a. Dr. Puja Khatri, Associate Professor, University School of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
b. Neha Raheja, Research Scholar, University School of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
Corresponding Author email-id: neha18raheja@gmail.com
ORGANIZATIONAL
CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR
(OCB):
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR (OCB): THE
CORPORATE MIND GAME
Abstract
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) is one of the most studied & explored positive organizational behavior construct. It has been more than 25 years since coining of term- Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) which describes the voluntary behaviors that facilitate organizational functioning but are not formally rewarded by the organization. Most of the studies have focused on benefit both individual and organizational outcomes whereas few recent studies (Bolino et al., 2005) have tried to explore the possibility that individuals who engage in OCB may suffer negative consequences. They argued that it can be performed for self-serving motives instead of altruistic and that it can have detrimental effects. In this paper, we will try to explore light as well as dark side of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB).
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR (OCB)
Barnard (1938) 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.
Katz (1964) and Katz and Kan (1966, 1978) did more research on behavioral necessities of performance as one “creative activity” along with the direction of organizational aims, whereas, the activity is not defined as an official job description. In 1983, Bateman and Organ named these behaviors as “organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs)”. Organ et al (1988) described Organizational Citizenship Behavior 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. By discretionary, we
mean that the behavior is not an enforceable requirement of the role or the job description,
that is, the clearly specifiable terms of the person’s employment contract with the
organization; the behavior is rather a matter of personal choice, such that its omission is not
Year Authors Definitions of OCB Title Publication
1988 Organ et al
OCB is an 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. By
discretionary, we mean that the behavior is not an enforceable requirement of the role or the job description, that is, the clearly
specifiable terms of the person’s
employment contract with the organization; the behavior is rather a matter of personal choice, such that its omission is not generally understood as punishable
Organizational
OCB within a marketing perspective, "discretionary behaviors on the part of a salesperson that directly promote the effective functioning of an organization, without necessarily influencing a
salesperson’s objective sales productivity."
OCB represents a set of desirable
organizational behaviors, which demonstrate multi-dimensional relationships with
Updated the definition of OCB to "contributions to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that support task performance"
Organizational
OCB could be formally defined as a
discretionary work behavior of the employee that is not recognized by the formal reward or the sanction system of their organization but which is very important for
organizational effectiveness. Such behavior is relatively independent of extrinsic
rewards.
OCBs are employee behaviors that, although not critical to the task or job, serve to
In
Pitt-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.
OCB is a kind of job behavior which is not considered as job qualifications. OCB serves organizations, supporting social and
psychological contexts
Emphasized the discretionary nature of OCB by defining it as "discretionary contributions that go beyond the strict description and that do not lay claim to contractual recompense from the formal reward system"
Organizational
OCB, a cluster of behaviours that result in organizationally desirable outcomes, is expected to be a consequence of the existing organizational and family values that lie at the root of these behaviours.
Congruence of
“Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), defined… as behavior that (a) goes beyond
the basic requirements of the job, (b) is to a large extent discretionary, and (c) is of benefit to the organization
Organizational
OCB as a special form of extra-role
behavior in organizational contexts, means behaving as a citizen who cares about the well-being of both his country and other
Table 1: OCB defined over period of time
Theory behind Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
OCB has its roots in Social Exchange Theory (SET). Social exchange theory was introduced in 1960s by George Homans. Homans focussed his approach on dyadic relationship and on reinforcement principles where in individual tends to repeat acts which are being rewarded. Peter Blau (1964) focussed on the economic and utilitarian perspective. Blau was among the first who differentiated between social and economic exchange. Similar to economic exchange, social exchange also generates certain in returns in near future, though these returns are unspecified and uncalculated. Organizational citizenship behavior of employees is return to the favourable acts or environment provided by supervisor or the organization.
citizens. Citizenship (OCBs) are a special type of work behavior that are defined as individual behaviors that are beneficial to the organization and are discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system. These behaviors are rather a matter of personal choice, such that their omission is not generally understood as punishable. OCBs are thought to have an important impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of work teams and organizations, therefore contributing to the overall productivity of the organization.
Organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) is a term that encompasses anything positive and constructive that employees do, of their own volition, which supports co-workers and benefits the company.
Organizational
Organizational citizenship behavior has been defined as optional (voluntary) individual behaviors providing effective and efficient execution organizational functions as a whole without taking into consideration formal reward system openly and directly.
Employers utilizing the social exchange approach seek a long-term relationship with
employees and show concern about employees’ well-being and career development, and
expect the concern and commitment to be reciprocated. “Social exchange theory explains how we feel about a relationship with another person based on our perceptions of: 1) the balance between what we put into the relationship and what we get from it; 2) the kind of relationship we deserve; and 3) the chances of having a better relationship with someone
else”, Ma & Qu (2011).
DARK SIDE OF OCB
According to Eran Vigota- Gadot (2006), the motivations behind citizenship behavior can be the abusive and exploitative behavior of immediate supervisors and the pressure by management or peers to become involved in activities in which the employee would otherwise not involve himself (i.e., Tepper, 2000). It emerges in response to external pressures by significant and powerful others in the workplace (i.e., managers or co-workers)
who wish to increase the employees’ work load by involving them in duties that are beyond the scope of their job description (Porpara, 1989).
Moreover, engaging in citizenship behavior may diminish employees' in-role task performance, which may consequently damage their career. OCBs are especially likely to have harmful career consequences when they are performed in organizations that reward outcomes more than behaviors and when employees engage in OCBs that are challenging and time-consuming. OCBs were positively related to job satisfaction among employees who were high in optimism; however, among employees who were less optimistic, the relationship between OCB and job satisfaction was curvilinear, such that OCBs were positively related to job satisfaction up to a point, and then additional OCBs were associated with decreased levels of job satisfaction. Taken together, this line of work indicates that there can be negative personal and professional outcomes for employees who go the extra mile for their organizations.
In some cases, individuals who are high self-monitors or who have a careerist orientation to work will selectively engage in highly visible OCBs in order to facilitate their own professional success. When performance appraisals are imminent, when OCBs are especially visible to powerful others, and when one's image has recently been damaged are times that engaging in OCB may have a particularly positive effect on the reputation of an employee. In these types of circumstances, image-conscious employees are likely to perform OCBs not to benefit their organization or its members but to improve their standing in the workplace.
In group or organizational level, OCBs often lead to lower performance in work contexts in which group tasks require little or no coordination among members. The performance of OCBs in groups with low task interdependence may detract from task performance and may demotivate the team member who is the target of OCB if he or she interprets it as negative feedback.
Organizational citizenship behavior includes socially initiated activities (coercive/non-voluntary) that try to promote constructive ideas and interests by forcing or compelling others to invest time and effort beyond their duties. This second end is a negative deviation from the original notion of the good will of individuals and may also result in harmful collective and organizational outcomes (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006).
LIGHT SIDE OF OCB
OCB can have two motives behind performance of such acts. One can be motivated by self-interest or the other can be based on altruistic motives (Spector; 2012). Additionally,
although Organ’s (1988) original definition of OCB stipulated that such behaviors are not
directly rewarded, Podsakoff et al. (1993) provide numerous reasons why managers may take them into account, including norms of reciprocity and fairness, the accessibility of OCB in memory, implicit assumptions about what makes a good employee, and attributional processes. Moreover, empirical research has supported that managerial performance ratings are, in fact, influenced by citizenship behaviors (Allen & Rush, 1998; Conway, 1999; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1993; Van Scotter, Motowidlo, & Cross, 2000; Werner, 1994). Podsakoff et al. (2000) concluded that OCB is at least as influential as is in-role performance in predicting managerial ratings/personnel decisions, even after controlling for common method variance.
Consistent with Katz and Kahn’s (1966) notion that such behaviors are crucial for effective
At Individual-level:
Light-side of OCB Dark-side of OCB
Employees who engage in OCB tend to receive better performance ratings by their managers (Podsakoff et al., 2009)
These behaviors can blur the evaluation process, ratcheting the performance requirements upwards so that management comes to expect such OCB from all employees (Niehoff; 2000)
A better performance rating is linked to gaining rewards (Podsakoff et al., 2009) – such as pay increments, bonuses, promotions or work-related benefits
As the focus of management shifts away from job performance toward OCB, the appraisal process becomes biased by these contextual behaviors (Niehoff; 2000)
During an economic recession, these employees will have a lower chance of being made redundant (Organ et al, 2006)
Extra-role behavior is not always a matter of free choice by the individual but rather is imposed on him/ her by abusive or exploitative management (Zellars et al., 2002)
OCB is linked to lower rates of employee turnover and absenteeism
Affiliation-oriented citizen may perform OCB to such a degree that the employee-employer relationship becomes dysfunctional (Niehoff; 2000)
At Organizational-level:
Light-side of OCB Dark-side of OCB
Increased productivity, efficiency and customer satisfaction, as well as reduced costs, have also been observed (Podsakoff et al, 2009)
day with no formal compensation becomes the accepted norm (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006) Free up resources (autonomous, cooperative
employees give managers more time to clear their work; helpful behaviour facilitates cohesiveness (as part of group maintenance behaviour) (Organ et al., 2006)
OCBs often lead to lower performance in work contexts in which group tasks require little or no coordination among members
Attract and retain good employees (through creating and maintaining a friendly, supportive working environment and a sense of belonging) (Organ et al., 2006)
Higher levels of job stress and burnout, more intentions to leave the organization, and an increased tendency to negligent behavior (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006)
Create social capital (better communication and stronger networks facilitate accurate information transfer and improve efficiency) (Organ et al., 2006)
Stronger perceptions of organizational politics, lower levels of job satisfaction, innovation, OCB climate, and in-role performance (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006)
CONCLUSION
organizations should pay attention to the type of OCB that is encouraged; some behaviors may have positive implications, while others may be associated with negative outcomes. References:
1. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and workfamily conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 740-748.
2. Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational stress. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
3. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology or organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
4. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons
5. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books
6. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 70-80.
7. Walz, S. M. & Niehoff, B. P. (1996). Organizational citizenship behaviors and their effect on organizational effectiveness in limited menu restaurants. Best Paper Proceedings, Academy of Management conference, pp. 307-311
8. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97
9. Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131-142
10.Chaitanya, S. K. & Tripathi, Nachiketa (2001). Dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 37, No. 2 11.Jahangir, Nadim, Akbar, Mohammad Muzahid, Haq, Mahmudul (2004).
Organizational Citizenship Behavior- Its Nature & Antecedents. BRAC University Journal, vol. I, no. 2, pp. 75-85
12.Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of
organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2),
259-273.
13.Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational
citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Sage.
14.Katrinli, A. E., Atabay, G., & Gunay, G. (2006). Congruence of family and
organizational values in relation to organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of
Human Values, 12(1), 81-89.
15.Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace
deviance: the role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131.
16.Torlak, O., & Koc, U. (2007). Materialistic attitude as an antecedent of organizational
citizenship behavior. Management Research News, 30(8), 581-596.
17.Kumar, K., Bakhshi, A., & Rani, E. (2009). Linking the big five personality domains
to organizational citizenship behavior. International journal of Psychological studies,
1(2), P73.
18.Deww Zhang (2011). Organizational Citizenship Behavior. White Paper
19.Özler, D. E., & Atalay, C. G. (2011). A research to determine the relationship
between organizational cynicism and burnout levels of employees in health sector.
Business and Management Review, 1(4), 26-38.
20.Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms.
21.Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Transaction Publishers.
22.Ma, E., & Qu, H. (2011). Social exchanges as motivators of hotel employees’ organizational citizenship behavior: The proposition and application of a new
three-dimensional framework. International journal of hospitality management, 30(3),
680-688.
23.Bergeron, D. M., Shipp, A. J., Rosen, B., & Furst, S. A. (2011). Organizational
Citizenship Behavior and Career Outcomes The Cost of Being a Good Citizen.
Journal of Management, 0149206311407508.
24.Bolino, M. C., Klotz, A. C., Turnley, W. H., & Harvey, J. (2013). Exploring the dark
side of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
34(4), 542-559.
25.VIGODA‐GADOT, E. R. A. N. (2006). Compulsory citizenship behavior: Theorizing
some dark sides of the good soldier syndrome in organizations. Journal for the Theory
26.Spitzmuller, M., & Van Dyne, L. (2013). Proactive and reactive helping: Contrasting
the positive consequences of different forms of helping. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 34(4), 560-580.
27.Spector, P. E. (2013). Introduction: The dark and light sides of organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(4), 540-541.
28.Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and workfamily conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 740-748.
29.Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of management
journal, 43(2), 178-190.
30.Porpora, D. V. (1989). Four Concepts of Social Structure DOUGLAS V. PORPORA.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 19(2), 195-211.
31.Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 247-260.
32.Conway, J. M. (1999). Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 3-13.
33.Van Scotter, J. R., Motowidlo, S. J., & Cross, T. C. (2000). Effects of task performance and contextual performance on systemic rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 526-535.
34.Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of inrole and extrarole behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 98-107.
35.Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.
36.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. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122.
37.Walz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Their
relationship to organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
38.Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and
subordinates' organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(6), 1068.
39.Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Niehoff, B. P. (2004). The other side of the story: Reexamining prevailing assumptions about organizational citizenship behavior.
Human Resource Management Review, 14, 229-246.
40.Eastman, K. K. (1994). In the eyes of the beholder: An attributional approach to ingratiation and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1379-1391.
