Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Definition of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Organ and his colleagues first created the term “Organizational Citizenship Behavior” (Smith et al., 1983). Organ (1988) defined Organization citizenship behaviors 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.” (p.4) Smith and his colleagues (1983) indicated that citizenship behavior could not be expected or required by organization’s job description or formally rewarded; it is helpful to others in the organization or team but not absolutely required.
Dimension of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
As rapid growing in citizenship behaviors theory and research, there are many different definitions about citizenship behaviors types. Podsakoff and his colleagues (2000) captured past researches which were related to organization citizenship into seven themes or dimensions: (1) helping behaviors: Helping behavior means voluntarily helping others or preventing work related problems. (2) organizational loyalty: This behavior means it protects organizations from external threats and commits to the rules even under the opposite situation. (3) organizational compliance:
Acceptance of the workplace rules and regulations even when no other people are watching. (4) individual initiative: Individual initiative has an “voluntary flavor”
(Podsakoff et al., 2000); it includes voluntary behaviors to improve one’s creativity or
7
the performance in organization. However, Organ (1988) indicated that this behavior is the most difficult to differentiate from in-role behaviors; therefore, some studies have not included this behavior into their studies. (5) self- development: Self-development develops someone to have better competency, including attending training courses or learning new skills in order to have better contributions to organizations. (6) civic virtue: Civic Virtue has been defined by Organ (1988); it means employees accept the responsibilities and are willing to participate in activities in organizations or monitor environment for changes. (7) sportsmanship: Employees are willing to tolerate the extra work without complaining and have positive attitude even when things go wrong;
moreover, they are willing to sacrifice their interests for group performance. (Organ, 1990b; Podsakoff et al., 2000) According to Posakoff and his colleagues (2000), the dimensions of OCB are shown in Table 2.1.
Altruism― behavior that is directly and intentionally and intentionally aimed at helping a specific person in face-to-face situations. (Smith, Organ & Near ,1983, p. 657)
‧ Courtesy—subsumes all of those foresightful gestures that help someone else prevent a problem (Organ, 1990b, p.96).
Peacemaking—actions that help to prevent, resolve or mitigate unconstructive interpersonal conflict (Organ, 1990b, p.96).
Cheerleading—the words and gestures of encouragement and reinforcement of coworkers’ accomplishments and professional development (Organ, 1990a, p.96).
OCB-I—behaviors that immediately benefit specific individuals and indirectly through this means contribute to the organization. (Williams
& Anderson, 1991, p.602).
(continued)
8
Table 2.1. (continued)
Dimensions Definitions
Interpersonal Facilitation—interpersonal facilitation encompasses a range of interpersonal acts that help maintain the interpersonal and social context needed to support effective task performance in an organizational setting. (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996, p.526).
ORGANIZATION COMPLIANCE
Generalized Compliance―The behavior seems to represent something akin to compliance with internalized norms defining what a “good employee ought to do” (Smith, Organ & Near ,1983, p.657).
Organizational Obedience— Obedience may be demonstrated by a respect for rules and instructions, punctuality in attendance and task completion, and stewardship of organizational resources (Graham, 1991, p.255).
OCB-O—behaviors that benefit the organization in general (e.g., gives advance notice when unable to come to work, adheres to informal rules devised to maintain order). (Williams & Anderson, 1991, p.601-602) Following Organizational Rules and Procedures— [Including]
following orders and regulations and respect for authority . . .complying with organizational values and policies . . .( Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, p.82).
INDIVIDUAL INITIATIVE
Making Constructive Suggestions—includes all voluntary acts of creativity and innovation in organizations. . . actively try to find ways to improve individual, group, or organizational functioning (George &
Jones, 1997, p.155).
Job Dedication—Job dedication is the motivational foundation for job performance that drives people to act with the deliberate intention of promoting the organization’s best interest (Van Scotter &Motowidlo, 1996, p.526).
Conscientiousness—is a pattern of going well beyond minimally required levels…and related matters of internal maintenance (Organ, 1990b, p96).
Individual Initiative—communications to others in the workplace to improve individual and group performance (Moorman & Blakely, 1995, p. 130).
(continued)
9
Table 2.1. (continued)
Dimensions Definitions CIVIC
VIRTUE
Protecting the Organization—includes those voluntary acts organizational members engage in to protect or save life and property (George & Jones, 1997, p.155).
Civic Virtue—is responsible, constructive involvement in the political process of the organization (Organ, 1990b, p.96).
Individual Initiative— communications to others in the workplace to improve individual and group performance. (Moorman & Blakely, 1995, p.130)
ORGANIZATIONAL LOYALITY
Loyalty Boosterism— the promotion of the organizational image to outsiders. (Moorman & Blakely, 1995, p.130)
Organizational Loyalty—identification with and allegiance to organizational leaders and the organization as a whole, transcending the parochial interests of individuals, work groups, and departments.
(Graham, 1991, p.255)
Spreading Goodwill—is the means by which organizational members voluntarily contribute to organizational effectiveness through efforts to represent their organizations to wider communities…contribute to organizational effectiveness by insuring that organizations obtain needed resources from various stakeholder groups. (George & Jones, 1997, p.
155).
Endorsing, Supporting, and Defending Organizational Objectives—
[Including] organizational loyalty . . .concern for unit objectives. . . staying with the organization during hard times and representing the organization favorably to outsiders (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, p.82).
SPORTMANSHIP Sportsmanship—a citizen-like posture of tolerating the inevitable inconveniences and impositions of work without whining and grievances (Organ, 1990b, p.96).
Helping and Cooperating With Others—[Including] organizational courtesy and not complaining. . . ( Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, p.82).
SELF―
DEVELOPMENT
Developing Oneself—workers take to voluntarily improve their knowledge, skills, and abilities so as to be better able to contribute to their organizations. (George & Jones, 1997, p.155).
Note. Adapted from “Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for the Future Research,” by Posakoff, Mackenzie, Paine and Bachrach. 2000, Journal go Management, 26(3), 513-563. Copyright 2000 by Elsevier Science Inc.
10
Antecedents and Consequences of Citizenship Behaviors
Podsakoff and his colleagues (2000) report the relationships between OCBs and their antecedents such as individual characteristics, task characteristics, organizational characteristics and leadership behaviors. Through the meta-analytic Podsakoff and his colleagues (2000) focused on four categories of antecedents, including: (1) individual characteristics: employee attitudes, satisfaction, perception of fairness, organization commitment and perceptions of leader supportiveness. (2) task characteristics: task feedback, intrinsically satisfying tasks, task reutilization, (3) organizational characteristics: organizational formalization, organizational inflexibility, advisory/staff support. (4) leadership behaviors: transformational leadership, transactional leader ship, Path-Goal theory of leadership, Leader-Member Exchange theory of leadership.
Podsakoff and his colleagues (2000) found that, individual characteristics, task characteristics and leadership behaviors are more strongly related to OCB than other antecedents. In summary, individual characteristics especially perception of fairness, organization commitment and job satisfaction were positively related to OCB; Task characteristics are important determinants of OCB, however, lack of the attention in the OCB literature researchers suggested it deserve more attention in future research;
Leaders, especially, leader’s support behaviors play an important role in influencing OCB.
Podsakoff and his colleagues (2000) also summarized the consequences of OCB. The consequences of OCB have two key issues: (1) the effects of OCB on managerial evaluation of performance. (2) the effects of OCB on organizational performance and effectiveness. OCB influences managerial evaluations of performance, for example, managers evaluate OCB into employee’s performance, rewards and other related decisions. Therefore, employees usually view OCBs as an expected part of their job
11
(Marrison, 1994; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Another key issue is OCB effects on organizational performance and effectiveness. Including OCB may (1) enhance team member productivity by serving as an effective coordination between team members and other work groups; (2) enhance the ability to attract and retain best employees by making more attractive environment in organization and (3) enhance organization’s ability to adapt to environmental change. (4) enhance the stable environment for organization’s performances.
Importance of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Although OCB is extra behavior in organization, it affects team and organizational performance and success. For example, In the Du and Choi’s (2012) research, OCB facilitates the resolution or prevention to organization of team members of work-related problems. Moreover, OCB generate the new ideas, procedures, or products, which improve the performance related to a task, teamwork and organization. Furthermore, in the past meta-analysis, researches also indicated that organization citizenship behaviors are statistically and significantly related to leader support, fairness, organization commitment, conscientiousness, satisfaction, positive affectivity (Dennis & Ryan, 1995). Smith and his colleagues (1983) and Berkowitz (1972) had shown that employees with the positive mood state have more citizenship behaviors.
Psychological Capital
Definition of Psychological Capital
The concept of Psychological Capital or PsyCap was identified by Luthans and his colleagues (2007b) as consisting of the four psychological strengths of hope, resilience, optimism, efficacy. In the past, psychology field researchers had too much focus on
12
negative side. However, positive psychology is the branch of psychology that uses effective interventions and scientific ways to achieve a satisfactory life, rather than merely treating mental illness. (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 1998) PsyCap offers a dynamic resource potential that can grow and be sustainable over time” (Luthans et al., 2007b, p.23). Following the same thought, positive psychology developed rapidly in recent years. Drawing from positive psychology empirical research, Luthans and his colleagues (2007b) concluded that positive psychological state of development is characterized by: (1) preserving toward goals and redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to achieve the goal, (2) when facing problems and adversity, bouncing back and sustaining and even beyond (resilience) to achieve success, (3) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future, (4) having confidence (efficacy) to put necessary effort at challenging task and attain success. Hope, Efficacy, Resilience, Optimism best meet the positive organizational behavior (POB) criteria.
Luthans and Youssef (2007c) propose that PsyCap creates a higher level conceptual model for understanding human capital in today’s workplace.
Dimensions of Psychological Capital
Positive psychology researchers such as Luthans and his colleagues (2007b), determined the criteria of positive psychology dimensions to be those factors recognized as “state-like”, dimensions that show malleability and are able to be trained by courses and have opportunity to development in one’s life. These criteria help to nurture character strength, develop job-related talents and develop positive virtue.
Through the theoretical studies and empirical testing, the researchers determined that those meet the Psychological Capital criteria are hope, self-efficacy, optimism and
13
resilience. (Luthans, 2002; Luthans, Avolio, Norman & Combs, 2006; Jensen &
Luthans, 2002; Peterson & Luthans, 2003).
Hope. Hope is defined as “a positive motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of successful (1) agency (goal-directed energy) and (2) pathways (planning to meet goals)” (Snyder, Irving, & Anderson, 1991, p.287). The agency component of hope can be regarded as being the will to achieve a specific goal or task. Snyder and his colleagues (1991) research defined hope as a cognitive or thinking in which individual set challenging goals and then achieving this goal through self-directed, energy and perception of internalized control. Luthans and his colleagues (2007a) defined Hope as having three steps: First, they have clear goals. Second, they decide to achieve their goals to show their willpower and a clear perception of their control over own destiny. Third, even when the obstacles may destroy their goals, they are able to be creative and find alternative pathways around their problems to continue their goals.
In the recent research in the workplace, hope has been found to be related to employee retention and satisfaction (Peterson & Luthans, 2003), positive relationship between employee hope and organizational profitability (Adams, et al., 2002), positively related to employee happiness, commitment, satisfaction and performance (Luthans &Youssef, 2007c) and positively related between entrepreneurs' hope levels and expressed satisfaction with business ownership (Jensen & Luthans, 2002).
Resilience. Resilience is defined as the “positive psychological capacity to bounce back from uncertainty, failure, conflict or even positive events, progress and increased
14
responsibility” (Luthans, 2002, p.702). Masten and Reed (2002, p.75) first define resilience as “a class of phenomena characterized by patterns of positive adaptation in the context of significant adversity or risk.” In PsyCap research, Luthans (2002) broadened the definition as not only can bounce back from the challenges or risk but also create positive situation and go beyond the average point.
There are three factors from PsyCap to develop resiliency (Luthans et al., 2007b) (1) assets: Masten and Reed (2002, p.76) define a resiliency asset as “a measurable characteristic in a group of individuals or their situation that predicts a positive outcome in the future on a specific outcome criterion.” (2) risk factors: Risk factors may differentially expose individuals to frequent and intense undesirable situations and thus increase the probability of negative outcomes (Masten, 2001). Therefore, Resiliency risk factors are an ability to increase probability of an undesirable outcome. (3) Values:
Values help people in elevating themselves to overcome the difficulties and linking them to a more joyful future in which they can look forward. (Luthans & Youssef, 2007c)
In the past research, Avey, Luthans, and Youssef (2010) found that employees who are positive and have the better ability to adapt to changes are more willing to take challenges, and develop high level of resilience. Resiliency has been found to be related to employee’s satisfaction, commitment, happiness in work place (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). Luthans and his colleagues (2007b) also found resiliency to be positively related to work performance outcome.
Optimism. Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi (1998) defined optimism as an internal, relatively stable attribution style interpreting negative events as external, situation
15
specific and temporary, and positive events have opposite causes, such as personal, pervasive and permanent. People who are optimistic think the desirable events occur are within their control and they internalize the good aspect of their live not only in the past, present but also in the future. Follow the same thought, when optimists face the negative situation they tend to think that this is temporary, external and only in the certain situation. Therefore, they tend not to be fought down by the undesirable situation and keep positive and confident about their live. In the workplace, optimistic and pessimistic employees interpret the situation very differently (Luthans et al., 2007a).
Employees who are optimists tend to accept the challenges, have higher motivation (Peterson, 2000) and seek the opportunity for future. As the advantage of optimism discussed above, Schneider (2001) presented three perspectives to developing optimism in the work place: (1) gratitude for the past, (2) thankfulness for the present, and (3) seeking opportunity for the future. Following these perspectives Luthans and his colleages (2007a) believed that optimism meet the criteria of PsyCap dimensions of being malleable and be able to be trained. In the past research, Optimism has been found to be related to employees’ performance, happiness and satisfaction (Luthans &
Youssef, 2007c).
Efficacy. Founded on Bandura's (1986, 1997) extensive theory and research, PsyCap efficacy (or confidence) was defined as “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the course of action required to produce given attainments”
Bandura (1997, p.2). Luthans and his colleagues (2007a) distinguished self-efficacy by five important characteristic: (1) People set high goal to themselves and select difficult task. (2) They welcome challenges. (3) They are highly self-motivated. (4) They invest
16
the necessary effort to achieve their goal. (5) They don’t give up easily when they face obstacles. These five characteristics enable high-efficacy people with the ability to develop independently and perform effectively.
Costa (2013) found that employees who tend to learn and take challenges are able to develop self-efficacy. Self-efficacy predicts performance; it reflects the consequence of prior experience with the specific behavior (Parschau et al., 2013). Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) have shown the meta-analysis result that self-efficacy and job performance has significant relationship. Of the four dimensions of PsyCap, Luthans and his colleagues (2007a) indicated that self-efficacy in the workplace has the most complete theoretical foundation and empirical research base.
Psychological Capital in Organization
Employees’ positive thinking can influence their behavior and commitment to their team and organization. These optimistic employees expect positive things to happen to them, and they tend to have different ways to approach problems (Avey et al., 2010). Studies have shown that psychological capital is positively related to organizational commitment (Luthans & Youssef, 2007), job satisfaction and job performance (Luthans et al., 2007a). Avey, Reichard, Luthans and Mhature (2011) also presented meta-analysis evidence that psychological capital is positively related to (1) desirable employee attitudes (psychological well-being, job satisfaction, and organizational and team’s commitment), (2) desirable employee behaviors (performance, organizational and team’s citizenship behaviors ) and (3) negatively related to undesirable attitudes (employee cynicism, turnover intention, employee anxiety and stress) and employee absenteeism (Avey et al., 2011). However, Avey et
17
al., (2011) indicated that there were not enough studies that tested moderators to examine when psychological capital is more or less useful or important in the workplace, for example, the impact of PsyCap on a specific outcome in a specific team or organization.
Relationship between Psychological Capital and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
In the past research, researchers tried to answer “Are happy workers relatively better organizational ‘citizens’?” (Lyubomirsky & King, 2005, p.823). The result has shown that positive affect on the job does positively predict organizational citizenship behaviors. Borman, Penner and Motowildo (2001) found that positive affect predicts OCB, and negative affect negatively correlates with OCB, even when peer rating of citizenship is used. In additional, Smith, et al. (1983) indicated that an individual who has a positive mood is more likely to behave altruistically. Contrarily, an individual who has a negative mood (e.g., disappointment, frustration) is less likely to show citizenship behaviors. In the past research result, it also showed that positive affectivity is positively related to altruism. The positive disposition predicts OCB’s dimensions, such as conscientiousness, agreeableness. One of the reasons that happy workers are more likely to be high performers on the job is that they are less likely to show “job withdrawal”—namely, absenteeism, turnover and so on (Donovan, 2000). For example, Lyubomirsky & King (2005) found that positive affect at work is directly associated with reduced absenteeism. Many research results have already shown that employees with high psychological capital tend to have more organizational citizenship behaviors, which may include (1) attending organizational activates that are not required or
18
volunteer service related to individual initiative dimension in OCB, (2) sharing creative ideas and making suggestions for improvement in organizations related to organizational compliance dimension in OCB, (3) helping colleagues related to helping behaviors dimension in OCB, (4) self-initiated development and continuous learning related to self-development dimension in OCB. (Luthans et al., 2007a; Lyubomirsky &
King, 2005) Thus, Psychological Capital seems to be an important factor that predicts organizational citizenship. The following study hypotheses are derived:
Hypothesis1. Psychological capital is positively related to employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors.
Team Identification Definition of Team Identification
Team identification is team members’ perception of their identity of self from the work teams or organizations to which they belong. (Hong & Terry, 2000) The concept of team identification came from social categorization theory. Tajfel (1972) first introduced “social identity theory” (SIT) to describe the phenomenon when a person thinks he/she belongs to certain social groups together with some value and emotional connections to him of this group membership. Ashforth and Mael (1989) indicated that researchers use social identification and team identification interchangeably. It has shown that social identity plays an important role for team member’s attitude and behavior during teamwork because belonging to a team helps individual to define and answer the question of “who am I?” (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). In Ashforth and Mael’s (1989) research they defined four principles for social/ team identifications. First, identification is a cognitive construct that is not necessary related to any certain
19
behaviors or affective states. Second, social identity would be stronger in situations facing great failure or frustration. Third, a team member can have great identity to a team he/she works for, but he/she is allowed to disagree with the team’s value or goals at the same time. Finally, individual attempts to be liked or imitate the other person.
Social identity also helps people to have a sense of oneness with the team and motivates to behave teams’ typical norms as a part of team members rather than as individuals.
(Haslam, Powell, & Turner, 2000; Rubin & Hewstone, 1998). Therefore, social identity theory (Tajfel &Tuner, 1986) has been applied broadly to work team context in these years.
Team Identification in Organization
“Time identification is a sense that membership in one’s team is an emotionally significant aspect of one’s identity” (Van Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005, p.535). The
“Time identification is a sense that membership in one’s team is an emotionally significant aspect of one’s identity” (Van Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005, p.535). The