Content uploaded by Laurent M. Lapierre
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Laurent M. Lapierre on Oct 06, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
Trait conscientiousness, leader-member
exchange, job satisfaction and organizational
citizenship behaviour: A test of an integrative
model
Laurent M. Lapierre
1
* and Rick D. Hackett
2
1
University of Ottawa, Canada
2
McMaster University, Canada
Competing theoretical models were tested, linking organizational citizenship behaviour
(OCB) to trait conscientiousness, job satisfaction and leader-member-exchange (LMX)
quality. Meta-analytic structural equation modelling results provide strongest support for
a model wherein more conscientious employees display more OCB, which enhances
LMX quality, leading to greater job satisfaction. In-turn, employees reciprocate their
higher job satisfaction by demonstrating more OCB. Beyond supporting the view that
OCB represents employee reciprocation for the satisfying job experiences typically
stemming from higher-quality LMX, our findings help to legitimize the notion that OCB
may be used, particularly by more conscientious employees, as a means of nurturing
higher-quality LMX and to gain access to more satisfying job experiences.
There are increasing pressures for organizations to be lean, dynamic, proactive, quick
responding, team-based, efficient, empowering and innovative. The recent attention
given by the business media to the harnessing of intellectual and social capital of
organizational members for competitive advantage (Bhagat, Ford, Jones, & Taylor, 2002)
underscores the growing importance of organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) for
organizational success (Bolino, Turnley, & Bloodgood, 2002). OCB includes behaviours
such as volunteering to help others at work, speaking favourably of one’s organization
and supervisor, making suggestions for workplace improvements, voluntarily putting in
extra hours to meet tight deadlines and sacrificing one’s own interests for the good of
the group or organization (Organ, 1997). Overall, OCB enhances the social and
psychological work environment in such a way that it supports task proficiency and can
increase group performance (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Walz & Niehoff, 2000).
Over the past 20 years, several scholars have studied potential determinants of OCB
to better understand how OCB might be increased. This impressive body of research has
* Correspondence should be addressed to Laurent M. Lapierre, University of Ottawa, Telfer School of Management,
136 Jean-Jacques Lussier Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada (e-mail: laurent.lapierre@uottawa.ca).
The
British
Psychological
Society
539
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2007), 80, 539–554
q2007 The British Psychological Society
www.bpsjournals.co.uk
DOI:10.1348/096317906X154892
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
led to meta-analyses that have revealed key dispositional, relational and attitudinal
correlates of OCB, namely trait conscientiousness (Borman, Penner, Allen, &
Motowidlo, 2001; LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995), leader-
member-exchange (LMX) quality (Hackett, Farh, Song, & Lapierre, 2003), and job
satisfaction (LePine et al., 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995), respectively. Moreover, meta-
analytic research identified job satisfaction as among the strongest correlates of LMX
quality (Gerstner & Day, 1997) and trait conscientiousness as the second strongest
correlate of job satisfaction among the big five personality traits, second only to
neuroticism (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). The fundamental goal of our research was
to integrate these four closely knit variables into a single, theoretically sound model and
further clarify why OCB is demonstrated more by some employees than by others.
A graphic depiction of our proposed model is presented in Figure 1.
Researchers have overwhelmingly positioned OCB as a consequence of higher LMX
quality and job satisfaction (e.g. Deluga, 1998; Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003;
Kemery, Bedeian, & Zakur, 1996; Kidwell, Mossholder, & Bennett, 1997; Kraimer,
Wayne, & Jaworski, 2001; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000; Moorman, 1991;
Organ & Lingl, 1995; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005).
Moreover, Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1993) argued and found that higher LMX quality
may enhance employee job satisfaction, which may then prompt the employee to
reciprocate by demonstrating OCB. While we do not refute this common view of OCB as
a means by which employees reciprocate positive work experiences (for a review, see
Bolino, Turnley, & Niehoff, 2004), we contribute to the extant OCB literature by
formally testing whether employees’ OCB may also serve to enhance LMX quality and
subsequently their job satisfaction. As such, we tested whether OCB may both lead to
and result from higher LMX quality and job satisfaction.
Our evaluation of whether OCB strengthens LMX quality contributes to the
emerging literature on followership. We wanted to ascertain the legitimacy of viewing
OCB as one way followers may influence the nature of the relationship they have with
their leader. As noted by Howell and Shamir (2005), while the LMX model of leadership
suggests that leaders as well as followers jointly influence the nature of their work
relationship, leadership research has tended to focus on behaviours demonstrated by
leaders, giving only lip service to the influence of followers.
Trait conscientiousness is included in our model to further clarify why meta-analytic
research has shown that employees scoring higher on this personality trait tend to
be more satisfied with their job and demonstrate OCB more frequently. Building upon
the suggestion that more conscientious employees are more satisfied at work
because they behave in ways that lead to more rewards, we sought to examine whether
more conscientious employees use OCB as a means of nurturing a higher quality LMX
relationship with their supervisor, which would theoretically lead to a more satisfying
job experience. Therefore, we considered the instrumental role of OCB by testing
whether it mediates the relationship between trait conscientiousness and LMX quality.
Figure 1. Proposed model.
540 Laurent M. Lapierre and Rick D. Hackett
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
To gauge the relative superiority of our proposed model, two alternative models
were tested as well. Alternative model 1 (A1) is based largely on suggestions made by
Organ and Ryan (1995), where OCB is positioned only as an outcome variable.
As such, it differs from our proposed model by (1) not allowing OCB to both
influence and result from LMX quality and job satisfaction; and by (2) not positioning
OCB as a mediator between trait conscientiousness and LMX quality. Alternative
model 2 (A2) is more similar to our proposed model than A1 in that it positions OCB
as both an antecedent and an outcome of LMX quality and job satisfaction. However,
like A1, it does not allow OCB to mediate the relationship between trait
conscientiousness and LMX quality. Testing these two alternative models enabled
us to assess the validity of the two key theoretical propositions inherent to our
central model.
Below is a more detailed description of the three models we tested, along with their
theoretical foundation. We begin with a consideration of the alternatives and then
describe our more comprehensive proposed model.
Model A1
Drawing on their meta-analysis of the OCB literature, Organ and Ryan (1995) proposed
that employee personality traits such as conscientiousness indirectly influence OCB
through employee affect. Job satisfaction would be one indicator of this affect. More
specifically, they argued that conscientiousness predisposes people to approach work
in ways that make favourable impressions upon others (e.g. managers, co-workers),
who then tend to treat them in satisfying ways (e.g. respect, privileges, trust). Their
job satisfaction is then expressed behaviourally through OCB. This suggests that the
behavioural disposition of conscientious employees nurtures social exchanges with
others, including their immediate supervisors, who are often well positioned to reward
them with special career- or job-enhancing privileges and opportunities. LMX quality
captures the perceived quality of the social exchange relationship between
subordinates and their immediate supervisors (Graen, 1976).
LMX theory holds that supervisors differentiate among their subordinates in the
amount of support, autonomy and career-growth opportunities they provide. Those in
higher quality LMX relationships typically receive preferential treatment, such as more
discretion and autonomy at work, as well as more challenging and important
responsibilities (Graen, 2003; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Lapierre, Hackett, & Taggar,
2006), resulting in increased job satisfaction (Schriesheim, Castro, Zhou, & Yammarino,
2001). Job satisfaction is both cognitively (Brief & Weiss, 2002) and affectively (Locke,
1976) based. Locke defined job satisfaction as ‘a pleasurable or positive emotional state
resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job’s experiences’ (p. 1304). Evaluation of
one’s job conditions is, to a large degree, a social comparison process; benchmarking
one’s own experiences against those of relevant others (Folger, 1986; Michalos, 1983). It
follows that subordinates in high-quality LMX relationships will experience higher levels
of job satisfaction because they receive preferential treatment as compared to their
counterparts in low-quality LMX relationships. In fact, social exchange – the central
mechanism underlying the LMX process – has included job satisfaction in its
conceptualization (Moorman & Harland, 2002). Consistent with this reasoning,
Gerstner and Day’s meta-analysis (1997) of the LMX literature showed that job
satisfaction is among the strongest of its correlates (r¼:50; second only to satisfaction
with the supervisor, r¼:71).
Conscientiousness, LMX, job satisfaction and OCB 541
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
The OCB literature is founded on the efforts to understand the myriad ways in which
job satisfaction is expressed behaviourally in the workplace (Motowidlo, 2000; Organ,
1997; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). From a social exchange theory perspective (Blau,
1964), OCB represents employee efforts to reciprocate the satisfying work experiences
provided by the organization or its agents (e.g. the supervisor). Job satisfaction is second
only to leader support in the magnitude of correlation with OCB (r¼:24 and r¼:32,
respectively; LePine et al., 2002).
Taken together, the above arguments suggest that conscientious employees nurture
higher-quality LMX relationships than their less conscientious counterparts, which win
them preferential treatment, resulting in higher job satisfaction, which is reciprocated
through increasing displays of OCB. This model is shown in Figure 2.
Model A1 also includes a direct path between trait conscientiousness and job
satisfaction. It is likely that more conscientious employees enjoy higher levels of job
satisfaction for reasons other than social exchange. For example, employees can often
determine their job performance level without feedback from supervisors or co-workers
(e.g. through direct task feedback; Hackman & Oldham, 1976, 1980). When employees
know they are doing their job well, their sense of self-worth and accomplishment is
likely to increase, thereby enhancing their job satisfaction (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, &
Patton, 2001). Accordingly, conscientious employees, who typically perform better at
work than their less conscientious counterparts (Barrick & Mount, 1991), are likely to
experience job satisfaction independently of the social exchange relationships they
cultivate at work.
Model A2
While Organ and Ryan (1995) described OCB as a behavioural manifestation of job
satisfaction, their conceptualization does not preclude OCB from also enhancing LMX
quality and subsequently, job satisfaction. Supervisors are more likely to invest in, and
develop higher quality relationships with subordinates they respect, trust and who
show commitment to unit objectives (Graen, 2003; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). This is
consistent with LMX theory (Uhl-Bien, Graen, & Scandura, 2000) and grounded in
social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). Subordinates who display OCB are likely to
convey to their supervisors a commitment to contribute beyond formally prescribed
role requirements for the benefit of their unit. In doing so, they are likely to make
a favourable impression, thereby cultivating high-quality LMX. In this sense, OCB is a
social currency that helps to nourish the social exchange relationship with the
supervisor.
Incorporating these arguments with those for Model A1, conscientious employees
are likely more apt than less conscientious employees to nurture high-quality LMX. As
employees in high-quality LMX relationships are typically given more interesting and
rewarding job experiences, they are more likely to experience higher levels of job
satisfaction, which prompts them to display more OCB. OCB, as a social currency,
Figure 2. Alternative model A1.
542 Laurent M. Lapierre and Rick D. Hackett
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
further nourishes the LMX relationship. This extended model, where OCB both
influences and is also an outcome of LMX, is depicted in Figure 3.
Our proposed model
Organ and Ryan (1995) did not elucidate the behavioural process through which the
personality of employees attracts favourable and satisfying treatment from supervisors.
Trait conscientiousness denotes the extent to which a person is purposeful, strong-
willed and determined, thereby reflecting a will to achieve (Digman & Takemoto-Chock,
1981). It reflects an innate motivation to behave in ways that brings individual success,
both off and on the job (Costa & McCrae, 1992). One potential means to achieving
success is to engage in OCB to benefit one’s supervisor, thereby nurturing LMX quality,
and attracting job- or career-enhancing opportunities. This ‘instrumentality’ perspective
of OCB (Hogan, Rybicki, Motowidlo, & Borman, 1998) has received empirical support.
Specifically, when employees expect their OCB to be rewarded, they are more likely to
display these behaviours (Haworth & Levy, 2001; Hui, Lam, & Law, 2000), which is in
line with expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964). As OCB is considered a discretionary part
of work roles and is founded on motivational disposition (Motowidlo & Van Scotter,
1994), more conscientious employees would be more motivated to display OCB as a
potential means of satisfying their personal need for achievement and success. In the
meta-analysis by Borman et al. (2001), conscientiousness was the strongest trait
correlate of OCB (where self-ratings of OCB were excluded).
This thinking is consistent with that of scholars who noted the overlap between OCB
and impression-management (e.g. Bolino, 1999; Eastman, 1994; Rioux & Penner, 2001)
and who suggest that OCB may not be only driven by a desire to help others or
reciprocate favourable treatment, but also by self-serving motives (e.g. a desire to secure
more satisfying job experiences) (Bolino et al., 2004).
By incorporating the above arguments with those underlying Models A1 and A2, we
propose a fully integrated model (see Figure 1) wherein OCB mediates the effect of trait
conscientiousness on LMX quality. LMX quality enhances job satisfaction, which further
increases OCB. As argued earlier, conscientious employees can experience higher levels
of job satisfaction without necessarily having to cultivate higher-quality LMX via OCB.
This is reflected in the path linking trait conscientiousness to job satisfaction. As our
proposed model is the most integrative of the three models and is most consistent with
extant theory, we hypothesized that it would yield the best fit to observed data.
We tested our models using meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MA-SEM).
Lauded and used as a powerful tool for theory testing (Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll,
Piasentin, & Jones, 2005; Hom, Caranikas-Walker, Prussia, & Griffeth, 1992; Hunter &
Schmidt, 2004; Tett & Meyer, 1993; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995), this method enabled us
to examine the relative fit of each model while helping to overcome limitations typically
associated with any single primary study, most notably sampling error and the
Figure 3. Alternative model A2.
Conscientiousness, LMX, job satisfaction and OCB 543
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
probability of committing a Type II error (rejecting a hypothesized path when it truly
exists). Also, by cumulating results across multiple studies to assess model fit and path
coefficient values, our results would less likely reflect the unique research procedure
and unknown particularities of any single study. To reduce common method bias, we
used data involving employee-provided ratings of trait conscientiousness, LMX quality
and job satisfaction, but used supervisor-provided ratings of OCB.
Method
The use of MA-SEM involves creating a matrix of meta-analytically derived zero order
correlations between each pair of variables included in the theoretical models to be
tested. This matrix is then used as input for SEM analyses.
SEM, which typically employs maximum likelihood parameter estimation, was
chosen over other analytic methods because two of the three models assessed are non-
recursive (i.e. contain a feedback loop) and because we wanted to compare the overall
fit of each model, all of which involve multiple dependent variables. Other commonly
used analytic methods, such as ordinary least squares multiple regression, which have
sometimes been applied to meta-analytic data (e.g. Lee, Carswell, & Allen, 2000) are not
appropriate for non-recursive models because they assume that errors are uncorrelated
and do not enable the researcher to compare the overall fit of competing models
involving multiple dependent variables.
Popular SEM statistical software packages, such as LISREL, AMOS and EQS, assume
that covariance matrices are used as input. Inputting a correlation matrix when the
software assumes the use of a covariance matrix can lead to incorrect results (Cudeck,
1989). Accordingly, we used SEPATH, a SEM program included in the Statistica 7.1
software package, which correctly analyses correlation matrices by implementing a
procedure pioneered by Mels (1989).
The correlations included in our input matrix met the following criteria: (a) All were
corrected for unreliability in both variables; (b) job satisfaction correlations exclusively
involved measures of overall job satisfaction; (c) correlations involving LMX were based
exclusively on subordinate ratings of LMX and (d) correlations involving OCB were
based exclusively on supervisory ratings of OCB. We focused on supervisory ratings of
OCB to reduce common method variance and to remain consistent with our
hypothesized model, wherein OCB affects LMX quality if the supervisor actually
observes this behaviour. Our matrix is presented in Table 1, along with the cumulative
sample size and number of independent samples associated with each correlation.
Many of the meta-analytic estimates in Table 1 were available from previous meta-
analytic work. The correlation between LMX quality and OCB was taken from Hackett
et al. (2003). The correlation between trait conscientiousness and job satisfaction was
taken from Judge et al. (2002). The correlation between LMX quality and job satisfaction
was taken from Gerstner and Day (1997). These three correlations met all relevant
inclusion criteria.
The correlation between trait conscientiousness and OCB was determined by
combining the meta-analytic work of LePine et al. (2002), which included all primary
studies used in Organ and Ryan’s (1995) meta-analysis, and that of Borman et al. (2001)
who published a separate meta-analysis of the conscientiousness-OCB correlation. To
ensure that all of our inclusion criteria were met, we redid the conscientiousness-OCB
meta-analysis using all primary studies used by Lepine et al. and Borman et al. while
544 Laurent M. Lapierre and Rick D. Hackett
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
excluding those correlations for which reliabilities had not been reported for either
conscientiousness or OCB, and for which supervisory ratings of OCB had not been used.
Also, when primary studies reported correlations between trait conscientiousness and
separate facets of OCB, we computed linear composites across the facets following the
procedure outlined by Hunter and Schmidt (1990) because of our interest in overall
OCB. Our decision to study overall OCB was premised on LePine et al.’s research
suggesting that OCB facets are imperfect, overlapping indicators of a latent overall OCB
construct. This effort yielded an average corrected correlation of .22 (z¼3:99,
p,:001) between trait conscientiousness and OCB.
The correlation between job satisfaction and OCB was based on the set of primary
studies used in LePine et al.’s (2002) meta-analysis, which provides the most
comprehensive quantitative review of this relationship to date. We redid their meta-
analysis after excluding studies that did not measure overall job satisfaction or did not
use supervisor-provided ratings of OCB. Also, when primary studies reported
correlations between job satisfaction and separate facets of OCB, we computed linear
composites across the facets. We found an average corrected correlation of .36
(z¼13:21, p,:001) between job satisfaction and OCB.
With regard to the relationship between trait conscientiousness and LMX quality,
there was no previous meta-analysis to serve as a basis for a useful estimate. To estimate
the average corrected correlation between these two variables, we conducted a search
of the PsychINFO database using the search terms ‘personality’, ‘conscientiousness’,
‘big five’, ‘LMX’ and ‘leader-member exchange’. We also contacted several LMX scholars
(Ronald Deluga, George Graen, Robert Liden, Terri Scandura, and Mary Uhl-Bien) to
determine if they were aware of any studies (published or otherwise) reporting this
correlation. Finally, we searched the reference sections of those studies we found. We
located seven studies representing eight independent samples, from which we derived
an average corrected correlation between trait conscientiousness and LMX (r¼:13;
z¼3:56, p,:001). Information on the seven primary studies is provided in Table 2.
Given the variance in cumulative sample sizes upon which each average corrected
correlation was based, we used the harmonic mean, rather than the arithmetic mean, of
the cumulative sample sizes associated with each entry in our matrix to compute the
standard errors of our parameter estimates (as recommended by Viswesvaran & Ones,
1995). The harmonic mean gives much less weight to substantially large individual
Table 1. Matrix of average corrected correlations used as input for SEM
1234
1. Trait conscientiousness 1.00
2. LMX quality .13 1.00
N¼1,708
k¼8
3. Job satisfaction .26 .50 1.00
N¼21,719 N¼6,887
k¼79 k¼33
4. OCB .22 .32 .36 1.00
N¼1,676 N¼3,311 N¼3,913
k¼7k¼15 k¼14
Note. Harmonic mean sample size ¼3;107; N¼total sample size associated with each correlation;
k¼number of independent samples associated with each correlation.
Conscientiousness, LMX, job satisfaction and OCB 545
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
Table 2. Primary studies used in meta-analysis of correlations between trait conscientiousness and LMX quality
Author(s) Sample size and description Conscientiousness measure and aLMX measure and aCorrelation
Bauer, Erdongan,
Liden, and Wayne
(2006)
N¼116; Executive employees in a Fortune 500
pharmaceutical organization
Saucier (1994); a¼:86 LMX-MDM (Liden &
Maslyn, 1998); a¼:90
.04
Deluga (1998) N¼125; Employed continuing education students NEO-FFI (Form S) (Costa &
McCrae, 1992); a¼:81
Information Exchange Scale
(Kozlowski & Doherty,
1989); a¼:88
.06
Hannan and Jimmieson
(2003)
N¼537; Elementary school teachers from
Southeast Queensland, Australia
John, Donahue, and Kentle
(1991); a¼:92
LMX-7 (Scandura & Graen,
1984); a¼:80
.05
Kraus (2002) N¼200; Elementary school classroom teachers International Personality Item Pool
(Goldberg, 1999); a¼:78
LMX-7; a¼:90 .21
Sears (2005) N¼136; Managers in the Canadian division of a
multinational security transportation firm
International Personality
Item Pool; a¼:77
LMX-7; a¼:93 .14
Smith (2003) N¼366; Employees from the Australian/
New Zealand division of an international
human capital services firm
CFI Personality Inventory (Smith &
Canger, 2002); a¼:80
LMX-7; a¼:90 .09
Vatanen (2003) Sample 1: N¼150; Chinese employees reporting
to a Chinese supervisor
Chinese version of Costa and
McCrae’s (1992)
NEO-PI-R; a¼:87
Chinese version
of LMX-7; a¼:89
.16
Sample 2: N¼78; Chinese employees reporting
to a non-Chinese (Western) supervisor
Chinese version of Costa and
McCrae’s (1992)
NEO-PI-R; a¼:87
Chinese version
of LMX-7; a¼:84
.43
546 Laurent M. Lapierre and Rick D. Hackett
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
cumulative sample sizes and therefore, enables more conservative testing than would
the arithmetic mean.
Results
As chi-squared tests are too sensitive for the discrepancies between model-implied and
observed covariance or correlation matrices when sample sizes are large (Kline, 1998),
we reported additional fit indices for each model. Following Kline’s recommendations,
we included (a) indices that describe the overall proportion of variance in the observed
correlation matrix that is explained by the model-implied correlation matrix, including
the Jo¨reskog-So¨rbom Goodness-of-fit Index (GFI), the Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index
(NFI) and the Bentler Comparative Fit Index (CFI); (b) the Bentler-Bonett Non-Normed
Fit Index (NNFI), an index that adjusts the proportion of variance explained for model
complexity and (c) the standardized root mean residual (SRMR), which is an index based
on the magnitude of standardized residuals. We also included the Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA), which is an alternative fit index that adjusts for model
complexity.
Table 3 provides the fit index values for each of the three models. Chi-squared
difference tests are used to assess the difference in fit between two hierarchically related
structural models. In our case, only Models A1 and A2 are hierarchically related to each
other. The chi-squared difference test revealed that Model A1 yields significantly poorer
fit than does Model A2 (Dx2¼76:63, df ¼1, p,:001). Remaining model comparisons
were done by examining the fit index values associated with each model.
With the exception of chi-squared test results, which have been shown to be too
sensitive where sample sizes are considered large, our findings indicate that our proposed
model is the only one to yield reasonable fit across all indices. Specifically, this model has
GFI, NFI, CFI and NNFI index values above the minimally accepted value of .90 (Hoyle,
1995; Kline, 1998), an SRMR value below the suggested upper limit of .10 (Kline, 1998)
and a RMSEA of .08, which indicates a reasonable error of approximation (Browne &
Cudeck, 1993). These results support our hypothesis that our proposed fully integrative
model is more consistent with observed data than either of the alternatives. The
standardized path coefficients associated with our model are presented in Figure 4.
Discussion
Implications for theory
We proposed and found empirical support for a causal model that integrates trait
conscientiousness, LMX quality, job satisfaction and OCB. Specifically, our findings are
consistent with a theoretical process wherein conscientious employees display OCB as a
Table 3. Fit index values associated with each SEM
Model x
2
df GFI NFI CFI NNFI SRMR RMSEA
A1 158.37 2 0.98 .91 .91 .72 .06 .16
A2 81.74 1 0.99 .95 .95 .71 .05 .16
Proposed 23.42 1 1.00 .99 .99 .92 .03 .08
Note. All chi-squared values are statistically significant at a pvalue of .001.
Conscientiousness, LMX, job satisfaction and OCB 547
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
means of enhancing the quality of the LMX relationship with their immediate supervisor.
The job- or career- enhancing opportunities typical of high-quality LMX relationships
heighten employees’ job satisfaction, which further prompts OCB. Our findings also
show a direct relationship between trait conscientiousness and job satisfaction,
suggesting that cultivating social exchange with the supervisor via OCB is not the only
explanation for this relationship.
Our study contributes to the literature by integrating key correlates of OCB into a
cogent, theoretically grounded model supported by meta-analytically derived data.
While previously published meta-analyses of OCB and its correlates have provided clues
on why some employees may engage in OCB more than others, these findings elucidate
rather narrow pieces of a bigger picture. Having tested and found support for our fully
integrated model, more of a systems perspective is provided that enhances
understanding of the processes involved.
LMX theoreticians have argued that followers can play a role in determining the
quality of the relationship with their leader (Graen, 2003; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
The influence that followers may have on the relationship has been given scant
empirical attention to date. Our findings contribute to this emerging literature in that
they are consistent with a process whereby employees’ OCB, viewed as a social
currency, nourishes LMX quality. Improvements in LMX quality enhance employees’
job satisfaction, giving rise to further OCB. This finding is consistent with the
dynamics of social exchange theory, which underlie the LMX process, and with
Howell and Shamir’s (2005) suggestion that followers who provide valuable resources
(in this case OCB) can enhance the quality of the relationship with their leader.
Nonetheless, we are the first to model this reciprocity. Positioning LMX quality or job
satisfaction solely as antecedent to OCB, without recognition of the non-recursive
nature of these relationships, presents a distorted and overly simplistic view of how
these variables are interrelated.
While our findings support the argument that more conscientious employees are
more likely to display OCB as a means of reciprocating the satisfying experiences
stemming from a higher quality LMX relationship, they are also consistent with the
notion that such employees are motivated to use OCB as a way of nurturing higher
quality LMX, thereby gaining access to more satisfying job experiences. This echoes
McCrae and Costa’s (1991) view that trait conscientiousness has an instrumental effect
on subjective well-being by facilitating more positive experiences in social or
achievement situations. Similarly, Hogan et al. (1998) argued that conscientious
employees view OCB as instrumental to receiving rewards at work (typically from their
immediate supervisor), which represent higher levels of job success. Our findings are
also in keeping with those of Hui et al. (2000) and Haworth and Levy (2001) who found
Figure 4. Standardized path coefficients associated with proposed model.
548 Laurent M. Lapierre and Rick D. Hackett
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
a positive association between employees’ perceptions of the instrumentality of OCB in
garnering work-related benefits (e.g. promotion) and their displays of OCB.
Practical implications
Our results underscore the relevance of trait conscientiousness to the workplace. In
addition to being a consistent and moderately strong predictor of task performance
(Salgado, 2002), it appears to play a role in developing work relationships and in finding
one’s job more generally satisfying, both of which appear to prompt OCB. In this regard,
the recommendation to include measures of conscientiousness among the battery of
assessments used to select individuals for jobs is reinforced. That is, trait
conscientiousness is generally and consistently associated with a range of positive
work outcomes (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Salgado, 2002).
As OCB appears useful to nurture a high-quality relationship with one’s supervisor
and to experience greater satisfaction at work, employment counsellors should educate
their clients on what benefits OCB can bring to them. That is, while much attention is
typically given to skills development and job training, with a singular focus on task
proficiency, the importance of OCB should also be underscored. Different types of OCB
can be taught and practiced, perhaps using a vignette approach where actual
behaviours and their consequences are studied in job-specific contexts. Such training
might be particularly helpful to the chronically unemployed or first-time labour force
entrants, including students graduating from high schools or from vocational programs.
As OCB explains a significant amount of variance in supervisors’ ratings of overall job
performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Hui, 1993),
learning about and demonstrating OCB is important to one’s success in the workplace.
A caveat to this suggestion is that employees should be mindful of potential problems
associated with demonstrating OCB at the expense of in-role or task performance
(Bolino et al., 2004). If OCB leads to inefficiencies because one’s time or energy should
instead have been devoted to critically needed task performance, then OCB may make
unfavourable impressions upon supervisors and co-workers.
While the findings of Podsakoff et al. (1993) suggest that supervisors do consider OCB
in ratings of the overall job performance of their employees, supervisors may still benefit
from training that underscores the importance of recognizing and acknowledging OCB,
with respect to building relationships and motivating further workplace citizenship
behaviours. They can benefit from an explicit reminder of the importance of reciprocity
in social exchanges for building relationships and motivating performance. Praising,
rewarding and developing their employees regularly in day-to-day social interactions
contrasts with the more typical once-a-year formal performance appraisal interview.
Strengths, limitations and suggestions for future research
Using MA-SEM enabled us to test our proposed model with less sampling error, more
statistical power and less weight given to the unique research procedure or
particularities associated with any single sample or research setting. Moreover, we
were able to reduce common method bias by only using correlations between
employee-provided ratings of conscientiousness, LMX quality, and job satisfaction, and
supervisor-provided ratings of OCB.
Despite these strengths, the meta-analytic data used for model testing were
cumulated across primary studies that used a cross-sectional research design. Thus, one
cannot draw causal conclusions from our findings. However, our proposed fully
Conscientiousness, LMX, job satisfaction and OCB 549
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
integrated model is more consistent with the pattern of cross-sectional correlations
reported throughout the literature than is either of the alternative models we assessed.
That is, while we can reject our alternative models on the basis of less than acceptable fit
index values, we cannot do the same for our proposed model.
Finally, while our study has further clarified the potential effect of subordinate trait
conscientiousness on OCB, our model did not account for individual differences among
supervisors. Considering the relevance of LMX quality to OCB and that supervisors’ as
well as subordinates’ personality may be salient to LMX development (Deluga, 1998),
researchers should study the joint impact of a broader range of personality traits among
supervisors as well as subordinates on OCB.
Conclusion
Scholars and practitioners have recognized OCB as a valuable form of employee
behaviour. Previous meta-analyses have identified the variables that are most strongly
correlated with OCB. We built upon these quantitative reviews by finding empirical
support for a theoretically grounded model that integrates OCB with its key
dispositional, relational and attitudinal correlates. In doing so, we have further
elucidated why these variables are interrelated, most notably providing evidence
suggesting that employees’ use of OCB may not only represent reciprocation for the
satisfaction resulting from a higher quality LMX relationship, but may also be used as a
means of achieving higher LMX quality and job satisfaction.
Acknowledgements
We thank Professor Peter Bycio of Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Catherine Connelly,
Chanquang Jiao
´, David Richards, and Kevin Tasa of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario for
their valuable comments on various versions of this manuscript.
References
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big 5 personality dimensions and job performance:
A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology,44, 1–26.
Bauer, T. N., Erdongan, B., Liden, R. C., & Wayne S. J. (2006). A longitudinal study of the
moderating role of extraversion: LMX, performance, and turnover during new executive
development. Journal of Applied Psychology 91, 298–310.
Bhagat, R. S., Ford, D. L., Jr., Jones, C. A., & Taylor, R. R. (2002). Knowledge management in global
organizations: Implications for international human resource management. Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management,21, 243–274.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Jossey Bass.
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors?
Academy of Management Review,24, 82–98.
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the creation of
social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review,27, 505–522.
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Niehoff, B. P. (2004). The other side of the store: Reexamining
prevailing assumptions about organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource
Management Review,14, 229–246.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The
meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance,10, 99–109.
550 Laurent M. Lapierre and Rick D. Hackett
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of
citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,9, 52–69.
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. In S. T. Fiske,
D. L. Schacter, & C. Zahn-Waxler (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 53, pp. 279–307).
Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen &
J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones, D. A. (2005). Applicant
attraction to organizations and job choice: A meta-analytic review of the correlates of
recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology,90, 928–944.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Cudeck, R. (1989). Analysis of correlations matrices using covariance structure models.
Psychological Bulletin,105, 317–327.
Deluga, R. J. (1998). Leader-member exchange quality and effectiveness ratings: The role of
subordinate-supervisor conscientiousness similarity. Group and Organization Management,
23, 189–216.
Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality: Re-
analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral
Research,16, 149–170.
Eastman, K. K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder. An attributional approach to ingratiation and
organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal,37, 1379–1391.
Folger, R. (1986). Rethinking equity theory. In H. W. Bierhof, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.),
Justice in social relations (pp. 145–162). New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory:
Correlates and construct issues. Journal of Applied Psychology,82, 827–844.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). International Personality Item Pool. http://ipip.ori.org/ipip/.
Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette
(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201–1245). Chicago:
Rand-McNally.
Graen, G. B. (2003). Role making onto the starting work team using LMX leadership: Diversity as
an asset. In G. B. Graen (Ed.), LMX leadership: The series (Vol. 1, pp. 1–28). Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of
leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level
multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly,6, 219–247.
Hackett, R. D., Farh, J. L., Song, L. J., & Lapierre, L. M. (2003). LMX and organizational citizenship
behavior: Examining links within and across Western and Chinese samples. In G. B. Graen
(Ed.), LMX leadership: The series (Vol. 1, pp. 219–264). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,16, 250–279.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hannan, R. L., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2003). [The impact of individual and organizational
characteristics on organizational citizenship behavior and job burnout among elementary
school teachers]. Unpublished raw data.
Haworth, C. L., & Levy, P. E. (2001). The importance of instrumentality beliefs in the prediction of
organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior,59, 64–75.
Hofmann, D. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Gerras, S. J. (2003). Climate as a moderator of the relationship
between leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship: Safety climate as an
exemplar. Journal of Applied Psychology,88, 170–178.
Conscientiousness, LMX, job satisfaction and OCB 551
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
Hogan, J., Rybicki, S. L., Motowidlo, S. J., & Borman, W. C. (1998). Relations between contextual
performance, personality and occupational advancement. Human Performance,11,
189–207.
Hom, P. W., Caranikas-Walker, F., Prussia, G. E., & Griffeth, R. W. (1992). A meta-analytical structural
equations analysis of a model of employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology,77,
890–909.
Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process:
Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review,30, 96–112.
Hoyle, R. H. (1995). The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental
issues. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications
(pp. 1–15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hui, C., Lam, S. K., & Law, K. S. (2000). Instrumental values of organizational citizenship behavior
for promotion: A quasi-field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology,85, 822–828.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in
research findings. London: Sage.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in
research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The big five revisited.
Journal of Applied Psychology,85, 869–879.
John, O., Donahue, E., & Kentle, R. (1991). The big five inventory: Versions 4a and 5a (Tech.
Rep.). Berkeley: Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,87, 530–541.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction - job
performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied
Psychology,127, 376–407.
Kemery, E. R., Bedeian, A. G., & Zakur, S. R. (1996). Expectancy-based job cognitions and job affect
as predictors or organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
26, 635–651.
Kidwell, R. E., Jr., Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesiveness and organizational
citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals. Journal of
Management,23, 775–793.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Kozlowski, S., & Doherty, M. L. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: Examination of a
neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology,74, 546–553.
Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., & Jaworski, R. A. (2001). Sources of support and expatriate
performance: The mediating role of expatriate adjustment. Personnel Psychology,54, 71–99.
Kraus, E. (2002). Personality and job performance: The mediating roles of leader-member
exchange and action control. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida International
University, Miami, FL.
Lapierre, L. M., Hackett, R. D., & Taggar, S. (2006). A test of the links between family interference
with work, job enrichment and leader-member exchange. Applied Psychology: An
International Review,55, 489–511.
Lee, K., Carswell, J. J., & Allen, N. J. (2000). A meta-analytic review of occupational commitment:
Relations with person- and work-related variables. Journal of Applied Psychology,85,
799–811.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational
citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,87,
52–65.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical
assessment through scale development. Journal of Management,24, 43–72.
552 Laurent M. Lapierre and Rick D. Hackett
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1343). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social
exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships.
Academy of Management Journal,43, 738–748.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adding liebe und arbeit: The full five-factor model and well-
being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,17, 227–232.
Mels, G. (1989). A general system for path analysis with latent variables. Unpublished master’s
thesis, University of South Africa, South Africa.
Michalos, A. C. (1983). Satisfaction and happiness in a rural northern resource community. Social
Indicators Research,13, 224–252.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence organizational citizenship? Journal
of Applied Psychology,76, 845–855.
Moorman, R. H., & Harland, L. K. (2002). Temporary employees as good citizens: Factors
influencing their OCB performance. Journal of Business and Psychology,17, 171–187.
Motowidlo, S. J. (2000). Some basic issues related to contextual performance and organizational
citizenship behavior in human resource management. Human Resource Management
Review,10, 115–126.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,79, 475–480.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human
Performance,10, 85–97.
Organ, D. W., & Lingl, A. (1995). Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior.
Journal of Social Psychology,135, 339–350.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors
of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology,48, 775–782.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1993). Citizenship behaviors and managerial evaluations of
employee performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal,6, 257–268.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit
effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research,31, 351–363.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Hui, C. (1993). Organizational citizenship behaviors and
managerial evaluations of employee performance: A review and suggestions for future
research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,11, 1–40.
Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior:
A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,86, 1306–1314.
Salgado, J. (2002). The Big Five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment,10, 117–125.
Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar big-five markers. Journal
of Personality Assessment,63, 506–516.
Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status
on the effects of leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology,69, 428–436.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., Zhou, X. T., & Yammarino, F. J. (2001). The folly of theorizing ‘A’
but testing ‘B’: A selective level-of-analysis review of the field and a detailed leader-member-
exchange illustration. Leadership Quarterly,12, 515–551.
Sears, G. J. (2005). The dispositional antecedents of leader-member exchange and
organizational citizenship behavior: A process perspective. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and
antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology,6, 653–663.
Smith, M. A. (2003). Effects of subordinate-supervisor personality ‘fit’ on subordinate attitudes
and turnover. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
Conscientiousness, LMX, job satisfaction and OCB 553
Copyright © The British Psychological Society
Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society
Smith, M. A., & Canger, J. M. (2002). CFI personality inventory: Professional manual (2nd ed.).
Tampa, FL: Hudson Human Capital Solutions.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention,
and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology,46,
259–293.
Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (2000). Implications of leader-member exchange
(LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: Relationships as social capital for
competitive advantage. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,18,
137–185.
Vatanen, A. (2003). Leader-follow relations in an intercultural Chinese context. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration, Helsinki,
Finland.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and
structural equation modeling. Personnel Psychology,48, 865–885.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Walz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Their relationship to
organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research,24, 301–319.
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a
mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance
and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal,48, 420–432.
Received 15 May 2005; revised version received 9 July 2006
554 Laurent M. Lapierre and Rick D. Hackett
