In this article, the authors attempt to answer the research question of whether or not the link between an individuals organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and the score they receive on their performance evaluation is affected in any way by gender. OCB is described by the authors as actions that are performed by individuals that go above and beyond what is expected of them as per the requirements that are listed on their job description. For the purpose of this study, the authors looked at five identifying factors of OCB.
These factors include altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. By conducting this study, the authors hoped to find support for three hypotheses: 1. Women will be rated as displaying more OCB than men. 2. For both women and men, level of OCB ratings and performance ratings will be positively related. 3. Although women will be rated as displaying more OCB than men, they will not receive higher performance ratings than men. (Sex Roles, 3)
A total of 109 RAs (resident advisors) from an East Coast University participated in this assessment, 55 women and 41 men. The authors state that RAs were used for this test because of the increased opportunity they have as a whole to practice OCB. To set up the test that would be given to the current RAs, former RAs were contacted via telephone. They were asked questions and given a pilot survey, which was reviewed and revised to become the final testing instrument.
The survey contained 17 questions, which, after scoring, would create an OCB rating ranging from 17 (low OCB) to 85 (high OCB). The surveys were given to the RAs during weekly meetings, with the individual RAs rating the OCB level of their RA counterparts in the same residence hall that they worked in. The results of these surveys were added together and averaged for each RA and then compared against the score that the individuals received on the performance evaluations that were given to them by their supervisors.
The authors concluded from these results that there is indeed a link between higher OCB ratings and higher performance evaluation scores, and they also stated that the performance ratings of male RAs are quite similar to those earned by the female RAs. The hypothesis that females would have higher OCB scores than males was reported as being correct, but the fact that the authors state the conventional level of significance was not achieved doesnt make a very solid argument upon which to base their reasoning. For the purpose of this study, the dependant variable was the level of OCB performed by individual RAs.
The independent variables included such aspects as inadvertent gender stereotyping, the possibility of a natural tendency for females to engage in more OCB activities, and the authors perceived inflexibility of the performance review scores. The authors state that in future studies, these factors should probably be looked at more closely and given more significant weight. From the different statistics found within the article, I believe that the authors use an alpha level of approximately . 05 percent to report their results. In one place, they state that an alpha level of . 25 percent wasnt achieved, but then in another they point out that the alpha level was achieved at . 05 percent. I found this article to be interesting as well as mildly unsettling. The authors seem to throw a strange twist in the report by questioning the possibility of gender stereotyping within the RA community as well as outside of it. The fact that they also show that women tend to perform OCB tasks more often than men, yet dont specifically end up being rewarded for them, is not something that I would consider to be a very fair deal.
If men are seen doing more than expected, then that is great, they deserve more perhaps a raise. If women are seen doing more than expected hey, wait a minute, that isnt really possible. Quite often, women do more than what is expected of them because they feel that that is what is expected of them. I really ended up enjoying reading this article, although it did tend to get a bit confusing when the authors tried to explain their findings in statistical terms.
I would enjoy seeing a study done on this topic in the business executive field. I believe that it would be even more skewed than this one. As the authors stated, most RAs are hired because of their attributes, which include doing more than necessary to get the job done and help out others. In the business executive world, most executives are hired because of their ability to get things done; quickly, efficiently, and in most cost-effective way possible. Little or no attention is given to the persons interest in helping their colleagues.