Determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Its Consequence
Dr Bhavesh Vanparia (Asst. professor of Tolani Management Institute, Adipur,Gandhidham,Gujarat), Dr Pooja Chavda (Asst. professor of Indu Management Institute,Sevasi- Koyli Road, Vadodara, Gujarat), Priyanka Mehta ( Asst. professor Marwadi Education Foundation Group of Institution, Bedi Rajkot ,Gujarat)
Abstract:
Theory and research on Organizational Citizenship Behaviours (OCB) has presumed OCB as
a set of desirable behaviours that contributes to the organizational effectiveness. So far OCB
has been connoted as one of the antecedents of organizational performance. However, the
antecedents of OCB are not thoroughly investigated. This study explores various existing
definitions of OCB and then examines the dimensions of OCB. This study will focus on
relation between OCB dimension and demographic variable like Gender, Education, Gender,
and Designation. These studies also focus on performance of OCB performance in different
sectors.
Introduction:
The initial OCB concepts were introduced by Bateman and Organ in 1983. OCB is positive for organizations and benefits both management and subordinates.OCB defines the relationships among co-workers. Being helpful and supportive of colleagues in a way that benefits the organization, working towards the organization’s goals.OCB is not always formally recognized or rewarded, and concepts like ‘helpfulness’ or ‘friendliness’ are also difficult to quantify. Yet OCB has been shown to have a considerable positive impact at the organizational level, enhancing organizational effectiveness. OCB enhances employee performance and wellbeing; outlines how OCB will benefit the company overall; explores ways of encouraging OCB in the workplace. OCB refers to anything that employees choose to do, spontaneously and of their own accord, which often lies outside of their specified contractual obligations. In other words, it is discretionary. In this way it can facilitate future reward gain indirectly.Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is referred as set of discretionary workplace behaviors that exceed one’s basic job requirements. They are often described as behaviors that go beyond the call of duty.There is consensus in this particular field that OCB addresses silent behaviors for organizational enterprises (Barbuto, Brown, Wilhite, & Wheeler, 2001). Successful organizations have employees who go beyond their formal job responsibilities and freely give of their time and energy to succeed at the assigned job. Organizations could not survive or prosper without their members behaving as good citizens by engaging in all sorts of positive behaviors.
Objective of organization citizenship behaviour:
Throughout the years, it has become apparent that employees perform OCB for very different reasons. Rioux and Penner (2001) indicated that there were three different motives for engaging in OCB, which include: impression management, prosaical values, and organizational concern.
1. Impression Management: Impression management involves the employee working to build a positive image for their own personal gain and to avoid being perceived negatively.
3. Organizational Concern: Organizational concern is based on social exchange theory. Social exchange theory specifies that an employee engages in OCB because the organization has given them a good job and treats them fairly.
Dimension of Organization citizenship behavior:
The underlying dimensions of OCB have been a work in progress. OCB was originally organized into two dimensions: altruism and compliance (Bateman & Organ, 1983). Compliance was later re-named conscientiousness. In 1988, Organ added sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue. Finally, peacemaking and cheerleading were added by Organ in 1990 to complete the list of dimensions. Altruism, cheerleading, and peacemaking were later grouped together in a category known as helping behavior (Organ, 1997). The following list contains definitions and examples of each of the five categories of OCB:
1. Conscientiousness: Conscientiousness refers to impersonal behavior that benefits the organization as a whole. In other words, it refers to behavior that is not directed at another individual. Examples of conscientiousness include an employee adhering to an organization’s rules and regulations or an employee not using all of their vacation or sick days.
2. Sportsmanship: Sportsmanship is an employee’s willingness to deal with poor situations without complaining. It is the only form of OCB that involves declining to participate in certain behaviors. For example, not engaging in gossip and not complaining about office size would be considered good sportsmanship.
3. Courtesy: Courtesy is demonstrated by preventing organization problems through communication and general consideration for others. An example of 11 courtesy involves letting co-workers know how they can reach an employee who is on vacation. The courteous behaviors attempt to prevent other employees from encountering unpleasant surprises.
5.
Objectives:
The study aims to understand various dimension of OCB upon OCB in service sector context, more specifically to examine the effect of commitment, environment and culture upon OCB.
The following objectives are taken for the study based on literature review.
1. To understand relationship between various dimensions like commitment, work environment and organization culture upon OCB.
2. To understand the relationship between the job satisfaction and the above mentioned dimensions of OCB.
3. To study the relationship between demographic variables and OCB of the respondent.
Hypothesis:
H1: There is significant difference in OBC dimensions with respect to Gender.
H2: There is significant difference in OCB dimensions with respect to marital status.
H3: There is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Education Qualification.
H4: There is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Designation.
H5: There is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Experience.
H6: There is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Income.
Literature review
R. S. D’Intino (1999) referred organization citizenship behaviour as “individual behavior that is optional, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the collective promotes the effective functioning of the organization” given by Organ, in 1988 and he proposed a theoretical and an empirical relationship linking organizational citizenship behavior and two ideological orientations defined in social contract theory. He introduces organizational cooperation and explains how early management theorists provided the foundation that supports the organizational citizenship behavior concept. As per his study, Citizenship theory include (1) individual extra-role actions can be distinguished from in-role actions and (2) these extra-role behavior distinctions are important to organizational employees and managers (Van Dyne &LePine, 1998). For that it was expected tht organizations’ employees as global competition continues to require greater energy and output. Individual helpful behaviors that serve to help other persons, work groups, or an entire organization are the context for the academic and observed study of OCB. The person who is satisfied from job will have cooperative behavior in the organization. Family, neighbors, and friends are the primary reference, rather than work groups or the larger community or society. They have found out that social and community experiences affect workplace behavior.
Philip M. Podsakoff, Scott B. MacKenzie, et. all (2000) examined the various dimensions of OCB and also critically evaluated the relationship of those constructs. More specifically, they (a) explored the conceptual similarities and differences between the various forms of “citizenship” behavior constructs identified in the literature; (b) summarized the empirical findings of both the antecedents and consequences of OCBs; and (c) identified several interesting directions for future research.
It was studied from the literature review that there was a great deal of conceptual overlap between the constructs. The literature review captures seven common themes or dimensions: (1) Helping Behavior, (2) Sportsmanship, (3) Loyalty, (4) Organizational Compliance, (5) Individual Initiative, (6) Civic Virtue, and (7) Self Develop.
highlight empirical and conceptual gaps. The purpose of the study was both to clarify research from the social exchange perspective, and to spark inquiry into other possibilities. The concept of OCB originally grew out of Dennis Organ’s reflections into clarifications for the apparent non-relationship between job satisfaction and job performance (Organ, 1988). It was then finally proposed as an alternative form of performance, separated from traditional performance on the basis of its relative freedom from situational and ability constraints. Nadim Jahangir, Mohammad Muzahid Akbar ET. All (2004), they explores various existing definitions of OCB and then examines the dimensions of OCB. Based on the discussion on the dimensions of OCB, a number of antecedents were identified. When the antecedents were known, managers would be able to promote OCB among their employees for better performance. Job Satisfaction & Organizational Commitment, Role Perceptions, Leadership behaviors & LMX, Fairness Perceptions, Individual Dispositions, Motivational Theories, Employee Age. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is referred as set of discretionary workplace behaviors that exceed one’s basic job requirements. It was often described as behaviors that go beyond the call of duty. Different definition of OCB Are
1) Barnard (1938)[24] stated that the willingness of individuals to contribute cooperative efforts to the organization was indispensable to effective attainment of organizational goals Barnard elaborated that efforts must be exerted not only to perform the functions that contribute to the goals of the organization but also to maintain the organization itself. Individuals differ in their willingness to contribute to the “cooperative system”, and these individual differences in behavior cannot be explained by individual differences in ability.
2) Katz and Kahn’s (1966) [25] extended this argument further. In any organization, they claimed, the system would break down were it not for the “countless acts of cooperation” exhibited by the employees. They further noted that the incentives that motivate such spontaneous, informal contributions are different from those that motivate task proficiency.
Organ relied on both the notions of Barnard (1938)[24] and Katz (1964)[28] to develop his OCB construct.
4) A second definition of OCB comes from Van Dyne et al. (1995)[4], who proposed the broader construct of "extra-role behavior" (ERB), defined as "behavior which benefits the organization and/or is intended to benefit the organization, which is Discretionary and which goes beyond existing role expectations" (p. 218) . Organ (1997)[29] suggested that this definition did not provide much clarity, noting that one's "job role" is dependent on the expectations of and communication from the role sender.
5) Borman and Motowidlo (1993[27], 1997[32]) proposed another construct called ‘contextual performance’ related to OCB that contribute to the effectiveness of the organization by shaping the organizational, social, and psychological context that serves as the catalyst for task activities and processes. As opposed to “task performance” (i.e.the effectiveness with which job incumbents perform activities that contribute to the organization’stechnical core) by “contextual performance” these authors Referred to those behaviors that employees engage in many work behaviors that fall outside the rubric of taskperformance.
6) A recent review of the literature by Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000)[34] identified a major weakness of this stream of research on OCB. The authors argued that the literature has focused more on understanding the relationship between OCB and other constructs, rather than carefully defining the nature (dimensions) of citizenship behavior itself.
The review of the recent literature on OCB has distinguished between various dimensions of OCB and has examined the relationships between them. Based on the discussion on OCB dimensions; the concept of OCB had been articulated. Thereafter, a host of antecedents for OCB was identified and armed with these antecedents a theoretical framework for OCB is suggested.
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. The author conducted Partial Least Square (PLS path modeling) using Smart PLS software. Smart PLS allows implementing Partial Least Square Analysis. (Hansmann and Ringle, 2004). The questionnaire administered to 134 employees of three five star hotels, one Budget Hotel, one leading retail company, one multinational bank, all located in Mumbai, India. They have not used any social desirability measures to evaluate the result. The author carried out PLS procedures. Average age group was 24 years and 86% of the sample was male. 91% of the employees subscribed to Hindu religion.
The findings of the research suggests that illuminitation ( Sattwa ) and Passion (Rajas) element in Indian personality construct has significant relationship with OCB and has potential predicted OCB. The author has followed the following framework for guiding the discussion: at first the author has examined various elements of OCB , its constructs and Guna constructs, fowlloed by a critical evaluation of theories which procides plausible reason to believe that OCB can be predicted by Guna construct.
Omer Faruk Unal January (2013) studied to examine the relationship between the dimensions of organizational citizenship and facet of job satisfaction. The purpose of the paper was to empirically investigate and understand the impact of the facets of JS on the dimensions of OCB within the context of a group of companies.
A total 330 questionnaire were sent to the respondents and 199 of them completed giving a response rate 60.3. The data were processed using SPSS of companies in Istanbul in Turkey. The analyses included reliability testing and factor analysis. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to test hypotheses.
As per Omer FarukUnal Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is to protect the organization against destructive and undesirable behaviors which prevent the organization’s healthy operations, improves incumbents’ skills and abilities and increases performance and productivity of organization by effective coordination. In this respect OCB is very closely related with organization’s competiveness, organizational learning, adaptations for environment and incumbents’ loyalty, commitment, performance and altruism (Basım and Sener, 2006: 83-101). Organ (1988) identified five major types (dimensions) of OCB;
1. Altruism
Kuldeep Kumar, Arti Bakhshi found that almost all the measures used for measuring OCB were developed in a western cultural context. So they developed such a measure for Indian culture. The research design involves three broad stages: 1. Item generation, 2. scale development and 3. Assessment of reliability and validity of the scale. Full-time employees of various service organizations participated in the study. It was expected that the scale will serve as a useful tool for researchers and practitioners in the field of organization behavior. The concept, nature and measurement of OCB had been derived historically from three sources (Farh et al. 1997). First, is the taxonomy offered by Katz (1964): The taxonomy was cooperative activities with fellow members, actions protective of the system, creative ideas for improvement, and self-training for increased individual responsibility. The second source (Smith et al. 1983) was the dimensions found by interviewing the lower-level managers, which yielded two major factors: altruism and compliance. The third source was the classic Greek philosophy that suggests ‘loyalty’ and ‘boosterism’ as significant forms of OCB, but also argues for the importance of principled dissent from organization practices and challenges to the status quo (Graham 1991; Van Dyne et al. 1994).
Research Methodology
The main focus of this research is to measure when an employee influences to do organizational Citizenship behavior. The environment in which this study is carried out is in the Indian service sector: 1. Bank 2. Insurance 3. Hospital
Sample:
Data for this study was collected from 150 employees working in 3 service sector (Bank, Insurance and Hospital of Gujarat, India. The questionnaires, together with cover letters (seeking their cooperation) and were mostly personally handed to employees after a brief personal communication concerning the topic and the goals of the study.
Survey instrument
This study uses the four dimensions of OCB proposed by literature review (Job satisfaction, Organization commitment, organizational environment, and organization culture) as have acknowledged the dimensions as the most widely used in organizational related studies. Likert-like scale was used to measure the OCB elements, which used the anchors of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
Normality test
V2 150 -1.206 .198 1.132 .394
V3 150 -.605 .198 -.191 .394
V4 150 -.679 .198 -.203 .394
V5 150 -1.141 .198 .855 .394
V6 150 -.818 .198 .379 .394
V7 150 -.886 .198 .828 .394
V8 150 -.719 .198 .504 .394
V9 150 -.845 .198 .450 .394
V10 150 -.817 .198 .694 .394
V11 150 -.724 .198 .463 .394
V12 150 -.827 .198 1.103 .394
V13 150 -.962 .198 .688 .394
V14 150 -.783 .198 .032 .394
V15 150 -.454 .198 -.735 .394
V16 150 -.681 .198 .052 .394
V17 150 -.779 .198 .672 .394
V18 150 -.502 .198 .025 .394
V19 150 -.668 .198 .391 .394
V20 150 -.735 .198 -.117 .394
V21 150 -.860 .198 .934 .394
V22 150 -.482 .198 .104 .394
V23 150 -.995 .198 1.157 .394
V24 150 -.624 .198 .752 .394
V25 150 -.546 .198 .802 .394
V26 150 -.831 .198 1.206 .394
V27 149 -1.071 .199 .572 .395
V28 149 -.656 .199 -.071 .395
V29 149 -.438 .199 -.205 .395
V30 149 -.563 .199 -.273 .395
V31 149 -.955 .199 .796 .395
V32 149 -1.160 .199 1.952 .395
V33 149 -1.237 .199 1.758 .395
V34 149 -1.215 .199 1.256 .395
V35 149 -.178 .199 -.646 .395
V36 149 -.644 .199 .663 .395
V37 149 -1.132 .199 1.187 .395
Valid N
(listwise)
149
normal. So researcher can conclude that OCB data is multivariate normal and should be used for further multivariate analysis.
Looking to above figure, OCB data is normally distributed.
In the Normal Probability Plot, we observed that our points have lie in a reasonably straight diagonal line from bottom left to top right. This would no major deviations from normality. Multicollinearity:
Table:
.000 .599 .735 .000 .000
N 150 150 150 150 150 150
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 150 150 150 150 150 150
.599 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 150 150 150 150 150 150
.735 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 150 150 150 150 150 150
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 150 150 150 150 150 150
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 150 150 150 150 150 150
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Researcher also checked that the correlation between each of our independent variables is not too high. In OCB construct, the correlation between all independent variables are less than 0.9, therefore, as per guideline suggested by Pallant (2005) all variables will be retained.
Reliability analysis
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.929 37
According to Pavot, Colvin and Sandvik (1991), Employee Satisfaction Scale has good internal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha coefficient reported of .60. In the current study the Cronbach alpha coefficient was 0.92.
H1: There is significant difference in OBC dimensions with respect to Gender.
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
.566 .453 -.256 148 .798 -.18845 .73495 -1.64080
-.269 132.636 .789 -.18845 .70115 -1.57532
6.280 .013 1.277 148 .204 .60562 .47434 -.33173 1.54298
Equal variances not assumed
1.171 87.796 .245 .60562 .51699 -.42183 1.63307o9l
Organization Culture
Equal variances assumed
.012 .913 2.343 148 .020 2.08739 .89098 .32670 3.84807
Equal variances not assumed
2.350 116.915 .020 2.08739 .88814 .32846 3.84632
Job Satisfaction
Equal variances assumed
.068 .794 2.701 148 .008 2.32219 .85964 .62343 4.02095
Equal variances not assumed
2.697 115.170 .008 2.32219 .86103 .61668 4.02770
Organization
.363 .548 1.335 148 .184 1.64020 1.22849 -.78745 4.06785
Equal variances not assumed
Inference:
Commitment: Here the significant test value comes out as .453, which is greater than 0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant difference between OBC dimensions with respect to Gender.
Work Environment: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.013, which is less than 0.05, it means that the alternative hypothesis is accepted and there is significant difference between OBC dimensions with respect to Gender.
Organization Culture: Here the significant test value comes out as .913, which is greater than 0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant difference between OBC dimensions with respect to Gender.
Job Satisfaction: Here the significant test value comes out as .794, which is greater than 0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant difference between OBC dimensions with respect to Gender.
Organization Citizenship Behavior: Here the significant test value comes out as .548, which is greater than 0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant difference between OBC dimensions with respect to Gender.
H2: There is significant difference in OCB dimensions with respect to marital status.
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
2.728 .101 -.434 147 .665 -.35325 .81358 -1.96107
-.508 88.902 .613 -.35325 .69514 -1.73450
3.562 .061 .894 147 .373 .47274 .52863 -.57197 1.51744
Equal variances not assumed
.796 53.559 .430 .47274 .59386 -.71811 1.66359
Organization Culture
Equal variances assumed
.009 .924 2.658 147 .009 2.60645 .98071 .66834 4.54455
Equal variances not assumed
2.600 61.780 .012 2.60645 1.00234 .60265 4.61025
Job Satisfaction
Equal variances assumed
.882 .349 2.533 147 .012 2.42603 .95784 .53312 4.31895
Equal variances not assumed
2.415 59.229 .019 2.42603 1.00463 .41594 4.43613
Organization
2.734 .100 1.876 147 .063 2.52632 1.34673 -.13515 5.18778
Equal variances not assumed
Inference:
Commitment: Here the significant test value comes out as .101, which is greater than 0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant difference between OBC dimensions with respect to marital status.
Work Environment: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.061, which is greater than 0.05, it means that that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant difference between OBC dimensions with respect to marital status.
Organization Culture: Here the significant test value comes out as .924, which is greater than 0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant difference between OBC dimensions with respect to marital status.
Job Satisfaction: Here the significant test value comes out as .349, which is greater than 0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant difference between OBC dimensions with respect to marital status.
Organization Citizenship Behavior: Here the significant test value comes out as .100, which is greater than 0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant difference between OBC dimensions with respect to marital status.
H3: There is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Education Qualification.
ANOVA
56.872 2 28.436 1.520 .222
Within Groups 2749.801 147 18.706
Total 2806.673 149
Work Environment Between Groups
27.443 2 13.722 1.748 .178
Within Groups 1154.030 147 7.851
Total 1181.473 149
Organization Culture Between Groups
205.756 2 102.878 3.716 .027
Within Groups 4070.218 147 27.689
Total 4275.973 149
Job Satisfaction Between Groups
279.387 2 139.693 5.479 .005
Within Groups 3748.007 147 25.497
Total 4027.393 149
Organization Citizenship Behavior
Between Groups
55.347 2 27.674 .516 .598
Within Groups 7877.513 147 53.589
Total 7932.860 149
Inference:
Commitment: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.222, which is greater than 0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Education Qualification.
Work Environment: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.178, which is greater than 0.05, it means that that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Education Qualification.
Organization Culture: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.027, which is less than 0.05, it means that the alternative hypothesis is accepted and there is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Education Qualification.
Organization Citizenship Behavior: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.598, which is greater than 0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Education Qualification.
H4: There is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Designation.
Table: 4.17
72.009 2 36.004 1.935 .148
Within Groups 2734.665 147 18.603
Total 2806.673 149
Work Environment Between Groups
21.126 2 10.563 1.338 .265
Within Groups 1160.347 147 7.894
Total 1181.473 149
Organization Culture Between Groups
1.710 2 .855 .029 .971
Within Groups 4274.263 147 29.077
Total 4275.973 149
Job Satisfaction Between Groups
9.625 2 4.812 .176 .839
Within Groups 4017.769 147 27.332
Total 4027.393 149
Organization Citizenship Behavior
Between Groups
55.534 2 27.767 .518 .597
Within Groups 7877.326 147 53.587
Total 7932.860 149
Inference:
Commitment: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.148, which is greater than 0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Designation.
Organization Culture: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.971, which is greater than 0.05, it means that that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Designation.
Job Satisfaction: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.839, which is greater than 0.05, it means that that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Designation.
Organization Citizenship Behavior: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.597, which is greater than 0.05, it means that that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Designation.
H4: There is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Experience.
Table: 4.18
51.254 2 25.627 1.367 .258
Within Groups 2755.419 147 18.744
Total 2806.673 149
Work Environment Between Groups
7.991 2 3.995 .500 .607
Within Groups 1173.483 147 7.983
Total 1181.473 149
Organization Culture Between Groups
180.160 2 90.080 3.233 .042
Within Groups 4095.814 147 27.863
Total 4275.973 149
Job Satisfaction Between Groups
198.860 2 99.430 3.818 .024
Within Groups 3828.533 147 26.044
Total 4027.393 149
Organization Citizenship Behavior
Between Groups
226.688 2 113.344 2.162 .119
Within Groups 7706.172 147 52.423
Total 7932.860 149
Commitment: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.258, which is greater than 0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Experience.
Work Environment: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.607, which is greater than 0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Experience.
Organization Culture: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.042, which is less than 0.05, it means that that alternative hypothesis is accepted and there is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Experience.
Job Satisfaction: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.024, which is less than 0.05, it means that that alternative hypothesis is accepted and there is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Experience.
Organization Citizenship Behavior: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.119, which is greater than 0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Experience.
H5: There is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Income.
ANOVA
41.562 3 13.854 .731 .535
Within Groups 2765.111 146 18.939
Total 2806.673 149
Work Environment Between Groups
34.329 3 11.443 1.456 .229
Within Groups 1147.144 146 7.857
Total 1181.473 149
Organization Culture Between Groups
385.841 3 128.614 4.827 .003
Within Groups 3890.133 146 26.645
Total 4275.973 149
Job Satisfaction Between Groups
456.740 3 152.247 6.225 .001
Within Groups 3570.653 146 24.457
Total 4027.393 149
Organization Citizenship Behavior
Between Groups
691.374 3 230.458 4.646 .004
Within Groups 7241.486 146 49.599
Total 7932.860 149
Inference:
Commitment: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.535, which is greater than 0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Income.
Work Environment: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.229, which is less than 0.05, it means that that alternative hypothesis is accepted and there is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Income.
Organization Culture: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.003, which is less than 0.05, it means that that alternative hypothesis is accepted and there is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Income.
Organization Citizenship Behavior: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.004, which is less than 0.05, it means that that alternative hypothesis is accepted and there is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Income.
Regression
Table:Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted RSquare Std. Error of theEstimate
1 .633(a) .401 .388 5.707
a Predictors: (Constant), commitment, organization culture, work environment
Table:
ANOVA(b)
Model
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3177.328 3 1059.109 32.516 .000(a)
Residual 4755.532 146 32.572
Total 7932.860 149
a Predictors: (Constant), commitment, organization culture, work environment b Dependent Variable: organization citizenship behaviour
Table:
B Std. Error Beta B Std. Error
1 (Constant) 17.366 3.353 5.179 .000
organization culture .513 .119 .377 4.321 .000
work environment -.147 .259 -.057 -.569 .570
commitment .912 .133 .542 6.855 .000
a Dependent Variable: organization citizenship behaviour
Here, in this test value of R-square is .401, which means that about 40 % variation in the dependent variable – job satisfaction and OCB are explained jointly by all the independent variable- organization culture, work environment, commitment.
As per regression analysis our OCB model is 39% fit. And ANOVA table shows that model is valid for analysis and as per co-efficient table organization culture and commitment is more important dimension for our model.
Conclusion:
The study increases our understanding of OCB in service sector. In closing, this study we found that there are 3 most important dimension of OCB. On which we collected the data from sector and we found that commitment is not affected by any demographic variable but it’s not showing any importance in doing OCB. Gender is affected by work environment and organization culture. For educated employees, experienced employees and employees from different income group have different criteria for job satisfaction. And we found that independent variables can jointly explain the variations in the dependent variable.
References:
Aquino, K. & Bommer, W. H. (2003). Preferential mistreatment: How victim status moderates the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and workplace victimization. Organizational Science, 14, 4, 374-385.
Borman, W. C. & Motowidlo, S. J. 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personality selection (pp.71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brief, A. P. & Motowidlo, S. J. 1986. Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 10: 710-725.
Cheung F.A., Cheung S.F., Wada S., andZhang J. (2003). Indigenous Measures of Personality Assessment in Asian Countries: A Review, Vol. 15, No. 3,280–289
Ehrhart, MG 2004, ‘Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior.’ Personnel Psychology, 57, 61–94.
Farh JL, Earley, C & Lin, S 1997, ‘Impetus for action: a cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society’, Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 42, 421 44
George, J. M. (1991), “State of Trait: Effects of Positive Mood on Pro-social Behavior at Work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 299-307.
George, J. M. and Brief, A. P. (1992), “Feeling Good - Doing Good: A Conceptual Analysis of Mood at Work-organizational Spontaneity Relationship”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol.112, pp. 310-329 87 Katzell, R.A., Yankelovich, D., 1975. Work, productivity, and job satisfaction. The Psychological Corporation, New York.
Kumar, K, Bakhshi, A & Rani, E 2009, ‘Linking the ‘Big Five’ personality domains to Organizational citizenship behavior’, International journal of Psychological studies, 1, p. 2.
Kumar. R 2005, Organizational citizenship performance in non-governmental organizations: Development of a scale: IIM, Ahmedabad.
Lee, K. & Allen, N. J. (2002), “Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Workplace Deviance: The Role of affect and Cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, No.1, pp. 131-142.
Morgan, R. and Hunt, D. (1994) ‘The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 20-38.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 157-164.
Paine, J. and Organ, D. (2000) ‘The cultural matrix of organizational citizenship behavior: Some preliminary conceptual and empirical observations’, Human Resource Management Review, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 45 – 59.
Williams, L. and Anderson, S. (1991) ‘Job satisfaction and commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors’, Journal of Management, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 601-617.
