Organizational Citizenship Behavior (ocb)

Business
10 min, 57 sec read Download Article

Literature Review.

Conceptualization and Clarification.

 

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is defined by Murphy, Athanasou, & King (2002) as the willingness of the employees to exert efforts beyond the formal obligations dictated by their positions. This, according to Chughtai, (2008) defines OCB as the willingness of an individual to participate in cooperative efforts, goals, or cause. Fox et al. (2012) state that OCB is indispensable, especially when it comes to its effectiveness in the attainment of organizational goals. As clarified, OCB efforts dot not only contribute to the organization's goals; they also maintain it. Schnake & Dumler (2003) found out that people differ in their willingness to contribute to a cooperative system, and such profound individual differences cannot be explained using efforts in varied circumstances. Even with the systems of governance in place, Zayas-Ortiz et al. (2015) posit that such systems would break down, were it not for the cooperating between employees. Such types of cooperation may or not be sparked by incentives intended to motivate the spontaneous and individual efforts towards the proficiency of tasks.

            According to VanYperen, Van Den Berg, & Willering (1999), the behavior of an individual with regards to OCB is discretionary. As such, behavior does cannot be recognized in the context of a formal rewards system and does not form part of the aggregate that promotes the effective functioning of the organization (Runhaar, Konermann, & Sanders, 2013). As such, organizational citizenship behavior entails the ingrained notion people acquire in the attempt to perform and contribute to extra efforts sought towards the attainment of organizational outcomes and goals, according to Murphy, Athanasou, & King, (2002). As per Chughtai (2008), employees often contribute to extra efforts either willingly unwillingly. Such efforts are intended to hasten the achievement of organizational outcomes. Kolade & Ogunnaike (2014) attempts to operationalize OCB and come up with a relational explanation by positing that it is linked to individual perception and their connection with the organization. Adding to this, Fox et al., (2012) posit that leaders are often taken this into account by regarding organization citizenship as the loyalty behavior depicted by the subordinates. This can be directly or indirectly inferred through promotion, positive performance ratings, and promotions.

            Shahin, Naftchali, & Pool, (2014) argue that OCB is quite a distinct concept but relates to an array of constructs such as organizational commitment. VanYperen, Van Den Berg, & Willering (1999) draw a clear-cut distinction to this by stating that OCB refers to a particular class of employee behavior and, on the other hand, organizational commitment depicting the innate employees' attitudes. A more in-depth definition and study of this can better be reflected in the assessment of aspects of employee values and the response to jobs and responsibilities as per Snape, & Redman, (2010). From the works of Murphy, Athanasou, & King (2002), a unique contribution of OCB to workplace behaviors can be improved by job satisfaction, right workplace behavior, and employee attitudes. Like this, the definition of OCB typically entails an individual willing to adopt a new role behavior that benefits or is intended to benefit the organization. Chughtai (2008) states that behavior is discretionary and goes beyond the existing individual and organizational expectations. From such a definition, Zayas-Ortiz et al. (2015) attempt to clarify this by positing that the attempts seek to analyze and assess the roles played by communication in eliciting organizational citizenship amongst the targeted audience. As such, OCB falls into the realm of phenomenology, making it unobservable and entirely subjective.

            From the definitions, Paillé, Boiral, & Chen (2013) sum it up OCB in terms of the intentions of an actor and their guest to benefit the organization. As such, behavior can only be defined as independent in comparison with the presumed antecedents. According to Liu & Wang (2013), OCB is a contextual performance aspect relating to the effectiveness of an organization in shaping organizational, social, and psychological contexts of performance. Somech, & Drach‐Zahavy (2004), condenses this by positing that OCB acts as a catalyst for tasks execution by linking it to its ability to inspire incumbents to perform activities and contribute to the technical core of the organization through inspiring contextual performance. Murphy, Athanasou, & King (2002) state that OCB entails behaviors and activities which fall without the task performance rubric of the employee or the organization in its entirety. From the works of Snape & Redman (2010) taxonomy of OCB comes in handy with unique contextual aspects such as contextual performance, enthusiasm, and extra effort applied to complete tasks.

 

Research Summary

Quite an array of researches focuses on aspects of individual antecedents with regards to OCB. Asha & Jyothi (2013) found out that employees focus on the relationship between OCB and job satisfaction through the perception of fairness, pay equity, and job attitudes, which are both intrinsic and extrinsic. VanYperen, Van Den Berg, & Willering, (1999) state that such a position assumes characteristics of the particular personal relations at the workplace and the influence in the workplace go to the extent to which they go above and beyond the regular duties. Shahin, Naftchali, & Pool, (2014) found out that OCB, as performed by individuals, relates related to individual effort and values as depicted by individually manifested acts. An attempt to understand pushed Paillé, Boiral, & Chen (2013) to investigate how OCB is embedded in different constructs.

            From the works of Somech & Drach‐Zahavy (2004), there are three contextual categories of OCB. They include the task characteristics, Paillé, (2013), the task feedback, and organizational characteristics, degree of formalization in an organization and support staff (Zayas-Ortiz et al., 2015) and leadership behavior (Runhaar, Konermann, & Sanders, 2013). Such an approach typically depicts that OCB is a product of an array of environmental and informal interactions at the workplace. The attempt to examine OCB concerning context, structures, and cultural antecedents (Fox et al., 2012) leads to discovering that the display of OCB amongst the members of an organization is intrinsically linked to organizational characteristics. The justification for linking OCB and making it context-designed can be drawn according to of Snape, & Redman, (2010) digging into the situation-specific factors and the works of Somech, & Drach‐Zahavy (2004) that seek to discover the organizational culture and its relationship to performance.

As for the situation-specific literature, Snape, & Redman, (2010) posit that there are situational factors that determine when, and why people do not depict OCB. The assumption here is that OCB is specific to situations and is influenced by a range of contextual factors such as culture, economic and political situations (Kolade, & Ogunnaike, 2014). Such aspects are tied down to organizational patterns and their effect on individual behavior. From the works of Paillé (2013), less formalized organizations create the perfect environments for group cohesiveness, which fosters employee behaviors that depict OCB saliently. On the other hand, bureaucracies and hierarchical structures create environments where employees were alienated, like this inhibiting OCB. Liu & Wang (2013) conclude by stating that individuals that perform OCB do not do so in a vacuum; the organizational contexts in which such behaviors are performed may encourage or discourage them. While some organizations value cooperation, others value competitiveness, and this means that helping one another will be encouraged in the first organization than in the latter. Runhaar, Konermann, & Sanders (2013) posit that individual behavior in an organization is limited to the extent of the definition of the 'right' behavior therein.

            Somech & Drach‐Zahavy (2004) found out that organizational culture supports OCBs, but then, it is a context-defined phenomenon. Shahin, Naftchali, & Pool (2014) takes an example of a normative culture coming with ingrained shared values and beliefs that shape how the members think, behave, and feel. This is supported by the works of Kolade, & Ogunnaike, (2014) positing that a defection of shoulds and oughts of the organizational specifies behaviors deemed necessary in reaching out to specific set goals. As such, some beliefs, values, and norms that make up organizational culture deserve opportunities related to OCB (Boiral, & Paillé, 2012). According to Van Dick, et al., (2006), a clear understanding of OCB entails and assessment of the power the groups have in influencing social constructs and even aspects of individual behavior. Typically, OCB can be understood by organizational constructs which shape individual values and perception of the organization (Schnake, & Dumler, 2003). From the works of Newman et al. (2016), organizations have far-reaching effects on individual behavior, especially when it comes to shaping their beliefs. Asha & Jyothi (2013) state that organizational contexts shape social change and this way have quite significant effects on individual behavior. From the findings of different literature, organizations are quite a dominant supplier of norms to their members. They have profoundly running exchange relationships forming within the organizations and may determine different levels of OCB therein.

 

Application

The application of OCB, therefore, seeks to condense the definitions and literature into actionable goals and activities of the organization. An attempt to apply OCB, therefore, needs an appropriate taxonomic classification of OCB-related behaviors. OCB, according to Liu, & Wang (2013), can best be defined in terms of critical factors such as altruism, which in their totality foster to conscientiousness. As such, OCB fosters the ability to help others or the organization voluntarily, especially in work-related tasks sought towards assisting coworkers in executing tasks and achieving organizational goals Van Dick, et al., (2006). The definition and application of organizational citizenship behavior are best depicted by courtesy. Paillé, Boiral, & Chen (2013) state that this is the discretionary behavior that aims to prevent work-related problems at an organization. For example, advance notice to employees about the change in organizational rules, and the workplace, in general, may enable them to adapt accordingly. According to Deluga (1994), such an approach enables them to adapt faster and appropriately respond to the imminent changes. Such a depiction would, according to Paillé (2013), foster OCB.

Boiral, & Paillé, (2012) extends the application of OCB to include conscientiousness referring to the innate ability of individuals to meet the minimum role requirement of their responsibilities. Typically, OCB can be depicted by an individual's willingness to go far above and beyond the stated obligations at an organization. Such a view, according to Schnake & Dumler (2003), entails going beyond the typical requirement of adherence to company rules, regulations, and procedures. According to Pavalache-Ilie (2014), conscientiousness can be fostered by organizational cultures that foster equality, diversity, inclusion, and access to opportunities. Such an approach fosters in employees the willingness to tolerate the organizational situations that might be less than ideal. This, according to Asha & Jyothi (2013), depicts that employees have innate OCB and can best be shown through their ability and willingness to sacrifice their interests. From the works of Deluga, (1994), all these can be wrapped up by the civic virtue. This is the ingrained concern of an employee and their activities to the existence of an organization, and this is best exhibited when they give practical suggestions for improvement through formal and informal brainstorming sessions.

OCB, according to Newman et al., (2016), includes specific characteristics such as assistance to colleagues, harmony, discipline, self-improvement, identification with the organization, and righteousness.  This, according to Schnake, & Dumler, (2003), targets individual behavior. The Organization of OCB, in this case, consists of the relationship between an individual and their organization. From the argument, OCB contributes to the organization by creating an environment that allows people to benefit from their coworkers and peers. The approach, according to Deluga, (1994), is directed towards individuals in an organization and their approach to specific aspects of courtesy, and altruism. Such values, according to Van Dick et al. (2006), go a long way in creating and enabling behaviors such as helping struggling member perform their tasks. OCB also includes the behaviors that are intended for the entire organization, and these include aspects of punctuality, contributing to group efforts, and being compliant to organizational-set rules and obligations Snape & Redman, (2010). Typically, OCB, foster both interpersonal relationships and relationships between people and the organization. Pavalache-Ilie (2014) refers to this relationship ass twofold; without effective interpersonal relationships, and favorable organizational culture, employees might not develop OCB.

According to Deluga (1994), OCB can be understood and implemented from the standpoint of obedience, participation, and loyalty. Typically, creating OCB needs instilling values of obedience to the employees and members of an organization. Such an approach, according to Newman, et al., (2016) entails a willful adherence to the set rule through a perception of value in them. From the works of Pavalache-Ilie (2014), OCB can be encouraged by fostering loyalty to the organization, and this is done through handy HRM activities such as rewards, promotions, and personal development. In order to encourage participation, Boiral & Paillé (2012) posit that the creation of a lean organizational structure would be quite ideal. A lean organizational structure, in this case, allows people to participate in decision making, thereby enabling them to perceive their value to organizations. Van Dick et al., (2006) posit that OCB can be depicted through respect for organizational structures and processes, and the employee's efforts in promoting and protecting activities and efforts for the common good.

Share this post:

Cite this Page

APA 7
MLA 9
Harvard
Chicago

GradShark (2023). Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB). GradShark. https://gradshark.com/example/organizational-citizenship-behavior-ocb

Finding it challenging to complete your essay within the given deadlines?