Organizational Commitment and Organizati. pdf

(1)

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL

CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: TREND AND RELATIONSHIP.

LIHA MENA

Research Scholar, Department of Commerce, North-Eastern Hill University, Umshing, Mawlai Shillong Meghalaya.

ABSTRACT

The literature on Organizational Commitment (OC) and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) have undergone many developments over the past six decades. With every new addition to the pool of literature the constructs have not only become clearer but also increasingly complex. Throughout the study we witness ample proof of the subjects being more than ‗common-sense‘ concepts. This study is made with an attempt to follow the trend from the inception till date and also to understand the link/relationship between the two constructs.

Keywords: Organizational Commitment, Organizational Citizenship Behavior.

INTRODUCTION

Employees, the most prized resource of any organization, alone can make or break any organization. Studying Organizational Behavior empowers the leadership to encourage/discourage employee behavior according to the suitability of organizational goals as the areas extend to all forms of employee reaction. Two of the most undoubtedly significant areas are OC and OCB. The objective of this paper is to review the existing literature on both the constructs and understand the type of relationship they enjoy.

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to observe the trend and progress of OCB and in the subject of Organizational Behavior and to understand the link between the former two.

METHODOLOGY

To fulfill our objective all the significant studies from the 1950‘s to present have been reviewed without confining to a few journals alone.

TREND IN OC

In 1956, Becker observed a pattern in employees he called consistent lines of activity and explained it as individuals teaching themselves to identify with their respective jobs after spending considerable amount of time on the job. In his later, more refined, study (1960) Becker developed the theory of side bets and defined commitment as a relationship based on contract of economic exchange. In the form of periodic salary/wages, individuals gained from the organization, while making the sacrifice of their effort and time for the organization. The longer an individual honoured the contract the harder it became for them to disengage from the pattern of activity (membership) in the organization. Becker‘s theory was supported by Ritzer and Trice (1969) and Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972) who defined commitment as the unwillingness of employees to leave an organization for increments in pay, status, professional freedom or greater collegial friendship. According to these studies commitment was to be measured by evaluating the reasons, if any, which could cause a person to leave his organization.

(2)

According to these studies OC was only seen when employee had something dear at stake and fear to lose which was what made them stay back with their organizations. Hrebiniak & Alutto (1972) made a study to learn the process through which an individual started identifying with his organization and found commitment as an exchange and accrual phenomenon which depended on the employee’s perception of accumulation of investments in his employing organization. Porter et al. (1974) filled this gap of emotional variable by stating that commitment was an attitude centered economic contract and thus the focus shifted from tangible side-bets to psychological attachment. O‘Reily and Chatman (1986) identified OC as arising from -1) compliance- in order to avoid punishment or gain reward, 2) identification- with the organization‘s goals and values and 3) internalization- of organizational goal and personal goals. It was however; difficult to empirically distinguish between the later two and created confusion. Unlike previous contributors who focused on OC to only study effect on turnover they described it as an antecedent of OCB.

Meyer & Allen (1984) made a comprehensive study of the concepts economic contract and psychological attachment and discussed them as Continuance Commitment (CC) and Affective Commitment (AC) respectively; thus combining the studies of attitudinal and behavioral commitment. A third dimension of Normative Commitment (NC) was added in 1990. CC is said to be present when an employee is aware that he is bound to stay because of the costs associated with leaving. AC has been defined as the emotional attachment of an employee to stay with the organization because he wants to and NC has been observed when employees feel a moral obligation to stay back with their employees. Meyer, Becker & Van Dick (2006) refined the conceptual meaning of NC by adding two dimensional concept of ‗indebted obligation‘ which arises the need to meet others obligation and has been theorized to correlate with CC; and ‗moral imperative‘ which reflects individuals strive to meet valued outcomes and correlates with AC. This model of three constituents of OC has been called the Three Component Model (TCM). AC and CC came from distinguishing the side-bet theory of Becker and the components were more or less similar to cohesion, continuance and control commitment as explained by Kanter (1968). Rather than types of commitment the writers believed that AC, NC and CC were components of commitment and that a single employee could display more than one of these components in varying degree. Each of these commitments, as per the writers could be individually measured and compared.

In 2007 Cohen introduced the multi-dimensional or a four component model which looked at OC strictly as an attitude to minimize the mixture of commitment with the possible behavioral outcomes. The model was made with two bases of time (pre and post entry) and commitment propensity (instrumental and psychological/affective). The variables that affect commitment propensity were grouped as: personal characteristics, Job expectation and circumstances associated the new hire‘s decision to join the organization. Although this model looks appealing it has still not been widely accepted. Somers (2009) suggested studying the combined effect and influence of AC, NC & CC and proposed 8 combinations of which only 5 were empirically proved. This is a more complex model and has not been tested satisfactorily so far rendering Meyer & Allen‘s TCM most prevalent.

Some of the most commonly studied variables affecting OC have been that of personal and demographic variables, job characteristics and quality of work experience. The demographic variables of age and tenure are said to affect commitment positively as increase in these imply the accumulation of time investment which result in higher desire to stay with the current employer (Becker, 1956; Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972; Rao & Reddy, 2013). Hrebiniak & Alutto, (1972) in their study found females to be more committed than their male counterparts. However; Rao & Reddy, (2013) and Mohammed & Eleswed, (2013) found Gender as an insignificant factor. Marital status of an employee

(3)

is seen to affect the level of commitment as Married and separated employees show a higher level of commitment than unmarried people (Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972). With higher Level of Education employees have been observed to display lower levels of commitment by Mowday et al. (1982). However, Bakshi et al. (2011) and Mohammed & Eleswed (2013) also found that educational qualification did not affect commitment. An Individual‘s need for achievement has also been identified as an important factor affecting OC (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Cohen (2007) listed values, beliefs, personality and pre employment attitudes as important demographic determinants of OC.

Meyer et al. (1993) studied different job characteristics like professional role conflict, dissatisfaction and role tension/ambiguity as important predictors of OC and said that clearer and more meaningful jobs enhanced OC positively. Task identity, opportunities for social interaction, feedback (Weiner, 1982) and job expectation (Cohen, 2007) are also said to positively increase OC. Mathieu & Zajac, (1990) found that an individual‘s skill set and autonomy in the job impacted OC significantly.

Some of the factors associated with Organization that influence OC are, as per Becker (1960), the number and magnitude of investments and side bets (in the organization) made by individuals over time. Farrell & Rusbult (1986) found that individuals who perceived they lacked alternatives developed OC. Wiener (1982) studied employee‘s individual experiences (both prior and after entry into the organization) and social pressures and how they determined the development of OC in employees over time. He came to a conclusion that OC could be influenced by both personal predispositions and organizational intervention. Meyer & Allen (1987) also studied work experiences as an important variable as it helped fulfill employees‘ psychological needs to feel comfortable within the organization by improving one‘s perception of personal importance, trust in the organization, organizational dependability and investment in the organization.

TREND IN OCB

In 1964, Katz identified two types of roles played by employees. In-role behavior strictly related to actions necessary to successfully complete one‘s work. Extra-role behaviors on the other hand, were actions that were not necessarily required but nevertheless witnessed when, for e.g., employees helping each other with work related issues. The formal conception of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) started with Bateman & Organ‘s 1983 work.Organ (1997) reworded the definition of OCB as ―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‖. This definition has three critical aspects of being discretionary, not relating to the formal reward system and the third aspect of promoting aggregate effectiveness of the organization and hence employees displaying one or more than one of these desired behaviors are considered ‗good citizens‘ of the organization.

Many researchers have found different dimensions to OCB; however, the most prominent and often repeated ones have been that of Altruism, Civic Virtue, Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship and Courtesy. Smith et al. (1983) defined altruism as ‗behaviors that directly and intentionally aimed at helping a specific person in face to face situations‘. As these actions are discretionary therefore any case of not-helping or non-performance; a colleague is not considered punishable. Podsakoff et al. (2000) demonstrated altruism to significantly relate to performance evaluations. Altruism is often passed on as more feminine characteristics (Kidder, 2002) noticed more often in female employees than in male. It is the most common of all OCBs and appears in all most all studies (Smith et al., 1983; Organ, 1988; Williams & Anderson, 1991; George & Brief, 1992; George & Jones, 1997; Podsakoff, 2000; etc). Synonymous to politeness, in the organizational context, Courtesy means to

(4)

include behaviors that prevent problems and to take necessary steps to lessen the effects of the problem in the future (Organ, 1988; Organ et al., 2006). The main idea of courtesy is avoiding actions that make colleagues‘ work harder and working to improve ease in operation. Research efforts have found that employees who exhibit courtesy reduce intergroup conflict and thereby reduce the time spent on conflict management activities (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Like altruism, courtesy is also considered a feminine characteristic and is said to be affected by the employee‘s gender (Kidder, 2002). Organ (1988) defined sportsmanship as the behavior of warmly tolerating the irritations that are an unavoidable part of nearly every organizational setting. It refers to not complaining unnecessarily and being tolerant towards difficulties that may be experienced in the workplace. Organ et al. (2006) further define sportsmanship as an employee‘s ―ability to roll with the punches‖ which, in turn, helps save organizational energy and time. Podsakoff et al. (1997) revealed that good sportsmanship enhances the morale of the work group and subsequently reduce employee turnover. It is considered as one of the masculine characteristic (Kidder, 2002). Civic virtue is defined as active participation and concern of an employee in the organization‘s political life and supporting its function. It includes actions such as attending meetings which need not be mandatorily attended and keeping oneself updated with the changes in the organization (Organ, 1988). In line with the gender-effect civic virtue is considered more masculine (Kidder, 2002). The literal definition of Conscientiousness is ‗the personality trait of being thorough, careful, or vigilant and implies a desire to do a task well‘. As per the literature of OCB a conscientious employee is one who is organized, accountable and hardworking. Organ (1988) defined it as ‗dedication to the job which exceeds formal requirements such as working long hours, and volunteer to perform jobs besides duties‘. Kidder (2002) posited the fact that males are more likely to engage in conscientious behavior than females in view of the fact that males have preference for equity over equality.

Apart from organizing the constructs on the basis of ‗actions‘, Williams & Anderson (1991) provided a different approach of categorizing them based on ‗target of action‘. OCB-I were behaviors directed towards individuals (colleagues, supervisor etc) and OCB-O were actions directed to the organization as a whole. As altruism and courtesy take place in direct interaction between individuals they fall under the category of OCB-I. Conscientiousness, Civic virtue and Sportsmanship are considered as behaviors directed to the organization and therefore fall under the category of OCB-O.

As OCBs are discretionary each employee makes a personal decision to ‗do‘ or ‗not-to-do‘ and in whatever degree that he or she may see right. These choices are made depending on variables like personal characteristics (positivity/agreeableness) (Podsakoff et al., 2000; Sharma et al., 2011), demographic variability, individual perception and attitudes etc. Demographic variability arises due to differences in one‘s age, gender, tenure, educational qualification and other factors that are more individual specific and the organization has little or no control over them. However, employee perception and attitudes depend on factors like fairness and organizational justice (Sharma et al., 2011) and is something over which the organization has some control. As behaviors are consequent actions of perception and attitudes these have been most widely studied by researchers. The most investigated of job attitudes is job satisfaction and OC (e.g. Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988; Smith et al., 1983; O‘Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Personal values and ethics have also been considered important antecedents of OCB. As discussed earlier the demographic variable of gender (Kidder, 2002) has also been studied to predict OCB in some studies whereas in some studies it has also been found to have no impact (Francis, 2014; Dhiman & Sharma, 2014). Age, Work experience, Educational qualification, Marital status etc were also found irrelevant in these studies.

(5)

Variables that are more directly related to one‘s job (eg. feedback, autonomy, skill set and feeling of doing a significant work) (Podsakoff et al., 1996) have been seen as controllable factor that can be worked upon by the organizations to improve OCB. Supportiveness of the leadership has also been found to impact both OC and OCB significantly (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988; Smith et al., 1983; O‘Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Bhal, 2005).There have been many studies offering a wide range of dimensions to understand OCB, however, we see a trend of agreement on the matter that OCBs help improve organizational effectiveness (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2009) and enhance favorable psychological climate for employees and organizations.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OC AND OCB

The generally accepted view in Psychology of behavior formation is that a behavior (here OCB) is the casual effect of an attitude (here OC). From the above reviews of literature we realize that the relationship between OC & OCB have been that of complimentary in most studies. Majority of the studies consider OC as the predictor of OCB and not vice versa. A deeper understanding of relationship between OC and OCB has been studied by correlating individual components of both. Of the three constituents of OC- AC, NC & CC, the most desirable is the AC and its relation with OCB has been widely studied. Organ and Ryan (1995) found strong correlations between AC and both the OCB types of altruism and general compliance. Meyer et al. (2002) also found strong correlation between OCB and AC.

NC, which is not studied as frequently as the AC & CC, still showed positive relation with OCB. Socio-cultural factors that are more specific to a society, in a way, can better predict NC. Therefore, in collectivist societies NC is more witnessed than in individualist society. NC is expected to be an important predictor of OCB in collectivist society than in an individualist society (Moorman & Blakely, 1995). Gautam et al (2005) strengthened the finding of Moorman & Blakely (1995) when they found NC to be even stronger predictor, of OCB, than AC CC in Nepal (a collectivist society). Meyer et al. (2002) also found NC to be a strong predictor of both altruism and general compliance.

As for CC, many studies have found CC to be unrelated to OCB (Meyer et al., 1993; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Meyer et al., 2002). There have also been many studies where no significant relationship between OCB and CC could be established (Meyer et al., 2002) Gautam et al. (2005) found CC to be negatively related to compliance and unrelated to altruism. In the cause and effect relation of the two constructs there are more studies that support the idea that OC leads to OCB and fewer that support the opposite (of OCB leading in OC). More thorough research needs to be done to overcome this inconsistency in these subjects.

CONCLUSION

From reviewing the literature we see how the trend is moving to more multi-dimensional explanations due to the attempts made to decrease vagueness and conceptual overlap. We witness the evolution of the subjects from being ‗single-celled‘ to becoming full blown systems with multiple systems in themselves. The topics that were once considered ‗common-sense‘ have consistently produced ever increasing scientific explanations for every situation. The clarity in the relationship between OC and OCB is however not as clear as we may like and hence presents itself as a research-gap. The cause-and-effect relationship of the two is, therefore, open for further study.

(6)

REFERENCES

1. Allen, N.J. & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The Measurement of antecedents of affective,

continuance and normative commitment to the organization.

Journal of Occupational Psychology

, 63, 01-18.

2. Bakshi, A., Sharma, A. D., & Kumar, K. (2011). Organizational commitment as

predictor of organizational citizenship behavior.

European Journal of Business & Management

, 3(4), 78-87.

3.

Bateman, T.S. & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The

relationship between affect and employee ‗citizenship‘.

Academy of Management,

26(4), 587-595

.

4. Becker, H. S. & Caper, J. W. (1956). The Development of identification with an

occupation.

American Journal of Sociology,

61(4), 289-298.

5. Becker, H.S. (1960). Notes on concept of commitment.

American Journal of Sociology

,

66(1), 32-40.

6. Bhal, K. T. (2005). Dyadic and average leadership styles as predictors of subordinate

satisfaction, commitment and organizational citizenship behavior

. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations

, 40(3), 372-385

7. Cohen, A. (2007). Commitment before and after: An evaluation and reconceptualization

of organizational commitment.

Human Resource Management Review

, 17(3), 336-354.

8. Dhiman, R. k. & Sharma, A. (2014). Organizational citizenship behavior among

teachers educators.

International Research Journal of Human Research and Social Sciences

, 1(7), 50-62.

9. Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C. E. (1986). Exchange variables as predictors of job

satisfaction, job commitment and turnover: The effects of rewards, costs, alternatives,

and investments. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 78-95.

10. Francis, U. (2014). Organizational citizenship behavior and demographic factors among

oil workers in Nigeria.

Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences

, 19(8), 87-95.

11. Gautam, et al. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior and organizational

commitment in Nepal.

Asian Journal of Social Psychology

, 8, 305-314.

12.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis

of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship.

Pyschological Bulletin,

112(2), 310-329.

13. George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in context.

Human Performance

, 10(2), 153

–

170.

14. Hrebiniak, L. G. & Alutto, J.A. (1972). Personal and role-related factors in the

development of organizational commitment.

Administrative Science Quarterly

, 17(4),

555-573.

15. Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment

mechanisms in utopian societies.

American Sociological Review

, 33(4), 499-517.

16. Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior.

Behavioral Sciences.

9(2), 131-146.

17. Kidder, D. L. (2002). The influence of gender on the performance of organizational

citizenship behaviors.

Journal of Management,

28(5), 629-648.

18. Mathieu, J. E. & Zajac, Dennis, M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the

antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment.

Psychological Bulletin

, 108(2), 171-194.

19. Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the ―side

-

bet theory‖ of organizational

commitment: Some methodological considerations.

Journal of Applied Psychology

,

69(3), 37-378.

(7)

20. Meyer, J.P: & Allen, N.J. (1987) A longitudinal analysis of the early development and

consequences of organizational commitment.

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science

, 19(2), 199-215.

21. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J. & Smith, C. (1993). Commitment to organizations and

occupations: Extension and Test of a Three-component Conceptualization.

, 78(4), 538-551.

22. 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(1),

20-52.

23. Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Van Dick, R. (2006). Social identities and Commitments

at work: toward an integrative model.

Journal of Organizational Behavior

, 27(5),

665-683.

24. Mohammed, F. & Eleswed, M. (2013). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment:

A correlation study in Bahrain.

Research Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology

, 3(5), 43-53.

25. Moorman, R. H. & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-Collectivism as an individual

difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior.

Journal of Organizational Behavior,

16(2) 127-142.

26. 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.

27. Organ, D. W. (1988).

Organizational citizenship behavior

:

The good soldier syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

28. Organ, D. W. & Ryan, K. (1995). A Metaanalytic review of oattitudinal and

dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior.

Personnel Psychology

,

48(4), 775-802.

29.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It‘s construct clean

-up time.

Human Performance,

10(2), 85-97.

30. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006).

Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences.

Sage Publication:

Thousand Oaks.

31. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. (1996). Transformational leader

behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,

commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors.

22(2), 259-298.

32. Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne. M. & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship

behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance.

, 82(2), 262-270.

33. Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual-

and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta

analysis.

, 94(1), 122-141.

34. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G. (2000).

Organizational citizen ship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical

literature and suggestions for future research.

Journal of Management

, 26(3), 513

–

563.

35. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., Richard, T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974).

Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric

technicians.

, 59(5), 603-609.

(8)

36. Rao, D. S., & Reddy, A. V. (2013). A study on the organizational commitment of

managers in public sector banks of Andhra Pradesh.

Asian Journal of Research in Business Economics and Management,

3(11), 239-251.

37. Ritzer, G. & Trice, H. M. (1969). An empirical study of Howard Becker‘s sid

e bet

theory.

Oxford University Press

, 47(4), 475-478.

38. Sharma, J. P., Bajpai, N. & Holani, U. (2011). Organizational citizenship behavior in

public and private sector and its impact on job satisfaction: A comparative study in

Indian perspective.

International Journal of Business and Management,

6(1), 67-75.

39.

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

.