494 505

758 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
758
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

494 505

  1. 1. ijcrb.webs.com JANUARY 2012 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 9Antecedents and Consequences of Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB): Zahra Alizadeh Teacher of Payam-noor University. Shataw darvishi Teacher of Payam-noor University. Kamran Nazari Department of Business Management, Payam Noor University, Kermanshah, Iran Mostafa Emami Teacher of Kermanshah University of Applied ScienceAbstractOrganizations want and need employees who will do those things that aren’t in any jobdescription. And the evidence indicates that those organizations that have suchemployees outperform those that don’t. As a result, some human subject studies areconcerned with organizational citizenship behavior as a dependent variable.Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) means individual behaviors that arebeneficial to the organization but not directly recognized by the formal reward system.Though there are research studies that provide the domain of OCB and its effects on theorganizational performance but they have varied viewpoints and are inadequate. Thepresent paper is an effort towards this direction. The main objective of the paper is tobuild grounding for analyzing the impact of OCB on various organizationalperformance measures through various propositions based on antecedents andconsequences of organizational citizenship behavior. The authors have described theantecedents of OCB from comprehensive perspective, which include role clarity,leadership, organizational commitment, organizational justice and individual traits. Theimpact of these antecedents is correlated with five organizational performanceparameters namely reduced turnover, reduced absenteeism, employee satisfaction andloyalty, consumer satisfaction and consumer loyalty. The paper also stressed on theneed to asses the influence of age, gender and experience on OCB, which have been themain lacunae in the existing literature on OCB. Moreover, the present paper proposedan endeavor to incorporate three dimensions viz: age, gender and experience to assesstheir influence on OCBKey Words: Citizenship Behaviors, Organizational Effectiveness, OrganizationalBehaviour ResearchIntroductionOne of the most widely studied topics in organizational behaviour research in recentyears is Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) (Podsakoff et al. 1993; Hannamand Jimmieson, 2002; Zeuars et al. 2000; Ensher et al. 2001; Jahangir et al. 2004;Lievens and Anseel, 2004; Emmerik et al., 2005; Khalid and Ali, 2005). The conceptwas introduced by Bateman & Organ in 1980s and latter refined and strengthened bynumber of researchers such as Podsakoff and Mackenzie (1993), Jahangir et al., (2004);Khalid and Ali (2005). Organizational Citizenship Behaviours are a special type ofwork behaviour that are defined as individual behaviours that are beneficial to theorganization and are discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formalreward system (Organ, 1995). These behaviours are primarily matter of personnel 494COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  2. 2. ijcrb.webs.com JANUARY 2012 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 9choice as omission is not considered as punishable in the organizations. Scholars holddifferent views with respect to the dimensionality of OCB. Smith et al., (1983)conceptualized OCB with two dimensions: altruism (behaviour targeted specifically athelping individuals) and generalized compliance (behaviour reflecting compliance withgeneral rules, norms and expectations. Later Organ (1988) identified five OCBdimensions namely altruism, courtesy, civic virtue, conscientiousness andsportsmanship. Organ, further, elaborated that OCB can maximize the efficiency andproductivity of both the employees and the organization that ultimately will contributeto the effective functioning of an organization . Katz and Kahn (1978) pointed out thatorganizational citizenship is important in organizations. Organizational citizenship canbe extremely valuable to organizations and can contribute to performance andcompetitive advantage (Nemeth and Staw 1989).This research is important for anybusinesses which want to create competence and organizational effectiveness. Toimprove OCB is lowest cost and best way for businesses to reach organizationaleffectiveness.Organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB)According to Organ (1988), OCB is defined as work-related behaviours that arediscretionary, not related to the formal organisational reward system, and, in aggregate,promote the effective functioning of the organisation. In addition, OCB extends beyondthe performance indicators required by an organisation in a formal job description.Moreover, it (OCB) reflects those actions performed by employees that surpass theminimum role requirements expected by the organisation and promote the welfare ofco-workers, work groups, and/or the organisation (Lovell, Kahn, Anton, Davidson,Dowling, et al., 1999).Research into OCB began in the early 1980s (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith et al.,1983), and since its inception, a distinction has been made between two dimensions ofemployee behaviour: (1) general compliance (doing what a good employee should do),and (2) altruism (helping specific others) (see Smith et al., 1983; Bateman & Organ,1983). Later, the concept underwent a number of transformations. For instance, in areview of the research, Organ (1988) identified five distinct dimensions of OCB:Altruism (helping specific others); civic virtue (keeping up with important matterswithin the organisation); conscientiousness (compliance with norms); courtesy(consulting others before taking action); and sportsmanship (not complaining abouttrivial matters). However, Organ (1997) further classified the OCB dimensions intothree parts: helping, courtesy, and conscientiousness. A different view on thedimensionality of OCB came from Williams and Anderson (1991), who divided OCBinto two types: (1) behaviours directed at specific individuals in the organisation, suchas courtesy and altruism (OCBI); and (2) behaviours concerned with benefiting theorganisation as a whole, such as conscientiousness, sportsmanship and civic virtue(OCBO). The present study employs these two dimensions of OCB to achieve theresearch objective.Citizenship behaviours directed toward individuals (OCBI)OCBI refers to the behaviours that immediately benefit specific individuals within anorganisation and, thereby, contribute indirectly to organisational effectiveness (Lee &Allen, 2002; Williams & Anderson, 1991). Podsakoff et al. (2000) labelled thisdimension as helping behaviour and defined it as voluntarily helping others with work-related problems. While other researchers have addressed this category of behaviour in 495COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  3. 3. ijcrb.webs.com JANUARY 2012 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 9a number of ways, all are similar to Williams and Andersons (1991) definition ofOCBI.Citizenship behaviours directed towards the organisation (OCBO)The second dimension of OCB includes behaviours benefiting the organisation withoutactions aimed specifically toward any organisational member or members (e.g.,adhering to informal rules, volunteering for committees). Podsakoff et al. (2000)labelled this organisational compliance as it involves an internalisation of a companysrules and policies. Furthermore, Williams and Anderson (1991) defined it as behavioursthat benefit the organisation in general. These behaviours include giving prior noticeregarding an absence from work or informally adhering to rules designed to maintainorder. It has been only since the early 1980s, with the seminal works by Smith, Organ,and Near (1983), Organ (1988), and others that followed, that OCB has emerged as anexciting field of research. With the dramatic increase in OCB research in recent years,some consensus now exists among scholars about the construct validity of the scales inuse, the major internal factors of OCB, and the antecedents as well as the outcomes ofthis behavior. A meta-analysis by Organ and Ryan (1995) identified several attitudinaland dispositional predictors of OCB (i.e., job satisfaction and organizationalcommitment), whereas other studies pointed to personal and personality variables, tosocial exchange theory, to leadership, or to equity theory as relevant for a betterunderstanding of this phenomenon (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993; Schnake, Cochran, &Dumler, 1995). These theories generally suggest that OCB is a personality trait, a socialresponse to supervisors’ and/or peers’ behavior, as well as a possible reaction of theindividual to the behavior of his or her superiors or to other motivationbasedmechanisms in the workplace. OCB has thus been identified as an important indicatorof employees’ performance that goes beyond formal duties and has a major positiveimpact on organizational outcomes, service quality, effectiveness, and long-rangesustainability (i.e., Mackenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1993; Podsakoff et al., 1997).Although researchers have proposed “anywhere from two (Williams & Anderson, 1991)to seven (Podsakoff et al., 2000)” intra factors for OCB (Ehrhart, 2004, p. 63), themajority of theoris identify two dimensions of the behavior: (a) OCB-I, which iscitizenship behavior directed toward individuals, and (b) OCB-O, which is citizenshipbehavior directed toward the entire organization or part of it. Our study followed thisgenerally accepted two-factor construct of OCB. However, we also tried to support thisconstruct empirically, as will be explained later.As with many subfields in organizational behavior research, OCB theory has struggledthrough several levels of analysis. Rousseau (1985) mentioned the level of analysis as aprominent issue in organizational behavior research.She suggested that “Most of what we study in and about organizations are phenomenathat are intrinsically mixed level” (p. 2). A recent work by Schnake and Dumler (2003)supported this notion and argued that the individual level of analysis is dominant in thestudy of organizational behavior despite the fact that the field is largely mixed level,incorporating system-level or collectivelevel analysis such as group, unit, andorganizational-level phenomena.These notions may imply that OCB, as a growing fieldof interests in contemporary organizational behavior theory, can exist at multiple levels.However, “it is OCB in the aggregate (i.e., group and organizational level) whichimpacts organizational effectiveness” (Schnake & Dumler, 2003, p. 283). Nonetheless, 496COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  4. 4. ijcrb.webs.com JANUARY 2012 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 9Schnake and Dumler (2003) also observed that to date OCB has generally beenconsidered a type of individual behavior or performance.This prevailing approach contrasts somewhat with the assertion by Organ (1988) whoargued that the aggregate level of OCB (that is, OCB as measured at the group ororganizational level) and not sporadic actions by some individuals affects organizationaleffectiveness.Most current empirical studies have applied an individual-level analysis to theexamination of OCB. However, in recent years we have witnessed some changes in thisregard. Several scholars such as George and her colleagues (George, 1990; George &Bettenhausen, 1990; George & Brief, 1992), Kidwell, Mossholder, and Bennett (1997),Podsakof et al. (1997),Koys (2001), Ehrhart and Naumann (2004), Tepper, Duffy, Hoobler, and Ensley (2004),Somech and Drach-Zehavy, (2004), and Pearce and Herbik (2004) identified theusefulness of studying OCB from the system or group level. Nevertheless, none of thesestudies has focused exclusively on the development and evaluation of the group-levelOCB measure, and none of them has been developed in the educational context.Thework of Tepper et al. (2004) deserves more attention in this context.This study used alongitudinal design to test the relationship between coworkers’ OCB and fellowemployees’ attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction and affective commitment). Based on theresource allocation theory, conflict resolution ideas, and the meaning of workplaceaggression, it was suggested that supervisors’ abusiveness may be a moderator betweenOCB and job attitudes. Most important, the study utilized a group-level scale of OCBthat is quite similar to the one we propose here and found that abusive supervisionmoderates the relationships between OCB and job attitudes. Thus, our study retestsTepper et al.’s scale, this time with a different sample and in a different culture.Therefore, it is important to highlight some similarities and differences between ourstudy and the one by Tepper and his colleagues (2004). First, like Tepper et al., we alsoreport confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and other figures that support the scale’svalidation. Unlike Tepper et al., however, our study is dedicated to the establishment ofa new scale and to its presentation in detail. Moreover, in line with Tepper et al. (2004),we argue that it is also valuable to sum up individuals’ perceptions of group OCBs thatare substantially different from perceptions of personal OCBs. Our approach toaccomplishing this goal, however, is somewhat different. In Tepper et al.’s study, oneemployee rated his or her coworkers’ OCB as a whole, and that same employee ratedeach coworker’s OCB individually. Then, the first rating was correlated with the meanof all the individual ratings. In contrast with this method, our study attempts to measureemployees’ ratings of the group’s OCB directly and correlate them with thesupervisors’ independent ratings of individual OCB. Thus, our study also differs fromthat of Tepper et al. (2004) by using supervisors’ independent assessments of OCB thatare correlated with group-level OCB.Schnake and Dumler (2003) suggested a typology of studies on OCB in various levelsof analysis. They distinguished among three main groups:(a) studies measuring and analyzing OCB (and outcome variables) at the individuallevel (i.e., Mackenzie et al., 1993; Skarlicki & Latham, 1995), (b) studies measuringand analyzing OCB (and outcome variables) at the group level (i.e., George &Bettenhausen, 1990; Podsakoff et al., 1997), and (c) studies measuring OCB (andoutcome variables) at the individual level and analyzing at the group level (i.e., Waltz & 497COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  5. 5. ijcrb.webs.com JANUARY 2012 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 9Niehoff, 1996). What is evident from the typology of Schnake and Dumler (2003) isthat we lack studies that measureboth individual-level and group-level OCB concurrently and relate them to each other.A recent study by Ehrhart (2004, p. 64) reconfirmed that “despite increasing research onunit-level OCB, little attention has been given to the conceptual definition of theconstruct or its distinctiveness from individuallevel OCB.”Following Rousseau (1985), we argue that advancing our knowledge on mixed-levelanalysis in administrative sciences, organizational behavior, and OCB theory must relyon a solid linkage between the individual level of analysis and the group level ofanalysis. Thus, measuring OCB in the same research design, both on the individuallevel and on the group level, as well as linking these two levels is of serious potentialmerit. Relating the individual-level and group-level measures with each other can also improve the validation of thescores produced by a solid group-level scale of OCB. Our arguments draw substancefrom Bommer, Miles, and Grover (2003) and Ehrhart and Naumann (2004) whomentioned at least two theories that can support the relationship between individual-level and group-level OCB. Firstis the social learning theory, which suggests that people learn by observing others’behavior (Bandura, 1986). The more OCB is modeled by one’s group members, themore likely one will behave consistently with those models, particularly when thatbehavior is associated with positive social consequences (Podsakoff & MacKenzie,1997). Second is the social informationprocessing theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978)that emphasizes the importanceof social cues in shaping one’s attitudes. When OCB levels are high among groupmembers, the individual group member will be more likely to view such behavior asacceptable and expected, ultimately resulting in higher levels of individual OCB.Beyond these theories that provide a rationale for the relationship between individual-level OCB and group-level OCB, we also rely strongly on the studies of Schnake andDumler (2003), Ehrhart (2004), Rousseau (1985), and House, Rousseau, and Thomas-Hunt (1995) who advocated integration of micro-and macro-level analysis inorganization studies.Thus, we concluded that although the individual-level OCB and the group-level OCBrepresent two separate measurement approaches to OCB, they are still correlated. Thestudy by Tepper et al. (2004) supports this assertion and reports a correlation of .72 (p <.01) between group-directed OCB and individual- directed OCB (these concepts arequite similar to GOCB and IOCB). Consequently, we believe that testing these twoscales in one researchdesign can provide support for the validity to the proposed scale.Furthermore, a closer look into the empirical approach to measuring individual-levelOCB reveals that most of the existing studies have used one of three methods: (a)obtaining managers’ reports on employees’ activities and behaviors (i.e., Organ &Konovsky, 1989; Vigoda, 2000; Williams & Anderson, 1991), (b) obtaining peerassessments of fellow workers from employees (i.e., Bommer et al., 2003; Morrison,1994), and (c) using selfassessments by organizational members of their own activitiesat work (i.e., Organ, 1988; Pond, Nacoste, Mohr,& Rodriguez, 1997; Robinson &Morrison, 1995). In sum, the majority of the studies asked respondents to evaluateeither their own or other individuals’ behaviors. Although the traditional approaches tothe understanding and measurements of OCB noted above provide useful information 498COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  6. 6. ijcrb.webs.com JANUARY 2012 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 9about employees’ willingness to engage in voluntary workplace activities, they allsuffer from various weaknesses and limitations.For example, there are serious obstacles to obtaining the managers’ agreement to takepart in such a unique assessment process. Furthermore, this data, when acquired, istainted by biases such as the “last event bias,” the “dominant event bias,” the “haloeffect,” and other personal predispositions.In addition, the data provided through peer or self-assessment may suffer from a lack ofobjectivity. In some cases, its collection may put a heavy burden on (a) supervisors whoneed to spend extra time assessing their subordinates or (b) other participants who needto overcome psychological restraints when asked to evaluate fellow workers’ activitiesobjectively.In addition, the lack of knowledge of some of the assessors as to the actual OCBorientations of those they are evaluating may further compromise the data (Pond et al.,1997).A group-level measure of OCB may help overcome these difficulties in several ways:(a) it shifts the burden of assessments from supervisors or coworkers to the employeesthemselves and thus increases the flexibility of the researcher, (b) it may increase thewillingness of organizations to take part in such research efforts and increase theparticipants’ response rate, (c) it uses an anonymous technique that can never be appliedfully in conventional individual-level studies of OCB and, (d) it may minimize thelikelihood of objectivity bias, as the referent is not one’s self or any other individual butthe “organization” in general. Smith (1983) and Bateman and Organ (1983) conductedthe first research on the antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behavior, finding jobsatisfaction to be the best predictor. After 17 years of research, job satisfaction is stillthe leading predictor of OCB (Organ & Ryan, 1995). This is problematic because,descriptively, job satisfaction is in and of itself a challenging outcome sought byorganizational managers. The resulting implications are restricted to suffice that OCB islikely when workers are satisfied. There are just as many questions regarding theantecedents of job satisfaction as there are questions about the antecedents oforganizational citizenship behaviors. But according toPenner, Midili & Kegelmeyer,(1997) the job satisfaction is not only one reason for the accurate prediction of OCB.The construct of OCB, from its conception, has been considered multidimensional.Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) first proposed two dimensions: altruism and generalcompliance. These two dimensions serve to improve organizational effectiveness indifferent ways. Altruism in the workplace consists essentially of helping behaviors.These behaviors can both be directed within or outside of the organization. There is nodirect link, or one-to-one relationship, between every instance of helping behavior and aspecific gain for the organization. The idea is that over time, the compilation ofemployees helping behavior will eventually be advantageous for the organization(Organ et al., 2006).General compliance behavior serves to benefit the organization in several ways. Lowrates of absenteeism and rule following help to keep the organization runningefficiently. A compliant employee does not engage in behaviors such as takingexcessive breaks or using work time for personal matters. When these types ofbehaviors are minimized the workforce is naturally more productive. Later, Organ(1988) deconstructed the dimension of general compliance and added additionaldimensions of OCB. This deconstruction resulted in a five-factor model consisting ofaltruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, civic virtue, and sportsmanship. The definition of 499COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  7. 7. ijcrb.webs.com JANUARY 2012 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 9altruism remained much as it was, defined by discretionary behaviors that have theeffect of helping a specific work colleague with an organizationally relevant task orproblem. Conscientiousness consists of behaviors that go well beyond the minimumrole requirements of the organization (Law, Wong, & Chen, 2005). These behaviorsindicate that employees accept and adhere to the rules, regulations, and procedures ofthe organization.Civic virtue is characterized by behaviors that indicate the employee’s deep concernsand active interest in the life of the organization (Law et al., 2005). This dimension alsoencompasses positive involvement in the concerns of the organization (Organ et al.,2006). Examples of civic virtue can be seen in daily affairs such as attending meetingsand keeping up with what is going on with the organization in general. Civic virtue canalso be demonstrated on a larger scale by defending the organization’s policies andpractices when they are challenged by an outside source.Courtesy has been defined as discretionary behaviors that aim at preventing work-related conflicts with others (Law et al., 2005). This dimension is a form of helpingbehavior, but one that works to prevent problems from arising. It also includes theword’s literal definition of being polite and considerate of others (Organ et al., 2006).Examples of courteous behaviors are asking fellow employees if they would like a cupof coffee while you are getting one for yourself, making extra copies of the meetingagenda for your teammates, and giving a colleague ample notice when you altersomething that will affect them.Finally, sportsmanship has been defined as a willingness on the part of the employeethat signifies the employee’s tolerance of less-than-ideal organizational circumstanceswithout complaining and blowing problems out of proportion. Organ et al. (2006)further define sportsmanship as an employee’s “ability to roll with the punches” even ifthey do not like or agree with the changes that are occurring within the organization. Byreducing the amount of complaints from employees that administrators have to dealwith, sportsmanship conserves time and energy.It has been proven empirically that the factors listed above are the most robust anddistinct factors in assessing OCB. However, in a meta-analysis of the OCB literature,LePine, Erez, and Johnson (2002) found that these five dimensions are very highlycorrelated and to not have much differentiation among antecedents, indicating someoverlap in the dimensions.AntecedentsEarly research regarding the antecedents of OCB focused on employee attitudes,dispositions, and leader supportiveness. More recently, many different variables havebeen examined in the effort to determine the antecedents of OCB. Commonly studiedantecedents of OCB are job satisfaction, perceptions of organizational justice,organizational commitment, personality characteristics, task characteristics, andleadership behavior. These antecedents have been analyzed at both the overall andindividual OCB levels.One of the most intuitive antecedents of OCB is job satisfaction. Organ and Ryan(1995) conducted a meta-analysis of 28 studies and found a modest relationshipbetween job satisfaction and OCB. This relationship was stronger than the relationshipbetween job satisfaction and in-role performance. Other attitudinal measures, perceivedfairness, organizational commitment, and leader supportiveness are found to correlatewith OCB at about the same rate as satisfaction (Organ & Ryan, 1995). 500COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  8. 8. ijcrb.webs.com JANUARY 2012 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 9In terms of personality characteristics, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and positiveand negative affectivity garner the most support as antecedents of OCB (Podsakoff,MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). Conscientiousness, in particular, has been foundto have a strong relationship with the general compliance component of OCB (Organ etal., 2006). However, it has also been reported that personality measures are weakerpredictors of OCB when compared to attitudinal predictors (Organ & Ryan, 1995).Task characteristics such as feedback, routinization, and intrinsic satisfaction are foundto be significantly related to altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, andcivic virtue. Positive relationships were found between both task feedback and intrinsicsatisfaction and OCB, while a negative relationship was found between taskroutinization and OCB. Even though task characteristics have been found to predictOCB, some debate exists as to whether this is a direct effect or a relationship mediatedby job satisfaction (Todd & Kent, 2006).Leadership behaviors have also been found to be an important predictor of OCB. Thesebehaviors fall into four categories: transformational leadership behavior, transactionalleadership behavior, behaviors having to do with the path-goal theory of leadership, andbehaviors having to do with the leader-member exchange theory. Transformationalleadership behaviors, including articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model,fostering the acceptance of group goals, high performance expectations, and intellectualstimulation, have significant positive relationships with Organ’s dimensions of OCB.Two types of behaviors representative of transactional leadership style, contingentreward behavior and non-contingent punishment behavior, have significant relationshipswith Organ’s dimensions of OCB. Additionally, both the supportive leadership andleader role clarification aspects of the path-goal theory of leadership are positivelyrelated to OCB. Podsakoff et al. (2000) found that leader-member exchange waspositively related to altruism and an overall composite measure of OCB.Conclusionsorganizational effectiveness has always been a major concern for organizationalbehavior researchers and human resource practitioners. Organizational citizenshipbehavior (OCB) has received the preponderance of research attention (Organ & Ryan,1995; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996; Podsakoff, et al., 2000) amongst themultiple conceptualizations of discretionary work behavior (e.g., contextualperformance, prosocial organizational behaviour, extra-role behavior, organizationspontaneity). Organ (1988), defines OCB as “individual behaviour that is discretionary,not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in theaggregate promotes effective functioning of the organization…the behaviour is notenforceable requirement of the role or the job description … the behaviour is a matter ofpersonal choice Organizational citizenship behaviors have often been conceptualized asinherently a socially desirable class of behaviors. It has been the purpose of this paper tostrip away any biases and attributions for social desirability and to examine thebehaviors in their strictly observable form. In doing so, a variety of motives can beexamined as potential reasons why employees might exhibit OCB. Achievement,affiliation, and power are not new ideas, but the application of these motives to thestudy of OCB does provide a new lens through which to view OCB. Much research isstill needed to validate the ideas expressed in this paper.As defined by Organ (1988), OCB reflects a “good soldier syndrome” which is sonecessary for the prosperity and good functioning of every organization. It means doing 501COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  9. 9. ijcrb.webs.com JANUARY 2012 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 9a better job, making”. an effort above and beyond formal requirements, and filling thegap between procedures and regulations on the one hand, and dynamic reality on theother. OCB is usually perceived as exerting exceptionally good behaviors for the sakeof the organization and informally supporting its members. To date, and as far as wecould find, no study has investigated the meaning and implications of OCB behaviors inthe third sector. Obviously, such behaviors are important to private organizations sincethey affect their competitiveness and profitability. must be committed to increasingOCB among their paid employees. Thus, OCB represent a powerful element of free-willconduct, most relevant in third-sector organizations, which highlight values of voluntarypersonal actions especially among paid employees. Consequently it is interesting toexamine how OCB is manifested in interpersonal relationships within work units of thenon-profit sector.Organ (1988) proposed an expanded taxonomy of OCB that included:Conscientiousness (e.g. following rules, attendance, etc.), Courtesy (e. g. respectingothers, for example consulting with others before taking action), Altruism (e.g. helpingothers),Sportsmanship (e.g. avoiding pettiness such as gossip, not complaining abouttrivial matters etc.), and Civic virtue (e.g. keeping up with matters that affect theorganization). Several other taxonomies of OCB have been proposed andoperationalized (e.g., Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Morrison, 1994; Van Dyne et al.,1994) but more or less they overlap with Organ’s taxonomy.George and Jones (1997)note the importance of contextual factors as shapers of OCB. Some potentiallyimportant contextual factors, such as industry, technology,and job function, have been reviewed by Organ and Ryan (1995), but with inconclusivefindings. Most OCB studies have been conducted in the US so that ‘despite thevoluminousand fruitful literature stemming form Organ’s (1988) seminal work in this area, weknow little about citizenship behaviour in a global context’ (Farh, Early, & Lin, 1997, p.421). Only recently has OCB been studied in other international contexts such as inChina, Singapore, Taiwan, Australia, Japan and Hong Kong (Chen, Hui, & Sego, 1998;Hui, Law, & Chen, 1999: Lam, Hui, & Law, 1999; Tang, Furnham, & Davis, 2002; VanDyne & Ang, 1998). Research on OCB measurement in contexts other than the US isimportant because the dimensionality of an OCB measure used in different culturalcontexts should not be taken for granted. As Podsakoff et al. (2000) cautioned: ‘Culturalcontext may affect the forms of citizenship behaviour observed in organizations (e.g.,the factor structure)’ (p. 556). Therefore, this study aims to contribute to the growingnumber of international studies on OCB by investigating the dimensionality of aspecific OCB measure through confirmatory factor analysis in a Dutch-speaking context(Flemish part of Belgium). In addition, we examine the invariance of this measureacross two different samples: a sample of supervisor OCB ratings and a sample of peerOCB ratings.Organizational citizenship is discretionary behavior that is not part of an employee’sformal job requirements, but that nevertheless promotes the effective functioning of theorganization. (Robbins, 1996). Successful organizations need employees who will domore than their usual job duties and provide performance that is beyond expectations. Inshort, in order to reach that goal, fill full employees job satisfaction, understand theymotivation and create suitable work environments are most important thing inmanagement reality. 502COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  10. 10. ijcrb.webs.com JANUARY 2012 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 9ReferencesAiken, M., & Hage J. (1966). Organizational alienation. American Sociological Review,31,497-507.Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within group agreement, non-independence, and reliability:Implications for data aggregation. In K. J. Klein & S.W.J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multileveltheory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and newdirections (pp. 349-381).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain atdifferent levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 83, 234-246.Chen, X. B., Lam, S.S.K., Schaubroeck, J., & Naumann, S. (2002, August). Grouporganizational citizenship behavior: A conceptualization and preliminary test of itsantecedents and consequences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academyof Management, Denver, Colorado.Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents andconsequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55, 83-105.DiPaola, M.F., & Hoy, W.K. (2005a). Organizational citizenship of faculty andachievement of high school students. The High School Journal, 88, 35-44.George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of AppliedPsychology,75, 107-116.Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York:Wiley.Kidwell, R. E., Jr., Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesiveness andorganizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups andindividuals. Journal of Management, 23, 775-793.Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenshipbehavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study.Personnel Psychology, 54, 101-114.MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizationalcitizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing,57, 70-80.Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definition and organizational citizenship behavior: Theimportance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543-1567.Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. 503COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  11. 11. ijcrb.webs.com JANUARY 2012 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 9Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants oforganizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157-164.Parker, C. P., Dipboye, R. L., & Jackson, S. L. (1995). Perceptions of organizationalpolitics: An investigation of antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management, 21,891-912.Pearce, C. L., & Herbik, P. A. (2004). Citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis:The effects of team leadership, team commitment, perceived team support, and teamsize. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 293-310.Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & Mackenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenshipbehavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 82, 262-270.Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1995). An examination of substitutes forleadership within a levels of analysis framework. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 289-328.Pond, S. B., Nacoste, R. W., Mohr, M. F., & Rodriguez, C. M. (1997). Themeasurement of organizational citizenship behavior: Are we assuming too much?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1527-1544.Randall, M., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C., & Birjulin A. (1999). Organizationalpolitics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, Job performance andorganizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 159-174.Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to jobattitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.Schnake, M., Cochran, D. S., & Dumler, M. P. (1995). Encouraging organizationalcitizenship: The effects of job satisfaction, perceived equity, and leadership. Journal ofManagerial Issues, 2, 209-221.Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior:Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.Starratt, R. J., (1991). Building an ethical school: A theory for practice in educationalleadership.Educational Administration Quarterly, 27, 185-202.Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators of therelationships between coworkers’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellowemployees’ attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 455-465.Tesluk, E. P.,Vance, J. R., & Mathieu E. J. (1999). Examining employee involvement inthe context of participative work environment. Group & Organization Management, 24,271-299. 504COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
  12. 12. ijcrb.webs.com JANUARY 2012 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 9Van Yperen, N. W., & Van Deberg, A. E., & Willering, M. C. (1999). Towards a betterunderstanding of the link between participation in decision making and organizationalcitizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 72, 377-392.Vigoda, E. (2000). Internal politics in public administration systems: An empiricalexamination of its relationship with job congruence, organizational citizenship behavior,and in-role performance. Public Personnel Management, 29, 185-210.Waltz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (1996). Organizational citizenship behaviors and theireffect on organizational effectiveness in limited-menu restaurants. In proceedings,Academy of Management, 307-311. 505COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research

×