The effects of performance feedback on organizational citizenship behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Figures & data

Figure 1. Model of main constructs and mediated terms affecting feedback and organizational citizenship behaviour

Figure 2. PRISMA flow diagram

Figure 3. Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT), version 2018

Table 1. Overview of the studies included in the systematic review and meta-analysis

Author(s) (Year)	N	Profession	Country	Men (%)	Correlation of feedback and OCB	ES radj. (95% CI)	Hedges’ gs	OCB measurement tool		Feedback measurement tool
								OCB tool author(s)	Self- or Supervisor report	Feedback tool author(s)	Measured or manipulated	Frequency	Property
Akgunduz et al. (2016)	410	Hotel employees	Turkey	54	r(408) =.34 p <.005	.34	.72	Wei, Qu, and Ma (2012)	Self-report	Zhou and George (2001)	Self-report measure	Frequency of performance feedback
Belschak and Den Hartog (2009) – A^a,b	107	Mixed	Netherlands	64	r(105) = −.20 p ≥.05	.18 (.10,.26)	−.41	S. B. MacKenzie et al. (1991)	Self-report	No tool	Experimental manipulation		Positive vs negative feedback
Belschak and Den Hartog (2009) – B^a,b	107	Mixed	Netherlands	64	r(105) =.16 p ≥.05	.13 (.06,.19)	.32	S. B. MacKenzie et al. (1991)	Self-report	No tool	Experimental manipulation		Public vs private feedback
Belschak and Den Hartog (2009) – C^a,b	86	Researchers	Netherlands	69	r(84) = −.16 p <.01	.12 (.05,.19)	−.32	S. B. MacKenzie et al. (1991)	Self-report	No tool	Experimental manipulation		Positive vs negative feedback
Belschak and Den Hartog (2009) – D^a,b,e	86	Researchers	Netherlands	69	r(84) =.08 p ≥.05	-	.16	S. B. MacKenzie et al. (1991)	Self-report	No tool	Experimental manipulation		Public vs private feedback
Guo and Ling (2019)	237	Mixed	China	51	r(235) =.34 p <.01	.34	.72	Lin and Peng (2010) – contextual performance	Supervisor	Steelman et al. (2004)	Self-report	Feedback Environment Scale measures frequency and properties
Haider et al.(2019) – A	264	Bank employees	India	73	r(262) =.22 p <.001	.21	.45	Pearce and Gregersen (1991)	Supervisor	Teas and Horrell (1981); Jaworski and Kohli (1991)	Self-report	Frequency of positive feedback
Haider et al. (2019) – B^e	264	Bank employees	India		r(262) = −.04 p <.05	-	−.08	Pearce and Gregersen (1991)	Supervisor	Teas and Horrell (1981); Jaworski and Kohli (1991)	Self-report	Frequency of positive feedback
Haider et al. (2017)	212	Hospital employees	Spain	43	r(210) =.68 p = N/A	.68	1.84	Pearce and Gregersen (1991)	Supervisor	Pousette and Jacobsson (1999)	Self-report	Frequency of positive and negative feedback
Ilies et al. (2013) – A	68	Non-academic university staff	USA	13	r(66) =.24 p <.05	.21	.48	Lee and Allen (2002)	Supervisor	No tool	Experimental manipulation		Normative feedback on high CWB
Ilies et al. (2013) – B^e	78	Non-academic university staff	USA	13	r(76) =.06 p ≥.05	-	.12	Lee and Allen (2002)	Supervisor	No tool	Experimental manipulation		Normative feedback on low CWB
Lemoine et al. (2015) – A	213	University housing employees	USA	46	r(211) =.13 p ≥.05	.11	.26	Williams and Anderson (1991)	Supervisor	Kluger and DeNisi (1996)	Self-report		Positive vs negative feedback
Lemoine et al. (2015) – B^b,g	213	University housing employees	USA	46	r(211) =.09 p ≥.05	.06	.18	Williams and Anderson (1991)	Supervisor	Kluger and DeNisi (1996)	Self-report		Positive vs negative feedback
Lonsdale (2016)^b	660	Univerisity employees	USA	37	r(658) =.29 p <.001	.29	.60	Lee and Allen (2002)	Self-report	Steelman et al. (2004)	Self-report	Feedback Environment Scale measures frequency and properties
Mattson et al. (2015)^c	221	Hospital employees	Sweden	54	r(219) =.30 p ≥.05	.29	.62	MacKenzie et al. (1991); Neal et al. (2000)	Self-report	Based on Hackman and Oldham (1975)	Self-report	Frequency of information about performance
Merriman, 2017 – A	93	Mixed	USA	55	r(91) =.55 p <.001	.54	1.29	Deckop et al. (2004)	Supervisor	Cirka (2000) – extra role	Self-report	Frequency of competence supportive feedback
Peng and Chiu (2010)	259	Mixed	Taiwan	64	r(257) =.25 p <.01	.24	.51	Farh et al. (1997)	Supervisor	Steelman et al. (2004)	Self-report	Feedback Environment Scale measures frequency and properties
Randhawa and Kaur (2015)^d	509	Food-processing industry workers	India	82	r(507) =.43 p <.05	.43	.95	Lee and Allen (2002)	Self-report	Patterson et al., 2004	Self-report	Frequency of assessment and information about performance
Rasheed et al. (2013)	275	Bank employees	Saudi Arabia	82	r(273) =.29 p <.01	.28	.60	Motowidlo and Van Scotter (1994)	Self-report	Russell and Goode (1988)	Self-report		Usefulness of feedback
Sawalha et al., 2017)^f	157	Higher education faculty and instructors	Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, UAE & Qatar	69	r(155) =.25 p <.001	.24	.51	Podsakoff et al. (1990)	Self-report	Hackman and Oldham (1975)	Self-report	Frequency of information about performance
Sommer and Kulkarni (2012)	128	Mixed	India	53	r(126) =.28 p <.01	.27	.58	Williams & Shiaw (1999)	Self-report	Constructive feedback	Self-report		Appropriate use of constructive feedback

^aBelschak and Den Hartog (2009) did not report correlations, which were calculated from the regression coefficient using the formula from Peterson and Brown (2005); correlation scores for study 1 were calculated on the authors’ second sample, for the first sample included full-time students only. ^b Belschak and Den Hartog (2009) and Lonsdale (2016) only reported OCBI and OCBO, thus, for easier comparison, the average is reported; ^c Mattson et al. (2015) measured civic virtue; ^d Randhawa and Kaur (2015) only measured OCBI; ^e (-) Effect sizes could not be calculated due to low correlations and N; ^f Sawalha et al. (2017) reported 5 sub-dimensions of OCB (i.e., altruism, civic virtue, courtesy, conscientiousness, and sportsmanship) and were reported averaged; ^g Lemoine et al. (2015) – A includes an average score of feedback received from managers and Lemoine et al. – B feedback received from peers. ES = Effect Size, CI = Confidence Interval, UAE = United Arab Emirates.

Figure 4. Forest plot with summary measure (centreline of diamond) and associated confidence intervals (lateral tips of diamond) and solid vertical line of no effect

Figure 5. Funnel plot of publication bias

*Akgunduz, Y., Dalgic, A., & Kale, A. (2016). The effects of stress and managers’ behaviour on the job satisfaction and organisational citizenship behaviour of hotel employees. Tourism, 64(1), 41–62. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/228223

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wei, X., Qu, H., & Ma, E. (2012). Decisive mechanism of organizational citizenship behavior in the hotel industry – An application of economic game theory. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1244–1253. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.03.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 682–696. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069410

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2009). Consequences of positive and negative feedback: The impact on emotions and extra-role behaviours. Applied Psychology, 58(2), 274–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00336.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons’ performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(1), 123–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90037-T

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Guo, Y., & Ling, B. (2019). Effects of leader motivating language on employee task and contextual performance: The mediating role of feedback quality. Psychological Reports, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294119862989

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lin, C. C., & Peng, T. K. (2010). From Organizational Citizenship Behaviour to Team Performance: The Mediation of Group Cohesion and Collective Efficacy. Management and Organization Review, 6, 55–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2009.00172.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The feedback environment scale: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403258440

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Haider, S., de Pablos Heredero, C., & Ahmed, M. (2019). A three-wave time-lagged study of mediation between positive feedback and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of organization-based self-esteem. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 12, 241–253. https://doi.org/10.2147/prbm.S192515

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pearce, J. L., & Gregersen, H. B. (1991). Task interdependence and extrarole behavior: A test of the mediating effects of felt responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 838–844. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.838

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Teas, R. K., & Horrell, J. F. (1981). Salespeople satisfaction and performance feedback. Industrial Marketing Management, 10(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-8501(81)90027-4

 Google Scholar

Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1991). Supervisory Feedback: Alternative Types and Their Impact on Salespeople's Performance and Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(2), 190–201. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172807

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Haider, S., de Pablos Heredero, C., & Montes Botella, J. L. (2017). Mediating role of organisational citizenship behaviour in the relationship between feedback and innovation implementation. Journal of Organisational Studies and Innovation, 4(4), 19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323855396_Mediating_Role_of_Organisational_Citizenship_Behaviour_in_the_Relationship_between_Feedback_and_Innovation_Implementation

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pousette, A., & Jacobsson, C. (1999). Consequences of feed-back environment in human service organizations. Goteborg Psychological Reports, 29(7), 1–21. https://www.ipd.gu.se/digitalAssets/1286/1286052_gpr99_nr7.pdf

 Google Scholar

*Ilies, R., Peng, A. C., Savani, K., & Dimotakis, N. (2013). Guilty and helpful: An emotion-based reparatory model of voluntary work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 1051–1059. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034162

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.131

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Lemoine, G. J., Parsons, C. K., & Kansara, S. (2015). Above and beyond, again and again: Self-regulation in the aftermath of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 40–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036902

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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. https://doi.org/10.12691/jbms-1-4-2

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Lonsdale, D. J. (2016). The effects of leader–member exchange and the feedback environment on organizational citizenship and withdrawal. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 19(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000037

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Mattson, M., Hellgren, J., & Goransson, S. (2015). Leader communication approaches and patient safety: An integrated model. Journal of Safety Research, 53, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2015.03.008

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Neal, A., Griffin, M. A., & Hart, P. M. (2000). The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior. Safety Science, 34(1–3), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00008-4

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076546

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Merriman, K. K. (2017). Extrinsic work values and feedback: Contrary effects for performance and well-being. Human Relations, 70(3), 339–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726716655391

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Deckop, J. R., Merriman, K. K., & Blau, G. (2004), Impact of variable risk preferences on the effectiveness of control by pay. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904322915919

 Google Scholar

Cirka, C. C. (2000). Compliance and constructive contributions in organizations: Effects of managerial control styles on proactive employee behaviors [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Temple University, Philadelphia, PA

 Google Scholar

*Peng, J. C., & Chiu, S. F. (2010). An integrative model linking feedback environment and organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 150(6), 582–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903365455

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Farh, J.-L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S.-C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behaviour in chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 421–444. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393733

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Randhawa, G., & Kaur, K. (2015). An empirical assessment of impact of organizational climate on organizational citizenship behaviour. Paradigm, 19(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971890715585202

 Google Scholar

Patterson, M. G., Warr, P. B., & West, M. A. (2004). Organizational climate and company performance: The role of employee affect and employee level. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(2), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904774202144

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Rasheed, A., Jehanzeb, K., & Rasheed, M. (2013). An investigation of the antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior: Case of Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 5(1), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v5n1p128

 Google Scholar

Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.475

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Russell, J. S., & Goode, D. L. (1988). An analysis of managers’ reactions to their own performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(1), 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.1.63

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

*Sawalha, N., Kathawala, Y., & Magableh, I. (2017). Educator organizational citizenship behavior and job satisfaction moderation in the GCC expatriate-dominated market. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2017-1247

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7

 Google Scholar

*Sommer, K. L., & Kulkarni, M. (2012). Does constructive performance feedback improve citizenship intentions and job satisfaction? The roles of perceived opportunities for advancement, respect, and mood. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23(2), 177–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21132

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Williams, S., & Shiaw, W. T. (1999). Mood and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Effects of Positive Affect on Employee Organizational Citizenship Behavior Intentions. The Journal of Psychology, 133(6), 656–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223989909599771

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Peterson, R. A., & Brown, S. P. (2005). On the use of beta coefficients in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.175

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar