Corporate greening through prosocial extrarole behaviours – a conceptual framework for employee motivation

Corporate greening Through ProsocialExtrarole Behaviours – A ConceptualFramework for Employee Motivation

Catherine A. Ramus1* and Annette B. C. Killmer2

1Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California,Santa Barbara, USA

2Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC, USA

ABSTRACTScholars in environmental management have called for better grounding of researchon corporate greening within established organizational theories. We propose a con-ceptual framework (including suggestions for operationalizing it) that embeds empir-ical research within behavioural intent models and the concept of value-creatingprosocial behaviours. We argue that conceiving of corporate greening as a prosocialbehaviour in this manner provides an improved understanding of the dominantfactors that motivate employees to engage in ecoinitiatives. Copyright © 2005 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Received 19 May 2004; revised 18 July 2005; accepted 30 August 2005

Keywords: corporate greening; ecoinitiatives; prosocial and extrarole behaviours; behavioural intent model; expectancy theory

IN 1993, GLADWIN (p.47) MADE A PLEA FOR MANAGEMENT SCHOLARS TO ANCHOR THE RESEARCH

on corporate greening in established organizational theory. Starik and Marcus (2000, p. 543) reit-

erated this plea in the Academy of Management Journal by stating: ‘the need still remains to link

organizational theories to the greening process’. The links between corporate greening and

organizational theory appear to be readily apparent, not least because the phrase ‘organizational green-

ing’ clearly implies an organizational change process. In fact, scholars of corporate environmental man-

agement are frequently concerned with concepts that are also close to the hearts of organizational

theorists, such as values and leadership styles (Egri and Herman, 2000), companies’ norms and ethics

(Flannery and May, 2000) and factors affecting change management and issue leadership (Andersson

and Bateman, 2000). Several authors have linked established streams of organizational research and

environmental management (Cordano and Frieze, 2000; Hoffman, 1999; Ramus and Steger, 2000).

Yet, there is a consensus among leading scholars in environmental management that an even stronger

and more systematic connexion is highly desirable. This article responds to this consensus by present-

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

* Correspondence to: Catherine A. Ramus, Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, SantaBarbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Business Strategy and the EnvironmentBus. Strat. Env. 16, 554–570 (2007)Published online 19 October 2005 in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/bse.504

Corporate greening Through Prosocial Extrarole Behaviours 555

Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Bus. Strat. Env. 16, 554–570 (2007)DOI: 10.1002/bse

ing a conceptual framework that embeds empirical research on corporate greening initiatives within the

theoretical context of value-creating prosocial behaviours and behavioural intent models.

Corporate greening behaviours exhibit several characteristics that render them unusual and hence

somewhat challenging with respect to their theoretical treatment. They are prosocial behaviours, in that

a member of the organization performs them with the intent to promote the welfare of the individual,

group or organization toward which they are directed (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986). Yet they also display

aspects of ‘taking charge behaviours’, defined by Morrison and Phelps (1999, p. 403) as discretionary

behaviours intended to effect organizationally functional change, and they tend to have a strong value-

creating component. Also, as we will show, corporate greening behaviours are – not invariably but fre-

quently – extrarole behaviours, meaning that they are not formally required for an employee’s job, and

are conducted in so-called ‘weak situations’ (Mischel, 1973; Shamir et al., 1993, p. 589). In other words,

employees often find themselves in situations without clear goals or certainty about the organizational

rewards associated with the optional behaviour of promoting environmentally beneficial changes. Due

to these characteristics and the fact that most traditional motivation theories are not readily applicable

to weak situations (Shamir, 1991), we propose that corporate greening behaviours are best conceived of

as a special type of prosocial organizational behaviour, and develop a model that connects the corre-

sponding literature to behavioural intent models, especially the theory of reasoned action of Fishbein

and Ajzen (1975).

We link this theoretical development to the specific example of ecoinitiatives, which are creative sug-

gestions from individuals or teams of employees that have the potential to improve an organization’s

environmental performance and hence contribute to corporate greening (Ramus and Steger, 2000).

Ecoinitiatives may result in pollution reductions, the development of energy- or resource-saving prod-

ucts, the greening of supply or distribution networks, the design of products for reuse, etc. Research

has shown that these initiatives can thus substantially affect business performance, as well as deter-

mining the success of firms’ efforts to implement environmental management objectives (Kolluru,

1994; Ruiz-Quintanilla et al., 1996). Moreover, corporations are increasingly under pressure from stake-

holders to behave in environmentally defensible ways (Buchholz, 1991; Donaldson and Preston, 1995;

Orts and Strudler, 2002; Starik and Rands, 1995; Mitchell et al., 1997; Winn, 2001). However, despite

their economic potential and these stakeholder pressures, managers generally consider ecoinitiatives

marginal to their firm’s business, even in organizations with environmental policies and goals (Ramus,

2001, 2002). Thus, even though ecoinitiatives are potentially a powerful driver of corporate greening,

few organizations systematically motivate their employees to propose them.

The framework presented here provides a theoretical grounding for a better understanding of the

dominant factors that motivate employees to engage in ecoinitiatives and other corporate greening

behaviours. Moreover, while this article focuses – in direct response to Gladwin (1993) and Starik and

Marcus (2000) – on the connexion to established theory, we include suggestions for operationalizing

the proposed model, so as to facilitate its application in organizational settings.

In the next section, we discuss the link between the literatures on prosocial, extrarole and corporate

greening behaviours, and introduce the dispositional and contextual variables that are most relevant to

fostering such behaviours. Then we illustrate that behavioural intent models are highly suitable for

analysing employees’ motivation to perform extrarole prosocial behaviours, and present a testable model

that includes the key variables identified previously. Finally, we discuss how organizations could oper-

ationalize the model to gain well grounded empirical insights into employee motivation related to

corporate greening behaviours.

556 C. A. Ramus and A. B. C. Killmer


Link between Corporate Greening and Prosocial Behaviours

Corporate Greening as a Special Type of Prosocial Behaviour

Figure 1 presents our framework for explaining how corporate greening behaviours relate to established

categories of organizational behaviours. The literature makes a major distinction between functional

and dysfunctional organizational behaviours, with the latter referring to behaviours that hinder indi-

vidual or group performance. Of special interest here are functional prosocial behaviours, i.e. behaviours

that are directed toward and performed with the intention of promoting the welfare of an individual,

group or organization with whom the individual interacts as part of its organizational role (Brief and

Motowidlo, 1986). These behaviours include assisting co-workers with job-related matters, providing

superior services to consumers or complying with organizational values and norms.

Corporate greening behaviours, which can be broadly defined as the changing of organizational prac-

tices to more environmentally sound ones, are classified readily as a functional behaviour that is intended

to be welfare promoting.1 Moreover, corporate greening behaviours often create value – be this through

lowering expenditures, reducing liabilities and insurance costs or improving the organization’s reputa-

tion. To the extent that it is clearly change oriented, corporate greening also has aspects of ‘taking charge

behaviours’ (Morrison and Phelps, 1999, p. 403), yet its influence can reach further, extending beyond

the boundaries of the organization to suppliers, customers, employees’ families and other members of

the community. Therefore, corporate greening behaviours are best conceived of as prosocial organiza-

tional behaviours that have a strong value-creating potential (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Corporate greening in relation to other welfare-promoting employee behaviorsa

a The relative sizes of the various areas are not to scale; they are not indicative of the amount of time, effort or resources employ-ees do or should dedicate to the different classes of behaviours.b Whereas the term “prosocial” may suggest primarily functional behaviours, Brief and Motowidlo (1986) explicitly include behav-iours that would be considered dysfunctional from an organizational perspective, such as providing services or products to con-sumers in organizationally inconsistent ways.

1 Some forms of greening behaviours may be perceived as disruptive; we focus here on behaviours an organization would intentionally wantto encourage.



Another major distinction the literature makes with respect to organizational behaviours is that

between inrole, or role-prescribed, behaviours on the one hand and extrarole, or supra-role, behaviours

on the other. Inrole behaviours are required, formally rewarded tasks for a given job, whereas extrarole

behaviours are discretionary behaviours that are neither required nor formally rewarded (Katz and Kahn,

1978; Van Dyne et al., 1995). For the majority of employees in an organization, corporate greening behav-

iours are not required tasks and are hence by definition extrarole behaviours.2

The managerial challenge associated with ecoinitiatives and other extrarole, value-creating behaviours

is that the organization as a whole benefits if at least some employees perform them, yet they are often

complex and time consuming. As such, they compete for an employee’s time and attention with inrole

tasks, which, being part of performance evaluations, tend to have higher priority.3 Essentially, then, cor-

porate greening behaviours are often performed in the context of weak situations (Mischel, 1973; Shamir

et al., 1993). In these situations, employee motivation is thought to be predominantly driven by personal

predispositions (Shamir, 1991) and by value congruence between the individual and the organization

(Chapman, 1989), rather than by the goals and rewards that are the focus of many classic management

strategies. The empirical evidence on extrarole behaviours in general and ecoinitiatives in particular sup-

ports this proposition, as we will show next.

Predominant Motivational Drivers for Extrarole Behaviours

Four motivational drivers appear to be predominant in the context of employee performance of extra-

role prosocial behaviours: (a) support from the direct supervisor, or another second party responsible

for overseeing a task; (b) one’s perception of an organization’s related norms; (c) personal predisposi-

tion toward the behaviour (e.g. creative initiatives or protecting the natural environment in the case of

ecoinitiatives) and (d) one’s belief in one’s own ability to successfully perform the action. These four

factors play a role in many motivational contexts but they take on a special saliency for extrarole behav-

iours, as the following overview of the literature illustrates.

• Supervisory support. Motivational theory has long established the positive link between supervisory

support (behavioural and/or through resources) and employee motivation (Conger, 1986; Conger and

Kanungo, 1988; Kanter, 1979, 1983). Employees are generally more motivated when they perceive

support from their supervisors. Yet, this is particularly pertinent in weak situations, where persons

can be readily motivated through a leader’s appeal to their ‘self-concepts, values, and identities’

(Shamir et al., 1993, p. 589). In fact, empirical evidence suggests that second-party support may be

the single most important factor influencing employee motivation for ecoinitiatives (Ramus and

Steger, 2000). Thus, supervisory support is positively related to individual motivation to engage in

corporate greening behaviours.

• Social norms. It is generally found that the perception of social norms – of how a person’s reference

group or social network evaluates the ‘goodness’ of a behaviour – influences an individual’s intent to

perform it (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1973; Fishbein, 1963; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). With respect to

social norms within an organization, leader behaviours and policy signals that come from high levels

of the organization are of particular interest to organizational scholars. Antonakis and Atwater (2002)

2 Of course, many organizations have employees, such as environmental managers and staff, for whom environmental activities are a centralpart of their inrole behaviours; however, fundamental change towards environmentally sustainable practices requires organization-wide involve-ment and hence affects a large number of employees who are not required to promote environmental change as part of their job.3 One possibility for addressing this challenge is to ‘promote’ extrarole behaviours to tasks that are formally rewarded by the organization. Thissolution follows the efficiency adage ‘what is measured can be managed’ and would establish corporate greening as a management objective.However, this top-down approach is unlikely to be a generalizable solution, as it could not be implemented for the majority of employees inthe majority of organizations for reasons of practicality, given that there is a limit to how many different objectives can effectively be incorpo-rated into any employee’s performance evaluation.



argued that leaders’ values and behaviours could cascade by role modelling and contagion through the

hierarchical levels of an organization. Moreover, top management values tend to have an even greater

impact on individual-level extrarole behaviours, as opposed to inrole behaviours, because the former

are not performed within a strong reward structure. Similarly, Chapman (1989) argued that organi-

zational norms are a good predictor of extrarole behaviour if they fit the individual employee’s values

and norms. The findings by Morrison and Phelps (1999) in this respect were slightly ambiguous:

whereas top management openness had a significant effect on taking-charge behaviours, group norms

did not. Yet, in a corporate greening context, the importance of an organization’s environmental norms

– expressed through top management commitment and organizational policies – to employees’ moti-

vation to engage in ecoinitiatives is supported by the literature (Hostager et al., 1998; Ramus and

Steger, 2000). Thus, the literature shows that organizational norms related to protecting the natural

environment, particularly as demonstrated in top management behaviour and organizational policies,

are positively related to individual motivation to engage in corporate greening behaviours.

• Personal predisposition. This factor relates to a person’s pre-existing values, beliefs and habits related

to a particular behaviour or task. Judging by the evidence in the literature, this factor takes on an excep-

tionally important role in the context of prosocial and socially responsible behaviours, including

corporate greening. Witt and Wilson (1991) established the importance of personal values in an indi-

vidual’s motivation to engage in socially responsible behaviours in general, and Organ (1990) showed

that personal attitudes are more strongly related to extrarole than to inrole behaviours. With respect

to corporate greening, Cordano and Frieze (2000), Egri and Herman (2000) and Rands (1990)

demonstrated that pre-existing values are a determining factor in employee motivation to protect the

natural environment in business settings. For example, Cordano and Frieze (2000) empirically linked

individuals’ attitudes to an organization’s pollution prevention activities, and found that individuals’

attitudes toward environmental protection had the strongest relationship to their intent to implement

source reduction activities. Thus, an employee’s personal predisposition toward protecting the natural

environment has a positive relationship to his/her motivation to engage in corporate greening

behaviours.

• Self-efficacy. Bandura (1977, p. 193) pointed out that ‘the strength of people’s conviction in their own

effectiveness is likely to affect whether they would even try to cope with given situations’. His own

and subsequent work has shown that one’s self-efficacy, the belief in one’s own ability to reach the

desired outcome or to complete the desired task, has a direct influence on one’s behaviour (Bandura,

1986; Bandura and Wood, 1989; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Yet, self-efficacy deserves particular

attention in explaining employees’ motivation for complex extrarole behaviours, such as promoting

an ecoinitiative. Because employees tend to be selected for their ability to perform well at the inrole

tasks, there is little reason to expect that employees will a priori have high self-efficacy regarding

complex extrarole behaviours. In the context of ecoinitiatives, the link between motivation and self-

efficacy has received attention by Hostager et al. (1998), who concluded that self-efficacy has an impor-

tant influence on environmental innovation within a company. Moreover, Ramus and Steger (2000)

empirically demonstrated that environmentally related competence building, which is likely to result

in increased self-efficacy, had a statistically significant effect on the level of eco-innovations at the indi-

vidual level. (The link to competency building raises the point that self-efficacy can itself be influenced

by the behaviour and support of an individual’s supervisor. We will return to this point later in the

paper.) Thus, an individual’s self-efficacy has a positive relationship to the individual’s motivation to

engage in corporate greening behaviours.

In summary, empirical research suggests that a conceptual framework for explaining employees’

motivation to engage in extrarole behaviours in general and ecoinitiatives in particular should include



(a) the contextual variables that capture the extent of support from an employee’s supervisor (i.e. second-

party support) as well as the organization as a whole (i.e. social norms) and (b) the dispositional vari-

ables that account for the value an employee places on the behaviour (i.e. personal predisposition) and

the confidence he or she has to successfully reach the desired outcome (i.e. self-efficacy). The connex-

ion between these factors is graphically represented in Figure 2.

Expectancy Theory and Behavioural Intent Models

Pinder (1998) described work motivation as the set of internal and external forces that initiate work-

related behaviour and determine its form, direction, intensity and duration. As such, work motivation

is not directly measurable; instead, we have to rely on observable manifestations (Ambrose and Kulik,

1999). Depending on the motivational theory used, different types of manifestation become important,

and hence different theories will be more or less suitable for a particular context. In fact, according to

Shamir (1991, p. 407), many of the major motivational theories are ‘relatively useless’ in weak situa-

tions, the type of situational context for most ecoinitiatives. Our analysis of the extent to which major

motivational theories accommodate the four drivers mentioned above cautiously supports Shamir’s

(1991) somewhat sweeping statement for the most part. We concur that some of the most commonly

employed organizational management theories, such as goal-setting theory (Locke, 1968, 1996; Locke

and Latham, 1990) and reinforcement theory (Rogers and Skinner, 1956; Skinner 1966, 1969, 1974),

are not applicable here, since they essentially require strong situations, where specific goals exist and

rewards can be clearly linked to performance. However, we differ from Shamir in our evaluation of

expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), and expectancy-theory-based behavioural intent models, for reasons

we explain in this section. In essence, we argue that behavioural intent models are highly suitable for

analysing employees’ motivation to perform extrarole prosocial behaviours, because they can readily

incorporate the motivational drivers introduced in the previous section and be applied to behaviours per-

formed in weak as well as strong situations.

Vroom’s cognitive model of motivation (1964) was derived from psychological research, especially by

Lewin (1935) and Tolman (1932), and is based on three fundamental concepts: the concepts of valence,

Organizational boundary

Perception of second-party support (behaviour

& resources)

Personal predisposition

Perception of organizational norms

Self-efficacy

Intent to propose

ecoinitiative

E C O I N I T I A T I V E

Individual employee’smotivation

Figure 2. Conceptual framework of individual-based factors promoting ecoinitiatives



instrumentality and expectancy. Valence refers to the anticipated satisfaction from an outcome, and

Vroom proposes that the valence of a particular outcome j to a person is a function of the valences of

all other outcomes k and the person’s conceptions of outcome j’s instrumentality for the attainment of

these other outcomes. Instrumentality, in turn, is the degree to which a person sees outcome j as leading

to all other outcomes k. Expectancy is defined as a momentary belief concerning the likelihood that a

particular behaviour i will be followed by outcome j (Vroom, 1964, p. 17). Expectancy theory states that

the motivational force on a person to exhibit a particular behaviour i is an increasing function of the

summated products of the valences of all outcomes and the strengths of their respective expectancies.

When choosing among alternative courses of actions, people will select to exhibit the behaviour with the

strongest positive or weakest negative motivational force. Symbolically,

(1)

(2)

Vroom incorporates a person’s choice among various outcomes into his construct of valence through

the relative evaluation of outcome j against all other outcomes k. However, empirical research has shown

that not ‘all other outcomes k’ are considered, but rather that the number of alternative outcomes that

influence an individual’s decision is limited to five to 10 objectives, due to cognitive limitations (Brief

and Rude, 1981; Leon, 1979; Schwab et al., 1979).

Fishbein (1963) and Ajzen (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1973; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) based their theory

of reasoned action in part on Vroom’s model. They extended it into an expectancy-based model of behav-

ioural intent, where behavioural intent is any measurable display of an individual’s willingness to exhibit

a particular overt behaviour in a given situation, other than the performance of that behaviour itself.

(However, the models assume that behavioural intent is a strong predictor of ‘overt behaviour’, i.e. the

actual, observable performance of a particular action.) The model by Fishbein and Ajzen states that moti-

vation, as expressed through behavioural intent, is dependent on both a person’s attitude toward a behav-

iour (constructed as an expectancy measure) and a perception of subjective norms within a relevant

social group. Symbolically,

(3)

where B is the overt behaviour, BI the behavioural intent, Aact the attitude toward the behaviour (the

expectancy measure), NB is the person’s normative belief that members of a particular reference group

feel that he or she should carry out the behaviour, MC is the person’s motivation to comply with the

normative belief and w0 and w1 are empirically determined weights.

It is worth mentioning that further work by Ajzen (1985, 1987, 1991, 2002) has resulted in a related

theory, the theory of planned behaviour, which has been successfully applied to environmental-related

behaviours (Cordano and Frieze, 2000; Taylor and Todd, 1995). In essence, this theory posits that behav-

ioural intent is determined by attitude toward the behaviour, subjective norm and perceived behavioural

control (Ajzen, 1985). However, we have chosen to base our work on an extension of the theory of rea-

soned action, because, we find, the link between the theory’s conceptual constructs and the four factors

that promote prosocial extrarole behaviours are more transparent.

Walker (unpublished dissertation) and Walker and Thomas (1982) refined the model by Fishbein and

Ajzen (Equation (3)) into an integrative motivation model (IMM), ‘developed specifically to help explain

and predict the utilisation of [preventive] health care services’ (Walker and Thomas, 1982, p. 189).4

B BI = Aact NB MC0 1ª ( ) + ( )( )w w

motivational force expectancy valencej ij j= ¥( )Âvalence instrumentality valencej jk k= ¥( )Â

4 While the model by Walker and Thomas is developed for healthcare services, we will demonstrate below how this model can be useful, whengeneralized, for measuring motivation in other situations.



Responding to criticisms of expectancy theory, Walker and Thomas incorporated both social norms and

personal predisposition toward the type of behaviour in question. According to Korman (1974), this

inclusion of variables for social norms and personal habits should increase the predictive validity of

expectancy theory – a suggestion that is supported by empirical tests of the IMM (Walker, unpublished

dissertation; Walker and Thomas, 1982).

We recontextualize and generalize the integrative motivation model here for studying employee moti-

vation in weak situations. We chose this model for the following reasons.

1. Expectancy-theory-based models explicitly consider the selection of one action from a set of possible

actions, which is precisely the process we are concerned with in motivating employees to spend their

time and resources on extrarole behaviours.

2. Behavioural intent models have proven very influential in the study of human action (Ajzen, 2002),

and have been successfully applied to environment-related behaviours (Cordano and Frieze, 2000;

Taylor and Todd, 1995).

3. The IMM has already been applied and tested in the study of an optional behaviour (Walker, unpub-

lished dissertation; Walker and Thomas, 1982) in a context akin to Shamir’s ‘weak situation’.

4. By adding a measure for personal predisposition, it allows us to incorporate all four motivational

drivers of extrarole prosocial behaviours within a single model, thereby also enabling a determina-

tion of the relative importance of these factors.

In summary, the strength of the IMM in empirically explaining an optional behaviour, like ecoini-

tiatives, and the fact that it can accommodate the four motivational drivers of prosocial extrarole behav-

iours, makes it highly suitable for our purposes here – even more suitable than the models that preceded

it.

A Conceptual Framework for Corporate Greening

Equation (4) presents the recontextualized version of the IMM, as applied to ecoinitiatives and similar

corporate greening processes rather then health care.

(4)

where

B = overt behaviour of developing/proposing an ecoinitiative

BI = behavioural intent to engage in an ecoinitiative

PP = employee’s personal predisposition toward ecoinitiatives; i.e. a predisposition toward

either creative initiatives or the natural environment or both

EB = belief in the efficacy of the behaviour to lead to a desired outcome, itself the product of

the perceived likelihood that the ecoinitiative will lead to a desired outcome and the

valence attached to the outcome (an expectancy–valence measure)

S(MIOi) = motivation towards the ith incidental outcome from the ecoinitiative, summed over all

i outcomes (also an expectancy–valence measure)

ON = employee’s perception of organization’s norms; the person’s belief that the organiza-

tion as a whole is supportive of, indifferent to or adverse to corporate greening, and the

person’s motivation to comply with that belief

b1, b2, b3, b4 = empirically determined regression coefficients

e = residual error term.

B BI = PP + EB+ MIO ON1 2 3ª ( ) + +Âb b b bi 4 e



Before we turn to a discussion on how the various measures in this model can be operationalized, we

first return to our argument that this model grounds corporate greening research in organizational

theory. We begin with the model’s straightforward relation to behavioural intent and expectancy theory.

In Equation (4), the variable regarding the efficacy of the behaviour (EB) and an employee’s motivation

toward incidental outcomes (S(MIOi)) are clearly consistent with Vroom’s theory (1964). They represent

the positive or negative motivational forces captured by Vroom’s model, although in this case the product

of expectancy and valence attached to the desired outcome (EB) is separated from those products attached

to incidental outcomes (MIO). The ON term, the organization’s environmental norms, represents the

normative motivational force stemming from the perceived social beliefs about the behaviour and the

person’s motivation to comply with them. A person’s predisposition toward ecoinitiatives (PP) symbol-

izes the motivational force of personal values and habits introduced by Walker and Thomas (1982), but

not included in the models by either Vroom or Fishbein and Ajzen.

A person’s intent (BI) to exhibit the overt behaviour (B) is an increasing function of the summated

products of these four factors. Yet B and BI differ, in that a person may have a behavioural intent that

never comes to fruition; the focus behaviour (B) is considered as an option but discarded prior to exe-

cution. However, the notion of ‘intent’ is narrowly construed. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) posited that

behavioural intent is a reliable predictor of overt behaviour, which implies that intent should be under-

stood as more than just a general aim. It is the very concrete ambition to perform the behaviour. For

example, Walker and Thomas (1982) used ‘having made an appointment’ as an indicator of intent to

use preventative health care services. The person may be prevented from or decide against keeping the

appointment; making the appointment is an indication of the concrete intention to use the service.

Under this narrow construal, the overt behaviour of developing and proposing an ecoinitiative can thus

be approximated by the behavioural intent to do so.

Having established the model’s relation to the theories by Vroom (1964) and Fishbein and

Ajzen (1975), we now consider how it relates to the four motivational drivers of prosocial extrarole

behaviours, namely second-party support, self-efficacy, personal predisposition and the organization’s

environmental norms. The last two factors are included in the model given by Equation (4) through

the terms for personal predisposition and organizational norms respectively. For current purposes,

the organization’s environmental norms (ON) include only social norms within the company;

influences from social norms outside the company express themselves through the personal predispo-

sition variable.

Self-efficacy is congruent with expectancy theory in that a belief in one’s own capability to organize

and execute the required course(s) of action increases one’s effort–performance expectancy (Bartol et al.,2001). Specifically, self-efficacy is a primary determinant of what Behling and Starke (1973, p. 376) refer

to as Expectancy I, ‘the individual’s estimate of the likelihood that the task before him/her can be accom-

plished’. Because the achievement of desired and incidental outcomes is impacted by task accomplish-

ment, self-efficacy is respectively entailed in the expectancy–valence terms EB and MIO.

Second-party support may be entailed in both, either or neither of these two expectancy–valence terms,

because it is linked to Expectancy II, ‘the individual’s estimate of the probability that task goal attain-

ment will lead to [a desired or incidental outcome]’ (Behling and Starke, 1973, p. 376). If second-party

support is required to obtain a particular desired or incidental outcome – as is the case for many exter-

nal rewards – the EB or MIO terms respectively will be affected. However, outcomes such as the enjoy-

ment of a challenge, personal pride, increased self-efficacy, lost leisure time and personal resources

spent on an ecoinitiative are not dependent on supervisory support. Thus, the extent of the impact of

second-party support is determined by the outcomes anticipated by the employee, which need to be

established during the empirical application of the model. Theoretically, though, second-party support

may impact both expectancy–valence terms, EB and MIO.



One could also argue that second-party support affects the organizational norm (ON) term, as the

supervisor is part of the organization. In fact, in cases where the employee views the supervisor as the

primary representative of the organization, cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) suggests that

employee perceptions of organizational norms would be affected by supervisory behaviour. However,

we do not follow this line of argumentation but rather separate direct supervisor behaviour from the

more general organizational norms. In other words, the effects of supervisor behaviour are fully cap-

tured through the expectancy–valence terms (EB and MIO). Separating supervisory behaviour and orga-

nizational norms in this way allows for a more sensitive detection of organizational dynamics. Empirical

work by Ramus and Steger (2000) showing that employees perceive supervisory and organizational

support for eco-innovations as two distinct influences supports this separation.

Suggestions for Operationalizing the Model

Our intent in developing the conceptual framework and presenting the model above is to enable inter-

ested organizations to effectively motivate their employees to engage in ecoinitiatives and similar cor-

porate greening processes. In many societies today there is a public expectation that organizations with

important environmental impacts take responsibility for these impacts. (And while local pressure toward

corporate environmental responsibility may not be as prominent in some countries, international share-

and stakeholders have led to a certain globalization of these expectations.) Organizations may have a

variety of reasons for responding to public expectations (competitive advantage, good reputation, attrac-

tiveness to employees, etc.), but making claims of environmental responsibility and not delivering on

them can backfire (Ramus and Montiel, 2005). The model presented here gives organizations a means

to better understand the factors that motivate employees to engage in behaviours that help promote envi-

ronmental stewardship and hence assist the organization in living up to its claims.

Business organizations, and particularly large, visible companies, often come under greater public

pressure to be good environmental citizens than other types of organization, so we have focused this

article on the case of corporate greening. Nevertheless, any organization, in any sector, operating in a

context where there is a clear perceived benefit from demonstrating environmental responsibility can

benefit from understanding the factors underlying employee motivation for extrarole prosocial behav-

iours. Moreover, since the measures included in our model are independent of organizational struc-

tures, ownership and missions, our work is readily generalizable to different types of organizations.

Still, operationalizing the model is not without its challenges. The literature cites several measure-

ment and design problems one may encounter in the direct application of expectancy theory (Ambrose

and Kulik, 1999; Mitchell, 1974), and hence the expectancy–valence measures of the model (EB and

MOI) require particular attention. Yet, measurement challenges may also arise with respect to the other

measures during operationalization, so it is our aim here to provide suggestions and examples from the

literature that illustrate how the model can be applied to the modern workplace.

Two general points that should be considered in applying the model to a specific situation are worth

noting here. First, the degree to which personnel employed by an organization perceive organizational

norms and second-party support may be influenced by the nature of their contractual relationship.

Specifically, many organizations employ consultants, outside contractors and temporary staff in addi-

tion to their permanent employees. Organizations may find the model more useful when applied to

analysing motivation among permanent employees, as these tend to receive stronger signals with respect

to the two contextual variables included in the model.

Second, we encourage the use of perceptual measures in this discussion even though we are aware

of the desirability of employing objective measures. However, it is important to consider on a case-by-



case basis whether such measures are truly objective. For example, personal predisposition toward envi-

ronmental protection could be measured through environmental organization membership, recycling

behaviours or the extent of public transportation use. Yet, for cultural, social or economic reasons, these

activities may not necessarily be equally accessible to all employees within the organization.

Focus Behaviour

The focus behaviour, the dependent variable reflected in both the B and BI terms, is ecoinitiatives, with

the overt behaviour, B, being actual initiatives proposed or undertaken by an employee. While it is fea-

sible to construct a fairly complex measure for this variable, a simple binomial – ’employee has/has not

tried to promote an ecoinitiative’ – can already lead to insightful results (Ramus and Steger, 2000). We

followed this example in the discussion above by defining the overt behaviour as ‘developing/proposing

an ecoinitiative’, without any indicator of the success of the initiative. Admittedly, it is in the interest of

the organization to reward primarily successful ecoinitiatives, because a general rewarding of the behav-

iour may lead to more but not necessarily useful initiatives. Yet, the aspects that render an initiative

‘successful’, which often include various organizational, economic and legal factors, may be difficult to

convey to or be judged by employees. In this case, the relationship between the overt behaviour and the

reward would weaken because no clear expectancy can be formed. For this reason, we suggest a defin-

ition of the overt behaviour that is immediately relevant to the employee, such as ‘they did or did not

develop/propose an initiative’.

The behavioural intent term is more difficult to measure reliably because intent cannot be observed

directly. While it is feasible to ask employees about their intent to propose or undertake an ecoinitiative,

there is no clear means for assessing the accuracy of this measure. Following the argument by Fishbein

and Ajzen that the overt behaviour and behavioural intent are strongly correlated (Fishbein, 1963; Ajzen

and Fishbein 1973; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975), either one could be used as a proxy for the other, and the

overt behaviour tends to be more readily and reliably measurable in the case of ecoinitiatives.

Desired and Incidental Outcomes

The desired and incidental outcomes included in the model determine the valence components of the

EB and MOI terms respectively. Therefore, they have to be chosen very carefully (see critiques by

Mitchell, 1971, and Reinharth and Wahba, 1975, on this point). Employees may have any one of a number

of outcomes in mind. These outcomes may be positive, as in the case of increased monetary benefits,

improved status, promotion, pride, sense of accomplishment, enjoyment of challenge, cleaner environ-

ment or growth of the company (Hostager et al., 1998). However, the anticipated outcomes may actu-

ally be negative. In fact, at least some of the incidental outcomes are likely to be negative outcomes such

as fear of disappointment, time spent away from inrole tasks, loss of leisure time and anxiety. (Our def-

inition of the EB term refers to a ‘desirable outcome’, which does however include the ‘avoidance of an

undesirable one’, such as avoidance of conflict.) Vroom’s theory clearly includes the possibility of neg-

ative motivational forces, i.e. factors that deter a person from taking a particular action (Reinharth and

Wahba, 1975; Vroom, 1964). As pointed out in a critique by Reinharth and Wahba (1975), attention

should be paid to such deterring factors in empirical investigations of employee motivation, because

they are associated with negative valences. Westaby and Fishbein (1996) show how to address this issue

in a survey design.

An important point to consider is that the outcome(s) desired from the ecoinitiative may be more

easily reached by performing well at the inrole tasks. This means that researchers should ascertain which

outcomes are important to the employee, and specifically which ones are important motivators in rela-



tion to the particular extrarole corporate greening behaviour that has been selected as the focus behav-

iour. This can be done by letting employees specify the positive and negative outcomes they actually

considered, for example by presenting a list of possible outcomes to which respondents can add further

options where applicable (Reinharth and Wahba, 1975). Alternatively, Starke and Behling (1975) show

how the choice of outcomes can be immediately combined with a valence measure.

Personal Predisposition

We have defined the model such that any motivational influences from social norms outside the

company would have to express themselves through the personal predisposition (PP) term in order to

be reflected in the model. This term is best measured through a set of self-reported questions that inquire

about personal views – in this case on environmental protection and innovation – and relevant activi-

ties and affiliations that influence the values of the employee, both in the workplace and outside. Exam-

ples that can be adapted from the literature related to operationalizing PP include Walker’s (unpublished

dissertation) personal attitudes towards preventive health care services, the measures by Cordano and

Frieze (2000) of manager’s predisposition toward pollution prevention, and the measures by Amabile

(1988) and Amabile et al. (1994) of creativity in the workplace.

Expectancy–Valence Measures

Although the EB and MOI terms are associated with different outcomes (i.e. desired and incidental ones

respectively), they are both expectancy–valence measures and can be treated similarly. To measure the

terms accurately, researchers have to measure valence, instrumentality and expectancy, which in turn

is composed of expectancy I and expectancy II.

Researchers have commonly assessed valence by asking respondents to rate the desirability of the

expected outcomes on a scale ranging from very desirable to very undesirable (Reinharth and Wahba,

1975; Starke and Behling, 1975). In this assessment, it is crucial to remind respondents that the desir-

ability of the outcome, not its importance to the individual, is of interest.

Instrumentality, the degree to which a respondent sees outcome j as leading to all other outcomes k,

should, according to Vroom (1964), be measured on a scale from (-1) to (+1). The extremes signify the

belief that achievement of outcome k is perfectly related to outcome j, negatively and positively respec-

tively. Reinharth and Wahba (1975) point out that modifying this scale to 0–(+1) for ease of empirical

testing has serious ramification for the validity of the expectancy model. Thus, adhering to Vroom’s stip-

ulation is crucial. Starke and Behling (1975) operationalized this variable by asking respondents to indi-

cate the instrumentality of an outcome j on a scale whose extremes were defined as ‘I will definitely

[insert valent outcome k], even if I do not [achieve outcome j]’ and ‘I will definitely [insert valent outcome

k], if I do [achieve outcome j]’.Expectancy I, an employee’s belief that he or she can perform the task in question, is closely linked

to self-efficacy. Hence, it is a form of cognitive self-evaluation (Bandura, 1977), and there is no guaran-

tee that actual abilities will accurately represent a person’s perception of their own efficacy. This makes

self-efficacy difficult to measure through demonstrated abilities. Aware of this difficulty, Hostager et al.(1998) recommended that employees rate their own abilities to engage in ecoinitiatives: a methodology

that has been successfully employed in seminal studies (Bandura, 1982; Bandura and Wood, 1989; Judge

et al., 2000; Lee et al., 1997; Locke and Latham, 1990). Researchers should also consult the general

self-efficacy scales developed by Sherer and colleagues (1982), which have been applied recently by

Morrison and Phelps (1999) and Schaubroeck and Merrit (1997).



Finally, expectancy II, the employee’s estimate of the probability that the performance of a task will

lead to a particular (set of) outcome(s), is influenced by second-party support if and only if the achieve-

ment of the outcome(s) is dependent on that support. When the outcome is not dependent on second-

party support (e.g. enjoyment of a challenge), expectancy I directly leads to what Reinharth and Wahba

(1975, p. 523) refer to as the ‘second-level outcome’ and expectancy II has no influence. To measure

the expectancy related to second-party support, we suggest following established literature and asking

respondents to indicate their subjective perceptions of the relationship between completing a task and

achieving the expected outcome. An example relevant to ecoinitiatives is presented by Ramus and Steger

(2000), who use behaviourally anchored rating scales that allow employees to typify the behaviour of

their direct supervisor in relation to environmental innovations. Other inspiration can be drawn from

the measures of ‘supervisory encouragement’ and ‘resources’ constructed by Amabile et al. (1996), or

the leadership literature, which measures how a leader’s inspirational and ethical behaviours can impli-

cate followers’ self-concepts, self-efficacy, self-esteem, values and beliefs (Antonakis et al., 2003; Bass

and Avolio, 1995; Shamir et al., 1993).

Organizational Norms

The organizational norms an individual perceives (ON term) have been operationalized in a variety of

ways in the literature. Examples for measures are provided by Cordano and Frieze (2000). Also, studies

of general creativity in the workplace illustrate measurement constructs, such as the measures by

Amabile et al. (1996) of organizational encouragement and impediment. Chapman (1989, p. 341) sug-

gests using a Q-sort method to measure the fit between personal and organizational values. Morrison

and Phelps (1999) use a measure of top management openness developed by Ashford and colleagues

(1998), applying it to the case of taking-charge extrarole behaviours. Moreover, empirical tests of the

theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour have resulted in a wealth of constructs (see Ajzen,

1991, and references therein) that can – due to the link of our framework to these theories – be readily

applied to this model. Whichever measure is adopted, however, the respondent should be made aware

that the questions relate to the organization at large, rather than the habitual behaviours of particular

individuals, such as the direct supervisor.

Conclusion

We have presented a conceptual framework and a testable model to understand employee motivation to

engage in corporate greening behaviours. The conceptual framework establishes such behaviours as

value-creating prosocial extrarole activities, which benefit the organization as a whole, yet compete for

employee’s time and resources with required, inrole tasks. This asymmetry makes corporate greening

a managerial challenge, especially in so-called weak situations. Building on established organizational

theory, we show that personal, group and organizational values are thus of primary importance in moti-

vating employees to engage in ecoinitiatives.

In turn, the testable model builds on the theory of reasoned action of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) and

adapts the work of Walker and Thomas (1982) to an environmental context. The model allows the simul-

taneous measurement of the four predominant motivational drivers of ecoinitiatives, namely personal

predisposition, supervisory support, self-efficacy and organizational norms, and enables an investiga-

tion of their relative importance. Moreover, we outline how the model can be operationalized, in order

to facilitate the future application of our model by researchers and organizations interested in corporate

greening.



A better understanding of the dominant factors that motivate employees to engage in ecoinitiatives

and other corporate greening behaviours is not only of interest from an environmental perspective; a

strict managerial focus on in-role tasks leaves the value-creating potential of ecoinitiatives – which may

in turn create competitive advantages – untapped. In this paper, we suggest systematically promoting

an organizational environment that encourages employees to act on their intrinsic interest for a partic-

ular extrarole prosocial behaviour. Unfortunately, in the case of ecoinitiatives at least, the empirical evi-

dence shows that this combination of employee self-actualization and supportive leadership is rarely

achieved. We contribute to achieving this important combination by grounding empirical corporate

greening research in two established fields of organizational theory, prosocial behaviours and behav-

ioural intent, and thereby also respond to the call made by Gladwin (1993) and Starik and Marcus (2000,

p. 543) to ‘link organizational theories to the greening process’.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank John Antonakis, Pratima Banal, Thomas Bateman, Mark Cordano, Suzanne de Treville, Guido Palazzo,Monika Winn, participants in a European Academy of Management conference session, participants at the Organizations Todayconference, and three anonymous reviewers from the Academy of Management who offered helpful comments on earlier draftsof this paper. Their suggestions have improved the quality of this manuscript substantially. An earlier version of this theoret-ical work was presented at the Organizations Today (2003) conference and was published in Rivista Di Politica Economica (2004)and as a book chapter (2005, Organizations Today, Palgrave). The first author wishes to thank IMD for hosting her as a visit-ing faculty member while she was completing this paper.

References

Ajzen I. 1985. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behaviour. In Action Control: from Cognition to Behaviour, Kuhl

J, Beckmann J (eds). Springer: New York; 11–39.

Ajzen I. 1987. Attitudes, traits, and actions: a theory of planned behaviour. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,

Berkowitz L (ed.). Academic: New York; 1–63.

Ajzen I. 1991. The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211.

Ajzen I. 2002. The perceived behavioural control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behaviour. Journalof Applied Social Psychology 32(4): 665–683.

Ajzen I, Fishbein M. 1973. Attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of specific behaviours. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 27: 41–57.

Amabile TM. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In Research in Organizational Behaviour Vol. 10, Staw

BM, Cummings LL (eds). JAI Press: Greenwich, CT; 123–167.

Amabile TM, Conti R, Coon H, Lazenby J, Herron M. 1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Man-agement Journal 39(5): 1154–1184.

Amabile TM, Hill KG, Hennessey BA, Tighe EM. 1994. The work preference inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic moti-

vational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66(5): 950–967.

Ambrose ML, Kulik CT. 1999. Old friends, new faces: motivation research in the 1990’s. Journal of Management 25(3): 231–292.

Andersson LM, Bateman TS. 2000. Individual environmental initiative: championing natural environmental issues in U. S.

business organizations. Academy of Management Journal 43(4): 548–570.

Antonakis J, Atwater L. 2002. Leader distance: a review and a proposed theory. Leadership Quarterly 13: 673–670.

Antonakis J, Avolio BJ, Sivasubramaniam N. 2003. Context and leadership: an examination of the nine-factor full-range lead-

ership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly 14: 261–295.

Ashford SJ, Rothbard NP, Piderit SK, Dutton JE.1998. Out on a limb: the role of context and impression management in issue

selling. Administrative Science Quarterly 43: 23–57.

Bandura A. 1977. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review 84(2): 191–215.

Bandura A. 1982. Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. American Psychologist 37(2): 122–147.

Bandura A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: a Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.



Bandura A, Wood R. 1989. Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex deci-

sion making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56: 805–814.

Bartol KM, Durham CC, Poon JML. 2001. Influence of performance evaluation rating segmentation on motivation and fair-

ness perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(6): 1106–1119.

Bass BM, Avolio BJ. 1995. MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire for Research: Permission Set. Mindgarden: Redwood City,

CA.

Behling O, Starke FA. 1973. The postulates of expectancy theory. Academy of Management Journal 16(3): 373–388.

Brief AP, Motowidlo SJ. 1986. Prosocial organizational behaviours. Academy of Management Review 11(4): 710–725.

Brief AP, Rude DE. 1981. Voting in union certification elections: a conceptual analysis. Academy of Management Review 6(2):

261–267.

Buchholz RA. 1991. Corporate responsibility and the good society: from economics to ecology. Business Horizons 34(4): 19–

32.

Chapman JA. 1989. Improving interactional organizational research: a model of person–organization fit. Academy of Manage-ment Review 14(3): 333–349.

Conger JA. 1986. Empowering Leadership, working paper, McGill University, Montreal.

Conger JA, Kanungo RN. 1988. The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review13(3): 471–482.

Cordano M, Frieze IH. 2000. Pollution reduction preferences of U. S. environmental managers: applying Ajzen’s theory of

planned behaviour. Academy of Management Journal 43(4): 627–641.

Donaldson T, Preston LE. 1995. The theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of ManagementReview 20(1): 65–92.

Egri CR, Herman S. 2000. Leadership in the North American environmental sector: values, leadership styles, and contexts of

environmental leaders and their organizations. Academy of Management Journal 43(4): 571–604.

Festinger L. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Row, Peterson: New York.

Fishbein M. 1963. An investigation of the relationship between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object.

Human Relations 16: 233–240.

Fishbein M, Ajzen I. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behaviour: an Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley:

Reading, MA.

Flannery BL, May DR. 2000. Environmental ethical decision making in the U. S. metal-finishing industry. Academy of Man-agement Journal 43(4): 642–662.

Gladwin T. 1993. The meaning of greening: a plea for organizational theory. In Environmental Strategies for Industry: Interna-tional Perspectives on Research Needs and Policy Implications, Fischer K, Schot J (eds). Island: Washington, DC; 37–61.

Hoffman A. 1999. Institutional evolution and change: environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal 42(4): 351–371.

Hostager TJ, Neil TC, Decker RL, Lorentz RD. 1998. Seeing environmental opportunities: effects of intrapreneurial ability, effi-

cacy, motivation and desirability. Journal of Organizational Change Management 11(1): 11–25.

Judge TA, Bono JE, Locke EA. 2000. Personality and job satisfaction: the mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of AppliedPsychology 85: 237–249.

Kanter RM. 1979. Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review 57(4): 65–75.

Kanter RM. 1983. The Change Masters. Simon and Schuster: New York.

Katz D, Kahn RL. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations (2nd edn). Wiley: New York.

Killmer A, Ramus C. 2004. Motivation theory revisited: a theoretical framework for peripheral tasks. Rivista Di Politica Eco-

nomica Jan–Feb, No. I–II: 101–132.

Killmer A, Ramus C. 2005. Motivation theory revisited: a theoretical framework for peripheral tasks. In Organizations Today,

Leoni R, Usai, G (eds). Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke Hampshire, UK.

Kolluru RV. 1994. Environmental Strategies Handbook. McGraw-Hill: New York.

Korman AK. 1974. The Psychology of Motivation. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Lee TW, Locke EA, Phan SH. 1997. Explaining the assigned goal–incentive interaction: the role of self-efficacy and personal

goals. Journal of Management 23(4): 541–559.

Leon FR. 1979. Number of outcomes and accuracy of prediction in expectancy research. Organizational Behaviour and HumanPerformance 23: 251–267.

Lewin K. 1935. Dynamic Theory of Personality: Selected Papers. McGraw-Hill: New York.

Locke EA. 1968. Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance May:

157–189.

Locke EA. 1996. Motivation through conscious goal setting. Applied and Preventive Psychology February: 117–124.



Locke EA, Latham GP. 1990. A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Mischel W. 1973. Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review 80: 200–213.

Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of

who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review 22(4): 853–897.

Mitchell TR. 1971. Instrumentality Theories: Conceptual and Methodological Problems, Organizational Research Technical Report

71–19. University of Washington: Seattle, WA.

Mitchell TR. 1974. Expectancy models of job satisfaction, occupational preference and effort – a theoretical, methodological

and empirical analysis. Psychological Bulletin 81(12): 1053–1077.

Morrison E, Phelps CC. 1999. Taking charge at work: extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of ManagementJournal 42(4): 403–419.

Organ DW. 1990. The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behaviour. In Research in Organizational Behaviour Vol.

12, Cummings LL, Staw BM (eds). JAI: Greenwich, CT; 43–72.

Orts E, Strudler A. 2002. The ethical and environmental limits of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 12(2): 215–233.

Pinder CC. 1998. Work Motivation in Organizational Behaviour. Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Ramus CA. 2001. Organizational support for employees: encouraging creative ideas for environmental sustainability. Califor-nia Management Review 43(3): 85–105.

Ramus CA. 2002. Encouraging innovative environmental actions: what companies and managers must do. Journal of WorldBusiness 37(2): 151–164.

Ramus CA, Montiel I. 2005. When are corporate environmental policies a form of ‘greenwashing’? Business and Society in press.Ramus CA, Steger U. 2000. The roles of supervisory support behaviours and environmental policy in employee ‘ecoinitiatives’

at leading-edge European companies. Academy of Management Journal 43(4): 605–626.

Rands GP. 1990. Environmental attitudes, behaviours, and decision making: implications for management education and devel-

opment. In The Corporation, Ethics, and the Environment, Hoffman WM, Frederick R, Petry ES (eds). Quorum: Westport,

CT; 269–286.

Reinharth L, Wahba MA. 1975. Expectancy theory as a predictor of work motivation, effort expenditure and job performance.

Academy of Management Journal 18(3): 520–537.

Rogers CR, Skinner BF. 1956. Some issues concerning the control of human behaviour. Science 124: 1057–1066.

Ruiz-Quintanilla SA, Bunge J, Freeman-Gallant A, Cohen-Rosenthal E. 1996. Employee participation in pollution reduction: a

socio-technical perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment 5(3): 137–144.

Schaubroeck J, Merritt DE. 1997. Divergent effects of job control on coping with work stressors: the key role of self-efficacy.

Academy of Management Journal 40: 738–754.

Schwab DP, Olian-Gottlieb JD, Heneman HG. 1979. Between-subjects expectancy theory research: a statistical view of studies

predicting effort and performance. Psychological Bulletin 86: 139–147.

Shamir B. 1991. Meaning, self, and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies 12(3): 405–424.

Shamir B, House RJ, Arthur MB. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: a self-concept based theory. Orga-nization Science 4(4): 577–594.

Sherer M, Maddux JE, Mercandante B, Prentice-Dunn S, Jacobs B, Rogers RW. 1982. The self-efficacy scale: construction and

validation. Psychological Reports 51: 663–671.

Skinner BF. 1966. The Behaviour of Organisms: an Experimental Analysis. Appleton–Century–Crofts: New York.

Skinner BF. 1969. Contingencies of Reinforcement. Appleton–Century–Crofts: New York.

Skinner BF. 1974. About Behaviourism. Knopf: New York.

Starik M, Marcus AA. 2000. Special research forum on the management of organizations in the natural environment: a field

emerging from multiple paths, with many challenges ahead. Academy of Management Journal 43(4): 539–547.

Starik M, Rands GP. 1995. Weaving an integrated web: multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable

organizations. Academy of Management Review 20(4): 908–936.

Starke FA, Behling O. 1975. A test of two postulates underlying expectancy theory. Academy of Management Journal 18(4):

703–714.

Taylor S, Todd P. 1995. Understanding household garbage reduction behaviour: a test of an integrated model. Journal of PublicPolicy and Marketing 14(2): 192–205.

Thomas KW, Velthouse BA. 1990. Cognitive elements of empowerment: an ‘interpretive’ model of intrinsic task motivation.

Academy of Management Review 15(4): 666–681.

Tolman EC. 1932. Purposive Behaviour in Animals and Men. Century: New York.

Van Dyne L, Cummings LL, McLean Parks J. 1995. Extrarole behaviours: in pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. In

Research in Organizational Behaviour Vol. 17, Cummings LL, Staw BM (eds). JAI: Greenwich, CT; 215–285.

Vroom VH. 1964. Work and Motivation. Wiley: New York.



Walker LR, Thomas KW. 1982. Beyond expectancy theory: an integrative motivational model from health care. Academy of Man-agement Review 7(2): 187–194.

Westaby JD, Fishbein M. 1996. Factors underlying behavioural choice: testing a new Reasons Theory approach. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology 26(15): 1307–1323.

Winn M. 2001. Building stakeholder theory with a decision modelling methodology. Business and Society 40(2): 133–166.

Witt LA, Wilson JW. 1991. Moderating effect of job satisfaction on the relationship between equity and extrarole behaviours.

Journal of Social Psychology 131(2): 247–252.

Biography

Catherine A. Ramus is an assistant professor of organizational behavior at the Donald Bren School of

Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara. Her research inter-

ests in the field of corporate environmental management include how organizations can support

employee-led environmental problem solving and value creation, and how organizations can attract and

retain employees through commitment to socially and environmentally sustainable practices. Cathie has

a doctorate from HEC at the University of Lausanne, a master’s degree from Harvard’s Kennedy School

of Government in Public Administration and an undergraduate degree in economics and political

science from the University of California at Berkeley.

Annette B. C. Killmer is a Natural Resource Specialist with the Inter-American Development Bank,

where she works with Andean and Caribbean countries on achieving more environmentally sustainable

patterns of economic and social development. Ms. Killmer earned her Ph.D., as well as a Master’s degree

with emphasis in environmental policy and economics, from the University of California at Santa

Barbara. For her dissertation research, Ms. Killmer investigated the interplay between civil society, reg-

ulator and regulated businesses in the context of designing and implementing information-based pol-

lution prevention policies, and the effect of that interplay on regulatory enforcement and environmental

outcomes.

Documents

Corporate greening through prosocial extrarole behaviours – a conceptual framework for employee motivation