Journal Search Engine
Search Advanced Search Adode Reader(link)
Download PDF Export Citaion korean bibliography PMC previewer
ISSN : 2234-3040(Print)
ISSN : 2234-3059(Online)
The East Asian Journal of Business Management Vol.5 No.1 pp.13-26

Deviant Citizenship Behavior: A Comprehensive Framework towards Behavioral Excellence in Organizations

Dhiman Deb Chowdhury*

*Corresponding Author, Director, Technical Program Management(R&D), Allied Teltesis, Inc, San Jose, CA, USA. E-mail:
November 25, 2014 December 09, 2014 January 15, 2015


Purpose – While studying the topic of seeking behavioral excellence (proactive and creative competence) in organization, scholars have presented a variety of literature sprinkled with countless theories on behavioral competence.
Research design, data, and methodology - Foremost among the several theories on this topic are two distinct sets of behav-ioral theories: OCB (Organizational Citizenship Behavior) and Constructive Deviance. Both of these theories attempt to posit their usefulness in positive organizational outcomes (such as organizational effectiveness, quality, performance, and innovations).
Results - However, their proposed constructs are opposing and studies are conducted in isolation, thereby creating a sigificant literature gap and omitting the possibility of being inclusive of the best that both OCB and constructive deviance have to offer.
Conclusions - The article bridges the gap by critically examining OCB and constructive deviance and including a consideration of other empirical studies in an attempt to be comprehensive while, at the same time, seeking to find an effective behavioral construct that is both appropriate and conducive for positive organizational outcomes in the context of the current business environment.


1. Introduction


 Organizations are changing in the face of global competition and challenging business environment(Dyer & Shafer, 1998), giving away bureaucratic structure to less hierarchical, and decen- tralized organization (Crant, 2000; Parker & Collins, 2010) to foster innovation and deliver competitive advantage for survival (Black & Synan, 1997). A more prevalent of such unconventional organizations is technology firms who emphasizes on knowledge (Hooff & Ridder, 2004) and innovation as core com- petence in pursuit to deliver disruptive products and drive com- petitive edge. In such challenging business environment, employ- ees are expected to be more creative, more productive and more involved in the performance, innovation and survival of the organization (Yesil, Koska & Büyükbese, 2013; Chowdhury,2013; Vadra, Pratt & Mishra, 2013). The studies of Management Science in general and Organizational Behavior, Industrial Psychology and Human Resources Management in particular are cognizant of such organizational changes and emergent of knowledge workers (workers whose core competence is knowl- edge) (Drucker, 1992; Dekas et al., 2013).

 In the late 1960s, Peter Drucker predicted emergence of knowledge workers and knowledge and innovation (supported by rapid change of information technology) as the core competence of the organizations in the coming era. Interestingly, his pre- diction came to fore with emergence of unconventional organizations whose core competence is knowledge and have the ca- pability to innovate in face of increase challenges in the busi- ness environment [e.g., Google (Dekas et al., 2013)]. These or- ganizations are increasingly decentralized and innovative (e.g. Google) and are representative of contemporary organization. However, this contemporary view of organizations is missing in some of the important and prevailing theories of our time that claim their effectiveness in positive organizational outcomes (e.g. performance). Foremost among those contemplations is Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) that is espoused in over 200 literatures and undergone three decades of research (Organ, 1977; 1988; Smith, Organ & Near, 1983; Podsakoff et al., 2000; LePine, Erez & Johnson, 2002; Organ, Podsahoff & MacKenzie, 2006). Conversely, the challengers to these other- wise anteceded theoretical contentions are a set of con- templations that emphasizes on contemporary views of organ- izations (Drucker, 1992; Dyer & Shafer, 1998) and behavioral competence that could be effective in such environment (Dekas et al., 2013). Foremost among these later behavioral con- templations is Constructive Deviance (Kanter, 1988; Weick, 1979; Dehler& Welsh, 1998; Galperin, 2002; Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2004; Vadra, Pratt & Mishra, 2013; Gutworth & Dahling, 2013), a group of theories and frameworks that ex- presses complimentary views of behavioral constructs for mod- ern organization. Protagonists of constructive deviance describe a set of behavioral dimensions that are contrary to OCB or sim- ilar anteceded constructs yet essential in modern organization and can be linked to positive organizational outcomes e.g. innovation. However, despite the divergent viewpoints of OCB and constructive deviance, both theories are having one com- monality, "discretionary behavior".

 Studies of OCB advocated an aggregate behavioral construct of "discretionary behavior" that is empirically supported to be ef- fective in positive organizational outcomes (e.g. effectiveness). In contrast, constructive deviance calls upon a set of behavioral theories of recent years that collectively posit to be effective in positive organizational outcomes. The difference here is that constructive deviance claims its instrumental suitability in modern organization and among knowledge workers while OCB is con- sidered predated and it’s instrumental suitability is questioned (Turnipseed & Turnipseed, 2013; Dekas et al., 2013). Both aims to establish citizenship behaviors in organization claiming their appropriateness in positive organizational outcomes, however, their behavioral constructs are contradictory. Moreover, both studies are done in isolation and there is no scholarly works that converges the two in order to develop a comprehensive un- derstanding of an effective behavioral framework building upon what best OCB and constructive deviance have to offer. Therefore, the focus of this article would be "lumping" rather than "splitting" (Fiske, 2006) across literature to develop a com- prehensive understanding of an inclusive behavioral framework one that builds upon the strengths on OCB and constructive de- viance studies. That is, I critically examine both sets of liter- atures in an inclusive manner while drawing upon validated be- havioral constructs in view of creating a comprehensive behav- ioral typology, one that can innately posit its relative importance seeking behavioral excellence in organization by building upon complementary sets of constructs from available literatures. This integrative model of behavioral construct discounts the weakness and builds upon effective behavioral dimensionalities of OCB and constructive deviance. I refer this inclusive behavioral framework as "Deviant Citizenship Behavior".


<Figure 1> Systematic Literature Review process


2. Methodology


 The fundamental challenge in the research of organizational behavior is the vastness of literatures. Hence, author followed structured literature review process as an effective means to cope with hundreds of published papers in the field. Although the systematic literature review process was developed for medi- cal research, it is gaining increasing awareness in management studies (Smith, Busi & Ball, 2008; Pittaway, et al., 2004). One of the benefits of structured review is that the process allows researchers to bring together as many studies possible that are relevant to the research irrespective of their disciplinary back- ground (Boland, Cherry & Dickson, 2014). The figure below de- picts the process undertaken in this article to conduct structured review which involves searching literature around the review question: What citizenship behaviors are important and effective in the positive organizational outcomes? The central context here is "citizenship behaviors"and positive organizational out- comes such as"innovation". However, the selection criteria does not exclude behavioral dimensions that are empirically linked to different positive organizational outcomes such as organizational effectiveness, task, group performance and other organizational outcomes. Instead, behavioral observations specifically in the contemporary organizations are noted and compared against other studies.

 The literature search begins with keywords and search terms (Tranfield et al., 2003) and analyses of the literatures are done in phasessimilar to meta-ethnographic (Noblit, Manning & Miller, 1988) process except process involves in this article seeks to learn from critical analyses at each phase to advance in next phase. For example, Phase I search influenced Phase II and analyses at Phase II influenced Phase III and so on). The first search keyword of "citizenship behavior and positive organiza- tional outcomes" resulted in 122,000 results in Google Scholar. At Phase I, OCB (Organizational Citizenship Behavior) literatures are identified as important outcome of the search and the proc- ess selected250 literatures out of 650 for further examination at Phase II. The literatures are drawn from various academic data- bases in addition to Google Scholar, including but not limited to Business Source complete, Emerald and Science Direct. Literatures related to "antecedents of OCB" are excluded from critical examination focusing mainly on behavioral dimensions and positive organizational outcomes. Literatures review at Phase II influenced the study of other behavioral parallels at Phase III leading to many other literatures "constructive Controversy", "Deviance", "Innovative Work Behavior (IWB)" , "positive Deviance" and "Constructive Deviance". At Phase III, "Constructive Deviance" identified as important contemplation that claims instrumental suitability as effective behavioral con- struct for contemporary organizations. At Phase IV, "constructive Deviance" literatures are further examined to understand its crit- icality in contemporary organization. At Phase V, literatures gap supported theory building activity for "Deviant Citizenship Behavior".


3. Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB):Origin, construct and importance


 Organ initially presented Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) as an essay and part of devil’s advocacy (Organ, 1977; Organ, Podsahoff & MacKenzie, 2006) that support popular no- tion of "worker satisfaction affected productivity" with a variation (Chowdhury, 2013). The viewpoint expounded on the popular belief that worker’s subtler "behavior" contributes to productivity, which often is not reflected in the measure of individual and group output. These subtler contributions may take the form of different behavioral dimensions including but not limited to help- ing behavior, workplace governance and following the spirit to improve organization’s operational efficiency and so on. Organ’s initial proposition was barely the passage for OCB. It was until Ann smith (one of Organ’s student) who envisaged the link be- tween Organ’s initial essay and famous Hawthorne studies (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939). The interest led Ann to inter- view supervisors of a Southern Indiana plant asking them: "What are the things you would like your employee to do more of, but really cannot make them do and for which you cannot guarantee any definite rewards, other than your apprecia- tion?"(Smith, Organ & Near, 1983). The behavioral attributes that are reported in the study can be group together in two disnct categories: Altruism and Generalized Compliance (LePine, Erez & Johnson, 2002). Altruism category captures behavior that are intended to help others (e.g. helping behavior and volunteering etc) and "generalized compliance"represents behaviors such as compliance with norm (e.g. punctuality, loyalty).

 Subsequent studies (Organ, 1988; Williams & Anderson, 1991; LePine, Erez & Johnson, 2002; Barker, 2006) led to addition of few other dimensions giving OCB the form of an aggregate constructs: a) sportsmanship or acceptance of unsavory situation at workplace for the best of the group, b) Courtesy (preventing organizational problem through communications and general consideration for others) (Newland, 2012), c) Conscientiousness (Adhering to organization’s rules and regulations or not taking e.g. compliance), d) Civic Virtue (taking part in the life of organization, e.g. participation) (Graham, 1986), e) Helping Behavior (e.g. helping others; behaviors such as Altruism, peacekeeping, and cheerleading) and f) Loyalty (support or allegiance to organization).

 A more accepted dimensionality of OCB includes seven dimensions proposed by Podsakoff et al. (2000) eliminating dimensional overlap and includes the followings: helping behavior, generalized compliance, individual initiative, civic virtue, organizational loyalty, self development and sportsmanship. LePine, Erez & Johnson (2002) estimate that there can be over 40 dimensions of OCB most having overlaps to some of the construct presented by Podsakoff et al.(2000). This viewpoint led LePine, Erez & Johnson (2002) to denote OCB as an aggregate or latent construct.


<Figure 2> OCB dimensionality


 OCB since it’s preliminary presentation by Organ (1977) re- ceived a significant scholarly attention and over 200 literatures written (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Hui, 1993; Podsakoff et al, 2000) on the subject linking the behavioral construct to various positive organizational outcomes: individual performance (MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Fetter, 1991; MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Fetter, 1993; Bachrach et al., 2007), group level performance (George & Bettenhausen, 1990; Karambayya, 1990; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Bachrach et al., 2007), social capitol (Esfahani, Nourian & Bady, 2012; Zerea, 2012), Organizational Effectiveness (Koys, 2001; Walz & Niehoff, 2000), Total Quality Management (Adawiyah & Pramuka, 2012; Buentello, Jung & Sun, 2008; Jung & Hong, 2008) and Organizational Openness (Chernyak-Hai & Tziner, 2012). Given three decades of research and increase empirical evidence of OCB influencing positive or- ganizational outcomes, one cannot ignore the potentials of OCB and its importance in organizational studies. However, critics argue that not all is good about OCB. There are many issues with OCB: first, scholars (Dekas et al., 2013; Chowdhury 2013) argue, historical assumption of OCB that envisage employee en- tering workplace by "punching the clock" (thus, punctuality, not wasting time on idle chatting and not taking break are im- portant) is wrong. This flawed and potentially dated assumption stem from the studies that are done among lower level employees (often hourly) in manufacturing environments with few stud- ies in healthcare and retail industry (Dekas et al., 2013). The studies neither considered changes that are occurring in work- place nor the emergence of "knowledge workers"(who are in- creasingly dominating many industries and shaping the work-


<Figure 3> Most accepted OCB dimensionality to date


place environment) as subject of interest. Secondly, OCB can be a cover up for impression management (Newland, 2012) im- plying that motive is an important determinant of OCB (Niehoff, 2000). Therefore, it is more likely that employees with ill motive may use OCB as cover up detrimental behaviors and to ad- vance their "selfinterest" (Bolino, Turnley & Niehoff, 2004). Third, assumption that all OCB dimensions are effective in positive or- ganizational outcomes is increasingly challenged (Turnipseed & Turnipseed, 2013; Dekas et al., 2013). Most of the studies measure OCB in aggregate rather than individual constructs though growing empirical evidence suggests that few dimensions are effective. The measures of aggregate construct ignore dis- paraging effect of detrimental dimensions, which may render OCB ineffective. Studies show OCB dimensions such as "Generalized Compliance", "Loyalty"and "Obedience" are uncon- ducive of innovation and causes organizational stagnations (Turnipseed & Turnipseed, 2013). Observations such as thisled to a call for OCB refinement, even Organ (2009) refuted on the dimensionality of OCB suggesting that the need for refinement and construct clean up. However, these suggestions of OCB re- finement and construct cleanup are mindful of the fact that OCB is one of the most important theories of organizational studies and some of its dimensions are promising. To that abstraction, protagonists arguethat OCB is relatively better behavioral frame- work, offers fully developed construct and well researched than other theoretical parallels (especially, theories of constructive de- viance).

 Hence, OCB offers a good starting point for the development of a comprehensive construct that is inclusive of contenders and cognizant of contemporary organizations. However, studies to date are narrowly focused on OCB refinements and construct validity rather than being inclusive. For example, "change oriented OCB" (Bettencourt, 2004; Choi, 2007; Vigoda-Gadot & Beeri, 2012) which validates only three OCB dimensions [Altruism (helping behavior), civic virtue and sportsmanship] while adding that OCB can benefit from the inclusiveness of change oriented dimension. The study did not validate other OCB dimensions nor discount them outright rendering more questions than answer. However, change oriented OCB is an important step towards an effective comprehensive construct since it attempts to validate constructs that are important in modern organization considering today’s workplace environment. Other studies especially at Google, expound OCB suggesting di- mensional overhaul while underscoring behavioral attributes of modern organization (Dekas et al., 2013). The study of Google is most sought after since the organization is representative of modern organization and embodies the characteristics of a typi- cal firm born of, and thriving in, the knowledge economy (Dekas et al., 2013). Google moved relatively fast adjusting to changing business environment and shaping the competitive landscape while tapping on "knowledge workers" . It is an embodiment of large organization (over 37000 employees) with nimbleness of a startup: an example of ambidextrous organization. Research in Google (Dekas et al., 2013) found only three OCB dimensions (helping behavior, civic virtue and individual initiative) can be va- lidated and others are unwarranted. More importantly, the study finds a number of other behavioral dimensions that are im- portant for Google and divergent of OCB: Employee sustain- ability, voice, knowledge sharing, administrative behaviors and social participation. Dekast et al. (2013) observe that google employees’ care about their own well-being and that of others and for good reasons since work and life sometimes blend due to increasingly pervasive digital connectivity. Work is thus can be demanding and may take over life if not careful and line is


<Figure 4> The diagram depicts behavioral observation at google


not drawn. It is the natural dispositions of "knowledge workers"to be digitally connected and intuitive of knowledge nirvana: a gift and curse of modern technology. Therefore, physical and psy- chological well- being is important and workers exhibiting em- ployee sustainability behavior at Google is indicative of their consideration towards personal well-being and that of their coworkers. Similarly, sharing knowledge and expressing opinions suggesting better solutions or voicing concerns (voice behavior) to seek creative solutions to problems or deliver disruptive prod- ucts advancing organizational aspiration. Social participation is thus central to such collaborative approach to seek creative sol- utions and foster innovation. Finally, being mindful of one’s task and completing it sincerely (administrative behavior) is essential to deliver successful projects.

 These behavioral observations of Googler (Google employees) innately suggest the need of a new aggregate behavioral construct one that is considerate of a different type of citizenship behavior than the passiveness suggested in OCB. Figure 4 presents a diagrammatical representation of new aggregate be- havioral that is inclusive of validated OCB dimensions and other behavioral constructs observed at Google. However, one may argue that other behavioral parallels, which contend their useful- ness in modern organizations and not validated at the Google study are worth exploring: theories of constructive deviance and other constructive behaviors, such as constructive controversy.

 Though theories of OCB and constructive deviance/con- structive behaviors are dominating much of organizational re-
search, their studies are done in isolation. There has not been any comprehensive effort of their inclusiveness to date. This in- advertence creates gaps in the body of knowledge rendering theories of organizational behavioral frameworks espoused till-date questionable. It is thus imperative that an inclusive be-

<Figure 5> Diagram shows two main streams of literatures while other behavioral frameworks/theories having construct overlaps of the two


havioral framework is developed, one that critically examines available literatures (OCB and constructive deviance) and build upon the strength of what best those prior behavioral frame- works have to offer.

 A more critical look at scholarly works in organizational stud- ies imparts two distinctive streams of literatures espousing be- havioral competence for organizations: 1) prosocial behaviors advanced by OCB and 2) various constructive behaviors that are collectively known as constructive deviance Attributes of other behavioral frameworks may overlap this two central con- cepts as depicted in figure below. For example, block 1 (please refer to figure below) expounds OCB seeking refinement in- cludes OCBS (Chowdhury, 2013), Change-oriented OCB (Bettencourt, 2004; Choi, 2007; Vigoda-Gadot & Beeri, 2011) and other OCB refinements (Organ, 2009) including the study at Google (Dekas et al., 2013). On the other hand, a group of theories including Innovative work behavior (IWB), positive devi- ance central to the movement of positive organizational scholar- ship (POS), PSRB (prosocial rule breaking behavior) and extra role behavior are all having construct overlap with constructive deviance (Galperine, 2002; Galperine, 2012; Vadra, Pratt & Mishra, 2013) [block 3]. The block 4 (theories similar to con- structive controversy) is considered outlier, however, some of its implied behavioral dimensions (in lieu of a developed construct): emotional intelligence and empathetic listening are claimed by constructive deviance.

 The diagram <Figure 5> also emphasizes on literature find- ings depicting that OCB (identified by block 1) and constructive deviance (identified by block 3) are contradictory to each other: OCB accentuates passive behavior of compliance fit while con- structive deviance challenges status quo.


4. What is constructive deviance?


 To understand constructive deviance better, let us start with constructive controversy, which emphasizes on positive side of the conflict. It views conflict as natural part of organizational life and useful in creative problem solving and improved decision making if conflict is managed well. Central to constructive con- troversy is the notion of constructive conflict explained by theory of cooperative goal and competitive conflict (Tjosvold, 1998; Deutsch, 1973, 1980, 1990, 1994; Deutsch, Coleman & Marcus,
2000, 2011, 2014). The theory of constructive controversy (Tjsovold, 1988; Johnson & Johnson, 1979, 2000) was mainly developed for cooperative learning environment and since, it has been practiced widely in academia. However, scholars (Deutsch, 1973; Tjosvold, 1998; Chen & Tjosvold, 2002; Chen, Tjosvold & Liu, 2006) found constructive controversy (based on cooperative goal theory) could be linked to positive organizational outcomes (such as improved decision making and creative problem solv- ing).

 Constructive controversy exists when one person’s idea, theo- ry and/or information is incompatible with others and two seek
to reach an agreement (Johnson & Johnson, 1979, 2000). The process involves listening to points and counter points to draw further insights towards a creative solution. However, doing so is challenging and experts (Deutsch & Coleman, 2000) suggest two behavioral dimensions (though implicitly referred) are central to successful engagement: emotional intelligence and empa- thetic listening.

 This reference of constructive controversy is important in the understanding of constructive deviance since it offers context, situation and behavioral constructs that are applicable to con- structive deviance. More importantly, these behaviors can be part of healthier organizational regime and once developed it can become employees’ "discretionary" behavior. Though some may consider constructive controversy an outlier, it has strong behavioral similarities with constructive deviance and can be a precursor for organization that lacks environmental support but willing to have a path forward towards constructive deviance.

 Constructive deviance is based on the notion that employee’s deviance behavior is not always harmful, a departure from often negative connotation of deviance (Galperin, 2002). In many in- stances, they engage in discrepant behaviors such as innovation and other type of volitional rule breaking that are beneficial to organization and advances organizational aspiration (Dehler & Welsh, 1998). Innovation literatures recognized these "positive behaviors" that are divergent of organizational norm as source of creativity and innovations. Many other theories, e.g. "creative individualism" (Schein, 1988), "productive nonconformity" (Pepinsky, 1961) and "opinion deviance" (Levine, 1980) at- tempted to draw scholarly interest on these discrepant behaviors linking their findings to positive organizational outcomes. Hanke & Saxberg (1985) was first to term theses positive discrepant behaviors as "constructive deviance" by combining the behav- ioral observation of Schein’s "creative individualism" (Schein, 1988), Pepinsky’s "productive nonconformity" (Pepinsky, 1961) and Levine’s "opinion deviance" (Levine, 1980). The "creative in- dividualism" involves selective adoption to key values and norms while rejecting others while "productive nonconformity" involves above norm behavior that positively influence group or task accomplishments. The "opinion deviance" on the other hand, is similar to "constructive controversy", difference is that former is an behavioral observation than guideline for behavior as in con- structive controversy.

 This initial notion of "constructive deviance" missed an im- portant point that underscores importance of "constructive con- troversy" is that focus of deviance should be about "creative problem solving"and not directed towards individuals with oppos- ing views. In other words, professional demeanor (Chowdhury, 2013) is important in expressing opposing views and engaging
in such discrepant behaviors. Many scholars (Morrison, 2006; Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2004; Vardi & Weitz, 2004; Warren,
2003) observed that these volitional rule-breaking behaviors are conducted in honorable ways with intention to benefit the
organization. Galperine (2002) defines constructive Deviance "as voluntary behavior that violates significant norms with the intent
of improving the well-being of an organization, its members or both". The most notable variants of"constructive deviance" are:
1) PSRB (Pro-social rule breaking) (Morrison, 2006) and 2)Positive Deviance (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2003; Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2004). Expounding on Brief & Motowidlo’s (1986) "pro-social"(act performed with intention of promoting welfare of another individual, group or organization) term, Morrison (2006) defines PSRB as employee’s prosocial behavior that violates or- ganizational norm, policies and regulations or prohibition with in- tention to benefit the organization. Similarly, positive deviance also advocates substantial departure from organizational norm but it is rooted in positive psychology (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) and part of generative dynamics of Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS). It refers to honorable behavior that improves human condition. Vadra, Pratt & Mishra (2013) considers notion of "constructive deviance" expressed in Galperine’s (2002) definition and Positive Deviance (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2003; Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2004) are no different rather variants in "constructive deviance" definitions. Only difference is that former focuses on behavior and outcomes and later focuses on behaviors and not the outcomes. Warren (2003) considers that constructive deviance are "behavior that deviates from the reference group norms but conforms to "hypernorms" (fundamental ethical constructs) benefiting organization. Considering the three variants of "constructive deviance" definitions, Vadra, Pratt & Mishra (2013) defines it "as behaviors that deviate from the norms of the reference group such that they benefit the reference group and conform to "hypernorms". Their viewpoint of constructive deviance is inclusive of OCB, Positive deviance, PSRB, whistle blowing and extra-role behavior. However, its an effort to be inclusive but not critical. In doing so, Vadra, Pratt & Mishra (2013) omitted critical facts about OCB as discussed earlier and the need for criticality in construct development rendering their proposal questionable. We understand that OCB behavioral construct are passive in nature (Galperine, 2012) than notion of "constructive deviance" that challenges status quo <Figure 5>. These opposing behavioral constructs cannot be innately put together to be just inclusive unless complementary dimensions are found and validated and detrimental behaviors are excluded. Therefore, one can argue about the need for inclusiveness that is critical in construct development and draws from the strength of what best other theories have to offer. In process of doing so, a comprehensive behavioral construct can be developed one that exclude detrimental behavioral dimensions, learn from available studies and builds upon best of what both constructive deviance and OCB have to offer. Such comprehensive construct can innately contend its usefulness for modern organization.


5. Developing an inclusive behavioral Framework


 From the Google study, we learn of behaviors that are im- portant in contemporary organizations, which is divergent of OCB in aggregate construct but inclusive of three OCB dimensions. The outcome of Google study indicated the need for a new behavioral framework that considers prevailing work- place environment, pervasiveness of technology and business environment and how these factors influence work and more importantly, behavioral attributes of today’s "knowledge workers". Study of Google found only three validated dimensions of OCB (helping, civic virtue and individual initiative) while observed five other distinct dimensions that are divergent of OCB: Voice, Employee Sustainability, Social Participation, Knowledge sharing and Administrative behaviors.

 This new aggregate construct offers insights to behaviors of "knowledge workers"especially in an innovative workplace environment. However, we can only consider this is a step for- ward rather than comprehensive behavioral construct since the study is not inclusive of other behavioral parallels of OCB, e.g. Constructive Deviance. Hence, to be critical in the construct de- velopment, let us explore this aggregate construct eliminating di- mensional overlaps while adding validated dimensions that are advocated elsewhere (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2003; Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2004; Morrison, 2006; Vardi & Weitz, 2004; Warren, 2003; Galperine, 2002; Vadra, Pratt & Mishra, 2013). One of the important OCB construct validated in Google is "individual initiative" which Podsakoff et al. (2000) consider hav- ing similarities with Morrison and Phelps’ "taking charge"(Morrison & Phelps, 1999), Borman and Motowidlo’s per- sisting with enthusiasm and volunteering to carry out task activ- ities constructs (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, 1997) and George’s (George & Brief, 1992; George & Jones, 1997) making con- structive suggestions. The voice behavior identified at Google study (Dekas et al, 2013) includes attributes such as "making creative suggestion to coworkers", "voice opinions" and "encourage others" thus having similarities of aforementioned attributes. Therefore, following Podsakoff et al.’s (2000) view of "individual initiative" we could suggest that Dekas et al.’s (2013) observation of Voice Behavior may fit within the expanded di- mensionality of "individual initiative". With this assumption, we can short list dimensions presented at Dekas et al.’s (2013) study to a total of seven: helping behavior, civic virtue, in- dividual initiative (inclusive of voice behavior), employee sustain- ability, social participation, knowledge sharing and administrative behavior. Subsequently, following the discussion of constructive controversy (which implicitly refers) we learn about two other be- havioral dimensions: (Emotional Intelligence and Empathic Listening). Adding these to the seven dimensions, the new ag- gregate construct now has nine dimensions (please view figure 6). Constructive controversy suggest that assuming goal ori- entation as the primary antecedent, people engagedin con- structive controversy must focus on opposing viewpoints and/or problem under discussion and not the person; by this it implies that one should be aware of their own emotion and that of oth- ers and respond accordingly. This awareness of emotion is referred here to as "Emotional Intelligence" elsewhere (Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2004) and literature (Rebecca, 1999) sup- ports the influence of emotional intelligence in positive organiza- tional outcomes.


<Figure 6> A diagrammatical view of the construct


development processes of comprehensive behavioral framework.

 Similarly, constructive controversy also suggest people engag- ing in constructive controversy must listen to each other’s argu- ment to develop an comprehensive view of the subject in order to seek solutions to the issue or make decision. This listening aptitude is referred elsewhere as "empathic listening" (Myers, 2000). There is growing scholarly workson "empathic listening" emphasizing its importance in organizational studies (McComb & Jablin, 1984; Eisenberg & Witten, 1987; Bodie, 2011) and espe- cially in organizational communications (Eisenberg & Witten, 1987; Comer & Drollinger, 1999). More importantly, both emo- tional intelligence and empathic listening are considered im- portant behavioral dimensions (Robbins & Galperin, 2010) of constructive deviance. However, since empathic listening is char- acterized by "Empathy" [a behavior that is associated with in- tellectual capacity to share and recognize emotion of others (Decety& Jackson, 2004)],the later is better suited for the con- sideration of new behavioral dimension in the aggregate con- struct under development. According to Sadri, Weber & Gentry (2011), there is significant literature support espousing empathy as the fundamental part of leadership. In other studies, empathy has been shown related to work performance (Silvester, et al., 2007) and various organizational outcomes (e.g. positive clinical outcomes; Hojat, et al., 2011).

 Following through the list of behavioral dimensions discussed in constructive deviance, IWB (innovative work Behavior) is an-
other important construct and worth exploring further. The IWB is a multi-dimensional behavior that includes many attributes such as idea generation, idea promotion, risk taking, application and openness to experience. According to the organizational in- novation model presented by Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin (1993), IWB can be explained in three categories: personal in- novation, team innovation and organizational innovation. Personal innovation is influenced by cognitive ability, character, knowledge, inner motives and social networks, while team in- novation is influenced by personal innovation, team character- istics, and contextual factors. On the other hand, organizational innovations are influenced by team innovation and contextual factors (Chien, Tsai-Fang & Chin-Cheh, 2013).From this catego- rization, characteristics, and dependencies of "innovation model", one could perceive that the model suggested an implied notion of "knowledge sharing" as central conduit. It is implied that knowledge creation and exchange are central to this innovation processes and such transformation of knowledge can be ex- plained by "knowledge spiral theory"(Huang & Wang, 2008; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka& Toyama, 2003). According to Chien, Tsai-Fang & Chin-Cheh (2013) knowledge sharing is central to such knowledge transformation (as in knowledge spiral theory)and thus to innovation assuming that the antecedents of "organizational innovative climate’ exist where knowledge trans- formation is occurring. In other words, presence of "organizational innovation climate" will foster "knowledge sharing" among individual and groups resulting knowledge transformation and driving IWB <Figure 7>. However, knowledge sharing be- havior is end-result of organizational factors including organiza- tional structure and climate that are conducive of knowledge sharing (Rehman, Mahmood & Salleh, 2011 Lin, 2007).


<Figure 7> The diagrammatical representation of how "knowledge sharing" behavior influences IWB.


 Therefore, "knowledge sharing" is a critical behavioral di- mension for innovation and for the purpose of this study, it is inclusive of IWB. So, rather than adding IWB dimensionality to our comprehensive construct as a distinct dimension, we could expand "knowledge sharing"behavioral dimension presented ear- lier to include IWB attributes of idea generation, idea promotion, application and openness to experience as subset.

 Following the discussion of constructive deviance, we learn that Positive Deviance (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2003; Spreitzer
& Sonenshein, 2004) is central to it though scholars (Galperine, 2002; Galperine, 2012; Vadra, Pratt & Mishra, 2013) implied the
inclusiveness of other behaviors such as PSRB, whistle blowing and extra-role behavior in defining constructive deviance. Other
than positive deviance, important attributes of PSRB, whistle-blowing and extra-role behavior are already captured in the comprehensive construct development. The construct of positive deviance seems to offer a set of new dimensions that are unique and thus worth evaluating for example, the evaluative behavior of positive disobedience and competence (Fave, 2006). The positive disobedience is considered voluntary behavior root- ed in positive psychology and goes beyond job requirements to benefit organization. Unlike OCB it challenges status quo to ad- vance organizational aspiration rather than self interest or im- pression management (Neider & Schriesheim, 2005). Before people engage in positive deviance, they must have ability to self-esteem and confidence to generate argument and get the message across. It also requires self-determination and courage (Morrison, 2003). These behavioral dimensions are distinct and receiving increase scholarly attention as evident by our dis- cussion of constructive deviance. Hence, rather than separating the attributes and/or dimensions in absence of a fully developed construct, let us consider positive deviance as the representative construct of this distinct behavioral phenomena for the proposed aggregate behavioral construct.

 Therefore, with inclusion of positive deviance there will be 10 dimensions in the proposed aggregate construct: helping behav- ior, civic virtue, individual initiative, Employee Sustainability, Social Participation, Knowledge Sharing, Administrative Behavior, emotional Intelligence, Empathy and Positive Deviance. I refer this comprehensive behavioral construct as "Deviant Citizenship Behavior" and borrowing from the definition of constructive devi- ance (Vadra, Pratt & Mishra, 2013) and OCB (Organ, 1988), I define it as: individual’s discretionary behaviors that deviate from the norms of the reference group as such that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization and con- form to hypernorms.


<Figure 8> The construct typology of Deviant Citizenship Behavior.


 The proposed Deviant Citizenship Behavior (DCB) henceforth advances the aspiration to be comprehensive in the develop- ment of a latent construct that merges the two streams of liter- atures (OCB and constructive deviance) while attempting to be critical of construct development. It builds upon the best of what OCB and constructive deviance has to offer and borrows from the validated behavioral dimensions of other empirical research (e.g. Google Study).

 Based on available literatures, this construct typology (as pre- sented in figure 8) offers better perspective for positive organ- izational outcomes (e.g. effectiveness and innovation) than those contended in the OCB and constructive deviance theories. However, the construct development of DCB is no way complete and can benefit from further empirical research.


6. Conclusion


 The study argued that organizations are changing in the face of increase competition and challenging business environment, giving away bureaucratic structure to less hierarchical, and de- centralized organization to foster innovation and deliver com- petitive advantage for survival. In such organizational construct, knowledge and innovation are considered core competence and employees are expected to be more proactive and creative. To do so, they need to think out of the box, be aware, be con- structive and participate in the creative problem solving. However, researches to date are too narrowly focused on ad- vancing their viewpoints while ignoring the need to be inclusive in the development of a comprehensive construct that can claim its instrumental suitability in contemporary organizations given to- day’s challenging business environment and the need for innovation.

 Therefore, to be inclusive, both past and present theories are critically examined validating their instrumental suitability in to- day’s organization. In doing so, the article presents findings in the form of a behavioral typology defined as "Deviant Citizenship Behavior" (DCB) that innately posits its instrumental suitability for contemporary organization. While this compre- hensive construct is an attempt to be inclusive based on avail- able literatures, this effort is by no means complete and the ty- pology of DCB could further benefit from subsequent empirical research.




  1. Adawiyah, W. R., &amp; Pramuka, B. A. (2012). The Relationship between Soft TQM and Organizational. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(2),213-226.
  2. Bachrach, G. D., Wang, H., Bendoly, E., &amp; Zhang, S., (2007)Importance of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour for Overall Performance Evaluation: Comparing the Role of Task Interdependence in China and the USA. Management and Organization Review, 3(2), 255–276.
  3. Barker, A. R. (2006). On Organizational Citizenship. New York : University Press of America, Inc.
  4. Bettencourt, A. L. (2004). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors: the direct and moderating influence of goal orientation. Journal of Retailing, 80(3), 165–180.
  5. Black, D. H., &amp; Synan, C. D. (1997). The learning organization: The sixth discipline?. Management Accounting British,75(10), 70-72.
  6. Bodie, D. G. (2011). The Active-Empathic Listening Scale (AELS): Conceptualization and Evidence of Validity Within the Interpersonal Domain. Communication Quarterly, 59(3), 277-295.
  7. Boland, A., Cherry, G. M., &amp; Dickson, R. (2014). Doing a Systematic Review: A Student's Guide. Thousand Oaks, California : Sage Publications.
  8. Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., &amp; Niehoff, P. B. (2004). The other side of the story: Reexamining prevailing assumptions about organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 14(2), 229–246.
  9. Borman, W. C., &amp; Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the crite- rion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt &amp; W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp.71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  10. Borman, W. C., &amp; Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99–109.
  11. Brief, A. P., &amp; Motowildo, S. J. (1986). Pro-social organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4),710-725.
  12. Buentello, O., Jung, J., &amp; Sun, J. (2008). Exploring the casual relationships between Organizational citizenship Behavior, Total Quality Management &amp; Performance. SWDSI 2008 Proceedings. Decision Science Institute. Available online at .
  13. Chen, G., &amp; Tjosvold, D. (2002). Cooperative Goals and Constructive Controversy for Promoting Innovation in Student Groups in China. Journal of Education for Business, 78(1), 46-50.
  14. Chen, G., Tjosvold, D., &amp; Liu, C. (2006). Cooperative Goals, Leader People and Productivity Values: Their Contribution to Top Management Teams in China. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 1177-1200.
  15. Chernyak-Hai, L., &amp; Tziner, A. (2012). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Socio-psychological antecedents and consequences. Revue internationale de psychologieso- ciale, 25(3/4), 53-92.
  16. Chien, Y., Tsai-Fang, Y., &amp; Chin-Cheh, Y. (2013). Knowledge Sharing, Organizational Climate, and Innovative Behavior: A Cross-Level Analysis of Effects. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal , 41(1), 143-156.
  17. Choi, N. J. (2007). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: effects of work environment characteristics and intervening psychological processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 467–484.
  18. Chowdhury, D. D. (2013). Organizational citizenship behavior towards sustainability. International Journal of Management, Economics and Social Sciences, 2(1), 28-35.
  19. Chowdhury, D. D. (2014). Deviant Citizenship Behavior. A dissertation in partial fulfillment for Doctor of Business Administration – draft, The Robert Gordon University.
  20. Comer, B. L., &amp; Drollinger, T. (1999). Active Empathetic Listening and Selling Success: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Personal Selling &amp; Sales Management, 19(1),15-29.
  21. Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435-462.
  22. Decety, J., &amp; Jackson, L. P. (2004). The Functional Architecture of Human Empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71-100.
  23. Dehler, G. E., &amp; Welsh, M. A. (1998). Problematizing deviance in contemporary organizations: A critical perspective. In R. W. Griffin, A. O'Leary - Kelly &amp; J. M. Collins(Eds.), Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations: NonviolentBehaviors in Organizations, Part A (pp. 241 – 269), Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
  24. Dekas, H. K., Bauer, N. T., Welle, B., Kurkoski, J., &amp; Sullivan, S. (2013). Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Version 2.0: A Review and Qualitative Investigation of OCBs for Knowledge Workers at Google and Beyond. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(3), 219-237.
  25. Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
  26. Deutsch, M. (1980). Fifty years of conflict. In L. Festinger (Ed.), Retrospections on social psychology (pp.46-77). New York: Oxford University Press.
  27. Deutsch, M. (1990). Sixty years of conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management, I , 237-263.
  28. Deutsch, M. (1993). Managing conflict for a peaceful world. Address to the International Association for Management Conference, Belgium: AIMA.
  29. Deutsch, M. (1994). Constructive conflict resolution: Principles, training and research. Journal of Social Issues, 50,13-32.
  30. Deutsch, M., &amp; Coleman, T. P. (2000). The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  31. Deutsch, M., Coleman, T. P.,&amp; Marcus, C. E. (2000). The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  32. Deutsch, M., Coleman, T. P., &amp; Marcus, C. E. (2011). The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice (2nd Edition).San Francisco: John Wiley &amp; Sons.
  33. Deutsch, M., Coleman, T. P., &amp; Marcus, C. E. (2014). The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice (3rd Edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  34. Drucker, F. P. (1969). The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines to Our Changing Society. New York: Harper and Row.
  35. Drucker, F. P. (1992). The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines to Our Changing Society. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
  36. Dyer, L., &amp; Shafer, A., R. (1998). From Human Resource Strategy to Organizational Effectiveness: Lessons from Research on Organizational Agility. Working Papers. Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies(CAHRS), Cornell University ILR School.
  37. Eisenberg, M. E., &amp; Witten, G. M. (1987). Reconsidering Openness in Organizational Communication. Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 418-426.
  38. Esfahani, N. A., Nourian, S., &amp; Bady, S. M. (2012). The study of relationship between social capital and organizational citizenship behavior in Iran Carpet Joint Stock Company. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 3(S), 2720-2727.
  39. Fave, D. A. (2006). Dimensions of Well-being: Research and Intervention. Milano: Franco : Franco Angeli.
  40. Fiske, S. T. (2006). Building bridges inside and outside social psychology: A case for lumping—neatly. In P. A. M. V. Lange (Ed.), Bridging social psychology: Benefits of transdisciplinary approaches(pp.47-51), Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
  41. Galperin, B. L. (2002). Determinants of deviance in the workplace: an empirical examination in Canada and Mexico.unpublished doctoral dissertation. Montreal : Concordia University.
  42. George, J. M., &amp; Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698–709.
  43. George, J. M., &amp; Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work – organiza- tional spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 12(2), 310-329.
  44. George. M. J., &amp; Jones, R. G. (1997). Organizational Spontaneity Context. Human Performance, 10, 99-109.
  45. Graham, J. W. (1986). Organizational citizenship behavior informed by political theory. Chicago, IL: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management.
  46. Gutworth, M., &amp; Dahling, J. J. (2013). Applying the Normative Conflict Model to Organizational Deviance. Tcnj Journal of Student Scholarship, 15, 1-9.
  47. Hanke, J. J., &amp; Saxberg, B.O. (1985). Isolates and Deviants in the United States and Japan: Productive Nonconformists or Costly Troublemakers?. Comparative Social Research,8, 219-243.
  48. Hojat, M., Louis, Z. D., Markham, W. F., Wender, R., Rabinowitz, C., &amp; Gonnella, S.J. (2011). Physicians'Empathy and Clinical Outcomes for Diabetic Patients. Academic Medicine, 85(3), 121-132.
  49. Huang, M. L., and Wang, Y. Y. (2008). Evaluating the Study of College Teachers and Employee on Knowledge Management Applications. Journal of International Management Studies, February, 116-125.
  50. Johnson, W. D., &amp; Johnson, R. (1979). Conflict in the class- room: Controversy and learning. Review of Educational Research, 49, 51-61.
  51. Johnson, W. D., &amp; Johnson, R. (2000). Civil political discourse in a democracy: The contribution of psychology. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 6(4), 291-317.
  52. Jung, Y. J., &amp; Hong, S. (2008). Organizational citizenship be- haviour (OCB), TQM and performance at the maquiladora. International Journal of Quality &amp; Reliability Management, 25(8), 793-808.
  53. Hooff, V. D. B., &amp; Ridder, D. J. A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(6), 117–130.
  54. Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10,169-211.
  55. Karambayya, R. (1990). Contexts for organizational citizenship behavior: do high performing and satisfying units have better "citizens"?. Unpublished working paper, Toronto, Ontario:New York University.
  56. Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organ- izational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organiza- tional effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 54, 101–114.
  57. LePine, J. A., Erez, A., &amp; Johnson, D. E. (2002). The Nature and Dimensionality of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52–65.
  58. Levine, J. M. (1980). Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
  59. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., &amp; Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons' performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 123–150.
  60. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., &amp; Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evalua- tions of sales performance. Journal of Marketing, 57, 70–80.
  61. Mayer, D. J., Salovey, P., &amp; Caruso, R. D. (2004). Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Findings, and Implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 197–215.
  62. McComb, B. K., &amp; Jablin, M. F. (1984). Verbal correlates of interviewer empathic listening and employment interview outcomes. Communication Monographs, 51(4),353-371.
  63. Morrison, E. (2003). Rule breaking as a form of positive deviance. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference. Seattle, Washington: AMC.
  64. Morrison, E. (2006). Doing Job well: An investigation of pro-so- cial rule breaking. Journal of Management, 32, 5-28.
  65. Morrison, E. W., &amp; Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403–419.
  66. Myers, S. (2000). Empathic Listening: Reports on the Experience of being Heard. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 40(2), 148-173.
  67. Neider, L. L., &amp; Schriesheim, C. (2005). Understanding Teams.Business &amp; Economics. New York: Information Age Publishing.
  68. Newland, J. S. (2012). Organizational Citizenship BehaviorIndividual or Organizational Citizenship Behavior -Organization: Does the Underlying Motive Matter? – Master's Thesis. Western Kentucky University.
  69. Niehoff, P. B. (2000). A motive-based view of organizational citizenship behavior: applying an old lens to a new class of organizational behaviors. Paper presented at the 28th Annual National Agricultural Education Research Conference. Available from .
  70. Noblit, W. G., Manning, K. P., &amp; Miller, L. M. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies (Qualitative Research Methods). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  71. Nonaka, I., &amp; Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  72. O'Dell, C. (1996). A current review of knowledge management best practice. Conference on Knowledge Management and the Transfer of Best Practices, London, UK: Business Intelligence.
  73. Organ, W. D. (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causes-performance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review,24, 82-98.
  74. Organ, W. D. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
  75. Organ, W. D., Podsakoff, M. P., &amp; MacKenzie, B. S. (2006).Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, antecedents, and Consequences. London: SAGE Publications.
  76. Parker, S. K., &amp; Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 633-662.
  77. Pepinsky, P. (1961). Social Exceptions That Prove the Rule. In I. Berg and B. Bass (eds.),Conformity and Deviation(pp.380-411), New York: Harper.
  78. Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., &amp; Neely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5-6(3-4), 137-168.
  79. Podsakoff, P. M., &amp; MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research.Human Performance, 10, 133–151.
  80. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., &amp; Hui, C. (1993). Organizational citizenship behaviors and managerial evaluations of employee performance: A review and suggestions for future research. In G. R. Ferris &amp; K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management(11: pp.1–40), Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.
  81. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., &amp; 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.
  82. Rebecca, A. (1999). Emotional intelligence in organizations: A conceptualization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 125(2), 209-224.
  83. Rehman, M., Mahmood, B. K. A., &amp; Salleh, R. (2011). Review of Factors Affecting Knowledge Sharing Behavior. 2011 International Conference on E-business, Management and Economics IPEDR, Hong Kong:IACSIT Press.
  84. Robbins, L. D., &amp; Galperine, L.B. (2010). Constructive deviance: striving toward organizational change in healthcare. Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 5,1-12.
  85. Roethlisberger, F. J., &amp; Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  86. Sabri, G., Weber, J. T., &amp; Gentry, A. W. (2011). Empathic emotion and leadership performance: An empirical analysis across 38 countries. The Leadership Quarterly, 22,818-830.
  87. Schein, E. H. (1988). Organizational socialization and the profession of management. MIT Sloan Management Review. Available online at .
  88. Silvester, J., Patterson, F., Koczwara, A., &amp; Ferguson, E.(2007). "Trust me...": Psychological and behavioral pre- dictors of perceived physician empathy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 519–527.
  89. Spreitzer, G. M., &amp; Sonenshein, S. (2003). Positive Organizational Scholarship. In Cameron, K., Dutton, J. &amp; Quinn, R. (Eds.), Positive deviance and extraordinary or- ganizing (pp.207-224), San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
  90. Spreitzer, G. M., &amp; Sonenshein, S. (2004). Toward construct definition of positive deviance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 828-847.
  91. Smith, M., Busi, M.,&amp; Ball, P. (2008). Factors Influencing an Organisation's ability to Manage Innovation: a Structured Literature Review and Conceptual Model. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(4), 655-676.
  92. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., &amp; Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 655–663.
  93. Tjosvold, D. (1998). Co-operative and competitive goal approaches to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 285–342.
  94. Turnipseed, H. P., &amp; Turnipseed, L. D. (2013). Testing the Proposed Linkage between Organizational Citizenship Behaviours and an Innovative Organizational Climate. Creativity &amp; Innovation Management,22(2), 229-246.
  95. Vadera, K. A., Pratt, G. M., &amp; Mishra, P. (2013). Constructive Deviance in Organizations: Integrating and Moving Forward. Journal of Management, 39(5), 1221-1276.
  96. Vardi, Y., &amp; Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in organizations: Theory, research and management. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers,
  97. Vigoda-Gadot, E., &amp; Beeri, I. (2012). Change-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Public Administration: The Power of Leadership and the Cost of Organizational Politics. Advance Access publication.Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Inc.
  98. Walz, M. S., &amp; Niehoff, P. B. (2000). Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: Their Relationship to Organizational Effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality &amp; Tourism Research, 24(3), 108-126.
  99. Warren, D. (2003). Constructive and destructive deviance in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 28,622-632.
  100. Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizations.New York: McGraw-Hill Humanities.
  101. Williams, L. J., &amp; Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.
  102. Yesil, S. Koska, A., &amp; Büyükbese, T. (2013). Knowledge Sharing Process, Innovation Capability and Innovation Performance: An Empirical Study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 75(3), 217–225.
  103. Zarea, H. (2012). Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Their Relationship to Social Capital in Public Organizations of Qom Province. Iranian Journal of Management Studies (IJMS), 5(1), 79-96.