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.
--------------------------------
Insert table 2 about here
--------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------
Insert table 3 about here
----------------------------------
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
Insert table 4 about here
-------------------------------------
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