Citizenship Behavior: Political vs. Organizational

The term organizational citizenship behavior was derived by D. W. Organ and defined it as – “Individuals’ behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization.” Some forms of organizational citizenship behavior are impersonal consciousness and involvement in work place governance. These forms show the link of organizational citizenship behavior with political citizenship. The paper studies the reason of using the word citizenship to explain the concept of organizational citizenship behavior. The paper covers the common points between the citizenship as defined and explained by political theories and organizational citizenship as discussed in management literature. The paper tries to answer the question – whether the term has rightly justified its meaning or not?

INTRODUCTION
In an organization every individual is expected to perform certain roles as specified by job descriptions and superior’s expectations. However sometimes individual perform certain tasks or exhibits certain behavior above and beyond his call of duty. There is large number of instances in organisations when employees assist their fellow employees which are not part of their job duties. This assistance is spontaneous and does not result in any formal reward. Such ‘extra role behavior’ is termed as organizational citizenship behavior.
The term organizational citizenship behavior was derived by D. W. Organ and defined it as – “Individuals’ behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization.”

Later, Organ (1997) redefined OCBs ‘as contributions to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports task performance’, and hence, removed the requirements that organizational citizenship behavior be discretionary and unrewarded as stated by Motowidlo (2000). For example, such behaviors include helping a new employee to
catch up, helping a co-worker to deal with work overload or staying at work after duty hours (Organ, 1988)

Dimensions of Organizational citizenship behavior

Smith et al (1983) identified two factors of organizational citizenship behavior. A type of organizational citizenship behavior that is directed at a specific individual- usually a coworker - is termed as altruism. These factors includes items such as helping an overloaded worker catch up with the workflow or solve a problem or helping a new worker learn the job. The second factor termed as compliance or conscientiousness considers the sub factors that are more general and contribute to the group, department or organization e.g. punctual at work, low absenteeism, refraining unnecessary breaks, etc. Several different measures on organizational citizenship behavior have clearly proved that altruism (helping) and compliance are two essential factors of organizational citizenship behavior.  Other then these two factors some other important factors have been identified by various authors.
Jill Graham (1986) considered civic virtue also as a worthwhile construct of organizational citizenship behavior. Civic virtue describes a posture of responsible, constructive involvement in the political or governance process of the organization.
Organ (1988) made a case that courtesy is also a form of organizational citizenship behavior. It refers to helpful behaviors that prevent a work related problem for occurring or help to lessen the severity of a foreseen problem.
Organ (1988) elaborates five specific categories of discretionary behavior and the contribution of each to efficiency.
•      Altruism is directed towards other individuals, but contributes to group efficiency by enhancing individual’s performance; participants help new colleagues and give freely of their time.
•      Conscientiousness is the thoughtful use of time to enhance the efficiency of both individuals and the group; participants give more time to the organization and exert effort beyond the formal requirements.
•       Sportsmanship increases the amount of time spent on organizational endeavors; participants decrease time spent on whining, complaining and carping.
•      Courtesy prevents problems and facilitates constructive use of time; participants give advance notices , timely reminders and appropriate information.
•      Civic virtue promotes the interests of the organization broadly; participants voluntarily serve on committees and attend functions.

Graham (1991) proposed four-dimension model of organizational citizenship behavior:

•    Interpersonal helping, which focuses on helping coworkers in their jobs when such help is needed
•    Individual initiative, which describes communications to others in the work place to improve individual and group performance
•    Personal industry, which describes the performance of specific task as and beyond the call of duty.
•    Loyal boosterism, which describes the promotion of the organizational image to outsiders.
•    Building on the conceptual work of Organ (1988), Podsakoff, et al (1990) also identified the same five major categories of organizational citizenship behavior:  altruism, consciousness, sportsmanship, courtesy and civic virtue

Organ (1990b) suggested two more dimensions-

•    Cheerleading – involves the celebration of coworkers’ accomplishments. The effect is to provide positive reinforcement for positive contributions, which in turn makes such contributions more likely to occur in the future.
•    Peacemaking- occurs when someone notices that a conflict is on the verge of developing into a personal war between two or more parties. The peacemaker steps in to the breach, giving people a chance to cool their heads, helping the antagonists save face and helps discussants get back to consideration of personal issues.

Williams and Anderson (1991) identified two broad categories of organizational citizenship behavior: (a) OCB O- behaviors that benefit the organization in general, and (b) OCB I- behaviors that immediately benefit specific individual and directly through this means contribute to the organization.

           Organizational citizenship behavior: The political view

However, although the word citizenship carries social and political implications, little enrichment of the concept has been derived from political theory. Apart from Graham (1986, 1991) and Van Dyne, et al (1994), no study has tried to explain organizational citizenship behavior from a more general perspective of the global concept of citizenship. Previous studies mentioned the relationship between workplace values and behaviors and political domains (e.g., Brady, et al, 1995). Most of these view the workplace as a potential determinant of a wider political culture. However, empirical evidence as to causality is scarce. Political scientists, especially those concerned with the state of public administration, claim that an independent form of voluntary behavior is already structured in the very basic construct of modern societies. They refer to the third sector as one example of this behavior, which supports the state and its public administration agencies in fulfilling elementary commitments to the citizens (Brudney, 1990). This line of research promotes our understanding of how society in general may benefit from spontaneous behaviors of ordinary citizens. We think that issues of citizenship, voluntary activities, and spontaneous involvement of the people in the administrative process are among the most significant topics in contemporary writing on public administration.
Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997) mention the potential relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and customer-oriented behavior (COB). Thus, organizational citizenship behavior may be very useful, especially in public organizations that serve wide populations. The new public management (NPM) approach argues that to improve its functioning, the public sector must become more responsive to citizens’ demands and encourage flexibility, creativity, and spontaneous behavior by its employees (Pollitt, 1988, 1990). Hence, a better understanding of the general environment and the antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior can contribute to higher quality of services and better productivity of public agencies that serve citizens in modern societies On the grounds of previous studies (e.g., Podsakoff& MacKenzie, 1997), it is assumed that better organizational citizenship behavior in the public sector contributes to improved productivity and higher performance rates of public personnel. It also advances quality services and high responsiveness to citizens’ demands. Studies found positive relationships between good citizenship in the workplace and work outcomes. Good organizational citizenship expresses extrarole behaviors and a better psychological contract between organizations and employees (Organ, 1988)
To establish a sociopolitical heritage of organizational citizenship, a clear link must first be established between internal and external voluntary actions of individuals. Graham (1991) is one of the few researchers who attempted to conceptualize organizational citizenship behavior by starting from the political inheritance of citizenship rather than extrarole/organizationally functional defining criteria. Graham’s typology is based on three categories of citizenship behaviors revealed by classical philosophy and modern political theory (Aristotle, 1962; Cary, 1977). Together, these categories comprise what Inkeles (1969, p. 1139) termed the active citizenship syndrome. The first category is “obedience,” or respect for orderly structures and processes. Citizens are responsible for obeying existing laws, which also protect them. Because organizational citizenship behavior represents informal organizational contributions, the expectation is that it will be affected more by informal citizenship behaviors than by formal demonstrations of citizenship such as obedience. Therefore, this article does not deal with obedience. The second category is “loyalty,” namely, the expansion of individual welfare functions to include the interests of others, the state as a whole, and the values it embodies. Loyal citizens promote and protect their communities and volunteer extra effort for the common good. The third category, participation, concerns participation in governance, keeping well informed, sharing information and ideas with others, engaging in discussions about controversial issues, voting in constitutional elections, and encouraging others to do likewise (Graham, 1991; Van Dyne et al., 1994). Graham argued that these three citizenship categories could be used in organizational settings. Participation in civic activities, both inside and outside organizations, is basically a voluntary behavior. People may or may not choose to participate in civic activities such as voting or involvement in community ventures. Organizational citizenship behavior is also a voluntary behavior because it is not formally required from employees. Moreover, good organizational citizens are not directly rewarded for such activities. Involvement in voluntary behavior in the civic sphere may thus encourage similar behavior in the work setting, namely, organizational citizenship behavior. Van Dyne et al. (1994) empirically tested Graham’s typology and concluded that although two forms of citizenship—participation and loyalty—could be applied to measure organizational citizenship behavior, the inclusion of obedience as an organizational citizenship behavior dimension was not empirically supported.
This expectation is noted in several studies of political theory (Almond& Verba, 1963; Brady et al., 1995; Inkeles, 1969; Peterson, 1990). The basic argument is that work and politics are similar institutions so experiences in one domain can spill over to the other. Almond and Verba (1963) argued that institutions are closer to politics and government when they exist at the same time, are similar in degree of formal authority, or have similar criteria for authority positions. The “closer” two social institutions are, the greater is the likelihood of congruence between their authority structures. The workplace is closer in time and in kind to the political sphere. Work exists contemporaneously with politics, and work and politics are formally structured. Roles in the political sphere can train occupants to perform workplace roles because experiences of self-direction or conformity in politics inculcate congruent values and orientations. Congruence lies in the generally analogous formal authority patterns between institutional spheres. The more closely two experiences approximate each other, the more likely is transference from one experience to the other (Sobel, 1993).
A more recent study by Brady et al. (1995) also shows how experiences in one domain can be transferred further. Their study suggests a resource model of civic skills (i.e., institutional involvement, skill opportunities, and skill acts) that can provide “a powerful explanation of political participation”. People use preexisting civic skills (education-based organizational and communications skills as well as innate skills) or develop civic skills through their involvement in the institutions of adult life to perform skill acts. In turn, when individuals perform skill acts in one institution, political or nonpolitical, they increase their skills so that they can engage in still more skill acts in that or in some other domain. The study by Brady et al. tries to go beyond socioeconomic status by emphasizing the unique effect of some social institutions (e.g., church and workplace) on political participation. However, resources and skills can also be transferred from the political environment to other organizations. As noted by Brady and his colleagues, “civic skills could be the result as well as the cause of political activity”  and generate different types of citizenship behavior. Hence, political participation and general citizenship traits can provide the individual with civic skills relevant to the workplace. Practicing skill acts (planning meetings, making speeches, participating in debates, being involved in communal life, etc.) develops civic skills that are potentially transferable to work and may be used to enhance organizational performances.
Four dimensions of general citizenship can be mentioned. Participation in political activities and community involvement best represent the participation category. As for loyalty, civility is a good example of such behavior. Faith in citizen involvement is more of an orientation that represents loyalty and willingness to participate in a democratic process. The first dimension is participation in political activities, which is classic and one of the most researched constructs in political science (Peterson, 1990). People who are more involved in political activities like voting, sending support/protest messages to politicians, taking part in political demonstrations, or signing petitions on political issues are expected to be more involved in the work setting. This expectation derives from a positive spillover effect. Experience, expertise, and resources gained in political activities might facilitate higher levels of job performance and organizational citizenship behavior (Brady et al., 1995; Peterson, 1990; Sobel, 1993).
The second dimension is participation in community activities. Etzioni (1994, 1995) views communitarianism as a necessary behavior of citizens that should be encouraged by modern societies. The more willing citizens are to initiate voluntary behaviors (e.g., in fields such as education or local administration), the better the state operates and society prospers (Brudney, 1990). Community activity is also considered a more informal way of participation than national activity (Sobel, 1993). Certain individual characteristics serve to promote both national and local participation, but other personal and local community characteristics primarily stimulate participation in local politics.
People active in their community are expected to show higher levels of organizational citizenship behavior than those who are not active. The rationale is similar to that for political participation, although Sieber’s (1974) explanation of personality enrichment or development might also be relevant here. For example, tolerance gained through recognition of discrepant viewpoints might be helpful in similar situations in the work setting. The following two dimensions represent the loyalty category of citizens behavior. Civility focuses on daily behaviors that show care, kindness, compassion, and consideration toward other citizens, in particular those who need such support. These behaviors match the definition of loyalty because loyal citizens are expected to volunteer extra effort for the common good. They are also expected to display higher levels of organizational citizenship behavior because civility seems to represent an altruistic behavior outside the work environment. Sieber’s (1974) explanation of personality enrichment or development provides a rationale for the way civility will be related to organizational citizenship behavior.
The fourth dimension, faith in citizen involvement, differs from the above three in that it is more an orientation than a behavior. Political orientations are considered an important aspect of citizenship because they help to shape individuals’ understanding of the political world and their place in it (Peterson, 1990). Theiss-Morse (1993) argues that most people are apparently involved in the political sphere in ways consistent with their citizenship perspective. Her study shows that greater predictive power is gained by measurement of people’s perspectives on good citizenship, producing better specified models to explain behavior. Faith in citizen involvement is defined as the extent to which people believe that the average citizen can effect changes in the political system and that by being involved they can influence the political system . Hence, this variable is a good representation of loyalty and trust in the political system. People who believe that they can have some say in the political system will transfer such an orientation to the work setting, resulting in higher levels of organizational citizenship behavior.
Participation in decision making and forms of commitment are mentioned in political science theory as components of citizenship behavior, loyalty, and involvement in society (e.g., Pateman, 1970).
Graham (1991) and Sobel (1993) promote the idea of direct spillover of general citizenship behavior to the work setting. This expectation is based on the argument that such spillover provides resources for role performance (Brady et al., 1995) when experience and expertise gained in political activities might facilitate higher levels of organizational citizenship behavior. Pateman (1970) and Peterson (1990) also support a direct relationship between these spheres, arguing that a reciprocal relationship may exist The fourth type of positive spillover mentioned by Sieber (1974) considers personality enrichment or development and further supports the direct relationship. The direct relationship model expected a direct relationship between each of the four general citizenship variables and organizational citizenship behavior.
Several scholars have argued that the relationship between determinants and organizational citizenship behavior is not direct but mediated (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994). The notion that general citizenship is not related to behavior at work directly was also advanced by political theory. Brady et al. (1995) argued that “the opportunity to practice civic skills in an institution requires both involvement in the institution and a setting that provides the chance to practice some skills” .The relationship one has with the organization can determine whether one will transfer one’s civic skills to a given work setting. Individuals’ attitudes to the organization thus comprise a significant source of knowledge on the chances of using civic skills as a positive work input.
In search of a reliable description of individual-organizational relationships, we turned to three well-studied contextual work attitudes: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and participation in decisions. These variables were tested as mediators of the relationship between general citizenship and organizational citizenship behavior. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment are good examples of employees’ attitudes in the workplace that were found to relate to organizational citizenship behavior (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Williams & Anderson, 1991).
Highly satisfied and committed employees are more likely to engage in OCBs because of reciprocal exchange relationships and better attachment they have with the work environment. Participation in decisions in nonpolitical organizations was found to be cumulative: Persons participating in decisions in one organization were likely to do so in others. Political participation is also a learned social role acquired by practice in democratic skills. The more individuals participate, the better able they become at it (Pateman, 1970). Participation breeds participation, and intense participation in politics might influence work participation (Sobel, 1993). Accordingly, citizens involved in the civic setting will be involved in the decision- making process in the organization because of the experiences and the skills they acquired (Brady et al., 1995; Peterson, 1990).
Employees who participate in extra organizational decision-making processes will tend to participate similarly within the organization. Consequently, they will show higher job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Zeffane, 1994). Committed, satisfied, and involved employees will thus reciprocate with higher levels of organizational citizenship behavior. This idea was supported by Organ and Ryan (1995). Their findings showed comparable effect sizes between satisfaction, fairness, organizational commitment, leader supportiveness, and organizational citizenship behavior. Participation in decision making has not been tested frequently for its relationship to organizational citizenship behavior, but it is presented in political theory as an essential construct that bridges participation in the civic setting to the work setting (Pateman, 1970; Sobel, 1993). It is also considered a good indicator of fairness and justice in the relationship between an employee and the organization (Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ, 1990). Milbrath (1965) described the findings of a comparative survey of political participation in five countries. In those with higher levels of political participation, there was also a much higher level of social and organizational activity. According to this relationship, all three mediators will be affected by citizenship behaviors, and all will affect organizational citizenship behavior. Committed and satisfied employees who are involved in the organization will reciprocate with higher levels of organizational citizenship behavior.

CONCLUSION

The studies clearly show a close relationship between the political view and the organizational view of citizenship. In both cases people are involved and are having close knit relationships between them. Political activities are very much same as managerial functions and so organizational citizenship behavior can be modified so that the common man in the country can become a “good soldier” as stated by D. W. Organ. 


REFERENCES

• Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations: An analytic study. Boston: Little Brown.
• Aristotle. (1962). The politics. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
• Brady,H. E.,Verba, S.,&Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES:Aresource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89, 271-294.
• Brudney, J. (1990). Fostering volunteer programs in the public sector: Planning, initiating and managing voluntary activities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Cary,C.D. (1977). The goals of citizenship training in American and Soviet schools. Studies in Comparative Communism, 10, 281-297.
• Etzioni, A. (1994). The spirit of community. New York: Touchstone
• Etzioni, A. (1995). New communitarian thinking: Persons, virtues institutions, and communities. Charlottesville: Virginia University Press.
• Farh, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1990. Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, 16: 705–721.
• Graham, J. W. (1986, August). Organizational citizenship informed by political theory.
• Graham, J. W. (1991, August). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, 249-270.
• Inkeles, A. (1969). Participant citizenship in six developing countries. American Political
• Konovsky, M. A.,&Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656-669.
• Milbrath, L. W. (1965). Political participation. Chicago: Rand McNally.
• Motowidlo, Stephan J. (2000) ‘Some Basic Issues Related to Contextual Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Human Resource Management’, Human Resource Management Review 10: 115–26.
• Organ, Dennis W. (1988) Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
• Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. London: Cambridge University
• Peterson, S. A. (1990). Political behavior. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107–142.
• Podsakoff, P. M.,&MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance, 10, 133-151.
• Pollitt, C. (1988). Bringing consumers into performance measurement. Policy and Politics, 16, 77-87.
• Pollitt, C. (1990). Performance indicators, root and branch. In M. Cave,M.Kogan,&R. Smith (Eds.), Output and performance measurement in government: The state of the art (pp. 167-178). London: Jessica Kingsley.
•  Press.
• Science Review, 63, 1120-1141.
• Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39, 567-578.
•  Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W.,&Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.
• Sobel, R. (1993). From occupational involvement to political participation: An exploratory analysis. Political Behavior, 15, 339-353.
• style: A comparison of public and private sector employees. Human Relations, 47,
• Theiss-Morse, E. (1993). Conceptualizations of good citizenship and political participation  Political Behavior, 15, 355-380
•  Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. academy of Management Journal, 37, 765-802.
• Williams, Larry J., and Stella E. Anderson 1991 ‘Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in role behavior’. Journal of Management 17: 601–617.
• Zeffane, R. (1994). Patterns of organizational commitment and perceived management