Organizational Citizenship Behaviours (OCB)
Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional academic writers. You can view samples of our professional work here.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.
Published: Wed, 14 Mar 2018
According to Organ (1990), Organizational Citizenship Behaviours (OCB) are beyond the scope of formal job description, incentives or contractual sanctions. However, this work-related activities that performed by the employees will increase the organizational effectiveness. Bateman and Organ (1983) states that Organizational Citizenship Behaviours also not specifically included in the job description and may be considered as extra-role behaviours. Besides, Moorman and Blakely (1995) argue that although the OCB are adding merit to the organization but the managers also having difficulties in eliciting the employees’ performance due to the behaviours are voluntary by the employees.
2.2 Definition of Organizational Citizenship Behaviours (OCB)
OCB have been defined as “individuals’ extra-helping behaviours that are discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, in order to promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization”(Organ, 1988: 4). In the earlier study that prior to the Organ’s idea, Katz (1964) had recognized the value of extra-role behaviour which is critically to the functioning of any social system. Katz suggested that to the extent of extra-role behaviour, some level is a need to ensure the success and survival of social system. Hence, the social system reaps the harvest of individual’s extra effort.
Koys (2001) found that citizenship behaviour leads to subsequent enhanced organizational performance. LePine, Erez & Johnson (2002) and Rioux & Penner, (2001) also states that in order for an organization to operate effectively, the employees must go beyond the roles that are not indicated by their formal job description. This phenomenon has been inconsistently labeled by researchers as pro-social organizational behaviour, extra-role behaviour, or organizational spontaneity (Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995). Theses behaviour is especially beneficial for hospitality and restaurants organizations to effectively deliver timely and tailored services for customers (Sammons, 1994).
From the research, definitions of OCB have difference view between Organ’s and Katz’s ideas. Although they have stated that OCBs contain all positive organizationally relevant behaviours but from the Organ’s idea stated that organizational citizenship behaviours can be defined as the type of behaviour that is not a part of job description, but it is rather a matter of personal choice and the willingness to do more than expectation. However from Katz’s idea stated that some level of extra-role behaviour is necessary to ensure the survival and success of social system. Furthermore, the factors that are intended to investigate in organizational citizenship behaviours is perceived organizational support, organizational commitment, organizational identification and organizational justice (distribute justice, procedural justice).
2.3 Perceived Organizational Support
Perceived organizational support (POS) has aroused a great deal of interest among researchers in the field of psychology and management (Eisenberger et.al. 2004). In 2002, Rhoades and Eiserberger published a meta-analysis on the antecedents and consequences of POS based on seventy (70) empirical papers. POS refers to the degree to which employees perceive their employer to be concerned with their well-being and to value their contribution to the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986). According to Levinson (1965) employees tend to personify the organization for which they work. Therefore, based on the actions of executives and managers, employees tend to lend intention to the organization as a system. POS thus corresponds to the degree to which employees feel that the organization that employs them is willing to equitably compensate them for their efforts, help them in case of needs and make their work interesting and simulating and provides them with adequate working conditions (Eisenberger et al.,1986). In brief, employees are of the general idea concerning the support provided by the organization.
An employee serves as an important source of socio-emotional resources, that is, respects and caring, and tangible benefits, such as wages and medical benefits. Thus, research on perceived organizational support begins with the observation that managers are concerned with their employees’ commitment to the organization. Employees are focused on the organization’s commitment to them. Being regarded highly by the organization helps the employer to meet employees’ needs for approval, esteem and affiliation. Positive valuation by the organization also provides an indication that increased effort will be noted and rewarded. Therefore employees will take an active interest as regard the assistance offered by their employer.
Organizational support theory (OST: Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Shore & Shore 1995) holds that in order to meet socio-emotional needs and to assess the benefits of increased work effort, employees form a general perception concerning the extent to which the organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being. Such perceived organizational support (POS) would increase employees’ obligation to help the organization reach its objectives, their affective commitment to the organization, and their expectation that improved performance would be rewarded. Behavioural outcomes of POS would increase in in-role and extra-role performance and decrease in stress and withdrawal behaviours such as absenteeism and turnover.
The meta-analysis of research on POS, carried out by Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) indicated that three general categories of favourable treatment received by employees (fairness of treatment, supervisors support, and rewards and job conditions) are positively related to POS, which in turn is associated with outcome favoured by employees, for example, increasing affective commitment and performance and reduced turnover. POS specifies mechanism responsible for these associations, allowing stringent tests of the theory.
POS is assumed to be a global belief which employees form concerning their valuation by the organization. Based on the experience of personal relevant organizational policies and procedures, the receipts of resources and the interaction with agents of the organization, an employee would distil the organization’s general orientation towards him or her. Thus the organization’s discretion is important for determining the extent to which different treatments has most impact on POS. For example, union workers might receive excellent wages and benefits. However, if these benefits resulted from difficult contested negotiations, employees would consider the benefits to have been provided involuntarily, and the benefits would have little influence on POS.
According to organizational support theory, the relationship between performance-reward expectancies and POS should be reciprocal (Eisenberger, 1986; Shore & Shore, 1995). Favourable opportunities for rewards would convey the organizational’s positive valuation of employees’ contribution and thus contributes to POS (cf. Gaertner and Nollen, 1989). POS in turn, would increase employees’ expectations that high performance will be rewarded. Consistent with these views, the meta-analysis by Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) found that opportunities for greater recognition, pay and promotions were positively associated the POS. An additional research is needed concerning the mediating role of reward expectancies in the relationship between POS and performance.
2.4 Organizational Commitment
Commitment implies an intention to persist in a course of action. Therefore, organizations often try to foster commitment in their employees to achieve stability and reduce costly turnover. It is commonly believed that committed employees will also work harder and be more likely to “go the extra mile” to achieve organizational objectives. Research demonstrated that commitment does indeed contribute to a reduction in turnover. But there is a caveat to the assumption regarding its impact on performance. In a general sense, organizational commitment is the employees’ psychological attachment to the organization. It can be contrasted with other work-related attitudes, such as job satisfaction, defined as an employee’s feelings about the job, and Organizational Identification, defined as the degree to which an employee experiences a “sense of oneness” with the organization. Three (3) component model of commitment construct by Meyer and Allen’s (1991) conclude that there are three mind-sets which can characterize an employee’s commitment to the organization:
Defined as the employee’s positive emotional attachment to the organization. An employee who is affectively committed strongly identifies with the goals of the organization and desires to remain a part of the organization. This employee commits to the organization because he/she “wants to”. In developing this concept, Meyer and Allen drew largely in Mowday, Porter. And Steers’s (1982) concept of commitment, which in turn drew on earlier work by Kanter (1968).
The individual commits to the organization because he/she perceives high costs of losing organizational membership (cf. Becker’s 1960 “side bet theory”), including economic costs such as pension accruals and social costs, friendship ties with co-workers that would be incurred. The employees remain a member of the organization because he/she “has to”.
The individual commits to and remains with an organization because of feelings of obligation. These feelings may derive from many sources. For example, the organization may have invested resources in training an employee who then feels a “moral” obligation to put forth effort on the job and stay with the organization to “repay the debt”. It may also reflect an internalized norm, developed before the person joins the organization through family or other socialization process that one should be loyal to one’s organization. The employee stays with the organization because he/she “ought to”.
According to Meyer and Allen, these components of commitment are not mutually exclusive where an employee can simultaneously be committed to the organization in an affective, normative and continuance sense, at varying levels of the intensity. Meyer and Allen also argue that an employee has a “commitment profile” that reflects high or low levels of all three of these mind-sets, and different profiles have different effects on workplace behaviours such as job performance, absenteeism and the chance that the organization member will quit.
Organizational commitment has been extensively researched as an important factor in retaining and motivating employees and human resource management strategies have been proposed to develop organizational commitment. However, there has been considerable interest in organizational commitment constructed due to its reported relationship with organizational efficiency and effectiveness (Beck & Wilson, 2000). In addition, the number of studies has shown a positive correlation between organizational commitment and job performance (Hunter & Thatcher, 2007; Pool & Pool, 2007). Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky (2002) in their meta-analysis found that affective commitment was negatively correlated with turnover and withdrawal cognition, absenteeism, work-family conflict and positively correlated with job performance and organizational citizenship behaviours. All of these forms shown the strongest correlation with desirable organizational outcome and hence, organizations typically strive to foster this type of commitment among their employees (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Affective commitment is defined as an “employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organizational” (Meyer & Allen, 1991, p67).
The scope of article by Andrew Hale Feinstein (1999) focuses upon job satisfaction and its relationship with organizational commitment. The purpose of this study is to gain better understanding of the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment of employees at two locations of a national restaurant chain in Southern Neveda. In an effort to evaluate the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment within food service operation, two (2) widely used and validated instruments that assess these phenomena were identified the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) and the organizational commitment questionnaire.
The proposed theoretical framework can facilitate research that seeks to understand the impact of learning in workplace on employee commitment. This study also seeks to contribute to management practices by considering important organizational learning process that influences employee commitment. Besides, this study contributes a conceptual model graphically depicting the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. It also identifies several variables that significantly affect job satisfaction in a small sample of participants and suggested others that might be found to be significant in other studies.
2.5 Organizational Identification
Organizational identification can be defined as “perceived oneness with an organization and the experience of the organization’s successes or failures as one’s own” (Mael and Ashforth, 1992, p. 103). It is expected that the incidence of OCBs will be high among employees who identify with the organization and share its values and goals (cf. Morrison, 1996). Van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch (1994) argue that organizational identification has powerful motivational effects that create and release energy and effort to serve collectively. Within organizational contexts, this energy and effort might be expressed as OCBs. In support this view, Ouchi (1981) suggests that goal/value congruence between employees and the organization might motivate employees to behave in ways that are consistent with the organization’s objectives.
In a broader study of organizational commitment, O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) found that individuals whose attachment to their organization was based on identification with organizational values and goals were more likely to perform pro-social behaviours than those whose attachment was instrumental in nature. As employees become more psychologically attached to the organization, their relationship to the organization changes, resulting in systematically different behavioural displays of psychological involvement (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986). Van Dyne, Graham and Dienesch (1994) offer a slightly different perspective on the role of organizational identification and OCBs. They employ a covenantal view of employee-organization relationships, which describes the relationship in terms of a “mutual promise by individuals to do their best to serve common values for an indefinite period” (Van Dyne, Graham and Dienesch, 1994, p. 768). This view holds that employees make a ‘pledge’ to the organization to contribute to its ongoing prosperity. According to Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail (1994), organizational identification aligns individuals’ interests and behaviours that benefit the organization. Employees who strongly identify with the organization are likely to focus on tasks that benefit the whole organization rather than purely self-interested objectives.
Drawing on dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957), these authors argue that as organizational identification increases employees demonstrate increased cooperation with other organizational members in addition to directing additional effort toward tasks that contribute to co-workers and to the organization. The alignment of employee and organizational interests enables an employee to contribute simultaneously to both the organization and him or herself (Dutton, Dukerich and Harquail, 1994).
Furthermore organizational identification is a cognitively based identity that an individual and an organization share (Wan-Huggins, Riordan, & Griffeth, 1998). In general, an organization engages in strategies to enhance organizational identification among its members so that they will act in ways that are perceived to benefit the organization (Pratt, 1998; Tompkins & Cheney, 1985). Consequently, some researchers have argued that because engendering organizational identification among organization members is necessary for the organization to function effectively, it should be one of an organization’s most important tasks (Pratt, 1998).
Although factors such as employees’ increasing adoption of transactional psychological contracts, more flexible organizational forms, and increased levels of diversity make identity work (i.e., crafting the organization’s identity and promoting identification with the organization) by organizations increasingly complex, these factors also reinforce the importance of gaining a greater understanding of the identification process (Albert, Ashforth, & Dutton, 2000). For example, while the number of virtual workers grows, and while traditional means of managing employees become less relevant, management’s ability to foster identification within the workplace has become even more essential “because it may replace or otherwise compensate for the loss of aspects of traditional organizations that facilitate cooperation, coordination and the long-term effort of employees” (Weisenfeld, Raghuram, & Garud, 2001, p. 215). Accordingly, there is a need for research that examines those factors that might influence both (a) an individual’s identification with his or her organization and (b) the extent to which organizational identification is related to important outcomes, such as helping or citizenship behaviour (Dukerich, Dutton, & Shortell, 2002; Feather & Rauter, 2004), cooperation (Dukerich et al., 2002), intentions to remain with the organization (Wan-Huggins et al., 1998), and turnover (Mael & Ashforth, 1995).
Researchers have shown that there are a wide variety of theoretical antecedents that are related to organization identification, one emerging stream of researchers has focused on construed external image. Construed external image “refers to a member’s beliefs about outsiders’ perceptions of the organization” (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994, p. 248). Researchers have consistently shown that construed external image is positively related with organizational identification in a wide variety of settings (e.g., Lipponen, Kelkama, Olkkonen, & Juslin, 2005; Schmidts, Pruyn, & Van Riel, 2001; Wan-Huggins et al., 1998). However, no empiricist has examined the most frequent theoretical explanation of the relationship between these two variables (construed external image and organizational identification). Consequently, researchers can have some degree of confidence that construed external image is positively related to organizational identification, but having no evidence to support the primary theoretical underpinnings of this relationship. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to empirically examine one of the underlying theoretical explanations of why construed external image is related to organizational identification.
Researchers have largely based their examinations of the identification process in organizations on earlier work on the social identification process in small groups (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Elsbach, 1999). Social identification is an individual’s cognitive connection with a group or the perceived overlap between the individual’s identity and a group’s identity (Elsbach, 1999).”Social identification, therefore, is the perception of oneness with or belongingness to some human aggregate” (Ashforth & Mael, 1989, p.21). Ashforth and Mael (1989, p. 21) argued that social identification serves two purposes: providing a cognitive separation and order of the social environment that gives an individual a systematic means of defining others and enabling an individual to locate or define him or herself in the social environment.
Although most of the researchers of identification processes have worked in group settings, an emerging stream of researchers has focused on a specific type of social group: the formal organization (Elsbach, 1999). According to Dutton et al. (1994), members of an organization become psychologically attached to it when they “adopt the defining characteristics of the organization as defining characteristics for themselves” (p. 242). Thus, organizational identification occurs when an individual’s self-concept is tied to his or her organizational membership (Dutton et al., 1994).
Researchers have consistently differentiated organizational identification from other similar or closely related constructs (i.e., Pratt, 1998; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Pratt (1998), for example, differentiated organizational identification from internalization of organizational values and beliefs, organizational commitment, and person-organization fit. While identification “refers to self in terms of social categories (I am), internalization refers to the incorporation of values, attitudes, and so forth within the self as guiding principles (I believe)” (Ashforth & Mael, 1989, pp. 21-22; italics added). Pratt (1998, p. 178) also distinguished organizational identification from organizational commitment in that “identification explains the individual-organization relationship in terms of an individual’s self-concept; organizational commitment does not.” Accordingly, an individual who identifies with an organization would certainly experience “some psychic loss” if they left the organization, whereas an individual who is committed to the organization would not necessarily (Ashforth & Mael, 1989, p. 23). Empirical research supports the view that organizational identification is distinct from organizational commitment (Gautam, Van Dick, & Wagner, 2004).
Finally, although person-organization fit may be similar to organizational commitment, the person-organization fit concept is broader than organizational identification and focuses on what an individual contributes to the organization (Pratt 1998), rather than the influence of organizational characteristics on an individual’s self-concept. Thus, researchers have conceptually differentiated organizational identification from other attachment-related constructs. Researchers have identified several different antecedents to organizational identification including procedural justice (Tyler, 1999), communication climate (Schmidts et al., 2001), positive affectivity (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004), organizational distinctiveness (Mael & Ashforth, 1992), construed external image (Dutton et al., 1994), internal respect (Tyler, 1999), length of membership (Bhattacharya, Rao, & Glynn, 1995), level of contact with the organization (Bhattacharya et al., 1995), inter organizational and intra organizational competition (Mael & Ashforth, 1992), participation in decision making (Pierce & Dunham, 1987), role conflict or ambiguity (Wan-Huggins et al., 1998), biodata (Mael & Ashforth, 1995), and age (Riketta, 2005).
2.6 Organizational Justice
2.6.1 Distributive Justice
Distributive justice is concerned with the extent to which outcomes are perceived as being equitably distributed. Organ (1990) has proposed that distributive justice concern may influence citizenship according to prediction derived from equity theory (Adam 1965). If an employee perceived that he or she is in unfair compensation, he or she may less like to perform OCB.
It is the degree to which rewards and punishments are related to performance input (Price & Muller, 1986). This may increase employee perception of fair rewards for work performed (Adam, 1965). According to Organ (1990), distributive justice alluded to the three (3) rules of distribution: Equity, Equality, and Need.
Equity rule of distribution is a reward according to contribution. If a full time worker works more than a part time worker, he or she expects more compensation than the part time worker, based on the same conditions. Full time worker will feel breach of equity by employer if he or she discovers that a part time worker earns more money than a full time worker.
According to Williams & Zainuba (2002), as a response to perceive inequity, an employee may withhold voluntary behaviour to adjust his or her input portion of the equity ratio calculation. Adam (1965) and Greenberg (1990) argued that research involves equity theory, employee job performance may either increase or decrease according to an employee perception of fair rewards for work performed. If an employee is perceived of treating inequity, the employee may try to reject to perform organizational citizenship behaviour. With this reason, perceive equity is important in distributive justice. Therefore, by effectively implementing distributive justice, it will enhance the employee organization citizenship behaviour.
The second rule of distribution is the equality rule which states that all individuals, regardless of ability and gender, have equal opportunity to obtain the same reward. Since this is ineffective to reward people at random, a modified version is used to reward people based on ability, knowledge, and productivity.
The last rule of distribution is the need rule. It is the idea that less well to do people deserve the reward more than others. For example, an employee who drives a car to work will be a more deserving case for a pay increase rather than someone who does not use a car. If the organization acts otherwise then it has breach the need rule of distribution.
In conclusion, distributive justice plays an important role in organizational citizenship behaviour. Effectiveness of implementing distributive justice will enhance the job performance of the employees. Besides, the three (3) rules of distribution are important to evaluate distributive justice. It serves as the major factor to measure distributive justice.
2.6.2 Procedural Justice
According to Greenberg (1986), definition of procedural justice is perceived fairness of the procedures that organization used to come to a decision. Organ (1990) suggested that fairness perceptions play an important role in promoting organization citizenship behaviour (OCB).
Organ (1988, 1990) also proposed an explanation that employees perform OCB to reciprocate the fair treatment offered by the organization. According to Organ and Konovsky (1989), procedural justice proposed that employee perceptions of fairness in the workplace might be particularly important to the emergence of OCB, since fair treatment might create a change in the employees’ mindset regarding their relationship with their organization. Fairness treatment of an employee will build a strong relationship with their managers, thus employee will participate in more activities and create more chances to perform OCB.
Procedural justice refers to the perceive fairness of the procedures used to determine outcome distributions or allocations (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter & Ng, 2001; Lind & Taylor 1988). Conquitt et al. (2001) found that meta- analysis noted that although procedural justice is well represented in study of satisfaction, commitment, evaluation of authorities, withdrawal of negative reactions, it is relatively underrepresented in studies of performance, organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB).
In a more recently study, William et al. (2002) found that organization justice component have strong positive effect on OCB. Procedural justice has been shown to be related to employee attitudes (Dailey, Kirk, 1992; Konovsky & Folger, 1994; Lemons and Jones, 2001; McFarlin & Sweeney). According to Folger, Kober, Konovsky & Mary A. (1989), procedural justice is more strongly related to attitude about institutions and their authorities. Different thinking of a person will influence the attitude of a person. Therefore, it has a positive relation between attitude and procedural justice. If the employees have been treated unfairly in the organization, they would probably show negative attitude to their manager or employer. In addition, positive attitude will lead to success in implementing OCB. Muchinsky (2000) argue that a decision is procedurally just if it is consistent, “without personal bias, with as much accurate information as possible, and with an outcome that could be modified.
In conclusion, perceive fairness is important to emergence OCB in an organization. Manager is required to learn to treat employee without being biased. Perceive fairness to an employee will make them feel they are being respected. In addition, fair treatment by a manager or employer will increase the positive attitude of the employee and thus lead to emergence of OCB in an organization. Manager is also required to collect as much as possible accurate information before make a job decision to ensure that the decision is fair to all employees. Thus, employees are satisfied with the decision and will not challenge it.
2.7 Conceptual Framework of Organizational Citizenship
Figure 2.1: Research model of Organizational Citizenship Behaviours (OCBs)
Independent Variable Dependent Variable
2.8 Hypotheses Testing
There were five (5) general hypothesis proposed in the research. The hypothesis integrates importance of organizational citizenship behaviours on perceived organizational support, organizational commitment, organizational identification and organizational justice (distributive justice, procedural justice). Therefore, a range of influencing factors were measured and the following hypothesis will be tested.
H10: There is no significant relationship between Organizational Citizenship
Behaviours and Perceived Organizational Support
H11: There is significant relationship between Organizational Citizenship
Behaviours and Perceived Organizational Support
H20: There is no significant relationship between Organizational Citizenship
Behaviours and Commitment
H21: There is significant relationship between Organizational Citizenship
Behaviours and Commitment
H30: There is no significant relationship between Organizational Citizenship
Behaviours and Organizational Identification
H31: There is significant relationship between Organizational Citizenship
Behaviours and Organizational Identification
H40: There is no significant relationship between Organizational Citizenship
Behaviours and Distributive Justice
H41: There is significant relationship between Organizational Citizenship
Behaviours and Distributive Justice
H50: There is no significant relationship between Organizational Citizenship
Behaviours and Procedural Justice
H51: There is significant relationship between Organizational Citizenship
Behaviours and Procedural Justice
In conclusion, this chapter discusses the review of literature where it states the previous research on the relevant construct that are perceived organizational support, organizational commitment, organizational identification, and organizational justice (distributive justice, procedural justice). Therefore, theoretical models that have been conducted will be discussed in more detail. The last part in this chapter is the development of hypothesis where it helps to test the relationship among the construct. Lastly this chapter will proceed to the next chapter discussing about the methodology that to be used in this res
Cite This Work
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: