Seeing the forest, beyond the trees: dimensionality of context specific Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in a Sri Lankan context

IF 0.5 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Sri Lanka Journal of Social Sciences Pub Date : 2019-06-10 DOI:10.4038/SLJSS.V42I1.7608
Hansiya Rauf, Shamala Kumar
{"title":"Seeing the forest, beyond the trees: dimensionality of context specific Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in a Sri Lankan context","authors":"Hansiya Rauf, Shamala Kumar","doi":"10.4038/SLJSS.V42I1.7608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Factor analyses of existing measures of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) administered across different contexts and country settings demonstrate cross-setting consistency and support a common dimensionality for OCB irrespective of context. Challenging the use of generic models of OCB are concerns over the local relevance of such generic models and the substantial variation in OCB dimensionality in different country settings found through research using inductive qualitative methods. Even though these findings give conflicting understandings of the context specificity of OCB, a review of literature found no studies that subjected qualitatively derived dimensions to factor analysis. This research uses factor analyses to test a qualitatively derived, context-specific OCB model to explore the context specificity of OCB. University academic staff in Sri Lanka participated in two studies. Findings support a generally accepted two-factor model and not the context specific model. The findings suggest that even when high contextual variations in constructs seem evident, conceptual similarity at a more general level may be present. Past research exploring OCB conceptualisations have used either qualitative or quantitative methods. While qualitative methods indicate complex and contextually specific dimensions, quantitative methods support simpler models with more general applicability. The findings suggest that even when the model and items are localised, factor analyses support a general OCB model.","PeriodicalId":53779,"journal":{"name":"Sri Lanka Journal of Social Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sri Lanka Journal of Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4038/SLJSS.V42I1.7608","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Factor analyses of existing measures of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) administered across different contexts and country settings demonstrate cross-setting consistency and support a common dimensionality for OCB irrespective of context. Challenging the use of generic models of OCB are concerns over the local relevance of such generic models and the substantial variation in OCB dimensionality in different country settings found through research using inductive qualitative methods. Even though these findings give conflicting understandings of the context specificity of OCB, a review of literature found no studies that subjected qualitatively derived dimensions to factor analysis. This research uses factor analyses to test a qualitatively derived, context-specific OCB model to explore the context specificity of OCB. University academic staff in Sri Lanka participated in two studies. Findings support a generally accepted two-factor model and not the context specific model. The findings suggest that even when high contextual variations in constructs seem evident, conceptual similarity at a more general level may be present. Past research exploring OCB conceptualisations have used either qualitative or quantitative methods. While qualitative methods indicate complex and contextually specific dimensions, quantitative methods support simpler models with more general applicability. The findings suggest that even when the model and items are localised, factor analyses support a general OCB model.
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
看到森林,超越树木:斯里兰卡背景下特定情境下组织公民行为的维度
对组织公民行为(OCB)在不同背景和国家背景下实施的现有措施的因素分析表明,跨背景的一致性,并支持无论背景如何组织公民行为的共同维度。对组织公民行为的一般模型的使用提出挑战的是对这些一般模型的当地相关性的关注,以及通过使用归纳定性方法进行研究发现的不同国家环境中组织公民行为维度的实质性差异。尽管这些研究结果对组织行为行为的情境特异性给出了相互矛盾的理解,但文献综述发现,没有研究对定性衍生维度进行因子分析。本研究采用因子分析对定性推导的情境特异性组织行为模型进行检验,探讨组织行为的情境特异性。斯里兰卡的大学学术人员参与了两项研究。研究结果支持普遍接受的双因素模型,而不是特定环境的模型。研究结果表明,即使结构上的高度语境差异似乎很明显,在更普遍的层面上,概念上的相似性也可能存在。过去探索组织公民行为概念的研究要么使用定性方法,要么使用定量方法。定性方法表示复杂和上下文特定的维度,定量方法支持更简单的模型,具有更普遍的适用性。研究结果表明,即使模型和项目是局部的,因素分析也支持一般的组织公民行为模型。
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
Sri Lanka Journal of Social Sciences
Sri Lanka Journal of Social Sciences SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Sri Lanka Journal of Social Sciences (SLJSS) was launched in 1978 as a premier social science journal in Sri Lanka. Published twice a year (in June and December), it entertains social science contributions in the form of Research articles, Review articles, Work-in-progress articles and Correspondence, and publishes invited Book Reviews. The journal publishes social science articles in Sinhala, Tamil and English languages, on topics relevant to Sri Lanka in particular and South Asia in general. All papers are subjected to double-blind peer-review.
期刊最新文献
Why a proactive research culture is necessary for advancing social sciences in Sri Lanka? Gendered state: &lsquo;Governmentality&rsquo; and the labour migration policy of Sri Lanka Impact of financial market development on economic growth: evidence from Sri Lanka Five years of RTI regime in Sri Lanka: factors causing low proactive disclosure of information and possible remedies Spiritual thirdspace and silent faith: reading the parallax between Buddhism and Christianity in the movie <em>Silence</em> (2016)
×
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