance is more important for getting ahead performing, OCB could come at the expense of task performance, thereby causing employees who engage in OCB to suffer negative career consequences. Indeed, in an investigation of career outcomes in an outcome-based reward system, Bergeron, Shipp, Rosen, and Furst (2013) found that, after accounting for the time employees spent on task performance, employees who engaged in OCB more frequently actually had slower career advancement and lower salary increases than employees who engaged in less OCB. Similarly, in a study of faculty working at research universities using outcome-based reward systems, Bergeron, Ostroff, Schroeder, and Block (2014) found that OCB that was internally directed in service to the university was negatively related to short- and long-term indicators of research performance (i.e., number of publications) and career advancement; however, OCB that was externally directed in service to the profession was positively related to these outcomes. Therefore, while engaging in OCB appears to increase managerial ratings of employee job performance, this does not always translate into career success, particularly when task performance is more important than citizenship performance. Other work has sought to understand how engaging in OCB can affect employee well-being. In one of the first studies in this area, Bolino and Turnley (2005) found that professional employees who engaged in individual initiative OCB by taking on additional projects, traveling when needed, working late, bringing work home with them, and so forth, experienced higher levels of job stress, role overload, and work–family conflict. Building on this research, Halbesleben, Harvey, and Bolino (2009) found that highly engaged employees were more likely to perform interpersonal OCBs, which in turn, resulted in higher levels of work– family conflict, although the effects of OCB on work–family conflict were weaker among highly conscientious employees. Research also suggests that engaging in OCB can have negative implications for employees who feel pressured to do so; in particular, Bolino et al. (2010) found that, controlling for the amount of OCB performed, hours worked, and role overload, citizenship pressure was positively related to work–family conflict, work–leisure conflict, job stress, and turnover intentions. In addition, Bolino et al. (2015) found that high levels of OCB may lead to higher levels of citizenship fatigue, which is a feeling of being tired, worn out, or on edge due to the performance of OCB. Their findings indicate that engaging in OCB is more likely to lead to citizenship fatigue in situations where employees perceive low levels of organizational support, and less likely to lead to citizenship fatigue in situations where employees have high-quality exchange relationships with teammates and perceive low citizenship pressure; further,

64

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

they found evidence that employees who experienced more citizenship fatigue responded by cutting back on their OCB. Although these studies have been important in understanding the potential “dark side” of OCB (Bolino, Klotz, Turnley, & Harvey, 2013), research has also shown that engaging OCB can also be energizing. In particular, drawing on the idea that it is important to use a within-person research design to identify the individual consequences of OCB (Bergeron, 2007; Bolino, Harvey, & Bachrach, 2012), Glomb, Bhave, Miner, and Wall (2011) found being helpful at work increases employees’ positive mood, particularly for extroverted employees. Further, Lam, Wan, and Roussin (2016) found daily OCB (as rated by supervisors) was associated with increased levels of employee vigor at the end of the workday, and this relationship was mediated by work meaningfulness. Thus, whereas some researchers have argued that engaging in OCB can be depleting and lead to moral licensing, unethical, and counterproductive behavior (e.g., Bolino & Klotz, 2015; Klotz & Bolino, 2013), Lam et al. (2016) concluded that engaging in OCB can increase, rather than deplete, employees’ personal resources. However, it is possible that the depleting or energizing effects of OCB may depend on what drives employees to perform OCB. Yam, Klotz, He, and Reynolds (2017) found that when employees feel obligated to engage in OCB owing to external forces, they are more likely to have increased feelings of entitlement that lead them to engage in interpersonal and organizational deviance. In a study examining both the “bright” and “dark” sides of OCB, Koopman, Lanaj, and Scott (2016) found engaging in daily OCB increases positive affect, leading to increases in daily job satisfaction and affective commitment; however, daily OCB can impede daily work goal progress, leading to increased emotional exhaustion and decreased job satisfaction and affective commitment. Overall, then, there is evidence that OCB can have both positive and negative implications for employees’ job attitudes and personal well-being, depending on different individual and contextual factors. Implications of OCB for Groups and Organizations Even though OCBs were originally described and defined as behaviors facilitating the effective functioning of organizations, it took many years before there was any significant theoretical or empirical work investigating this claim. This idea that OCBs should enhance organizational performance finds root in the work of Katz (1964) and others who argued that spontaneous, cooperative behavior is important for the effective functioning of organizations. In subsequent work, researchers identified different reasons why OCBs might facilitate organizational performance. For instance, Podsakoff, Ahearne, and MacKenzie (1997), Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997), and Podsakoff et al. (2000) have reasoned that OCBs should be associated with indicators of organizational performance because such behaviors (1) reduce the organizations need to devote their scarce resources to activities that are largely maintenance functions; (2) free up organizational resources to be invested in more productive purposes; (3) enhance the productivity of coworkers; and (4) increase the organization’s


65

ability to attract and retain the best employees. In a conceptual paper, Bolino, Turnley, and Bloodgood (2002) argued that OCBs contribute to the development of structural, relational, and cognitive social capital, which then facilitate organizational performance and encourage on-going acts of citizenship, and more recently Hart, Gilstrap, and Bolino (2016) argued that OCB can also enhance an organization’s absorptive capacity, an important determinant of organizational effectiveness. In a meta-analysis of 33 studies linking OCB and indicators of organizational effectiveness, Podsakoff et al. (2009) found that OCB was positively associated with both subjective and objective measures of overall unit-level performance, although this relationship was stronger with regard to the former than the latter. In a subset of these studies, they also found a relationship between OCB and measures of productivity, efficiency, and costs; further, across eight studies, they found that OCB was positively related to measures of customer satisfaction and that across six studies, OCB was negatively related to unit-level turnover. In an updated qualitative review, Podsakoff, Whiting, Welsh, and Mai (2013) noted that several studies have found a relationship between OCB and group performance, but a series of studies by Bachrach, Powell, Collins, and Richey (2006) and Nielsen, Bachrach, Sundstrom, and Halfhill (2012) indicate that OCB may have little effect, or a negative effect, on performance in teams that are not task interdependent. Other works suggest a curvilinear relationship between OCB and workgroup performance, and only when there is a high level of affiliative OCB in the workgroup is there a sustained positive effect of OCB on performance (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Podsakoff, 2011). Thus, in spite of evidence that generally supports the positive relationship between OCB and workgroup and organizational effectiveness, Bolino, Klotz, and Turnley (2016) point out that OCB is sometimes unrelated, or even negatively related, to such outcomes. Thus, they argue that researchers must continue to develop a more nuanced understanding of when and why OCB may have unintended consequences that might undermine organizational effectiveness.

Different OCB: How 10 Trends Affecting HRM in the Twenty-First May Change OCB in the New Millennium In the following section we describe 10 trends we identified as likely to affect organizations in a number of important ways. One implication of these trends is that they will influence the types of OCB that we are likely to see in organizations in the twenty-first century. In addition to the emergence of new forms of OCB, these trends may also shape the need and frequency of different types of existing OCB and may change the way organizations and managers elicit OCB from employees. In this section, then, we describe each trend affecting HRM, and then speculate and develop propositions about how these trends will influence the emergence, occurrence, and nature of citizenship behavior in the new millennium (see Table 4).

66

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

Table 4. Twenty-first Century Factors That May Influence OCB. 1. Labor shortages

Projections suggest that there will not be enough available workers in the future to meet the demand organizations will have for workers 2. Globalization The liberalization of economies suggests closer relationships between countries and greater opportunities to have operations in multiple countries 3. Immigration and migration Various demands for certain skills have led workers to move to different countries for work opportunities, and social circumstances have led some individuals to leave their countries and begin working in new counties 4. Knowledge-based workers Increased number of jobs requires intellectual capital because of a shift away from labor-based jobs 5. Increased use of technology The use of technology and automation in the workplace is increasing, both altering and eliminating jobs 6. Freelance and gig work Rise of short-term, app-based, work 7. Diversity Increased numbers of women and minorities entering the workforce 8. Changing work values Differences in the values of employees based on generation membership 9. Skills gap Lack of individuals to fill jobs that require a specific skill set, which causes employers to leave these jobs unfilled 10. Employer brands Organizations work to create a “brand” that represents their values both internally with employees and externally with other stakeholders

Trend 1: Labor Shortages For decades, labor shortages have been one of the most persistent predictions of the future challenges facing organizations. These predictions began in the 1960s when researchers warned of a slowing labor supply that would occur once the Baby Boomers were all in the workforce (Johnston, 1992), and predictions of a labor shortage have continued since that time, highlighted by a contraction in the size of the labor pool during the 1990s (Johnston, 1991, 1992); currently these predictions forecast a labor shortage that 1 in every 13 jobs will be vacant in the year 2020 (Ford & Sullivan, 2012). The difference between this looming labor shortage and those experienced in the past is that this shortage is expected to be more severe and prolonged than any before it (Hartman, 2016; Leubsdorf, 2018; Levanon, Colijn, Cheng, & Paterra, 2014; ManpowerGroup, 2013; National Association of Manufacturing, 2003; Porter, 2017), resulting in a tight labor market that will have a detrimental impact on organizations’ ability to operate (Hartman, 2018; ManpowerGroup, 2013; Tung, 2007). While much of the concern surrounding this upcoming labor shortage has focused on the United States and other developed countries (Ford & Sullivan, 2012), there is evidence that even developing countries will feel the effects of this labor shortage (ManpowerGroup, 2013). The cause of the pending labor shortage is seen as the retirement of the largest segment of the working population – the Baby Boomers (Levanon et al., 2014; Porter, 2017). This is not the first time that this segment of the working population has been at the center of predictions about labor shortages (Johnston, 1992); indeed, in the 1970s, there also were worries that the population of employees following them was not going to be large enough to sustain the pace of job


67

creation that had coincided with the Baby Boomers’ entrance into the workforce. While there have been some labor shortages that have occurred in previous decades, such as the shortage experienced in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Cappelli, 2005), these shortages were not necessarily as widespread, nor did they last for a sustained period of time. However, the coming labor shortage is expected to be larger and more widespread owing to the underlying demographic changes that will see such a large portion of the population exiting the workforce (Atwater & Klass, 2007; Levanon et al., 2014; ManpowerGroup, 2013). During previous labor shortages, as the labor market would tighten, organizations responded by raising wages and relaxing hiring processes, which alleviated the problem they faced finding individuals to fill their jobs. Higher wages would attract more individuals, and relaxed hiring standards made it possible for those with less experience to secure a job. Eventually slack would reenter the labor market, and organizations would respond by lowing wages and raising their hiring standards (Cappelli, 2005; Jensen, 1991). Unlike previous labor shortages, though, as Baby Boomers begin to exit the workforce it will cause more than tightness in the labor market. Indeed, some have suggested that this labor shortage is occurring because of a fundamental shift in the labor market, occurring because of the “Baby Bust” that has followed the Baby Boomers (Last, 2013). This “Baby Bust,” or the much smaller generational cohorts following the Baby Boomers, means once the Baby Boomers exit the labor market the size of the labor pool will be decreased dramatically (Cappelli, 2005; Last, 2013). As noted earlier, while this labor shortage is often considered from the perspective of developed countries and the problems that employers in those nations will experience in hiring employees, there is also evidence that other emerging economies will suffer from this shortage as well (Last, 2013; ManpowerGroup, 2013; Porter, 2017). Even developing countries are expected to see a shortage of labor as dips in their populations lead to a reduced number of workers to fill jobs being created by growing economies (Last, 2013). Additionally, as the demand for labor increases in developed countries it is likely that people from these developing countries will move to places where they can procure higher wages and perhaps even better working conditions (Last, 2013). The combination of these two possibilities, increased demand for workers within the country and increased pull of workers to other countries, may make the effects of the labor shortage even more pronounced in some developing countries. Because organizations rely on workers to accomplish work, whether it is creating a good or providing a service, labor shortages may leave organizations shorthanded and unable to meet the demands for their goods and services. When organizations lack the necessary workers to either manufacture the necessary goods or perform the required services, it can mean that they cannot add new customers or grow at the pace they would like (Hartman, 2018). Some organizations may try to address this shortage by providing workers with the opportunity to work overtime or by hiring of temporary employees. It is possible that in some areas employees will be forced to work to meet demand through longer hours (Davidson, 2018; Golden & Jorgensen, 2002). For some organizations, the inability to meet the demand of potential customers may threaten

68

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

the continued existence of the firm, while for others it will depress potential income and expansion opportunities (Hartman, 2018). In any case, the size of the predicted labor shortage has implications for the success and survival of many organizations. This labor shortage will be manifested in a variety of jobs, but current trends suggest that jobs involving physical labor may be the first area in which the shortage is felt. Jobs that are physically taxing are often viewed as less desirable, and even employees who hold these jobs are often looking for a way to get out of them (Appelbaum, 2017). For example, there is currently a shortage in construction workers that has persisted for years (Donnelly, 2017; The Construction Labor Shortage, 2015). However, physically demanding jobs are not the only ones in which the labor shortage will be felt. Because of lack of the interest in some fields or opportunities for training in others, the labor shortage will affect white-collar as well as blue-collar jobs (e.g., Where are all the nurses?, 2017). Thus, this labor shortage is likely to affect most employers, regardless of where they are located and the types of jobs their workers perform. Labor Shortages and OCB If the coming labor shortage is as severe and prolonged as expected (Ford & Sullivan, 2012; ManpowerGroup, 2013), organizations will have an increased need for employees to engage in OCB. When the number of available workers to fill positions in organizations decreases, it will create a greater need for the remaining employees to engage in OCBs to accomplish necessary tasks. Because it is unlikely that the initial response of most organizations to the labor shortage will be to either make fewer products or offer decreased services, the result will be that the amount of work to be accomplished remains constant while the number of workers decreases. Organizations are likely to look to their workers to make up the difference between the demand for goods and services and the available number of worker hours by engaging in OCB to make up the difference. Indeed, it is likely that supervisors may become more sensitive to encouraging and rewarding citizenship behaviors (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 2009). While all different types of OCB may be useful during this labor shortage, some will be more beneficial than others. Certain types of OCB are more focused on assisting with task-related issues than others. For instance, helping, which is often thought of as the prototypical OCB (Podsakoff et al., 2000), encompasses actions that are often task focused, like helping a coworker who is behind on a task or assisting someone who is not clear about what they are supposed to do to accomplish their job (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). By employees lending a hand to get a task completed or teaching other employees how to effectively do their jobs, the organization benefits because more work will be accomplished than would have otherwise been possible in the understaffed environment. Additionally, individual initiative, which often involves working on task-related matters outside of regular work hours, such as responding to emails in the evening or early morning or staying late or coming in early to get something completed on time (Bolino & Turnley, 2005), is likely to become


69

increasingly important in organizations that are impacted by the labor shortage. By spending time on work, outside of regular work hours, employees engaging in individual initiative will be helping short-staffed organizations address issues caused by the labor shortage. Because these types of OCBs facilitate the accomplishment of job-related tasks, they will be particularly positive in organizations without a full complement of employees. P1a. Increasing shortages of workers means that employers will have a greater need for employees to contribute beyond their formal job descriptions, and thus OCBs that facilitate the accomplishment of tasks, such as helping and individual initiative, will be in greater demand. Although the need for OCBs that accelerate task accomplishment will increase, other types of OCB will be needed in organizations suffering through labor shortages as well. One of the benefits of OCB in the workplace is that it helps maintain a positive organizational culture and generally contributes to an enjoyable workplace (Organ et al., 2006). As the labor market tightens and organizations leave more and more positions unfilled, it is likely that employees will be adding responsibilities that were not originally part of their jobs. In these types of situations, it will be understandable if employees develop negative attitudes, and even if they complain about their increased workload, especially if they are uncompensated for doing more. In this circumstance OCBs like sportsmanship, which involves employees refraining from complaining and tolerating the inconveniences that can be expected in this type of situation (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Podsakoff et al., 2000), or organizational compliance, which is when employees have respect for organizational rules, policies, and process, such that they are punctual in completing tasks and are good stewards of organizational resources (Van Dyne et al., 1994), will be increasingly important. By not complaining and continuing to be engaged at work, employees will cultivate a positive work culture despite the challenging circumstances associated with the labor shortage. P1b. Increasing shortages of workers mean that employers will have a greater need for employees to be flexible and take on additional job responsibilities at various times without complaining, which will increase the need for employees to engage in OCBs of sportsmanship and organizational compliance to maintain a positive work culture. In addition to the ways mentioned above that OCB in organizations may be influenced by a labor shortage, there is also a possibility that managers may begin to force their workers to engage in OCB. Because the demands on managers to produce is so great (Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning, 1986; Sullivan & Bhagat, 1992), it is possible that they will begin to pressure their employees to perform OCBs. When supervisors force their employees to engage in OCB behaviors it is referred to as compulsory citizenship behavior (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006, 2007). Managers, because of their supervisory roles, can exert pressure on employees to engage in behaviors that are typically considered beyond the call of duty, such as coming in early to work on a project or responding to emails while on vacation.

70

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

The constraint imposed by a labor shortage will decrease the human resources that managers have to meet deadlines or other performance measures, and as a consequence, they may be more likely to compel the remaining employees to go the extra mile, which may also result in increased feelings of citizenship pressure and fatigue. P1c. Increasing shortages of workers means that employers will have a greater need for employees to contribute beyond their formal job descriptions, and this will increase the amount of compulsory citizenship behavior that managers demand from employees, which is likely to increase employees’ feelings of citizenship pressure and citizenship fatigue.

Trend 2: Globalization Globalization, the increase in economic interactions between individuals from different locations, cultures, and countries, is ubiquitous in modern society and influences politics, business, and culture (Naor, Linderman, & Schroeder, 2010). Tom Friedman (2005), New York Times journalist and author of The World is Flat, estimates that the global market for goods and services has increased by five billion people due to globalization. The landscape in which businesses operate has fundamentally changed from just a few decades ago, and this change is influencing both how employees work and what they do when at work. Technological advances in transportation, such as airplanes, shipping containers, and gaspowered engines, along with advances in communication that include mobile phones and the internet, now provide the means for business and organizations to penetrate new markets by competing and operating in a global way (Barkema, Baum, & Mannix, 2002; Burke & Ng, 2006). In conjunction with the advancements in technology, the liberalization of economies (Simmons & Elkins, 2004) and the facilitation of trade-agreements between countries have further promoted and enabled global business ventures. However, the global financial recession in the late 2000s generated some skepticism of globalization, as well as an increase in nationalist and regionalist sentiments in some countries, including the United States (Bremmer, 2014). These changes have led to a paradigm shift away from the fast-paced dynamic view of globalization of previous years toward a more strategic and slow-paced process (Bremmer, 2014). In spite of this recent shift in sentiment toward globalization, a report by the DHL Global Connectedness Index suggests that while global integration had fallen by one-tenth in 2008, by 2013 not only has it recovered, but it also had passed its previous peak (Ghemawat & Altman, 2016). Further, in the United States, multinational corporations have experienced continued growth over the past three decades and, as of 2013, employed over 34.5 million individuals in different countries (Scott, 2013). These statistics suggest that, despite some skepticism, globalization is a driver of growth and will be a fundamental part of the organizational landscape in the future. Although globalization may not be considered the same driving force it was in the late 1990s and early 2000s, it is still a feature of the business landscape with which many organizations continue to contend. Because the drivers of


71

globalization, such as technological advances and the liberalization of economies, are likely to persist, organizations will need to continue to account for the impact of globalization on their operations. The general, albeit slowing (Bremmer, 2014), trend toward globalization suggests that employees will more frequently work with people from other places, crossing barriers of time, language, geography, and culture, causing organizations to face issues of language, culture, and differences in political, regulatory, technological, and social systems (Stone & Deadrick, 2015) as a result of globalization. These challenges related to globalization may manifest in a variety of ways. For example, organizations can experience difficulties in developing managers capable of operating in complex global situations (Farndale, Scullion, & Sparrow, 2010), or facilitating effective knowledge transfer. Building on the second challenge, for organizations that operate on the global stage, their ability to effectively transfer knowledge throughout the entire organization in order to remain competitive is critical (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 2002; Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1986; Kogut & Zander, 1993). Globalization is likely to influence the ability of organizations to promote and maintain effective communication and knowledge transfers are often influenced in complex ways. For example, although language competence is essential for effective organizational performance (Welch & Welch, 2008), language also influences culture (Brannen, 2004) and power (Vaara, Tienari, Piekkari, & Säntti, 2005). Simply having proficiency with a spoken language might not be enough for an employee to succeed while abroad (Peltokorpi & Vaara, 2014); indeed, employees who are sent on international work assignments will likely need to rely on coworkers, supervisors and other host-nationals in order to successfully navigate the intricacies of language while working as an expatriate. Language is just one example of the complex challenges that face organizations as they continue to go global, but it is indicative of how organizations will need to adapt and how they will need to rely on employee contributions in order to succeed. While there are clear advantages for organizations as they operate in an increasingly global market, there are some concerns about how these influences will affect the organization (Broner & Ventura, 2016). As described later, the challenges of globalization are likely to impact the different types of OCBs needed by the organization and performed by employees. Globalization and OCB As organizations increase the scale and scope of their global operations, certain types of OCBs needed to facilitate continued and increased organizational performance may become even more important, and how to elicit those OCBs may change as well. Indeed, as organizations globalize and span several time zones and countries the need for effective and efficient communication and coordination will become even more important (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 2002). Thus, the ability to effectively communicate and coordinate will ultimately contribute either to the growth or demise of organizations. Hence, OCB that enhances and improves communication and coordination will have increased value for organizations.

72

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

OCBs like interpersonal facilitation and courtesy may become even more important as they can help communication flow swifter and easier within an organization. It is likely that courtesy, which involves being polite and considerate of others (Organ, 1988, 1990; Podsakoff et al., 2000), and interpersonal facilitation, which assists in maintaining the social context that enables task performance (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996), will be beneficial in maintaining constructive communication across cultures and geographic boundaries. Further, it is possible that other forms of OCB will become important for communication in global organizations. For example, although certain employees may be required to take calls or join virtual meetings during the middle of the night, or early morning hours, both how they interact in these calls and their willingness to endure these disruptions (Shaffer, Kraimer, Chen, & Bolino, 2012) in taking these calls could emerge as an important OCB that enhances communication quality in global organizations. Being fully engaged during nighttime hours will be a facilitative and important activity for employees that will require extra effort to help the organization. Also, taking extra calls or participating in virtual meetings to assure information is being communicated correctly will be essential for communicating effectively and facilitating the coordination of a multinational organization. In addition to phone calls or virtual meetings, employees who are willing to access and respond to emails during unconventional work hours will also likely contribute to the overall quality of communication in a transnational organization. P2a. Trends toward organizations operating in multiple countries mean organizations will have a greater need for employees to contribute in ways that facilitate effective communication and coordination across cultures and time zones, which may occur through increases in interpersonal facilitation, courtesy, and other new forms of OCB that enhance these activities. Globalization also connects people with different languages, cultures, political systems, and social environments (Stone & Deadrick, 2015). Culture, in particular, underpins many of the differences between people, and, in the future, navigating cultural differences may become a challenge for employees engaged in OCB at work, as distinct cultures view and define what is and is not an OCB differently (Farh, Zhong, & Organ, 2004; Paine & Organ, 2000). In addition, culture has been found to be an important influence on the performance of OCB; for example, individuals from collectivist cultures are generally more likely to engage in citizenship behavior compared to those from more individualistic cultures (Moorman & Blakely, 1995). Likewise, the tools that managers use to elicit OCB may not always be transferable to other cultures; for instance, while justice may be an important determinant of OCB in cultures that emphasize individualism, employees in collectivist cultures may be willing to perform OCB even when there is a lack of organizational justice (Farh et al., 1997). Therefore, the amalgamating of different people from diverse places and cultures may further blur the line between what is and is not an OCB; indeed, certain OCBs, like voicing concerns that challenge the status quo, may be considered counterproductive work behaviors in some cultures. As such, moving into a more globalized work environment and dealing with different perspectives of what is

73


and is not an OCB will be an important challenge for organizations, employees, and managers alike. For example, collectivistic cultures place a higher value on group attainment than on individual needs and following rules to attain unity (Hofstede, 1984). Hence, whereas affiliative types of behaviors may be seen as functional and obligatory, challenging behaviors may be less likely to occur naturally in more collectivist cultures and may be viewed as forms of deviance rather than behavior that contributes to team and organizational effectiveness. Whereas some OCBs, like helping behaviors and not complaining, should have a more universal understanding and acceptance across cultures, other forms of OCB may be viewed differently depending on the cultural context. Indeed, while challenging behaviors may be seen as taboo in certain cultures, affiliative forms of OCB may not even be recognized as being extra-role behavior in others. P2b. As globalization connects people from different countries, locations, and cultural backgrounds, what is seen or recognized as an OCB may be different depending on the local culture. In connection with the impact cross-cultural exchanges will have on defining what OCBs are, it will be important for managers who work with global teams to understand cultural differences as they relate to OCBs. This is especially relevant because OCBs and supervisor evaluations of employee performance are positively related (Podsakoff et al., 2009). As noted earlier, the relationship between OCB and supervisor ratings has been attributed to feelings of reciprocity felt by the supervisor (Podsakoff et al. 1993), can be explained as supervisors interpreting OCB as evidence of employee commitment (Allen & Rush, 1998), and may also be driven by supervisors feeling positive affect toward (i.e., liking) employees who engage in OCBs (Allen & Rush, 1998). However, this relationship presents a challenge for employees and managers, as certain employees, who engage in OCBs in a culturally different way than their supervisor, may be evaluated unfairly. Accordingly, organizations must train their managers effectively to recognize and reward any act of good citizenship, so that they do not evaluate their subordinates in a way that discourages their willingness to go beyond the call of duty. This issue will likely be even more salient for organizations that utilize forced rankings and pay-for-performance systems to evaluate employees, as supervisor evaluations may have especially important financial and career consequences for employees in these contexts (e.g., Bergeron, 2007; Bergeron et al., 2013). P2c. Trends toward organizations operating in multiple countries mean that organizations will need to train managers in performance-management techniques that recognize and properly reward citizenship in contexts where OCB may manifest differently based on local culture. Trend 3: Immigration and Migration Related to the trend of globalization is the issue of immigration and migration, which is driven by some of the same factors that drive globalization (Freeman, 2006). Estimates by the International Labour Office (2013) suggest there is a total of 150 million immigrant workers worldwide. For perspective, this means that

74

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

if migrant workers were considered a country they would constitute the eighth largest country in the world, surpassing the countries of Russia, Japan, and Mexico. As these numbers suggest, the trends of immigration and migration represent both important opportunities and challenges for organizations both now and in the future. There are two primary types of worker movements occurring – immigration and forced migration. Immigration is based on the technical skills required for very specific jobs. In the United States, these types of workers are admitted to the country using a HB-1 visa that allows them to fill specific types of positions (Department of Labor, 2017). The other type of movement, forced migration, stems from the political and civil unrest that drives individuals to leave their home country for a more desirable country to find both safety and employment. For these individuals, their movement is based on need rather than skill. Each of these trends is driven by several global factors. For example, immigration based on technical skills is often driven by low birth rates and aging populations in advanced countries, which contribute to the need for immigrant workers (Freeman, 2006). Another driver of this trend may be the increased access to education and higher wages available to workers in more developed countries (Freeman, 2006). Movement by less-skilled workers is most likely caused by political and civil unrest due to forced migration. According to the United Nations (UN), in 2015, forced migration was at a record high with 65.3 million people, or 1 in every 113 people, being displaced from their homes (United Nations, 2016). Forced migration has been a growing concern over the past decades (Castles, 2003), and the rate of displacement cited by the UN is four times higher than just one decade ago. By and large, a majority of the forced migrants, 86%, are immigrating to advanced economies (United Nations, 2016). Although the drivers of these two types of immigration are very different, the results are the same – workers from foreign countries entering work environments that are often new in terms of language and culture among other things. These two types of immigration, skill-driven and forced, present important challenges for modern organizations. Immigrant workers face the same issues that have been ascribed to the broader context of expatriate workers. The adjustment model proposed by Black, Mendenhall, and Oddou (1991) provides a framework for understanding the challenges that workers face when working in a foreign location. There are three main adjustment dimensions outlined by Black et al. (1991): general or the ways individuals adjust to non-work factors like the general living accommodations, forms of entertainment, food, public services, and transportation; interaction or the ways individuals adjust to dealing with the people in the new location, both inside and outside of work; and work or how individuals adjust to work demands and job assignments. This model of adjustment has been validated (Shaffer, Harrison, & Gilley, 1999) and can be used to understand what causes stress and strain to employees working in foreign countries (BhaskarShrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer, & Luk, 2005). It would be expected that all workers who have immigrated to another country for work will be forced to adjust in these three ways.


75

Immigration, Migration, and OCB As the trends of immigration and migration continue around the world, a key component to the success of migrant workers will be the assistance and help they receive from coworkers and supervisors who go beyond their formal job descriptions. Adjusting to a new environment can be difficult and shifting from one culture to another can also be challenging and sometimes discouraging. Indeed, migrant workers face changes in their general surroundings, in their interactions with new colleagues, and in their job itself (Black et al., 1991). For these reasons, certain types of OCBs will become even more important for organizational success as companies face the challenges of integrating migrant workers into their workforce. Most notably, migrant employees will likely need assistance not only in learning their specific role at work, but in transitioning from one culture to another. As such, OCBs such as cheerleading, courtesy, and sportsmanship should play an integral role in facilitating the transition for migrant workers into their new workplace. Cheerleading, a specific type of helping that involves encouraging fellow employees in completing their tasks (Organ, 1990; Podsakoff et al., 2000) will provide migrants workers with needed support as they may be prone to making mistakes when dealing with changes in their work environment and home life. Sportsmanship will also be an important type of OCB, as coworkers will need to be especially tolerant of inconveniences or difficult situations while helping migrant newcomers get adjusted. This adjustment period for migrant workers may initially be an inconvenience to other employees as they attempt to learn their new position, because migrant employees are likely to need additional assistance both with regard to their tasks and adjusting to the work culture. Coworkers willing to positively deal with the inconveniences associated with the learning and developing of their migrant colleagues will help both the migrant worker and the organization be more effective. Finally, by demonstrating courtesy, in which employees are polite and considerate of others with regard to both work-related issues and personal matters (Organ 1988, 1990; Podsakoff et al., 2000), employees will help migrants feel like an accepted and welcome addition to the team. In particular, forced migrants may benefit especially from courtesy as the adjustments that they face can be daunting; having coworkers who are considerate of both work-related and personal matters should ease their transition. P3a. Trends toward individuals immigrating to new countries will increase the need for existing employees to help show migrant employees the ropes, both organizationally and culturally, as well as engage in OCBs such as cheerleading, courtesy, and sportsmanship to encourage those who are new and still learning. An additional issue facing OCB and immigrants is their ability to perform certain types of OCB and the pressure that organizations may place on employees to engage in OCB. Although certain forms of OCB, like not complaining or speaking positively of one’s company, require no additional time, other forms of OCB can be more demanding (Bergeron, 2007). For example, working late to help finish a project that is due to a client the following day or taking phone calls

76

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

or responding to emails after working hours that facilitate improved communication can be time consuming. Immigrants will likely already be facing daily challenges as they adjust to a new location that consumes their time, and they may already be struggling to accomplish their assigned in-role job tasks. Therefore, it is likely that immigrant workers will be less likely to initially engage in timeor resource-consuming forms of OCBs (e.g., individual initiative). Furthermore, organizations and supervisors need to be cautious to not place too much pressure on migrant workers to engage in certain types of OCBs because, as noted earlier, citizenship pressure can increase turnover intentions and work-related stress (Bolino et al., 2010), and this may be particularly true of migrant workers who are likely to already be feeling overloaded. Likewise, if employees become worn out from going the extra mile, it is likely that they may experience citizenship fatigue and find ways to cut down the performance of OCB in the future (Bolino et al., 2015). P3b. Immigrant employees will initially be less likely to engage in time demanding forms of OCBs (e.g., individual initiative and helping). P3c. Citizenship pressure to engage in time demanding OCBs may be more likely to lead to job stress, turnover, citizenship fatigue, and a decline in the future performance of OCB among immigrant workers. Not only will migration have influences on the employees of organizations, but also for the service industry, it will potentially influence an organization’s clients and customers. The service industry, which makes up 80.3% of the U.S. labor market, includes a wide variety of employees, from retail workers and educational professionals to healthcare providers and certain government officials (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017). The continued trend of immigration will create a need for service-industry employees to be able to work with immigrant customers while continuing to maintain positive relationships with existing clients. As such, peacemaking citizenship may be particularly instrumental in helping to maintain old clients, while at the same time, providing high-quality service to new migrant clients. The OCB of peacemaking describes an employee’s actions that assist in reducing, avoiding, or solving negative interpersonal conflicts (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Old customers may be resentful of an influx of migrants and may be frustrated with having to deal with changes in the products or services offered by these organizations. Additionally, migrants who are not familiar with the culture of their new home may also experience frustration as well. For example, a store clerk who can assist a migrant who is having a difficult time checking-out, creating a line of customers, who can also ease any interpersonal tension, will be very valuable for organizations that seek to keep all of their customers happy. Indeed, employees who are willing go the extra mile by helping both migrants and old customers deal with their conflicts will enhance their organization’s ability to help both types of clients. P3d. Increases in migrant populations will create a greater need for employers in the service industry to have employees who are willing to engage in peacemaking citizenship when working with new and old clients.

77


Trend 4: Knowledge-Based Workers Another trend that will affect organizations and have implications for citizenship in the twenty-first century is the rise of the knowledge-based workers. Ever more information technology is increasing the amount of knowledge-based work (Burke & Ng, 2006), with some journalists arguing that the majority of workers today should be considered knowledge-based workers (Rosen, 2011). Knowledge workers are those whose primary form of production is knowledge or intellectual capital; in other words, a knowledge worker is someone who thinks for a living (Davenport, 2005). The number of knowledge workers has been growing for decades, and this trend was foreseen as early as the late 1950s (Davenport, 2005; Drucker, 1959). Academic authors’ and others’ recent estimates suggest that knowledge workers may outnumber other types of employees by a minimum of four to one (Haag, Cummings, & McCubbrey, 2002). Some suggest that these types of workers may constitute up to half of the workforce in advanced economies (Davenport, 2005). Although the exact number of knowledge-based workers is not precisely known, partly due to the loose definitions used to determine who knowledge workers are, it is clear that there is already a large number of them in workforce and that their ranks will continue to grow (Davenport, 2005; Dekas et al., 2013). The increase in the number of knowledge workers is attributed to shifting types of work. In more and more organizations, work is shifting away from manufacturing-based jobs to knowledge-based jobs in both service professions (e.g., lawyers, accountants, and customer service reps) and technical fields (e.g., computer programmers and research scientists). These types of jobs are different than the typical blue-collar work that many think of when picturing the workforce. Indeed, the requirements of this type of work influence the way knowledge workers interact with one another is different, as well as the expectations these types of workers have for their organizations (Davenport, 2005). A distinguishing characteristic of many knowledge workers is a need for autonomy, which is often manifest in their reluctance at being be told what to do (Davenport, 2005). This desire for autonomy derives from the non-routine nature of knowledge workers’ tasks, which require problem solving and creative thinking (Reinhardt, Schmidt, Sloep, & Drachsler, 2011). Knowledge work is both very different from and requires different skills than more traditional types of work. One of the key drivers in the rise of knowledge-based work has been technology, which has made it possible to replace many types of service and technical jobs. Consequently, employees’ ability to use technology effectively is becoming increasingly important in how they perform their duties. For example, because much knowledge-based work involves loosely structured processes or one-off assignments these workers must be capable of using technology that allows workers to easily navigate these circumstances (Bridges, 1994; Parker, 2000). Hence, the ability to smoothly and efficiently utilize technological tools, such as e-mail, instant messaging, and other collaborative platforms, is particularly important for both knowledge-based workers and the organizations they work for to be successful in the current knowledge-intensive environment.

78

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

Knowledge-Based Workers and OCB As jobs to move away from manual labor and manufacturing toward positions that utilize individuals’ intellectual abilities, certain OCBs should become more important while others may diminish in their relevance. As Dekas et al. (2013) found, some traditional types of OCBs are still important for knowledge-based workers, like voice and civic virtue, while others have less importance. Further, as knowledge workers tend to perform work that is non-routine and that typically requires creative and novel thinking (Reinhardt et al., 2011), OCB that assists in the facilitation of generating new ideas will become even more important. In particular, OCBs of voice and self-development will become more important for organizational effectiveness as they tend to facilitate creativity. Voice, the willingness to make suggestions and express ideas for constructive change (Ng & Feldman, 2012; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998; Van Dyne et al., 1995), has been found to be an important contributor to creativity (Zhou & George, 2001), and as knowledge workers’ tasks increasingly require dynamic and out-of-the-box thinking, employees who are willing to speak up and share their suggestions will become more valuable. Organizations in the twenty-first century, then, should benefit more from voice, as the sharing of ideas and opinions will enhance knowledge workers’ ability to generate and identify creative ideas and solutions. The other form of OCB that will likely grow in importance, due to the need for knowledge workers to be creative, is self-development. Self-development describes actively improving the knowledge, skills, and abilities that pertain to one’s required work tasks (George & Brief, 1992; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Selfdevelopment is also similar to self-training or employees’ efforts to continually develop skills that relate to their job (Farh et al., 2004). Self-development will be important as knowledge workers often handle idiosyncratic, project-based assignments that require employees to acquire new knowledge and skills and to be more creative in how they accomplish their tasks (Davenport, 2005). The dynamic and creative work required by knowledge workers will necessitate that employees are continually upgrading their knowledge, skills, and abilities. Further, organizations will likely find it difficult to maintain professional development and training that will properly equip employees to meet the needs of their dynamic jobs, as requirements and tasks may often change from day to day (Parker, 2000). P4a. Organizations that depend on knowledge workers will have an increased need for OCBs, especially voice and self-development, that increase creativity and facilitate the continual development of knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to perform tasks that are often idiosyncratic and are continually changing. While the citizenship behaviors of voice and self-development will become more important for knowledge workers, it is possible that task-related citizenship behaviors, like conscientiousness, will become less important. As noted earlier, the organization-focused OCB of conscientiousness refers to discretionary actions that relate to attendance, following rules and protocol, coming in on time, and so forth (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Smith et al., 1983). These


79

types of OCB will be less important for knowledge workers as they perform most effectively in more loosely structured environments (Bridges, 1994; Parker, 2000). Further, knowledge workers prefer autonomy and being self-directed in their work (Davenport, 2005). In addition, because the work performed by knowledge workers is more dynamic, relative to more traditional jobs, acts such as showing up on time may decrease in importance as long as employees are effectively completing their assigned tasks. In fact, many organizations have relaxed or removed the idea of nine-to-five work days (Florida & Goodnight, 2005), and some have even gone so far as to give employees an unlimited amount of paid-time-off, so long as employees finish their assignments (Ain, 2017). P4b. Organizations that rely more heavily on knowledge workers will have a reduced need for task-related OCBs such as conscientiousness. In addition to the changes in the relevance of established forms of OCBs, there will likely be new forms of OCBs associated with knowledge workers, beyond those that have already been identified by Dekas et al. (2013). In particular, the tasks performed by knowledge workers, and therefore many OCBs, too, will increasingly be performed “virtually” via technology. Technological forms of communication such as email and other firm-specific tools (e.g., Slack) are critical for knowledge workers as their tasks are non-routine (Reinhardt et al., 2011) and being able to communicate effectively is important for high levels of performance. A new type of OCB, facilitating technological communication, could include employee behaviors, such as letting people know that they sent email to the wrong person, helping others learn how to use technical tools, not hitting reply-all to emails, responding in a timely manner to emails, and other small things that increase efficiency and effectiveness in employee communication via technology. P4c. Organizations that rely more heavily on knowledge workers will have an increased need for OCBs that facilitate the effective use of communication technology. Trend 5: Increased Use of Technology Closely linked to the rise of knowledge-based workers is another significant trend affecting human resources – namely, the increasing use of technology at work. Indeed, since Bateman and Organ (1983) first introduced the idea of OCB in organizational research, technology’s rapid expansion has changed the way that organizations both operate and are managed (Barkema et al., 2002). As predicted by “Moore’s law,” computing power has nearly doubled every 18 months for the past 40 years, while the cost of computation has dramatically declined (Friedman, 2015). Although the growth rate in computing power has declined in recent years, technology continues growing unabated at an exponential rate (Hilbert & López, 2011). More and more organizations are using technology to enhance their competitive edge by more easily and quickly gaining access to their customers. For example, many traditional brick and mortar retail stores are developing online platforms to remain viable while competing against virtual online shopping sites like Amazon.com. According to a PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC, 2017) report,

80

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

the influence of technology and automation is not declining. Further, automation, which has also seen a dramatic increase in demand, is expected to replace 4 out of every 10 jobs in the near future, affecting workers in financial services, transportation and storage, manufacturing, and retail. Thus, technology continues to change the way we work on an almost daily basis. Over time it seems that technological advances have and will penetrate every corner of the workforce. For example, in the same vein of thinking that led banks to use ATMs, grocery stores and retail stores are now using self-checkout machines that allow them to reduce the number of employees needed to process customers. Although this is a relatively recent development, the speed of technology is already rendering it obsolete as organizations find other ways to meet customers’ needs. One example of this can be seen in Walmart stores in Canada that allow customers to use smartphones to scan and pay for purchases, which eliminates self-checkout machines completely, and only requires one employee to check receipts (Harris, 2017). Meanwhile, Amazon has taken the self-checkout process to the next level by allowing customers to enter certain stores and walk out with what they want without personally scanning or having to check out, as scanners at the door detect what the customer has taken and charges their Amazon account accordingly. These examples demonstrate the capability of technology to radically alter what is thought of as common business processes, now and in the future. Increased Use of Technology and OCB As technology continues to improve, automation will likely limit employees’ ability to engage in OCBs for a variety of reasons. Whereas employees in the past may have had to turn to coworkers for assistance to figure out task-specific problems (Organ, 1988), automation and artificial intelligence have made it possible for most machines to self-identify problems and prescribe solutions. Clearly, certain problems go beyond the ability of an automated machine, but a host of small but non-significant problems no longer require human interactions to be solved. It is possible, then, that OCBs like helping will not be as critical, because technology such as robots and artificial intelligence will reduce the need for employees to collaborate in solving some problems. Further, as workforce automation continues to grow and become more sophisticated (Autor, Levy, & Murnane, 2003), and as the cost to replace workers with automation declines, the number of tasks performed by people will diminish (Autor, & Dorn, 2009). The increase in the use of automation to replace employees will have two key implications. First, the decrease in work tasks performed by employees will reduce employees’ opportunities to perform task-related OCBs, as employees typically will not be able to perform the work done by automated machines or a system that relies on artificial intelligence. For example, the automated assembly line used for auto-manufacturing eliminated the traditional assembly of employee workers, and now if one piece of machinery malfunctions it is typically not plausible for employees to step in and work in place of a machine. Second, as automation and other technologies spread, it will have a tendency to

81


increase the overall efficiency of the organization. As the organization becomes more efficient, there will be fewer opportunities or need for employees to engage in OCB. For example, there will not be a need for employees to stay late to work on a task, when automation and other processes ensure that all tasks are finished on time. P5a. As organizations shift toward using more automation, it will reduce the number of opportunities for employees to engage in certain OCBs, because there are fewer employees that need help, fewer tasks to be performed, and fewer opportunities to help. Although automation and other technological advances have the potential to reduce the opportunities for help that employees need on certain tasks, because they can supplement what employees need to do or eliminate the need for employees altogether, it also has the potential to generate new challenges for some employees. For example, as organizations continue to integrate more technology into their processes, like payroll, scheduling, virtual meetings, and so forth, some employees may have difficulties working with these new platforms and interfaces. As a consequence of these difficulties there will be opportunities for employees who do understand these systems to lend a hand to those who don’t. Further, as is often a hallmark of technology, these types of technology platforms are likely to be continually changed and improved through updates and other types of upgrades (Hilbert & López, 2011), the opportunities to help employees who struggle with technology will continue to exist. Hence the willingness of supervisors and coworkers to assist and help those individuals who are struggling with new technologies will be essential for organizational effectiveness, and it will likely be a recurring element of organizational life for twenty-first century organizations. Therefore, it is likely that the citizenship behavior of helping (or altruism) will continue to incorporate and include employees’ actions specifically targeted at supporting their coworkers with the use of technology. P5b. As the use of technology increases, the OCB of helping will continue to grow to include behaviors specifically related to assisting others with the use of technology. Trend 6: Freelance and Gig Work In his well-known 1997 article, “Free agent nation,” in Fast Company magazine, Dan Pink suggested in the coming years more workers would join what he referred to as “Free Agent, U.S.A.” At the time, Pink said this collection of workers was composed of 14 million self-employed, 8.3 million independent contractors, and 2.3 million individuals employed at temporary service agencies that made up roughly 16% of the workforce. Often those who are not attached to a single organization are referred to as freelancers, because whether they are self-employed, working as an independent contractor, or have achieved “supertemp” status, they float between organizations and work in a relatively fluid way (Miller & Miller, 2012; Pink, 1997). Over time these segments of the workforce have continued to grow, and estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

82

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

suggest that there were 15.5 million self-employed workers in 2017 (Department of Labor, n.d.), and a 2014 report by the Freelancers Union suggested that there were 53 million workers in the United States engaged in some types of freelance work (Freelancers Union, 2014). These numbers suggest that Pink was correct when predicting the growth of workers in these types of positions. In addition to the employees typically thought of as freelancers, a new category of workers has emerged, and they likely make up many of those included in the 53 million workers cited in the Freelancers Union (2014) report. These workers blur the lines between typical employees, temporary workers, and independent contractors. Driven by changes in technology, and specifically apps offering services for hire, a new economy referred to as the “gig economy” has emerged (Mulcahy, 2016; Torpey & Hogan, 2016). The gig economy is comprised of jobs that are traditionally associated with freelancing, such as consulting and temp assignments, but it is more commonly thought of in relation to services that consumers can purchase using their mobile phones (Mulcahy, 2016). These app-based services range from transportation (e.g., Uber and Lyft), to grocery delivery (e.g., Instacart), to odd jobs (e.g., TaskRabbit) (Bhattarai, 2017). The companies behind these apps serve a middleman role, connecting the consumer wanting a particular service with people who are willing to provide the service. The individuals who fill these jobs may or may not be employees of the companies behind the app, but often they are individuals who are employed in other ways who are looking to supplement their income by working “gigs,” thereby creating a much larger base of freelance workers (Torpey & Hogan, 2016). Gigs vary widely in the types of work that individuals can do, although the companies mentioned previously provide the most well-known examples of gig work. Uber and Lyft connect individuals who need rides with those willing to provide transportation services. These workers are not professional taxi drivers, but often individuals who may be in an area and are willing to give someone a ride to a different place that they happen to be going (Lyft, n.d.; Uber, n.d.). Individuals who shop on Instacart are able to make grocery orders for local grocery stores and the company then dispatches a “personal shopper” who purchases and then delivers the food to the customer’s house. These personal shoppers are full or part-time employees who receive customers’ orders through an app on their smartphone and then go to the store to fill the order, which is then delivered to customers’ homes (Instacart, n.d.). TaskRabbit, unlike the previously mentioned companies, provides a wide variety of services. TaskRabbit allows customers to select a job they need to be completed from a list of chores; customers are then given a list of workers called “taskers” from which they can select, and they then schedule an appointment and coordinate with their chosen tasker through the app (TaskRabbit, n.d.). These gigs represent an emerging form of work within the larger and more traditional freelance labor force. Both gig work and freelance work are expected to increase in coming years, in part because of their primary benefit of increased flexibility for the workers (Freelancers Union, 2014; Torpey & Hogan, 2016). However, the flexibility that both types of work provide for companies may also be a key factor in the expansion of these work forms. As more organizations seek to manage costs, reducing


83

the fixed costs created by hiring employees will continue to be attractive. By using freelance workers to fill sudden needs, or for projects that require specialized skills, organizations are able to reduce the amount committed to payroll and still accomplish the work they need. Because gig workers only work when there is a demand for specific services, such as a need for rides, organizations incur no costs when the worker is not generating revenue (Torpey & Hogan, 2016). However, recently some countries and states have pushed back against organizations classifying gig workers as independent contractors, and if successful in reclassifying these workers, it is not clear what implications that would have for payroll costs (Bowcott, 2017). Regardless, given the number of individuals engaged in freelance or gig work, they both will likely continue to form a meaningful part of the labor force into the foreseeable future. Freelance, Gig Work, and OCB Technology has already been changing the nature of work, and its influence may be most strongly seen in the emergence of the gig economy. While freelance work has existed for decades, the emergence of gig work has the potential to create changes in the way that citizenship behaviors are performed. Gigs are small jobs, which tend to be completed in less than a day, and this is an important way in which these types of jobs are distinct from other forms of freelance work. There has been some research into OCB in a similar job arrangement. In a study of contingent workers in professional jobs, who were paid an hourly rate as opposed to their salaried counterparts with long-term employment, researchers found that contingent workers were less likely to engage in OCB (Van Dyne & Ang, 1998). Extrapolating from these results we believe that gig workers may be less likely to engage in typical OCBs; however, gig work has a significant customer service component, which means that these workers could engage in a different type of OCB. Gig workers share some of the same characteristics of contingent workers, in that their work can be considered less stable than other types of employment. However, the nature of these jobs often requires a high level of interaction with the users of their services, which may be a critical difference between typical contingent workers and gig workers. Whether it is giving someone a ride as an Uber driver, dropping off groceries for an InstaCart customer, or hanging shelves for a Task Rabbit job, many gig workers spend some of their time working in face-to-face interactions with their customers. It is possible that one consequence of this face-to-face interaction with customers is that gig workers are more likely to engage in customer-focused OCBs. These types of citizenship behaviors differ from traditional OCBs that focus on coworkers and the organization, because they are directed toward customers. Customer OCBs involve being flexible and benevolent with customers (Gruen, 1995), making suggestions for service improvements (Groth, 2005) and other similar behaviors (e.g., Bove, Pervan, Beatty, & Shiu, 2009). Moreover, if gig workers feel that their future work opportunities depend in part on the ratings that their customers post on the service platform, it is possible that they will be more motivated to go the extra mile

84

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

for their customers and to engage in customer OCBs. Thus, because gig workers have both a greater opportunity, and perhaps increased motivation, they should be more likely than others to engage in OCBs that are focused on their customers. P6a. The emergence of gigs as a form of work provides both opportunity and motivation for gig workers to engage in citizenship that is more likely to be directed toward customers and clients. For decades there has been considerable attention given to the social exchange nature of the organization–employee relationship as a key driver of citizenship behavior (Organ, 1990). However, in the case of gig work, many employees do not have the type of regular interaction with an organization or supervisor upon which most social exchange relationships are typically based (Blau, 1964). Unlike employees who are part of organizations where they go into the office or who work on a job site regularly, gig workers have little or very limited contact with the organization that they work for. Indeed, the only type of interaction that some Uber drivers or InstaCart shoppers have with the organization often occurs through an app on their phones. While the app may provide details about work opportunities, it cannot replicate the personal interactions employees have with supervisors that are central to the social exchange that drives employees to engage in OCB (Organ et al., 2006). For example, it is unlikely that employees can develop a positive leader– member exchange relationship when they have no clear supervisor and only interact with the organization via irregular contact using an app-based interface. It may be equally hard to develop feelings of organizational support when gig workers receive no assistance with difficult customer interactions or other similar situations they encounter during the course of completing a gig. One of the primary motivators of citizenship behavior, as referenced earlier, is organizational concern. Organizational concern stems from the affective feelings and attachment that employees develop with their organization (Bolino & Turnley, 2003; Organ, 1990). For the motivational base of organizational concern to develop employees need to feel the organization is treating them fairly, giving them interesting work, and that they are having a positive exchange relationship with their leaders (Bolino & Turnley, 2003; Colquitt et al., 2013; Ilies et al., 2007). The lack of regular personal for contact of gig workers with their organizations makes it less likely that organizational concern will be an underlying motivation among these types of workers. Consequently, the motives of prosocial concern, impression management, or duty are more likely to serve as the reasons that gig workers engage in OCB. P6b. The traditional motivation of organizational concern is much less likely to influence OCB performed by gig workers, because they are more likely to lack regular and meaningful contact with their organization. As a result, it is likely that individual dispositions will be more relevant in determining whether employees engage in OCB, when compared to tradition social exchange drivers. Although OCB research has trended away from dispositional predictors of OCB (Organ et al., 2006), in work settings where employees have little or no meaningful interactions with their organization, characteristics like conscientiousness and agreeableness (Organ & Ryan, 1995) are likely to be more important

85


motivators of citizenship behavior. Although disposition may not predict whether a gig worker will engage in OCB during a specific situation (Organ et al., 2006), dispositional predictors are likely more relevant for determining OCB when considering the number of different interactions that gig workers have with customers. P6c. Dispositional predictors of OCB will be more relevant among gig workers, because traditional social-exchange drivers of OCB, such as organizational support and leader–member exchange, are less relevant in the context of gig work. Trend 7: Diversity Another trend that is expected to influence OCB in this century is the increasing diversity of the workforce. During the past several years, the increase in net workers has come primarily from women and racial or ethnic minorities (McKay & Avery, 2015; Toossi, 2012). Indeed, diversity has appeared in some way as part of the top 10 HR trends for the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) for the past three consecutive years (SIOP, 2018). Diversity is thought of as a situation where members of a group differ in terms of a characteristic or set of characteristics (Lau & Murnighan, 1998). Diversity, as commonly thought of in the workplace, encompasses differences such as gender, race, ethnicity, gender orientation, age, and general differences among other demographic characteristics. As populations in countries around the world become more diverse for reasons such as globalization and immigration, as suggested earlier, it is natural that workplaces will also continue to increase in their diversity. Organizations are concerned with diversity for several reasons. Some research suggests there is a business case for diversity (Thomas & Ely, 1996), such that businesses with more diverse workforces have a competitive advantage in different areas. Having a diverse workforce has been linked to individual-level outcomes such as increased creativity and problem solving (Richard, Roh, & Pieper, 2013), as well as several organizational-level outcomes such as a broader client base (Herring, 2009), improved company image (Robinson & Dechant, 1997), and increased organizational performance (Richard, Barnett, Dwyer, & Chadwick, 2004; Sacco & Schmitt, 2005). While the research about the positive effects of diversity is equivocal (McKay & Avery, 2015), meaning that there is still much to be learned about how diversity can benefit organizations, it is clear that the potential upside of diversity appeals to many organizations. Many organizations, including large ones that are vocal about their HR practices such as Google, Facebook, and PwC have developed programs to help increase the diversity of their workforce (Cohn, 2016). For example, Facebook uses unconscious or implicit bias training to improve hiring and promotion practices in an effort to address the persistent underrepresentation of minorities in both starting and managerial positions (Liu, 2017; Managing Bias | Facebook, n.d.), while other organizations use it to address issues such as skewed performance ratings and compensation problems (Gurchiek, 2016). Implicit bias training is intended to help those who are making personnel decisions recognize biases in their decision-making process. These implicit biases, also referred to as

86

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

blind spots, can be the cause of what is viewed as unintentional discrimination when a manager makes a career-related decision for their subordinates, such as whether or not to offer them a training opportunity or to increase their salary. This type of training is indented to make individuals aware of their potential biases, which should then help them to recognize and counteract them (Cohn, 2016; Liu, 2017). Thus, many organizations are actively looking to not only increase the diversity of their workforce, but also to actively address issues surrounding diversity. Current demographic projections suggest that diversity in the workplace will continue to increase (McKay & Avery, 2015). Over the next several years researchers expect to see the number of men in the workplace slowly decrease, while the percentage of women in the workforce will increase. Additionally, workers of different races are also expected to grow to be a larger portion of the workforce, with the most sizable gains coming among workers of Hispanic origin (Mora, 2015). While individual projections about the exact makeup of the future workforce may be more or less accurate, because unexpected events may influence immigration trends and other factors related to diversity, it is clear that many workplaces will continue to see increased diversity. For this reason, it is reasonable to expect that diversity and concerns about how to manage diverse workforces will be a trend in human resource management for years to come. Diversity and OCB The increasing diversity of the workforce, regardless of whether it is driven by an increase in the numbers of women and minorities entering the workforce, a decline in the number traditional white, male workers, or an influx in immigrants and other individuals through forced migration, will create a need for employees to interact with diverse others on a regular basis. These interactions create a need for employees to engage in behaviors that facilitate the effective functioning of the organization, through behaviors that lead to high levels of communication and coordination. In this type of environment, employees who stay focused on the outcomes of their work, rather than worrying about differences or inconveniences that occur because of different personal perspectives or cultural differences, will be especially valuable to organizations. As noted earlier, when employees engage in sportsmanship, they are courteous, refrain from complaining when inconvenienced, are not easily offended, and do not take the rejection of their ideas personally. Sportsmanship should be especially important for organizations that want to capitalize on some of the benefits of diversity, such as higher levels of creativity (Richard et al., 2013), because conflict may be an unavoidable aspect of the creative process, and the more willing employees are to be good sports, the more likely organizations are to benefit from the different perspectives of an increasingly diverse workforce. P7a. As the workforce becomes more diverse there will be an increase in the need for OCBs, such as sportsmanship, that facilitate amicable coworker relationships, and which foster the positive outcomes of diversity, such as increased creativity.


87

A challenge that organizations with increasing diversity are likely to face comes in the way that citizenship behaviors are recognized and rewarded. As mentioned earlier, many organizations are working to address implicit bias in various HR practices (Cohn, 2016), and this has implications for OCB in an increasingly diverse workforce. Because OCB can influence outcomes such as performance ratings, reward recommendations, rewards (Podsakoff et al., 2009), and promotions (Hui et al., 2000), it is important that managers make accurate assessments of the OCBs performed by each employee. However, research by Heilman and Chen (2005) suggests that evaluations of employee OCBs may be influenced by gender stereotypes. In a set of three studies, these researchers found a persistent difference in the way OCBs of men and women were rated. When men engaged in acts of OCB they received more favorable evaluations and recommendations, but women who engaged in OCB did not. Additionally, when men did not engage in OCB, their evaluations were not harmed, but women who did not engage in OCB were given less favorable evaluations and recommendations. These findings point to a stereotype bias that may influence the way that managers evaluate the OCBs of their employees. For this reason, it will be important for organizations with diverse workforces to address these possible biases when training managers, by engaging in systematic rater training systems (e.g., Bernardin & Buckley, 1981) so that the OCBs of employees will be evaluated fairly, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, or other differences within increasingly diverse workforces. P7b. As the workforce becomes more diverse, organizations will need to train managers to evaluate OCB in an unbiased way, so that all OCBs are evaluated in the same way regardless of who performs them. An issue related to the varying perceptions managers may have when rating OCBs is that others in a diverse workforce may have varying perceptions of what OCB is and what it means when someone engages in it. Prior research suggests that some types of citizenship are specific to some cultures, while others tend to be universal (Farh et al., 1997), suggesting that cultural background influences workers’ views of OCB. In a diverse workplace it is possible for there to be varying perceptions surrounding OCBs, based on the characteristics of individual employees. Some research suggests that individuals may negatively evaluate those who need help from others (DePaulo & Fisher, 1980), while other research has found that receivers of help may actually feel worse about their relationship with others when they receive help from them (Flynn & Brockner, 2003). In a more diverse workplace the potential for employees to misunderstand both offers of and requests for help is likely to increase, which may cause problems for wellintentioned individuals who engage in OCB, as well as those employees who for cultural or other similar reasons do not. It may be possible for organizations to avoid these types of issues if they create organizational routines around OCB. Grodal, Nelson, and Siino (2015) recently wrote about the importance of help giving and receiving as an organizational routine. In their study of hardware and software engineers they found that having a routine around helping allows it to unfold between the helper and receiver with relative ease. Thus, in diverse

88

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

organizations developing routines around OCB, both how it is performed and how it is viewed by others, may increase both its acceptance and effectiveness. P7c. In organizations with diverse workforces, employees should develop routines for OCBs to decrease the potential for them to be misinterpreted by either the individual engaging in them or the individual benefiting from them.

Trend 8: Changing Work Values Another trend expected to influence the workplace for years to come is the number of different generations expected to be part of it. The workforce is changing as the number of working Baby Boomers declines, while participation among Millennials (or Gen Y) increases (Lyons & Kuron, 2014). According to current trends, by 2025 Millennials are expected to make up 75% of the workforce, which means three out of every four workers will be a Millennial (Winograd & Hais, 2015). This large-scale change of generations in the workplace has created a shift in the work values espoused by many employees. Although many of the work values held by Millennials parallel those of both Baby Boomers and Generation X (Costanza, Badger, Fraser, Severt, & Gade, 2012; Loughlin & Barling, 2001; Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, & Lance, 2010), there are some important differences that have emerged (Campbell, Campbell, & Twenge, 2017; Twenge et al., 2010), which means that the status quo in terms of employee values for many organizations may be challenged in coming years, and how to lead this new generation of employees may be different (Anderson, Baur, Griffith, & Buckley, 2017). While there have been contradictory results and conclusions in the research on generational differences and changes in work values (for reviews, see Costanza et al., 2012 and Twenge et al., 2010), there is still strong empirical evidence demonstrating differences in generational work values. The primary methodological issue with generational research is that most of the research is cross-sectional in nature, and these studies provide the weakest evidence for generational changes (Lyons & Kuron, 2014), and the differences in their findings could be attributed to age and career stage. However, the best studies in this area use a more rigorous methodology incorporating a time-lagged study design that allows researchers to compare the responses of each cohort when based on their specific age in their career (e.g., a 20-year-old born in 1970 and a 20-year-old born in 1995) (Campbell et al., 2017; Schaie, 1965). Recent work by several sets of researchers (e.g., Campbell et al., 2017; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010; Twenge & Kasser, 2013; Twenge et al., 2010), using this time-lagged study design provides strong evidence that the work values of Millennials differ in meaningful ways from those of previous generational groups, including Baby Boomers and Gen X. As research in this area becomes increasingly sophisticated, it becomes clearer that there are significant differences in generational work values. Research in this area identifies four primary differences in work values between Millennials and previous generations. These four differences are that (1) Millennials place a higher value on extrinsic compared to intrinsic work values


89

(Twenge et al., 2010); (2) Millennials have a greater desire for money and status from work combined with an increased level of desire for leisure time (Campbell et al., 2017; Twenge & Kasser, 2013); (3) Millennials also have lower social values, which translates into a reduced desire to make friends at work (Campbell et al., 2017; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010; Twenge et al., 2010); and lastly (4) Millennials are more likely to value meaningful work (Twenge et al., 2010). These shifts in work values are creating unique challenges for individuals and organizations in several different areas. Researchers suggest that in some cases Millennials have unrealistic expectations of their organizations, causing managers to deal with difficult situations that range from creating an environment with high levels of praise to tolerating more casual dress in the workplace. Organizations may need to consider developing specialized programs or organizational policies to address these issues (Twenge & Campbell, 2008). While it may still be unclear how different Millennials work values are, or what the complete implications of these differences may be, this is an issue that will be present in the workforce for years to come. Changing Work Values and OCB As Millennials begin to make up a majority of employees in organizations, their values will influence the frequency of certain types of OCBs. Generally speaking, Millennials place greater value on leisure time and on maintaining a balance between their work and personal lives (Campbell et al., 2017; Twenge & Kasser, 2013). This change in employees’ work values makes it likely that Millennial employees will have a tendency to shy away from engaging in OCBs that require time outside of work. For example, individual initiative, a specific type of OCB that describes an employee’s behavior of going far beyond the requirements of the job (Podsakoff et al., 2000) and can be described as going above required duties in an intense way (Organ, 1988), may be a type of OCB that goes against Millennial’s work values. As noted earlier, some forms of individual initiative include coming in early or staying late, working weekends, taking on extra responsibilities, and so forth (Bolino & Turnley, 2005). Clearly, if people place a high value on leisure time, as Millennials do (Twenge et al., 2010), then their willingness to allow work to interfere with their leisure time will diminish. Therefore, OCBs, like individual initiative, that require employees to put in time outside of work will become less common as Millennials continue to make up more of the workforce. P8a. Changing attitudes among Millennial workers in how leisure time is valued will reduce the frequency of OCBs that occur outside of work, such as individual initiative. Further, as Millennials desire more meaning from their work, and as extrinsic values are more important compared to intrinsic work values (Twenge et al., 2010), these changes are likely to influence how organizations reward and incentivize the performance of OCBs. Although OCBs, by definition, are voluntary actions going beyond the call of duty and, technically, not formally rewarded

90

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

(Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2000), that does not mean that employees do not indirectly benefit from their extra-role behaviors (Podsakoff et al., 2009), and that employees do not perform them for self-interested reasons, with some expectation of enhancing their image, or getting ahead (Bolino, 1999; Grant & Mayer, 2009). Further, although OCBs may not be formally required by an organization, as noted earlier, they often play a critical role in the effective functioning of the organization (Bolino et al., 2002; Organ, 1988) and are generally related to indicators of organizational success (Podsakoff et al., 2009; Walz & Niehoff, 2000). For these reasons, it will be important for organizations and managers to recognize that Millennials have different values so that they can provide appropriate outcomes that Millennials see as important to maximize their motivation to engage in OCBs (Vroom, 1964). Indeed, given that Millennials value extrinsic rewards, organizations will likely need to consider how they can create incentives that formally reward OCBs in order to increase the performance of these behaviors (Twenge et al., 2010). The performance of OCBs, while not part of a formal job description, can still be rewarded extrinsically through different programs, such as incentive plans, rewards for goal achievement, and so forth. Although some researchers have cautioned that there may be a downside to formally rewarding citizenship (Bolino & Turnley, 2003), it is likely that OCBs recognized by reward systems will be more valued by Millennials. P8b. Changing attitudes among Millennial workers in how extrinsic rewards are valued will lead more organizations to formally recognize OCB with organizational rewards. Trend 9: Skills Gap Another trend that is likely to influence HR and OCB in the workplace, and another also related to the first trend in this chapter, is what many refer to as the skills gap. While not having enough workers is the basic problem that employers face, not being able to find and hire individuals with the right skills for a job is a closely related problem (Bessen, 2014; Cappelli, 2012; Coy, 2017). Several years ago, many employers began lamenting the difficulty of finding workers with the necessary skills to fill vacant positions. In some cases, positions went unfilled for extended periods of time, because employers were unable to find workers who had the skills required for the position (Bessen, 2014). In a study conducted by the Springboard Project, employers cited pronounced gaps in potential employees’ teamwork and client management skills, along with severe gaps in the professionalism needed for the jobs these employers wanted to fill (Springboard Project, 2009). In these instances, there are individuals available for employers to hire, but they lack the skills that employers believe are necessary to perform the job effectively (Kaplan, 2017). Consequently, employers opt not to hire underqualified individuals and instead leave positions unfilled while waiting for prospective employees who have the skill set they desire. The skills gap is attributed to a variety of causes. One component of the problem is that there are not enough individuals graduating from college. The shortage of individuals in some degree areas, such as STEM disciplines, is well documented


91

(Kaplan, 2017; Stephens, 2017). Some employers have suggested that there is a fundamental problem in the education system, such that applicants are arriving on the doors of employers without the basic skills that they need to succeed at work (Springboard Project, 2009). In addition to deficits in technical and other job-related knowledge, many employers also find it difficult to find individuals who have sufficient experience in the type of job that they are looking to hire (ManpowerGroup, 2013). Another cause thought to contribute to the skills gap is the changes created in jobs by forces such as changing technology and demand. As the types of jobs that employers need filled continue to change it is leaving individuals out of work, because they lack the skills to fill these new positions (Dobbs, Manyika, & Woetzel, 2015). The presence of so many different potential causes of the skills gap makes it difficult for any single employer to address and mitigate its effects. Perhaps the greatest problem that is created by the skills gap is that employers are leaving positions unfilled, which results in various costs to the employer (Cappelli, 2012). While some employers gain momentarily from the unfilled positions in the form of reduced labor costs, in the long term the lack of employees in needed positions will have both financial costs from decreased productivity, as well as personnel costs that come from leaving positions unfilled (Cappelli, 2012). Furthermore, current employees are most likely responsible for covering the duties of the unfilled positions, which can increase their stress levels and lead to negative outcomes such as role overload and burnout (Brett & Stroh, 2003). Without adequate staffing, organizations are incapable of producing the goods or services necessary for them to be successful, which may lead them to not take on as much work as they could or even cease to be able to operate (Hartman, 2018). In this way, the hiring problem created by a skills gap may have consequences similar to those created by a labor shortage. Although much has been written about the skills gap (Kaplan, 2017; ManpowerGroup, 2013; Springboard Project, 2009; Stephens, 2017), there are critics who suggest that the current problem is less of a skills gap and more of a training gap (Bessen, 2014; Cappelli, 2012). Historically, organizations have invested in their workforce, but in recent years this investment has waned. Some suggest employers were able to be very selective during the Great Recession, because the high number of unemployed workers made it possible for employers to find individuals with skills sets at prices that were distorted (Cappelli, 2012). Rather than investing in training programs that would help employees develop the necessary skills to function effectively in their jobs, some employers are simply waiting for applicants with the exact combination of skills to apply for their jobs (Cappelli, 2012). Another critique leveled against employers who claim they cannot find qualified employees because of the skills gap, is that these employers are unwilling to pay wages that would attract workers (Gillespie, 2017). During the most recent recession, employers offered lower salaries and wages to workers, because the high unemployment rate meant that more individuals were competing for the same jobs, driving the demanded wage down. However, as job growth strengthened and prospective employees have more options they appear to be less willing to take jobs for the same wages they would have previously accepted. Thus, the skills gap may continue to persist

92

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

into the future because employers are not offering training programs to help employees develop the necessary skills or competitive wages to attract those who have the necessary skills. Skills Gap and OCB One of the primary drivers of the skills gap is that prospective employees often lack a number of critical skills that employers need or that they desire from their employees. Historically, organizations provided more training opportunities to their employees, but recently these types of opportunities have been declining (Cappelli, 2012). As these more skilled positions remain unfilled, it may be possible for employees who engage in the citizenship behavior of self-development to assist their organizations. Employees who engage in self-development look for ways to improve their knowledge, skills, and abilities (Organ et al., 2006). This may include taking courses, keeping up with developments in relevant fields, and even learning new sets of skills (George & Jones, 1997). Employees engaging in this type of citizenship are likely to spend time outside of work developing themselves and acquiring skills that they believe are valuable. If employees engage in self-development, organizations benefit because employee self-development should reduce the pressure created by the skills gap, because these current employees may develop the skills the organization is lacking. In addition to the possibility that employees who engage in self-development behaviors may help their organizations, there is also a likelihood that this OCB will have a benefit for the employee as well. It is well documented that engaging in OCB can positively influence employees’ success at work and in their career (Hui et al., 2000; Podsakoff et al., 2009). In organizations that are suffering from hiring problems related to the skills gap, it is possible that employees who go the extra mile by engaging in self-development are more likely to be viewed as promotable, which should help them to get ahead in their organization. Additionally, as employees engage in self-development it is more likely that they will become attractive candidates to other organizations that are also struggling to hire for specific types of jobs because of the skills gap. For this reason, the OCB of selfdevelopment may become increasingly valuable in the future for employees who want to increase their likelihood of promotion and the number of available job opportunities that are open to them. P9. In industries where organizations are not investing in training, and where skills gaps occur, employees who engage in self-development, voluntarily looking for ways to improve their knowledge and capabilities through training courses and online learning opportunities, should have greater chances for advancement both within and outside the organization. Trend 10: Employer Brands The final HR trend that we believe will change the types of OCBs that workers perform in the future is the development of and focus on employer brands. Employers’ brands are more than the logo and other visual elements that typically identify a brand, they are the coordination of HR activities, such as recruiting,


93

employee socialization, performance management, and leadership development (Edwards, 2009; Mosley, 2014). Although the area of employer brand management is still developing, there is some consensus that an employer brand is an image of an organization that is made up of a set of attributes and qualities. These attributes and qualities create two things. First, they are the basis for a promise of a distinctive employment experience, and second, they also influence the thoughts and feelings that people, other than employees, associate with the organization (Ambler & Barrow, 1996; Mosley, 2014). This means all employers have a brand, whether they are consciously trying to develop it or manage it, or not (Ambler & Barrow, 1996). While an employer brand may be primarily focused on employees and prospective employees, it also spills over to those outside of the organization, making the effects of employer brands something that can influence organizations both internally and externally. Because employees are increasingly worried about the image of the organization for whom they work and are sometimes willing to work for less pay in order to be in a work environment that aligns with their personal values (Mosley, 2014), organizations are becoming increasingly conscious of their image (Gultekin, 2011). Employers cultivate a specific brand through both their recruitment campaign (Edwards, 2009) and the development of their image.

Employee Value Proposition To create an effective employer brand, organizations must first ensure that the claims made in their recruitment materials reflect the reality that exists in the company; otherwise, the mismatch will create incongruence between the expectations of new recruits and what they find once inside the organization (Mosley, 2014), which can lead to negative consequences (Buckley et al., 2002). Additionally, without a coherent set of HR practices that match the employee value proposition organizations may find their employees become disengaged over time. While one or two HR practices will lead to some gains in employee productivity and effectiveness, without an integrated approach that involves several practices, it is unlikely that organizations will be able to develop a distinctive employer brand experience that sets the organization apart from the competition (Mosley, 2014). Thus, organizations need to manage the perceptions of individuals from the point of initial contact in the recruiting process and as they move through their career inside the organization. From an HR perspective, the primary benefits of having a strong employer brand are twofold. First, a strong employer brand will help employers attract better talent, and second, employees are more likely to be engaged in workplaces with a strong employer brand. For instance, the results of a 2011 survey conducted by LinkedIn suggest that employers with a strong brand were not only able to attract high levels of applicants, but that their average cost per hire was two times lower than employers without a strong employee brand (Gultekin, 2011). Moving beyond the hiring process, the benefits of a strong employer brand include greater effectiveness in socializing employees (Laurano, 2013), higher levels of employee engagement (Watson, 2012), better communication and change capabilities (Watson, 2011), as well as a general ability to retain higher performing

94

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

employees (Watson, 2012). The benefits of a strong employee brand in terms of quality employees and performance are evident, which is one of the reasons many employers, even those who have been around for decades, are investing in better developing their employer brand (Mosley, 2014). Further, employers now have more tools than ever to help them develop both their brand, both generally as the public perceives it and more specifically as it applies to targeting employees. The use of social media can help employers develop strong brands, because it gives organizations the ability to reach out and connect with individuals in a variety of ways (Mosley, 2014). For example, many organizations maintain Facebook and Twitter accounts where they post information about products, services, and other things of which they want the public and their employees to be aware. Social media provides an efficient and effective way for the organization to reach large audiences and to curate the messages and images these individuals receive. However, social media also presents some challenges for organizations that seek to maintain a specific brand image. Organizations can come under attack on social media for both the things that they do (e.g., Astor, 2017; Stack, 2018), as well as the things they are not doing (e.g., Grothaus, 2016). The general availability of social media to all consumers makes it relatively easy for a company or someone in a company to become the target of a negative social media campaign (e.g., Ronson, 2015; Stack, 2018). Thus, the use of social media in cultivating an employer brand, and in communicating in general, has both pros and cons.

Employer Brands and OCB Organizations that want to develop a strong employer brand must focus their efforts in two primary areas. First, they must coordinate internal human resource processes that range from hiring to leadership development. Without this coordination an employer brand will suffer internally, because employees will sense a mismatch between the organization’s espoused and enacted values (Mosley, 2014). The second area that organizations must focus on is the external image of the organization. An employer brand is also constructed from the perceptions that those outside the organization, customers, community members, and others, have about the organization (Ambler & Barrow, 1996; Gultekin, 2011). With the increasing speed and availability of news and information via social media, employer brands are more susceptible to damage than ever. An example of this is the public backlash and damage to organizational reputation that occurred when H&M used a black model to advertise a sweatshirt with the words “Coolest monkey in the jungle.” The company was openly criticized by a large number of individuals using various social media platforms, with people calling for protests and even vandalism (Stack, 2018). In cases like this organizations need support from employees, which addresses public feelings in an effective and helpful manner. Even when employees do not defend an organization’s specific actions, they can help to moderate the conversation about the organization, which could help to preserve the employer brand. The OCB of organizational loyalty encompasses employee behaviors such as defending the organization against threats, cooperating with those outside of the

95


organization to serve the interests of the whole, and otherwise spreading goodwill on behalf of the organization (Organ et al., 2006). In the past, these types of actions probably took place most often in face-to-face settings on an individual basis (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Moorman & Blakely, 1995), but with the development of social media, employees now have new platforms for engaging in acts of organizational loyalty. In the coming years, organizations will increasingly need employees who are engaged in social media to monitor it in a proactive manner and respond to criticisms of the organization in thoughtful ways. Employees engaged in these acts of citizenship may not necessarily shield their employer from all criticism, but rather they will endeavor to highlight the positive actions of the employer from the past, providing a more fair and balanced assessment of the organization. Additionally, employees can also engage in other acts of organizational loyalty by promoting different organizational events, products, or other initiatives in a positive way. In these instances, employees will be engaging in a type of organizational loyalty referred to as loyal boosterism (Moorman & Blakely, 1995), which is meant to enhance the employer’s brand among groups that interact with it, such as employees, customers, and community members. In the age of social media, many organizations will benefit from employees who go the extra mile in a variety of circumstances by showing loyalty to the organization on social media platforms. P10. The use of social media and a fast-paced news cycle mean that organizations will have an increased need for employees to use social media in defending the organization against social media attacks and promoting the organization’s image to potential employees, customers, and community members.

Discussion This chapter has sought to provide an overview of what we have learned about OCB in the twentieth century, with an eye toward understanding how the nature, occurrence, and management of OCB may change in the context of twentyfirst century trends. As explained in this chapter, the foundation for thinking about citizenship behavior was largely established in the 1930s during the emergence of the human relations school of management thought following the Hawthorne Studies. However, as we have documented here, the world of work has significantly changed since that time. Among the trends that are currently affecting, and expected to continue shaping, organizations are labor shortages, globalization, immigration and migration, knowledge-based workers, increased use of technology, freelance and gig work, diversity, changing work values, the skills gap, and employer brands. In light of these trends, we contemplated what our current understanding of OCB suggests about OCB moving forward and developed propositions around each particular trend. Of course, as insightfully observed by Niels Bohr, the Danish physicist and Nobel Laureate, “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.” Nevertheless, by integrating these future trends and our current knowledge of OCB, our hope is that we have provided some insight into where theory and research on OCB may be headed

96

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

in the coming decades. Furthermore, while the propositions we presented offer a logical starting point for researchers interested in exploring how OCB may change in this new century, there are additional directions for future research that are also worth pursuing. Directions for Future Research Beyond the specific propositions developed in this chapter, our analysis suggests four overarching research questions that are worth pursuing further in the coming years: (1) What will (and will not) be considered OCB in the twenty-first century? (2) What kinds of OCBs are most critical for the success of twenty-first century organizations? (3) What new tools and techniques will organizations and managers need to more effectively elicit OCB in the twenty-first century? (4) How will twenty-first century employees balance the rewards and costs of being a good organizational citizen? Below, we outline some observations and ideas about exploring these larger questions in future investigations. The Future of OCB Itself As described earlier, over the past 35 years, researchers have identified a number of different types of OCBs (cf. Table 1), and multiple efforts have been made to group them into smaller subsets, such as helping behavior, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, organizational compliance, individual initiative, civic virtue, and voice (Podsakoff et al., 2000) or to categorize them based on their nature (e.g., challenging or affiliative) or focus (e.g., OCB-I or OCB-O). As discussed here, it is likely that what is considered OCB in the future may change. Thus, while the recent study by Dekas et al. (2013) only identified one type of OCB (among knowledge workers) that was truly new – namely, employee sustainability – it is important that such endeavors are repeated in coming years so that we can continue to identify new forms of OCB. For instance, one implication of globalization that has received attention in newspapers, like the New York Times and Los Angeles Times, is the request that employees actually train their own replacements who are working remotely from locations overseas. Could providing such assistance be considered a new form of OCB down the road? It may also be increasingly commonplace for employees to develop cross-cultural skills in order to communicate and work more effectively with teammates from other cultures. Thus, learning a new language and developing cultural intelligence (Ang & Van Dyne, 2015) may become new types of OCB. That is, if trends toward outsourcing and offshoring broaden and/or accelerate in the twenty-first century, employees’ willingness to engage in these types of behaviors may start to be considered new types of citizenship. This means that researchers must make greater efforts to identify new OCBs and to develop measures that assess them in future work. However, given that the trends identified in this chapter will affect different organizations in different ways, more consideration should also be given to the development of idiosyncratic measures of OCB that assess citizenship behavior – any behavior that is relatively discretionary, less


97

likely to be explicitly tied to rewards, and that contributes to organizational effectiveness – within the particular organization where OCB is being investigated. In other words, in light of these trends, OCB itself may mean something different in different organizations, particularly in organizations that are located outside of the West, where OCB has most frequently been studied. While this could make comparisons across studies more difficult, idiosyncratic measures of citizenship may be the most accurate way to assess OCB in the twenty-first century. In addition to broadening the types of OCB that organizations recognize, value, and try to elicit from their employees, as well as how those behaviors are measured, future research in this area may need to consider whether our conceptualization of OCB needs to evolve in a way that addresses the shifts seen in the modern workforce. What is considered OCB in most organizations has its roots in the definition of the “organization man” described by Whyte (1956); this individual is an employee who is totally committed to the organization and its purposes. Shifts in worker values away from this type of absolute dedication to the organization, as well as other changes, such as those as referenced earlier, suggest that perhaps we need to question the fundamental assumptions we have about what a “good organizational citizen” looks like. Past research found that individuals (usually women) who do not conform to stereotypical concepts of citizenship behavior may be penalized (Heilman & Chen, 2005), and this suggests that individuals who do not conform to our typical expectations of what “good citizens” do may be penalized. For example, the idea that Millennials overvalue their leisure time and are less likely to engage in citizenship suggests that the valuing of leisure over work-related behaviors is misplaced, and that these individuals may be penalized because they do not conform to the common conception of what a “good citizen” looks like. Indeed, these fundamental assumptions about what it takes to be a good citizen may help to explain why some employees experience citizenship pressure (Bolino et al., 2010) or citizenship fatigue (Bolino et al., 2015). Employees who ascribe to the “organizational man” view of being an employee want to, or feel it is necessary to, conform with expectations of what a good organizational citizen is. As a result they feel pressure to engage in certain behaviors, or engage in so many OCBs that they eventually feel fatigued from doing so. Consequently, another avenue for future work may be considering how the current conceptualization of citizenship, with its attached assumptions and expectations, may need to be adapted for the realities of today’s workforce. The Most Critical OCBs of the Future Several of the propositions developed in this chapter were concerned with identifying the types of OCB that may be relatively more, or less, important for organizations to be successful in the new millennium. For instance, as noted earlier, for workers in the gig economy, OCB may be more likely to involve going the extra mile for customers or what Bove et al. (2009) described as customer OCB. Likewise, in many organizations, OCBs like punctuality and compliance may become less relevant in the coming years. Accordingly, more work is needed to better understand how the targeting of OCB may change in the future. For instance, is the proportion

98

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

of OCB which is task focused, organizationally focused, or interpersonally focused likely to change in predictable ways, or will it depend on the organization, its industry, or other factors? Previous research has emphasized the distinction between interpersonal OCB and other forms of OCB, but it may be time to consider OCB that benefits others targets more seriously. For instance, given the growing concern among Millennial employees regarding their desire to make the world a better place, more attention should be paid to OCB that targets the environment (OCBE), which Lamm, Tosti-Kharas, and Williams (2013, p. 168) define as “voluntary behavior not specified in official job descriptions that, through the combined efforts of individual employees, help to make the organization and/or society more sustainable.” Likewise, it is possible that OCBs could benefit society at large, which would be something analogous to corporate social responsibility behaviors that manifest at the individual level, such as volunteerism. Although Rodell, Breitsohl, Schröder, and Keating (2016) identify OCB as an outcome of volunteering, it is also possible that this behavior, particularly when sponsored by an employer, may be more appropriately categorized as a form of OCB in the future. Even within the existing categories of OCB, certain forms of citizenship are likely to become more important. For instance, as noted earlier, employees may increasingly be called upon to be active on social media in order to promote and defend their organization. Thus, organization-focused OCB that is performed virtually may become increasingly critical for the effective functioning, success, and long-term viability of the organization. As noted earlier, previous researchers have offered a variety of reasons for understanding the link between OCB and indicators of organizational effectiveness (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 2000), and conceptual papers have thought to theoretically link OCB and firm-level success through mechanisms like social capital (Bolino et al., 2002). But the changing nature of OCB and evolving importance of different types of OCB means that more theoretical development will be necessary to understand how the forces and trends that will shape organizations in the future may also influence the ways OCB affects the functioning of organizational groups and units. For instance, when a workplace is characterized by high-levels of diversity and global networks, the role of OCBs that bridge differences and facilitate communication and coordination may be the most central determinant of organizational performance. However, when organizations are highly reliant on Millennials who want meaning and balance in their lives, it may be more critical for organizations to be characterized by high levels of impactful OCBs and low levels of OCBs and conditions that can come together to generate high levels of stress, work–leisure conflict, work–family conflict, and fatigue. Finally, it should be noted that we made different predictions about how certain trends could affect the importance of certain OCBs – for instance, some trends (like immigration) may increase the need for interpersonal helping, while other trends (like technology and automation) may decrease the need for interpersonal helping. Thus, we call for the development of theoretically grounded conceptual models that will shed insights into the types of OCB that are the most essential for organizational functioning and that will identify the mechanisms and boundary conditions that explain how OCB can enhance organizational competitiveness and success.


99

Eliciting OCB in the Future As discussed earlier, social exchange theory has been the primary conceptual lens that researchers have used to understand employees’ willingness to go above and beyond at work (Organ, 1990). That is, employees are most inclined to engage in OCB when they feel like they have a strong relationship with their employer where each party cares about the interests of the other (Bolino & Turnley, 2003), something that Van Dyne et al. (1994) describe as a two-way covenantal relationship. The question moving forward, then, is if this sort of relationship will remain the most central, overarching determinant of employee citizenship in the twenty-first century. Although we did not directly answer this question, the propositions developed in this chapter suggests that it may not be the most appropriate lens for understanding OCB in light of the changes that are shaping the workplace in this millennium. Indeed, our propositions suggest that employees are increasingly becoming more disconnected from their employers. For instance, many workers who are part of the gig economy have more in common with independent contractors than average employees. And even employees who have more traditional work arrangements may have a greater commitment to their own leisure and personal time, or to society at large, than to their employer. For this reason, there is a need for researchers to develop new conceptual models that will enhance our understanding of how to motivate employees to engage in OCB in the twenty-first century. A starting point may be to develop a theoretical model that integrates some of the theories and antecedents of OCB identified in prior research because many of these mechanisms may still be important in the future. Although this type of integrative model is likely to be quite complex, perhaps akin to the Integrated Model of Work Motivation developed by Locke and Latham (2004), it would potentially be useful for both researchers and practitioners alike. Whatever this model might look like, based on our analysis, it should address how both the desire for extrinsic rewards and the desire to contribute to a larger purpose work together in driving Millennials, who appear to desire both of these ends, to go beyond the call of duty. As noted earlier, whereas some researchers have argued against the use of financial incentives to elicit OCB (e.g., Bolino & Turnley, 2003), the use of financial rewards may be a more viable approach going forward. Likewise, whereas prior research has often downplayed the importance of personality in predicting OCB (e.g., Organ et al., 2006), the role of individual differences may become more relevant in predicting OCB in the new millennium as such behavior is less frequently conducted in the context of strong situations (Mischel, 1968). That is, as employees become more self-directed, more entrepreneurial, take on gig jobs, and have looser and more amorphous connections with organizations, personality and disposition may play a more important role in affecting OCB in the twenty-first century than it did in the twentieth century. As such, new theoretical models of the antecedents of OCB should take the trends and effects described in this chapter into account. Negotiating the Pluses and Minuses of Good Citizenship Whereas early investigations of OCB tended to focus on their benefits to both organizations (in terms of enhanced efficiency and effectiveness), researchers are

100

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

increasingly cognizant of the reality that going the extra mile can also have some personal costs (e.g., Bergeron, 2007; Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Bolino et al., 2015; Koopman et al., 2016). In order for organizations to maintain sustainable levels of OCB in the twenty-first century, a pressing issue is to determine how to enable employees to go the extra mile for their organizations without being penalized either personally or professionally. Bergeron (2007) and Bergeron et al. (2013) have argued that organizations often do not properly recognize and reward good citizenship, particularly when the performance management system is outcome oriented. This means that organizations that want to encourage citizenship may need to reconsider what is most important for the overall performance of the organization. As noted by Bolino and Turnley (2003) it may be equally, if not more, important for organizations to at least ensure that employees who go the extra mile are not penalized and overlooked in favor of employees who adhere strictly to their formally prescribed duties and fail to contribute to the broader work environment in positive ways by helping others, coming up with new ideas, defending the company, and so forth. In this chapter, we have discussed the idea that changing work values and the interests of Millennials mean that many employees will not see work as the most central aspect of their lives. Thus, managers and organizations must also seek to find ways that allow employees to go the extra mile while, at the same time, enabling them to have time for leisure, family, and friends. This may mean giving employees more flexibility to allow them to both be engaged at work and at home. The trend of “digital nomadism,” in which people travel the world while performing their jobs (Davis, 2018; O’Dell, 2017), illustrates how people can be simultaneously disconnected and connected with their work. Likewise, the relatively recent introduction of “unlimited vacation” policies or “open vacation” (Chew, 2016) shows that some companies are recognizing that, paradoxically, employees sometimes need more time away from their organizations in order to stay committed to them. Although some anecdotal evidence suggests that employees who are given unlimited vacation often fail to take advantage of it because they worry it could call their commitment into question, if managed properly, programs like these have the potential to give employees the flexibility they need to go the extra mile for their organizations, while at the same time, fulfilling their own personal needs (Lipsey, 2014). More work is needed, then, to develop conceptual models that explain how employers and employees can find ways to more effectively manage OCB so that it is sustainable and rewarding for both parties in the twenty-first century.

Conclusion It has been decades since Katz (1964) observed that for organizations to function effectively more is necessary than employees simply fulfilling their job duties. Since that time, it has become clear that OCBs help both individuals and organizations (Bolino et al., 2002; Organ et al., 2006; Podsakoff et al., 1997, 2009; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997), which suggests that they will continue to be part of organizational life in the future. While there are many different forces shaping

101


workplaces, those we have identified and others, the need for employees to step up and provide unscripted contributions is likely to remain constant. The type, timing, and even targets of OCBs may change in the future, but we believe that employees will continue going the extra mile regardless of the types of changes they encounter in the workplace.

References Ain, A. (2017). The CEO of Kronos on launching an unlimited vacation policy. Harvard Business Review, 95, 37–42. Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 247–260. Ambler, T., & Barrow, S. (1996). The employer brand. Journal of Brand Management, 4, 185–206. Anderson, H. J., Baur, J. E., Griffith, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (2017). What works for you may not work for (Gen) Me: Limitations of present leadership theories for the new generation. The Leadership Quarterly, 28, 245–260. Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2015). Handbook of cultural intelligence. Abingdon: Routledge. Appelbaum, B. (2017, May 21). Lack of workers, not work, weighs on the nation’s economy. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/21/us/politics/utah-economyjobs.html Astor, M. (2017, October 8). Dove drops an ad accused of racism. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/08/business/dove-ad-racist.html Atwater, D. M., & Klass, H. (2007). What you need to know about labor shortages. Graziadio Business Review, 10. Retrieved from https://gbr.pepperdine.edu/2010/08/what-you-need-to-know-aboutlabor-shortages/ Autor, D., & Dorn, D. (2009). Inequality and specialization: The growth of low-skill service jobs in the United States. NBER Working Paper Series, (15150). Autor, D. H., Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 1279–1333. Bachrach, D. G., Powell, B. C., Collins, B. J., & Richey, R. G. (2006). Effects of task interdependence on the relationship between helping behavior and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1396–1405. Barkema, H. G., Baum, J. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2002). Management challenges in a new time. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 916–930. Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (2002). Managing across borders: The transnational solution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587–595. Bremmer, I. (2014). The new rules of globalization. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from doi:https:// hbr.org/2014/01/the-new-rules-of-globalization. Accessed Dec. 17, 2017. Bergeron, D. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? Academy of Management Review, 32, 1078–1095. Bergeron, D., Ostroff, C., Schroeder, T., & Block, C. (2014). The dual effects of organizational citizenship behavior: Relationships to research productivity and career outcomes in academe. Human Performance, 27, 99–128. Bergeron, D. M., Shipp, A. J., Rosen, B., & Furst, S. A. (2013). Organizational citizenship behavior and career outcomes: The cost of being a good citizen. Journal of Management, 39, 958–984. Bernardin, H. J., & Buckley, M. R. (1981). Strategies in rater training. Academy of Management Review, 6, 205–212. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1981.4287782 Bessen, J. (2014, August 25). Employers aren’t just whining – the “skills gap” is real. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2014/08/employers-arent-just-whining-the-skills-gap-is-real. Accessed on January 18, 2018.

102

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P., Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., & Luk, D. M. (2005). Input-based and timebased models of international adjustment: Meta-analytic evidence and theoretical extensions. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 257–281. Bhattarai, A. (2017, July 3). Side hustles are the new norm. Here’s how much they really pay. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/07/03/sidehustles-are-the-new-norm-heres-how-much-they-really-pay/ Bishop, T. (2017). Where are all the nurses? Practice Nurse, 47, 7. Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of international adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 16, 291–317. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24, 82–98. Bolino, M. C., & Grant, A. M. (2016). The bright side of being prosocial at work, and the dark side, too: A review and agenda for research on other-oriented motives, behavior, and impact in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 10, 599–670. Bolino, M. C., Harvey, J., & Bachrach, D. G. (2012). A self-regulation approach to understanding citizenship behavior in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119, 126–139. Bolino, M. C., Hsiung, H. H., Harvey, J., & LePine, J. A. (2015). “Well, I’m tired of tryin’!” Organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 56–74. Bolino, M. C., & Klotz, A. C. (2015). The paradox of the unethical organizational citizen: The link between organizational citizenship behavior and unethical behavior at work. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 45–49. Bolino, M. C., Klotz, A. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2016). The unintended consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors for employees, teams, and organizations. In P. Podsakoff, S. MacKenzie, & N. Podsakoff (Eds.), Oxford handbook of organizational citizenship behavior. DOI: 10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780190219000.013.11 Bolino, M. C., Klotz, A. C., Turnley, W. H., & Harvey, J. (2013). Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 542–559. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). Going the extra mile: Cultivating and managing employee citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Executive, 17, 60–71. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 740–748. Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27, 505–522. Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., Gilstrap, J. B., & Suazo, M. M. (2010). Citizenship under pressure: What’s a good soldier to do? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 835–855. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. M. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. Personnel selection in organizations (p. 71). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bove, L. L., Pervan, S. J., Beatty, S. E., & Shiu, E. (2009). Service worker role in encouraging customer organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 62(7), 698–705. Bowcott, O. (2017, November 29). EU’s top court rules workers can claim compensation for untaken holidays. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/nov/29/eu-top-court-rulesworkers-can-claim-compensation-for-untaken-holidays. Accessed on February 19, 2018. Brannen, M. Y. (2004). When Mickey loses face: Recontextualization, semantic fit, and the semiotics of foreignness. Academy of Management Review, 29, 593–616. Brett, J. M., & Stroh, L. K. (2003). Working 61 plus hours a week: Why do managers do it? The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 67–78. Bridges, W. (1994). Job shift. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Broner, F., & Ventura, J. (2016). Rethinking the effects of financial globalization. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131, 1497–1542. Buckley, M. R., Mobbs, T. A., Mendoza, J. L., Novicevic, M. M., Carraher, S. M., & Beu, D. S. (2002). Implementing realistic job previews and expectation-lowering procedures: A field experiment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 263–278.


103

Bureau of Labor Statistics, the United States. (2017). Employment by major industry sector. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm. Accessed on February 16, 2018. Burke, R. J., & Ng, E. (2006). The changing nature of work and organizations: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 16, 86–94. Campbell, S. M., Campbell, W. K., & Twenge, J. M. (2017). Fuzzy but useful constructs: Making sense of the differences between generations, Work, Aging, & Retirement, 3, 130–139. Cappelli, P. (2005). Will there really be a labor shortage? Human Resource Management, 44(2), 143–149. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20056 Cappelli, P. (2012). Why good people can’t get jobs (May 20th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wharton Digital Press. Castles, S. (2003). Towards a sociology of forced migration and social transformation. Sociology, 37, 13–34. Chen, X. P., Hui, C., & Sego, D. J. (1998). The role of organizational citizenship behavior in turnover: Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 922–931. Chew, J. (2016, March 10). Why unlimited vacation may sound better than it really is. Retrieved from http:// fortune.com/2016/03/10/best-companies-unlimited-vacation/. Accessed on February 20, 2018. Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I. S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011). The five-factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1140–1166. Choi, J. N. (2009). Collective dynamics of citizenship behaviour: What group characteristics promote group-level helping? Journal of Management Studies, 46, 1396–1420. Cohn, L. (2016, October 17). Do you have unconscious gender bias? UN Women, PwC launch a course to help you find out. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2016/10/17/un-pwc-unconscious-genderbias/. Accessed on January 15, 2018. Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 25–44. Retrieved from https:// doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00037-6 Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 199–236. Costanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. L., Severt, J. B., & Gade, P. A. (2012). Generational differences in work-related attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 375–394. Coy, P. (2017, July 7). Five signs point to skill shortages in the United States – Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-07/five-signs-point-to-skill-shortagesin-the-united-states. Accessed on February 20, 2018. Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., & Conway, N. (2005). Exchange relationships: Examining psychological contracts and perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 774–781. Davenport, T. H. (2005). Thinking for a living: How to get better performances and results from knowledge workers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Davidson, P. (2018). Jobs market: Labor shortage means longer hours but more cash for workers. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/01/16/jobs-market-labor-shortage-meanslonger-hours-but-more-cash-workers/1025751001/. Accessed on February 16, 2018. Davis, K. (2018, January 19). Advice on living the dream from digital nomads who make over six figures. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/40517739/advice-on-living-the-dream-from-digital-nomadswho-make-over-six-figures. Accessed on February 20, 2018. Dekas, K. H., Bauer, T. N., Welle, B., Kurkoski, J., & Sullivan, S. (2013). Organizational citizenship behavior, version 2.0: A review and qualitative investigation of OCBs for knowledge workers at Google and beyond. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 219–237. Department of Labor, the United States. (2017). Wage and hour division H1-B program. Retrieved from https://www.dol.gov/whd/immigration/h1b.htm. Accessed on February 16, 2018. Department of Labor, the United States. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.dol.gov/. Accessed on January 15, 2018. DePaulo, B. M., & Fisher, J. D. (1980). The costs of asking for help. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 1(1), 23–35. Diefendorff, J. M., Brown, D. J., Kamin, A. M., & Lord, R. G. (2002). Examining the roles of job involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 93–108.

104

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

Dobbs, R., Manyika, J., & Woetzel, J. (2015, May 12). How U.S. companies can fill the skills gap. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2015/05/12/how-u-s-companies-can-fill-the-skills-gap/. Accessed on February 20, 2018. Donnelly, G. (2017, September 18). As Hurricanes Maria and Jose approach, construction industry still suffering from a labor shortage. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2017/09/18/hurricane-mariahurricane-jose-construction-jobs/. Accessed on February 17, 2018. Drucker, P. F. (1959). Long-range planning – Challenge to management science. Management Science, 5, 238–249. Edwards, M. R. (2009). An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory. Personnel Review, 39(1), 5–23. Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421–444. Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in the People’s Republic of China. Organization Science, 15, 241–253. Farndale, E., Scullion, H., & Sparrow, P. (2010). The role of the corporate HR function in global talent management. Journal of World Business, 45, 161–168. Florida, R., & Goodnight, J. (2005). Managing for creativity. Harvard Business Review, 83, 124. Flynn, F. J., & Brockner, J. (2003). It’s different to give than to receive: predictors of givers’ and receivers’ reactions to favor exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 1034–1045. Ford, G., & Sullivan, J. (2012). Catch them if you can! How any manager can win the war for talent in the global labor shortage (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Amazon Digital Services LLC. Freelancers Union. (2014). Freelancing in America: A national survey of the new workforce. Retrieved from http://fu-web-storage-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/content/filer_public/c2/06/c2065a8a-7f0046db-915a-2122965df7d9/fu_freelancinginamericareport_v3-rgb.pdf Freeman, G. P. (2006). National models, policy types, and the politics of immigration in liberal democracies. West European Politics, 29, 227–247. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Friedman, T. L. (2015, May 13). Opinion | Moore’s law turns 50. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/opinion/thomas-friedman-moores-law-turns-50.html George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: a conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310–329. George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in context. Human performance, 10(2), 153–170. Ghemawat, P., & Altman, S. (2016). DHL global connectedness index 2016: The state of globalization in an age of ambiguity. Deutsche Post DHL Group. Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. (1986). Tap your subsidiaries for global reach. Harvard Business Review, 64, 87–94. Gillespie, P. (2017, July 11). Can’t find good workers? Pay up! Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2017/ 07/11/news/economy/job-skills-gap-employer-pay/index.html. Accessed on February 20, 2018. Glomb, T. M., Bhave, D. P., Miner, A. G., & Wall, M. (2011). Doing good, feeling good: Examining the role of organizational citizenship behaviors in changing mood. Personnel Psychology, 64, 191–223. Golden, L., & Jorgensen, H. (2002, January 1). Time after time: Mandatory overtime in the U.S. economy. Retrieved from http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp120/. Accessed on January 18, 2018. Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 900–912. Groth, M. (2005). Customers as good soldiers: Examining citizenship behaviors in internet service deliveries. Journal of Management, 31, 7–27. Grodal, S., Nelson, A. J., & Siino, R. M. (2015). Help-seeking and help-giving as an organizational routine: Continual engagement in innovative work. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 136–168. Grothaus, M. (2016, September 8). The 5 worst social media practices brands should avoid. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/3063449/the-5-worst-social-media-practices-brands-shouldavoid. Accessed on February 20, 2018.


105

Gruen, T. W. (1995). The outcome set of relationship marketing in consumer markets. International Business Review, 4, 447–469. Gultekin, E. (2011, December 1). What’s the value of your employment brand? Retrieved from http:// talent.linkedin.com/blog/index.php/2011/12/whats-the-value-of-your-employment-brand. Accessed on February 20, 2018. Gurchiek, K. (2016, March 30). In focus: Gender pay gap underscores unconscious bias. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/behavioral-competencies/global-andcultural-effectiveness/pages/in-focus-gender-pay-gap-underscores-unconscious-bias.aspx. Accessed on January 11, 2018. Haag, S., Cummings, M., & McCubbrey, D. J. (2002). Management information systems for the information age. London: McGraw-Hill Publishing. Halbesleben, J. R., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C. (2009). Too engaged? A conservation of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1452–1465. Harris, S. (2017). ‘Bing, bang, boom, I’m done’: Scan-and-go shopping coming to Canadian Walmart stores. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/walmart-scan-and-go-app-self-checkout1.4364434. Accessed on January 18, 2018. Hart, T. A., Gilstrap, J. B., & Bolino, M. C. (2016). Organizational citizenship behavior and the enhancement of absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Research, 69, 3981–3988. Hartman, M. (2016, April 16). 15 years of labor shortages predicted for the U.S. economy. Retrieved from http://www.marketplace.org/2016/04/19/world/15-years-labor-shortages-predicted-useconomy. Accessed on January 17, 2018. Hartman, M. (2018, January 4). Bottlenecks in economy can mean companies turn away business. Retrieved from http://www.marketplace.org/2018/01/04/business/bottlenecks-economy-meanbusiness-turned-away. Accessed on January 17, 2018. Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 431. Herring, C. (2009). Does diversity pay? Race, gender, and the business case for diversity. American Sociological Review, 74, 208–224. Hilbert, M., & López, P. (2011). The world’s technological capacity to store, communicate, and compute information. Science, 332, 60–65. Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1, 81–99. Hui, C., Lam, S. S., & Law, K. K. (2000). Instrumental values of organizational citizenship behavior for promotion: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 822–828. Ilies, R., Fulmer, I. S., Spitzmuller, M., & Johnson, M. D. (2009). Personality and citizenship behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 945–959. Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269–277. Instacart. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.instacart.com/. Accessed on January 15, 2018. International Labour Office. (2013). Global employment trends 2013: Recovering from a second jobs dip. Geneva, Switzerland: ILO. Jensen, D. (1991). What’s all this about a labor shortage? Management Review, 80(6), 42–44. Johnston, W. B. (1991). Global work force 2000: The new world labor market. Harvard Business Review, 69(2), 115–127. Johnston, W. B. (1992). The coming labor shortage. Journal of Labor Research, 13(1), 5–10. Kaplan, R. (2017, April 12). America has to close the workforce skills gap. Retrieved from https://www. bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-12/america-has-to-close-the-workforce-skills-gap Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 9, 131–146. Kim, Y. J., Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D., & Johnson, R. E. (2013). Why and when do motives matter? An integrative model of motives, role cognitions, and social support as predictors of OCB. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121, 231–245. Klotz, A. C., & Bolino, M. C. (2013). Citizenship and counterproductive work behavior: A moral licensing view. Academy of Management Review, 38, 292–306.

106

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

Klotz, A. C., Bolino, M. C., Song, H., & Stornelli, J. (2017). Examining the nature, causes, and consequences of profiles of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2259 Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1993). Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24, 625–645. Koopman, J., Lanaj, K., & Scott, B. A. (2016). Integrating the bright and dark sides of OCB: A daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 414–435. Kozlowski, S. W., Chen, G., & Salas, E. (2017). One hundred years of the Journal of Applied Psychology: Background, evolution, and scientific trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 237–253. Lam, C. F., Wan, W. H., & Roussin, C. J. (2016). Going the extra mile and feeling energized: An enrichment perspective of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 379–391. Lamm, E., Tosti-Kharas, J., & Williams, E. G. (2013). Read this article, but don’t print it: Organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment. Group & Organization Management, 38, 163–197. Last, J. V. (2013, February 12). America’s baby bust. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www. wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718 Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–340. Laurano, M. (2013). Onboarding 2013. A new look at new hires. Boston, MA: Aberdeen Group. Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131–142. LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52–68. Leubsdorf,B.(2018,January11).EconomiststhinktheU.S.Economyisatornearfullemployment.Retrievedfrom https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2018/01/11/economists-think-the-u-s-economy-is-at-or-nearfull-employment/. Accessed on February 16, 2018. Levanon, G., Colijn, B., Cheng, B., & Paterra, M. (2014). From not enough jobs to not enough workers: What retiring baby boomers and the coming labor shortage mean for your company. The Conference Board. Retrieved from https://www.conference-board.org/pub lications/publicationdetail.cfm?publicationid=2819 Lipsey, S. (2014, September 26). Why unlimited vacation days may not be as awesome as it sounds. Retrieved from https://nypost.com/2014/09/26/why-unlimited-vacation-days-may-not-be-asawesome-as-it-sounds/. Accessed on February 20, 2018. Liu, D. (2017, April 26). Facebook exec: How to call out gender bias at work. Retrieved from http:// fortune.com/2017/04/26/most-powerful-women-career-advice-facebook-gender-bias-stereotypesequality/. Accessed on January 15, 2018. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2004). What should we do about motivation theory? Six recommendations for the twenty-first century. Academy of Management Review, 29, 388–403. Loughlin, C., & Barling, J. (2001). Young workers’ work values, attitudes, and behaviours. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 543–558. Lyft. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.lyft.com. Accessed on January 15, 2018. Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 139–157. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35, 293–334. Managing Bias | Facebook. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://managingbias.fb.com/. Accessed on February 19, 2018. ManpowerGroup. (2013). Talent shortage survey research results. Milwaukee, WI: ManpowerGroup. McAllister, D. J., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E. W., & Turban, D. B. (2007). Disentangling role perceptions: How perceived role breadth, discretion, instrumentality, and efficacy relate to helping and taking charge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1200–1211. McKay, P. F., & Avery, D. R. (2015). Diversity climate in organizations: Current wisdom and domains of uncertainty. In M. R. Buckley, A. R. Wheeler & J. R. B. Halbesleben (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 33, pp. 191–233). Bingley, U.K.: Emerald Group Publishing.


107

McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 836–844. Miller, J. G., & Miller, M. (2012). The rise of the supertemp. Harvard Business Review, 90, 50–62. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York, NY: John Wiley. Mo, S., & Shi, J. (2017). Linking ethical leadership to employees’ organizational citizenship behavior: Testing the multilevel mediation role of organizational concern. Journal of Business Ethics, 141, 151–162. Mora, M. (2015). The increasing importance of Hispanics to the U.S. workforce. Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2015.33 Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism–collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127–142. Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543–1567. Mosley, R. (2014). Employer brand management: Practical lessons from the world’s leading employers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S., & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupational stress: Its causes and consequences for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 618–629. Mulcahy, D. (2016). The gig economy: The complete guide to getting better work, taking more time off, and financing the life you want. New York, NY: AMACOM. Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the workplace: A communication perspective on Millennials’ organizational relationships and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 225–238. Naor, M., Linderman, K., & Schroeder, R. (2010). The globalization of operations in Eastern and Western countries: Unpacking the relationship between national and organizational culture and its impact on manufacturing performance. Journal of Operations Management, 28, 194–205. National Association of Manufacturing. (2003). Keeping America competitive: How a talent shortage threatens U.S. manufacturing. Washington, DC: National Association of Manufacturing. Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Evaluating six common stereotypes about older workers with meta-analytical data. Personnel Psychology, 65, 821–858. Nielsen, T. M., Bachrach, D. G., Sundstrom, E., & Halfhill, T. (2012). Utility of OCB: Organizational citizenship behavior and group performance in a resource allocation framework. Journal of Management, 38, 668–694. O’Dell, A. (2017, December 4). Four reasons to hire more digital nomads (like me). Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/40502223/four-reasons-to-hire-more-digital-nomads-like-me. Accessed on February 20, 2018. Organ, D. W. (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causes-performance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 2, 46–53. Organ, D. W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. Journal of Management, 14, 547–557. Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43–72. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85–97. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802. Paine, J. B., & Organ, D. W. (2000). The cultural matrix of organizational citizenship behavior: Some preliminary conceptual and empirical observations. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 45–59. Parker, S. K. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology, An International Review, 49, 447–469. Peltokorpi, V., & Vaara, E. (2014). Knowledge transfer in multinational corporations: Productive and counterproductive effects of language-sensitive recruitment. Journal of International Business Studies, 45, 600–622.

108

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

Penner, L. A., Midili, A. R., & Kegelmeyer, J. (1997). Beyond job attitudes: A personality and social psychology perspective on the causes of organizational citizenship behavior. Human Performance, 10, 111–131. Pink, D. H. (1997, December 31). Free agent nation. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/ 33851/free-agent-nation. Accessed on January 15, 2018. Podsakoff, N. P., Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Maynes, T. D., & Spoelma, T. M. (2014). Consequences of unit-level organizational citizenship behaviors: A review and recommendations for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 87–119. Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual-and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122–141. Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Welsh, D. T., & Mai, K. M. (2013). Surveying for “artifacts”: The susceptibility of the OCB-performance evaluation relationship to common rater, item, and measurement context effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 863–874. Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262–269. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestion for future research. Human Performance, 10, 133–151. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Hui, C. (1993). Organizational citizenship behaviors and managerial evaluations of employee performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 11, 1–40. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142. 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, 513–563. Porter, E. (2017, September 19). Unemployment is so 2009: Labor shortage gives workers an edge. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/19/business/economy/ labor-shortage.html PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). (2017). UK economic outlook. Retrieved from https://www.pwc.co.uk/ services/economics-policy/insights/uk-economic-outlook.html. Accessed on January 18, 2018. Reinhardt, W., Schmidt, B., Sloep, P., & Drachsler, H. (2011). Knowledge worker roles and actions – Results of two empirical studies. Knowledge and Process Management, 18, 150–174. Richard, O. C., Barnett, T., Dwyer, S., & Chadwick, K. (2004). Cultural diversity in management, firm performance, and the moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation dimensions. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 255–266. Richard, O. C., Roh, H., & Pieper, J. R. (2013). The link between diversity and equality management practice bundles and racial diversity in the managerial ranks: Does firm size matter? Human Resource Management, 52, 215–242. Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1306–1314. Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for diversity. Academy of Management Executive, 11, 21–31. Rodell, J. B., Breitsohl, H., Schröder, M., & Keating, D. J. (2016). Employee volunteering: A review and framework for future research. Journal of Management, 42, 55–84. Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ronson, J. (2015, February 12). How one stupid tweet blew up Justine Sacco’s life. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweetruined-justine-saccos-life.html Rosen, E. (2011). Every worker is a knowledge worker. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/ news/articles/2011-01-11/every-worker-is-a-knowledge-worker. Accessed on January 18, 2018. Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66–80.


109

Sacco, J. M., & Schmitt, N. (2005). A dynamic multilevel model of demographic diversity and misfit effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 203–231. Schaie, K. W. (1965). A general model for the study of developmental problems. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 92–107. Scott, S. P. (2013). Activities of US multinational enterprises in 2013. Statistics, 2. Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., & Gilley, K. M. (1999). Dimensions, determinants, and differences in the expatriate adjustment process. Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 557–581. Shaffer, M. A., Kraimer, M. L., Chen, Y. P., & Bolino, M. C. (2012). Choices, challenges, and career consequences of global work experiences: A review and future agenda. Journal of Management, 38, 1282–1327. Simmons, B. A., & Elkins, Z. (2004). The globalization of liberalization: Policy diffusion in the international political economy. American Political Science Review, 98, 171–189. SIOP Administrative Office (2018, January 25). SIOP announces top 10 workplace trends for 2018. Retrieved from http://www.siop.org/article_view.aspx?article=1610. Accessed on February 1, 2018. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653–663. Springboard Project. (2009). Getting ahead-staying ahead: Helping America’s workforce succeed in the 21st century. Washington, DC: Business Roundtable. Stack, L. (2018, January 8). H&M apologizes for ‘monkey’ image featuring black child. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/business/hm-monkey.html Stephens, R. (2017). Mind the gap: The state of skills in the U.S. Retrieved from http://www.thirdway.org/ report/mind-the-gap-the-state-of-skills-in-the-us Stone, D. L., & Deadrick, D. L. (2015). Challenges and opportunities affecting the future of human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 25, 139–145. Sullivan, S. E., & Bhagat, R. S. (1992). Organizational stress, job satisfaction and job performance: Where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 18, 353–374. Takeuchi, R., Bolino, M. C., & Lin, C. C. (2015). Too many motives? The interactive effects of multiple motives on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1239–1248. TaskRabbit. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.taskrabbit.com/. Accessed on January 15, 2018. The Construction Labor Shortage: Where Did All the Skilled Labor Go? (2015, November 6). Retrieved from https://www.tradesmeninternational.com/news-events/the-construction-laborshortage-where-did-all-the-skilled-labor-go/. Accessed on January 18, 2018. Thomas, D., & Ely, R. (1996). Making differences matter, a new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74, 79–90. Toossi, M. (2012). Projections of the labor force to 2050: A visual essay. Monthly Labor Review, 135, 3–16. Torpey, E., & Hogan, A. (2016). Working in a gig economy. Career Outlook, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2016/article/what-is-the-gig-economy.htm Towers Watson, T. (2011). Change and communication ROI study report. Towers Watson, T. (2012). Engagement at risk: Driving strong performance in a volatile global environment. Retrieved from http://towerswatson.com/assets/pdfr 2012-Towers-Watson-GlobalWorkforce-Study.pdf Tung, R. L. (2007). The human resource challenge to outward foreign direct investment aspirations from emerging economies: The case of China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 868–889. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701249198 Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29, 187–206. Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, S. M. (2008). Generational differences in psychological traits and their impact on the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 862–877. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940810904367 Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36, 1117–1142. Twenge, J. M., & Kasser, T. (2013). Generational changes in materialism and work centrality, 1976–2007: Associations with temporal changes in societal insecurity and materialistic role modeling. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 883–897.

110

JARON HARVEY ET AL.

Uber. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.uber.com/. Accessed on January 15, 2018. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2016). International Migration Report 2015: Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/375). Retrieved from http:// www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publications/migrationreport/docs/ MigrationReport2015_Highlights.pdf. Accessed on May 3, 2018. Vaara, E., Tienari, J., Piekkari, R., & Säntti, R. (2005). Language and the circuits of power in a merging multinational corporation. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 595–623. Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (1998). Organizational citizenship behavior of contingent workers in Singapore. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 692–703. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215–285. Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765–802. Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108–119. Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525–531. Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006). Compulsory citizenship behavior: Theorizing some dark sides of the good soldier syndrome in organizations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 36, 77–93. Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination of compulsory extra-role behavior in the workplace. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21, 377–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-006-9034-5 Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley. Walz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Their relationship to organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24, 301–319. Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 420–432. Welch, D. E., & Welch, L. S. (2008). The importance of language in international knowledge transfer. Management International Review, 48, 339–360. Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-role and extrarole behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 98–107. Whyte, W. H. (1956). The organization man. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. 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, 601–617. Winograd, M., & Hais, M. D. (2015). Millennial majority. San Francisco, CA: Blue Zephyr. Yam, K. C., Klotz, A. C., He, W., & Reynolds, S. J. (2017). From good soldiers to psychologically entitled: Examining when and why citizenship behavior leads to deviance. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 373–396. Yun, S., Takeuchi, R., & Liu, W. (2007). Employee self-enhancement motives and job performance behaviors: Investigating the moderating effects of employee role ambiguity and managerial perceptions of employee commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 745–756. Zhao, H. A. O., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60, 647–680. Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682–696.