Post on 10-Jul-2020
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
827
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
Organizational Citizenship Behavior as an Unavoidable Necessity for increasing
the Effectiveness of Organizations
Zahra Jafari Karfestani21
, Mostafa Azizi Shomami22
, Moslem Maleki
Hasanvand23
Abstract
In the current challenging world, the organizations to compete in the world level, meet
the needs and expectations of customers and compatibility with the transforming
nature of the job attempt to engage the employees that act beyond the task and role
determined in their job description. Against the past that the employees were expected
to act to the extent of formal roles, in the new psychological contracts, the behaviors
beyond the role is expected. Today, these efforts beyond the expectation are referred to
as behaviors in addition to the role or organizational citizenship behaviors in the
literature of organization and management science. Organizational citizenship
behavior is a completely voluntary behavior that the rewarding system is not able to
identify it directly but altogether it increases the effective performance in the
organization. In this paper, in addition to presenting the definitions of organizational
citizenship behavior, the classifications and formation of this behavior approaches are
studies, as well as its nature in the various cultures are discussed, ultimately the factors
affecting and forming the citizenship behavior together with its consequences are
explained.
Keywords: Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Dimension, Requirements and
conditions, Consequence
1- Introduction
The citizenship is a subject that was raised for the first time in the social sciences for
establishing the community spirit and solidarity among the society people (Fathi
Vajargah & Chokadeh, 2006). After democratic ruling system as a manner for ruling
over people by the people entered in the political systems, the necessity of people’s
presence in the governing interactions was revealed, thus the political sciences to
achieve the suitable scientific paradigms, borrowed the citizenship from social
sciences. The third presence of citizenship after presence in social sciences and
political sciences is appeared in education system. In fact, after proving the importance
and value of citizenship the education systems intended to extend and intensify this
21
M.A. in Educational Planning, University of Mazandaran(Instructor in Rodsar & Amlash Branch,
Islamic Azad University) 22
Ph.D Student in Educational Administration, Kharazmi University 23
M.A. in Educational Administration, Kharazmi University
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
828
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
important factor. But presence of citizenship in the context of education was so
significant that today many of the world countries have considered the “citizenship
education (Kazemi & Chokadeh, 2005). Appearance of citizenship concept in
organization and management science under title of organizational citizenship
behavior indeed is formed as a combination of social, political and educational
science, based on the following assumptions:
1- The organizations are the major constituent elements of the community and
have major role in the humans lives;
2- The humans and their intellectual capitals are considered as the major elements
of organizations;
3- The major part of humans life is spent in the organizations and interaction with
them;
4- The new approaches of organization and management consider the responsible
and reliable, brave, knowledge-oriented human as the major agent in success of
organizations (Jamali et al, 2009).
2- History of “organizational citizenship behavior” concept formation
The “citizen” has been derived from Latin word “Civitas”. This word in Latin
Language is almost equivalent to “Polis” in Greek. Polis or city is not only a complex
of residents but is deemed as a political and independent unit (Baratalipour, 2005
quoted by Valipour, 2007). The root of citizenship is referred to the Greek and cities or
polis and ancient Rome city-states. This concept was raised upon appearance of
democracy in Greek city-states in the meaning of benefitting from rights, tasks and
active political participation. This citizenship is a topic which has been entwined with
the concept of culture of each society and whereas the culture of each land is resulted
from three essential territories including social activities, political environment and
economical status of that society, is completely unique and special and every culture
demands its own citizen (Oliver Heater, 1994; quoted by Shiani, 2002).
The citizenship has been bond with the human rights in social life (Parker, 2000;
quoted by Fathi Vajargah & Chokadeh, 2006). As well as, it is deemed as a social
contract, the main goals of which is to promote the welfare and security in the society
and necessarily discusses on this subject that the people how to behave to achieve such
goals (Merrifield, 1997; quoted by Shiani, 2008),
The citizen is a person who lives in a state-nation and has specified rights and
privileges as well as tasks vis-à-vis the government such as obeying the government
(Lagasse, 2000, quoted by Banks, 2008). Active and responsible citizenship doesn’t
mean only beginning to various local, national and international community but means
active participation in the social life and collective institutions as well. This
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
829
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
responsible participation requires the correct and reasonable and caring use of material
and social public resources (Nord Warren, 2001, quoted by Lotfabadi, 2006).
In addition, the citizenship is not only a personal and individual topic but includes
other levels such as “Family Citizenship”, “Vocational Citizenship”, “Cultural
Citizenship” and such levels therein a person in any case has family, vocational,
cultural and such rights and responsibilities (Lotfabadi, 2006). One of the important
topics in the context of citizenship is organizational citizenship that refers to
conducting appropriate behaviors in the organization. Organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB) is the Latin root of “Otix” means moral derived from Greek work
“Otos” that means personal characteristic or custom (Solomon, 1984, quoted by
Sohrabi & Khanlari, 2009). According to the viewpoint of Solomon, the semantics and
root of this word indicates its substantial relationship with the interpersonal
characteristic, goodness of person, accurate social rules and moralities that leads the
individual’s behavior. On the other side, universal definition of moral includes a series
of factors that make moral or unmoral judge on a phenomenon or person. However,
two persons who are called as moral, may have different ideas about financial
punishment, persuasive behavior and discrimination and conduct differently
(Schermerhorn, 1999).
Although the term of organizational citizenship behavior has been raised for the first
time by Organ (1977), but this concept has been resulted from writings of Bernad
(1938) on the tendency to cooperation and studies of Ketz & Kan (1964, 1966) on the
spontaneous and unexpected performances and behaviors of the role (Hassani Kakhaki
& Gholipour, 2007). Foote & Tang (2008) believe that during the past few decades,
OCB has been changed to an important concept in psychology and management and
has been attracted intensively. According to the statement of Ashtiani & Kohan
(2009), the individual basis for the behaviors beyond the role requirements may be
sough in organizational analysis of Chester Barnard within 1930s that emphasizes on
the individual’s tendency to do their best for the organization. Ketz (1964) has
mentioned the importance of a group of innovative and spontaneous behaviors that
despite of being beyond the explicit and clear requirements of the role but are
necessary for organizational effectiveness. Organ (1991) defines OCB as the
individual behavior that is optional and voluntary, has not been identified directly and
explicitly by formal rewarding system and improves the effective performance of the
organization in general (Foote & Tang, 2008). In the next researches, several concepts
related to OCB have been considered including extra-role behavior, social citizen,
socialistic behaviors, and organizational spontaneity (Raminmehr et al, 2009).
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
830
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
3- What is organizational citizenship behavior?
A group of texts related to OCB have used diverse terms for describing the excellent
capabilities of employees such as extra-role behavior, organizational spontaneity and
protecting the group benefits in order until the concepts have been collected and
integrated in the studies related to citizenship behavior. Despite of rather different
conceptualization and consequently the inconsistent applications, the most concepts
have a common point that the concept of OCB formed based on. Obviously, the most
of these concepts refer to this fact that when the employees are active and benevolent
to the organization, the organizational effectiveness is expected (Jung & Hong, 2008).
As Bienstocket et al (2003), the main objective of applying the early researches on
organizational citizenship behavior is to identify the responsibilities or behaviors of
employees in the organization; but was ever ignored. Although these behaviors were
measured in the traditional assessments of vocational performance incompletely or
even sometimes were neglected, but ultimately were effective on the improvement of
organization’s effectiveness. Appelbaum & Etal (2004) have defined these actions
conducted in working environment as follows: some optional and voluntary behaviors
that don’t form a part of formal tasks of the individual, nonetheless are conducted by
the own individual and casus the effective improvement of organization’s tasks and
roles. Such behaviors are different from technical task and performance and are mostly
voluntary and spontaneous which are different from specified and formal behaviors
related to the main job. On the other side, such behaviors have more positive effects on
the social, psychological, organizational and technical contexts (Ghafari Ashtiani &
Kohan, 2009).
Borman & Motowidlo (1993) quoted by Mendoza & Lara (2007) have defined OCB as
the context performance including a wide context of behavior which has not been
explained explicitly for job description but is effective on the organizational life. The
behavioral pattern available for context performance and OCB theoretically and
practically are very important for all human resources styles such as analysis of job,
employment, election, training, development, performance evaluation, refund and even
relationships between job and employee have very important concepts (Ghafari
Ashtiani & Kohan, 2009). Borman & Motowidlo (2001) have defined the term of
context performance and its relationship with OCB that has been mentioned by Organ
et al (Batman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Niyer & Organ, 1983) a few years ago. Both
terms are referred to the behavioral elements which are similar from many approaches.
As Organ, ideas on OCB are formed from this belief that job satisfaction affects the
tendency and desire of the individuals for helping the colleagues and their motivation
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
831
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
for active participation in the organizational activities through different ways in order
to preserve and maintain the organization’s resources.
As well as, Smith (1983) quoted by Navabakhsh et al (2009) attempted to define the
specific behaviors reflecting these tendency and desire, upon the request of the
managers for describing the activities they tend their subordinates to do, but even they
cannot oblige them even aiding reward and punishment system, therefore OCB has
been manifested regardless of behavioral consequences of job satisfaction; it has been
assumed that they have more importance for organization’s effectiveness and in
principle they have been defined as behaviors that the managers tend their
subordinates to do, but they cannot oblige them to do what they tend. The ideas on
context performance have different origins. Borman & Motowidlo (2001) believe that
the research and experience in the employees selection focuses only on a part of
vocational performance and function and ignore the other parts of performance and
function context that they deem important and necessary for organization
effectiveness. In relation to the difference between both contexts of performance,
Borman & Motowidlo recommend that the part considered and identified by selection
process is called task performance including the activities explained commonly in job
description. Also, they believed that these activities are important organizationally
because they help the organization’s technical core directly by execution of a part of
technological process and indirectly by providing the materials and services required
for the organization.
In return, a part of performance context that as Borman & Motowidlo are ignored or
disregarded in selection process includes activities such as volunteering, having
diligence, helping, pursuing the laws and organizational goals. They state that these
activities protect the organizational, social and psychological environment therein
technical core is applied. Borman & Motowidlo assumed that such activities due to the
effect on the environment and context of technical core that are valuable
organizationally and introduced the term of context performance to refer to them.
Chen et al (2009) explained that OCB has been used for the first time for expressing
the extra-role behaviors and considering its relationship with job satisfaction. Such
behaviors may not be prescribed prior for a specified job. Extra-role behaviors
strengthen the social structure of organization but don’t affect the job performance.
There are not many definitions for citizenship behavior and what introduced as the
definition of this concept is derived mostly from Organ (1977); such behaviors are not
the essential requirements of role and description of employees job, thus OCB key
elements are specified as follows:
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
832
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
- A behavior described beyond what described formally for organization
employees;
- A behavior not providing a reward directly or not appreciated through formal
structure of organization;
- An optional behavior conducted based on the individual will;
- A behavior that has considerable effect on the organizational performance and
organization’s success (Senobari, 1999).
Podsakoff believes that good citizenship is a thought including employees’ behaviors
such as performing the lateral tasks, voluntarily helping the others in cases, no one
supervise over them, taking effort towards promoting and helping the organization and
preserving the positive attitude and tolerating the difficulties in work (Bullino et al,
2002). Consequently, organizational citizenship behavior causes promotion and
improvement of organization performance and increasing its effectiveness by greasing
the organizations’ social components and cycles (Banks, 2008).
In the literature review, two main approaches are specified in the definitions related to
organizational citizenship behavior:
1- Behaviors of role and extra-role
2- All positive behaviors inside the organization.
a. In role and extra-role behaviors
The early researchers defined and emphasized the organizational citizenship behavior
separate from performance in the role and this behavior shall be considered as the
behavior beyond the role. Morisson (1994) has used the term of “perceived job
breadth” for distinguishing two categories of in-role and extra-role behaviors and
explained that whatever the employee perceives the job domain broader, defines more
activities as the “in-role” activities. This assumption emphasizes this point that an
important agent for determining an activity as the organizational citizenship behavior
is that the employees define their job responsibilities to which breadth. This argument
follows an important theoretical application means what the others define as
organizational citizenship behavior reflects the employees’ perception of their job
responsibilities breadth. This recommendation was focused in other studies, because
the behavior border in “in-role” and “extra-role” has not been defined clearly and is
varied from en employee to the other or from employees to the heads, therefore this
approach is contrary to what researchers conceptualize as the organizational
citizenship behavior, although some researchers attempted to explain the differences
between “in-role” and “inner-role”, and “extra-role” behaviors from one side, and
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
833
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
conceptualizing the organizational citizenship behavior on the other side and establish
a relationship between them. For instance, as Organ (1988) a vital difference between
these activities is that if these behaviors are rewarded or in the event of non-
observation of such behaviors, deprivations are applied or not, because organizational
citizenship behavior and activities in this relation shall be perceived independent from
formal rewards, because organizational citizenship behavior is a behavior that is not
rewarded organizationally.
b. All positive behaviors
As the viewpoint of Hassani Kakhaki & Gholipour (2007) in another approach,
organizational citizenship behavior is considered separate from work performance.
Adopting such approach obviates the distinction problem between role and extra-role.
In this approach, organizational citizenship behavior shall be considered as a general
concept including all positive and improving behaviors of people inside the
organization together with full and responsible participation.
4- Dimension of organizational citizenship behavior
Despite of increasing attention to the subject of citizenship behavior, upon reviewing
the literature of this context, lack of consensus on the approaches of this concept is
cleared. The summary of literature review indicates that almost thirty different
citizenship behaviors are separable and various definitions have been presented, but
there are a lot of overlaps between them. Some approaches are as follows:
4-1 Organ model:
Probably the most valid classification for organizational citizenship behavior elements
has been presented by Organ (1977) that is used in the different researches. Organ has
presented a classification of organizational citizenship behavior approaches which
formed the concept of OCB as follows:
1- Conscientiousness: A mood therein the organization members perform specific
behaviors and work beyond the minimum task level required for conducting
that work or in other word, the individuals who express advanced citizenship
behavior. In the worst conditions and even in illness and disability state, they
continue their work that implies their high conscientiousness. This approach has
been considered as working conscience in the studies of Graham (1989) and
Fareh et al (1997), and as organizational obedience in studies applied by
Podsakoff et al (2000) and in Lambert (2000) model as the obedience that is
explained in the next sections.
2- Altruism: refers to the useful and effective behaviors such as creating closeness,
empathy and compassion between the colleagues that helps directly or
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
834
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
indirectly the employees involved in working problems, for example helping
who have a high volume of work. As Graham (1989), altruism has been defined
as interpersonal assist and as Lambert (2000) as the participation and
responsibility that is explained in the next sections.
3- Civic virtue: including behaviors such as attending the extraordinary activities
when this presence is not required, supporting the presented development and
changes made by the organization managers and tendency to studying the book,
magazine and increasing general information and paying attention to the
hanging poster and notice in the organization for the others’ information. This
approach of organizational citizenship behavior is corresponding to the
faithfully support in Graham (1989) study and protection of organizational
benefits in the model of Fareh et al (1997), and organizational loyalty and civic
behavior in model of Podsakoff (2000) that is explained in the next sections.
4- Magnanimity: refers to patience against undesirable and unsuitable situations
without objection, dissatisfaction and complaining. As Graham (1989),
magnanimity has been defined as individual ardency, Podsakoff et al (2000)
defined as chivalry, and Lambert (2000) as loyalty that is explained in the next
sections.
5- Respect and reverence: this approach indicates the manner of behaving with the
colleagues, heads and audiences of organization. The people who behave with
the others with respect have advanced citizenship behavior. This factor has been
considered as social etiquettes in studies applied by Fareh et al (1997) and as
loyalty in the studies provided by Lambert (2000) that is explained in the next
sections.
4-2 Graham model:
The other model proceeding with the approaches of organizational citizenship
behavior is Graham model. He assumes 4 following approaches for this behavior, as
well:
1- Interpersonal helping: that focuses on helping the others to perform the jobs;
2- Individual ardency: describes the relationship with the others in working
environment towards individual or group academic advance;
3- Individual effort: performing a specified work equal or more than the person’s
assigned task;
4- Faithfully support: means improving the organization’s image outside it
(Graham, 1989; quoted by Amini, 2007).
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
835
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
4-3 Fareh et al model:
Fareh et al (1997) have considered the elements of organizational citizenship behavior
according to the cultural conditions of China as follows:
Social etiquettes, altruism, work conscience, protecting the organizational benefits
(Fareh et al, 1997; quoted by Marcozy & Zihn, 2005).
4-4 Podsakoff et al model:
The model of Podsakoff et al (2000) indicated that almost thirty organizational
citizenship behaviors have been identified that in some cases there is a great
conceptual overlap between them. Upon collecting and classifying the different
viewpoints, seven main approaches of these behaviors are as follows:
1- Helping behaviors: including voluntarily helping the others or prevention from
happening problems related to work.
2- Sportsmanship: one of organizational citizenship behaviors that have been
considered less than helping behaviors. As Organ (1991), sportsmanship has
been defined as tendency to tolerating the unavoidable annoying conditions in
work without complaint and expressing the sadness.
3- Organizational loyalty: this category of behaviors including defending the
organization against the threats, participation in achieving the reputation for the
organization and collaboration with the others to achieve the whole benefits.
Organizational loyalty due to promotion of organizational position before
external beneficiaries is necessary. Protection and defend against external
threats and binding even in undesirable conditions may be deemed as loyalty.
4- Organizational obedience: organizational obedience has a long record in the
context of organizational citizenship behavior. Organizational obedience is
accepting the necessity and appropriateness of logic rules and organizational
regulations that are reflected in the job descriptions and policies of
organization. Respecting the rules and instructions, believing the work
completion at the appointed time and adequate consideration to the job indicates
the obedience. The reason for considering the this behavior as the
organizational citizenship behavior is that even despite of expecting every
person to obey all organizational regulations, rules and procedures at any
situation, many of employees don’t do it simply. Therefore, these employees
who obey all regulations and instructions out of conscience even in the event of
lacking supervision, are deemed as good citizens.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
836
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
5- Individual initiatives: this type of organizational citizenship behavior is an
extra-role behavior that is beyond the minimum expected general requirements.
The behaviors including tasks voluntary creative activity were explained as the
elements of this structure.
6- Civic behavior or virtue: the civic behavior is arising from interest or
commitment in the organization. Supervision over environment for the purpose
of identifying the opportunities and threats is a sample of these behaviors
(considering the changes of industry due to its effect on the organization) even
by personal reimbursement. This behavior reflects the individual’s
understanding of this point that he is a part of the whole, and as the citizens are
responsible for the society, he as an organization member has some
responsibilities for the organization. In Organ’s studies, this factor has been
considered as a civic behavior and as organizational collaboration in the studies
applied by Graham (1989) quoted by Amini (2007).
7- Self-growth: including voluntary behaviors of employees for improvement of
their knowledge, skills and capabilities. The characteristic of this behavior is
that the new group of skills is learned for development of collaboration domain
in organization, however this approach of organizational citizenship behavior
has not been studied in the literature, studies and researches. Nonetheless, it
seems this type of behaviors that are subject to the discretion of employees are
distinct from other organizational citizenship behavior contextually (Podsakoff
et al, 2000).
4-5 Lambert model:
Lambert (2000) classifies the characteristics of organizational citizenship behavior in
three categories as follows:
1- First class: obedience including respecting the structures and processes
regularly. This class, as the viewpoint of Lambert includes the Organ’s
conscientiousness factor.
2- Second class: loyalty and development of activities including rendering the
appropriate services to the employees and preserving the values. As Lambert,
loyalty includes the courtesy and magnanimity of Organ.
3- Third class: collaboration and responsibility including self-control under
regulations and laws. As Lambert, altruism and complaisance factors of Organ
are placed in this class.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
837
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
Considering the experts’ conceptualizations of organizational citizenship behavior
mentioned in table 1, a summary of organizational citizenship behavior’s approaches
has been presented.
Table 1-2: Summary of organizational citizenship behavior’s approaches
Organ (1977) Graham (1989) Fareh et al (1997) Podsakoff et al
(2000) Lambert (2000)
Conscientiousness
Altruism
Civic virtue
Magnanimity
Respect and
reverence
Interpersonal
helping
faithfully
support
individual
effort
individual
ardency
Social etiquettes
Altruism
working
conscience
protecting
organizational
benefits
Helping
behaviors
Sportsmanship
Organizational
loyalty
Organizational
obedience
Individual
initiatives
Civic virtue
Self-growth
Obedience
Loyalty and
activities
development
Collaboration
and
responsibility
In consideration of the foregoing, it is expected the meaning and structure of OCB to
be different in the various societies because of cultural content of each society and the
conditions and type of the environment OCB is occurred therein, therefore it is
necessary OCB to be considered culturally.
5- Organizational culture and citizenship
According to the definition, organizational citizenship behavior increases the
organizational effectiveness and efficiency and workforce productivity at any time and
continuously, so how may state that cultural and organizational environments for
instance USA and China are different in proposing the factors causing the increase in
organizational performance effectiveness and improvement? (Fareh et al, 2004).
For this purpose, Marcozy & Zihn (2005) explain that the globalization has closed all
the world corners to each other and causes increasingly the managers to pay attention
to culture and diversity topics. On the other side, the cultures structures and fields own
may persuade the performance of OCB or avoids its appearance. The studies indicated
that the cultural factors have considerable effect on the organizational citizenship
behavior (George & Jones, 1997; Lam, Hui & Law, 1992; Paine & Organ, 2000;
Coyne & Ong, 2007 quoted by Wang et al, 2010).
Moreover, there are several questions in connection with OCB and culture, deeper
studies are required to be applied thereon: if organizational citizenship behavior has
similar meaning in other cultures? If there are terms in other cultures that explain such
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
838
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
phenomenon? If there is different perception of citizenship behavior in other cultures?
If there are different outcomes of citizenship behavior? If there are specified classes of
citizenship behavior such altruism and obedience appeared in studies of USA in other
cultures similarly? (Paine & Organ, 2000).
According to this theory which has been presented by analysis of Paine & Organ
(2000) of OCB cultural approaches; similar behaviors as the citizenship behavior or
approaches of contextual performance effective in a place maybe abortive and
affectless in other place. Thus, national culture may significantly adjust the
relationship between the rate of expression of citizenship behavior by the individuals
and the grade of their help to the organizational effectiveness.
As Mendoza & Lara (2007), the most of recent intercultural studies in relation to the
impact of culture on the organizational citizenship behavior indicate that a significant
relationship exists between nationality and definition of OCB as a part of the job. In
1997, Fareh et al in a study applied in Taiwan concluded that OCB is different in the
cultural areas, in general. Culture own express our opinion on behaviors related to the
organizational effectiveness.
The studies dealing with culture effects on the citizenship behavior comparing two
cultures of USA and China, concluded that the factors existing in each culture
determine OCB approaches and its content, e.g. comparing American and Chinese
cultures, factors such as dependence of Chinese companies to the government, leakage
of resources in China, superiority of American economic development to China,
Chinese pluralism culture versus American individualism culture, economy of the free
market in USA and risk of conflict in China were considered as factors affecting the
citizenship behavior and its concept in both societies (Fareh et al, 2004).
In continue, Hofstede (1984) quoted by Wang et al (2010) explained that two specified
approaches of culture include “individualism-pluralism” and “power distance”. Inside
a culture, these approaches may affect the quality of OCB perception.
Furthermore, the appeared behaviors may have different consequences according to
the culture. The pluralistic cultures may be the incentive for various behaviors that
benefits the organization as well as the internal groups. Performing beyond the tasks in
a group may be natural in pluralistic cultures but in the individualistic cultures may be
exceptional and extraordinary. Instrumental motivation of individual in the most
individualistic cultures has positive effect on OCB appearance. In other word, in the
individualistic cultures, OCB may be motivated and affect the evaluation of
employees’ performance and lead to reward and benefits for the employee. On the
other side, in the pluralistic cultures, loyalty and support of group is noticed. Hence, it
is not expected the instrumental motivation to determine the OCB, or OCB execution
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
839
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
to be dependent to the reward the employees receive. In addition, the level of
commitment to the organization may affect the type or rate of citizenship behavior
(ibid).
According to Navabakhsh et al (2009) suggestion, the job, person and organizational
structure’s characteristics determine the commitment level of employees, although
these factors may be indeed a part of an intensive class of factors creating the culture
in a person. For instance, the commitment in a pluralistic culture due to the role and
importance of group may have higher level. It is expected the pluralistic cultures to
have higher level of commitment and this high level is related to the rate of citizenship
behavior expression.
In connection with the power distance and social classification that may affect the
citizenship behavior’s perception and performance in the different cultures, Paine &
Organ (2000) believe that the collaborative leadership in a culture with low power
distance persuades the individuals to the creativity and initiative beyond the specific
roles defined for them. Vise versa, the subordinates of a hierarchic leadership in the
cultures with high power distance may fulfill all their requests conveniently but fear
from the initiative and creativity that may be a challenge for the leader’s power and
authority. The individuals perform what their leaders requested, thus citizenship
behavior is limited.
In a culture with low power distance leader-member exchange is observed in the
society as a social exchange and the subordinates’ perception reasonable behavior in
such society causes the employees to express the citizenship behavior. The employees
in the societies with high power distance, even in the event of lack of reasonable laws,
may show citizenship behavior, because inequity has been accepted, whilst the
employees in the societies with low power distance may not show citizenship behavior
in case of observing inequity in the applicable procedures and laws.
6- Requirements and conditions for establishment of citizenship behavior
Establishment of each culture, system, characteristic etc. demands some requirements
and conditions. Organizational citizenship behavior is a topic placed in human
resources context. In principle, the subjects raised in this context have plenty of
complexities and difficulties, because its audience includes organizational humans that
don’t place in any specific frame and formula. As Sohrabizadeh et al, the following
agents and conditions have significant effect on organizing the organizational
citizenship behavior, as follows:
Requirements and conditions for establishment of organizational citizenship behavior
Leadership Organizational
support
Organizational
justice
Employment and
training
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
840
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
6-1 Leadership
Trust, support and protection, patience and tolerating the managers and leaders are
considered as the most important traits for success of modern organizational models
and approaches. Organizational citizenship behavior as an organizational thought and
paradigm requests the managers and leaders to imagine their organization as a country
and consider organizational citizenship establishment as the main challenge of their
management as the voluntary commitment in connection with the goals, styles and
ultimately organization success. Citizenship behavior requests the leaders and
managers to promote the feeling of organization-interesting that is equal to civic virtue
in the citizenship topic as a basic culture in the organization. Expression of
Organizational citizenship behavior requires deep revising the position and importance
of subordinates. The leader is the center of attention, the leader expresses the
organizational goals, the leader should have the feeling of excellence, but the leaders
should know that in addition to all aforesaid and more than all, the leader in the
organizational life requires the subordinates taking effort with love and interest and
loyalty resulted from continuous presence in the organizational interactions in order to
achieve the organizational goals (Sohrabizadeh et al, 2010). The experiences and
achievements gained from failure of initial actions taken in establishment of
organizational citizenship behavior explain notable points as follows:
1- Usually, the managers instead of predicting and obviating the crisis assume the
employees as the agents of failure and blame them.
2- Usually, the managers focus on a group of tasks (majorly executive) and forget
the employees.
3- Usually, the managers instead of analyzing and detecting the problem, supply
the monetary and financial factors to solve the problems.
4- In many cases, they adopt low-cost and superficial methods to solve the
problems.
5- In many cases, the managers consider the ad hoc and short-term trainings
sufficient and eliminate the experience-oriented learning.
All the foregoing factors frustrate the current of organizational citizenship behavior in
the organizations. In addition to the said items, lack of patience, tolerance and long-
term and strategic thought encounter the establishment of modern systems in
problems. In order to organize the organizational citizenship behavior, the managers
and leaders should be pioneer. They own should manifest an organizational citizen.
The managers should ever revise their performance and attempt to analyze their
actions and so prevent any misunderstanding (Fattahi & Azami, 2008).
6-2 Organizational support
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
841
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
Sohrabizadeh et al (2010) believe that the employees of an organization interest and
believe in the organization based on the valuation of organization for them and for
making welfare, comfort and security. This belief has been defined as organizational
support perception, in other word perception of organizational support is the belief and
perception of an individual concerning that his welfare and comfort and his
collaboration in the organization success is important for the organization, so high
level of this phenomenon (organizational support perception) causes the commitment
to be made in employees in order to compensate these privileges and benefits which
may be expressed as collaborative behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors.
In other word, the man due to his social nature tends to show organizational
citizenship behavior in lieu for the supports of organization. Presenting the appropriate
organizational supports to the employees will lead to the dependency and belonging of
individuals to their organizations. They believe that the general factor affecting the
spirit and dependency of people to the organizational commitment is deemed as
supportive behavior, and other researches (Organ & Rian, 1995; Seyed Naghavi etal,
2010) indicate their significant relationship with the organizational citizenship
behavior (but the intensity of these correlations is different) that demonstrates the
importance of these variables for determination of organizational citizenship behavior.
6-3 Organizational justice
One of the most important consequences of organizational justice is organizational
citizenship behavior and its different contexts. Raminmehr et al (2009) indicated that
the managers and heads of units learned the principles of organizational justice during
training courses have been evaluated as just and fair people as the viewpoint of
subordinates and the same evaluation caused the subordinates to show more
citizenship behavior to the working unit and their colleges. Sohrabizadeh et al (2010)
believe that the employees feeling inequity, upon showing the negative reactions such
as abstaining effort, underemployment and weak organizational citizenship behaviors
and in the acute state by resigning from the job respond this inequity. According to the
theory of organizational justice, it is predicted that the employees react to existence or
lack of organizational justice in working environment. One of these reactions is
increasing or decreasing the outputs means that if the employees observe that no
justice is enforced in the organization involve in a negative stress, consequently for
reducing this stress they try to reduce their inputs and collaborations in the
organization. In such cases, they citizenship behavior may be reduced as well. Vise
versa, if the employees feel the organizational justice in an organization, they will be
stimulated to perform helping behaviors such as organizational citizenship behavior in
order to increase their inputs and collaborations in the organization. Podsakoff et al
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
842
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
(1991) discuss that when the employees are behaved fairly in the organization and the
heads have good relationship with them, their organizational citizenship behavior is
increased. In the discussion on motivational basis for organizational citizenship
behavior, Organ (1991) believes that the sensation of justice has significant role in
promotion of organizational citizenship behavior. He has presented an expression
based on the social exchange, therein the employees to compensate the organization’s
fair behavior, express citizenship behavior.
6-4 Employment and training
Today, the paradigm of integrated quality control management has provided a
systemic requirement for promotion of organizations’ performance. Controlling the
inputs, processes, and products altogether are considered in the literature of this
approach (Hajikarimi, 2003). Sohrabizadeh et al (2010) stated that the new employed
workforces are deemed as organization inputs. The qualitative thoughts enforcing on
the organizations of contemporary world, attraction strategies and employment in
human resources management all emphasize on the care in employing processes. It is
obvious, if an organization to adopt new perspectives, trains the member forces to
learn that knowledge and considers some indicators for selection and training of new
personnel. Although organizational citizenship behavior is newborn in management
organization knowledge, but according to its functions, soon will be changed to a
necessary need for the organizations. Hence, it is required the organizations to apply
organizational citizenship behavior approaches such as altruism, magnanimity, civic
virtue, conscientiousness and respect and reverence in the employing and training
processes. DePaula & Shannon Moran (2001) believe that attention in suitable
selection of personnel and their training for performing the citizenship roles will have
important effect on consecutive costs reduction.
7- Outcomes and results of organizational citizenship behavior
As Senobari (2008), the major part of researches applied in the context of
organizational citizenship behavior is focused on the forming approaches and agents,
but within a few recent years, the studies in this context have considered the outcomes
and results of organizational citizenship behavior particularly focused on two key
topics as follows:
a. The effect of organizational citizenship behavior on the performance evaluation
b. The effect of organizational citizenship behavior on the organizational
performance and success
The above items are explained as below:
7-1 The effect of organizational citizenship behavior on the performance evaluation:
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
843
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
For this purpose, Podsakoff et al (2000) have raised several major causes in connection
with the effect of organizational citizenship behavior on the evaluation of employees’
performance by the managers, as follows:
a. Retaliation rule:
The people try to compensate the others’ helps, pay attention to them and
behave fairly thereto. Thus, in the event the organizational citizenship behavior
has positive influence on the managers and organization, the managers consider
such behaviors for evaluation of employees’ performance.
b. Implicit performance theory:
The assessors believe in implicit theory in the simultaneous events or behaviors
occurrence, therefore if a manager trusts implicitly that citizenship behavior and
general performance of organization are in connection with each other and the
manager often observes the citizenship behaviors from the employees,
implicitly infers that the employees has high performance.
c. Behavioral impact and accessibility:
Upon evaluation of employees’ performance, the managers are seeking for
distinct information and whereas organizational citizenship behavior don’t
pertain to the required formal behaviors, these behaviors may be distinct forms
of behavior that are sought by the managers while evaluation of performance.
d. Characteristic processes:
Performance events and the behaviors with inner motivation and cause are most
prominent and mentioned in performance evaluation. Whereas organizational
citizenship behaviors don’t pertain to the formal tasks, therefore the managers
consider these behaviors as inner behaviors which are highly effective on
performance evaluation.
e. Misrepresenting correlations:
Misrepresenting correlations is arising from peoples’ tendency to establishing a
relationship between two things or events when they occur together
unexpectedly, moreover, Senobari (2008) mentioned that there are some
resources concerning this fact that misrepresenting correlations may be
observed while evaluations, as below:
1- The assessor may have no enough paradigms of citizenship behaviors or in-
role behaviors;
2- The assessor may be affected by a specific behavioral event;
3- The measurement scales may be mental or have not been defined
sufficiently;
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
844
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
4- The assessor may have not enough motivation or knowledge for performing
his job as best;
5- Remembering the assessee’s behavior (performance) may be corrupted by
the assessor (all foregoing may result in significance of OCB in forming the
assessor’s evaluations).
7-2 The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on the organization performance
and success:
In the early studies applied in this context, the researcher understood that citizenship
behaviors are in connection with high performance. Shaemi & Mahmoudi (2008)
explained that in the first studied applied by Karambayya (1989) in this field, he
understood that the employees working in organizational units with high performance
have expressed citizenship behaviors more than employees working in units with low
performance.
According Tavakoli et al (2009), some researchers (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993 and
Smith, 1983) raised that the citizenship behaviors facilitate the organizational
performance by greasing the social machine of organizations and some other
(Podsakoff & McKenzie, 1997 and Organ, 1991) have considered specific cases,
therein citizenship behaviors affect the organizational behavior positively, as below:
7-2-1 Growth and productivity of others’ productivity:
1- The employees who own help the others, cause their high productivity;
2- The helping behaviors assisted ever and over time to better performance of
activities (Podsakoff & McKenzie, 1997; quoted by Tavakoli et al, 2009).
7-2-2 Increase in administrative productivity:
1- If the employees have civic virtue, the manager may utilize their beliefs and
suggestions for the improvement of organizational effectiveness;
2- Courteous and tactful employees avoid making problems for the others,
therefore prevent crisis in the organization (Podsakoff & McKenzie, 1997;
quoted by Tavakoli et al, 2009).
7-2-3 Freeing the resources for further production:
1- When the employees help the others in their working problems, provide more
opportunities for the managers to perform the organization’s activities;
2- The conscious and sagacious employees require lower supervision and control
and create this trust in the manager to assign more responsibility to them.
Therefore, they provide more opportunity and time for the manager to deal with
the important issues of organization;
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
845
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
3- The experienced employees who train the new personnel and lead them cause
reduction of organization’s costs and allocating the resources for training the
employees;
4- The employees with humanistic and magnanimity behaviors cause the
manager’s time to be spent on more important organizational problems instead
of proceeding with partial claims and problems (Organ, 1991).
7-2-4 Prevention from allocating rare resources to preservation and maintenance
activities
1- Whereas citizenship behaviors strength the team spirit in working and causes
confidence, thus prevents from allocating organizational resources to group
preservation and maintenance activities;
2- The conscious and sagacious employees have lower intergroup conflict, so they
cause lower time to be spent for conflict management (Organ, 1991).
7-2-5 Coordination between team members and group activities:
1- Fattahi & Azami (2008) explain that the civic virtue together with voluntary
presence and active collaboration in the working sessions is effective on the
coordination between team members’ activity and increases the efficiency and
effectiveness;
2- Complaisance and politeness encountering the group members and other
organizational groups prevents the probability of occurring time consuming
problems.
7-2-6 Capability of recruiting and preserving the best personnel through attractive
working environment:
1- Helping activities cause strengthening the morals, performing group work and
team dependency feeling all of which strength the performance and help the
organization to recruit and maintain the capable employees;
2- Expressing magnanimous behaviors and lack of objection to partial problems
cause loyalty and organizational commitment feeling and employees’ survival
(ibid).
7-2-7 Stability of organizational performance
1- Performing the tasks of absent employees and helping whom have heavy
responsibilities will stabilize the performance of working unit;
2- The conscious employees have commonly high performance, thus reduce the
fluctuation in performance of working unit (Fattahi & Azami, 2008).
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
846
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
7-2-8 Capability of organization in adaption to the environmental changes:
1- The employees having information on labor market, present good suggestions
in the organizational changes;
2- The employees active in the collaboration sessions, help to publish the
information in the organization and ultimately increase the organizational
responding;
3- The employees having magnanimity spirit help the others through learning new
skills in organizational growth and changes (Khodabakhsh & Khodabakhsh,
2008).
In consideration of the foregoing, it is expected the meaning and structure of OCB to
be different in the various societies because of cultural content of each society and
conditions and environment therein OCB is occurred; therefore OCB is required to be
considered culturally.
8- Conclusion and recommendations:
According to the changes and developments of the current age and upon entering the
organizations into the knowledge-oriented economy, the human resources is
considered from one side as the most vital strategic element in enhancement of
organization’s effectiveness and efficiency, on the other side, current organizations
require some personnel who tend to confront the existing norms and don accept to
perform the tasks as routine style. As well as, there should be some people who accept
the responsibility of their measures. Whereas one of the raised elements in this relation
is the concept of organizational citizenship behavior, recognizing the organizational
citizenship behavior seems to be required more than ever for increasing the
organizations’ effectiveness. It will not be realized unless the principles and rules
related to the organizational citizenship behavior to be identified and the beds required
for implementation of such behaviors to be provided. Although, the citizenship
behavior exists in different societies, but its culture and nature have unavoidable effect
on OCB and its type as well as the rate the people express it. It should be noticed that
various cultures may present different approaches and types of OCB and have different
perception of citizenship behavior approaches.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
847
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
References
- Amini, Bibi Akram; Rafiei, Mojtaba; Kalaei, Siavash (2007), Organizational
Citizenship Behavior, Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, 3rd year,
No. 25, P 32-46;[in Persian]
- Appelbaum, S. & Nicolas, B. & Erika, B. & Jonathan, B. & Rodney, C. &Isabelle,D.
&Chrystine, G. & Carlo, S.(2004). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: a Case Study
of Culture, Leadership and Trust, Management Decision, Vol.42, No.1, Pp.13-40.
- Banks.Ji.A.(2008). Diversity, group identity, and Citizenship education
- Bienstock,c.,Carol,W.DeMoranville,C.&K.Smith,L(2003). "Organizationalcitizenship
behavior and service quality",Journal of Service Marketing, Vol.17,No.4, pp. 357-378.
- Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H. and Bloodgood, J.M. (2002), Citizenshipbehavior and
the creation of social capital in organizations, Academy of Management Review,Vol
27,No 4,Pp 5-22.
- Borman, W. C&Motowidlo, S. J (2001). Expanding the criterion domain to include
elements of contextual performance, In N. Schmitt & W. C.
- Chen, Z. ,Eisenberger, R . Johnson, K. M., Sucharski, I. L. &Aselage J (2009).
Perceived organizational support and extra- role performance: Which leads to which?,
Journal of SocialPsychology,Vol149,No1, Pp119-134.
- Dipaola, M.F & Tschannen-Moran, M (2001).Organizational Citizenship Behavior in
schools and its relationship to school climate, journal of School Leadership, 11, Pp
424-447.
- Farh,J.L.,ZhongC.B.,Organ,D.W.(2004).“ Organization citizenship behavior in the
people’s republic of china” ,OrganizationScience,Vol .15 , No2 , Pp 251-273.
- Fathi Vajargah, Kourosh and Chokadeh, Sakineh (2006), Identification of Citizenship
Training Harms in Hidden Curriculum: Theoretical Education System from the
viewpoint of Women Teachers in Tehran and Presenting Strategies for Improvement
of its Status, Educational Initiative Journal, No. 17, 5th year, P 93-132; [in Persian]
- Fattahi, Mehdi and Azami, Amir (2008), Organizational Citizenship Behavior;
Definitions, Forming Factors, Consequences and Presenting an Initial Model, 1st
Conference of Organizational Citizenship Behavior Management, Faculty of
Management, University of Tehran; [in Persian]
- Foot,D., Tang,T.L.(2008). Job satisfaction and organizational citizen
behavior(OCB).department of management and marketing, Vol46, No6, Pp933-947.
- Ghafari Ashtiani, Peyman and Kohan, Ali (2009), Organizational Citizenship
Behavior: Paradigm of 21st Century Organizations, Management Scientific &
Research Journal, 20th year, P 145-160; [in Persian]
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
848
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
- Hajikarimi, Abbasali (2003), Development of Human Resources and its Role in
Promotion of Social Responsibility of Organization, Culture, Values and Morals,
Management Massage Journal, No. 9 & 10, P 97-115; [in Persian]
- Hassani Kakhaki, Ahmad & Gholipour, Arian (2007), Organizational Citizenship
Behavior: Another Step towards Organization Performance Improvement for
Customer, Commercial Research Quarterly, No. 45, P 115-145; [in Persian]
- in a global age.educational researcher, Vol 37,No 3,Pp129-139.
- Jamali, Akhtar; Taghipourzahir, Ali; Salehi, Moslem (2009), Relationship between
Vocational and Organizational Factors and Organizational Citizenship Behavior of
Academic Board Members of Dist. 1 Units of IAU for the Purpose of Presenting the
Appropriate Model, Journal of Leadership and Educational Management of Islamic
Azad University, Garmsar Campus, 3rd year, No. 2, P 87-106; [in Persian]
- Jung Joo , Y. Hong, S.(2008).“ Organization citizenshipbehavior (OCB) ,TQM and
performance at the maquiladora”,International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management,Vol.25,No.8.Pp124-152.
- Kazemi, Mohammad and Chokadeh, Sakineh (2005), Organizational Civil Behavior:
Expression of a Developed Aspect of Humans Behavior and Performance in
Organizational Life, 3rd International Conference on Management, Faculty of
Management, University of Tehran; [in Persian]
- Khodabakhsh, Hashem and Khodabakhsh, Majid (2008), Assessment of
Organizational Citizenship Behavior of University of Tehran’s Professors, the 1st
Conference on Organizational Citizenship Behavior Management, Faculty of
Management, University of Tehran; [in Persian]
- Lambert, S., J.(2000).Added Benefits: the link betweenwork – life benefits and
organizational citizenship behavior,Academy of management Journal,Vol43 ,Pp 801 -
815.
- Lotfabadi, Hossein (2006), Training National and International Citizenship along with
Strengthening the Students’ Identity and Value System, Journal of Educational
Initiatives, No. 17, 5th year, P 12-24; [in Persian]
- Mendoza,M.J.S. and Lara .P.Z.M(2007).''The impact of work alienationon
organizational citizenship behavior in the Canary Islands'', Internationaljournal of
organizational Analysis .Vol.15,No.1,Pp793-808.
- Morisson, E. (1994),“Role definitions and organizationalcitizenship behavior :
importance of the employees perspective ”,Academy of Management Journal
,vol.37,No.6.Pp25-41.
- Morkoczy, L. & Xin, K. (2005), The Virtues of Omission in Organizational
Citizenship Behavior, Goldmark.org/livia.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
849
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
- Navabakhsh, Mehrdad; Ghafari Ashtiani, Peyman and Kohan, Ali (2009),
Organizational Citizenship Behavior Context Management in Social Extra-roles,
Basirat Journal, 16th year, No. 43, P 55-79; [in Persian]
- Organ, D. W (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction causes –
performance hypothesis, Academy of management Review, 2, Pp46-53.
- Organ, D. W. (1991)."The subtle significance of job satisfaction", Clinical Laboratory
Management Review,Vol 4, Pp. 94-98.
- Paine J.B., Organ D.W.,(2000),“The cultural matrix of organizationalcitizenship
behavior : Some preliminary conceptual and empiricalobservations”, Human Resource
Management Review,Vol.10 ,No.1.Pp124-165.
- 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, Pp 13-53.
- Podskoff,P.M,Mackenzie,S,Moorman,R.&fetter,(1991).Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on organizational behaviors, the leadership Quarterly, 1, Pp
107-142.
- Raminmehr, Hamid; Hadizadehmoghadam, Akram and Ahmadi, Iman (2009), Study
on the Relationship between Perception of Organizational Justice and Organizational
Citizenship behavior, case study: National Oil Products Distribution Co., Tehran Staff,
Development Management Research Journal, 1st year, No. 2, P 69-89; [in Persian]
- Schermerhorn. JR (1999). Management, 6th edition, New York John Wiley.-
- Senobari, Mohammad (2008), Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Concepts,
Definitions, Approaches and Effective Factors), Police Human Development Two-
month Journal, 5th year, No. 16, P 23-58; [in Persian]
- Shaemi, Ali and Mahmoudi, Somayeh (2008), Study on the Relationship between
Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Organizations’ Performance, 1st Conference
on Organizational Citizenship Behavior Management, Faculty of Management,
University of Tehran; [in Persian]
- Shiani, Maliheh (2002), A Sociological Analysis of Citizenship Status in Lorestan,
Iran Sociological Journal, 4th circulation, P. 3, P 60-80; [in Persian]
- Sohrabi, Babak and Khanlari, Amir (2009), Morals, Information Technology &
Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Journal of Morals in Science & Technology, 4th
year, No. 1& 2, P 1-10; [in Persian]
- Sohrabizadeh, Sanaz; Bastani, Peyvand and Ravangard, Ramin (2010), Study on
Factors affecting Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Staff Employees of Shiraz
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
850
JANUARY 2013
VOL 4, NO 9
University of Medical Sciences, Bimarestan Quarterly, 9th year, No. 1&2, P 75-82; [in
Persian]
- Tavakoli, Zeinab; Abedi, Mohammadreza; Salehnia, Monireh (2009), Study on the
Effect of Organizational Citizenship Behavior Training on the Increase of
Organizational Commitment of Cultural & Recreational Organization of Esfahan
Municipality’s employees, Journal of Management Perspective, No. 3, P 105-124; [in
Persian]
- Valipour, Roghieh (2007), Study on Citizenship Contexts in Higher Education System
as the viewpoint of Students and Professors (case study: University of Mazandaran),
M.Sc. thesis on Educational Planning, University of Mazandaran: Faculty of Social
and Human Sciences. [In Persian]
- Wang, L,.Hinrichs,K, T,.Prieto,L,.Howell, J P,.(2010).”Five dimensions of
organizational citizenship behavior: Comparing antecedents and levels of engagement
in China and the US”. the Constructivist Vol 15, No 1, Available at:
http://www.odu.edu/educ/act/journal /dangel01.pdf.