Research on organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) has grown immensely in the last few decades since it was first introduced by Bateman and Organ (1983). OCBs are defined as “performance that supports the social and psychological environment in which task performance takes place” (Organ, 1997, p. 95). Empirically, these behaviors have been linked to positive work outcomes such as productivity, efficiency, and job performance ratings (Ocampo et al., 2018; Organ, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 2009) and health outcomes such as job strain, burnout, and absenteeism (e.g., Bolino et al., 2010; Chiu & Tsai, 2006).

The motives initiating employee engagement in OCBs influence how often and what behaviors employees choose to engage in (Grant & Mayer, 2009; Kim et al., 2013; Takeuchi et al., 2015; Wingate et al., 2019). In order to operationalize differences in motives, Rioux and Penner (2001) conceptualized and identified three core motives behind OCBs: organizational concern, prosocial values, and impression management. Organizational concern is motivated by pride for and commitment to the organization, prosocial values are motivated by a need to be helpful and build positive relationships with others, and impression management is motivated by a desire to look good in front of co-workers and supervisors. These motives have been distinguished as other-focused roles (organizational concern and prosocial values) and self-focused roles (impression management; Bowler et al., 2019; Rioux & Penner, 2001) and have been shown to differentially relate to various outcomes. For example, Hui et al. (2000) found that employees who deemed OCBs as instrumental to an upcoming promotion opportunity performed more citizenship behaviors before the promotion decision than they did after the decision was made (i.e., impression management). Furthermore, Bolino and Grant (2016) suggested those who are more prosocially and intrinsically motivated participate in different citizenship behaviors than those who are not prosocially motivated (i.e., prosocial values and organizational concern).

Employees’ motives behind performing citizenship behaviors influence the frequency and the type of OCB given (Hui et al., 2000; Takeuchi et al., 2015). Specifically, those with organizational concern motives primarily engage in OCBs that show their employers their commitment to the organization (Rioux & Penner, 2001). Those performing OCB with prosocial value motives are more likely to engage in OCBs that support others on an individual basis (Rioux & Penner, 2001). Finally, those with impression management motives are more likely to engage in OCB that is non-risky and recognized by employers (Hui et al., 2000; Kim et al., 2013; Wingate et al., 2019).

The research on citizenship motives took a pivotal turn about a decade ago. Previously, research on these motives assumed that people tend to have one type of citizenship motive when they engage in OCBs in the workplace, or in other words, that citizenship motives were mutually exclusive. In 2009, Grant and Mayer proposed that people could have more than one citizenship motive and examined the interaction effect between prosocial values and impression management. Later, Takeuchi et al. (2015) expanded Grant and Mayer’s (2009) idea and examined the interaction effects of all three types of citizenship motives. However, examining an interaction with a variable-centered approach is limited in that only one interaction pattern is assumed and the possibility of having complex and multiple interaction patterns is ignored. With a person-centered approach, a latent profile analysis can explore complex and numerous interaction patterns based on multiple variables (Bennett et al., 2016; Gabriel et al., 2015). To extend past findings on interactive effects of OCB motives, we examine the different and complex configurations of citizenship motives on OCBs using a latent profile analysis in this study.

Although different configurations (i.e., profiles) of citizenship motives have not yet been examined in the literature, it is important to discuss and distinguish our research from that of Klotz et al. (2018), which investigated different latent profiles of OCBs. In other words, the profiles developed by Klotz et al. (2018) were based on the types of citizenship behaviors performed by participants. For instance, the authors named the “contributors” profile because participants in that group performed all five citizenship behavior categories (conscientiousness, sportsmanship, civic virtue, courtesy, and altruism; Organ, 1988) at a high level. On the other hand, we created and named our profiles based on the amount of motives they possessed (i.e., the amount of prosocial values, organizational concern, and/or impression management). We do not view either of these approaches as superior to the other, rather, they simply serve different purposes.

The purpose of our study is to examine the different profiles of citizenship motives using organizational concern, prosocial values, and impression management motives. Furthermore, we investigate how citizenship motive profile groups predict different levels of giving OCB, receiving OCB, and burnout. This study contributes to the literature in the following ways. First, it expands the current literature regarding which citizenship motive patterns employees display in the workplace. In building our hypotheses, we draw from self-determination theory (Gagné & Deci, 2005) and conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989). We discuss the degree to which various profiles of citizenship behavior motives are associated with intrinsic and/or extrinsic motivation, which we use to develop the degree to which each profile should be beneficial or harmful in the context of our outcomes based on the resources required. Relatedly, this research helps employers better understand underlying motives behind employees’ OCB performance and effectively react to their performance.

Second, this study reveals how the identified groups exhibit different levels of giving OCB and receiving OCB. In particular, receiving OCB has been understudied in relation to citizenship motives, though previous studies have insinuated that different citizenship motives are often recognized by supervisors and coworkers and result in different consequences (Donia et al., 2016; Halbesleben et al., 2010; Rodell & Lynch, 2016). By investigating receiving OCB as well as giving OCB, we are able to comprehensively uncover how citizenship motives play a role in OCB performance.

Lastly, this research adds to the occupational health psychology literature by demonstrating how different combinations of citizenship motives demonstrate various levels of burnout. Although previous studies showed the effect of each citizenship motive or the interactive effects of citizenship motives on health with a variable-centered approach (e.g., Qiu et al., 2020), it is unclear how different profiles of citizenship motives relate to burnout. This investigation is important given that people are likely to have multiple motives at the same time (Kim et al., 2013; Valero & Hirschi, 2016); thus, this study illuminates how citizenship motives influence burnout beyond what has been revealed previously in the literature.

OCB Motives and Self-Determination Theory

In developing our hypotheses, we utilize self-determination theory (Gagné & Deci, 2005) to explain the theoretical underpinnings of our hypothesized relationships. Self-determination theory distinguishes between underlying mechanisms of motivation and the implications of these motives on one’s behaviors and experiences. Specifically, self-determination theory distinguishes between intrinsic motivation, the degree to which behavior is motivated by a genuine interest in the activity, such as finding the activity interesting or enjoyable, and extrinsic motivation, the degree to which behavior is motivated by external factors, such as money, recognition, or to avoid punishment.

Past research has observed a strong, positive correlation of the citizenship motives prosocial values and organizational concern with intrinsic motivation (Finkelstein, 2011). Theoretically, employees who perform OCBs due to prosocial values and/or organizational concern motives engage in these behaviors out of a genuine concern for others (prosocial values) or their organization (organizational concern), which aligns with the mechanisms of intrinsic motivation. On the other hand, research suggests a strong, positive correlation between the citizenship motive of impression management and extrinsic motivation (Finkelstein, 2011). Theoretically, employees who perform OCBs due to impression management motives perform these behaviors due to external pressures: out of the desire to be viewed positively by others, and/or to avoid being viewed negatively by others. Thus, this aligns with the mechanisms behind extrinsic motivation. In other words, citizenship motives arising from intrinsic motivation reflect altruistic reasons, whereas citizenship motives arising from extrinsic motivation reflect impression management reasons (Bolino, 1999; Gagné & Deci, 2005). As such, we draw on these findings in the subsequent section as we build our hypotheses.

Latent Profile Groups of Citizenship Motives

Rioux and Penner (2001) argued that organizational concern and prosocial values are considered other-oriented motives while impression management is considered a self-serving motive. As impression management is different from organizational concern and prosocial values in its nature, we expect to find two groups: one group that has high organizational concern, high prosocial values, and low impression management (the other-oriented group) and a second group that has low organizational concern, low prosocial values, and high impression management (the self-serving group). Theoretically, the other-oriented and self-serving groups are primarily motivated by intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation, respectively. For example, people in the other-oriented group may help others because they care about their company and other people’s well-being, but they do not care about how they are viewed by others as much. On the other hand, those in the self-serving group may help other people because they want to look better than their coworkers, not because they care about their company or other people’s well-being. Despite the different motivational basis of each citizenship motive, some empirical studies showed that the three types of motives were positively related (e.g., Takeuchi et al., 2015). Therefore, we expect two additional groups: one group that has high organizational concern, high prosocial values, and high impression management (the driven group) and a final group that has low organizational concern, low prosocial values, and low impression management (the unmotivated group). The driven group characterizes employees possessing both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for performing citizenship behavior, whereas the unmotivated group lacks both of these forms of motivation. People in the driven group may help others because they care about their company and other people’s well-being, but also how they are viewed by others. Lastly, individuals in the unmotivated group may help others even though they do not care about their company, other people’s well-being, or how they are viewed by others. In sum, we expect to find four profile groups of citizenship motives.

H1: Four profile groups of citizenship motives will emerge: the other-oriented, the self-serving, the driven, and the unmotivated workers.

Furthermore, we expect the four profile groups to show different levels of giving OCBs, receiving OCBs, and burnout as previous studies showed the three types of citizenship motives affected actual citizenship behaviors and health outcomes differently (Bolino & Grant, 2016). First, we hypothesize that the driven group, which theoretically comprises both extrinsic and intrinsic motivational forces, will show the highest performance of giving OCB, as this group is highly motivated across all types of citizenship motives compared to the other groups. In other words, because of these multiple forms of motivation, the driven group should be motivated to perform OCBs in more situations than any of the other three hypothesized groups, which lack one or more motivational components.

H2: The driven group will show the highest level of giving OCB compared to the other profiles.

Second, in regard to receiving OCB, we hypothesize that the other-oriented group will receive the most OCB compared to the driven group, the self-serving group, and the unmotivated group. The other-oriented group is high in prosocial values and organizational concern motives, consistent with intrinsic motivation. Supervisors and co-workers are particularly accurate in assessing altruistic motives of OCBs (Cheung et al., 2014). As such, they may recognize that employees in the other-oriented group have a genuine desire to help others and/or or the organization succeed, and as a result, feel an obligation or desire to reciprocate this behavior, consistent with attribution theory (Weiner, 1995). Alternatively, the driven group and the self-serving group have high impression management which may be noticed and not viewed favorably by supervisors and coworkers (Bowler et al., 2019; Halbesleben et al., 2010; Wayne & Ferris, 1990), thereby leading to receiving less OCBs compared to the other-oriented group.

H3: The other-oriented group will show the highest level of receiving OCB compared to the other profiles.

Lastly, we expect that the self-serving group will show the highest level of burnout because this group needs to constantly examine how they are viewed by others and lack a genuine desire to perform OCBs. This process would likely drain their energy and resources, yielding the highest level of burnout. Relatedly, past research has found that prosocial values and impression management motives moderated the relationship between OCBs and emotional exhaustion (a dimension of burnout) in opposite directions (Eissa & Lester, 2018; organizational concern was not measured in this study). Specifically, employees with high prosocial value motives reported low emotional exhaustion regardless of how many OCBs they performed compared to employees with moderate or low levels of prosocial values. On the other hand, high levels of OCBs and high impression management motives were associated with significantly higher levels of emotional exhaustion than employees with moderate or low levels of impression management. These authors drew from conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989), suggesting that impression management, due to its extrinsic motivating mechanisms, can be thought of as a job demand that depletes resources. In other words, an employee performing OCBs due to impression management motives likely finds the task taxing, as they are only performing it out of necessity rather than enjoyment. On the other hand, prosocial values (we would argue organizational concern as well), which is rooted in intrinsic motivating mechanisms, is unlikely to deplete resources (or perhaps may even gain resources) as they result in the performance of OCBs for altruistic reasons, and thus, may mitigate stress or strain.

Taken together, the aforementioned rationale behind OCB motives aligns with the theoretical foundations of burnout, which suggests that burnout arises when employees experience misfit between themselves and their job (Maslach, 2003). Thus, employees with high impression management motives may recognize (consciously or subconsciously) the incongruence between their self-serving desires and the performance of OCBs, resulting in greater levels of burnout. On the other hand, employees with high levels of prosocial values and organizational concern motives likely experience congruence between their other-oriented motives and the performance of OCBs, resulting in lower levels of burnout. Thus, we posit that the self-serving group experiences the highest level of burnout.

H4: The self-serving group will show the highest level of burnout compared to the other profiles.

Method

Participants and Procedures

Data were collected through Qualtrics panels. Qualtrics panels have been utilized to recruit participants and collect employee data for research (e.g., Clark et al., 2019; Roulin & Krings, 2016). Additionally, empirical evidence suggests that online panel data show similar psychometric properties to conventional data collection methods and are thus suitable for applied psychological research (Walter et al., 2019). To join the study, participants had to (1) work at least 30 h per week, (2) work in the United States, and (3) work with other people. The last criterion was added as this study examines citizenship motives and actual OCB giving and receiving. At Time 1, 1,062 responses were collected. Out of 1,062 respondents, 84.7% were Caucasians, 53.0% were women, and 69.9% earned a Bachelor’s degree or a higher degree. The mean age was 46.70 years old (SD = 11.46) and the average working hours per week was 42.23 (SD = 6.47). At Time 2, 618 responses were collected. The average time lag between Time 1 and Time 2 was 9.84 days. Note that Qualtrics panels excluded data of participants who did not meet the eligibility criteria or failed attention checks on behalf of researchers. Thus, our final sample consisted of 618 participants, which is greater than the recommended sample size of 500 participants for a latent profile analysis (Spurk et al., 2020).

Measures

Citizenship Motives at Time 1. Citizenship motives were measured using a subset of Rioux and Penner’s (2001) scale (see Table A1 in Appendix for specific items). Specifically, we adopted three organizational concern items, three prosocial value items, and three impression management items that showed the highest factor loadings in Rioux and Penner’s (2001) paper. An example organizational concern item is “I help others because I want to understand how the organization works.” An example prosocial value item is “I help others because I feel it is important to help those in need.” Lastly, an example impression management item is “I help others to avoid looking bad in front of others.” A 5-point scale was used (1 = not at all important to 5 = extremely important).

Giving OCB at Time 2. Giving OCB was assessed with Settoon and Mossholder’s (2002) 14-item OCB scale (see Table A2 in Appendix for specific items). An example item is “I show concern and courtesy toward coworkers, even under the most trying business situations.” A 5-point scale was used (1 = never to 5 = very frequently).

Receiving OCB at Time 2. Receiving OCB was measured with a modified version of Settoon and Mossholder’s (2002) 14-item OCB scale (see Table A3 in Appendix for specific items). Specifically, “I” was changed to “coworkers,” and “coworkers” and “others” were changed to “me.” An example of an original item is “I show concern and courtesy toward coworkers, even under the most trying business situations” which we adapted to “coworkers show concern and courtesy toward me, even under the most trying business situations.” A 5-point scale was used (1 = never to 5 = very frequently).

Burnout at Time 2. Burnout was examined with the 16-item Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI; Demerouti et al., 2010) (see Table A4 in Appendix for specific items). An example item is “sometimes I feel sickened by my work tasks.” A 5-point scale was used (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

Data Analysis

Latent Profile Analysis. We performed a latent profile analysis based on the three citizenship motives (i.e., organizational concern, prosocial values, and impression management) in Mplus 7.4. Specifically, we used the three-step approach of the latent profile analysis (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014). This approach is less influenced by specific predictors of outcomes and reduces errors compared to other latent profile analysis methods. The first step identifies the number of profile groups, the second step assigns participants to the identified groups, and the third step examines auxiliary variables in relation to the profile groups.

Results

Table 1 shows means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alphas, and intercorrelations between the study variables. All Cronbach’s alphas were acceptable (ranging from 0.86 to 0.96). In terms of intercorrelations, all three types of citizenship motives were positively related. Out of the three types, two (i.e., organizational concern and prosocial values) were positively associated with giving OCB and receiving OCB, and negatively associated with burnout, while the other type (i.e., impression management) was not significantly related to any of these constructs.

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, cronbach’s alphas, and intercorrelations among study variables
Full size table

Latent Profile Analysis

Table 2 presents the latent profile analysis fit statistics. We chose the four-profile model as the optimal solution for several reasons.Footnote 1 First, the p-value of the Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio (LMRT; Lo et al., 2001) became non-significant at the five-profile model, suggesting that the five-profile model was not better than the four-profile model. Second, the entropy value decreased at the five-profile model, indicating that the four-profile model more accurately classified participants into the identified groups compared to the five-profile model. Third, in the four-profile model, each group was theoretically meaningful and included more than 5% of the sample. Although we found four profile groups as we hypothesized, the four group configurations were slightly different from what we expected. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was partially supported. Figure 1 graphically demonstrates the four profiles.

Table 2 Fit Statistics
Full size table

Group 1 showed relatively low organizational concern and low impression management with mid prosocial values. We named this group the “moderately prosocially motivated groupFootnote 2.” Out of 1,061 participants, 262 participants (24.69%) were assigned to this moderately prosocially motivated group. Group 2 showed relatively high organizational concern and high prosocial values with low impression management, representing our hypothesized group, the other-oriented group. Out of 1,061 participants, 383 participants (36.10%) were assigned to the other-oriented group. Group 3 showed high organizational concern, high prosocial values, and high impression management, consistent with the driven group. Out of 1,061 participants, 132 participants (12.44%) were classified as the driven group. Group 4 showed mid organizational concern, mid prosocial values, and mid impression management. We named Group 4 the “moderately motivated group.” Out of 1,061 participants, 284 participants (26.77%) were assigned to the moderately motivated group. In sum, we found support for two of our four hypothesized groups: we observed the other-oriented and driven groups but did not observe the self-serving or unmotivated groups.

Table 3 Results for outcome variables in relation to the four groups
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Four latent profiles of citizenship motives. Note: OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

Full size image

Based on the four profile groups, we examined how the four groups differed regarding performed (i.e., gave) OCBs, received OCBs, and experienced burnout. Specific results are provided in Table 3; Fig. 2. In regard to giving OCBs, the driven group (i.e., high organizational concern, high prosocial values, high impression management) showed the highest performance of OCB, supporting Hypothesis 2. The other-oriented group (i.e., high organizational concern, high prosocial values, low impression management) showed the second highest performance of OCB. The moderately motivated group and the moderately prosocially motivated group showed the lowest performance of OCB.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Outcome differences between the four latent profiles. Note: OCB = Organizational citizenship behaviors

Full size image

As for receiving OCBs, we found that the driven group (i.e., high organizational concern, high prosocial values, high impression management) received the highest level of OCB, failing to support Hypothesis 3, which predicted that the other-oriented group would receive the highest level of OCB. Instead, the other-oriented group received the second highest level of OCB, followed by the moderately motivated group receiving the third highest level of OCB, and the moderately prosocially motivated group receiving the lowest level of OCB.

Lastly, Hypothesis 4 proposed that the self-serving group would show the highest level of burnout compared to the other profiles. As noted earlier, we did not observe the self-serving profile group in our sample (i.e., low organizational concern, low prosocial values, high impression management). Although this meant that Hypothesis 4 would not be supported as a result, we still explored the relationship between the OCB profiles we observed and burnout. We found that the moderately prosocially motivated group (i.e., low organizational concern, mid prosocial values, low impression management) showed the highest level of burnout, followed by the moderately motivated group. The other-oriented group and the driven group showed the lowest levels of burnout.

Discussion

We investigated latent profiles of citizenship motives and examined how the different profiles show different levels of giving OCBs, receiving OCBs, and burnout. Although we found four profile groups as we hypothesized, the four profile configurations were somewhat different from what we anticipated. Specifically, we did not observe the self-serving group (i.e., low organizational concern, low prosocial values, high impression management) in our sample. There are a few possible reasons. First, people with high impression management tend to have high social desirability (Nederhof, 1985; Uziel, 2010); thus, they might conceal their true self-serving motive in self-report surveys. Second, people with low organizational concern, low prosocial values, and high impression management might not choose to participate in this study as doing so does not necessarily enhance their image or bring significant career benefits. In addition, we did not observe a profile of unmotivated workers in our sample (i.e., low prosocial values, low organizational concern, low impression management). It is possible that unmotivated workers might be also unmotivated to participate in this study. Or, they might be terminated from employment due to their lack of motivation and engagement and thus unable to participate in this study.

Regarding our study outcomes, those in the driven group performed the highest level of OCBs, as expected. However, contrary to our expectations, the driven group also received the highest level of OCBs as opposed to the other-oriented group. This suggests that having high impression management is not necessarily perceived as negative or punished by colleagues (Becker & O’Hair, 2007; Halbesleben et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2002) as long as high impression management is accompanied by high organizational concern and prosocial values.

Finally, we found that the moderately prosocially motivated group (followed by the moderately motivated group) experienced the highest level of burnout, while the driven and other-oriented groups reported the lowest levels of burnout. Although it is unclear why the moderately prosocially motivated group and the moderately motivated group reported higher levels of burnout, we speculate that the lack of citizenship motives could be associated with decreased OCBs, as the moderately prosocially motivated group and the moderately motivated group showed the lowest organizational concern and prosocial values compared to the other two groups. In our study, the moderately prosocially motivated group and the moderately motivated group gave the lowest amount of OCBs, which could potentially lead to downstream effects such as possible conflicts with other people in the workplace or negative performance evaluations, thereby showing higher levels of burnout compared to the other groups. Future researchers should further investigate whether the moderately prosocial group and the moderately motivated group exhibit fewer OCBs, and as a result, experiences interpersonal conflicts at work and/or lower performance evaluation, which is subsequently related to increased burnout. Alternatively, due to the cross-sectional nature of our study, it could be that burnout is an antecedent of the moderately prosocial profile and the moderately motivated profile, rather than the other way around. Indeed, emotional exhaustion, a dimension of burnout, is associated with decreased work performance (Wright & Bonett, 1998) and increased disengagement from work (Bakker et al., 2004). Future research is needed to clarify the causal mechanisms underlying this relationship.

Taken together, our findings suggest that having high prosocial values, high organizational concern, and high impression management motives is beneficial given that these individuals seem to perform and receive the highest OCBs. Furthermore, those with high prosocial values and high organizational concern, regardless of their level of impression management (i.e., low or high) experience the lowest levels of burnout.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

Our study provides several theoretical and practical implications. First, we provide a valuable perspective on impression management motives. While prior studies have underscored negative consequences of high impression management (e.g., Halbesleben et al., 2010), our study reveals that having high impression management can be beneficial to giving OCBs, receiving OCBs, and reducing burnout when combined with high organizational concern and high prosocial values. Furthermore, we reconcile somewhat contradictory findings related to impression management effects. Specifically, Grant and Mayer (2009) indicate that high impression management enhances positive effects of prosocial values. However, Takeuchi et al. (2015) conclude that high impression management attenuates beneficial consequences of organizational concern and prosocial values. Our findings offer insights in the conflicting results by supporting Grant and Mayer’s (2009) conclusion. Additionally, our findings open new avenues and questions for impression management research highlighting the positive effects that can come from having high impression management citizenship motives.

In terms of practical implications, we suggest that organizations consider promoting the development of all citizenship motives (organizational concern, prosocial values, and impression management) among employees to facilitate giving and receiving OCBs and reducing burnout in the workplace. This may be accomplished by increasing both the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of employees. For instance, the performance of OCBs is associated with more desirable performance evaluations (Whiting et al., 2008) and higher rates of promotion (Allen, 2006). Taking these findings one step further and formally recognizing employees for OCBs, such as including prosocial behaviors as an optional competency to be assessed on a performance evaluation (i.e., an extrinsic motivator), may increase employees’ impression management motives to perform OCBs. On the other hand, organizational concern and prosocial values, which are rooted in intrinsic motivation, may be increased by more intentional consideration of person-job fit, as having a genuine interest and enjoyment in one’s work tasks is inherently linked with intrinsic motivation (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Practically, this could be implemented through educating and encouraging employees to practice job crafting, which is associated with increased person-job fit and work meaningfulness (and we would speculate, increased intrinsic motivation as a result) (Tims et al., 2016).

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study has several limitations. First, we only used three items to measure each motive. Despite this limitation, we are confident in our findings as we selected the three best items based on the psychometric properties of the scale (Rioux & Penner, 2001). To buttress our results, we encourage future researchers to include all 10 items to measure each citizenship motive and attempt to replicate our findings. Second, we used a self-report method. Although using a self-report method is appropriate to examine one’s motives (Finkelstein & Penner, 2004; Finkelstein, 2006), it is not ideal to measure one’s behaviors (Organ & Ryan, 1995). Specifically, reporting OCBs may be influenced by other factors such as social desirability (Nederhof, 1985; Podsakoff et al., 2003). However, meta-analytic evidence suggests that self-rated OCBs and other-rated OCBs exhibit similar results, and that other-reported OCB adds inconsequential variance, given that others may be unaware of every instance that an employee decides to perform a citizenship behavior (Carpenter et al., 2014). Regardless, we recommend future researchers collect giving OCB and receiving OCB information from supervisors and co-workers as well as employees themselves to further enrich our current findings.

In addition, the current citizenship behavior outcomes were measured using Settoon and Mossholder’s (2002) OCB scale which includes only interpersonal citizenship behavior items (citizenship behaviors directed toward individuals). Thus, it is unclear whether the four profile groups also show different levels of giving and receiving citizenship behaviors toward organizations. We encourage future researchers to collect data measuring citizenship behaviors directed toward organizations as well as citizenship behaviors toward individuals and examine whether the four profile groups demonstrate different levels of giving and receiving OCBs toward organizations.

Our study suggests multiple avenues for future research. Future studies should collect data with more diverse participants and replicate our study. Furthermore, we recommend future researchers consider possible moderating factors of the four profile groups. For instance, past research suggests that citizenship pressure is associated with increased OCBs (Bolino et al., 2010), and may interact with certain motives to result in an even greater degree of citizenship behavior. Specifically, Lin and colleagues (2019) found that citizenship pressure significantly moderated the indirect effect of autonomous motivation, which overlaps with intrinsic motivation (but not controlled motivation, which overlaps with extrinsic motivation) on helping behavior through increased positive affect. Thus, if strong citizenship pressure is present within the organization, it may affect people’s citizenship motives. Moreover, future studies should examine underlying mechanisms to further explain why the driven group (high organizational concern, high prosocial values, high impression management) receives the highest OCBs and experiences low levels of burnout. Lastly, future researchers should conduct a dyadic study to further illuminate the dynamic and reciprocating nature of OCBs and how different citizenship motive profile patterns play a role in citizenship behavior exchanges between workers.

Conclusion

This study investigated different citizenship motive profiles and their impact on giving OCBs, receiving OCBs, and burnout using a latent profile analysis. Considering organizational concern, prosocial values, and impression management motives, we found four citizenship motive profiles: driven, other-oriented, moderately motivated, and moderately prosocially motivated groups, highlighting that citizenship motives can and do operate simultaneously within individuals. Results revealed that the driven group (high organizational concern, high prosocial values, high impression management) performed the most OCBs and received the most OCBs. Additionally, the driven group as well as the other-oriented group (high organizational concern, high prosocial values, low impression management) experienced the lowest levels of burnout. This study highlights that having high impression management can be beneficial when accompanied with high organizational concern and high prosocial value motives.