An Investigation of Dispositional and Contextual Determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behavior - Coursework Example

An Investigation of Dispositional and Contextual Determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Name) (Affiliation) Abstract Even when unrewarded, there are employees who are willing to walk an extra mile for their organizations. This behavior redounds to the benefit of organization. This paper attempts to bring to the fore the relative importance of BOTH the dispositional and the situational determinants of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) – which are very often researched on and studied separately. Involving 148 participants, three self-report questionnaires were made accessible online for anonymous completion. With the data culled and analyzed, the general predictions of this paper were validated. These are (1) that the dimensions of helpfulness and empathy towards others must be positively related to OCB; and (2) that in conjunction to the findings of the prior studies, fairness of formal procedures and interactional justice – the dimensions of the situational or contextual determinants – are positively related to OCB. These findings prod us to consider premature any attempt to sideline personality as an influencing variable to OCB. Nevertheless, these findings do not necessarily mean that OCB is influenced only by dispositional factors. We have to factor in the determinants that issue from one’s environment or context – although, critically too. For, as it appears, the determination of OCB is never formulaic – about which we hope to be guided better as we accomplish it by the ensuing studies along this line in the future. Introduction An extra-role behavior, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB, for brevity) is not a part of one’s formal job description and/or requirements (Penner, Midili & Kegelmeyer 1997, p. 114). Under one’s personal control because it’s not part of formal organizational reward system, OCB is discretionary (Moorman 1991, p. 845). It is characteristically pro-social and voluntary. While OCB is distinct from a bystander’s acts of kindness and voluntarism as well, it has the stuffs of short-term and spontaneous initiatives by people in the street and is concomitantly similar to voluntarism in concept and in praxis (Penner, Midili & Kegelmeyer 1997, p. 114). And, while in essence OCB is not practicably enforceable by supervision, it ultimately redounds to the benefit of the organization and the members of the organization (Konovsky & Organ 1996, p. 253). To the individual members of the organization, OCB results to happiness and well-being; for the organization, OCB lessens the incidences of employee withdrawal (turnover and/or absenteeism), promotes greater productivity and workers’ efficiency, and raises the level of employees’ organizational commitment – among others. Now, as in the general case of nature-nurture debate concerning human development, OCB are said to be brought about by at least two general factors. These factors are the human personality and situation or context within which one lives, thrives or belongs – as in an organization. Especially in the early researches on OCB in the 1980’s (see Konovsky & Organ 1996, p. 253), academicians and practitioners of organizational behavior and work psychology would bank on job satisfaction – a form of human attitude, which in its turn is a facet of human personality -- as predictor of OCB. And, considering that job satisfaction has cognitive and affective components, it becomes almost commonsensical to grasp that employees who believe they are being treated equally, for instance, are more likely to exhibit OCB. And, since organizational justice breeds positive mood among the workers, those who regard life in general and work in particular in healthy perspective are expected to find more reason to maintain their predisposition and increase the likelihood of working in such a positive environment (Penner, Midili & Kegelmeyer 1996, p. 115-117). More recent researches (in the 1990’s), however, point out the supposed superiority of contextual factor such as the workers’ individual and collective experience(s) of fairness over job satisfaction. It is even argued, actually, that job satisfaction is unrelated to OCB, specifically in instances when fairness is statistically controlled. In fact, it is said that experience of fairness even serves as one of the bases of job satisfaction, implying that the latter is actually tied to the cumulative experience of the context of the work (see Konovsky & Organ 1996, p. 253). These two divergent positions are put to task by contemporary researchers who argue that situational determinants are fundamentally dispositional in nature. Konovsky & Organ (1996) cites studies involving identical twins whose job satisfaction variance is pronounced as due to genetic bases and persons who, despite their transfer from one job to another, would still register correlational measures of their job satisfaction (p. 254). Candidly put, though, this “middle ground” position does not go unchallenged either, effectively rendering the entire debate concerning the dispositional and situational determinants of OCB far from being settled. That this debate is needed to be resolved points to the fact that the whole issue of OCB determinants is far from being mere academic. For this concern has a lot to contribute to organizational management. Should dispositional elements be more powerful influence to OCB, the hiring process and the on-going trainings of the employees would be made to show a predilection to understanding personality types and improving workers’ personality. On similar account, should it be found that contextual elements are more influential to OCB, the management’s principal concern then would be to define, initiate and sustain a facilitating organizational culture. Given this context, this paper would attempt to explore the comparative relations between dispositional and contextual variables on OCB. This is going to be accomplished by delving on the specific effects of the specified dimensions of both the pro-social personality orientation (that is, helpfulness and other-oriented empathy) and procedural justice (procedural justice and interactional justice) on OCB. At the outset, let us clarify that this paper proceeds with the following hypotheses. Firstly, this paper maintains that parallel to the findings of the earlier researches, the dimensions of helpfulness and empathy towards others must be positively related to OCB. And, secondly, this paper holds too that in conjunction to the findings of the prior studies, fairness of formal procedures and interactional justice – the dimensions of the situational or contextual determinants – are positively related to OCB. Method The Participants The total number of participants for this study is 148. They were the students of HPS307/791 in trimester 1, 2009. Of these participants, eighteen (18) were males and one hundred thirty (130) were females. The male participants aged between 20 and 53 (with mean pegged at 32 and standard deviation at11). The females were of 19 to 52 years old (with mean valued at 24 and standard deviation at 7). The Instruments This study has involved three measurement instruments. The first questionnaire is the Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Altruism) Scale. Known formally as Altruism Scale, this instrument was developed by Smith, Organ & Near (1983). This questionnaire has a total number of five (5) items. It is self-report measure using five-point Likert items where 1 is assigned to “strongly disagree” and 5 is to “strongly agree.” The general score is the product of the participant’s response to each item. The second questionnaire is the Prosocial Personality Orientation Scale. Formally called the Prosocial Personality Battery (modified), this questionnaire is using a modified and much shorter version of the questionnaire developed by Penner et al (1995). It has a total number of ten (10) items, with six (6) items for empathy towards others and four (4) items for helpfulness per sub-scale. This is a self-report measure that employs five-point Likert items where 1 is assigned to “strongly disagree” and 5 to “strongly agree”. As in the first questionnaire that we used, every participant’s over-all score is determined by summing up his/her response to every item. Finally, to measure the dimensions of the situational elements of OCB, the instrument that was reportedly used by Moorman (1991, p. 847) was employed. This instrument provides for measurement of procedural justice and interactional justice. Items that tap formal procedures were intentionally set to measure the degree by which fair procedures are employed in the organizations. These are those that promote consistency, bias suppression, accuracy, correctability, representativeness, and ethicality. In similar vein, items on fairness perceptions of the interactions accompanying an organization’s formal procedures are incorporated in this instrument. These items are determining whether the supervisor was considerate and kind, whether the supervisor was mindful of the workers’ rights, and/or whether the supervisor treats his/her subordinates in the spirit of truth. As reported by Shelton (2005), Moorman’s instrument in ascertaining perception of procedural justice has reliability of .85 (and a Comparative Fit Index [CFI] of .92 [acceptable]) while his questionnaires on measuring interactional justice has reliability rate of .92 (and CFI rate of .91) (p. 7). The Procedure The students of HPS307/791 in trimester 1, 2009 were invited to participate in this study. They were instructed to complete an internet-based survey anonymously containing the three (3) self-report questionnaires mentioned above. Each of the participants were expected to devote at least a minimum of ten (10) minutes for each of the questionnaires. Results The data culled from this endeavor were correlationally analyze in order to fundamentally ascertain the relationships between OCB and the identified elements or dimensions of OCB’s determinants. Table 1 (see below) shows the means and standard deviation of the variables involved in this study. We are being shown that participants are, on average, practically high in helpfulness, empathy towards others, fairness of formal procedures, fairness of interpersonal interaction and OCB. Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations of the Major Variables Means Standard deviation Helpfulness 15.9 2.35 Other-oriented empathy 25.4 2.93 Fairness of formal procedures 22.3 5.53 Interactional justice 20.9 5.30 Organizational citizenship behavior 20.1 3.03 Notes: 1. Possible range of pro-social orientation “helpfulness” sub-scale = 4 to 20 2. Possible range of pro-social orientation “empathy for others” sub-scale = 6 to 30 3. Possible range of “fairness of formal procedures” sub-scale = 7 to 35 4. Possible range of “fairness of interactional justice” sub-scale = 6 to 30 5. Possible range of OCB (altruism) scale = 5 to 25 Table 2 Correlations between the dimensions of its elements and OCB Organizational citizenship behavior Helpfulness 0.04 Other-oriented empathy 0.15 Procedural justice 0.34* Interactional justice 0.39* Note: 1. *p Read More

Under one’s personal control because it’s not part of formal organizational reward system, OCB is discretionary (Moorman 1991, p. 845). It is characteristically pro-social and voluntary. While OCB is distinct from a bystander’s acts of kindness and voluntarism as well, it has the stuffs of short-term and spontaneous initiatives by people in the street and is concomitantly similar to voluntarism in concept and in praxis (Penner, Midili & Kegelmeyer 1997, p. 114). And, while in essence OCB is not practicably enforceable by supervision, it ultimately redounds to the benefit of the organization and the members of the organization (Konovsky & Organ 1996, p. 253). To the individual members of the organization, OCB results to happiness and well-being; for the organization, OCB lessens the incidences of employee withdrawal (turnover and/or absenteeism), promotes greater productivity and workers’ efficiency, and raises the level of employees’ organizational commitment – among others.

Now, as in the general case of nature-nurture debate concerning human development, OCB are said to be brought about by at least two general factors. These factors are the human personality and situation or context within which one lives, thrives or belongs – as in an organization. Especially in the early researches on OCB in the 1980’s (see Konovsky & Organ 1996, p. 253), academicians and practitioners of organizational behavior and work psychology would bank on job satisfaction – a form of human attitude, which in its turn is a facet of human personality -- as predictor of OCB.

And, considering that job satisfaction has cognitive and affective components, it becomes almost commonsensical to grasp that employees who believe they are being treated equally, for instance, are more likely to exhibit OCB. And, since organizational justice breeds positive mood among the workers, those who regard life in general and work in particular in healthy perspective are expected to find more reason to maintain their predisposition and increase the likelihood of working in such a positive environment (Penner, Midili & Kegelmeyer 1996, p. 115-117). More recent researches (in the 1990’s), however, point out the supposed superiority of contextual factor such as the workers’ individual and collective experience(s) of fairness over job satisfaction.

It is even argued, actually, that job satisfaction is unrelated to OCB, specifically in instances when fairness is statistically controlled. In fact, it is said that experience of fairness even serves as one of the bases of job satisfaction, implying that the latter is actually tied to the cumulative experience of the context of the work (see Konovsky & Organ 1996, p. 253). These two divergent positions are put to task by contemporary researchers who argue that situational determinants are fundamentally dispositional in nature.

Konovsky & Organ (1996) cites studies involving identical twins whose job satisfaction variance is pronounced as due to genetic bases and persons who, despite their transfer from one job to another, would still register correlational measures of their job satisfaction (p. 254). Candidly put, though, this “middle ground” position does not go unchallenged either, effectively rendering the entire debate concerning the dispositional and situational determinants of OCB far from being settled.

That this debate is needed to be resolved points to the fact that the whole issue of OCB determinants is far from being mere academic. For this concern has a lot to contribute to organizational management. Should dispositional elements be more powerful influence to OCB, the hiring process and the on-going trainings of the employees would be made to show a predilection to understanding personality types and improving workers’ personality. On similar account, should it be found that contextual elements are more influential to OCB, the management’s principal concern then would be to define, initiate and sustain a facilitating organizational culture.

Read More