A sample of my literature review

Study #1: Extra-role behaviors: job satisfaction, efficacy and multiple dimensions

The first study was by researchers in Israel who looked at the components of extra-role behavior (ERB) and the correlational relationship between ERB and three variables: job satisfaction, self-efficacy, and collective efficacy. The researchers defined extra-role behavior for the purposes of their study as,
"those behaviors that go beyond specified role requirements, and
are directed towards the individual, the group, or the organization as a unit,
in order to promote organizational goals." (Somech & Zahavy, 2000, p.650)

The sampling frame was elementary school teachers in northern Israel. Questionnaires were distributed to 375 teachers from 13 different elementary schools, of which 251 were returned to yield a response rate of 67%.

To develop a measure of extra-role behavior, they conducted a semi-structured interview of five principals and 25 teachers who were asked to list behaviors, outside of formal role requirements, that teachers exhibit to benefit of the student, their team or the school unit. The 60 items produced from this process were validated by teachers who were involved in a management-training program. The list was reduced in this way and then through factor analysis, it was organized into three subscales of eight items each, which measured ERB toward the student, towards the team, and towards the organization.

To measure the variables of job satisfaction, self-efficacy, and collective efficacy, three additional scales based on prior research were adapted for use with teachers. All three of these measures had respondents indicating their agreement or disagreement with the test items using a five- or seven-point Likert scale.

To test the first hypothesis regarding the components of ERB, the researchers performed a factor analysis which yielded three separate factors of ERB. First, the Factor 1 dimension included behaviors that were geared towards helping other teachers and so was recognized as ERB towards team members. Factor 2 behaviors were generally identified as those that were aimed at improving conditions for the school as a unit and so was terms ERB towards the organization. Factor 3 consisted of behaviors intended to improve student performance or the quality of the teaching. It was termed ERB towards the student.

Correlation analysis was used to test the other hypotheses regarding the relationship between job satisfaction, self-efficacy, and collective efficacy and each of the three levels of ERB (team, organization, student). A positive and significant relationship was found between teacher satisfaction and ERB at all three levels. Self-efficacy and ERB towards the team and the organization were also found to be correlated but there was no relationship proven between self-efficacy and ERB towards the student. There was a positive and significant relationship found between collective efficacy and ERB towards the team, but no relationship between collective efficacy and ERB towards the organization or the student.

The results of the factor analysis support the discussion of ERB as multidimensional. The extent to which the three different variables were or were not correlated to the various levels of ERB further support this. All together, the research suggests that formal efforts to increase the levels of job satisfaction, self-efficacy or collective efficacy will have varying impacts on levels and types of extra-role behaviors.

Study #2 – Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Pay-for-Performance plans

This study addressed whether there was an unintended negative interaction between pay-for-performance plans designed to reward and encourage certain in-role behaviors and those behaviors that are not formally rewarded or controlled through job descriptions but which yield value to the organization. Also, the researchers looked to identify whether the degree of interest alignment between the employer and the employee moderated the impact of pay-for-performance plans on those organizational citizenship, or extra-role, behaviors.

The sampling frame was employees in certain benchmark jobs and their supervisors, from eight different utility companies across the United States. The supervisors of the benchmark jobs in each company were chosen first and then asked to randomly select up to 10 subordinates who were then surveyed about attitudes towards the job and the work organization (n = 660). The sample was further culled by matching to supervisor responses and confirmation of their participation in a pay-for–performance plan. The subsample remaining consisted of 146 employees.

The survey issued to participants included items from several pre-existing measures of organizational citizenship behaviors, value alignment, and procedural justice, as well as items developed purposely to measure the employee’s perception of the link between performance and pay.

A regression analysis allowed the researchers to determine the extent to which the effect of the pay-for-performance link on OCB was influenced by the employee’s value commitment. It was found that if the employees are not aligned with the organization, their level of OCB will be lower as they perceive a stronger link between their performance and their pay. Similarly, if the employee is committed to the organization, their OCB will increase as the pay:performance link is stronger. Procedural justice was found to be a significant predictor of OCB.

This research is valuable in indicating that pay-for-performance plans will not necessarily negatively affect the level of organizational citizenship behavior displayed by the employee. In fact, if the employee and organization are “mutually invested”, employees may actually increase their OCB in response to the organization’s commitment to reward performance with pay.

On the topic of validity, both studies described limitations of their research and results. First, the measures utilized in both were either specially designed for the purpose or adapted from different pre-existing measures. There was no significant discussion in either of the studies that the survey items were themselves validated. Second, although relationships between variables and OCB were evidenced, there was no testing of the directionality of the effects. Finally, both studies used only self-reports of behavior and attitude. Again, this means that the results indicate relationships but only from the perspective of one source type. Therefore, the results of both studies are not generalizable and so much less useful in pointing a clear and convincing way forward on specific policy or program changes that can be implemented to increase or protect OCB.

References:

Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in schools: The relationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teachers’ extra-role behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5-6), 649-659. DOI: 10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00012-3

Deckop, J. R., Mangel, R., & Cirka, C. C. (1999). Research notes. getting more than you pay for: Organizational citizenship behavior and pay-for-performance plans. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 420-428.