Content uploaded by David M. Mayer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David M. Mayer
Content may be subject to copyright.
Good Soldiers and Good Actors: Prosocial and Impression Management
Motives as Interactive Predictors of Affiliative Citizenship Behaviors
Adam M. Grant
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
David M. Mayer
University of Central Florida
Researchers have discovered inconsistent relationships between prosocial motives and citizenship be-
haviors. We draw on impression management theory to propose that impression management motives
strengthen the association between prosocial motives and affiliative citizenship by encouraging employ-
ees to express citizenship in ways that both “do good” and “look good.” We report 2 studies that examine
the interactions of prosocial and impression management motives as predictors of affiliative citizenship
using multisource data from 2 different field samples. Across the 2 studies, we find positive interactions
between prosocial and impression management motives as predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors
directed toward other people (helping and courtesy) and the organization (initiative). Study 2 also shows
that only prosocial motives predict voice—a challenging citizenship behavior. Our results suggest that
employees who are both good soldiers and good actors are most likely to emerge as good citizens in
promoting the status quo.
Keywords: organizational citizenship behavior, prosocial motives, impression management motives,
affiliative citizenship, challenging citizenship
Organizational citizenship behavior is a critical concern for both
scholars and practitioners. Citizenship describes efforts by em-
ployees to take initiative to contribute in ways that are not formally
required by the organization (C. A. Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983).
More than 4 decades have passed since researchers proposed that
employees can advance group, organizational, and personal effec-
tiveness by engaging in citizenship behaviors such as helping
coworkers, protecting the organization, making constructive sug-
gestions, developing oneself, and spreading goodwill (Katz, 1964;
Katz & Kahn, 1966). In recent years, extensive research has
supported this core proposition. At collective levels, groups and
organizations with employees who engage in high levels of citi-
zenship achieve higher performance quality, performance quantity,
and customer satisfaction (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004; Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). At the individual level,
employees who engage in citizenship by taking initiative to con-
tribute to other people and the organization earn higher supervisor
performance evaluations (e.g., MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter,
1991, 1993; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994) and more awards
and promotions (e.g., Van Scotter, Motowidlo, & Cross, 2000).
In light of these benefits of citizenship to organizations and their
employees, scholars have devoted considerable effort to under-
standing the causes of citizenship behaviors. Scholars have often
assumed that citizenship behaviors are driven by prosocial mo-
tives. From this perspective, citizenship is undertaken by “good
soldiers” seeking to help other people and the organization (Bate-
man & Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988). Indeed, across a number of
studies, researchers have found that citizenship behavior is pre-
dicted by prosocial motives (Rioux & Penner, 2001) and related
other-serving traits and values such as concern for others and
empathy (Joireman, Kamdar, Daniels, & Duell, 2006; Kamdar,
McAllister, & Turban, 2006; McNeely & Meglino, 1994; Settoon
& Mossholder, 2002), duty (Moon, Kamdar, Mayer, & Takeuchi,
2008), collectivism (Moorman & Blakely, 1995), the prosocial
personality (Penner, Midili, & Kegelmeyer, 1997), agreeableness
and conscientiousness (Ilies, Scott, & Judge, 2006; King, George,
& Hebl, 2005), and other-orientation (Meglino & Korsgaard,
2004). However, other studies have revealed equivocal results
about the role of prosocial motives in citizenship behaviors. For
example, two different studies found that empathy did not signif-
icantly predict citizenship behaviors (Anderson & Williams, 1996;
Ladd & Henry, 2000), and Konovsky and Organ (1996) found that
neither benevolence nor agreeableness significantly predicted su-
pervisor ratings of citizenship behaviors. Similarly, two meta-
analyses have returned null and weak effects for agreeableness and
conscientiousness as predictors of supervisor and coworker ratings
of different forms of citizenship behavior (Organ & Ryan, 1995;
Podsakoff et al., 2000). These conflicting findings suggest that
there may be undetected moderators of the relationship between
prosocial motives and citizenship behaviors, highlighting the im-
portance of gaining a deeper understanding of the conditions under
which prosocial motives predict citizenship behaviors.
In this article, we seek to resolve these inconsistent results by
developing and testing a contingency perspective on the relation-
Adam M. Grant, Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill; David M. Mayer, Department of Management,
College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida.
We thank Matt Bowler, Jeff Edwards, Noah Eisenkraft, Joshua Margo-
lis, and Sharon Parker for “good citizen” advice and conversations about
our ideas. For assistance with data collection, we thank Jamie Freese,
Rebecca Greenbaum, Maribeth Kuenzi, Susan Lerch, Priya Raghavan, and
Justine Silver.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Adam M.
Grant, Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, Campus Box 3490, McColl Building, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-
3490. E-mail: agrant@unc.edu
Journal of Applied Psychology © 2009 American Psychological Association
2009, Vol. 94, No. 4, 900–912 0021-9010/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0013770
900
ship between prosocial motives and citizenship behaviors. We
draw on theories of impression management (e.g., Bolino, 1999) to
propose that individuals with prosocial motives will engage in
higher levels of affiliative forms of citizenship when they also hold
impression management motives. From this perspective, strong
impression management motives may encourage employees with
prosocial motives to avoid expressing their feelings of concern and
empathy in risky forms of citizenship, such as voicing problems in
ways that threaten supervisors or challenge the status quo. Thus,
impression management motives may lead employees with proso-
cial motives to channel their feelings of concern and empathy
toward contributing in ways that are both socially and personally
beneficial. We examine prosocial and impression management
motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behav-
iors across two studies using field samples with multisource data.
Our results extend existing knowledge about the motivational
forces that drive citizenship behaviors.
Motives and Citizenship Behavior
Citizenship behaviors are discretionary contributory actions that
are not explicitly rewarded by organizations but nonetheless en-
hance their effectiveness (Organ, 1988). Researchers have argued
that citizenship behaviors can be classified into two different
categories: affiliative versus challenging (Van Dyne, Cummings,
& McLean Parks, 1995). Affiliative citizenship behaviors are ac-
tions directed toward maintaining the status quo by promoting and
supporting existing work processes and relationships (Van Dyne et
al., 1995). Affiliative citizenship behaviors include helping col-
leagues, showing courtesy toward others, and taking initiative to
work additional hours (Van Dyne et al., 1995). Challenging citi-
zenship behaviors are actions directed toward changing the status
quo by questioning and improving upon existing work processes
and relationships (Van Dyne et al., 1995). Challenging citizenship
behaviors include voicing problems (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998),
selling issues (Ashford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998), and
taking charge to implement constructive changes to work methods
(Bettencourt, 2004; Choi, 2007; Frese & Fay, 2001; Morrison &
Phelps, 1999). Research has shown that both affiliative and chal-
lenging forms of citizenship behaviors can contribute to effective
outcomes in organizations (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 2000; Van Dyne
& LePine, 1998). In the following sections, we consider how
prosocial and impression management motives are likely to relate
to both affiliative and challenging citizenship behaviors.
Motivational perspectives on citizenship behavior have become
increasingly popular among organizational scholars and applied
psychologists (Borman & Penner, 2001; Hanson & Borman, 2006;
Organ, 1990). The central premise behind these motivational per-
spectives is that to understand the emergence of citizenship be-
havior, it is critical to examine the reasons that guide the decision
to engage in this behavior, as these reasons shed light on why
employees enact citizenship (Penner et al., 1997).
As noted previously, considerable research has linked citizen-
ship behaviors to prosocial motives, or desires to benefit other
people (Rioux & Penner, 2001). Researchers have identified at
least three different mechanisms through which prosocial motives
may increase the likelihood of citizenship behavior. First, employ-
ees with prosocial motives tend to focus their attention outwardly
rather than inwardly, which increases the chances that they will
recognize opportunities for contributing to other people and their
organizations (Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004). Second, employees
with prosocial motives tend to place greater value on and feel more
responsible for improving the welfare of other people and organi-
zations, which increases the chances that they will feel committed
to engaging in citizenship behavior (Grant, 2007, 2008; Ilies et al.,
2006). Third, because employees with prosocial motives are con-
cerned with the welfare of other people and the organization, they
are often willing to subordinate their own interests to contribute
(Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004; Moon et
al., 2008). We therefore hypothesize that prosocial motives will
predict higher levels of both affiliative and challenging forms of
citizenship behavior. Employees with prosocial motives will be
more likely to recognize and act on opportunities to engage in
affiliative forms of citizenship, such as helping and courtesy, as
well as challenging forms of citizenship such as voice.
Hypothesis 1a: The stronger the employee’s prosocial mo-
tives, the greater the employee’s level of affiliative citizen-
ship behaviors.
Hypothesis 1b: The stronger the employee’s prosocial mo-
tives, the greater the employee’s level of challenging citizen-
ship behaviors.
In the past decade, a second motivational perspective on citi-
zenship behavior has emerged. Bolino (1999) argued that affilia-
tive citizenship is often undertaken not only by “good soldiers”
attempting to help other people and their organizations but also by
“good actors” attempting to create favorable images in the eyes of
others. From this perspective, employees engage in citizenship at
strategic times and in strategic ways to bolster their reputations as
helpful, capable contributors (Deutsch Salamon & Deutsch, 2006).
Indeed, Flynn (2003) found that employees who engage in more
frequent citizenship behaviors earn higher levels of social status
from their peers. Several other studies have demonstrated that
some forms of citizenship behavior are predicted by impression
management motives, such as image enhancement (Finkelstein,
2006; Yun, Takeuchi, & Liu, 2007) and ingratiation and status
enhancement (Bowler & Brass, 2006; Eastman, 1994; Snell &
Wong, 2007). However, other studies have returned mixed results
about the association between impression management motives
and citizenship behavior. For example, Rioux and Penner (2001)
found that impression management motives explained incremental
variance in sportsmanship behaviors but not in four other citizen-
ship behaviors of helping, courtesy, civic virtue, or initiative.
These conflicting findings highlight the potential value of re-
considering the role of impression management motives in
citizenship behaviors.
The Interaction of Prosocial and Impression
Management Motives
We conceptualize impression management motives as a moder-
ator of the effects of prosocial motives on affiliative citizenship
behaviors, rather than as an independent predictor of these behav-
iors. In past studies, researchers have treated prosocial and impres-
sion management motives as separate reasons that drive citizen-
ship behaviors for different employees. Indeed, Rioux and
901
GOOD SOLDIERS AND GOOD ACTORS
Penner’s (2001) results suggest that some employees hold proso-
cial motives that drive them to engage in citizenship to help other
people and the organization, whereas other employees hold im-
pression management motives that drive them to engage in citi-
zenship to help their own images. Consistent with this perspective,
psychologists have long assumed that self-serving and other-
serving motives are bipolar opposites. Personality psychologists
have spent 3 decades developing a framework of basic values that
pits self-enhancing values of power, achievement, security, and
hedonism against self-transcending values of benevolence and
universalism (Schwartz, 1992). Social psychologists have devoted
more than 3 decades to a conceptual and empirical debate about
whether helping behavior is ultimately egoistic or altruistic (Bat-
son, 1987, 1990, 1998; Batson et al., 1997; Cialdini, Brown,
Lewis, Luce, & Neuberg, 1997; Cialdini et al., 1987; for a review,
see Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin, & Schroeder, 2005). Organizational
psychologists have proposed that employees differ reliably in their
dispositional orientations toward rational self-interest versus other-
orientation (Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004). Together, these perspec-
tives imply that prosocial and impression management motives are
opposing poles of a continuum of other-serving versus self-serving
motivation.
Conversely, others have argued that self-serving and other-
serving motives may coexist. Although his article on citizenship
and impression management provocatively raised the question of
whether citizens are good soldiers or good actors, Bolino (1999, p.
83) noted that “it is likely that individuals’ motives generally are
mixed.” This notion can be traced to Adam Smith, the father of
modern economics, who wrote more than 300 years ago,
How selfish soever man may be supposed there are evidently some
principles in his nature which interest him in the fortunes of others,
and render their happiness necessary to him, although he derives
nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. (A. Smith, 1759/
1976, p. 47)
In line with Adam Smith’s perspective, organizational scholars
have begun to question whether prosocial and impression manage-
ment motives are mutually exclusive. Recently, De Dreu (2006)
asserted that other-concern and self-concern are independent traits
and states, suggesting that employees can vary independently in
prosocial and impression management motives (see also Meglino
& Korsgaard, 2006). Indeed, rather than finding a negative corre-
lation between prosocial and impression management motives,
Rioux and Penner’s (2001) study of city government employees
showed a positive correlation (r⫽.34) between prosocial and
impression management motives.
Taken together, these emerging viewpoints suggest that there is
value in adopting a mixed-motive perspective on citizenship be-
havior. We propose that an examination of the interaction of
prosocial and impression management motives has the potential to
illuminate the aforementioned inconsistent findings regarding the
relationship between prosocial motives and citizenship behavior.
As noted previously, research suggests that employees with proso-
cial motives are more likely to engage in “self-sacrificing” behav-
iors, subordinating their own needs to the concerns of others (e.g.,
Barry & Friedman, 1998; Meglino & Korsgaard, 2004; Omoto &
Snyder, 1995). These findings indicate that prosocial motives may
be a double-edged sword, predisposing employees toward engag-
ing in forms of citizenship that take reputational risks. For exam-
ple, employees with prosocial motives may be likely to voice and
sell an important issue facing the organization when they recog-
nize a need, overlooking the reputational costs of threatening
supervisors and coworkers.
However, we propose that impression management motives will
encourage employees to express their prosocial motives in affili-
ative forms of citizenship, such as helping, courtesy, and initiative.
Impression management theory and research suggests that when
employees have strong impression management motives, they are
careful to avoid creating a negative image in the eyes of others
(Jones & Pittman, 1982; Leary & Kowalski, 1990). As such, we
expect that employees with strong prosocial and impression man-
agement motives will tend to engage in affiliative citizenship
behaviors that benefit other people and the organization without
jeopardizing their own reputations. Indeed, in lifespan develop-
mental psychology research, McAdams and de St. Aubin (1992)
proposed and found that individuals are able to simultaneously
fulfill prosocial and impression management motives by contrib-
uting in ways that both help others and strengthen their own
reputations. Thus, employees with strong prosocial and impression
management motives are likely to gravitate toward citizenship
behaviors that simultaneously “do good” and “look good”—
actions that are beneficial to others and themselves (Grant, 2008;
Sheldon, Arndt, & Houser-Marko, 2003). Because affiliative citi-
zenship behaviors such as helping, courtesy, and initiative contrib-
ute to maintaining the status quo, they are likely to benefit other
people and the organization without threatening employees’ im-
ages. For these reasons, we hypothesize that impression manage-
ment motives will strengthen the positive association between
prosocial motives and affiliative citizenship behaviors.
Hypothesis 2: Impression management motives strengthen
the positive relationship between prosocial motives and af-
filiative citizenship behaviors.
In contrast, we expect that impression management motives will
be less likely to strengthen the association between prosocial
motives and challenging citizenship behaviors. Impression man-
agement is a subset of organizational politics, and engaging in
challenging behaviors can be politically risky (Ferris, Bhawuk,
Fedor, & Judge, 1995; Ferris, Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons,
1994; Fuller, Barnett, Hester, Relyea, & Frey, 2007). Challenging
citizenship behaviors such as voice and taking charge run the risk
of harming employees’ reputations by “rocking the boat” and
threatening supervisors and coworkers (Ashford et al., 1998; Frese
& Fay, 2001; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Grant, Parker, & Collins, in
press; Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Parker, Williams, & Turner,
2006). Thus, impression management motives are likely to guide
employees to express their prosocial motives in affiliative, rather
than challenging, forms of citizenship. Accordingly, we expect that
impression management motives will be more likely to encourage
employees with prosocial motives to engage in affiliative forms of
citizenship than challenging forms of citizenship.
Overview of the Present Research
We test our hypotheses across two field studies. In both studies,
employees provided self-reports of their prosocial and impression
management motives, and observers provided ratings of employ-
902 GRANT AND MAYER
ees’ citizenship behaviors. In Study 1, we use data from two
nonprofit organizations to predict supervisor ratings of affiliative
interpersonal citizenship behaviors. In Study 2, we sample a
broader pool of organizations. We shift our consideration of the
criterion domain to focus on initiative as a form of affiliative
citizenship that is directed toward benefiting the organization
rather than coworkers, and we also examine voice as a form of
challenging citizenship.
Study 1
Method
Participants and Procedures
Participants in this study were 114 paid employees and their 114
direct supervisors at two nonprofit organizations in the midwestern
United States. The missions of both nonprofit organizations fo-
cused on protecting the health and safety of children. One orga-
nization was dedicated to protecting the health of children in
life-threatening medical situations, and the other organization was
dedicated to protecting the safety of children in life-threatening
physical situations. Across the two organizations, participants
were 77% female with an average age of 29.84 years (SD ⫽13.99)
and an average tenure of 2.96 years of experience with their
employing organization (SD ⫽55.60). We recruited participants
by sending electronic messages for managers to forward and by
visiting the organizations in person. The response rates were 35%
(60/171) in the first organization and 100% (54/54) in the second
organization. After participants completed our survey of citizen-
ship motives, we distributed paper surveys to their direct supervi-
sors and also sent links to the supervisors by e-mail. We assured all
respondents of confidentiality. Employees completed measures of
their citizenship motives, and supervisors provided ratings of each
employee’s affiliative citizenship behaviors. In this study, to cap-
ture affiliative citizenship behaviors, we focused on interpersonal
citizenship, emphasizing actions directed toward helping and
showing courtesy to colleagues.
Measures
Citizenship motives. We introduced the measures of citizen-
ship motives with a statement adapted from Rioux and Penner
(2001) that described affiliative citizenship behaviors in lay terms.
“Oftentimes, employees engage in discretionary behaviors that are
not directly or explicitly recognized by the organization’s formal
reward system, even though such behaviors do promote the effec-
tive functioning of the organization. By discretionary, we mean
that the behavior is not an enforceable requirement of the employ-
ees’ role or job description. The behavior is rather a matter of
personal choice.” We then described several examples of helping
and courtesy and asked employees to rate how important each of
the following motives were to their decisions to engage in affili-
ative citizenship behaviors (1 ⫽not at all like me,7⫽very much
like me). We measured prosocial citizenship motives with the
four-item scale developed by Grant (2008), which includes items
such as “Because I want to have positive impact on others” and
“Because I want to help others through my work” (␣⫽.94). We
measured impression management citizenship motives with the
ten-item scale developed by Rioux and Penner, which includes
items such as “To look better than my coworkers” and “To impress
my coworkers” (␣⫽.83).
Affiliative interpersonal citizenship behaviors. Each employ-
ee’s unique supervisor completed a scale measuring the employ-
ee’s levels of affiliative interpersonal citizenship behaviors. We
used the helping and courtesy scales developed by Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990), which include items
such as “Is always ready to lend a helping hand to those around
him/her,” “Helps orient new people even though it is not required,”
“Takes steps to try to prevent problems with other employees” and
“Considers the impact of his/her actions on coworkers” (␣⫽.91).
Past research has advocated combining these dimensions into an
interpersonal citizenship scale (e.g., Lee & Allen, 2002), and to
ensure that this was appropriate in our sample, we conducted an
exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factoring with
maximum likelihood estimation. The analysis revealed a one-
factor solution that explained 74.59% of the variance in the items
(Eigenvalue ⫽4.48, compared with an Eigenvalue for a second
factor of 0.62). These results support our decision to combine
helping and courtesy into a single interpersonal citizenship scale.
Results
Means, standard deviations, and correlations for our key vari-
ables appear in Table 1. We tested our hypotheses by following the
ordinary least-squares moderated regression procedures recom-
mended by Aiken and West (1991; see also Cohen, Cohen, West,
& Aiken, 2003). We began by mean-centering the independent
variable (prosocial motives) and the moderator variable (impres-
sion management motives). Next, we multiplied the two mean-
centered variables to create an interaction term. We then conducted
a hierarchical regression analysis predicting supervisor ratings of
interpersonal citizenship from prosocial motives and impression
management motives (Step 1), and the partial product term (Step
2). The analysis, which appears in Table 2, indicates that in support
of Hypothesis 1a, prosocial motives predicted higher levels of
interpersonal citizenship. The analysis also showed that impression
management motives were a significant independent predictor of
interpersonal citizenship.
The analysis further revealed a statistically significant interac-
tion between prosocial and impression management motives as
predictors of interpersonal citizenship. To interpret the form of the
interaction, we plotted the simple slopes at one standard deviation
above and below the means (see Figure 1). The slopes suggest that
prosocial motives were more strongly associated with interper-
sonal citizenship as impression management motives increased.
Table 1
Study 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Variable MSD 234
1. Interpersonal citizenship 5.27 1.08 (.91)
2. Prosocial motives 5.55 1.53 .57
ⴱⴱ
(.94)
3. Impression management
motives 4.72 1.31 .49
ⴱⴱ
.26
ⴱⴱ
(.83)
Note. Internal consistency values (Cronbach’s alphas) appear across the
diagonal in parentheses.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
903
GOOD SOLDIERS AND GOOD ACTORS
The simple slope was positive and differed significantly from zero
at high levels of impression management motives, ⫽.78,
t(113) ⫽6.87, p⬍.001, and less strongly positive but still greater
than zero at low levels of impression management motives, ⫽
.27, t(113) ⫽2.96, p⬍.01. In addition, when we entered the
partial product term in a separate step of a hierarchical regression
analysis, the interaction of prosocial and impression management
motives explained 5.4% incremental variance in interpersonal cit-
izenship, which was a significant increase, F(1, 110) ⫽11.91, p⫽
.001. These results are consistent with Hypothesis 2, which pre-
dicted that impression management motives would strengthen the
positive association between prosocial motives and affiliative in-
terpersonal citizenship behaviors.
Discussion
This study supported our hypotheses. Prosocial and impression
management motives were significant independent predictors of
supervisor ratings of affiliative interpersonal citizenship behaviors.
More importantly, the two motives interacted to predict interper-
sonal citizenship, such that impression management motives
strengthened the positive relationship between prosocial motives
and citizenship.
Although these results are encouraging, an important limitation
is that we only measured interpersonal citizenship as one dimen-
sion of citizenship behavior. To generalize our results to multiple
forms of citizenship, it is necessary to examine citizenship directed
toward the organization, not only toward other people. To do so,
we conducted a second study in which we shifted our criterion
variable to focus on initiative, a central dimension of affiliative
citizenship that involves high levels of effort, persistence, and
dedication in contributing to the organization (e.g., Bolino &
Turnley, 2005; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Van Scotter & Motowidlo,
1996). We also examined voice as a form of challenging citizen-
ship (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). In this study, we collected
ratings of initiative and voice from both supervisors and cowork-
ers. Including voice is important because it allows us to test
Hypothesis 1b and, more generally, to examine the association
between citizenship motives and challenging citizenship behav-
iors. We also broadened the scope of our sample to target a wider
range of organizations and controlled for organizational concern
motives and role definitions as possible confounding influences on
initiative and voice. We controlled for organizational concern
motives because research has shown that these motives are corre-
lated with prosocial and impression management motives, and are
independent predictors of citizenship directed toward the organi-
zation (Rioux & Penner, 2001). We controlled for role definitions
because research has shown that employees are more likely to
engage in citizenship when they define it as part of their roles (e.g.,
Hofmann, Morgeson, & Gerras, 2003; McAllister, Kamdar, Mor-
rison, & Turban, 2007; Morrison, 1994; Tepper, Lockhart, &
Hoobler, 2001).
Study 2
Method
Participants and Procedures
A total of 455 individuals—167 focal employees and their
matched 142 supervisors and 146 coworkers—participated in the
study. Participants were from a variety of different organizations in
the southeast United States, including technology, government,
insurance, financial, food service, retail, manufacturing, and med-
ical organizations. The focal employees were 52.8% male and
51.2% Caucasian (17.1% Hispanic, 10.4% African American, and
11.0% Asian American). They averaged 25.1 years of age with 3.1
years of experience in the organization. The supervisors were
61.3% male and 68.3% Caucasian (18.3% Hispanic, 6.3% African
American, and 3.5% Asian American). They averaged 38.1 years
of age with 8.9 years of experience in the organization. The
coworkers were 52.7% male and 52.5% Caucasian (13.9% His-
panic, 13.9% African American, and 4.9% Asian American). They
Table 2
Study 1 Regressions for Prosocial and Impression Management Motives As Predictors of Affiliative Interpersonal
Citizenship Behaviors
Variable
Step 1 Step 2
bSEtbSEt
Prosocial motives 0.33 0.05 .47 6.43
ⴱⴱ
0.37 0.05 .52 7.32
ⴱⴱ
Impression management motives 0.30 0.06 .37 5.02
ⴱⴱ
0.30 0.06 .37 5.24
ⴱⴱ
Prosocial ⫻Impression management motives 0.14 0.04 .24 3.45
ⴱⴱ
Note. In the first step, the two motives together explained significant variance in interpersonal citizenship, r
2
⫽.45, p⬍.01. In the second step, the partial
product term increased the r
2
value to .50, p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
Low prosocial motives High prosocial motives
Interpersonal Citizenship
Low impression
management motives
High impression
management motives
Figure 1. Study 1 regression slopes for the interaction of prosocial and
impression management motives predicting interpersonal citizenship.
904 GRANT AND MAYER
averaged 29.3 years of age with 4.2 years of experience working in
their organizations.
We recruited participants using a snowball sampling procedure
(e.g., Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). To
recruit participants, researchers sent an electronic message to 312
students in upper level management courses and provided them
with the opportunity to help with a study for extra credit. Students
who worked at least 20 hr per week in a job were allowed to
participate in the study; if they did not, they were asked to invite
a friend or family member to complete the survey. A total of 167
focal employees participated, for a response rate of 54%. Focal
employees were instructed to visit a website to complete a survey
and to send an electronic survey link to their supervisors and a
coworker familiar with their work. Respondents were assured that
their responses would remain confidential. Focal employees com-
pleted measures of citizenship motives and role definitions, and
coworkers and supervisors provided ratings of each focal em-
ployee’s initiative and voice.
Measures
Citizenship motives. Focal employees completed scales mea-
suring prosocial and impression management motives for citizen-
ship behavior. We used the same scales for citizenship motives as
in Study 1, measuring prosocial citizenship motives with Grant’s
(2008) four-item scale (␣⫽.89) and impression management
citizenship motives with Rioux and Penner’s (2001) 10-item scale
(␣⫽.92).
Affiliative citizenship behavior: Initiative. One supervisor and
one coworker completed a scale measuring each focal employee’s
level of initiative. We used the 15-item initiative scale developed
by Bolino and Turnley (2005), which includes items such as
“Volunteers for special projects in addition to his/her normal job
duties” and “Stays at work after normal business hours” (␣⫽.96).
Challenging citizenship behavior: Voice. One supervisor and
one coworker completed a scale measuring each focal employee’s
level of voice. We used the six-item voice scale developed by Van
Dyne and LePine (1998), which includes items such as “Commu-
nicates his/her opinions about work issues to others in this group
even if his/her opinion is different and others in the group disagree
with him/her” (␣⫽.92).
Control variables. We measured organizational concern mo-
tives using the 10-item scale developed by Rioux and Penner
(2001), which includes items such as “Because I care what hap-
pens to the organization” and “Because I am committed to the
organization” (␣⫽.94). We measured role definitions using the
prompt developed by Tepper et al. (2001). For each citizenship
behavior item, we asked employees, “To what extent do you see
the following behaviors as part of your job requirements versus
beyond your job requirements?” We coded the answers so that 1 ⫽
definitely exceeds my job requirements,and7⫽definitely part of
my job (␣⫽.92). We also controlled for gender, education level,
job level, and ethnicity.
Results
Means, standard deviations, and correlations for the key measured
variables appear in Table 3. To assess whether it was appropriate to
combine the supervisor and coworker ratings of initiative and voice,
we calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) at the item
level using a two-way mixed model with consistency agreement
(McGraw & Wong, 1996; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). The ICCs for both
initiative and voice reached acceptable levels of agreement (e.g.,
James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984; Nunnally, 1978). For the 15 initiative
items, the ICC(2) values ranged from .44 to .74 (r
mean
⫽.63). For the
6 voice items, the ICC(2) values ranged from .34 to .53 (r
mean
⫽.44).
All ICC values were statistically significant at the p⬍.01 level. We
thus computed indexes of initiative by taking the mean of all 30 items,
and voice by taking the mean of all 12 items, across supervisors and
coworkers.
Regression Analyses for Initiative
We once again tested our hypotheses using the moderated
regression procedures recommended by Aiken and West (1991)
and Cohen et al. (2003). We mean-centered the independent and
moderator variables of prosocial motives and impression manage-
ment motives and multiplied these mean-centered variables to
create an interaction term. We then conducted hierarchical ordi-
nary least-squares regression analysis predicting supervisor and
coworker ratings of initiative from prosocial motives, impression
management motives, and the partial product term. The results of
these analyses are displayed in Table 4, where we entered the
control variables in Step 1, the two motives in Step 2, and the
partial product term in Step 3. The results indicate mixed support
for Hypothesis 1a. In the correlation table, prosocial motives
displayed a significant positive association with initiative, but
once the control variables and impression management motives
were entered, prosocial motives were no longer significantly
associated with initiative. In contrast to the results of Study 1,
Table 3
Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Variable MSD 123456
1. Initiative 4.33 1.40 (.96)
2. Voice 5.37 1.02 .57
ⴱⴱ
(.92)
3. Prosocial motives 5.29 1.27 .17
ⴱ
.21
ⴱ
(.89)
4. Impression management motives 4.57 1.35 .07 ⫺.07 .11 (.92)
5. Organizational concern motives 5.29 1.19 .30
ⴱⴱ
.26
ⴱⴱ
.68
ⴱⴱ
.06 (.94)
6. Role definitions 4.19 1.29 .17
ⴱ
.18
ⴱ
.00 ⫺.07 .02 (.92)
Note. Internal consistency values (Cronbach’s alphas) appear across the diagonal in parentheses.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
905
GOOD SOLDIERS AND GOOD ACTORS
impression management motives were not significantly associ-
ated with initiative.
As expected, we observed a statistically significant interaction
between prosocial and impression management motives as a pre-
dictor of initiative. We interpreted the form of the interaction by
plotting the simple slopes at one standard deviation above and
below the means (see Figure 2). The slopes suggest that prosocial
motives were more strongly associated with initiative as impres-
sion management motives increased. Indeed, the simple slope for
the relationship between prosocial motives and initiative was pos-
itive and differed significantly from zero at high levels of impres-
sion management motives, ⫽.31, t(139) ⫽2.71, p⬍.01, but did
not differ significantly from zero at low levels of impression
management motives, ⫽.02, t(139) ⫽0.17, p⫽.86. In addition,
when we entered the partial product term in a separate step of a
hierarchical regression analysis, the interaction of prosocial and
impression management motives explained 3% incremental vari-
ance in initiative, which was a significant increase, F(1, 122) ⫽
3.86, p⬍.05.
Regression Analyses for Voice
Consistent with Hypothesis 1b, bivariate correlations showed
that prosocial motives were significantly associated with higher
ratings of initiative (affiliative citizenship) and voice (challenging
citizenship). We conducted moderated regression analyses to ex-
plore the possibility that prosocial and impression management
motives interacted to predict voice, a challenging form of citizen-
ship. The results showed that voice was significantly predicted by
prosocial motives, ⫽.22, t(139) ⫽2.56, p⬍.01, but not by
impression management motives, ⫽⫺.11, t(139) ⫽⫺1.22, p⫽
.23, or the partial product term, ⫽.07, t(139) ⫽0.82, p⫽.41.
The substantive results did not change when we added the control
variables, although voice was predicted significantly by both or-
ganizational concern motives, ⫽.22, t(139) ⫽2.01, p⬍.05, and
role definitions, ⫽.18, t(139) ⫽2.23, p⬍.05. These results
suggest that as predicted, impression management motives
strengthened the association between prosocial motives and affili-
ative (initiative) but not challenging (voice) forms of citizenship.
Comparing the Results of Study 1 and Study 2
A visual inspection of Figures 1 and 2 reveals differences in the
form of the interactions for interpersonal citizenship and initiative
across the two studies. To account for these differences, we used
the procedure developed by Cohen and Cohen (1983) to compare
regression coefficients across the two studies. We found that the
average effect of impression management motives was signifi-
cantly stronger in Study 1 than Study 2, t(246) ⫽2.57, p⫽.01,
Table 4
Study 2 Regressions for Prosocial and Impression Management Motives As Predictors of Initiative
Step
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
bSEtbSEtbSEt
Step 1: Control variables
Organizational concern 0.32 0.10 .27 3.23
ⴱⴱ
0.34 0.14 .28 2.52
ⴱ
0.33 0.13 .28 2.50
ⴱ
Role definitions 0.14 0.09 .13 1.52 0.15 0.09 .14 1.61 0.14 0.09 .13 1.57
Gender 0.19 0.23 .07 0.84 0.16 0.23 .06 0.68 0.19 0.23 .07 0.84
Education level 0.13 0.17 .06 0.78 0.14 0.17 .07 0.82 0.15 0.17 .08 0.91
Job level 0.11 0.09 .10 1.19 0.12 0.10 .11 1.26 0.12 0.09 .10 1.27
Ethnicity: African American 0.68 0.45 .16 1.53 0.70 0.46 .17 1.51 0.74 0.46 .18 1.62
Ethnicity: Asian American 0.53 0.63 .08 0.85 0.53 0.63 .08 0.84 0.63 0.63 .09 1.01
Ethnicity: Caucasian 0.74 0.35 .26 2.11
ⴱ
0.74 0.35 .26 2.12
ⴱ
0.74 0.35 .26 2.13
ⴱ
Ethnicity: Hispanic 0.58 0.46 .13 1.26 0.56 0.47 .12 1.20 0.56 0.46 .12 1.21
Ethnicity: Latino/a ⫺0.76 0.99 ⫺.07 ⫺0.77 ⫺0.76 0.99 ⫺.07 ⫺0.77 ⫺0.87 0.98 ⫺.07 ⫺0.89
Ethnicity: Biracial 1.12 0.83 .12 1.34 1.05 0.84 .11 1.25 1.05 0.83 .11 1.27
Step 2: Motives
Prosocial motives ⫺0.04 0.13 ⫺.03 ⫺0.30 ⫺0.03 0.13 ⫺.03 ⫺0.23
Impression management motives 0.09 0.09 .09 1.06 0.05 0.09 .04 0.53
Step 3: Interaction 00
Prosocial ⫻Impression management motives 0.13 0.06 .18 2.13
ⴱ
Note. In the first step, the control variables together explained significant variance in initiative, r
2
⫽.18, p⬍.01. In the second step, the addition of
prosocial and impression management motives did not increase variance explained. In the third step, the addition of the partial product term increased the
r
2
value to .22, p⬍.01.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
Low prosocial motives High prosocial motives
Initiative
Low impression
management motives
High impression
management motives
Figure 2. Study 2 regression slopes for the interaction of prosocial and
impression management motives predicting initiative.
906 GRANT AND MAYER
and that the average effect of prosocial motives was marginally
stronger in Study 1 than Study 2, t(246) ⫽1.69, p⫽.09. However,
there were no differences in the strength of the interaction effect,
t(246) ⫽0.18, p⫽.86. These findings suggest that the differences
in the form of the interaction are due to differences in the average
effects of impression management and prosocial motives, whereas
the strength and direction of the moderating effect are the same
across both studies.
Discussion
In summary, this study provides partial support for Hypotheses
1a and 1b in identifying weak positive associations between proso-
cial motives and both affiliative (initiative) and challenging (voice)
forms of citizenship behavior. Our interaction results for initiative
once again provide support for Hypothesis 2, which predicted that
impression management motives would strengthen the positive
association between prosocial motives and affiliative citizenship.
In contrast, there were no moderating effects for predicting voice,
a challenging form of citizenship.
A comparison of the results of the two studies indicates that in
Study 1, prosocial and impression management motives were
strong independent predictors of interpersonal citizenship. In con-
trast, in Study 2, prosocial motives were a weak predictor of
initiative, and impression management motives did not signifi-
cantly predict initiative. This latter pattern mirrors the results of
two studies showing that impression management motives pre-
dicted citizenship behaviors directed toward coworkers but not
toward the organization (Finkelstein, 2006; Finkelstein & Penner,
2004). We believe that these differences between the two studies
can be explained by the nature of the dependent variables. Proso-
cial and impression management motives are both relational mo-
tives that involve a focus on other people; the former involve a
concern for the well-being of other people, and the latter involve
a concern for one’s image in the eyes of other people. Accordingly,
employees may feel more capable of expressing and fulfilling
prosocial and impression management motives when engaging in
acts of citizenship directed toward other people than toward the
organization. Interpersonal citizenship behaviors provide employ-
ees with direct opportunities to see how they are helping others
(prosocial benefits) and ensure that their efforts are visible to
others (image benefits), whereas organizational citizenship behav-
iors may benefit others less directly and often go unnoticed. More
generally, the predictor and criterion variables share the same
referent (other people) in Study 1 but not in Study 2, and psychol-
ogists have long known that correspondence between the referents
of two variables increases the strength of the association between
them (e.g., Ajzen, 1991). It appears that prosocial motives still
predicted both interpersonally and organizationally focused citi-
zenship behaviors in part because employees with prosocial mo-
tives are often interested in contributing to the organization as well
as to other people (Rioux & Penner, 2001). Indeed, in Study 2,
there is a strong correlation between prosocial and organizational
concern motives.
General Discussion
We found convergent evidence that prosocial and impression
management motives interacted positively to predict higher levels
of affiliative citizenship behaviors. In Study 1, impression man-
agement motives strengthened the positive association between
prosocial motives and affiliative interpersonal citizenship among
employees of two nonprofit organizations, as rated by supervisors.
In Study 2, impression management motives strengthened the
positive association between prosocial motives and initiative
among a diverse sample of employees, as rated by both supervisors
and coworkers, while controlling for organizational concern mo-
tives and role definitions. Moreover, voice, a challenging form of
citizenship, was predicted by prosocial motives but not by the
interaction of the two motives.
Theoretical Contributions
Our findings offer several important theoretical contributions to
existing understandings of citizenship behavior. First, our research
helps to resolve conflicting findings about whether prosocial mo-
tives predict citizenship behavior. Whereas past efforts to resolve
these inconsistent results have focused on how prosocial motives
may better predict some types of citizenship behaviors than others
(Organ & Ryan, 1995; Rioux & Penner, 2001), we showed that
prosocial motives are more likely to predict affiliative citizenship
directed both toward other people (helping and courtesy) and the
organization (initiative) when employees also hold strong impres-
sion management motives. Although researchers have argued and
found that both prosocial and impression management motives can
predict citizenship behaviors, existing models have treated these
motives as independent, overlooking the possibility that they may
interact (see Rioux & Penner, 2001). Our findings suggest that
instead of focusing only on bivariate associations, it is important to
consider the interactions of multiple motives when predicting
affiliative citizenship behaviors (see also King et al., 2005).
Second, our findings provide a fresh perspective on the debate
about whether citizenship is carried out by good soldiers with
prosocial motives or good actors with impression management
motives. Rioux and Penner (2001) sought to reconcile this foun-
dational debate by arguing that citizenship can be driven indepen-
dently by prosocial and impression management motives. A broad
conclusion implied by their research is that some employees en-
gage in citizenship for other-serving or prosocial reasons, whereas
other employees engage in citizenship for more self-serving or
impression management reasons. Our research takes a step beyond
this conclusion by suggesting that employees can engage in citi-
zenship for both other-serving (prosocial) and self-serving (im-
pression management) reasons at the same time. Our findings
indicate that employees who are both good soldiers and good
actors may be rated as engaging in higher levels of affiliative
citizenship behaviors than employees guided by one or neither
motive. These results challenge the validity of dichotomizing
prosocial and impression management motives, and point to the
value of recognizing that the motives of soldiers and actors can be
located within the same employees. Such employees represent a
new class that might be described as “good doctors,” because they
express concern for both doing good and looking good.
Third, our findings enter a larger debate about whether citizen-
ship and helping behaviors are driven by selfish or selfless mo-
tives. As noted previously, psychologists have long argued that
self-enhancement versus self-transcendence is a fundamental di-
mension along which values vary (Schwartz, 1992), that specific
907
GOOD SOLDIERS AND GOOD ACTORS
acts of helping are ultimately altruistic (Batson, 1998) or egoistic
(Cialdini et al., 1997), and that employees are predisposed either
toward rational self-interest or other-orientation (Meglino & Kors-
gaard, 2004). Organizational scholars have begun to call for theory
and research that integrates, rather than dichotomizes, self-
interested and prosocial motives (De Dreu, 2006; Grant, 2007,
2008; Loewenstein & Small, 2007). Our research takes a step
toward answering these calls. Our theoretical perspective and
empirical findings underscore the importance of recognizing that
employees can and often do hold both selfish and selfless motives,
which can function in conjunction—not only in opposition—to
influence citizenship behaviors.
Fourth, our research advocates an underrepresented perspective
on the interactions of multiple motivations. When studying mul-
tiple motivations, researchers have often argued that they detract
from each other. For example, numerous studies have demon-
strated that extrinsic motivation can undermine intrinsic motiva-
tion (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett,
1973) and distract attention away from citizenship behaviors
(Wright, George, Farnsworth, & McMahan, 1993). Researchers
have also shown that having multiple motives for volunteering can
raise individuals’ expectations, increasing stress and decreasing
satisfaction, which may undermine effort over time (Kiviniemi,
Snyder, & Omoto, 2002). Our theory and findings depart from this
trend by suggesting that prosocial and impression management
motives can support each other in enhancing affiliative citizenship
behaviors. In the language of expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964),
when employees hold prosocial and impression management mo-
tives, they place value on two outcomes: helping others and
improving their own images. Whereas expectancy theory would
predict that these two valences would combine in an additive
fashion to influence motivation, we found that they interact in a
multiplicative fashion. These results provide empirical support for
theoretical perspectives proposing that multiple motivations can
interact positively to predict behavior (Amabile, 1993; Grant,
2008; Staw, 1977).
Finally, our research also addresses a debate about the effects of
impression management motives in organizations. Many research-
ers have identified costs of impression management motives, link-
ing them to ingratiatory acts that advance one’s image without
contributing to social and organizational effectiveness, as well as
reductions in citizenship when one’s actions are not visible or
instrumental to self-serving outcomes (Bolino, 1999; Bolino,
Varela, Bandey, & Turnley, 2006; Ferris et al., 1995; Hui, Lam, &
Law, 2000). Moreover, recent qualitative and quantitative reviews
have shown that although employees with strong impression man-
agement motives tend to succeed in getting along and getting
ahead, they may choose pragmatics over principles (Gangestad &
Snyder, 2000), withhold making strong commitments to their
organizations (Day, Schleicher, Unckless, & Hiller, 2002), and end
up being overrepresented in senior management positions, to the
detriment of organizations’ ethical and strategic agendas (Day &
Schleicher, 2006). However, researchers have also argued that
impression management motives may offer important contribu-
tions to organizations, as the desire to maintain a favorable image
can motivate citizenship behaviors (Rioux & Penner, 2001), as
well as effectiveness in terms of job performance and building
social relationships (Day & Schleicher, 2006; Day et al., 2002).
Our research presents a balanced perspective on this debate by
highlighting the mixed effects of impression management motives
on citizenship behaviors. Our findings suggest that on one hand,
impression management motives may encourage employees—
especially those with prosocial motives—to engage in affiliative
forms of citizenship such as helping, courtesy, and initiative.
However, our findings suggest that impression management mo-
tives do not encourage riskier forms of citizenship such as voice.
These findings suggest that impression management motives may
guide employees toward acts of affiliative citizenship that support
the status quo but not necessarily toward acts of challenging
citizenship that fuel change.
Limitations and Future Directions
Across our two field studies, we were not able to directly
examine the psychological mechanisms by which motives are
converted into citizenship behaviors. We encourage researchers to
examine multiple psychological mechanisms that may explain the
associations that we observed between motives and citizenship
behaviors. Our theoretical arguments suggest that impression man-
agement motives strengthen the tendency of employees with
prosocial motives to engage in affiliative citizenship behaviors by
directing their attention toward behaviors that both do good (help
others or the organization) and look good (help one’s own image).
Thus, the presence of these two motives may strengthen employ-
ees’ instrumentality beliefs, as they feel that performing citizen-
ship behaviors effectively will translate into the valued outcomes
of helping others and enhancing their own status. In addition, it is
possible that holding both prosocial and impression management
motives for citizenship may encourage employees to engage in
visible, recognizable forms of citizenship (e.g., Deutsch Salamon
& Deutsch, 2006), increasing the likelihood that observers will be
aware of their citizenship. Future research will need to measure
and test each of these mechanisms as plausible explanations for the
interactive association of prosocial and impression management
motives with affiliative citizenship.
Second, our research does not inform the conditions under
which motives will be more and less likely to drive citizenship.
Existing research suggests that employees’ motives will be more
likely to trigger citizenship when they believe that citizenship is
instrumental to fulfilling these motives (McAllister et al., 2007).
From an expectancy theory perspective, citizenship motives in-
volve placing high valence or value on outcomes of benefiting
others (for employees with strong prosocial motives) and protect-
ing and promoting one’s image (for employees with strong im-
pression management motives), and these motives should only
enhance citizenship when employees believe that acts of citizen-
ship can achieve these valued outcomes (Haworth & Levy, 2001).
Thus, employees with impression management motives should
only engage in citizenship when they believe it will advance their
status and images (Hui et al., 2000), and employees with prosocial
motives should only engage in citizenship when they believe it will
benefit other people (McAllister et al., 2007). As such, it will be
critical for future research to examine not only employees’ citi-
zenship motives but also their instrumentality beliefs about the
extent to which specific forms of citizenship can serve and fulfill
these motives. Such investigations have the potential to clarify the
conditions under which motives will predict different forms of
citizenship behavior. For instance, because challenging forms of
908 GRANT AND MAYER
citizenship are risky, behaviors such as voice and taking charge
may be especially dependent on employees’ beliefs that they can
fulfill their motives by engaging in them. If employees with strong
impression management motives believe that expressing voice or
taking charge will improve their images, the resulting favorable
cost-benefit ratios may lead them to accept the risks and engage in
the behavior (Ashford et al., 1998; Fuller et al., 2007; McAllister
et al., 2007).
Third, our results in Study 2 raise questions about whether
employees with high impression management and low prosocial
motives receive “less credit” for their citizenship behaviors. It is
plausible that supervisors and coworkers may penalize these em-
ployees for engaging in citizenship only at opportune or visible
times, seeing their initiative not as good citizenship but rather as
instrumental, strategic, self-serving behavior. This possibility is
consistent with the arguments offered by Ferris et al. (1995), who
proposed that if a behavior is interpreted as self-serving, it will be
viewed cynically as a political influence move rather than benev-
olently as an act of citizenship. This possibility is also consistent
with two studies conducted by Grant et al. (in press), who found
that supervisors were less likely to recognize the contributions of
behaviors such as voice and helping when they were carried out by
employees with self-serving values. As such, observers may at
times interpret the contributory actions of employees with high
impression management but low prosocial motives as attempts at
political influence, which will not be recognized or valued as
citizenship behavior. We encourage researchers to explore this
issue in more detail.
Fourth, further research is needed to investigate the psycholog-
ical bases of impression management motives for citizenship be-
haviors. The majority of research in this area has assumed that
impression management motives are guided by a desire to protect
and promote one’s image in the eyes of other people (e.g., Bolino,
1999; Rioux & Penner, 2001). However, the literature on helping
behavior and role identity suggests that when individuals internal-
ize their roles into their identities, they come to feel that role-
specific activities and behaviors are central to their self-concepts
(Finkelstein & Penner, 2004; Grube & Piliavin, 2000). If employ-
ees have internalized citizenship behaviors into their identities,
they may be motivated to manage others’ impressions to sustain
and reinforce their own identities as good citizens. If this is the
case, impression management motives may be ultimately con-
cerned with one’s identity as a good citizen, rather than with
advancing one’s image in the eyes of others. Researchers have yet
to resolve the relationship between these self-identity and impres-
sion management motives: Some scholars believe they are distinct
(Ashford, Blatt, & VandeWalle, 2003), whereas others believe
they may be inextricably intertwined (Tetlock & Manstead, 1985).
However, we believe it is plausible that impression management
motives are based not merely on the egoistic desire to serve one’s
own interests by making a positive impression in the eyes of
others, but also on the merger of one’s identity into the prosocial
role implied by citizenship behaviors. In this situation, acts of
citizenship may serve both altruistic and egoistic functions, as the
act of contributing is likely to be psychologically pleasurable. Over
time, the experience of benefiting others and the self through acts
of citizenship may strengthen the likelihood that employees inter-
nalize the “good citizen” role, thereby fueling higher levels of
citizenship. We hope to see these issues receive greater conceptual
and empirical attention. Finally, several of our measures across the
two studies had high internal consistency values, which can signal
item redundancy and thus threaten construct validity (Boyle,
1991). We believe that this is not a threat in our research (a)
because our measures showed high predictive validity, (b) because
the high alphas largely occurred in long measures, and alpha is in
part a function of test length (e.g., Cortina, 1993; Schmitt, 1996),
and (c) because our items displayed “useful redundancy” (DeVel-
lis, 1991, p. 56), rather than harmful redundancy, in that they
shared the same meaning but had different semantic content (Bol-
len & Lennox, 1991).
Practical Implications and Conclusion
Our research offers important practical implications for organi-
zations. Our findings suggest that managers who seek to cultivate
good citizens may benefit from highlighting the multiple rewards
of citizenship. Ensuring that employees are aware that citizenship
can result in both helping and status rewards may increase the
chances that employees with strong prosocial and impression
management motives recognize the value of expressing these
motives in the form of affiliative citizenship behaviors. In addition,
if managers wish to encourage more challenging citizenship be-
haviors, they may place particular emphasis on selecting employ-
ees with strong prosocial motives. Our findings thereby offer
meaningful theoretical, research, and practical implications for
understanding and motivating citizenship behavior. As Bill Gates
recently stated at the World Economic Forum, “This hybrid engine
of self-interest and concern for others serves a much wider circle
of people than can be reached by self-interest or caring alone”
(Gates Foundation, 2008).
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179 –211.
Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualiza-
tions of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human
Resource Management Review, 3, 185–201.
Anderson, S. E., & Williams, L. J. (1996). Interpersonal, job, and individ-
ual factors related to helping processes at work. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 282–296.
Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & VandeWalle, D. (2003). Reflections on the
looking glass: A review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in
organizations. Journal of Management, 29, 769 –799.
Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E. (1998). Out
on a limb: The role of context and impression management in selling
gender-equity issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 23–57.
Barry, B., & Friedman, R. A. (1998). Bargainer characteristics in distrib-
utive and integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 345–359.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good
soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship.”
Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587–595.
Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20,
pp. 65–122). New York: Academic Press.
Batson, C. D. (1990). How social an animal? The human capacity for
caring. American Psychologist, 45, 336 –346.
Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. T. Gilbert,
909
GOOD SOLDIERS AND GOOD ACTORS
S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology
(Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 282–316). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson,
K. (1997). Is empathy-induced helping due to self-other merging? Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 495–509.
Bettencourt, L. A. (2004). Change-oriented organizational citizenship be-
haviors: The direct and moderating influence of goal orientation. Journal
of Retailing, 80, 165–180.
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. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship
behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role over-
load, job stress, and work–family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 90, 740 –748.
Bolino, M. C., Varela, J. A., Bande, B., & Turnley, W. H. (2006). The
impact of impression-management tactics on supervisor ratings of orga-
nizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27,
281–297.
Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement:
A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305–314.
Borman, W. C., & Penner, L. A. (2001). Citizenship performance: Its
nature, antecedents, and motives. In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.),
Personality psychology in the workplace (pp. 45– 61). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Bowler, W. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Relational correlates of interper-
sonal citizenship behavior: A social network perspective. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 91, 70 – 82.
Boyle, G. J. (1991). Does item homogeneity indicate external consistency
or item redundancy in psychometric scales? Personality and Individual
Differences, 12, 291–294.
Choi, J. N. (2007). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior:
Effects of work environment characteristics and intervening psycholog-
ical processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 467– 484.
Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L.
(1997). Reinterpreting the empathy–altruism relationship: When one
into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73, 481– 494.
Cialdini, R. B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Arps, K., Fultz, J., & Beaman,
A. L. (1987). Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly or selfishly moti-
vated? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 749 –758.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple
regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory
and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98 –104.
Day, D. V., & Schleicher, D. J. (2006). Self-monitoring at work: A
motive-based perspective. Journal of Personality, 74, 685–713.
Day, D. V., Schleicher, D. J., Unckless, A. L., & Hiller, N. J. (2002).
Self-monitoring personality at work: A meta-analytic investigation of
construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 390 – 401.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review
of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic
motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627– 668.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). Rational self-interest and other orientation in
organizational behavior: A critical appraisal and extension of Meglino
and Korsgaard (2004). Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1245–1252.
Deutsch Salamon, S. D., & Deutsch, Y. (2006). OCB as a handicap: An
evolutionary psychological perspective. Journal of Organizational Be-
havior, 27, 185–199.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theories and applications.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Eastman, K. K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional
approach to ingratiation and organizational citizenship behavior. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 37, 1379 –1391.
Ehrhart, M. G., & Naumann, S. E. (2004). Organizational citizenship
behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 960 –974.
Ferris, G. R., Bhawuk, D. P. S., Fedor, D. B., & Judge, T. A. (1995).
Organizational politics and citizenship: Attributions of intentionality and
construct definition. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: An
organizational perspective (pp. 231–252). Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie
Press.
Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. (1994).
Subordinate influence and the performance evaluation process: Test of a
model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58,
101–135.
Finkelstein, M. A. (2006). Dispositional predictors of organizational citi-
zenship behavior: Motives, motive fulfillment, and role identity. Social
Behavior and Personality, 34, 603– 616.
Finkelstein, M. A., & Penner, L. A. (2004). Predicting organizational
citizenship behavior: Integrating the functional and role identity ap-
proaches. Social Behavior and Personality, 32, 383–398.
Flynn, F. J. (2003). How much should I give and how often? The effects
of generosity and frequency of favor exchange on social status and
productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 539 –553.
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance
concept for work in the 21st century. In B. M. Staw & R. I. Sutton (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 23, pp. 133–187). Amster-
dam: Elsevier.
Fuller, J. B., Barnett, T., Hester, K., Relyea, C., & Frey, L. (2007). An
exploratory examination of voice behavior from an impression manage-
ment perspective. Journal of Managerial Issues, 19, 134 –151.
Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and
reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530 –555.
Gates Foundation. (2008). World economic forum: Prepared remarks by Bill
Gates. Retrieved February 7, 2008, from http://www.gatesfoundation
.org/MediaCenter/Speeches/Co-ChairSpeeches/BillgSpeeches/
BGSpeechWEF-080124.htm?version⫽print
Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a
prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32, 393– 417.
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire?
Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and pro-
ductivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 48 –58.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34.
Grant, A. M., Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (in press). Getting credit for
proactive behavior: Supervisor reactions depend on what you value and
how you feel. Personnel Psychology.
Grube, J. A., & Piliavin, J. A. (2000). Role identity, organizational expe-
riences, and volunteer performance. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 26, 1108 –1119.
Hanson, M. A., & Borman, W. C. (2006). Citizenship performance: An
integrative review and motivational analysis. In W. Bennett Jr., C. E.
Lance, & D. J. Woehr (Eds.), Performance measurement: Current
perspectives and future challenges (pp. 141–173). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
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.
Hui, C., Lam, S. S. K., & Law, K. S. (2000). Instrumental values of
organizational citizenship behavior for promotion: A field quasi-
experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 822– 828.
910 GRANT AND MAYER
Ilies, R., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). The interactive effects of
personal traits and experienced states on intraindividual patterns of
citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 561–575.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group
interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69, 85–98.
Joireman, J., Kamdar, D., Daniels, D., & Duell, B. (2006). Good citizens
to the end? It depends: Empathy and concern with future consequences
moderate the impact of a short-term time horizon on organizational
citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1307–1320.
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic
self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self
(pp. 231–263). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kamdar, D., McAllister, D. J., & Turban, D. B. (2006). “All in a day’s
work”: How follower individual differences and justice perceptions
predict OCB role definitions and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 91, 841– 855.
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Be-
havioral Science, 9, 131–146.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations.
New York: Wiley.
King, E. B., George, J. M., & Hebl, M. R. (2005). Linking personality to
helping behaviors at work: An interactional perspective. Journal of
Personality, 73, 585– 607.
Kiviniemi, M. T., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (2002). Too many of a
good thing? The effects of multiple motivations on stress, cost, fulfill-
ment and satisfaction. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 28,
732–743.
Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual
determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organi-
zational Behavior, 17, 253–266.
Ladd, D., & Henry, R. A. (2000). Helping coworkers and helping the
organization: The role of support perceptions, exchange ideology, and
conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2028 –
2049.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A
literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin,
107, 34 – 47.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and
workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 131–142.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work
groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 853– 868.
Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining chil-
dren’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the “overjusti-
fication” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28,
129 –137.
Loewenstein, G., & Small, D. A. (2007). The scarecrow and the tin man:
The vicissitudes of human sympathy and caring. Review of General
Psychology, 11, 112–126.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational
citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of man-
agerial evaluations of salespersons’ performance. Organizational Behav-
ior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 123–150.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of
organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of sales performance.
Journal of Marketing, 57, 70 – 80.
McAdams, D. P., & de St. Aubin, E. (1992). A theory of generativity and
its assessment through self-report, behavioral acts, and narrative themes
in autobiography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62,
1003–1015.
McAllister, D. J., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E. W., & Turban, D. B. (2007).
Disentangling role perceptions: How perceived role breadth, discretion,
instrumentality, and efficacy relate to helping and taking charge. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92, 1200 –1211.
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some
intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30 – 46.
McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of dispositional and
situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior: An exami-
nation of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79, 836 – 844.
Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2004). Considering rational self-
interest as a disposition: Organizational implications of other orienta-
tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 946 –959.
Meglino, B. M., & Korsgaard, M. A. (2006). Considering situational and
dispositional approaches to rational self-interest: An extension and re-
sponse to De Dreu (2006). Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1253–
1259.
Moon, H., Kamdar, D., Mayer, D. M., & Takeuchi, R. (2008). Me or we?
The role of personality and justice as other-centered antecedents to
innovative citizenship behaviors within organizations. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 93, 84 –94.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an
individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127–142.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design question-
naire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for
assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 91, 1321–1339.
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship
behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 1543–1567.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier
to change and development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 25, 706 –725.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. (1999). Taking charge: Extra-role efforts to
initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403–
419.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task perfor-
mance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79, 475– 480.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligation:
Motivation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among
AIDS volunteers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,
671– 686.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good
soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship
behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in orga-
nizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43–72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal
and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Per-
sonnel Psychology, 48, 775– 802.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the
antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 91, 636 – 652.
Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005).
Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychol-
ogy, 56, 365–392.
Penner, L. A., Midili, A. R., & Kegelmeyer, J. (1997). Beyond job
attitudes: A personality and social psychology perspective on the causes
of organizational citizenship behavior. Human Performance, 10, 111–
132.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990).
Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in
911
GOOD SOLDIERS AND GOOD ACTORS
leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership
Quarterly, 1, 107–142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G.
(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the
theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research.
Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.
Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational
citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 86, 1306 –1314.
Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological
Assessment, 8, 350 –353.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values:
Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1– 65).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality and
relationship context as antecedents of person- and task-focused interper-
sonal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 255–267.
Sheldon, K. M., Arndt, J., & Houser-Marko, L. (2003). In search of the
organismic valuing process: The human tendency to move towards
beneficial goal choices. Journal of Personality, 71, 835– 869.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in
assessing reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420 – 428.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The
roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82, 434 – 443.
Smith, A. (1976). The theory of moral sentiments. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty
Classics. (Original work published 1759).
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizen-
ship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 68, 653– 663.
Snell, R. S., & Wong, Y. L. (2007). Differentiating good soldiers from
good actors. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 883–909.
Staw, B. M. (1977). Motivation in organizations: Toward synthesis and
redirection. In B. M. Staw & G. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in
organizational behavior. Chicago: St. Clair.
Tepper, B. J., Lockhart, D., & Hoobler, J. (2001). Justice, citizenship, and
role definition effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 789 –796.
Tetlock, P. E., & Manstead, S. R. (1985). Impression management versus
intrapsychic explanations in social psychology: A useful dichotomy?
Psychological Review, 92, 59 –77.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role
behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. In L. L.
Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 17, pp. 215–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role
behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of
Management Journal, 41, 108 –119.
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and
job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81, 525–531.
Van Scotter, J. R., Motowidlo, S. J., & Cross, T. C. (2000). Effects of task
performance and contextual performance on systemic rewards. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 85, 526 –535.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Wright, P. M., George, J. M., Farnsworth, S. R., & McMahan, G. C.
(1993). Productivity and extra-role behavior: The effects of goals and
incentives on spontaneous helping. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
374 –381.
Yun, S., Takeuchi, R., & Liu, W. (2007). Employee self-enhancement
motives and job performance behaviors: Investigating the moderating
effects of employee role ambiguity and managerial perceptions of em-
ployee commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 745–756.
Received February 26, 2008
Revision received July 14, 2008
Accepted July 15, 2008 䡲
912 GRANT AND MAYER
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Applied Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
