Investigation of compulsory citizenship behavior in the organizational citizenship behavior nomological network

Kimberly E. O'Brien, Rachel T. Pohlman, Krystal N. Roach
{"title":"Investigation of compulsory citizenship behavior in the organizational citizenship behavior nomological network","authors":"Kimberly E. O'Brien, Rachel T. Pohlman, Krystal N. Roach","doi":"10.1108/ijppm-03-2023-0135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) was initially described as discretionary behavior not formally rewarded by the organization. However, empirical evidence has indicated that many non-task behaviors are compulsory and contribute to performance evaluation, leading to research on nondiscretionary OCB (e.g. compulsory citizenship, citizenship pressure). It is unclear whether these behaviors are best described as OCB, in-role behavior or a separate construct. The goal of the current study is to determine the conceptual and measurement overlap between OCB and nondiscretionary OCB.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>In a quantitative survey design, we collected multiphasic data from 315 employees to provide evidence for the convergent/divergent validity of compulsory citizenship behavior within the OCB nomological network and separate from in-role behavior. </p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The results support a unique contribution of compulsory citizenship behavior to the operationalization of OCB by emphasizing the employees’ perceptions of whether they perform OCB autonomously.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This research shows a distinction that should be recognized in future research, as existing OCB theories may only apply to discretionary OCB, such that compelled citizenship is not OCB. This would explain why compulsory OCB incurs less benefits than other forms of externally-motivated (i.e. impression management) OCB.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":47944,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm-03-2023-0135","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) was initially described as discretionary behavior not formally rewarded by the organization. However, empirical evidence has indicated that many non-task behaviors are compulsory and contribute to performance evaluation, leading to research on nondiscretionary OCB (e.g. compulsory citizenship, citizenship pressure). It is unclear whether these behaviors are best described as OCB, in-role behavior or a separate construct. The goal of the current study is to determine the conceptual and measurement overlap between OCB and nondiscretionary OCB.

Design/methodology/approach

In a quantitative survey design, we collected multiphasic data from 315 employees to provide evidence for the convergent/divergent validity of compulsory citizenship behavior within the OCB nomological network and separate from in-role behavior.

Findings

The results support a unique contribution of compulsory citizenship behavior to the operationalization of OCB by emphasizing the employees’ perceptions of whether they perform OCB autonomously.

Originality/value

This research shows a distinction that should be recognized in future research, as existing OCB theories may only apply to discretionary OCB, such that compelled citizenship is not OCB. This would explain why compulsory OCB incurs less benefits than other forms of externally-motivated (i.e. impression management) OCB.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
组织公民行为名义网络中的强制性公民行为调查
目的组织公民行为(OCB)最初被描述为不受组织正式奖励的自由裁量行为。然而,经验证据表明,许多非任务行为都是强制性的,并有助于绩效评估,从而引发了对非自由裁量的组织公民行为(如强制性公民行为、公民压力)的研究。目前还不清楚这些行为是最适合被描述为 OCB、角色内行为,还是一个独立的概念。设计/方法/途径在定量调查设计中,我们收集了 315 名员工的多相数据,为强制性公民行为在 OCB 名义网络中的收敛/发散有效性以及与角色内行为的分离提供证据。研究结果通过强调员工对其是否自主执行 OCB 的感知,支持了强制性公民行为对 OCB 操作化的独特贡献。原创性/价值这项研究显示了未来研究中应认识到的区别,因为现有的 OCB 理论可能只适用于自由裁量的 OCB,因此强制性公民行为不是 OCB。这也就解释了为什么强制性公民自主创业比其他形式的外部激励型(即印象管理)公民自主创业所带来的收益要少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
9.70%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: ■Organisational design and methods ■Performance management ■Performance measurement tools and techniques ■Process analysis, engineering and re-engineering ■Quality and business excellence management Articles can address these topics theoretically or empirically through either a descriptive or critical approach. The co-Editors support articles that significantly bring new knowledge to the area both for academics and practitioners. The material for publication in IJPPM should be written in a manner which makes it accessible to its entire wide-ranging readership. Submissions of highly technical or mathematically-oriented papers are discouraged.
期刊最新文献
Industry 5.0's pillars and Lean Six Sigma: mapping the current interrelationship and future research directions Exploring the critical drivers of blockchain technology adoption in Indian industries using the best-worst method Process mining-enhanced quality management in food processing industries Enhancing new service development effectiveness: the role of customer participation and the moderating effects of empowerment and satisfaction Emotional intelligence as an antecedent of employees’ job outcomes through knowledge sharing in IT-ITeS firms
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1