Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in a Multi-Cultural Setting
Kevin Rose
Assistant Professor
University of Louisville
kevin.rose@louisville.edu
A Working Paper Submitted for Presentation at the 16th International Conference on Human
Resource Development Research and Practice
Comparative & Cross Cultural Dimensions of HRD Stream
Abstract
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) have been described in the research literature as
behaviors that are extra-role, not formally rewarded, and contribute positively to the
organization. These kinds of pro-social behaviors are important to team and organizational
success because they ensure that social relationships in the organization remain stable and
positive. Though understanding these behaviors is important, an oft-ignored, but nevertheless
important aspect of these behaviors may be the influence of different cultural backgrounds on the
definition and operationalization of OCB. This paper proposes a study of organizational
citizenship behaviors (OCB) in an organization employing individuals from various cultural
backgrounds. The findings may offer a new aspect for both practitioners and researchers in
understanding the phenomenon of OCB.
Keywords: organizational citizenship behavior, multiculturalism
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in a Multi-Cultural Setting
Organizations are continually striving to become more successful in terms of financial
performance, product output, or service delivery (Goldberg & Fleming, 2010). Thus, they turn to
their human, physical, and financial capital searching for ways to become more efficient and
productive. Scholars and practitioners alike have known that employees (human resources) have
a significant impact on the success or failure of organizations, and that by properly motivating
them to perform, organizations can see improved metrics of success (Caswell, 2009). Clearly, a
major interest of HRM/HRD professionals is to empower employees with proper training,
development, and work conditions that lead to organizational performance.
However, there is more to employee performance than simply carrying out formal job
duties (Organ, 1988). Some activities are undertaken that are not part of employees’ job
descriptions, are not rewarded by any formal systems, and yet still contribute positively to the
organization (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002). These activities, known as organizational
citizenship behaviors (OCBs), have a profound impact on organizations and teams, and
investigating them is crucial to understanding social constructs that lead to organizational and
team success (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Further, a more nuanced understanding of these
behaviors enables both managers and human resource professionals to create the necessary work
conditions that foster increased OCB. While scholarly attention to OCB as a line of research is
significant, there are still theoretical and conceptual areas for consideration.
Most studies involving OCBs have been conducted in the US employment context.
Although empirical investigation on OCBs in a non-US context do exist, they are scant (see e.g.
Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Farh, Zhong, & Organ, 2004; Cohen, 2006). Furthermore, the
existing literature on OCBs does not consider this construct situated in a multi-cultural context
involving large numbers of individuals from various cultural and national backgrounds. Thus,
the purpose of this study is to understand the differences that may exist between cultural groups
in the exhibition of OCB in one organization.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Most scholars believe that OCBs fall into the category of “extra-role” behaviors
(Chughtai, 2008), a notion that includes both OCBs and those behaviors employees engage in
that are counterproductive and negatively impact the organization, such as retaliation, revenge,
and aggression (Miles, Borman, Spector, & Fox, 2002). Although some may argue that
counterproductive behaviors exist on a continuum (with OCBs at the opposite end), empirical
evidence indicates that OCBs are a separate and distinct construct from negative workplace
behaviors (Kelloway, Loughlin, Barling, & Nault, 2002). These two concepts are related, but
correlates and predictors differ. For example, Miles, Borman, Spector, and Fox (2002) found that
positive emotions in the workplace tend to produce more OCBs while negative emotions are
associated with counterproductive behavior. Further research has strengthened the claim that
these two sets of behaviors are separate constructs with differing predictors, and even indicate
that these behaviors can be simultaneously exhibited by the same individual (Sackett, Berry,
Wiemann, & Laczo, 2006).
Defining OCB has been the subject of much scholarly research. It has been proposed that
OCB is a multidimensional construct, but the construction of those dimensions varies. Many
suggest that OCB can be thought of as consisting of five dimensions: altruism,
conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002).
However, others propose that there are perhaps seven dimensions to OCB: helping behavior,
organizational loyalty, individual initiative, organizational compliance, self-development, civic
virtue, and sportsmanship (Podsakoff, et al., 2000). Note the overlap that exists between two
previous definitions. Others propose that OCB has but two dimensions: behaviors targeted at
individuals and behaviors targeted at the organization (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Differing
streams of research have supported each idea of the multidimensionality of OCB and perhaps
these dimensions are convergent in some ways.
Another issue faced by those interested in understanding OCB is the extra-role nature of
these behaviors. While Organ’s (1988) original definition of these behaviors explicitly labeled
them as “discretionary” (p. 4), some have argued that fully operationalizing these behaviors as
outside of what is required of an employee is problematic (Vey & Campbell, 2004; VigodaGadot, 2007). While some job definitions may not include specific reference to OCB, it is
understood that at least some of these behaviors (e.g. helping behavior) are part of a person’s role
in the organization. Other circumstances or managers may pressure employees into these kinds
of behaviors (both explicitly and implicitly), introducing the notion of a compulsory citizenship
behavior (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007). This varying interpretation of OCB points to the hypothesis
that the understanding, meaning, and operationalization of OCB may not be universally held
across contexts and environments. Moreover, different cultural backgrounds may indeed
influence how OCB are enacted even within one organization.
Understanding of Work
Whether or not OCB are in-role or extra-role may also depend upon the cultural
background and influences of an individual. One of the most well-known theories of how work
may be different for different cultures is Hofstede’s (1981) theory of cultural dimensions. His
work describes how prevailing cultural values may differ in different national cultures, and
though his work has been criticized (cf. Blodgett, Bakir, & Rose, 2008), the value of
understanding how the meaning of work is constructed is nevertheless important for those who
work across national boundaries or in multicultural settings (Smith, 2008). Furthermore, Ciulla
(2001) describes the importance of cultural context and how cultural values can influence how an
individual constructs the meaning of work and his or her perceptions of what it means to work
(the behaviors that are included and excluded). These ideas lend credence to the idea that OCB
may be constructed differently in different cultural contexts. These different meanings may be
exacerbated in a multinational organization or in a multi-cultural environment where individuals
from various cultural backgrounds work together to achieve common goals.
Method
To understand if differences in OCB exist between different cultural groups within one
organization, this study will use a complimentary, sequential mixed-methods design (Brewerton
& Millward, 2009). First, a scale measuring OCB and gathering demographic information
(including national origin) will be deployed to the target organization. Second, semi-structured
interviews with individuals from differing cultural groups in the same organization will be
conducted to understand their interpretation, definition, and operationalization of OCB.
The specific organization chosen for this study is a branch of a US governmental
organization located in a metropolitan European city. This organization employs US citizens
(both military and non-military) as well as individuals from the local community (including
citizens and non-citizens of the host country). This site provides an interesting opportunity to
investigate the enactment of OCB from differing cultural perspectives because of the various
nationalities that are employed. ANOVA will be used to compare differences in levels of OCB
between cultural groups in this organization. However, qualitative data gained through the
interview process may shed light on why and how OCB could differ between groups.
Implications for HRD Theory and Practice
Understanding OCB from the lens of multiculturalism may help both practitioners and
researchers improve the meaning of work for individuals. When differences in cultural values
exist, conflict frustration may arise because of differing constructions of the meaning of work.
Because of the positive impact of OCB on individuals, teams, and organizations (Chahal &
Mehta, 2010), managers and supervisors have an interest in providing work environments
conducive to these behaviors. However, a more nuanced understanding of how OCB are
understood from the employee perspective and if, indeed, these behaviors may differ between
different cultural groups is necessary.
Similarly, the theoretical understanding of OCB enactment within organizations may
benefit from a more thorough view of these behaviors. Because of the research emphasis on US
samples and organizations, a skewed view of OCB (at least from a multicultural perspective)
may have arisen. This study may assist with further clarifying and extending the research in this
important area and providing a new lens through which to view OCB.
References
Blodgett, J. G., Bakir, A., & Rose, G. M. (2008). A test of the validity of Hofstede’s cultural
framework. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(6), 339-349. doi:
10.1108/07363760810902477
Brewerton, P., & Millward, L. (2001). Organizational research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Caswell, B. (2009). Stimulating 'Lazy' Employees. Canadian HR Reporter, 22(2), 21.
Chahal, H., & Mehta, S. (2010). Antecedents and consequences of organizational citizenship
behaviour (OCB): A conceptual framework in reference to health care sector. Journal of
Services Research, 10(2), 25-44.
Chughtai, A. A. (2008). Impact of job involvement on in-role job performance and
organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management,
9(2), 169-183.
Ciulla, J. B. (2001). The working life: The promise and betrayal of modern work. New York,
NY: Crown Business.
Cohen, A. (2006). The relationship between multiple commitments and organizational
citizenship behavior in Arab and Jewish culture. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1),
105-118.
Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in the
People's Republic of China. Organization Science, 15(2), 241-253.
Goldberg, A. J., & Fleming, W. P. (2010). Cost-containment and cost-management strategies.
Journal of Healthcare Management, 55(5), 308-311.
Hofstede, G. (1981). Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management and
Organizations, 10(4), 15-41.
Kelloway, E. K., Loughlin, C., Barling, J., & Nault, A. (2002). Self-reported counterproductive
behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors: Separate but related constructs.
International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 10(1/2), 143-152.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of
organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52-65.
Miles, D. E., Borman, W. E., Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). Building an integrative model of
extra role work behaviors: A comparison of counterproductive work behavior with
organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Selection & Assessment,
10(1/2), 51-58.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism‐collectivism as an individual difference
predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of organizational behavior,
16(2), 127-142.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome.
Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.
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(3), 513-563.
Sackett, P. R., Berry, C. M., Wiemann, S. A., & Laczo, R. M. (2006). Citizenship and
counterproductive behavior: Clarifying relations between the two domains. Human
Performance, 19(4), 441-464.
Smith, P. B. (2008). Indigenous aspects of management. In P. Smith, M. Peterson, & D. Thomas
(Eds.), The handbook of cross-cultural management research (pp. 319-332). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature
and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663.
Vey, M. A., & Campbell, J. P. (2004). In-role or extra-role organizational citizenship behavior:
Which are we measuring? Human Performance, 17(1), 119-135.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination of
compulsory extra-role behavior in the workplace. Journal of Business & Psychology,
21(3), 377-405.
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(3), 601-618.