2.1 OCB and Performance Evaluations

2.1 OCB and Performance Evaluations

Based on Chester Barnard's (1938) concept of the "willingness to cooperate," and Daniel Katz's (1964) distinction between "dependable role Performance' and "innovative and spontaneous behaviors' Organ (1988 , p. 4) was the first person to differentiate discretionary behaviors from the prescribed behaviors and labeled the term as Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB) After Organ coined these behaviors as Organizational citizenship Behavior, researchers worked on it and kept on identifying different dimensions of OCB. Some of these dimensions were distinct while the others were overlapping. Overall, more than 30 dimensions of OCB have been identified over time but there is huge overlapping in these terms. Podsakoff et al. (2000) have classified these into seven common dimensions: (1) Helping Behavior, (2) Sportsmanship, (3) Organizational Loyalty, (4) Organizational Compliance, (5) Individual Initiative, (6) Civic Virtue, and (7) Self Development.

It is very important to study the factors which effect the performance evaluation because this evaluation is subsequently used for many important decisions in the organization including promotion and transfer decisions (Cocanougher & Ivancevich, 1978), identifying the training programs (Churchill et al. 1976; Dubinsky & Staples, 1981) and compensation (Chonko, 1986; Ilgen & Feldman, 1983). Early studies of performance evaluation (Behrman & Perreault, 1982; Heneman, 1986; Weitz, 1978) have shown very small percentage (6% to 9%) variance in subjective performance evaluations due to the objective measures of performance. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Hui (1993) have indicated that there are certain behaviors, which can not be measured using the objective criterion, known as extra-role behaviors taken into consideration in performance evaluations. Organ (1988, 1990, 1997) has continuously emphasized that one such behavior may be OCB.

"Schema triggered affect" (Fiske & Pavelchak, 1986) explains the underlying reason of this relationship. Usually managers try to identify the "good employee' and the "bad employee' while eva luating the performance. If the employee engages in OCB, there are fair chances that he/she will be labeled as "good employee' leading to positive affect and hence resulting in positive performance evaluation. Similarly, the Performance evaluator always look for distinctive information (DeNisi, Cafferty, & Meglino, 1984) and as OCB is taken as distinct behavior, it is quite obvious that such behavior will be given some consideration in evaluation.

Another probable reason could be Reciprocity of Supervisor. When an experienced employee provides assistance to a less experienced coworker with a work-related problem (example of OCB) that the supervisor would have to deal with otherwise, the supervisor may reciprocate with a more favorable rating of the experienc ed employee's performance.

Many studies (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Orr, Sackett, & Mercer, 1989; Parks & Sims, 1989; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Hui, 1993; Werner, 1994) have empirically proved the fact that significant variance in overall subjective performance evaluations can be attributed to OCB. Podsakoff et al. (2000) narrated the number studies in which significant effect on performance evaluation was observed by each dimension. Altruism/Helping was proved to effect OCB in 8 studies out of 10 studies, Courtesy impact on OCB was proven in 1 study out of 6, Sportsmanship effect was observed in 5 studies out of 8, Conscientiousness was proved to effect Performance rating in all the 3 studies while the Composite OCB Measure-Performance Evaluation relationship was proved in the only 1 study undertaken till now. Thus with possible exception of courtesy, each of citizenship behavior had a significant effect on performance evaluations in the majority of the studies in which it was included. Werner (1994) and Whiting, Podsakoff, and Pierce (2008) studies are very important as these confirmed positive causal relationship between OCB and Performance Evaluations.

OCB is not only considered in performance evaluations but also contributes more variance in performance evaluations than the objective performance. A meta-analysis by Podsakoff et al. (2000), in which 11 sample studies were included, showed that, on average, objective performance contributed 9.5% only whereas 42.9% was contributed by OCB and these both contributed 61.2% in overall performance evaluations. Barksdale and Werner's (2001) recent study adds to this emerging literature by proving that higher Altruism of empl oyee leads to higher performance rating.

In addition to the studies done in developed countries like USA, there are some studies of Asian cultures. MoideenKutty et al. (2005) examined this relationship pharmaceutical company of India and found that objective performance contributes 9% variation in subjective performance evaluation, while 32% variation was explained by only OCB. But only two dimensions of OCB namely Sportsmanship and Civic Virtue were measured in the study. Similarly, Krilowicz & Lowery (1996) deduced that supervisory evaluations were found to be determined as much by OCB as by objective performance for Dominican and American workers.

Based on the literature available, the current study examines whether Performance Evaluation is affected by Altruism, Courtesy, Sportsmanship, Conscientiousness, Civic Virtue, and OCB-Composite.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

2.1 OCB dan evaluasi kinerjaBerdasarkan Chester Barnard (1938) konsep "kemauan untuk bekerja sama", dan Daniel Katz (1964) perbedaan antara "diandalkan peran kinerja ' dan"inovatif dan spontan perilaku Organ (1988, p. 4) adalah orang pertama untuk membedakan discretionary perilaku dari perilaku yang ditentukan dan berlabel istilah itu sebagai organisasi kewarganegaraan perilaku (OCB) setelah Organ diciptakan perilaku ini sebagai organisasi kewarganegaraan perilaku, peneliti bekerja di atasnya dan disimpan di mengidentifikasi dimensi yang berbeda dari OCB. Beberapa dimensi ini yang berbeda sementara yang lain yang tumpang tindih. Secara keseluruhan, lebih dari 30 dimensi OCB telah diidentifikasi dari waktu ke waktu tetapi ada besar tumpang tindih dalam istilah-istilah ini. Podsakoff et al. (2000) telah dikelompokkan menjadi tujuh dimensi umum: (1) membantu perilaku, (2) sportif, (3) organisasi kesetiaan, (4) organisasi kepatuhan, inisiatif (5) individu, (6) Civic kebajikan, dan pengembangan (7) diri.Hal ini sangat penting untuk mempelajari faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi evaluasi kinerja karena evaluasi ini kemudian digunakan untuk banyak keputusan penting dalam organisasi termasuk promosi dan transfer keputusan (Cocanougher & Ivancevich, 1978), mengidentifikasi program pelatihan (Churchill et al. 1976; Dubinsky & Staples, 1981) dan kompensasi (Chonko, 1986; Ilgen & Feldman, 1983). Studi awal dari evaluasi kinerja (Behrman & Perreault, 1982; Heneman, 1986; Weitz, 1978) menunjukkan persentase yang sangat kecil (6% hingga 9%) varians dalam evaluasi kinerja subyektif karena tindakan objektif kinerja. Podsakoff, MacKenzie dan Hui (1993) telah menunjukkan bahwa ada perilaku tertentu, yang tidak dapat diukur dengan menggunakan kriteria yang obyektif, dikenal sebagai tambahan-peran perilaku dipertimbangkan dalam evaluasi kinerja. Organ (1988, 1990, 1997) terus menerus menekankan bahwa satu perilaku seperti itu mungkin OCB."Skema dipicu mempengaruhi" (Fiske & Pavelchak, 1986) menjelaskan alasan mendasar dari hubungan ini. Biasanya manajer mencoba untuk mengidentifikasi "baik karyawan ' dan" karyawan buruk ' sementara eva luating kinerja. Jika karyawan terlibat dalam OCB, ada kemungkinan adil bahwa ia akan diberi label sebagai "karyawan baik ' menuju pengaruh positif dan karenanya menghasilkan evaluasi kinerja positif. Demikian pula, penilai kinerja selalu mencari informasi khas (DeNisi, Cafferty, & Meglino, 1984) dan sebagai OCB diambil sebagai perilaku yang berbeda, sudah cukup jelas bahwa perilaku seperti itu akan diberikan beberapa pertimbangan dalam evaluasi.Alasan lain mungkin bisa timbal balik Supervisor. Apabila seorang karyawan yang berpengalaman menyediakan bantuan dengan rekan kerja yang kurang berpengalaman dengan pekerjaan yang berhubungan dengan masalah (contoh OCB) bahwa para pengawas harus berurusan dengan sebaliknya, supervisor dapat membalas dengan rating lebih menguntungkan dari pengalaman kinerja ed karyawan.Banyak studi (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & belenggu, 1991; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Orr, Sackett, & Mercer, 1989; Taman & Sims, 1989; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Hui, 1993; Werner, 1994) telah secara empiris membuktikan fakta bahwa varians yang signifikan dalam kinerja keseluruhan subjektif evaluasi dapat dikaitkan dengan OCB. Podsakoff et al. (2000) diriwayatkan studi nomor di mana efek signifikan pada evaluasi kinerja diamati oleh masing-masing dimensi. Altruisme membantu membuktikan efek OCB dalam studi 8 keluar dari 10 studi, dampak Courtesy OCB terbukti pada studi 1 dari 6, sportif efek diamati di dalam studi 5 dari 8, membangun kesadaran adalah terbukti penilaian kinerja efek dalam semua studi 3 sementara hubungan komposit OCB mengukur kinerja evaluasi dibuktikan dalam studi hanya 1 dilakukan sampai sekarang. Dengan demikian dengan kemungkinan pengecualian dari kesopanan, setiap perilaku kewarganegaraan mempunyai efek yang signifikan pada evaluasi kinerja di sebagian besar studi di mana itu disertakan. Werner (1994) dan Whiting, Podsakoff, dan Pierce studi (2008) adalah sangat penting karena ini menegaskan hubungan kausal yang positif antara OCB dan evaluasi kinerja.OCB tidak hanya dianggap dalam evaluasi kinerja tetapi juga berkontribusi lebih banyak varian dalam evaluasi kinerja daripada kinerja yang obyektif. Meta-analisis oleh Podsakoff et al. (2000), di mana 11 sampel studi yang termasuk, menunjukkan bahwa, rata-rata kinerja yang obyektif berkontribusi 9,5% hanya sedangkan 42.9% dikontribusikan oleh OCB dan keduanya memberikan kontribusi 61.2% pada keseluruhan kinerja evaluasi. Barksdale dan Werner's studi terbaru (2001) menambah literatur ini muncul dengan membuktikan yang lebih tinggi altruisme empl oyee mengarah pada penilaian kinerja yang lebih tinggi.Selain studi yang dilakukan di negara maju seperti Amerika Serikat, ada beberapa studi budaya Asia. MoideenKutty et al. (2005) meneliti hubungan ini perusahaan farmasi India dan menemukan bahwa kinerja yang obyektif menyumbang 9% variasi dalam evaluasi kinerja subjektif, sementara 32% variasi dijelaskan oleh hanya OCB. Tapi hanya dua dimensi OCB yaitu sportif dan kebajikan Civic diukur dalam studi. Demikian pula, Krilowicz & Lowery (1996) disimpulkan bahwa pengawasan Evaluasi ditemukan ditentukan sebanyak oleh OCB sebagai dengan kinerja yang obyektif untuk pekerja Dominika dan Amerika.Berdasarkan literatur yang tersedia, penelitian ini meneliti apakah evaluasi kinerja dipengaruhi oleh altruisme, kesopanan, sportif, membangun kesadaran, Civic kebajikan, dan OCB-komposit.