® Academy of Management Review2002, Vol. 27. No. 3. 432-444.

NOTE

PERCEIVED BENEFICIARY OF EMPLOYEEDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY: A THREE-

DIMENSIONAL SOCIAL EXCHANGE MODEL

TODD I. MAURERHEATHER R. PIERCE

Georgia Institute of Technology

LYNN M. SHOREGeorgia State University

We present a model of employee decision making and behavior in which employeesmay sometimes decide to pursue learning and development activities, depending onpersonal values, leader-member exchange, perceived organizational support, self-efficacy for development, and credibility of information source. Within a three-dimensional "perceived beneficiary" system, employees may perceive these activi-ties to benefit not only themselves but also (or alternatively) a supervisor and/or theorganization. We show connections involving prosocial organizational behavior andorganizational citizenship behavior and offer five propositions.

The act of taking personal responsibility fortheir own development and continuous learninghas become a key part of employees' continuingcareer success (cf. Hall & Mirvis, 1995), and it isalso crucial for organizational effectiveness (cf.Senge, 1990). One of the most important re-sources organizations have for adapting to com-petitive and turbulent markets is employeeswho readily acquire new knowledge and skills(Davenport & Prusak, 1997). When it comes toemployee development, many organizations usea personal responsibility strategy, meaning thatemployees are personally responsible for theirown learning and development (American Pro-ductivity and Quality Center, 1996). Further, inthe midst of rampant reorganization, globaliza-tion, mergers, downsizing, and rapid change,managers and organizations are being calledupon to accomplish more and more with thesame or a diminished number of employees.Therefore, it is increasingly important to under-stand decision making by employees regardingtheir own learning and development withincomplex organizational contexts.

This paper was also presented at the annual meeting ofthe Academy of Management, August 2000, in Toronto.

Employees may face a variety of options fordevelopment activities that could lead to skilldevelopment. Many powerful developmental ex-periences involve unusual tasks or assignments(cf. McCauley & Brutus, 1998) that may go be-yond employees' "usual job responsibilities." Inmany cases, employees may not perceive them-selves to be direct beneficiaries of such activityor, if they do, not the sole beneficiaries. A super-visoi: or the organization may benefit greatlyfrom an employee's undertaking tasks that leadto learning—that are "above and beyond" andthat help to solve a problem or achieve someoutcome that cannot be addressed using tradi-tional organizational resources and personneltime. So which types of activities will an em-ployee be motivated to pursue and why?

In this article we develop a model of the em-ployee decision-making process. The model de-scribes the decision process from the point ofview of the actor/employee. We emphasize theconcept of "perceived beneficiary" of engagingin a development activity or behavior, and wedevelop a three-dimensional scaling systemthat features the employee (person), the super-visor, and the organization as beneficiaries per-ceived (by the employee) to benefit to varyingdegrees from each behavioral option. It is our

432

2002 Maurer, Pierce, and Shore 433

contention that development behaviors takeplace in the context of employee perceptions ofexisting exchange relationships with the super-visor and the organization. Employees considerwhether developmental activities that go be-yond work requirements are appropriate re-sponses in light of these exchange relation-ships. That is, employees consider whether thesupervisor, organization, and/or the individualemployee will benefit from particular develop-mental activities and whether the activitiesseem appropriate given the nature of the rela-tionships. Thus, in our model we use social ex-change theory (Blau, 1964) to describe how lead-er-member exchange (LMX) and perceivedorganizational support (POS) serve as the back-drops for employee development activity. Addi-tionally, we outline the role self-efficacy andpersonal values play in this process, and wedescribe the key role of credibility of the sourceof development-related information about bene-fits. Within the model, we offer five propositions(see Figure 1).

Three points should be noted regarding thismodel. First, we distinguish between percep-tions of self-benefit and perceptions of benefit toa supervisor and the organization. This is based

mostly on a Western, individualistic culture inwhich such distinctions between the self andothers are often made. Such distinctions aremore blurred in collectivistic cultures (cf. Kim,Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994). Sec-ond, we base the conceptualization underlyingmajor portions of this model on an expectancy-valence-type model (Vroom, 1964), as will be ap-parent when we explain specific components ofthe model below. Third, we assume that "learn-ing or development experiences" involve mas-tering tasks or information the person has notpreviously mastered and, therefore, represent atrue opportunity for growth. For example, noveltasks, such as a special job assignment or tak-ing on a new responsibility in which one is notsimply applying skills or knowledge in the sameway as in a prior assignment, might constitutesuch an experience. A key point here is thatthere must be development or learning of newskills or new levels of existing skills. Those ac-tivities that produce no learning or developmentare not addressed in this model.

Most learning/development comes aboutthrough job-related experiences that are chal-lenging or difficult (McCall, Lombardo, & Morri-son, 1988; McCauley, 1986). Thus, activities like

FIGURE 1Model of Development Behavior with Numbered Propositions Described in Text

Beliefs aboutbeneficiaries

Informationregarding

beneficiariesof development

activities

P4, Developmentactivities/behaviors

434 Academy of Management Review July

serving on a task force or taking on a novel jobassignment will likely produce some develop-ment if they have never been done before or ifthey address an issue that has a level of com-plexity and difficulty significantly beyond whatthe employee has previously mastered.

DEFINING A KEY MODEL COMPONENT:PERCEIVED BENEFICIARY OFDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

In prior literature researchers have tied moti-vation for participation in training and develop-ment activity to beliefs regarding the outcomesof participation (cf. Fishbein & Stasson, 1990;McEnrue, 1989; Noe & Wilk, 1993). First, Maurerand Tarulli (1994) discussed the idea that a va-riety of personal benefits (extrinsic, intrinsic,psychosocial) can come from development activ-ity. Second, Maurer and Palmer (1999) expandedthe range of beneficiaries in empirical researchon employee development by including co-worker outcomes as a potential benefit of per-sonal development. In this study the researchersrecognized that recipients ofher than the em-ployee engaging in the behaviors may benefitfrom that activity and that the employee'sknowledge of that fact may serve as a motivatorof his or her development. Third, Katz (1964)identified self-development as one of three be-havioral patterns thought to be necessary foreffective organizational functioning. Therefore,organizations are the third possible beneficia-ries of development by employees. Of course,such perceived benefits by all three entitiescould be believed to occur immediately or in adelayed fashion; the key defining feature here isthat the employee perceives these activities tobe beneficial at some level, whether immediateor delayed. Table 1 illustrates some examples ofemployee development activities that are per-ceived to be beneficial in various ways to theemployee and/or a supervisor and/or the organ-ization.

While the belief that one will personally ben-efit is expected to be a consistent and primarymotivator of development activity, the percep-tion that the organization or a supervisor willbenefit may also serve as an additional or alter-nate motivator. This means that perceptions oforganization and/or supervisor benefit can con-tribute, along with perceptions of personal ben-efit, to overall motivation. Or, in the absence of

personal outcomes, these perceptions maysometimes serve in place of personal benefits asthe motivator. The question then becomes "Un-der what conditions would employees be morelikely to undertake developmental activitiesthat are self-sacrificing and of perceived pri-mary benefit to others?" Potential answers tothis question come from an analysis of the over-lap of development activity with the domain ofprosocial organizational behavior (PSOB).

THE NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIESAND THEIR CONNECTIONS TO PSOB

Generally speaking, PSOB (Brief & Motowidlo,1986) is behavior directed toward an individual,group, or organization, with the intent of promot-ing the welfare of the individual, group, or or-ganization. Thus, PSOBs can be intended to ben-efit an individual (such as a supervisor) or theorganization. In fact, according to Organ (1988),some PSOBs intended to help an individualmight actually hurt the organization.

One type of PSOB is organizational citizen-ship behavior (OCB). The OCB concept was in-troduced by Organ (1977), who defines OCBs as"individual behavior that is discretionary, notdirectly or explicitly recognized by the formalrev^ard system, and in the aggregate promotesthe efficient and effective functioning of the or-ganization" (Organ, 1988: 4). Organ (1997) refersto individual- versus organizational-level OCBconcepts based on work by Williams and Ander-son (1991); these researchers refer to OCBI (indi-vidually directed) and OCBO (organizationallydirected).

In the current framework we also define be-haviors along these two continua: beneficial tothe organization and beneficial to the supervi-sor (an individual). Note that behavior that isintended to help either a supervisor or the or-ganization can be categorized as PSOB,whereas to be considered an OCB, a behaviordirected at a supervisor must also ultimatelybenefit the organization. Given the less restric-tive definition of PSOB, it is a more inclusivecategory of behavior and, thus, includes OCB asa subset, as stated above (Van Dyne, Cummings,& McLean Parks, 1995).

Employee development activities can takemany forms, including assessment and feed-back, training programs or courses, relation-ships, and work experiences (Noe, Wilk, Mullen,

2002 Maurer, Pierce, and Shore 435

Activity

TABLE 1Examples of Development Activities and Perceived Beneficiaries"

Beneficiary

Participating in non-job-related courses and careerplanning

Participating in job-related courses or programs toenhance job performance

Volunteering for a challenging and interestingcommunity project unrelated to job or organiza-tionally valued competencies

Moving into an undesired but challenging andimportant role under a current supervisor—forexample, a nonquantitative professor's agreeingto teach a statistics course rather than one moreconsistent with his/her career goals; will likelylead to his/her being called upon to teachstatistics in the future, rather than a topic of his/her preference

Serving on a task force addressing a challenging/difficult issue in which the employee will beabsent from the department for a time, costingthe supervisor in terms of departmentproductivity

Employee who intends to leave the organizationdevelops a nonportable skill/knowledge specificto the current organization in order to help acurrent supervisor and/or the organization; theskill/knowledge will not be useful in the newjob/organization

Employee is likely to perceive himself/herself as the immediateand primary beneficiary who gets the most direct rewardsfrom this activity; may perceive some secondary or delayedbenefits for the organization or a supervisor

Employee, supervisor, and organization are perceived to becobeneficiaries

Employee is sole beneficiary

Supervisor and organization are perceived to becobeneficiaries; employee does not perceive this experiencenor the development that comes from it as being personallybeneficial

Organization is beneficiary; possibly, the employee is as well,if this is a desired assignment likely to lead to developmentof desired skills

Organization and/or supervisor is beneficiary

° These are illustrative examples. The nature of the tasks to be performed relative to the situation, including messages fromthe organization or supervisor, along with the employee's beliefs and experiences, will determine the extent to which eachentity is actually perceived by the employee to be a beneficiary. High-benefit development activities are those that benefit allthree entities (employee, supervisor, and organization).

& Wanek, 1997). Some of the most extensive em-ployee development occurs through varioustypes of work experiences, such as job enlarge-ment; job rotation; transfers; promotions; down-ward moves; employee exchanges; special as-signments; participation in task forces, projects,or special committees; and other events inwhich something is learned or skills are devel-oped (McCall et al., 1988; McCauley, 1986). Manyof these kinds of activities may not formally bepart of an employee's actual job. Thus, develop-mental experiences can come in a variety offorms, many of which overlap with activitiesthat occur in connection with performing work.

Prior researchers have recognized that sometypes of behavior that are developmental mightbe categorized as PSOBs (cf. Borman & Moto-widlo, 1997; George & Brief, 1992; McEnrue,1989)—for example, volunteering for committees

(Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), as well as taking onextra responsibility and continuing one's educa-tion (Scholl, Cooper, & McKenna, 1987; Van Dyne,Graham, & Dienesch, 1994). According to McEn-rue, "The process of self-development requiresemployees to sacrifice their own time, energyand other resources both on and off the job. It,therefore, represents a form of prosocial behav-ior" (1989: 58). Thus, development activity andPSOB can overlap. However, they can also bedistinguished. As pointed out elsewhere (cf.Maurer, 2001), there must be development orlearning of new skills or new levels of existingskills for an activity to be considered develop-mental. If the "development activity" involvesonly application of existing knowledge or skills,then it is not really development; rather, it isperformance. Thus, PSOB can be developmentalor not. If it involves learning/development, it is a

436 Academy of Management Review July

development activity. Conversely, in the currentframework, development activity can be PSOBor not.

In this model we highlight this intersectionbetween the employee development activity do-main and the PSOB domain, and we do so fromthe point of view of the actor. As used here, OCBand PSOB are defined from the point of view ofthe actor and his/her intended beneficiary. Bynoting whether the person was acting to benefitthe organization or another person and not theself, categorization of the act incorporates themotive of the actor. If a development activity isundertaken to benefit the organization, or if theactivity is undertaken to benefit both a supervi-sor and the organization, it is an OCB. (Giventhe definition of OCBs as promoting the effec-tive functioning of an organization, a behaviormust be undertaken to benefit the organizationeither directly or along with benefiting the su-pervisor to be considered an OCB.) If the activityis undertaken to help either a supervisor or theorganization, it falls in the more inclusive cate-gory of PSOB. Likewise, if the activity is under-taken to benefit the supervisor but not the or-ganization, this is also a PSOB, because there isno requirement that PSOBs help the organiza-tion. If the activity is undertaken to benefit theself only, it is neither an OCB nor a PSOB.

What perceived benefits might there be for asupervisor or an organization to induce an em-ployee to engage in development activity?There are two general categories of benefit foreither beneficiary (organization, supervisor).First, valuable development activity often existsin connection with performing some type ofwork. To the extent that it involves getting sometype of task done that otherwise might notshould the employee stick to his or her man-dated job requirements, the development activ-ity may contribute to the effectiveness of thesupervisor and/or organization.

A second benefit for a supervisor and/or anorganization that could result from an employ-ee's engaging in a development activity comesfrom developing a skill or capability. By devel-oping talent or competence in a specific area ofskill or knowledge, the employee might benefiteither a supervisor or the organization. For ex-ample, by learning how to help out with a spe-cific responsibility that is normally done only bya supervisor, the employee may perceive that heor she is benefiting the supervisor. If this learn-

ing is done in addition to the employee's currentjob duties and competes with them, it mightactually detract from his or her mandated jobperformance. Yet although the employee mightperceive this as a cost to the organization, he orshe might perceive the favor for the supervisoras being a worthwhile motivator. Another exam-ple is when an employee engages in an activityto develop skills that are valuable to the organ-izadon, but possibly not to a supervisor. If ahigh-performing employee who works for a su-pervisor develops skills that will likely facilitatehis or her transfer to a new function in the or-ganization, this will result in the high-perform-ing employee's transfer out of the supervisor'sworkgroup, resulting in the supervisor's loss of agood worker. This would make the supervisorless effective and would result in the super-visor's incurring costs associated with hiringand training a replacement. Thus, the employeemay perceive this as an overall contribution tothe organization's effectiveness, but of no realbenefit to the supervisor.

The literature suggests that a model of em-ployee behavior should include perceived ben-efits of actions to both supervisors and organi-zations. Wayne, Shore, and Liden's (1997)research shows that employees' exchanges withleaders and with the organization have distinctantecedents and consequences. They concludethat researchers need to incorporate bofh typesof exchanges in predictive models of employeebehaviors. Settoon, Bennett, and Liden (1996)similarly show that employees' exchange rela-tionships with organizations and with supervi-sors are differentially related to employee be-haviors. They state that it has been wellaccepted that employees engage in multiple ex-change relationships and derive different bene-fits from each (Gergen, Greenberg, & Willis,1980). The "coalitional" nature of organizationsleads to multidimensional commitments(Becker, 1992; Reichers, 1986). McNeely and Meg-lino (1994) indicate that separate factors are re-sponsible for PSOBs intended to benefit specificindividuals and an organization. They suggestthai: when helping is intended to benefit an in-dividual, the benefit that may exist for an or-ganization is an unintended consequence.Along these lines, Wayne and Liden (1995) illus-trate how doing favors for a supervisor is oneimportant aspect of impression management.When doing things to benefit the supervisor.

2002 Mauiei, Pierce, and Shore 437

although the employee's direct concern is bene-fiting the supervisor, there may be secondary orunintended benefits to the organization.

In this model we emphasize the concept ofperceived beneficiary, which is based on theperceptions of the actor. Any development activ-ity can be scaled according to the degree towhich three entities (self and/or supervisorand/or organization) are perceived to benefit.That is, although there may be numerous activ-ities that actually benefit multiple parties inreality, either immediately or over time, the per-ceptions of the employee are the constructs thatare most proximal to the employee's own devel-opment behavior (McEnrue, 1989). So, if the em-ployee wants to benefit a supervisor and per-ceives a specific activity as doing only orprimarily that, even if the activity really alsobenefits someone else (or the organization), it isthe perception of supervisor benefit that will bemost relevant to the employee's decisions andbehavior.

In Figure 2 we arrange the three perceivedbeneficiaries in a three-dimensional fashion,thus creating a cube. Each development activity

or behavior can be scaled according to the de-gree to which it is perceived to benefit eachpotential beneficiary (several examples aregiven). The three-dimensional cube illustrates asimulated, rough surface area that signifies apoint below which behaviors are not perceivedto be beneficial to the person. This can be re-garded as a threshold for attractiveness of ben-efit to the person. Above this threshold, behav-iors are seen as at least minimally worthwhileto the person; below it, they are not seen asbeneficial. In our model those behaviors per-ceived to benefit the organization in some waybut are low in personal benefit are OCBs andPSOBs. Additionally, those behaviors perceivedto benefit a supervisor in some way but are lowin personal and organizational benefit arePSOBs. This is an alternate or additional way ofconceptualizing OCBs and PSOBs.

Van Dyne et al. (1995) recommend that in fu-ture research on extrarole behavior, which in-cludes both PSOB and OCB, scholars shouldfocus on specific dimensions or aspects ratherthan simply on a more global construct. Ourdiscussion focuses on that aspect of PSOB that

FIGURE 2Three Dimensions of Perceived Beneficiary of Development Behaviors and Subthreshold Region of

Personal Benefit (OCB and PSOB)

Volunteer for interesting andchallenging community project

unrelated to job or organizationallyvalued competencies

High

Assume responsibility forchallenging & high-impact

initiative under current supervisor

Person

Low

Take on an undesired butchallenging role/assignment

under current supervisor

LowSupervisor

PSOB

438 Academy of Management Review July

can be considered developmental to the individ-ual. Following the rationale provided by Settoonet al., (1996), we propose that voluntary em-ployee development is an "acceptable commod-ity for exchange." Development behaviors, likePSOBs, are reasonable ways for employees toreciprocate in a social exchange relationship. Itis our contention that this is particularly thecase when the employee views developmentalactivity as beneficial to the supervisor and/orthe organization.

SOCIAL EXCHANGE AND PSOB/EMPLOYEEDEVELOPMENT

The exchange between an organization andan employee is the focus in POS (perceived or-ganizational support), defined as a global beliefconcerning the extent to which an organizationvalues employee contributions and cares abouttheir well-being (Eisenberger, Huntington,Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986). The exchange be-tween an employee and a supervisor is the focusin theories of LMX (leader-member exchange;Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975). A favorableleadership relationship is characterized by highlevels of trust, interaction, support, and formal/informal rewards (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). In thesocial exchange process the employee is moti-vated to benefit the other party through both afeeling of mutual obligation and trust that theother party will come through in some way (cf.Blau, 1964).

Thus, employees should be motivated to ben-efit their organizations to the extent that theyperceive mutual organization support, and theyshould be motivated to benefit their supervisorto the extent that they perceive mutual supervi-sor support. Variables relevant to both POS andLMX have been found to be related to PSOB,including OCB as a specific type of PSOB(Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Settoon et al., 1996;Shore & Wayne, 1993; VanYperen, van den Berg,& Willering, 1999; Wayne & Green, 1993). Organ(1990) proposed that social exchange theory wasthe best theoretical explanation for OCB, andresearchers have linked POS and LMX, mea-sures of exchange relationships, to OCB (cf.Wayne et al., 1997). Further, because OCB isincluded as part of PSOB by definition, this re-search also ties PSOB to exchange processes.Thus, support has been found for the social ex-change explanation of PSOB.

As discussed above, employee participationin development activities can be likened toPSOB. Because of the similarities between de-velopment and PSOB, it would be logical to pro-pose social exchange theory as a possible ex-planation for some development behavior. Ofcourse, we acknowledge that development ac-tivity can be (and often is) undertaken solely forthe benefit of the individual. The argument wemake here is that, in certain cases, developmentmay be a way for an employee to reciprocate thebenefits bestowed by the organization or super-visor. As in the PSOB literature, the exchangerelationships of interest are those between theemployee and the organization (POS) and be-tween the employee and the supervisor (LMX).Learning more about the job, participating incommittees where something will be learned,obtaining new skills, and so forth are ways inwhich an employee can benefit the organizationor supervisor in an exchange relationship.

Relationships Between Perceived Beneficiariesand Intentions to Engage inDevelopment Activities

Maurer and Tarulli (1994) studied perceivedintrinsic, extrinsic, and psychosocial outcomesfor individual employees participating in devel-opment activities. These researchers found thatnot only do employees have differing percep-tions about whether they will receive these out-comes as a result of engaging in self-develop-ment but they also vary in how much they valueeach of these types of outcomes. The study indi-cated that these values can make a difference in(i.e., can moderate) the relationships the per-ceived outcomes have with intentions or behav-ior. Note that this idea is rooted in expectancyvalence theory (Vroom, 1964): to the extent theperson believes that the development activitywill lead to certain valued outcomes, he or shemore likely will be motivated to pursue it. Thisapproach to understanding how to motivate em-ployees to develop themselves allows for indi-vidual differences in values and acknowledgesdiversity in the concerns individuals may havein relation to development (Maurer & Tarulli,1994). To effectively motivate all employees todevelop, one needs to fully understand the per-ceived benefits for development and the valueplaced on those benefits by employees. Consis-tent with this research, we expect that perceived

\.

2002 Mauier, Pierce, and Shore 439

benefits to the employee will be positively re-lated to the employee's intentions to engage inthe activity; however, the degree to which he orshe values those benefits will make a differencein this relatiofiship (see Figure 1).

Yet beyond this prior research focusing onpersonal benefit, we also hypothesize that de-velopment will be used as a means of recipro-cation if the employee perceives the activity asbeneficial to the organization or supervisor. Inour model POS and LMX should interact sepa-rately with perceived benefit to the organizationand to the supervisor to explain intentions toengage in development activity. When POS orLMX is high, employees may be motivated toengage in developmental activities that arebeneficial to the organization and/or supervisor.However, when POS or LMX is low, employeesare less likely to be motivated by benefits to theorganization or supervisor. This idea also can betied, to some extent, to expectancy valence the-ory (Vroom, 1964). When POS and/or LMX arehigh, benefits for those entities should be per-ceived as more valuable and, thus, lead, to agreater extent, to motivational intentions.

Pioposition 1: The effect of perceivedbenefit to the oiganization on inten-tions to pursue development activitywill be moderated by POS. The iela-tionship will be stronger when POS ishigh.

Proposition 2: The effect of perceivedbenefit to the supervisor on infenfionsto pursue development activity will bemoderated by LMX. The relationshipwill be stiongei when LMX is high.

Development Intentions, Self-Efficacy, POS,and LMX

One of the best predictors of a behaviorshould be the intention to perform the behavior(Ajzen, 1991). Thus, in our model we expect thatintentions to engage in the development activitywill be positively related to participation. Self-efficacy should also relate to intentions. Thehigher one's self-efficacy for performing a be-havior, the more one should intend to do it (Gist,1987; Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Sadri & Robertson,1993).

Two key variables in the current model—POSand LMX—should enhance self-efficacy for de-

velopment. The rationale for this comes fromself-efficacy research and theory (Bandura,1997), as well as from the literature on POS andLMX. In general, if an employee has a goodsupportive relationship with his or her supervi-sor, feels supported by the organization, andreceives developmental resources from a super-visor and the organization, the employee shouldfeel more confident about successfully carryingout development activities (Maurer, 2001). In ex-pectancy-valence theory, the key idea would bethat LMX and POS would contribute to the ex-pectation that one could successfully performthe activity of interest.

Wayne et al. (1997) found development-relatedvariables to be associated with POS and LMX.The history of rewards experienced by an em-ployee will contribute to POS, and these re-wards can come from human resources prac-tices and decisions. These researchers identifythe provision of developmental experiences—providing the employee with formal and infor-mal training and development opportuni-ties—as one way in which the organization canshow support.

One key aspect of LMX addressed by Wayneet al. (1997) is leader expectations for the subor-dinate. Having high expectations is expectednot only to have an impact on the quality of therelationship between supervisor and subordi-nate but also to affect the types of tasks thesupervisor assigns the subordinate. If the super-visor has high expectations, the subordinatemay be given more challenging tasks, feedback,and training. Similar to POS, LMX may lead tothe assignment of developmental tasks to theemployee.

If an employee is frequently involved in chal-lenging task assignments that require learningnew skills or knowledge, these discrete learningexperiences—if successfully completed—are es-sentially "learning mastery experiences" (Mau-rer, 2001). These mastery experiences should en-hance self-efficacy for learning (Gist & Mitchell,1992). Likewise, if the organization supportslearning experiences to a great extent, the per-son is more likely to observe others successfullyengaging in development. This acts as a sourceof vicarious experience to enhance self-efficacy(Bandura, 1997). Also, Maurer and Tarulli (1996)found that social support for development atwork (support by coworkers and supervisors)was related to employees' beliefs that they were

440 Academy of Management Review July

capable of improving and developing theirskills. Further, several researchers (cf. Dubin,1990; Kozlowski & Farr, 1988; Kozlowski & Hults,1987; London, 1991; Maurer & Tarulli, 1994) havenoted the relevance of policies and/or a devel-opment orientation by the organization in gen-eral to development by employees. In one studythe researchers found that the perceived avail-ability of development resources to employeesacross several geographic locations in a largecompany was positively related to their self-efficacy for development (Maurer, Mitchell, &Barbeite, 2002). Supervisors and an organizationthat support employees and their developmentwill enhance employees' beliefs that they cansuccessfully develop.

Pioposition 3: LMX and POS will con-tribute positively to self-efficacy forsuccessful participation in develop-ment activities.

Influence of Credibility in Shaping BeliefsAbout Beneficiaries

As discussed previously in this paper, em-ployees may face a large variety of options fordeveloping and enhancing skills at work, eachof which may be perceived to benefit the em-ployee, a supervisor, and/or the organization.These perceptions of benefit are susceptible toshaping, as is any socially or cognitively con-structed reality. In expectancy-valence theory(Vroom, 1964), the perception of primary interesthere is that performance of an activity/behaviorwill lead to some beneficial outcome. Of course,the self can serve as an obvious source of thisinformation (prior experiences, beliefs, and soon). However, what is perhaps less obvious isthe fact that the employee may receive variousmessages about the benefits and positive out-comes of engaging in various types of develop-mental or learning activities, and these mes-sages may affect perceptions of those activities.These perceptions, in turn, can have an impacton subsequent motivation. The current model isdesigned to enhance understanding of the keyinfluence of supervisors and the organization assources of information in the decision-makingprocess, because there may be wide variabilityin the degree to which these alternative infor-mation sources are believed or trusted assources of this information.

One construct that should greatly influencewhether the employee believes and accepts in-form.ation provided to him or her from the organ-ization or other individuals is credibility. In Gif-fin's (1967) review of the source credibilityliterature, the researcher identifies five aspectsof credibility, which he labels expertise, leliabil-ity, intentions toward the listener, dynamism(boldness and energy), and personal attraction.A source that possesses these characteristicswill be perceived as more credible. There isconsiderable support for the notion that sourcecredibility is an important attribute when itcomes to information-recipient responses (cf. II-gen. Fisher, & Taylor, 1979). Information is per-ceived to be more accurate when coming from asource with high credibility. As the individualreceives information from different sources re-garding the benefits of participation in varioustypes of activities (e.g., "this will really be help-ful to you"), this information will have more im-pact on the person's actual beliefs if the sourceis credible.

Proposition 4: Perceived credibility ofthe source (organization, supervisor)will moderate the effect that develop-ment activity information has on be-liefs about beneficiaries of develop-ment activities. The information willhave greater impact when credibilityis high.

Influence of LMX and POS on Credibility

Analysis of the basis for leader and organiza-tion credibility reveals close correspondence be-tween dimensions underlying credibility andkey aspects of LMX and POS. With respect toLMX, Dienescli and Liden (1986) identify threedimensions upon which the LMX relationshipdevelops: (1) perceived contribution to the ex-change (e.g., amount, direction quality), (2) loy-alty to the other through expression of publicsupport, and (3) affection or mutual attraction.Overall, there is a high level of trust and sup-port.

Dansereau et al. (1975) assert that leadershipinvolves open and honest communication andsupport. Clearly, there is conceptual overlap be-tween these dimensions and those of credibility(expertise, reliability, intentions toward the lis-tener, dynamism, and personal attraction). Per-

2002 Mauiei, Pierce, and Shore 441

ceived contribution to the exchange in the formof high capability, knowledge, and effort willinfluence the leader's perceived expertness, andtreatment of the employee in the past, includingaccurate, honest communication, will influencethe leader's perceived reliability. Expressed loy-alty, trust, and support of the person by theleader will also affect the leader's perceivedintentions toward the person. The affect be-tween the individuals will influence the per-sonal attraction dimension of credibility.

Along these lines, Posner and Kouzes (1988)found that three key dimensions of credibility(trustworthiness, expertise, and dynamism) allsignificantly correlated with five behavioralpractices of leaders. In general, it makes intui-tive sense that if an employee has a construc-tive, trusting, and positive relationship with asupervisor, he or she will be more likely to per-ceive that person as being more credible.

Likewise, there seems to be a correspondencebetween credibility and POS. To the extent thatthe organization is perceived to value and careabout the well-being of the employee and to theextent it provides praise and approval, the per-ceived intentions of the organization toward theemployee should be influenced in a positiveway. Likewise, to the extent that the organiza-tion is perceived to put value on developmentactivity, support it, and invest in it through sup-portive policies and a learning culture (Maurer& Tarulli, 1994), the organization should be per-ceived to have more expertness with respect tothis area of behavior. Also, if the organization isperceived to have treated the employee fairlyand to have provided accurate communicationsin the past, the organization's perceived reliabil-ity will also be enhanced. These things enhancetrust in the organization.

Along these lines, O'Reilly and Roberts (1976)found that perceived information accuracy, com-munication openness, and high interaction ratesare all related to the perceived credibility of theinformation milieu in organizational units. Itmakes intuitive sense also that if an employeebelieves that the organization values his or hercontributions and cares about his or her well-being (the definition of POS), the employeeshould also perceive the organization as a morecredible source of information.

Proposition 5: LMX and POS will pos-itively influence perceived credibility

of the supervisor and the organizationas sources of information.

INCREMENTAL VALUE OF THE MODEL ANDPRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The model we propose here offers incrementalvalue to the literature on employee developmentand PSOB for several reasons. One importantcontribution of this paper is that it fleshes out ingreater detail than any previous work, wherethe overlap of development activity has beenaddressed in a limited way, the theoretical in-tersection of PSOB and development activity.Also, we present a novel way of conceptualizingPSOB and OCB here using the concept of per-ceived beneficiary. This represents an alternateway to think about OCBs and PSOBs from thepoint of view of the actor.

There are also potential practical benefits ofthe current model. When building a learningculture in an organization, it is desirable to haveemployees motivated to engage in all types ofhigh-impact and maximally beneficial learningactivities. Organizations and managers need tounderstand the various potential benefits of dif-ferent types of development and learning activ-ities and how these are perceived by employees.They also need to ensure that this information isunderstood and perceived by employees. How-ever, consistent with expectancy-valence the-ory, what will most motivate various individualswill depend on what they truly value, and thismay differ among individuals and across vari-ous demographic (e.g., race, age, and so on)groups (Maurer & Tarulli, 1994). To know whatpersonal benefits to address, one must first un-derstand exactly what will be most valued bydifferent individuals or groups. This is a basictenet of managing diversity.

This also implies that organizations able toelicit development behavior that will maximallyhelp the organization achieve its goals will bethose organizations that provide high supportfor employees and that foster good relationshipsbetween managers and their subordinates. IfLMX and/or POS is weak, then only personalbenefits are likely to motivate development be-havior, and this may limit the types of activitiesin which employees will engage. Ideally, em-ployees will be motivated to pursue activitiesthat will benefit the organization in addition tothemselves.

442 Academy oi Management Review July

Another contribution of this model is that ithighlights the process by which organizationscan encourage employees to undertake per-sonal development they otherwise might not optto do if left only to their own personal interests.Not every employee will view all situations thathave potential to produce skill development asbeing personally beneficial in light of their owncareer plans. In the context of rapid change inorganizations, combined with tight labor mar-kets, organizations need to be able to get exist-ing human resources to develop needed talentand to get work done that needs to be done. Ifemployees pursue development that they per-ceive to benefit only themselves, this may limitthe total range of development activities pur-sued. The current model describes how employ-ees may pursue development that is perceivedto benefit, either in addition to or in place ofthemselves, a supervisor or the organization aspart of a social exchange process. To the extentthat decision making by employees is an impor-tant precursor to behavior in this domain, anal-yses of the decision-making process and thecontexts in which it occurs are also increasinglyimportant. Therefore, researchers should con-tinue to explore these processes and phenom-ena. This paper provides ideas to help guidethat research.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organiza-tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 179-211.

American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC). 1996.Knowledge management consortium benchmarkingstudy. Houston, TX: APQC.

Bandura, A. 1997. Sell-eHicacy: The exercise of confroi. NewYork: Freeman.

Becker, T. 1992. Foci and bases of commitment: Are theydistinctions worth making? Academy of ManagementJournal 35: 232-244.

Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. NewYork: Wiley.

Borman, W., & Motowidlo, S. 1997. Task performance andcontextual performance: The meaning for personnel se-lection research. Human Performance, 10: 99-109.

Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1986. Prosocial organizationalbehaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11: 710-725.

Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. 1975. A vertical dyadlinkage approach to leadership within formal organiza-

• tions: A longitudinal investigation of the role making

process. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-mance, 13: 46-78.

Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. 1997. Worting fenowJedge. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. 1986. Leader-member ex-change model of leadership: A critique and further de-velopment. Academy of Management Review, 11: 618-634.

Dubin, S. T. 1990. Maintaining competence through updating.In S. Willis & S. Dubin (Eds.), JVfainiaining professionalcompetence: 9-43. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D.1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 71: 500-507.

Fishbein, M., & Stasson, M. 1990. The role of desires, self-predictions, and perceived control in the prediction oftraining session attendance. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 20: 173-198.

George, J., & Brief, A. 1992. Feeling good, doing good: Aconceptual analysis of the mood at work-'organizationalspontaneity relationship. Psychological fiullefin, 112:310-329.

Gergen, K., Greenberg, M., & Willis, R. 1980. Social exchange:Advances in theory and research. New York: Plenum.

Giffin, K. 1967. The contribution of studies of source credibil-ity to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communica-tion process. Psychological Bulletin, 68: 104-120.

Gist, M. 1987. Self-efficacy: Implications for organizationalbehavior and human resource management. Academyof Management Review, 12: 472-485.

Gist, M., & Mitchell, T. 1992. Self-efficacy: A theoretical anal-ysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy ofManagement Review, 17: 183-211.

Hall, D., & Mirvis, P. 1995. The new career contract: Develop-ing the whole person at midlife and beyond. Journal ofVocational Behavior. 47: 269-289.

Ilgen, D., Fisher, C, &. Taylor, M. 1979. Consequences ofindividual feedback on behavior in organizations. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 64: 349-371.

Katz, D. 1964. The motivational basis of organizational be-havior. Behavioral Science, 9: 131-146.

Kim, U., Triandis, H., Kagitcibasi, C, Choi, S., & Yoon, G.1994. Individualism and collecfivisni; Theory, method,and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. 1994. Citizenship behavior andsocial exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37:656-669.

Kozlowski, S., & Farr, J. 1988. An integrative model of updat-ing and performance. Human Performance, 1: 5-29.

Kozlowski, S., & Hults, B. 1987. An exploration of climates fortechnical updating and performance. Personnel Psy-chology, 40: 539-563.

London, M. 1991. Career development. In K. Wexiey & J. Hin-richs (Eds.), Developing human resources: 152-184.Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.

Maurer, T. 2001. Career-relevant learning and development.

2002 Maurei, Pierce, and Shore 443

worker age, and beliefs about self-efficacy for develop-ment. Journal of Management, 27: 123-140.

Maurer, T., Mitchell, D., & Barbeite, F. 2002. Predictors ofattitudes toward a 360-degree feedback system and in-volvement in post-feedback management developmentactivity. Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPsychology, 75: 87-107.

Maurer, T. J., & Palmer, J. K. 1999. Management developmentintentions following feedback: Role of perceived out-comes, social pressures, and control. Journal of Manage-ment Development, 18: 733-751.

Maurer, T. J., & Tarulli, B. A. 1994. Investigation of perceivedenvironment, perceived outcome, and person variablesin relationship to voluntary development activities byemployees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 3-14.

Maurer, T., & Tarulli, B. 1996. Acceptance of peer/upwardperformance appraisal systems: Role of work contextfactors and beliefs about managers' development capa-bility. Human Resource Management Journal, 35: 217-241.

McCall, M., Lombardo, M., & Morrison, A. 1988. The lessons ofexperience. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

McCauley, C. 1986. Developmental experiences in manage-rial work: A literature review. Technical report No. 26.Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

McCauley, C, & Brutus, S. 1998. Management developmentthrough job experiences; An annotated bibliography.Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

McEnrue, M. P. 1989. Self-development as a career manage-ment strategy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34: 57-68.

McNeely, B., & Meglino, B. 1994. The role of dispositional andsituational antecedents in prosocial organizational be-havior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries ofprosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79:836-844.

Noe, R., Wilk, S., Mullen, E., & Wanek, J. 1997. Employeedevelopment: Issues in construct definition and investi-gation of antecedents. In J. Ford (Ed.), Improving trainingeffectiveness in work organizations: 153-189. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Noe, R. A., & Wilk, S. L. 1993. Investigation of the factors thatinfluence employees' participation in development ac-tivities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 291-302.

O'Reilly, C, & Roberts, K. 1976. Relationships among compo-nents of credibility and communication behaviors inwork units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61: 99-102.

Organ, D. W. 1977. A reappraisal and reinterpretation of thesatisfaction-cause-performance hypothesis. Academy ofManagement Review, 2: 46-53.

Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: Thegood soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W. 1990. The motivational basis of organizationalcitizenship behavior. Research in Organizational Be-havior, 12: 43-72.

Organ, D. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior: It's con-struct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10: 85-97.

Posner, B., & Kouzes, J. 1988. Relating leadership and credi-bility. Psychological Reports, 63: 527-530.

Reichers, A. 1986. Conflict and organizational commitments.Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 508-514.

Sadri, G., & Robertson, I. 1993. Self-efficacy and work-relatedbehavior: A review and meta-analysis. Applied Psychol-ogy: An International Review, 42: 139-152.

Scholl, R. W., Cooper, E. A., & McKenna, J. F. 1987. Referentselection in determining equity perceptions: Differentialeffects on behavioral and attitudinal outcomes. Person-nel Psychology, 40: 113-124.

Senge, P. 1990. The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.

Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. 1996. Social ex-change in organizations: Perceived organizational sup-port, leader-member exchange, and employee reciproc-ity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 219-227.

Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. 1993. Commitment and employeebehavior: Comparison of affective commitment and con-tinuance commitment with perceived organizationalsupport. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 774-780.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L., & McLean Parks, J. 1995. Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitionalclarity (a bridge over muddied waters). Research in Or-ganizational Behavior, 17: 215-285.

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J., & Dienesch, R. 1994. Organizationalcitizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measure-ment, and validation. Academy of Management Journal,37: 765-802.

VanYperen, N., van den Berg, A., & Willering, M. 1999. To-wards a better understanding of the link between par-ticipation in decision-making and organizational citi-zenship behavior: A multi-level analysis, journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 72: 377-392.

Vroom, V. 1964. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Wayne, S., & Liden, R. 1995. Effects of impression manage-ment on performance ratings: A longitudinal study.Academy of Management Journal, 38: 232-260.

Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. 1993. The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship and impres-sion management behavior. Human Relations, 46: 1431-1440.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. 1997. Perceivedorganizational support and leader-member exchange: Asocial exchange perspective. Academy of ManagementJournal, 40: 82-111.

Williams, L., & Anderson, S. 1991. Job satisfaction and organ-izational commitment as predictors of organizationalcitizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Manage-ment, 17: 601-617.

Todd I. Maurer received his Ph.D. in industrial/organizational psychology from TheUniversity of Akron and is associate professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

444 Academy of Management Review July

His research interests include employee and leadership development, employee se-lection, and managing aging workers.

Heather R. Pierce is currently an independent consultant. She received her Ph.D. fromthe Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include employee devel-opment and the retention of top performers.

Lynn M. Shore is a professor of management a:nd senior associate of the W. T. BeebeInstitute of Personnel and Employment Relations. She received her Ph.D. in industrial/organizational psychology from Colorado State University. Her research interestsinclude psychological contracts, perceived organizational support, and workforcediversity.