See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/290007989

Employee engagement and organizational effectiveness: The role of organizational

citizenship behavior

Article · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

45 8,614

3 authors:

Aakanksha Kataria Pooja Garg

Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
16 PUBLICATIONS   130 CITATIONS    44 PUBLICATIONS   548 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Renu Rastogi
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
61 PUBLICATIONS   899 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Do high-performance HR practices augment OCBs? The role of psychological climate and work engagement View project

Quality of work life View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Renu Rastogi on 27 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Employee Engagement and Organizational Effectiveness:
The Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Aakanksha Kataria1 Pooja Garg2 Renu Rastogi3

ABSTRACT

In order to achieve and sustain organizational effectiveness, through employees’ increased contributions, organizations,
apart from task proficiency, becoming increasingly reliant on employees’ discretionary efforts at workplace. To take part
in their potent inclination, this paper intends to explore employee engagement and OCB literatures to investigate the
interrelationships between employee engagement, OCB, and organizational effectiveness. A retrospective analysis is
carried out of existing theoretical and empirical research studies to support the associative interrelationship between
employee engagement, OCB, and organizational effectiveness. This integrative review subsequently considers
two alternative models and propositions to establish causal relationships between employee engagement, OCB,
and organizational effectiveness. Findings indicate that employee engagement has potential to drive OCB. Engaged
employees also have the greatest potential to augment organizational effectiveness through their higher levels of OCB.
This study suggests that value-based organizations through their HR architecture should adopt high performance HR
practices to sustain high levels of employee engagement, since the psychological mechanism of engagement drives OCB
by which an organization achieves effectiveness. Furthermore, this study mainly focuses on employees as engaged in
their work roles, since these employees are highly capable of stimulating positive workplace behaviors and organizational
performance. The study contributes to employee engagement and organizational effectiveness literatures by adding the
notion of employee engagement as a significant antecedent of organizational effectiveness through OCB.

KEY WORDS: Employee Engagement, Organizational Effectiveness, Citizenship Behaviour.

JEL CLASSIFICATION: M24

1. INTRODUCTION
Achieving organizational effectiveness is the ultimate purpose
to be focused by any organization that takes enormous effort
to maximize employees’ task efficiency, commitment, and
sustain intrinsic motivation to perform well in difficult times. This
is why recent efforts to improve organizational performance
have begun to inculcate positive organizational concepts like
optimism, trust, and engagement (Koyuncu et. al., 2006). As
a matter of fact, among optimism, trust, and engagement,
leaders and managers across the globe recognize employee
engagement as one of the most vital element that affects
organizational effectiveness (Welch, 2011).
The continuance of employee engagement goes beyond
the traditional notions of job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, job involvement etc. Engagement involves
the active use of emotional, cognitive, and behavioral
energies at workplace while working in coherence with the
organization’s objectives and strategies (Andrew & Sofian,
2011). Also, engaged employees being focused, energetic,
and fully engrossed in their jobs are highly motivated to direct
their focused energy towards organizational goals (Macey
& Schneider, 2008; Barbera, & Young, 2009). Certainly,
organizational performance and effectiveness is a function
of the collaborative efforts of engaged employees (Bakker,
2011). Engaged employees experience greater attachment to
their work and organization (Organ, 1994; Schaufeli & Bakker.
2004) and they are more likely to do things that augment
organizational effectiveness (Saks, 2008). For instance,
engaged employees are optimistic and spontaneous, they
tend to exhibit positive attitudes and proactive behaviors at
work place (Schaufeli et al., 2002; Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008)
including low absenteeism, helpful attitude towards co-workers
and adherence to company rules etc., more popularly known
as organizational citizenship behavior (Organ, 1988). Engaged
employees bring enduring state of fulfilment at workplace while
feeling intrinsically motivated to exhibit positive feelings such as
sharing, assisting, cooperating, and supporting, and thus create
a holistic framework of the positive psychological, social, and
organizational context of work. In this regard, research studies
in organizational sciences have recently begun to report a
positive association between employee engagement and OCB
(Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004; Christian et al., 2011;
Schaufeli, Taris, & Bakker, 2006; Shimazu & Schaufeli, 2009).
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), a positive
psychological approach of engaged employees towards work
and organization is concerned with those informal duties and
tasks that go beyond the set boundaries of one’s job (Organ,
1988). The presence of OCB has been advocated for the
increased organizational effectiveness (Katz & Kahn, 1966;
Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 1997). OCB has been
observed to encompass those behaviors which lubricate the
social machinery and construct the psychological fabric of an
organization. Hence, OCB is widely considered both critical and
beneficial to organizations (Wei et al., 2010). OCB literature
has produced an impressive amount of substantive research
on antecedents of OCB (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al.,
1996; Podsakoff et al., 2000). However, the constant evolution
of the psychological process of employee engagement has
lately begun to emerge as yet another important pathway for
the evocation of OCB (Wei et al., 2010). This furthers the need

1
Aakanksha Kataria, Research Scholar, Department of Humanities & Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee (IITR) Roorkee, India.
2
Pooja Garg, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Humanities & Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee (IITR), Roorkee, India.
3
Renu Rastogi, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Humanities & Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee (IITR), Roorkee, India.

IJBIT / Volume 6 / Issue 1 / October - March 2013 | 102

Employee Engagement and Organizational Effectiveness:
The Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
to improve our existing understanding of causal relationships
among antecedents and consequences of OCB. In the current
study, we attempt to include ‘organizational effectiveness’
variable that has received less attention in previous research
to throw light on the potential significance of employee
engagement through OCB. We are affirmative that academic
efforts that explore how psychological mechanisms encourage
and motivate employees to more actively engage in OCB
and their impact on organizational effectiveness would most
likely provide considerable implications for human resource
development scholars and professionals.
Furthermore, as aforementioned, employee engagement
encourages OCB (Bakker, Demerouti, & Verberke, (2004);
Babcock-Roberson, & Strickland, 2010; Christian et. al., 2011),
and OCB have been well documented in literature augmenting
the effectiveness of an organization (Walz & Niehoff, 2000).
Taking the same context ahead, it is proposed that employee
engagement is related to organizational effectiveness and OCB
functions as a mediator in the relationship between employee
engagement and organizational effectiveness. The paper
does not ostensibly replicate the previous acquisitions linking
employee engagement to OCB and OCB to organizational
effectiveness, but thoroughly envisages construction of a
comprehensive framework that organizes relevant literature
to support the connections between employee engagement
and organizational effectiveness via OCB. In this direction,
the paper seeks to acknowledge this existing yet not explicitly
empirically examined link in the extant literature with regard
to employee engagement and organizational effectiveness,
and exploring organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) as
a significant mediator persuading the predicting variable to
the criterion variable. No study, to the best of our knowledge
has proposed this unique combination of variables and the
potential mediating mechanism of OCB between employee
engagement and the organizational effectiveness. Therefore,
the paper sets forth a new area of potential interest for research
and practice in organizational sciences that could be further
explored and build upon.
2. State of the art, theoretical framework,
and conceptual model
2.1 Employee engagement
Considerable attention is given to the notion of employee
engagement in contemporary organizations due to the recently
reported positive relationship between engagement and direct
measures of organizational effectiveness as job performance,
output, quality, customer satisfaction, profits, and business
growth (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Coffman & Gonzalez-
Molina, 2002; Buchanan, 2004; Gallup Organization, 2004;
Hewitt Associates LLC, 2005; Fleming and Asplund, 2007;
Lockwood, 2007; Sundaray, 2011). Therefore, engaged
employees nowadays is at the central focus of various
organizations.
Though emergence and vast popularity of the concept has often
been attributed to practitioners’ community, yet a great deal of
research from researchers and academicians establishing the
instrumentality of the concept, and identifying its differential
antecedents and consequences has been flourishing lately
(Sonnetag, 2011; Rurkkhum & Bartlett, 2012).
Kahn (1990), in his first and foremost qualitative study on
engagement states, “Engaged employees drive personal
IJBIT / Volume 6 / Issue 1 / October - March 2013 | 103
Aakanksha Kataria et al.
energies (physical, cognitive, and emotional) into their work
roles”. In this connection, psychological experiences were
identified as significant and necessary for an employee to invest
his/her personal energies into their work role performance.
Three psychological conditions were also articulated as a
result of this notion a) meaningfulness (identification with one’s
work/creative and challenging work, autonomy etc.), b) safety
(elements of social systems), and c) availability (sense of
having physical and psychological resources). In this context,
engagement was presumed as having positive outcomes for
both individual as well as organizations. The fulgent beginning
of engagement literature with the works of Kahn (1990) has
drifted considerable attention and inclination of researchers
in recent times. Hence, numerous definitions on engagement
have been produced thereafter:
Harter et al., (2002) defined engagement as “the individual’s
involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for
work”.
Schaufeli et al., (2002) defined engagement as “a positive
fulfilling, work related state of mind characterized by vigor,
dedication, and absorption”.
Robinson et al., (2004) defined engagement as “a positive
employee attitude towards the organization and its values,
involving awareness of business context, and work to improve
job and organizational effectiveness”.
Saks, (2006) defined employee engagement as “a distinct and
unique construct that consists of cognitive, emotional, and
behavioral components that are associated with individual role
performance” (p. 602).
Shuck & Wollard, (2010) distinctly defined employee
engagement as “an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional,
and behavioral state directed toward desired organizational
outcomes”.
In sum, an emerging body of research is using a common
conceptualization of employee engagement connoting it as high
levels of personal investment in terms of physical, cognitive,
and emotional energies in the work tasks performed on a job
(e.g. Kahn, 1990; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Mayet et al.,
2004; Rich, et al., 2010; Schaufeli et al., 2002; Christian et al.,
2011). Bakker & Schaufeli (2008) claimed that organizations
need more engaged employees who feel energetic, dedicated
and absorbed by their work. Schaufeli’s three-factor model
that captures engagement in terms of vigor, dedication, and
absorption components has been one of the most popular
measures (Wefald et al., 2011) due to its vast validity in majority
of countries across the world (Bakker et al., 2008).
Vigor- vigor refers to the positive core affect in employees
that is characterized by the high levels of positive energy and
mental resilience while working, and the willingness to invest
time and efforts in job tasks.
Dedication- contains the emotional framework of engagement.
It is a state in which employees perceive their work as a
significant and meaningful pursuit.
Absorption- refers to the cognitive aspect where employees
experience their work as engrossing and something on which
Aakanksha Kataria et al.
they are fully concentrated and one finds it difficult to detach
himself from work.
Engaged employees are happily involved and experience their
work as engrossing and something to which they can devote
their full concentration (Bakker et al., 2010, 2011). Hence,
engagement is inferred as a positive experience in itself which
has positive consequences for the organizations (Bhatnagar,
2012) in terms of high commitment, task proficiency, less
employee turnover, less absenteeism, higher productivity,
and consequently, increased performance of the organization.
Employee involvement, commitment, and performance are
directly connected to the goals of an organization (Denison et
al., 2004). Engaged employees would make a big difference
if organizations provide positive psychological climate,
good working conditions, job resources, and organizational
support to inspire them to give their best and go extra-mile
to enhance the effective functioning of the organization. In
addition, employees perform better when they experience
positive practices at work place for instance, being treated with
respect, provided with opportunities to develop their career,
adequate reward and recognition for high performance etc.
In fact, employees desire positive feelings about their work
experiences that go beyond global attitudes of job satisfaction
or commitment (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Harter,
Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Harter, Schmidt, & Keyes, 2003;
Wagner & Harter, 2006). Therefore, it is a two way process and
much effort is needed on the part of organizations to nurture
and leverage engagement. Providing employees a positive
work environment is of ominous significance where employees
can improvise and consequently help their organization to
flourish in the present scenario.
2.2 Organizational Citizenship behavior (OCB)
Barnard’s (1938) impression of the “willingness to cooperate”
has directed considerable interest from industry and
management towards that constituent of job performance
other than formal role requirement or task performance which
has substantial impact on the capability of an organization to
achieve its long term goals. In addition, his concern for the
cooperative efforts on part of employees in terms of sharing
information among organization members to make the
organization function smoothly prefigures that willingness of
individuals to engage in spontaneous and cooperative gestures
are instrumental for the vitality of organizations (Walz & Niehoff,
2000). While expanding and refining his idea, several authors
have made significant contributions thereafter to describe
employees’ positive and cooperative gestures as those extra
role behaviors that are instrumental to the organizational
effectiveness (Katz & Kahn, 1966, 1978). Organ, (1988)
subsequently conceptualized these efforts as organizational
citizenship behaviors that are discretionary, not directly and
explicitly recognized by the organizational reward system,
and that in aggregate, promote the effective functioning of the
organization. Borman & Motowidlo, (1993) conceived the idea
as contextual or citizenship performance and defined this type
of performance as behaviors that are not directly related to the
main task activities but are significant because they support
the organizational, social, and psychological context that
serves as the critical catalyst for tasks to be accomplished.
Further, while sharing a common belief, these behaviors have
been defined and termed differently in literature in terms of
extra-role behaviors (Dyne et al., 1995), prosocial behaviors
(Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), organizational spontaneity (George
IJBIT / Volume 6 / Issue 1 / October - March 2013 | cz
Employee Engagement and Organizational Effectiveness:
The Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
& Brief, 1992), and as contextual performance (Motowidlo,
1997), but organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is more
comprehensive and popular term that describes these wide
range of cooperative behaviors that are positive, voluntary,
non obligatory, and goes beyond the set requirements of
a job (Turnipseed & Wilson, 2009). More recently, while
broadening the scope of the construct, Organ (1997) reshaped
the definition of OCB’s as behaviors that facilitate “the
maintenance and enhancement of social and psychological
context that supports task performance”, explicating similarity
to the conceptualization of contextual performance by Borman
& Motowildo (1993).
Further, although there exists a lack of consensus on the
dimensionality of OCB among researchers as almost 30
overlapping or somewhat different forms of OCB’s have been
identified (Podsacoff et al., 2000), but Organ’s (1988) taxonomy
delineating citizenship behaviors in terms of altruism, courtesy,
civic virtue, conscientiousness, and sportsmanship has been
widely accepted, popular and much studied in literature
reporting the greatest amount of empirical research (LePine
et al., 2002).
a. Altruism refers to the helping approach of an employee
towards fellow employees.
b. Conscientiousness denotes impersonal behaviours for
instance, obeying rules.
c. Sportsmanship invoke behaviors that includes not
complaining on fiddling issues and willingness to tolerate
less than ideal circumstances
d. Civic Virtue behaviors that indicate employees’
participation and concern about the life of organization
such as participating in meetings, and
e. Courtesy reflects in discretionary behavior such as positive
gestures of consulting and passing along the information,
aimed at preventing work related problem with others
(Organ, 1988).
Given the rationality for a significant association between
OCB and organizational effectiveness (Bateman & Organ,
1983; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 1994; Smith,
Organ, & Near, 1983; Williams & Anderson, 1991), it has
been observed that employee’s extra efforts in form of
citizenship behavior enable supervisors to devote more time in
planning organizational activities, promote optimum utilization
of organizational resources, enhances co-workers’ and
managerial productivity, make organization a better place to
work and thereby resulting into better functioning and smooth
running of the organization. In fact, reduced absenteeism,
increased employee satisfaction and employee retention,
are some other contributions of OCB towards increased
organizational performance and effectiveness (Chahal &
Mehta, 2010; Chughtai & Zafar, 2006; Khalid & Ali, 2005;
Podaskoff & Mackenzie, 1997).
Although there is a considerable agreement about the
salience of OCB in extant literature, yet there is no consensus
on the understanding of sources of OCB. OCB are largely
considered as a matter of personal choice based on three
underlying motives (motivational factors): a) prosocial values
b) organizational-concern c) self-concern (Thayer, 2008). OCB
are conceived as predominantly goal-directed behavior that
is initiated by internal goals set by an individual. In addition,
researchers have emphasized the attitudinal and dispositional
Employee Engagement and Organizational Effectiveness:
The Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
factors which determine the extent to which one exhibit OCB
(LePine et al., 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al.,
2000) whereas others focused on its contextual factors
articulating OCB as an outcome of situational cues that define
role- requirements and responsibilities to employees, motivate
and provide opportunities or constrains the display of OCB
(Farh et al., 2004). Figure_I highlights the possible direct or
indirect antecedents and consequences based on a collective
review of 37 international research studies conducted with an
aim to recognize substantive antecedents and consequences
of OCB. Although, the studies undertaken for review are having
different locations, samples, times etc., but the theoretical
underpinning and the findings are more or less similar in
terms of its antecedents and outcomes. It can be clearly seen
in Figure_I that OCB is influenced by so many factors and
also that it leads to plethora of individual and organizational
outcomes.
2.3 Organizational Effectiveness
Deeply embedded in the organizational literature is the
construct of effectiveness (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). It is one
of the most sought after dependent variable and worthy subject
in organizational sciences, and as well as the ultimate focus
of every managerial effort. Organizational effectiveness has
been widely accepted as “the degree to which an organization
realizes its goals” (Daft, 1995). The term effectiveness is
well- rounded to encompass several aspects of efficiency and
adaptability (Cetin & Cerit, 2010). An effective organization is
both efficient in economic and technical aspects, and able to
adapt itself to the external changes as well (Carnall, 2003).
Mott (1978) has observed three aspects of organizational
effectiveness a) productivity b) adaptability c) flexibility.
i. Productivity deals with the quantity and quality of the
product or service, and the efficiency with which it is
delivered.
i. Adaptability has two constituents: symbolic adaptability
and behavioral adaptability. Symbolic adaptability refers
to both anticipating problems in advance and developing
satisfactory and timely solutions to them in addition
to staying abreast of new technologies and methods
applicable to the activities of the organization. Behavioral
adaptability explicates prompt and prevalent acceptance
of solutions (Mott, 1972; Luthans et al., 1988).
i. Flexibility has been considered as a separate and
independent index of organizational effectiveness. It is
conceptually different from adaptability as organizational
changes that result from meeting emergencies are
usually temporary, usually the organization returns to
its pre-emergency structure, whereas adaptive changes
are more likely to be permanent (Mott, 1972; Samantara,
2004).
In sum, organizational effectiveness must address the need
to maintain internal efficiency while optimizing the use of
organizational resources, increase adaptability and ability to
sustain through the external inconsistencies, and achieve its
objectives and goals as well. However, there have been many
foci on defining organizational effectiveness (Mzozoyana,
2002).
Katz & Kahn (1966), defined organizational effectiveness as
“the maximization of return to the organization by all means”.
IJBIT / Volume 6 / Issue 1 / October - March 2013 | 105
Aakanksha Kataria et al.
Organizational effectiveness is defined in terms of the extent to
which an organization achieves its goals (Steers, 1977).
Hannan & Freeman (1977), defined organizational effectiveness
as “the degree of congruence between organizational goals
and observable outcomes”.
Mott (1972), defined organizational effectiveness as “the
ability of an organization to mobilize it centres of power, for
action, production and adaptation”. Effective organizations
are those that tend to produce more and adapt more easily
to environmental and internal problems than do other similar
organizations.
Organizational effectiveness is “a company’s long term ability
to achieve consistently its strategic and operational goals”
(Fallon & Brinkerhoff, 1996).
In sum, organizational effectiveness is a broad construct
encompassing a wide variety of competing perspectives. In
addition, varied viewpoints on the conceptualization of the
construct predominantly specify its multidimensional character
to ponder upon and the complexity of its vast scope have made
it difficult to gain consensus over its precise measurement.
2.4 Evaluating organizational effectiveness
Creating and designing effective organizations is important (Hitt,
1988; Handa & Adas, 1995).Though, the complexity inherited
in the nature of the most critical determinant of organizational
success, yet a variety of approaches and frameworks have
been developed in literature to understand the composite
domain of organizational effectiveness. Table I. presents the
most popular approaches to organizational effectiveness.
In essence, the term organizational effectiveness is envisaged
as a blend of multiple constituents placing a challenge for
its precise and consensual measurement (Cameron, 1986;
Green & Griesingev, 1996). Mott’s (1972) measurement of
perceived organizational effectiveness has been found to be
the most frequently used criteria in various models pertaining
to effectiveness (Steers, 1975; Sharma & Samantara, 1995;
Luthans et al., 1988).
2.5 Employee engagement and organizational
effectiveness
Employees’ contribution in terms of task proficiency, proactivity,
mental resilience, and commitment is of utmost significance
and acts as the building block for the sustenance and growth of
any firm. Noted in this direction, employees’ active commitment
and involvement is of greater substance when it comes to
innovation, organizational performance, and competitive
advantage (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008). There are two reasons
that enable the study in linking employee engagement to
organizational effectiveness. First, employee engagement has
emerged as a critical element for business success (Slatten &
Mehmetoglu, 2011). Engagement is a pleasurable experience
for employees (Sonnentag et al., 2012), which drives proactivity,
innovation at workplace, and increases employees’ ability to
adapt to workplace changes in emergencies. Even more, they
tend to be resilient in the face of difficulties and consequently
drive organizational flexibility.
Second, when employees are engaged they are more likely
Aakanksha Kataria et al. Employee Engagement and Organizational Effectiveness:
The Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Attitudinal factors
Individual Consequences
-Job satisfaction
-Organizational -High performance ratings by supervisors
commitment -Favourable Self-evaluations
-Justice & fairness -Self-esteem, personal control, self-
perceptions efficacy, confidence
-Personal Development
-Physical and Mental Health
Dispositional factors -Individual well-being
-Personality Higher positive affect, social rewards,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness intrinsic rewards
-Traits -Life satisfaction
Empathy, Helpfulness
-Positive affect

Motivational Factors Organizational Consequences

Expressive functional motives Unit performance

-Role identity Organizational
-Ego protection -Enhanced coordination
Citizenship -Reduced need for maintenance
-Self-enhancement
Instrumental functional motives Behavior (OCB) -Operating efficiency
-Economic & Cost-benefit considerations -Customer service quality
-Performance quality and quantity
Citizenship Motivation Scale -Unit sales
-Prosocial values
-organizational concern Organizational Effectiveness
-Impression management
-Organizational productivity
-Organizational flexibility
Contextual Factors -Organizational adaptability
Social Relationships -Organizational efficiency
Task characteristics
-Relationship with supervisors -Employee retention
-Task demands Transformational leadership, -Talent acquisition
-Job autonomy LMX -Team effectiveness
-Intrinsically -Relationship with Co-workers -Managerial effectiveness
satisfying tasks Interpersonal relationship -Optimization of scarce resources
-Task-interdependence quality, intensity of friendship, -Stable organizational performance
TMX, group cohesiveness, -Environmental performance
cooperative group norms

Figure I. Direct or Indirect Sources and Consequences of OCB.

to do things that substantiate organizational effectiveness
(Saks, 2008). Engaged employees tend to work harder and
go beyond the call of the duty (Lockwood, 2007; Chalofsky &
Krishna, 2009). In addition, engaged employees experience
great passion for their work, produce better quality goods, and
feel that their contribution helps in moving the company forward
(Kennedy & Daim, 2010). Following the above arguments
on the influence of employee engagement on organizational
effectiveness, we propose that,
P1. Employees’ level of engagement will significantly predict
organizational effectiveness.
2.6 Employee engagement, OCB, and organizational
effectiveness
2.6.1 Employee engagement and OCB
Employee engagement, an active psychological state of
employees’ (Parker & Griffin, 2011), is often associated and
described in congruence with OCB. Organ (1988) defined
OCB as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly
or explicitly recognized by formal reward system, and that
in aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the
organization”.
When employees are engaged in their work, they increase
the occurrence of OCB’s, i.e., when employees have choices,
they will act in a way that furthers their organization’s interests
(Kennedy & Daim, 2010). Towers Perrin, (2003) have
reported that engaged employees bring discretionary efforts
to work, in the form of extra time, brain power and energy.
In addition, engaged employees are emotionally attached to
their organization and highly involved in their job with a great
enthusiasm for the success of their employer while going extra
mile beyond the formal job requirements (Markos & Sridevi,
2010). Engaged and attached employees put more efforts
in their jobs, and are likely to perceive higher obligations of
their employers (Bal, Cooman, & Mol, 2011). This states the
willingness of engaged employees to exhibit behaviours that
go beyond the set boundaries of their jobs. Several studies in
this direction have established that engaged employees being
proactive, vigorous and consecrated are more consistent
to invest their personal resources and act more freely to
display extra-role behaviour than others. In other words,
they are more likely to be better in contextual performance
in addition to the task performance (Bakker, 2011; Christian
et. al., 2011). Furthermore, engaged employees’ relatively
enduring state of being active reflect interpersonal facilitation
and their constant willingness to find meaning in work keeps
them emotionally engaged (i.e. job dedication). Both of them
(interpersonal facilitation and job dedication) have long been
recognized as inherent concepts of OCB (Van Scotter &
Motowidlo, 1996).

IJBIT / Volume 6 / Issue 1 / October - March 2013 | 106

Employee Engagement and Organizational Effectiveness: Aakanksha Kataria et al.
The Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Table 1. Various Approaches to Organizational Effectiveness.

Approach Perspective on Perspective on organization Main focus Criticism/ Support

effectiveness

Goal-attainment “as the degree to is on identification of A partial measure of

(Price, 1968)
Most widely discussed and
used (Molnar & Rogers,
1976; Weese, 1996).
Most logical approach
(Chelladurai &Haggerty,
1991)
which an organization Organizations are deliberate,
achieves its goals” rational, goal seeking
entities that are created
to achieve predetermined
and specified goals (Price,
1968; Perrow, 1970; Love &
Skitmore, 1996)
organizational goals
and operating objectives
like profits, productivity,
quality etc. to measure
performance and
organizational effectiveness,
an organization may have
conflicting goals and further,
goals may shift over time
due to internal and external
inconsistencies (Weese, 1997;
Pratt & Eitzen, 1989; Hossein et
al., 2011)

System resource (Yuchtman
& Seashore, 1967)
“as the ability of an -Views organization as an is on inputs, attracting Single set of evaluative criteria
organization, in either open system of various necessary resources and (Connoly, 1980). Failure to
absolute or relative interrelated subsystems. on the transformation consider the political nature of
terms, to exploit processes. organization.
its environment in - Organization is able to It is concerned with the Measurement of all systems
the acquisition of attract resources to ensure extent to which resources needs are difficult to develop
scarce and valued viability (Hossein et al., acquired from the (Cunningham, 1977; Cetin &
resources to sustain its 2011). environment are officially Cerit, 2010)
functioning” used to produce goods or
services (Schermerhorn et
al., 2004).

Internal process (Steers, Organizations that can There is a clear linkage is on the internal logic and Views only one sided view of
1977) offer a harmonious between the internal consistency among the effectiveness lacks identification
and efficient internal processes of an organization throughput processes of of valued internal processes
environment are and its desired outputs. the organization as they and methods to assess them
viewed as effective. convert an organization’s (Hossein et al., 2011).
For instance, inputs into desired outputs Failure to consider the political
trust, integrated (Pfeffer, 1977; Steers, nature of organizations
systems, and smooth 1977; Hossein et al., where different stakeholders
functioning. 2011). work together to meet their
expectations.

Strategic constituency
(Connolly et al., 1980)
Strategic constituent The organization has a
groups determine the number of constituencies,
way organizations are with different degrees of
functioning and what power, and each trying
is to be perceived as to satisfy its demands.
effective or ineffective Individuals, groups, and
other stakeholders having
common interests in
organizational activities exert
influence on the decisions of
organizations.
is on the human Internal and external constituent
resources. Specifically, groups would have different
this approach focuses its perspectives while evaluating
attention on the minimal the effectiveness of the
satisfaction of all the organization.
strategic constituencies
of the organization for
instance, consumers of
the products, supporters,
facilitators, dependents
and the resource
providers (Cameron,
1981; Ashraf & Kadir,
2012).

Competing values
(Quinn & Rohrbaugh,
1981;1983)
Most rigorous and influential
multidimensional approach.
Particularly designed to
measure effectiveness in
profit organizations (Balduck
& Buelens, 2008; Hossein et
al., 2011).
This approach Organizations can be is on maintaining balance A tool for improved
combines four evaluated in varied ways or capacity among the understanding of organizational
basic models of assuming there is “no focus of the organization effectiveness.
organizational best” criteria that is valued (people vs. organization),
effectiveness, each and used in assessing the organizational
focuses on a different organizational effectiveness. structure (flexibility
criterion. vs. control) and the
-Rational goal model processes and outcomes
- Open systems model (means vs. ends).
-Internal process model
-Human relation model

IJBIT / Volume 6 / Issue 1 / October - March 2013 | 107

Aakanksha Kataria et al. Employee Engagement and Organizational Effectiveness:
The Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

employees’ behaviors for recycling, saving energy, voluntary

Thus, OCB indicates the employee’s responses to their
employment relationship and it is profoundly associated with
employee engagement. It has been recently observed that,
engaged employees consistently demonstrate three general
behaviours which improve organizational effectiveness: a)
Say- the engaged employee proponents for the organization’s
reputation to its customers, co-workers and potential
employees b) Stay- the engaged employee stays with the
organization despite of the opportunities available outside c)
Strive- the engaged employee invest extra time, efforts and
take initiatives to see that the employer succeeds (Baumruk
and Gorman, 2006; Markos & Sridevi, 2010).
Although employee engagement is most commonly outlined
in terms of extra- role performance or discretionary efforts
(Macey & Schneider, 2008, Fine et al., 2010), yet it has not
been suggested to delimit the state of engaged employees in
terms of going extra mile (Schaufeli &Bakker). In fact, engaged
employees are enthusiastic about their work and dedicated
completely to find meaning in their work, and profoundly
engrossed to put forth their efforts towards the attainment of
organizational goals. They are more likely to exert extra efforts
like helping co-workers, compliance to rules etc. which have
been considered as instrumental for the effective functioning
and smooth running of organizations (Organ, 1988).
active engagement in organizations’ environmental initiative,
and helping colleagues to take environmental concerns into
account may all seem trivial but the cumulative effect of all these
eco-initiatives ultimately contribute to improved organizational
performance.
Thus, on the basis of findings, assumptions, and axioms in
extant literature delineating the relationship between employee
engagement, OCB, and organizational effectiveness, it is
inferred that employee engagement is positively associated
with organizational effectiveness and OCB can be seen as a
significant intervening variable between employee engagement
and organizational effectiveness.
P2. Engaged employees exhibit OCB’s through which they
augment organizational effectiveness.
The discussion above leads to a distinct view of recognizing
OCB as mediating the relationship between employee
engagement and organizational effectiveness. Figure I
shows an OCB oriented view of employee engagement that
drifts organizational effectiveness. The model suggests that
the concept of employee engagement and organizational
effectiveness can be viewed from OCB perspective and
provides a platform for further research.

2.6.2 OCB and organizational effectiveness
OCB derives its widespread interest and pragmatic significance
primarily from the premise that these behaviors enhance
organizational effectiveness (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 2009).
OCB presents contributions that are altruistic in nature and
when aggregated over time and persons, may enhance
the performance by lubricating the social machinery and
constructing the psychological fabric of the organization,
reducing friction, and /or increasing efficiency (Borman &
Motowidlo, 1993; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 2009;
Smith et al., 1983). Employees’ increased tendency to exhibit
helping behavior at work help new co-workers in becoming
productive faster and assisting co-workers with heavy workloads
spread positive gain spiral of positive emotions at workplace
which in turn increase team effectiveness. There are several
other paths for the enhanced organizational efficiency through
OCB. For instance, as discussed earlier, OCB increases
However, in spite of the widespread belief that OCB enhances
organizational performance, causality of this relationship has
been marked as under examined in previous literature. It has
not yet been crystal clear that OCB causes organizational
performance or organizational performance causes OCB.
It might also possible that effective units have more time,
are under less pressure, and/or have satisfied members
significantly affecting the extent to which employees are
engaged in OCB (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 2009). This
literature finding places a distinct possibility of treating OCB
as an outcome of effectiveness i.e. units which have engaged
employees are more effective which in its turn encourages
employees to exhibit OCB.
P3. Engaged employees enhance organizational effectiveness
which encourages OCB.
Altruism Courtesy Civic-Virtue Conscientious Sportsmanship

managers’ self efficacy by reducing their time to be spend on ness

Vigor (affective
work related matters instead employees positive workplace engagement)
Productivity

behaviors free up resources for more productive purposes Dedication

Employee
Engagement +
Organizational
Citizenship +
Organizational
Effectiveness Adaptability
(emotional
while allowing managers to devote more time in improvement engagement)
Behavior (OCB)
Flexibility

and developmental activities (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Absorption

(cognitive
+

MacKenzie et al., 1991, 1993; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., engagement)

1993; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 2009). Podsakoff & Mackenzie Figure 2. Proposed conceptual model colligating between
(2009) empirically examined the theoretical underpinnings of the latent constructs of organizational effectiveness.
the relationship between OCB and organizational effectiveness
and observed that OCB accounted for a significant amount
of variance in performance quality, quality of performance,
financial efficiency etc. In addition, altruistic behavior was Productivity Adaptability Flexibility

observed as having most significant effects on performance. Vigor (affective

engagement)
Altruism

Furthermore, recently OCB has been explored in relation to Employee Organizational Organizational
Courtesy

+ +
the organizations’ environmental management activities while Dedication
(emotional
engagement)
Engagement Effectiveness Citizenship
Behavior (OCB)
Civic-Virtue

putting it into the category of green behavior (Ramus, 2001; Conscientious

ness
Absorption +
Ramus & Killmer, 2007; Boiral, 2005). It has been recognized (cognitive
engagement)
Sportsmanship

as one of the main success factors in terms of employee-

driven pro-environmental initiatives and suggestions in Figure 3. Proposed conceptual model colligating between
corporate greening (Boiral & Paille´, 2012). For instance, the latent constructs of organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB).

IJBIT / Volume 6 / Issue 1 / October - March 2013 | 108

Employee Engagement and Organizational Effectiveness:
The Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
2. Discussion
Organizations immensely concentrate on attracting and
retaining extraordinary employees who are not only capable
and willing to perform job tasks efficiently but also are keen
to voluntarily invest extra efforts in their jobs through which
achieving and sustaining organizational effectiveness is viable.
Effective functioning of an organization depends on employees’
efforts extending beyond the formal job requirements (Barnard,
1938; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Organ, 1988; Yen & Niehoff, 2004).
Therefore, an ideal employee do not only demonstrates
high levels of task performance but also exhibit high levels
of OCB’s (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006; Somech & Drach-Zahavy,
2012).
Given the relevance of OCB’s with regard to achieving
organizational effectiveness, contemporary organizations
take much effort in finding possible ways to increase the
contribution of employees. For instance, inculcating positive
workplace practices in order to provide an effective HRD
climate and highly engage their employees. In this study, a
systematic literature review was conducted to explore the
mediating mechanism of OCB in the relationship between
employee engagement and organizational effectiveness.
Specifically, engaged employees’ active state of emotional
attachment to their work and organization increases the
occurrence of behaviors which promote efficient and effective
functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988; Roberson, &
Strickland, 2011). It is reckoned that engaged employees are
more credible to behaviours like altruism, conscientiousness
and sportsmanship. In other words, fully absorbed and
dedicated employees behave in ways that are more virtuous
and courteous and disengaged employees tend to exhibit
less organizational citizenship behaviors (Bakker et al.,
2004). In this connection, one of the possible reasons could
be engaged employees’ increased likelihood of experiencing
positive emotions and that they are more vigorous to achieve
their goals. “Vigor” refers to the high levels of positive affect
and spontaneous attitude of engaged employees towards
task associated with their jobs. Various researches (Spector
& Fox, 2002; Bennett & Stamper 2001) have signified “positive
affectivity”, as an antecedent or proximal cause of OCB.
Engaged employees by their consistent willingness and ability
to invest extra efforts elevate the effectiveness of organization.
Also, engaged employees, being task proficient are able
efficiently manage resources such as time, efforts, and energy
to benefit co-workers and organization. Furthermore, being
completely dedicated and responsible of their own personal
development, they consider all aspects of their work to be part of
their domain and step outside of their set boundaries or formal
job requirements (Christian et. al., 2011). Therefore, OCB can
be described as a performance related outcome variable of
employee engagement (Shuck, Reio, & Rocco, 2011). This
process has greater impact on organizational effectiveness
since it effects employees’ contribution in terms of increased
productivity, adaptability, and flexibility, and positive social and
psychological makeup of an organization which consequently
leads to the smooth running of an organization. Thus, on the
basis of preliminary and conceptual evidences and support
from previous studies, the proposed consequential model
preconceives organizational effectiveness as organizational
level outcome of employee engagement and illustrates the
possible treatment of OCB as mediating variable through
which the focal independent variable “employee engagement”
is able to influence the dependent variable of interest i.e.
IJBIT / Volume 6 / Issue 1 / October - March 2013 | 109
Aakanksha Kataria et al.
“organizational effectiveness”.
Although literature has examined the relationships between
employee engagement and the bottom line organizational
outcomes such as profitability, business growth, customer
satisfaction, and less absenteeism (Sundaray, 2011),
these focused entirely on engaged employees’ capability
and willingness to perform job tasks, and their greater
involvement and commitment towards workplace duties than
the increased probability of engaged employees to extend
their efforts beyond the prescribed role requirements which
construct the psychological fabric of organizations and their
contribution towards organizational effectiveness. However,
emphasizing the significance of employee engagement on
achieving organizational effectiveness, current literature
has already focused on engaged employees’ agility, zest,
and positive attitudinal and behavioral energies. Therefore,
greater importance shall be given to reinforce organizational
citizenship behaviors through supporting the development
of high engagement level in employees. In this direction,
organizations should provide a supportive human resource
development climate to help employees thrive at workplace.
For instance, fulfilment of psychological contract, workplace
spirituality, performance management, managerial support,
justice, trust, transparency, integrity, career development
opportunities, effective leadership are the dynamic constituents
of the holistic perspective on favourable psychological climate,
which in turn, create conditions for employees to flourish at
workplace. These positive workplace practices would enforce
deep psychological connections with organization and engaged
employees will be more likely to exhibit profound interest in the
life of their organization.
In the literature, the relations between employee engagement
and OCB have been recently examined (Bakker, Demerouti, &
Verbeke, 2004; Christian et al., 2011; Schaufeli, Taris, & Bakker,
2006; Shimazu & Schaufeli, 2009). Most of the research
studies examined this relationship ended up with observing
a positive association. This paper furthers the existing body
of literature by linking employee engagement and OCB with
organizational effectiveness. Furthermore, a distinct possibility
of treating OCB as an outcome of employee engagement
and organizational effectiveness has also been presented
with a view to provide an alternative solution to the observed
relationships between elite study variables. Therefore, testing
the above stated models empirically would help to formulate
appropriate structure of the model and the strength of the
proposed arguments. In this direction, construct developed by
Schaufeli et al., (2002) could be used to measure engagement.
For OCB, Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1989) have developed
suitable measures. Further, organizational effectiveness
construct could be chosen from the studies of Mott (1972),
added with the objective data on profitability and output of the
organizations chosen for the study.
The present paper analyzes organizational effectiveness
only through the impact of employee engagement and OCB.
In future, this study could also be extended to examine the
mediation role of turnover intensions, job performance, and
managerial effectiveness. Empirically examining the extent
of impact of these engagement outcomes would support and
motivate organizations to find the best ways to highly engage
their employees for enhanced organizational success and
performance.
Aakanksha Kataria et al.
3. Conclusion
The current study represents a unique and humble attempt
to explore the functional relationship between employee
engagement, OCB, and organizational effectiveness. We
applied a theoretical perspective to integrate previous
research on employee engagement, OCB, and organizational
effectiveness. In addition, review of the relevant literature
suggested that inclusion of OCB enhances the relationships
between employee engagement and organizational
effectiveness. Thus, individuals with higher levels of
engagement are more likely to exhibit OCB - in ways that
would be expected to achieve and sustain organizational
effectiveness. The primary contribution of this study is its attempt
to bring into light much-needed models for the organizational
effectiveness literature and its attempt to include OCB as a
significant construct mediating the relationship between
employee engagement and organizational effectiveness. It
might theoretically be possible that the combined effect of
both factors (i.e. employee engagement and OCB) is greater
than each one, alone; creating a potential avenue for further
empirical research in this and allied directions. The study also
presents an expedient view point on employee engagement-
organizational effectiveness-OCB link that serves an
interesting platform for future research. To conclude, it would
be appropriate to posit that organizations must account
psychological processes of positive psychological climate and
effective performance management systems conducive to the
maintenance and development of high levels of employee
engagement which may have promising organizational
outcomes.
Acknowledgments:
The funding agency for this study was the University Grant Commission which
provided a grant in the form of Junior Research Fellowship to pursue a full-time
Ph.D. from Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee. However, the implications,
conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent those of the funding body.
References
1. Andrew, O.C. and Sofian, S. (2011), Engaging People
who Drive Execution and Organizational Performance,
American Journal of Economics and Business
Administration, Vol. 3, pp. 569-575.
2. Ashraf, G. and Kadir, S. (2012), A Review on the Models
of Organizational Effectiveness: A Look at Cameron’s
Model in Higher Education, International Education
Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2.
3. Babcock-Roberson, M.E. and Strickland, O.J. (2010),
The relationship between charismatic leadership, work
engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors,
The journal of Psychology, Vol. 144, pp. 313-326.
4. Bakker, A.B. and Bal, P.M. (2010), Weekly work
engagement and performance: A study among starting
teachers, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 189-296.
5. Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2008), Positive
organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing
organizations, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.
29, pp. 147-154.
6. Bakker, A.B. Albrecht, S.L. and Leiter, M.P. (2011), Key
questions regarding work engagement, European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 4-28.
7. Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Verbeke, W. (2004),
Using the Job Demands-Resources model to predict
burnout and performance, Human Resource Management,
IJBIT / Volume 6 / Issue 1 / October - March 2013 | 110
Employee Engagement and Organizational Effectiveness:
The Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Vol. 43, pp. 83-104.
8. Bal, P.M., Cooman, R. and Mol, S.T. (2011), Dynamics
of psychological contracts with work engagement and
turnover intentions: The influence of organizational
tenure, European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 30.
9. Balduck, A.L. and Buelens, M. (2008), A two-level
competing values approach to measure nonprofit
organizational effectiveness, Working Papers of Faculty
of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent
University, Belgium.
10. Barnard, C.I. (1938), The functions of the executive.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11. Bateman, T.S. and Organ, D.W. (1983), Job satisfaction
and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and
employee citizenship, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 587-595.
12. Baumruk R. and Gorman B. (2006), Why managers are
crucial to increasing engagement, Melcrum Publishing.
13. Bennett, R.J. and Stamper, C.L. (2001), Corporate
citizenship and deviancy: A study of work behavior, in C.
Galbraith., & M. Ryan (Eds.), International research in
the business disciplines: Strategies and organizations in
transition, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, pp. 265–284.
14. Bhatnagar J. (2012), Management of innovation: role
of psychological empowerment, work engagement and
turnover intention in the Indian context, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 23, No. 5,
pp. 928–951.
15. Boiral, O. (2005), The impact of operator involvement in
pollution reduction: Case studies in Canadian chemical
companies, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol.
14, No. 6, pp. 339–360.
16. Boiral, O. and Paillé, P. (2012), Organizational
Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment: Measurement
and Validation, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 109, pp.
431–445.
17. Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S. J. (1997), Task
performance and contextual performance: The meaning
for personnel selection research, Human Performance,
Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 99-109.
18. Borman,W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1993), Expanding
the criterion domain to include elements of contextual
performance, in, N. Schmitt., W. C. Borman., and
Associates ed., Personnel selection in organizations, San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 71-98.
19. Brief, A.P. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1986), Prosocial
organizational behaviors, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 11, No. 7, pp. 10-725.
20. Buchanan, L. (2004), The Things They Do for Love,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82, No.12.
21. Buckingham, M. and Coffman, C. (1999), First, break
all the rules: What the world’s greatest managers do
differently, Simon and Schuster Australia, Sydney.
22. Cameron, K.S, Sulton, R.I. and Whetten, D.A. (1988),
Readings in Organisational Decline, Ballinger, Cambridge,
MA.
23. Cameron, K. (1981), Domains of organizational
effectiveness in colleges and universities, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 24, No.1, pp. 25-47.
24. Carnall, C.A. (2003), Managing Change in Organizations,
4th ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
25. Cetin, C.K. and Cerit, A.G. (2010), Organizational
effectiveness at seaports: A systems approach, Maritime
Employee Engagement and Organizational Effectiveness:
The Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Policy and Management, Vol. 37, pp. 195–219.
26. Chahal, H. and Mehta, S. (2010), Antecedents and
consequences of organizational citizenship behaviour
(OCB): a conceptual framework in preference to health
care sector, Journal of Services Research, Vol. 10, No.
2, pp. 25-44.
27. Chalofsky, N. and Krishna, V. (2009), Meaningfulness,
Commitment, and Engagement: The Intersection of
a Deeper Level of Intrinsic Motivation, Advances in
Developing Human Resources, Vol. 11, No.2, pp. 189-
203.
28. Chelladurai, P. and Haggerty, T.R. (1991). Measures of
organizational effectiveness in Canadian national sport
organizations. Canadian Journal of Sport Science, Vol.
16, pp. 126-133.
29. Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S., and Slaughter, J.E. (2011),
Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its
relations with task and contextual performance, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 64, pp. 89-136.
30. Chughtai, A.A., and Zafar, S. (2006), Antecedents and
Consequences of Organizational Commitment among
Pakistani university teachers, Applied H.R.M. Research,
Vol. 11, No.1, pp. 39-64.
31. Coffman, C. and Gonzalez-Molina, G. (2002), A new
model: Great organizations win business by engaging
the complex emotions of employees and customers’,
Excerpt from Follow This Path. Warner Books, The Gallup
Management Journal, pp. 12-21.
32. Connolly, T., Conlon, E.J. and Deutsch, S.J. (1980),
Organizational effectiveness: a multiple-constituency
approach, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5, pp.
211-217.
33. Cunninghan, J.B (1977), Approaches to the Evaluation
of Organisational Effectiveness, Academy of Management
Review, pp. 463 -474.
34. Daft, R.L. (1995), Organization theory and design, St.
Paul: West Publishing.
35. Denison, D.R., Haaland, S. and Goelzer, P. (2004),
Corporate culture and organizational Effectiveness: is
Asia different from the rest of the world?, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 98-109.
36. Fallon, T. and Brinkerhoff, R.O. (1996), Framework
for organizational effectiveness, Paper presented at
the American Society for Training and Development
International Conference.
37. Farh, J.L., Zhong, C. B. and Organ, D.W. 2004,
Organizational citizenship behavior in the People’s
Republic of China, Organization Science, Vol. 15, pp.
241-253.
38. Fine, S., Horowitz, I., Weigler, H. and Basis, L. (2010),
Is good character good enough? The effects of situational
variables on the relationship between integrity and
counterproductive work behaviors, Human Resources
Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 73−84.
39. Fleming, J.H. and Asplund, J. (2007), Human Sigma:
Managing the Employee-Customer Encounter, New York:
Gallup Press.
40. George, J.M. and Brief, A.P. (1992), Feeling good—
doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work—
organizational spontaneity relationship’, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 112, pp. 310–329.
41. Green, J.C. and Griesingev, D.W. (1996), Board
Performance and Organizational Effectiveness in
Nonprofit Social Services Organizations, Nonprofit
IJBIT / Volume 6 / Issue 1 / October - March 2013 | 111
Aakanksha Kataria et al.
Mnagement & Leadership, Vol. 6, No. 4.
42. Handa, V. and Adas, A. (1996), Predicting the level
of organizational effectiveness: a methodology for
the construction firm, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 341-352.
43. Hanna, M.D., Newman, W.R. and Johnson, P. (2000),
Linking operational and environmental improvement
through employee involvement, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 30, No. 2,
pp. 148–165.
44. Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J. (1977), The population
ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology,
82, 929-964.
45. Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002),
Business-unit level relationship between employee
satisfaction, employee engagement, and business
outcomes: A meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 87, pp. 268-279.
46. Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Keyes, C.L.M. (2003),
Wellbeing the workplace and its relationship to business
outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies, in C. L., Keyes.
and J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: The positive person and
the good life, Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association, 205- 224.
47. Hewitt Associates. (2004), Hewitt Associates study
shows more engaged employees drive improved business
performance and return, Press Release, May.
48. Hitt, A.M. (1988), The measuring of organizational
effectiveness: multiple domains and constituencies,
Management in Review (MIR), Vol. 28, pp. 28- 39.
49. Hossein, E., Ramezanineghad, R., Yosefi, B., Sajjadi, S.
N. and Malekakhlagh, E. (2011), Compressive review of
organizational effectiveness in Sport, Sport Management
International Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 5- 21.
50. Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal
engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 692-724.
51. Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1978), The social psychology of
organizations (2nd ed.), New York: Wiley.
52. Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1966), The social psychology of
organizations, New York: Wiley.
53. Kennedy, E. and Daim, T.U (2010), A strategy to assist
management in workforce engagement and employee
retention in the high tech engineering environment,
Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 33, No.4, pp. 468-
76.
54. Khalid, S.A., and Ali, H. (2005), The effects of
organizational citizenship behavior on withdrawal behavior:
A Malaysian study’, International Journal of Management
and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 30-40.
55. Koyuncu, M., Burke, R.J. and Fiksenbaum, L. (2006),
Work engagement among women managers and
professionals in a Turkish bank, Equal Opportunities
International, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 299–310.
56. LePine, J.A., Erez, A. and Johnson, D. (2002), The
nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship
behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 52–65.
57. Lockwood, N.R. (2007), Leveraging employee
engagement for competitive advantages: HR’s strategic
role, SHRM Research Quarterly.
58. Love, Peter E.D., and Skitmore, Martin R. (1996),
Approaches to Organisational Effectiveness and Their
Application to Construction Organisations, in A. Thorpe,
Aakanksha Kataria et al.
(Eds.), Proceedings 12th Annual Conference and Annual
General Meeting, The Association of Researchers in
Construction Management, Sheffield Hallam University.
59. Luthans, F., Welsh, D.H.B., and Taylor, L. (1988), A
descriptive model of managerial effectiveness, Group &
Organization Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 148-162.
60. Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008), The meaning
of employee engagement, Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 3-30.
61. Macey, W.H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K.M. and Young,
S.A. (2009), Employee engagement: Tools for analysis,
practice and competitive advantage, Malden, MA: Wiley-
Blackwell.
62. Markos, S. and Sridevi, M.S. (2010), Employee
engagement: The key to improving performance,
International Journal of Business and Management, Vol.
5, pp. 89-95.
63. May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2004), The
psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety,
and availability and the engagement of the human spirit
at work, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 11-37.
64. Molnar, J.H. and Rogers, D.C. (1976), Organisational
effectiveness: an empirical comparison of the goal and
system resource approaches, Sociological Quarterly, Vol.
17, pp. 401-13.
65. Motowidlo, S.J., Borman,W.C. and Schmit, M.J. (1997),
A theory of individual differences in task and contextual
performance, Human Performance, Vol. 10, pp. 71–83.
66. Mott, P.E. (1972), The Characteristics of Effective
Organizations, Harper and Row: NewYork.
67. Mzozoyana, M.G. (2002), Faculty and administrator
perceptions of organizational effectiveness at historically
black colleges and universities: Different views or
different models of organization?, Dissertation Abstracts
International, UMI No. 3049093.
68. Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational citizenship behavior:
The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
69. Organ, D.W. (1994b), Personality and organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 20, 465-
478.
70. Organ, D. W., and Ryan, K. (1995), A meta-analytic review
of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational
citizenship behavior, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48, pp.
775-802.
71. Organ, D.W. (1997), Organizational citizenship behavior:
It’s construct clean-up time, Human Performance, Vol. 10,
pp. 85–97.
72. Parker, S.K. and Griffin, M.A. (2011), Understanding
active psychological states: Embedding engagement in a
wider nomological net and closer attention to performance,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 60–67.
73. Perrow, C. (1970), Organisational analysis: a sociological
review, Belmont, California, Wadsworth.
74. Pfeffer, J. (1977), Usefulness of the concept, in P.S.
Goodmann and J.M. Pennings (Eds.), New perspectives
on organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, pp. 132-143.
75. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and
Bachrach, D.G. (2000), Organizational citizenship
behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical
literature and suggestions for future research, Journal of
IJBIT / Volume 6 / Issue 1 / October - March 2013 | 112
Employee Engagement and Organizational Effectiveness:
The Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Management, Vol. 26, pp. 513-563.
76. Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S. (1989), A Second
generation measure of organizational citizenship behavior,
Working Paper, Indiana University Bloomington.
77. Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1997), Impact
of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational
performance: A review and suggestions for future research,
Human Performance, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 133-151.
78. Posdakoff, P.M. and Mackenzie, S.B. (1994),
Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit
effectiveness, Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), Vol.
31, pp. 351-363.
79. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., and
Bachrach, D.G. (2000), ‘Organizational Citizenship
Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and
Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future Research,’
Journal of Management, 26, 3, 513–563.
80. Posdakoff, P.M. and Mackenzie, S.B. (2009), Impact
of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational
performance: A review and suggestion for future research,
Human Performance, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 133-151.
81. Pratt, S.R. and Eitzen, D.S. (1989), Contrasting
leadership styles and organizational effectiveness: The
case of athletic teams, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 70,
No. 2, pp. 312-322.
82. Price, J.L. (1968), The study of organizational
effectiveness, Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 3-15.
83. Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1981), A competing
values approach to organizational effectiveness, Public
Productivity Review, Vol. 5, pp. 122-140.
84. Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983), A spatial model
of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values
approach to organizational analysis, Management
Science, Vol. 29, pp. 363-377.
85. Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010), Job
engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53, pp. 617–635.
86. Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. (2004), The
Drivers of Employee Engagement. Brighton, Institute for
Employment Studies.
87. Rurkkhum, S. and Barlett, K.R. (2012), The relationship
between employee engagement and organizational
citizenship behavior in Thailand, Human Resource
Development International, Vol. 15, pp.157-174.
88. Saks, A.M. (2008), The meaning and bleeding of employee
engagement: How muddy is the water?, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 40-43.
89. Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), Job demands,
job resources, and their relationship with burnout and
engagement, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25,
pp. 293–315.
90. Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. and Bakker, A.B. (2006),
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide: On the differences between work
engagement and workaholism, in Burke, R. (Ed.), Work
hours and work addiction, Northampton, MA: Elgar, 193-
252.
91. Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and
Bakker, A.B. (2002), The measurement of engagement
and burnout: A two sample confirmatory analytic approach,
Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 71-92.
92. Schermerhorn, J.R. Jr., Hunt, J.G. and Osborn, R.N.
(2004), Core Concepts of Organizational Behavior. Wiley:
Hoboken, NJ.
93. Sharma and Samantara, (1995), Conflict management in
Employee Engagement and Organizational Effectiveness:
The Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
an Indian firm, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol.
30, No. 4, pp. 439-453.
94. Shimazu, A. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009), Towards a
positive occupational health psychology: The case of
work engagement, Jap J Stress Sci., Vol. 24, No. 3, pp.
181-187.
95. Shuck, B. and Wollard, K. (2010), Employee engagement
and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations, Human
Resource development Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 89-110.
96. Shuck, B., Reio, T.G. and Rocco, T.S. (2011), Employee
engagement: an examination of antecedents and outcome
variables, Human Resource Development International,
Vol. 13, , No. 4, pp. 419-428.
97. Slåtten, T. and Mehmetoglu, M. (2011), Antecedents
and effects of engaged frontline employees: A study from
the hospitality industry, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 21,
pp. 88-107.
98. Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P. (1983),
Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and
antecedents, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68, No.
4, pp. 653-663.
99. Somech, A. and Drach-Zahavy, A. (2012), Organizational
citizenship behaviour and employee’s strain: Examining
the buffering effects of leader support and participation
in decision making European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1.
100. Sonnentag, S. (2011), Research on work engagement
is well and alive, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 29–38.
101. Sonnentag, S., Mojza E.J., Demerouti, E. and Bakker,
A.B. (2012), Reciprocal Relations between Recovery and
Work Engagement: The Moderating Role of Job Stressors,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 33, pp. 98-109.
102. Spector, P.E. and Fox, S. (2002), An emotion-centered
model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels
between counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 269–292.
103. Steers, R.M. (1977), Antecedents and outcomes of
organizational commitment, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 46-56.
104. Steers, R.M., (1975), Problems in the measurement of
organisational effectiveness, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 546-58.
105. Sundaray, B.K. (2011), Employee engagement: A driver
of organizational effectiveness, European Journal of
Business and Management, Vol. 3, No. 8, pp. 53-59.
106. Thayer, S.E. (2008), Psychological climate and its
relationship to employee engagement and organizational
citizenship behaviors, Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Capella University, Minnesota.
107. The Gallup Organization. (2004), Engagement vs.
satisfaction among hospital teams, Retreived from http://
www.gallup.com/poll/10903/engagement-vs-satisfaction-
among-hospital-teams.aspx
108. Towers Perrin HR Services. (2003), Working today:
Understanding what drives employee engagement,
available at: www.towers perrin.com.
109. Turnipseed, D.L. and Wilson, G.L. (2009), From
discretionary to required: The migration of organizational
citizenship behavior, Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, Vol.15, pp. 201-216.
110. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L. and McLean Parks,
J. (1995), Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct
IJBIT / Volume 6 / Issue 1 / October - March 2013 | 113
Aakanksha Kataria et al.
and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters),
in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior, Greenvich, CT: JAI Press, 215-
285.
111. Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006a), Compulsory citizenship
behavior: Theorizing some dark sides of good soldier
syndrome in organization, Journal for the Theory of Social
Behavior, Vol. 36, pp. 77–93.
112. Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006b), Redrawing the boundaries
of OCB? An empirical examination of compulsory extra-
role behavior in the workplace, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 21, pp. 377–405.
113. Wagner, R. and Harter, J.K. (2006), The great elements
of managing. Washington, DC: The Gallup Organization.
114. Walz, S.M. and Niehoff, B.P. (2000), Organizational
citizenship behaviors: Their relationship to organizational
effectiveness, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,
Vol. 24, pp. 108-126.
115. Weese, W. J. (1997), The development of an instrument
to measure effectiveness in campus recreation programs,
Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 11, pp. 263-274.
116. Wefald, A.J., Reichard, R.J. and Serrano, S.A.
(2011), Fitting Engagement into a Nomological Network:
The Relationship of Engagement to Leadership and
Personality, Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 522–537.
117. Wei, Y.-C., Han, T.-S., and Hsu, I-C. (2010), High-
performance HR practices and OCB: a cross-level
investigation of a causal path, The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, Vol. 21, No. 10, pp.
1631–1648.
118. Welch, M. (2011), The evolution of the employee
engagement concept: communication implications’,
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol.
16, pp. 328-346.
119. Williams, L.J., and Anderson, S.E. (1991), Job
satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors
of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors, Journal
of Management, Vol. 17, pp. 601-617.
120. Yen H.R. and Nieoff B.P. (2004), Organizational
citizenship behaviors and organizational effectiveness:
examining relationships in Taiwanese Banks, Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 8, pp. 1617–1637.
121. Yuchtman, E. and Seashore, S.E. (1967), A system
resource approach to organizational effectiveness,
American Sociological Review, Vol. 32, pp. 891- 903.
 Copyright of International Journal of Business Insights & Transformation is the property of
International Journal of Business Insights & Transformation and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

View publication stats