Mapping the Landscape of Research on Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Bibliometric and Content Analyses

Abstract

Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) is essential for organizational sustainability. Despite the numerous studies in this domain, there is a lack of comprehensive and objective reviews of the extant literature, constraining both theoretical understanding and practical application. Therefore, the primary aim of this study is to provide an extensive and rigorous review of OCB, analyse the thematic progression of research and identify future avenues. The study uses the SPAR-4-SLR framework, which has enhanced the credibility of the present research. This study employs both bibliometric and content analyses. While bibliometric analysis offers quantitative insights, content analysis provides qualitative insights into the thematic content of the literature. The co-citation analysis revealed five significant themes, namely ‘Organizational Identification and OCB’, ‘Social Exchange Theory (SET) and OCB’, ‘Dimensionality and OCB’, ‘Workplace Deviant Behaviours and OCB’ and ‘Leadership and OCB’. Content analysis was employed to examine and analyse the most relevant papers under each cluster. The results provide a thematic understanding of the progression and advancement of OCB research throughout the years. This nuanced exploration not only synthesizes key insights from past studies but also highlights potential pathways for future research, contributing to a deeper understanding of the dynamic and multifaceted nature of OCB. With its practical and theoretical implications, the article demonstrates the significance of OCB and offers several promising insights.

Keywords

Organizational citizenship behaviour bibliometric analysis social exchange theory SPAR-4-SLR content analysis

Introduction

An effective and successful organization needs ‘innovative and spontaneous behaviours’ from employees that go beyond their defined job structure (Katz, 1964). Later, Bateman and Organ (1983) termed it as organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and defined OCB as a set of discretionary behaviours that an employee exhibits at the workplace, which are beyond the recognized formal reward system of the organization and that generally lead to organizational effectiveness (Organ, 1988). However, they are not completely unrewarded (Thomas et al., 2017; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Therefore, Organ (1997, p. 91) redefined it as ‘a contribution to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports task performance’. Over time, it was refined (Graham, 1991; LePine et al., 2002; Van Dyne et al., 1994) and referred to by different names, such as extra-role behaviour (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998) and pro-social behaviour (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986). But the fundamental characteristics of such behaviours remain the same—discretionary in nature, arising out of genuine goodwill and enhancing the social and psychological work environment (Nurjanah et al., 2020; Vigoda-Gadot, 2006; Wang et al., 2005). It has been the subject of interest in psychology, human resource management, education, marketing, environmental science and other domains. Figure 1 depicts the development timeline from its start to the present time.

Figure 1.

Evolution of OCB Research.

OCB has evolved significantly, which depicts the widespread acceptability of its importance. Indeed, it is considered a prototypical positive behaviour (Bolino et al., 2013) that enhances the organization’s effectiveness (Mahembe & Engelbrecht, 2014; Walz & Niehoff, 2000). It increases productivity (Podsakoff et al., 2000), improves job performance (Nijhawan et al., 2023; Qalati et al., 2022), reduces labour turnover (Podsakoff et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2017), among other benefits. It is also useful in meeting environmental concerns (Boiral, 2009; Sulphey et al., 2024). However, it also led to certain negative outcomes such as exhaustion, work–family conflict and stress (Bergeron, 2007; Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Bolino et al., 2013; Potipiroon & Faerman, 2020).

OCB is crucial for sustainable growth in business, especially in a highly dynamic environment that continuously challenges organizational competency (Yaylaci, 2016). Unprecedented events such as the economic crisis of 2008–2009, COVID-19 and Industrial Revolution 4.0 necessitate the organization to be proactive to remain competitive. Achieving this requires a workforce that transcends the formal role and exhibits innovative and spontaneous behaviours to support organizational resilience and adaptability. The importance of OCB in organizations can be understood by the fact that simple search for OCB in the business and management area in the Scopus database produced over 3,000 research articles as of July 2024, with approximately 1,500 of these published in the last five years. Therefore, it is important to comprehend the extant literature in this domain to find the emerging trends, focal areas and impact of OCB studies in a clear and vivid manner.

Nevertheless, researchers have conducted a literature review and meta-analyses to grasp the evolution of OCB. Some focused on exploring the nature of OCB (LePine et al, 2002; Van Dyne et al., 1994;), others comprehended the antecedents (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 2000), while some examined the consequences (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 2000, 2009). However, over time, a rich insight has accumulated into the domain that warrants a comprehensive review to ensure that critical contributions by scholars are not overlooked. Therefore, the present study conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) with the help of bibliometric analysis. SLR advances the knowledge in the domain by building on prior extant literature. It provides depth as well as breadth and enhances reliability, validity and quality (Xiao & Watson, 2019). Several studies have conducted bibliometric analysis to map the landscape of OCB (Guiling et al., 2022; Yaylaci, 2016). However, their limitations in geographic scope or temporal coverage fail to provide a comprehensive overview of the field. Yaylaci (2016) performed a bibliometric study, focusing exclusively on studies conducted in Turkey. Similarly, Guiling et al. (2022) performed a bibliometric analysis, specifically examining the period from 2000 to 2019. Furthermore, both studies relied on bibliometric analysis. It provides a quantitative analysis but lacks interpretation (Lim & Kumar, 2024). Resultantly, the present study conducted the bibliometric analysis followed by content analysis. Content analysis serves to synthesize the quantitative outputs of the bibliometric analysis, facilitating the identification of critical gaps, influential networks and emerging themes (Klarin, 2024). Additionally, the present study used the Scientific Procedures and Rationales for Systematic Literature Reviews (SPAR-4-SLR) protocol, which ensures transparent, meticulous and rational SLR (Paul et al., 2021). The foremost objective is to map the global scientific research on OCB. This fundamental objective can be further divided into subordinate objectives (Öztürk et al., 2024).

RO1: Mapping the theme in the OCB domain.

RO2: Finding the most influential papers in the OCB domain.

RO2: Providing key insights and future research directions.

Research Methodology

The review methodology has utilized the SPAR-4-SLR protocol, created by Paul et al. (2021). It reduces arbitrariness, promotes accountability and ensures research integrity. The described methodology is specifically designed for conducting SLR to comprehensively achieve two core objectives: (a) providing a justified state-of-the-art overview and agenda-setting for the research domain, grounded in logical and pragmatic rationales and (b) ensuring transparent reporting through structured stages and sub-stages, adhering to rigorous methodological standards (Paul et al., 2021). Figure 2 presents the SPAR-4-SLR protocol adopted for the present study. The protocol consists of three primary stages, namely assembling, arranging and assessing.

Figure 2.

Source: Adapted from Paul et al. (2021).

Stage 1 of the assembling involves two sub-steps: identification and acquisition. For identification, the focus of the present study is on OCB. To gather the data on OCB, the Scopus database has been used. The rationale behind using this database is its widespread acceptance in management studies and comprehensive coverage of the literature (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016; Pham-Duc et al., 2022). The research questions involve finding key research domains, the contributions of existing studies and future directions. During the acquisition stage, data were obtained for the period spanning from 1983 to 11 July 2024. A total of 5,619 articles were retrieved using the following keywords: ‘organization citizenship behavior’, ‘organizational citizenship’ and ‘organizational citizenship behavior’.

The arranging step involves organization and purification. During organizing, bibliometric data for the articles were coded based on the article title, author keywords and the number of citations. Concerning purification, the following inclusion criteria have been applied: (a) business, management and accounting area, (b) articles published in journals and (c) are in English. Resultantly, a total of 2,952 suitable papers were selected for the analysis.

The last stage of assessing encompasses evaluation and reporting. For evaluation, the present study used a two-tier analysis consisting of bibliometric and content analysis. While Bibliometric analysis is a valuable method for examining the evolution of research domains by analysing their social, intellectual and conceptual structures (Donthu et al., 2021), the content analysis approach assesses, documents and examines patterns, providing an objective assessment of the research content (Ye, 2019). The agenda proposal method utilized thematic analysis to suggest future research directions. Reporting conventions included discussions and the use of visual aids like figures and tables, with limitations discussed at the conclusion of the article.

Descriptive Analysis

An analysis was conducted on a set of 2,952 publications, which collectively contain 240,675 cited references. Based on the statistics, this field has a substantial volume of scholarly work and citations. Figure 3 illustrates the temporal pattern of research publications on OCB. The study in this field has gained substantial momentum since 2008. The surge in the research underscores the diverse perspectives and expanding dimensions within the field. Initially, the emphasis was on exploring the predictors (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Williams & Anderson, 1991,), but over time, attention shifted towards examining the outcomes associated with OCB (Podsakoff et al., 2009; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994). As the topic emerged, studies began to uncover challenges related to OCB (Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Bolino et al., 2010). Over time, new concepts emerged from the broader domain of OCB such as CCB (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006, 2007), organizational citizenship behaviours for the environment (Boiral, 2009) and citizenship ambivalence (Kelemen et al., 2022). The literature is still primarily focusing on unearthing the predictors of OCB and their mediating/moderating role (Hesse & Mikkelson, 2024; Lewin et al., 2020; Mahembe & Engelbrecht, 2014; Nurjanah et al., 2020; Pattnaik & Sahoo, 2023; Yen et al., 2024). A notable advancement in OCB research is its application to environmental concerns, expanding the scope of the field beyond traditional organizational settings (Boiral, 2009; Sulphey et al., 2024). Furthermore, contemporary concepts, such as emotional intelligence (Carmeli & Josman, 2006; Liu et al., 2024; Miao et al., 2020), artificial intelligence (Waqar & Bektas, 2023) and spiritual intelligence (Supriyanto & Ekowati, 2022; Swami et al., 2024), have been lately associated with OCB as mediators/moderators.

Figure 3.

Source: Scopus database.

Bibliometric Analysis

Bibliometric analysis is a widely recognized and accepted analytical method for conducting SLR, particularly in the fields of business and management (Donthu et al., 2021; Öztürk et al., 2024; Paul et al., 2021). This technique is adept at handling, organizing, analysing and reporting complex bibliometric data (Lim & Kumar, 2024). Its foundational components include performance analysis and science mapping. Performance analysis evaluates the scientific output of a domain by assessing metrics such as publications and citations (Öztürk et al., 2024). Science mapping visualizes relationships and collaboration networks among scientific items, elucidating the intellectual, social and conceptual frameworks of a field while tracking its evolutionary dynamics (Öztürk et al., 2024).

In this study, performance analysis was employed to identify highly cited papers within the domain of OCB. Science mapping was conducted using co-citation analysis to uncover thematic clusters. The bibliometric software VOSviewer (version 1.6.20) was utilized for its robust capabilities in scientific mapping and widespread acceptance in bibliometric research (Donthu et al., 2021; Klarin, 2024).

Citation Analysis

Citation analysis is a fundamental method used in performance analysis (Öztürk et al., 2024). It is a predominant approach for evaluating the significance of an author, journal or publication, as it allows quick recognition of significant works in the selected field (Donthu et al, 2021; Suban, 2023). The present evaluated the highly cited papers. Table 1 classifies the top 10 articles with the highest number of citations in the OCB domain. These highly cited works predominantly comprise foundational and classical studies on OCB (e.g., Organ, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Williams & Anderson, 1991). The central theme across these articles is the identification of predictors of OCB. Additionally, most of the papers are based on the tenets of social exchange (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Saks, 2006). Attitudinal factors such as satisfaction, leadership, commitment and perceptions of fairness emerge as significant predictors of OCB. Furthermore, constructs such as fairness and leadership influence OCB indirectly through mediating mechanisms of organizational justice and trust, respectively. Moreover, more than half of these articles are quantitative in nature. It is also notable that the majority of the studies are based in the Western context.

Table 1.

Most Cited Articles.

S. No	Author (Year)	Article	Journal	SJR Citation	Type of Paper	Major Findings
1	Meyer et al. (2002)	Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences	Journal of Vocational Behavior	2.966 3,841	Quantitative	Reports that affective and normative commitment positively correlate with OCB.
2	Podsakoff et al. (1990)	Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors	The Leadership Quarterly	4.375 3,326	Quantitative	Concludes that trust in leaders mediates the effect of transformational leadership on OCB.
3	Williams and Anderson (1991)	Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors	Journal of Management	7.539 3,288	Quantitative	States that in-role behaviour and OCB are distinct concepts. Further, only cognition dimension of satisfaction predicts OCB.
4	Podsakoff et al. (2000)	Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research	Journal of Management	7.539 3,230	Quantitative	Comprehends antecedents and consequences of OCB and classify it under seven dimensions.
5	Saks (2006)	Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement	Journal of Managerial Psychology	1.337 2,851	Quantitative	Job engagement predicts OCB-O and organization engagement predicts both OCBO and OCB-I.
6	Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001)	The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis	Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes	3.119 2,319	Quantitative	Reports that dimensions of justice influence OCB’s dimensions positively.
7	Rich et al. (2010)	Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance	Academy of Management Journal	8.271 2,314	Quantitative	Concludes job engagement mediates the relationship between support, value congruence and OCB.
8	Organ and Ryan (1995)	A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior	Personnel Psychology	3.763 1,868	Meta-analysis	Suggests that job attitude is a strong predictor of OCB, while traits such agreeableness and conscientiousness predict OCB indirectly.
9	Organ (1997)	Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time	Human Performance	1.006 1,692	Qualitative	Redefines OCB as a construct.
10	Konovsky and Pugh (1994)	Citizenship behavior and social exchange	Academy of Management Journal	8.271 1,207	Quantitative	Based on the social exchange theory, it concludes that trust in supervisors mediates the effect of procedural justice on OCB.

Co-citation Analysis

Co-citation analysis examines the relationships among co-cited publications to elucidate the development of foundational knowledge in a research field, where clusters of cited publications represent common themes (Öztürk et al., 2024). A threshold constraint of 40 citations was established to ensure that sufficient references were considered. As a result, 200 papers were included, out of a total of 146,011 cited references. Mapping the co-citation analysis resulted in five clusters. Furthermore, the content analysis method was used to discuss and analyse the most influential articles within each cluster. It resulted in the identification of core themes and emerging trajectories in the field.

Cluster 1: Organizational Identification (OI) and OCB

Table 2 displays the categorization of papers pertaining to organizational identity and its significance in forecasting OCB. According to Ashforth and Mael (1989), individuals who highly identify with their organization indulge in activities that would support and promote the organization. It creates a valuable feeling among individuals. Expanding on this idea, Dutton et al. (1994) argued that employees who strongly identify with their firm are more likely to engage in OCB. Moreover, OI promotes the synchronization of employees’ behaviours with the interests and behaviours that are advantageous to the organization. Morrison (1996) put up a model that states that human resources management practices, such as selection, socialization, rewards and job description, play a crucial role in creating a relationship between employees and employers. This relationship is influenced by aspects such as identification, social exchange and empowerment, ultimately resulting in the manifestation of OCB. Riketta (2005) conducted a meta-analysis and found that OI is a robust predictor of OCB, even surpassing the predictive power of affective commitment. In 2009, Boiral proposed the concept that OCB might have a significant impact on addressing the environmental issues faced by a company.

Table 2.

OI and OCB.

Author (Year)	Article	Type of Study (Methodology)	Key Findings	Context (Country)
Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005)	Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review	Qualitative (Conceptual)	SET comprehend the relation among workplace behaviour such as justice leadership and OCB.	SET validity
Ashforth and Mael (1989)	Social identity theory and the organization	Qualitative (Conceptual)	OI is a manifestation of social identification (SI). And SI can promote altruism, cohesion, cooperation, etc.	Relevance of SI in organization
Kahn (1990)	Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work	Quantitative (Interview method)	Illustrates three psychological conditions—meaningfulness, safety and availability—and their individual sources.	Engagement (USA)
Saks (2006)	Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement	Quantitative (Interview method)	Organization engagement predicts both OCBI and OCBO whereas job engagement predicts only OCBI.	Engagement (Canada)
Spreitzer (1995)	Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation	Quantitative (structural equation modelling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)	Creates and validates a multidimensional measure of psychological empowerment at the workplace. Further, it enhances effectiveness and innovative behaviour.	Psychological empowerment (USA)
Riketta (2005)	Organizational identification: A meta-analysis	Quantitative (Meta-analysis)	OI is superior in predicting OCB than affective organizational commitment.	OI
Dutton et al. (1994)	Organizational images and member identification	Qualitative (Conceptual)	OI predicts OCB.	Organizational image and identification
Rich et al. (2010)	Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance	Quantitative (SEM and CFA)	Job engagement partially mediated the path of value congruence, core self-evaluation and organizational support to OCB.	Job engagement (USA)
Boiral (2009)	Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship behaviors	Qualitative (Conceptual)	OCB could be crucial in implementing ISO 140001	OCB for environment
Morrison (1996)	Organizational citizenship behavior as a critical link between HRM practices and service quality	Qualitative (Conceptual)	Human resource practices, such as selection, socialization, rewards and job description, significantly predict OCB.	Human resource practices and OCB relation

Cluster 2: SET and OCB

Table 3 displays the categorization of articles in Cluster 2. SET is a widely recognized and extensively studied theory in the OCB domain. The relationship between predictors such as commitment, fairness, support and justice with OCB is rooted in SET. Organ (1990) and Moorman (1991) posit that employees’ participation in OCBs is the outcome of perceived fairness in social exchanges. According to Eisenberger et al. (1986), employees with a strong exchange philosophy would reciprocate with higher commitment in exchange for perceived organizational support. Konovsky and Pugh (1994) argue that social exchange deals with long-term exchanges that are built on socio-emotional interactions, and they examined the social exchange model of OCB. Their research uncovered that trust acts as a mediator in the connection between procedural justice and OCB. Building on Konovsky and Pugh’s work, Wayne et al. (1997) discovered that both perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange (LMX) contribute to the formation of a positive exchange relationship that benefits OCB. Moorman et al. (1998) found that perceived organizational support mediates the relationship between procedural justice and OCB. Meyer et al. (2002) concluded that affective and normative commitments are indicators of OCB.

Table 3.

SET and OCB.

Author (Year)	Article	Type of Study (Methodology)	Key Findings	Context (Country)
Eisenberger et al. (1986)	Perceived organizational support	Quantitative (Interview and observation)	Employees’ commitment to the company is heavily influenced by how they perceive the company’s commitment to them.	Job performance (USA)
Organ (1990)	The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior	Qualitative (Conceptual)	Employees engage in OCB to reciprocate fair treatment in social exchanges.	OCB
Konovsky and Pugh (1994)	Citizenship behavior and social exchange	Quantitative (SEM)	Trust mediates the relation between procedural justice and OCB.	OCB (USA)
Allen and Meyer (1990)	The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization	Quantitative (Factor analysis)	Establishes dependable measures of the three components of commitment.	Commitment (USA)
Wayne et al. (1997)	Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective	Quantitative (SEM)	Both POS and LMX mediate the relationship of human resources practices with OCB.	LMX and POS (USA)
Moorman (1991)	The relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?	Quantitative (SEM)	Interactional justice predicts OCB.	Justice–OCB relation (USA)
Niehoff and Moorman (1993)	Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior	Quantitative (SEM)	Indecisive relations among monitoring, justice and OCB.	Leader monitoring (USA)
Meyer et al. (2002)	Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences	Quantitative (Meta-analysis)	Affective and normative commitment positively correlates with OCB.	Commitment (USA)
Moorman et al. (1998)	Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior?	Quantitative (CFA)	Perceived organizational support mediates the relationship between procedural justice and OCB.	Procedural justice–support and OCB relation (USA)
Aryee et al. (2002)	Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model	Quantitative (SEM)	Interactional justice has an indirect effect on OCB via trust in the supervisor.	SET (India)

Cluster 3: Dimensionality and OCB

This cluster focuses on dimensionality and OCB. The review of this cluster, as indicated in Table 4, also highlights some influential predictors of OCB such as job attitudes like commitment and job satisfaction. Smith et al. (1983) identified two distinct classes of OCB: altruism and general compliance. They discovered that job satisfaction affects the altruism dimension of OCB, while neuroticism indirectly influences OCB through its effects on satisfaction. According to Williams and Anderson (1991), OCB can be classified into two dimensions: OCB-individual, which refers to OCB directed towards individuals, and OCB-organization, which refers to OCB directed towards the organization. Moreover, job cognition positively affects these dimensions. Van Dyne et al. (1994), extending political philosophy to OCB, theorized and empirically established three significant OCB categories: participation, loyalty and obedience. In addition, participation is further classified into social, advocacy and functional participation. OCB, being multidimensional, has been found by Van Dyne et al. (1994) to have a diverse mediating role in the interaction between job attitude (job satisfaction), dispositional (cynicism) and the different dimensions of OCB. With the help of a longitudinal study, Van Dyne and LePine (1998) revealed three important findings. First, there is a clear differentiation between in-role behaviour and OCB. Second, there is a similar conceptualization of helping and voice dimensions of OCB as rated by peer, self and supervisor ratings. Last, OCB has a positive influence on employees’ performance. Podsakoff et al. (2000) conducted a comprehensive literature review on OCB to bring out the dimensions of OCB and its antecedents and consequences. According to LePine et al. (2002), the dimensions of OCB, namely, altruism, conscientiousness, civic virtue and courtesy, are highly correlated with each other. Additionally, the dimensions exhibit a proportional association with job attitudes, such as satisfaction and commitment.

Table 4.

Dimensionality and OCB.

Author (Year)	Article	Type of Study (Methodology)	Key Findings	Context (Country)
Williams and Anderson (1991)	Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors	Quantitative (Hierarchical regression analysis) (HRA)	Reports a clear distinction between in-role and OCB. Additionally, cognition part of job satisfaction is related to OCB.	OCB (USA)
Podsakoff et al. (2000)	Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research	Quantitative (Meta-analysis)	Comprehends the dimensions, antecedents and consequences of OCB.	OCB
Smith et al. (1983)	Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents	Quantitative (SEM)	Leader supportiveness influences general compliance directly and altruism via satisfaction.	OCB (USA)
Organ (1997)	Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time	Qualitative (Conceptual)	Clarifies the meaning and dimensionality of OCB.	OCB
Organ and Ryan (1995)	A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behaviour	Quantitative (Meta-analysis)	Provides that job attitudes like satisfaction, leader, fairness and commitment are the stronger predictors of OCB.	OCB
LePine et al. (2002)	The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis	Quantitative (Meta-analysis)	Concludes that except sportsmanship, all the dimensions of OCB are highly correlated with each other. Additionally, no differential relationships with predictors across dimensions of OCB.	OCB dimensionality
Van Dyne and LePine (1998)	Helping and voice extra-role behavior: Evidence of construct and predictive validity	Quantitative (CFA & HRA)	Establishes predictive validity of OCB on performance rating. Additionally reports a distinction between in-role behaviour and OCB among peer, self and supervisors’ ratings.	OCB (USA)
Podsakoff et al. (1997)	Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance	Quantitative (Regression analysis)	Reports that OCB enhances group-level performance.	OCB (USA)
Van Dyne et al. (1994)	Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement and validation	Quantitative (Factor analysis)	Conceptualizes OCB with respect to civic citizenship and establishes construct validity of the same.	OCB (USA)
Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1994)	Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestion for future research	Quantitative (Meta-analysis)	OCB has a significant positive effect on organizational performance. Out of all the dimensions, helping behaviour has the strongest connection with performance.	Consequences of OCB

Cluster 4: Workplace Deviant Behaviours (WDB) and OCB

As illustrated in Table 5, this cluster centres on WDB and OCB. Additionally, it also discusses the adverse effects of partaking in OCB. According to Bolino and Turnley (2005), OCB can result in stress and work–family conflict. Furthermore, Bergeron (2007) argued that engaging in OCB depletes the time and energy allocated for task performance. This impedes the employees’ advancement, performance evaluations and rewards. Grant and Mayer (2009) suggest that employees may simply act to be good soldiers. Expanding on the same, Bolino et al. (2013) proposed that OCB may be motivated by impression management. Furthermore, they suggest that OCB has a detrimental impact on employees’ well-being. In their study, Spector and Fox (2002) developed a model elaborating that emotion might significantly influence employees’ decisions to engage in either OCB or deviant behaviours. According to a study by Lee and Allen (2002), there is a correlation between negative emotions, WDB and OCBI. Dalal (2005) states that both OCB and WDB are part of employees’ behaviour and are distinct from WDB. Dalal conducted a meta-analysis that uncovered a moderate negative connection between OCB and deviant workplace behaviours. Rotundo and Sackett (2002) discovered that while evaluating an employee, greater emphasis is placed on deviant workplace conduct than OCB.

Table 5.

WDB and OCB.

Author (Year)	Article	Type of Study (Methodology)	Key Findings	Context (Country)
Lee and Allen (2002)	Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions	Quantitative (HRA)	Both job cognition and affect predict OCB and workplace deviance.	OCB and WDB (Canada)
Podsakoff et al. (2009)	Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis	Quantitative (Meta-analysis)	OCB is related positively to job performance, reward recommendations and customer satisfaction and negatively to absenteeism, turnover, etc.	Individual- and organizational-level outcome of OCB
Bennett and Robinson (2000)	Development of a measure of workplace deviance	Quantitative (CFA)	Devise a workplace deviance scale with organizational and interpersonal deviance.	WDB (USA)
Dalal (2005)	A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior	Quantitative (Meta-analysis)	States the negative relationship between OCB–WDB. Moreover, job attitudes share a stronger association with WDB than with OCB.	OCB and WDB
Bergeron (2007)	The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost?	Qualitative (Conceptual)	Propose that OCB negatively impacts career advancement, and the relation is moderated by role ambiguity, reward system, reciprocity, etc.	Cost of performing OCB
Rotundo and Sackett (2002)	The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach,	Quantitative (HRA)	Concludes that task, counterproductive performance is given more importance than citizenship while rating the employees.	Task-citizenship-counterproductive performance
Spector and Fox (2002)	An emotion-centred model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior	Qualitative (Conceptual)	Propose an integrative model explaining the interplay among organizational factors, emotion, personality, OCB and counterproductive behaviour.	Emotions, OCB- counterproductive work behaviour
Bolino et al. (2013)	Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior	Qualitative (Conceptual)	Suggest that OCB causes stress, work overload, work–family conflict, reduced task performance, damage to career, etc.	Cost of OCB
Grant and Mayer (2009)	Good soldiers and good actors: Pro-social and impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors	Quantitative (HRA)	Impression management strengthens the positive association between pro-social motives and interpersonal OCB.	OCB and motives (USA)
Bolino and Turnley (2005)	The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work–family conflict	Quantitative (HRA)	Individual initiatives lead to job stress, role overload and WFC.	Cost of OCB (USA)

Cluster 5: Leadership and OCB

Table 6 illustrates the classification of articles in Cluster 5, emphasizing the relationship between leadership style and OCB. Various styles of leadership have proven to be crucial in manifesting OCB among employees. Transformational leadership (Piccolo & Colquitt 2006), LMX (Ilies et al., 2007) and ethical leadership (Brown & Treviño, 2006; Brown et al., 2005) are among the most widely accepted styles. Podsakoff et al. (1990) discovered that transformational leaders build trust in their followers, which consequently promotes OCBs among them. In a very interesting study by Podsakoff et al. (1996), it was found that transformational leadership contributes the most towards OCB, along with other substitutes of leadership style. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) define LMX as a leadership approach that results in long-term commitment from employees. The degree or strength of dedication is contingent upon the quality of LMX. Wang et al. (2005) base their articles on similar reasoning and suggest that transformational leadership fosters and cultivates high-quality LMX. The empirical investigation conducted by them found that LMX serves as a mediator in the relationship between transformational leadership and OCB. In addition, Ilies et al. (2007) conducted a meta-analysis and discovered that LMX has a more pronounced impact on OCB-individual than on OCB-organization. In a study conducted by Ehrhart (2004), the impact of servant leadership, which combines elements of transformational and ethical leadership, on OCB was examined. The study found that justice partially mediates the relationship between servant leadership and the dimensions of OCB.

Table 6.

Leadership and OCB.

Author (Year)	Article	Type of Study (Methodology)	Key Findings	Context (Country)
Podsakoff et al. (1990)	Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors	Quantitative (CFA and SEM)	While transformational leadership indirectly affects OCB via followers’ trust, transactional leadership has a direct effect on OCB.	Transformational leader and OCB (USA)
Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995)	Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective	Qualitative (Conceptual)	Present three dimensions, namely trust, respect and obligation, of LMX and four development stages of LMX theory	LMX theory
Brown et al. (2005)	Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing	Quantitative (Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis)	Develops ethical leadership scale.	Ethical leadership scale (USA)
Ehrhart (2004)	Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior	Quantitative (SEM)	Conclude that servant leadership and procedural are the antecedents of OCB.	Predictors of unit-level OCB (USA)
Piccolo and Colquitt (2006)	Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics	Quantitative (SEM)	Conclude that transformational positively influences the employees’ perception of core job characteristics, which in turn causes intrinsic motivation that leads to an increase in the OCB level.	Transformational leader and OCB (USA)
Brown and Treviño (2006)	Ethical leadership: A review and future directions	Qualitative (Conceptual)	Personality traits and situational influence as antecedents and pro-social behaviour, commitment as its consequences. Further, variables such as moral reasoning and power are needed as the moderators.	Ethical leadership
Wang et al. (2005)	Leader-member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior	Quantitative (CFA and SEM)	LMX fully mediates the path from transformational leadership to OCB and task performance.	Leader–member exchange theory (China)
Ehrhart and Naumann (2004)	Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms approach	Qualitative (Conceptual)	Presence of individual OCB among the group members norm OCB in the group. Further, such relation is moderated by factors such as status, consistency and similarity.	Group-level OCB
Ilies et al. (2007)	Leader–member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis	Quantitative (Meta-analysis)	LMX predicts OCB, and this relation is stronger for individual targeted OCB.	LMX–OCB relation
Podsakoff et al. (1996)	Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors	Quantitative (CFA and HRA)	Do not support the moderating effect of substitutes for leaders between the impact of transformational leaders on job performance, OCB, etc.	Transformational leadership and its impact (USA)

Discussions and Future Directions

The publication trend indicates an increase in scholarly interest in the OCB domain across the research community, reflecting its growing importance and diverse perspectives within the field. Further, the emergence of keywords such as corporate social responsibility, sustainability and ethics with OCB opens promising new avenues, particularly given the increasing emphasis on ethics and environmental concerns. Exploring the interaction and influence is poised to yield significant theoretical and practical insights. The interaction of constructs such as emotional and artificial intelligence with OCB sets the stage for important future avenues. Emotional intelligence is crucial in managing employees’ emotions, modifying their behaviour and alleviating negative outcomes for employees (Cheung et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2024; Prasad et al. 2024). Similarly, the use of artificial intelligence and automation would help in fostering creative behaviour (Waqar & Bektas, 2023). Therefore, exploring the interaction between emotional intelligence, artificial intelligence and OCB would further enhance the understanding of OCB and broaden the research domain.

Most of the research on OCB is of empirical or conceptual nature. However, to validate the earlier conclusions and enhance the generalizability of results, there is a clear need for more longitudinal investigations. The analysis also reveals a predominant Western, especially U.S.-centric, influence in OCB literature (Guiling et al., 2022). Nevertheless, cultural variations significantly shape OCB (Paine & Organ, 2000; Suharnomo & Hashim, 2019). Therefore, future studies should focus on cross-cultural research to deepen the understanding of OCB across diverse cultural settings. The content analysis of each cluster produced under co-citation offers several future research avenues and practical insights as well.

Cluster 1 (OI) summarizes that OI is the strongest predictor (Riketta, 2005). Right recruitment and selection would ensure OCB (Morrison, 1996). Therefore, branding itself as an OCB-induced organization would ensure that organization attracts the right talent that also identifies with citizenship behaviours. Future studies can delve deeper into employer branding to enhance OCB. Since psychological empowerment leads to autonomy and self-control among employees (Spreitzer, 1995), future studies can delve deeper into identifying the interaction between psychological empowerment, OI and OCB. Further, according to Ashforth and Mael (1989), OI among employees does not necessarily require coherence between employees’ and organization’s values and structure. Hence, the further exploration of OI among a diversified workforce could yield great insights. Another important future avenue this cluster offers is the applicability of OCB for achieving its environmental goal (Boiral, 2009). In the light of increased environmental concerns from organizations, future studies should explore the unique challenges and drivers of implementing OCB in the environment.

Cluster 2 (SET) concludes that SET is pivotal in explaining the phenomenon of OCB. Considering the importance of socio-emotional exchange in reaping long-term benefits in the form of OCB (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994), future studies should explore the interaction between the emotional intelligence of management and employees’ OCB. Further, ensuring that employees’ expected beliefs and expectations from their employers are met with actuality builds loyalty and a sense of fairness and commitment among employees that are the bases for social exchange (Eisenberger et al.,, 1986; Wayne et al., 1997). Therefore, future research can delve into its practical applications and examine the impact of employees’ psychological contracts on OCB.

Cluster 3 (Dimensionality) concludes that the research on OCB has focused less on its construct validity (Podsakoff et al., 2000). The analysis of the cluster clearly indicates a lack of dimensional consensus and clarity. Further adding to the trouble is the fact that jobs are defined in such an abstract and generalized manner that there exists no clear demarcation between OCB and in-role jobs (Organ, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 2000). In contemporary work environments characterized by job enrichment, a flattened structure and decentralization, there is a need for a clearer and more efficient conceptual model on OCB to avoid confusion, uncertainty and pressure. Therefore, researchers should be encouraged to integrate the different studies more effectively to establish the construct OCB as distinct from in-role job with clear dimensions. Also, studies have concluded that different predictors affect dimensions differently and each dimension produces different outcomes. Future studies should provide more fine-grained research on the dimensions of OCB by delving deeper into dimension-wise predictors and outcomes.

Cluster 4 (WDB) states that WDB and OCB are adaptive behavioural responses to the workplace interaction (Dalal, 2005). The elimination of one does not necessarily imply the enhancement of the other. Therefore, future research should investigate strategies that not only foster OCB but also alleviate WDB. Since both share somewhat the same predictors (Dalal, 2005), future studies should investigate the intensity of these predictors in predicting OCB and WDB. The role of motives and emotions in determining whether an employee will indulge in OCB or WDB (Spector & Fox, 2002; Grant & Mayer, 2009) merits further investigation to gain a deeper understanding of the underlying dynamics. The kind and magnitude of emotions and motives are significantly influenced by personality traits (Spector & Fox, 2002). Therefore, it is important to explore the trajectory of personality, emotions/motives and OCB. Additionally, the primary cause of the negative effect of OCB lies in the fact that it consumes individuals’ resources (e.g., time, efforts and energy). Freeing up the resources might be helpful in mitigating negative effects such as exhaustion, stress and work–family conflict. Hence, exploring the effect of technological advancement like artificial intelligence may yield promising insights.

Cluster 5 (Leadership) summarizes that leadership is strongly associated with OCB. Leaders represent the organization to employees. Leaders are a connecting point between employees and the organization, its policy, culture, efforts, etc. A good leadership style can be helpful in buffering the negative effects of OCB and strengthening the positive effects on OCB. Therefore, future studies can delve deeper into leadership strategies to enhance OCB. This includes examining the mediating/moderating effect of various leadership styles in predicting OCB. Future studies should carry out qualitative studies such as case studies and longitudinal studies to strengthen the comprehension of leadership-OCB dynamics.

Theoretical Implications

The present study makes several significant theoretical contributions. It is the first scholarly effort to provide a comprehensive set of ideas for additional research aimed at expanding this corpus of knowledge. Through a meticulous and comprehensive synthesis of the OCB literature, this study improves the theoretical understanding by collating all the scholarly work within this domain. Following the rigorous parameters recommended by Paul et al. (2021) for SLR has enhanced the quality, integrity and relevance of the literature under examination, providing a robust foundation for the subsequent theoretical analysis. Further, bibliometric analysis quantitatively contributed to the completion of an otherwise fragmented theoretical framework; while content analysis helped in extracting valuable insights from it. Moreover, the structured approach in organizing and presenting the findings through tabulations and comprehensive discussions facilitate a synthesized overview of the examined literature on OCB, offering a nuanced understanding of key insights derived from the reviewed articles. Additionally, the analysis of temporal publication patterns in the OCB domain elucidates the evolution of OCB and its linkage with multiple factors. The expansion of OCB into emerging areas such as corporate social responsibility, emotional intelligence, environmental sustainability and artificial intelligence presents several theoretical, conceptual and empirical research opportunities. These opportunities would be crucial for understanding the development of a new paradigm and the advancement of existing theories within the broad domain of OCB. The present article enriches the theoretical discourse by elucidating the thematic evolution within the OCB field. The analysis of key clusters further illuminates the thematic progression within the OCB domain, setting the stage for future research endeavours. This study serves as a reference point for researchers intending to proceed with a future study on OCB.

Practical Implications

To sustain and grow competitively, organizations heavily expect employees’ OCB (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006). However, OCB is a complex phenomenon involving employees’ discretion, free-will and is formally unrewarded, thus making it difficult to promote OCB in an organization. Consequently, it is important to understand the development and trends in OCB to adopt a proactive approach and enhance OCB in the workplace. The present study enhances the body of knowledge by compiling relevant academic work on OCB, thereby supporting management in developing more informed policies and decision-making processes. The future directions above give managers and decision-makers a variety of practical insights while framing policies and strategies.

Conclusions and Limitations

Overall, the findings of the present study offer a thorough analysis of the evolution, trends in development, prominent clusters and potential areas for further research in this domain. While it has made valuable contributions to the field of literature, it is important to acknowledge certain methodological shortcomings. The current study solely uses the Scopus database. Subsequent studies in the same field can expand their scope by incorporating publications from additional databases, such as the Web of Science. Moreover, this study exclusively incorporates English-written literature. Therefore, future research endeavours can explore the literature available in different languages. While bibliometrics is an objective and replicable tool for analysing books, a qualitative approach offers a deeper comprehension of the issue. Hence, employing an alternative study methodology, such as a meta-analysis, can comprehensively encompass the published literature and assess the practices of OCB. Furthermore, the study relied on co-citation analysis, which provides key themes within the domain. However, as this approach is based on highly cited papers, it may sometimes lead to the exclusion of more recent publications. Therefore, future research could employ a combination of bibliographic coupling or other methods to further strengthen the findings.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

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), 1–18.

Aryee

, Budhwar

P. S.

, & Chen

Z. X.

(2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 267–285.

Ashforth

B. E.

, & Mael

(1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.

Baker

B. D.

, & Lee

D. D.

(2020). Spiritual formation and workplace engagement: Prosocial workplace behaviors. Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, 17(2), 107–138.

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(4), 587–595. https://doi.org/10.5465/255908

Bennett

R. J.

, & Robinson

S. L.

(2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349–360.

Bergeron

D. M.

(2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1078–1095.

Boiral

(2009). Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(2), 221–236.

Bolino

M. C.

, & Turnley

W. H.

(2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 740–748.

10.

Bolino

M. C.

, Hsiung

H. H.

, Harvey

, & LePine

J. A.

(2015). ‘Well, I’m tired of tryin’!’ Organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 56–74.

11.

Bolino

M. C.

, Klotz

A. C.

, Turnley

W. H.

, & Harvey

(2013). Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(4), 542–559.

12.

Bolino

M. C.

, Turnley

W. H.

, Gilstrap

J. B.

, & Suazo

M. M.

(2010). Citizenship under pressure: What’s a ‘good soldier’ to do? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 835–855.

13.

Brief

A. P.

, & Motowidlo

S. J.

(1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710–725.

14.

Brown

M. E.

, & Treviño

L. K.

(2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 595–616.

15.

Brown

M. E.

, Treviño

L. K.

, & Harrison

D. A.

(2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117–134.

16.

Carmeli

, & Josman

Z. E.

(2006). The relationship among emotional intelligence, task performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Human Performance, 19(4), 403–419.

17.

Cheung

M. F.

, Wong

C. S.

, & Chiu

W. C.

(2022). Effect of conflict-outcomes: Moderating role of psychosocial mentoring and emotional intelligence. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 60(3), 658–681.

18.

Cohen-Charash

, & Spector

P. E.

(2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.

19.

Cropanzano

, & Mitchell

M. S.

(2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.

20.

Dalal

R. S.

(2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241–1255.

21.

Donthu

, Kumar

, Mukherjee

, Pandey

, & Lim

W. M.

(2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296.

22.

Dutton

J. E.

, Dukerich

J. M.

, & Harquail

C. V.

(1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239–263.

23.

Ehrhart

M. G.

(2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61–94.

24.

Ehrhart

M. G.

, & Naumann

S. E.

(2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 960–974.

25.

Eisenberger

, Huntington

, Hutchison

, & Sowa

(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507.

26.

Graen

G. B.

, & Uhl-Bien

(1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.

27.

Graham

J. W.

(1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4(4), 249–270.

28.

Grant

A. M.

, & Mayer

D. M.

(2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 900–912.

29.

Guiling

, Panatik

S. A.

, Sukor

M. S. M.

, Rusbadrol

, & Cunlin

(2022). Bibliometric analysis of global research on organizational citizenship behavior from 2000 to 2019. Sage Open, 12(1), 21582440221079898. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221079898

30.

Hesse

, & Mikkelson

A. C.

(2024). Organizational communication patterns as predictors of organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediating role of citizenship motives. International Journal of Business Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884241248133

31.

Ilies

, Nahrgang

J. D.

, & Morgeson

F. P.

(2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 92(1), 269–277.

32.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.

33.

Katz

(1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9(2), 131–146.

34.

Kelemen

T. K.

, Turnley

W. H.

, Bergeron

D. M.

, Rochford

, & Hinz

(2022). Citizenship ambivalence: Its nature, causes and consequences. Human Resource Management Review, 32(4), 100896.

35.

Klarin

(2024). How to conduct a bibliometric content analysis: Guidelines and contributions of content co-occurrence or co-word literature reviews. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 48(2), e13031.

36.

Konovsky

M. A.

, & Pugh

S. D.

(1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 656–669.

37.

Lee

, & Allen

N. J.

(2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131–142.

38.

LePine

J. A.

, Erez

, & 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.

39.

Lewin

L. D.

, Warren

D. E.

, & AlSuwaidi

(2020). Does CSR make better citizens? The influence of employee CSR programs on employee societal citizenship behavior outside of work. Business and Society Review, 125(3), 271–288.

40.

Lim

W. M.

, & Kumar

(2024). Guidelines for interpreting the results of bibliometric analysis: A sensemaking approach. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 43(2), 17–26.

41.

Liu

S. C.

, Luu

T. T.

, Pham

N. T.

, & Tang

A. D.

(2024). Internal CSR and work–family facilitation: A dual mechanism of organizational citizenship behaviors and moderating role of emotional intelligence. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 58, 394–408.

42.

Mahembe

, & Engelbrecht

A. S.

(2014). The relationship between servant leadership, organisational citizenship behaviour and team effectiveness, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(1), 1–10.

43.

Meyer

J. P.

, Stanley

D. J.

, Herscovitch

, & Topolnytsky

(2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52.

44.

Miao

, Humphrey

R. H.

, & Qian

(2020). The cross-cultural moderators of the influence of emotional intelligence on organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 31(2), 213–233.

45.

Mongeon

, & Paul-Hus

(2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106, 213–228.

46.

Moorman

R. H.

(1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845–855.

47.

Moorman

R. H.

, Blakely

G. L.

, & Niehoff

B. P.

(1998). Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 351–357.

48.

Morrison

E. W.

(1996). Organizational citizenship behavior as a critical link between HRM practices and service quality. Human Resource Management, 35(4), 493–512.

49.

Niehoff

B. P.

, & Moorman

R. H.

(1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 527–556.

50.

Nijhawan

, Gujral

H. K.

, & Singh

(2023). Perceived organizational support and job performance: Mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal for ReAttach Therapy and Developmental Diversities, 6(4s), 139–151.

51.

Nurjanah

, Pebianti

, & Handaru

A. W.

(2020). The influence of transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and organizational commitments on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in the inspectorate general of the Ministry of Education and Culture. Cogent Business and Management, 7(1), 1793521. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1793521

52.

Organ

D. W.

(1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books.

53.

Organ

D. W.

(1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12(1), 43–72.

54.

Organ

D. W.

(1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85–97.

55.

Organ

D. W.

, & Ryan

(1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775–802.

56.

Öztürk

, Kocaman

, & Kanbach

D. K.

(2024). How to design bibliometric research: An overview and a framework proposal. Review of Managerial Science, 18, 3333–3361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00738-0

57.

Paine

J. B.

, & Organ

D. W.

(2000). The cultural matrix of organizational citizenship behavior: Some preliminary conceptual and empirical observations. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1053-4822(99)00038-8

58.

Pattnaik

S. C.

, & Sahoo

(2023). Influence of high-performance work practices on organizational citizenship behaviour: The mediating role of affective commitment. South Asian Journal of Business Studies, 12(1), 150–167.

59.

Paul

, Lim

W. M.

, O’Cass

, Hao

A. W.

, & Bresciani

(2021). Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR). International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), O1–O16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12695

60.

Pham-Duc

, Tran

, Trinh

T. P. T.

, Nguyen

T. T.

, Nguyen

N. T.

, & Le

H. T. T.

(2022). A spike in the scientific output on social sciences in Vietnam for recent three years: Evidence from bibliometric analysis in Scopus database (2000–2019). Journal of Information Science, 48(5), 623–639.

61.

Piccolo

R. F.

, & Colquitt

J. A.

(2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 327–340.

62.

Posdakoff

P. M.

, & Mackenzie

S. B.

(1994). Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Sales Unit Effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(3), 351–363.

63.

Podsakoff

N. P.

, Whiting

S. W.

, Podsakoff

P. M.

, & Blume

B. D.

(2009). Individual-and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141.

64.

Podsakoff

P. M.

, & MacKenzie

S. B.

(1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestion for future research. Human Performance, 10(2), 133–151.

65.

Podsakoff

P. M.

, Ahearne

, & MacKenzie

S. B.

(1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 262–270.

66.

Podsakoff

P. M.

, MacKenzie

S. B.

, & Bommer

W. H.

(1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22(2), 259–298.

67.

Podsakoff

P. M.

, MacKenzie

S. B.

, Moorman

R. H.

, & Fetter

(1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.

68.

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(3), 513–563.

69.

Potipiroon

, & Faerman

(2020). Tired from working hard? Examining the effect of organizational citizenship behavior on emotional exhaustion and the buffering roles of public service motivation and perceived supervisor support. Public Performance and Management Review, 43(6), 1260–1291.

70.

Prasad

K. D. V.

, Kalavakolanu

, Vaidya

, Aghav

, & Srinivas

(2024). Effect of organizational citizenship behavior on psychological well-being: Mediating and moderating effects of emotional intelligence: An empirical study of it-enabled industry employees in Hyderabad. Humanities and Social Sciences Letters, 12(3), 481–500.

71.

Qalati

S. A.

, Zafar

, Fan

, Limón

M. L. S.

, & Khaskheli

M. B.

(2022). Employee performance under transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: A mediated model. Heliyon, 8(11). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11374

72.

Rich

B. L.

, Lepine

J. A.

, & Crawford

E. R.

(2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635.

73.

Riketta

(2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 358–384.

74.

Rotundo

, & Sackett

P. R.

(2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 66–80.

75.

Saks

A. M.

(2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619.

76.

Smith

C. A.

, Organ

D. W.

, & Near

J. P.

(1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653–663.

77.

Spector

P. E.

, & Fox

(2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 269–292.

78.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465.

79.

Suban

S. A.

(2023). Bibliometric analysis on wellness tourism–citation and co-citation analysis. International Hospitality Review, 37(2), 359–383.

80.

Suharnomo

, & Hashim

(2019). Differences in organization citizenship behavior between ‘serumpun’ countries (Indonesia–Malaysia). Journal of Asia Business Studies, 13(3), 349–361.

81.

Sulphey

M. M.

, AlKahtani

N. S.

, Senan

N. A. M.

, & Adow

A. H. E.

(2024). A bibliometric study on organization citizenship behavior for the environment. Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management, 10(2), 891–906.

82.

Supriyanto

A. S.

, & Ekowati

V. M.

(2022). Spirituality to organizational citizenship behavior from Islamic perspective: Mediating role of spirituality at work and organizational commitment. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 13(12), 2672–2694.

83.

Swami

A., Rajni

, & Hemrajani

(2024). Workplace spirituality and organisation citizenship behaviour: Exploring mediating effect of job satisfaction. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 37(4), 570–588.

84.

Thomas

, Ambrosini

, & Hughes

(2017). The role of organizational citizenship behaviour and rewards in strategy effectiveness. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(18), 2628–2660.

85.

Van Dyne

, & LePine

J. A.

(1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119.

86.

Van Dyne

, Cummings

L. L.

, & McLean Parks

(1995). Extrarole behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional, clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215–285.

87.

Van Dyne

, Graham

J. W.

, & Dienesch

R. M.

(1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 765–802.

88.

Vigoda-Gadot

(2006). Compulsory citizenship behavior: Theorizing some dark sides of the good soldier syndrome in organizations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 36(1), 77–93.

89.

Vigoda-Gadot

(2007). Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination of compulsory extra-role behavior in the workplace. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(3), 377–405.

90.

Walz

S. M.

, & Niehoff

B. P.

(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Their relationship to organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 24(3), 301–319.

91.

Wang

, Law

K. S.

, Hackett

R. D.

, Wang

, & Chen

Z. X.

(2005). Leader–member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 420–432.

92.

Wang

I. A.

, Lee

B. W.

, & Wu

S. T.

(2017). The relationships among work–family conflict, turnover intention and organizational citizenship behavior in the hospitality industry of Taiwan. International Journal of Manpower, 38(8), 1130–1142.

93.

Waqar

, & Bektas

(2023). Teamwork and organizational innovation within digital economy: A moderating role of organizational citizenship. Virtual Economics, 6(3), 20–37.

94.

Wayne

S. J.

, Shore

L. M.

, & Liden

R. C.

(1997). Perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82–111.

95.

Williams

L. J.

, & Anderson

S. E.

(1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617.

96.

Xiao

, & Watson

(2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112.

97.

Yaylaci

A. F.

(2016). An analysis of studies on organizational citizenship behaviors in Turkey: 2000–2015. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(8), 11–14.

98.

(2019). A bibliometric analysis of supply chain management research from the perspective of social network. Science and Technology Libraries, 38(2), 224–242.

99.

Yen

C. H.

, Han

T. C.

, & Wen

Y. S.

(2024). Authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors: How do harmonious passion and obsessive passion mediate? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 7(4), 1871–1889.