aspect resembled Smith et al. (1983) compliance factor and Organ’s (1988)
conscientiousness dimension. In spite of the subtle differences (Van Scotter &
Motowidlo, 1996) between contextual performance and OCB, substantially it
encompasses behaviors that have already been identified by Organ (1988).
Innovation, Personal initiative and Creativity. The work of Morrison & Phelps
(1999) was probably one of the few empirical attempts at extending the OCB (or
contextual performance) domain to include change-oriented and creative behaviors
identified earlier by Katz (1964). Morrison and Phelps (1999) maintained that the OCB
literature had often neglected an important change-oriented extra-role behavior—taking
charge. Most of the OCB and contextual performance literature has examined beneficial
behaviors such as helping and compliance but has not focused as much on the active
change-oriented efforts that employee undertake on their job (Morrison & Phelps, 1999).
The construct of taking charge in contrast consisted of active attempts to improve the
organization through innovation endeavors and for that reason it was clearly distinct from
the other forms of OCB that had been consistently explored in the OCB literature
(Morrison & Phelps, 1999).
Innovation may be construed as a type of personal initiative at work. Personal
employee initiative has become crucial for organizational effectiveness in the context of
constant competition (Lawler, 1992; Milkovich & Boudreau, 1997; Van Dyne, Graham,
& Dienesch, 1994; Welbourne et al., 1998). Frese & Fay (2001) draw an important
distinction between OCB-compliance and personal initiative (PI). According to them,
conscientiousness/ compliance is a passive form of behavior wherein the employee shows
outstanding adherence to rules and norms. However, as they pointed out “the concept of