REDRAWING THE BOUNDARIES OF OCB? AN ... - CiteSeerX

Journal of Business and Psychology (2006) DOI: 10.1007/s10869-006-9034-5

REDRAWING THE BOUNDARIES OF OCB? AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF COMPULSORY EXTRA-ROLE BEHAVIOR IN THE WORKPLACE Eran Vigoda-Gadot University of Haifa

ABSTRACT: Contemporary literature on Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) has primarily focused on the positive connotations of the ‘‘good soldier syndrome.’’ Most of the studies published in recent decades about OCB have pointed to the benefits and advantages of voluntary helping behaviors, pro-social behavior, and extra-role behavior. In contrast with this view we suggest a different look at OCB by focusing on the exploitative and abusive tendency of supervisors and managements to impose so-called ‘‘voluntary’’ or ‘‘extra-role’’ activities via compulsory mechanisms in the workplace. Mostly, we are interested in empirically testing the relationship between such behaviors and employees’ performance. We follow the approach suggested by Vigoda-Gadot (Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 2006) to argue that such behaviors are a substantial deviation from the original meaning of OCB and thus should be recognized and analyzed separately. Our arguments are based on an exploratory study conducted in 13 Israeli schools. Of the 206 teachers who participated in the study, a substantial majority of 75% reported feeling strong pressure to engage in what we usually define as OCB, but should actually be defined as Compulsory Citizenship Behavior (CCB). The findings are discussed in light of present knowledge about OCB, and the implications question the normally positive image of this behavior. KEY WORDS: performance.

organizational

citizenship

behavior;

abusive

behavior;

INTRODUCTION There are times in scientific theory construction when previous knowledge on a social phenomenon is challenged by new observations in our daily life. This paper focuses on current knowledge about

Address correspondence to Eran Vigoda-Gadot, Division of Public Administration and Policy, School of Political Sciences, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel 31905, Haifa, Israel. E-mail: [email protected]

2006 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and on some observations that can reframe our understanding of this behavior. Our study explores extra-role behavior that, in contrast with conventional OCB, is not based on the genuine, spontaneous ‘‘good will’’ of the individual. Instead, it emerges in response to external pressures by significant others in the workplace (i.e., managers or co-workers) who wish to increase the employees’ work load by involving them in duties that are beyond the scope of their job description. We base our approach on earlier studies of conventional OCB, such as those by Smith, Organ, and Near (1983), Organ (1988; 1997), Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990), Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000), Williams and Anderson (1991), Morrison (1994) and others but also try to move beyond them. We use a theoretical framework suggested by Vigoda-Gadot (2006) to reconsider the contemporary understanding of OCB in light of evidence about non-voluntary aspects of this behavior. We challenge the common view that all OCBs are voluntary and suggest that at least some of them may arise from coercive managerial strategies or coercive social pressure by peers. For this purpose, we will discuss the boundaries of OCB as suggested by Morisson (1994) and the idea of abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000; Tepper, Hoobler, Duffy, & Ensley, 2004; Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002). We then propose the concept of ‘‘compulsory OCB’’ (CCB) that represents a much darker and destructive side of OCB than the one we are accustomed to discussing as part of ‘‘conventional OCB.’’ Next, we identify several destructive features of OCB both theoretically and empirically, analyze them, and examine their relationship with various aspects of employees’ performance. Our third and final goal is to propose a redefinition of the meaning of OCB and to reconsider the boundaries of the good soldier syndrome as suggested by Organ (1988) and many others who followed him. In so doing we hope to advance the knowledge about OCB and to provide some empirical findings that support future studies on the darker side of this behavior, as well as its impact on employees’ performance. OCB—THE PROMISE OF ‘‘GOOD WILL’’ IN ORGANIZATIONS Management literature is rich in studies about good organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and about its contribution to organizational outcomes. In recent decades, almost 300 studies have examined this phenomenon and emphasized its importance to management studies across sectors and cultures. Theoretically, these spontaneous behaviors by individuals have played a key role in increasing the effectiveness, efficiency, and positive climate in the workplace. Practically, managers and employees have been encouraged to increase their employees’

ERAN VIGODA-GADOT

voluntary activities in organizations, on the assumption that such behavior creates a healthier work environment, leads to improved work outcomes, and promotes the goals of the organization as a whole (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995). OCB has been defined 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’’ (Organ, 1988; p. 4) or as individual behavior that promotes the goals of the organization by contributing to its social and psychological environment (Organ, 1997; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Farh, Zhong, and Organ (2004) suggested that OCB has been studied in relation to other similar concepts such as extra-role behavior (Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995), civic citizenship (Graham, 1991), pro-social behavior (Baruch, Fenton, Hind, & Vigoda-Gadot, 2004), organizational spontaneity (George & Brief, 1992), and contextual performance (Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997). Lievens and Anseel (2004) demonstrate how OCB has been studied in a variety of domains and disciplines (e.g., human resource management, marketing, economics, health care, education, local governance, the public sector etc.) and at various levels of analysis such as the individual, the group, or the organization as a whole (Schnake & Dumler, 2003). A common denominator of the above studies is that, for the most part, they have treated OCB as a constructive, self-initiated, spontaneous, or voluntary behavior aimed at enhanced the productivity of the workplace. Whereas some studies (i.e., Bolino, 1999; Organ, 1997) also suggested that self-interests, impression management, and other nonaltruistic motives are involved in OCBs, the common theme that recurs throughout most OCB studies is of a positive and constructive behavior worthy of encouragement. Hence it will not be an overstatement to argue that to date most writings on OCB have emphasized its positive image, its constructive implications, its contribution to individuals and organizations at multiple levels, and its general reinforcement of performance in the workplace. To the best of our knowledge however, with the exception of VigodaGadot (2006), none of the studies has considered the possibility that OCB can also arise from other motives, some of them less voluntary or less self-initiated. Among these motivations are the abusive and exploitative behavior of immediate supervisors and the pressure by management or peers to become involved in activities in which the employee would otherwise not involve himself (i.e., Tepper, 2000). Thus, while the conventional approach has defined OCB on the assumption that all extrarole behaviors and OCBs are rooted in employees’ ‘‘good will,’’ rarely has anyone taken a different perspective, suggesting compulsory antecedents to extra-role or citizenship behaviors in the workplace.


‘‘CONVENTIONAL OCB’’ VERSUS ‘‘COMPULSORY OCB’’ (CCB): RATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND HYPOTHESES Theoretical Grounding Vigoda-Gadot (2006) suggested the concept of ‘‘compulsory OCB’’ and developed a series of propositions aimed at testing it empirically. As suggested by Vigoda-Gadot, for more than two decades the theory of OCB has dealt with the various facets of this behavior and with the borders between the formal and informal in this context. According to Morrison (1994), OCB is an informal behavior that can be encouraged only when job tasks are clear and official role definitions effectively distinguish the formal requirements of the job from other informal, spontaneous gestures. Thus, employees and managers have great deal of say over what should be defined as OCB and what exceeds the boundaries of such activities. In addition, Organ (1988) and other studies that followed (i.e., Lievens & Anseel, 2004; Mackenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991, 1993; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Podsakoff et al., 2000) have identified various aspects of OCB such as Altruistic behavior (helping behaviors directed at specific individuals), Conscientiousness (helping behaviors directed at the organization as a whole), Sportsmanship (tolerating the inevitable inconveniences of work without complaining), Courtesy (informing others to prevent the occurrence of work related problems), and Civic virtue (participating in and being concerned about the life of the organization). These terms usually refer to the individuals’ free choice to become engaged in informal work activities, or at least conform to the general organizational atmosphere that encourages them. Researchers have generally implied that helping behaviors are a matter of good will even if they are extended in conformity or compliance with environmental and social pressures (Organ, 1997). While forcing someone to act in an altruistic manner would seem to be a contradiction in terms, it is possible to put pressure on an individual to help and support others, even against his/her free will and even when the employee did not intend to become involved in such behavior in the first place. Some employees may capitulate to such pressures, but others will regard them as illegitimate or abusive. Those employees who interpret these pressures in a negative manner are expected also to respond negatively both in terms of their performance and psychologically. The same logic may apply to conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, or civic virtue. They all lose their voluntary meaning when external pressure is applied. Organ (1997) supported the above notions by noting the discretionary nature of OCB and thus at least indirectly raised the question of whether non-discretionary extra-role behaviors can be considered part of OCB. Farh et al. (2004) suggest that recent discussions in the area of

ERAN VIGODA-GADOT

OCB question whether such behavior is by definition outside the parameters of ‘‘the job’’ or whether they might be ‘‘rewarded’’ (George & Brief, 1992; Organ, 1997). However, Farh et al.’s subsequent assertion is somewhat questionable. They suggest that there is some general agreement on these forms of contribution. According to their view, ‘‘they can be distinguished from task or technical performance, they have a more volitional and spontaneous character than core job contributions, and... they have positive effects on the social, psychological, organizational, and political contexts, than on the technical context’’ (p. 241). This last observation has recently been challenged by Zellars et al. (2002) and Tepper et al. (2004), who raised the possibility of abusive supervision in the workplace. The notion of abusive supervision suggests that extra-role behavior is not always a matter of free choice by the individual but rather is imposed on him/her by an abusive or exploitative management. Zellars et al. suggest that some supervisors engage in behavior that can be characterized as tyrannical (Ashforth, 1994), bullying (Hoel, Rayner, & Cooper, 1999), undermining (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002) or abusive (Keashly, Humter, & Harvey, 1997). Abusive behavior will thus refer to ‘‘subordinates’ perceptions of the extent to which their supervisors engage in the sustained display of hostile and non-verbal behaviors, excluding physical contact’’ (Tepper, 2000, p. 178). In light of this definition, we suggest that abusive behaviors may also include taking advantage of the employee in times and places where he/she is in no position to refuse a supervisor’s requests for assistance or for the performance of tasks that are clearly outside the employee’s formal job definition and the formal reward system of the organization. Even when this pressure is not hostile, is implied rather than articulated, and does not involve physical contact, employees may feel a very real need to comply with a supervisor’s request for fear that failing to do so might result in future hostile behavior from the same manager. Zellars et al. (2002) examined the relationship between abusive supervision and OCB among 373 Air National Guard members and their military supervisors. They found a modest but consistent, negative relationship that was moderated by role-definition and mediated by procedural justice. While the findings of the Zellars et al. study suggest that abusive behavior and OCB may be negatively related, they also point out that abusive behavior may be positively related with CCB, reflecting a different and much more negative aspect of extra-role behavior. Moreover, as suggested by Vigoda-Gadot (2006) increased market pressures and higher levels of competition have forced modern organizations to maximize their effectiveness and efficiency by all available means. The theory of OCB has previously demonstrated that organizations with a strong emphasis on citizenship behavior are healthier and more successful than other organizations that lack such a climate


(Podsakoff et al., 2000). Thus, it is an important goal of managers everywhere to make employees aware of the benefits of OCB and, if possible, encourage it. When such encouragement is conducted by legitimate means (i.e., improving the organizational climate, enhancing fairness and equity, or improving communication channels with employees), conventional OCB is indeed promoted. However, the pressure to strive for higher levels of OCB may also increase the likelihood that managers and managements adopt other strategies aimed at increasing extra-role behaviors by other means such as abusiveness or exploitative activities. These behaviors may include exerting strong pressure on individuals to engage in extra-role work activities beyond their formal job definitions and creating a social atmosphere in which working extra hours beyond the formal work day with no formal compensation becomes the accepted norm. Employees may also be made to feel that unless they are willing to undertake these activities, their social position or even their formal standing in the organization, in terms of tenure, will be jeopardized. Methodologically, the fact that OCB has become a measure defined solely by employers is also problematic (Morisson, 1994). When most studies in the field define OCB from the perspective of the managers and supervisors (e.g., Moorman, 1991; Organ & Konovsky, 1989; Podsakoff et al., 1990, 2000), an inherent bias is infused into our common understanding of OCB. By failing to incorporate the views of other stakeholders such as co-workers and clients, we miss the full picture. Like others, managers and supervisors are also exposed to assessment bias that should be balanced by other views in order to provide a more accurate understanding of this behavior. In addition, managers have a monopoly on what is defined as OCB and what is not by setting the formal rules in the workplace. By virtue of their supervisory role, managers are the de facto definers of ‘‘voluntary’’ and ‘‘required’’ behaviors. The potential for exploitation lies in the current trend toward a broad, loose definition of job and role, which provides more latitude for supervisors to re-define behaviors previously perceived as extra-role as intrarole or ‘‘required’’ without agreement from the subordinates. By so doing, supervisors sometimes extend the definition of formal duties into the informal area of good will and put unfair pressure on subordinates to undertake a heavier workload than they should strictly speaking be required to complete. Such a trend is further proof for the need to develop the concept of CCB in greater depth. Hypotheses Vigoda-Gadot (2006) suggests several propositions that deserve further examination in this context. The first hypothesis suggests that due to growing pressures on organizations to provide better services to

ERAN VIGODA-GADOT

their clients and to become more effective, they are more prone to engage in Compulsory Citizenship Behavior (CCB). We argue that employees frequently face strong social or managerial pressure to engage involuntarily in informal work activities. For all practical purposes, most employees must bow to such pressures, even if unwillingly. While OCB has no formal rewards, but may garner positive, informal outcomes such as social recognition and respect from others, failing to comply with CCB may also garner informal consequences, but ones that are negative in nature (i.e., the withholding of privileges that in the past were given out informally or facing the wrath of co-workers). We further argue that had these pressures not been present, those employees would have chosen to withhold such activities. Hence, we suggest a first hypothesis: H1: CCB is a prevalent phenomenon in organizations. A significant number of employees have experienced such behavior personally at work. Based on hypothesis H1, a second hypothesis suggests that CCB is negatively related to OCB and to in-role performance, but that it still represents a stand-alone fact of performance-oriented behavior in the workplace. The differentiation of CCB from OCB and in-role performance should be clear to supervisors who usually determine the formal task load for employees and also to those employees who know what their formal duties are. In cases where employees fail to recognize the distinction between formal and informal duties, however, the definition may be less clear cut. Based on Morrison (1994) we argue that what may be defined as OCB by employees is not always defined as such by managers. Thus, CCB is in fact anything but spontaneous behavior. Indeed, it represents a unique dimension of effort invested in the job (and in its members) resulting from abusive or exploitative supervision or strong social and managerial pressure. We hypothesize that when CCB is high, employees feel exploited and abused (Tepper et al., 2004) and thus are less willing to put effort into in-role performance as well as into extrarole/OCB behaviors. The supervisors’ abusive behavior, combined with social pressure, forces employees to engage in involuntary behaviors without receiving any formal rewards in return and thus actually reduces their motivation to achieve increased performance levels. H2: CCB is negatively related to conventional OCB and to in-role performance, but represents a stand-alone facet of behavior in the workplace. The next hypotheses propose a linkage between CCB and various aspects of work outcomes and organizational performance. These


hypotheses suggest that CCB is related to a series of work outcomes such as those tested in previous studies on conventional OCB. Most, if not all these relationships stand in sharp contrast to the relationships between conventional OCB and organizational performance as suggested in the literature. The rationale for these relationships is also comparable. When employees are forced to put more energy into informal job tasks, beyond those defined by their job definition and for which they receive no formal rewards, their reactions are expected to be negative. If conventional OCB is negatively related to job stress and burnout (Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, 2003), to organizational politics (Randall, Cropanzano, Bormann, & Birjulin, 1999; Vigoda, 2000), to intentions to leave (Chen, Chun, & Douglas, 1998), and to negligent behavior (Turnley & Feldman, 2000), we suggest that CCB will be positively related to the same work outcomes. That is, we expect that higher levels of pressure by supervisors on employees to become engaged in extra-role behaviors will breed higher levels of job stress and burnout, enhanced perceptions of organizational politics, increased intentions to leave the organization and a greater likelihood of engaging in negligent behavior. In addition, if conventional OCB is positively related to job satisfaction (Van Dyne & Pierce, 2004) and to in-role performance (Morisson, 1994;Turnley, Bolino, Lester, & Bloodgood, 2003), we suggest that CCB will be negatively related to these work outcomes, and perhaps also to in-role performance. These proposed relationships are also in line with several studies on the negative outcomes of abusive or exploitative supervision in the workplace. For example, Keashly et al. (1997) found that individuals who experienced more supervisory abuse were less satisfied with their jobs. Richman, Flaherty, Rospenda, and Christensen (1992) and Sheehan, Sheehan, White, Leibowitz, and Baldwin (1990) studied medical students and residents to suggest that abusive supervision is associated with dissatisfaction and elevated levels of psychological distress. Another recent longitudinal study by Tepper et al. (2004) of 173 employees was conducted at two points in time and found that when abusive supervision was low, co-workers’ OCB was positively related to fellow employees’ job satisfaction and affective commitment. However, when abusive supervision was high, co-workers’ OCB was negatively related to fellow employees’ job satisfaction and was unrelated to their organizational commitment. Moreover, employees with abusive supervisors were less likely to trust their co-workers, leading them to view their co-workers’ motives as self-serving, which in turn reduced job satisfaction. These findings support a negative relationship between CCB and job satisfaction and a positive relationship between CCB and organizational politics. Finally, and in keeping with the above rationale and the literature, we also suggest that CCB is negatively related to innovation and entrepreneurship, and to group level OCB (GOCB). In line with this, H3 offers a

ERAN VIGODA-GADOT

series of positive relationships in which high levels of CCB may lead to (1) an increase in job stress and burnout, (2) higher levels of perceptions of organizational politics and unfairness, (3) stronger intentions of leaving the organization, and (4) negligent behaviors such as carelessness, apathy, or not meeting deadlines. In addition, H4 suggests that CCB may have a negative relationship with (1) innovative ventures and entrepreneurship orientations, (2) job satisfaction, (3) GOCB, as represented by the collective willingness of the work-group to voluntarily help the organization or its members, (4) formal in-role performance evaluations as provided objectively by managers, and (5) individual-level OCB as reported by supervisors. H3: CCB is positively related to job stress, organizational politics, intentions to leave, negligent behavior, and burnout.

H4: CCB is negatively related to innovation, job satisfaction, GOCB, OCB, and formal performance. Beyond the hypotheses that have been suggested thus far, we also suggest that CCB contributes to the explanation of various work outcomes over and above other variables such as participation in decisionmaking, job autonomy, or other personal variables. Participation in decision-making and job autonomy have long been identified as important predictors of performance in the workplace (i.e., Claessens, Van Eerde, Rutte, & Roe, 2004; Lam, Xioa-Ping, & Schaubroeck, 2002) and have been studied in association with OCB and performance in many ways (i.e., Bell & Menguc, 2002; Van Yperen, van Den, & Willering, 1999). They portray the structural organizational environment and explain significant variance in job satisfaction (Evans & Fischer, 1992), job-stress and burnout (Grandey, Dickter & Sin, 2004), innovation and entrepreneurship in the workplace (De Dreu & West, 2001), organizational politics (Witt, Andrews & Kacmar, 2000), and intentions to leave the organization (Ito & Brotheridge, 2005). The general logic is that higher levels of participation in decision-making and more job autonomy are expected to improve work outcomes and general performance in the organization (Ito & Brotheridge, 2005). Non-etheless, we expect that the abusive and exploitative supervision typical of CCB puts pressure on employees to become engaged involuntarily in extrarole behavior. Furthermore, we believe that CCB will increase the explained variance of various work outcomes over and above the variance already explained by participation in decision-making, job autonomy, and other personal variables. We chose to control for job status, education, and tenure as these variables may be important in the


specific setting of teachers that was studied here and because one would expect differences between tenured and non-tenured employees, between highly educated and less educated employees, as well as between newcomers and veteran employees in their perceptions of CCB or the relationship of CCB to work outcomes. The fifth hypothesis thus suggests that: H5: CCB makes a unique contribution to the explanation of work outcomes over and above the explanation of other structural variables (i.e., participation in decision-making and job autonomy) and personal variables (job status, education, tenure).

METHOD Sample and Procedure The study was based on a sample of 286 teachers from 13 schools in the northern area of Israel. Schools agreed to take part in the study based on our commitment to provide a detailed analysis of teachers’ attitudes and perceptions wherever requested. Participants were asked to take part in the study on a voluntary basis and 206 responded positively, a return rate of 72%. These participants completed a questionnaire with most of the independent and dependent variables, including group-level OCB. The questionnaires were distributed in the schools and were returned directly to the researchers. Participants were also informed that the questionnaires were coded for research reasons only and that anonymity would be maintained for all other purposes that were not strictly scientific. Coding the employees’ questionnaires was essential in order to match them with the supervisors’ evaluations. In addition, a separate questionnaire was distributed to 13 principals who evaluated these teachers’ OCBs and in-role performance. Each principal evaluated between 5 and 15 individuals with whom he/she worked closely and about whom he/she could offer a reliable opinion. Estimation of the average length of the relationship between the teachers and the principles was between 5 and 8 years. Data was collected between May and July 2003. Demographics of the sample show that the average age was 42.4 years (s.d. = 9.3) and the average years of education was 16.8 (s.d. = 1.9). The average tenure in the school was 9.9 years (s.d. = 7.2), and the average tenure in the educational system was 16.4 years (s.d. = 9.2). Of the respondents, 97.4% were women, 78.8% were married, and 88.9% had a tenured job position.

ERAN VIGODA-GADOT

Measures Compulsory Citizenship Behavior (CCB). This variable was defined as employees’ engagement in extra-role, but not necessary voluntary, behaviors that are conducted under duress and not as a result of the self-driven good will of the individual himself/herself. The scale was based on five items: (1) ‘‘The management in this organization puts pressure on employees to engage in extra-role work activities beyond their formal job tasks’’; (2) ‘‘There is social pressure in this organization to work extra hours, beyond the formal workload and without any formal rewards’’; (3) ‘‘I feel that I am expected to invest more effort in this job than I want to and beyond my formal job requirements’’; (4) ‘‘I feel that I am forced to help other teachers beyond my formal obligations and even when I am short on time or energy’’; and, (5) ‘‘I feel that I am forced to assist my supervisor against my will and beyond my formal job obligations.’’ Respondents were asked to report the frequency of this behavior in the case of their particular work on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The reliability of this scale was .83. Job Stress. House and Rizzo (1972) developed a scale to measure ‘‘the existence of tensions and pressures growing out of job requirements, including the possible outcomes in terms of feelings or physical symptoms’’ (p. 481). The original scale had 17 items and referred to three types of stress factors: job-induced tension (JIT), somatic tension (ST), and general fatigue and uneasiness (GFU). For simplicity, we used only four items, which, however, were representative of the three factors: (1) ‘‘I work under a great deal of tension’’ (JIT); (2) ‘‘If I had a different job, my health would probably improve’’ (JIT); (3) ‘‘I get irritated or annoyed over the way things are going here’’ (ST); and, (4) ‘‘I seem to tire quickly’’ (GFU). Respondents were asked to report the degree to which they agreed with the items on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A higher score meant a higher level of job stress. Reliability of this scale was .80. Innovation. This variable measured the level of creativity, innovativeness, and entrepreneurship in the organization. It was measured by six items that were based on the studies by Siegel and Kaemmerer (1978), Tierney, Farmer, and Graen (1999) and Covin and Slevin (1989). The items were changed slightly to conform to the school environment. Respondents were asked to report the degree to which they agreed with the items on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The items included in the scale are: (1) ‘‘Creativity is encouraged here’’; (2) ‘‘My immediate supervisor has a strong appreciation of other teachers’ innovation and creativity’’; (3) ‘‘In this school a teacher gets into trouble if


he/she acts differently than others’’ (reversed); (4) ‘‘We are not encouraged to use original approaches when dealing with problems in the school’’ (reversed); (5) ‘‘This school is interested in preserving the status quo rather than improving it’’ (reversed); (6) ‘‘The reward system in this school encourages innovation.’’ The reliability of this scale was .73. Organizational Politics. Following Ferris, Fedor, Chachere, and Pondy (1989), this variable was defined as the degree to which respondents view their work environment as political, and therefore unjust and unfair. We used a seven-item version of the Perceptions of Organizational Politics Scale (POPS) as first suggested by Kacmar and Ferris (1991) and later improved by Kacmar and Carlson (1994). (1) ‘‘Favoritism rather than merit determines who gets ahead around here’’; (2) ‘‘Rewards come only to those who work hard in this organization’’ (reverse item); (3) ‘‘People in this organization attempt to build themselves up by tearing others down’’; (4) ‘‘If co-workers offer to help you out, it is because they expect to get something out of it, not because they really care’’; (5) ‘‘Teachers here usually don’t speak up for fear of retaliation by others’’; (6) ‘‘You can get along here by being a good guy, regardless of the quality of your work’’; and (7) ‘‘My co-workers help themselves, not others’’. Respondents were asked to report the degree to which they agreed with the items on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A higher score meant a higher perception of organizational politics. Reliability of the scale was .76. Job Satisfaction. This variable was measured by a six-item scale taken from Schriesheim and Tsui (1980). Respondents were asked to indicate how satisfied they were with their current job, co-workers, supervisors, current salary, opportunities for promotion, and work in general. The scale for these questions ranged from 1 (very unsatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). Reliability of this scale was .82. Intention to Leave. According to Farrel and Rusbult (1992), exiting or quitting includes job movement both within and across organizational boundaries, as well as a variety of cognitive activities that precede leaving. This behavior is manifested by intentions of searching for a different job and thinking about quitting. Respondents were asked to report the degree to which they agreed with a four-item scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The full scale included four items: (1) ‘‘I often think about quitting’’; (2) ‘‘If I could, I would move to another organization’’; (3)’’I will probably not stay with this organization for much longer;’’ and (4)’’Lately, I have taken an interest in job offers in the newspaper.’’ Reliability of this scale was .81.

ERAN VIGODA-GADOT

Negligent Behavior. This variable comprised reactions whereby the employee passively allowed job conditions to worsen. Such behavior is best described as reduced interest or effort at work, or increased error rate. In developing this measure, we used the study of Leck and Saunders (1992) and produced a four-item scale, ranging, like the others, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The items included (1) ‘‘This school doesn’t care much about people like me, so I am not willing to put in extra effort for it’’; (2) ‘‘I would tell other teachers to put less effort into their work, because it doesn’t pay off’’; (3)’’Sometimes I don’t fulfill all of my duties at work’’; and (4) ‘‘Sometimes I postpone important assignments for an unlimited period of time.’’ Reliability of this scale was .74. Burnout. Burnout was measured by a six-item scale taken from the Maslach Burnout Inventory—the MBI (Maslach & Jackson, 1986). Items were: (1) ‘‘I feel emotionally drained by my work’’; (2) ‘‘I feel used up at the end of the workday’’; (3) ‘‘Working with people all day is really a strain for me’’; (4) ‘‘I feel burned out by my work’’; (5) ‘‘I feel I’m working too hard on my job’’; and (6) ‘‘I feel like I’m at the end of my rope.’’ Respondents were asked to report the degree to which they agreed with the items on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and a higher score reflected a higher level of burnout. Reliability of the scale was .87. Group Level OCB (GOCB). Existing scales of OCB such as those suggested by Williams and Anderson (1991) and Organ (1988) were used to create a matching scale of 23 items called Group-level OCB (GOCB). This scale was discussed in a study by Vigoda-Gadot, Beeri, and Birman (2005) and found to be another effective way to study the good citizenship of work groups, teams or the work unit in general. As with the conventional OCB scale, we have distinguished among altruistic GOCB, compliance GOCB, and group-level in-role performance. As suggested by Chan (1998) and reconfirmed by Ehrhart (2004), our scale’s referent is the unit rather than the individual, and ‘‘instead of studying an individual’s performance of OCB, the interest is in the individual’s perception of the normative level of OCB performed within the group’’ (Ehrhart, 2004, p. 65). Sample items are (1) ‘‘The teachers here take a personal interest in other employees’’ (altruistic); (2) ‘‘The teachers here pass along information to co-workers’’ (altruistic); (3) ‘‘The teachers here give advance notice when unable to come to work’’ (compliance); (4) ‘‘The teachers here arrive at work on time and do not return late after work breaks’’ (compliance); (5) ‘‘The teachers here meet the formal performance requirements of the job’’ (in-role); (6) ‘‘The teachers here fulfill responsibilities specified in their job description’’ (in-role). For the final analysis, we have


used only 18 items that represented the altruistic GOCB and compliance OCC. The reliability of this scale was .86. The remaining five items represented in-role group-level performance and the reliability of this scale was .87. Organizational Citizenship Behavior. The scale was primarily based on the scale used by Williams and Anderson (1991) and Organ and Konovsky (1989), as well as suggestions made by Morrison (1994). Like these studies, we applied a 16-item scale. Supervisors completed a questionnaire in which they were asked to evaluate the recent behavior of each employee. Each item was measured on a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The OCB scale included two major factors: (1) altruistic OCB (OCB-A) whose component items all concerned helping a specific person, be it the supervisor, a co-worker, or a client and, (2) compliance OCB (OCB-C) that represents a more impersonal sort of OCB conscientiousness in attendance, use of work time, and adherence to various rules, but a conscientiousness that far surpasses any enforceable minimum standards (Smith et al., 1983). Compliance OCB is different from altruistic OCB for it implies a ‘‘good soldier’’ approach to doing things that are ‘‘right and proper,’’ but doing them for the sake of the system rather than for specific people (Smith et al., 1983). Sample items include (1) ‘‘Helps other teachers who have been absent’’ (OCB-A); (2) ‘‘Helps other teachers who have heavy work loads’’ (OCB-A); (3) ‘‘Attendance at work is above the norm’’ (OCB-C); (4) ‘‘Gives advanced notice when unable to come to work’’ (OCB-C). Reliability of this scale was .89. In-role Performance. This variable represented employees’ adherence to and completion of formal job duties (Katz, 1964). The scale was based on the studies of Williams and Anderson (1991) and Morrison (1994) who separated in-role (formal) from extra-role (informal) performance. A seven-item scale was completed for each participant by his/her direct supervisor. Evaluations were made on a scale from 1 (never or almost never) to 5 (always or almost always). Supervisors reported the degree to which each subordinate (sample items) (1) ‘‘adequately completes assigned duties,’’ (2) ‘‘fulfills responsibilities specified in job description,’’ and (3) ‘‘meets formal performance requirements of the job.’’ Reliability of this scale was .87. Structural and Control Variables. Two structural variables (job autonomy and participation and decision-making) and three demographic variables (job status, education, and tenure) were used as predictors and control variables. Job autonomy and participation and decision-making are among the most important formal indicators of decentralization and span of control in the organization and have a relationship with many

ERAN VIGODA-GADOT

performance measurements (Bell & Menguc, 2002; Claessens et al., 2004; Lam et al., 2002; Van Yperen et al., 1999). Job autonomy was defined as the degree to which organizational members’ freedom of action is constrained (Bacharach & Aiken, 1976). It was measured by a four-item scale adopted from Beehr (1976). Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with each item in relation to their job: (1) ‘‘I have a lot of say over what happens on my job’’; (2) ‘‘I have enough authority to do my best’’; (3) ‘‘My job allows me to make a lot of decisions on my own’’; (4) ‘‘I have enough freedom as to how I do my work.’’ Reliability of this scale was .86. Participation in decisionmaking was defined as the degree of staff participation in setting the goals and policies of the entire organization, and was measured by four items adopted from Aiken and Hage (1966). Respondents were asked how frequently they usually participated in decisions on: (1) promotion of any of the professional staff; (2) adoption of new policies; (3) adoption of new programs; (4) hiring of new staff. The scale ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Cronbach’s alpha was .84. In addition, we have used a dichotomous variable of job status (0 = tenured job; 1 = temporary job) and two ordinal variables of education, which was measured on a scale from 1 (partial high school education) to 5 (master’s or higher degree), and tenure (years with the organization).

Data Analysis To test the research hypotheses we used four techniques. First, we provided descriptive statistics by percentages for the existence of CCB as perceived by the respondents at their jobs. Second, we applied Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with the AMOS software package to distinguish the compulsory citizenship behavior scale from the group-level OCB and the group-level in-role performance scales. Third, we used a bi-variate correlation matrix to establish the relationships among the research variables. Finally, we applied a multiple regression analysis to demonstrate the relationship between CCB and the dependent variables, controlling for several structural and demographic variables.

FINDINGS Table 1 presents the frequencies and descriptive statistics for the compulsory citizenship behavior (CCB) scale. According to this table, many of the respondents reported that they faced CCB of various types

N = 206.

1. The management in this organization puts pressure on employees to engage in extra-role work activities beyond their formal job tasks 2. There is social pressure in this organization to work extra hours, beyond the formal workload and without any formal rewards 3. I feel that I am expected to invest more effort in this job than I want to and beyond my formal job requirements 4. I feel that I am forced to help other teachers beyond my formal obligations and even when I am short on time or energy 5. I feel that I am forced to assist my supervisor against my will and beyond my formal job obligations Total

Item

36.6 –

16.3 29.3

30.7 –

4.9 12.2

14.6

37.6

22.7

35.8

25.0

10.8

30.8

Sometimes

19.7

Rarely

6.1

Never

–

11.2

15.1

38.9

17.6

22.7

Frequently

Frequencies (%)

–

6.8

5.9

17.2

10.8

20.7

Always

Table 1 The Compulsory Citizenship Behavior (CCB) Scale: Frequencies and Descriptive Statistics

3.02 (.86)

2.65 (1.08)

2.73 (1.05)

3.47 (1.11)

2.93 (1.14)

3.32 (1.18)

Mean (SD)


ERAN VIGODA-GADOT

Figure 1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for CCB, GOCB (GOCB-A & GOCB-O), and GINR* * CCB = Compulsory Citizenship Behavior, GOCB = Group-level Organizational Citizenship Behavior, GOCB-O = GOCB Organizational, GOCB-A = GOCB Altruistic, GINR = Group-level In-Role performance. .62

.71

.54

.41

.34

.12

.67

.21

.27

.40

.56

V23

V22

V21

V20

V19

V18

V17

V16

V15

V14

V13

GOCB-O

.58

V24

.77

-. 1 9 .54

.62

.90

V11

.85

V10

.81

V9

.67

V8

.72

CCB

.37

GINR

.81

.75

GOCB-A

GOCB

V25

V26

V12 1.03

V27 -. 1 4

V28

V7

V1

V2

V3

V4

V5

.45

.75

.90

.78

.63

V6

.20

.33

quite frequently. These findings strongly support H1, which predicted large numbers of teachers who have to handle strong pressures and demands to give of themselves above and beyond the requirements of their formal job duties. To support H2 we have conducted both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis for CCB, GOCB, and GINR. The exploratory principle component factor analysis with varimax rotation yielded four quite clear factors: four items represented the altruistic GOCB (GOCB-A; Eigenvalue = 6.66, R2 = 23.81), six items represented the compliance/organizational GOCB (GOCB-O; Eigenvalue = 3.00, R2 = 10.67), five items represented the group-level in-role performance (GINR; Eigenvalue = 2.67, R2 = 9.52), and finally, five additional items represented the CCB facet (Eigenvalue = 3.33, R2 = 11.89). Following the exploratory factor analysis, we decided to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the data. This procedure is presented in Figure 1. To simplify the procedure, we decided to combine the altruistic GOCB with the compliance/organizational GOCB into one second-order factor called GOCB (Group-level Organizational Citizenship Behavior). By so doing, we could run a simpler CFA for only 3


factors (with 5 comparisons among the factors) instead for 4 factors (with 10 comparisons among the factors). Table 2 presents the results of the CFA based on these models and five variations of comparison among them. First, a three-factor model was analyzed. That was followed by an analysis of three pairs of two-factor versus one-factor models. Finally, we analyzed a one-factor model. The findings clearly show that the threefactor model (Model 1) was superior to all the other variations (Models 2– 5) and that CCB is substantially distinct from GOCB and from GINR. The v2 value for Model 1 was lower than in Models 2–5 (v2 = 1016 versus v2 = 1145, v2 = 1375, v2 = 1121, v2 = 1475, respectively). Of all the models, the v2 /df value of Model 1 was the closest to 2. In addition, the other fit indices such as RMSEA, NFI, RFI, IFI, ECVI were also superior in comparison to all the other models. RMSEA = .097, which indicates a reasonable fit; NFI = .628, RFI = .563, and IFI = .719, which are the closest to 1.0 among all the other models; ECVI = 5.827, which is the lowest among all the other models and indicates a good fit (for more details see Joreskog & Sorbom, 1994). Thus, we concluded that CCB constitutes a separate dimension of OCB and in-role performance and that H2 is quite clearly supported. Table 3 presents a correlation matrix of the research variables. According to this table, CCB is positively related with job stress, organizational politics, intentions to leave, negligent behavior and burnout (r = .30; p £ .001, r = .30; p £ .001, r = .32; p £ .001, r = .42; p £ .001, r = .40; p £ .001 respectively). In addition, CCB is also negatively related with innovation, job satisfaction, GOCB, and formal performance (r = ).34; p £ .001, r = ).27; p £ .001, r = ).21; p £ .01, r = ).16; p £ .05, respectively). These findings provide preliminary support fort H3 and H4 for most of the variables with the exception of job autonomy, participation in decision-making, and OCB. Whereas job autonomy and participation in decision-making were further examined as control variables in the regression analysis, individual-level OCB was excluded from these analyses as a dependent variable. To further support H3 and H4 and, in addition, to examine H5, we applied a hierarchical regression analysis. Table 4 presents the results of nine multiple hierarchical regression equations that tested the relationship between CCB and work outcomes as well as the independent contribution of CCB for the variance in the dependent variables. In each equation, the structural variables (job autonomy and participation in decision-making) as well as several control variables were examined first in step 1. Then, CCB was added to the equation and an estimate was made of its unique contribution to the change in R2. According to Table 4, CCB has a modest to strong relationship with all the work outcomes and its explained variance as an independent factor is also impressive. CCB was positively related with job stress (b = .32; p £ .001), organizational

1145.169* 1375.258* 1121.051*

1475.305*

Two-factors 2. CCB & GOCB vs. GINR 3. CCB & GINR vs. GOCB 4. GOCB & GINR vs. CCB

One-factor 5. CCB & GOCB & GINR 348

347 347 347

345

df

1 vs. 5

1 vs. 2 1 vs. 3 1 vs. 4

–

Model Comparison

458.700*

128.564* 358.653* 104.446*

–

Dv2

3

2 2 2

–

df

4.23

3.30 3.96 3.23

2.94

v2 /df

0.126

0.106 0.120 0.104

0.097

RMSEA

0.461

0.581 0.497 0.590

0.628

NFI

0.371

0.510 0.412 0.520

0.563

RFI

0.528

0.666 0.569 0.676

0.719

IFI

8.036

6.435 7.557 6.317

5.827

ECVI

*p < 0.001; N = 206. **CCB = Compulsory Citizenship Behavior, GOCB = Group-level Organizational Citizenship Behavior, GINR = Group-level In-Role performance.

1016.605*

v2

Three-factors 1. CCB vs. GOCB vs. GINR**

Model/Description

Table 2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the Compulsory Citizenship Behavior (CCB) Scale

ERAN VIGODA-GADOT

2

3

4

5

6

.42*** .42***).53*** .54***).51*** .54*** (.74)

7

8

9

10

).19** ).09

(.54) .09 ).11 (9.24) .04 ).01 (3.18) .23** .06 (.32) ).18* ).08

(.58) ).06 (.94) .01

.26***).24*** .28***).28***).29***).17* ).04 ).04 .08 ).09 .00 ).06 ).10 .03 ).01 ).01 .05 .04 ).03 .07 ).05 .17* .05 ).08

.35***).30*** .37***).31***).26***).18** .29***).34*** .41***).29***).25***).14*

11

12

13

14

15

.28*** .60*** .19** .13 (.89) .00 .02 ).01 .23** .06 .05 ).06 ).04 ).02 .05 .22** – ).04 ).06 ).01 ).25***).06 ).41 ).27**

.32*** .24*** (.86) .31*** .00 .37*** (.84)

(.93) .40*** .69***).35*** .38***).45*** .43*** .47*** (.87) (.49) ).21** ).34*** .51***).61*** .54***).41***).43***).33*** (.86) (.40) ).16* ).20** .25***).26*** .15* ).24***).33***).16* .23*** (.87)

(.74)

(.71) ).27***).45*** .52***).60*** (.82) (.90) .32*** .41***).51*** .51***).51*** (.81)

(.98) .30*** (.80) (.74) ).34***).37** (.73) (.73) .30*** .48***).64*** (.76)

(.86) (.83)

1

N = 206: *p £ .05, **p £ .01, ***p £ .001.

1. Compulsory 3.02 OCB (CCB) 2. Job stress 2.94 3. Innovation 3.57 4. Organizational 2.53 politics 5. Job satisfaction 3.54 6. Intentions 1.88 to leave 7. Negligent 1.73 behavior 8. Burnout 2.64 9. GOCB 3.51 10. In)role 4.66 performance 11. Job autonomy 3.76 12. Participation 2.20 in decision) making 13. OCB 3.67 14. Tenure 16.39 15. Education 16.33 .11 16. Job status (1 = temporary)

Mean (SD)

Table 3 Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities (In Parentheses), and Inter-Correlations (Pearson’s r) Among CCB and the Dependent Variables


2

1

Step

b

2

Innovation

1

Step

b

2

Organizational politics

1

Step

b

2

Job satisfaction

1

Step

b

2

Intentions to leave

1

Step

b

2

Negligent behavior

1

Step

b

2

Burnout

1

Step

b

2

Group-level OCB (GOCB)

1

Step

b

2

In-role performance

N = 206: *p £ .05, **p £ .01, ***p £ .001.

1. Job autonomy ).20* ).18* .30*** .28*** ).21** ).19** .26*** .24*** ).28*** ).26*** ).22** ).19** ).18* ).15* .29*** .28*** .25** .24** 2. Participation ).11 ).09 .30*** .27*** ).36*** ).34*** .38*** .35*** ).18* ).16* ).25** ).21** ).17* ).14 .28*** .26*** ).10 ).11 in decision) making 3. Tenure ).06 ).04 ).03 ).05 .01 .03 .06 .04 ).04 ).01 .04 .07 ).12 ).09 ).02 ).03 .06 .05 4. Education .09 .04 ).18* ).13 .10 .05 ).13 ).08 .03 ).03 .03 ).04 .03 ).04 ).01 .02 ).10 ).07 5. Job status ).06 ).02 .05 .01 ).02 .02 .05 .02 .14 .19* .03 .08 ).09 ).04 .09 .06 ).10 ).12 6. Compulsory – .32*** – ).33*** – .32*** – ).29*** – .37*** – .46*** – .43*** – ).24*** – ).16* Citizenship Behavior (CCB) R2 .071 .167 .25 .36 .22 .32 .28 .36 .18 .31 .14 .34 .09 .27 .20 .26 .08 .11 Adjusted R2 .039 .132 .23 .33 .20 .29 .25 .33 .15 .28 .11 .31 .06 .24 .18 .23 .05 .07 F 2.22 4.77*** 9.79*** 13.22*** 8.25*** 11.37*** 11.12*** 13.38*** 6.32*** 10.71*** 4.55*** 12.24 2.85* 8.83*** 7.39*** 8.42 2.49* 2.79** DR2 .096 .105 .100 .081 .13 .20 .18 .06 .03 F for DR2 16.35*** 22.91*** 21.20*** 18.11*** 27.03*** 43.95*** 35.39*** 10.99*** 4.04*

1

Step

b

Job stress

Table 4 Multiple Hierarchical Regression Analysis: The Relationship Between CCB and the Dependent Variables (Standardized Coefficients)

ERAN VIGODA-GADOT


politics (b = .32; p £ .001), intentions to leave (b = .37; p < .001), negligent behavior (b = .46; p £ .001), and burnout (b = .43; p < .001). It was also negatively related with innovation (b = ).33; p £ .001), job satisfaction (b = ).29; p £ .001), GOCB (b = ).24; p £ .001), and in-role performance (b = ).16; p £ .05). However, no relationship was found between CCB and OCB evaluations as provided by supervisors. These findings quite strongly support H3 and H4, with the exception of the objective measure of OCB. The added value of CCB to the explained variance in the dependent variables was as follows: 9.6% in job stress, 10.5% in innovation, 10.0% in organizational politics, 8.1% in job satisfaction, 13% in intentions to leave, 20% in negligent behavior, 18% in burnout, 6% in GOCB, and only 3% in in-role performance. These findings provide strong support for H5 for most of the dependent variables, especially for intentions to leave, negligent behavior, and burnout.

DISCUSSION This study has dealt with the phenomenon of compulsory extra-role behavior in organizations, with its magnitude and relationship with work attitudes or performance of teachers employees. Following VigodaGadot (2006), we use the concept of ‘‘Compulsory Citizenship Behavior’’ (CCB) to denote these imposed activities that may turn out to be harmful for individuals, groups, and the organization in general, and examined them empirically. The findings of our study confirm the existence of CCB in the Israeli public education system. CCBs are directed at individuals in an attempt to increase organizational productivity while offering no formal rewards to those employees for their efforts. More than two-thirds of the participants in this study reported that such activities are common in their workplaces, and that refusing to bow to these demands is unacceptable. Moreover, the outcomes stemming from this behavior are clearly negative: higher levels of job stress and burnout, stronger perceptions of organizational politics, more intentions to leave the organization, and an increased tendency to negligent behavior on the one hand, and lower levels of job satisfaction, innovation, GOCB, and in-role performance on the other. Our findings are in line with Morrison’s (1994) study, which suggests that an important determinant in employees’ behavior is whether they define a given activity as in-role or extra-role. For example, ‘‘if an employee defines helping co-workers as an in-role behavior, he or she will conceptualize the behavior very differently than an extra-role behavior and will perceive a different set of incentives surrounding the helping behavior’’ (p. 1544). In the current study, we follow this assertion and

ERAN VIGODA-GADOT

argue that sometimes a discrepancy exists among managers/peers and employees about the definition of certain work tasks as in-role or extrarole. The social environment in the workplace, as shaped by managers and peers, has a strong influence on the definition of a work duty as in-role or extra-role. While staying after school in order to help a student or using one’s free time to organize a social event, educational ceremony, or other activity for the students is definitely considered extra-role behavior by employees, managers may see such activities as in-role duties. As a result, they provide no real rewards for them and do not compensate the teachers in return. According to our findings, when employees are coerced into performing what they see as extra-role behaviors, they may produce less than ideal work outcomes. Thus, we suggest that stretching the definition of extra-role behaviors into the twilight zone of in-role/non-voluntary activities can damage some of the essential goals of organization and its performance. Our study is also in line with the phenomenon of abusive management suggested by Tepper (2000) and later developed by Zellars et al. (2002) and Tepper et al. (2004). In fact, we disagree to some extent with the elementary definition of abusive behavior offered by Tepper (2000; p. 178) who argued that such activities refer to a display of hostile and non-verbal behaviors, excluding physical contact. We suggest that this definition should be expanded to also include exploitative behaviors and excessive requests made by managers of employees in such a manner that the latter cannot realistically refuse to comply. Abusive behavior in this regard should be defined as misusing the supervisor’s power and authority to force employees to perform activities involuntarily, activities they would not have otherwise undertaken and which take advantage of their good will and trample their freedom of choice. In our view, CCBs clearly fall into such a definition of abusive, exploitative supervision and ironically, turn out to be destructive for the organization as a whole. As suggested by Tepper (2000), targets of abusive behavior may remain in the organization and in the job because they feel powerless to take corrective actions, are economically dependent on the abusers, or fear the unknown associated with refusal or separation more than they fear the abuse. Beyond the theoretical implications that this study has for the future development of the concept of OCB and its effect on work outcomes, it may also have some interesting practical implications. While our findings testify to the prevalence of CCB in the Israeli public education system, they may be relevant for other public and private sectors agencies, such as welfare or healthcare organizations, as well. For example, the pressure to work extra hours or to invest a huge amount of effort in the job are complaints frequently heard in the hi-tech industry, in healthcare systems, and in military-based industries where competition is fierce and


quality human resources are invaluable and scarce. Thus, we recommend that future replications try to support our thesis in other organizations. A major practical implication of our study is that managers should come to a clear agreement with employees about the boundaries of formal tasks and the point at which required in-role behavior ends and voluntary, spontaneous behavior begins. This should be done as part of the formal contract with the employee when he/she is hired and can be achieved by clearer role definitions, improved communication channels, or by mutual negotiations among all the members of the organization. These boundaries should be made clear to newcomers as well as to tenured employees and reconsidered when the managerial cadre is replaced or when major changes are incorporated in the organization. Another practical implication of our finding is that employees should be encouraged to speak up when they feel they are being overloaded with work. Various mechanisms should be developed to handle overload on the job, all based on the assumption that justice and fairness in the organization are crucial for the healthy involvement of employees in productive organizational activities. This suggestion is supported by the idea of interactional justice (as opposed to procedural justice and distributive justice) as formulated by Bies and Moag (1986) and more recently by Bies (2000). Interactional justice reflects the interpersonal dimension of fairness where ‘‘organizational representatives fail to treat employees with respect, honesty, propriety, and sensitivity to their personal needs’’ (Tepper, 2000; p. 179). It is thus highly relevant for CCBs that put strong pressure on teachers to give of themselves above and beyond the levels at which they might have originally chosen to perform. The limitations of this study and recommendations for future examination of the field should also be mentioned. First, our findings are relevant for the Israeli educational system. It is possible that expectations for citizenship behavior from teachers may be higher than for those of the general public, and this difference might have influenced the results of our study. Thus, in order to generalize them further it is recommended that future studies replicate our measurement instruments and model in other work and cultural settings (i.e., North American, European, or Asian ones), in the private or the third sector, and in other organizations that are different in type and structure from ours. The fact that our study was comprised mostly of women should also be noted. It is possible the women, more than men, are sensitive to expectations for extra-role behavior and/or find such behaviors more onerous than men might, taking into consideration women’s role-conflict and task load. Second, most of our data was based on self-reported measures that are exposed to common method and common source errors. However, the strong levels of reliabilities and variance exhibited by of all the variables quite firmly support the validity of the data and the findings. In addition,

ERAN VIGODA-GADOT

our second questionnaire that was distributed among the managers enabled us to overcome many of these potential problems because objective OCB and in-role performance data were collected using an independent tool. Our findings revealed a significant and consistent relationship between CCB and objective in-role performance as reported by the managers, which further implies a lack of common method/common source bias in this study. However, it is noteworthy that while we found a negative relationship between CCB and GOCB, no relationship was found between CCB and the objective evaluations of OCB provided by the managers. This later finding was somewhat disappointing and calls for future studies. It is possible that the none-relationship between CCB and OCB testifies to major perceptual differences between managers and employees as to the way OCB is interpreted and understood. Perhaps this finding also suggests that CCB and OCB are actually two distinctive domains of extra-role behavior not necessarily related to each other. In the same vein we also suggest that future studies use a CFA procedure to replicate our results about the stand-alone facet of CCB. Third, our study does not allow for any causal implications, as the research design was not longitudinal. Thus, no clear determination can be made regarding a direct effect of CCB on work outcomes, and the results of the study must be interpreted with caution. It is still possible that a general negative attitude towards the workplace may result in both poor evaluations of in-role performance and an increased sensitivity to role expansion in the form of CCB. We thus suggest that future studies build longitudinal designs that may better explore the impact of abusive managerial behavior, CCB, and performance on the individual, group, or organizational level. In the same vein we suggest that future studies try to validate separate measures of individual-level CCB and group-level CCB in the same way it has been done for individual-level OCB and group-level OCB (i.e., Ehrhart, 2004). Finally, this paper tried to demonstrate the usefulness and qualities of the CCB scale as suggested by Vigoda-Gadot (2006). We have employed exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis that offered rather good indications of the solidity of the scale. In this process, we have used another variation of the OCB scale called GOCB. This construct is still not widespread in the literature of OCB, but has proven useful for our purposes in the current essay. CCB was found to be an independent facet that is clearly distinguished from group-level OCB and from grouplevel in-role performance and thus, in our view, represents a stand-alone variable. Our study made an effort to explore this behavior with the expectation that more research will be conducted in this direction and enrich our understanding of extra-role, pro-social citizenship behaviors in organizations.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to thank Taly Birman and Itai Beeri for their help in conducting this study.

REFERENCES Aiken, M., & Hage, J. (1966). Organizational alienation. American Sociological Review, 31, 497–507. Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations. Human Relations, 47, 755–778. Bacharach, S. B., & Aiken, M. (1976). Structural and process constraints on influence in organizations: A level-specific analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 365–377. Baruch, Y., Fenton, M., Hind, P., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2004). Pro-social behavior and job performance: Do need for control and need for achievement make a difference? Social Behavior and Personality, 32, 399–412. Beehr, T. A. (1976). Perceived situational moderators of the relationship between subjective role ambiguity and role strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 35–40. Bell, S. J., & Mengu, B. (2002). The employee–organization relationship, organizational citizenship behaviors, and superior service quality. Journal of Retailing, 78, 131–146. Bies, R. J. (2000). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational behavior, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria for fairness. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1, 43–55. Bolino, M. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors?. Academy of Management Review, 24, 82–98. Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–246. Chen, X. P., Chun, H., & Douglas, J. S. (1998). The role of organizational citizenship behavior in turnover: Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 922–931. Claessens, B. J. C., Van Eerde, W., Rutte, C. G., & Roe, R. A. (2004). Planning behavior and perceived control of time at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 937–950. Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 75–87. Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 160–169. De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining and social support in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 331–351. Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unitlevel organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61–94. Evans, B. K., & Fischer, D. G. (1992). A hierarchical model of participatory decision-making, job autonomy, and perceived control. Human Relations, 45, 1169–1189. Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in the people’s republic of China. Organization Science, 15, 241–253. Farrel, D., & Rusbult, C. E. (1992). Exploring the exit, voice, loyalty and neglect typology: The influence of job satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Special Issue: Research on Hirschman’s exit, voice, and loyalty model. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5, 201–218.

ERAN VIGODA-GADOT

Ferris, G. R., Fedor, D. B., Chachere, J. G., & Pondy, L. R. (1989). Myths and politics in organizational context. Group and Organization Studies, 14, 83–103. George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good, doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310–329. Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, 249–270. Grandey, A. A., Dickter, D. N., & Sin, H. P. (2004). The customer is not always right: Customer aggression and emotion regulation of service employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 397–418. Hoel, H., Rayner, C., & Cooper, C. L. (1999). Workplace bullying. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 195–229). New York: Wiley. House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 467–505. Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2005). Does supporting employees’ career adaptability lead to commitment, turnover, or both?. Human Resource Management, 44, 5–19. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1994). Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International. Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. (1994). Further validation of the perceptions of politics scale (POPS): A multiple sample investigation. Paper presented at Academy of Management meeting in Dallas, Texas. Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1991). Perceptions of organizational politics scale (POPS): development and construct validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 193–205. Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavior Science, 9, 131–133. Keashly, L., Humter, S., & Harvey, S. (1997). Abusive interactions and role state stressors: Relative impact on student residence assistant stress and work attitudes. Work and Stress, 11, 175–185. Lam, S. S. K., Xioa-Ping, C., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Participative decision-making and employee performance in different cultures: The moderating effects of allocentrism/ idiocentrism and efficacy. Academy of Management Journal., 45, 905–914. Leck, J. D., & Saunders, D. M. (1992). Hirschman’s loyalty: Attitude or behaviour?. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 5, 219–229. LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behaviour. A critical Review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52–65. Lievens, F., & Anseel, F. (2004). Confirmatory factor analysis and invariance of an organizational citizenship behavior measure across samples in a Dutch-speaking context. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 299–306. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons’ performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 123–150. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 57, 70–80. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1986). Maslach burnout inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845–855. Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definition and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543– 1567. Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual difference in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 71–83.


Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85–97. Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157–164. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802. Podsakoff, P., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 351–363. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behavior and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563. Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 159– 175. Richman, J. A., Flaherty, J.A, Rospenda, K. M., & Christensen, M. L. (1992). Mental health consequences and correlates of reported medical student abuse. Journal of the American Medical Association, 267, 692–694. Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66–80. Schnake, M., & Dumler, M. P. (2003). Levels of measurement and analysis issues in organizational citizenship behavior research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 283–301. Schriesheim, C., & Tsui, A. S. (1980). Development and validation of a short satisfaction instrument for use in survey feedback interventions. Paper presented at the Western Academy of Management Meeting. Sheehan, K. H., Sheehan, D. V., White, K., Leibowitz, A., & Baldwin, D. C. (1990). A pilot study of medical student abuse. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 533– 537. Siegel, S. M., & Kaemmerer, W. F. (1978). Measuring the perceived support for innovation in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 553–562. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653–663. Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178–190. Tepper, B. J., Hoobler, J., Duffy, M. K., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators of the relationship between coworkers’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 455–465. Tierny, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591–620. Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, L. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29, 187–206. Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2000). Re-examining the effects of psychological contract violations: Unmet expectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 25–42. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean, P. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215–285. Van Dyne, L., & Pierce, J. L. (2004). Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 439–460.

ERAN VIGODA-GADOT

Van Yperen, N. W., van Den, A. E., & Willering, B. M. C., (1999). Towards a better understanding of the link between participation in decision-making and organizational citizenship behaviour: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 377–392. Vigoda, E. (2000). Internal politics in public administration systems: An empirical examination of its relationship with job congruence, organizational citizenship behavior and in-role performances. Public Personnel Management, 29, 185–210. Vigoda-Gadot, E., Beeri, I., & Birman, T. (2005). Organizational citizenship climate: A system level analysis of the good soldier syndrome. Paper presented in the annual meeting of the Academy of Management association, Honolulu, HI. Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006). Compulsory citizenship behavior in organizations: Theorizing some dark sides of the good soldier syndrome. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 36(1), 77–93. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617. Witt, L. A., Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). The role of participation in decisionmaking in the organizational politics-job satisfaction relationship. Human Relations, 53, 341–358. Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068–1076.