International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management

Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019

www.ijrbem.com

266

Organisational Citizenship Behaviour: A Review of Literature

TAMUNOMIEBI, Miebaka Dagogo PhD.

Department of Management, Faculty of Management Sciences, Rivers, State University,

Nkpolu-Oroworukwo, PMB 5080, Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

MINAYE, OBUFIYA COOL

Doctoral Candidate, Department of Management, Faculty of Management Sciences, Rivers State

University, Nkpolu- Oroworukwo, PMB 5080, Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

ABSTRACT

This paper critically examines the literature on organizational citizenship behavior in business

organisations. This work is founded on secondary data collected from relevant text books, articles

and online materials on the subject matter. The paper chronicled the origin of OCB, described the

meaning of OCB.The paper also provided a detailed discussion on the five dimensions of OCB as

posited by Organ (1988).The study adopted the Hannam and Jimmieson (2002), five antecedents

of OCB (i.e. job satisfaction and organizational commitment, role perceptions, leadership

behaviors and LMX, fairness perceptions, and individual dispositions) and two additional

antecedents from Jahangir, Akbar and Haq (2004)which are motivational theories and employee

age. To give direction to the future researchers on OCB, the paper develops one additional

antecedent of OCB based on the author’s personal observation at the work place, which is

organizational culture. It implies making OCB a way of life in the work place (imbibing OCB as

culture of the organisation), which can be achieved through initiating programs, slogans/creeds,

HR policies & practices that can promote OCB. The paper also discussed the merits and criticisms

of OCB. In conclusion, the paper recognized OCB as an internal organizational strength that can

become a competitive advantage if properly harnessed.

KeyWords: Organisational Citizenship Behaviour, Organisational effectiveness, Job satisfaction.

INTRODUCTION

It is common knowledge the assertion, ‘high performing organisations rely heavily on employees

who exceed their contractual duties to discharge official tasks successfully’. Most organisations

could hardly excel without organizational members taking ‘ownership’ or behaving as good

citizens by engaging in all sorts of positive behaviours. Taking ownership here, implies taking

responsibility as if the business belongs to you. It means that you will be willing to solve any

problem within your capability even when it is not within your key job responsibilities.

Many management thoughts and organizational theories have emphasized theneed for cooperation

and collaboration between employees (Barnard, 1938; Jones and George, 1998), civic

organizational behaviour (Graham, 1991), sharing of knowledge and suggestions (Boiral, 2002),

extra role behavior ( Van Dyne, Cummings and Mclean-Parks,1995 and Organ, Podsakoff, &

International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management

Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019

www.ijrbem.com

267

MacKenzie, 2006), prosocial organizational behaviour (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), organizational

spontaneity (George & Jones, 1997), contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993) and

the most widely used term ‘Organizational Citizenship Behaviour’ or OCB (Bateman & Organ,

1983). Although these terms do not absolutely describe the same behaviours, they all share the

general theme of individual performance that goes beyond what is expected of the individual by

his or her organization.

The concept of Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) draws its origin from the Social

Exchange Theory that describes the conditions under which people feel obligated to reciprocate

when they feel benefited from some other persons or some entity’s action (Gabriel,

2015).Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) refers to the behaviors of individuals that

promote effectiveness in organizational functioning. OCB accomplishes this effectiveness by

providing a positive social and psychological environment in which task work can flourish. OCB

is important to employees insofar as it enhances social connections that influence job performance.

OCB is one of the most studied content areas in organizational behavior, with many published

theoretical pieces, primary research, narrative reviews, edited books, and meta-analyses that

describe the nature and functioning of the construct (LePine, Newton and Kim, 2016).

This paper is a literature review on OCB, focus will be on the following area:

Origin of OCB

Definition/Meaning of OCB

OCB dimensions

OCB antecedents

Merits of OCB

Criticisms of OCB

Conclusion.

ORIGIN OF OCB

The historical review shows that the OCB, as a field of study, was slow to develop. Although

it has been introduced in the late 1970s and officially defined in the 1980s, its origins can be

traced back to the 1930s (Ocampo et al, 2018). According to

LePine, Newton and Kim (2016) the foundations of OCB are rooted in Barnard 1938 book titled

‘The Functions of the Executive’ where he introduced among many other ideas, the importance of

individuals who willingly cooperate for the good of the larger system. He created the notion that

individuals’ willingness to cooperate is crucially important and indispensable to the organization.

Katz (1964) identified three basic types of behavior required for the effective functioning of

organization:

people must be induced to enter and remain within the system,

they must carry out specific role requirements in a dependable fashion; and

there must be innovative and spontaneous activity that goes beyond role prescriptions.

International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management

Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019

www.ijrbem.com

268

Katz’s third category of behaviour, requires employees to act or work beyond theirpre-established

role or job responsibilities. Heposits that, "An organization which depends solely upon its blue-

prints of prescribed behavior is a very fragile social system". Every factory, office, or bureau

depends daily on a myriad of acts of cooperation, helpfulness, suggestions, gestures of goodwill,

altruism, and other instances of what we might call citizenship behavior (Smith, Organ, and Near,

1983).

Dennis Organ is generally considered the father of OCB. Dennis Organ expanded upon Katz's

(1964) original work on OCB. Dennis Organ’s (1988) definition of OCB has generated a great

deal of criticism.OCB is often perceived as relatively new construct and is amongst the biggest

subjects studied by organizational behavior scholars. OCB has reached far and wide into the

business and management domains, supporting the fact that employee’s behaviors can greatly

affect organizations’ effectiveness and performance. Having been the topic of a significant

number of studies, there have been inconsistent research findings regarding the concepts.

Furthermore, some concepts have been noted to overlap, with several scholars using different

terms for essentially similar concepts.

DEFINITIONS/MEANING OF OCB

Most employees understand that their primary duty is to do the work that is assigned to them,

stay away from behaviors that could be deemed troublesome, and deliver work that is

acceptable and beneficial to the organization.

Organ (1988) defines 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". There three key things highlighted by Organ in his definition of

OCB:

OCB is a discretionary behaviour, which are not part of the job description or employee’s

key job responsibilities, and is performed by the employee because of personal choice, zeal

and drive.

OCB go above and beyond that which is an enforceable requirement of the job description.

OCB behavior might not be captured as a requirement or criteria for employee appraisal,

reward or discipline.

Finally, OCBs contribute positively to overall organizational effectiveness. OCB enhances

better organizational performance, predetermined goals and key performance metrics are

met or even exceeded.

However, Organ's (1988) definition of OCB has generated a great deal of criticism. The very nature

of the construct makes it difficult to operationally define. Critics questioned if OCBs, as defined

by Organ, were discretionary in nature. Responding to critics Organ (1977), states that since his

original definition, jobs have moved away from a clearly defined set of tasks and responsibilities

and have evolved into much more ambiguous roles. Without a defined role, it quickly becomes

difficult to define what is discretionary. He opined that it no longer seems fruitful to regard OCB

as extra-role, beyond the job, or unrewarded by the formal system. A more tenable position is one

International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management

Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019

www.ijrbem.com

269

that defines OCB much along the lines of what Borman and Motowidlo (1993) called contextual

performance. There are 5 categories of contextual performance: (1) volunteering for activities

beyond a person's formal job expectations, (2) persistence of enthusiasm and application when

needed to complete procedures even when it is inconvenient, (3) assistance to others, (4) following

rules and procedures even when it is inconvenient, and (5) openly espousing and defending

organization objectives.

OCB can be analysed from both individual and organisational perspectives. If the OCB of the

employee is high then he will help the other employees in completion of the tasks, facilitate and

support his colleagues in performing effectively whereas from organisational perspective,

employees exhibiting high OCB are more strategically aligned with the organisation goals and

objectives and put their maximum potential and go beyond the limits in achieving the goals and

objectives of the organisation.

OCB is also considered as an informal kind of behaviour that is desirable by the organization it

can be described as a behaviour that intensify the employee positive attitude towards the

organisation which ultimately enhances corporate organizational performance. Organ (1988)

called it “good soldier syndrome”.

OCB DIMENSIONS

OCB dimensions are the behaviours or actions of individual and/or group within an organization

that showcases organisational citizenship behaviour. They are the actions or behaviours that define

OCB, these behaviours are what one can point to as an OCB.These behaviorsshow willingness to

participate actively in managerial events, to monitor organization’s environment for threats and

opportunities, to look out for organization’s best interest. These behaviors reflect an employee’s

recognition of being a part organization (Podsakoff et al, 2000).

Unal (2013) and Williams & Anderson (1991) classified OCB into two groups as OCB-

Organizational and OCB-Individual: OCB-Organizational benefits the organization in general

such as adhering to informal rules devised to maintain order. OCB-Individual benefits specific

individuals and indirectly contributes to the organization such as taking a personnel interest in

other employees. Podsakoff et al (2000) identified almost 30 different forms of behaviors in

examination of the literature and classified them into seven common dimensions: Helping

behavior, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, organizational compliance, individual initiative,

civic virtue and self-development. While Chaitanya & Nachiketa(2001)developed 6 dimensions

of OCB: altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, sportsmanship, and civic virtue and the perception

of the organization towards OCB.

Several dimensions used to describe OCB have been developed, but there is a serious inconsistency

in their dimensionality. Dimensional disparity is an important concern, and due to the divergent

methods and results of prior research, none of the structures can be considered optimal. However,

most researches have suggested that there are five basic personality factors which affect most of

the variance in personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992 and Organ, 1988) and these dimensions are

known as big five dimensions which are classified as altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy,

International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management

Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019

www.ijrbem.com

270

sportsmanship, and civic virtue. This study adopts the five dimensions of OCB as identified by

Organ, 1988.

Altruism

This type of Organizational Citizenship Behavior is when a person decides to help someone

else without expecting anything in return. It has to do with rendering help to a colleague. It means

helping or helpfulness (Organ, 1997). Altruism manifests itself in voluntarily helping in the

orientation of a new employee, sharing sales strategies, teaching employees useful knowledge or

skills, assisting an overloaded worker catch up with the workflow or solve a problem, showing

employees how to accomplish difficult tasks or help a co-worker finish a project or a set of tasks

even though such tasks does not necessarily relate to the employee regular workday

responsibilities.

Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness is a discretionary behavior that goes well beyond the minimum role requirement

level of the organization, such as obeying rules and regulations, not taking extra breaks, working

extra-long days (MacKenzie et al, 1993). More conscientiousness for an employee means more

responsibility and less supervision (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997). Altruism and

conscientiousness are the two major or overarching dimension of OCB (Borman et al., 2001).

Sportsmanship

It is a form of citizenship behaviour that has been defined as a willingness to tolerate the inevitable

inconveniences and impositions of work without complaining. Precisely, “good sportsmen” are

people who do not complain when they are inconvenienced by others, who try to maintain a

positive attitude even when things do not go their way, are not offended when others fail to accept

their suggestions.

Sportsmanship is demonstrations of willingness to tolerate minor and temporary personnel

inconveniences and impositions of work without grievances, complaints, appeals, accusations, or

protest, thus conserving organizational energies for task accomplishment and lightening the loads

of managers (Organ and Ryan, 1995; Organ, 1990).

Courtesy

It is a prominent dimension of OCB. It consists of actions that help preventing organizational

problems (or problems of another coworker per se) from occurring. The fundamental idea

operating here is to avoid practices that make another person’s work more difficult or harder.

Where it becomes necessary to add to their existing workload, enough notice should be provided

so that they will be prepared to deal with the add-on tasks. Behaviours in congruence to this

dimension vary in degrees, like leaving the company’s desktop printer in as good as the condition

in which one has found it, ensuring good housekeeping at the end of your shift, so that the incoming

personnel on the next shift will not start their day with cleaning/housekeeping.

International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management

Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019

www.ijrbem.com

271

Courtesy or gestures are demonstrated in the interest of preventing creations of problems for co-

workers (Organ, 1997). A courteous employee avoiding creating problems for co-workers reduces

intergroup conflict, so managers do not fall into a pattern of crisis management (Podsakoff and

MacKenzie, 1997).

Civic virtue

This is when a worker represents the company they are associated with in a positive light. This

could occur within or outside of the business. It encourages a sense of community and strong

interpersonal ties between co-workers. Employees could engage in this type of Organizational

Citizenship Behavior by speaking favorably about the organization to those outside of it,

participating in charity projects the company participates in, and planning or attending

company-sanctioned social events.

The dimension of civic virtue is derived from Graham’s (1991) discussion of the responsibilities

that employees have as “citizens” of an organization. The concept of ‘civic virtue’ represents a

macro-level interest in, or commitment to, the organization as a whole. It is expressed by a

willingness to participate actively in its governance (e.g. to attend meetings, engage in policy

debates, express one’s opinion about what strategy the organization ought to follow, and so on),

to monitor its environment for threats and opportunities (e.g. to keep up with changes in the

industry that might affect the organization), and to look out for its best interests (e.g. to report

hazards in the work environment) even at great personal cost.

Therefore, it may be emphasized that civic virtue describes a posture of responsible, constructive

involvement in the political or governance process of the organization. This dimension has been

operationalized in two forms. Konovsky & Organ (1996) stressed the more mundane, ongoing

activities pertaining to governance, such as reading work related mail/e-mail, attending meetings,

keeping oneself up-to-date with the current status of the organization, discussing with colleagues

the issues of the day, and taking part in the various rituals that mark continuity of the organization’s

traditions and identity. On the other hand, Graham (1989) stressed the less frequent and more

dramatic instances of civic virtue, in which someone challenges existing organizational practices

and policies, voices critiques or objections to policies proposed by high level officers, and more

generally acts as the conscience of the organization (Graham, 1989). Thus, in a nutshell, civic

virtue reflects a person’s recognition of being part of a larger whole and accepting the

responsibilities that such membership entails, in the same way that citizens are members of a

country. Civic virtue is a behavior on the part of an individual that indicates that employee

responsibly participate in, is involved in, or concerned about the life of the company (Podsakoff

et al, 1990).

OCB ANTECEDENTS

Earlier researches on the antecedents of OCB focused on employee attitudes, dispositions, and

leader supportiveness. But recently, many different variables have been examined in the pursuit

to determine the antecedents of OCB. Commonly studied antecedents of OCB are job satisfaction,

perceptions of organizational justice, organizational commitment, personality characteristics, task

International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management

Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019

www.ijrbem.com

272

characteristics, and leadership behavior. These antecedents have been analyzed at both the overall

and individual OCB levels (Alizadeh, Darvishi, Nazari, &Emami 2012). Antecedents to OCB are

the factors that enhance or impede the level of employee’s performance in an organization, they

are individual and organizational variables commonly found to affect an employee's willingness

to engage in OCB. They can drive or fuel employee to engage in OCB, on the other hand their

absence or misapplication can significantly limits or hinder OCB in the work place.

Hannam and Jimmieson (2002) came up with five antecedents of OCB (which include: job

satisfaction and organizational commitment, role perceptions, leadership behaviors and LMX,

fairness perceptions, and individual dispositions), the study of Jahangir, Akbar and Haq (2004)

introduced two additional antecedents which are motivational theories and employee age.

Based on my personal observation at the work place, I believe organisational culture is another

antecedent of OCB, which is making OCB a way of life. This can be achieved through initiating

programs, slogans/creeds that can promote OCB, also HR policies & practices recognizing OCB

and rewarding same (where stretch goals or OCB task can be inputted into employee’s

Performance Management Process).

A wide range of employee, task, organizational and leader characteristics are consistently found

to predict different types of OCB across a range of occupations (Podsakoff et. al, 2000). The search

for a host of reliable predictors of OCB has been increasing during the last three decades. Based

on the literature reviewed by Jahangir, Akbar & Haq (2004), Hannam & Jimmieson (2002)and my

personal observation at the work place the following antecedents of OCB are identified as

highlighted below:

Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment

The research of Smith, et al. (1983); Bateman and Organ (1983) and Organ, 1997 on the

antecedents of OCB, find job satisfaction to be the best predictor. Job satisfaction has been found

to have a positive relationship with job performance and OCB. Which in turn has a significant

influence on employees’ absenteeism, turnover, and psychological distress. Workers with high

levels of job satisfaction are more likely to be engage in OCB. The implication is that, employees

with higher levels of job satisfaction will less likely search for another job or express desire to

leave the organisation.

Along with job satisfaction, organisational commitment is also cited as an antecedent of OCB.

Meyer and Allen (1997) developed the three-component model of commitment which has arguably

dominated organizational commitment research. Commitment is experienced by the employee as

three simultaneous mindsets encompassing affective, normative, and continuance organizational

commitment. Affective Commitment reflects commitment based on emotional ties the employee

develops with the organization primarily via positive work experiences. Affective commitment is

conceptualized as a strong belief in, and acceptance of, an organization’s goals and a strong desire

to maintain membership in the organization (Van Dyne et al., 1995). Because affective

commitment maintains behavioral direction when there is little expectation of formal rewards it

would seem logical that affective commitment drives those behaviors (i.e. discretionary behaviors)

International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management

Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019

www.ijrbem.com

273

that do not depend primarily on reinforcement or formal rewards. Normative Commitment reflects

commitment based on perceived obligation towards the organization, for example rooted in the

norms of reciprocity. Continuance commitment reflects commitment based on the perceived costs,

both economic and social, of leaving the organization. This model of commitment has been used

by researchers to predict important employee outcomes, including turnover and citizenship

behaviors, job performance, absenteeism, and tardiness.

Role perceptions

Role perceptions can significantly affect OCB negatively or positively.There is consensus from

different research works that role conflict and role ambiguity have significant negative relationship

with OCB while role clarity and role facilitation are positively related (Nagai et al., 2008 and

Podsakoff et. al., 2000). Nagai et al. (2008) posits that role conflict and role ambiguity have been

associated with work dissatisfaction, lower performance, job-induced tension and propensity to

terminate employment.Their work also prescribed that job design can also be used to shape role

perceptions, as effective job design results in higher levels of organisationally desirable

behaviours. In addition, they also stated that job enrichment leads to the development of broader

role orientations, suggesting a link between job design and employee role perceptions. Hence,

giving employees‟ greater variety and autonomy may encourage them to view their role

responsibilities more broadly and may also enhance perceived OCB role discretion and

competence.

Leader behaviors and Leader-member exchange

Leadership is one of the antecedents of OCB that enhances team spirit, morale and cohesiveness

in the employees which in turn leads to organisational commitment. Jahangir, et al., (2004) asserts

thatleadership is one OCB antecedent that appears to have a strong influence on an employee's

willingness to engage in OCB. According to Podsakoff et al. (2000) the influence of leadership on

OCB is not associated with a particular leadership style, rather it is the quality of an employee's

relationship with his or her leader that counts. The quality of the relationship between a subordinate

and a leader is often called leadermember exchange (LMX). Another leadership variable positively

related to OCB is the leaders' contingent reward behaviors, such as expressing satisfaction or

appreciation for good performance (Podsakoff et. al, 2000). Leadership behaviors may also

influence OCB indirectly via employee perceptions of fairness or justice in the workplace. The

works of Barbuto & Wheeler (2006); Jahangir, Akbar & Haq (2004); Hannam & Jimmieson(2002)

and Barbuto et al(2001) also indicates that leadership can indirectly influences employee

perception of fairness or justice in the workplace, which in turn affects OCB.

Fairness perceptions

Fairness perception is defined as a concept that expressed employees‟ perceptions about the extent

to which they are treated fairly in an organisation and how such perceptions influenced

organisational outcomes such as commitment and satisfaction. Procedural justice and distributive

justice are important components of fairness perception.Fairness or justice perceptions refer to

whether or not employees feel organizational decisions are made equitably and with the necessary

employee input (usually called procedural justice) and whether or not employees perceive that they

International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management

Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019

www.ijrbem.com

274

are fairly rewarded given their level of training, tenure, responsibility or workload (called

distributive justice). Both procedural and distributive justice are positively related to OCB

(Jahangir, Akbar & Haq, 2004, Hannam & Jimmieson, 2002 and Meyer, Organ & Graham, 1997).

Individual dispositions

Personality variables including positive affectivity, negative affectivity, conscientiousness and

agreeableness have all been found to predispose people to orientations that make them more likely

to engage in OCB (Organ & Ryan, 1995). Even though OCB does not seem to depend on

personality traits such as extraversion, introversion, or openness to change, these traits are

considered to be significant in dealing with other employees or customers (Jahangir, Akbar & Haq,

2004 and Hannam & Jimmieson, 2002).

Elanain (2007) remarked that personality traits play an important role in predicting an employee’s

OCB. These traits influence an individual to coordinate his personal needs with the organisational

needs which enhances overall personality of employees and the organisational performance. In

context to competencies, personality traits can be referred to the ability or competencies of an

individual, based on knowledge and skills and other important factors. Hence, for building

effective interaction among employees and efficient functioning of various networks,

organisations based on different competencies should develop and strengthen personality traits of

individuals to improve organisational performance. This subsequently paves way to the

development of OCB.

Motivational theories

Motivation is an individual’s predisposition to respond to motives grounded uniquely in

organisations. It is a desire created by an organisation within a person that encourages an individual

to perform actions to achieve organisational goal and performance (Budiyanto & Oetomo, 2011).

In other words, motivation covers all processes in which realising targeted behaviour is the core

element of employees.

Barbuto et al. (2001) argued that though the motivational theories work as antecedents for OCB,

but the researchers cautioned that an individual’s sources of motivation could have an impact on

his or her level of OCB. As individual progress upward in an organization, motivational theories

tend to be less applicable as antecedent.

The research studies such as Jahangir, Akabar & Haq (2004) and Hannam & Jimmieson (2002

found that motivation plays important role in strengthening OCB. Motivated employees tend to

give out their best to achieve the organisation goals and also help others in time of need. Thus,

motivation is a good indicator of OCB and is significantly related to OCB (Budiyanto& Oetomo,

2011). However, motivation is considered as less significant as an antecedent of OCB when

individual moves to higher position in an organisation.

Employee age

The proposition that younger and older worker may view work and self in fundamentally different

ways is not new. Researchers such as Banu, Amudha & Surulivel (2012) and Wagner and Rush

International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management

Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019

www.ijrbem.com

275

(2000) argued that younger employees coordinate their needs with organisational need more

flexibly, whereas, older employees tend to be more rigid in adjusting their needs with the

organisation. Therefore, younger and older employees may differ in their orientations towards self,

others and work. These differences may lead to different salient motives for OCB among younger

and older employees.

Organisational Culture : OCB an Organisational way of life

Individuals or groups in the organization will not struggle to exhibit OCB, if OCB is enshrined as

a core value in the organisation’s way of life or culture. This way, when new employees come

onboard they gradually internalize this way of life. In some organisation’s OCB is prompted by

slogans and creeds that are recited on daily basis that have become a way of life for the employees.

Slogans like ‘if you see it you own it’. Which implies that employees should take responsibility to

solve problems or challenges that they discover. It is about creating a spirit of ownership amongst

employees. Employees are expected to solve problems they discover, which they have capacity to

solve, whether or not these tasks form part of their key job responsibilities.

MERITS OF OCB

OCB has been shown to have a positive impact on employee performance and wellbeing, and this

in turn has noticeable flow-on effects on the organisation. OCB can contribute to enhancing

employees and managerial productivity, attract retention, improve coordination, reduce friction,

viability of performance and increase adaptation to environmental changes (Podsakoff,

MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000).

There is a clear and compelling body of empirical evidence that organizational citizenship

behaviors, in the aggregate, are associated with superior organizational or group-level

performance, as befits the construct definition (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Consequent upon this fact,

OCB if properly harnessed, encouraged and nurtured in the work place will become an internal

strength of the organisation that will translate to be a competitive advantage.

The effects on employee performance are threefold. Firstly, workers who engage in OCB tend to

receive better performance ratings by their managers (Podsakoff et al., 2009). This could be

because employees who engage in OCB are simply liked more and perceived more favourably, or

it may be due to more work-related reasons such as the manager’s belief that OCB plays a

significant role in the organisation’s overall success, or perception of OCB as a form of employee

commitment due to its voluntary nature (Organ et al., 2006). Regardless of the reason, the second

effect is that a better performance rating is linked to gaining rewards (Podsakoff et al., 2009) –

such as pay increments, bonuses, promotions or work-related benefits. Thirdly, because these

employees have better performance ratings and receive greater rewards, when the company is

downsizing e.g. during an economic recession, these employees will have a lower chance of being

made redundant (Organ et al, 2006).

How do these effects translate to organizational level outcomes? OCB is linked to lower rates of

employee turnover and absenteeism, but on the organisational level increased productivity,

International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management

Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019

www.ijrbem.com

276

efficiency and customer satisfaction, as well as reduced costs, have also been observed (Podsakoff

et al, 2009).

According to Organ et al. (2006) OCB has such compelling effects on the individual and the

success of an organization becauseit:

• enhance productivity (helping new co-workers; helping colleagues meet deadlines)

• free up resources (autonomous, cooperative employees give managers more time to clear their

work; helpful behaviour facilitates cohesiveness (as part of group maintenance behavior)

• attract and retain good employees (through creating and maintaining a friendly, supportive

working environment and a sense of belonging)

• create social capital (better communication and stronger networks facilitate accurate information

transfer and improve efficiency)

CRITICISMS AGAINST OCB

Although OCB has largely been considered a positive behaviour that benefits the organisation, the

consensus by many sources is that these behaviors benefit the organization and the employees.

However, there are risks and costs associated with it.Which may include but not limited to the

following:

Habituation: If OCB is rewarded regularly, you may find that OCB levels will rise across

the organisation over time. What was once considered OCB (e.g. working overtime) may

become an internalised organisational norm and is no longer spontaneous and voluntary

but expected of workers. Employees succumb to “job creep”, in which behaviours that

were originally voluntary become expected parts of their role. A related concept is

“compulsory citizenship behaviours,” in which managers expect and demand workers to

do more than is listed in their formal job requirements (Van Dyne and Ellis, 2004; Pickford

and Joy, 2016).

Research into this phenomenon, termed citizenship pressure, is relatively recent, and

though contested, it can impact negatively on employee stress if care is not taken.

Organisational justice: If some supervisors reward OCB more than others, perceived

unfairness may increase among certain clusters of employees. This will not only lead to a

decrease in OCB among those not rewarded for it but may have other side effects related

to perceived injustice, such as an increase in counterproductive behaviour (e.g. theft,

absenteeism) (Marcus & Schuler, 2004).

Discrimination: Managers should be wary of implicit gendered expectations while

rewarding OCB. Research has shown that men are rewarded for OCB more than women

(Heilman & Chen, 2005), as women are expected to engage in certain types of citizenship

behaviours (such as being altruistic and courteous) more than men. Such biased

expectations can diminish or create a dearth of organizational citizen behavior amongst the

female workforce.

CONCLUSION

International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management

Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019

www.ijrbem.com

277

Research on the topic of organizational citizenship behaviors has dramatically increased over the

past decade. However, this rapid growth in research has resulted in the development of several

problems, including the need to better understand the concept of organizational citizenship

behavior, as well as their dimensions and antecedents. In this paper, we have tried to address these

issues, as well as identify useful avenues for future research.

The advent of technology and globalization has greatly affected organizations today which

resulted in increased competition in the global business. Firms have started to look into the

behavior exhibited by employees as a means of achieving competitive advantage, such as

OCB (Ocampo et al, 2018).

There is a clear and compelling body of empirical evidence that organizational citizenship

behaviors, in the aggregate, are associated with superior organizational or group-level

performance, as befits the construct definition (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Consequent upon this fact,

OCB if properly harnessed, encouraged and nurtured in the work place will become an internal

strength of the organisation that will translate to be a competitive advantage.

REFERENCE

Alizadeh, Z., Darvishi, S; Nazari, K., & Emami, M. (2012). Antecedents and Consequences of

Organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB). Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary

Research In Business, 3(9), 494–505.

Barnard, C. I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Barbuto, J., Brown, L., Wilhite, M. & Wheeler, D. (2001). Testing the underlying motives of

organizational citizenship behaviour: a field study of agricultural co-op workers. 28th

Annual National Agricultural Educational Research Conference, 539-553.

Banu, V., Amudha, R., & Surulivel, S.T. (2012). A study on customer satisfaction towards quality

of service of an Indian private sector bank using factor analysis. European Journal of

Social Sciences.

Barbuto, J. E. & Daniel, W. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant

leadership. Group Organization Management, 31(3), 300 – 326

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

between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements

of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, and Associates (Eds.),

Personnel selection in organizations (71-98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Brief, A. P. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behavior. Academy of

Management Review, 11(4), 710-725

Boiral, O (2002). Tacit Knowledge and Environmental Management. Long Range Planning, 35(3),

291-317.

International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management

Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019

www.ijrbem.com

278

Borman, C. W., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D. & Motowidlo, S. T. (2001). Personality predictors of

citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1/2): 52-

66.

Budiyanto, & Oetomo, H. W. (2011). The effect of job motivation, work environment and

leadership on organizational citizenship behavior, job satisfaction and public service

quality in Magetan, East Java, Indonesia. World Academy of Science, Engineering and

Technology 75, 192-200.

Chaitanya S. K. & Nachiketa T (2001) Dimensions of organisational citizenship behaviour. Indian

Journal of Industrial Relations, 37(2), 217-230.

Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO

personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 1, 5-13.

Elanain, H. M. A. (2007). The five factor model of personality and organizational citizenship

behavior in United Arab Emirates, Sam Advanced Management Journal.

Gabriel, J. M. O. (2015). Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and corporate resilience in

the domestic aviation sector in Nigeria. Unpublished PhD thesis.

Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities

and Rights Journal, 4, 249–270.

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

10, 153–170.

Graham, J. (1989). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, operationalizatio

n, and validation. Unpublished manuscript, Loyola University, Chicago

Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behaviour, different consequences: Reactions to men’s

and women’s altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 431-

441. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.431

Hannam, R. & Jimmieson, N. (2002). The relationship between extra-role behaviours and job

burnout for primary school teachers: a preliminary model and development of an

organizational citizenship behaviour scale. School of Psychology, University of

Queensland, www.aare.edu.au/02pap/han02173.htm.

Ocampo, L., Acedillo, V., Bacunador, A.M., Balo, C.C., Lagdameo, Y.J., & Tupa, N.S

(2018). A historical review of the development of organizational citizenship behavior

(OCB) and its implications for the twenty-first century. Personnel Review, 47 (4),

821-862, https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2017-0136

Jahangir, N., Akbar, M. M., & Haq, M. (2004). Organizational citizenship behaviour:

Its nature and antecedents. Journal of BRAC University, 1, 75-85.

Jones G. R & George J. M. (1998). The Experience and Evolution of Trust: Implications for

Cooperation and Teamwork. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 531-546.

Katz, D. (1964). The Motivational Basis of Organizational Behavior. Behavioral Science, 9(2),

131–146.

Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 253–266.

International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management

Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019

www.ijrbem.com

279

LePine, J., Newton, D., Kim, J.K. (2016). Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs)

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199846740/obo-

9780199846740-0091.xml

Marcus, B. & Schuler, H. (2004). Antecedents of counterproductive behavior at work:A general

perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 647-660. doi: 10.1037/0021-

9010.89.4.647

Meyer, J. & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application.

Sage Publications.

Meyer, J. P., Organ, D.W., & Graham, J.W. (1997). Individual performance attitudes and behavior.

Journal of International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 175-

228

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. 1993. The impact of organizational citizenship

behavior on evaluations of sales performance. Journal of Marketing, 57: 70–80.

Nagai, Hirohisa, Tsuyoshi Nanmoku, Masami Suzuki, Takuya Motoi and Kyoko Yamazaki

(2008). Expatriate Management in China,” IABR and TLC conference proceedings, 1

– 11.

Organ, D., W., Podsakoff, P. M. & MacKenzie, S. (2006). Organizational citizenship behaviour:

Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct cleanup time. Human

Performance, 10(2), 85-97.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional

predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 776–801.

Pickford, H.C. & Joy, G (2016) Organisational Citizenship Behaviours: Definitions and

Dimensions. Saïd Business School RP 2016-31. Saïd Business School, Egrove Park,

Oxford OX1 5NY www.sbs.oxford.edu

Podsakoff, P. M., KacKenzie, 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.

Podsakoff, M. F., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H. & Richard, F. (1990). Transformational

leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and

organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.

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

Organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviours: A meta-

analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141.

Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). The Impact of Organizational Citizenship in

Organizational Performance: Review and Suggestion for Future Research. Human

Performance, 10, 133–151

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington,

MA: Lexington Books.

International Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management

Vol.3 Issue 1 January-February 2019

www.ijrbem.com

280

Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw

& L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43–72.

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior:

Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. USA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Smith, C., Organ, D. W. & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature and

antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology 68 (4), 653–663.

Unal, F. O. (2013). Relationship Between The Dimensions Of Organizational Citizenship

Behavior And The Facets Of Job Satisfaction (An Empirical Study In A Group Of

Companies In Turkey)

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean P. J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of

construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters). In L.L. Cummings &

B.M. Staw (Eds.). Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215-285.

Van Dyne, L. & Ellis, J. (2004). Job Creep: A reactance theory perspective on organizational

citizenship behavior as over fulfillment of obligations. In: J. Coyle-Shapiro, L. Shore, M.

Taylor and L. Tetrick, ed., The Employment Relationship: Examining psychological and

contextual perspectives, 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.181-205.

Wagner, S., &. Rush, M. (2000). Altruistic organizational citizenship behavior: context,

disposition and age. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 379-289.

WEI International Academic Conference Proceedings January 14-16, 2013 Antalya, Turkey

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as

predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management,

17, 601–617.