What Is Organizational Citizenship Behavior?

Organizational citizenship (OCB) refers to behavior that benefits the organization but has not been clearly or directly recognized in the organization's formal compensation system. OCB consists of at least seven dimensions: helping behavior, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, organizational compliance, individual initiative, and civic virtue And self-development. Organizational citizenship is a behavior that employees consciously engage in. It is not included in employees' formal work requirements, but it will undoubtedly promote the effective operation of the organization.

Organizational citizenship (OCB) refers to behavior that benefits the organization but has not been clearly or directly recognized in the organization's formal compensation system. OCB is composed of at least seven dimensions: helping behavior, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, organizational compliance, individual initiative, and civic virtue. And self-development. Organizational citizenship is a behavior that employees consciously engage in. It is not included in employees' formal job requirements, but this behavior will undoubtedly promote the effective operation of the organization.

Chinese name: Organizational citizenship
Foreign name: Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

Applied discipline: psychology
Application range: Social psychology

Organizational Citizenship Initiative

Professor Demnis Organ of Indiana University and his colleagues (Cf. Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983) first coined the term "organized citizenship behavior" creatively. They define organizational citizenship behavior as a kind of conscious individual behavior of employees that is not clearly and directly stipulated by the normal compensation system, which helps to improve the effectiveness of organizational functions. These behaviors generally go beyond the employee's job description and are completely based on personal wishes. They have no connection with the formal reward system and are not required by the role.

According to Organ (1988), organizational citizenship behavior should consist of five factors: altruistic behavior, due diligence, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic morality. Altruistic behavior means that the employee is willing to take the time to help colleagues to complete tasks or prevent possible mistakes in the work of the colleagues; due diligence refers to the performance of employees exceeds the basic requirements of the organization, he can plan his work and set up as early as possible The time to complete the work; the spirit of sportsmanship means that employees in a non-ideal environment will still maintain a positive attitude to face, not complain about the poor environment, and still be loyal to their duties; in addition, individuals will also serve the interests of their working groups While sacrificing their own interests; being polite means that employees treat others with respect; civic ethics means that employees actively take care of, participate in and participate in various activities in the organization, including actively reading internal documents of the organization, caring about major events in the organization, Advice on organizational development. An employee who behaves like this shows that he sees himself as part of an organization. Podsakoff and Mackezie (2000) summarized various perspectives of organizational citizenship behavior on the basis of Organ, and divided them into 7 dimensions, namely helping others, sportsmanship, loyalty to the organization, obedience to the organization, self-drive , Citizen morality, and self-development. ^[1]

Organ (1988) believes that, as time goes by, the accumulation of organizational citizenship behavior can improve the performance of the organization. The specific manifestations are: organizational citizenship behavior is conducive to forming a positive team atmosphere, creating an environment that makes people happier to work, and can enhance the organization's ability to adapt to environmental changes, create organizational social capital, and thereby improve employee productivity And organizational performance.

The main characteristics of organizational citizenship behavior

First, organize citizen behaviors. Employees independently take actions beyond their work tasks and responsibilities.

Second, there is no organizational reward or punishment for organizational citizenship.

Third, organizational citizenship is conducive to improving organizational performance.

Types of organizational citizenship

Many researchers have put forward their views on the characteristic dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior. Looking at the research literature on organizational citizenship behavior, it has been found that there are more than 30 types of 0CB that have been confirmed, typically two-dimensional structures, such as Smith et al. , Williams & Anders, etc .; three-dimensional structure, such as Van Dyne et al., Podsakof et al., Etc .; four-dimensional structure, such as Coleman et al., Graham, etc., five-dimensional structure, such as Organ, Moorison, etc., there are many concepts in each other overlapping.

There are a lot of overlapping concepts in the different models mentioned above. Podsakoff summarizes and summarizes the existing theories and summarizes the seven dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior: helping behavior, sportsmanship, and organization. Organizational loyalty, organizational compliance, personal initiative, civic virtue, and self development. Organizational citizenship behavior is multidimensional and cannot be explained by a single factor.

Organizational citizenship measurement and assessment

At present, the research on the measurement of OCB mainly starts from two aspects of assessment scale and assessment perspective. Currently, the scale is mainly used as a measurement tool.

1.OCB scale

According to different perceptions of OCB and different research objects, researchers have developed different OCB scales. There are several ways to develop the scale: First, it is obtained from interviews. Second, use other more mature behavioral scales. Third, according to a specific research purpose, the existing organizational citizenship behavior scale is further modified to form a new scale, which is the case for most scales. Among the many scales for measuring organizational citizenship behavior, the most representative is the OCB scale composed of 22 dimensions developed by Organ in 1988 including 5 dimensions of altruism, civility, athletes' spirit, responsibility, and civic virtue. Most other scales are based on this scale (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994).

2. Evaluation angle

From the perspective of evaluation, the evaluation of OCB can be divided into three types, namely the superior evaluation method, the colleague evaluation method and the self-evaluation method. Each of the three assessment methods has its advantages. The superior evaluation method is more objective and can better distinguish the behavior within the role and the organizational citizenship behavior, but the disadvantage is that the superior evaluates only those behaviors that attract his attention, and the evaluation standards of different superiors are not consistent. The advantage of the colleague evaluation method is that colleagues have more complete information and can make a more comprehensive evaluation, but they are also easily affected by factors such as interpersonal relationships. Researchers are more inclined to use superior assessment methods. Allen & Barnark et al.'S research shows that the correlation between superior evaluation and peer evaluation is higher than the correlation between self evaluation and peer evaluation; self-evaluation and superior evaluation of organizational citizenship behavior are significantly higher than colleagues' evaluation of him.

3. Causal analysis

Research on organizational behavior is generally carried out from two aspects: antecedent and consequence. "Antecedent" refers to what is the cause of this behavior, and "consequence" refers to what effect this behavior can have on individuals and enterprises. The study of organizational citizenship behavior can also be divided into two aspects: the antecedent variable and the consequence variable. Antecedent variables include personal characteristics, task characteristics, organizational characteristics, leadership behaviors and other variables, which affect the generation of organizational citizenship behavior. The current research on consequence variables mainly focuses on two aspects, one is the impact of employee organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance, and the other is the impact of employee organizational citizenship behavior on his performance evaluation and related decisions. A large number of studies have shown that organizational citizenship behavior is closely related to organizational performance and efficiency.

In the new economic era with advanced technology and the explosion of information, the importance of hard equipment required by corporate organizations has gradually receded to the second line. As competition intensifies and the organizational structure becomes flat, organizations must rely on employees to actively perform some altruistic activities outside their duties. Only in this way can the entire enterprise organization realize its infinite potential, and the organizational citizenship behavior of enterprise employees is therefore increasingly valued by business managers. ^[2]

Domestic Research on Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The theory of organizational citizenship behavior has also been gradually accepted in China. In recent years, domestic scholars have also started to study OCB. Professor Farh (Jiing-Lih) of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology has made important contributions to the study of OCB structure in Chinese society. In 1997, it conducted tests on 75 managers in the electronics, machinery, chemical, food, finance, management consulting and other industries and government agencies, and obtained a Taiwan OCB scale with 5 factors and 22 entries. These five factors are the five dimensions of OCB in the context of Taiwan and China: identification with the organization, assisting colleagues, not fighting for profits, protecting company resources, and professionalism.

In 2003, Fan Jingli used the same research procedure to explore OCB in mainland China. Ten dimensions were found in 595 OCB descriptions provided by 72 companies and 158 company employees from 72 cities in Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen. Among them, being proactive, helping colleagues, expressing opinions, participating in group activities, and improving the image of the organization The five dimensions are shared with the western OCB dimension. In addition, the five dimensions of self-cultivation, participation in public welfare activities, protection and conservation of company resources, keeping the workplace clean, and interpersonal harmony are extensions of the western OCB dimension.

Most of the western literature's classification of OCB dimensions is based on different beneficiaries. Based on this, the OCB dimensions can be divided into 3 categories: pointing to colleagues, pointing to organizations, and pointing to organizations (Smith et al, 1983; Williams & Anderson, 1991). However, Farh's findings above cannot be classified by this criterion. According to this classification, the two dimensions of self-training and participation in public welfare activities cannot be classified. Therefore, he proposed a new OCB concentric circle classification model, which uses the background of behavior as a classification criterion. The OCB discovered in the study is divided into four categories of dimensions: self, group, organization, and society. The self-level includes three dimensions: self-training, initiative, and keeping the workplace clean; the group level includes two dimensions: interpersonal harmony and helping colleagues; the organizational level includes two dimensions: protecting and saving organizational resources and expressing opinions; the social level includes social welfare Participate in activities and protect the company's image in two dimensions. On the whole, the scale is developed from domestic practice and is more in line with national conditions. It should be more effective in measuring the OCB of Chinese employees. Although many reasons have caused more and more western scholars to pay attention to OCB research, in China, OCB research is still in its infancy, and it is still at the level of introducing foreign research progress.

Organizational Citizenship Questioning Tradition

From the initial research, researchers have regarded organizational citizenship behavior as a positive behavior that is beneficial to the operation of the organization. Traditionally, organizational citizenship research has three basic assumptions: the motivation of organizational citizenship is selfless and altruistic; organizational citizenship promotes the effectiveness of organizational operations; and organizational citizenship ultimately benefits employees. Is organizational citizenship really the way it is in business?

Organizational citizenship behavior is extra-role behavior

There is more and more controversy over this concept. First, organizational citizenship behavioral structures do not consist entirely of extra-role behaviors, such as due diligence in the five-factor structure of Organ (1988), which is more generally accepted. Second, it is sometimes difficult to clearly define or distinguish between in-role and extra-role behavior. In addition, supervisors and subordinates have different perceptions of the scope of work roles. Lam, Hui, and Law (1999) found that many executives tend to treat organizational citizenship as part of behavior within roles. For example, employees in the enterprise are required to not only do their job well, but also be able to take the initiative to undertake tasks outside of their job responsibilities, help other colleagues to resolve difficulties encountered in the work, and timely discover problems in the current work. Creative ideas and suggestions for improvement. Because of the different understanding of the scope of organizational citizenship behavior, some scholars have adopted a broader definition. For example, Williams and Anderson (1991) argue that organizational citizenship behavior should include three dimensions: in-role behavior, interpersonal altruism toward individuals, and public welfare behavior toward organizations. Morrison (1994) believes that employees will be disturbed by the width of work that they know and feel. The larger the work width, the more inclined they are to treat some other work as the work in their own role. From this point of view, it is really difficult to clearly distinguish the behaviors inside and outside the role.

Organizational citizenship arises because of altruistic motives

From the perspective of behavioral awareness, is organizational citizenship behavior really based on the good personal qualities of employees, or is it really a selfless altruistic behavior? With the accumulation of theoretical and empirical research, this concept is gradually being challenged.

Organizational citizenship can also be driven by self-interest or negative work attitudes. Hui, Lam, and Law (2000) found that some employees consider organizational citizenship behavior as a means to obtain promotion, and they show more organizational citizenship behavior before the organization makes a promotion decision, which makes them show more than those Employees with less organized citizenship are more likely to get promoted. But after being promoted, it will reduce the manifestation of organizational citizenship because the purpose has been achieved. It can be seen that the organizational citizenship behaviors of some employees are not naturally exhibited because of their good personality qualities. Such organizational citizenship behaviors have obvious instrumental motives. The organizational citizenship behaviors they engage in are designed to make a good impression on others, especially their bosses, by helping others show their willingness to help others, by participating in activities in the organization to demonstrate their knowledge and skills in various aspects, and arousing the attention of others. It is difficult to judge whether an actor is really a "good warrior" simply by explaining the behavior of employees based on the traditional perspective of organizational citizenship. In addition, some employees are willing to do extra work because they are not interested in work within their job responsibilities, or they want to avoid doing things they do not like to do. Is the effectiveness of such organizational citizenship greater than the disadvantages of the organization? Dissatisfaction with personal life outside work also makes employees willing to work overtime. These cannot be explained in traditional organizational citizenship perspectives.

Organizational citizenship has nothing to do with organizational rewards and punishments

Research by MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Fetter (1993) found that in addition to examining the performance of salespeople based on in-role behavior, supervisors also use their organizational citizenship behavior as a reference for evaluation, and are evaluated by supervisors as having more organizational citizenship sales The committee will have a better performance. Allen and Rush's (1998) research also found that employees with highly organized citizenship behaviors triggered the positive emotions of supervisors and enabled them to obtain better assessment results. At the same time, organizational citizenship behaviors also affected supervisors' promotion, training, and reward distribution. Decision-making behavior. Therefore, organizational citizenship not only brings spiritual reputation to employees, but also brings substantial organizational rewards.

Organizing citizenship does not necessarily bring beneficial results

Bolino et al. (2004) will ignore their own job if employees in the organization focus on work outside their responsibilities. It is not a good phenomenon that an organization relies too much on the organizational citizenship behavior of employees to complete organizational tasks, which is also showing that there are problems in the management of the organization, that is, the division of responsibilities is unclear and the job design is unscientific. In this way, even if it takes longer, the quality of work will not be high, it is better to directly hire a full-time person to do it. Nor does organizational citizenship necessarily make the organization an attractive environment. If employees are scrambling to express organizational citizenship behavior deliberately, there is a phenomenon of "escalation of organizational citizenship behavior", and employees will feel higher work pressure and work overload. Organizational citizenship behavior, as a kind of instrumental behavior, increases the political behavior in the organization, which can easily lead to employee dissatisfaction and conflict between employees.

Enlightenment on Questioning Citizenship Behavior in Traditional Organizations

From the negative effects of organizational citizenship behavior, we can see that organizational citizenship behavior can also be a double-edged sword.

While giving full play to the positive role of organizational citizenship behavior, managers should also be aware of the different mechanisms of organizational citizenship behavior and the different effects it brings. Are employees' organizational citizenship behaviors derived from personal altruism or self-interested instrumental behaviors such as impression decoration? Or is it because of your negative attitude towards your job and dissatisfaction with your personal life? There may also be forced and involuntary acts of organized citizenship. For truly voluntary, non-returning organizational citizenship behaviors, managers should give timely feedback, compensation or incentives to continue this healthy state and thus have a positive effect on the organization. On the contrary, for organizational citizenship behaviors caused by other reasons, managers should thoroughly analyze and find out the mechanism behind them, conduct psychological counseling to employees or redesign positions according to different situations to help employees develop toward healthy organizational citizenship behaviors.

Managers should also consider the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviors and behaviors within roles. If some employees have low organizational citizenship and high performance in their own jobs, as managers, they should not only encourage such employees to continue to maintain high performance, but also improve their mutual help with colleagues Consciousness and behaviors that take the initiative to assume ambiguous work due to environmental changes; if the employee's organizational citizenship performance is outstanding but the work performance is generally even worse, in this case, the manager should reflect on whether the job arrangement for the employee is inappropriate Or there are problems with the culture of the organization. In other cases, employees have high work performance and organizational citizenship behaviors are good, but employees are not happy at work, which may be because they deliberately make these performances and feel a lot of pressure.

Organizational citizenship is an indicator of organizational management, and it can provide managers with a lot of information about management issues. What managers should do is to identify and cultivate healthy organizational citizenship behaviors, monitor employees' work and life quality, and make organizational citizenship behaviors play a more active role. ^[3]