RATINGS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR:DOES THE SOURCE MAKE A
DIFFERENCE?
Tammy D.Allen
The University of South Florida,Tampa,FL,USA
Steve Barnard
Michael C.Rush
Joyce E.A.Russell
The University of Tennessee,Knoxville,TN,USA
This study compared multiple ratings of the organizational citizenship
behavior(OCB)of managers obtained from three different sources:self,
superiors,and subordinates.The results examining convergence across
sources demonstrated that there were stronger correlations between
ratings made by others(subordinates and superiors)than between ratings
made by self and others.The results also indicated that there were mean
level differences in ratings across sources.Specifically,ratings made by self
and superiors were higher than were ratings made by subordinates.The
results examining convergence within sources suggested that the reliability
of OCB ratings based on a single rater were quite low;however,reliability
increased considerably when aggregating raters.Future research and
implications are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years,the topic of organizational citizenship behavior(OCB)has generated a considerable amount of scholarly attention(cf.,Bateman&Organ, 1983;Organ,1988,1990;Smith,Organ,&Near,1983).OCB embodies the constructive and cooperative gestures that are neither mandated by formal job±role prescriptions nor directly or contractually compensated for by the formal organizational reward system.Such behavior(e.g.,volunteering to do extra work;persisting with extra effort)when aggregated over time and people serves to enhance the effective functioning of the organization(Organ,1990;
Direct all correspondence to:Tammy D.Allen,Department of Psychology,The University of South Florida, 4202East Fowler Avenue,BEH339,Tampa,FL33620-8200,USA;E-mail:tallen@https://www.doczj.com/doc/9a5706781.html,
Human Resource Management Review,Copyright#2000 Volume10,Number1,2000,pages97±114by Elsevier Science Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.ISSN:1053±4822
Organ &Konovsky,1989,Podsakoff &MacKenzie,1997).Though great strides have been made in understanding the nature of OCB and some of the motivational bases of this type of behavior (e.g.,George,1990;Organ,1990;Organ &Konovsky,1989;Organ &Ryan,1995),this area of study,like most research,is constrained by the reliability and validity of the measurement systems employed.
The discretionary nature of OCB and the fact that multiple recipients may be the beneficiary of the behavior (McNeely &Meglino,1994)poses a particular dilemma for researchers as to the appropriate source to evaluate characteristic levels of OCB.Most of the studies investigating OCB have relied almost exclusively on ratings provided by a single supervisor to assess OCB (e.g.,Bateman &Organ,1983;Moorman,1991;Organ &Konovsky,1989),even though the limitations of such an approach have been noted several times (cf.,Organ,1988;1990).The use of supervisory ratings mitigates concerns regarding the problem of common method variance that can arise when self-ratings of OCB are obtained along with self-reports of other variables of interest (Organ &Ryan,1995).However,a great deal of citizenship behavior may escape the attention of the supervisor (Organ &Konovsky,1989).Likewise,as noted by Moorman (1991),OCB consists of a great variety of behaviors,only some of which may be performed within the view of the supervisor.Indeed,many citizen-ship behaviors may be more likely to be displayed in front of subordinates or other co-workers than in view of supervisors.Further,the issue of rating source was found to be relevant in a recent meta-analysis of OCB research.The meta-analysis revealed that the relationship between OCB and job attitudes varied as a function of rating source (self-ratings vs.ratings made by others)(Organ &Ryan,1995).Specifically,mean correla-tions and the variance in the correlations were inflated when self-ratings were included in the analyses.The authors state that the observed differences were due,only in part,to common method variance.Such perspectives suggest that exclusive reliance on any one particular source of ratings may limit our capability to fully understand the nature and consequences of citizenship behaviors.That is,if different rating sources can provide a unique and reliable perspective on the performance of OCB,then investigating OCB through the use of only one particular rating source may result in a type of content domain loss much like the issue of criterion deficiency.
The purpose of the present article was to examine the comparability of ratings of OCB provided by different rating sources.As suggested pre-viously,it is possible that a number of people occupying different positions within an individual's social network may have the opportunity to observe acts of OCB and hence,may serve as uniquely valid sources of OCB ratings.However,this proposition requires empirical scrutiny,given that supervisors have served as the source of choice for most OCB ratings.That is,there is currently little information available regarding the nature of OCB ratings provided by other sources and how those ratings may
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW
VOLUME 10,NUMBER 1,2000
98
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR RATINGS99 compare to ratings provided by supervisors.To address this gap in the literature,the present study compared self,superior,and subordinate ratings of the five dimensions of OCB identified by Organ(1988).The inclusion of subordinates is meaningful since research has yet to compare subordinate ratings of OCB with other rating sources.Subordinates are likely to have a unique and valuable perspective on the performance of OCB.Hence, the present study extends the context in which OCB is typically examined by using a sample of managers as the targeted ratees.A brief review of the relevant literature and proposed hypotheses are provided below.
Relationships Among Rating Sources
Several areas of psychological research have found that ratings obtained from different sources are often discrepant.For example,Spector and Jex (1991)found that ratings of job characteristics obtained from incumbent questionnaires,the Dictionary of Occupational Title ratings,and independent ratings of job descriptions were only modestly correlated.Additionally,re-search examining task performance has demonstrated a lack of agreement in performance ratings obtained from different sources.In a meta-analysis of the relationship between different ratings sources,Harris and Schaubroeck(1988) found a relatively high average correlation between peer and supervisor ratings(&=0.62),but only moderate correlations between self and peer ratings (&=.36)and between self and supervisor ratings(&=.35).Other types of ratings,such as personality characteristics,have also shown discrepancies between self-ratings and ratings made by others(Hogan,1991;Mount,Bar-rick,&Strauss,1994).
Several explanations have been offered in the literature to help eluci-date why ratings obtained from multiple sources differ.For example, rating error tendencies and differences in cognitive processing among raters may result in rating discrepancies(Tsui&Ohlott,1988).Disagree-ment across rating sources may also be explained by the fact that there are differences between the private self and the person that others observe (Hogan,1991).Individuals construct their own private meanings and explanations regarding both their performance and personality.Observers only see a select part of the individual,hence,there is greater congruence between observers(peers,subordinates,and supervisors)than between observers and actors.Moreover,there are often different opportunities for each of these sources to view performance(Lawler,1967).This is especially true in the case of managerial performance where subordinates often have distinct occasions to observe behavior from that of a manager's superiors or peers.
Several factors regarding the nature of OCB suggest that ratings of OCB obtained from different sources may also vary,particularly when rating the OCB of managers.First,since OCB consists of behavior that is neither described nor prescribed by the organization,a common set of performance standards for rating these behaviors does not exist.Additionally,individuals
within the organization other than the supervisor may frequently be the target of citizenship activity,hence,acts of OCB may frequently escape the attention of the supervisor.To date,only one published study has directly compared ratings of OCB obtained from different sources.Becker and Vance (1993)compared OCB ratings between self,supervisor,and peers.The results of this study yielded a pattern of results similar to those observed by Harris and Schaubroeck (1988)in that the correlation between supervisor and peer ratings was higher than the correlation found between self and other ratings.Specifically,the correlation between self and peer ratings was 0.35,the correlation between self and supervisor ratings was 0.38,and the correlation between supervisor and peer ratings was 0.47.Harris and Schaubroeck (1988)also found higher source correlations for blue-collar and service jobs than for managerial and professional jobs,implying that managerial behavior is more differentiated among constituents.That is,given that managerial jobs typi-cally consist of a broad array of behaviors with multiple constituents,it seems likely that employees at different hierarchical levels surrounding the manager may see different aspects of behavior.Research has yet to compare OCB ratings obtained from subordinates with self or superiors;however,based on the extant literature,it seems likely that there would be more convergence between other ratings than between self and other ratings.Specifically,the following hypothesis is posed.
Hypothesis 1.The magnitude of correlations will vary across rating sources of citizenship behavior such that other ratings (superiors and subordinates)will correlate more highly with each other than will ratings between self and others.
Mean Self-Ratings
Performance appraisal researchers have found that self-ratings of perfor-mance tend to be more lenient or higher than ratings obtained from super-visors or peers (cf.,Mabe &West,1982).Several explanations have been offered for this phenomenon such as self-enhancement and attributional bias.For example,individuals may purposely inflate ratings in an effort to enhance their self-image to self or others.Additionally,the self-serving bias suggests that individuals tend to credit themselves for success and blame others for failure which leads to higher self-ratings due to a focus on positive outcomes and a discounting of failures.
In the case of OCB,there are several unique reasons why self-ratings may be higher than ratings provided by others.For example,many instances of OCB may only be known to the self as the behavior may have not been noticed or observed by others.Further,given that OCB consists of nonprescribed behavior,the occurrence of such behavior may not bring public recognition to the same extent as would task performance.Consequently,others in the organization may not be aware of citizenship behaviors.Additionally,OCB is typically measured on scales measuring frequency of occurrence or the extent to which the behaviors
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW
VOLUME 10,NUMBER 1,2000
100
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR RATINGS101 described are characteristic of the ratee.Hence,consistent observance of beha-vior over time is necessary to determine frequency.In contrast,traditional subjective dimensions of performance(e.g.,oral communication,leadership) are commonly measured on scales representing effectiveness or quality of performance.Such judgments can be based on limited exposure to the behavior.Accordingly,the following hypothesis is posed.
Hypothesis2.Mean self-ratings of OCB will be significantly higher
than will mean OCB ratings by subordinates and superiors.
Mean Superior and Subordinate Ratings
It seems likely that ratings of OCB provided by superiors would be different from those obtained by subordinates.Previous research has shown that employees carefully try to influence managerial impressions(Wayne&Ferris, 1990).One way that employees may enhance their image is by consciously performing citizenship behaviors that will be noticed by their manager.Along these lines,several researchers have begun to recognize that individuals may engage in OCB for different reasons or motives.For example,Ferris,Judge, Rowland,and Fitzgibbons(1994)argued that employees may engage in OCB because they want to promote the welfare of others,or the organization,or that they may do so as a form of political influence in an effort to help themselves.Likewise,Folger(1993)reasoned that OCB may be motivated by what he termed achievement striving(i.e.,attempting to achieve recognition and reward by performing above and beyond expectations and engaging in exceptional actions at work)or for altruistic reasons(i.e.,dispositional factors or out of loyalty wherein the individual is not concerned with whether or not the exceptional actions are recognized).
Additionally,individuals may refrain from coming into work late or com-plaining with regard to workplace policies when under the watchful eye of a manager.However,employees may be less likely to take the same precautions under the observation of their own subordinates.Consequently,it seems likely that superiors'ratings of OCB will be at a higher mean level than will subordinate ratings of OCB.Accordingly,the following hypothesis is posed.
Hypothesis3.Mean ratings of OCB by superiors will be significantly
higher than will mean OCB ratings by subordinates.
METHOD
Participants
A total of372respondents participated in the study.The respondents consisted of154upper-level managers(superiors)and177subordinates of41 participants(target ratees)in an executive development program who were employed within a variety of industries across the United States.Of the
upper-level managers providing demographic data,87.2percent were male (N =130)and 96.6percent were white (N =144).The average organizational tenure of these respondents was 16.15years (SD =9.98)and their mean job tenure was 4.48years (SD =4.02).Of the subordinates providing data,69.2percent were male (N =119)and 92.4percent were white (N =159).The average organizational tenure of the subordinates was 12.12years (SD =8.81)and their average job tenure was 3.95years (SD =3.70).With regard to the targeted participants,85.4percent were male (N =35)and 90.2percent were white (N =37).Their average organizational tenure was 12.31years (SD =7.47)and their average job tenure was 2.72years (SD =2.98).Most of the target participants were in mid to upper level management positions.Procedure
Surveys containing the OCB measure and a cover letter describing the purpose of the study,assurances of confidentiality,and instructions for survey completion were distributed to the 41program participants.The participants were directed to distribute surveys to five of their subordinates.The partici-pants were also instructed to distribute surveys to five superiors or high-level managers who were knowledgeable regarding the performance of the partici-pant.To help insure that the higher-level managers who responded had knowledge of the target's performance,each was asked to indicate how long the target employee had worked under his/her supervision.The mean re-sponse to this question was 3.21years (SD =2.73).Superior respondents were also asked to indicate if they were responsible for completing this employee's formal organizational performance evaluation.T -tests were computed on the overall rating of OCB and each OCB dimension to assess if there were significant mean differences between the ratings provided by higher-level managers who had formal performance evaluation responsibility and those who did not.The t -test results indicated no significant mean differences (complete results are available from the first author upon request).
The responding higher-level managers and subordinates were informed that the purpose for completing the survey was to provide developmental feedback to the target manager so that he or she could improve his or her leadership skills.They were instructed to be candid in their responses and were assured of anonymity.Of the 205potential responses from higher-level managers,154surveys were returned for a response rate of 75percent.Of the 205potential responses from subordinates,177surveys were received for a response rate of 86percent.Additionally,each participant completed a self-rating survey.All respondents were provided with a pre-addressed envelope in which the completed surveys were mailed directly to the researchers.Measures
OCB was measured with the 24-item scale developed by Podsakoff,MacKenzie,Moorman,and Fetter (1990).These items are based on the five
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW
VOLUME 10,NUMBER 1,2000
102
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR RATINGS103 dimensions of OCB proposed by Organ(1988):conscientiousness,sportsman-ship,civic virtue,courtesy,and altruism.Five items were used to measure conscientiousness(e.g.,``Is one of my most conscientious employees.'');five items were used to measure sportsmanship(e.g.,``Always finds fault with what the organization is doing.'');four items were used to measure civic virtue(e.g.,``Attends meetings that are not mandatory,but are considered important.'');five items were used to measure courtesy(e.g.,``Takes steps to try to prevent problems with other workers.'');and five items were used to measure altruism(e.g.,``Helps others who have been absent.'').
Ratings were made on a five-point scale(``strongly disagree''=1to``strongly agree''=5)to indicate the extent that each of the behaviors was characteristic of the targeted ratee's behavior.The mean of each scale was used in the analyses.Any negatively worded items were reverse scored so that higher scores on each scale are indicative of positive OCB.Additionally,an overall measure of OCB was created by computing a mean across all24behaviors. Podsakoff et al.(1990)reported reliabilities ranging from0.70to0.85for each of the five https://www.doczj.com/doc/9a5706781.html,ing a variation of the same scale,MacKenzie,Podsak-off,and Fetter(1991)reported similar reliabilities(0.70to0.84).In the present study,the internal consistency reliabilities across the various rating sources ranged from0.72to0.89(see Table1).
RESULTS
Hypothesis1predicted that there would be greater convergent validity between subordinate and supervisor ratings of OCB than between self and other ratings.In as much as multiple subordinates and superiors provided ratings for each target,the appropriateness of aggregating the subordinate and superior ratings was investigated prior to examining the convergent validities among sources.That is,it was necessary to determine the extent that ratings made of the same target were consistent(in agreement)with each other.
To accomplish this objective,rater agreement was first assessed by compar-ing within-target variance to between-target variance for subordinates and again for supervisors.The F-values,ranging from1.48to2.91,for the overall OCB ratings and the five dimensions of OCB were all significant(p.05)for both subordinate ratings and the superior ratings.Next,the within-source intraclass correlations(ICC;Shrout&Fleiss,1979)for each of the OCB dimensions were computed.These estimates of interrater reliability were then adjusted for multiple raters using the Spearman±Brown formula.As shown in Table1,the estimated reliability of a single subordinate rating ranged from https://www.doczj.com/doc/9a5706781.html,parable estimates for a superior rating ranged from0.34to 0.71.Estimates of the reliability of aggregate scores based on multiple raters ranged from0.64to0.88for subordinate ratings and from0.66to0.90for superior ratings.
Estimates of interrater agreement(r wg;James,Demaree,&Wolf,1984, 1993)were also computed.Because estimates of the ICC are dependent on the
T A B L E 1R e l i a b i l i t y E s t i m a t e s A c r o s s R a t e r s
C o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s 0.840.630.860.850.580.610.850.850.960.96S p o r t s m a n s h i p 0.860.810.870.870.580.640.860.870.900.90C i v i c v i r t u e 0.720.680.750.750.290.340.640.660.920.92C o u r t e s y 0.890.740.890.910.630.710.880.900.940.96A l t r u i s m 0.880.82
0.87
0.880.570.640.850.860.93
0.95N o t e s :S u b =S u b o r d i n a t e s ;S u p e =S u p e r i o r s ;W G A =W i t h i n -g r o u p a g r e e m e n t .N f o r i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y e s t i m a t e s r a n g e f r o m 41t o 372.N f o r I C C a n d r w g =40±41.
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW
VOLUME 10,NUMBER 1,2000
104
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR RATINGS105 relative sizes of the component variances,the ICC may underestimate the actual level of agreement among a set of ratings under certain circumstances. James et al.have suggested the r wgDthe proportional reduction in error variance of a distribution of obtained scores compared to a distribution representing random responsesDas an alternative to the ICC.The average r wg(across targets)for each OCB dimension,also shown in Table1,ranged from0.90to0.96for both subordinate ratings and superior ratings.
In light of the favorable F-values,levels of interrater reliability,and high interrater agreement,aggregate subordinate and superior scores were used to assess the relative levels of convergent validities(correlations)among the different sources of OCB ratings.Table2presents the correlations among the sources with overall OCB and with the five dimensions of OCB within a multitrait±multimethod format.The multitraits are represented by overall OCB and the five dimensions of citizenship behavior and the multimethods are represented by the three different rating sources.
Inspection of the validity diagonals in Table2indicates that subordinate and supervisor ratings of overall OCB were significantly correlated(r=.48,p<.01), while the correlations between self and subordinate ratings and between self and supervisor ratings were not significant(r=.07and r=.11,respectively).A test for significant differences among these correlations(Cohen&Cohen,1983) indicated that the subordinate±superior correlation was significantly larger than both the self-subordinate correlation(z=1.95,p<.05,one-tail)and the self-superior correlation(z=1.79,p<.05,one-tail).The self-subordinate and the self-superior correlations did not significantly differ(z<1.0,n.s.).These results provide evidence for Hypothesis1,indicating that ratings of OCB provided by others(superiors and subordinates)are more highly correlated than ratings provided by self and other sources.
Further inspection of the validity diagonals in Table2suggests that this same general pattern of results holds for each of the OCB dimensions.That is,there were significant relationships between subordinate ratings and superior ratings for each of the five OCB dimensions,while the self-sub-ordinate ratings and the self-superior ratings were generally not significantly related(the only exception being the self-subordinate ratings of civic virtue). These results provide additional evidence for the convergent validity of ratings external to self-ratings.Also of interest is the fact that the magnitude of the heterotrait±monomethod correlations for self-ratings appear to be somewhat smaller than the same correlations among subordinate ratings and among supervisor ratings.This pattern of results may be indicative of a greater halo effect operating within subordinate and superior ratings. Descriptive statistics for self,subordinates,and superior's ratings of OCB overall and each of the five OCB dimensions are presented in Table3.An analysis of variance(ANOVA)was conducted to test Hypotheses2and3,which postulated mean differences between the rating sources.Specifically,Hypoth-esis2proposed that self-ratings of OCB would be higher than ratings provided by superiors or subordinates,while Hypothesis3stated that superiors'ratings would be higher than subordinates'ratings.The F-test for the composite
T A B L E 2M u l t i t r a i t -m u l t i m e t h o d C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x
1
2
345678910
1.(S )O v e r a l l D
2.(S )C o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s 0.57D
3.(S )S p o r t s m a n s h i p 0.710.07D
4.(S )C i v i c V i r t u e 0.630.180.34D
5.(S )C o u r t e s y 0.740.660.240.30D
6.(S )A l t r u i s m 0.710.490.180.450.62D
7.(L )O v e r a l l 0.07à0.030.140.05à0.01à0.02D
8.(L )C o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s 0.060.17à0.020.060.040.050.68D
9.(L )S p o r t s m a n s h i p à0.16à0.220.17à0.23à0.29à0.290.770.40D10.(L )C i v i c V i r t u e 0.26à0.060.300.370.040.050.720.370.46D11.(L )C o u r t e s y 0.140.030.090.100.180.080.850.530.410.5612.(L )A l t r u i s m 0.200.110.050.220.160.220.800.410.370.5213.(H )O v e r a l l 0.110.110.130.050.08à0.040.480.470.330.4114.(H )C o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s 0.060.18à0.17à0.010.200.250.150.38à0.070.1115.(H )S p o r t s m a n s h i p 0.030.060.200.05à0.16à0.210.290.330.320.2116.(H )C i v i c V i r t u e 0.05à0.070.170.15à0.06à0.150.500.290.450.5617.(H )C o u r t e s y 0.130.150.09à0.070.30à0.040.410.330.180.3118.(H )A l t r u i s m 0.17
0.100.130.100.140.100.530.490.35
0.44
(C o n t i n u e d )
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW
VOLUME 10,NUMBER 1,2000
106
11
12131415161718
1.(S )O v e r a l l
2.(S )C o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s
3.(S )S p o r t s m a n s h i p
4.(S )C i v i c V i r t u e
5.(S )C o u r t e s y
6.(S )A l t r u i s m
7.(L )O v e r a l l
8.(L )C o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s
9.(L )S p o r t s m a n s h i p 10.(L )C i v i c V i r t u e 11.(L )C o u r t e s y D12.(L )A l t r u i s m 0.80D13.(H )O v e r a l l 0.400.31D14.(H )C o n s c i e n t i o u s n e s s 0.130.180.70D15.(H )S p o r t s m a n s h i p 0.150.110.760.32D16.(H )C i v i c V i r t u e 0.360.290.770.430.50D17.(H )C o u r t e s y 0.490.310.860.570.490.58D18.
(H )A l t r u i s m
0.48
0.360.820.590.370.650.76DS =S e l f ,L =S u b o r d i n a t e ,H =S u p e r i o r .I t a l i c n u m b e r s r e p r e s e n t m o n o t r a i t -h e t e r o m e t h o d c o r r e l a t i o n s .R o m a n n u m b e r s r e p r e s e n t h e t e r o t r a i t -h e t e r o m e t h o d c o r r e l a t i o n s .B o l d n u m b e r s r e p r e s e n t h e t e r o t r a i t -m o n o m e t h o d c o r r e l a t i o n s .N =40±41.r !.31,p <.05(t w o -t a i l ).r !.41,p <.01(t w o -t a i l ).
T A B L E 2(C o n t i n u e d )
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR RATINGS
107
measure of OCB was significant (F =6.94,p <.01),indicating that for OCB overall,mean ratings significantly differed across the rating sources.Further analyses using Tukey's HSD test were used to compare the OCB means across the three ratings sources.The means that were significantly different from each other are denoted with subscripts in Table 3.The results provided partial support for Hypothesis 2.That is,while self-ratings were not significantly greater than superior ratings,they were significantly greater than subordinate ratings.Additionally,support was found for Hypothesis 3.Specifically,the results indicated that superior ratings were significantly higher than subordi-nate ratings (M =4.14vs.M =3.94,respectively).
Mean differences across rating sources were also examined with regard to each of the five OCB dimensions.As shown in Table 3,significant differences were found between subordinates and the other two rating sources (super-visors and self)for courtesy and altruism.Subordinates reported significantly lower ratings on these dimensions than did self or superiors.
DISCUSSION
The present study extends current knowledge regarding ratings of OCB in several unique ways.Very little research has been conducted comparing OCB ratings obtained from different rating sources.The collection of multiple superior and subordinate ratings afforded the opportunity to assess the convergence of ratings between rating sources (validity)as well as the convergence of ratings within each rating source (reliability).With regard to convergence across rating sources,the results demonstrated that there was a
TABLE 3
Reliabilities,Means,Analysis of Variance,and Standard Deviations for OCB by Rater
Rater means and SD
ANOVA Self
Subordinate Superior F-values OCB (Overall)
4.15(.40)a 3.94(.55)b 4.14(.51)a 6.94**Conscientiousness 4.55(.39) 4.44(.58) 4.55(.50) 2.04Sportsmanship 3.82(.98) 3.69(1.07) 3.89(1.07) 1.52Civic virtue 4.07(.55) 4.03(.55) 3.95(.53) 1.46Courtesy 4.26(.48)a 3.93(.72)b 4.22(.65)a 9.28**Altruism
4.05
(.51)a
3.62
(.72)b
4.04
(.59)a
19.32**
Notes.Means with different subscripts differ significantly at p .05in the Tukey honestly
significant difference comparison.N =41(self).
N =177(subordinates).N =154(superiors).*p <.05.**p <.01.
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW
VOLUME 10,NUMBER 1,2000
108
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR RATINGS109 moderate correlational relationship between superior and subordinate ratings of overall OCB.By contrast,there was very little consistency in the ratings between self and others.In general,these findings are similar to what has been found in both the previous research examining task performance ratings (e.g.,Harris&Schaubroeck,1988)and the research examining OCB ratings (Becker&Vance,1993).That is,ratings between others tend to be more strongly related than do ratings between self and others.However,previous studies have primarily examined other ratings as provided by supervisors and peers.The present study provides evidence to indicate that this effect also generalizes to supervisor and subordinate ratings.
The results of the present study also revealed that mean superior and self-ratings were consistently higher than were mean subordinate ratings. This finding is in contrast to what has been found in task performance research.In general,the performance appraisal literature has found that self-ratings are higher than ratings provided by other sources.Additionally, in a direct comparison of subordinate ratings with supervisor and self-ratings, Mount(1984)found that subordinates and supervisors had similar mean level ratings of performance.
There are several possible explanations for the present finding linked to the nature of OCB.The first explanation follows from the rationale proposed in the Introduction.Employees may make purposeful efforts to perform citizenship behaviors that will be noticed by their supervisor in an attempt to gain more favorable impressions from those who determine rewards and punishments. Hence,subordinates may observe fewer instances of OCB than do superiors. Alternatively,it may be that there are differences between the rating sources regarding what job behaviors are expected and what job behaviors are considered as above and beyond expectations(Morrison,1994).In the present study,the targeted ratee and superiors were both at mid to high managerial levels.Perhaps,individuals at higher managerial levels,even though at different ranks,share common expectations regarding citizenship behavior that result in similar mean level ratings.A final explanation centers on differences in what is cognitively stored in a rater's memory.Supervisors are typically required to observe and encode examples of subordinate performance for the formal appraisal process,which seems likely to extend over into the appraisal of OCB.Unless subordinates are specifically put in a role where they know they will be giving upward appraisal feedback,they may be less likely to make an effort to observe,retain,and recall examples of any type of perfor-mance for evaluation purposes.
Several interesting patterns that emerged with regard to the dimen-sional OCB ratings across sources should be noted.When considering both the correlational relationship and the mean level of ratings,the greatest degree of convergence across rating sources was found with ratings of civic virtue,and the least amount of convergence was found with ratings of altruism.The dimensional differences may be a function of the overtness or observability of the behaviors characteristic of each of these dimensions. For example,civic virtue includes behaviors such as attending meetings
that are not required.These behaviors are somewhat public in nature and hence,it may be relatively easier to obtain consensus across rating sources.On the other hand,altruism includes readily helping others.There may be a number of different targets of altruism behaviors across the organization.Hence,it may be difficult for various sources to agree on the frequency of these behaviors.
Perhaps most significantly,the results provide good news and bad news related to the reliability of OCB ratings.The bad news is that the ICC analyses clearly indicate that the reliability of a single rater (whether the source is superiors or subordinates)is unacceptably low.The good news,however,is that the results also suggest that reliability can be increased substantially by using multiple raters.One consequential ramification of this finding is that extant relationships in the OCB literature are probably underestimates of true relations.That is,the results suggest that correla-tions between OCB true scores (as adjusted for unreliability)and other variables such as dispositional and attitudinal variables may be higher than has been previous reported when based on either raw correlations or on correlations with scores adjusted by internal consistency estimates.For example,disattenuating OCB ratings when comparing motivational expla-nations for why individuals engage in OCB may change what we infer about the nature of these relationships.
The results also have implications in terms of selecting the appropriate index of reliability when making corrections for attenuation in OCB ratings.As demonstrated within the present research,the observed single-rater ICCs were considerably lower than the observed internal consistency estimates.Understandably,the choice of which index to use when correcting for attenua-tion will have an impact on the subsequent results.For example,in their study examining the relationships between task performance,two facets of contex-tual performance,and overall evaluation,Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996)found that the results differed depending on whether the measures were uncorrected,corrected with internal consistency estimates (coefficient alpha),or corrected with single-rater ICC estimates.
One recommendation that follows from these findings is that in order to enhance the validity and reliability of OCB ratings,multiple ratings from multiple perspectives should be collected whenever feasible.While low con-sensus does not imply a lack of validity or poor accuracy in the ratings of any one source,the lack of agreement across different sources does suggest that multiple rating perspectives are a necessity since the ratings of different sources do vary.Moreover,the lack of agreement across different rating sources suggests that one rating source should not be indiscriminately sub-stituted for another when conducting OCB research.Given that subordinates and superiors demonstrated comparable levels of interrater reliability and interrater agreement,yet different mean level ratings,subordinate ratings should be used to augment those of superiors.
The validity and utility of multiple rating sources has been recognized by researchers investigating formal performance appraisal systems (Bernardin,
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW
VOLUME 10,NUMBER 1,2000
110
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR RATINGS111 Dahmus,&Redmon,1993;Tornow,1993;Vance,MacCallum,Coovert,& Hedge,1988).Likewise,the use of multiple raters may result in a more complete assessment of the OCB criterion domain.By extension,averaging multiple ratings obtained from different sources(subordinates,peers,super-visors)should allow for a more comprehensive assessment of characteristic levels of OCB.Furthermore,obtaining multiple rating perspectives is likely to become an increasingly important challenge given that OCBs are beginning to be recognized as potential criteria for use in performance appraisal and selection research and practice(Borman&Motowidlo,1993).
Several limitations to the present study should be addressed.Most notably, the small sample size of matched respondents may limit the generalizability of our results.However,it should be noted that our respondents came from a variety of organizations as opposed to a sample drawn from a single organiza-tion.Moreover,a number of studies have found that the average of ratings is more reliable than a single rating due to the reduction in error variance (French&Bell,1978;Latham&Wexley,1981).On the other hand,the greater reliability associated with the ratings provided by superiors and subordinates also presents an alternative explanation as to why stronger correlations were observed between other rating sources than between self and others that should be considered.Specifically,one reason why the correlations between others may be stronger than those between self and others may be directly due to the greater reliability produced by multiple ratings.Future research can help address this issue by examining the reliability of self-report measures of OCB through the use of test±retest estimates.Another limitation to the study is that the targeted ratees were allowed to choose which subordinates and superiors rated them.Accordingly,it is possible that ratings were skewed by the selection biases of respondents.Ratees may have distributed surveys to individuals whom they believed would give them high ratings.However,it should be kept in mind that the ratings were obtained for developmental purposes and were to be aggregated and shared only with the ratee and the researchers.Consequently,within this context,the desire for self-enhancing feedback would seem less likely.
Several avenues for future research should be pursued.While the results of the present study provide evidence indicating that ratings of OCB do differ across sources,the reasons underlying these differences need further investigation.The low consensus across sources may be caused by many factors,including the nature of initial performance expectations,the amount and nature of performance information observed and recalled by the rater, and the rater's unique cognitive information-processing tendencies(Tsui& Ohlott,1988).Research designed to ascertain what information each of the rating sources are attending to may be helpful in this endeavor.For example,employees could be asked to identify individuals at different levels of the organization who they believe are exemplars of high OCB and then provide specific justification and examples underlying their nomination. Another avenue may be to employ naturalistic observation methods whereby acts of OCB are recorded along with the context of the situation and each of
the individuals involved.Finally,a variation of protocol analysis may be implemented where raters are asked to verbally provide a ``stream-of-consciousness''while providing OCB ratings.The results may yield some insight into what pieces of information are recalled when an individual makes OCB ratings.
Additional research is needed that provides external validation of the OCB ratings provided by different sources.For example,Becker and Randall (1994)validated supervisory ratings of OCB against an objective behavioral criterion (whether or not the employee completed a voluntary attitude survey).The results indicated that employees who received higher ratings of OCB from their manager were also more likely to have returned the survey.Additional research in this vein should be conducted utilizing different rating sources.
In summary,the results clearly indicate that the source and method of obtaining OCB ratings do make a difference.Given the importance of OCB with regard to organizational effectiveness (Podsakoff,Ahearne,&MacKenzie,1997),the volitional nature of the behavior,and its impact on individual performance evaluations,additional lines of inquiry based on an examination of the use of multiple OCB rating sources should be undertaken.Moreover,this research seems essential in order to gain an appreciation of the full scope and saliency of these behaviors for organizations.
REFERENCES
Bateman,T.S.,&Organ,D.W.(1983).Job satisfaction and the good soldier:The relation-ship between affect and employee ``citizenship.''Academy of Management Journal,26,587±595.
Becker,T.E.,&Randall,D.M.(1994).Validation of a measure of organizational citizenship
behavior against an objective behavioral https://www.doczj.com/doc/9a5706781.html,cational and Psychological Measurement,54,160±167.
Becker,T.E.,&Vance,R.J.(1993).Construct validity of three types of organizational
citizenship behavior:An illustration of the direct product model with refinements.Journal of Management,19,663±682.
Bernardin,J.,Dahmus,S.,&Redmon,G.(1993).Attitudes of first-line supervisors toward
subordinate appraisals.Human Resource Management,32,315±324.
Borman,W.C.,&Motowidlo,S.J.(1993).Expanding the criterion domain to include ele-ments of extrarole performance.In N.Schmitt,&W.C.Borman (Eds.),Personnel selection in organizations (pp.71±98).San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Cohen,J.,&Cohen,P.(1983).Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the beha-vioral sciences .Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum and Associates.
Ferris,G.R.,Judge,T.A.,Rowland,K.M.,&Fitzgibbons,D.E.(1994).Subordinate influ-ence and the performance evaluation process:Test of a https://www.doczj.com/doc/9a5706781.html,anizational Beha-vior and Human Decision Processes,58,101±135.
Folger,R.(1993).Justice,motivation,and performance beyond role requirements.Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal,6,293±248.
French,W.L.,&Bell C.H.,Jr.(1978).Organization development:Behavioral science inter-ventions for organization improvement .Englewood Cliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW
VOLUME 10,NUMBER 1,2000
112
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR RATINGS113 George,J.M.(1990).Personality,affect,and behavior in groups.Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy,75,107±116.
Harris,M.M.,&Schaubroeck,J.(1988).A meta-analysis of self-supervisor,self-peer,and peer-supervisor ratings.Personnel Psychology,41,43±62.
Hogan,R.(1991).Personality and personality measurement.In M.D.Dunnette,&L.M.
Hough(Eds.),Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology(pp.873±919).
Palo Alto,CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.
James,L.R.,Demaree,R.G.,&Wolf,G.(1984).Estimating within-group interrater relia-bility with and without response bias.Journal of Applied Psychology,69,85±98. James,L.R.,Demaree,R.G.,&Wolf,G.(1993).r wg:An assessment of within-group inter-rater reliability.Journal of Applied Psychology,78,306±310.
Latham,G.P.,&Wexley,K.N.(1981).Increasing productivity through performance apprai-sal.Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley.
Lawler,E.E.III.(1967).The multitrait±multimethod approach to measuring job perfor-mance.Journal of Applied Psychology,51,369±381.
London,M.,&Smither,J.W.(1995).Can multi-source feedback change perceptions of goal accomplishment,self-evaluations,and performance-related outcomes?Theory-based applications and directions for future research.Personnel Psychology,48,803±839. MacKenzie,S.B.,Podsakoff,P.M.,&Fetter,R.(1991).Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of sales-person https://www.doczj.com/doc/9a5706781.html,anizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50,123±150.
Mabe,P.A.III.,&West S.G.,(1982).Validity of self-evaluation of ability:A review and meta-analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology,67,280±296.
McNeely,B.L.,&Meglino,B.M.(1994).The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior:An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior.Journal of Applied Psychology,79,836±844.
Moorman,R.H.(1991).Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citi-zenship behaviors:Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?Journal of Applied Psychology,76,845±855.
Morrison,E.W.(1994).Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior:The impor-tance of the employee's perspective.Academy of Management Journal,37,1543±1567. Motowidlo,S.J.,&Van Scotter,J.R.(1994).Evidence that task performance should be dis-tinguished from extrarole performance.Journal of Applied Psychology,79,475±480. Mount,M.K.(1984).Psychometric properties of subordinate ratings of managerial perfor-mance.Personnel Psychology,37,687±702.
Mount,M.K.,Barrick,M.R.,&Strauss,J.P.(1994).Validity of observer ratings of the big five personality factors.Journal of Applied Psychology,79,272±280.
Organ,D.W.(1988).Organizational citizenship behavior:The good soldier syndrome.Lexing-ton,MA:Lexington Books.
Organ,D.W.(1990).The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior.In B.Staw, &L.Cummings(Eds.),Research in organizational behavior(Vol.12,pp.43±72).Green-wich,CT:JAI Press.
Organ,D.W.,&Konovsky,M.(1989).Cognitive versus affective determinants of organiza-tional citizenship behavior.Journal of Applied Psychology,74,157±164.
Organ,D.W.,&Ryan,K.(1995).A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior.Personnel Psychology,48,775±802. Podsakoff,P.M.,Ahearn,M.,&MacKenzie,S.B.(1997).Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance.Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy,82,262±270.
Podsakoff,P.M.,&MacKenzie,S.B.(1997).The impact of organizational citizenship beha-vior on organizational performance:A review and suggestions for future research.Human Performance,10,133±152.
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 orga-nizational citizenship behaviors.Leadership Quarterly,1,107±142.
Shrout,P.E.,&Fleiss,J.L.(1979).Intraclass correlations:Uses in assessing rater relia-bility.Psychology Bulletin,86,420±428.
Smith,C.A.,Organ,D.W.,&Near,J.P.(1983).Organizational citizenship behavior:Its
nature and antecedents.Journal of Applied Psychology,68,653±663.
Spector,P.E.,&Jex,S.M.(1991).Relations of job characteristics from multiple data sources
with employee affect,absence,turnover intentions,and health.Journal of Applied Psychology,76,46±53.
Tornow,W.(1993).Perceptions or reality:Is multi-perspective measurement a means or an
end?Human Resource Management,32,221±229.
Tsui,A.S.,&Ohlott,P.(1988).Multiple assessment of managerial effectiveness:Interrater
agreement and consensus in effectiveness models.Personnel Psychology,41,779±804.
Vance,R.J.,MacCallum,R.C.,Coovert,M.D.,&Hedge,J.W.(1988).Construct validity of
multiple job performance measures using confirmatory factor analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology,73,74±80.
Van Scotter,J.,&Motowidlo,S.(1996).Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication
as separate facets of contextual performance.Journal of Applied Psychology,81,525±535.
Wayne,S.J.,&Ferris,G.R.(1990).Influence tactics,affect,and exchange quality in super-visor±subordinate interactions:A laboratory experiment and a field study.Journal of Applied Psychology,73,487±499.
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW
VOLUME 10,NUMBER 1,2000
114
如何写先进个人事迹 篇一：如何写先进事迹材料 如何写先进事迹材料 一般有两种情况：一是先进个人，如先进工作者、优秀党员、劳动模范等；一是先进集体或先进单位，如先进党支部、先进车间或科室，抗洪抢险先进集体等。无论是先进个人还是先进集体，他们的先进事迹，内容各不相同，因此要整理材料，不可能固定一个模式。一般来说，可大体从以下方面进行整理。 (1)要拟定恰当的标题。先进事迹材料的标题，有两部分内容必不可少，一是要写明先进个人姓名和先进集体的名称，使人一眼便看出是哪个人或哪个集体、哪个单位的先进事迹。二是要概括标明先进事迹的主要内容或材料的用途。例如《王鬃同志端正党风的先进事迹》、《关于评选张鬃同志为全国新长征突击手的材料》、《关于评选鬃处党支部为省直机关先进党支部的材料》等。 (2)正文。正文的开头，要写明先进个人的简要情况，包括：姓名、性别、年龄、工作单位、职务、是否党团员等。此外，还要写明有关单位准备授予他(她)什么荣誉称号，或给予哪种形式的奖励。对先进集体、先进单位，要根据其先进事迹的主要内容，寥寥数语即应写明，不须用更多的文字。 然后，要写先进人物或先进集体的主要事迹。这部分内容是全篇材料
的主体，要下功夫写好，关键是要写得既具体，又不繁琐；既概括，又不抽象；既生动形象，又很实在。总之，就是要写得很有说服力，让人一看便可得出够得上先进的结论。比如，写一位端正党风先进人物的事迹材料，就应当着重写这位同志在发扬党的优良传统和作风方面都有哪些突出的先进事迹，在同不正之风作斗争中有哪些突出的表现。又如，写一位搞改革的先进人物的事迹材料，就应当着力写这位同志是从哪些方面进行改革的，已经取得了哪些突出的成果，特别是改革前后的．经济效益或社会效益都有了哪些明显的变化。在写这些先进事迹时，无论是先进个人还是先进集体的，都应选取那些具有代表性的具体事实来说明。必要时还可运用一些数字，以增强先进事迹材料的说服力。 为了使先进事迹的内容眉目清晰、更加条理化，在文字表述上还可分成若干自然段来写，特别是对那些涉及较多方面的先进事迹材料，采取这种写法尤为必要。如果将各方面内容材料都混在一起，是不易写明的。在分段写时，最好在每段之前根据内容标出小标题，或以明确的观点加以概括，使标题或观点与内容浑然一体。 最后，是先进事迹材料的署名。一般说，整理先进个人和先进集体的材料，都是以本级组织或上级组织的名义；是代表组织意见的。因此，材料整理完后，应经有关领导同志审定，以相应一级组织正式署名上报。这类材料不宜以个人名义署名。 写作典型经验材料-般包括以下几部分： (1)标题。有多种写法，通常是把典型经验高度集中地概括出来，一
How to manage time Time treats everyone fairly that we all have 24 hours per day. Some of us are capable to make good use of time while some find it hard to do so. Knowing how to manage them is essential in our life. Take myself as an example. When I was still a senior high student, I was fully occupied with my studies. Therefore, I hardly had spare time to have fun or develop my hobbies. But things were changed after I entered university. I got more free time than ever before. But ironically, I found it difficult to adjust this kind of brand-new school life and there was no such thing called time management on my mind. It was not until the second year that I realized I had wasted my whole year doing nothing. I could have taken up a Spanish course. I could have read ten books about the stories of successful people. I could have applied for a part-time job to earn some working experiences. B ut I didn’t spend my time on any of them. I felt guilty whenever I looked back to the moments that I just sat around doing nothing. It’s said that better late than never. At least I had the consciousness that I should stop wasting my time. Making up my mind is the first step for me to learn to manage my time. Next, I wrote a timetable, setting some targets that I had to finish each day. For instance, on Monday, I must read two pieces of news and review all the lessons that I have learnt on that day. By the way, the daily plan that I made was flexible. If there’s something unexpected that I had to finish first, I would reduce the time for resting or delay my target to the next day. Also, I would try to achieve those targets ahead of time that I planed so that I could reserve some more time to relax or do something out of my plan. At the beginning, it’s kind of difficult to s tick to the plan. But as time went by, having a plan for time in advance became a part of my life. At the same time, I gradually became a well-organized person. Now I’ve grasped the time management skill and I’m able to use my time efficiently.
英语演讲稿：未来的工作 这篇《英语演讲稿范文：未来的工作》，是特地，希望对大家有所帮助！ 热门演讲推荐：竞聘演讲稿 | 国旗下演讲稿 | 英语演讲稿 | 师德师风演讲稿 | 年会主持词 | 领导致辞 everybody good afternoon:. first of all thank the teacher gave me a story in my own future ideal job. everyone has a dream job. my dream is to bee a boss, own a pany. in order to achieve my dreams, i need to find a good job, to accumulate some experience and wealth, it is the necessary things of course, in the school good achievement and rich knowledge is also very important. good achievement and rich experience can let me work to make the right choice, have more opportunities and achievements. at the same time, munication is very important, because it determines whether my pany has a good future development. so i need to exercise their municative ability. i need to use all of the free time to learn
小学生个人读书事迹简介怎么写800字 书,是人类进步的阶梯,苏联作家高尔基的一句话道出了书的重要。书可谓是众多名人的“宠儿”。历来,名人说出关于书的名言数不胜数。今天小编在这给大家整理了小学生个人读书事迹,接下来随着小编一起来看看吧! 小学生个人读书事迹1 “万般皆下品,惟有读书高”、“书中自有颜如玉,书中自有黄金屋”,古往今来,读书的好处为人们所重视,有人“学而优则仕”,有人“满腹经纶”走上“传道授业解惑也”的道路……但是,从长远的角度看,笔者认为读书的好处在于增加了我们做事的成功率,改善了生活的质量。 三国时期的大将吕蒙,行伍出身,不重视文化的学习,行文时,常常要他人捉刀。经过主君孙权的劝导,吕蒙懂得了读书的重要性,从此手不释卷,成为了一代儒将,连东吴的智囊鲁肃都对他“刮目相待”。后来的事实证明,荆州之战的胜利,擒获“武圣”关羽,离不开吕蒙的“运筹帷幄,决胜千里”,而他的韬略离不开平时的读书。由此可见,一个人行事的成功率高低,与他的对读书,对知识的重视程度是密切相关的。 的物理学家牛顿曾近说过,“如果我比别人看得更远,那是因为我站在巨人的肩上”,鲜花和掌声面前,一代伟人没有迷失方向,自始至终对读书保持着热枕。牛顿的话语告诉我们,渊博的知识能让我们站在更高、更理性的角度来看问题,从而少犯错误,少走弯路。
读书的好处是显而易见的,但是,在社会发展日新月异的今天,依然不乏对读书,对知识缺乏认知的人,《今日说法》中我们反复看到农民工没有和用人单位签订劳动合同,最终讨薪无果;屠户不知道往牛肉里掺“巴西疯牛肉”是犯法的;某父母坚持“棍棒底下出孝子”,结果伤害了孩子的身心,也将自己送进了班房……对书本,对知识的零解读让他们付出了惨痛的代价,当他们奔波在讨薪的路上,当他们面对高墙电网时,幸福,从何谈起?高质量的生活,从何谈起? 读书,让我们体会到“锄禾日当午,汗滴禾下土”的艰辛;读书,让我们感知到“四海无闲田,农夫犹饿死”的无奈;读书,让我们感悟到“为报倾城随太守,西北望射天狼”的豪情壮志。 读书的好处在于提高了生活的质量,它填补了我们人生中的空白,让我们不至于在大好的年华里无所事事,从书本中,我们学会提炼出有用的信息,汲取成长所需的营养。所以,我们要认真读书,充分认识到读书对改善生活的重要意义,只有这样,才是一种负责任的生活态度。 小学生个人读书事迹2 所谓读一本好书就是交一个良师益友,但我认为读一本好书就是一次大冒险,大探究。一次体会书的过程,真的很有意思,咯咯的笑声,总是从书香里散发;沉思的目光也总是从书本里透露。是书给了我启示,是书填补了我无聊的夜空,也是书带我遨游整个古今中外。所以人活着就不能没有书,只要爱书你就是一个爱生活的人,只要爱书你就是一个大写的人,只要爱书你就是一个懂得珍惜与否的人。可真所谓
关于坚持的英语演讲稿 Results are not important, but they can persist for many years as a commemoration of. Many years ago, as a result of habits and overeating formed one of obesity, as well as indicators of overall physical disorders, so that affects my work and life. In friends to encourage and supervise, the participated in the team Now considered to have been more than three years, neither the fine rain, regardless of winter heat, a day out with 5:00 time. The beginning, have been discouraged, suffering, and disappointment, but in the end of the urging of friends, to re-get up, stand on the playground. 成绩并不重要，但可以作为坚持多年晨跑的一个纪念。多年前，由于庸懒习惯和暴饮暴食，形成了一身的肥胖，以及体检指标的全盘失常，以致于影响到了我的工作和生活。在好友的鼓励和督促下，参加了晨跑队伍。现在算来，已经三年多了，无论天晴下雨，不管寒冬酷暑，每天五点准时起来出门晨跑。开始时，也曾气馁过、痛苦过、失望过，但最后都在好友们的催促下，重新爬起来，站到了操场上。 In fact, I did not build big, nor strong muscles, not a sport-born people. Over the past few years to adhere to it, because I have a team behind, the strength of a strongteam here, very grateful to our team, for a long time, we encourage each other, and with sweat, enjoying common health happy. For example, Friends of the several run in order to maintain order and unable to attend the 10，000 meters race, and they are always concerned about the brothers and promptly inform the place and time, gives us confidence and courage. At the same time, also came on their own inner desire and pursuit for a good health, who wrote many of their own log in order to refuel for their own, and inspiring. 其实我没有高大身材，也没健壮肌肉，天生不属于运动型的人。几年来能够坚持下来，因为我的背后有一个团队，有着强大团队的力量，在这里，非常感谢我们的晨跑队，长期以来，我们相互鼓励着，一起流汗，共同享受着健康带来的快
1.How to build a business that lasts100years 0:11Imagine that you are a product designer.And you've designed a product,a new type of product,called the human immune system.You're pitching this product to a skeptical,strictly no-nonsense manager.Let's call him Bob.I think we all know at least one Bob,right?How would that go? 0:34Bob,I've got this incredible idea for a completely new type of personal health product.It's called the human immune system.I can see from your face that you're having some problems with this.Don't worry.I know it's very complicated.I don't want to take you through the gory details,I just want to tell you about some of the amazing features of this product.First of all,it cleverly uses redundancy by having millions of copies of each component--leukocytes,white blood cells--before they're actually needed,to create a massive buffer against the unexpected.And it cleverly leverages diversity by having not just leukocytes but B cells,T cells,natural killer cells,antibodies.The components don't really matter.The point is that together,this diversity of different approaches can cope with more or less anything that evolution has been able to throw up.And the design is completely modular.You have the surface barrier of the human skin,you have the very rapidly reacting innate immune system and then you have the highly targeted adaptive immune system.The point is,that if one system fails,another can take over,creating a virtually foolproof system. 1:54I can see I'm losing you,Bob,but stay with me,because here is the really killer feature.The product is completely adaptive.It's able to actually develop targeted antibodies to threats that it's never even met before.It actually also does this with incredible prudence,detecting and reacting to every tiny threat,and furthermore, remembering every previous threat,in case they are ever encountered again.What I'm pitching you today is actually not a stand-alone product.The product is embedded in the larger system of the human body,and it works in complete harmony with that system,to create this unprecedented level of biological protection.So Bob,just tell me honestly,what do you think of my product? 2:47And Bob may say something like,I sincerely appreciate the effort and passion that have gone into your presentation,blah blah blah-- 2:56(Laughter) 2:58But honestly,it's total nonsense.You seem to be saying that the key selling points of your product are that it is inefficient and complex.Didn't they teach you 80-20?And furthermore,you're saying that this product is siloed.It overreacts, makes things up as it goes along and is actually designed for somebody else's benefit. I'm sorry to break it to you,but I don't think this one is a winner.
关于工作的优秀英语演讲稿 Different people have various ambitions. Some want to be engineers or doctors in the future. Some want to be scientists or businessmen. Still some wish to be teachers or lawers when they grow up in the days to come. Unlike other people, I prefer to be a farmer. However, it is not easy to be a farmer for Iwill be looked upon by others. Anyway,what I am trying to do is to make great contributions to agriculture. It is well known that farming is the basic of the country. Above all, farming is not only a challenge but also a good opportunity for the young. We can also make a big profit by growing vegetables and food in a scientific way. Besides we can apply what we have learned in school to farming. Thus our countryside will become more and more properous. I believe that any man with knowledge can do whatever they can so long as this job can meet his or her interest. All the working position can provide him with a good chance to become a talent. 1 ————来源网络整理，仅供供参考
个人先进事迹简介 01 在思想政治方面,xxxx同学积极向上,热爱祖国、热爱中国共产党,拥护中国共产党的领导.利用课余时间和党课机会认真学习政治理论,积极向党组织靠拢. 在学习上,xxxx同学认为只有把学习成绩确实提高才能为将来的实践打下扎实的基础,成为社会有用人才.学习努力、成绩优良. 在生活中,善于与人沟通,乐观向上,乐于助人.有健全的人格意识和良好的心理素质和从容、坦诚、乐观、快乐的生活态度,乐于帮助身边的同学,受到师生的好评. 02 xxx同学认真学习政治理论,积极上进,在校期间获得原院级三好生,和校级三好生,优秀团员称号,并获得三等奖学金. 在学习上遇到不理解的地方也常常向老师请教,还勇于向老师提出质疑.在完成自己学业的同时,能主动帮助其他同学解决学习上的难题,和其他同学共同探讨,共同进步. 在社会实践方面,xxxx同学参与了中国儿童文学精品“悦”读书系,插画绘制工作,xxxx同学在班中担任宣传委员,工作积极主动,认真负责,有较强的组织能力.能够在老师、班主任的指导下独立完成学院、班级布置的各项工作. 03 xxx同学在政治思想方面积极进取,严格要求自己.在学习方面刻苦努力,不断钻研,学习成绩优异,连续两年荣获国家励志奖学金；作
为一名学生干部,她总是充满激情的迎接并完成各项工作,荣获优秀团干部称号.在社会实践和志愿者活动中起到模范带头作用. 04 xxxx同学在思想方面,积极要求进步,为人诚实,尊敬师长.严格 要求自己.在大一期间就积极参加了党课初、高级班的学习,拥护中国共产党的领导,并积极向党组织靠拢. 在工作上,作为班中的学习委员,对待工作兢兢业业、尽职尽责 的完成班集体的各项工作任务.并在班级和系里能够起骨干带头作用.热心为同学服务,工作责任心强. 在学习上,学习目的明确、态度端正、刻苦努力,连续两学年在 班级的综合测评排名中获得第1.并荣获院级二等奖学金、三好生、优秀班干部、优秀团员等奖项. 在社会实践方面,积极参加学校和班级组织的各项政治活动,并 在志愿者活动中起到模范带头作用.积极锻炼身体.能够处理好学习与工作的关系,乐于助人,团结班中每一位同学,谦虚好学,受到师生的好评. 05 在思想方面,xxxx同学积极向上,热爱祖国、热爱中国共产党,拥护中国共产党的领导.作为一名共产党员时刻起到积极的带头作用,利用课余时间和党课机会认真学习政治理论. 在工作上,作为班中的团支部书记,xxxx同学积极策划组织各类 团活动,具有良好的组织能力. 在学习上,xxxx同学学习努力、成绩优良、并热心帮助在学习上有困难的同学,连续两年获得二等奖学金. 在生活中,善于与人沟通,乐观向上,乐于助人.有健全的人格意 识和良好的心理素质.
尊敬的领导，老师，亲爱的同学们， 大家好！我是5班的梁浩东。今天早上我坐车来学校的路上，我仔细观察了路上形形色色的人，有开着小车衣着精致的叔叔阿姨，有市场带着倦容的卖各种早点的阿姨，还有偶尔穿梭于人群中衣衫褴褛的乞丐。于是我问自己，十几年后我会成为怎样的自己，想成为社会成功人士还是碌碌无为的人呢，答案肯定是前者。那么十几年后我怎样才能如愿以偿呢，成为一个受人尊重，有价值的人呢？正如我今天演讲的题目是：自主管理。 大家都知道爱玩是我们孩子的天性，学习也是我们的责任和义务。要怎样处理好这些矛盾，提高自主管理呢？ 首先，我们要有小主人翁思想，自己做自己的主人，要认识到我们学习，生活这一切都是我们自己走自己的人生路，并不是为了报答父母，更不是为了敷衍老师。 我认为自主管理又可以理解为自我管理，在学习和生活中无处不在，比如通过老师，小组长来管理约束行为和同学们对自身行为的管理都属于自我管理。比如我们到一个旅游景点，看到一块大石头，有的同学特别兴奋，会想在上面刻上：某某某到此一游话。这时你就需要自我管理，你需要提醒自己，这样做会破坏景点，而且是一种素质低下的表现。你设想一下，如果别人家小孩去你家墙上乱涂乱画，你是何种感受。同样我们把自主管理放到学习上，在我们想偷懒，想逃避，想放弃的时候，我们可以通过自主管理来避免这些，通过他人或者自己的力量来完成。例如我会制定作息时间计划表，里面包括学习，运动，玩耍等内容的完成时间。那些学校学习尖子，他们学习好是智商高于我们吗，其实不然，在我所了解的哪些优秀的学霸传授经验里，就提到要能够自我管理，规范好学习时间的分分秒秒，只有辛勤的付出，才能取得优异成绩。 在现实生活中，无数成功人士告诉我们自主管理的重要性。十几年后我想成为一位优秀的，为国家多做贡献的人。亲爱的同学们，你们们？让我们从现在开始重视和执行自主管理，十几年后成为那个你想成为的人。 谢谢大家！
关于工作的英语演讲稿 【篇一：关于工作的英语演讲稿】 关于工作的英语演讲稿 different people have various ambitions. some want to be engineers or doctors in the future. some want to be scientists or businessmen. still some wish to be teachers or lawers when they grow up in the days to come. unlike other people, i prefer to be a farmer. however, it is not easy to be a farmer for iwill be looked upon by others. anyway,what i am trying to do is to make great contributions to agriculture. it is well known that farming is the basic of the country. above all, farming is not only a challenge but also a good opportunity for the young. we can also make a big profit by growing vegetables and food in a scientific way. besides we can apply what we have learned in school to farming. thus our countryside will become more and more properous. i believe that any man with knowledge can do whatever they can so long as this job can meet his or her interest. all the working position can provide him with a good chance to become a talent. 【篇二：关于责任感的英语演讲稿】 im grateful that ive been given this opportunity to stand here as a spokesman. facing all of you on the stage, i have the exciting feeling of participating in this speech competition. the topic today is what we cannot afford to lose. if you ask me this question, i must tell you that i think the answer is a word---- responsibility. in my elementary years, there was a little girl in the class who worked very hard, however she could never do satisfactorily in her lessons. the teacher asked me to help her, and it was obvious that she expected a lot from me. but as a young boy, i was so restless and thoughtless, i always tried to get more time to play and enjoy myself. so she was always slighted over by me. one day before the final exam, she came up to me and said, could you please explain this to me? i can not understand it. i
Dear teacher and colleagues: my topic is on “spare time”. It is a huge blessing that we can work 996. Jack Ma said at an Ali's internal communication activity, That means we should work at 9am to 9pm, 6 days a week .I question the entire premise of this piece. but I'm always interested in hearing what successful and especially rich people come up with time .So I finally found out Jack Ma also had said :”i f you don’t put out more time and energy than others ,how can you achieve the success you want? If you do not do 996 when you are young ,when will you ?”I quite agree with the idea that young people should fight for success .But there are a lot of survival activities to do in a day ,I want to focus on how much time they take from us and what can we do with the rest of the time. As all we known ,There are 168 hours in a week .We sleep roughly seven-and-a-half and eight hours a day .so around 56 hours a week . maybe it is slightly different for someone . We do our personal things like eating and bathing and maybe looking after kids -about three hours a day .so around 21 hours a week .And if you are working a full time job ,so 40 hours a week , Oh! Maybe it is impossible for us at
关于人英语演讲稿(精选多篇) 关于人的优美句子 1、“黑皮小子”是我对在公交车上偶遇两次的一个男孩的称呼代号。一听这个外号，你也定会知道他极黑了。他的脸总是黑黑的；裸露在短袖外的胳膊也是黑黑的；就连两只有厚厚耳垂的耳朵也那么黑黑的，时不时像黑色的猎犬竖起来倾听着什么；黑黑的扁鼻子时不时地深呼吸着，像是在警觉地嗅着什么异样的味道。 2、我不知道，如何诠释我的母亲，因为母亲淡淡的生活中却常常跳动着不一样的间最无私、最伟大、最崇高的爱，莫过于母爱。无私，因为她的爱只有付出，无需回报；伟大，因为她的爱寓于
普通、平凡和简单之中；崇高，是因为她的爱是用生命化作乳汁，哺育着我，使我的生命得以延续，得以蓬勃，得以灿烂。 3、我的左撇子伙伴是用左手写字的，就像我们的右手一样挥洒自如。在日常生活中，曾见过用左手拿筷子的，也有像超级林丹用左手打羽毛球的，但很少碰见用左手写字的。中国汉字笔画笔顺是左起右收，适合用右手写字。但我的左撇子伙伴写字是右起左收的，像鸡爪一样迈出田字格，左看右看，上看下看，每一个字都很难看。平时考试时间终了，他总是做不完试卷。于是老师就跟家长商量，决定让他左改右写。经过老师引导，家长配合，他自己刻苦练字，考试能够提前完成了。现在他的字像他本人一样阳光、帅气。 4、老师，他们是辛勤的园丁，帮助着那些幼苗茁壮成长。他们不怕辛苦地给我们改厚厚一叠的作业，给我们上课。一步一步一点一点地给我们知识。虽然
他们有时也会批评一些人，但是他们的批评是对我们有帮助的，我们也要理解他们。那些学习差的同学，老师会逐一地耐心教导，使他们的学习突飞猛进。使他们的耐心教导培养出了一批批优秀的人才。他们不怕辛苦、不怕劳累地教育着我们这些幼苗，难道不是美吗？ 5、我有一个表妹，还不到十岁，她那圆圆的小脸蛋儿，粉白中透着粉红，她的头发很浓密，而且好像马鬓毛一样的粗硬，但还是保留着孩子一样的蓬乱的美，卷曲的环绕着她那小小的耳朵。说起她，她可是一个古灵精怪的小女孩。 6、黑皮小子是一个善良的人，他要跟所有见过的人成为最好的朋友！这样人人都是他的好朋友，那么人人都是好友一样坦诚、关爱相交，这样人与人自然会和谐起来，少了许多争执了。 7、有人说，老师是土壤，把知识化作养分，传授给祖国的花朵，让他们茁壮成长。亦有人说，老师是一座知识的桥梁，把我们带进奇妙的科学世界，让
优秀党务工作者事迹简介范文 优秀党务工作者事迹简介范文 ***，男，198*年**月出生，200*年加入党组织，现为***支部书记。从事党务工作以来，兢兢业业、恪尽职守、辛勤工作，出色地完成了各项任务，在思想上、政治上同党中央保持高度一致，在业务上不断进取，团结同事，在工作岗位上取得了一定成绩。 一、严于律己，勤于学习 作为一名党务工作者，平时十分注重知识的更新，不断加强党的理论知识的学习，坚持把学习摆在重要位置，学习领会和及时掌握党和国家的路线、方针、政策，特别是党的十九大精神，注重政治理论水平的提高，具有坚定的理论信念;坚持党的基本路线，坚决执行党的各项方针政策，自觉履行党员义务，正确行使党员权利。平时注重加强业务和管理知识的学习，并运用到工作中去，不断提升自身工作能力，具有开拓创新精神，在思想上、政治上和行动上时刻同党中央保持高度一致。 二、求真务实，开拓进取 在工作中任劳任怨，踏实肯干，坚持原则，认真做好学院的党务工作，按照党章的要求，严格发展党员的每一个步骤，认真细致的对待每一份材料。配合党总支书记做好学院的党建工作，完善党总支建设方面的文件、材料和工作制度、管理制度等。
三、生活朴素，乐于助人 平时重视与同事间的关系，主动与同事打成一片，善于发现他人的难处，及时妥善地给予帮助。在其它同志遇到困难时，积极主动伸出援助之手，尽自己最大努力帮助有需要的人。养成了批评与自我批评的优良作风，时常反省自己的工作，学习和生活。不但能够真诚的指出同事的缺点，也能够正确的对待他人的批评和意见。面对误解，总是一笑而过，不会因为误解和批评而耿耿于怀，而是诚恳的接受，从而不断的提高自己。在生活上勤俭节朴，不铺张浪费。 身为一名老党员，我感到责任重大，应该做出表率，挤出更多的时间来投入到**党总支的工作中，不找借口，不讲条件，不畏困难，将总支建设摆在更重要的位置，解开工作中的思想疙瘩，为攻坚克难铺平道路，以支部为纽带，像战友一样团结，像家庭一样维系，像亲人一样关怀，践行入党誓言。把握机遇，迎接挑战，不负初心。
关于时间的英语演讲稿范文_演讲稿 and organizing people to learn from advanced areas to broaden their horizons in order to understand the team of cadres working conditions in schools, the ministry of education has traveled a number of primary and secondary schools to conduct research, listen to the views of the school party and government leaders to make school leadership cadres receive attention and guidance of the ministry of education to carry out a variety of practical activities to actively lead the majority of young teachers work hard to become qualified personnel and for them to put up the cast talent stage, a single sail swaying, after numerous twists and turns arrived in port, if there is wind, a hand, and naturally smooth arrival and guide students to strive to e xcel, need to nazhen “wind” - teacher. teachers should be ideological and moral education, culture education and the needs of students organically combining various activities for the students or students to carry out their own. for example: school quiz competitions, essay contests, ke benju performances and other activities to enable students to give full play to their talents. teachers rush toil, in order to that will enable students to continue to draw nutrients, to help them grow up healthily and become pillars of the country before. for all students in general education, the government departments have also not forget those who cared about the