organisational citizenship behaviour: a review of literatureijrbem.com/doc/123.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management
Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019
www.ijrbem.com
266
Organisational Citizenship Behaviour: A Review of Literature
TAMUNOMIEBI, Miebaka Dagogo PhD.
Department of Management, Faculty of Management Sciences, Rivers, State University,
Nkpolu-Oroworukwo, PMB 5080, Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
MINAYE, OBUFIYA COOL
Doctoral Candidate, Department of Management, Faculty of Management Sciences, Rivers State
University, Nkpolu- Oroworukwo, PMB 5080, Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
ABSTRACT
This paper critically examines the literature on organizational citizenship behavior in business
organisations. This work is founded on secondary data collected from relevant text books, articles
and online materials on the subject matter. The paper chronicled the origin of OCB, described the
meaning of OCB.The paper also provided a detailed discussion on the five dimensions of OCB as
posited by Organ (1988).The study adopted the Hannam and Jimmieson (2002), five antecedents
of OCB (i.e. job satisfaction and organizational commitment, role perceptions, leadership
behaviors and LMX, fairness perceptions, and individual dispositions) and two additional
antecedents from Jahangir, Akbar and Haq (2004)which are motivational theories and employee
age. To give direction to the future researchers on OCB, the paper develops one additional
antecedent of OCB based on the author’s personal observation at the work place, which is
organizational culture. It implies making OCB a way of life in the work place (imbibing OCB as
culture of the organisation), which can be achieved through initiating programs, slogans/creeds,
HR policies & practices that can promote OCB. The paper also discussed the merits and criticisms
of OCB. In conclusion, the paper recognized OCB as an internal organizational strength that can
become a competitive advantage if properly harnessed.
KeyWords: Organisational Citizenship Behaviour, Organisational effectiveness, Job satisfaction.
INTRODUCTION
It is common knowledge the assertion, ‘high performing organisations rely heavily on employees
who exceed their contractual duties to discharge official tasks successfully’. Most organisations
could hardly excel without organizational members taking ‘ownership’ or behaving as good
citizens by engaging in all sorts of positive behaviours. Taking ownership here, implies taking
responsibility as if the business belongs to you. It means that you will be willing to solve any
problem within your capability even when it is not within your key job responsibilities.
Many management thoughts and organizational theories have emphasized theneed for cooperation
and collaboration between employees (Barnard, 1938; Jones and George, 1998), civic
organizational behaviour (Graham, 1991), sharing of knowledge and suggestions (Boiral, 2002),
extra role behavior ( Van Dyne, Cummings and Mclean-Parks,1995 and Organ, Podsakoff, &
International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management
Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019
www.ijrbem.com
267
MacKenzie, 2006), prosocial organizational behaviour (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), organizational
spontaneity (George & Jones, 1997), contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993) and
the most widely used term ‘Organizational Citizenship Behaviour’ or OCB (Bateman & Organ,
1983). Although these terms do not absolutely describe the same behaviours, they all share the
general theme of individual performance that goes beyond what is expected of the individual by
his or her organization.
The concept of Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) draws its origin from the Social
Exchange Theory that describes the conditions under which people feel obligated to reciprocate
when they feel benefited from some other persons or some entity’s action (Gabriel,
2015).Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) refers to the behaviors of individuals that
promote effectiveness in organizational functioning. OCB accomplishes this effectiveness by
providing a positive social and psychological environment in which task work can flourish. OCB
is important to employees insofar as it enhances social connections that influence job performance.
OCB is one of the most studied content areas in organizational behavior, with many published
theoretical pieces, primary research, narrative reviews, edited books, and meta-analyses that
describe the nature and functioning of the construct (LePine, Newton and Kim, 2016).
This paper is a literature review on OCB, focus will be on the following area:
Origin of OCB
Definition/Meaning of OCB
OCB dimensions
OCB antecedents
Merits of OCB
Criticisms of OCB
Conclusion.
ORIGIN OF OCB
The historical review shows that the OCB, as a field of study, was slow to develop. Although
it has been introduced in the late 1970s and officially defined in the 1980s, its origins can be
traced back to the 1930s (Ocampo et al, 2018). According to
LePine, Newton and Kim (2016) the foundations of OCB are rooted in Barnard 1938 book titled
‘The Functions of the Executive’ where he introduced among many other ideas, the importance of
individuals who willingly cooperate for the good of the larger system. He created the notion that
individuals’ willingness to cooperate is crucially important and indispensable to the organization.
Katz (1964) identified three basic types of behavior required for the effective functioning of
organization:
people must be induced to enter and remain within the system,
they must carry out specific role requirements in a dependable fashion; and
there must be innovative and spontaneous activity that goes beyond role prescriptions.
International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management
Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019
www.ijrbem.com
268
Katz’s third category of behaviour, requires employees to act or work beyond theirpre-established
role or job responsibilities. Heposits that, "An organization which depends solely upon its blue-
prints of prescribed behavior is a very fragile social system". Every factory, office, or bureau
depends daily on a myriad of acts of cooperation, helpfulness, suggestions, gestures of goodwill,
altruism, and other instances of what we might call citizenship behavior (Smith, Organ, and Near,
1983).
Dennis Organ is generally considered the father of OCB. Dennis Organ expanded upon Katz's
(1964) original work on OCB. Dennis Organ’s (1988) definition of OCB has generated a great
deal of criticism.OCB is often perceived as relatively new construct and is amongst the biggest
subjects studied by organizational behavior scholars. OCB has reached far and wide into the
business and management domains, supporting the fact that employee’s behaviors can greatly
affect organizations’ effectiveness and performance. Having been the topic of a significant
number of studies, there have been inconsistent research findings regarding the concepts.
Furthermore, some concepts have been noted to overlap, with several scholars using different
terms for essentially similar concepts.
DEFINITIONS/MEANING OF OCB
Most employees understand that their primary duty is to do the work that is assigned to them,
stay away from behaviors that could be deemed troublesome, and deliver work that is
acceptable and beneficial to the organization.
Organ (1988) defines OCB as "individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly
recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective
functioning of the organization". There three key things highlighted by Organ in his definition of
OCB:
OCB is a discretionary behaviour, which are not part of the job description or employee’s
key job responsibilities, and is performed by the employee because of personal choice, zeal
and drive.
OCB go above and beyond that which is an enforceable requirement of the job description.
OCB behavior might not be captured as a requirement or criteria for employee appraisal,
reward or discipline.
Finally, OCBs contribute positively to overall organizational effectiveness. OCB enhances
better organizational performance, predetermined goals and key performance metrics are
met or even exceeded.
However, Organ's (1988) definition of OCB has generated a great deal of criticism. The very nature
of the construct makes it difficult to operationally define. Critics questioned if OCBs, as defined
by Organ, were discretionary in nature. Responding to critics Organ (1977), states that since his
original definition, jobs have moved away from a clearly defined set of tasks and responsibilities
and have evolved into much more ambiguous roles. Without a defined role, it quickly becomes
difficult to define what is discretionary. He opined that it no longer seems fruitful to regard OCB
as extra-role, beyond the job, or unrewarded by the formal system. A more tenable position is one
International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management
Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019
www.ijrbem.com
269
that defines OCB much along the lines of what Borman and Motowidlo (1993) called contextual
performance. There are 5 categories of contextual performance: (1) volunteering for activities
beyond a person's formal job expectations, (2) persistence of enthusiasm and application when
needed to complete procedures even when it is inconvenient, (3) assistance to others, (4) following
rules and procedures even when it is inconvenient, and (5) openly espousing and defending
organization objectives.
OCB can be analysed from both individual and organisational perspectives. If the OCB of the
employee is high then he will help the other employees in completion of the tasks, facilitate and
support his colleagues in performing effectively whereas from organisational perspective,
employees exhibiting high OCB are more strategically aligned with the organisation goals and
objectives and put their maximum potential and go beyond the limits in achieving the goals and
objectives of the organisation.
OCB is also considered as an informal kind of behaviour that is desirable by the organization it
can be described as a behaviour that intensify the employee positive attitude towards the
organisation which ultimately enhances corporate organizational performance. Organ (1988)
called it “good soldier syndrome”.
OCB DIMENSIONS
OCB dimensions are the behaviours or actions of individual and/or group within an organization
that showcases organisational citizenship behaviour. They are the actions or behaviours that define
OCB, these behaviours are what one can point to as an OCB.These behaviorsshow willingness to
participate actively in managerial events, to monitor organization’s environment for threats and
opportunities, to look out for organization’s best interest. These behaviors reflect an employee’s
recognition of being a part organization (Podsakoff et al, 2000).
Unal (2013) and Williams & Anderson (1991) classified OCB into two groups as OCB-
Organizational and OCB-Individual: OCB-Organizational benefits the organization in general
such as adhering to informal rules devised to maintain order. OCB-Individual benefits specific
individuals and indirectly contributes to the organization such as taking a personnel interest in
other employees. Podsakoff et al (2000) identified almost 30 different forms of behaviors in
examination of the literature and classified them into seven common dimensions: Helping
behavior, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, organizational compliance, individual initiative,
civic virtue and self-development. While Chaitanya & Nachiketa(2001)developed 6 dimensions
of OCB: altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, sportsmanship, and civic virtue and the perception
of the organization towards OCB.
Several dimensions used to describe OCB have been developed, but there is a serious inconsistency
in their dimensionality. Dimensional disparity is an important concern, and due to the divergent
methods and results of prior research, none of the structures can be considered optimal. However,
most researches have suggested that there are five basic personality factors which affect most of
the variance in personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992 and Organ, 1988) and these dimensions are
known as big five dimensions which are classified as altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy,
International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management
Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019
www.ijrbem.com
270
sportsmanship, and civic virtue. This study adopts the five dimensions of OCB as identified by
Organ, 1988.
Altruism
This type of Organizational Citizenship Behavior is when a person decides to help someone
else without expecting anything in return. It has to do with rendering help to a colleague. It means
helping or helpfulness (Organ, 1997). Altruism manifests itself in voluntarily helping in the
orientation of a new employee, sharing sales strategies, teaching employees useful knowledge or
skills, assisting an overloaded worker catch up with the workflow or solve a problem, showing
employees how to accomplish difficult tasks or help a co-worker finish a project or a set of tasks
even though such tasks does not necessarily relate to the employee regular workday
responsibilities.
Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness is a discretionary behavior that goes well beyond the minimum role requirement
level of the organization, such as obeying rules and regulations, not taking extra breaks, working
extra-long days (MacKenzie et al, 1993). More conscientiousness for an employee means more
responsibility and less supervision (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997). Altruism and
conscientiousness are the two major or overarching dimension of OCB (Borman et al., 2001).
Sportsmanship
It is a form of citizenship behaviour that has been defined as a willingness to tolerate the inevitable
inconveniences and impositions of work without complaining. Precisely, “good sportsmen” are
people who do not complain when they are inconvenienced by others, who try to maintain a
positive attitude even when things do not go their way, are not offended when others fail to accept
their suggestions.
Sportsmanship is demonstrations of willingness to tolerate minor and temporary personnel
inconveniences and impositions of work without grievances, complaints, appeals, accusations, or
protest, thus conserving organizational energies for task accomplishment and lightening the loads
of managers (Organ and Ryan, 1995; Organ, 1990).
Courtesy
It is a prominent dimension of OCB. It consists of actions that help preventing organizational
problems (or problems of another coworker per se) from occurring. The fundamental idea
operating here is to avoid practices that make another person’s work more difficult or harder.
Where it becomes necessary to add to their existing workload, enough notice should be provided
so that they will be prepared to deal with the add-on tasks. Behaviours in congruence to this
dimension vary in degrees, like leaving the company’s desktop printer in as good as the condition
in which one has found it, ensuring good housekeeping at the end of your shift, so that the incoming
personnel on the next shift will not start their day with cleaning/housekeeping.
International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management
Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019
www.ijrbem.com
271
Courtesy or gestures are demonstrated in the interest of preventing creations of problems for co-
workers (Organ, 1997). A courteous employee avoiding creating problems for co-workers reduces
intergroup conflict, so managers do not fall into a pattern of crisis management (Podsakoff and
MacKenzie, 1997).
Civic virtue
This is when a worker represents the company they are associated with in a positive light. This
could occur within or outside of the business. It encourages a sense of community and strong
interpersonal ties between co-workers. Employees could engage in this type of Organizational
Citizenship Behavior by speaking favorably about the organization to those outside of it,
participating in charity projects the company participates in, and planning or attending
company-sanctioned social events.
The dimension of civic virtue is derived from Graham’s (1991) discussion of the responsibilities
that employees have as “citizens” of an organization. The concept of ‘civic virtue’ represents a
macro-level interest in, or commitment to, the organization as a whole. It is expressed by a
willingness to participate actively in its governance (e.g. to attend meetings, engage in policy
debates, express one’s opinion about what strategy the organization ought to follow, and so on),
to monitor its environment for threats and opportunities (e.g. to keep up with changes in the
industry that might affect the organization), and to look out for its best interests (e.g. to report
hazards in the work environment) even at great personal cost.
Therefore, it may be emphasized that civic virtue describes a posture of responsible, constructive
involvement in the political or governance process of the organization. This dimension has been
operationalized in two forms. Konovsky & Organ (1996) stressed the more mundane, ongoing
activities pertaining to governance, such as reading work related mail/e-mail, attending meetings,
keeping oneself up-to-date with the current status of the organization, discussing with colleagues
the issues of the day, and taking part in the various rituals that mark continuity of the organization’s
traditions and identity. On the other hand, Graham (1989) stressed the less frequent and more
dramatic instances of civic virtue, in which someone challenges existing organizational practices
and policies, voices critiques or objections to policies proposed by high level officers, and more
generally acts as the conscience of the organization (Graham, 1989). Thus, in a nutshell, civic
virtue reflects a person’s recognition of being part of a larger whole and accepting the
responsibilities that such membership entails, in the same way that citizens are members of a
country. Civic virtue is a behavior on the part of an individual that indicates that employee
responsibly participate in, is involved in, or concerned about the life of the company (Podsakoff
et al, 1990).
OCB ANTECEDENTS
Earlier researches on the antecedents of OCB focused on employee attitudes, dispositions, and
leader supportiveness. But recently, many different variables have been examined in the pursuit
to determine the antecedents of OCB. Commonly studied antecedents of OCB are job satisfaction,
perceptions of organizational justice, organizational commitment, personality characteristics, task
International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management
Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019
www.ijrbem.com
272
characteristics, and leadership behavior. These antecedents have been analyzed at both the overall
and individual OCB levels (Alizadeh, Darvishi, Nazari, &Emami 2012). Antecedents to OCB are
the factors that enhance or impede the level of employee’s performance in an organization, they
are individual and organizational variables commonly found to affect an employee's willingness
to engage in OCB. They can drive or fuel employee to engage in OCB, on the other hand their
absence or misapplication can significantly limits or hinder OCB in the work place.
Hannam and Jimmieson (2002) came up with five antecedents of OCB (which include: job
satisfaction and organizational commitment, role perceptions, leadership behaviors and LMX,
fairness perceptions, and individual dispositions), the study of Jahangir, Akbar and Haq (2004)
introduced two additional antecedents which are motivational theories and employee age.
Based on my personal observation at the work place, I believe organisational culture is another
antecedent of OCB, which is making OCB a way of life. This can be achieved through initiating
programs, slogans/creeds that can promote OCB, also HR policies & practices recognizing OCB
and rewarding same (where stretch goals or OCB task can be inputted into employee’s
Performance Management Process).
A wide range of employee, task, organizational and leader characteristics are consistently found
to predict different types of OCB across a range of occupations (Podsakoff et. al, 2000). The search
for a host of reliable predictors of OCB has been increasing during the last three decades. Based
on the literature reviewed by Jahangir, Akbar & Haq (2004), Hannam & Jimmieson (2002)and my
personal observation at the work place the following antecedents of OCB are identified as
highlighted below:
Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment
The research of Smith, et al. (1983); Bateman and Organ (1983) and Organ, 1997 on the
antecedents of OCB, find job satisfaction to be the best predictor. Job satisfaction has been found
to have a positive relationship with job performance and OCB. Which in turn has a significant
influence on employees’ absenteeism, turnover, and psychological distress. Workers with high
levels of job satisfaction are more likely to be engage in OCB. The implication is that, employees
with higher levels of job satisfaction will less likely search for another job or express desire to
leave the organisation.
Along with job satisfaction, organisational commitment is also cited as an antecedent of OCB.
Meyer and Allen (1997) developed the three-component model of commitment which has arguably
dominated organizational commitment research. Commitment is experienced by the employee as
three simultaneous mindsets encompassing affective, normative, and continuance organizational
commitment. Affective Commitment reflects commitment based on emotional ties the employee
develops with the organization primarily via positive work experiences. Affective commitment is
conceptualized as a strong belief in, and acceptance of, an organization’s goals and a strong desire
to maintain membership in the organization (Van Dyne et al., 1995). Because affective
commitment maintains behavioral direction when there is little expectation of formal rewards it
would seem logical that affective commitment drives those behaviors (i.e. discretionary behaviors)
International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management
Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019
www.ijrbem.com
273
that do not depend primarily on reinforcement or formal rewards. Normative Commitment reflects
commitment based on perceived obligation towards the organization, for example rooted in the
norms of reciprocity. Continuance commitment reflects commitment based on the perceived costs,
both economic and social, of leaving the organization. This model of commitment has been used
by researchers to predict important employee outcomes, including turnover and citizenship
behaviors, job performance, absenteeism, and tardiness.
Role perceptions
Role perceptions can significantly affect OCB negatively or positively.There is consensus from
different research works that role conflict and role ambiguity have significant negative relationship
with OCB while role clarity and role facilitation are positively related (Nagai et al., 2008 and
Podsakoff et. al., 2000). Nagai et al. (2008) posits that role conflict and role ambiguity have been
associated with work dissatisfaction, lower performance, job-induced tension and propensity to
terminate employment.Their work also prescribed that job design can also be used to shape role
perceptions, as effective job design results in higher levels of organisationally desirable
behaviours. In addition, they also stated that job enrichment leads to the development of broader
role orientations, suggesting a link between job design and employee role perceptions. Hence,
giving employees‟ greater variety and autonomy may encourage them to view their role
responsibilities more broadly and may also enhance perceived OCB role discretion and
competence.
Leader behaviors and Leader-member exchange
Leadership is one of the antecedents of OCB that enhances team spirit, morale and cohesiveness
in the employees which in turn leads to organisational commitment. Jahangir, et al., (2004) asserts
thatleadership is one OCB antecedent that appears to have a strong influence on an employee's
willingness to engage in OCB. According to Podsakoff et al. (2000) the influence of leadership on
OCB is not associated with a particular leadership style, rather it is the quality of an employee's
relationship with his or her leader that counts. The quality of the relationship between a subordinate
and a leader is often called leadermember exchange (LMX). Another leadership variable positively
related to OCB is the leaders' contingent reward behaviors, such as expressing satisfaction or
appreciation for good performance (Podsakoff et. al, 2000). Leadership behaviors may also
influence OCB indirectly via employee perceptions of fairness or justice in the workplace. The
works of Barbuto & Wheeler (2006); Jahangir, Akbar & Haq (2004); Hannam & Jimmieson(2002)
and Barbuto et al(2001) also indicates that leadership can indirectly influences employee
perception of fairness or justice in the workplace, which in turn affects OCB.
Fairness perceptions
Fairness perception is defined as a concept that expressed employees‟ perceptions about the extent
to which they are treated fairly in an organisation and how such perceptions influenced
organisational outcomes such as commitment and satisfaction. Procedural justice and distributive
justice are important components of fairness perception.Fairness or justice perceptions refer to
whether or not employees feel organizational decisions are made equitably and with the necessary
employee input (usually called procedural justice) and whether or not employees perceive that they
International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management
Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019
www.ijrbem.com
274
are fairly rewarded given their level of training, tenure, responsibility or workload (called
distributive justice). Both procedural and distributive justice are positively related to OCB
(Jahangir, Akbar & Haq, 2004, Hannam & Jimmieson, 2002 and Meyer, Organ & Graham, 1997).
Individual dispositions
Personality variables including positive affectivity, negative affectivity, conscientiousness and
agreeableness have all been found to predispose people to orientations that make them more likely
to engage in OCB (Organ & Ryan, 1995). Even though OCB does not seem to depend on
personality traits such as extraversion, introversion, or openness to change, these traits are
considered to be significant in dealing with other employees or customers (Jahangir, Akbar & Haq,
2004 and Hannam & Jimmieson, 2002).
Elanain (2007) remarked that personality traits play an important role in predicting an employee’s
OCB. These traits influence an individual to coordinate his personal needs with the organisational
needs which enhances overall personality of employees and the organisational performance. In
context to competencies, personality traits can be referred to the ability or competencies of an
individual, based on knowledge and skills and other important factors. Hence, for building
effective interaction among employees and efficient functioning of various networks,
organisations based on different competencies should develop and strengthen personality traits of
individuals to improve organisational performance. This subsequently paves way to the
development of OCB.
Motivational theories
Motivation is an individual’s predisposition to respond to motives grounded uniquely in
organisations. It is a desire created by an organisation within a person that encourages an individual
to perform actions to achieve organisational goal and performance (Budiyanto & Oetomo, 2011).
In other words, motivation covers all processes in which realising targeted behaviour is the core
element of employees.
Barbuto et al. (2001) argued that though the motivational theories work as antecedents for OCB,
but the researchers cautioned that an individual’s sources of motivation could have an impact on
his or her level of OCB. As individual progress upward in an organization, motivational theories
tend to be less applicable as antecedent.
The research studies such as Jahangir, Akabar & Haq (2004) and Hannam & Jimmieson (2002
found that motivation plays important role in strengthening OCB. Motivated employees tend to
give out their best to achieve the organisation goals and also help others in time of need. Thus,
motivation is a good indicator of OCB and is significantly related to OCB (Budiyanto& Oetomo,
2011). However, motivation is considered as less significant as an antecedent of OCB when
individual moves to higher position in an organisation.
Employee age
The proposition that younger and older worker may view work and self in fundamentally different
ways is not new. Researchers such as Banu, Amudha & Surulivel (2012) and Wagner and Rush
International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management
Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019
www.ijrbem.com
275
(2000) argued that younger employees coordinate their needs with organisational need more
flexibly, whereas, older employees tend to be more rigid in adjusting their needs with the
organisation. Therefore, younger and older employees may differ in their orientations towards self,
others and work. These differences may lead to different salient motives for OCB among younger
and older employees.
Organisational Culture : OCB an Organisational way of life
Individuals or groups in the organization will not struggle to exhibit OCB, if OCB is enshrined as
a core value in the organisation’s way of life or culture. This way, when new employees come
onboard they gradually internalize this way of life. In some organisation’s OCB is prompted by
slogans and creeds that are recited on daily basis that have become a way of life for the employees.
Slogans like ‘if you see it you own it’. Which implies that employees should take responsibility to
solve problems or challenges that they discover. It is about creating a spirit of ownership amongst
employees. Employees are expected to solve problems they discover, which they have capacity to
solve, whether or not these tasks form part of their key job responsibilities.
MERITS OF OCB
OCB has been shown to have a positive impact on employee performance and wellbeing, and this
in turn has noticeable flow-on effects on the organisation. OCB can contribute to enhancing
employees and managerial productivity, attract retention, improve coordination, reduce friction,
viability of performance and increase adaptation to environmental changes (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000).
There is a clear and compelling body of empirical evidence that organizational citizenship
behaviors, in the aggregate, are associated with superior organizational or group-level
performance, as befits the construct definition (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Consequent upon this fact,
OCB if properly harnessed, encouraged and nurtured in the work place will become an internal
strength of the organisation that will translate to be a competitive advantage.
The effects on employee performance are threefold. Firstly, workers who engage in OCB tend to
receive better performance ratings by their managers (Podsakoff et al., 2009). This could be
because employees who engage in OCB are simply liked more and perceived more favourably, or
it may be due to more work-related reasons such as the manager’s belief that OCB plays a
significant role in the organisation’s overall success, or perception of OCB as a form of employee
commitment due to its voluntary nature (Organ et al., 2006). Regardless of the reason, the second
effect is that a better performance rating is linked to gaining rewards (Podsakoff et al., 2009) –
such as pay increments, bonuses, promotions or work-related benefits. Thirdly, because these
employees have better performance ratings and receive greater rewards, when the company is
downsizing e.g. during an economic recession, these employees will have a lower chance of being
made redundant (Organ et al, 2006).
How do these effects translate to organizational level outcomes? OCB is linked to lower rates of
employee turnover and absenteeism, but on the organisational level increased productivity,
International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management
Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019
www.ijrbem.com
276
efficiency and customer satisfaction, as well as reduced costs, have also been observed (Podsakoff
et al, 2009).
According to Organ et al. (2006) OCB has such compelling effects on the individual and the
success of an organization becauseit:
• enhance productivity (helping new co-workers; helping colleagues meet deadlines)
• free up resources (autonomous, cooperative employees give managers more time to clear their
work; helpful behaviour facilitates cohesiveness (as part of group maintenance behavior)
• attract and retain good employees (through creating and maintaining a friendly, supportive
working environment and a sense of belonging)
• create social capital (better communication and stronger networks facilitate accurate information
transfer and improve efficiency)
CRITICISMS AGAINST OCB
Although OCB has largely been considered a positive behaviour that benefits the organisation, the
consensus by many sources is that these behaviors benefit the organization and the employees.
However, there are risks and costs associated with it.Which may include but not limited to the
following:
Habituation: If OCB is rewarded regularly, you may find that OCB levels will rise across
the organisation over time. What was once considered OCB (e.g. working overtime) may
become an internalised organisational norm and is no longer spontaneous and voluntary
but expected of workers. Employees succumb to “job creep”, in which behaviours that
were originally voluntary become expected parts of their role. A related concept is
“compulsory citizenship behaviours,” in which managers expect and demand workers to
do more than is listed in their formal job requirements (Van Dyne and Ellis, 2004; Pickford
and Joy, 2016).
Research into this phenomenon, termed citizenship pressure, is relatively recent, and
though contested, it can impact negatively on employee stress if care is not taken.
Organisational justice: If some supervisors reward OCB more than others, perceived
unfairness may increase among certain clusters of employees. This will not only lead to a
decrease in OCB among those not rewarded for it but may have other side effects related
to perceived injustice, such as an increase in counterproductive behaviour (e.g. theft,
absenteeism) (Marcus & Schuler, 2004).
Discrimination: Managers should be wary of implicit gendered expectations while
rewarding OCB. Research has shown that men are rewarded for OCB more than women
(Heilman & Chen, 2005), as women are expected to engage in certain types of citizenship
behaviours (such as being altruistic and courteous) more than men. Such biased
expectations can diminish or create a dearth of organizational citizen behavior amongst the
female workforce.
CONCLUSION
International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management
Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019
www.ijrbem.com
277
Research on the topic of organizational citizenship behaviors has dramatically increased over the
past decade. However, this rapid growth in research has resulted in the development of several
problems, including the need to better understand the concept of organizational citizenship
behavior, as well as their dimensions and antecedents. In this paper, we have tried to address these
issues, as well as identify useful avenues for future research.
The advent of technology and globalization has greatly affected organizations today which
resulted in increased competition in the global business. Firms have started to look into the
behavior exhibited by employees as a means of achieving competitive advantage, such as
OCB (Ocampo et al, 2018).
There is a clear and compelling body of empirical evidence that organizational citizenship
behaviors, in the aggregate, are associated with superior organizational or group-level
performance, as befits the construct definition (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Consequent upon this fact,
OCB if properly harnessed, encouraged and nurtured in the work place will become an internal
strength of the organisation that will translate to be a competitive advantage.
REFERENCE
Alizadeh, Z., Darvishi, S; Nazari, K., & Emami, M. (2012). Antecedents and Consequences of
Organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB). Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary
Research In Business, 3(9), 494–505.
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Barbuto, J., Brown, L., Wilhite, M. & Wheeler, D. (2001). Testing the underlying motives of
organizational citizenship behaviour: a field study of agricultural co-op workers. 28th
Annual National Agricultural Educational Research Conference, 539-553.
Banu, V., Amudha, R., & Surulivel, S.T. (2012). A study on customer satisfaction towards quality
of service of an Indian private sector bank using factor analysis. European Journal of
Social Sciences.
Barbuto, J. E. & Daniel, W. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant
leadership. Group Organization Management, 31(3), 300 – 326
Bateman, T.S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good Soldier: The relationship
between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements
of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, and Associates (Eds.),
Personnel selection in organizations (71-98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Brief, A. P. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behavior. Academy of
Management Review, 11(4), 710-725
Boiral, O (2002). Tacit Knowledge and Environmental Management. Long Range Planning, 35(3),
291-317.
International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management
Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019
www.ijrbem.com
278
Borman, C. W., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D. & Motowidlo, S. T. (2001). Personality predictors of
citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1/2): 52-
66.
Budiyanto, & Oetomo, H. W. (2011). The effect of job motivation, work environment and
leadership on organizational citizenship behavior, job satisfaction and public service
quality in Magetan, East Java, Indonesia. World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology 75, 192-200.
Chaitanya S. K. & Nachiketa T (2001) Dimensions of organisational citizenship behaviour. Indian
Journal of Industrial Relations, 37(2), 217-230.
Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO
personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 1, 5-13.
Elanain, H. M. A. (2007). The five factor model of personality and organizational citizenship
behavior in United Arab Emirates, Sam Advanced Management Journal.
Gabriel, J. M. O. (2015). Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and corporate resilience in
the domestic aviation sector in Nigeria. Unpublished PhD thesis.
Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities
and Rights Journal, 4, 249–270.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in context. Human Performance,
10, 153–170.
Graham, J. (1989). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, operationalizatio
n, and validation. Unpublished manuscript, Loyola University, Chicago
Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behaviour, different consequences: Reactions to men’s
and women’s altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 431-
441. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.431
Hannam, R. & Jimmieson, N. (2002). The relationship between extra-role behaviours and job
burnout for primary school teachers: a preliminary model and development of an
organizational citizenship behaviour scale. School of Psychology, University of
Queensland, www.aare.edu.au/02pap/han02173.htm.
Ocampo, L., Acedillo, V., Bacunador, A.M., Balo, C.C., Lagdameo, Y.J., & Tupa, N.S
(2018). A historical review of the development of organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB) and its implications for the twenty-first century. Personnel Review, 47 (4),
821-862, https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2017-0136
Jahangir, N., Akbar, M. M., & Haq, M. (2004). Organizational citizenship behaviour:
Its nature and antecedents. Journal of BRAC University, 1, 75-85.
Jones G. R & George J. M. (1998). The Experience and Evolution of Trust: Implications for
Cooperation and Teamwork. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 531-546.
Katz, D. (1964). The Motivational Basis of Organizational Behavior. Behavioral Science, 9(2),
131–146.
Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 253–266.
International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management
Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019
www.ijrbem.com
279
LePine, J., Newton, D., Kim, J.K. (2016). Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs)
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199846740/obo-
9780199846740-0091.xml
Marcus, B. & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work:A general
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 647-660. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.89.4.647
Meyer, J. & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application.
Sage Publications.
Meyer, J. P., Organ, D.W., & Graham, J.W. (1997). Individual performance attitudes and behavior.
Journal of International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 175-
228
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. 1993. The impact of organizational citizenship
behavior on evaluations of sales performance. Journal of Marketing, 57: 70–80.
Nagai, Hirohisa, Tsuyoshi Nanmoku, Masami Suzuki, Takuya Motoi and Kyoko Yamazaki
(2008). Expatriate Management in China,” IABR and TLC conference proceedings, 1
– 11.
Organ, D., W., Podsakoff, P. M. & MacKenzie, S. (2006). Organizational citizenship behaviour:
Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct cleanup time. Human
Performance, 10(2), 85-97.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 776–801.
Pickford, H.C. & Joy, G (2016) Organisational Citizenship Behaviours: Definitions and
Dimensions. Saïd Business School RP 2016-31. Saïd Business School, Egrove Park,
Oxford OX1 5NY www.sbs.oxford.edu
Podsakoff, P. M., KacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational
citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and
suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 3, 513-563.
Podsakoff, M. F., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H. & Richard, F. (1990). Transformational
leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and
Organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviours: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). The Impact of Organizational Citizenship in
Organizational Performance: Review and Suggestion for Future Research. Human
Performance, 10, 133–151
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management
Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019
www.ijrbem.com
280
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw
& L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43–72.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior:
Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. USA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Smith, C., Organ, D. W. & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature and
antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology 68 (4), 653–663.
Unal, F. O. (2013). Relationship Between The Dimensions Of Organizational Citizenship
Behavior And The Facets Of Job Satisfaction (An Empirical Study In A Group Of
Companies In Turkey)
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean P. J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of
construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters). In L.L. Cummings &
B.M. Staw (Eds.). Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215-285.
Van Dyne, L. & Ellis, J. (2004). Job Creep: A reactance theory perspective on organizational
citizenship behavior as over fulfillment of obligations. In: J. Coyle-Shapiro, L. Shore, M.
Taylor and L. Tetrick, ed., The Employment Relationship: Examining psychological and
contextual perspectives, 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.181-205.
Wagner, S., &. Rush, M. (2000). Altruistic organizational citizenship behavior: context,
disposition and age. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 379-289.
WEI International Academic Conference Proceedings January 14-16, 2013 Antalya, Turkey
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management,
17, 601–617.