Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2014

“When two worlds collide”: Career satisfaction and altruistic

organizational citizenship behaviour

Ferry Koster

Erasmus University Rotterdam, Department of Sociology

Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Telephone: +31 10 408 2231

Email: koster@fsw.eur.nl

Website: www.ferrykoster.nl

Abstract

Previous studies find a strong relationship between job satisfaction and altruistic OCB. The aim of this study is

to investigate the effects of a different kind of employee satisfaction, namely the extent to which employees are

satisfied with the career opportunities that their organization offers. Based on social exchange theory, two

contrasting hypotheses are formulated and tested. Hypothesis 1 argues that satisfaction with career opportunities

is positively related to altruistic OCB because it strengthens the relationship between employees and

organizations. Hypothesis 2 states that altruistic OCB is part of the horizontal exchange relationship between co-

workers and that career opportunities are negatively related to this kind of behaviour since it disrupts the social

exchanges taking place between co-workers. The hypotheses are investigated using survey data from 280

employees. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression is applied to analyze the data. The empirical analyses find

support for Hypothesis 2: career satisfaction is negatively related to altruistic OCB. The practical implication of

this research concerns the potential trade-off between career satisfaction and employees’ levels of altruistic

OCB. This indicates that strengthening vertical organizational relationships may weaken horizontal

relationships. For managers this implies that they have to take this trade-off into account if they want to sustain

altruistic OCB. Research on OCB focused mainly on the vertical exchange relationship within organizations.

This article also includes the horizontal dimension and shows how it may be related to employee behaviour.

Keywords: Altruistic OCB, career satisfaction, social exchange theory, vertical and horizontal dimensions in

organizations

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

1 INTRODUCTION

Employees can contribute to the functioning of their organization by showing altruistic behaviour. This is a

kind of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) defined as helping specific others in the organization, for

instance by assisting them in their work, sharing knowledge, and guiding newcomers (Bateman & Organ, 1983;

Smith et al, 1983). Engaging in altruistic OCB is particularly important in team-based organizations, which are

characterized by task discretion and interdependencies among employees (Appelbaum & Batt, 1994; Banks et

al, 2014; Cohen & Bailey, 1997). Although such team-based structures enable employee cooperation, they also

imply that managers can exercise less direct control over the activities of the employees. Therefore, the success

of teams depends on the willingness of employees to be loyal to the organization and their fellow workers, by

assisting them to finish team tasks. As a result, organizations benefit from employees’ altruistic behaviour:

monitoring costs are lower, interdependencies among employees are more easily managed, and fewer resources

are required for the effective socialization of newcomers. To date, empirical research explaining OCB shows

that altruism is associated with the so-called “morale” factor, which includes job satisfaction and organizational

commitment (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Fahr et al, 1990; Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985; Lui & Cohen, 2010;

Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al, 2000; Puffer, 1987; Smith et al, 1983). Social exchange theory (Blau,

1964; Homans, 1974) provides an explanation for these empirical findings arguing that employees show

different kinds of OCB to reciprocate employers acts such as providing valued rewards, investing in human

resources, and creating a pleasant work environment (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Gong et al, 2010; Settoon

et al, 1996; Smith & Organ, 1983).

While much is known about what explains OCB (Chiaburu et al, 2011; Hoffman et al, 2007; Podsakoff et

al, 2000), several issues worth investigating have not been addressed to date. First, most of the OCB

investigations focus on the effects of job satisfaction, but they do not include other kinds of employee

satisfaction such as the satisfaction with certain organizational policies (Brown & Peterson, 1993; Churchill et

al, 1974; Huang et al, 2004; Vitell & Davis, 1990). Of the different human resource practices strengthening the

exchange relationship between organizations and the employees, career systems are of special interest since they

constitute a “shadow of the future” allowing for reciprocity and cooperation (Axelrod, 1984; Koster & Sanders,

2006; Lambooij et al, 2009). The extent to which satisfaction with career opportunities contributes to the

employees’ willingness to help co-workers has not been empirically investigated so far and the present study

aims at examining the relationship between this dimension of job satisfaction and altruistic OCB. Secondly, in

line with studies investigating OCB in general, a large part of the research concentrating on altruistic OCB

focuses on vertical exchange relationships (see for example Devasagayam, 2013; Wagner & Rush, 2000).

Nevertheless, since altruistic OCB involves cooperation between co-workers, it includes horizontal exchange

relationships within the organization as well. From these two observations the question follows how career

satisfaction relates to cooperation between employees and more specifically whether this kind of satisfaction

strengthens altruistic behaviours of employees or creates a tension between vertical and horizontal exchange

relationships in organizations since altruistic OCB concerns the relationship between co-workers and career

systems relate to the relationship between employees and the organization.

Some recent studies suggest that such a tension exists. Lavelle (2010) argues that employees can be

instrumentally motivated to show OCB. This is for example the case if they do show this kind of behaviour to

enhance their employment opportunities and advancement within the organization. Such career-related motives,

however, are likely to be related to behaviours focused on the functioning of the organization, rather than

altruistic OCB, which is aimed at co-workers. What is more, it may be argued that such instrumental

considerations concerning one’s career are detrimental to altruistic OCB. Other research provides some

evidence for that. In one study, Cohen & Keren (2010) find that altruistic OCB is negatively related to

continuance commitment, indicating that employees who aim to stay with the organization (e.g. having a career

with that organization) are less willing to support co-workers. While a study by Liu & Cohen (2008) does not

confirm this finding (and instead finds that altruistic OCB is positively related to altruistic OCB), it does provide

additional evidence for this potential detrimental effect. Altruistic OCB turns out to be lower as employees value

achievement (which may be a precondition for advancing across the career ladder) more. These findings suggest

that career systems can make employees more concerned about their own career then to help their colleagues.

2 ALTRUISM, SATISFACTION, AND EXCHANGE RELATIONSHIPS

Throughout the years researchers spent much time and effort defining and measuring different dimensions

of OCB. Initially, two dimensions of OCB were distinguished, namely general compliance and altruism,

referring to what a good employee ought to do and helping specific others (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith et al,

1983). Later research refined this distinction and added some new dimensions (Organ, 1997; Podsakoff et al,

2000) and explored different conceptualizations of OCB such as the distinction between behaviour directed at

specific individuals in the organization (OCB-I) and behaviour aimed at improving the organization (OCB-O)

Ferry Koster

and in-role versus extra-role behaviour (Lavelle, 2010; Pond et al, 1997; Van Dyne et al, 1994; Van Dyne et al,

1995; Williams & Anderson, 1991). A meta-analysis of this empirical work concluded that all these different

OCB dimensions basically fall into one category, namely a general tendency to cooperate within an organization

(LePine et al, 2002). These discussions may give the discouraging impression that there is little agreement

regarding the content of OCB and its dimensions. Nevertheless, the literature also shows that there is

considerable consensus among organizational researchers, namely that employees do perform behaviour

benefiting organizations and that altruism is among these cooperative acts of employees.

The list of factors explaining altruistic OCB includes individual characteristics, task characteristics,

organizational characteristics, and leadership behaviours (Podsakoff et al, 2000). Although human resource

policies like rewards and job redesign are related to these four sets of factors, there are no studies examining the

relationship between such formal practices and altruistic behaviours of employees directly. Either the focus is on

the exchange relationship in general, rather than on specific practices that the organization uses to manage

personnel (Tsui et al, 1997) or the claim is not investigated empirically and is stated in terms of propositions and

expectations instead (Morrison, 1996; Werner, 2000). Examining the effects of a particular human resource

practice like the career system of the organization tests such claims and provides additional insights into the

exchange relationships within organizations. Furthermore, previous studies mainly included job satisfaction,

implying that little is known about the effects of other dimensions of employees’ satisfaction with the

organization and the practices it uses. Since overall job satisfaction partly results from the past experiences of

employees and career satisfaction concerns future expectations about the future, their effects on the cooperative

behaviour of employees may be markedly different (Banks et al, 2014; Koster & Sanders, 2007). While research

shows that employees are more altruistic towards supervisors if they have good social exchange relationships

with them (Shore et al, 2009), it is not investigated how vertical exchanges relationships affect altruistic

behaviour towards co-workers. How opportunities for career systems can affect vertical and horizontal social

exchange relationships within the organization is hypothesized below.

2.1 Altruism and the employee-organization relationship: the vertical dimension

There are several theories arguing that the career system is important for inducing employee socialization,

loyalty, and cooperation, as it enables a long term relationship between organizations and employees. Starting

from social exchange theory and applying it to the employee-organization relationship (EOR), different kinds of

exchange relationships are distinguished (Gong, et al, 2010; Shore et al, 2004; Tsui et al, 1997; Tsui & Wang,

2002). The EOR is balanced if the contributions of both parties are similarly low or high, called the quasi-spot

contract and the mutual investment contract, respectively, and unbalanced if one of the parties contributes more

than the other. Assuming that balanced social exchanges are more stable than unbalanced exchanges, it follows

that organizations can influence employee effort and OCB by investing human resources. Career opportunities

are among the investments through which employer signal that they care about the wellbeing of employees and

employees can reciprocate this by showing cooperative behaviour (Lambooij et al, 2009; Tsui et al, 1997).

Research on the psychological contract (Rousseau, 1989) also stresses the role of social exchanges within

organizations for understanding employee behaviour. Here, the emphasis is mainly on the negative

consequences resulting from a breach of the psychological contract by representatives of the organization

(usually the supervisor), showing the importance of keeping promises as the employment relationship unfolds

(Robinson, 1996). Basically, a breach of the psychological contract can be interpreted as a change in the EOR

from a balanced to an unbalanced relationship that leads to less employee cooperation. And, fulfilment of the

psychological contract is associated with higher levels of OCB (Hornung & Glaser, 2010). From a somewhat

different angle, economic theories of organizations like principal-agent theory and transaction costs economics

arrive at similar expectations. Rather than focusing on the outcomes of organizational policies, these theories try

to explain why organizations use certain governance structures. These economic theories are explicitly based on

the assumption that the interests of employers and employees diverge: employers prefer that employees put

effort in their work and offer a wage in return and employees prefer to put minimal effort in their work, while

receiving a wage (Eisenhardt, 1989; Shapiro, 2005; Williamson, 1981). Therefore, aligning these interests is an

important issue within organizations. When the contributions of employees are difficult to measure, for instance

when they work in a self-managing teams instead of working on a clearly specified task, it is more likely that

employers choose to offer employees long term contracts enabling socialization of employees and a means to

promise future rewards if they perform well (Shapiro, 2005; Williamson, 1981). Such career paths create a

distinction between employees who belong to the internal labour market of the organization and those residing

at the external labour market (Doeringer & Piore, 1971; Osterman, 1987; Wachter & Wright, 1990). Employees

showing behaviour that the organization values increase their chances of advancing on the internal career ladder.

Furthermore, theories of social capital in organizations (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Leana & Van Buren, 1999)

provide additional reasons to expect a link between altruistic employee behaviour and career opportunities. This

part of the literature proposes a close relationship between social capital – the structure, nature and quality of the

connections (Nahapiet & Goshal, 1998) – and OCB. The association between social capital and OCB is believed

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

to be mutually enforcing: the establishment of relationships within organizations in which OCB can flourish

requires long-term relationships between organizations and employees (Leana & Van Buren, 1999) and the

development of a shared vision (Adler & Kwon, 2002).

Although these theories differ with regard to their basic assumptions, they all focus on the vertical social

exchange relationship between organizations and employees and arrive at similar predictions about the effect of

career opportunities on employee cooperation. They acknowledge that long-lasting employment relationships

provide means to align possibly diverging interests in organizations by investing in people, keeping promises,

providing future rewards, and building cooperative relationships. This leads to the first hypothesis. Altruistic

OCB is positively related to career satisfaction (Hypothesis 1).

2.2 Altruism and the employee-employee relationship: the horizontal dimension

Organizations value that employees show OCB. Hence, they may use several formal and informal policies

to stimulate it. Nevertheless, even though organizations may benefit from altruistic OCB shown by employees

as it contributes to the functioning of the organization, this kind of behaviour does not merely take place within

the vertical organizational-employee relationship but also involves the horizontal social exchange relationship

between employees since most of the time employees express altruism by helping co-workers. If altruistic OCB

is a form of cooperation related to horizontal rather than vertical relationships within organizations (Chiaburu &

Harrison, 2008; Koster & Sanders, 2006; Smith et al, 1995) then the exchange relationship that employees have

with their co-workers should be important as well (Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2012; Flynn & Brockner, 2002;

Love & Forret, 2008; Mohrman et al, 1995; Wittek, 1999). This aspect of altruistic OCB emphasizes the

importance of the quality of intra-team processes such as communication, coordination, balance of member

contributions, mutual support, effort, and social cohesion (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). One of the main

obstacles to cooperation between co-workers is that it involves a public good aspect since everyone in the team

benefits is members assist each other on the job, but for each individual employee the best option is to free-ride

on the cooperation of others (Miller, 1992; Murnighan, 1994). Social exchanges within long-term relationships,

involving past experiences and the possibility of future rewards, contribute to the development of cooperation

and thus of altruistic OCB due to mutual learning and possibilities for negatively and positively sanctioning

uncooperative and cooperative moves (Axelrod, 1984; Buskens, 2002; Buskens & Raub, 2002; Hinds et al,

2000; Koster & Sanders, 2007; Rholes et al, 1990).

If altruistic OCB takes place in the horizontal social exchange relationship between employees, the

question is how this relates to the (vertical) employee-organization relationship. From the point of view of

vertical relationships, the answer is that engaging in altruistic OCB is an example of employee performance

benefiting the organization. If organizations have human resource practices that employees value, such as career

opportunities, they establish a mutual investment relationship leading employees to reciprocate by showing such

behaviour. The basic assumption in this kind of reasoning is that formal organizational policies support informal

cooperation between co-workers (Balkundi & Harrison, 2004; Ramamoorthy & Flood, 2004). Nevertheless,

even though this brings horizontal relationships in the theoretical argument, the main mechanism remains the

vertical social exchange relationship between organization and employees. If one regards altruistic OCB as a

result of positive exchanges in horizontal relationships between employees, a different outcome is expected.

Cooperation within teams results from stable and cohesive networks of employees holding a relatively similar

position in the hierarchy of the organizations. As a result, team members who belong to a more cohesive and

committed work-group are more likely to show OCB (Bentein et al, 2002). When they have to work together,

reward systems focusing on team performance can provide incentives to overcome free-riding and support

horizontal solidarity. Career systems, however, provide other incentives since they reward individuals instead of

teams and are based on competition rather than cooperation between employees as there are only a limited

number of people who can achieve a higher position within the organization. Therefore, career paths strengthen

the vertical employee organization relationship but possibly at the expense of weakening the relationship

between employees due to a decrease of horizontal exchanges, leading to lower levels of altruistic OCB. The

employees with the best chances of making progress in the organization are also expected to be the ones are

positive about the career possibilities that the organization offers. This leads to the second hypothesis. Altruistic

OCB is negatively related to career satisfaction (Hypothesis 2).

The research hypotheses are different because their basic assumptions about organizational relationships

and employee behaviour diverge. While the argument leading to hypothesis 1 does not assume that vertical and

horizontal relationships may be in conflict (and hence incentives in the vertical relationship may decrease the

likelihood of helping behaviour in the horizontal dimension), the argument underlying hypothesis 2 explicitly

assumes that incentives in the vertical direction will diminish altruistic behaviour in the horizontal relationship

as it strengthens individualistic behaviour of employees. Table 1 summarizes this overall research framework

and shows how the hypotheses are related to each other. As Table 1 shows, taking into account that vertical and

horizontal relationships lead to conflicting incentives, provides the logic for hypothesis 2.

Ferry Koster

Table 1: Research Framework

Relationship conflict

Yes

Kind of exchange

relationship

Vertical

More altruistic OCB

Less altruistic OCB

Horizontal

More altruistic OCB

3 METHOD

3.1 Respondents and procedure

In this study 280 employees from three Dutch organizations participated: 138 of them are employed at a

university, 63 at a pressing plant, and 79 at a project organization. The main occupations differ across these

organizations. The majority of the university employees are teachers and researchers, the employees of the

pressing plant are mainly production workers, and the respondents employed at the project organization are

professionals managing projects at different locations. A questionnaire was used to gather information about the

behaviour, opinions, and background variables of the employees. The data were collected in 2002 and 2003 as

part of a larger research project called “Solidarity at Work” (for the complete questionnaire see Lambooij et al,

2003). The project aimed at investigating how modern organization structures affect employee behaviour. In

total 1347 employees from 17 organizations participated (overall response rate, 52%).

To make sure that responds were able to complete the survey within 45-60 minutes, the following strategy

was applied. First, the Solidarity at Work survey consisted of a core module that was used in all organizations

(measuring aspects of the job of the respondent, the organization, cooperative behaviour, commitment, and so

on). Secondly, the survey contained rotating modules, containing sets of questions were asked in a limited

number of organizations (for example focusing on the career systems of the organization, personal traits of

respondents, resistance to change, informal rules, and so forth). Finally, some organization-specific questions

were added to provide some tailor-made information. This strategy proved to be helpful to get access to

organizations and cooperation from respondents. Questions about career satisfaction were part of the rotating

module which was included in the three organizations investigated in this study.

3.2 Measures and analysis

The dependent variable altruistic OCB is measured with three items from the OCB questionnaire

developed by Smith et al (1983). The three items are: “I orient new people even though it is not required”, “I

help others who have heavy workloads”, and “I help others who have been absent”. Respondents are asked to

rate their level of altruism on a scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). The Cronbach’s alpha of the

scale is 0.67.

Regarding their satisfaction, respondents are asked to score on a scale from 1 (not satisfied at all) to 7

(satisfied a lot) how satisfied they are with their job (indicating their level of job satisfaction) and with the

possibilities that the organization offers for career advancement (a high score indicating a high level of career

satisfaction).

A number of control variables are added to the analysis to take into account other possible factors

influencing altruistic OCB. Some studies have found a positive relationship between altruism and affective and

continuance commitment (Becker & Kernan, 2003) and measures for these kinds of commitment are included in

this study using questions developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). The three items measuring affective

commitment are “I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own”, “This organization has a great deal

of personal meaning for me”, and “I feel like ‘part of the family’ at my organization”. These question run from 1

(totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree) and the alpha reliability of the scale is 0.60. Continuance commitment is

also measured on a seven-point scale using the following three items: “I am afraid of what might happen if I quit

my job without having another one lined up”, “Too much in my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to

leave my organization now”, and “I feel I have too few options to consider leaving this organization”

(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75). The extent to which employees are dependent on each other to finish their tasks may

have an influence on their helping behaviour. This is accounted for by including a scale for task

interdependence, consists of three items based on earlier measures (Van der Vegt et al, 1998). The items are “In

order to do my job, I need information from my team members”, “I depend heavily on my team members to be

able to do my job”, and “In order to be able to do my job well, I need to cooperate with my team members”. The

questions are asked on a scale from (1) totally disagree to (7) totally agree and the Cronbach's alpha is 0.81.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Furthermore, good personal relationships can create informal interdependence affecting behaviour within teams

(Koster et al, 2007). A scale consisting of five items measures an employee’s relation with co-workers. The

items, measured on a seven-point scale, are: “With how many people of your team do you occasionally talk

about personal things?”, With which part of your team do you engage in activities inside and outside of work?”,

“With which part of your team did you engage in one of the following activities: to go to dinner, to go to the

movies, visiting?”, “With which part of your team do you have a good personal relationship?”, and “Which part

of all persons you get along with very well, is also part of your team?”. The scale has an alpha reliability of

0.73. The influence that the formal employment relationship has is accounted for by including information about

the employment contract and the work history of the employee. Regarding the type of contract a distinction is

made between temporary and permanent employees. Temporary employment relationships include those

arrangements where there is no implicit or explicit contract for long-term employment (Polivka & Nardone,

1989). The respondents are given three options to indicate their employment status: (1) permanent contract; (2)

temporary contract with an implicit or explicit agreement that they can stay after the contract ends; and (3)

temporary contract without an implicit or explicit agreement to continue the employment relationships. Since

option 3 included temporary workers according to the definition, this category is recoded into 1 and the other

categories are recoded into 0. Tenure is measured with the number of years that the employee has spent in the

organization they work for. Finally, gender (0 = male; 1 = female) and age (in years) are included in the analysis

to account for the possible influence of these background variables.

The data are analyzed using regression analysis. The analyses are conducted in two steps. Model 1

examines how the control variables are related to altruism and Model 2 investigates whether altruistic OCB is

related to the two kinds of employee satisfaction while controlling for the other variables. Table 2 provides an

overview of the three organizations in the sample. The organizations do not differ a lot with regard to the level

of altruism that employees show. Since there is very little unexplained variance across between the

organizations in altruistic OCB no organizational characteristics are added to the analysis.

Table 2: Descriptive statistics of the organizations

University

Pressing plant

Project

organization

Total

Mean (s.d.)

1. Altruistic OCB

5.25

5.79

5.27

5.34 (0.94)

2. Job satisfaction

5.24

5.10

5.52

5.38 (1.13)

3. Career satisfaction

4.33

3.70

5.04

4.39 (1.25)

4. Affective commitment

4.10

4.79

4.16

4.27 (1.50)

5. Continuance commitment

3.99

4.31

3.97

4.05 (1.53)

6. Task interdependence

4.16

5.37

6.09

4.97 (1.77)

7. Relation with coworkers

5.34

5.07

5.65

5.37 (0.96)

8. Permanent contract

74%

98%

96%

86%

9. Tenure

9.85

12.36

3.32

8.57 (9.06)

10. Female

53%

32%

54%

49%

11. Age

41.89

41.93

37.23

40.56 (10.21)

Number of respondents

138

280

4 RESULTS

4.1 Descriptive results

Table 3 shows the correlation coefficients among the variables. Altruistic OCB is positively associated with

job satisfaction (r = 0.11, p < 0.10), affective commitment (r = 0.19, p < 0.01), continuance commitment (r =

0.11, p < 0.10), task interdependence (r = 0.29, p < 0.01), relation with coworkers (r = 0.11, p < 0.10), having a

permanent contract (r = 0.22 , p < 0.01), longer tenure (r = 0.16, p < 0.01), and age (r = 0.14, p < 0.05).

Furthermore, there is a negative relationship between altruism and career satisfaction (r = -0.13, p < 0.05) and

the level of altruistic OCB does not differ between men and women.

Ferry Koster

Table 3: Correlation coefficients

10.

1. Altruistic OCB

2. Job satisfaction

0.11

†

3. Career satisfaction

-0.13

0.36

4. Affective commitment

0.19

0.11

†

0.09

5. Continuance commitment

0.11

†

0.01

-0.05

0.31

6. Task interdependence

0.29

0.06

0.17

-0.01

7. Relation with co-workers

0.11

†

0.16

0.19

-0.08

0.32

8. Permanent contract

0.22

-0.05

-0.02

0.13

0.17

0.36

0.04

9. Tenure

0.16

0.06

-0.16

0.23

0.27

-0.05

-0.13

0.20

10. Female

-0.01

-0.04

0.07

-0.19

-0.07

0.00

-0.03

-0.24

11. Age

0.14

0.07

-0.05

0.23

0.31

0.01

-0.06

0.37

0.65

-0.17

N = 280

†

p < 0.10;

p < 0.05;

p < 0.01

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

4.2 Regression results

Table 4 shows the results of the regression analysis. Model 1 in Table 4 shows that altruism is higher

among employees with a higher level of affective commitment (b = 0.16; p < 0.01) and those who report higher

levels of task interdependence (b = 0.25, p < 0.01). These effects remain the same after the satisfaction variables

are added to the model. Furthermore, except for an effect of tenure (b = 0.14; p < 0.10) that disappears in Model

2, no other independent variables are significantly related to altruistic OCB. After adding the two kinds of

employee satisfaction (Model 2 in Table 4), the explained variance of the model increases significantly with 5

percent (p < .01). Altruism is positively related to job satisfaction (b = 0.16, p < 0.01) while career satisfaction is

negatively related to altruistic OCB (b = -0.24, p < 0.01). The positive effect of job satisfaction confirms the

findings of earlier studies. The negative effect of career satisfaction means that Hypothesis 1 is rejected. The

empirical findings support Hypothesis 2.

Table 4: Results of regression analysis for altruistic OCB

Model 1

Model 2

Job satisfaction

0.16

(2.61)

Career satisfaction

-0.24

(3.99)

Affective commitment

0.16

(2.57)

0.17

(2.91)

Continuance commitment

0.03 (0.44)

0.02 (0.33)

Task interdependence

0.25

(3.93)

0.28

(4.44)

Relation with coworkers

0.05 (0.87)

0.06 (1.03)

Permanent contract

0.08 (0.24)

0.08 (1.19)

Tenure

0.14

†

(1.82)

0.09 (1.19)

Female

0.06 (0.95)

0.07 (1.26)

Age

0.01 (0.13)

0.00 (.014)

Adjusted R squared

0.12

0.17

R squared change

0.15

0.05

N = 280

Standardized regression coefficients are reported; standard errors are in parentheses.

†

p < 0.10;

p < 0.05;

p < 0.01

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Within modern organizations, based on team-based organizational structures in which employees have

considerable autonomy in their job and work closely together with colleagues, cooperative behaviour of

employees is important. Altruistic OCB may be particularly important within such organizational structures as it

emphasizes the relationship and mutual dependence between employees. Given this value for the functioning of

teams, organizations will try to elicit such behaviour from their workforce. Nevertheless, as this study shows,

career systems may create a tension between the need for help among co-workers and promoting well-

performing employees.

5.1 Theoretical implications

This study has theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, it emphasizes that organizations are a

combination of vertical and horizontal social exchange relationships. This is not the first time that this

distinction is made. Whereas theories of employee-organization relationships, psychological contracts, and

agency focus on the vertical dimension, studies aimed at explaining cooperation within teams, for instance

examining team-member exchanges (TMX) (Seers, 1989), investigate the horizontal dimension of

organizations. Nevertheless, there is not much empirical work examining the two dimensions simultaneously to

investigate how they relate to each other. There are some exceptions. However, these studies examine how

strong solidarity among workers, in terms of protecting each other from bad management and not necessarily in

terms of contributing to the organizational goals, relates to certain policies and organizational structures (e.g.

Hodson et al, 1993). In that case, altruism is viewed as benefiting co-workers but not the organization and the

question is whether organizations are able to undermine that kind of oppositional solidarity. The present study

investigates altruistic OCB, which is a kind of solidarity that does contribute to the functioning of the

Ferry Koster

organization. Therefore, it refers to a type of behaviour that organizations will not deliberately try to undermine.

In certain circumstances altruistic OCB will be stimulated by both vertical and horizontal social exchanges,

especially when these two dimensions do not provide conflicting or contrasting signals to employees. The

present study shows that researchers should be aware that there are circumstances under which the vertical

exchanges between employees and their organization are affected by social exchanges among co-workers (for

instance, when norms arise within teams that counter the organizational goals) and, as was studied in this article,

that it is possible that the horizontal exchanges between co-workers are influenced by vertical exchanges. The

notion of vertical and horizontal exchange relationships breaks ground for new questions about the mutual effect

of these two dimensions on all kinds of employee attitudes and behaviour, such as satisfaction, commitment,

organizational support, organizational trust, organizational justice, and OCB. Besides that, it can shed a light on

the policies that organizations develop to deal with the potential conflict between vertical and horizontal

exchange relationships and how they try to balance the two.

5.2 Practical implications

The practical implications concern the question what organizations can learn from the negative relationship

between career satisfaction and altruistic OCB found in this study. First, the possibility that this does not alarm

managers that much should be taken into consideration. This is especially the case if they do not expect from all

their employees to engage in altruistic OCB, for instance when they are concerned about getting their most

valued employees promoted to a higher position rather than how much that person contributes to helping others

in the organization. This, however, has two implications, a practical one and one concerning the basic idea of

OCB. The practical implication is that being focused too much on the careers of high flyers and less on altruism

within teams may have a negative impact on helping behaviour among co-workers altogether. Cooperation

between co-workers is created in ongoing relationships enabling reciprocity and constituting a norm of

reciprocity. This norm weakens if too little co-workers can reciprocate cooperative moves from other

employees. An implication for OCB research is that sometimes it seems as if it is assumed that organizations are

interested in all their employees engaging in organizational citizenship behaviours. However, it is also possible

that these expectations vary across different classes of employees. A larger number of researchers have the

tendency to focus on balanced employee-organization relationships involving high levels of OCB rather than on

the balanced relationship in which little extra effort is expected from employees. More research attention may be

directed towards explaining the different expectations regarding OCB. Finally, there are several ways in which

managers who are concerned about the level of altruistic OCB in their organization and who want to promote

employees on a regular basis can prevent that these vertical exchanges negatively affect the horizontal

exchanges between employees. First, career systems are not an isolated management instrument but are part of a

broader system of human resource practices. Some of these practices can help to preserve altruistic OCB within

teams. This particular study offers three possibilities for that because job satisfaction, affective commitment, and

task interdependence contribute to altruism. Human resource practices can be geared towards increasing these

factors to ensure that employees show altruistic OCB despite that some of their co-workers are promoted.

Secondly, managers can emphasize that it is important to show altruistic OCB. Career progress and altruistic

OCB can even be coupled by promoting those employees who are known for helping others. However, this may

be a bit at odds with the standard definition of organizational citizenship behaviour stating that it involves

behaviour that is not formally rewarded.

5.3 Limitations

The study has some shortcomings that should be considered while interpreting the findings. First, the

number of organizations and respondents are relatively low. To what extent the outcomes hold across a wider

range of organizations, is a question that future studies can try to answer. Regarding the number of organizations

and respondents, it can also be argued that the outcome was found, even across a small sample. Including a

larger number of organizations would also provide possibilities to examine different types of employee-

organization relationships. Furthermore, the data are gathered using self-reports, which may lead to same source

bias. Clearly, this is an issue taken into account in this type of research and future work is needed to find out

whether the data gathering had an impact on the finding reported in this study.

5.4 General conclusion

A large share of the theories aimed at explaining why employees engage in OCB focus on the vertical

relationship between the organizations and employees. A central assumption is that if the organization provides

a valuable good to employees, they will reciprocate by showing different kinds of OCB, such as altruism. The

present study does not dispute this assumption as other studies convincingly show that that the social exchange

relationship between organizations and employees can lead to cooperative behaviour. What this study does show

is that altruistic OCB does not always have to arise if organizations invest in the social exchange relationship

with their employees and that such investments may even undermine employee cooperation. The reason for this

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

is that organizations consist of vertical as well as horizontal relationships that should be clearly distinguished

because they refer to different kinds of social exchanges involving different actors (organization and employees

versus employees and co-workers). In some cases, these vertical and horizontal social exchanges are directed

towards the same goal, for instance when the organization applies policies that select employees who are likely

to be team players, that create shared goals for the members of the organization, that build effective teams, and

that create a certain level of stability within these teams. Human resource practices like these align vertical and

horizontal relationships in which employees, co-workers and the organization gain from altruistic OCB. Career

systems, however, do not always strike this balance. Although the provision of career possibilities by the

organization strengthens the vertical relationship, it can disrupt the horizontal relationships necessary for

altruism between co-workers to develop. As such, career systems offer the possibility for future interaction with

the organization but not necessarily with fellow workers, at least, not with all of them. Given that promotions

are scarce and can only be granted to a restricted number of employees, they will compete with each other to

achieve a better position. This focus on the vertical exchange relationship tends to decrease the willingness to

assist colleagues.

REFERENCES

Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management

Review, 27, 17-40.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative

commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.

Appelbaum, E., & Batt, R. (1994). The New American Workplace: Transforming Work Systems in the United

States. Ithaca: ILR Press.

Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. A. (2004). Networks, leaders, teams, and time: Connections to viability and

performance. Academy of Management Proceedings, J1-J6.

Banks, G. C., Batchelor, J. H., Seers, A., O’Boyle Jr., E. H., Pollack, J. M., & Gower, K. (2014). What does

team-member exchange bring to the party? A meta-analytic review of team and leader social exchange.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 237-295.

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.

Becker, T. E., & Kernan, M. (2003). Matching commitment to supervisors and organization to in-role and extra-

role performance. Human Performance, 16, 327-348.

Benstein, K., Stinglhamber, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2002). Organization-, supervisor-, and workgroup-directed

commitments and citizenship behaviours: A comparison of models. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 11, 341-362.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.

Brown, S. P., & Peterson, R. A. (1993). Antecedents and outcomes of salesperson job satisfaction: Meta-

analysis and assessment of causal effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 63-77.

Buskens, V. (2002). Social Networks and Trust. Boston: Kluwer.

Buskens, V., & Raub, W. (2002). Embedded trust: Control and learning. In E. J. Lawler & S. R. Thye, S.R.

(Eds.). Advances in Group Processes, JAI/Elsevier, Amsterdam, 167-202.

Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of

coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,

1082-1103.

Chiaburu, D. S.; Oh, I. S.; Berry, C. M.; Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011). The five-factor model of personality

traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1140-

1166.

Churchill, G. A., Jr., Ford, N. M., & Walker, O. C., Jr. (1974). Measuring job satisfaction of industrial salesmen.

Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 254-260.

Cohen, A., & Keren, D. (2008). Individual values and social exchange variables: Examining their relationship to

and mutual effect on in-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Group & Organization

Management, 33, 425-452.

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop

floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290.

Ferry Koster

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of

Management, 31, 874-900.

Devasagayam, H. C. (2013). Organizational citizenship behaviour of distributed teams: A study on the

mediating effects of organizational justice in software organizations. International Journal of Scientific &

Engineering Research, 4, 1-54.

Doeringer, P. B., & Piore, M. J. (1971). Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis, Lexington: Ballinger.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14, 57-

74.

Fahr, J., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: Leader

fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, 16, 705-721.

Flynn, F. J., & Brockner, J. (2003). It’s different to give than to receive: Predictors of givers’ and receivers’

reactions to favor exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 1034-1045.

Gong, Y., Chang, S., & Cheung, S. Y. (2010). High performance work system and collective OCB: A collective

social exchange perspective. Human Resource Management Journal, 20, 119-137.

Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Wheeler, A. R. (2012). To invest or not? The role of coworker support and trust in

daily reciprocal gain spirals of helping behavior. Journal of Management, published online before print.

DOI: 10.1177/0149206312455246.

Hinds, P. J., Carley, K. M., Krackhardt, D., & Wholey, D (2000). Choosing work group members: Balancing

similarity, competence, and familiarity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 226-

251.

Hodson, R., Welsh, S., Rieble, S., Jamison, C. S., & Creighton, S. (1993). Is worker solidarity undermined by

autonomy and participation? Patterns from the ethnographic literature. American Sociological Review, 58,

398-416.

Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: a theoretical

concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12, 435-449.

Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the criterion domain? A

quantitative review of the OCB literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 555–566.

Homans, G. C. (1974). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Hornung, S., & Glaser, J. (2010). Employee responses to relational fulfillment and work-life benefits: A social

exchange study in the German public administration. International Journal of Manpower, 31, 73-92.

Huang, J. H, Jin, B. H., & Yang, C. (2004). Satisfaction with business-to-employee benefit systesm and

organizational citizenship behavior: An examination of gender differences. International Journal of

Manpower, 25, 195-210.

Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 97, 251-273.

Koster, F., & Sanders, K. (2006). Organisational citizens or reciprocal relationships? An empirical comparison.

Personnel Review, 35, 519-537.

Koster, F., & Sanders, K. (2007). Serial solidarity: The effects of experiences and expectations on the

cooperative behavior of employees. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 568-585.

Koster, F., Stokman, F., Hodson, R., & Sanders, K. (2007). Solidarity through networks: the effects of task and

informal interdependence on cooperation within teams. Employee Relations, 29, 117-137.

Lambooij, M., Flache, A., & Siegers, J. (2009). Shadow of the future, risk aversion, and employee cooperation.

Rationality & Society, 21, 307-336.

Lambooij, M., Sanders, K., Koster, F., Emmerik, IJ. H., Raub, W., Flache, A., & Wittek, R.P.M. (2003). Survey

Solidarity at Work. Groningen: Solidarity at Work Working Paper.

Lavelle, J. J. (2010). What motivates OCB? Insights from the volunteerism literature. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 31, 918-923.

Leana, C. R., & Van Buren, H. J., III. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy

of Management Review, 24, 538-555.

LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship

behavior. A critical review and mete-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52-65.

Love, M. S., & Forret, M. (2008). Exchange relationships at work. An examination of the relationship between

team-member exchange and supervisor reports of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 342-352.

Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org

Lui, Y., & Cohen, A. (2010). Values, commitment, and OCB among Chinese employees. International Journal

of Intercultural Relations, 34, 493-506.

Miller, G. J. (1992). Managerial Dilemmas: The Political Economy of Hierarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M. (1995). Designing Team-Based Organizations: New Forms

for Knowledge Work. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Morrison, E. W. (1996). Organizational citizenship behavior as a critical link between HRM practices and

service quality. Human Resource Management, 35, 493-512.

Murnighan, J. K. (1994). Game theory and organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.).

Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, 83-123.

Nahapiet, J., & Goshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy

of Management Review, 23, 242-266.

Organ, D.W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10,

85-97.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of

organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802.

Osterman, P. (1987). Choice of employment systems in internal labor markets. Industrial Relations, 26, 46-76.

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.

Polivka, A. E., & Nardone, T. (1989). On the definition of “contingent work”. Monthly Labor Review,

December, 9-15.

Pond, S. B., Nacoste, R. W., Mohr, M. F., & Rodriguez, C. M. (1997). The measurement of organizational

citizenship behavior: are we assuming too much? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1527-1544.

Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, non-compliant behavior, and work performance among commission

salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 615-621.

Ramamoorthy, N., & Flood, P. C. (2004). Individualism/collectivism, perceived task interdependence and

teamwork attitudes among Irish blue-collar employees: A test of the main and moderating effects. Human

Relations, 57, 347-366.

Rholes, W. S., Newman, L. S., & Ruble, D. N. (1990). Understanding self and other: Developmental and

motivational aspects of perceiving others in terms of invariant dispositions. In E. T. Higgins and R.

Sorrentino (Eds.). Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, Guilford Press,

New York, II, 369-407.

Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41,

574-599.

Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contract in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and

Rights Journal, 2, 121-139.

Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 118-135.

Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational

support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 219-227.

Shapiro, S. P. (2005). Agency theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 263-284.

Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., Rao, A. N., & Seo, J. (2009). Social and economic exchange in the employee-

organization relationship: the moderating role of reciprocation wariness. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 24, 701-721.

Shore, L. M., Porter, L. W., & Zahra, S. A. (2004). Employer-oriented strategic approaches to the employee-

organization relationship (EOR). In J. Coyle-Shapiro, L. M. Shore, S. Taylor & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.). The

Employment Relationship: Examining Psychological and Contextual Perspectives, Oxford University

Press, Oxford, 135-160.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and

antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.

Smith, K. G., Carroll, S., & Ashford, S. (1995). Intra- and interorganizational cooperation: Toward a research

agenda. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 7-23.

Ferry Koster

Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the employee-

organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40,

1089-1121.

Tsui A. S., & Wang, D. (2002). Employment relationships from the employer’s perspective: Current research

and future directions. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.). International Review of Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 77-114.

Van der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J. M., & Van de Vliert, E. (1998). Motivating effects of task and outcome

interdependence in work teams. Group & Organization Management, 23, 124-144.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: in pursuit of construct and

definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.). Research in

Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, 215-285.

Van Dyne, L. L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct

redefinition, measurement and validity. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765-802.

Vitell, S. J., & Davis, D. L. (1990). The relationship between ethics and job satisfaction: An empirical

investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 489-494.

Wachter, M., & Wright, R. D. (1990). Economics of internal labor markets. Industrial Relations, 29, 240-262.

Wagner, S. L., & Rush, M. C. (2000). Altruistic organizational citizenship behavior: Context, disposition, and

age. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 379-391.

Werner, J. M. (2000). Implications of OCB and contextual performance for human resource management.

Human Resource Management Review, 10, 3-24.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organization commitment as predictors of

organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.

Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American Journal of

Sociology, 87, 548-577.

Wittek, R. P. M. (1999). Interdependence and Informal Control in Organizations. Groningen: University of

Groningen.