Extra Role Behaviors Challenging Taking Charge

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/24/2019 Extra Role Behaviors Challenging Taking Charge

    1/20

    Journal of Managerial PsychologyExtrarole behaviors challenging the statusquo: Validity and antecedents of taking

    charge behaviorsDan S. Chiaburu Vicki L. Baker

    Article in format ion:

    To cite this document:Dan S. Chiaburu Vicki L. Baker, (2006),"Extra#role behaviors challenging the status#quo", Journal ofManagerial Psychology, Vol. 21 Iss 7 pp. 620 - 637Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690178

    Downloaded on: 15 October 2014, At: 03:34 (PT)

    References: this document contains references to 68 other documents.

    To copy this document: [email protected]

    The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1675 times since 2006*

    Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

    Alan M. Saks, (2006),"Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement", Journal of ManagerialPsychology, Vol. 21 Iss 7 pp. 600-619

    Pablo Zoghbi Manrique De Lara, (2007),"Redefining OCB as Cybercivism: Do Work Attitudes also ExplainOrganizational Citizenship Internet Behaviors?", Management Research: Journal of the IberoamericanAcademy of Management, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 43-52

    Kelly L Zellars, Bennett J Tepper, (2003),"BEYOND SOCIAL EXCHANGE: NEW DIRECTIONS FORORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR THEORY AND RESEARCH", Research in Personnel andHuman Resources Management, Vol. 22 pp. 395-424

    Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 548078 []

    For Authors

    If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelineare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

    About Emerald www.emeraldinsight .com

    Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

    Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

    *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690178
  • 7/24/2019 Extra Role Behaviors Challenging Taking Charge

    2/20

    Extra-role behaviors challengingthe status-quo

    Validity and antecedents of taking chargebehaviors

    Dan S. ChiaburuWashington, District of Columbia, USA, and

    Vicki L. BakerPennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA

    Abstract

    Purpose The paper aims to investigate the antecedents of taking charge, an extra-role behavior(ERB) directed at challenging the status-quo.

    Design/methodology/approach The hypotheses were tested using regression analysis on dataobtained by surveying 211 employees in one work organization.

    Findings Support was found for the distinctiveness of taking charge, a type of ERB that challengesthe status-quo, from traditional ERB, such as organization-directed and individual-directedorganizational citizenship behaviors (OCBO, OCBI, respectively), and from in-role behaviors (IRB).In addition, individual-related factors, such as propensity to trust, employee exchange ideology, andtheir interaction, predict taking charge. Supervisor-related factors, such as output control by the directmanager, are also significant predictors.

    Practical implications Practitioners interested in interventions to enhance taking chargebehaviors can rely on these findings by either selecting employees (based on the employees propensity

    to trust and exchange ideologies) or by providing appropriate organizational controls.Originality/value The findings are valuable for those engaged in theory building and testing andfor practitioners. From a theoretical perspective, the paper proposes and tests novel predictors oftaking charge on a sample of administrative and line employees. In addition, if the results are properlyvalidated in other organizational contexts, practitioners can use these ideas to design specificinterventions.

    KeywordsTrust, Leadership, Control

    Paper type Research paper

    As todays business environment increases in complexity, organizations respond

    by becoming less centralized (Kanter et al., 1992), redefining aspects of theemployees work roles (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979), and relying on behaviors

    that are not clearly prescribed in workforce performance or role requirements(Arthur, 1992; Daft and Lewin, 1993). Organ (1988, 1990) provided one of the early

    conceptualizations of extra-role behaviors (ERB) - organizational citizenship

    behaviors (OCBs). OCBs are defined as those organizationally beneficial behaviors

    and gestures that can neither be enforced on the basis of formal role obligations

    nor elicited by contractual guarantees or recompense (Organ, 1990, p. 46). While

    important for some aspects of organizational functioning, behaviors such as

    helping colleagues with their workloads, attending functions that are not required,

    The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

    www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

    JMP21,7

    620

    Received December 2005Revised May 2006Accepted May 2006

    Journal of Managerial Psychology

    Vol. 21 No. 7, 2006

    pp. 620-637

    q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

    0268-3946

    DOI 10.1108/02683940610690178

  • 7/24/2019 Extra Role Behaviors Challenging Taking Charge

    3/20

    and obeying informal organizational norms might be construed as supporting thestatus-quo and perpetuating organizational procedures and routines that are

    less-than-perfect for enhanced performance. Indeed, such compliance and uncriticalsupport might be sometimes at odds with the more recent business imperatives of

    getting off the treadmill (Prahalad and Hamel, 1996, p. 1) or with the need toencourage ERBs that are challenging-promotive rather than simply

    affiliative-promotive (Van Dyne et al., 1995).To capture these challenging-promotive behaviors, Morrison and Phelps (1999)

    proposed a different conceptualization of ERBs, called taking charge. Taking chargebehaviors, as used in this study:

    . . . entail voluntary and constructive efforts, by individual employees, to effect

    organizationally functional change with respect to how work is executed within

    the context of their jobs, work units, or organizations (Morrison and Phelps, 1999,

    p. 403).

    In practical terms, these behaviors consist of adopting improved procedures for thejob, changing how the job is executed in order to be more effective, or correcting a

    faulty procedure or practice. These authors provided preliminary support for thedistinctiveness of the construct and, using both individual-level and contextual

    predictors, demonstrated that taking charge behaviors are a function of employeesfelt responsibility for changing the workplace, their belief in their capacity to

    perform, and their perception of support for change provided by top management.While this line of research provided preliminary evidence for differentiating taking

    charge from other ERBs and introduced some of its predictors, it is not withoutlimitations.

    First, although there is some evidence of the discriminant and convergent validity of

    the taking charge construct, prior studies provided comparisons only with altruism

    and civic virtue OCBs (Morrison and Phelps, 1999). Recent research indicated that thedimensionality of OCBs is better captured by specific operationalizations such asorganization- and individual-directed citizenship behavior (OCBO, OCBI; Coleman and

    Borman, 2000; Organ, 1997; LePine et al., 2002; Moonet al., 2005). To further supportthis line of research, we examine whether taking charge behaviors are different from

    such OCBs. Second, we respond to calls from prior research and focus on identifying abroader set of predictors (Morrison and Phelps, 1999, p. 416). Specifically, we examinepropensity to trust and employee exchange ideology, two individual-level predictors,

    and their relation to taking charge behaviors. Third, we test whether taking chargebehaviors will generalize to other populations, particularly where taking charge is

    likely to be more unusual (for instance, clerical or blue-collar employees) (Morrison

    and Phelps, 1999, p. 416). To examine the extent to which taking charge behaviors arepresent or not for non-managerial positions, we rely on data collected from line and

    administrative employees. Lastly, extending studies that demonstrated how seniormanagement support influences managers taking charge behaviors (Morrison and

    Phelps, 1999), we examine the influence of the direct manager on taking chargebehaviors of non-managerial employees. In what follows, we provide a conceptualframework focusing on individual- and supervisory-related factors that are important

    in continuing this line of research (Figure 1).

    Extra-rolebehaviors

    621

  • 7/24/2019 Extra Role Behaviors Challenging Taking Charge

    4/20

    Theoretical outline and hypotheses developmentTaking charge: distinctivenessWe used the typology of Van Dyne et al. (1995) to differentiate taking charge fromorganizational citizenship behaviors. Specifically, Van Dyneet al. (1995) classify such

    ERBs along two orthogonal axes, affiliative-challenging and promotive-prohibitive. Inthis study, we do not focus on the prohibitive dimension, since it refers to behaviorssuch as whistle-blowing and principled organizational dissent, which are beyond ourpresent scope. Although both affiliative-promotive and challenging-promotivebehaviors can be classified as promoting good organizational functioning, whatdifferentiates them is the affiliativechallenging continuum. In their recent review ofthe OCB literature, Organ et al. (2006) proposed an organization of OCBs using sevendimensions (i.e. helping, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, organizationalcompliance, individual initiative, civic virtue and self-development). With theexception of individual initiative, a dimension similar to taking charge but did notreceive sufficient attention (Organet al., 2006, p. 310) all the other dimensions reflect anaffiliative-promotive aspect. We note that taking charge behaviors are, according to the

    original definition, directed at organizationally functional change (emphasis added)(Morrison and Phelps, 1999, p. 403). Consequently, we are interested in testing whetheremployees distinguish conceptually between affiliative behaviors (OCBs) andchallenging behaviors (taking charge).

    Prior research on the dimensionality and discriminant validity of the taking chargeconstruct compared it with OCB operationalizations such as altruism and civic virtue,and with in-role behaviors (IRB) (Morrison and Phelps, 1999). Based on conceptual andempirical studies, we present arguments for comparing taking charge with OCBO,OCBI and IRB. The focus (or the direction) of citizenship behaviors was an importantissue since early OCB studies. For example, Smithet al.(1983) conceptualized OCBs asaltruism, directed at other individuals, and compliance, directed at the organization.Williams and Anderson (1991) subsequently provided an operationalization of OCBIand OCBO, while other authors indicated that these dimensions have a distinct set ofantecedents, correlates and consequences (Masterson et al., 2000; McNeely andMeglino, 1994).

    In addition to this conceptual respecification, the meta-analysis of LePine et al.(2002) on the nature and dimensionality of OCB reveals that the citizenship behaviorsare highly intercorrelated. Consequently, one possible way to capture the range ofbehaviors while still maintaining parsimony is to combine either some or all of the OCBdimensions. Indeed, there is evidence indicating that ERBs such as OCBI includeOrgans (1988) altruism and courtesy dimensions, while OCBO include sportsmanship,civic virtue and conscientiousness (Coleman and Borman, 2000; Williams and

    Figure 1.Conceptual framework:factors influencing takingcharge

    JMP21,7

    622

    http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1108/02683940610690178&iName=master.img-001.jpg&w=243&h=84
  • 7/24/2019 Extra Role Behaviors Challenging Taking Charge

    5/20

    Anderson, 1991). This parsimonious conceptualization is also reviewed favorably inother conceptual studies of OCB dimensions (Moon et al., 2005; Organ, 1997). Thus, weextend prior research by comparing taking charge with an OCB operationalization thataccounts for individual and organizational beneficiaries of these behaviors while

    balancing comprehensiveness and parsimony. Prior studies used a shortened four-itemIRB scale (Morrison and Phelps, 1999). We provide a new test, using the completeseven-item IRB scale proposed initially by Williams and Anderson (1991). Based onprior research, we expect to see employees differentiating OCBs from IRB (Nikolaou,2003; Williams and Anderson, 1991) and taking charge behaviors. Prior conceptualarguments indicate that OCBs are primarily affiliative or promotive behaviors suchas helping, sharing and cooperating (Van Dyne et al., 1995, p. 230). We expect thesebehaviors to be different from taking charge behaviors, targeted to a greater extent atchanging the organization.

    H1. Employees perceive IRB, OCBO, OCBI and taking charge behaviors asdistinct dimensions.

    Taking charge: individual-related predictorsPrior studies on ERBs such as voice (Milliken et al., 2003), silence (Morrison andMilliken, 2000) and taking charge (Morrison and Phelps, 1999) proposed that thesebehaviors are predicted by both individual and contextual factors. Oneindividual-related factor is propensity to trust. Both empirical and prescriptivestudies agreed that trust is one of the critical predictors of employee engagement inbehaviors beyond their role requirements (Aryeeet al., 2002; Mayeret al., 1995; Mayerand Gavin, 2005; Ryan and Oestreich, 1998). From an individual perspective,propensity to trust is based on a generalized expectancy to attribute benevolent intentto others (Rotter, 1980). It is, therefore, more likely that this disposition will be moreimportant in situations that are ambiguous and where it is difficult to predict the

    behaviors of others. Employees engage in ERBs, such as taking charge for severalreasons. On the one hand, reciprocation or reward from the organization or its agents isnot always certain. On the other, given that taking charge behaviors aim at changingor at least questioning established organizational and procedural routines, thestatus-quo might not respond favorably to these challenges.

    Consequently, we posit that propensity to trust is one possible necessary conditionfor our focal behavior. Indeed, prior studies support the relationship betweenpropensity to trust and ERBs that are more affiliative-promotive (Graham, 1991; VanDyne et al., 2000). Extending these findings to challenging-promotive behaviors suchas taking charge, we propose that employees with a high tendency to trust mightengage in positive actions aimed at improving their organizations precisely because oftheir propensity to construe the environment as benevolent.

    H2. Propensity to trust is positively related to taking charge behaviors.

    Another individual-level predictor of taking charge might be what Eisenberger et al.(1986) termed employee exchange ideology. These authors proposed that employeesform a belief regarding the extent to which their behaviors should be a function of thetreatment by employing organizations. Specifically, employees with weak exchangeideologies construe their employment relationships in open terms, as opposed toemployees with strong exchange ideologies, who would expect more symmetric and

    Extra-rolebehaviors

    623

  • 7/24/2019 Extra Role Behaviors Challenging Taking Charge

    6/20

    quid-pro-quo exchanges. Thus, we posit that employees will engage in taking chargebehaviors when their exchange ideology decreases from strong quid-pro-quo-typebeliefs to weaker and more open relationships. It is very likely that employees whohave strong exchange ideologies will have less incentive to engage in ERBs directed at

    improving their organizations, because of their lack of reliance on open exchanges withthe organization and the utilization of more economic-oriented frameworks(Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004). These economic exchanges are represented by a primaryfocus on tangible aspects of the exchange and transactions based on utilitymaximization, factors incompatible with challenging-promotive behaviors directed atorganizational improvement. On the contrary, a weak exchange ideology is clearlyfavorable to subsequent engagement in challenging-promotive ERBs. Open exchangesare, indeed, governed by mutually beneficial exchanges and the development of anenduring relation (Coyle-Shapiroet al., 2004). More specifically, researchers confirmedthe existence of a positive relationship between a weak exchange ideology (and thus amore proactive and open relationship) and proximal outcomes such as feltresponsibility and ERBs (Eisenbergeret al., 2001; Witt, 1991).

    H3. Employee exchange ideology is negatively related to taking charge behaviors.

    Although prior research (Morrison and Phelps, 1999) revealed direct influences ofindividual variables on taking charge, an examination of potential boundaryconditions is needed. Particularly, propensity to trust and employee exchange ideologymight also interact in influencing taking charge. Such a boundary condition might berepresented by the employees weak or strong exchange ideologies with theirorganizations. Employees with strong exchange ideologies would be more likely toconsider themselves entitled to the benefits they receive from their organizations.Those espousing weak ideologies, however, may be more benevolent in their exchangerelationships (Huseman et al., 1987; Miles et al., 1989). We thus posit that employees

    propensity to trust may not always lead to taking charge, particularly when combinedwith a strong exchange ideology. Specifically, a strong exchange ideology mayneutralize the effect of propensity to trust on taking charge because of these employeesfocus on immediate rewards and a tolerance to over-rewards by the organization.Conversely, employees with weak exchange ideologies may enhance the relationshipbetween propensity to trust and taking charge because of their tolerance tounder-reward by their organizations and of their propensity to engage in openexchanges (Huseman et al., 1987; Miles et al., 1989). Similar patterns of relationships aredescribed in related lines of research, indicating that employees develop theiraccountability perceptions, and their subsequent ERBs, as a function of contingent(quid-pro-quo) and affective (trust-based) exchange processes (Erdogan et al., 2004).

    H4. The relationship between employee propensity to trust and taking charge

    behaviors is moderated by employee exchange ideology. Specifically, therelationship will be stronger under weak employee exchange ideology thanunder strong exchange ideology.

    Taking charge: supervisor-related predictorsFestinger (1954) proposed that the introduction of hierarchical structures in groupsgenerates constraints in the communicational and behavioral processes, especiallyfrom the low- to the high-status members. Echoing ideas on hierarchies, Ouchi (1979,

    JMP21,7

    624

  • 7/24/2019 Extra Role Behaviors Challenging Taking Charge

    7/20

    p. 846) states, people must either be able to trust each other or to closely monitor eachother if they are to engage in cooperative enterprises. Monitoring and control can beapplied to two types of factors:

    (1) behaviors, and

    (2) outputs resulting from the behavior (March and Simon, 1958).

    Closer to our area of interest, prior research on issue selling proposed that employeesdecide to raise issues to management by making an assessment of the contextfavorability (Duttonet al., 2001). In addition, support from top management has beenfound to predict taking charge behaviors (Morrison and Phelps, 1999). Althoughresearch from this stream is concerned with the predictors of the decision to voicespecific issues, we argue that behaviors related to taking charge would be even lessprobable than voice if the environment is unsupportive. For the current study, wechose to examine a context that is proximal to the employee and focus on the influenceof organizational controls.

    Supervisors use control systems when engaging employees in lucrative activities.Two frequently-used types of monitoring in work situations are output control andprocess control. Output control refers to the extent to which a supervisor relies onresults when monitoring, evaluating and rewarding employees. Conversely, processcontrol refers to the extent to which a supervisor relies on procedures and behaviors formonitoring, evaluation, and rewarding purposes (March and Simon, 1958; Ouchi, 1975).Output control would have a positive relationship with taking charge, given that whensupervisors rely primarily on controlling output subordinates are given moreautonomy and independence on how to reach the required output. It is therefore morelikely that an output control-based system gives subordinates the space needed toengage in taking charge behaviors (i.e. adopting improved procedures, changing howthe job is executed, correcting faulty processes, and eliminating redundant orunnecessary tasks). On the contrary, a process monitoring system should be negativelyrelated to taking charge, provided that employees are evaluated according to theircompliance with an existing process. Indeed, researchers confirmed the positiverelationship between employees perception of control and submitting ideas forimprovement (Frese et al., 1999; Speier and Frese, 1997). More recently, Ohly et al.(2006) demonstrated that job control, measured as the degree to which an individualcan influence the methods of doing his or her job, is positively related to creative andproactive behaviors.

    Additional support is provided by a series of studies of Deckop et al.(1999, 2004), onthe effects of rewarding IRB on ERBs. The results support the idea that encouragingemployees to maximize their required output can have the undesirable effect of

    employees reducing the effort devoted to ERBs. By clearly specifying behaviors thatwill be rewarded, organizations risk to discourage behaviors that will not be explicitlyrewarded (Deckop et al., 1999). Researchers argued that situations requiring strictemployee adherence to pre-specified job processes and procedures (referred to asTaylorist jobs), are not conducive to employee engagement in ERBs (Hunt, 2002).

    H5a. Output control is positively related to taking charge behaviors.

    H5b. Process control is negatively related to taking charge behaviors.

    Extra-rolebehaviors

    625

  • 7/24/2019 Extra Role Behaviors Challenging Taking Charge

    8/20

    MethodsSample and procedureThe study was conducted in a work organization situated in the Mid-Atlantic area ofthe USA. We collected data from one facility, where the participants were engaged in

    jobs of a technical and administrative nature (e.g. machine operator, maintenancespecialist, administrative assistant), with a distribution of 63.9 percent in line and36.1 percent in administrative jobs. The unit had the goal to support the organizationwith inventory ordering, inventory maintenance, warehousing, and shipping ofmechanical equipment and parts. This particular setting, and the nature of the tasks,ensured sufficient in the monitoring methods used by the supervisors, as well as in thedependent variable, taking charge.

    We used questionnaires to collect data from 246 employees at the beginning of aninformation session related to policy changes in the organization. The surveys weredistributed and collected by the human resource staff affiliated with the company andsubsequently made available to the researchers. Of the responses provided by

    employees, 211 surveys contained usable information (85.77 percent). Of theserespondents, 65 percent had at least some college education, 86 percent were 30 yearsor older, 76 percent had worked for the organization for more than four years and73 percent had been on the current position for more than four years.

    MeasuresWe used previously published scales to collect data relevant for the study. Unlessotherwise indicated, all measures were assessed using a five-point Likert-type scale(1 strongly disagree; 2 disagree; 3 neither agree nor disagree; 4 agree;and 5 strongly agree).

    Propensity to trust. We used five items from Mayer and Davis (1999) to assess

    propensity to trust. An item reads, Most people can be counted on to do what theysay they will do. Cronbachs a for this scale in our study was 0.64. The scale wasvalidate in prior studies (Mayer and Davis, 1999), where the estimated reliabilitywas 0.60.

    Employee exchange ideology. Employee exchange ideology was assessed using theeight-item scale taken from Eisenberger et al. (1986). The estimated reliability usingCronbachs a for our study was 0.79. A sample item is, Employees should not careabout the organization that employs them unless the organization shows that it caresabout its employees.

    Output control. A seven-item output control scale was adapted from Jaworski andMacInnis (1989). An example item is, My immediate supervisor monitors the extent towhich I achieve my goals. Cronbachs afor this scale in our study was 0.85.

    Process control. We adapted the seven-item process control scale provided byJaworski and MacInnis (1989). An item reads My immediate supervisor monitors theextent to which I follow established procedures. Cronbachs a for this scale in ourstudy was 0.71.

    Taking charge. We used the ten-item scale from Morrison and Phelps (1999) tomeasure taking charge behaviors. A representative item is, I often try to change howmy job is executed in order to be more effective. Cronbachs a for this scale in ourstudy was 0.90.

    JMP21,7

    626

  • 7/24/2019 Extra Role Behaviors Challenging Taking Charge

    9/20

    Organizational citizenship behavior (individual-focused). OCBI was measured usingthe scale provided by Williams and Anderson (1991). An example of an item is, I helpothers who have heavy workloads. Cronbachs a for this scale in our study was 0.90.

    Organizational citizenship behavior (organization-focused).We assessed OCBO with

    the scale of Williams and Andersons (1991). One item reads, I adhere to informal rulesto maintain order. Estimated reliability (using Cronbachs a) for this scale in our studywas 0.70.

    In-role behavior. We used the scale of Williams and Anderson (1991) to measureIRB. I fulfill the responsibilities specified in my job description is an item example.Cronbachs a for this scale in our study was 0.80.

    AnalysesAs in prior studies testing the convergent and discriminant validity ofchallenging-promotive and affiliative-promotive ERB constructs (Van Dyne andLePine, 1998), and similar to studies on taking charge (Morrison and Phelps, 1999), weran confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs). Specifically, we used structural equationmodeling with EQS (Bentler, 2002) to test H1. We used maximum likelihood estimationwith the covariance matrix of the items as input; the indexes provided by EQS wereused to assess the model fit. For convergent validity, we evaluated whether each itemhad a statistically significant loading on its posited underlying factor. To establishdiscriminant validity, we tested a series of hierarchically nested models. Following thesuggestions of Hu and Bentler (1998, 1999), we provide information on thestandardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) and several other indexes, such asthe root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA; Browne and Cudeck, 1993), thenon-normed fit index (NNFI; Tucker and Lewis, 1973) and the comparative fit index(CFI; Bentler, 1990). We used a 0.90 criterion for the CFI and NNFI, as recommended byMedskeret al.(1994) and used in previous studies related to these constructs (Morrison

    and Phelps, 1999); similarly, the cutoff scores were 0.08 for the SRMR and 0.06 for theRMSEA, as recommended by Hu and Bentler (1998, 1999). In addition, changes in x2

    tests were used to evaluate the best model fit to the data.For the rest of the hypotheses (H2-H5), we used multiple regression (Cohen et al.,

    2003). To minimize multicollinearity when testing for the moderating hypothesis, wemean-centered each variable prior to creating the interaction term (Cohen et al., 2003).

    ResultsConfirmatory factor analysisWe ran a CFA to test H1, which predicted that IRB, OCBI, OCBO and taking chargevariables would emerge as four separate factors (Table I, Model 1). Results from thisanalysis showed that all the factor loadings for the items were significant (p , 0.001)

    and corresponded to their respective latent constructs, thus indicating convergentvalidity. Specifically, for our construct of interest, taking charge, the item loadingswere between 0.55 and 0.80, with majority of them being around 0.70. Furthermore, inorder to asses discriminant validity, we compared the four factor model (Model 1) withfive other nested models: three-factor models (Model 2a: OCBI and taking charge (as onefactor), OCBO, and IRB; Model 2b: OCBO and taking charge (as one factor), OCBI, IRB;and Model 2c: taking charge and IRB (as one factor), OCBI, and OCBO), a two-factormodel (Model 3: OCBI, OCBO, and taking charge as one factor and IRB as another

    Extra-rolebehaviors

    627

  • 7/24/2019 Extra Role Behaviors Challenging Taking Charge

    10/20

    factor); and a one-factor model (Model 4: all items loading on one factor). We used a x2

    difference test and improvements in goodness-of-fit indices to evaluate which modelfitted the data best. The hypothesized four-factor model emerged as the best fit to thedata (Table I, Model 1), as compared with the alternative models. Therefore, the resultsfrom the CFA provide further evidence that the taking charge scale is distinct fromboth IRB and ERBs directed at the organization and at the individual.

    Based on the above results, we formed composite variables for the constructs ofthe study. Means, standard deviations and correlations are provided in Table II. Thepattern of predictions was, in general, consistent with our predictions. Consistent withprior studies measuring types of control (Jaworski and MacInnis, 1989), output andprocess control were correlated, indicating that supervisors use both methods of

    monitoring and performance assessment.

    Model Description x2 DF Dx 2

    DDF CFI NNFI SRMR RMSEA

    1 Four-factor model 700.90 415 0.91 0.90 0.07 0.062a Three-factor modela 920.03 418 219.13 3 0.84 0.82 0.09 0.08

    2b Three-factor modela 824.61 418 133.71 3 0.87 0.87 0.10 0.072c Three-factor model

    a1267.09 418 566.19 3 0.73 0.70 0.11 0.10

    3 Two-factor modela 1003.83 420 302.93 5 0.81 0.79 0.10 0.084 One-factor modela 1431.12 421 730.22 6 0.68 0.64 0.11 0.11

    Notes: aComparisons were made with Model 1. All x2 values are significant at p , 0.001.CFI comparative fit index; NNFI non-normed fit index; SRMR standardized root-mean-squareresidual; RMSEA root-mean-square error of approximation. Model 1: OCBI, OCBO, taking charge,IRB; Model 2a: OCBI and taking charge (as one factor), OCBO, IRB; Model 2b: OCBO and taking charge(as one factor), OCBI, and IRB; Model 2c: taking charge and IRB (as one factor), OCBI, and OCBO;Model 3: OCBI, OCBO, and taking charge (as one factor) and IRB (as another factor); and Model 4: allitems loading onto one factor

    Table I.Model comparisons andfit statistics

    Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

    Individual-related1. Propensity to trust 2.82 0.582. Employee exchange ideology 2.72 0.81 20.11Supervisor-related3. Output control 3.43 0.75 0.02 20.124. Process control 3.30 0.68 0.07 20.05 0.62

    Extra-role behaviors5. Taking charge behavior 3.64 0.68 0.16 20.14 0.25 0.14

    6. OCBI 3.92 0.58 0.10 20.20 0.26 0.28 0.437. OCBO 4.15 0.49 20.01 20.12 0.30 0.27 0.38 0.45

    In-role behaviors8. In-role behavior 4.24 0.55 20.12 20.05 0.21 0.17 0.30 0.36 0.61

    Notes: an 221, all correlations higher than or equal to/0.13/significant at p , 0.05; all correlationshigher than or equal to/0.19/significant at p , 0.01, OCBI individual-directed organizationalcitizenship behaviors; OCBO organization-directed organizational citizenship behaviors;IRB in-role behaviors

    Table II.Means, standarddeviations, and zero-ordercorrelationsa

    JMP21,7

    628

  • 7/24/2019 Extra Role Behaviors Challenging Taking Charge

    11/20

    Tests of hypothesesH2-H4 predicted that individual-related variables, such as propensity to trust (H2),employee exchange ideology (H3) and their interaction (H4) would be related to takingcharge behaviors. The results from the regression analysis (Table III) show that

    propensity to trust was related to taking charge (b 0.14,p , 0.05), while exchangeideology was negatively related to taking charge (b 2 0.14, p , 0.05). Thisprovides support for H2 and H3. In addition, our results indicate that exchangeideology moderated the relationship between propensity to trust and taking charge(b 2 0.14, p , 0.05). Following the guidelines provided by Cohen et al. (2003),we examined the directionality of the interaction effect (Figure 2). As expected, therelationship between propensity to trust and taking charge was stronger under weakemployee exchange ideology than under a strong condition. Thus, these results providesupport for H4.

    H5apredicted that output control would be positively related to taking charge. Theregression results (Table III) indicate that output control had a positive and significantrelationship with taking charge (b 0.25, p , 0.01), providing support for thishypothesis. Similarly,H5b predicted that process control would be negatively relatedto taking charge behaviors. However, the data did not provide support for ourprediction (b 20.02, ns).

    Predictors H1-H3 H4and H5

    Individual-relatedPropensity to trust (PT) 0.14 *

    Employee exchange ideology (EEI) 20.14 *

    PT *EEI 20.14 *

    Supervisor-relatedOutput control (OC) 0.27 * *

    Process control (PC) 20.02R2 0.06 0.06F 4.65 * * 7.13 * * *

    Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; * * *p , 0.001

    Table III.Regression analyses:

    individual- andsupervisor-related

    predictors of takingcharge

    Figure 2.Moderating effect ofemployee exchange

    ideology on therelationship between

    propensity to trust andtaking charge

    Extra-rolebehaviors

    629

    http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1108/02683940610690178&iName=master.img-002.jpg&w=256&h=147
  • 7/24/2019 Extra Role Behaviors Challenging Taking Charge

    12/20

    As our data were based on responses from the same employees, we attempted todetermine if single-source bias might present a problem in the current sample.Specifically, we attempted to isolate the potential covariance due to artifactual reasonsusing Harmans one-factor test (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Harmans one-factor test

    relies on factor analysis to test the existence of a single factor solution. These authorsassume that substantial common method variance would correspond to the presence ofone general factor, which will explain the majority of variance in the variables. Usingthe linear composites of all the constructs in our model, we ran a factor analysis. Thefactor analysis solution did not indicate that one single factor explains the majority oforiginal variance in the study variables. As a result, this presents additional supportfor the fact that common method bias does not seem to be a major concern for thecurrent dataset.

    DiscussionThe purpose of this study was twofold:

    .

    to examine the distinctiveness of taking charge behaviors from IRB and OCBsdirected at the individual and organizational levels; and

    . to test hypotheses related to important but previously untested predictors.

    Our four-factor model received support indicating that the four constructs aredistinct and offer a different perspective to employee behaviors in the workplace.This research extends the previous work of Morrison and Phelps (1999) bycomparing taking charge behaviors against a different conceptualization of OCBsand a complete IRB scale. We tested our model on a sample of line andadministrative employees, which extends prior research on managers. This findingis particularly important, because it provides support for the idea that employeesin different non-managerial positions differentiate between citizenship, in-role, and

    taking charge behaviors.In addition, this study sought to confirm individual- and supervisor-related

    predictors of taking charge behaviors. From the individual-related factors, bothpropensity to trust and employee exchange ideology influence taking chargebehaviors. We extend prior research which linked propensity to trust andaffiliative-promotive ERBs (OCBs, Van Dyne et al., 2000), by showing thatpropensity to trust also predicts challenging-promotive behaviors, such as takingcharge. As expected, employee exchange ideology predicted taking charge behavior.Specifically, employees with strong exchange ideologies are less likely to engage intaking charge behaviors. One possible explanation is that employees with strongexchange ideologies perceive their exchanges with the employing organizations astransactional. Since, a transactional relationship consists of quid-pro-quo and

    short-term exchanges, these employees might not have sufficient incentives to takecharge and engage in challenging-promotive behaviors directed at increasedorganization functioning. Conversely, employees with weak exchange ideologiesappear to be more likely to engage in taking charge behaviors. This is a result of theemployees relational, open exchanges with the organization.

    We found that employees exchange ideology moderates the relationship betweenpropensity to trust and taking charge. In addition to the direct effects of employeesideological construal of their relationship with their employing organization, this factor

    JMP21,7

    630

  • 7/24/2019 Extra Role Behaviors Challenging Taking Charge

    13/20

    can also operate as a boundary condition. Thus, employees with a weak exchangeideology and high propensity to trust will engage more in taking charge behaviors.Conversely, employees with a stronger quid-pro-quo conceptualization of exchangeswill be less proactive in taking charge, despite their high propensity to trust. As

    predicted, a strong exchange ideology attenuates the relationship between propensityto trust and taking charge. In addition to the specific prediction pattern, our results alsoshow the importance of employees perceived exchanges with their work organizationfor their subsequent engagement in or disengagement from behaviors such as takingcharge.

    From the supervisory-related factors, we examined the importance of outputcontrol (positively related to taking charge) and process control (no relationshipwith our outcome of interest). Our results indicate that employees are more likely toengage in taking charge behaviors if their supervisors use monitoring systems thatfocus on outputs, as opposed to a normative monitoring of behaviors or compliancewith organizational processes and procedures. This might be due to the lack ofconstraints associated with output controls, versus the rigor of a process controlevaluation by the supervisor. While we provide evidence for the existence of thesedirect effects in our study, future research should explore the mechanisms by whichperceived controls influence taking charge behaviors in more detail. For example,output control might influence employees taking charge behaviors because ofemployees perception of a more flexible work situation or higher job control (Ohlyet al., 2006). Studies exploring these relationships could provide a clearerspecification of the intervening factors.

    LimitationsThis study is not without limitations. First, because the data are cross-sectional, causeand effect relationships as well as the causal direction, cannot be established and are

    subject to alternative explanations. Second, the self-report nature of the data mightcause common method bias. As noted in prior research (Crampton and Wagner, 1994;Spector, 1994), this limitation is a factor of the research question and the variables usedin the study. The results of the Harmans one test factor presented above suggest thatcommon-method bias should not be of major concern for this study.

    In addition, because of the perceptual nature of all the independent variables in thisstudy, self reported responses represent the only option to collect data for thesevariables. Although information on other variables might have been obtained fromorganizational agents such as managers, we followed the guidelines of otherresearchers for obtaining this type of data. For example, Van Dyne and LePine (1998)found that ERBs are characterized differently by the self, peers, and supervisors. Theyproposed to use multiple sources of ratings for different purposes. Thus, these authors

    maintain that self-reports should be appropriate for studies that involveself-conceptualization, self-image, self-representation, or self-development (p. 118).On the contrary, perceptions of others are critical when attempts are made to determinefeedback, promotions, transfers, and merit increases (p. 118). Because the focus of ourstudy is on employee data related to individual factors and their perceptions ofsupervisor-related factors, we collected data directly from the employees. Our datacollection strategy is in line with other researchers who recommend that data becollected from the focal employee, particularly given that supervisors might not

    Extra-rolebehaviors

    631

  • 7/24/2019 Extra Role Behaviors Challenging Taking Charge

    14/20

    always be the best source of information (because) they might not witness suchactions (Niehoffet al., 2001, p. 108). Finally, the measure of propensity to trust hadlower estimated reliability than conventionally accepted levels, but higher than in priorwork (Mayer and Davis, 1999). Given our results, future researchers are advised to use

    a scale with adequate psychometric properties.

    Theoretical and practical implicationsDespite the above limitations, the study has potential theoretical and practicalimplications. Theoretically, this study provided further support for the distinctionbetween taking charge and other OCBs, strengthening the literature on taking chargein particular and on ERBs in general. Specifically, we found support for the conceptualdifference between taking charge and OCBI, OCBO, and IRB. Furthermore, weextended the existing taking charge studies by examining if such behaviors generalizefrom employees in managerial positions (Morrison and Phelps, 1999) to employees inline and administrative positions. Finally, this study identified new predictors of

    taking charge behaviors at the individual- and supervisor-levels. Of importance, is thefact that these promotive-challenging behaviors are a function of how employeesconstrue their exchanges with their organizational and of the supervisory controls usedfor monitoring.

    From a practical perspective, to the extent these findings generalize to othersettings, managers can use them in their specific work situations. First, understandingthe similarities and differences between taking charge and other OCBs can helpmanagers distinguish between these types of behaviors, which can lead to betterpreparation of their employees to take charge of various aspects of work in theorganization. Second, in situations when this is possible by the nature of the task,managers may enhance the use of output control, thus giving the employees thepossibility to engage in behaviors directed at challenging suboptimal processes and

    procedures.

    Future researchIn this study, we examined if taking charge, a challenging-promotive behavior,was distinct from affiliative-promotive behaviors such as OCBs. However, we alsohope that our study provides an impetus for other researchers to considercomparisons with challenging-promotive ERBs, such as voice (Van Dyne andLePine, 1998) and individual participation (Moorman and Blakely, 1995),affiliative-prohibitive ERBs, such as stewardship, and challenging-prohibitiveERBs, such as whistle-blowing (Miceli and Near, 1985) or principled organizationaldissent (Graham, 1986). In addition, consistent with prior findings (Klieman et al.,2000), it would be advisable to test empirically if the employees perceive taking

    charge as an in-role or an ERB.Other individual- and organization-level factors can be included in future

    research on taking charge. For example, several authors have suggested that ERBshave individual-level antecedents such as proactivity (Bateman and Crant, 1993;Campbell, 2000; Crant, 2000). One of the components of proactivity is challengingthe status quo, which should predict functional behaviors that challenge theestablished ways of doing business, such as taking charge. Although we exploredpredictors related to supervisory controls, other organization- and team-level

    JMP21,7

    632

  • 7/24/2019 Extra Role Behaviors Challenging Taking Charge

    15/20

    predictors (i.e. organizational culture, team climate, norms, situational cues, andpublic or private setting) are likely to influence taking charge behaviors, andshould be further examined. In addition, while we extended prior research withnovel predictors, it would also be important to explore operating mechanisms of

    these antecedents in influencing taking charge behaviors. This would contribute todetermining how individual-level predictors, combined with components of thework context, influence taking charge behaviors.

    References

    Arthur, J.B. (1992), Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance andturnover, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 670-87.

    Aryee, S., Budhwar, P.S. and Chen, Z.X. (2002), Trust as a mediator of the relationship betweenorganizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 267-85.

    Bateman, T.S. and Crant, J.M. (1993), The proactive component of organizational behavior:

    a measure and correlates, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 103-18.

    Bentler, P.M. (1990), Comparative fit indexes in structural models, Psychological Bulletin,Vol. 107, pp. 238-46.

    Bentler, P.M. (2002),EQS, A Structural Equation Program, Version 6.0, Multivariate Software,New York, NY.

    Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993), Alternative ways of assessing model fit, in Bollen, K. andLong, J.S. (Eds),Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 136-62.

    Campbell, D.J. (2000), The proactive employee: managing workplace initiative, Academy ofManagement Executive, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 52-67.

    Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/CorrelationAnalysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

    Coleman, V.I. and Borman, W.C. (2000), Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenshipperformance domain, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 25-44.

    Coyle-Shapiro, J.A-M., Taylor, S.M., Shore, L.M. and Tetrick, L.E. (2004), Commonalities andconflicts between different perspectives of the employment relationship: towards a unifiedperspective, in Coyle-Shapiro, J.A-M., Taylor, S.M. and Tetrick, L.E. (Eds),The Employment Relationship: Examining Psychological and Contextual Perspectives,Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

    Crampton, S.M. and Wagner, J.A. (1994), Percept-percept inflation in microorganizationalresearch: an investigation of prevalence and effect,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79No. 1, pp. 67-76.

    Crant, J.M. (2000), Proactive behavior in organizations,Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3,pp. 435-62.

    Daft, R.L. and Lewin, A.Y. (1993), What are the theories for the new organizational forms?An editorial essay, Organizational Science, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. i-vi.

    Deckop, J.R., Mangel, R. and Cirka, C.C. (1999), Getting more than you pay for: organizationalcitizenship behavior and pay-for-performance plans, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 420-8.

    Deckop, J.R., Merriman, K.K. and Blau, G. (2004), Impact of variable risk preferences on theeffectiveness of control by pay, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology,Vol. 77, pp. 63-80.

    Extra-rolebehaviors

    633

    http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256705&isi=A1994NN57600010http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.138&isi=000175207100003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.138&isi=000175207100003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.4030140202&isi=A1993KU06300001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0033-2909.107.2.238&isi=A1990CR56500008http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1053-4822%2899%2900037-6http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.79.1.67http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014920630002600304&isi=000088751800003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F257012&isi=000081988200005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F257012&isi=000081988200005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1348%2F096317904322915919&isi=000220673300004http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.79.1.67http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0033-2909.107.2.238&isi=A1990CR56500008http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F257012&isi=000081988200005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.4030140202&isi=A1993KU06300001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.138&isi=000175207100003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.138&isi=000175207100003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS1053-4822%2899%2900037-6http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014920630002600304&isi=000088751800003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256705&isi=A1994NN57600010http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1348%2F096317904322915919&isi=000220673300004
  • 7/24/2019 Extra Role Behaviors Challenging Taking Charge

    16/20

    Dutton, J.E., Ashford, S.J., ONeill, R.M. and Lawrence, K.A. (2001), Moves that matter: issue

    selling and organizational change, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4,pp. 716-35.

    Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), Perceived organizational

    support, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-7.

    Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P.D. and Rhoades, L. (2001), Reciprocation of

    perceived organizational support, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 42-51.

    Erdogan, B., Sparrowe, R.T., Liden, R.C. and Dunegan, K.J. (2004), Implications of organizational

    exchanges for accountability theory, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 14,pp. 19-45.

    Festinger, L. (1954), A theory of social comparison processes, Human Relations, Vol. 40,pp. 427-48.

    Frese, M., Teng, E. and Wijnen, C.J.D. (1999), Helping to improve suggestion systems: predictors

    of making suggestions in companies, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 7,pp. 1139-55.

    Graham, J.W. (1986), Principled organizational dissent: a theoretical essay, in Staw, B.M. andCummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior,Vol. 8, JAI Press, Greewich,CT, pp. 1-52.

    Graham, J.W. (1991), An essay on organizational citizenship behavior, EmployeeResponsibilities & Rights Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 249-70.

    Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to

    underparameterized model misspecification, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 4,pp. 424-53.

    Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure modeling:

    conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6,pp. 1-55.

    Hunt, S. (2002), On the virtues of staying inside the box: does organizational citizenshipbehavior detract from performance in Taylorist jobs?, International Journal of Selectionand Assessment, Vol. 10 Nos 1/2, pp. 152-9.

    Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D. and Miles, E.W. (1987), A new perspective on equity theory: the

    equity sensitivity construct, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 222-34.

    Jaworski, B.J. and MacInnis, D.J. (1989), Marketing jobs and management controls: toward a

    framework, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 26, pp. 406-19.

    Kanter, R.M., Stein, B.A. and Jick, R.D. (1992), The Challenge of Organizational Change: HowCompanies Experience and Leaders Guide It, Free Press, New York, NY.

    Klieman, R.S., Quinn, J.A. and Harris, K.L. (2000), The influence of employee-supervisor

    interactions upon job breadth, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 6,

    pp. 587-605.LePine, J.A., Erez, A. and Johnson, D.E. (2002), The nature and dimensionality of organizational

    citizenship behavior: a critical review and meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 52-65.

    McNeely, B.L. and 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, Vol. 79 No. 6, pp. 836-44.

    March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. (1958), Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.

    JMP21,7

    634

    http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3069412&isi=000170711900008http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.71.3.500http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.71.3.500http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.86.1.42http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.hrmr.2004.02.002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F%28SICI%291099-1379%28199912%2920%3A7%3C1139%3A%3AAID-JOB946%3E3.0.CO%3B2-I&isi=000084770100009http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F%28SICI%291099-1379%28199912%2920%3A7%3C1139%3A%3AAID-JOB946%3E3.0.CO%3B2-I&isi=000084770100009http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2FBF01385031http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2FBF01385031http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2FBF01385031http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F1082-989X.3.4.424&isi=000077640200003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F10705519909540118&isi=000208063500001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1468-2389.00202&isi=000175956600015http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1468-2389.00202&isi=000175956600015http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1987G677600001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3172761&isi=A1989AW86400003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F02683940010346734http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.87.1.52http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.79.6.836&isi=A1994PZ03700006http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1468-2389.00202&isi=000175956600015http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1468-2389.00202&isi=000175956600015http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.86.1.42http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F10705519909540118&isi=000208063500001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F%28SICI%291099-1379%28199912%2920%3A7%3C1139%3A%3AAID-JOB946%3E3.0.CO%3B2-I&isi=000084770100009http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.71.3.500http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.79.6.836&isi=A1994PZ03700006http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3172761&isi=A1989AW86400003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F1082-989X.3.4.424&isi=000077640200003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3069412&isi=000170711900008http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.87.1.52http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1987G677600001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2FBF01385031http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2FBF01385031http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.hrmr.2004.02.002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F02683940010346734
  • 7/24/2019 Extra Role Behaviors Challenging Taking Charge

    17/20

    Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M. and Taylor, M.S. (2000), Integrating justice and social

    exchange: the differing effects of fair work procedures and treatment on work

    relationships, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 738-48.

    Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (1999), The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for

    management: a field quasi-experiment, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1,pp. 123-36.

    Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), An integrative model of organizational

    trust, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-15.

    Mayer, R.C. and Gavin, M.B. (2005), Trust in management and performance: who minds the

    shop while the employees watch the boss?, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48

    No. 5, pp. 874-88.

    Medsker, G.J., Williams, L.J. and Holahan, P.J. (1994), A review of current practices for

    evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management

    research, Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 439-64.

    Miceli, M.P. and Near, J.P. (1985), Characteristics of organizational climate and perceived

    wrongdoing associated with whistle-blowing decisions, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 38,pp. 525-44.

    Miles, E.W., Hatfield, J.D. and Huseman, R.C. (1989), The equity sensitivity construct: potential

    implications for worker performance, Journal of Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 581-8.

    Milliken, F.J., Morrison, E.W. and Hewlin, P.F. (2003), An exploratory study of employee silence:

    issues that employees dont communicate upward and why, Journal of Management

    Studies, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 1453-76.

    Moon, H., Van Dyne, L. and Wrobel, K. (2005), The circumplex model and the future of

    organizational citizenship behavior research, in Turnipseed, D.L. (Ed.), Handbook of

    Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Review of Good Soldier Activity in Organizations,

    Nova Science Publishers, New York, NY.

    Moorman, R.H. and Blakely, G.L. (1995), Individualism-collectivism as an individual differencepredictor of organizational citizenship behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior,

    Vol. 16, pp. 127-42.

    Morrison, E.W. and Milliken, F. (2000), Organizational silence: a barrier to change and

    development in a pluralistic world, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 4,

    pp. 706-25.

    Morrison, E.W. and Phelps, C.C. (1999), Taking charge at work: extrarole efforts to initiate

    workplace change, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 403-19.

    Niehoff, B.P., Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G. and Fuller, J. (2001), The influence of empowerment

    and job enrichment on employee loyalty in a downsizing environment, Group &

    Organization Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 93-114.

    Nikolaou, I. (2003), Fitting the person to the organisation: examining the personality-jobperformance relationship from a new perspective, Journal of Managerial Psychology,

    Vol. 18, pp. 639-48.

    Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S. and Pluntke, F. (2006), Routinization, work characteristics and their

    relationships with creative and proactive behaviors,Journal of Organizational Behavior,

    Vol. 27, pp. 257-79.

    Organ, D.W. (1988),Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington

    Books, Lexington, MA.

    Extra-rolebehaviors

    635

    http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1556364&isi=000088976200011http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.84.1.123&isi=000078955000010http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1995RJ62200009http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2FAMJ.2005.18803928http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0149-2063%2894%2990022-1&isi=A1994PA31700007http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1744-6570.1985.tb00558.x&isi=A1985AQV2500003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014920638901500407&isi=A1989CL23600005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1467-6486.00387&isi=000184934200005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1467-6486.00387&isi=000184934200005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.4030160204&isi=A1995QN30800003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.4030160204&isi=A1995QN30800003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?isi=000089960800005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F257011&isi=000081988200004http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1059601101261006&isi=000166876000006http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1059601101261006&isi=000166876000006http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F02683940310502368http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.376&isi=000237002600001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.376&isi=000237002600001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1467-6486.00387&isi=000184934200005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1467-6486.00387&isi=000184934200005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2FAMJ.2005.18803928http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.376&isi=000237002600001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?isi=000089960800005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014920638901500407&isi=A1989CL23600005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?isi=A1995RJ62200009http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F02683940310502368http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.4030160204&isi=A1995QN30800003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1744-6570.1985.tb00558.x&isi=A1985AQV2500003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.84.1.123&isi=000078955000010http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1059601101261006&isi=000166876000006http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1059601101261006&isi=000166876000006http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0149-2063%2894%2990022-1&isi=A1994PA31700007http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1556364&isi=000088976200011http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F257011&isi=000081988200004
  • 7/24/2019 Extra Role Behaviors Challenging Taking Charge

    18/20

    Organ, D.W. (1990), The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behaviors, inCummings, L.L. and Straw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior,Vol. 12, JAI,Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-72.

    Organ, D.W. (1997), Organizational citizenship behavior: its construct clean-up time, Human

    Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 85-97.Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (2006), Organizational Citizenship Behavior:

    Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Ouchi, W.G. (1975), Organizational control: two functions, Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 559-69.

    Ouchi, W.G. (1979), A conceptual framework for the design of organizational controlmechanisms, Management Science, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 833-48.

    Podsakoff, P. and Organ, D. (1986), Self-reports in organizational research: problems andprospects, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.

    Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1996), Competing for the Future, Harvard University Press,Cambridge, MA.

    Rotter, J.B. (1980), Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility,American Psychologist,Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1-7.

    Ryan, D.K. and Oestreich, D.K. (1998),Driving Fear Out of the Workplace: Creating High Trust,High Performance Organization, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA.

    Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P. (1983), Organizational citizenship behavior: it natureand antecedents, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 653-63.

    Spector, P.E. (1994), Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: a comment on the use ofcontroversial method, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 385-92.

    Speier, C. and Frese, M. (1997), Generalized self-efficacy as a mediator and moderator betweencontrol and complexity at work and personal initiative: a longitudinal field study inEast-Germany, Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 171-92.

    Tucker, L.R. and Lewis, C. (1973), A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factoranalysis, Psychometrika, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 1-10.

    Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L. and McLean Parks, J. (1995), Extra-role behaviors: in pursuit ofconstruct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddled waters), Research inOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 215-85.

    Van Dyne, L. and LePine, J.A. (1998), Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence ofconstruct and predictive validity, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1,pp. 108-19.

    Van Dyne, L., VandeWalle, D., Kostova, T., Latham, M.E. and Cummings, L.L. (2000),Collectivism, propensity to trust and self-esteem as predictors of organizationalcitizenship in a non-work setting, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 1,pp. 3-23.

    Van Maanen, J. and Schein, E.H. (1979), Toward a theory of organizational socialization, inStaw, B.M. (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior,Vol. 1, Jai Press, Greenwich, CT,pp. 209-64.

    Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), Job satisfaction and organizational commitment aspredictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors, Journal of Management,Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 601-17.

    Witt, L.A. (1991), Exchange ideology as a moderator of job-attitudes-organizational citizenshipbehaviors relationships,Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 18, pp. 1490-501.

    JMP21,7

    636

    http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1207%2Fs15327043hup1002_2&isi=A1997WP67900003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1207%2Fs15327043hup1002_2&isi=A1997WP67900003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F2392023&isi=A1975AX37400006http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Fmnsc.25.9.833&isi=A1979JE97900003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014920638601200408&isi=A1986G162600007http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0003-066X.35.1.1http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.68.4.653&isi=A1983RQ07300017http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.4030150503&isi=A1994PJ50600001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1207%2Fs15327043hup1002_7&isi=A1997WP67900008http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2FBF02291170&isi=A1973P145300001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256902http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256902http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F%28SICI%291099-1379%28200002%2921%3A1%3C3%3A%3AAID-JOB47%3E3.0.CO%3B2-6&isi=000085496600002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014920639101700305&isi=A1991GG71000005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1559-1816.1991.tb00483.x&isi=A1991GK74000003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014920639101700305&isi=A1991GG71000005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.68.4.653&isi=A1983RQ07300017http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014920638601200408&isi=A1986G162600007http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1207%2Fs15327043hup1002_2&isi=A1997WP67900003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1207%2Fs15327043hup1002_2&isi=A1997WP67900003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2FBF02291170&isi=A1973P145300001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Fmnsc.25.9.833&isi=A1979JE97900003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F%28SICI%291099-1379%28200002%2921%3A1%3C3%3A%3AAID-JOB47%3E3.0.CO%3B2-6&isi=000085496600002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1207%2Fs15327043hup1002_7&isi=A1997WP67900008http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0003-066X.35.1.1http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1559-1816.1991.tb00483.x&isi=A1991GK74000003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F2392023&isi=A1975AX37400006http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F256902http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.4030150503&isi=A1994PJ50600001
  • 7/24/2019 Extra Role Behaviors Challenging Taking Charge

    19/20

    About the authorsDan S. Chiaburu performs evaluation and human capital-related work in Washington DC. Hisresearch to date appeared in theInternational Journal of Training and Development, theJournalof European Industrial Training, and the Journal of Social Psychology. Dan S. Chiaburu is the

    corresponding author and he can be contacted at: [email protected] L. Baker is a doctoral student in Higher Education Administration with a minor focus inManagement and Organization at The Pennsylvania State University. Her research interestsinclude the doctoral student experience, preparation of future faculty, professional identity, andmentoring. E-mail: [email protected]

    Extra-rolebehaviors

    637

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

  • 7/24/2019 Extra Role Behaviors Challenging Taking Charge

    20/20

    This article has been cited by:

    1. Mary Sue Love, Susan L. Dustin. 2014. An investigation of coworker relationships and psychologicalcollectivism on employee propensity to take charge. The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement25, 1208-1226. [CrossRef]

    2. Al-Karim Samnani, Sabrina Deutsch Salamon, Parbudyal Singh. 2014. Negative Affect andCounterproductive Workplace Behavior: The Moderating Role of Moral Disengagement and Gender.

    Journal of Business Ethics119, 235-244. [CrossRef]

    3. Katharina Tornau, Michael Frese. 2013. Construct Clean-Up in Proactivity Research: A Meta-Analysison the Nomological Net of Work-Related Proactivity Concepts and their Incremental Validities.AppliedPsychology62:10.1111/apps.2013.62.issue-1, 44-96. [CrossRef]

    4. Jixia Yang, Yaping Gong, Yuanyuan Huo. 2011. Proactive personality, social capital, helping, and turnoverintentions.Journal of Managerial Psychology26:8, 739-760. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

    5. Wm. Matthew Bowler, Jonathon R.B. Halbesleben, Jeff. R.B. Paul. 2010. If you're close with the leader,you must be a brownnose: The role of leadermember relationships in follower, leader, and coworker

    attributions of organizational citizenship behavior motives. Human Resource Management Review20,309-316. [CrossRef]

    6. Martin Gartmeier, Stefanie Hetzner, Hans Gruber, Helmut Heid. 2009. Fehlerorientierung undEigeninitiative im Bankensektor.Zeitschrift fr Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie A&O53, 149-162.[CrossRef]

    7. Dan S. Chiaburu, Audrey S. Lim. 2008. Manager Trustworthiness or Interactional Justice? PredictingOrganizational Citizenship Behaviors.JournalofBusiness Ethics83, 453-467. [CrossRef]

    8. Dan S. Chiaburu, Sophia V. Marinova, Audrey S. Lim. 2007. Helping and proactive extra-role behaviors:The influence of motives, goal orientation, and social context. Personality and Individual Differences43,2282-2293. [CrossRef]

    9. Adrian Furnham. 2007. Managerial psychology: stateoftheart.Journal of Managerial Psychology22:6,610-621. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940710778468http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/02683940710778468http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/02683940710778468http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/02683940710778468http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.07.007http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/02683940710778468http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/02683940710778468http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940710778468http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.07.007http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9631-xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089.53.4.149http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.04.001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/02683941111181806http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/02683941111181806http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941111181806http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00514.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1635-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.826712