Perceived Voluntariness of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Author
Maren Umdasch, BBSc.
Submission
Institute of Organization
Science
THE VOLUNTARINESS Thesis Supervisor
PERCEPTION OF a. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Werner

Auer-Rizzi
ORGANIZATIONAL July 2021
CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR
A cross-cultural study on the perceived level of voluntariness of Organizational
Citizenship Behavior in Europe and Asia
Master s Thesis
to confer the academic degree of
Master of Science
in the joint Master s Program
Global Business Canada/Taiwan
JOHANNES KEPLER
UNIVERSITY LINZ
Altenberger Straße 69
4040 Linz, Austria
jku.at
SWORN DECLARATION
I hereby declare under oath that the submitted Master s Thesis has been written solely by me
without any third-party assistance, information other than provided sources or aids have not been
used and those used have been fully documented. Sources for literal, paraphrased and cited
quotes have been accurately credited.
The submitted document here present is identical to the electronically submitted text document.
Linz, 12 July 2021
Maren Umdasch
2
ABSTRACT
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) describes voluntary workplace behavior guided

towards supporting and protecting the organization. However, what is labeled extra-role is not
always considered voluntary. This thesis compares the voluntariness perception of Organizational
Citizenship Behavior within two cultural regions Central Europe and East Asia. A survey was
conducted in which the participants ranked previously defined OCB dimensions and items
according to their perceived voluntariness within their work context. Previous literature suggests
that OCB is perceived as in-role more often by people from collectivist countries than by people
from individualistic countries do. To answer the research question, an independent sample t-test
was conducted. The results show significant cultural differences for three of the five OCB
dimensions initiative, voluntariness, sportsmanship. There was no significant cultural difference
for the dimensions of conscientiousness and boosterism or Organizational Citizenship Behavior
in total. These results indicate that the cultural difference in the voluntariness perception between
Europe and Asia are not as significant as the literature might suggest, potentially resulting in
shifting cultural values due to globalization and the internationalization of organizational cultures,
which should be investigated in the future. The findings could help both practitioners and
researchers. Possible future research ideas were added at the end of the thesis.
Keywords: Organizational Citizenship Behavior, extra-role behavior, voluntary workplace

behavior, voluntariness perception, culture
3
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3
2. Literature Review ...................................................................................................................... 6
2.1. Organizational Citizenship Behavior ................................................................................. 6
2.1.1. Dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behavior .............................................. 7
2.1.2. Antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behavior ..........................................12
2.1.3. Outcomes of Organizational Citizenship Behavior ..............................................16
2.1.4. Synonyms and Related Concepts of Organizational Citizenship Behavior ........18
2.1.4.1. Extra-role behavior ................................................................................18
2.1.4.2. Prosocial Behavior ................................................................................18
2.1.4.3. Contextual Performance .......................................................................19
2.2. Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Culture ...........................................................20
2.2.1. Culture ..................................................................................................................20
2.2.2. Organizational Citizenship Behavior within a Cultural Context ...........................22
2.2.2.1. Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Cultural Dimensions ............24
2.2.2.2. Organizational Citizenship Behavior Dimensions across Cultures ......24
2.2.2.3. Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Other Cultural Differences ..27
3. Methodology ............................................................................................................................34
4. Analysis ...................................................................................................................................37
4.1. Reliability Testing.............................................................................................................38
4.2. Descriptive Statistics .......................................................................................................38
4.1. Hypotheses Testing .........................................................................................................41
5. Discussion ...............................................................................................................................50
6. Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................56
7. References ..............................................................................................................................61
Appendix .........................................................................................................................................73
1
Table of Figures
Figure 1: The intervening process of Culture (Paine & Organ, 2000) .......................................... 23
Figure 2: Comparison of OCB scales in different cultures (Rauf, 2015) ...................................... 25
Figure 3: Hofstede's cultural dimensions for Austria and Germany (Hofstede Insights, 2021) ... 31
Figure 4: Hofstede's cultural dimensions for China and Taiwan (Hofstede Insights, 2021) ........ 31
Figure 5: Variables and Hypotheses ............................................................................................. 37
Figure 6: Independent Samples T-Test Overview 1 ..................................................................... 41
Figure 7: Independent Samples T-Test Overview 2 ..................................................................... 41
Figure 8: Independent Samples T-Test H1 ................................................................................... 42
Figure 9: Assumptions Checks H1 ................................................................................................ 42
Figure 10: Independent Samples T-Test H1 Individual Items ...................................................... 43
Figure 11: Independent Samples T-Test H2 ................................................................................. 44
Figure 12: Assumption Checks H2................................................................................................ 44
Figure 25: Hypotheses Results ..................................................................................................... 50
Table of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scales (incomplete).............................................. 11

Table 2: Reliability Testing ............................................................................................................ 38
Table 3: Descriptives of Demographic Variables .......................................................................... 39
Table 4: Descriptives OCB Dimensions ........................................................................................ 40
Table 5: Conscientiousness Items Means .................................................................................... 51
2
1. Introduction
Job statements and descriptions offer information on what is part of a job. All actions executed to
follow this description directly are considered in-role performance. However, it is known that a job
description never includes everything an employee does. What about helping co-workers when
they are sick? What about going to company events that are not mandatory? Moreover, what
about quickly replying to all emails? These activities are neither part of any job description nor do
employees get rewarded for doing them. However, people still do them because they feel it is the
right thing to do.
Such behavior is called Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB). It describes voluntary

behavior at the workplace aiming to support the organi ation s efficienc and effecti eness. It is
not directly included in the reward system, which makes its appearance a consequence of
numerous other factors such as the perception of right and wrong, fairness and unfairness,
personality traits, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and leadership (Organ, 1990;
Organ & Ryan, 1995; Organ et al., 2006; Zeinanbadi, 2010). It is closely related to other behavioral
concepts such as prosocial organizational behavior, contextual performance, and extra-role
behavior (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; Vigoda-Gadot, 2006). It can have
positive and negative consequences for individuals and organizations (Bolino et al., 2004). Due to
individual voluntariness perceptions, the concept of OCB has been criticized in the past (Morrison,
1994).
Various areas deal with Organizational Citizenship Behavior, such as psychology, sociology, or
management. Over the last decades, scholars have given the field of OCB increasing attention.
Although the concept s importance is now widely acknowledged in the literature and authors have
identified more than 30 different OCB forms, most theories and studies were conducted in the
Western world. Hence, they do not consider cultural differences and their influence on OCB
(Kwantes et al., 2008; Ocampo et al., 2017).
However, like many other concepts, context plays a crucial role. The cultural context, for example,
has a strong influence on people and their behavior. Nevertheless, it might not only influence what
people are doing but also the motive behind it. Some actions might be perceived as mandatory in
one culture but as voluntary in another (see Kwantes et al., 2008).
3
It is common knowledge that the working world looks different in the Eastern and Western worlds.
Every culture has different expectations about how employees should do their work and
communicate needs and wants. In a globalized world, the chances of working in a solely mono-
cultural environment are close to zero. Therefore, managers need to understand what their
employees see as their tasks and what needs to be communicated further. Moreover, it might be
interesting for employees to understand the managers and organi ations expectations in foreign
countries and cultures.
However, while researchers have established differences in behavior, it has not been adequately
researched in the field of OCB. Even if a study was conducted in the Eastern world, its frameworks
and theory are often still based on Western literature. Only a few authors have tried to compare
different countries based on their willingness to engage in OCB and have found out that previously
defined OCB items are not always considered voluntary and that there might be a cultural
difference. Consequently, the following research question has been established: How is the
voluntariness of Organizational Citizenship Behavior perceived across cultures?
The methods used to answer this research question are twofold. Firstly, secondary research such
as literature and online research was conducted to present the field s current academic and
scientific research state. The first chapter in this thesis is the literature review. It is composed of
two main parts. The first part aims to give an overview of the concept of Organizational Citizenship
Behavior, including a definition of OCB, its dimensions, antecedents, outcomes, and related
concepts. The second part focuses on OCB within different cultural contexts. To clearly define the
cultural influence on OCB, the chapter also includes a definition of culture as well as cultural
models and theories s ch as Hofstede s c lt ral dimensions and c lt ral intelligence. At the end
of the chapter, the research gap is presented, and the research question and related hypotheses
are formulated.
In addition to the literature review, this thesis s research data comes from a quantitative study
conducted in selective European and East Asian countries using existing OCB items. The goal
was to measure the perceived level of voluntariness for OCB actions at the workplace. The chapter
methodology explains the chosen method and the creation of the questionnaire. Following the
methodology section, the study results are presented and discussed, and conclusions,
implications, and limitations are drawn from them.
4
The findings of this study have both theoretical and practical implications. On the one hand,
scholars could use a statistically supported statement about the differences in voluntariness
perception across for future research on OCB in other cultural regions or with a different focus.
Furthermore, one could create reasonable HR practices to foster OCB in intercultural groups or
in estigate each c lt ral al e s infl ence on OCB investigated. On the other hand, it can help
managers and employees who work in a multicultural context or plan to change their cultural work
setting to understand better how to work with people from a different cultural context.
5
2. Literature Review
The literature review aims to determine the relationship between Organizational Citizenship
Behavior and culture and identify the research gap. First, the concept of OCB will be defined. The
readers are given an introduction to the topic of OCB, its dimensions, antecedents, outcomes, and
related concepts. Second, after defining the term culture, the relationship between OCB and
culture will be established. This literature review aims to overview of the concept of OCB and
potential cultural differences and outline the existing literature gap and the importance of closing
it.
2.1. Organizational Citizenship Behavior
The term Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) was introduced in the 1980s and describes
spontaneous, self-initiated, and voluntary behavior not directly or explicitly included in the job
description or the reward system. This behavior is g ided to ards s pporting an organi ation s
effective and efficient functioning. It is not one single action that makes a difference but the sum
of all. The absence of such behavior should not have any consequences for the individual (Organ,
1988; Organ, 1997; Smith et al., 1983; Vigoda-Gadot, 2006).
According to Merriam-Webster (n.d.), the erb ol ntar means proceeding from the ill or from
one s o n choice or consent . It implies spontaneit and freedom of action or choice ithout
external compulsion. Synonyms are freewill, unforced, or self-imposed. Hence, the term imposes
that whatever an individual does happens freely and uncoerced by his or her wishes. Regarding
the concept of OCB, no other than the employee himself or herself decides whether to show such
actions or not.
While the term Organizational Citizenship Behavior itself was established in the 1980s, the
concept itself has existed long before. The concepts behind OCB emerged in the 1930s from the
idea that satisfaction and positive feelings towards work and the organization lead to higher
productivity. The 1960s and the theories developed during this decade are considered the
fo ndation of OCB (Ocampo et al., 2017). More precisel , OCB stems from Barnard s (1938)
concept of the indi id als illingness to cooperate and Kat s (1964) differentiation of a person s
reliable work performance and their innovative and spontaneous behavior on the other hand. The
topic of extra-role/prosocial behavior beyond role requirements and a sense of citizenship first
came up in the 1960s and 1970s (Katz & Kahn, 1978) and was then named OCB by Bateman and
Organ 1983 and defined by Organ in 1988. The 1980s were also the period of relating the concept
of OCB with other dimensions (Ocampo et al., 2017). In 1997, Organ redefined the term OCB by
6
removing the requirements that OCB has to be both nonrewarding and discretionary (Organ,
1997).
The good soldier s ndrome , as Organ (1988) calls OCB, stems from gen ine good ill, altr ism,
internal motivation, and the perception of fairness and unfairness. This perception is based on
ethics, a general sense of right and wrong, and how individuals consider how the world should be,
past experiences, promises, and social comparison (Organ, 1990; Turnipseed, 2002).
Summing up, Organizational Citizenship Behavior is a well-established concept in various

research fields. It describes voluntary actions aimed to support and protect organizations that are
not directly rewarded. The main motive is the perception of fairness and right or wrong. The
following chapters give an insight into the dimensions, antecedents, and outcomes of
Organizational Citizenship Behavior. In addition, to avoid ambiguity and confusion, other concepts
similar to OCB will be explained.
2.1.1. Dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Even though the concept of Organizational Citizenship Behavior is widely used and examined by
various scholars, its dimensions have not been clearly defined for a long time and are still not
heterogeneous. The work from Ocampo et al. (2017), Rauf (2015), LePine et al. (2002), and
Podsakoff et al. (2000) on the development of the term OCB and its dimensions give a good
overview of the topic itself and the significance of the conceptual overlap between dimensions and
various constructs. Over the following paragraphs, the main works on OCB dimensions will be
summarized.
The first ones to define the components of OCB were Smith et al. (1983) and Organ (1988). Smith
et al. (1983) proposed altruism and general compliance as the two dimensions of organizational
behavior serving to improve its effectiveness. Altruism is defined as helping behavior on a personal
level, while general compliance is a more impersonal form of citizenship. In 1988, five years after
introducing the term OCB, Organ extended his definition by outlining five specific factors. His first
set of factors consisted of the following five terms: altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship,
civic virtue, and courtesy. In 1990, he extended the list by adding cheerleading and peacekeeping.
In 1997, he reduced the number of dimensions to three helping (previously called altruism),
conscientiousness, and courtesy (Motowidlo, 2000; Ocampo et al., 2017; Organ, 1990; Organ,
1997).
7
While these dimensions vary from scholar to scholar, they can mainly be organized in one or more
of the five major fields summarized by Podsakoff et al. (2000) helping behavior (e.g., altruism
interpersonal helping), sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, organizational compliance, civic
virtue, and individual initiative (e.g., conscientiousness, volunteering). In 2006, Organ et al.
organized them into seven dimensions organizational compliance, organizational loyalty,
sportsmanship, civic virtue, helping behavior, individual initiative, and self-development.
The first dimension in the list of Organ et al. (2006) is organizational compliance. It describes the
act of obeying corporate rules, regulations, and procedures. While expected from each employee,
not all employees follow these guidelines all the time. Thus, if an employee obeys all rules, even
when nobody is watching, it is considered part of OCB (Rauf, 2015). This dimension is similar to
generalized compliance (Smith et al. 1983), organizational obedience (Graham, 1991), following
organizational rules (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993), job dedication (van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996),
and OCBO (Williams & Anderson, 1991).
The second dimension organizational loyalty describes behavior that protects the organization
against an threats. It consists of George and Brief s (1992) protecting the organization and
spreading good ill, Graham s (1991) organi ational lo alt and lo al boostering, Kwantes et al.
(2008) boosterism, as ell as Borman and Moto idlo s (1993) endorsing, supporting, and
defending organizational objectives.
The third component, sportsmanship, is controversial. In the past, this dimension has not received
as much attention in the literature as others (Rauf, 2015). It describes the willingness to accept
unavoidable inconveniences at work without complaining (Kwantes et al., 2008; Organ, 1990).
However, studies by Podsakoff et al. (1990), Podsakoff et al. (2000), Podsakoff and MacKenzie
(1994), and Walz and Niehoff (1996) suggest that the definition of sportsmanship is not inclusive
enough and that this dimension might have other antecedents and other consequences as others.
The fourth dimension is civic virtue and describes an overall commitment to the organization and
the willingness to participate in its governance. It includes attending meetings, expressing own
opinions, and engaging in polic debates. F rthermore, monitoring the organi ation s en ironment
for opport nities and threats and looking o t for the compan s best interest, e en at personal
cost, are also considered part of civic virtue (Rauf, 2015). It includes the previously defined
dimensions of ci ic irt e b Organ (1988), George and Brief s (1992) protecting the organi ation,
and Graham s (1989) organizational participation.
8
Self-development is the fifth element. It describes all discretionary behavior the employees might
engage in to improve skills and knowledge, such as keeping up to date in their field of business,
taking training courses to enhance existing skills, or even learning something new to offer more to
the organization. While this dimension still lacks empirical confirmation in the OCB literature, it
appears to be a discretionary employee behavior, different from any other dimension. The
mechanism through which it could improve organizational effectiveness seems different from other
OCB forms (Rauf, 2015; George & Brief, 1992).
The sixth factor is helping behavior, describing voluntarily assisting co-workers with work and
related issues or preventing them from happening. Identifying helping behavior as an essential
part of OCB has drawn itself through most of the scientific work on the subject (see Borman &
Motowidlo, 1993; George & Brief, 1992; Organ, 1988; Smith et al., 1983; van Scotter & Motowidlo,
1996; Williams & Anderson, 1991). It s mmari es Organ s (1988, 1990) dimensions altr ism,
cheerleading, and peacemaking, George and Brief s (1992) constr ct of helping others, Williams
and Anderson s (1991) OCBI, and an Scotter and Moto idlo s (1996) interpersonal facilitation.
Furthermore, preventing work-related issues from happening refers to Organ s dimension of
courtesy (Organ, 1988,1990). In newer studies, this behavior was called volunteerism (Kwantes
et al., 2008). As visible, this dimension has an impact on the individuals and not the organization
per se.
The last dimension individual or personal initiative (PI) is visible in various studies, such as
Dewett and Denisi (2007), Moorman and Blakely (1993), Podsakoff et al. (2000), and Kwantes et
al. (2008). It is closely related to the concept of conscientiousness by Organ (1988), enthusiasm
and volunteering by Borman and Motowidlo (1993), Morrison & Phelp s (1999) taking charge at
work, and an Scotter and Moto idlo s (1996) idea of job dedication. Like personal initiative, voice
behavior, taking charge, redefinition of work, or role-breath self-efficacy are examples of active
performance concepts. They can work as a new approach to organizational performance and
behavior (Frese & Fay, 2001). Active performance and personal initiative gained great importance
over the last decades due to faster implementation of innovations, global competition, new
production concepts, and job concept changes (Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999). These job concept
changes ask for active engagement and continuous participation in the labor market (Frese & Fay,
2001).
Williams and Anderson (1991) took on a different approach to categorize the dimension,
depending on the party directly affected. They split up OCB into OCBI (the individual level) and
OCBO (the organizational level). In 1983, Smith et al. already split up citizenship behavior into two
components altruism (towards individuals) and general compliance (towards organizations),
9
which is very similar to the definitions of Williams and Anderson (1991). Most of the existing studies
deal with OCBO - the organizational level. In recent years, there has been a movement towards
an individual perspective and point of view. These concepts, however, mainly look at the affected
party, not at the underlying values or characteristics. Examples for individual-level research are
Bolino and Turnley (2005), looking at the personal benefits and costs of OCB and Kim et al. (2020)
at OCBI and teams.
Using Williams and Anderson s (1991) theory of OCBI and OCBO, van Dyne et al. (1995) then
allocated Organ s original fi e dimensions into these t o categories. According to them, OCBI
consists of altruism and courtesy, while civic virtue, conscientiousness, and sportsmanship are
part of OCBO. Just one year later, van Scotter and Moldowidlo (1996) created two new dimensions
to replace the existing ones interpersonal facilitation and job dedication. However, while these
two terms might be new, their meaning seems closely related to Smith et al. s (1983) altruism and
general compliance and Williams and Anderson s (1991) OCBI and OCBO.
In 2000, Coleman and Borman summarized the original five dimensions into three interpersonal,
organizational, and job and task-related conscientiousness. The first dimension includes helping
and cooperating with others, while the second one focuses on supporting and defending the
organization and following organizational rules. The third dimension describes the extra effort and
enthusiasm with which employees complete their tasks successfully.
Seven years later, Dewett and Denisi (2007) followed a different approach by categorizing the
OCB dimensions into two organizational behavior types. Their work uses the term maintenance
citizenship behavior as a title for factors like altruism, courtesy, cheerleading, sportsmanship,
conscientiousness, goodwill, and compliance. It summarizes behavior guided towards remaining
and protecting the organization. The second type of behavior focuses on the improvement of
organizational effectiveness. It includes future-oriented behavior such as advocacy, taking charge,
voice, individual/personal initiative, innovation, participation, and any other behavior directed
towards change (Dewett & Denisi, 2007; Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Scott & Bruce, 1994; LePine
& van Dyne, 1998). This category is called change-oriented citizenship behavior. Including the
dimension of individual initiative, change-oriented citizenship behavior aims to improve work
performance b challenging the status quo through suggestions for constructive changes in work
methods, processes, and policies (Choi, 2007, 467).
10
However, not only the dimensions of OCB vary but also the actions included in them. This brings
up a challenge when measuring OCB. Many authors have created their own scales by adapting,
extending, or freshly organizing already existing ones in the past. Some of the most commonly
used scales are the ones by Podsakoff et al. (1990), van Dyne et al. (1994), and Lee and Allen
(2002). All scales vary in number and types of items and dimensions included. Table 1 summarizes
some of the most popular OCB scales developed and published over the past decades.
Article Research type Dimensions Items Based on

Podsakoff et al. (1990) Quantitative Altruism 24
Supervisor rating Conscientiousness
Sportsmanship
Courtesy
Civic Virtue
Williams & Anderson quantitative In-role behavior 21 Bateman & Organ (1983)
(1991) supervisor rating OCB-I Smith et al. (1983)
OCB-0 Graham (1986)
O Reill & Chatman (1986)
Organ (1988)
Morrison (1994) quantitative Altruism 20
supervisor rating Conscientiousness
self-evaluation Sportsmanship
Involvement
Keeping up
Van Dyne et al. (1994) quantitative Loyalty 54 Smith et al. (1983)
supervisor rating Obedience Podsakoff et al. (1990)
self-evaluation Participation MacKenzie et al. (1991)
Moorman & Blakely (1995) quantitative Interpersonal helping 19 Graham (1989)
self-evaluation Individual initiative Moorman & Blakely (1992)
Personal industry
Loyal boosterism
Lee & Allen (2002) quantitative OCB-I 16 Smith et al. (1983)
co-worker rating OCB-O Williams and Anderson (1991)
Argentero (2008) quantitative Altruism 24 Podsakoff et al. (1990)

self-evaluation Conscientiousness
Sportsmanship
Courtesy
Civic Virtue
Kwantes et al. (2008) quantitative Conscientiousness 47 Podsakoff et al. (1990)
Initiative Morrison (1994)
Volunteerism Moorman & Blakely (1995)
Boosterism
Sportsmanship
Table 1: Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scales (incomplete)
11
Many, if not all of the dimensions explained above appear to be influenced by Katz (1964). Hence,
while the term OCB itself came up in the 1980s, the foundation for the concept comes from the
1960s (Rauf, 2015). Which dimensions or items researchers use depends on the individual. After
defining what OCB is, the following chapters focus on where it comes from and what it leads to.
2.1.2. Antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

After defining OCB and its dimensions, this chapter will examine the influencing factors that lead
to OCB. Overall, Organizational Citizenship Behavior results from positive affect, a supportive
organizational climate, positive job attitudes, and encouraging leadership (Organ et al., 2006). The
main antecedents for OCB can be organized in individual, organizational, or task characteristics
and leadership behavior (Rauf, 2015). Individual characteristics consist of attitudinal factors like
organizational commitment, employee and job satisfaction, and personality characteristics and are
positively related to OCB (Organ & Ryan, 1995). These three types will be explained now in more
detail.
Job satisfaction is probably the most important antecedent of OCB. As mentioned earlier, the
relationship bet een satisfaction and job performance is one of the theor s fo ndations.
According to the literature, people are more motivated and more likely to invest their energy into
their job if satisfied (Organ, 1990; Zeinabadi, 2010). Current literature offers proof of the
relationship between job satisfaction and OCB (Foote & Tang, 2008; Koys, 2001; Wagner & Rush,
2000).
The commitment towards the organization and job embeddedness are indicators for OCB (Lee et
al. 2004; Wagner & Rush, 2000; Wijaanto & Kismono, 2004; Zeinabadi, 2010). It refers to the
emotional attachment to and identification with the organization as well as the organizational fit
(Meyer & Allen, 1989; Mitchell et al., 2001) There are three different types of commitment
normative, affective, and continuance commitment. Normative commitment means commitment
based on a feeling of obligation towards to organization, while continuous commitment refers to
maintaining the ties as other alternatives are perceived to be less attractive (Meyer et al., 2002).
According to Bolon (1997) and Meyer et al. (2002), affective commitment is the most relevant
concept for engaging in OCB, describing an emotional tie to the organization. Continuous
commitment is not related to OCB. However, while there is academic evidence for the connection
between OCB and organizational commitment (Pourgaz et al., 2015; Wagner & Rush, 2000), other
scholars do not support this relationship (Alotaibi, 2001; Williams & Anderson, 1991).
12
Personality characteristics (PC), even only weakly supported by the literature, also affect OCB
(Organ & Ryan, 1995). Of the big five personality dimensions (conscientiousness, agreeableness,
extraversion, openness to experience, and emotional stability) (Barrick & Mount, 1991),
conscientiousness is the primary personality trait positively predicting OCB. It incorporates
desirable characteristics of an employee, such as achievement-oriented, hard-working, and
persuading (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Organ & Ryan, 1995). All actions exerted by employees
depend on their motivation, opportunity, and ability (Rauf, 2015). Following this principle, self-
efficacy and employee engagement can lead to OCB (Motowidlo et al., 1997). Self-efficacy
describes the individual perception of being capable of carrying out additional extra-role tasks
beyond requirements (Bandura, 1997; Beauregard, 2012). It is a strong indicator for proactive
behavior such as taking initiative or taking charge (Dominguez et al., 2013; Frese et al., 2007;
Morrison & Phelps, 1999). These factors support change-oriented OCB (Choi, 2007). Employee
engagement is another factor positively influencing OCB (Saks, 2006).
In addition to the individual characteristics such as satisfaction, commitment, and personality, the
next step is to look at the organizational and task characteristics and leadership. Through HR
practices and effecti e leadership, a compan can infl ence its emplo ees self-efficacy,
motivation, and employee engagement. Task characteristics, including task autonomy, task
feedback, task significance, task interdependence, skill variety, task identity, and the intrinsically
satisfying nature of a task, directly affect employee motivation (Dunham, 1979, Griffin 1982;
Hackman & Oldham, 1975; Rauf, 2015). Group characteristics such as group cohesiveness also
predict OCB (Kerr & Jermier, 1978; Podsakoff et al., 1996).
However, which HR practices influence OCB the most or at all is difficult to define as it varies
among employees. Literature suggests that trust, role clarity, and fairness perception are the main
predictors of OCB (MacKenzie et al., 2001; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 1990). In their study,
Mukhtar et al. (2012) identified empowerment, perceived fairness, employee development,
rewards, and social recognition as influential factors. Adopting leadership practices that make
employees feel valued and intrinsically motivated can increase the sense of obligation to perform
their in-role tasks and support the organizational success. Consequently, this could increase OCB
(Organ et al., 2006; Podsakoff et al., 1990). Reward and punishment systems can also affect OCB
(Wayne et al., 2002. Introducing a reward system based on individual performance might increase
the feeling of fairness within the organization, and consequently, trust towards the leaders.
13
The cultural context also influences the effects and the forms of OCB (Podsakoff et al., 2000).
Ethics and individual values appear to influence how employees conceptualize OCB and the
extent to which they engage in OCB. Such values are often transmitted through culture
(Turnipseed, 2002). The cultural context in which organizations operate influences the occurrence
of OCB much more than other antecedents as it might encourage people to help others or to focus
on themselves (George & Jones, 1997). However, even though researchers have already
established c lt re s importance and strength as an influencing factor of OCB, it has only received
little attention so far compared to other areas in OCB. Moreover, even when looking at another
cultural region, scholars mainly used existing frameworks developed in the Western world to
describe and measure OCB. Therefore, it is essential to look at the cultural perspective in more
detail later on.
Another crucial influencing factor is the motive behind Organizational Citizenship Behavior. While
the motive behind OCB should be to do something good that benefits the organization voluntarily,
this is not always the case. Furthermore, even though most scholars investigated and examined
the positive aspects Organizational Citizenship Behavior can have for organizations and
individuals, it also comes with personal and professional costs (Bolino et al., 2004). These
negative consequences and outcomes will be explained in the following.
According to the definition by Organ (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior stems from a
general perception of right and wrong and what is considered fair. However, literature shows that
this is not always the case. In addition to the primary motivation of fairness, another motive is the
positive perception of employees engaging in OCB by the management. Especially before and
after promotion decisions, employees are more likely to show OCB as they expect higher
performance ratings (Hui et al., 2000). Another reason could be the perception that such behavior
is necessary to protect themselves from losing their jobs due to bad economic conditions or layoffs.
OCB could set them apart from co-workers and, thus, defend their position (Bolino et al., 2013;
Salamon & Deutsch, 2006). In such a case, OCB serves personal motives; the underlying
motivation is not fairness and doing something good but is calculative and based on the
assumption that keeping a job or receiving a promotion or a sale raise is a reward for such
behavior. This motive is called impression management. Whether specific actions are perceived
as OCB or impression management depends on the individual (Bolino, 1999; Bolino et al., 2004).
In the literature, impression management is connotated with negative antecedents such as
careerism or self-monitoring (Bolino 1999; Bolino et al., 2004; Rioux & Penner, 2001). It can
deplete an indi id al s reso rces and might e en increase the possibilit of participating in
unethical behavior to keep their jobs (Bolino & Klotz, 2015).
14
Furthermore, employees do not always see Organizational Citizenship Behavior as voluntary but
as compulsory (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006). According to Katz and Kahn (1978), Morisson (1994),
Murphy and Cleveland (1991), some formally defined working behavior is perceived as extra-role
by some employees but as in-role by others. Thus, one of the major criteria of the definition of
OCB is not fulfilled.
Nevertheless, while Organizational Citizenship Behavior might be considered mandatory,

employees still engage in OCB. One reason is that they feel forced to show OCB. When managers
or emplo ers tr to impose s ch ol ntar and e tra-role beha ior, it can lead to higher le els
of work-family conflicts and work-leisure-conflicts as well as stress and the intention to quit. Being
forced to engage in extra-role behavior has nothing to do with OCB but is called Compulsory
Citizenship Behavior (CCB) (Bolino et al., 2013). It responds to external pressure by more powerful
parties such as managers or even co-workers to increase their workload (Porpora, 1989; Vigoda-
Gadot, 2006). Even if not required, employees sometimes still feel pressured to do so (Bolino et
al., 2010).
Moreover, the power to define extra-role acti ities lies in the managers hands, not the emplo ees .
They can extend the list of formal duties into the extra-role area, putting unfair pressure on
employees to increase their workload to a level much higher than they should be required to
complete (Morrison, 1994; Vigoda-Gadot, 2006). Therefore, pressuring employees to engage in
OCB and increase their workload might lead to personal issues, more unsatisfactory performance,
and higher job rotation.
Another negative aspect of OCB is the so-called job creep (van Dyne & Ellis, 2004). Employees
feel ongoing pressure to do more than officially required. However, OCB follows the principle of
once started, o cannot stop . O er time, specific ol ntar behavior becomes part of their job
and is expected by the management. If this behavior suddenly disappears, it can seem as if in-
role tasks are no longer being performed. Res lting in the management s e pectations and d e
to the escalating characteristic of OCB, employees need to invest increasing energy and time into
performing OCB to keep up the value. The costs for this might, at some point, even outweigh the
expected benefits such as acknowledgment and advancement (Bolino & Turnley, 2003). This
phenomenon is called too-much-of-a-good- thing (TMGT) (Bolino et al., 2013; Grant & Schwartz,
2011).
15
While, according to the definition of OCB, organizational reward systems do not directly include
such behavior, Haworth and Levi (2001) and Hui et al. (2000) found that people are more likely to
show OCB if they feel their behavior will be rewarded. This, and other issues mentioned above
regarding the voluntariness of OCB, would diminish the general assumption that Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors describe entirely voluntary actions not directly included in the reward system
and that the lack of OCB does not lead to negative consequences.
Additionally, if OCB is perceived as mandatory and employees feel urged to take on additional
duties to make up for organizational constraints or co- orkers poor performance, they might feel
resentful. Consequently, they engage in counterproductive work behavior (CWB). Such behavior
could also result from a lack of acknowledgment and appreciation they expect to receive due to
their OCB. Because of their voluntary behavior, they psychologically feel freer to also engage in
counterproductive work behavior. Simultaneously, however, for people who engage in CWB, OCB
seems like a suitable option to make up for previous misbehavior (Spector & Fox, 2010).
To summarize this chapter, the primary influencing sources are individual factors such as
personality and job satisfaction, job characteristics like tasks and autonomy, organizational factors
such as the management, the culture, and the underlying motives. The next chapter looks at
potential outcomes of Organizational Citizenship Behavior.
2.1.3. Outcomes of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
The effects of Organizational Citizenship Behavior are twofold; it can result in a positive or a
negative outcome and affect both an organization and an individual. In the following paragraphs,
the different outcomes will be laid out.
OCB can have a positive impact on organizations in multiple ways. It can improve productivity,
efficiency, and effectiveness on the organizational level (Bolino et al., 2010; MacKenzie et al.,
1991; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). Furthermore, if employees do their work more
efficiently, it might free up resources that the company can use for other projects. It can also help
coordinate between teams and improve overall communication, leading to a more enjoyable work
atmosphere resulting in higher employee retention and increased organizational attractiveness on
the labor market. All these effects should also positively influence financial measures and, thus,
organizational success (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; MacKenzie et al., 1991; Podsakoff &
MacKenzie, 1997).
16
While there are clear benefits for the organization, the individual level is also affected by OCB. It
is positively related to employee performance and reward allocation. Furthermore, Podsakoff et
al. (2009) have found a negative correlation between OCB and employee turnover intentions,
absenteeism, and actual turnover. People who participate in OCB are perceived more positively
by the management and to have a higher commitment level (Allen & Rush, 1998; Shore et al.,
1995), which might result in an increased chance to be promoted. OCB also increases sympathy
and linking towards the subordinate, which might influence the overall performance evaluation
(Lefkowitz, 2000). It might also decrease the likelihood of being terminated and increase the
possibility of getting access to advanced training (Organ et al., 2006). This shows that, as long as
OCB is considered something positive by the management, it can influence perceptions about the
individual, commitment to the organization, overall performance, and consequently promotions
and rewards.
Participating in OCB might lead to benefits, as mentioned earlier, but other aspects are not related
to measurable benefits such as promotions or rewards. If the management values such behavior,
individuals might get more power and autonomy to decide how to do their job and improve their
perception of their self-worth and self-efficacy (Organ et al., 2006). Thus, OCB might also lead to
a change in how a position and its related task are designed.
However, OCB does not have to affect the organization positively. The more time employees
spend engaging in OCBs, the less time they spend engaging in task performance (see Bolino &
Klotz, 2015). Workers who spent more time engaging in OCBs received smaller increases in salary
and fewer promotions than those who focused more on task performance (Bergeron et al., 2013).
F rthermore, citi enship beha ior s ch as helping others ma diminish emplo ees in-role task
performance. Bergeron (2007) argued that OCBs are especially likely to have harmful career
consequences when performed in organizations that reward outcomes more than behaviors and
when employees engage in OCBs that are challenging and time-consuming.
To sum up this chapter, Organizational Citizenship Behavior can have both positive and negative
consequences for organizations and individuals. How both management and employees manage
such behavior decides what kind of outcome it will lead to. After creating a clear picture of the
concept of Organizational Citizenship Behavior, the differences and similarities to other behavioral
concepts will be outlined in the following chapter.
17
2.1.4. Synonyms and Related Concepts of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Even though the focus in this thesis is on Organizational Citizenship Behavior, it is imperative to
notice that the existing literature consists of various other terms and concepts that describe similar
behavior, such as extra-role behavior, prosocial organizational behavior, and contextual
performance. This spectrum makes it tough to give a complete overlook over the development of
this research area. In the following, these terms and the difference between those and OCB will
be explained in detail.
2.1.4.1. Extra-role behavior

The first term explained is extra-role behavior and describes actions and behavior that are not
stated clearly in a job description or similar documents. It describes voluntary actions in addition
to their in-role tasks and behavior. On the other hand, in-role behavior describes work that is
e plicitl part of one s job (Organ, 1988; Vigoda-Gadot, 2006).
In practice, however, differentiating between in-role and extra-role presents itself as challenging.
Role expectations and role descriptions are never wholly objective, as a lot is transmitted via the
working environment and colleagues. Jobs can be seen as socially constructed and then
objectively defined. Hence, it is often challenging to state what kind of behavior is voluntary or
expected (Morrison, 1994; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978; Vigoda-Gadot, 2006). In addition,
organizational roles and related tasks are not fixed, but certain elements can change, making it
difficult to define what is in-role and what is extra-role behavior. By coming up with a way to
impro e efficienc , the job s complexity might increase, and the job, therefore, changes (Frese &
Fay, 2001). Thus, when working with the concept of OCB, the differences between these two
terms, in-role and extra-role, need to be precise to avoid confusion. However, not all extra-role
behavior is OCB. Van Dyne et al. (1995) see OCB as a minor component within the broader
framework of extra-role behavior (ERB). Principled organizational dissent and whistle-blowing, for
example, are two concepts included in ERB, which are not part of OCB (Rauf, 2015).
2.1.4.2. Prosocial Behavior

Another term closely related to the concept of Organizational Citizenship Behavior is prosocial
behavior. It describes individual and spontaneous actions towards others, often strangers,
intending to benefit them even though there is no immediate prospect of reward or compensation
associated with it. After a good deed, no further interaction is expected. One particular form of
prosocial behavior is altruism (Organ, 1988). Organ (1988) saw the theory as a suitable and
promising framework to study OCB. However, several forms of OCB guided towards the
organization rather than an individual would fall outside the scope of prosocial behavior. Similar
to OCB, prosocial behavior can also detract from the overall organizational effectiveness. It does
18
not always have to benefit the organization as it can be directed to individuals or organizations
(Brief & Motowidlo, 1986).
When adding the organizational perspective to this concept, it is called prosocial organizational
beha ior. It describes beha ior (a) performed b a member of an organi ation, (b) directed to ard
an individual, group, or organization with whom he or she interacts while carrying out his or her
organizational role, and (c) performed with the intention to promote the welfare of the individual,
gro p, or organi ation to ard hich it is directed (Brief & Moto idlo, 1986, p711). S ch beha ior
can either be functional or dysfunctional and in-role or extra-role (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986).
2.1.4.3. Contextual Performance

Contextual performance (CP) is a related framework of OCB. It was introduced by Borman and
Motowidlo in 1993 and describes behavioral actions outside the scope of a formal job description
and works as a counterpart and/or addition to the term task performance. Task performance
consists of job description tasks and activities, while contextual performance includes helping,
following rules, volunteering, endorsing organizational objectives, and persisting. While they might
not be part of a job description, they are still crucial for the organization to support the social,
psychological, and organizational environment. Task performance alone would not be enough for
an organization to function effectively (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993).
The contextual performance consists of five dimensions volunteering, helping and cooperating,
endorsing organizational objectives, following corporate rules, and persisting with extra effort
(Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Coleman and Borman (2000) then reduced it to the three factors
interpersonal citizenship performance (helping, altruism), organizational citizenship performance
(compliance, conscientiousness, civic virtue, loyalty, following rules), and job/task citizenship
performance (extra-effort, persisting). These dimensions are very similar to the ones of OCB.
Making a distinction between OCB and contextual performance is challenging as both terms refer
to similar behavioral elements. In general, which of the two terms and concepts scholars will
choose mainly depends on the reason for their research and, according to Motowidlo (2000), also
on the aesthetic preference. In the same paragraph, the author also brings the term extra-role
beha ior into the mi , clarif ing that all three terms e tra-role , conte t al , and citi enship
basically mean the same, namely interpersonal helping and only differ in small nuances.
19
In 2018, Organ published an overview of the development of OCB in which he also pointed out
the similarities between the three domains OCB, prosocial behavior, and extra-role behavior.
Consequently, even Organ, one of the founders of OCB, cannot completely separate the terms.
What pertains to CP or OCB will most likely qualify as prosocial behavior but not be relevant the
other way (Organ, 2018).
To sum up, Organizational Citizenship Behavior describes voluntary working behavior aimed to
s pport an organi ation s efficiency and effectiveness. Various other concepts and terms describe
similar behavior. The three biggest ones are conceptual performance, prosocial behavior, and
extra-role behavior. Which of them is used often depends on the personal preferences of the
scholars. The dimensions are manifold and vary from author to author. Various individual and
organizational factors can lead to OCB and influence its strength. The main antecedents are
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, personality, leadership, culture, and the underlying
moti es. Ho e er, the concept s nderl ing information comes from a primaril Western
perspective, even though it is considered an essential influencing factor on OCB. Thus, in the
following chapter, a cultural perspective will be added to the concept.
2.2. Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Culture
C lt re pla s a cr cial role in shaping the social and ps chological en ironment ithin hich OCB
takes place. An understanding of OCB would be incomplete without taking into account the
en ironment ithin hich organi ational members find themsel es (Earle & Calic, 2016, 2).
One of the antecedents described in the last chapter was culture. As there are many cultural
perspectives on OCB to consider, this factor is now looked at in more detail. It seems evident that
culture, primarily based on different values, beliefs, and behavior, also impacts OCB. Before laying
out the relationship between culture and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in more detail, the
term culture will be defined.
2.2.1. Culture
Culture is a broad topic and challenging to define. While it has frequently been connected to terms
such as ethnicity, nation, or race (Spencer-Oatey, 2012), others see culture as a set of values that
influences actions within a group (Schneider et al., 2014) or as abstract ideas of what society
perceives as right and desirable (Williams, 1970).
20
According to Schein (1990), c lt re is what a group learns over a period of time as that group
solves its problems of survival in an external environment and its problems of internal integration .
Thus, not only individuals have their own cultures, but every definable group does also
organizations. The group considered an organization learns to hold common assumptions and
consequently develops similar feeling, thinking, and behaving patterns. There can be one
organizational culture and many subcultures (Schein, 1985, 1990).
Culture consists of various aspects, which can also change over time due to exposure to other
cultures (Hofstede et al., 2010). Each definition covers different aspects. Matsumoto defines
culture as the set of attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors, shared by a group of people, but
different for each individual, communicated from one generation to the next (Matsumoto, 1996,
16). Spencer-Oate (2008) sees c lt re as a f set of basic ass mptions and al es,
orientations to life, beliefs, policies, procedures and behavioural conventions that are shared by a
gro p of people, and that infl ence (b t do not determine) each member s behaviour and his/her
interpretations of the meaning of other people s beha io r (Spencer-Oatey, 2008, p3).
One reason defining culture presents itself as challenging is that not all cultural values are visible
to others, sometimes not even for people within a particular culture (Schein, 2004). What one
perceives as given might not be expected in other cultures, which can have tremendous
consequences for a group. Especially when working together, different cultural perceptions might
lead to conflict and decrease performance (Shenkar & Zeira, 1992).
Besides, as each culture is defined by different values and beliefs that guide actions, culture is
often used to measure and explain variances in behavior (Kuchinke, 1999). Therefore, it needs
close attention, cultural empathy, and cultural intelligence to see, understand, and even adapt to
a c lt re s comple it . Passi el nderstanding the other s c lt ral backgro nd and beha ior
cannot s ffice to ens re a team s or gro p s iabilit , especiall as man c ltural characteristics
and components are not visible to others (Duarte & Snyder, 2013). Cultural Intelligence (CQ) refers
to the indi id al s capabilit to live in an alternative cultural environment, adapt to, and explore
differences (Earley & Ang, 2003; Thomas & Inkson, 2004).
To compare national cultures with each other, various cultural models and concepts have been
created. One of the most famous and broadly used ones are the country profiles based on
Hofstede s si c lt ral dimensions (2001). It consists of power distance, individualism, masculinity,
uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, and Indulgence. Power distance represents an
unequal distribution of power within society or an organization and the acceptance by the less
powerful members. Individualism reflects the degree of interdependence between members of a
21
societ and the importance of I and We ithin a gro p. Masc linit foc ses on strength,
success, and money compared to femininity focusing on empathy, emotions, and cooperation.
Uncertainty avoidance is based on how people try to avoid experiencing uncertainty or whether it
enjoys not knowing what will happen. The long-term orientation dimension focuses on the outlook
on life, work, and relationships. Indulgence describes the degree of controlling one s imp lses and
desires (Hofstede Insights, 2021). This model works as a simple tool to compare cultures across
six dimensions, giving an insight into how people from a specific country think and behave.
It can be summarized that culture is a complex and changing concept based on attitudes, values,
and beliefs that guide behavior, policies, and decision. Based on personal cultural values, it also
defines ho other people s actions are percei ed. Not all c lt ral alues are visible to others.
People working in a multicultural context need to understand cultural differences in expected
behavior and communication to avoid conflicts and misunderstandings. One type of workplace
behavior will be discussed in the next part of the literature review.
After defining the concepts of Organizational Citizenship Behavior and culture, the next step is to
establish the relationship between them and create a linkage bet een Hofstede s c lt ral
dimensions and the ones of OCB. Furthermore, a closer look will be taken at the existing studies
on OCB within various cultural contexts before the literature gap and research question are
presented.
2.2.2. Organizational Citizenship Behavior within a Cultural Context
Similar to most behavioral concepts, OCB is strongly influenced by the context. Individual values
and ethics can influence the perception of Organizational Citizenship Behavior and the willingness
to engage in such behavior (Turnipseed, 2002; Xu, 2004). Cultural norms might encourage or
discourage employees from helping others, depending on their focus (Paine & Organ, 2000).
However, as most OCB literature comes from the United States, theories mainly focus on the
Western world and do not consider cultural differences and influences (Ocampo et al., 2017).
Podsakoff et al. (2000), who came up with an extensive list of OCB antecedents, has not even
listed culture as an influencing factor. Neither did LePine et al. (2002) in their meta-analysis of
existing literature on OCB.
While some researchers have identified this gap (e. g. Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Farh et al., 1997;
Paine & Organ, 2000), researchers have not started investigating this area actively until the late
1990s, early 2000s. It took over 40 years between the development of voluntary workplace
behavior and 15 years between the naming of OCB and the first study on the dimensionality of
22
OCB in the East. Farh et al. (1997) were under the first ones to investigate OCB concerning the
cultural context. Before that, published studies were either based on U.S. samples using U.S.
scales or non-U.S. samples still using U.S. OCB scales. This significant time difference says a lot
about the lack of recognition of the cultural dimension it received back then.
Farh et al. (1997) and Farh et al. (2004) point out the difficulties with OCB and culture and the
deficit of existing literature dealing with culture. In her summary of recent research developments,
Ueda (2016) laid out the national differences in studies based on restricted access in some
countries and the need for a meta-analytical study on OCB studies across nationalities. Even
Organ (2018) stated that culture influences OCB and that the OCB literature requires more
research on this topic.
Earley & Calic (2016) pointed out the strong influence of culture when learning about OCB
behavior, antecedents, and outcomes. They see cultural intelligence as a common effect or
moderating influence on the perception of justice and, consequently, OCB dimensions such as
altruism or courtesy. Summarizing these studies, it appears valid to state that culture is a
significant influencing factor on OCB and its dimensions. On the following pages, the importance
of the cultural context regarding the dimensions, antecedents, and outcomes is explained.
There are various ways in which culture can intervene with OCB. Paine and Organ (2000) have
graphically depicted this influence on commitment and motivation and, consequently, the
individual perception and likelihood of demonstrating OCB (see figure 1). With 38 participants from
26 countries, the study gives a brief glimpse at how challenging it is to apply the concept of OCB
globally. According to them, even though the extent or explicit action might vary, altruistic,
conscious, and intrinsically motivated behavior occurs in all places worldwide. In collective
cultures, for example, such activities are often considered in-role. Furthermore, the reward and
training needed to foster OCB can also vary and challenge HR managers.
Figure 1: The intervening process of Culture (Paine & Organ, 2000)
23
2.2.2.1. Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Cultural Dimensions
OCB dimensions can be linked to the cultural dimensions defined by Hofstede. According to
Becton and Field (2009), the OCB factors personal support, including helping others, providing
emotional support, showing respect, motivating others, and informing them about developments
they did not know about, is strongly related to the cultural dimension of collectivism, which is about
putting the collective first (Hofstede, 2001). Simultaneously, it is negatively related to masculinity
as helping others, teaching, and emotional support are feminine characteristics. However, this
was not statistically supported (Becton & Field, 2009).
Organi ational s pport (s pporting the organi ation s objecti es, defending the organi ation,
complying with organizational procedures and rules) is also related to the dimension of
collectivism. Furthermore, countries with a high uncertainty avoidance level seem to report a
higher organizational support level (Becton & Field, 2009).
The third OCB dimension Becton and Field (2009) link to Hofstede s c lt ral dimensions is taking
the initiative. According to the authors, it is related to cultural values power distance and long-term
orientation. Low power distance could encourage initiative and, thus, increase the chance of
employees engaging in OCB. High long-term orientation could be related to a high OCB level as
the positive effects of OCB are expected to return over a more extended period. However, this
hypothesis could not be supported.
The OCB dimension conscientious initiative is related to the cultural value power distance.
Participative leadership leads to a higher level of taking the initiative. In contrast, a high power
distance and a more hierarchical leadership might influence employees to only do the minimum
as taking initiative and coming up with new ideas and improvements could appear like employees
try to take authority away from the leaders (Paine & Organ, 2000).
2.2.2.2. Organizational Citizenship Behavior Dimensions across

Cultures
The dimensions used to analyze OCB can differ across cultures due to cultural values. Farh et al.
(2004) and Farh et al. (1997) examined OCB in China and Taiwan in comparison to existing
studies coming from the United States. Kumar and Bakhshi (2009), investigating OCB in India and
Rauf and Kumar (2015), looking at Sri Lanka, came to the same conclusion. As most literature in
this area comes from the West, more precisely from the United States, and cultural values are
prone to influence behavior, it does not appear suitable to describe and analyze the same topic in
non-Western regions. Figure 2 displays the dimensions of Western OCB literature and the ones
developed in the four studies mentioned above.
24
Figure 2: Comparison of OCB scales in different cultures (Rauf, 2015)
While the list of dimensions in the West nowadays consists of between five to seven factors, for
Taiwan, they identified three etic (universal) dimensions similar to those of Western studies,
namely altruism towards colleagues, conscientiousness, and identification with the company. The
latter one is similar to civic virtue. Protecting company resources and interpersonal harmony are
additional dimensions in the Taiwanese OCB scale, so-called emic or culture-specific dimensions
(Farh et al. 1997).
For China, Farh et al. (2004) identified ten dimensions, five being somewhat similar to commonly
used dimensions (taking initiative and conscientiousness; helping co-workers and helping
behavior; voice and voice; promoting company image and loyalty; participating in group activities
and civic virtue). The other five are culture-specific (self-training, social welfare participation,
keeping the workspace clean, protecting/saving company resources, interpersonal harmony).
In Kumar and Bakhshi s (2009) study on OCB within the Indian culture, they identified five main
OCB components similar to Western literature: conscientiousness, group activity participation,
courtesy, helping co-workers, and sportsmanship. According to the authors, while those five
dimensions have broad cultural applicability, the underlying behavior still differs.
25
The fourth study represented in the table studied OCB in Sri Lanka. Helping behavior,
conscientiousness, individual initiative, sportsmanship, and defending (similar to loyalty) are
related to the western scale, while self-discipline, conserving university properties, and self-
development are etic dimensions (Rauf & Kumar, 2015).
However, it is vital to mention that the Western components displayed in figure 2 are not complete
but only represent a small number of the dimensions. Therefore, it is to add that some of the added
dimensions of the non-Western context still relate to types of behavior analyzed and defined
before. The first example is self-development by Rauf and Kumar (2015). It is similar to George
and Brief s (1992) dimension of self-development. Both concepts closely relate to self-training, a
dimension found in the Chinese culture (Farh et al., 2004).
Furthermore, the self-discipline dimension by Rauf and Kumar (2015) is very similar to the
courtesy dimension defined by Organ (1988). However, self-discipline encompasses a broader
context and not just work-life (Rauf, 2015). A third example for such a dimension is van Dyne et
al. s (1994) f nctional participation, a behavior where individuals focus on themselves and not
others within the organization. This behavior is considered to be in-role and, thus, not part of OCB.
At the same time, advocacy participation (the willingness to be controversial and to focus on
others, e. g. encouraging quiet employees to speak up in meetings) by van Dyne et al. (1994) is
not a critical OCB dimension as Sri Lankans favor interpersonal harmony over conflict (Valters,
2013).
In their study conducted in Thailand, Rurkkhum and Bartlett (2017) used Hofstede's dimensions
and created a new instrument to measure OCB in collectivist cultures based on previous research.
They emphasized the need for a tool that is customized to collectivistic cultures when measuring
OCB. After an extensive literature review and various rounds of interviews and surveys, they came
up with 43 items and 6 OCB dimensions suitable for a collectivistic culture helping others, self-
development, organizational loyalty, developing others, civic virtue, and obedience. While there is
a clear o erlap ith Organ s (1988) dimensions (see civic virtue and organizational loyalty), the
dimension conscientiousness was split up into diligence and obedience as specific actions within
this dimension are considered in-role in collectivistic cultures (Rurkkhum & Bartlett, 2017). This
finding does not align ith Hofstede s statement that obe ing a thorities is deemed normal
behavior in high power-distance and high collectivist cultures. Also, sportsmanship was eliminated
due to the higher level of group harmony in collectivistic cultures. The dimension helping others
can be linked to a high level of empathy and femininity, as per Hofstede (2001). This study once
again reflects the differences in how the dimensions and actions are perceived.
26
2.2.2.3. Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Other Cultural
Differences
Nonetheless, not only can the dimensions be culture-specific, cultural norms and values might
also affect the antecedents of OCB (Rauf, 2015). Tang and Ibrahim (1998), for example,
investigated the influence of culture on OCB in the Middle East and the United States. According
to them, which dispositional factor has the most substantial impact on such behavior depends on
the region. In the Middle East, self-esteem was a predictor of compliance and altruism, while this
was not the case for the United States.
Also, some citizenship behavior might be more effective in a national culture than another, and,
thus, culture defines the impact of such actions on the organizational performance (Begley et al.,
2002; Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Paine & Organ, 2000). Taking Japan as an example, specific
voluntary actions benefitting the organization are typically taken for granted in Eastern cultures
such as Japan. Therefore, researchers in Japan have not given this kind of behavior attention until
the late 1990s (Tanaka, 2013).
Moreover, the extent of how much people show OCB depends on the culture. Moorman and
Blakely (1995) have been the first to argue that certain cultures might experience a greater OCB
level than others. People from collectivist cultures appear more likely to engage in OCB than
individualistic cultures. Their statement is based on the assumption that greater emphasis is
placed on harmony and helping others within collectivist cultures. In this case, cultural values take
on a moderating role between OCB and its antecedents (Begley et al., 2002), depending on such
actions cultural desirability (Xu, 2004).
However, while people from collective cultures might be more likely to engage in OCB, previous
studies have given evidence that the perception of what is considered in-role and extra-role
depends on the cultural context. Jiao et al. (2013) argued that in Confucian Asian countries (such
as China), Organizational Citizenship Behavior is considered in-role more often than North
Americans. Hui et al. (2004) identified that specific dimensions such as sportsmanship and
courtesy are considered part of the job, showing that the definition of OCB varies across cultures.
Lam et al. (1999) argued that participants from Japan and Hong Kong were more likely to consider
some OCB items as in-role than American and Australian participants. They analyzed the different
perceptions of supervisors and subordinates about what is expected in their job. Two years later,
Nikolau and Robertson (2001) have also stated that many Greek supervisors also perceive the
OCB items as in-role and not extra-role. In 2008, Kwantes et al. came to a similar conclusion.
They have analyzed the influence culture has on the perception of OCB as in-role or extra-role
activities across various ethnic groups in Canada. They e pected that Generali ed social beliefs
27
will predict the extent to which all OCB dimensions are views as in-role versus extra-role (K antes
et al., 2008, p233) and used OCB items based on previous studies by Podsakoff et al. (1990),
Moorman and Blakely (1995), and Morrison (1994).
These studies work as proof that perceptions of OCB across multiple ethnical groups within one
country can vary. Thus, OCB items have to be adapted to the cultural context surveys are
conducted. If this is not the case, measuring the willingness to engage in OCB will not be fruitful
due to the varying OCB understanding.
To sum up the topic on culture-specific Organizational Citizenship Behavior, existing theories on

Organizational Citizenship Behavior mainly focus on the Western world (Ocampo et al., 2017).
Until the early 2000s, culture was not considered an OCB antecedent (LePine et al., 2002;
Podsakoff et al., 2000). However, multiple authors since then have stressed the importance of
including the cultural context to understand OCB, its dimensions, and influences fully. Only in the
past decades have authors started to look at other geographical and cultural regions (Farh et al.,
1997; Farh et al., 2004; Turnipseed & Murkison, 2000).
Still, while there is a growing body of literature on OCB in Asia, not many authors have analyzed
OCB in a European context. Paillé (2009) is one of the few scholars to do so. According to him,
the dimensions applicable for the French context differ from the OCB scales of Podsakoff &
MacKenzie (1997) and Podsakoff et al. (1990). The appropriate dimensions in this context would
be altruism, civic virtue, helping behavior, and sportsmanship. All these studies prove how vital
the cultural context is for defining OCB dimensions. The study by Turnipseed and Murkinson
(2000) analyzes the cultural differences of OCB between the United States and Romania.
Because of being under a communist regime for a long time, people were not used to a positive
working environment, fairness at the workplace, or sufficient salary. Thus, the authors expected a
relatively low OCB level in Romania. The st d s res lts show a clear difference in OCB levels
that could be linked to the working climate and the progressive work culture in the United States
compared to Romania.
In the literature review, the overall influence of culture on OCB has been laid out, and the overlap
between specific dimensions is clearly visible. However, not all Western dimensions can be found
in other cultures. Simultaneously, some dimensions that arose in the non-Western context are not
part of the Western scale. However, these studies did not consider that what is perceived as OCB
and its effectiveness is also based on the cultural context, showing the high complexity and the
prominent role culture plays in dimensionality.
28
Scholars have called for more extensive research on OCB in cultural contexts outside the United
States (Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Organ, 1997). Since then, various studies have confirmed the
existence of cultural influence on OCB (Becton & Field, 2009; Earley & Calic, 2016; Farh et al.,
2004; Lam et al., 1999). However, the number of articles analyzing the influence of cultural values
on OCB is still comparably low because even after that, the factor culture has not been present in
all studies.
Farh et al. (1997) and Farh et al. (2004) pointed out the difficulties with OCB and culture and the
deficit of existing literature dealing with the cultural dimension. Moreover, in her summary of recent
research developments, Ueda (2016) emphasize the necessity of looking at different cultures to
clarify how far OCB varies. In her book on OCB, Rauf (2015) differentiated Western and Eastern
theories, showing the importance of the studies origin. Furthermore, only two years ago, Organ
(2018) called for investigating cultural differences within the OCB literature. Due to this article s
timeliness and the crucial role Organ is playing in the field of OCB, one can assume that this gap
is legitimate and still existent.
Farh et al. (1997) and Farh et al. (2004) have tried to create a list of OCB dimensions useful for
the non-Western world. Rurkkhum & Bartlett (2017) have also made an instrument to measure
OCB in collectivist cultures based on the perception of what actions appear voluntary. However,
they did not compare two cultures but rather used existing literature from the West and tested it in
one cultural region in the East.
While there is still is a relatively low number of articles looking at the relationship between cultural
values and Organizational Citizenship Behavior, the number of studies comparing the perception
of OCB in different cultures is even lower. So far, only a few authors have managed to look at the
perceived level of voluntariness across cultures. Lam et al. (1999), Kwantes et al. (2008), Nikolau
and Robertson (2001), and Rurkkhum & Barlett (2017) have pointed out the ambiguity of
distinguishing between in-role and extra-role behavior across cultures.
However, there is room for criticism here. Lam et al. (1999) have only looked at the East Asian
region and two English-speaking formerly colonialized countries. Thus, their sample could be even
more differentiated by including countries from other world areas. Paine and Organ (2000), aiming
to create a rather big picture of how far culture might influence OCB, have chosen a relatively
small sample size of 38 participants across 26 countries using only 10 OCB items for
measurement. To further investigate this field, they have suggested looking at more cultures more
closely to understand better what is perceived OCB and what is not. Furthermore, the study by
Kwantes et al. (2008) was carried out in one geographical region, namely Canada, and only
29
considered the cultural values of migrants of different generations. Thus, this study does not seem
to depict the range of the different perceptions of OCB fully.
Based on these statements and the yet to finish picture on cultural differences in OCB literature,
especially in the cultural region of Europe, this thesis will tackle the present issue and aims to
close the existing research gap on cultural perceptions of OCB, focusing on one particular factor,
namely the level of voluntariness. Therefore, the research question is as follows:
How is the voluntariness of Organizational Citizenship Behavior perceived across

cultures?
This thesis aims to add to the existing literature on Organizational Citizenship Behavior and create
a link between two cultural regions, Central Europe and East Asia. If not closed, the understanding
of OCB in theory and practice is not complete, as pointed out in previous studies on the topic.
Closing it would help both researchers and practitioners better understand the issue and support
employees and managers to better comprehend how to work with people from other cultures and
what expectations need to be communicated better and in more depth. Moreover, by comparing
selected countries of Central Europe and East Asia, the cultural diversity in the OCB literature will
be improved. Answers to this research question will be given in the following chapters.
As the cultural regions investigated in this study are Central Europe and East Asia, figures 3 and
4 show Austria and Germany (representing Central Europe) and China and Taiwan (representing
East Asia). The most significant differences between the cultures can be seen in the dimensions
power distance and individualism. Austria and Germany have a far lower level of power distance.
At the same time, China and Taiwan appear to be very collectivist cultures with a high level of
power-distance and long-term orientation (Hofstede Insights, 2021).
In Austria (blue) and Germany (purple), independence, accessible superiors, equal rights, and
decentralized power are essential parts of an organization. Employees expect to work for
themselves; the relationship between managers and employees is based on a contract, loyalty
comes from personal preferences. Both parties desire direct and participating communication. As
masculine societies, Austrians and Germans want to be the best; their work is based on
competition and performance. Conflicts are fought out. Furthermore, leisure time is more important
to them than work (Hofstede Insights, 2021).
30
The opposite goes for China (blue) and Taiwan (purple). In the East Asian culture, inequality
amongst people is acceptable, power abuse by superiors is widely accepted. Both countries are
highly collectivist, acting in the interest of the group and not of themselves. Employee commitment
towards the organization is low; the relationship between co-workers, however, is strong. Both
countries score very high on long-term orientation, focusing on the future (Hofstede Insights,
2021).
Figure 3: Hofstede's cultural dimensions for Austria and Germany (Hofstede Insights, 2021)
Figure 4: Hofstede's cultural dimensions for China and Taiwan (Hofstede Insights, 2021)
This study is designed to recognize the existence, not the causality of differences in the
voluntariness perception of Organizational Citizenship Behavior between collectivistic and
individualistic cultures in Asia and Europe. However, as the existing differences in cultural values
might influence OCB dimensions more than others, it is arguable that specific dimensions show a
more considerable difference between the European and Asian participants than others. The
actions and their assignment to the dimensions come from existing studies and their models and
items used.
31
Looking at OCB dimensions, conscientiousness describes voluntary actions regarding punctuality,
conserving resources, and going beyond minimum requirements. It is known that behavior such
as staying at work late and treating others with respect are necessary actions within collectivistic
cultures and are thus not considered OCB (Rurkkhum & Bartlett, 2017). The substantial
importance of respect across the hierarchy is depicted in the cultural dimension of power distance.
Therefore, the perceived level of voluntariness of such actions will be lower in Asia than in Europe.
Hypothesis 1: The level of perceived voluntariness of OCB actions classified under the dimension
Conscientiousness is higher in European countries than in Asian countries.
It can be assumed that behavior aimed towards expressing new ideas without being asked is not
favored in Asia. Thus, managers might not only not expect it but rather expect it not to happen.
Taking initiative is also related to the cultural dimension long-term orientation, which is very strong
in China and Taiwan (Hofstede Insights, 2021). At the same time, the high power distance level
might reduce the emplo ees willingness to take initiative (Paine & Organ, 2000). In Europe, taking
the initiative is considered positive and is fostered by lower power distance (Becton & Field, 2009;
Hofstede Insights, 2021). Yet, this might also lead to higher expectations by the management.
Initiative is higher in Asian countries than in European countries.
Helping co-workers is considered extremely important in collectivist cultures, emphasizing

interpersonal relationships (Hofstede Insights, 2021). In this study, these "helping" actions are
included in the dimension of volunteerism. Thus, this might not be seen as voluntary in collectivistic
cultures but as expected to retain a good atmosphere within the organizations.
Volunteerism is higher in European countries than in Asian countries.
The dimension boosterism includes talking good about the company and defending the
organization when others criticize it (see Kwantes et al., 2008; van Dyne et al., 1994). Defending
the company would mean publicly criticizing another person's opinion and presenting it as false.
This does not go hand in hand with the cultural values of a collectivist society, which is about
respect and the "saving face" (Merkin, 2017; Moorman & Blakely, 1995, Rurkkhum & Barlett,
2017). Therefore, in this case too, this behavior is not only not expected, but is even negatively
affected. In Europe, however, this is a sign of loyalty and organizational commitment and therefore
welcomed or even expected. In previous research by Becton and Field (2009), talking good about
32
the organization and defending it was called organizational support. Countries with a high
uncertainty avoidance level, such as China or Taiwan (see figure 4), seem to report a comparably
lower level of organizational support. Such behavior would indicate that such actions are probably
considered extra-role rather than in-role. Hence, one can conclude that the voluntariness
perception of boosterism is higher in Asia than in Europe.
Boosterism is higher in Asian countries than in European countries.
The OCB Dimension Sportsmanship includes the willingness to accept inconveniences in a work
context without complaining about them (Organ, 1990). Based on the critical role of harmony in
groups and companies in collectivist cultures (Moorman & Blakely, 1995), it can be argued that
people from these cultural regions are willing to accept more to maintain harmony. Therefore, it
can be assumed that the feeling of voluntariness in relation to the dimension of sportsmanship is
higher in European countries than in Asian countries.
Sportsmanship is higher in European countries than in Asian countries.
Based on the existing literature and hypotheses 1-5, it can be assumed that Organizational
Citizenship Behavior is perceived to be voluntary more often in Europe than in Asia. Moorman &
Blakely (1995) found a "wished" level of harmony and a high level of helping others in collectivistic
cultures. In collectivist cultures, common goals that benefit a bigger group of people are rated
more important than individual goals. Also, Jiao et al. (2013), Hui et al. (2004), and Lam et al.
(1999) have already found out that some OCB items are considered in-role rather than extra-role
in Asian countries such as China, Hong Kong, or Japan. Thus, such actions are not perceived as
voluntary but rather mandatory to achieve the common organizational objective (Rurkkhum &
Bartlett, 2017). Currently, there are no studies on the perceived voluntariness of OCB in Europe.
Hypothesis 6: OCB scores on the perceived level of voluntariness will be higher in Europe than in
Asia.
Due to the relatively low number of articles on OCB comparisons within different cultural contexts,
the last hypothesis is rather broad and covers all dimensions. Hypotheses 1 to 5 are more specific
and look at the five most essential dimensions of the questionnaire. To answer the research
question and to statistically support or discard these five hypotheses, a quantitative study was
conducted, which will be explained in more detail in the next chapter.
33
3. Methodology
The literature suggests, that culture works as a vital influential factor for Organizational Citizenship
Behavior. Still, while scholars have looked at cultural differences in antecedents or dimensions,
they have not dealt with the issue of voluntariness across cultures. Earley and Calic (2016) stated
that specific cultural values could influence behavior and even the perception of fairness, trust,
and power. All three factors are essential indicators for OCB. Hence, they might vary depending
on the cultural context. In this study, ethnicity is used to measure cultural differences, and
Hofstede s (2001) c lt ral dimensions are sed to e plain them.
One of the main defining factors of OCB is the voluntariness of the actions. It has been previously
proven that the perception of whether something is considered in-role/mandatory or extra-
role/voluntary may differ due to organizational commitment and social cues (Morrison, 1994;
Nikolau & Robertson, 2001; Paine & Organ, 2000). However, as working behavior varies from one
culture to another, the level of voluntariness could also be affected by it. What is considered
voluntary in one country might be taken for granted and even expected. Kwantes et al. (2008)
ha e pointed o t that s ch differences might be based on people s ethnicit , pro iding evidence
by comparing Canadian citizens with different cultural backgrounds. Whether there is a cultural
difference in the perception of OCB and the level of voluntariness guiding the concept will be
answered in this study. On the following pages, the chosen methodology and details about the
study will be laid out.
The first part of this report was a detailed review of the current state of research on OCB and
culture and the definition of a research gap. Most literature and also measurement scales come
from the Western world. Only in the past decades have scholars approached to create a culturally
diverse picture of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Still, most of these studies look at one
country at a time. When comparing the Eastern and Western world, literature primarily dealt with
two countries as representatives for each of them, namely China and North America (Becton &
Field, 2009; Xu, 2004). However, this research also emphasizes the need for a broader picture to
generalize the findings better and create a concise and coherent picture of cultural differences in
the perception of OCB.
34
A quantitative approach to compare European countries as a representative of the Western World
and East Asian countries, including China and Taiwan, was chosen to close this gap. As the
perceptions about workplace actions can be depicted in numbers, this seems to be the appropriate
approach. Furthermore, not many studies on Europe have been published so far. Therefore, to
best answer the research question, a survey was conducted using actions previously defined as
OCB to determine which of them are actually considered OCB and which they feel are directly or
indirectly expected.
In the past, Organizational Citizenship Behavior has been measured chiefly through quantitative
studies by using either supervisor ratings or self-evaluation. However, the dimensions and actions
investigated in the different studies vary. Thus, which items should be used to measure OCB best
is not clear. Consequently, new scales are being created to include the most critical factors for
each study.
Based on the popularity and similarity of studies to this one, the basis for the questionnaire were
three different studies by Podsakoff et al. (1990), van Dyne et al. (1994), and Kwantes et al. (2008).
In 1990, Podsakoff et al. created a 24-scale measurement with typical actions used for managers
to define their emplo ees level of OCB. Since then, many researchers have used their scale either
by itself or as a foundation to create a new one. In 2008, Argentero et al. then rephrased these
items to be used for self-assessment of the employees. Van D ne et al. s (1994) list consists of
54 items. The third set of items used comes from the cross-cultural study of Kwantes et al. (2008),
in which the authors generated a new list of 47 items based on older studies (Moorman & Blakely,
1995; Morrison, 1994; Podsakoff et al., 1990).
However, most scales were designed to be used in combination with a Likert scale to determine
how willing people are to follow the respective actions. As this study aims to measure the
perceived level of voluntariness and not the overall willingness, some of these items were not
feasible to use. Thus, unnecessary items were eliminated, the remaining ones merged and
rephrased, resulting in a final count of 31 items visible in appendix A.
Rurkkhum and Bartlett (2017) have previously created a set of items used to measure OCB in
collectivistic cultures and, thus, eliminated specific actions as they are considered more in-role
than extra-role. However, as this study compares individualistic and collectivistic cultures, these
items were not eliminated from this study. It will be interesting to see whether the results of this
study resemble this.
35
The items were then linked to five OCB dimensions. As the present study is similar to Kwantes et
al. (2008), the items assignment of the items to specific dimensions as taken o er from this
study. Overall, the questionnaire consists of five dimensions conscientiousness, initiative,
volunteerism, boosterism, and sportsmanship. As described in the literature review, the meaning
behind the various dimension differs from one author to another. In this case, the dimension
conscientiousness includes punctuality, conserving resources, housekeeping, and going beyond
minimum requirements (Organ, 1990). The dimension initiative includes actions to improve the
individual and overall performance (Moorman & Blakely, 1995). Volunteering to carry out
additional tasks not officiall part of one s job is defined as ol nteerism (Borman & Moto idlo,
1993). Actions that aim to promote the corporate image to outsiders are collected under
boosterism (Moorman & Blakely, 1995). Sportsmanship describes tolerating inevitable
inconveniences without grievance or whining (Organ, 1990) (see Kwantes et al., 2008)
Furthermore, due to the similarity of the study by Kwantes et al. (2008), the same 5-factor Likert
scale ranging from extra-role to in-role was used (1=in-role, 2=somewhat in-role, 3=undecided,
4=somewhat extra-role, 5=extra-role). As the actions in question have previously been used to
measure OCB in the Western and Eastern world, such a five-scale survey conducted in both
geographical and cultural areas made it possible to compare their perception of OCB dimensions
and their levels of voluntariness.
The target group for this study were people from Austria, Germany, China, and Taiwan who have
already collected working experience. The sector they worked in, their working hours, and the
level of their position did not matter but were measured as control variables to enhance the validity
of the study. They were not crucial for the results and the analysis but essential to ensure the
participants belonged to the target group. In addition, to eliminate all other possible variables that
explain differences in voluntariness perceptions, the additional variables gender and age were
included in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was created using Google Forms and posted in
various social media groups and survey tools such as S r e Circle at the end of March 2021.
The survey was closed in May 2021 after one week without getting any new responses. The results
of the study will be presented in the following chapter.
36
4. Analysis
The cultures examined were Austria and Germany as representatives of the individualistic Central
European cultures and China and Taiwan as representatives of the East Asian and collectivist
cultures. As previously displayed, there seems to be a significant difference between those cultural
groups in terms of power distance and individualism.
In this study, the independent variable was the cultural background measured through the
nationalit of the participants in combination ith Hofstede s (2001) c lt ral dimensions to define
cultural differences. Other cultural values were not measured to keep the questionnaire as short
as possible.
The independent variable is the perception of voluntariness of Organizational Citizenship

Behavior. OCB was split up into five dimensions conscientiousness, initiative, volunteerism,
boosterism, and sportsmanship (fig re 5). In combination ith Hofstede s (2001) c lt ral
dimensions, they work as the basis for formulating the six hypotheses. For the analysis, the
software tool JASP Version 0.14.1 was used. The first step of the analysis is the descriptive
analysis, including the statistical descriptives and reliability testing followed by a detailed analysis
of the six hypotheses.
Figure 5: Variables and Hypotheses
37
4.1. Reliability Testing
The next step of the analysis was reliability testing to estimate the reliability and internal
consistency of the multiple-question variables. An alpha higher than 0.7 is considered acceptable,
higher than 0.8 good, and a score over 0.9 is considered excellent (Statistics How To, 2021). The
single-test reliabilit anal sis cond cted in JASP sho s a point estimate of Cronbach s alpha of
0.896 for the dimension of conscientiousness, 0.868 for initiative, 0.826 for volunteerism, and
0.818 for sportsmanship. These results show high reliability between the different items across all
five dimensions. For the dimension boosterism no reliability analysis could be conducted as a
minimum of three variables is needed.
Dimension C nbach alpha

Conscientiousness 0.896
Initiative 0.868
Volunteerism 0.826
Boosterism -
Sportsmanship 0.818
Table 2: Reliability Testing
4.2. Descriptive Statistics

More than 300 people accessed the survey, 213 finished it, and n = 204 answers were valid. Of
these 204 participants, 58.33% of all participants were from Europe (n = 119) and 41.67% from
Asia (n = 85). The total number of participants consists of 56 people from Austria, 63 from
Germany, 36 from China, and 49 from Taiwan. In total, 137 were female, and 67 were male.
68.24% of the Asian participants were female (n = 58) and 31.76% were male (n = 27). From the
119 European participants, 66.39% were female (n = 79) and 33.61% male (n = 40). The mean
age is 26.196, with a standard deviation of 5.592. The maximum age was 65 years, while the
minimum age was 20. With 26.672, the mean age of the European participants was slightly higher
than the one of the Asian participants (25.529 years). The distribution of the descriptive information
across the two cultural regions can be found in table 3.
38
Total Europe Asia
Gender
Female 137 79 58
Male 67 40 27
Total 204 119 85
Area
Business, management, and administration 80 32 48
Sales and retail 27 22 5
Science and technology 16 10 6
Architecture and engineering 9 2 7
Others (all other areas) 72 53 19
Total 204 119 85
Position
Senior employee 59 14 13
Junior employee 103 62 41
Intern 27 32 27
Trainee/Apprentice 15 11 4
Total 204 119 85
Table 3: Descriptives of Demographic Variables
The participants were asked to think of one particular working experience they have collected
personally within an organization. These experiences are spread over 14 different areas (including
others), with business, management, and administration being the most common area (n = 80),
followed by sales and retail (n = 27) and science and technology (n = 16). The rarest business
areas were farming, fishing, and forestry and government, each mentioned twice. For both groups,
business, management, and administration are the most common professions (Europe = 32 and
Asia = 48). For Europe, sales and retail is the second most common area (n = 22), followed by
others (n = 12). For Asia, the area rated second is architecture and engineering (n = 7), mentioned
once more than science and technology and health and medicine with six participants each.
39
The variable position aimed to find out which position one holds within an organization. The options
were junior employee, senior employee, trainee, or intern. With n = 103, 50.5% held a position as
a junior employee. 59 participants were senior employees (28.92%), 27 interns (13.24%), and 15
held a trainee or apprenticeship position (7.35%). No changes in the order of profession between
Asian and European participants were detected. However, there are slight differences in the
percentages. In Europe, 52.1% held a junior position (n = 62), 11.76% a senior position (n = 14).
26.89% were interns (n = 32) and 9.24% (n = 11) apprentices or trainees. In Asia, the numbers
were 48.24% (n = 41), 15.29% (n = 13), 31.76% (n = 27), and 4.71% (n = 4).
Total Europe Asia

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Conscientiousness 2.173 0.807 2.160 0.745 2.192 0.891
Initiative 2.887 0.963 2.634 0.831 3.242 1.025
Volunteerism 2.926 0.939 3.021 0.850 2.792 1.041
Boosterism 3.098 1.248 3.025 1.326 3.200 1.129
Sportsmanship 2.637 1.081 2.961 1.093 2.184 0.889
OCB 2.585 0.718 2.567 0.623 2.609 0.837
Table 4: Descriptives OCB Dimensions
Table 4 summarizes the statistical descriptives for the individual dimensions across both cultural
areas. For the dimension conscientiousness, the total mean is 2.173, with a standard deviation of
0.807. The mean of the European groups is slightly lower than that of the Asian group (2.160 vs.
2.192). The standard deviations are 0.745 and 0.891. Thus, the Asian participants seem to
consider items under the dimension conscientiousness as more extra-role than Europeans do.
The mean for the second dimension initiative is 2.887, and the standard deviation is 0.963. With
a mean of 2.634, the European group shows a lower voluntariness perception than the Asian
group (3.242). The standard deviations for both groups are 0.831 and 1.025, respectively. Thus,
the Asian group shows a broader range of responses.
The demographics of the dimension volunteerism show a mean of 2.926 with a standard deviation
of 0.939. Looking at the cultural regions, volunteerism has a mean of 3.021 in Europe and 2.792
for Asia with a standard deviation of 0.850 and 1.041, respectively.
With 3.098, the dimension boosterism has the highest overall mean. The standard deviation is
1.248. The descriptives of the dimension show a slightly lower mean for the European group than
for the Asian group (3.025 vs. 3.200). On the other hand, the standard deviation is higher in Europe
than in Asia (1.326 and 1.192).
40
The overall mean of the dimension sportsmanship is 2.637 and the standard deviation is 1.081.
The European group has a mean of 2.961 and a standard deviation of 1.093. The Asian group
has a mean of 2.184 and a standard deviation of 0.889. This already shows a generally medium
to low level of perceived voluntariness.
The descriptives for OCB show a mean of 2.585 overall, 2.567 for Europe, and 2.609 for Asia with
standard deviations of 0.718, 0.623, and 0.837. Thus, it seems as if the answers of the Asian
participants were spread out more than the ones of the European group.
4.1. Hypotheses Testing
After the descriptive statistics analysis, the next step is to test the hypotheses using the
independent sample one-tailed t-test. Figures 6 and 7 show a summary of the t-test results.
Figure 6: Independent Samples T-Test Overview 1
Figure 7: Independent Samples T-Test Overview 2
41
Hypothesis 1: Conscientiousness
Hypothesis 1 states that the level of perceived voluntariness of OCB actions classified under the
dimension conscientiousness is higher in European countries than in Asian countries. In this study,
the dimension conscientiousness includes 13 items.
An independent samples t-test was conducted to test the hypothesis (figure 8). With a significance
level of 0.05, the student independent sample t-test shows a t-value of -0.275 and a p-value of
0.608. The t- al e can be interpreted as the difference between the observed means weighted
by its precision, while the p-value analyzes the statistical significance of a hypothesis (JASP,
2018). The higher the t-value, the bigger the difference between the two groups. Thus, a t-value
of 0.275 does not indicate a big difference.
The assumption check showed that none of the two assumptions of normality (<0.001/<0.001)
and equality of variances (0.012) were fulfilled (figure 9). Consequently, a Welch and Mann-
Whitney t-test were conducted (JASP, 2018). The Welch test is performed to test the hypothesis
if Le ene s test of eq alit of ariances ields statistical significance. The Mann-Whitney test is
used if the p-value of Shapiro-Wilk s test sho s statistical significance. With 0.605, the res lt of
the Welch test shows a similar p-value to the student t-test. For the Mann-Whitney test, the p-
value is 0.371. As the p-value works as proof of significance, if smaller than 0.05, hypothesis 1 is
not statistically significant and in combination with the low t-value is rejected.
Figure 8: Independent Samples T-Test H1
Figure 9: Assumptions Checks H1
42
A p-value of less than 0.05 is statistically significant. As the p-values of all three tests are higher
than 0.05, the result is not statistically significant. Thus, H1 can be rejected. There does not seem
to be a statistical relationship between nationality as a cultural factor and the voluntariness
perception of OCB items under the dimension conscientiousness.
After rejecting hypothesis 1, a closer look is taken at the individual actions within the dimension to
determine, whether individual items show significance (figure 10). The analysis shows great
differences in the opinions of the items. However, only the item Behavior_StayingAtWork is
significant (p = 0.004). The high p-value of the action Behavior_Confidentiality (p = 0.993) explains
a reverse statistical significance. In this case, the European group sees confidentiality as clearly
in-role. In Asia, on the other hand, it is considered more extra-role. The mean differences range
between 0.417 for Behavior_Confidentiality and 0.479 for Behavior_StayingAtWork.
Figure 10: Independent Samples T-Test H1 Individual Items
43
Hypothesis 2: Initiative
The second hypothesis states that the perceived voluntariness of OCB items under the dimension
initiative is higher in Asia than in European countries. To answer H2, the OCB items 14 to 20 were
summed up and then divided by the number of items included in this dimension.
In order to statistically support or reject hypothesis 2, an independent samples t-test was

performed, which shows a t-value of -4.672 and a p-value of >0.001. A t-value of 4.672 shows
a big difference between the answers of the two groups in question. As the p-value is less than
0.05, the result is statistically significant and supports H2: A Cohen s d of -0.663 shows a medium
effect size (see figure 11). The ass mptions check sho ed that Le ene s test of eq alit of
significance was statistically significant (figure 12). Consequently, a Welch t-test was conducted,
which gave similar results in terms of p- al e, mean difference, SE difference, and Cohen s d.
Figure 12: Assumption Checks H2
A closer look is taken at the individual items of the dimension initiative. The t-test shows that all
except one item are statistically significant. The European group only considers the item
Behavior_DepartmentSuggestion more often as extra-role compared to the Asian group. Thus, it
can be summarized that H2 regarding a higher voluntariness perception of the OCB dimension
initiative in Asia is statistically supported and that all dimensions except for one show statistical
significance (see figure 13). The biggest mean differences between Europe and Asia occur for the
item Behavior_WorkingWithoutRequest (-1.287)) and Behavior_IndividualAssessment (-0.951),
while Behavior_DepartmentSuggestion shows similar means (0.200). The latter is also the only
item where the Asian group shows a higher mean than the European group, which explains the
high p-value.
44
Hypothesis 3: Volunteerism
The third hypothesis formulated in this thesis is about the dimension volunteerism, consisting of
the OCB items 21 to 26. The assumption is that items under the dimension of volunteerism are
considered voluntary more often in Europe than in Asia. The results of each item were once again
added together and then divided by the number of items. The possible value ranges from 0 to 5;
the higher the value, the higher the voluntariness perception of the dimension.
The independent samples student t-test shows a t-value of 1.725 and a p-value of 0.043. The t-
value shows a relatively low level of difference between the two groups. However, the p-value of
< 0.05 shows statistical significance. The effect size in the form of Cohen s d is 0.245 (fig re 14).
Le ene s test of eq alit of ariances is p = 0.006 and, th s, statisticall significant. Conseq entl ,
the assumption of variance equality is not given (figure 15) and a Welch t-test was conducted
(t-value 1.668, p-val e 0.049, Cohen s d 0.241). D e to the significance le el of <0.05, h pothesis
3 can be supported.
45
The next step was to look at the individual items in figure 16 additionally. While the dimension
results are overall statistically significant, only one of the individual items shows statistical
significance. All the other items have a p-value ranging between 0.315 and 0.112 and a Cohen s
d effect size lower than 0.2. Behavior_AdditionalTraining has the highest mean difference (0.556),
explaining the small p-value of < 0.001. The minor mean difference and, therefore, the highest p-
value is measured at Behavior_HelpingWorkload (0.087).
Hypothesis 4: Boosterism
The fourth dimension in the questionnaire was boosterism. It consists of the two items
Behavior_TalkingGood and Behavior_Defending. Hypothesis 4 stated that the voluntariness
perception of the dimension boosterism is higher in Asia than in Europe.
The t-test results show that while there seems to be a slight cultural difference between Europe
and Asia regarding the perceived voluntariness of the dimension boosterism, the result is not
statistically significant due to the p- al e of 0.163 and the lo Cohen s d of -0.140. As the
assumptions check shows a deviation from normality, a Mann-Whitney t-test was conducted.
While the p-value is slightly lower than with the Student t-test, the result is still not statistically
significant (see figures 17 and 18). Consequently, hypothesis 4 cannot be supported and is
therefore rejected.
46
The independent samples t-test for the individual items in figure 19 shows that talking good about
the organization has a higher mean difference of 0.245 than defending the organization (-0.104).
None of the items is statistically significant.
Hypothesis 5: Sportsmanship
The fifth hypothesis states that the voluntariness perception of sportsmanship is higher in Europe
than in Asia. It consists of items 29 to 31, which were added together and divided by 2.
An independent samples student t-test was conducted to answer hypothesis 5. With a t-value of
5.397, a p- al e of < 0.001, and a Cohen s d of 0.766, the res lts are statisticall significant and
support the hypothesis (figure 20). A high t-value indicates significant differences between the
groups, a p- al e of < 0.05 sho s statistical significance, and a high Cohen s d means a high
effect size. The assumptions check once again showed that the requirement of equality of
variances is not fulfilled (figure 21). The Welch t-test showed a t-value of 5.585, a p-value of
<0.001, and a Cohen s d of 0.780. Th s, the res lt is still significant. A high Cohen s d in both t-
tests shows a big effect size.
47
The last step of the analysis is to look at the individual items. Figure 22 shows that all three actions
included in the dimension sportsmanship have a p-value of <0.001 and are statistically significant.
With 0.8874/0.888/0.461, the third item, Behavior_NoProblems, sho s the highest Cohen s d,
while Behavior_NoBreak shows the lowest. The biggest mean difference between the two groups
is measured for the item Behavior_NoProblems (0.998).
Hypothesis 6: OCB
The last hypothesis combines all dimensions and looks at the overall voluntariness perception of
Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Overall, this dimension includes all 31 items of the OCB
scale.
Figure 23 displays the independent samples t-test conducted to test the hypothesis statistically.
The student t-test shows a t-value of 0.415, which indicates a slight difference between the two
groups and a reverse direction of this difference. The p-value, an indicator for statistical
significance, is 0.661. Th s, the res lt is not statisticall significant. F rthermore, the lo Cohen s
d of 0.059 sho s a meager effect si e. D e to the significant res lt of Le ene s test of eq alit
48
of variances (see figure 24), a Welch t-test was conducted. With a t-value of 0.396, a p-value of
0.654, and a Cohen s d of 0.058, the results are still not significant. Consequently, H6 is rejected.
As this hypothesis includes all items and dimensions, no individual items analysis was made.
49
5. Discussion
The last chapter was about the analysis of the collected data. First, a descriptive analysis was
conducted. The second step was hypothesis testing, in which the six formulated hypotheses were
tested. Figure 25 gives an overview of the hypotheses, including each t-value and p-value.
Figure 25: Hypotheses Results
The first hypothesis looked at the Organizational Citizenship Behavior dimension of

conscientiousness. The analysis showed that the items included in this dimension are perceived
as extra-role more often by Asians than Europeans. This opposes the formulated hypothesis.
However, the results are not statistically significant.
The hypothesis on conscientiousness is based on the high power distance within Asia compared
to the European countries and the importance of showing respect to managers and team leaders
(Rurkkhum & Barlett, 2017). Consequently, actions such as staying at work late, treating others
with respect, respecting the rules, being mindful of one's actions are not considered voluntary.
However, looking at the analysis results, this effect is even more substantial for the European
participants, which works opposite the prediction of hypothesis 1.
50
Where this difference comes from is not clear. Some items included in the dimension
conscientiousness have a mean of lower than 2 punctuality (Behavior_Punctuality), keeping up
with announcements (Behavior_KeepingUp), keeping deadlines (Behavior_Deadline), treating
others with respect (Behavior_RespectfulTreatment), showing that the majority of all participants
labeled this behavior as in-role (see table 5). A closer look at the individual items was taken in the
last chapter (see figure 10). According to the analysis, there is no significant cultural difference in
the voluntariness perception of these items. This could indicate that the lack of significant cultural
differences might be based on the fact that this behavior is not considered voluntary by most
participants.
Item Mean
Behavior_Punctuality 1.941
Behavior_KeepingUp 1.783
Behavior_Efficiency 2.176
Behavior_PersonalBusiness 2.745
Behavior_Deadline 1.877
Behavior_Instructions 2.064
Behavior_StayingAtWork 2.691
Behavior_RespectingRules 2.123
Behavior_RespectfulTreatment 1.946
Behavior_MindfulOfActions 2.392
Behavior_Confidentiality 1.793
Behavior_ReturningCallsMessages 2.260
Behavior_SkillUpdate 2.510
Table 5: Conscientiousness Items Means
Hypothesis 2 states that the perceived voluntariness of the dimension initiative is higher in Asia
than in Europe. The t-test supported this hypothesis. According to the analysis, the cultural
differences are statistically significant. Primarily actions like working without request, using
individual assessment, and encouraging others to speak up show big differences in means,
indicating that the cultural difference is the strongest for these items.
The positive view on taking the initiative due to a lower power distance (Becton & Field, 2009,
Hofstede Insights, 2021) leads to higher expectations from the management for their employees.
Furthermore, the reason for the higher mean of voluntariness perception of the dimension
volunteerism in Asia might be the higher power distance. It can be argued that suggesting ideas
to impro e a team s or department s performance to the s per isors itho t being asked might be
considered harmful or even disrespectful. Sharing these thoughts would mean that they openly
criticize the existing methods and strategies, which is considered disrespectful in collectivist
cultures. Also, considering their ideas or opinions to be better or more important than others does
51
not follow the values of a collectivist culture in which personal needs are placed behind the ones
of a group. If sharing ideas or suggestions is not considered favorable, it could also limit the
emplo ees illingness to take initiati e, as s ggested b Paine and Organ (2000).
The third hypothesis looks at the dimension of volunteerism and its voluntariness perception. It
was assumed that the perceived voluntariness of this dimension would be higher for Europeans
than Asians. The analysis supports this hypothesis. According to the t-test, the voluntariness
perception of the dimension volunteerism is higher in Europe than in Asia (mean = 1.373). The
item Behavior_AdditionalTraining shows the biggest mean difference between the two groups
(0.556).
The logical reasoning behind this result can be based on the cultural value collectivism, which puts
the collective first (Hofstede, 2001). Additionally, according to Rurkkhum and Bartlett (2017),
helping others is based on a high level of empathy and femininity (Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede
Insights, 2021). Thus, helping others for the sake of good personal relationships and the
organi ation s s ccess is considered necessar and e pected. Ho e er, in pre io s st dies on
OCB in collectivist cultures, this dimension was still included in the scales.
The fourth hypothesis tested focused on the differences for the dimension boosterism. It was
assumed that the perceived voluntariness level for Asia is higher than for Europe. As mentioned
earlier, what is now called boosterism was previously named organizational support by Becton
and Field (2009). According to their study, people from countries with high uncertainty avoidance
report lower levels of organizational support. The results of this study do not deliver statistical
proof for this assumption. While the direction of the voluntariness perception is correct, the results
are not statistically significant. A reason for that could be the significantly lower number of items
included in this dimension compared to others. In this study, this dimension only consists of two
items. This might have led to the lacking statistical significance of cultural differences.
Hypothesis 5 looked at the voluntariness perception of the dimension sportsmanship in both

cultural regions. Sportsmanship describes the willingness to accept unavoidable inconveniences
at work without complaining (Kwantes et al., 2008; Organ, 1990). It was assumed that behavior
under sportsmanship is considered voluntary/extra-role more often in Europe than in Asia. The
analysis proofed this statement; the t-test supported hypothesis 5 (t = 5.398, p = < 0.001). Thus,
sportsmanship is perceived as voluntary more often in the Asian context.
52
As previously mentioned, Rurkkhum and Bartlett (2017) have eliminated specific actions from the
OCB scale for collectivist countries as they are considered more in-role than extra-role. According
to their study, all actions classified under the dimension of sportsmanship are examples of that.
The results of this study support their findings. The dimension of sportsmanship is not considered
extra-role in Asia (Hui et al., 2004; Rurkkhum & Bartlett, 2017). The behavior included in this
dimension appears to be essential for the job. As the requirement of voluntariness of such actions
is not given, these items should not be included in OCB scales. Even though labeled extra-role or
somewhat extra-role more often than the Asian participants, Europeans also consider behavior
like not taking additional breaks or not complaining abo t tri ial matters as some hat e pected
from them. In the past, sportsmanship was not always included in the OCB scales (Williams &
Anderson, 1991; van Dyne et al., 1994; Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Lee & Allen, 2002). The results
of this study support this statement. Neither in Europe nor Asia is this dimension clearly considered
to be extra-role. Nevertheless, this can be said about the other dimensions as well.
The last hypothesis analyzed was about the voluntariness perception of OCB in general. The
hypothesis stated that the perceived voluntariness is greater for Europeans than for Asians based
on the high level of collectivism within Asia (Hofstede Insights, 2021) and the need for harmony
within these cultures (Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Rurkkhum & Bartlett, 2017). However, the
statistical analysis shows that the European participants perceive OCB as more voluntary than
their Asian counterparts. The reason for that could be the first dimension included in the
questionnaire conscientiousness. Holding more than one-third of all items, it is the largest
dimension in terms of the number of items. As the analysis shows, there is no significant cultural
difference in the voluntariness perception of these items. Thus, the result of hypothesis 1 could
have strongly influenced the result for the whole concept summarized under hypothesis 6.
While a cultural difference in voluntariness perception of OCB has been established and proven
in the past (Hui et al., 2004; Kwantes et al. 2008), the results of this study do not fully agree with
previous research. A significant cultural difference could only be detected for three of the five
dimensions (initiative, volunteerism, sportsmanship). The general perception of OCB, however,
does not depict a great cultural difference.
53
There are multiple reasons why the results of this study are inconsistent with previous ones. On
the one hand, only the nationality was measured to determine the culture, but not the underlying
values. For this purpose, the cultural dimensions of Hofstede (2001) were used. It is, of course,
possible that the cultural norms and values measured at the time have changed. Most of the study
participants are in their 20s or 30s. This generation is exposed to solid internationalization, not
onl economicall b t also in terms of media. Therefore, it co ld be that the st d participants
c lt ral al es are no longer as prono nced as in Hofstede s dimensions.
In addition, it was not measured how international the companies are in which the participants
worked or work. A strong international focus could also lead to organizational changes in the
direction of a culturally uniform work culture in terms of behavior and work attitude. International
managers or supervisors can also influence the perception of voluntariness through their personal
expectations of their employees.
Education could also be another influencing factor. If the participants studied abroad or had
international teachers, this could also have influenced their values. It is known that the social
environment serves as a strong influencing factor for culture (Matsumoto, 1996; Williams, 1970).
Thus, a very internationally oriented environment could have influenced one's values and
expectations.
Existing literature mostly looked at the United States as a representative of the Western world
(Farh et al., 1997; Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Ocampo et al., 2017; Paine & Organ, 2000). When
laying out the research gap, the lack of literature on Europe was pointed o t. The st d s res lts
now show a weaker difference between cultures compared to previous studies. It could thus be
argued that Europe is geographically located between the United States and Asia and culturally.
The cultural dimensions by Hofstede (2001) already indicate this.
To tackle the cultural difference between North America and Asia within the OCB concept,
additional sets of dimensions and items have been created for individual Asian countries. This
study now works as proof that the cultural differences between Europe and Asia in terms of
voluntariness perception of OCB are not significantly strong and probably weaker than between
North America and Asia. Furthermore, a majority of the participants have not considered many
items as extra-role. Consequently, the OCB concept also needs a set of dimensions for the
European area that shows the differences from both U.S. and Asia.
54
As the cultural influence on the perception of voluntariness does not seem to be sufficient to
explain the differences, there seem to be other reasons for the variances in their responses.
Therefore, the results of this study support the findings of Katz and Kahn (1978), Morisson (1994),
and Murphy and Cleveland (1991 )that employees might perceive OCB differently. Even in studies
where the variable of culture was not considered, OCB was not always considered extra-role or
voluntary. This factor must be taken into consideration when measuring the voluntariness
perception.
Overall, the results clearly show that the actions previously defined as voluntary and extra-role are
now predominantly considered in-role. This trend is visible in both cultural contexts analyzed in
this thesis. Therefore, for both European and East-Asian employees, the concept of OCB as we
know it now and the items defining it do not seem to be up to date. This could be a result of higher
competition in the labor market and within organizations. If employees feel they need to engage
in additional activities so that their performance is perceived as satisfactory, they will not consider
these actions voluntary. Thus, to use OCB as a concept of voluntary workplace behavior, the list
of items included might have to be renewed in the current time and work context. Based on the
results of this study, the scales to measure the concept do not seem to be up-to-date and, thus,
not valuable for measure voluntary working behavior.
Summing up, from the six hypotheses, only three could be supported and statistically significant
(H2 initiative, H3 volunteerism, H5 sportsmanship). The others were either not statistically
significant (see H4 boosterism), and/or the voluntariness perception worked in the opposite
direction (H1 conscientiousness and H6 OCB).
55
6. Conclusion
The study looks at the behavioral concept of Organizational Citizenship Behavior across cultural
regions to compare the voluntariness perception of OCB items and dimensions of two specific
cultural regions Central Europe and East Asia.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior describes voluntary workplace behavior that is directed

towards the organization to support and protect it. Such behavior is not considered part of one s
job. Its absence should therefore not have any negative consequences for the employees.
However, not all OCB actions are considered voluntary. Some employees might feel the need to
engage in this kind of behavior; some even feel pressured by the management to show OCB for
a positive performance evaluation.
The emplo ees c lt ral backgro nd and the al es and norms the gre p ith might be
indicators for why individuals perceive OCB differently. Literature suggests that people from
collectivist cultures such as China or Taiwan perceive OCB actions as mandatory and essential
to show respect to supervisors and keep up harmony within a group.
In this study, the cultural differences in OCB perception in the two regions were tested by
measuring the voluntariness perception across OCB dimensions from in-role to extra-role. A
survey was conducted, including 31 items from existing OCB scales divided into five dimensions.
The results show that there a significant cultural differences for the dimensions of initiative,
volunteerism, and sportsmanship. For these first of these dimensions, the voluntariness
perception is higher for Asian participants. For the second and third dimensions, Europeans
perceive them as more voluntary than Asians. The results of the other two dimensions,
conscientiousness and boosterism, are not statistically significant. Overall, there is no significant
difference in the perception of voluntariness of Organizational Citizenship Behavior as a whole.
These results do not support the statements made by Kwantes et al. (2008), Jiao et al. (2013), or
Hui et al. (2004).
The results of this thesis have practical as well as theoretical implications. First, as literature
currently lacks studies on OCB within the European context, this thesis adds to the literature by
extending the cultural regions investigated. However, the cultural difference in the perception of
voluntariness of Organizational Citizenship Behavior measured in this thesis is not as strong as
existing literature might suggest. Thus, it opens room for more research.
56
Furthermore, the statistical analysis shows a low voluntariness perception of actions previously
defined as Organizational Citizenship Behavior depicted in the statistical means. This indicates
that the concept of voluntary workplace behavior is not up-to-date as many of the items included
in the scales are considered in-role or somewhat in-role by most of the participants (e. g. keeping
up with organizational announcements, keeping deadlines, remaining confidential). Thus, it
challenges the existing OCB measurement scales.
The practical implications are directed towards the management and the employees. The results
help management to understand the concept of OCB and how to work with it better. All managers
need a clear understanding of what extra-role and OCB mean, its consequences, and how such
behavior can be fostered. At the same time, it also enables them to better comprehend the varying
perceptions and expectations from employees with different cultural backgrounds. This helps them
to understand what can be expected from employees from another culture and what needs to be
communicated better. Managers working with a multicultural team can adjust their management
methods and expectations. Expectations can be communicated better if everyone understands
what people from different cultures see as voluntary and what not. If management perceives
certain actions as mandatory or expected, but as voluntary and extra-role by the employees, this
could negatively influence performance evaluation if these actions are not followed.
It also helps employees working with managers from other countries. They will better understand
their s per isors e pectations to ards staff. The can react b either adapting to the perceptions
and expectations of the superiors or communicating the differences. This way, they can ensure a
better working climate and a higher level of satisfaction on both sides. Consequently, each
individual can better decide for himself or herself which culture they prefer to work in depending
on the effort he or she is willing to put into his or her work.
The study comes with limitations. While the concept of Organizational Citizenship Behavior has
already been established in the literature for multiple decades, scientists still disagree on how to
measure the concept best which led to a high number of scales with varying numbers of items
ranging from 16 (Lee & Allen, 2002) to 54 (van Dyne et al., 1994). This obscures the choice of the
right measuring instrument and makes the comparison of results more challenging. Thus, a similar
strategy was followed in this study, and a newly created scale was used. To keep up the
participants attention, the n mber of actions incl ded in the questionnaire was reduced to 31. This
meant that items were either summarized under one term or that specific actions were left out
entirely.
57
This leaves room for criticism about how items were chosen or eliminated. As with many other
studies, these decisions were based on the popularity of the scales used but also on subjectivity
and personal assessment of the importance of items. Consequently, this could have influenced
the result. Therefore, it is advisable to carry out a similar study with a different or more extensive
scale and compare the results with the ones available here.
Also, with n = 204 responses, the number of participants is relatively low compared to other studies
in the same field, which could have influenced the result, as it is not representative of the whole
population in the four countries under investigation.
Another point of criticism might be the organizations of the items in the different dimensions,
according to Kwantes et al. (2008). These dimensions differ from the ones used in other studies
about OCB (e. g. Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1990; van Dyne et al., 1994; Williams
& Anderson, 1991). It is challenging to evaluate which dimensions are more practical or
appropriate to use than others are. Thus, while Kwantes et al. (2008) show significant differences
between ethnic groups and culture, it might be helpful to conduct a similar study but using a
different set of dimensions.
The cultural dimensions developed by Hofstede (2001) were used to explain cultural differences
in norms and values. In the study by Kwantes et al. (2008), the researchers have included a scale
to measure individual social norms and values depicting the cultural aspect. Thus, their culture
meas rement on an indi id al le el might ha e been more appropriate than sing Hofstede s
(2001) cultural dimensions theory. In this thesis, only the ethnicity of the participants was used to
define cultural differences.
In the present study, the cultural values were not measured directly to, on the one hand, avoid
common method bias when the dependent variable (perception of OCB) and the independent
variable (culture) come from the same source (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Second, it helped keep the
questionnaire as short as possible to increase the probability of participants finishing the survey.
This allowed including a relatively high number of OCB items into the questionnaire without maxing
out the length.
58
Ho e er, Hofstede s (2001) c lt ral dimensions co ld ha e changed since their de elopment d e
to the high level of internationalization and globalization in both regions. Access to new markets,
education, and international media could have changed values and norms and how people see
the world. Lewis (2003) has already pointed out the westernization of China as the younger
generation in China is looking at Western values and actions for guidance. The convergence
hypothesis describes a movement towards a single global culture (Rassekh, 1998). If this applies
to the participants and their organizations, this could have affected the individual and
organizational cultures, minimizing their own cultural peculiarities.
Furthermore, the cultural dimension theory does not apply to everyone but depicts the cultural
group as a whole. Some citizenships might show lower values for the various dimensions than
others. While investigating working experiences collected in their cultural context, other cultural
influences such as migration backgrounds, other previously collected international working
experiences, student exchanges, the level of international operation within the organization, or
managers' nationality were not considered in this thesis. Thus, other cultural norms or behavior
might have influenced the participants.
The study gives directions for future research. Due to the relatively low perception of voluntariness
of previously defined extra-role items, there is a need to re-evaluate and redefine the terms
voluntary/extra-role behavior overall and across cultures. The items included should be renewed
to adapt it to the current state of voluntariness perception. In addition, due to the high level of
digitalization within organizations since the 1980s and 1990s and the latest development towards
the New Ways of Working (e. g. work time flexibility and workplace flexibility), new items might be
added to the existing scales.
The cultural dimensions by Hofstede (2001) and the underlying values are assumed to work as a
moderator by influencing the direction and strength of the relationship between nationality and the
perceived voluntariness of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. However, cultural values and
norms have not been measured separately nationality is the only factor differentiating cultures.
Thus, the moderating role of the cultural dimensions is not measured. Thus, future studies should
include an individual-level analysis of culture to get a more precise result.
Additionally, a closer look should be taken at the reason for cultural differences in OCB. It wou ld
be interesting to look at the apparent factors for the differences and where they come from. The
discussion section already looked at potential influences on the weak cultural differences, and the
factors education and internationalization of organizations were brought up.
59
It would be advisable to conduct the same study with more countries from the same cultural
regions and from other areas such as North America, Central Asia, Africa, or Latin America,
considering the limitations of this study and the challenging comparison to previous studies. Such
a study could help to give a clearer picture of the differences.
The results also show a higher standard deviation in the Asian group for most dimensions. This
would mean a more considerable discrepancy in answers given by the Asian participants
compared to the European ones. Future research could investigate the reasons behind these
bigger standard deviations.
To sum up the conclusion section, the cultural differences in voluntariness perception of OCB
between Europe and Asia were tested. Only three out of the six hypotheses could be supported
and were statistically significant. The findings have important implications for theory and practice
about re-evaluating the OCB concept and dealing with a multicultural workforce. The study also
comes with limitations about the chosen scales and suggestions for future research.
60
7. References
Allen, T. D. & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on

performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
83, 247 260.
Alotaibi, A.G. (2001). Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior: a study of public

personnel in Kuwait. Public Personnel Management, 30(3), 363-376.
Argentero, P., Cortese, C.G., & Ferretti, M.S. (2008). An Evaluation of Organizational Citizenship
Beha ior: Ps chometric Characteristics of the Italian Version of Podsakoff et al. s Scale. TPM,
15(2), 61-75.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control.New York, NY: Freeman.
Barnard, C.I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance:
A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1 26.
Bateman, T.S. & Organ, D.W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship
between affect and emplo ee citi enship . Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595.
Beauregard, T.A. (2012). Perfectionism, self-efficacy and OCB: the moderating role of gender.
Personnel Review, 41(5), 590-608.
Becton, J.B. & Field, H.S. (2009). Cultural differences in organizational citizenship behavior: a
comparison between Chinese and American employees. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 20(8), 1651-1669.
Begley, T.M., Lee, C., & Fang, Y. (2002). Power Distance as a Moderator of the Relationship
between Justice and Employee Outcomes in a Sample of Chinese Employees. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 17(8), 692-711.
Bergeron, D.M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens
at what cost? Academy of Management Review, 32, 1078-1095.
Bergeron, D.M., Shipp, A.J., Rosen, B., & Furst, S.A. (2013). Organizational citizenship behavior
and career outcomes: The cost of being a good citizen. Journal of Management, 39(4), 958-984.
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors?
Academy of Management Review, 24, 82 98.
61
Bolino, M.C. & Klotz, A.C. (2015). The paradox of the unethical organizational citizen: the link
between organizational citizenship behavior and unethical behavior at work. Current Opinion in
Psychology, 6, 45-49.
Bolino, M.C. & Turnley, W.H. (2003). Going the Extra Mile: Cultivating and Managing Employee
Citizenship Behavior. Academy of Management Executive, 17, 60-71.
Bolino, M.C. & Turnley, W.H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship
between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work famil con ict. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 740 748.
Bolino, M.C., Klotz, A.C., Turnley, W.H., & Harvey, J. (2013). Exploring the dark side of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 542-559.
Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H., & Niehoff, B.P. (2004). The other side of the story: Reexamining
prevailing assumptions about organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management
Review, 14, 229 246.
Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H., Gilstrap, J.B., & Suazo, M.M. (2010).Citizenship underpressure:
What s a good soldier to do? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 835 855.
Bolon, D. S. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior among hospital employees: A

multidimensional analysis involving job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Hospital &
Health Services Administration, 42, 221 241.
Borman, W.C. & Motowidlo, S.J. (1993). Expanding the Criterion Domain to Include Elements of
Contextual Performance. Schmitt, N. & Borman, W.C. (Eds.). Personnel Selection in
Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brief, A. & Motowidlo, S.J. (1986). Prosocial Organizational Behaviors. The Academy of
Management Review, 11(4), 710-725.
Choi, J. (2007). Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: effects of work environment

characteristics and intervening psychological processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
28(4), 467-484.
Coleman, V.I. & Borman, W.C. (2000). Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenship
performance domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 25-44.
Dewett, T. & Denisi, A.S. (2007). What motivates organizational citizenship behaviours? Exploring
the role of regulatory focus theory. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
16(3), 241-260.
62
Dominguez, M., Enache, M., Sallan, J., & Simo, P. (2013). Transformational leadership as an
antecedent of change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Research,
66(10), 2147-2152.
Duarte, D. & Snyder, N. (2013). Mastering virtual teams. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dunham, R.B. (1979). Job design and redesign. S. Kerr (Ed.). Organizational behavior, 335-354.
Columbus: Grid.
Earley, P.C. & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures.
Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.
Earley, P.C. & Calic, G. (2016). A Cultural Perspective on Organizational Citizenship Behavior.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Podsakoff, N.P. (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of
Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Farh, J.L., Earley, P.C., & Lin, S.C. (1997). Impetus for Action: A Cultural Analysis of Justice and
Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Chinese Society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3),
421-444.
Farh, J.L., Zhong, C.B., & Organ, D.W. (2004). Organi ational citi enship beha ior in the People s
Republic of China. Organizational Science, 15(2), 241-253.
Foote, D. & Tang, T. (2008). Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: does team
commitment make a difference in self-directed teams? Management Decision, 46(6), 933-947.
Frese, M. & Fay, D. (2001). Personal Initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st
Century. Organizational Behavior, 23, 133-187.
Frese, M., Garst, H., & Fay, D. (2007). Making things happen: reciprocal relationships between
work characteristics and personal initiative in a four-wave longitudinal structural equation model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(92), 1084-1102.
George, J.M. & Brief, A.P. (1992). Feeling good doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood
at work organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin 112, 310 329.
George, J.M. & Jones, G.R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in context. Human Performance,
10(2), 153-170.
Graham, J.W. (1986). Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 8, 1-52.
63
Graham, J.W. (1989). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition,
operationalization, and validation. Unpublished working paper, Chicago, IL: Loyola University of
Chicago.
Graham, J.W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities

and Rights Journal, 4, 249-270.
Grant, A.M. & Schwartz, B. (2011). Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of
the inverted U. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 61 76.
Griffin, R.W. (1982). Task design: An integrative approach. Glenview, IL: Scott-Foresman.
Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159- 170.
Haworth, C.L. & Levy, P.E. (2001). The importance of instrumentality beliefs in the prediction of
organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(1), 64-75.
Hofstede Insights (2021). Country Comparison Tool. https://www.hofstede-insights.com
Hofstede, G. (2001). C l e C e e ce : C m a i g, Val e , Beha i ,I i i ,a d

Organizations across Nations. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede G.J. & Minkov, M. (2010). Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation
and its Importance for Survival. 3rd edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill USA.
Hui, C., Lam, S.S.K., & Law, K. (2000). Instrumental Values of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
for Promotion: A Field Quasi-Experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 822-828.
Hui, C., Lee, C., & Rousseau, D.M. (2004). Psychological Contract and Organizational Citizenship
Behavior in China. Investigating Generalizability and Instrumentality. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(2), 311-321.
Ilgen, D.R. & P lakos, E.D. (1999). Introd ction: Emplo ees performance in toda s organi ations.
Ilgen, D.R. & Pulakos, E.D. (Eds). The Changing Nature of Performance. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
JASP (2018). How to Conduct a Classical Independent Sample T-Test and Interpret the Results.
https://jasp-stats.org/2018/04/18/how-to-conduct-a-classical-independent-sample-t-test-in-jasp-
and-interpret-the-results/ (12.06.2021)
64
Jiao, C., Richards, D.A., & Hackett, R.D. (2013). Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Role
Breadth: A Meta-Analytic and Cross-Cultural Analysis. Human Resource Management, 52(5),
697-714.
Katz, D. & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavior Science, 9, 131-133.
Kerr, S. & Jermier, J.M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375-403.
Kim, M.S., Park, H., & Park, W.W. (2020). Why Employees Help Teammates When Their Leader
Looks Powerful: A Multilevel Investigation. Group & Organization Management, 0(0), 1-27.
Koys, D.J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and
turnover on organizational effectiveness: a unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology,
54(1), 101-114.
Kuchinke, K.P. (1999). Leadership and culture: Work-related values and leadership styles among
one compan s U.S. and German telecomm nication emplo ees. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 10(2), 135-154.
Kumar, K. & Bakhsi, A. (2009). Organizational Justice Perceptions as Predictor of Job Satisfaction
and Organizational Commitment. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(9), 145-
154.
Kwantes, C., Kuo, B.C.H., & Karam, C.M. (2008). C lt re s infl ence on the perception of OCB as
in-role or extra-role. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 229-243.
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(1), 131 142.
Lee, T.W., Mitchell, T.R., Sablynski, C.J., Burton, J.P., & Holtom, B.C. (2004). The effects of job
embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job performance, volitional absences, and voluntary
turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 711-722.
65
Lefkowitz, J. (2000). The role of interpersonal affective regard in supervisory performance:
literature review and proposed causal model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 67-85.
LePine, J.A. & van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(6), 853-868.
LePine, J.A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D.E. (2002). The Nature and Dimensionality of Organizational
Citizenship Behavior: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1),
52-65.
Lewis, P. (2003). New China Old Ways? A Case Study of the Prospects for Implementing Human
Resource Management Practices in a Chinese State-owned Enterprise. Human Relations, 25, 42
60.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and
objechve productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons' performance.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 123-150.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., & Rich, G.A. (2001). Transformational and transactional
leadership and salesperson performance. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 29(2), 115-
134.
Matsumoto, D. (1996). Culture and Psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Merkin, R.S. (2017). Individualism-Collectivism and Saving Face. Saving Face in Business, 81-
117.
Merriam-Webster (n.d.). voluntary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/voluntary
Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J. (1989). Organi ational Commitment and Job Performance: It s the
Nature of the Commitment That Counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 152-156.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, Continuance, and
Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-analysis of Antecedents, Correlates, and
Consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20 52.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J.,& Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay:
Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44,
1102 1121.
66
Moorman, R.H. & Blakely, G.L. (1995). Individualism-Collectivism as an Individual Difference
Predictor of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127-142.
Morrison, E.W. & Phelps, C.C. (1999). Taking charge at work: extrarole efforts to initiate workplace
change. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (4), 403 419.
Morrison, E.W. (1994). Role Definitions and Organizational citizenship Behavior: The Importance
of the Employee's Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1543-1567.
Motowidlo, S.J. (2000). Some basic issues related to contextual performance and organizational
citizenship behavior in human resource management. Human Resource Management Review,
10(19), 115-126.
Motowidlo, S.J., Borman, W.C., & Schmit, M.J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task
and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10(2), 71-83.
Mukhtar, A., Sial, M.A., Imran, A., & Jilani, S. (2012). Impact of HR practices on organizational
citizenship behavior and mediating effect of organizational commitment in NGOs in Pakistan.
World Applied Sciences Journal, 18(7), 901-908.
Murphy, K.R. & Cleveland, J.N. (1991). Performance appraisal: An organizational perspective.
Allyn & Bacon.
Nikolaou, I. & Robertson, I.T. (2001). The Five-Factor model of personality and work behavior in
Greece. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 10(2), 161-186.
O Reilly, C.A. & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:
The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492 499.
Ocampo, L., Acedillo, V., Bacunador, A.M., Balo, C.C., Lagdameo, Y.J., & Tupa, N.S. (2017). A
historical review of the development of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and its
implications for the twenty-first century. Personnel Review, 47(4), 821-862.
Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: the good soldier syndrome. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books
Organ, D.W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Staw, B.M. &
Cummings, L.L. (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Organ, D.W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. Human
Performance, 10, 85-97.
67
Organ, D.W. (2018). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Recent Trends and Development.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 80, 17.1-17.12.
Organ, D.W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors
of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775 802.
Organ. D.W., Podsakoff. P.M., & MacKenzie. S.B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior; Its
nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Paillé, P. (2009). Assessing organizational citizenship behavior in the French context: Evidence
for the four-dimensional model. The Journal of Psychology, 143(2), 133 146.
Paine, J.B. & Organ, D.W. (2000). The cultural matrix of organizational citizenship behavior: some
preliminary conceptual and empirical observations. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1),
45-59.
Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M., & Blume, B.D. (2009). Individual- and
Organizational-Level Consequences of Organizational CitizenshipBehaviors: A Meta-Analsis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122-141.
Podsakoff, P.M. & MacKenzie, S.B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit
effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 3(1), 351 363.
Podsakoff, P.M. & MacKenzie, S.B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on
organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance,
10, 133-151.
Podsakoff, P.M. MacKenzie, S.B., & Bommer, W.H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors
and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259 298.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common Method Biases
in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader
beha iors and their effects on follo ers tr st in leader, satisfaction, and organi ational citi enship
behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G. (2000). Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and
Suggestions for Future Research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.
68
Porpara, D.V. (1989). Four concepts of social structure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior,
19, 195-211.
Pourgaz, A.W., Naruei, A.G., & Jenaabadi, H. (2015). Examining the relationship of organizational
citizenship behavior with organizational commitment and equity perception of secondary school
administrators. Psychology, 6(6), 800-807.
Rassekh, F. (1998). The Convergence Hypothesis: History, Theory, and Evidence. Open
Economies Review, 9, 85-105.
Rauf, F.H.A. & Kumar, S. (2015). The Emic and Etic Conceptualizations of Organizational
Citizenship Behaviour (OCB): Exploring Sri Lankan University Lecturers Perceptions of their Work.
South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, 2(2), 123-138.
Rauf, F.H.A. (2015). Organizational Performance: Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Its Forms,
Conceptualizations and Antecedents. Sri Lanka: South Eastern University of Sri Lanka.
Rioux, S.M. & Penner, L.A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A
motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1306-1314.
Rurkkhum, S. & Bartlett, K.R. (2017). Organizational citizenship behavior for collectivist cultures:
instrument development and human resource development implications. Human Resource
Development International, 2017, 1-18.
Saks, A.M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619.
Salamon, S.D. & Deutsch, Y. (2006). OCB as a handicap: An evolutionary psychological

perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 185 199.
Salancik G.R. & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and
task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224 253.
Schein, E.H. (1985). Organizational culture: Skill, defense mechanism or addiction? Brush F.R.,
& Overmier, J.B. (Eds.). Affect, conditioning, and cognition. 315-323. Hilisdale, NJ: Edbaum
Schein, E.H. (1990). Organizational Culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119.
Schein, E.H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. 3rd edition. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
69
Schneider, S., Barsoux, J., & Stahl, G. (2014). Managing across cultures. 3rd edition. London:
Pearson.
Scott, S.G. & Bruce, R.A. (1994). Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of Individual
Innovation in the Workplace. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.
Shenkar, O. & Zeira, Y. (1992). Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity of Chief Executive Officers in
International Joint Ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(1), 55-75.
Shore, L., Barksdale, K., & Shore, T. (1995). Managerial perceptions of employee commitment to
the organization. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1593 1615.
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. (1983). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature
and Antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663.
Spector, P.E. & Fox, S. (2010). Counterproductive work behavior and organisational citizenship
behavior: Are they opposite forms of active behavior? Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 59, 21 39.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008) Culturally Speaking. Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory.

2nd edition. London: Continuum.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2012). What is Culture? A Compilation of Quotations. GlobalPAD Core

Concepts.
Statistics Ho To (2021). Cronbach s Alpha: Simple Definition, Use and Interpretation.

https://www.statisticshowto.com/probability-and-statistics/statistics-definitions/cronbachs-alpha-
spss/
Tanaka, K. (2013) Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Contemporary Workplaces in Japan.

Japan Labor Review, 10(3), 5-18.
Tang, T.L-P. & Ibrahim, A.H.S. (1998). Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior
revisited: public personnel in the United States and in the Middle East. Public Personnel
Management, 27(4), 529-549.
Thomas, D.C. & Inkson, K. (2004). Cultural intelligence: People skills for global business. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Turnipseed, D.L. & Murkison, E. (2000). A bi-cultural comparison of organization citizenship

behaviour: Does the OCB phenomenon transcend national culture? International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 8(2), 200 222.
70
Turnipseed, D.L. (2002). Are good soldiers good?: Exploring the link between organizational
citizenship behavior and personal ethics. Journal of Business Research, 55,1-15.
Ueda, Y. (2016). Recent Trends in Organizational Citizenship Behavior Research: 2010-2015*. 成

大学経済学第47巻第1号.
Valters, C. (2013). Theories in Practice Series: Community mediation and social harmony in Sri
Lanka. The justice and security research program, The Asia Foundation.
Van Dyne, L. & Ellis, J.B. (2004). Job creep: A reactance theory perspective on organizational
citizenship behavior as overf l llment of obligations. Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M., Shore, L.M., Talyor,
M.S., & Tetrick L.E. (Eds.). The employment relationship: Examining psychological and contextual
perspectives, 181 205. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L., & McLean-Parks, J.M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of
construct and definitional clarity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215-285.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W., & Dienesh, R.M. (1994). Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
Construct Redefinition, Operationalization, and Validation. Chicago, IL: Loyola University of
Chicago.
Van Scotter, J.R. & Motowidlo, S.J. (1996). Interpersonal Facilitation and Job Dedication as
Separate Facets of Contextual Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525-531.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006). Compulsory Citizenship Behavior: Theorizing Some Dark Sides of the
Good Soldier Syndrome in Organizations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 36(1), 77-
93.
Wagner, S.L. & Rush, M.C. (2000). Altruistic organizational citizenship behavior: context,
disposition, and age. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140(3), 379-391.
Walz, S.M. & Niehoff, B.P. (1996). Organizational citizenship behaviors and their effect on
organizational effectiveness in limited-menu restaurants. Academy of Management Best Papers
Proceedings, 307 311.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M., Bommer, W.H., & Tetrick, L.E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and
rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 590 598.
Wijayanto, B.R. & Kismono, G. (2004). The effect of job embeddedness on organizational
citizenship behavior. Gajah Mada International Journal of Business, 6(3), 335-354.
71
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(3),
601-617.
Williams, R.M. Jr. (1970). American Society: A sociological interpretation. 3rd edition. New York:
Knopf.
Xu, X. (2004). OCB Through Cultural Lenses: Exploring the Relations Among Personality, OCB
and Cultural Values. Master Thesis at University of South Florida.
Zeinabadi, H. (2010). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as antecedents of

organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) of teachers. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,
5, 998-1003.
72
Appendix
Appendix A:
73
74
75
76
77
78

Perceived Voluntariness of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perceived Voluntariness of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Author

Maren Umdasch, BBSc.

THE VOLUNTARINESS Thesis Supervisor

PERCEPTION OF a. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Werner

ORGANIZATIONAL July 2021

Global Business Canada/Taiwan

Linz, 12 July 2021

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) describes voluntary workplace behavior guided

Keywords: Organizational Citizenship Behavior, extra-role behavior, voluntary workplace

2. Literature Review ...................................................................................................................... 6

2.1. Organizational Citizenship Behavior ................................................................................. 6

2.1.1. Dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behavior .............................................. 7

2.1.2. Antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behavior ..........................................12

2.1.3. Outcomes of Organizational Citizenship Behavior ..............................................16

2.1.4. Synonyms and Related Concepts of Organizational Citizenship Behavior ........18

2.1.4.1. Extra-role behavior ................................................................................18

2.1.4.2. Prosocial Behavior ................................................................................18

2.1.4.3. Contextual Performance .......................................................................19

2.2. Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Culture ...........................................................20

2.2.1. Culture ..................................................................................................................20

2.2.2. Organizational Citizenship Behavior within a Cultural Context ...........................22

2.2.2.1. Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Cultural Dimensions ............24

2.2.2.2. Organizational Citizenship Behavior Dimensions across Cultures ......24

2.2.2.3. Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Other Cultural Differences ..27

4.1. Reliability Testing.............................................................................................................38

4.2. Descriptive Statistics .......................................................................................................38

4.1. Hypotheses Testing .........................................................................................................41

Table 1: Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scales (incomplete).............................................. 11

Such behavior is called Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB). It describes voluntary

2.1. Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Summing up, Organizational Citizenship Behavior is a well-established concept in various

2.1.1. Dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Article Research type Dimensions Items Based on

Argentero (2008) quantitative Altruism 24 Podsakoff et al. (1990)

2.1.2. Antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Nevertheless, while Organizational Citizenship Behavior might be considered mandatory,

2.1.3. Outcomes of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

2.1.4.1. Extra-role behavior

2.1.4.2. Prosocial Behavior

2.1.4.3. Contextual Performance

2.2. Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Culture

2.2.2. Organizational Citizenship Behavior within a Cultural Context

Figure 1: The intervening process of Culture (Paine & Organ, 2000)

2.2.2.2. Organizational Citizenship Behavior Dimensions across

To sum up the topic on culture-specific Organizational Citizenship Behavior, existing theories on

How is the voluntariness of Organizational Citizenship Behavior perceived across

Helping co-workers is considered extremely important in collectivist cultures, emphasizing

The independent variable is the perception of voluntariness of Organizational Citizenship

Figure 5: Variables and Hypotheses

Dimension C nbach alpha

4.2. Descriptive Statistics

Total Europe Asia

4.1. Hypotheses Testing

Figure 6: Independent Samples T-Test Overview 1

Figure 7: Independent Samples T-Test Overview 2

Figure 8: Independent Samples T-Test H1

Figure 9: Assumptions Checks H1

Figure 10: Independent Samples T-Test H1 Individual Items

In order to statistically support or reject hypothesis 2, an independent samples t-test was

Figure 11: Independent Samples T-Test H2

Figure 12: Assumption Checks H2

Figure 14: Independent Samples T-Test H3

Figure 16: Independent Samples T-Test H3 Individual Items