The Bright Side of Being Prosocial at Work, and the Dark Side, Too: A Review and Agenda for Research on Other-Oriented Motives, Behavior, and Impact in Organizations

Abstract

More than a quarter century ago, organizational scholars began to explore the implications of prosociality in organizations. Three interrelated streams have emerged from this work, which focus on prosocial motives (the desire to benefit others or expend effort out of concern for others), prosocial behaviors (acts that promote/protect the welfare of individuals, groups, or organizations), and prosocial impact (the experience of making a positive difference in the lives of others through one's work). Prior studies have highlighted the importance of prosocial motives, behaviors, and impact, and have enhanced our understanding of each of them. However, there has been little effort to systematically review and integrate these related lines of work in a way that furthers our understanding of prosociality in organizations. In this article, we provide an overview of the current state of the literature, highlight key findings, identify major research themes, and address important controversies and debates. We call for an expanded view of prosocial behavior and a sharper focus on the costs and unintended consequences of prosocial phenomena. We conclude by suggesting a number of avenues for future research that will address unanswered questions and should provide a more complete understanding of prosociality in the workplace.

Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledge the research assistance of Heather Anderson.

Notes

1. Although their results conflict with some of the findings reported by Meglino and Korsgaard (2004), it should be noted that there were important differences in how other-orientation was measured (see Table 2). Specifically, in their study, De Dreu and Nauta (2009) measured self-concern and other-orientation using non-ipsative measures that asked respondents how much they agreed with certain statements (e.g. “at work, I am concerned about my own needs and interests”; “at work, I consider others’ wishes and desires to be relevant”). In contrast, the studies reported by Meglino and Korsgaard (2004) relied on an ipsative measure of other-orientation, which required respondents to choose between self-concern and other-orientation. De Dreu and Nauta's (2009) findings suggest that researchers should consider the influence of both self-concern and concern for others.

2. In contrast to the top-down, rational view of corporate philanthropy decisions, which emphasizes how executives allocate resources with an expectation that it will yield benefits for the organization, Muller, Pfarrer, and Little (2014) articulate a bottom-up process in which the empathy of individual employees translates into collective empathy that plays a critical role in corporate philanthropy decisions. Specifically, they argue that corporate philanthropy, in which organizations allocate resources (e.g. time, money, or goods) to address a social need, is driven in part by the prosocial motives of the employees who comprise the organization.