Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Role Breadth: A Meta‐Analytic and Cross‐Cultural Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We provide a meta‐analysis of the empirical literature concerning role breadth, defined as the degree to which employees consider organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) to be an inherent part of their job. Results based on a combined sample size of 9,222 showed: (a) Confucian Asians consider OCB as part of their job to a greater extent than do their Anglo counterparts; (b) affiliative kinds of OCB (e.g., helping, conscientiousness, and courtesy) are more likely to be considered part of one's job than are change‐oriented OCB (e.g., voice, taking charge, and initiative); and (c) OCB‐inclusive role breadth correlates strongly with OCB (rc= .43). The implications of these findings for human resources practice, such as competency modeling, employee selection and training, organizational rewards, and employee‐employer/supervisor relations, are discussed. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".