Hmmm... that is an interesting question. I have never come across a term for such people. It seems like a good area to research, though. I can see some types of people falling into this category; for example, passive aggressive types. "Noncommittal" might be one way of describing such people, also. "Noncommittal" might be compared with "neutral" on a Likert scale... Perhaps "neutrals" might be yet another term?

Thank you Ruth, I like your effort and I hope we can be thinking about how to conceptualize it if it does not exist already. Let us wait more reactions .

Thank you  @Karipidis. I also like your idea,,,at the next level of this debate,, it will be interesting to know who a superior would recommend for promotion between the compliant staff and the OCB giving staff., especially in the view that OCB does not attract rewards.

What an interesting question!  My immediate response was, "between OCBs and CWBs would be normal performance."  But as I think about it more, I think it would be appropriate to determine, first, whether OCBs and CWBs can be conceptualized as existing on the same continuum, or whether they should be conceptualized on differing continuum.  If the former, then I would think they would exist on the extreme ends of the distribution of performance and anyone between the two would be "normal."  If the latter, then dimensionality becomes an issue.  Can one exhibit high OCBs and high CWBs simultaneously?  If so, maybe the individuals to which you refer are simply low on both dimensions. 

I do really like the idea of using a term such as 'compliant' to describe said individuals as recommended by PK, above and I think it is unsurprising that such individuals are ignored to a great degree. 

What an excellent question! To add to the complexity of the answers above, I have witnessed individuals who have oscillated between these two extremes as a result of institutional bullying. Therefore, the classification of this behaviour must reflect it's extremely dynamic nature.

Great answers@ Christina and Peter. @Christina, I am just wondering if one individual can be active in both behaviors at the same period of time,,,it would be a case of either being here or there because no matter the magnitude of OCB exhibited,  engaging can Cwbs would neutralize the OCB over time. @Peter, I agree institutional bullying or even leaders' toxicity can cause an individual to oscilate . Let's keep thinking, perhaps a new construct could be born through this discussion. Thanks a lot.

Here is the scenario that comes to mind.  Maybe I have a good friend at work and I do everything I can to help that friend with his work, even over and above what is expected of me in my job (OCB) but at the same time, I refuse to pass on information to my other co-workers that they need to do their job because I'm more interested in my friend's success (CWBs).  In one way, I am helping the organization by helping my friend.  In another way, I am hurting the organization by impeding other people.  The fact is I could do this kind of thing regularly.  The issue of whether one is more important (whether one supersedes the other) is a different issue than whether the two are on separate continuum.  

Another thing that comes to mind now that I see the bullying aspect brought up is the issue of withdrawal.  Is it possible that doing neither OCB nor CWB is a form of withdrawal?  Not in terms of doing the bare minimum to get by, which would likely fit under CWB, but that sort of helpless withdrawal that is sometimes encountered when people feel that they have no control.

Hi everyone, 

A couple of year ago two colleagues of mine presented a paper that implicitly addressed the question posted by Justin. They introduced the construct of work-to-rule behavior--people that do what is required by their job description but fail to run the extra mile at work. Here is a link to the abstract of their article, 

http://proceedings.aom.org/content/2013/1/16893.short

If you need further assistance, do not hesitate to contact (PM) me. 

Best regards, 

Felipe

Well, work to rule is usually considered a form of industrial action and thus a type of resistance. Maybe 'the instrumental worker', detected by Goldthorpe & Lockwood in 'The Affluent Worker' is the type you are looking for. Interesting discission anyway

To start, i wonder where the question is coming from; that is, why would it be useful to have a term?

Secondly, i suggest to keep the question framed around behaviour in the workplace rather than around the individual (employee), since employees may exhibit a range of behaviours.

Lastly, a term to use may be 'normative' (as in, normative work). Social science researchers tend to be interested in the non-normative behaviours, that is, above (OCB) or below (e.g., counter-productive) behaviours. If you think of the 'middle' (using normal distribution analogy), you can refer to it as normative,

I value all your responses and I have also learnt so much therefrom.  @ Felipe, I surely would like to have the full paper as presented by your colleagues. Thanks to all.

Hello Justin:

That is a very interesting question. As far as I know, there is no word for those who engage in neither OCB nor CWB, though I might have missed something. However, these two sets of behaviors are often treated as separate constructs. This means that, in principle, you could represent them on two axes in Cartesian space.

(In actuality, OCB and CWB are negatively correlated, so they would not be at a 90 degree angle, but let's imagine them as orthogonal for simplicity.)

If you were to cross OCB with CWB, then you would have four cells to fill -- Low/Low (this is what you asked about), High/High, Low/High, and High/Low.

Given the negative correlation, most workers would fall into the High/Low and Low/High cells. However, there would be a nontrivial number who are Low/Low and High/High. It would be fun to consider what motivates this individuals.

-- Russell

Russell,

It's a pleasure to read a reply to an OB question that includes the terms "two axes in Cartesian space" in it :-)

Jacob

What a sharp graphication. Thank you  so much, your analysis is very informing.