Organizational context and employee citizenship behavior in ...

1

Organizational context and employee citizenshipbehavior in the PRC: Impact of job function, managerial

level, and organization ownership

Jiing-Lih Farh Department of Management of Organizations Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Clear Water Bay, Kowloon Hong Kong (852) 2358-7735 [email protected]

Chen-Bo Zhong Department of Management of Organizations Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Clear Water Bay, Kowloon Hong Kong (852) 2358-7735 [email protected]

Dennis W. Organ School of Business Indiana University Bloomington. Indiana [email protected]

Correspondence to:Jiing-Lih FarhDepartment of Management of OrganizationsHong Kong University of Science and TechnologyClear Water Bay, KowloonHong Kong (852) 2358-7735

Paper accepted at Academy of Management 2001 Annual Conference and will bepresented at the interactive paper session.

Submission # 32741

ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT ABEHAVIOR IN THE PRC: IM

MANAGERIAL LEVEL, AND O

ABSTR

OCB is formally defined as individua

directly or explicitly recognized by the form

aggregate promotes the effective functioning

Extant literature has focused on employee at

employee OCB (Organ & Ryan, 1995). Lit

organizational context in which OCB is man

fill this gap and to examine how organization

People’s Republic of China (PRC). We cho

because previous research has shown that OC

forms, including both etic and emic dimensio

Studying OCB in the PRC allows us to see m

may be linked with various forms of OCB. T

factors were investigated in this study: job fu

organization ownership. Using a sample of 3

the PRC, we first validated an OCB question

the grounded work by Farh, Zhong, and Org

of contextual factors on OCB using regressio

organizational context accounted for a small

several forms of OCB in a predictable direct

Keywords: Organizational Citizenship Beha

2

ND EMPLOYEE CITIZENSHIPPACT OF JOB FUNCTION,RGANIZATION OWNERSHIP

ACT

l behavior that is discretionary, not

al reward system, and that in the

of the organization (Organ, 1988).

titudes and disposition as predictors of

tle attention has been paid to the

ifested. The purpose of this study is to

al context may influence OCB in the

se to study this phenomenon in PRC

B in the PRC has exhibited rich, varied

ns (Farh, Zhong, & Organ, 2000).

ore clearly how organizational context

hree sets of organizational contextual

nction, managerial level, and

86 employees from six major cities in

naire developed for the PRC based on

an (2000). We then examined the impact

n analysis. Results indicated that

but significant amount of variance in

ion.

vior, Contextual Effect, PRC

3

INTRODUCTION

Nearly four decades ago, Katz (1964) pointed out the importance of a class of

discretionary and spontaneous behaviors that are beyond explicit role requirements

but essential for organizational effectiveness. Smith, Organ, and Near (1983), in a

report of empirical research on the nature and antecedents of such behaviors,

conceptualized these contributions as “organizational citizenship behavior” (OCB).

Organ later defined OCB as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or

explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes

the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988: 4). In subsequent

research, related concepts have been proposed and examined, including extra-role

behavior (Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995), civic citizenship (Graham,

1991; Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch, 1994), prosocial organizational behavior

(Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), organizational spontaneity (George & Brief, 1992), and

contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Motowidlo, Borman & Schmit,

1997).

While recent discussions (George & Brief, 1992; Organ, 1997) have

questioned whether such behavioral contributions must unambiguously lie beyond the

pale of “the job” or whether these contributions might meet with some forms of

“reward,” there seems to be general agreement that these forms of contribution can be

distinguished from “tasks” or “technical performance” (e.g., Borman & Motowidlo,

1993), have a more volitional character than “core job” contributions, are better

predicted by attitudinal and dispositional measures than is technical task performance,

and have their positive effects more generally on the social, psychological,

organizational, and political context, as opposed to the technical context of work.

4

Numerous studies have been conducted to examine the antecedents of OCB

(see Organ & Ryan, 1995 for a partial review of this literature). These research

follow two major streams. One takes on a social exchange perspective and the other

an individual difference perspective. According to the social exchange perspective,

when supervisors treat employees fairly, social exchange and the norm of reciprocity

(Gouldner, 1960) dictate that employees reciprocate. Organizational citizenship

behavior is one likely avenue for employee reciprocation. Empirical studies have

shown that indicators of social exchange (e.g., covenantal relationship, psychological

contract, leader-member exchange, perceived procedural justice, trust, organizational

commitment) are powerful predictors of OCB. In contrast, the research following the

individual difference perspective in predicting OCB has fairly limited success. Only

a few disposition variables (e.g., conscientiousness) were found to be reliable

predictors of OCB (see Organ & Ryan, 1995 for a review).

What is true of all aforementioned investigations of OCB, though, is their

emphasis on the internal state of employees (i.e., motivation, attitude, disposition).

And little attention has been paid to the organizational context in which OCB is

exhibited. In summarizing the past forty years of organization studies from a micro

perspective, Porter (1996) maintained that the most significant failure of micro

organization studies is that we have tended to ignore the “organization”, or “context”

in a more general term, in our studies of micro phenomena. In other words, we have

paid too little attention to the internal, organizational environment that sets the stage

for behavior to occur.

The purpose of this study is to fill this gap and to explore how organizational

context influences OCB in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). We chose to study

this phenomenon in PRC because previous research has shown that OCB in the PRC

5

are manifested in rich, varied form, including both etic and emic dimensions (Farh,

Zhong, & Organ, 2000). This allows us to see more clearly how organizational

contextual factors may be linked with various forms of OCB. Three sets of

organizational contextual factors were investigated in this study: job function,

managerial level, and organization ownership. In the following section, we shall first

provide a general rationale for contextual effects and then explain how and why job

function, managerial level, and organization ownership may influence the display of

OCB in the PRC.

How Context Shapes Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Organizational context shapes OCB in two principal ways. First,

organizational context defines the roles and responsibilities entailed in a job, which in

turn influence employee’s OCB. Second, organizational context provides or

constrains opportunities to perform certain forms of OCB for different groups of

employees.

Organizational context defines job

Organizational contexts exist not as concrete entities that elicit affective

commitment, instead, they are macrolevel abstractions containing taken-for-granted

scripts, rules, and classifications (Meyer and Rowan, 1977). In other words, it is not a

specific context per se (i.e. a particular job in a particular organization) that

determines employee behavior through affective processes such as identification and

internalization. Rather, it is the cognitive schemas and scripts embedded in the

6

context as a socially constructed abstraction that shapes behavior. For instance, Kulik

(1989) showed that employees evaluate the motivating potential of jobs through

applying schemas and scripts related to those jobs instead of collecting specific

information when the job under evaluation matches existing job categories (i.e.

supervisor/manager).

Once socially constructed, a job (or job title) is to include all activities that are

“commonly” perceived to be related or important to that job, regardless of whether

such activities are defined by a particular contract in a specific organization. From

employees’ perspective, then, many forms of OCBs will be performed to the extent

that those behaviors are considered important to employees’ jobs. And this is

independent of employees’ intent to reciprocate their organizations or the extent to

which such behaviors can be enforced by employment contracts. Organizational

context influences the display of OCB through defining what OCBs are important to

which jobs. Some may challenge that conventionally defined in-role versus extra-role

behaviors do differ in terms of how important they are to certain jobs. Generally

speaking, extra-role behaviors are considered less important, less enforceable, and

less steadily performed than are in-role behaviors. This is because there are different

mechanisms underlying those role behaviors. Scott (1995) defined institution as

consisting of cognitive, normative, and regulative structures and activities that provide

stability and meaning to social behavior. To the extent job is socially constructed, we

can view job as an institution that involves three processes. Regulative process

involves the rewards or punishments in an attempt to influence future behavior.

Activities in a job that are defined by contract or labor law are driven by this kind of

process. And most of them fall into the conventional “in-role” category. Normative

process refers to how values and normative frameworks structure choices. Job

7

activities, not clearly defined by regulations, may be driven by norms and values.

Cognitive process refers to the taken-for-granted nature of job activities. As we

argued before, employees perform some but not other activities not because they are

regulated or obligated to do so but because some are taken for granted and others are

simply inconceivable. By definition, OCBs are discretionary behaviors that are not

contractually enforceable, thus more susceptible to the influence of normative and

cognitive structures. Organizational context influences OCB through providing a

shared understanding of job definition and shared values of what is important and

should be performed in the job.

A recent study by Morrison (1994) illustrated how job definition may

influence OCB. Using a sample of clerical employees from a US urban medical

center, Morrison (1994) found that employees differed in what they defined as in-role

and extra-role behavior and that employees were more likely to display OCB if they

defined those behaviors as in-role rather than extra-role. In other words, what is

considered to be OCB within a single organization is influenced by employees’

perceptions of their work roles and job responsibilities, which are shaped by the

context. Morrison argued and actually demonstrated that because of the different

“social cues” received by employees in different job levels, managers and employees

develop different perceptions of employees’ job responsibility. Moreover, she found

that employees positioned in similar contexts (structurally equivalent) tend to define

their job responsibilities similarly. This study nicely illustrated how contextual forces

(i.e., managerial level, structural equivalence) can influence OCB.

Organizational context provides and constrains opportunities to perform OCB

8

Organizational context may also shape OCB through its influence on the

relative opportunity to perform OCB. It has been observed that certain jobs may

limit the opportunities for the job incumbent to perform OCB (Organ, 1988). For

example, workers on the assembly line have few opportunities to perform certain

forms of OCB (e.g., altruism) because their work behaviors are tightly driven by

technology. In contrast, workers in administrative support role probably have more

freedom and opportunities to help peers. Other contextual factors such as teamwork

structure, task interdependence, boundary-spanning roles, and job characteristics may

also influence OCB through their impacts on opportunities to perform OCB.

Impact of Job Function, Managerial Level, and Organization Ownership

Although we have argued why and how organizational context may influence

OCB, it is difficult to provide a full list of contextual factors that may influence OCB.

In this study, we examined three prominent contextual factors: job function,

managerial level, and organizational ownership.

Job function shapes OCB because it influences job definition and

opportunities to perform OCB. We would expect this impact of job function to be

reflected in the display of OCB. For example, compared with production jobs,

marketing jobs by default require more interpersonal interactions with outsiders.

Thus, employees performing marketing jobs are likely to display more OCB in the

form of promoting company image to outsiders than do production workers. And this

is not only because marketing job provides more opportunities to perform such

behaviors but also because such behaviors are taken for granted as a part of a

marketing job.

9

Managerial level reflects an individual’s social location within the

organizational hierarchy. The difference between the role of manager and that of a

non-manager is “socially constructed” to the extent that it has long been recognized

and has been taken for granted. “Manager” and “non-manager” are not only labels

referring to different organizational rankings, but also associated with different

schemas and stereotypes that imply different roles and responsibilities. For example,

Kulik (1989) found that the word “manager” is automatically associated with features

such as motivating employees, delegating work to subordinates, and hiring and firing

of employees. In general, managers are commonly thought to be responsible for

activities that concern organization as a whole. Since OCB by definition refers to

organization promotive activities, we would expect managers to display more OCB of

all kinds than do non-managers.

Organization ownership is another important organizational context variable

that may influence OCB in the PRC. By organization ownership, we distinguish two

types of organizations in the PRC: state-owned organizations (including state owned

and collectively owned enterprises) and non-state owned organizations (including

privately owned and foreign invested enterprises). Marked differences exist in the

institutional environments of these two types of organizations in the PRC, and these

differences may influence how employees perform various forms of OCB.

Specifically, we argue that employees in state-owned enterprises tend to perform

more community oriented OCB and less efficiency enhancing OCB than those from

non state-owned enterprises.

It is well known that western economies feature a highly developed legal and

regulatory context for transacting business. Thus, most of the interaction between the

firm and its environment is conducted by formal contracts, the rule of law, and

10

avenues of redress for violations of contracts and laws. By contrast, in the PRC, the

absence of commercial ground rules comparable to those in the Western economies

means that the firm is quite vulnerable to selective and arbitrary enforcement of any

legal and regulatory codes that do exist (Ahlstrom, Bruton, & Lui, 2000). Local

bureaucrats can, by fiat, impose taxes on a firm, force it to discontinue selling a

certain product, or exit an industry altogether (Child, 1994). The lack of a well-

developed and tractable due-process system means that the firm, in order to protect

itself from such capricious threats to its effectiveness, must develop a deep reservoir

of external support for its practices and institutional presence. This involves, of

course, good personal relationships between the firm’s top managers and local

government leaders, but also a generalized sense by the community that the firm is a

positive contributor to the welfare of the locality. One means by which this reputation

can be maintained and enhanced is through the visible involvement by firm

employees in both formal and informal activities that benefit the community.

Because state-owned firms are more dependent on the state and the locality for

support than non-state-owned firms, we expected a higher level of community

oriented OCB in state-owned firms than in non state-owned firms.

Unlike state-owned firms which can depend on the government for backing as

a last resort, non state-owned firms must compete with rivals in the market based on

price and performance of her products. This demands a high threshold of efficiency

in its internal operations. Thus, we expect a higher level of efficiency enhancing

OCB by employees in non state-owned firms than in state-owned firms.

11

METHOD

Sample and Procedure

Surveys were distributed through a network of 8 mainland professors in 7

major universities in six cities in China. These professors are involved in various

types of management education programs in their respective universities. Each

professor collected OCB surveys from 20 to 30 managers or supervisors who were

enrolled in their classes. The surveys were completed in class for research purpose

with confidentiality guaranteed.

A total of 193 managers completed the survey. 73 percent of them are male;

about 46 percent under the age of 30, 50 percent between the age of 31 and 40; the

majority (96 percent) had college or higher education. In terms of managerial level,

35 percent of the respondents described themselves as junior manager, 42 percent

middle manager, and 22 percent senior manager.

Each respondent completed the survey for two of his/her direct subordinates.

The respondent described the OCB of the subordinates as well as provided

demographic information (age, gender), job function, managerial level, and type of

organization ownership for the subordinate. From the 193 respondents, we collected

OCB and organizational context data for 386 subordinates, which constituted the

sample for this study. Among these subordinates, 59 percent are male; 38 percent are

in supervisory positions (versus non-supervisory positions). In terms of the type of

the organization they come from, 44 percent are from state-owned enterprise, 26

percent from foreign invested enterprises, 15 percent from private enterprises, and 10

percent from government. In terms of job function, 33 percent are in administrative

12

support (e.g., personnel), 25 percent in marketing and sales, 11 percent in R&D, 14

percent in logistics, and 5 percent in production. Table 1 provides the detailed

characteristics of the sample.

-------------------------------

Insert table 1 about here

-------------------------------

Measures

Development of PRC Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale

Using an inductive approach modeled after Farh, Earley, and Lin (1997), Farh,

Zhong, and Organ (2000) identified 11 dimensions of OCB commonly found in

organizations in the PRC. They include: 1) conscientiousness (similar to functional

participation or job dedication); 2) helping coworkers (similar to altruism or helping);

3) voice (similar to voice defined by Van Dyne & LePine, 1998); 4) activity

participation (similar to civic virtue); 5) promoting company image (similar to loyalty

or loyal boosterism); 6) self-learning, which refers to improving one’s job related

knowledge or skills through self-learning; 7) social welfare participation, which refers

to employees’ participation in activities of public welfare or community service

nature; 8) protecting and saving company resources, which includes actions that save

company resources, muster personal resources (e.g., money, social capital) to aid

company, and protect company from disasters (e.g., fire outbreak or flood); 9)

keeping workplace clean; 10) interpersonal harmony, which involves employee

13

actions aimed at facilitating and preserving interpersonal harmony at workplace; and

11) compliance with social norms in the society (e.g., honesty, keeping promise).

Based on the work by Farh, Zhong and Organ (2000), we constructed a 11

dimension OCB scale for the PRC. We first wrote 4 to 6 items for each OCB

dimension. We pilot tested the draft instrument using two samples of PRC

managers/supervisors who completed a total of 340 OCB surveys. We conducted

exploratory factor analysis to see if items were loaded on their intended dimensions.

We also examined item-total dimensional score correlation to eliminate items that

correlated more highly with other dimensions than their intended dimensions. After

conducting these analyses, we decided to discard “compliance to social norms”

dimension because its items could not converge to form a factor. We split “helping

coworker” dimension into two separate dimensions, non-work help and work-related

help. We dropped a few items that had bad psychometric properties and changed the

wording of a few more items for increased clarity. The final OCB scale is a 41-item

instrument with 11 dimensions. This instrument is called the PRC OCB scale and

was used to measure OCB in our study.

We performed a confirmatory factor analysis on the PRC OCB scale to see if

the data fit the 11-dimensional structure, using LISREL 8. Results showed that all

items had substantial loadings on their hypothesized factors, but the overall fit of the

11-factor model was less than ideal. We decided to drop 4 items which had high

cross-loadings to improve the fit.

Table 2 reports the final result of the confirmatory factor analysis. The overall

fit of the 11-factor model to the data was good with NNFI= .86, CFI= .88, IFI= .88,

RMSEA= .068, and a chi-square value of 1470.66 with 574 degrees of freedom (p<

.01). All items had significant and substantial loadings on their designated factors.

14

The Cronbach alphas for the 11 dimensions ranged from .72 to .88 with a median of

.82. The above evidence, taken together, suggested that the 11 dimension PRC OCB

scale has sound psychometric properties and can be used in further analysis.

--------------------------------


--------------------------------

Overall performance

To control for the halo effect in supervisor ratings of OCB, we obtained

subordinate overall performance ratings from the supervisor. Overall performance

was measured by three generic items: a) “In general, this employee’s performance is

excellent”, b) “This employee has made significant contribution to his or her work

unit’s performance”, and c) “Compared with other employees in his or her work unit,

this employee’s work performance is among the top”. It was measured on a five-

point scale (1 ‘highly disagree’, 5 ‘highly agree’).

Job Function

Job function was measured by asking supervisors to indicate the job function

of each subordinate, which include: production, R&D, logistics, marketing, and

administrative support (including information technology, personnel, and

finance/accounting). We combined production, R&D, and logistics to form a

“production” category since all of them are directly related to the technical processes

15

that transfer inputs into outputs. Thus, job function has three categories: production,

marketing, and admin support. We created two dummy variables to represent these

three categories in regression analysis. For the first dummy variable, marketing was

coded as 1, all others coded as 0. For the second dummy variable, production was

coded as 1, all others coded as 0.

Managerial Level

Managerial level was measured by asking supervisors to indicate the rank of

each subordinate on a four point scale (1 = non-manager, 2 = junior manager, 3=

middle manager, 4 = senior manager). Because we were interested in the contrast

between managers versus non-managers, we collapsed the scale into two categories—

non-manager versus manager (by coding junior, middle, and senior managers into one

category), and treated it as a dummy variable in regression analysis (1 = manager, 0 =

non-manager).

Organization ownership

Organization ownership was measured by asking supervisors to indicate

whether their organizations are state-owned, collective, town and village, foreign

invested, or privately owned. In order to compare pattern of the data between state-

owned versus non state-owned enterprises, we collapsed state-owned enterprise and

collective enterprise into a single category called state-owned enterprise. We

combined foreign invested enterprise with private enterprises to form a non state-

owned enterprise. Town and village enterprise was excluded from the analysis due to

16

few cases (4 out of 386 cases) and the fact that most town and village enterprises in

the mainland are under reform—privatization, which causes ambiguity in their

ownership classification. Thus, organization ownership is a dichotomous variable

with state-owned organization coded as 1, non state-owned coded as 0.

RESULTS

Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelations of all variables

used in the study are reported in Table 3. The table indicates that all 11 dimensions of

OCB were significantly correlated. The largest correlation occurs between “social

welfare participation” and “non-work help” (r = .66). This is not surprising since both

involve helping behaviors not directly related to internal efficiency of the

organization. The smallest correlation was between “voice” and “keeping work place

clean” (r = .22). As expected, all OCB dimensions were significantly correlated with

overall performance, r ranging from .27 to .66.

----------------------------------


----------------------------------

We examined the individual effects of contextual variables on OCB by

regressing OCB on the contextual variables along with subordinates’ demographics

(age and gender) and overall performance. Table 4 presents the regression results.

-------------------------------------

17


-------------------------------------

Effects of control variables on OCB

Table 4 indicates that age had a negative effect on “promoting company

image” (p<0.1), “self learning” (p<0.01), and “interpersonal harmony” (p<0.05). This

suggests that younger employees are more likely to promote company image, to

acquire work-related knowledge and skills, and to maintain or foster interpersonal

harmony than older employees.

Gender had significant effects on two of the eleven OCB dimensions: “voice”

(p<0.01) and “keeping work place clean” (p<0.01). Specifically, women are less

likely to speak up—“voice”, but more likely to keep their immediate work

environment clean.

Overall performance had significant effects on all eleven OCB dimensions

(p<0.01). This is expected given significant correlation between overall performance

and OCB observed in both the present study and extant studies.

Effects of contextual variables on OCB

Table 4 also shows that job function had significant effects on three of the

eleven dimensions of OCB: “promoting company image”, “self learning”, and “social

welfare participation”.

First, employees in both production jobs (beta = -0.24, p<0.05) and marketing

jobs (beta = -0.23, p<0.10) are less likely to learn by themselves than employees in

18

administrative support. Second, compared with employees doing administrative

support, employees in the marketing jobs are more likely to promote company image

to outsiders (beta = 0.27, p<0.01). Third, employees in administrative support jobs are

more likely to participate in social welfare activities such as blood donation and tree

planting than those in marketing jobs (beta = -0.24, p<0.05).

Table 4 also indicates that managerial level had significant effects on two

OCB dimensions: “voice” (beta = 0.24, p<0.01) and “promoting company image”

(beta = 0.23, p<0.01). Specifically, supervisors are more likely to speak up in

meetings or to make proposals to improve efficiency than non-supervisory employees

are. They are also more likely to introduce their organizations or products to outsiders

than non-supervisory employees.

Finally, organization ownership had significant effects on four OCB

dimensions: “work-related help” (beta = -0.19, p<0.05), “social welfare participation”

(beta = 0.17, p<0.10), “protecting and saving company resources” (beta = -0.17,

p<0.10), and “keeping work place clean” (beta = -0.26, p<0.05). Specifically,

employees in non state-owned enterprises (including private and foreign invested

enterprises) are more likely to help their colleagues in work related problems than

those in state-owned enterprises. Employees in non state-owned enterprises also

perform behaviors that save company resources and keep work place clean more

frequently than employees in state owned enterprises do. As expected, employees in

state-owned enterprises are more likely to participate in social welfare activities than

those in non state-owned are.

DISCUSSION

19

This study made two important contributions to the extant OCB literature.

First, we developed and validated the PRC OCB scale. Second, we provided some

preliminary evidence for the impact of three contextual variables (job function,

managerial level, and organization ownership) on OCB.

Extant research in OCB is mostly conducted by western researchers using

samples drawn from western organizations. We have little knowledge about how

OCB is manifested in non-western cultural contexts. This study developed a brand

new OCB scale for the PRC. This 11 dimension scale has shown clear factorial

structure and high internal consistency. Six of its dimensions are etic in nature

because they are similar to those commonly studied in the literature

(conscientiousness, work-related help, non work help, voice, activity participation,

promoting company image). The other five are emic dimensions that are somewhat

unique to the PRC (self-learning, social welfare participation, protecting and saving

company resources, keeping workplace clean, interpersonal harmony). Farh, Zhong,

and Organ (2000) have provided an excellent discussion on the cultural underpinnings

for these emic dimensions. This new instrument will be a useful tool for researchers

to investigate OCB across cultural boundaries.

Three organizational contextual variables were examined in this study. They

accounted for 0 to 6% of the unique variance in the OCB dimensions, after controlling

for overall performance, age and gender. Among the 11 dimensions, organization

context had no unique effect on conscientiousness, non-work help, activity

participation, and interpersonal harmony. This means that these forms of OCB are

relatively free of contextual influences. That is, employees of different job functions,

managerial levels, or from different types of organization tended to perform these

20

OCBs at similar level. Context, however, did exhibit significant influence on several

other types of OCB. We shall discuss them below.

Job function was found to have significant impact on three types of OCB:

promoting company image, self-learning, and social welfare participation. As

expected, marketing employees displayed a higher level of promote-the-company

OCB than production or administrative support employees. This supports our

argument that marketing job provides more opportunities for its incumbent to interact

with outsiders and thus more chance to perform promote-the-company OCB. In

addition, the very definition of a marketing job probably leads its incumbent to

conceive such OCB as an inherent part of the job.

Job function also had an effect on self-learning. It was found that admin

support employees engaged in more self-learning than marketing and production

employees. We suspect that this is probably due to the fast challenging nature of the

admin support jobs. Note that in our classification, admin support jobs include

information technology, personnel, and finance/accounting. Employees in these jobs

probably feel a greater need to self-study to keep up with the fast changing nature of

their jobs than those in marketing and production.

Job function also had a significant impact on social welfare activities. It was

found that marketing employees are less likely to perform social welfare activities

than admin support employees. Note that social welfare activities include voluntary

donation of blood, tree planting, etc. These activities are employee responses on

behalf of the company to government’s calls for various social causes. Vigorous

participation in such activities benefits the organization’s reputation in the community

as well as strengthens its relationship with the government. Why are marketing

people less willing to participate in such activities than admin support employees?

21

We suspect that marketing employees may be less committed to the organization than

admin support employees because they often work alone and spend a lot of time

dealing with outside clients. Thus, they are less willing to perform such OCB.

Moreover, the definition of a marketing job may have led marketing employees to

perceive such activities as less central to their roles. These possibilities need to be

ascertained in future research.

Results of our study show that managerial level had a significant effect on two

dimensions of OCB only (i.e., voice and promoting company image). We found that

those who are in managerial roles are more likely to voice (e.g., make suggestions for

change to improve efficiency) and to promote company image than non-managerial

employees. These findings are consistent with our expectation about the definition of

managerial roles. Why does managerial level have no effect on other forms of OCB?

This is because by controlling for overall performance, we have underestimated the

effect of managerial level in the regression equation. From Table 1, we can see that

managerial level was positively correlated with all forms of OCBs, and 7 out of the 11

bivariate correlations reached the .05 level of significance. Thus, as expected,

managerial level exerts a strong influence on OCB.

Finally, organizational ownership had a significant effect on two forms of

OCB (work-related help, keeping work place clean). In addition, it had marginally

significant effect (p < .10) on two other forms of OCB (social welfare participation,

protecting and saving company resources). It was found that employees from state-

owned organizations were more likely to participate in social welfare activities than

those from non state-owned organizations. State-owned employees were less likely

to offer work-related help to coworkers, keep work place clean, and protect and save

company resources than those from non state-owned organizations. As we explained

22

in the introduction, state-owned organizations relied more heavily on state support

and thus more mindful of reputation-building social welfare activities. Because of the

availability of government support, they are less concerned about efficiency

enhancement. Therefore, we see a lower level of efficiency-enhancing OCB (e.g.,

protect and save company resources) in state-owned organizations than in non state-

owned organizations. It is not clear why two forms of OCB (work-related help,

keeping work place clean) vary across organization types, while others do not vary

(e.g., conscientiousness). Future research should examine these issues further.

Limitations

Several limitations should be noted when interpreting the study’s results. First,

the creation of job function categories is a little bit arbitrary. Although the three

categories (production/marketing/admin support) are generally established job titles,

their applicability in the PRC needs to be investigated further. Moreover, we do not

know whether the same job title in the PRC would connote the same meanings from

their counterparts in the West. Future research should define these categories more

carefully and provide respondents with clear descriptions. Second, only three control

variables were included in the regression. We should consider including other

important variables such as subordinates’ education level. Third, we did not develop

specific hypotheses concerning which contextual factors influence which

organizational citizenship behavior. This makes the study exploratory. Finally, only

three contextual variables were examined in this study. Other important contextual

variables may have been left out in the study.

23

Conclusion

Despite the limitations, our study contributed to the extant literature on OCB.

Unlike previous studies that assumed OCB to be generally context free and uniformly

distributed across different jobs or units of an organization, we demonstrated that

organizational context influenced OCB. An immediate implication of this study is

that in future research of OCB, one should consider the applicability of OCB

measures to the specific contexts of the sample. For example, Mackenzie, Podsakoff,

& Paine (1999) used an OCB measure including helping behavior, sportsmanship, and

civic virtue in a study of sales people. The results of their study suggested that OCB

accounted for a greater proportion of a sales manager’s evaluation than of a sales

representative’s evaluation. Mackenzie and colleagues then concluded that the impact

of OCBs on performance evaluations is greater at higher levels of the sales

organization hierarchy. However, it is also possible that the weaker relationship

between OCBs and performance for sales employees is actually due to the fact that

the dimensions of OCB included in their study (i.e., helping behavior, sportsmanship,

and civic virtue) may not include the OCBs most frequently performed by sales

employees (e.g., promoting company image). Moreover, helping behavior might be

of little relevance to sales employees since they work independently most of their

working time. In any case, the issue of the applicability of particular OCBs in an

organizational context is important and should be considered more carefully in future

research.

24

REFERENCE

Ahlstrom, D., Bruton, G. D., & Lui, S. Y. (2000). Navigating China’s changingeconomy: Strategies for private firms. Business Horizons, 43, January-February2000, 5-15.

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to includeelements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnelselection in organizations: 71-98. New York: Jossey-Bass.

Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1986. Prosocial Organizational Behaviors. Academyof Management Review, 11: 710-725.

Child, J. 1994. Management in China during the age of reform. Cambridge:Cambridge university press.

Farh, J. L. Zhong, C. B. & Organ, D. W. 2000. Organizational citizenship behavior inthe People’s Republic of China. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceeding.

Farh, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1990. Accounting for organizationalcitizenship behavior: leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal ofManagement, 16: 705-721.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. 1992. Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysisof the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin,112: 310-329.

Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity. American sociological review, 25:165-167.

Graham, J. W. 1991. An essay on organizational citizenship behaivor. EmployeeResponsibilities and Rights Journal, 4: 249-270.

Hatch, M. J. 1987. Physical barriers, task characteristics, and interaction activity inresearch and development firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 387-399.

Katz, D. 1964. The motivational basis of organiztioal behavior. Behavioral Science,9: 131-146.

Kulik, C. T. 1989. The effects of job categorization on judgements of the motivatingpotential of jobs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 68-90.

Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Paine, J. B. 1999. Do Citizenship BehaviorsMatter More for Managers Than for Salespeople? Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 27: 396-410.

Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure asmyth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340-363.

Mintzberg, H. 1973. The nature of managerial work. New York: Basic Books.

25

Morrison, E. W. 1994. Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: Theimportance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37:1543-1567.

Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. 1997. A theory of individualdifference in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10: 71-83.

Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The good soldiersyndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W. 1997. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It’s construct clean-up time.Human Performance, 10: 85-97.

Organ, D. W. & Ryan, K. 1995. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal anddispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behaviors. PersonnelPsychology, 48, 775-802.

Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

Porter, L. W. 1996. Forty years of organization studies: reflections from a microperspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 262-269.

Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and Organizations. UK: Sage.

Simon, H. 1957. Administrative behavior: a study of decision-making processes inadministrative organization. New York: Macmillan.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J. P. 1983. Organizational Citizenship Behavior:Its Nature and Antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 653-663.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. M. 1995. Extra-Role Behaviors:In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters).Research in Organizational Behavior, 17: 215-285.

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. 1994. Organizational CitizenshipBehavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy ofManagement Journal, 37: 765-802.

Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behaviors:Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41:108-119.

Weber, M. 1947. The theory of social and economic organization. New York: FreePress.

26

Table 1. Sample characteristicsSubordinatecharacteristics

Frequency Percentage

RegionHunan 56 14.5Guangzhou 36 9.3Dalian 52 13.5Changchun 60 15.5Beijing 130 33.7Nanjing 52 13.5

Organization ownershipState owned enterprise 170 44.0Collective enterprise 12 3.1Town and village enterprise 4 1.0Foreign invested enterprise 100 25.9Private enterprise 56 14.5Others 40 10.4

AgeLess than 30 246 63.731-40 97 25.2Above 41 42 10.8

GenderMale 228 59.1Female 152 39.4

Job functionAdministrative support 129 33.4Marketing 97 25.1Logistics 54 14.0R&D 42 10.9Production 18 4.7Others 45 11.7

Managerial levelNon-supervisory 236 61.1Supervisory 147 38.1

Supervisor characteristicsAge21-30 89 46.131-40 95 49.241-50 7 3.7

GenderMale 140 72.5Female 51 26.4

27

EducationHigh school 2 1.0Vacational school 4 2.1Undergraduate 122 63.2Post graduate 63 32.6

Managerial levelJunior manager 67 34.7Middle manager 80 41.5Senior manager 43 22.3

28

Table 2Confirmatory Factor Analysis for the PRC Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale (N=341)*

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111. Conscientiousnessa. Work with staidness and sense of responsibility even when corresponding outcomes

do not make any difference in one’s performance appraisal.69

b. Willing to work overtime without extra reward .78c. Work overtime to complete one’s tasks if necessary .86d. Arrive and start to work earlier than official work time .63

2. Work-related helpa. Initiate help to coworkers who have heavy workload .64b. Help new comers adapt to the new environment .71c. Willing to help coworkers solve work-related problems .78

3. Non-work helpa. Help solve coworkers’ daily life difficulties .78b. Visit sick colleagues and donate money to them if needed .81c. Comfort and aid coworkers who have financial difficulties .82

4. Voicea. Raise suggestions to improve procedures or processes of one’s job .55b. Bring forward suggestions that contribute to the development of the organization .62c. Stop coworkers’ actions that are harmful to the organization .76d. Point out and fight against ill phenomena in the organization .77

5. Activity participationa. Actively participate in contests organized by employees, such as labor contest and

various ball games.52

29

b. Actively participate in activities organized by the organization, such as various kindsof meetings

.68

c. Participate in voluntary labor .85

6. Promoting company imagea. Promote strengths of the organization to outsiders .69b. Voluntarily promote company products or services to outsiders .74c. Pay attention to one’s own appearance and conduct in order to improve the image of

the organization to outsiders.63

d. Improve organization’s image through disciplining one’s own conduct in the public .77

7. Self-learninga. Actively attend training programs, such as self-paid advanced studies in colleges .85b. Conduct self-training in spare time in order to improve one’s job competitiveness .90c. Enrich oneself in order to improve job quality .81

8. Social welfare participationa. Contribute to commonwealth money donations .82b. Voluntarily participate in social activities that help the poor .83c. Attend commonwealth activities such as tree planting and blood donation .75d. Participate in community services such as order-keeping and taking care of single

elder.69

9. Protecting and saving company resourcesa. Save company resources such as water, electricity, and office appliances .75b. Protect and maintain office equipment in the organization .80c. Help the organization against disasters such as flood and fire .58

10. Keeping workplace clean

30

a. Depurate and clean one’s immediate work environment .93b. Maintain cleanness and order in one’s own work environment .83

11. Interpersonal harmonya. Help settle misunderstandings and conflicts among colleagues .66b. Maintain the solidarity of the organization, do not backbite coworkers or supervisors .68c. Establish matey relationships with colleagues .81d. Neglect personal conflicts with colleagues in order to maintain harmony .83

Reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) .82 .75 .84 .78 .72 .80 .88 .86 .73 .87 .82

Note: GFI=.81, NFI=.81, NNFI=.86, CFI=.88, IFI=.88, RMSEA=.068 Chi square with 574 degrees of freedom=1470.66.

31

Table 3.Mean, Standard Deviation, Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations of Demographic, Performance, Contextual variables and OCB (N=284)

Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 181. Age 3.43 1.36 NA2. Gender 1.39 .49 .01 NA3. Overall Performance 3.43 .98 -.08 -.09 .904. Production job .30 .46 -.04 -.24** .02 NA5. Marketing job .30 .46 -.04 -.06 -.01 -.43** NA6. Managerial level .40 .49 .11† -.14* .21** -.01 -.02 NA7. Organizational ownership .57 .50 .070 -.025 -.098 .106 -.068 -.166 NA8. Conscientiousness 3.49 .91 -.05 -.02 .66** .02 -.02 .19** -.09 .829. Work help 3.44 .81 -.05 .08 .60** -.01 -.06 .16** -.17** .62** .7510. Non-work help 3.22 .85 .03 .05 .38** -.01 .03 .13* -.08 .49** .56** .8411. Voice 3.08 .79 -.02 -.15* .58** -.03 -.00 .28** -.05 .47** .54** .40** .7812. Activity participation 3.34 .84 -.05 -.05 .41** -.13* .11† .16** -.08 .42** .54** .54** .54** .7213. Promote image 3.29 .84 -.12† .04 .50** -.17** .18** .24** -.16** .48** .57** .49** .62** .65** .8014. self-learning 3.31 1.13 -.33** .01 .55** -.05 -.05 .11† -.03 .48** .41** .26** .40** .30** .46** .8815. Social welfare 2.69 .85 -.06 .06 .32** -.05 -.10 .09 .05 .40** .49** .66** .45** .57** .47** .38** .8616. Protecting resource 3.40 .85 -.04 .04 .47** .04 -.09 .13* -.15* .60** .63** .53** .43** .52** .47** .41** .57** .7317. Clean 3.54 .98 .02 .31** .27** .00 -.09 .09 -.17** .45** .43** .47** .22** .34** .40** .24** .38** .55** .8718. Interpersonal harmony 3.48 .86 -.12* -.03 .56** .01 .02 .08 -.09 .57** .61** .54** .44** .42** .49** .41** .51** .55** .41** .82

†<.10 *<.05; **<.01; two-tailed tests.Note: Cronbach Alpha for multi-item scale are listed in the diagonal.

32

Table 4Regression analysis of effects of Contextual variables on OCB, controlling for age, gender, and overall performance.

Conscientiousness

Work-related help

Non workhelp

Voice Activityparticipation

Promotingcompanyimage

Self-learning

Socialwelfareparticipation

Protectingand savingResource

Keepingworkplaceclean

Interpersonalharmony

(N=307) (N=309) (N=309) (N=306) (N=309) (N=306) (N=309) (N=303) (N=307) (N=309) (N=305)ControlsAge -.01 -.02 .03 -.01 -.03 -.06† -.28** -.02 .01 .02 -.08*Gender -.00 -.10 -.06 .24** .10 -.07 -.06 -.06 -.07 -.58** .04Unique R Square .00 .01 .00 .02* .01 .01 .13** .00 .00 .08** .02†Overall Performance .63** .51** .35** .46** .37** .41** .61** .31** .42** .34** .49**Unique R Square .45** .37** .16** .32** .18** .26** .28** .12** .23** .11** .31**

Contextual variablesProduction Job .07 .03 .11 -.14 -.16 -.11 -.24* -.15 .09 .14 -.00

Marketing Job .01 -.09 .10 -.04 .10 .27** -.23† -.24* -.13 -.09 .04Managerial level .09 .03 .04 .24** .11 .23** .14 .07 .04 .08 -.08Organizational ownership -.04 -.19* -.10 .05 -.04 -.13 .12 .17† -.17† -.26* -.07Unique R Square .00 .02† .01 .03* .02 .06** .02† .02† .02 .03* .00

Overall R Square .45 .40 .17 .37 .20 .33 .42 .15 .25 .22 .33Overall model F 34.90** 28.09** 8.95** 24.77** 11.05** 20.75** 31.66** 7.29** 14.33** 12.30** 21.23**

† P<0.10; * P<0.05; ** P<0.01Note: Gender is coded as: 0 female, 1 male; managerial level is coded as: 0 non-supervisory, 1 supervisory; organizational ownership is coded as: 0 non-state ownedenterprise, 1 state owned

Organizational context and employee citizenship behavior in ...

Documents