Published on International Journal of Economics & Business
Publication Date: May, 2019
A. K. Anjala & K. P. Y. Sandamali
Department of Business Management, Faculty of Management Studies
Rajarata University of Sri Lanka
Journal Full Text PDF: Is it Voluntary? Or Not? : A Review on OCB.
The purpose of this review is to critically examine the existing literature on field of organizational citizenship behavior by highlighting both theoretical and empirical formations that assist to fill the lacunae of the body of knowledge. Accordingly the objectives of this review are two fold; firstly, it attempt to explore the theoretical formation of the concept of OCB and secondly it attempts to investigate the empirical researches in the field of OCB. In order to collect the literature relating to the field of OCB, popular databases were used in consistent with the relevant published studies specifically dealing with OCB from the period 1960 to 2016. This review will serve as foundation in order to identify future research direction that benefit are organizations, academics and researchers.
Keywords: Review, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), theoretical & empirical.
Even though the origin records of OCB date back to the 1930s, the official recognition was give the attention of the scholars in 1980s. Dennis Organ is generally considered as the official founder of the OCB with taken the foundation of Katz’s in 1964. According to Organ (1988) OCB is the individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization. Indeed, OCB described the employee voluntary behaviour within different organisations’ social systems. As a result of that the attention of the world of work has been placed on understanding this behaviour as it increasingly necessary to the maintenance of organisations’ social systems and employee in terms of organization and individual level. Undeniably, OCB has grabbed higher attention in business and management spheres because of the well-being employees and their behaviors can significantly touch organizations’ effectiveness and performance. A considerable number of studies have been studied, and controversial research has been developed on concepts that noted to be overlapped, with several scholars using different terms for essentially similar concepts. By taking that in to consideration this review intended to explore the existing literature in the field of OCB in order to fill the lacunae of the body of knowledge. Accordingly the objectives of this review are two fold; firstly, it attempt to explore the theoretical formation of the concept of OCB and secondly it attempts to investigate the empirical researches in the field of OCB in order to identify future research direction.
In order to collect the literature relating to the field of OCB, popular databases such as Google Scholar, Research Gate, Emerald-insight, Academia.edu, Scopus, Science Direct, etc. were used and The keywords used for the exploration were “OCB”, “definitions”, “theories”, “dimensions”, “factors” and “empirical studies on OCB”. As mentioned earlier, the objectives of this review were two fold and consistent with objective, the relevant published studies specifically dealing with OCB from the period 1930 to 2016 were explored.
2. Organizational Citizenship Behaviour : Definitions
The organizational forms behaviour called organizational citizenship behaviour was firstly pioneered to scholarly world by Batman and Organ in 1983. According to Batman and Organ (1983), OCB is a beneficial behaviour of works that were not appointed but occurred freely to help others to achieve the task at hand. Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) is an “individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988). The word discretionary means conduct that exceeds duty which goes beyond formal job description. Organ et al (1990) has proclaimed the OCB as an additional role in the performance of responsibilities of a worker with in the organization. OCB performs additional roles, behaviors that adapts employees to such activities that exhibit adaptive behavioural strategies (Raghuram et al., 2003). OCB is characterized as the behaviour of individuals in the organization,
OCB is the conduct of individuals in the organization which is defined as additional roles than defined roles and responsibilities defined roles and responsibilities (Tepper et al., 2001). OCB is free and voluntary, can highlight as the behavior which is not palced by job description that is clearly required in the employment contract, but as a private choice (Podsakoff et al, 2000). OCB is a behaviour which signifies the cooperative and constructive gestures that are neither delegated by official job role nor contractually rewarded for the formal organizational reward system (Allen et al, 2000). Thus, OCB is an organization’s ability to stimulate employee conduct that reach beyond the call of duty (Bolino and Turnley, 2003). Organ (1997) demarcated OCB as behaviour that contributes “to the upkeep and augmentation of the communal and psychosomatic context that supports task performance.
2.1 Characteristics of OCB
By definition, OCB’s three essential characteristics highlights its uniqueness. The first one; OCB voluntary in nature that goes beyond traditional work requirements ( Organ, 1983). It highlights that the employee is not obliged to work with OCBs. It depends on the employee’s will and is not encouraged by the guidance of any supervisor. Second; OBC is not directly or implicitly received the attention by the formal reward system. Even if such activities are involved, the salary or promotion may be increased according to the recommendation of the authorities, but it is not guaranteed by the term of the contract (Organ, 1997). The third one; Overall, the OCB promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization.
2.2 Types of OCB
An Extensive classification in OCB includes; altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy and civic virtue (Organ, 1988). Podsakoff et al (1990) were among the first researchers to operationalize Organ’s (1998) five dimensions. The context of the context in OBC consists of five sections: the voluntary presentation of enthusiasm, support to others, rules and procedures, and the defense of the goals of the organization (Borman and Motowidlo, 1997). This classification is more similar to the OCB dimensions proposed by Organ in 1997. According to Netemeyer et al., (1997), OCB was classified into four categories as sportsmanship, civic virtue, conscientiousness and altruism. The behavioural domains of theses classifications overlap with each other and with Organ’s (1998). Another OCB framework has developed by Morrison (1994) which is most importantly the altruism dimension overlaps with Organ’s (1988) altruism and courtesy dimensions, the conceptualization of conscientiousness is a bit narrower than Organ’s and finally the last dimension “keeping up with changes” overlaps with Organ’s civic virtue and conscientiousness dimensions. Podsakoff et al (2000) developed helping behaviour, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, organizational compliance, individual initiative, civic virtue and self- development are the seven common dimensions of OCB.
2.3 Dimensions of OCB
If the disagreements are among scholars regarding the dimensions of the OCB, Organ (1995) presents the most acceptable strands among the scholars of OCB. It is as follows.
• Magnanimity – It is the tolerance and forgiveness in difficult situations and the crises in the organization without complaint.
• Civic virtue – It is the tend to participation and accountability in organizational life and the desire to provide a good image of the organization.
• Conscience – It is the optimal behaviour that goes beyond the minimum requirements. As someone who goes to work more than usual for organizational profit.
• Altruism – It can define as the help other members with problems and tasks.
• Attention – It is the employees’ effort to avoid tensions and difficulties of working with others.
Again, Organ (1998) has identified five dimensional model as follows.
• Altruism – behaviour of helping other employees without coercion on tasks that are closely related to organizational operations.
• Civic virtue – Showing the voluntary participation and supporting the functions of the organization both professionally and social nature.
• Conscientiousness – contains the performance of the basic role that exceeds minimum standards.
• Courtesy – the behaviour that reduces the problems relating to employment faced by other people
• Sportsmanship – consists taboos making issues that undermine though they are annoying.
Organ (1998) is proposed a five dimensional scale of OCB. It includes five dimensions as follows.
The employee refers to collaborating or collaborating with other employees in order to deal with organizational issues, called organizational Altruism (Organ, 1998). Padsakoff et al (2000) defines the contradiction as assisting behavior for co workers with their work-related problems. MacKenzie et al., (1998), stated that some researchers has joined altruism and conscientiousness and refered to as “helping behavior.
• Compliance/ Conscientiousness
The dedication to the job which exceeds formal requirements is called as compliance. Dippalla and Hoy (2005) is defined conscientiousness as the behaviours that affect a person to do activities more than his expectations. This is one most important personality traits in predicting OCB (Organ, 1995). It includes dependencies, organization, and self-discipline. Barrick and Mount (1991) points out that the people with high conscientiousness usually perform better at work than those who are with conscientiousness.
According to Organ (1988) sportsmanship is the readiness to tolerate the unavoidable embarrassments and burdens of work without complaining. Shokrkon et al (2003) is defined sportsmanship as the loyal behaviours that sidestep too much criticism at work and it is important in reducing employees’ complaints on unimportant matters (Paille et al, 2013).
• Civic virtue
Shokrkon et al (2003) define defined civic virtue as the quality of representation individual participation in the activities related to the organization. Civic virtue is counted for participating in movements, such as attending and participating in meetings that are not mandated by the company.
Shokrkon et al (2003) is defined courtesy as the polite manners that prevent creation of problems at workplace. It includes the behavioural steps are being taken to prevent problems and reduce future impacts.
3. Empirical investigation
Several research activities have been carried out in the field of OCB and various results have been obtained. Jha (2012) has examined the effect of transformational leadership on organizational citizenship behaviour by employing 319 employees and the study found a significant and positive effect of transformational leadership on OCB where a moderating significant effect of psychological empowerment on OCB. Moreover, Indarti et al, (2017) researched to investigate the effect of organizational citizenship behaviour and personality, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction on the performance. As per the result of this research, OCB has moderating effect on performance, organizational commitment and job satisfaction on performance. Bogler & Somech (2005) researched on Organizational citizenship behaviour in school to investigate that how does it relate to participation in decision making. The study found to be teacher empowerment played an important role in mediating the relationship between teachers’ participation in decision making and OCB. Garg & Rastogi (2006) formulated a study on climate proﬁle and OCBs of teachers in public and private schools of India. The study found that there is a significant difference in the exhibition of citizenship behaviours of teachers working in public and private schools. The study used 100 teachers; out of which 50 teachers were from public sector schools and 50 from private sector schools. Kim (2006) researched to investigate whether the distinct classes of organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) such as altruism and generalized compliance are shown in the Korean context, and whether public service motivation, job satisfaction and organizational commitment are predictors of OCB. The research found that the presence of the two dimensions of OCB in the Korean context, and support the relationships between public service motivation and OCB and the relationship between organizational commitment and OCB. However, the direct relationship between job satisfaction and OCB is not conﬁrmed.
The review critically examined the existing literature on field of organizational citizenship behavior in both theoretical and empirical formations. It highlighted various definisions of OCB, Characteristics of OCB, Types of OCB, Dimensions of OCB and finally the Empirical investigation the of researches conducted in the field of OCB. In order to collect the literature relating to the field of OCB, popular databases were used in consistent with the relevant published studies specifically dealing with OCB from the period 1930 to 2016. Finally, the review signifies the importance of OCB as a concept which focused towards future research directions that benefit are organizations, academics and researchers.
Allen, T. D., Barnard, S., Rush, M. C., & Russell, J. E. (2000). Ratings of organizational citizenship behavior: Does the source make a difference?. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 97-114.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991),” The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology 44, 1-27.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship.” Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587-595.
Bateman, T.S, & Organ, D.W.(1983). Job Satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between afffact and employees Citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, (26),PP.587-595.
Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior in school: how does it relate to participation in decision making?. Journal of educational Administration, 43(5), 420-438.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human performance, 10(2), 99-109.
Farh, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of management, 16(4), 705-721.
Garg, P., & Rastogi, R. (2006). Climate profile and OCBs of teachers in public and private schools of India. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(7), 529-541.
Indarti, S., Fernandes, A. A. R., & Hakim, W. (2017). The effect of OCB in relationship between personality, organizational commitment and job satisfaction on performance. Journal of Management Development, 36(10), 1283-1293.
Jha, S. (2014). Transformational leadership and psychological empowerment: Determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 3(1), 18-35.
Katz, D. (1964). “The motivational basis of organizational behavior”. Behavioral Science. 9 (2): 131–133.
Kim, S. (2006). Public service motivation and organizational citizenship behavior in Korea. International journal of manpower, 27(8), 722-740.
Lin, R. S. J., & Hsiao, J. K. (2014). The relationships between transformational leadership, knowledge sharing, trust and organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 5(3), 171.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. (1998). Some possible antecedents of in-role and extra-role salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 62, 87−98.
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definition and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543– 1567.
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., McKee, D. O., & McMurrian, R. (1997). An investigation into the antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling context. Journal of marketing, 61(3), 85-98.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85–97
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human performance, 10(2), 85-97.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802
Paillé, P., Boiral, O., & Chen, Y. (2013). Linking environmental management practices and organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: a social exchange perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(18), 3552-3575.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The leadership quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B. and Bachrach, D. G. (2000), “Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 513-563.
Raghuram, S., Wiesenfeld, B.M. and Garud, R. (2003), “Technology enabled work: The role of self efficacy in determining telecommuter adjustment and structuring behavior”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 63, pp. 180-198
Shokrkon & et al (2003). Relationship between OCB, job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Shahid Chamran University Press. (Persian).
Tepper, B. J., Lockhart, D., & Hoobler, J. (2001). Justice, citizenship, and role definition effects. Journal of applied psychology, 86(4), 789.