Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 (2016) 351 – 360

12th International Strategic Management Conference, ISMC 2016, 28-30 October 2016, Antalya,
Turkey

An Exploration of Academic Staff’s Organizational Citizenship

Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior in Relation to
Demographic Characteristics
Ayşe Hatun Diricana , Oya Erdilb
a,b
Gebze Institute of Technology, Kocaeli, 41400, Turkey

Abstract

This paper investigates the relationship between academic staff’s demographic characteristics (age, gender, rank, and tenure) and
their Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and Counterproductive Work Behavior(CWB). Participants were selected from 50
public universities throughout Turkey. Data collected from 645 academicians were used in the study. And Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-
Whitney U and Bonferroni Correction were used to analyze the data. The results indicated that older academic staff display more
OCB and less CWB than younger staff. Moreover, women and men showed no difference in OCB directed to their colleagues and
organization. Interpretations of results, limitations and future research were discussed.

©
© 2016
2016Published by Elsevier
The Authors. Ltd. This
Published is an open
by Elsevier Ltdaccess
. article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of the organizing
of the organizing committeecommittee
of ISMC 2016.of ISMC 2016.

Keywords: academic staff, organizational citizenship behavior, counterproductive work behavior

1. Introduction

In the last decades, researchers have focused on employee behavior as one of the key factors affecting the success
of an organization. Among various employee behaviors, Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs) and
Counterproductive Work Behaviors (CWBs) have been receiving an increased attention. OCB is typically considered
as extra role and prosocial behaviors referring to behavior which goes beyond existing role expectations and
performed with the intention of promoting welfare of the individuals and organizations (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986;
Van Dyne, Cummings and MCclean Parks,1995). CWB as a form of the deviance is defined as “voluntary behavior
(of employees) that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an
organization, its members or both” (Robinson and Bennett, 1995). Dalal (2005) indicated that both OCB and CWB

Corresponding author. Tel. + 90-262-605-1410 fax. +90-262-654-3224
Email address: ahdirican@gtu.edu.tr

1877-0428 © 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ISMC 2016.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.11.043
352 Ayşe Hatun Dirican and Oya Erdil / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 (2016) 351 – 360

can be separated into behavior that is directed toward individuals within the organization and behavior directed toward
organization itself.

OCB and CWB are performance-related behaviors that have often been considered as opposites; OCB helps to
attain organizational goals and beneficial extra-role contributions play a crucial role in the organizational functioning.
In contrast to OCB, CWB is harmful and has negative impact on the organization and its members (Miles, Borman,
Spector and Fox, 2002; Organ,1988; Wagner and Rush, 2000). For example; while coming to work conscientiously
(on time and every day) is described as OCB, of withdrawal from work reflected in absence and tardiness is described
as CWB (Spector and Fox, 2002).

To date, while studies have examined the importance of OCB and CWB in non-educational settings, such as service
industries, banking and industrial sector or hospitals, little empirical research has directly focused on these two
behaviors together in universities. Especially, the concepts of OCB and CWB are important determinants of an
academic staff ‘efficiency, productivity and they have positive or negative effect on overall performance of university.
Seemingly, the success of universities is more dependent on academic staff’ efforts which exceed formal job
requirements, namely, engaging in OCB. OCB provides organizations with additional resources and eliminates the
need for formal mechanism whereas CWB causes stress related problems, decreased productivity, low morale and lost
work time (Bogler and Somech, 2004; O'Leary-Kelly, Griffin and Glew, 1996). Therefore, this paper examines the
academic staff’ organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior in relation to their
demographic characteristics including age, gender, academic rank end tenure.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows: First, it provides the necessary background information concerning
OCB and CWB: definitions, models and dimensions, previous studies, and interrelations. Then, we present the
methodology used in the study and the statistical analysis results, respectively. Finally, we discuss the findings,
followed by contributions, limitations and suggestions for future research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), in the words of Organ (1988), is “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” (p.4). OCB is also defined as extra role and prosocial behaviors referring to
behavior which goes beyond existing role expectations and being performed with the intention of promoting welfare
of the individuals and organizations (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986; Van Dyne, Cummings and MCclean Parks, 1995).

OCB has a complex structure and has conceptually distinct dimensions. These dimensions are examined category
or target based, in general. For instance, in a category-based model, Organ (1988) identified five distinct dimensions
of OCB, including altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, civic virtue, and sportsmanship. On the other hand, McNeely
and Meglino (1994) devised a target model and suggested two dimensions: interpersonal dimension (OCB-I), which
the target is specific individuals; and organizational dimension (OCB-O), which the target is the organization. This
model assumes that whereas behaviors reflecting altruism, helping and courtesy are enacted to benefit other people in
some way; conscientiousness, sportsmanship and civic virtue are enacted to benefit organization (Ilies, Fulmer,
Spitzmuller, and Johnson, 2009).

In a nutshell, OCB-I benefits other members of the organization and indirectly provide the organization with profit
through this means. OCB-O, conversely, benefits the organization in general (Williams and Anderson, 1991).
Examples include; for OCB-I, giving up time to help others who have work or non-work problems or helps others who
have been absent; and for OCB-O, attending functions that are not required but help the organizational image or
adheres to informal rules devised to maintain order (see also Lee and Allen, 2002, Williams and Anderson, 1991).

Recent studies have shed some light on the relationship between employees’ OCBs and their demographic
characteristics, including age, gender, rank and tenure. Wagner and Rush (2000) stated that younger and older workers
may differ in their orientations toward self, others and work. These differences may lead to different salient motives
 Ayşe Hatun Dirican and Oya Erdil / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 (2016) 351 – 360 353

for altruistic OCB among younger and older employees. In other words, older employees tend to have lower needs for
achievement and higher needs for affiliation than do younger employees (Doering, Rhodes and Schuster, 1983).
Furthermore, Ng and Feldman (2008) found that older workers engage in slightly more OCB than do younger
workers. It is also suggested that older employees are willing to spend more energy for building and maintaining
strong interpersonal relationships with others in their work groups.

Regarding gender, being male or female can be considered to influence OCBs. Farrel and Finkelstein’s empirical
study (2007) indicated that women employees participate in OCB-helping behavior more than male employees. But,
work related altruism was viewed less optional for women than men (Heilman and Chen, 2005). Conversely, it is also
suggested that women employees place more importance on interpersonal harmony and men employees show more
helping behavior in organizations (Wanxian and Weiwu, 2007). Despite the previous research findings, there are a
small number of studies showing that men and women are the same in relation to organizational citizenship behaviors
(Bukhari and Ali., 2009; Chou and Pearson, 2011; Organ and Ryan, 1995).

With regard to position or rank, past studies have reported that the higher one holds a position in an organization,
he or she is more likely to regard citizenship behaviors as part of the job (Morrison, 1994; Bogler and Somech, 2004).
Lam, Hui and Law (1999) noted that supervisors treated OCB as an expected part of the job more frequently than
subordinates did. In a similar study, Turnipseed and Vandewaa (2012) investigated OCBs using two samples:
professors and employed college students. The results revealed that the mean scores of OCB were higher in professors
than employed students.

Finally, concerning the effect of tenure on OCB, it is reported that long term tenured executives show high level of
OCB than short-term tenured executives (Singh and Singh, 2010). Long-tenured employees have more job related
knowledge than new employees. In another study, Hafidz et al., (2012) suggested that longer-tenured employees
engage in more OCB, as these employees feel more of a sense of belonging to the organization as compared to ‘newer’
employees. Choi (2009) used a group level analysis to examine citizenship behaviors in organizations and showed that
diversity in tenure has a positive effect on group-level helping.

2.2. Counterproductive Work Behavior

Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB) is as an umbrella term referring to conscious employee acts that go
against the legitimate interests of an organization (Sackett, Berry, Wiemann, and Laczo, 2006). Spector and Fox
(2002) defined it as behavior that is intended to hurt the organizations and their members, including verbal insults,
aggression, doing work incorrectly, sabotage and theft.

Researchers have variably conceptualized such conscious behaviors, including organizational aggression (Neuman
and Baron, 1998; Fox and Spector, 1999), antisocial behavior (Giacalone and Greenberg, 1997), retaliation (Skarlicki
and Folger, 1997), revenge (Bies, Tripp and Kramer, 1997), deviance (Hollinger, 1986; Robinson and Bennett, 1995),
emotional abuse (Keashly, 1998), mobbing/bullying (Zapf, Knorz and Kulla 1996) destructive/ hazardous behaviors
(Murphy, 1989).

Although a number of conceptually distinct dimensions have been identified for CWBs, Robinson and Bennett
(1995) suggested the target based model of CWB with two factors: CWB which is directed toward individuals in
organization (CWB-I), and CWB which is directed toward organization itself (CWB-O). CWB-I includes
interpersonally oriented behaviors directed towards co-workers and others in the organization with the intention of
harming physically and psychologically, including verbal insults, acting rudely, playing mean pranks and cursing at
someone at work. CWB-O, on the other hand, refers to impersonal/task-based behaviors, such as intentionally working
slowly, taking excessive breaks, neglecting instructions and violating organizational policies (Spector et al., 2006;
Robinson &Bennett, 2000; Oh et al., 2014).

Regarding research in CWB, one can observe an increasing interest in CWB since the end of nineties. Related
studies generally focus on CWB’s classification, prediction, relationship with different employee and workplace
354 Ayşe Hatun Dirican and Oya Erdil / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 (2016) 351 – 360

features, and theoretical framework. Additionally, the effect of demographic characteristics of employees on CWB has
gone under examination, as in the current study.

Age has been reported to have a close negative correlation with CWB. Different studies showed that young
employees display more aggressive behaviors than older employees (Glomb and Liao, 2003; Henle, 2005).
Furthermore, NG and Feldman (2008) demonstrated that older employees might engage in less CWB because they
have more control on their negative emotions. Besides, in a more recent study, Zacher, Feldman and Schulz (2014)
explained this situation that older employees might interpret actions with their coworkers, supervisors and customers
differently from their young colleagues because they had more emotionally positive and meaningful experiences.

Previous studies have shown that gender is correlated with CWB; and males and females differs in CWB’s various
forms. In terms of Aggression, for instance, men are said to have a tendency to be more aggressive than women in
interpersonal relations (Sackett et al., 2009; Hershcovis et al., 2007; Liao et al., 2004). Clark (1996) asserted that
women are significantly more likely to mention good relations with managers, the actual work itself and the hours of
work. Moreover, various findings indicated that women employees engage less in deviant behavior than men
employees (Deaux and Lewis, 1984; Henle, 2005; O’Fallon and Butterfield, 2005; Lau, 2003; Berry et al., 2007;
Cohen et al., 2013).

Concerning the effect of rank on CWB, no previous study was found at the time this paper was prepared. However,
in a recent study, Anjum and Parvez (2013) showed that white-collar employees have high job satisfaction and lower
rates of interpersonal conflicts and CWBs than blue-collar employees.

Lastly, research in the effects of tenure on CWB indicated that organizational tenure was negatively related to
CWB; and high tenure was related to less CWBs (NG and Feldman, 2010). Conversely, some researchers have found
that long-tenured employees engaged more in aggressive behaviors and minor thefts (e.g. using company phones),
copiers for personal use, taking office supplies home (Glomb and Liao, 2003; Henle, 2005).

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Goal

In this study, we examined the OCBs and CWBs of academic staff across different demographics, including
gender, age, rank, and tenure. Whether these demographics differ in OCB and CWB was the main concern of the
study. In a nutshell, we aimed to observe the effects of being male or female, getting older, having more experience,
and progressing in the career to academic staff’s OCB and CWB.

3.2. Sample and Data Collection

A self-report survey was sent to academic staff of different universities via e-mail. The survey was developed
Google forms and respondents were assured anonymity. E-mails of academic staff collected from departmental
websites. Universities from different regions of Turkey were included in the study. As a result, 680 surveys were
received from academic staff of 50 universities. After 35 of them were eliminated because of incomplete answers, 645
surveys were used for analysis. The survey consisted of two parts. First part was about demographic characteristics
regarding the respondents’ gender, age, academic rank and tenure. Second part was for measurements of
organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior.

The sample included 54.0 % (348) males and 46.0% (297) females; more than half of the sample were older than 31
years. The majority of the sample was assistant professors 27.9% (180) and research assistants 25.9% (167) with the
remaining consisting of lecturers (16.6%), associate professors (14.6%) and professors (15.0%). The years of
academic tenure of the participants ranged beginning from one year to more than twenty years; 51,2% (330) were 1-10
years of tenure.
 Ayşe Hatun Dirican and Oya Erdil / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 (2016) 351 – 360 355

3.3. Measures

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs) were measured with a 16-item scale developed by Lee and Allen
(2002). This measure was expected to distinguish between OCB directed towards the organization (termed OCB-O)
from that of directed towards individuals of organization (termed OCB-I). OCB-O and OCB-I were assessed using 8
items for each. Sample items are: “attend functions that are not required but that help the organizational image.”
(OCB-O) and “give up time to help others who have work or non-work problems” (OCB-I). Responses to these items
were evaluated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1, “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”. The coefficient alphas of
the OCB-O and OCB-I scales were 0.85 and 0.77, respectively.

Counterproductive Work Behaviors (CWBs) were examined on two dimensions, including deviant behaviors
directly harmful to other individuals within the organization (termed CWB-I), as well as behaviors directed toward the
organization (termed CWB-O). Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) scale was used to measure CWB and adopted for this
study. The original scale included 19 items; however, one of the items was eliminated, as it was inappropriate for the
sample being studied (e.g., “Falsified a receipt to get reimbursed for more money than you spent on business
expenses”). Seven items assessed CWB-I (e.g., “Acts rudely toward someone at work”) and eleven items assessed
CWB-O (e.g., “Taken an additional or longer break than is acceptable at your workplace”). Responses were on a 5-
point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The coefficient alphas for the CWB-I and CWB-O scales used in this
study were 0.67 and 0.73, respectively.

3.4. Analyses

All variables were tested for normal distribution. Since they were not normally distributed, non-parametric tests
were used. Kruskal-Wallis analyses were performed on each of the variables to determine if the means scores differed
significantly by group. If the Kruskal-Wallis test yielded significant value, Mann-Whitney U test was performed to
identify specific source of the difference. Differences between means were evaluated with Bonferroni corrections for
multiple paired comparisons.

4. Results

4.1. Comparison among demographic variables on OCB-I and OCB-O

The mean OCB scores of academic staff are presented in Table 1. Several key results are obtained from the test
results indicating differences in OCB and CWB of academic staff according to their demographic characteristics.

A Mann-Whitney test revealed no significant differences between OCB-I and OCB-O scores of males and females
(U=50356.5, p=.57 and U=50100.5, p=.50, respectively).

Whereas Kruskal-Wallis tests revealed no significant differences in OCB-I scores across age groups (X2(2) =1.214,
p>.05), significant differences were observed in OCB-O(X2(2) =8.168, p<.05). Mann Whitney tests were used to
follow up this finding. Bonferroni correction was applied and thus all effects were reported at a .0167 level of
significance. As a result, the OCB-O of 21-30 age group were observed to be significantly lower than those of
41+group (U=16566.0, p=.009, r=-.13).

Then, Kruskal-Wallis tests indicated significant differences in OCB-I and OCB-O scores among academic rank
groups (X2(4) =13.2, p<.05), and X2(4) =20.5, p<.05, respectively). Mann Whitney tests were used to determine the
groups significantly differing in OCB-I and OCB-O. Bonferroni correction was applied and thus all effects were
reported at p<.005. Only lecturers’ OCB-I scores were observed to be significantly greater than those of associate
professors (U=3597.5, p=.000, r=-.24). Additionally, the tests revealed that research assistants’ OCB-O scores were
significantly lower than those of all the other rank groups except Professors (lecturers, U=6648.0, p=.000, r=-.21;
assistant professors, U=11693.0, p=.000, r=. -19; associate professors, U=5900.0, p=.001, r=. -20).
356 Ayşe Hatun Dirican and Oya Erdil / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 (2016) 351 – 360

Finally, a Kruskal-Wallis test revealed no significant differences in OCB-I and OCB-O scores across tenure groups
(X2(2) =2.912, p>.05 and X2(2) =7.388, p>.05).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior in relation to demographic characteristics
OCB-I OCB-O CWB-I CWB-O
Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd) Mean (sd)

Gender
Male (n=348) 28.7 (3.4) 32.0 (4.9) 6.9 (2.1) 7.4 (2.7)
Female (n=297) 28.9 (3.2) 31.9 (4.3) 6.3 (1.3) 6.9 (2.4)
Total (n=645) 28.8 (3.3) 32.0 (4.6) 6.6 (1.8) 7.2 (2.6)
Age
21-30 years (n=165) 28.9 (3.0) 31.2 (5.1) 7.2 (2.2) 8.0 (2.8)
31-40 years (n=243) 28.7 (3.2) 31.7 (4.5) 6.4 (1.4) 7.0 (2.6)
Older than 40 years (n=237) 28.8 (3.6) 32.7 (4.3) 6.5 (1.7) 6.8 (2.3)
Total (n=645) 28.8 (3.3) 32.0 (4.6) 6.6 (1.8) 7.2 (2.6)

Academic rank
Research assistant (n=167) 28.7 (2.9) 30.5 (5.1) 7.1 (2.1) 8.1 (2.7)
Lecturer (n=107) 29.7 (3.2) 32.6 (4.9) 6.6 (1.7) 6.9 (2.5)
Assistant professor (n=180) 28.8 (3.4) 32.3 (4.3) 6.4 (1.4) 7.1 (2.7)
Associate professor (n=94) 28.0 (2.7) 32.6 (4.3) 6.5 (2.2) 6.7 (2.2)
Professor (n=97) 28.7 (4.0) 32.4 (4.0) 6.5 (1.3) 6.6 (2.3)
Total (n=645) 28.8 (3.3) 32.0 (4.6) 6.6 (1.8) 7.2 (2.6)

Tenure
1-10 years (n=330) 28.9 (3.2) 31.5 (4.9) 6.9 (2.1) 7.6 (2.8)
11-20 years (n=204) 28.5 (3.1) 32.4 (4.3) 6.4 (1.4) 6.9 (2.3)
21 years or more (n=111) 28.9 (3.8) 32.6 (4.4) 6.4 (1.4) 6.5 (2.4)
Total (n=645) 28.8 (3.3) 32.0 (4.6) 6.6 (1.8) 7.2 (2.6)

4.2. Comparison of demographic variables on CWB-I and CWB-O

The mean CWB scores are presented in Table 1. A Mann Whitney test revealed a significant difference in CWB-I
scores across gender groups, with males scoring higher than females (U=44575.0, p=0.002, r=-.12). Gender,
conversely, did not differ in CWB-O scores (U=47171.5, p=0.054)

Kruskal-Wallis test revealed that there are significant differences in CWB-I and CWB-O across age groups (X2(2)
=11.058, p<.05 and X2(2) =19.890, p<.05, respectively). Mann Whitney tests were then used to follow up this finding.
Bonferroni correction was applied; and thus all effects were reported at p<.0167. As a result, the CWB-I score of 21-
30 age group was observed to be significantly greater than those of 31-40 (U=16440.5, p=.002, r=-.15) and 41+groups
(U=16567.5, p=.008, r=-.13). Next, similar result was found for CWB-O: 21-30 age groups’ CWB-O scores were
greater than 31-40 (U=15849.0, p=.000, r=-.17) and 41+ (U=14730.5, p=.000, r=-.21) groups.

There were no significant differences in CWB-I scores across rank groups (X2(4) =9.919, p>.05). However, the
tests revealed that rank groups differed in CWB-O (X2(4) =28.716, p<.05). Mann Whitney tests were then used to
further follow up this finding; Bonferroni correction was applied and thus all effects were reported at a .005 level of
significance. As a result; research assistants’ CWB-O score were significantly greater than those of all other groups
(lecturers, U=6689.5, p=.000, r=-.21; assistant professors, U=11690.0, p=.000, r=-.19; associate professors, U=5536.0,
p=.000, r=-.24; professors, U=5439.0, p=.000, r=-.27).
 Ayşe Hatun Dirican and Oya Erdil / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 (2016) 351 – 360 357

Finally, a Kruskal-Wallis test revealed no significant differences in CWB-I scores across tenure groups (X2(2)
=4.008, p>.05). However, significant differences were observed in CWB-O scores (X2(2) =17.108, p<.05). Mann
Whitney tests were used to follow up this finding; Bonferroni correction was applied and thus all effects were reported
at p<.0167. As a result, the CWB-O of 1-10 tenure group was observed to be significantly greater than those of 11-20
(U=29164.5, p=.009, r=-.11) and 21+ (U=13932.5, p=.000, r=-.18) groups.

5. Discussion

The findings of the present study appear to be generally consistent with previous studies. NG and Feldman (2008),
for example, noted that older workers engage slightly more Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs) and less
Counterproductive Work Behaviors (CWBs) than younger employees do. Similarly, our results indicated that older
academic staff show more OCBs toward their organization than younger staff do. This finding might be attributed to
the fact that older academic staff is mostly consisted of professors, associated professors, and assistant professors. This
staff group has higher academic rank, holds more administrative position, is more likely be tenured and gain higher
salaries. Therefore, they probably feel themselves more as the part of the organization and display more OCBs.

Younger academic staff, on the other hand, mostly consist of research assistants and lecturers, as well as assistant
professors. Our results indicated that this group exhibit more CWBs than older staff. This is because of that younger
academic staff typically has lower academic ranks; hold non or lower administrative positions and gain less.
Moreover, depending on the informal policy and structure of the university, they compose the group with the lowest
effect on organization or that can be easily ignored.

Furthermore, it is reasonable that, with age and experience, individuals have less intense anger because they learn
to manage it more constructively (Thomas, 2002). Additionally, it is also indicated that older employees tend to be
more honest than younger employees (Lewicki et al., 1997). Therefore, older academic staff might be demonstrating
more concern about the development of organization and trying to defend from potential problems, and, thereby,
displaying less CWB.

The results of the present study also revealed that there is no difference between men and women academic staff ‘s
OCBs directed to both organizations. This finding is consistent with the previous studies, which have shown that no
significant differences between gender and OCB existed (Bukhari and Ali., 2009; Chou and Pearson, 2011; Organ and
Ryan, 1995). However, we as well found that men academic staff engage more CWBs directed to their colleagues
than women. It is possible that, men are said to have a tendency to be more aggressive than women in interpersonal
relations (Sackett et al., 2009; Hershcovis et al., 2007; Liao et al., 2004). Previous studies also findicated that, older
and women employees commit fewer CWBs compared to younger and men employees, respectively (Cohen et al.,
2013; Berry et al., 2007; Hershcovic et al., 2007; Hollinger and Clark, 1983).

Another interesting finding of this study is that, lecturers are engaging more in helping behavior (OCB-I) to their
colleagues than associate professors. This difference is probably being caused by their hierarchical or administrative
positions and workloads. A lecturer is only expected to give courses at universities but an associate professor should
conduct research, have graduate students, maintain managerial tasks, give courses and manage projects etc., at the
same time. In summary, it can be said that associate professors have heavy workload and limited time. For that reason,
they could not be exhibiting OCB-I compared to lecturers.

Our data also indicated that research assistants exhibit less OCBs to organization than lecturers, assistant and
associate professors. This might be because of their lower academic and administrative position, and less participation
in decision-making about the organization. Indeed, as Ornstein, Cron, and Slocum Jr. (1989) reported in their study,
individuals in the trial stages of their careers were less committed, less satisfied, less involved, and challenged by their
jobs than people in other career stages.

It is also found that research assistants engage more in CWBs to organization than those of all other groups do. This
might be explained by the fact that research assistants have the lowest academic rank, position and salary among all
358 Ayşe Hatun Dirican and Oya Erdil / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 (2016) 351 – 360

academic staff. Additionally, perhaps more importantly, ignoring or not appreciating attitudes of the organization
against research assistants might be causing that behavior.

Besides, the findings regarding research assistants’ CWBs are found to be consistent with that of previous studies.
For instance; some researchers have found that, absenteeism, production and property deviant behaviors are more
common among employees who are young, new to their job, have low paying positions and have lower job
satisfaction (Lau et al., 2003; Hollinger and Clark, 1983). In another study it is reported that employees with higher
income engage in less CWB (Bayram et al., 2009). Additionally, in another study on academic staff, it’s found that
research assistants’ emotional exhaustion and desensitization are higher than other groups. (Ardıç and Polatlı, 2008).

Finally, when it comes to tenure, the results showed that academic staff with low tenure display more CWBs
directed toward the organization. Research in the effects of tenure on CWB indicated that organizational tenure is
negatively related to CWB; and high tenure is related to less CWBs (NG and Feldman, 2010). However, our results
indicated that having high or low tenure has no effect on academic staff OCBs. Similarly, Organ and Ryan (1995)
noted that there is no indication that tenure with organization has significant association with helping behavior
(altruism).

6. Conclusion

This study examined the relationship between academic staff’s demographic characteristics (age, gender, rank, and
tenure) and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and Counterproductive Work Behavior(CWB). As the first
research dealing with different academic staff groups in terms of OCBs and CWBs, the study unearthed interesting
findings. Some of them are as follows:

Age has an important role in predicting academic staff’s OCB and CWB. Gender and tenure, conversely, has no
effect on OCB. Moreover, women and academic staff with higher tenure engaging less CWB in their organization.
And, as an intriguing finding, research assistants display less OCBs and more CWBs.

These findings suggest that universities should pay more attention on younger staff’s, particularly, research
assistants’ problems that might cause CWBs. Those problems might be individual, organizational or managerial. For
instance, lack of clarity in authorities and responsibilities, task assignments out of their job description, including
secretary, recruitment problem after graduation, etc.

Research assistants, in a way, are professors of the future. They are valuable part of the organization and constitute
high numbers in academic staff. We believe that any struggle for improving their wellness would also improve
universities and other higher institutions in many ways. For instance, motivational practices can be put in action like
including them in decision making process about the organization. Their job description can be defined more clearly,
and superior staff can be ensured to comply with the definitions determined.

In general, it’s clear that universities can benefit much by promoting academic staff’s OCB and suppressing their
CWB as much as possible. Also, rewarding extra role behaviors might help to encourage academic staff’s citizenship
behaviors.

When it comes to limitations of this study, several points are need to be addressed. The most notable limitation is
the drawing of the sample from only public universities of Turkey. Therefore, findings of the study might not be
representative of entire universities. The cross-sectional design of our study is an another limitation. In addition, the
data used in this study is part of the questionnaire that investigated the effect of emotional intelligence on OCB and
CWB.

In future research, different variables such as organizational commitment, silence and cynicism, job satisfaction,
burnout, personality and turnover intention can be included in the research models and their effects on OCB and CWB
can be examined for different groups of academic staff, particularly for research assistants. The OCB and CWB can be
determined specific to universities and new scales can be developed measuring academic staff’s work behaviors.
Moreover, similar researches can be conducted for private universities giving the opportunity for comparison.
 Ayşe Hatun Dirican and Oya Erdil / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 (2016) 351 – 360 359

References

Anjum, A. M.& Parvez A. (2013). Counterproductive Behavior at Work: A Comparison of Blue Collar and White Collar Workers. Pakistan Journal
of Commerce and Social Sciences, Vol. 7 (3), 417- 434
Ardıç, K., Polatcı, S. (2008). Tükenmişlik sendromu ve akademisyenler üzerinde bir uygulama (GOÜ örneği). Gazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari
Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 69-96.
Bayram, N., Gursakal, N. & Bilgel, N. (2009). Counterproductive Work Behaviour Among White-Collar Employees: A study from Turkey.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment,17,180-188
Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and
metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–424.
Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (1997). At the breaking point: Cognitive and social dynamics of revenge in organizations. In R. A.
Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations (p. 43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organizational commitment, professional commitment and
organizational citizenship behavior in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 277–289.
Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1986. Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11: 710–725
Bukhari, Z. U., & Ali, U. (2009). Relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior in the
geographical context of Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(1), 85-92.
Choi, J. (2009). Collective dynamics of citizenship behavior: What group characteristics promote group-level helping? Journal of Management
Studies, 46, 1396-1420.
Chou, S. Y., & Pearson, J. (2011). A Demographic Study of Information Technology Professionals’ Organisational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of
Management Research, 3(2), 1-15.
Clark, A.E. (1997) ‘Job Satisfaction and Gender: Why are Women so Happy at Work?’, Labour Economics, 4, 341-372.
Cohen, T. R., Panter, A. T., & Turan, N. (2013). Predicting counterproductive work behavior from guilt proneness. Journal of Business Ethics,
114(1), 45-53
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241–1255.
Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1984). The structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 991-1004
Doering, M., Rhodes, S. R., & Schuster, M. R. (1983). The aging worker: Research and recommendations. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Farrell, S., & Finkelstein, L. (2007). Organizational citizenship behavior and gender: Expectations and attributions for performance. North
American Journal of Psychology, 9, 81-96.
Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915–931.
Giacalone, R.A. & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glomb, T. M. & Liao, H. (2003). Interpersonal aggression in work groups: Social influence, reciprocal, and individual effects. Academy of
Management Journal, 46, 486-496.
Hafidz, S. W., Hoesni, S. M., & Fatimah, O. (2012). The relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work
behavior. Asian Social Science, 8(9).32-37.
Heilman, M., & Chen, J. (2005). Same behavior, difference consequences: Reactions to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 90, 431-441.
Henle, C.A. (2005). Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between organizational justice and personality. Journal of Managerial
Issues, 17(2), 247-263.
Hershcovis, S. M., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K. E., Inness, M., LeBlanc, M. M., & Sivanathan. 2007. Predicting workplace
aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 228-238.
Hollinger, R. C. (1986). Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and employee deviance. Deviant Behavior, 7, 53–75.
Ilies, R., Fulmer, I. S., Spitzmuller, M., & Johnson, M. D. (2009). Personality and citizenship behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology.
Keashly, L. (1998). Emotional abuse in the workplace: Conceptual and empirical issues. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1, 85–117
Lam, S. S. K., Hui, C., & Law, K. S. 1999. Organizational citizenship behavior: Comparing perspectives of supervisors and subordinates across four
international samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 594-601.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 131–142.
Lewicki, R.J., Poland, T., Minton, J.W., and Sheppard, B.H. (1997), ‘Dishonesty as Deviance: A Typology of Workplace Dishonesty and
Contributing Factors,’ in Research on Negotiation in Organizations (Vol. 6), eds. R.J. Lewicki and B.H. Sheppard, R.J. Bies, Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press, pp. 53 –86.
Liao, H., Joshi, A., & Chuang, A. (2004). Sticking out like a sore thumb: Employee dissimilarity and deviance at work. Personnel Psychology, 57,
969 –1000
McNeely, B.L. and Meglino, B.M. (1994) ‘The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior: An
examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (6): 836–844.
Miles, D. E., Borman, W. E., Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). Building an integrative model of extra role work behaviors: A comparison of
counterproductive work behavior with organizational citizenship
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 1543–1567.
Murphy, K. R. (1989). Dimensions of job performance. In Dillon R, Pellingrino J (Eds.), Testing: Applied and theoretical perspectives (p. 218-247).
New York: Praeger.
360 Ayşe Hatun Dirican and Oya Erdil / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 235 (2016) 351 – 360

Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and
preferred targets. Journal of Management, 24, 391–419.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2010a). Organizational tenure and job performance. Journal of Management, 36, 1220–1250.
Ng, T.W.H., & Feldman, D.C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 392–423.
O’Fallon, M.J. & Butterfield, K.D. (2005). A Review of the Empirical Ethical Decision-Making Literature: 1996-2003. Journal of Business Ethics,
59 (4), 375-413.
Oh, I.-S., Charlier, S. D., Mount, M. K., & Berry, C. M. (2014). The two faces of high selfmonitors: Chameleonic moderating effects of self-
monitoring on the relationships between personality traits and counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 92-
111.
O'Leary-Kelly, A.M., Griffin, R. W., & Glew, D.i. (1996). Organization-motivated aggression: A research framework. Academy of Management
Review, 21, 225-253
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior.
Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.
Ornstein, S., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1989). Life stage versus career stage: A comparative test of the theories of Levinson and Super.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 117-133.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, 555–572.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 85(3), 349-360.
Sackett, P.R., Berry, C.M., Wiemann, S.A., & Laczo, R.M. (2006). Citizenship and counterproductive behavior: Clarifying relations between the
two domains. Human Performance, 19, 441-464.
Singh, A.K., and Singh, A.P. (2010). Role of Stress and Organizational Support in Predicting Organizational Citizenship Behavior. The IUP Journal
of Organizational Behavior, IX (4), 7-25.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 434–443
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior
and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 269 –292.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all
counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446-460. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005
Thomas, Sandra P. 2002. “Age Differences in Anger Frequency, Intensity, and Expression.” Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses
Association 8(2):44-50.
Turnipseed, D. & Vandewaa, E. (2012). “Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Organizational Citizenship Behavior”, Psychological
reports, Vol. 110, No. 3, • pp. 899-914.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-Role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. In L. L.
Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior.
Wagner, S. L., & Rush, M. C. (2000). Altruistic organizational citizenship behavior: Context, disposition, and age. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 140, 379-391
Wanxian, L., & Weiwu, W. (2007). A demographic study on citizenship behavior as in-role orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 42,
225-234
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.
Zacher, H., Feldman, D. C., & Schulz, H. (2014). Age, occupational strain, and well-being: A person–environment fit perspective. In P. L. Perrewé,
J. Halbesleben, & C. C. Rosen (Eds.), Research in occupational stress and well-being, vol. 12. (pp. 83–111). Bingley, UK: Emerald
Zapf, D., Knorz, C., & Kulla, M. (1996). On the relationship between mobbing factors, and job content, social work environment, and health
outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 215–237.