Extra Effort as a Criterion: Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Its Subtle Effects
- Marcela Peterson
- Aug 14
- 2 min read
Marcela Peterson
In many workplaces, a pattern stands out to me: people who go beyond their formal obligations often end up being seen as “role models,” even when that is not part of their job description. This phenomenon, known as Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), was studied by Allen and Rush (1998) with a depth that confirms something I intuitively observe in daily life: it is not always technical performance that weighs most in evaluations — but rather how “well-regarded” a person is.
When an employee frequently helps colleagues, accepts extra tasks, or maintains a positive attitude even in difficult situations, it often activates in leaders an image of the “ideal employee.” The curious — and concerning — part is that this image is charged with emotion, not necessarily grounded in objective criteria. In other words, the person is assessed not only by what they deliver but also by how well they fit into this subjective ideal.
I have seen many technically excellent professionals undervalued for not showing this kind of emotional engagement with the organization. On the other hand, those who constantly volunteer, demonstrate loyalty, and maintain a collaborative posture are often perceived as more committed, even without producing superior results. The affection a manager feels, the perception of commitment, and even the presumed motive behind the behavior directly influence decisions such as promotions and rewards.
This leads me to reflect on organizational justice. Are we rewarding the right people? And more: does everyone have the same conditions to display OCB? Not always. Some face personal limitations, work overload, or invisible challenges that prevent them from giving that “extra.” Yet these people can be incredibly competent but end up overshadowed by those who display engagement in a more visible and emotionally appealing way to the evaluator.
When a manager believes an employee acts out of loyalty and personal values, the evaluation tends to be more positive. But if there’s suspicion that the person is “showing off” to earn points, the effect is lost — or even reversed. This reminds me of how quick we are to judge intentions, often based on superficial impressions.
Performance evaluations are not neutral. They are shaped by emotions, stereotypes, and subjective inferences. Knowing this is not just useful — it’s urgent. Especially for those in leadership or HR, this awareness should serve as an invitation to self-critique, to build fairer criteria, and to value the diversity of ways people contribute.
Extra effort is important, yes. But it should not be the only — or most decisive — criterion for recognition. When the “good employee” becomes synonymous with someone who knows how to please, we risk reinforcing a culture of emotional performance rather than real competence. And that is certainly a dangerous path.
Comments