The key purpose of the study is to investigate and predict changes in organizational citizenship behavior commonly abbreviated as OCB, and how organizational and individual factors affect this behavior through the help of self report OCB (Suresh, 2010). The self report OCB scale has two factors, where the first model consists of OCB directed at individuals and abbreviated as OCBI, and another directed at organization abbreviated as OCBO. The study involved five hypotheses, whereby the first hypothesis determined whether the climate of the organization will relate positively to OCB (Suresh, 2010). The second hypothesis determined whether personality will relate to OCB, while the third hypothesis defined whether OCBI will be influenced by both the organizational climate and personality factors. The fourth hypothesis of the study resolved whether OCBO is influenced by both the organizational climate and personality factors, while the fifth hypothesis defined if executives differed regarding age, gender and marital status (Suresh, 2010).
In order to determine how the aforementioned factors affected OCBI and OCBI a survey was carried out. The survey was carried out in a particular organization and it encompassed employees from both the middle and bottom level executives because they possess the technical and managerial professional qualifications. Out of the 250 questioners distributed, 215 successfully completed and used in the study. Within the sample 42 % were female, while 58% were male (Suresh, 2010).
There were three instruments used in the study, and the first one was the (OCB) Organizational citizenship behavior questionnaire developed by Lee and Allen 2002. This scale consists of 16 statements where 8 out of the 16 statements are directed to the organization and the other 8 statements directed at individuals in the organization (Suresh, 2010). This scale is used by subjects to rate their co-workers frequency of engaging in citizenship behaviors. This analysis can also use the seven-point Likert-type scale, where (1= ever and 7= always). The outcome depicted by this scale is that the reliabilities for OCBI were 83, while the reliabilities for OCBO were 88. In this regard, the factor analysis concludes that the one-factor model is less preferred compared to the two-factor model.
The other instrument used in this study is the organizational climate scale, which was developed by Indian executives named Pethe, Chaudhari and Dhar, 2001. This instrument is a 7 bipolar scale that has both affirmative and negative poles (Suresh, 2010). The scale aims at defining the climate of the organization in regards to the roles of the workforce; thus, measuring coefficient reliability within the organization. The scale is exceptional because it possesses 22 items that belong to vast elements like interpersonal relationships, rewards, results, roles clarity, the process of the organization, selfless behavior among other attributes. The outcome attained by this scale depicted coefficient reliability that was half split to 0.87.
Another instrument used in the study was the five factor personality scale, developed by Goldberg 1999. The scale consists of 50 items that are measured in 10s; thus, 10 items per scale (Suresh, 2010). This tool helps in measuring cohesion, extraversion, emotional stability, imagination and other vast aspects that are crucial in a working atmosphere. The researchers in the study rated items with the help of the 5-point Likert scale, where 1 item was very inaccurate, while 5 items were very accurate.
The study used three tools in regards to determining factors that affect citizenship behavior. These tools are the organizational climate scale, which was developed by Indian executives named Pethe, Chaudhari and Dhar, 2001, the five factor personality scale, developed by Goldberg 1999, and the (OCB) Organizational citizenship behavior questionnaire developed by Lee and Allen 2002 (Suresh, 2010). Firstly, the study clarified that the organizational climate has two different forms of OCB organizational citizenship behavior because one is based on the organization, while the other is based on the individuals in the organization. The organizational citizenship behavior based on individual basis positively colludes with aspect like selfless behavior, organizational processes, and the general climate within the organization. The other form of OCB integrates with organizational aspects like rewards, results, interpersonal relations, information sharing among other aspects. In this regard, the general climate of the organization positively relate to OCB, a fact that is supported by the results of the study, which show that four dimensions of the organizational climate greatly affected individual’s personality; hence, affecting their responsive behavior (Podsakoff, Bommer & Mackenzie, 1996).
The analysis of the results also showed that perception contributed to the citizenship behavior because if the executives perceived that an organization was good, they tend to render the same positivity to their fellow employees (Phillips & Gully, 2012). Therefore, if an individual perceives that there is comfort in the organization, they tend to be friendlier to their counterparts. The result further shows that personality factors also contributed to OCB. This is the case because personality factors collaborate with aspects like agreeableness, imagination, extraversion and conscientiousness. The study further showed that agreeableness, conscientiousness as well as emotional stability helps in predicting citizenship behaviors.
However, some other factors like neuroticism can trigger negative citizenship behavior, especially when considered that they were not included in the study (Phillips & Gully, 2012). Thus, in spite of the interviewed executives asserting that they engaged in citizenship behavior by helping their co-workers, un-studied factors like neuroticism would push them towards negative citizenship behavior (Podsakoff, Bommer & Mackenzie, 1996). Nevertheless, the results show that communication is the main channel of improving citizenship behavior towards fellow group members and the entire organization. This is the case because communications open doors to cooperation, tolerance, trust and other cohesive aspects.
An in-depth analysis of the study depict that most of the facts were fairly generalized because the study of crucial related aspects were evaded during the survey (Suresh, 2010). For instance, the questioners did not ask the participants how neuroticism affects their citizenship behavior. Instead, the study proceeded to ask general questions like how selflessness, interpersonal relationships, rewards, results, roles clarity the process of the organization affected their citizenship behavior towards fellow workers and towards the organization. The other aspect that depict that the results were acquired from a generalized perspective is the manner through which the interview was carried out (Suresh, 2010). The surveys were given to volunteers who voluntarily filled and returned the surveys. This means that the interviewed executives filled in whatever they wanted to either to do away with the questioners or to please the researchers. Therefore, the acquired results do not depict the exact citizenship behavior in the organization because most crucial factors were generalized.
Another major factor that fostered the generalization of the study is the fact that other sets of organization’s personnel were left out. This means that the results acquired from surveying the executives’ does not exhibit the reality of citizenship behavior in the organization because executives are just a portion of the entire workforce. Thus, crucial factors were missed out because even the junior employees would have been interviewed in order to clarify the citizenship behavior of the executives towards them.
In addition, accurate scales of the citizenship behavior of the workforce towards fellow individuals and towards the organization would have been realized through additional set of questions. More so, the presence of junior workers would have been a significant move because it would have provided the researchers with additional information that could have been used to modify the scaling system and result analysis.
Conclusively, the methods used in data collection need a re-evaluation because it does not grant the fundamental basics needed in the factual conclusion of the case. Therefore, the study should obtain a larger sample size in order to allow researchers to acquire more and accurate information.
The study is extremely crucial to every leader or manager running an organization because it addresses vital facts concerning factors affecting the output of the workforce. Therefore, the leaders are obliged to carry out an in-depth analysis of factors that could affect the performance of their employees (Phillips & Gully, 2012). These factors include dishonesty, selfishness, unfriendly, stress, emotional instability and other negative factors that affect an individual’s personality or surrounding. In order to reverse these factors and inflict positivity leaders should ensure that employees are motivated in order for them to feel comfortable and reciprocate the same positivity to their fellow work mates. This motivation goal can be achieved by ensuring that the working conditions within the organization are favorable. More so, the managers bear the obligations of creating openness in the organization through communication because efficient communication is the basic tool towards cohesion between employees and their leaders as well as among employees (Phillips & Gully, 2012). More so, the leaders especially the human resource managers should deeply dig out necessary information about their employees because understanding their employees’ backgrounds allow them to manage them better. This step is essential because the managers will be in a position to manage employees’ emotions and personalities (Fernández-Ballesteros, 2003). In this respect, managers and other concerned personnel should take a leaf from this study because it grants them crucial information concerning employee citizenship behavior towards the organization and towards fellow employees.
The study is exceptional because it outlays the in-depth aspects affecting citizenship behavior in organizations. Though the study has a shallow data collection model that needs re-evaluation to allow it acquire more information and accurate findings, it is a helpful piece to all managers and business owners operating or intending to establish their own organizations. The importance of the study is that it grants fundamental knowledge of managing employees by understanding their behaviors and factors that trigger organizational or individual behavioral change (Phillips & Gully, 2012).
Fernández-Ballesteros, R 2003, Encyclopedia of Psychological Assessment. London, SAGE Publications.
Phillips, J & Gully, S, M. (2012). Organizational Behavior: Tools for Success. Mason, OH, South-Western Cengage Learning.
Podsakoff, P., Bommer, W. & MacKenzie, M. (1996). A Meta Analysis of The Relationship Between Kerr and Jermier’s Substitutes for Leadership and Employee Job Attitudes, Role Perceptions, and Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 380-399.
Suresh. S. (2010). Antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 36 (2), 276 -286.