Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Schools

Examining the impact and opportunities within educational systems

Anit Somech, Izhar Oplatka

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781317962250
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This book extends our understanding of the attitudes and behaviors of teachers who improve their schools consistently and considerably. It sets out to critically analyze and examine organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) in schools from a contextual perspective and to display the uniqueness of the concept in the context of school, its dimensions, boundaries, antecedents and consequences from a multi-level perspective.

Chapters consider:

• 
  
  

• understandings of teachers' OCB, its nature, components, and salience in schools
• personal, organizational, and cultural factors which might facilitate or inhibit teachers' OCB
• contributions and the drawbacks of OCB for the improvement of educational systems, schools, and educators
• a new conceptualization of teachers' OCB based on the unique characteristics of school and the teaching profession, and consequences for theory and practice
• practical tools for guiding educational policy-makers, principals, and teacher educators on how to assimilate and enhance teachers' OCB.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Schools will appeal to scholars and researchers in educational administration, educational policy, school leadership and teacher education. It will also be of interest to supervisors, policy makers and postgraduate students in the field of education.

Chapter 1

---

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)

Historical review

---

Introduction

The interest in discretionary work performance has dramatically increased over the past two decades (Duyar & Normore, 2012). Chester Barnard (1938) was the first to explicitly address the need for behaviors that go beyond formally delineated roles, mainly through his concept of “willingness to cooperate.” Nearly 30 years later, Katz and Kahn (1966) argued that employees in effective organizations exhibit “innovative and spontaneous behavior; performance beyond role requirements for accomplishments of organizational functions” (p. 337). Of the multiple conceptualizations of this set of behaviors (e.g. extra-role behavior, prosocial organizational behavior, spontaneous behavior, contextual performance), organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Organ, 1988; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983) has received the greater part of the research attention (Hoffman, Blair, Meriac, & Woehr, 2007). This kind of behavior is distinct from in-role performance—the specific tasks that people are employed for, and that are formally monitored and recognized (V. I. Coleman & Borman, 2000). Organ (1997), a prominent scholar in this field of study, conceptualized OCB as any organizational behavior that contributes “to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports task performance” (p. 91). It includes making an effort beyond what is formally required: volunteering, helping, cooperating and supporting others, and following rules and procedures (Poropat & Jones, 2009).

In part because of its contribution to organizational outcomes, such as productivity and profit (Kizilos, Cummings, & Cummings, 2013; Poropat & Jones, 2009), a significant research effort has been made to understand the OCB phenomenon and its antecedents and consequences. These “extra” or “voluntary” behaviors, when aggregated over a number of individuals and some period of time, are expected to improve organizational functioning and, in turn, organizational effectiveness (N. P. Podsakoff, Whiting, P. M. Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009; Turnipseed, 2005).

This chapter begins by reviewing the development, nature, and construct of the concept in organizations outside the educational context, and reveals that OCB conceptualization is still fraught with incompleteness and inconsistencies. Following this, we summarize the empirical evidence regarding the impact of OCB on the employee and on the organization as a whole. This chapter sets the stage for the in-depth discussion of teacher OCB in the book.

Definition of OCB

Scholars have offered various definitions and constructs to characterize the concept of employee OCB, which was coined by Organ and his colleagues (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith et al., 1983). At first, the emphasis was on discretionary, unrewarded behavior that employees do not receive training to perform. OCB was considered to be an extra-role behavior that falls outside the rubric of task performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; Organ & Ryan, 1995)—a behavior engaged in with no expectation for recognition or compensation (Lev & Koslowsky, 2012). In this sense, Bateman and Organ (1983) proposed the term OCB to designate behaviors which “include any of those gestures (often taken for granted) that lubricate the social machinery of the organization but that do not directly inhere in the usual notion of task performance” (p. 588).

Later, in his classic book Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Organ (1988) defined 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” (p. 4). This definition emphasizes that the behavior must be voluntary, neither role-prescribed nor part of formal job duties. Graham (1991) argued that the requirement to distinguish between in-role and extra-role behaviors is difficult to apply, because this distinction varies across jobs, roles, and organizations, and over time. Drawing on sources in philosophy, political science, and social history, Graham further suggested that organizational citizenship can be conceptualized as a global concept that includes all positive organizationally relevant behaviors of individual organization members. Thus, this broader conceptualization of organizational citizenship includes traditional in-role job performance behaviors, organizationally functional extra-role behaviors, and political behaviors, such as full and responsible organizational participation.

Similarly, Brief and Motowidlo (1986), who referred to a closely related concept, prosocial organizational behavior, defined those behaviors as

(1) performed by a member of an organization; (2) directed toward an individual, group, or organization with whom he/she interacts while carrying out own organizational role; and (3) performed with the intention of promoting the welfare of the individual, group, or organization toward which it is directed.

(p. 711)

Accordingly, these scholars argued that such behaviors could be either role-prescribed or extra-role and either organizationally (V. I. Coleman & Borman, 2000). However, Schnake (1991), who carried out a comprehensive review of the OCB literature, concluded that the definition of OCB should exclude those voluntary behaviors that are harmful to the organization and refer only to the functional behaviors that contribute to organizational functioning and effectiveness.

Later, Organ (1997) redefined OCB as “performance that supports the social and psychological environment in which task performance takes place” (p. 95). P. M. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000) identified three advantages of the revised definition: (1) it emphasizes the contrasting nature between task performance and OCBs; (2) it is more consistent with Borman and Motowidlo’s (1993) definition of contextual performance, which notes that individuals contribute to organizational effectiveness by exhibiting behaviors that are not main task functions but are essential, because they shape the organizational and social context that supports core activities (Organ & Ryan, 1995); and (3) it removes the obstacle of viewing OCBs as a discretionary behavior, for which an individual might not receive formal rewards.

In sum, employee OCB is described in varied terms such as prosocial behavior, altruism, discretionary behavior, gestures, positive organizational consequences, organizational effectiveness, and so forth, all of them considered “desirable” in the literature of organizational behavior.

Dimensionality of OCB

To better understand the nature of OCB, scholars have attempted to explore the domains of this construct (e.g. Organ, 1988, 1990; P. M. Podsakoff et al., 2000; Smith et al., 1983; L. J. Williams & Anderson, 1991). The first typology was introduced by Smith et al. (1983). In their seminal work, they interviewed supervisors in local manufacturing sites, asking them to describe the tasks they would like their employees to perform more often but cannot really compel them to, and cannot guarantee any definite rewards if they do. The results of their factor analysis revealed two factors: The first, altruism, referred to behaviors intended to help a specific person—such as orienting new people, even though it is not required, or helping others who have heavy workloads. The second factor, labeled general compliance, captured impersonal behaviors such as compliance with norms defining a good worker. Later on, Organ (1988) expanded the concept to a five-dimension construct: (1) altruism, or helping behavior, which involves voluntarily helping others with an organizationally relevant task or problem; (2) conscientiousness, namely going well beyond minimally required levels of attendance, punctuality, housekeeping, conserving resources, and related matters of internal maintenance (similar to the behaviors Smith et al. (1983) labeled as “general compliance”); (3) sportsmanship, which reflects the employee’s willingness to tolerate the inevitable inconveniences and impositions of work without complaining; (4) courtesy, namely behaviors aimed at preventing work-related problems with others, such as not abusing the rights of others; and (5) civic virtue, which reflects responsive, constructive involvement in the organization. “Courtesy” and “altruism” are viewed as mainly benefiting coworkers, whereas “conscientiousness,” “sportsmanship,” and “civic virtue” are directed at the organization, according to Kidwell, Mossholder, and Bennett (1997).

Several researchers have suggested other taxonomies for OCB (e.g. Morrison, 1994; Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch, 1994) that overlap with previous typologies. For example, Van Dyne et al. (1994) offered a taxonomy consisting of four dimensions: (1) social participation, a component similar to “altruism” proposed by Smith et al. (1983) and Organ (1988); (2) obedience, which is similar to “conscientiousness” and “civic virtue” proposed by Organ (1988); (3) loyalty, which overlaps with “sportsmanship” proposed by Organ (1988); and (4) functional participation, which has no equivalents among the dimensions offered by Organ but is very similar to Coleman and Borman’s (2000) conceptualization of job-task citizenship performance (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002).

Similarly, P. M. Podsakoff and his colleagues (2000) grouped almost 30 forms of potentially different behaviors into seven themes, which have already been identified in past conceptual frameworks: (1) Helping behaviors refers to voluntary behaviors that employees engage in to assist others in the organization, as well as those behaviors aimed at preventing problems from occurring. While the former part of the definition is equivalent to the dimension of altruism in Organ’s typology, the second part addresses the dimension of courtesy. (2) Sportsmanship includes two main aspects. The first refers to the willingness of employees to do their work without complaining when there are inconveniences; and the second aspect captures the tendency of employees to sustain a positive mood and attitude when things go wrong or when others do not accept their suggestions or criticize them. This definition is broader than Organ’s definition of sportsmanship, which includes only the first aspect of Podsakoff et al.’s definition. (3) Organizational loyalty addresses those behaviors that aim to support the organization by exhibiting loyalty, such as promoting it to outsiders, supporting its goals, defending it from environmental threats, and keeping one’s commitment even under difficult conditions. (4) Organizational compliance refers to an employee’s tendency to adhere to rules and procedures even when nobody is watching or monitoring. According to Podsakoff and his colleagues, although these behaviors might be perceived as behaviors that are commonly accepted from employees, they rarely occur, and may reflect internalized commitment to the organization. (5) Individual initiative refers to extra-role behaviors intended to improve the task, job environment, or the performance of the organization as a whole. It includes behaviors intended to promote innovation in the organization, exerting extra effort and devoting extra time to compete tasks and missions, or volunteering for tasks and activities that are not part of the formal prescribed duties. (6) Civic virtue addresses those behaviors that reflect the employee’s willingness to be actively involved in the organization by participating in meetings, engaging in discussions, or reporting any information that can contribute to the organization’s functioning and success. These behaviors represent the individual’s motivation to be part of the organization, and are presented in Organ’s typology under the dimension of civic virtue. (7) Self-development refers to activities that employees carry out in order to improve their capacity at work. It includes activities such as learning new skills, studying advanced courses relevant to one’s tasks, or keeping updated in the field.

A slightly different approach to classifying the OCB domain has focused on the target of the OCB (McNeely & Meglino, 1994; Skarlicki & Latham, 1996; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2000; L. J. Williams & Anderson, 1991). L. J. Williams and Anderson (1991) designated two broad categories of OCB: OCBI, namely behaviors that immediately benefit particular individuals and thus indirectly contribute to the organization; and OCBO, namely behaviors that benefit the organization as a whole. An employee’s OCBI could involve helping a colleague who has a heavy workload; while OCBO might include volunteering for unpaid tasks, or making innovative suggestions to improve the organization. By employing structural equation modeling and testing discriminant validity, they confirmed that both OCBI and OCBO were independent of performance as defined by the job descriptions, and were independent of each other. According to N. P. Podsakoff and his colleagues (2009), these two broad categories capture effectively most previous taxonomies.

Finally, following the lead of L. J. Williams and Anderson (1991), V. I. Coleman and Borman (2000) proposed a hierarchical three-dimensional model of OCB. By employing multiple methods of analysis (inductive content sorting, exploratory factor analysis, and cluster analysis), they identified three broad categories of behaviors that vary according to the beneficiary of the behavior: (1) interpersonal citizenship performance—behaviors involving helping and cooperating with others that benefit organization members; (2) organizational citizenship performance—behaviors benefiting the organization, such as endorsing, supporting, and defending organizational objectives, as well as obeying rules and procedures, and exhibiting loyalty to the organization; and (3) job/task conscientiousness—behaviors benefiting the job or task, such as dedication to the job, persistence, or a desire to maximize one’s own job performance. However, despite its thorough attempt to clarify the underlying structure of OCB, this three-factor structure was not supported by later research (Sun, 2001, cited in Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002).

To summarize so far, while research on OCB has a nearly 30-year history, there is some controversy concerning the construction of OCB. Although several scholars suggest that it is composed of conceptually distinct behavioral dimensions, it seems that there is no adequate definition of OCB with respect to its dimensions (Hoffman et al., 2007; Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998; LePine et al., 2002). For example, LePine et al. (2002) found that in a pool of 133 studies, there were more than 40 different measures of behavior that investigators have referred to as OCB.

The question about the nature and dimensionality of OCB is crucial, because it affects not only how OCB should be conceptualized and measured, but also how research findings should be interpreted (LePine et al., 2002). Thus, to better understand its construct and dimensionality, LePine et al. (2002) conducted a meta-analysis research that was based on 37 studies. The results of the analyses suggest that most of the dimensions of OCB, at least those conceptualized by Organ (1988), are highly related to one another and that there are no apparent differences in relationships between the most-investigated predictors, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In other words, the results suggest that the five dimensions of OCB are not much more than equivalent dimensional criteria. Accordingly, LePine et al. (2002) concluded that it might be worthwhile to begin to refer explicitly to OCB as a latent construct, possibly redefining it as “a general tendency to be cooperative and helpful in organizational settings” (p. 61). Further, from a methodological point of view they suggest that scholars should avoid focusing on the specific dimensions of OCB when conducting research and interpreting results.

Later, Hoffman et al. (2007) extended previous meta-analytic reviews of the OCB literature by using confirmatory factor analysis to investigate the dimensionality of OCB, and to examine the distinction between OCB and in-role performance. As with LePine et al. (2002), their meta-analysis referred mainly to the five-dimensional construct of Organ (1988), as well as to other popular constructs (e.g. L. J. Williams & Anderson, 1991).

However, in addition they tested competing models underlying OCB measures by using a meta-analytically derived correlation matrix as input for a confirmatory factor-analytic comparison of the different models. Based on 112 studies, their results support a single-factor construct of OCB, thereby joining the call of LePine et al. (2002) to investigate OCB with a latent construct methodology. Furthermore, the results show that the construct of OCB is distinct from, although strongly related to, task performance, and that OCB consistently relates more strongly to attitudes than does task performance. Consequently, these scholars conclude that researchers should employ a latent construct methodology, instead of the typical aggregate approach, which uses averaging items taken from multidimensional OCB scales and computes an overall measure of OCB.

Recent directions for understanding the OCB concept

Reviewing the different conceptualizations of the OCB phenomenon reveals the agreement among researchers about the invaluable role of those volunteering, helping, and cooperating behaviors for maintaining the organization’s status-quo (Chiaburu & Baker, 2006). However, in recent years several scholars (e.g. Marinova, Moon, & Van Dyne, 2010; H. Moon, Van Dyne, & Wrobel, 2005; Morrison & Phelps, 1999) have challenged this approach and suggested that although these behaviors are indeed crucial for the organization’s survival, there is a need to broaden the OCB concept and consider an array of other behaviors, such as “taking charge” and “voice,” that aim to challenge the status quo.

H. Moon et al. (2005) developed a comprehensive model that integrates these two perspectives. Their circ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Routledge Research in Education
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Foreword
• Preface
• 1 Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB): historical review
• 2 Particular characteristics of the school organization and the teaching profession
• 3 Teacher OCB: its nature, definitions, and dimensions
• 4 Facilitators of teacher OCB
• 5 Inhibitors of teacher OCB
• 6 Consequences of teacher OCB
• 7 Developing a theoretical model of teacher citizenship behavior (TCB)
• 8 Practical mechanisms and tools to promote teacher citizenship behavior
• 9 Future research directions
• References
• Index