by Dr Deirdre O’Donovan, Lecturer in HRM and MA HRM Course Coordinator, Cork Institute of Technology.
Past posts in this series have focussed on explaining what Organizational Citizenship Behaviours (OCBs) are. Continuing on from that discussion, this post explores some possible influencers and determinants of OCBs i.e. reasons why some employees may engage in OCBs, while others may not. The purpose of the discussion in this post is to help HR practitioners and managers to identify activities they can engage in, and areas they can focus on, in an effort to increase the likelihood of employees engaging in OCBs. It should be noted from the outset, however, that true OCBs are voluntary in nature, and so if forced by managerial or organisational actions, employees may become reluctant to engage in them, particularly if not rewarded. In addition, some individuals are simply not predisposed to “go the extra mile” in the workplace, and so may not engage in OCBs, regardless of organisational culture and managerial actions. As such, this post makes no lofty claims that focussing on the influencers and predictors will automatically result in the undertaking of OCBs.
To begin, one possible determinant of OCBs is Job Satisfaction. It has been suggested that employees who experience overall job satisfaction may display OCBs (see, for example, Bateman and Organ, 1983). There are two pillars of argument underpinning this suggestion; the first concerns Social Exchange, the second, Positive Affect (see, for example, Kataria et al., 2013). Social exchange theory holds that individuals aim to, in some way, reciprocate those who benefit them. Consequently, it is possible that when an employee considers their feelings of job satisfaction as linked to the efforts of their organisational superiors, and those efforts are not considered by the employee to be manipulative, the employee will aim to reciprocate their superior’s efforts. This attempt at reciprocation is likely to take the form of an OCB, particularly as increasing job required output may not always be an option. Capitalising on this may be as simple as managers and supervisors lending a helping hand to a team facing pressure to meet a deadline, or trying to facilitate time off for events. Secondly, viewing job satisfaction as a reflection of, and related to, positive affect (i.e. the extent to which individuals experience positive moods), then it is likely that satisfied employees will display more OCBs. While organisations may not be able to control employee mood, they can work on organisational factors, such as leadership and culture, which contribute to employee’s mood’s, thereby increasing the likelihood of satisfaction and OCBs.
Positive affect, as discussed above, can potentially stem from Employee Engagement, meaning engagement may be another influencer of OCBS (again, see, for example, Kataria et al., 2013, and O’Donovan, 2015). Essentially, the level of attachment that engaged employees tend to have both to their work and the organisation itself increases the occurrences of behaviour that aligns with OCBs.
One potential determinant which organisations may be unable to influence in any real, meaningful, long-term way is that of Individual Disposition. It is possible that elements of the employee’s personality could determine the undertaking of some OCBs. An individual who is agreeable in nature (consider the Big Five Personality Traits), for example, could be expected to be likely to engage in OCBs such as altruism or sportsmanship. Conscientious individuals may engage in OCBs related to civic virtue or compliance (see, for example, Borman, 2004). While an organisation can work toward employees perceiving engagement or positive affect as outlined above, however, its arguable that little can be done to shape employee personalities, nor is it suggested in this post that organisations should try. Personality testing, however, could be used at recruitment stages, if appropriate and justifiable, in an effort to employee individuals who display traits likely to result in OCBs. Given that there are so many other influencers and determinants, and individual’s personalities are complex concepts, even that may be insufficient to result in personality determined OCB.
A fourth influencer of OCBs lies in perceptions of organisational justice i.e. whether employees believe they are being treated fairly by the organisation. When employees believe that they are being fairly rewarded for their inputs (Distributive Justice), believe that there is fairness behind processes and decisions that are made that affect them (Procedural Justice), and believe they are being fairly dealt with by superiors (Interactional Justice), then, in line with social exchange theory and Equity Theory, OCBs are more likely to be undertaken. The opposite is true when fairness is not perceived, i.e. when employees believe they are being unfairly treated, OCBs tend to decrease (see, for example, Blakely et al., 2005). In addition, for some employees, believing that their colleagues are being unfairly treated can also result in a decrease in instances of OCB. Consequently, managers should ensure that, when appropriate, reasons behind decisions are communicated, and the basis for rewards, for example, are communicated clearly, so that employees do not perceive a lack of fairness, and reduce OCBs. This may be as simply as reminding employees how commission or extra holiday time etc. is calculated, or giving feedback on unsuccessful progression interviews.
A supportive work environment is also likely, or at least more likely, to result in employees undertaking OCBs. When the behaviour of superiors is considered supportive, it can result in job satisfaction, increasing the likelihood that employees will undertake OCBs. In addition, the more superiors encourage employees to achieve, and help them to do so (consider House’s Path Goal theory), and the more that this results in increased confidence in their duties, the more employees are likely to feel ready to “go beyond” and engage in OCBs. When superiors show sensitivity towards the needs and feelings of employees, employees are also likely to engage in OCBs (for more, see Lee et al., 2014;2013; Bateman and Organ, 1983). This is not to suggest that in order to create a supportive work environment that managers and organisations should be held hostage by employee’s feelings, rather it is being advised that organisational leaders consider their employees holistically, taking into account that their words and actions can affect employees, and so constructive feedback rather than criticism for criticisms’ sake becomes the focus.
Although a number of other potential antecedents exist, finally, for the purpose of this post, Inclusion, or perhaps more specifically, perceptions of inclusion, may influence the undertaking of OCBs. Inclusion, in this context, refers to an employee’s sense of belongingness in the organisation. It is argued that when employees feel included at work, their performance is potentially enhanced, paving the way for the undertaking of OCBs. As inclusion involves the integration of both employee similarities and differences into the fabric of the organisation, organisations are encouraged to allow employees to be themselves at work, aiming for a culture of openness and acceptance, rather than one of assimilation. Doing so can result in employees believing they can use their skills and differences in a way that increases their performance and that of the organisation, potentially increasing the instances of OCBs (for more, see O’Donovan, 2015).
About the author
Dr Deirdre O’Donovan is currently a lecturer in Human Resource Management in Cork Institute of Technology, Cork, Ireland, and the course coordinator for the MA in HRM. Previous research focussed on National Culture and Performance Management, while her current research interests are primarily rooted in Industrial/Organisational Psychology, Inclusion and HRM.
LinkedIn: Deirdre-O-Donovan-phd
Email: [email protected]
