INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Utilizing current resources is one of the factors for the success in any organization
In order to achieve the highest utilization, managers should understand the different types of individual behavior inside the organization McShane and Von Glinow
(2008) discussed types of work-related behaviors They are:
- Joining and Staying in the Organization
Maintaining work attendance is closely linked to organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), which encompasses voluntary activities performed by employees that extend beyond their formal duties Defined by Organ, Podsakoff, and MacKenzie (2006), OCB includes positive and constructive actions that support coworkers and enhance the organization While OCB participants may not always be top performers, they are recognized for their willingness to "go the extra mile" and exceed minimum job expectations Since the term OCB was introduced in the 1980s, interest in this behavior has grown, with various labels such as citizenship performance and prosocial organizational behavior emerging to describe it Most OCB concepts highlight two dimensions, differentiated by the intended target of the behavior.
Organizational citizenship behavior aimed at individuals (OCBI) refers to actions that provide direct benefits to specific colleagues while also contributing to the overall success of the organization These behaviors can include offering assistance with work-related tasks or providing support for personal issues, fostering a collaborative and supportive workplace environment.
Organizational citizenship behavior aimed at the organization (OCBO) encompasses actions that enhance the overall well-being of the organization This includes proposing innovative ideas to improve operations, proactively addressing potential issues to safeguard the organization, and showing a genuine concern for the company’s reputation.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) is vital for an organization's success as it aligns employees' efforts with overarching organizational goals, rather than merely fulfilling their job responsibilities By fostering OCB, organizations can enhance productivity, efficiency, and employee satisfaction, while also improving customer satisfaction and reducing costs, turnover rates, and absenteeism The value of OCB extends to both individual and organizational performance, ultimately providing a competitive advantage Therefore, OCB is essential for the survival and growth of an organization (Podsakoff et al., 2009).
In today's fast-paced economic landscape marked by globalization, market deregulation, and shifting consumer and investor demands, organizations face intense competition To thrive, they must consistently enhance performance through cost reduction, product and process innovation, and improvements in quality, productivity, and speed to market Most organizations recognize that their most valuable asset is their workforce, particularly employees who demonstrate Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB).
Employees offer organizations distinctive human resource capabilities that can lead to a competitive edge, with Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) being a key behavior that contributes to this advantage (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000).
Organizations must leverage human resources to ensure employees contribute to their competitive advantage, with Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) serving as a key differentiator among staff In an era of declining revenues and intensified competition, discovering a performance-enhancing competitive advantage that requires no financial investment is crucial OCB emerges as a vital element for achieving high performance, prompting companies to investigate the factors influencing OCB to effectively cultivate it within their workforce.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is gaining attention from both scholars and managers due to its relevance in today's dynamic market environment Research on OCB can be divided into two main areas: one that identifies the factors influencing OCB and another that assesses the impact of OCB on organizational performance.
In the first direction, there are a lot of researches define factors influence on OCB
Podsakoff et al (2000) identified four key antecedent categories influencing organizational citizenship behavior: employee characteristics, task characteristics, organizational characteristics, and leadership behaviors Employee characteristics encompass attitudes such as satisfaction, commitment, fairness perception, and leader supportiveness, along with dispositional variables like conscientiousness and agreeableness Task characteristics involve feedback, routinization, and intrinsic satisfaction, while organizational characteristics refer to formalization, support, and inflexibility Leadership behaviors include transformational actions, vision articulation, modeling appropriate behavior, fostering group goal acceptance, and providing intellectual stimulation These elements are influenced by organizational culture, prompting this study to explore the relationship between organizational culture and citizenship behavior, specifically within the service industry, to assess how culture impacts these behaviors.
Since their emergence in the 1980s, organizational culture and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) continue to captivate scholars and managers alike While numerous studies on OCB have been conducted globally, the concept remains largely unfamiliar in Vietnam, with limited research available on this behavior and no existing studies exploring the relationship between organizational culture and OCB Internationally, research has shown that organizational culture significantly influences OCB This study aims to investigate this relationship within the Vietnamese context, assessing its significance Furthermore, previous studies have approached the measurement of organizational culture from various perspectives, employing different scales This research innovatively utilizes the Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) developed by O’Reilly et al to enhance the understanding of this relationship.
(1991), modified by Sarros et al (2005) as a measurement scale of organizational culture.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The purpose of the present research is to answer two following questions:
1 Is there a relationship between organizational culture and organizational citizenship behavior?
2 How does each dimension of organizational culture effect to organizational citizenship behavior?
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This research specifically examines the influence of organizational culture on organizational citizenship behavior within the service industry, recognizing that the cultural dynamics differ significantly between service-oriented and manufacturing organizations.
Due to constraints in resources and time, the research focused on gathering empirical data from service companies located in Ho Chi Minh City, recognized as Vietnam's most dynamic city.
THESIS STRUCTURE
This research is organized in five chapters with details as below:
Chapter 1: Introduction It provides information about the main construct, research objective, research questions, scope of the study and research structure
Chapter 2: Literature review This chapter reviews related literature to the research questions of the study The literature mentions about organizational culture and organizational citizenship behavior as well as the relationship between them
Hypothesis and model are also described in this chapter
Chapter 3: Research methodology This part includes topics: construct measurement and questionnaire, data collection and sampling and method to analyze the data
Chapter 4: Data Analysis This chapter translates the data collected from survey to answer research questions
Chapter 5: Discussion, Managerial Implication, Limitation and Suggestion for future research The final part of the thesis give discussion about the research finding, the implication for management as well as describing limitations and suggestions for future research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR (OCB)
II.1.1 Definition of Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
Dennis Organ is widely recognized as the father of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), which he defined in 1988 as discretionary individual behavior that is not formally rewarded but enhances organizational effectiveness His definition highlights three key aspects: OCB consists of voluntary actions beyond job requirements, driven by personal choice rather than enforcement by supervisors This behavior contributes positively to the organization, emphasizing the importance of employees going above and beyond their formal duties.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) includes both in-role behaviors, such as punctuality and maintaining a clean workspace, and voluntary actions that go beyond formal job requirements While OCB is not typically recognized by formal reward systems, it does not mean that such behaviors are unrewarded; rather, rewards for OCB cannot be contractually guaranteed Ultimately, OCB plays a significant role in enhancing overall organizational effectiveness, as it fosters a positive spiritual, psychological, and social environment that boosts performance (Organ, 1997).
II.1.2 The roots of OCB within organizational theory
Prior to the formal introduction of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) in scientific literature, early researchers identified related behaviors, including Barnard's (1938) concept of "willingness to cooperate," Roethlisberger and Dickson's (1939) notion of "informal collaboration," and Katz and Kahn's (1967) emphasis on "patterns of individual behavior."
Barnard’s theory of the “cooperative system” redefines organizational dynamics by emphasizing the essential role of individuals' willingness to contribute beyond mere contractual obligations Unlike other researchers who focused on formal structures and control, Barnard highlighted that effective organizations rely on voluntary participation and commitment from their members This collective effort fosters a shared understanding and spontaneous contributions, ultimately benefiting the entire organization He argued that the foundation of this willingness stems from a combination of general satisfaction and compatibility among employees, underscoring the importance of intrinsic motivation in a cooperative environment.
2006) The nature of term “willingness” enclosed with its determinants is similar to the concept of OCB and its determinants The voluntariness which Barnard called
“willingness to cooperate” was what Organ called “discretionary behavior”
Another concept of organization theory similar to OCB is “informal cooperation”
In a book named Management and Worker published in 1939, Roethlisberger and
Dickson made a distinction between formal organization and informal organization
The formal organization is defined by established rules and policies governing workers' tasks, while the informal organization is characterized by the natural differentiation and integration of individuals It is important to note that the informal system should not be viewed as a contrasting element to the formal structure.
Collaboration should be seen as essential for enhancing the effectiveness of formal organizations (Organ et al., 2006) Both Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and "informal cooperation" share a commitment that extends beyond formal job requirements, positively impacting organizational performance Additionally, job satisfaction influences both behaviors, suggesting that Roethlisberger and Dickson's concept of "informal collaboration" may be a foundational element of OCB.
Katz and Kahn (1967) introduced the concept of "patterns of individual behavior," identifying three essential types for organizational effectiveness The first pattern involves joining and remaining within the organization, while the second emphasizes dependable behavior necessary for fulfilling job requirements The third pattern highlights innovative and spontaneous behavior that exceeds role expectations, contributing to organizational success Similar to Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), these behaviors are discretionary, unpredictable, and cannot be mandated by superiors Overall, these patterns of behavior are crucial for the organization's functioning and significantly enhance overall performance.
II.1.3 The development of the concept of OCB
In 1977, Organ published a paper emphasizing the relationship between employee satisfaction and productivity He highlighted the difference between quantitative measures of output and the more nuanced contributions of workers that are often overlooked in traditional productivity assessments (Organ et al., 2006, p.15).
Contributions in the workplace can be reflected through assisting colleagues, supporting the organization's rules and culture, and adapting to managerial changes Importantly, Organ's focus was not on introducing the concept of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB).
However, two of his students Bateman and Smith were interested in doing some research to justify or to disprove Organ’s ideas
In 1983, Bateman and Organ explored the connection between job satisfaction and performance, emphasizing both output quantity and essential supra-role behaviors that contribute to organizational effectiveness Such behaviors include assisting colleagues, managing work overload without complaint, minimizing conflicts, safeguarding resources, and promoting a positive organizational image Their findings revealed a significant positive correlation between prior job satisfaction and subsequent citizenship behavior, as well as between earlier citizenship behavior and later job satisfaction Notably, the link between qualitative (citizenship) and quantitative performance exceeded initial hypotheses Building on this research, Anna Smith surveyed manufacturing supervisors to identify desired employee behaviors that are difficult to enforce and lack guaranteed rewards, aside from appreciation.
(Smith, Organ & Near, as cited in Organ et al., 2006) Here are the answers to this question that have been given most frequently
- Helps other employees with their work when they have been absent
- Exhibits punctuality in arriving at work on time in the morning and after lunch and breaks
- Volunteers to do things not formally required by the job
- Takes initiative to orient new employee to the department even though it is not part of his/her job description
- Exhibits attendance at work beyond the norm (for example, takes fewer days off than most individuals or fewer than allowed)
- Helps others when their workload increases (assists others until they get over the hurdles)
- Coasts toward the end of the day*
- Gives advance notice if unable to come to work
- Spends great deal of time in personal telephone conversation*
- Does not take unnecessary time off work
- Assists me with my duties
- Makes innovative suggestions to improve overall quality of the department
- Does not take extra-breaks
- Willingly attends functions not required by the organization but that help its overall image
- Does not spend a great deal of time in idle conversation
Smith explored the dimensions of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) by asking MBA students to evaluate specific coworkers' behaviors She identified two primary factors: Altruism, which involves supporting new employees and assisting colleagues with heavy workloads, later termed Helping, and Generalized Compliance, later known as Conscientiousness, which includes punctuality, minimizing breaks, and avoiding distractions during work hours Additional dimensions of OCB were introduced, including Sportsmanship, which entails refraining from complaints; Courtesy, which focuses on preventing conflicts with colleagues; and Civic Virtue, representing responsible engagement in organizational governance Organ later expanded this framework to include Cheerleading, where employees acknowledge and celebrate each other's achievements, and Peacemaking, where individuals mediate conflicts among coworkers.
Podsakoff et al (2000) introduced two additional dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB): Organizational Loyalty and Self-Development Organizational Loyalty involves actively promoting the organization to external parties, safeguarding it from external threats, and maintaining commitment even in challenging situations Self-Development refers to the voluntary actions employees take to enhance their knowledge, skills, and abilities.
There are different opinions about the dimensions of OCB Different researchers have considered different dimensions for OCB
Initially referred to as Altruism, this dimension was later renamed Helping to avoid the implication that selflessness was the sole motivator behind such behaviors (Organ et al., 2006) Regardless of its label, Helping, or Altruism, involves actions directed towards specific individuals, typically coworkers, but can also include supervisors or customers This dimension encompasses behaviors such as assisting a new employee in learning their role or aiding an overwhelmed colleague in managing their workload or resolving issues (Organ et al., 2006, p.18).
Podsakoff at al (2000) included two dimensions Cheerleading and Peacemaking of Organ and some of behaviors of Courtesy intended to avoid problems in this dimension
Organ (1988) considered Courtesy as one dimension of OCB while Podsakoff et al
According to Organ et al (2006), the Helping dimension includes two key aspects: helping and courtesy Helping involves actively addressing and resolving problems faced by colleagues, while courtesy focuses on preventing issues from arising in the first place The core principle is to minimize practices that complicate others' work and, when unavoidable, to provide ample notice to ensure they are prepared to manage any additional responsibilities.
Item to measure Courtesy are
- Tries to avoid creating problems for others
- Considers the effects of his/her actions
- Consults with me or other people who might be affected by his/her actions or decisions
- Informed me before taking any important actions (Konovsky and Organ, 1996)
Sportsmanship is the ability to demonstrate tolerance and forgiveness in challenging situations without expressing complaints Employees who exhibit sportsmanship not only refrain from complaining when faced with inconveniences caused by others but also uphold a positive attitude, even in unfavorable circumstances (Podsakoff et al., 2000).
Items to measure Sportsmanship (Konovky & Organ, 1996)
- Complains a lot about trivial matters*
- Always find fault with what the organization is doing*
- Expresses resentment with any change introduced by management*
- Thinks only about his/her work problems, not others’*
- Tries to make the best of situation, even when there are problems
- Is able to tolerate occasional inconveniences when they arise
- Does not complain about work assignments
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
II.2.1 Definition and the importance of organizational culture
Most organization scholars and observers recognize that organizational culture has a powerful effect on the performance and long-term effectiveness of organizations
Culture significantly influences business performance, impacting it positively or negatively Misaligned cultures with corporate strategy can result in reduced employee loyalty, low motivation, and high turnover rates Conversely, a healthy organizational culture fosters employee pride and a sense of purpose, which enhances productivity and aligns employees with corporate objectives.
Organizational culture plays a crucial role in guiding managers seeking to enhance their organizations' effectiveness, as extensive research and scholarship in this area provide valuable insights and strategies.
Organizational culture emerged in the early 1960s as a synonym for organizational climate and gained prominence in the 1980s, particularly through Peters and Waterman's influential book, "In Search of Excellence." This work highlighted that a company's success is linked to a decisive, customer-oriented, empowering, and people-focused organizational culture Since then, organizational culture has become a rapidly evolving field of study, attracting extensive research, literature, and analysis Despite the challenges in defining organizational culture, various scholars have proposed general definitions that contribute to its understanding in management.
- The shared philosophies, ideologies, values, assumptions, beliefs, expectations, attitudes and norm” that knit an organization together (Kilmann et al., 1985)
- The human invention that creates solidarity and meaning and inspires commitment and productivity (Deal, as cited in Ivy, 2010)
A system of shared values and beliefs significantly influences a company's culture by shaping how its employees interact and operate These core elements interact with the organizational structure and control systems, ultimately establishing behavioral norms within the company (Uttal, as cited in Ivy, 2010).
- A set of shared values and beliefs understood and shared by members of an organization (Recardo & Jolly, 1997)
- A complex of values, beliefs, and behaviors that become part of the social fabric of organizations (Davis & Landa, 2000)
- Something to do with the people and unique quality and style of the organization (Lee & Yu, 2004)
- The underlying values, beliefs, and principles that serve as a foundation for the organization’s management practices and behaviors that both exemplify and reinforce those basic principles (Carmeli & Tishler, 2004)
- Composite of values, beliefs and norm expressed in an organization’s actual practices and behaviors (Atkins & Turner, 2006)
- The glue that holds the organization together (Balthazard et al., 2006)
Although the definitions of organizational culture are varied depend on the organizations they represented, values and beliefs are two common components
Organizational culture originates from the values and beliefs of founding leaders, industry characteristics, and the broader societal context, as noted by Dickson, Aditya, and Chhokar (2000) Schein (1999) emphasized that this culture is established at the organization's inception, shaped by the founders' initial successes and their influence on the company.
In 2004, three key sources of cultural origin were identified: first, the foundational beliefs, values, and assumptions established by the organization's founders; second, the collective learning experiences of group members as the organization evolved; and third, the introduction of new beliefs, values, and assumptions by incoming employees.
II.2.2 Levels of organizational culture
Schein (2004) defined organizational culture as
A shared set of fundamental beliefs developed by a group as they addressed challenges related to external adaptation and internal cohesion is deemed valid when it effectively resolves these issues This collective understanding is then passed on to new members, guiding their perceptions, thoughts, and feelings regarding these challenges.
Schein also viewed organizational culture as comprising three levels:
Figure 2.1: There levels of organizational culture Adapted from Organizational Culture and Leadership by Schein, E.H (3 rd ed.), 2004, San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass, Inc
Artifacts: this is the most manifest level of culture It is all the phenomena that one sees, hears, and feels when one encounters a new group with an unfamiliar culture
It includes visible products; language; technology and products; creations; style; observed rituals and ceremonies, visible organizational structures and processes
Espoused beliefs and values, although less visible than behaviors and artifacts, form the foundational meanings and connections that help interpret patterns of behavior and artifacts within a culture.
Strategies, goals, philosophies are example of this concept
Basic underlying assumptions form an unconscious layer of culture within an organization, where long-held values evolve into accepted norms for interpreting the world These assumptions are deeply ingrained and often go unnoticed, making them the most challenging to reassess and modify over time.
II.2.3 Dimensions and types of organizational culture
Hofstede (1984) identified that national and regional cultural groupings influence organizational behavior, outlining four key dimensions of organizational culture: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, and masculinity versus femininity Building on this, Harrison (1991) defined culture through four additional dimensions: power culture, role culture, task culture, and person culture.
Cameron and Quinn (1999) highlight that organizational culture is shaped by values, leadership styles, language, symbols, procedures, and definitions of success, making each organization unique Their Competing Values Framework identifies six dimensions—Dominant Organizational Characteristics, Leadership Style, Management of Employees, Organizational Glue, Strategic Emphasis, and Criteria for Success—that categorize organizational cultures into four quadrants based on two axes The vertical axis reflects an organization's level of flexibility versus central control, where high-control organizations follow strict procedures, while those higher up are less regimented The horizontal axis distinguishes between internal and external focus; externally oriented firms prioritize market concerns and new customers, whereas internally focused organizations emphasize employee morale and process efficiency.
The four discrete cultures defined and measured by the Competing Value Framework are Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy and Market and are illustrated in Figure 2.2: The Competing Values Framework Quadrant
Figure 2.2: The Competing Values Framework Quadrant Adapted from
Diagnosing and changing organizational culture by Cameron, K.S., &
Quinn, R.E., 1999 Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Chehade, Mendes and Mitchell (2006) define seven types of culture: passive- aggressive, over managed, outgrown, fits and starts, just in time, military precision and resilient
O’Reilly, Chatman and Cadwell (1991) in People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit identified organizational culture is represented by seven distinct values
Innovative Culture: companies with innovative culture are adaptable, flexible and experiment with new ideas Risk taking is also encouraged by accepting the failures
Aggressive Culture: companies belong to this culture value competitiveness and outperforming competitors and these companies often fall short in corporate social responsibility
An outcome-oriented culture prioritizes achievement and results, linking rewards directly to performance indicators rather than seniority or loyalty This approach can lead to unethical behaviors becoming commonplace, fostering a competitive atmosphere where employees view their colleagues as rivals Consequently, such dynamics can create an unhealthy working environment.
People-Oriented Culture: people-oriented culture value fairness, supportiveness and respecting individual rights Companies may benefits from a low turnover rate compare with average industry rate as a result
Team-Oriented Culture: companies have team-oriented culture are collaborative and emphasis on cooperation among employees Employees tent to have positive relationships with their colleagues and their managers
Details-Oriented Culture: this kind of culture emphasize precision and paying attention to details
Stable Culture: Stable culture is predictable, rule-oriented and bureaucratic This kind of culture prevents quick action and may be unsuitable in changing and dynamic environment
Figure 2.3: Dimensions of Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) Adapted from
People and Organizational Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit by O’Reilly, Charles A.III, Chatman, J., & Cadlwell,
The Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) serves as a key measure of organizational culture and values, as highlighted by Agle and Caldwell (cited in Sarros, Gray & Densten, 2005) Originally designed to assess the alignment between individual and organizational values (O’Reilly et al., 1991), the OCP was later adapted by Cable and Parson (2001) to evaluate person-organizational fit during the hiring process Since its inception in 1991, the OCP has undergone two revisions to enhance its effectiveness.
The original version consisted 54 value statements was developed by using exploratory factor analysis to establish eight dimensions of organizational culture:
The article discusses key attributes of organizational culture, including Innovation, Attention to Details, Outcome Orientation, Aggressiveness, Supportiveness, Emphasis on Rewards, Team Orientation, and Decisiveness Utilizing the Q-sort method, respondents categorize 54 items into nine groups, ranking them from most to least desirable This approach helps develop a profile of the organization's culture by having familiar individuals sort value statements based on their relevance Additionally, individuals assess the items to reflect their ideal organizational values O'Reilly et al (1991) reported an average reliability coefficient of 0.88 for this method.
The first revision had been done by Cable and Judge (as cited in Sarros et al., 2005)
The item count of the OCP was reduced from 54 to 40, transitioning from the Q-sort method to a Likert scale for easier respondent completion In a subsequent revision by Sarros et al (2005), a more user-friendly version was developed, modernizing the factor names and structure to better reflect the competitive and socially aware nature of today's business environment The revised OCP now features 28 items organized into seven factors: Competitiveness, Social Responsibility, Supportiveness, Innovation, Emphasis on Reward, Performance Orientation, and Stability.
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
Organizational culture plays a crucial role in assessing an enterprise's competitiveness, as it embodies the personality traits of the organization and is intricately linked to its core competitiveness (Huang, as cited by Lee, 2011) This concept is frequently referenced in the study of organizational behavior, highlighting its significance in shaping business dynamics and performance.
Organizational culture, as defined by 2011, is the result of long-term interactions between internal operations and the external environment, encompassing the values, beliefs, and actions within an organization Although it is often invisible, it significantly influences the behavior and expressions of its members in daily operations Daft (2009) emphasized that organizational culture embodies the shared values, beliefs, and codes of conduct among all members Research by Liu (as cited by Lee, 2011) indicates that a strong organizational culture enhances efficiency and productivity while shaping the thinking styles of its members Additionally, it plays a crucial role in influencing value judgments and behaviors within the organization, with Organ (1988) highlighting the close relationship between organizational culture and organizational citizenship behavior.
Schein (2004) revealed that organizational culture had impact on how employees feel Individual in different culture may interpret and conform to OCB differently
Briebef and Motowidlo (as cited in Podsakoff, 2000) suggest that Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) is inherently social and influenced by cultural elements Schein's (1990) model defines organizational culture as a normative system comprising shared values and beliefs that shape the feelings, thoughts, and behaviors of its members This culture establishes the expectations and requirements of organizational life, emphasizing behaviors deemed essential, such as collaboration and teamwork in organizations that prioritize these values Consequently, a hypothesis has been formulated based on these foundational assumptions.
H: There is a positive impact of organizational culture on organizational citizenship behavior
Organizational culture encompasses various components that can influence Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) in both positive and negative ways According to the Organizational Culture Profile (OCP), this culture is assessed through seven key dimensions.
The seven dimensions of competitiveness, social responsibility, supportiveness, innovation, emphasis on reward, performance orientation, and stability can significantly influence organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), with varying levels of impact from each dimension.
Supportiveness and stability within the workplace can enhance organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), while competitiveness, a focus on rewards, and a performance-oriented culture may hinder it When employees are subjected to pressure and competition, their ability to engage in OCB tends to decline.
MODEL
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
CONSTRUCT MEASUREMENT AND QUESTIONNAIRE
This study utilized a personally administered questionnaire divided into two sections The first section focused on organizational culture and organizational citizenship behavior, where respondents indicated their level of agreement with various statements using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." The second section collected general demographic information, including age, gender, and work experience.
Independent Variable: Organizational culture (OC)
The Organizational Culture Profile (OCP), developed by O’Reilly et al and modified by Sarros et al in 2005, was utilized to assess organizational culture This profile encompasses seven dimensions and consists of 28 items, as detailed in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Organizational Culture measurement scale
2 An emphasis on quality 2 Opportunities for professional growth
3 Being distinctive 3 High pay for good performance
4 Being competitive 4 Praise for good performance
1 Being reflective 1 Having high expectations for performance
2 Having a good reputation 2 Enthusiasm for the job
3 Being socially responsible 3 Being results oriented
4 Having a clear guiding philosophy 4 Being highly organized
2 Sharing information freely 2 Being calm
3 Being people oriented 3 Security of employment
2 Quick to take advantage of opportunities
Dependent Variable - Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
There exit various measures of OCB in the literature (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch, 1994, Konovsky &
Organ, 1996) In this study, we used the OCB measure of Konovsky and Organ
(1996) The questionnaire consists of 20 items designed to measure five aspects of OCB: Altruism, Conscientiousness, Courtesy, Sportsmanship and Civic Virtue as present in Table 3.2
Table 3.2 Organizational Citizenship Behavior measurement scale
1 I am willing to assist my colleagues who have heavy work loads
2 I am willing to support my colleagues who have been absent
3 I am willing to help other colleagues work productively
4 I am willing to help orient new employees even though it is not required
1 I am always on time Attendance at work is above average
3 I obey company rules and regulations even when no one is watching
4 I take the initiative to troubleshoot and solve problems before requesting help from my manager/ supervisor
1 I try to avoid creating problems for my colleagues
2 I consult with related people who might be affected by my actions or decisions
3 I respect the rights and privileges of my colleagues
4 I show genuine concern and courtesy toward my colleagues, even under the most tiring business or personal situations
1 I stay informed about developments in the company
2 I attend training that I am encouraged to, but not required to attend
3 I offer suggestions for ways to improve operations in my company
4 I demonstrate concern about the image of the company
1 I consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters*
2 I express resentment with any changes introduced by management*
3 I think only about my work problem not others’*
4 I pay no attention to announcements, messages, or printed materials that provide information about the company*
DATA COLLECTION AND SAMPLING
This study focuses on employees from service companies in Ho Chi Minh City, utilizing a convenience sampling method due to time and budget limitations Data was collected through a two-step process.
The study employed a qualitative method through in-depth interviews with twelve employees, six from banks and six from logistics providers, to gather rich qualitative data that informed the design of a structured questionnaire Subsequently, a quantitative approach was utilized, measuring constructs to test hypotheses via the questionnaire, which was distributed in both paper and online formats A total of 167 responses were collected online, while 272 out of 350 hand-distributed questionnaires were returned After a thorough data cleaning process, 97 cases were excluded due to incomplete responses or misalignment with the target demographic, resulting in a final analysis of 342 effective questionnaires.
DATA ANALYSIS
Data analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 16.0 and the Analysis of Moments Structure (AMOS) version 16.0 The research utilized Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), a comprehensive statistical technique that combines both path analysis and factor analysis to evaluate complex relationships among variables.
The Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) process involves two key steps: validating the measurement model and fitting the structural model SEM is an effective method for examining complex relationships between observed (measured) and unobserved (latent) variables, as well as interactions among multiple latent variables This approach enables simultaneous testing of all model relationships, accounts for random measurement errors, and provides a more precise representation of these relationships.
Chi-square (CMIN) is a widely recognized and valid fitting index used by researchers to assess the adequacy of a model in relation to data A model is deemed to have a good fit when the significance level is greater than 0.05 (sig > 0.05).
Chi-square is influenced by the size of correlations in a model, where larger correlations typically result in poorer fit For models with 75 to 200 cases, Chi-square serves as a reasonable fit measure; however, in larger models, it often becomes statistically significant To address this, this study incorporates additional fit indices, including Chi-square/df (CMIN/df), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker & Lewis index (TLI), Goodness-Of-Fit index (GFI), and Root Mean Square Error Approximation (RMSEA) A model is deemed a good fit if CMIN/df is less than 3, and GFI, CFI, and TLI range from 0.9 to 1, with RMSEA below 0.08.
Table 3.3 Key goodness-of-fit indices (Byrne, 2001 and Kline, 2005)
Key Indices Level of acceptable fit CMIN/df 1
In this research, a two-step approach in SEM was employed to analyze the data
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to validate the measurement scale for organizational culture and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) Subsequently, a structural equation model (SEM) was utilized to assess the influence of organizational culture on OCB, along with the impact of each dimension of organizational culture on OCB.
DATA ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS RESULTS
This chapter outlines the results of the hypothesis test and offers interpretations of the proposed theoretical model It is divided into four sections: the first section provides a descriptive analysis of the respondents' characteristics through frequency and percentage; the second section presents the results of Cronbach’s alpha to assess the reliability of the measurement scales.
The third section discusses the reliability and validity of the scale, supported by the results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) The final section employs structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine the relationship between organizational culture and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
A survey of 342 full-time employees in service companies in Ho Chi Minh City revealed that 33.63% were male and 66.37% female The majority (66.08%) were aged 25-35, followed by 25.15% under 25, 7.60% aged 36-45, and only 1.17% over 45 In terms of education, 86.26% held a bachelor's degree, while 6.43% had an MBA Regarding job positions, 73.39% were staff members, 9.36% were supervisors, and 17.25% were managers.
Table 4.1 Descriptive Analysis of respondents
CHECK THE RELIABILITY OF MEASUREMENT SCALE BY CRONBACH’S ALPHA
The validity and reliability of each scale were assessed to ensure the development of an effective measurement tool (Bourque & Fielder, 2003) Construct validity was evaluated through confirmatory factor analysis, while Cronbach’s alphas were utilized to assess both the reliability of the subscales and the overall instrument.
McMillan and Schumacher (1997) stated that a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.90 indicates a highly reliable instrument, while Nunnally (1978) suggested that an alpha between 0.70 and 0.90 is acceptable for most tools Additionally, Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998) noted that a reliability score of 0.6 is adequate for research purposes.
Organizational culture was assessed through seven dimensions based on the Organizational Culture Profile (OCP): Competitiveness, Emphasis on Reward, Supportiveness, Performance Orientation, Innovation, Social Responsibility, and Stability Each dimension comprised four items, with Cronbach’s alpha values indicating high reliability, ranging from 0.87 to 0.91 Specifically, Competitiveness scored 0.89, and Emphasis on Reward achieved a score of 0.90, demonstrating the robustness of the measurement.
Supportiveness (0.91); Performance Orientation (0.89); Innovation (0.87); Social Responsibility (0.89) and Stability (0.89) All Cronbach’s alpha were higher than the recommended level of 0.7 and the Corrected Item-Total Correlation were larger than 0.3
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) was evaluated across five dimensions, each consisting of four items, with satisfactory Cronbach's alpha values indicating strong internal consistency: Altruism (0.90), Conscientiousness (0.87), Courtesy (0.83), Civic Virtue (0.85), and Sportsmanship (0.70) Additionally, all Corrected Item-Total Correlation values exceeded 0.3, further supporting the reliability of the measurement scales.
In conclusion, the reliability of scales was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, confirming that no items related to organizational culture or organizational citizenship behavior were removed A total of 28 items representing seven dimensions of organizational culture and 20 items reflecting five dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior were included in the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to evaluate the validity of the measurement scales.
Table 4.2 Cronbach’s alpha of measurement scale
CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (CFA)
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed using Amos 16.0 to evaluate the measurement instrument Ensuring that the measurement model adequately fits the sample data enhances confidence in the findings related to the hypothesized structural model (Byrne, 2001).
The results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) demonstrate that the reliability and validity of the measurement instrument were effectively assessed CFA is a robust method for evaluating construct validity, as it operates with fewer assumptions and offers comprehensive diagnostic insights into both reliability and validity Additionally, the CFA model presents several advantages that enhance its effectiveness in measurement assessment.
(1) Measures of the overall degree of fit are provided in any particular application (e.g., the Chi-square goodness-of-fit test)
The article provides valuable insights into the assessment of convergent and discriminant validity, detailing methods such as Chi-square difference tests, analyzing the size of factor loadings for traits, and evaluating estimates for trait correlations.
The current research has two second-order constructs: Organizational Culture and Organizational Citizenship Behavior and CFA were conducted for each construct
To ensure the reliability and validity of the measurement scale, three types of tests were conducted The first test assessed the overall fit index using metrics such as CMIN/df, GFI, CFI, TLI, and RMSEA The second test focused on item reliability, evaluating the factor loadings of each item, with significant loadings defined as 0.30, more important at 0.40, and very important at 0.50 or higher, according to Hair et al (1998) The final test examined construct reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE), with the AVE needing to be at least 0.5 and CR exceeding 0.6, as noted by Bagozzi et al (1988) Furthermore, Hair et al (1998) recommended that construct reliability should be greater than or equal to 0.7.
IV.2.1 Confirmatory factor analysis with Organizational Culture Construct
According to the fit criteria established by Byrne (2001) and Kline (2005), the confirmatory factor analysis results for the organizational culture construct demonstrate an acceptable measurement model fit The analysis revealed a Chi-square/df ratio of less than 3, with TLI and CFI values exceeding 0.9, a GFI of 0.814, and an RMSEA of less than 0.08.
Chi-square= 987.466 ; df= 343 ; P= 000 ; Chi-square/df = 2.879 ;
73 Emphasis on Reward 2 e6 57 Emphasis on Reward 3 e7 60 Emphasis on Reward 4 e8
78 Social Responsibility 1 e21 52 Social Responsibility 2 e22 64 Social Responsibility 3 e23 79 Social Responsibility 4 e24
Figure 4.1 : CFA with Organizational Culture construct
However, continue to check the Modification Indices in Amos output, the residual of observed variables: Competitiveness 3, Emphasis on Reward 1, Supportiveness
3, Performance Orientation 2 and Stability 2 had high correlation with residual of others
After removing certain observed variables from the organizational culture scale, the revised Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) showed improved goodness-of-fit indices Specifically, the CMIN/df decreased from 2.879 to 2.108, and the RMSEA reduced from 0.074 to 0.057 Additionally, the GFI, TLI, and CFI values increased from 0.814, 0.913, and 0.921 to 0.882, 0.954, and 0.959, respectively, as detailed in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3 Goodness-of-fit Indices of CFA with Organizational Culture construct
Indices CMIN/df GFI TLI CFI RMSEA
Chi-square= 470.099 ; df= 223 ; P= 000 ; Chi-square/df = 2.108 ;
Figure 4.2 : Revised CFA – CFA with organizational culture construct
The reliability and validity of the organizational culture dimensions, as detailed in Table 4.4, demonstrate strong construct reliability (CR) values ranging from 0.84 to 0.90, surpassing the recommended threshold of 0.7 (Hair et al., 1998) Additionally, all factor loadings exceed 0.5 with p-values below 0.01, while the average variances extracted (AVE) fall between 0.63 and 0.69, exceeding the criterion value of 0.5 These findings confirm that the scales used are both reliable and valid.
Standardized Confirmatory Factor Analysis Coefficients, Construct Reliability and
Average Variance Extracted (Organizational Culture)
Emphasis on Reward 2 0.85 Emphasis on Reward 3 0.74 Emphasis on Reward 4 0.79
IV.2.2 Confirmatory factor analysis with OCB Construct
Chi-square/df = 2.105 ; GFI = 909 ; TLI = 947 ; CFI = 954 ;
Figure 4.3 : CFA with Organizational Culture construct
Table 4.5 Regression Weight and Standardized Regression Weight
Altruism < - OCB 1.00 Conscientiousness < - OCB 970 062 15.668 000 Courtesy < - OCB 998 065 15.275 000 Civic Virtue < - OCB 892 064 13.854 000 Sportsmanship < - OCB 078 083 946 344
Civic Virtue < - OCB 837 Sportsmanship < - OCB 064
In the first CFA run, all indices were quite good, the values of Chi-square/df
