Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

Last reviewed: February 2017

Abstract

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) describes non-mandatory prosocial behaviors in the workplace. In any business or nonprofit organization, there are inevitably people who are willing to put in some extra effort beyond what they have to do to remain employed, for example, working an extra shift to help out a fellow employee or organizing an employee book club. OCB has long been a topic of interest to researchers, who want to find out how the presence of OCB affects the climate and productivity of the workplace, as well as what causes one person to display OCB while another person does not.

Overview

Organizational citizenship behavior’s defining characteristic is that it is not among an employee’s mandatory duties. In other words, it represents contributions that an employee makes—of time, of expertise, of hard work—that the employee does “for the greater good” rather than in anticipation of being rewarded. Given the proper context, almost any type of action can be considered as an example of organizational citizenship. This is because organizational citizenship behavior almost always involves an employee who sees a need within the organization, and who then takes steps to fill that need. For example, in an office where the photocopier jams frequently, one employee might take it upon herself to clear the jams each time they occur, instead of waiting for someone else to do it.

Minor contributions, such as clearing paper jams, may seem unimportant to the organization’s overall well-being, particularly in the case of huge multinational corporations, but OCB is prized by managers nevertheless. This is because even small, helpful acts can accomplish great things given enough time and persistence. What is more, OCB tends to be contagious. When employees see one person giving more of themselves simply because it is the right thing to do, then some of the observers will inevitably be inspired to do the same. This prosocial behavior then propagates outward like ripples on the surface of a pond, until it spreads throughout the organization (Yang, Ding & Lo, 2016).

OCB is closely related to another concept: contextual performance. Contextual behaviors can be distinguished because they are not task based and manifest as positive attitudes. They include traits, such as consistent, long-term enthusiasm, which help improve the organizational climate and may nurture OCB.

When the topic of OCB is raised, the conversation inevitably turns to wondering how it can be inspired and supported. This is because for many years researchers have recognized the existence of a connection between OCB and positive outcomes for the organization where it occurs. These positive outcomes can manifest in a number of different ways, including increased employee morale, reductions in the use of sick leave, and higher productivity. High levels of OCB have also been seen as one factor that tends to reduce the number of employee grievances and lawsuits.

Organizations have taken notice of these many benefits, and as a result there has been a more intense research focus seeking to discover how the mechanisms underlying OCB operate. On the one hand, organizations want to create the type of environment in which employees wish to practice citizenship behavior. However, when too heavy handed an approach is used, then the citizenship behavior that is supposed to be voluntary begins to take on a more mandatory character, as employees begin to feel that “going the extra mile” is expected of everyone (Cetin, Gürbüz & Sert, 2015). If this shift occurs, then the organizational climate can very quickly sour and even result in counterproductive work behavior, as employees feel that management is promoting organizational citizenship as nothing more than a new way of squeezing more work out of staff without having to pay additional wages. Managers’ goal, then, is to understand how to foster OCB in ways that are subtle enough that people will not be aware of the encouragement (Weikamp & Göritz, 2016).

An interesting aspect of OCB is that it is most effective on an interpersonal level when an employee provides individualized support to another member of the staff. In other words, the most effective forms of OCB involve workers providing one another with assistance that is specific to their individual needs: One person might need a ride home from work in the evenings, another might need guidance about workplace politics, and a third might need help locating affordable child care.

What tends to happen in large organizations is that when the organization wishes to provide special support to its employees, it does so in as generic a way as possible, in order to avoid being exposed to accusations of favoritism or discrimination. So, all employees are given the same day off, or provided with the same type of coffee mug, or given a coupon for the same amount of money in the cafeteria. This one size fits all approach has the advantage of being easy and of being perceived as fair, but it also lacks the element of individual tailoring that makes OCB so much more impactful. In a way, this is to be expected, because corporations and other large entities tend to specialize in mass production of standardized commodities. Indeed, part of the value of OCB is due precisely to the contrast between individual support and the more generic assistance that an organization can provide. In other words, if organizations consistently provided employees with support that is customized to their needs, then OCB would be much less remarkable and might even escape notice altogether (Wang & Sung, 2016).

Identifying those who practice OCB or even the frequency with which it occurs in an organization can be challenging. When surveys are conducted with this goal in mind, a problem that is often encountered is that practitioners of OCB may not recognize their own extra effort as such, instead seeing it as simply behaving appropriately. Consequently, these employees may fail to properly identify their own OCB, causing it to be underreported. Usually the most reliable way to detect OCB is by looking for its symptoms: high morale and employee satisfaction ratings.

Another method is to investigate the corporate culture that prevails in the organization. Corporate culture is difficult to define in the same way that OCB is, but can be summed up by the phrase “the way we do things.” Corporate cultures are almost like the personality of an organization; they can be open, welcoming and friendly, professional and efficient, or cold and competitive. Certain types of corporate cultures facilitate OCB more than others.

Generally speaking, a corporate culture that is flexible is more likely to experience OCB because it is able to make accommodations—for example, in scheduling—that allow employees to assist coworkers. When there is a lack of flexibility then employees feel less comfortable stepping outside the bounds of their ordinary duties, and as a result they are less likely to engage in discretionary activities that further the company’s mission. The tendency of organizations to try to treat everyone equally can, ironically, operate against the organization’s ability to show flexibility and understanding when necessary (Yang et al., 2016).

Further Insights

Much of the research into OCB is focused on trying to identify factors that encourage it. Many potentially influential factors are somewhat outside an organization’s control or its ability to influence in the short term, such as the size of the organization, the organization’s stability in its environment (financial and otherwise), and the personal circumstances of employees. As a result, interest in the effects of leadership styles on encouraging or discouraging OCB has grown, since leadership style is a variable that the organization can exert some control over.

Not surprisingly, research suggests that transformative leadership and servant leadership are styles that tend to produce more frequent incidences of OCB. On the opposite side of the coin, transactional leadership style and laissez-faire leadership produce OCB only rarely, and in some cases they appear to actually inhibit OCB. Researchers speculate that this is because OCB relies heavily upon individuals being acknowledged by the organization, as expressed through the actions and affect of their leaders. Organizational justice appears to be an important contributing factor in OCB.

When employees feel that they are simply cogs in a machine and that they can easily be replaced, this gives them the sense that the organization is not invested in them, and the logical extension of this thought is to conclude that there is no reason for them to be invested in the organization. Transactional leadership style and laissez-faire leadership both tend to produce this type of attitude (and discourage extra-role behaviors) because they deemphasize the bond between leaders and followers (Mai, Ellis, Christian & Porter, 2016). In contrast, servant leadership and transformational leadership both inspire organizational commitment and OCB because they operate by creating and strengthening the employee-leader bond.

It is important to note, however, that these tendencies are based upon a significant assumption, which is that the leader whose leadership style is being examined is aligned with the organization and its conduct and principles. Often this is assumed, because for many employees, their leader—whether this is their immediate supervisor or the organization’s overall boss—personifies the organization and sets the tone for the relationship the employee has with the organization (Rose, 2016).

Still, there are many cases in which an employee’s leader may be perceived as at odds with the organization; employees may feel that the organization is corrupt or dysfunctional, but that they personally have a good boss to whom they are loyal. Or, employees may have a strong, positive connection with the organization yet feel that they are simply unlucky to have an unpleasant supervisor.

Regardless of which of these scenarios is in place, the implications for an employee’s motivation toward OCB are significant. In the good boss, bad organization scenario, OCB is likely to be motivated by the employee’s personal feelings toward their leader, while in the bad boss, good organization configuration, the motivation will be to help the organization and its mission in spite of how the leader behaves. OCB is still beneficial in either situation, but understanding how it has developed is crucial if an organization is to be able to encourage those practices that support OCB so that they become norms throughout the organization rather than remaining the personal habits and styles of isolated individuals.

Viewpoints

Disagreement exists among researchers who have studied OCB as to its root cause. To frame the debate in simple terms, one group asserts that a significant number of those who exhibit such behavior do so because it is part of their own individual personality and not because of any quality or circumstance of the organization itself. In this view, people who perform OCB do so simply because it is in their nature to be helpful and supportive, and they would behave the same way at any organization they belong to. Certainly there is anecdotal support for this position, as most people can think of at least one or two acquaintances who match this description.

Be that as it may, others contend that OCB requires more than just the luck of having a magnanimous employee (Matta et al., 2015). Their perspective is that even the nicest and most selfless of employees have some circumstances in which they do not feel compelled to do their utmost for the organization. Therefore, their reasoning goes, OCB must be a behavior that emerges when there is the right combination of factors on the part of the individual and of the organization to create a special relationship that is fundamentally different from the norm.

Various terms have been used to describe this special relationship, with the most common being “organizational commitment.” Organizational commitment is a state that is internal to an employee and it occurs when employees begin to think of themselves not simply as individuals working for an organization, but as members of the organization working on its behalf and part of something larger than themselves. Put another way, organizational commitment is the stage of employee and organizational interrelatedness at which employees become likely to engage in OCB.

Organizational commitment represents the creation of an emotional connection between employees and the organization, something that is difficult to quantify or predict. Some qualities, such as job satisfaction, can at least be approximated numerically by having employees assign themselves a score along a scale to indicate the level of their satisfaction (Chia-Huei, Jun, Ho Kwong & Lee, 2016).

Organizational commitment is more difficult to summarize in this fashion, largely because it tends to emerge out of the particular circumstances of an individual, and these are tied to individual perspectives and priorities—perhaps one person feels a bond with the organization because it provided the health insurance that allowed one of her relatives to receive life saving treatment, while another employee is satisfied because he was allowed to take time off of work to care for a sick pet. Both of these individuals may feel just as much organizational commitment, motivating them to perform similar acts of organizational citizenship, even though the circumstances that triggered these sentiments were very different and therefore challenging to predict (Chak Fu, Wan & Roussin, 2016).

Terms & Concepts

Contextual Performance: Contextual performance is a set of behaviors that are very similar to OCB, so the two categories are frequently confused with one another. Contextual behaviors can be distinguished because they are not related to a specific task; they include traits such as consistent, long-term enthusiasm, which help improve the organizational climate.

Counterproductive Work Behavior: Counterproductive work behavior is essentially the opposite of OCB, and includes any activities or behaviors that interfere with the organization’s goals.

Extra-role Behavior: Extra-role behavior is often confused with OCB. It is can be thought of as a specific subtype of OCB, and includes activities that an employee undertakes in the hope of helping the organization, but which are not related to tasks that are part of the employee’s portfolio.

Organizational Commitment: Organizational Commitment is a state that is internal to an employee and it occurs when employees begin to think of themselves not simply as individuals working for an organization, but as members of the organization working on its behalf and part of something larger than themselves.

Organizational Justice: Organizational justice is a mental construct that describes each employee’s beliefs about whether or not the organization as a whole treats people fairly and does work that is worthwhile. Faith in organizational justice tends to correlate with OCB, as people feel more of a desire to contribute to an organization when they have a positive view of it.

Prosocial Organizational Behavior: Prosocial organizational behavior is behavior that benefits another, but that is not necessarily useful to the company in particular. When coworkers help one another with personal issues, they are engaging in prosocial organizational behavior.

Bibliography

Cetin, S., Gürbüz, S., & Sert, M. (2015). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational commitment and OCB: Test of potential moderator variables. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 27(4), 281–303. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=110546655&site=ehost-live

Chak Fu, L., Wan, W. H., & Roussin, C. J. (2016). Going the extra mile and feeling energized: An enrichment perspective of OCBs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 379–391. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=113467923&site=ehost-live

Chia-Huei, W., Jun, L., Ho Kwong, K., & Lee, C. (2016). Why and when workplace ostracism inhibits OCBs: An organizational identification perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 362–378. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=113467922&site=ehost-live

Mai, K. M., Ellis, A. J., Christian, J. S., & Porter, C. H. (2016). Examining the effects of turnover intentions on OCBs and deviance behaviors: A psychological contract approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1067–1081. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=117331589&site=ehost-live

Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Koopman, J., & Conlon, D. E. (2015). Does seeing “eye to eye” affect work engagement and OCB? A role theory perspective on lmx agreement. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1686–1708. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=111856011&site=ehost-live

Rose, K. (2016). Examining OCB in the context of human resource development: An integrative review of the literature. Human Resource Development Review, 15(3), 295–316.

Wang, Y., & Sung, W. (2016). Predictors of OCB: Ethical leadership and workplace jealousy. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(1), 117–128. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=115131564&site=ehost-live

Weikamp, J. G., & Göritz, A. S. (2016). Organizational citizenship behaviour and job satisfaction: The impact of occupational future time perspective. Human Relations, 69(11), 2091–2115. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=118946170&site=ehost-live

Yang, C., Ding, C. G., & Lo, K. W. (2016). Ethical leadership and multidimensional OCBs: The mediating effects of self-efficacy, respect, and leader–member exchange. Group & Organization Management, 41(3), 343–374. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=114868560&site=ehost-live

Yang, L., Simon, L. S., Wang, L., & Zheng, X. (2016). To branch out or stay focused? Affective shifts differentially predict OCB and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(6), 831–845.

Suggested Reading

Astakhova, M. N. (2015). The curvilinear relationship between work passion and OCB. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(2), 361–374. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=108674078&site=ehost-live

Bolino, M. C., Hsiung, H., Harvey, J., & LePine, J. A. (2015). “Well, I’m tired of tryin’!” OCB and citizenship fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 56–74. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=100434477&site=ehost-live

Chak Fu, L., Ashford, S. J., Jian, L., & Lee, C. (2015). Job insecurity and OCB: Exploring curvilinear and moderated relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 499–510. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=101435999&site=ehost-live

Lemoine, G. J., Parsons, C. K., & Kansara, S. (2015). Above and beyond, again and again: Self-regulation in the aftermath of OCBs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 40–55. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bsu&AN=100434476&site=ehost-live