Organizationalcitizenship behaviour can be referred to as behaviours that workers have in theorganization that go beyond the basic requirements of their job.
These arebehaviours described often as actions that exceed the necessity of their jobs,a lot of work has been done about this area of research since it was introducednearly two decades ago (Bateman & Organ, 1984). The major contributions of organizationalcitizenship behaviour have expounded on the effects that organizationalbehaviour on the performance of organizations and individuals, there is a generalagreement in this area of research that these behaviours underpin certainbehaviours in organizations and enterprises (Barbuto et al., 2001). Anyorganization that has recorded a great deal of success in its operations hasworkers that exceed their stated job descriptions and don’t mind givingthemselves to the success of their assigned duties.
This sort of altruism isnot demanded or required but it contributes greatly to the successful runningof organizations. Organizations would not perform so well if their workforce donot act as good citizens of the organization and carrying out positive acts leadingto progress. This has lead to the obvious importance of organizations havinggood citizens in their workers, knowing what leads to organizationalcitizenship behaviour and the nature has become highly important for scholars eventill now (Organ, 1988).Organizationalcitizenship behaviour in literature has been explained as a concept of multipledimensions that covers every good behaviour relevant to the organization andits employees, which includes their given roles and other extra roles, andbehaviours that are political and total responsible participation in theorganization (Van Dyne et al., 1994). A researcher named Organ (1988) put forththat organizational citizenship behaviour is very important for theorganization to survive, he further explained that organizational citizenshipbehaviour can put to the best use to increase efficiency of both organizationand employees, including their productivity and this contributes to the overallbetter functioning of the organization.
Researchers in issues as regards theworld of work such as Brief, have supported this position, which is the need tomake effective the behaviours that have been called organizational citizenshipbehaviour as effective (George & Brief, 1992). HISTORY OF OCBThereis a consensus to the existence of the concept of organizational citizenshipbehaviour but there is a lower degree of agreement on the theories thatunderpin this display of these behaviours. Organizational citizenshipbehaviour, OCB is a term that was proposed by Organ when he was attempting toexpand his knowledge on these behaviours that have not been named as apreferred measure of performance in the controversy that good performance iscaused by satisfaction (Organ, 1977).Thishad led to numerous research works that have tried to examine what predictsOCB, these includes satisfaction of jobs, commitment to the organization, andjustice perceptions (Moorman, 1991; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Moorman,Niehoff & Organ, 1993; Organ & Konovsky, 1989; Robinson & Morrison,1995; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Williams & Anderson, 1991), and a host ofother things. Organ and Ryan (1995) found in their analysis that variables thatare attitudinal have shown the greatest deal of relationship with OCB,variables such as level of commitment, their satisfaction with the job and whatthey perceive as fairness. Though predictors that are based on personality havenot been consistent because the results of research have not been able to givefurther answers across previous results (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Organ, 1994).Organizational citizenship behaviour can also be considered as behaviours thatpromote and show affiliation of the person acting and a desire to have acontinuous relationship with the object involved, this refers to the worker andthe organization they find themselves while contributing to the success of thatorganization (Van Dyne et al., 1995).
OCB DEFINEDBehavioursthat portray readiness of people to put in more energy than their employmentcontract stipulates for their given job positions has been pointed out for along while as an important element for organizational performance to beeffective. To shed more light on this, more than fifty years ago, Barnard(1938) explained that the keenness of people to put in more effort corporatelycannot be dispensed for the attainment of the goals and objectives. He furtherexplained that not only should people put in effort to their roles to attaingoals and objectives, such efforts must be given to also sustain theorganization. Workers are different in the level of their willingness toimprove the cooperate system, and this variation cannot be measuredproportionally to the variation in their ability.
Katz and Kahn’s (1966)furthered the argument on the corporative system. They posited that systems oforganizations would breakdown if this numerous act of cooperation were absent.They also observed that what motivates such random acts, informal acts ofcontribution are not the same with those that cause proficiency in taskperformance. These findings spurred more research work into the area. A lot ofpositive behavioural constructs as pertaining to work such as pro-socialbehaviour in organizations, extra-role behaviour, organizational spontaneity,have all been proposed but organizational citizenship behaviour and contextualperformance got the most attention and spurred various empirical research.Asproposed by Organ (1988), a person’s behaviour is optional in organizationalcitizenship behaviour.
It is not evidently or clearly acknowledged by thereward system of the workplace officially but the sum of it enhances theeffectiveness of organization. Katz’s (1964) observed the idea of workersextra-role behaviours. He discovered that workers voluntarily give more effortfor the achievement of organizational objectives. Organ based his construct oforganizational citizenship behaviour on results posited by Barnard (1938) andKatz (1964).Thougha lot of work and research has gone into this area, it has still been difficultto precisely define what organizational citizenship behaviour is and theoperationalization of it. A lot of this issue rests on the fact that mostresearch on OCB have been considering in in relation to other constructs,instead of properly examining what the exact nature of the construct is.
Regardless of this, one this is certain, it is impossible for bosses to forcethose in their workforce to perform duties or actions in that line. It is alsonot expected of employees to anticipate rewards for such actions carried out.Although there is no formal reward system for this, supervisors in workplacesdo take note of such behaviours and give rewards both expressly and otherwisesuch as promotions, rating them better in appraisals, treating thempreferentially and a lot of other things (Organ, 1997). In addition to thisassertion, Organ (1988) in his work stated that the behaviours areintrinsically motivated and the need to do them arises from a deep sense withinfor achievement, feeling of competence, affiliation or a sense of belonging. Organ(1988) postulated that organizational citizenship behaviour is different fromconstructs such as organizational commitment which was posited by otherorganizational researchers.
Though they might be empirically related (Cohen& Vigoda, 2000), it is worthy of note that organizational citizenshipbehaviour focuses on a set of behaviours by employees while organizationalcommitment is based on attitude, and is measured by a scale or responses toitems. Organs distinct contribution was to showcase work behaviours, OCB thatpertained to satisfaction of jobs and the variables that might bring meaningafter being examined considering important behaviours in the workplace that arerelated to job attitudes.PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOURProsocialbehaviour can be compared to organizational citizenship behaviour and it can beseen to cover behaviours directed towards enhancing the welfare of a person, agroup or the organization at large (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986).
The majordifference between prosocial behaviour and organizational citizenship behaviouris that, prosocial behaviour can be totally unrelated to work issues and mayinvolve issues of the employee’s personal life. Prosocial behaviour connotes acategory of actions that are seen by a major part of the society or a socialgroup and benefitting to other people. Prosocial behaviour gained attention inpsychology because of McDougall (1908), who postulated that it is because of”tender emotions” created by the instinct of parent. More currently, researchshows that it has foundations in scientific reactions to unresponsive onlookersin the ruthless murder of Katherine “Kitty” Genovese in 1964.