Chapter 2 Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Proposed Hierarchical Model for Performing Organizations Biswajeet Pattanayak Phalgu Niranjana Introduction It has been observed that people often perform better than expected in many organizations leading to enhanced productivity. In fact, it is people who help build excellent organizations. This behavior has been captured by the concept of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), aterm first coined by Denis Organ and his colleagues in 1983 (Bateman and Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ and Near, 1983). OCB research attempts to discover what makes employees engage in citizenship behaviors and how this can be used within the organization to enhance productivity. According to Jardine and Bagraim (2000), OCB is partly a function of the extent to which employees feel supported by the orga- nization and have a good relationship with their immediate supervisors and who do not perform only to impress the management. In an organization, an individual has various types of roles to play. A role is defined as the set of expected activities associated with the occupancy of a given position or job (Katz and Kahn, 1978). How- ever, the individual is also required to perform some tasks in the orga- nization, which are outside their role expectations. This is generally called extra role behavior. Extra role behavior is defined as behavior52 ¢ Creating Performing Organizations which benefits the organization and/or is intended to benefit the orga- nization, which is discretionary and which goes beyond existing role expectations (Van Dyne, Cummings and Parks, 1995). This definition has four implications: 1. The behavior must be voluntary. It is not role prescribed nor part of formal job duties. It is not formally rewarded and the failure to engage in behavior cannot be formally penalized. 2. The employee’s actions must be intentional. She/he must make an active decision to engage in the behavior. 3. The behavior must be positive—either it is intended positively by the actor or perceived positively by an observer. 4. The behavior must be primarily disinterested from the perspec- tive of the employee (the actor). This behavior is of four types: (@) Organizational Citizenship Be- havior (OCB); (b) Pro-Social Organizational Behavior (PSOB); (c) Whistle-Blowing (WB); and (d) Principled Organizational Dissent (POD). The most researched among these is the concept of OCB. The roots of OCB research and theory dates back to the late 1970s when researchers were convinced that job satisfaction did indeed bear a functional relation to performance (Organ, 1977). Although they be- lieved that job attitudes might have little to do with objective measures of individual job output, there was the argument that satisfaction would affect people’s willingness to help colleagues and work associates and their disposition to cooperate in varied and mundane forms to main- tain organized structures that govern work. Thus because of the need to identify more precisely those helpful and cooperative behaviors borne of job satisfaction, Smith (Smith et al., 1983) started a study by visit- ing several lower level managers at their places of work. Using a tape recorder, she simply asked these people: What kinds of things do you like to have people in your group do, but you know that you can’t actually force them to do it, can’t promise any tangible rewards for doing it, and can’t punish them for doing it? In this manner, Smith obtained very richly textured material that she used in the research on OCB. However, the study ensured a mana- gerial or status quo bias to the measure and thus in effect, to any honestOrganizational Citizenship Behavior ¢ 53 interpretation of the research using that measure. In other words, OCB became operationally ‘things that supervisors like for you to do even though they can’t make you do it and can’t guarantee any reward for it beyond their appreciation and perhaps an occasional extra kindness or two.’ Moreover, it is almost certain that the behaviors identified would tend towards the mundane rather than bold innovative suggestions. It appears thar most managers are trying to minimize present headaches, not trying to multiply them by entering scores of initiative from their charges (Organ, 1997). Drawing on the concept of ‘willingness to cooperate’ Chester Barnard (Barnard, 1938) and Daniel Katz’s distinction between de- pendable role performance and innovative and spontaneous behaviors, Organ (1988) defined the term 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 performance of the organization. By discre- tionary we mean that the behavior is not an enforceable require- ment of the role or job description, that is, the clearly specifiable terms of the person’s employment contract with the organization; the behavior is rather a matter of personal choice, such that its omission is not generally understood as punishment. This concept has also been characterized as constructive and coop- erative extra role gestures that are neither mandatory nor directly com- pensated by a formal organizational reward system. In addition, such behaviors have been described as having an accumulative positive ef fect on organizational functioning (Organ, 1988, 1990a). Graham (1991) proposed an approach based on the theoretical heritage of civic citizenship research in philosophy, political science and social history, From that perspective, civic citizenship is viewed as including all positive community relevant behaviors of individual Gtizens. By extension, Graham argued that organizational citizenship can be conceptualized as a global concept that includes all positive or- ganizationally relevant behaviors of individual organization members. ‘Thus, this broader conceptualization of organizational citizenship udes traditional in-tole job performance behaviors, organization- ; functional extra-role behaviors and political behaviors, such as full responsible organizational participation, that typically have been emitted from previous studies of citizenship. His review of classical54 + Creating Performing Organizations philosophy and modern political theory highlighted several beliefs and behavioral tendencies that together comprise what Inkeles (1969) de- scribed as the ‘active citizenship syndrome’. He extended this political philosophy perspective on civic citizenship and applied the political categories of obedience, loyalty and participation to citizenship in an organizational setting. She defined the categories as follows: (i) Oxganizecional obedience: It reflects acceptance of the necessity and desirability of rational rules and regulations governing organizational structures, job descriptions and personnel policies. Obedience can be demonstrated by respect for rules and instructions, punctuality in attendance and task comple- tion and stewardship of organizational resources. Organizational loyalty: It is identification with and allegiance to an organization’s leaders and the organization as whole, transcending the parochial interests of individuals, work groups and departments. Representative behaviors include defending the organization against threats, contributing to its good reputation and cooperating with others to serve the interests of the whole. (ii) Organizational participation: It is interest in organizational affairs guided by ideal standards of virtue. It is validated by an individual’s keeping informed and is expressed through full and responsible involvement in organizational governance. Repre- sentative activities include attending non-required meetings, sharing informed opinions and new ideas with others and being willing to deliver bad news or support an unpopular view to combat ‘groupthink’ (Janis, 1982). @ OCB is a cluster of behaviors that benefit an organization and/or groups and individuals within it. The term conscientiousness (or com- pliance) is used to describe OCB that is directed at the organization; the term altruism is used to describe OCB that is directed at individuals within the organization (Organ, 1988; Smith, Organ and Near, 1983). Although the altruism dimension of OCB would appear to be con- ceptually equivalent to the kinds of pro-social behaviors commonly studied by social psychologists, a closure inspection suggests that this may not always be the case (Penner, Midili and Kegelmeyer, 1997). Although the rapid growth in theory and research undoubtedly has been gratifying co those interested in OCB, it also has produced some unfortunate consequences. For example, Van Dyne et al. (1995) haveOrganizational Citizenship Behavior ¢ 55 noted that much of the empirical research on OCB and the related concept of pro-social behavior and organizational spontaneity has fo- cused more on what Schwab (1980) called substantive validity rather than on construct validity. This means that the literature has focused more on understanding the relationships beeween organizational citi- zenship behavior and other constructs rather than carefully defining the nature of citizenship behavior itself. Following Schwab (1980), Van Dyne et al. (1995) warned that unless additional attention is di- rected towards a more comprehensive theoretical explications of the constructs and their measures, we are in danger of developing a stream of literature that may prove of little value to the field in the long run. Katz and Kahn (1966, 1978) distinguished between in-role behav- ior or behavior in accordance with formal role descriptions and extra- role behaviors or actions above and beyond formal role requirements. According to their theory, formal, extrinsic rewards are based upon in-role behavior, while intrinsic rewards accrue to extra-role behaviors. Extra-role behavior arises from feelings of citizenship with respect to the organization. Thus, the employee-citizen performs certain activities on behalf of the organization to which he/she is committed without being formally required to do so. Usually, the OCB is defined as extra-role behaviors that may benefit an organization or people within the organization, but these behaviors are not part of a worker’s formal job description or require- ments. That is, people voluntarily choose to engage in OCB (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993; Organ, 1988; Organ and Ryan, 1995). Like volunteerism, OCB is a long-term behavior that typically involves proactive efforts to benefit others and takes place in an organizational setting. The fact that OCB is a voluntary, extra-role behavior does not mean that OCB goes unnoticed and unappreciated by an organization’s Jeaders, that it has no impact on formal and informal evaluations of an employee’s performance, or even that people are unaware of the benefits thar might result from being a good organizational citizen. On the contrary, there is evidence that OCB is noticed, does affect evalua- tions and that workers know this (Allen, 1996; Borman, White and Dorsey, 1995; Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994). However, the perspective taken in this article is that people engage in both OCB and in volunteerism because they want to, rather than because they are formally required to. Thus, the defining characteristics of OCB are not that it is prosocial and selfless, but rather that it is prosocial and voluntary.56 + Creating Performing Organizations Types/Dimensions of Organization Citizenship Behavior 1. Helping Behavior: this has been identified as an important form of citizenship behavior virtually by everyone who has worked in this area (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993, 1997; George and Brief, 1992; George and Jones, 1997; Graham, 1989; Organ, 1988, 1990a, 1990b; Smith, Organ and Near, 1983; Van Scotter and Motowidlo, 1996; Williams and Anderson, 1991), It involves voluntarily helping others with or preventing the occurrence of work related problems. The first part of its definition includes Organ’s (1988, 1990b) altruism, peacemaking and cheerleading dimensions; Graham’s (1989) interpersonal helping; Williams and Anderson’s (1991) OCB-I, Van Scotter and Motowidlo’s (1996) interpersonal facilitation; and the helping others constructs from George and Brief (1992) and George and Jones (1997). The second part of the definition captures Organ’s (1988, 1990b) notion of courtesy, which involves helping others by taking steps to prevent the creation of problems for coworkers. 2. Sportsmanship; this is a form of citizenship behavior that has received less attention in the literature. Organ (1990b) has defined sportsmanship as a willingness to tolerate the inevitable inconveniences and impositions of work without complaining. However, his defini- tion seems somewhat narrower than the label this construct would imply. 3. Organizational Loyalty: consists of loyal boosterism and organiza- tional loyalty (Graham, 1989, 1991), spreading goodwill and protect- ing the organization (George and Brief, 1992; George and Jones, 1997) and the endorsing, supporting and defending organizational objectives constructs (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993, 1997). Essentially, organi- zational loyalty entails promoting the organization to outsiders, protecting and defending it against external threats and remaining committed to it even under adverse conditions. 4. Organizational Compliance: has a long tradition of research in the citizenship behavior area. This dimension has been called generalized compliance by Smith et al. (1983); organizational obedience by Graham (1991); OCB-O by Williams and Anderson (1991); and following: organizational rules and procedures by Borman and Motowidlo (1993); and contains some aspects of Van Scotter and Motowidlo’s (1996) jab dedication construct. This dimension appears to capture a person’sOrganizational Citizenship Behavior ¢ 57 internalization and acceptance of the organization’s rules, regulations and procedures, which results in a scrupulous adherence to them, even when no one observes or monitors compliance. The reason this behav- ior is regarded as a form of citizenship behavior is that even though everyone is expected to obey company regulations, rules and procedures at all times, many employees simply do not. Therefore, an employee who religiously obeys all rules and regulations even when no one is watching is regarded as an especially good citizen. 5. Individual Initiative: this form of OCB is extra-role only in the sense that it involves engaging in task related behaviors at a level that is so far beyond minimally required or generally expected levels that it takes on a voluntary flavor. Such behaviors include voluntary acts of creativity and innovation designed to improve one’s task or the organization’s performance, persisting with extra enthusiasm and ef- fort to accomplish one’s job, volunteering to take on extra responsibili- ties and encouraging others in the organization to do the same. All of these behaviors share the idea that the employee is going ‘above and beyond? the call of duty. This is similar to Organ’s (1988) conscien- tiousness; Graham (1989), Moorman and Blakely’s (1995) personal industry and individual initiative constructs; George’s (George and Brief, 1992; George and Jones, 1997) making constructive suggestions constructs; Borman and Motowidlo’s (1993, 1997) persisting with enthusiasm and volunteering to carry out task activities constructs; Morrison and Phelp’s (1999) taking charge at work construct; and captures some aspects of Van Scotter and Motowidlo’s (1996) job dedication construct. Organ indicated that this form of behavior is the most difficult to distinguish from in-role behavior because it differs more in degree than in kind, ©. Civic Virtue: this is derived from Graham’s discussion of the responsibilities that employees have as citizens of an organization (Graham, 1991). It represents a macro level interest in or commitment to the organization as a whole. This is shown by a willingness to par- ‘cipate actively in its governance (e.g., attend meetings, engage in policy debates, express one’s opinion about what strategy the organization ought to follow), to monitor its environment for threats and opportunities (e.g., keep up with changes in the industry that might affect the organization) and to look out for its best interests (e.g., reporting fire hazards or suspicious activities), even at great personal cost. These behaviors reflect a person’s recognition of being part of aa a ; | i 58 ¢ Creating Performing Organizations larger whole in the same way that citizens are members of a country and accept the responsibilities which that entails. This dimension has been referred to as civic virtue by Organ (1988, 1990b), organizational participation by Graham (1989), and protecting the organization by George and Brief (1992). 7. Self-development: based on the work of Katz (1964), George and Brief (1992) identified developing oneself as a key dimension of citi- zenship behavior. Self-development includes voluntary behaviors that employees engage in to improve their knowledge, skills and abilities. According to George and Brief (1992), this might include ‘seeking out and taking courses, keeping abreast of the latest developments in one’s field and area or even learning a new set of skills so as to expand the range of one’s contributions to an organization’. Interestingly, this aspect has not received any empirical confirmation in the citizenship behavior literature. However, it does appear to be a discretionary form of employee behavior that is conceptually distinct from the other citizenship behayior dimensions and might be expected to improve organizational effectiveness through somewhat different mechanism than the other forms of citizenship behavior. In view of the fact that the citizenship behavior research was influ- enced by Katz (1964), perhaps it is not surprising that these underlying dimensions bear a strong resemblance to the dimensions of ‘innovative and spontaneous’ behavior that he identified in his original article, including (a) cooperating with others; (6) protecting the orga- nization; (c) volunteering constructive ideas; (d) self-training; and (e) maintaining a favorable attitude towards the company. Antecedents of Organization Citizenship Behavior Organ and Ryan (1995) identified several variables as causes of OCB. Chief among these was job attitudes. Most models of the structure of an attitude posit that it has two components—cognitive or thoughts about the attributes of the attitude object and affective or feelings about the attitude object (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993). It is accepted that both components of workers’ attitudes toward their job play a critical causal role in OCB (Organ and Ryan, 1995). In addition, several other ante- cedents of OCB are discussed below.Organizational Citizenship Behavior ¢ 59 Cognition and OCB Workers who are satisfied with their jobs and believe they have been treated fairly are more likely to engage in OCB than workers who are dissatisfied and believe they have been treated unfairly or unjustly (Organ and Ryan, 1995). The social exchange theory (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959) provides a parsimonious explanation of why job satisfac- tion apparently leads to OCB. This classic social psychological theory proposes that human interactions can be conceptualized as business transactions in which people exchange resources in the hope that they will earn profit. The key to a successful (i.¢., profitable) exchange relationship is reciprocity, in which one party to the relationship gives some resource to the other and the recipient responds in kind. How- ever, sometimes workers may receive certain resources (e.g., a raise, kind treatment from a supervisor), but the nature of their job is such that they cannot reciprocate by improving their productivity or other aspects of their formal task performance. Therefore, they may choose to reciprocate by providing another resource that is under their control—OCB. The term used to describe fair treatment of a worker in an organi- zational context is organizational justice. It refers to workers’ percep- tions that they are being treated fairly with regard to things such as the distribution of the rewards they receive and the procedures used to make decisions that affect them. The equity theory (Adams, 1965; Walster, Walster and Berscheid, 1978) explains the positive association between perceived organizational justice and OCB (Organ and Ryan, 1995). The basic premise of equity theory is that people expect to be treated fairly in their exchange with others. People see a relationship as fair or equitable if the outcomes they receive from the relationship match their contributions to it. If people feel that they have been treated fairly, they will want to treat the other parties to the relationship fairly— either because of a concern about how the other parties might react to inequitable treatment or to ensure that the relationship will continue to produce this fair ratio of outcomes and contributions. If a worker’s outcomes exceed his or her contributions and the person cannot restore equity within the context of the formal job requirements, engaging in OCB would become a means to restore equity (Organ, 1990a; Organ and Konovsky, 1989).60 ¢ Creating Performing Organizations Affect and OCB Isen and her collegues (Isen, 1993; Isen, Clark and Schwartz, 1976) proposed that people in a positive mood have a mare positive outlook in life and thus, they may think more about the rewards of helping others than the cost of offering this help. Further, empirical research conducted by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach (2000) has focused on four major categories of antecedents: individual (or employee) characteristics, task character istics, organizational characteristics and leadership behaviors. The earliest research in this area (Bateman and Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988; Smith et al., 1983) concentrated primarily on employee attitudes, dispositions and leader supportiveness. Subsequent research in the leadership area (Podsakoff et al., 1996b; Podsakoff et al., 1990) expanded the domain of leadership to include various forms of transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. The effects of task and organizational characteristics are found primarily in the substitutes for leadership literature (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1996b; Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Bommer, 1996a; Podsakoff, Nichoff, MacKenzie and Williams, 1993). Employee Characteristics and OCB Morale: carly research efforts on employee characteristics (Bateman and Organ, 1983; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Smith et al., 1983) focused on two main causes of OCBs. The first is the general affective ‘morale’ factor, which Organ and Ryan (1995) view as underlying em- ployee satisfaction, organizational commitment, perception of fairness and perception of leader supportiveness. These variables have been the most frequently investigated antecedents of OCB and all of them have significant relationships with citizenship behaviors of roughly compa- rable strength. Thus, these variables comprising employee morale do appear to be important determinants of citizenship behaviors. Dispositional Factors: Organ and Ryan (1995) argue that various dispositional factors, such as agreeableness, conscientiousness, positive affectivity and negative affectivity, ‘predispose people to certain orien- tations vis-a-vis coworkers and managers. And those orientations might well increase the likelihood of receiving trearment that they would recognize as satisfying, supportive, fair and worthy of commitment.’ Thus, these dispositional variables could be seen as indirect contributorsOrganizational Citizenship Behavior # 61 of OCBs rather than the direct causes. Conscientiousness and agree- ableness are related significantly to both altruism and generalized compliance while positive affectivity is related positively to altruism. Role Perception: this also has been found to have a significant relation- ship with at least some of the organizational citizenship behavior dimensions, although the size of these relationships is not very substantial. Both role ambiguity and role conflict are significantly negatively related to altruism, courtesy and sportsmanship but not to conscientiousness and civic virtue. However, since both role ambiguity and role conflict are known to be related to employee satisfaction and satisfaction is related to OCBs, it is likely that at least a portion of the relationship between ambiguity and conflict and OCBs is mediated by satisfaction. Gender: generally speaking demographic variables (e.g., organizational tenure and employee gender) have not been found to be related to OCBs. The finding that gender is not related to citizenship behaviors is somewhat surprising given that Kidder and McLean Parks (1993) dis- cussed a number of plausible theoretical reasons why it ought to be. For example, they noted that empathetic concern and perspective tak- ing should influence both helping behavior and courtesy and that both of these traits are associated with women (Davis, 1983). Conversely, Kidder and Parks (1993) argued that men are more likely to engage in conscientiousness behavior than women, because this type of behavior suggests an exchange orientation or an emphasis on quid pro quo, fre- quently associated with a male preference for equity over equality. Thus even though the existing empirical evidence has not been very support- ive of the hypothesized effects of gender on citizenship behavior, addi- tional evidence is needed before this issue can be resolved conclusively. Indifference to Rewards: this aspect was found to have a consistent relationship with OCBs. This was negatively related to altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, civic virtue and sportsmanship. However, none of the other employee characteristics including ability, experience, training and knowledge, professional orientation, or the need for independence had a consistently strong relationship with any of the citizenship behaviors. Task Variables and OCB Research primarily in the substitutes for leadership literature (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1995; Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Bommer, 1996a,62 # Creating Performing Organizations 1996b; Podsakoff, Niehoff, MacKenzie and Williams, 1993) reveals that task characteristics have consistent relationships with citizenship behaviors. Indeed, al! forms of task characteristics included in the substitute literature (task feedback, task routinization, and intrinsically satisfying tasks), were significantly related to altruism, courtesy, consci- entiousness, sportsmanship and civic virtue. Task feedback and intrin- sically satisfying tasks were positively related to citizenship behavior, while task routinization was negatively related to OCBs. Thus although not emphasized in the existing OCB literature, it appears that task char- acteristics are important determinants of OCB. Organizational Characteristics and OCB The relationships between OCB and organizational characteristics were somewhat mixed, Neither organizational formalization, organizational inflexibility, advisory/staff support nor spatial distance was consistently related to citizenship behaviors, However, group cohesiveness was found to be significantly and positively related to altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship and civic virtue and perceived orga- nizational support was found to be significantly related to employee altruism. In addition, rewards outside the leader’s control were nega- tively related to altruism, courtesy, and conscientiousness. Leadership Behaviors and OCB The leadership behaviors can be divided into transformational leader- ship behaviors (core transformational behaviors, articulating a vision, providing an appropriate model, fostering the acceptance of group goals, high performance expectations and intellectual stimulation); transac- tional leadership behaviors (contingent leadership behaviors, contin- gent punishment behaviors, non-contingent reward behavior and non-contingent punishment behavior); and behaviors identified with either the Path-Goal theory of leadership (role clarification behavior, specification of procedures or supportive leader behavior) or the Leader- Member Exchange (LMX) theory of leadership. Transformational leadership behaviors had significant and consistent positive relation- ships with altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship and civic virtue. Two forms of transactional leadership behaviors were signifi- cantly related to altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship and civic virtue: one positively (contingent reward behavior) and the other one negatively (non-contingent punishment behavior). Of theOrganizational Citizenship Behavior ¢ 63 Path-Goal leadership dimensions, supportive leader behavior was found to be positively related to every form of OCB and leader role clarifica- tion was positively related to altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness and sportsmanship. LMX was positively related to altruism and overall citizenship behaviors. Reward Contingency and OCB Reward contingency is a very important factor in influencing OCB. When employees are not indifferent to the rewards made available by the organization, when employees perceive that their leaders control those rewards and when their leaders administer rewards contingent upon performance, OCB increases. This suggests at least two possibili- ties. First, it is possible that managers (either implicitly or explicitly) have a relatively broad conception of performance and view citizenship behavior as a part of it. Consequently, when they administer rewards contingent upon performance, they reward OCBs as well as in-role aspects of performance, thus increasing the frequency of citizenship behaviors. Although the contingency between rewards and citizenship behaviors is inconsistent with Organ’s original definition of OCBs (Organ, 1988), this interpretation is consistent with the findings re- ported by MacKenzie et al. (1991, 1993, 1999) and Werner (1994) among others. These findings indicate that managers do take OCBs into account when evaluating the performance of their subordinates, while the findings of Park and Sims (1989) and Allen and Rush (1998) indicate that managers administer rewards contingent upon citizenship behavior. Another possibility is chat employees have a broad conception of performance that includes OCBs. Thus when they value organiza- tional rewards and believe that their leader administers them contin- gent upon good performance, they engage in citizenship behavior as a means of obtaining rewards. This line of reasoning is consistent with Morrison (1994) who found that employees often view OCBs as an expected part of their job. Personality and OCB Researchers have long expected that personality factors would influ- ence OCB (Borman and Motowidio, 1993; Organ, 1993). These expectations were based primarily on what personality psychologists have learned about the conditions under which the relation between64 © Creating Performing Organizations personality variables and relevant behaviors should be strongest. Specifically, personality characteristics are most likely to be manifested in overt behaviors when they involve meaningful actions, occur over an extended period of time, cover a wide range of situations and are relatively unconstrained by situational demands of formal role require- ments (Funder, 1994). OCB would appear to be reflected in such be- havior. Unfortunately, these expectations have not yet been supported i by empirical findings on the relation between personality variables and OCB. Organ and Ryan (1995) concluded that if at all personality characteristics play a role in determining OCB, it is an indirect one. Specifically they argued that ‘disposition enters to this scheme (i.¢., predicts OCB) to the extent that differences in innate temperament or stable personality factors, directly or indirectly, contributor to (a gen- eral morale) factor’. They allow that conscientiousness might directly predict certain aspects of OCB but they acknowledged that there were many other potential personality correlates of OCB that had yet not i been studied. h A Conceptual Model of the Causes of OCB Penner, Midili and Kegelmeyer (1997) have developed a conceptual ( model of the causes of OCB. This model sees the development of. enduring levels of OCB as a two-phase process. The first phase con- cerns the factors that predispose workers to engage in intermediate OCB, that is a stable level of OCB that has been occurring for a relatively short period of time. The causes of the intermediare OCB are job attitudes, organizational variables, mood, motives and personality characteristics, as well as other kinds of personal, demographic and : situational variables not specified in the model. The model posits that ; these causal variables are correlated with one another. Although it is i not explicitly proposed in the model, it is certainly possible that some + of these variables may be causally related to others. However, at this time, the model does not identify which, if any, of these relations are ' causal rather than correlational. Role identity emerges in the second phase of the model. The model suggests that, over time, the direct impact of these variables on OCB diminishes. (However, it does not totally disappear, thus the dashed paths from Personality and Motives to Enduring OCB.) This is because the level of intermediate OCB affects the development of a ae ee eeCS EMAC a ————— e, Organizational Citizenship Behavior + 65 role for a worker that concerns organizational citizenship. Those people who display high levels of OCB may begin to sce this as one of their roles within the organization and develop a personal and social identity that is consistent with this role. Part of their personal identity will be that of an organizational citizen. As a consequence, they engage in behaviors that will maintain this role and the relationships associated with it. It is the degree to which a person adopts a role identity of an { | organizational citizen that directly affects enduring OCB. That is, OCB co-varies with the importance this role assumes in the person’s self concept and his or her relations with other people in the organization. Although all the individuals paths in the Figure 2. have been found in studies of OCB, the total model is not tested. Job Attitudes fen Role Identity Enduring OCB Motives for oce Fig. 2.1: A Conceptual Model of the Direct and Indirect Causes of OCB Source: Penner, L.A., A.R. Midili and J, Kegelmeyer (1997). Consequences of OCB Contemporary research has devoted an increasing amount of attention to the consequences of OCBs. More specifically, recent research has focused on two key issues: (a) the effects of OCB on managerial evalu- ations on performance and judgments such as on pay raises and pro- motions; and (6) the effects of OCB on organizational performance and success.66 * Creating Performing Organizations Effects of OCB on Performance Evaluations: the findings of the studies conducted by several contemporary researchers have shown that there is a significant positive relationship with the performance evalua- tion (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, 1991, 1993; Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Hui, 1993). OCB performance influences several key managerial decisions. There is evidence to suggest that in-role and extra-role performance may interact when influencing managerial judgments and decisions (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach, 2000). Effects of OCB on Organizational Performance and Success: OCB may contribute to organizational success by (#) enhancing co-worker and managerial productivity; (») freeing up resources so that they can be used for more productive purposes; (c) reducing the need to devote scarce resources to purely maintenance functions; (d) helping to coor- dinate activities both within and across work groups; (¢) strengthening the organization’s ability to attract and retain the best employees; (f) increasing the stability of the organization’s performance; and (g) enabling the organization to adapt more effectively to environment changes.(Borman and Motowidlo, 1993; George and Bettenhausen, 1990; Karambayya, 1990; MacKenzie et al., 1991, 1993; Organ, 1988, 1990b; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994; Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Hni, 1993 and Smith et al., 1983). The first study to explore whether citizenship behavior is related with organizational effectiveness was done by Karambayya (1990). She found that employees in high performing work units exhibited more citizenship behaviors than employees in low performing work units. Unfortunately, although these results were promising, they were far from conclusive because unit performance was measured subjectively rather than objectively. However, a more recent series of studies (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994; Podsakoff et al., 1997; MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Ahearne, 1996; Walz and Niehoff, 1996) has addressed many of the limitations of Karambayya’s research. The findings clearly support Organ’s fundamental assumptions (Organ, 1988) that organi- zational citizenship behavior is related to performance. A Proposed Model of the Causes and Outcome of OCB The research findings and theory reviewed lead to the conceptual model of the causes and outcome of OCB presented in Figure 2.2. The model sees OCB as the intermediating variable in determining organizational effectiveness. There are three phases starting withOrganizational Citizenship Behavior ¢ 67 individual attributes like self-efficacy, perseverance and learned optimism and organizational variables like empowerment, organizational ethos and performance orientation, which together lead to organizational citizenship behavior. Further, OCB determines organizational effective- ness (see Figure 2.2). Organizational Effectiveness Organizational Citizenship Behavior Obedience Loyalty Participation Personal Attributes Organizational Attributes Self-efficacy Empowerment Assessment Perseverance Organizational Ethos Learned Optimism Performance Orientation Fig. 2.2: A Model of the Causes and Outcome of OCB The working definitions of each dimension of causes and outcome of OCB are as follows. Self-efficacy: the self is at the center of a person’s competency. Self- efficacy refers to beliefs in one’s capacities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources and courses of action to meet the given situational demands (Wood and Bandura, 1989). Perseverance: it is the tendency to persist with the effort in achieving a goal in spite of various difficulties. McClelland’s (1975) concept of ‘activity inhibition’ is quite close to the concept of perseverance. Learned Optimism: an optimistic outlook influences an individuals life, feeling and success at work and can also be learned. An optimist maintains confidence and motivation following setbacks and is ener- gized by success to seek out more challenges and opportunities for success,68 + Creating Performing Organizations Organizational Ethos: is the underlying spirit or character of an orga~ nization and made up of its beliefs, customs or practices. At the base of ethos are core values. Empowerment: is a process which has evolved, in response to the trend towards a greater degree of responsibility and involvement amongst employees in the running of their organization. Performance Orientation: is the culture which encourages performance initiatives through its systems and practices in the organizations. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: is a global concept, which includes all positive organizationally relevant behaviors of individual organization members. This includes traditional in-role job performance behavior, organizationally functional extra-role behaviors and political behaviors. The model in Figure 2.2 shows a hierarchical cause and effect relationship of OCB, which needs to be tested empirically. The con- structs contained in it are translated into measurable variables and the viability of the model can be empirically determined. This model links the relationship between individual and organizational characteristics with OCB and its outcome—organizational effectiveness. This will enable a better understanding on what causes the phenomena and its related consequences which in turn will help the organization to enhance this behavior for better performance. References ‘Adams, J.S. (1965). ‘Inequity in Social Exchange’. In L, Berkowitz (Ed.), ‘Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, pp. 267-299. New York: ‘Academic. Allen, TD. (1996). Examining the Effects of Performance Beyond Role Re- quirements: A Field and Laboratory Study. Unpublished Doctoral Disser- tation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Allen, TD. and M.C. Rush (1998). ‘The Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Performance Judgements: A Field Study and a Laboratory Experiment Journal of Applied Pychology, 83, pp. 247-260. Barnard, C.I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Organizational Citizenship Behavior + 69 Bateman, T.$. and D.W. Organ (1983). Job Satisfaction and the Good Soldier: The Relationship Between Affect and Employce “Citizenship” Academy of Management Journal, 26, pp. 587-595. Borman, W.C. and S.J. Motowidlo (1993). “Expanding the Criterion Domain to Include Elements of Contextual Performance’. In N. Schmitt, W.C. Borman and Associates (Eds), Personnel Selection in Oxganizations, pp. 71- 98. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Borman, W.C, and S.J. Motowidlo (1997). ‘Task Performance and Contextual Performance: The Meaning for Personnel Selection Research’. Human Performance, 10, pp. 99-109. Borman, W.C., L.A. White and D.W. Dorsey (1995). ‘Effects of Rate Task Performance and Interpersonal Factors on Supervisor and Peer Perfor- mance Ratings’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, pp. 168-177. Davis, M. (1983). ‘Measuring Individual Differences in Empathy: Evidence Fora Multidimensional Approach’. Journal of Personatity and Social Pyychol- ogy, 44, pp. 113-126. Eagly, A H. and S. Chaiken (1993). The Prychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Funder, D.C. (1994). ‘Two Cheers for the Big Five"! Pychological Inquiry, 5, pp. 125-127. George, J.M. and K. Bettenhausen (1990). ‘Understanding Prosocial Behav- ior, Sales Performance and Turnover: A Group Level Analysis in a Service Context’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, pp. 698-709. George, J.M. and A.P. Brief (1992). ‘Feeling Good—Doing Bad; A Concep- tual Analysis of the Mood at Work-organisational Spontaneity Relation- ship’. Prychological Bulletin, 112, pp. 310-329. George, J.M. and G.R. Jones (1997). ‘Organizational Spontaneity in Con- rex. Human Performance, 10, pp. 153-170. Graham, J.W. (1989). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Construct, Re- definition, Operationalisation, and Validation. Unpublished working pa- per, Loyla University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. Graham, J.W. (1991). ‘An Essay on Organizational Citizenship Behavior’. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, pp. 249-270. Inkeles, A, (1969). ‘Participant Citizenship in Six Developing Countries’. American Political Science Review, 63, pp. 1120-1141, Isen, A. (1993). ‘Positive Affect and Decision Making’. In M. Lewis and M. Haviland (Eds), Handbook of Emotion, pp. 261-267. New York: Guilford. Isen, A., M. Clark and M.E. Schwartz (1976). Duration of the Effect of the Good Mood on Helping: Footprints on the Sands of Time’. Journal of Personality and Social Pyychology, 34, pp. 385-393. Janis, I.L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.70 # Creating Performing Organizations Jardine, JJ. and J.J. Bagraim, (2000). The Relationship between Perceived Fairness at Work and Organisational Citizenship Behavior. A University of Cape Town working paper. Karambayya, R. (1990). Contexts for Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Do High Sates and Satisfying Units Have Better Citizens. York Uni- versity working pay Katz, D. (1964). “Motvational Basis of Organizational Behavior’. Behavioral Science, 9, pp. 131-146. Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1966, 1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley. Kidder, D.L. and J. McLean Parks, (1993). The Good Soldier: Who is (s)he’? In D.P Moore (Ed.), Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, pp. 363-367. MacKenzie, $.B., PM. Podsakoff and M. Ahearne (1996). Unpublished Data Analysis. Indiana University School of Business: Bloomington, Indiana. MacKenzie, S.B., PM. Podsakoff and R. Fetter (1991). ‘Organizational Citi- zenship Behavior and Objective of Productivity as Determinants of Mana- gerial Evaluations of Salespersons’ Performance’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 123-150. MacKenzie, $.B., BM. Podsakoff and R. Fetter (1993). ‘The Impact of Organisational Citizenship Behavior on Evaluations of Sales Performance’. Journal of Marketing, 57, pp. 70-80. MacKenzie, $.B., PM. Podsakoff and G.A. Rich (1999). Transformational and Transactional Leadership and Sales Person Performance. Working paper, Indiana University. McClelland, D.C. (1975). Power: The Luner Experience. New York: Irvington. Moorman, R.H. and G.L. Blakely (1995). Individualism—Collectivitism as an Individual Difference Predictor of Organizational Citizenship Behav- ior’. Journal of Organizational Behavior 16, pp. 127-142. Morrison, E.W. (1994). ‘Role Definitions and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Importance of the Employee’s Perspective’. Academy of Management Journal, 37, pp. 1543-1567. Morrison, E.W. and C.C, Phelps (1999). “Taking Charge at Work: Extra Role Efforts to Initiate Workplace Change’. Academy of Management Journal, 42, pp. 403-419, Motowidlo, S.J. and J.R. Van Scotter (1994). ‘Evidence That Task Perfor- mance Should Be Distinguished From Contextual Performance’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, pp. 475-480. O’Reilly, C. and J. Chatman (1986). ‘Organizational Commitment and Psy- chological Attachment: The Effects of Compliance, Identification and Internalization on Prosocial Behavior’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, pp. 492-499.Organizational Citizenship Behavior ¢ 71 Organ, D.W. (1977). ‘A Reappraisal and Reinterpretation of the Satisfaction- Causes-Performance Hypothesis’. Academy of Management Review, 2, pp. 46-53. Organ, D.W. (1988). Onganizavional Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syn- drome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D.W. (1990a). ‘The Motivational Basis of Organizational Citizenship Behavior’, In B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings (Eds), Research in Organi~ zational Behavior, 12, pp. 43-72. Greenwich, CT: JAIL. Organ, D.W. (1990b). “The Subtle Significance of Job Satisfaction’. Clinical Laboratory Management Review, 4, pp. 94-98. Organ, D.W. (1993). ‘Personality and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Not Very Encouraging Scorecard So Far’. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychology, San Francisco. Organ, D.W. (1997). ‘Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It’s Construct Clean-up Time’. Human Performance, 10(2), pp. 85-97. Organ, D.W. and M. Konovsky (1989). ‘Cognitive Versus Affective Determi- nants of Organisational Citizenship Behavior’. Journal of Applied Pxychol- gy, 74, pp. 157~164. Organ, D.W. and K. Ryan (1995). ‘A Meta-analytic Review of Attitudinal and Dispositional Predictors of Organisational Citizenship Behavior’. Person- nel Pychology, 48, pp. 775-802. Park, O.S. and ELP. Sims (1989). Beyond Cognition in Leadership: Presocial Behavior and Affect in Managerial Judgement. Working Paper, Seoul National University and Pennsylvania State University. Penner, L.A., A.R. Midili and J. Kegelmeyer (1997). ‘Beyond Job Attitudes: A Personality and Social Psychology Perspective on the Causes of Organi- zational Citizenship Behavior’. Human Performance, 10(2), pp. 111-131. Podsakoff, PM., M. Ahearne and S.B. MacKenzie (1997). ‘Organizational Citizenship Behavior and the Quantity and Quality of Work Group Performance’, Journal of Applied Pychology, 82, pp. 262-270. Podsakoff, RM. and §.B. MacKenzie (1994). ‘Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Sales Unit Effectiveness’. Journal of Marketing Research, 3(1), . 351-363. Podsakoff, RM. and S.B. MacKenzie (1995). ‘An Examination of Substitutes for Leadership within a Levels of Analysis Framework’. Leadership Ousr- terly, pp. 289-328. Podsakoff, PM. and S.B. MacKenzie (1997). ‘Impact of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Organizational Performance: A Review and Sug: gestions for Future Research’. Human Performance, 10(2), pp. 133-151. Podsakoff, RM., $.B. MacKenzie and W.H. Bommer (1996a). ‘A Meta-analy- sis of The Relationships Between Kerr and Jermier’s Substitutes for Lead- ership and Employee Job Attitudes, Role Perceptions and Performance’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, pp. 380-399.72 + Creating Performing Organizations Podsakoff, PM., S.B. MacKenzie and W.H. Bommer (1996b). “Transforma- tional Leader Behaviors and Substitutes for Leadership as Determinants of Employee Satisfaction, Commitment, Trust and Organizational Citi- zenship Behaviors’. Journal of Management, 22, pp. 259-298. Podsakoff, PM., S.B. MacKenzie, R.H. Moorman and R. Fetter (1990). “Trans- formational Leader Behaviours and Their Effects on Followers’ Trust in Leader, Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors’. Leader- ship Quarterly, 1, pp. 107-142. Podsakoff, PM., B.P. Nichoff, $.B. MacKenzie and M.L. Williams (1993). ‘Do Substitutes for Leadership Really Substitute for Leadership? An Em- pirical Examination of Kerr and Jermier’s Situational Leadership Mode’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 54, pp. 1-44. Podsakoff, PM., $.B. MacKenzie and C. Hui (1993). ‘Organizational Citizen- ship Behaviors and Managerial Evaluations of Employee Performance: A Review and Suggestions for Future Research’, In G.R. Ferris and K.M. Rowland (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 11, pp. 1-40. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Podsakoff, PM., $.B. MacKenzie, J.B. Paine and D.G. Bachrach (2000). ‘Or- ganizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future Research’. Journal of Management, 26(3), pp. 513-563. Schwab, D.P. (1980). ‘Construct Validity in Organisational Behaviour’. In L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, 2, pp. 3-43. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Smith, C.A., D.W. Organ, and J.P. Near (1983). ‘Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It’s Nature and Antecedents’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, pp. 653-663. Thibaut, J. and H. Kelley (1959). The Social Prychology of Groups. New York: Wiley. Van Dyne, L., L.L. Cummings and J.M. Parks (1995). ‘Extra-role Behaviors: In Pursuit of Construct and Definitional Clarity (A Bridge Over Muddied Waters)’. In L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw (Eds), Research in Organiza- tional Behavior, \7, pp. 215-285. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Van Dyne, L., J.W. Graham and R.M. Dienesch, (1994). ‘Organizational Citi- zenship Behavior: Construct Redefinition, Measurement and Validation’. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), pp. 765-802. Van Scotter, J.R. and S.J. Motowidlo (1996). ‘Interpersonal Facilitation and Job Dedication as Separate Facets of Contextual Performance’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, pp. 525-531. Walster, E., G.W. Walster and E. Berscheid (1978). Equity: Theory and Research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Walz, S.M. and B.P. Niehoff (1996). ‘Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Their Effect on Organizational Effectiveness in Limited-menuOrganizational Citizenship Behavior ¢ 73 Restaurants’, In J.B. Keys and L.N. Dosier (Eds), Academy of Manage- ‘ment Best Papers Proceedings, pp. 307-311. Werner, J.M. (1994). ‘Dimensions That Make a Difference: Examining The Impact of In-role and Extra-role Behavior on Supervisory Ratings’. Jour- nal of Applied Pyychology, 79, pp. 98-107. Williams, LJ. and S.E. Anderson (1991). Job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-role Behaviors’. Journal of Management, 17, pp. 601-617. Wood, R.E. and A. Bandura (1989). ‘Impact of Conceptions of Ability on Self-regulatory Mechanisms and Complex Decision Making’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, pp. 407-415.