Given the common use of self‐ratings and other‐ratings (e.g., supervisor or coworker) of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), the purpose of this meta‐analysis was to evaluate the extent to which these rating sources provide comparable information. The current study's results provided three important lines of evidence supporting the use and construct‐related validity of self‐rated OCB. The meta‐analysis of mean differences demonstrated that the mean difference in OCB ratings is actually quite small between self‐ and other‐raters. Importantly, the difference between self‐ and other‐raters was influenced by neither the response scale (i.e., agreement vs. frequency) nor the use of antithetical/reverse‐worded items on OCB scales. The meta‐analysis of correlations showed that self‐ and other‐ratings are moderately correlated but that self–other convergence is higher when antithetical items are not used and when agreement response scales are used. In addition, self‐ratings and supervisor‐ratings showed significantly more convergence than self‐ratings and coworker‐ratings. Finally, an evaluation of self‐rated and other‐rated OCB nomological networks showed that although self‐rated and other‐rated OCBs have similar patterns of relationships with common correlates, other‐rated OCB generally contributed negligible incremental variance to correlates and only contributed appreciable incremental variance to other‐rated behavioral variables (e.g., task performance and counterproductive work behavior). Implications and future research directions are discussed, particularly regarding the need to establish a nomological network for other‐rated OCB. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.