New directions for OCB research incorporating the employees perspective

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR OCB RESEARCH: INCORPORATING THE EMPLOYEE’S PERSPECTIVE SANKALP CHATURVEDI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE 2008 NEW DIRECTIONS FOR OCB RESEARCH: INCORPORATING THE EMPLOYEE’S PERSPECTIVE SANKALP CHATURVEDI {B.E. (CTAE, Udaipur), M.Tech (IIT, Kharagpur)} A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE 2008 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As I sit down to reflect and write acknowledgement, I realize and recognize that there are so many people who have had a significant impact in different ways in my journey to become a research scholar. First and foremost, I must express my great appreciation to my thesis committee chair, Dan McAllister, who has helped me immensely throughout five years, to grow as a scholar, as well as a person. Without his encouragement, support and critical eye, it would have been almost impossible for me to reach at this juncture. He has been an inspiration for me to drive my research and trained me to finish research in rigorous and scholarly manner. I have also appreciated his accessibility at all times, sometimes even two or three times a day. Irrespective of his multiple commitments and busy schedule, he was always there for me whenever I needed advice. I feel privileged to be his first PhD student. I am also extremely indebted to Professors Rich Arvey and Jay Narayanan for incredible guidance and support they have provided me during my stay in NUS, and specifically for my dissertation. It has been an honor knowing and working with Rich on few projects together. I have always been amazed by his astuteness in identifying issues and suggesting practical solutions. I was also lucky to have Jay, an excellent scholar and a very good friend, around me. He was always there for me to listen to academic and non-academic problems, and calm me down by his blissful suggestions. Especially during my job market, he went ‘above and beyond’ to help me in the search process. Several other professors have helped me in many ways. Special mention needs to go to Mike Zyphur, who is an excellent co-author. I am also thankful to Professor iii Glenn Nosworthy for his continued guidance and support and Professor Srini Sankaraguruswamy for suggestions during my job market.” I was also fortunate to have excellent camaraderie with my fellow doctoral students and I believe I have found some lifetime friendships. I am thankful to them and recognize their help in several ways. Ajai has been a very close friend cum mentor, who has been giving me advices round the clock. Poornima was always extremely helpful in providing solutions to my statistical problems. My office buddy, Yew Kwan, has been extremely supportive and accommodative (he had to bear my untidy office and irregular nap schedules). I am also thankful to Mayuri for carefully reading through several chapters of my dissertation. My thanks also go to other friends (Aegean, Deeksha, Gu Qian, Ruan Yi, Suman, Sun Li, Tanmay, Yunxia) who were always supportive during my stay in Singapore, even when I was disturbing them. I am also thankful to the administrative staff of the school- Latifah, Sarah, Sally, Hamidah, Kah Wei, Inn Ling, Jenny, Helen - who made it so easy for me to handle administrative issues. I also acknowledge the financial support received from the NUS research grant R-317-000-070-112 for doing my thesis fieldwork. Last but not least, my special thanks go to my very loving and supportive family members for their strong support and encouragement in every step I have taken towards building my career. They have been constant source of confidence in me. I dedicate my thesis to my parents. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .iii SUMMARY vii LIST OF TABLES . ix LIST OF FIGURES x CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION . ESSAY 1: ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR (OCB) FROM AN EMPLOYEE’S PERSPECTIVE: OCB AS APPROACH- OR AVOIDANCE SELF REGULATION. ESSAY 2: DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES OF PROFFERING AND WITHHOLDING DISCRETIONARY CONTRIBUTIONS (OCB) AT WORK STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION . CHAPTER TWO . ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: THE REVIEW . BACKGROUND: DEFINITION, NATURE AND TAXONOMIES THE QUANDARY 14 THE SOLUTION . 15 CHAPTER THREE 16 ESSAY 1: ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR (OCB) FROM AN EMPLOYEE’S PERSPECTIVE: OCB AS APPROACH OR AVOIDANCE SELFREGULATION 16 INTRODUCTION 16 Two Fundamental Motivational Systems 20 Self-Regulatory Focus Theory and OCB 22 METHODS . 28 Sample and Procedures . 28 Promotion and Prevention OCB: Scale Development 31 Confirmatory Factor Analysis . 35 Measures . 38 Levels of Analysis . 40 Analysis . 41 RESULTS 41 DISCUSSION . 52 Construct Validity . 53 Motivational Basis 57 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH . 60 v CHAPTER FOUR . 62 ESSAY 2: DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES OF PROFFERING AND WITHHOLDING DISCRETIONARY CONTRIBUTIONS (OCB) AT WORK 62 INTRODUCTION 62 THEORY DEVELOPMENT STUDY 64 THEORY DEVELOPMENT STUDY: METHODS 65 Sample . 65 Data Collection 65 Analysis . 67 THEORY DEVELOPMENT STUDY: RESULTS . 68 Substance . 68 Beneficiary 71 Motivational Factors . 73 THEORY DEVELOPMENT STUDY: DISCUSSION 78 Capturing Discretionary Citizenship Behavior . 78 Deciding to Contribute or Withhold Contributions . 80 THEORY TESTING STUDY 84 THEORY TESTING STUDY: METHODS 85 Sample and Procedures . 85 Measures . 87 Analysis . 89 THEORY TESTING STUDY: RESULTS 90 GENERAL DISCUSSION . 95 Relational Logics 95 Temporal Orientation 99 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH . 99 CHAPTER FIVE . 101 IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION . 101 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS 101 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS 104 CONCLUSION 106 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 107 APPENDIX I 119 APPENDIX II . 124 APPENDIX III . 126 APPENDIX IV . 133 APPENDIX V . 135 APPENDIX VI . 142 APPENDIX VII . 144 vi SUMMARY I examine employees’ perspective on OCB in two field studies. In the first study, I examine OCB from the standpoint of approach and avoidance theories of motivation in general, and self- regulatory focus theory in particular. My emphasis in this research is on identifying categories of behavior that can be differentiated and have motivational meaning for employees, and addressing the role of individual factors (self-regulatory focus) and situational factors (transformational and transactional leadership) as predictors of OCB. I empirically test these arguments in a multinational firm in India. To test the hypothesized model, I leverage the strength of qualitative methods (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) for construct articulation and the strength of quantitative analysis for theory testing. I use qualitative interview data from a sample of 45 employees for measure development and survey data from 209 employees for theory testing. The empirical findings moderately support my arguments. Using qualitative data analysis, I find two forms of OCB reflected in employee accounts of extra role contributions, one reflecting a promotion orientation and another reflecting a prevention orientation. Empirical findings with derived measures of these two OCB categories reveal that they are distinct forms of OCB contribution, and that they have differential patterns of association with individual differences in approach and avoidance orientation. More specifically, I find that promotion focused employees are more likely to perform promotion OCB, and that this relationship is mediated by promotion-OCB role definition. Similarly, I find that prevention focused employees are more likely to perform prevention OCB, and that this relationship is mediated by prevention-OCB role definition. However, I didn’t find support for the hypothesized role of leadership behaviors as group level moderators. vii In the second study, I examine the decisions of employees to withhold as well as to proffer OCB contributions. The implicit assumption among OCB theorists has been that this behavior is discretionary, and conceptual models suggest that there are conditions under which employees proffer OCB and other conditions under which they withhold such contributions. I empirically tested this assumption in two stages. In the theory development study, using qualitative methods (grounded theory), I analyzed data from 50 soldiers from Singapore. Although I find no differences in the ‘substance’ of contributions proffered and withheld, I find that decisions to withhold and contribute discretionary citizenship behavior reflect distinct deliberative processes. In the theory testing study, I empirically test the model on motivational basis using a sample of 226 employees from a company in India. I found partial support for my arguments. I found that decisions to proffer altruism, knowledge sharing and taking charge were anchored in social identification with the team, and that decisions to withhold altruism behavior was anchored in exchange concerns of the decision maker. The findings related to preoccupation with exchange concerns while withholding altruism seems to be one of the most intriguing findings of this essay, especially because exchange concerns have been used as primary driver for contributions OCB in the OCB literature (e.g. Konvosky & Pugh, 1994). viii LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: Approach and Avoidance Motivational systems 21 Table 3.2: Results of Factor Analysis of the Hypothesized Measurement Model with In-Role Behavior, Promotion OCB and Prevention OCB .37 Table 3.3: Confirmatory Factor Analyses- Test for Discriminant Validity (Hierarchical Nested Models) 38 Table 3.4: Descriptive Statistics, Reliability and Correlations (Essay 1) 43 Table 3.5: Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses: Promotion OCB .45 Table 3.6: Total and Direct Effect of Promotion focus on Promotion OCB after Controlling for Promotion Role Perceptions .47 Table 3.7: Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses: Prevention OCB .49 Table 3.8: Total and Direct Effect of Prevention focus on Prevention OCB after Controlling for Prevention role perceptions 50 Table 3.9: Results of the Moderated Mediation Model with Bootstrap Technique Predicting Promotion role perceptions and Promotion OCB .51 Table 3.10: Results of the Moderated Mediation Model with Bootstrap Technique Predicting Prevention role perceptions and Prevention OCB 52 Table 4.1: Sub-categories and examples of ‘Substance’ .69 Table 4.2: Frequency Counts and Chi Square Test of ‘Substance’ .70 Table 4.3: Sub-categories and examples of ‘Beneficiary’ .71 Table 4.4: Frequency Counts and Chi Square Test of ‘Beneficiary’ .72 Table 4.5: Frequency Counts and Chi Square Test of ‘Motivational Factors’ 73 Table 4.6: Sub-categories and examples of ‘Relational Logic’ .74 Table 4.7: Sub-categories and examples of ‘Temporal Framing’ 75 Table 4.8: Sub-categories and examples of ‘Decision Framing Emotions’ .77 Table 4.9: Means, Standard Deviations, Scale Reliabilities, and Correlations (Essay 2) 92 Table 4.10: Hierarchical Regression Analyses: Proffering OCB 93 Table 4.11: Hierarchical Regression Analyses: Withholding OCB .94 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Yearly and Cumulative Publications of OCB & Related Constructs Figure 2.1: Popularity of OCB & Related Constructs by Various Disciplines (Estimates till June 2008) .11 Figure 3.1: The Conceptual Model 20 Figure 3.2: Hypothesized Interaction between Promotion Focus and Transformational Leadership Predicting Promotion Role Perceptions and Promotion OCB 27 Figure 3.3: Hypothesized Interaction between Prevention Focus and Transactional Leadership Predicting Prevention Role Perceptions and Prevention OCB 28 Figure 3.4: Development of OCB Measures: Interview Protocol 33 Figure 4.1: Protocol for the Theory Building Study 66 x 130 131 132 APPENDIX IV Essay 133 134 APPENDIX V Essay 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 APPENDIX VI Essay 142 143 APPENDIX VII Essay 144 145 [...]... motivated to perform While the difference between identifying behaviors that others perform for OCB measures (the manager’s perspective on OCB) and identifying the ‘contributions that I make at work’ for OCB measures (the employee’s perspective on OCB) is slight, the implications for measure scope, factor structure, and differential prediction might be substantial One notable exception to the norm of using... emotions in the situation (rather than the negative emotions of others) In the theory testing study, I use a deductive approach to re-examine the results of theory building study The theory testing study shows the relative prevalence of OCB withholding and proffering within a field sample, as well as the differential effects of hypothesized predictors of these two forms of behavior STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION... because of their effects on behavioral intentions, and employees are the ones who set their behavioral intentions for OCB While manager-identified OCB behaviors and underlying dimensions have been studied for years, we have no real basis for concluding that these distinctions have relevance for employees, the ones whose behavioral intentions are central The starting point of this research is on the distinction... OCB within the context of motivation systems that make sense to employees the ones actually performing the citizenship behavior To this point the emphasis of OCB researchers has been exclusively on citizenship constructs that have meaning to managers More work is needed to address OCB its substance, and the factors influencing its performance—from the standpoint of the motivated efforts of employees. .. dimensionality and provides a theoretical and empirical basis for distinguishing among OCB constructs In the second essay (Chapter Four), I examine the decisions of employees to withhold as well as to proffer OCB contributions in two studies,one focused on theory building, the other focused on theory testing In Chapter Five I discuss the implications of my research for OCB scholarship 7 CHAPTER TWO... prevention-oriented forms of OCB as part of their job rather than extra-role, and hence will be likely to perform more of prevention OCB Accordingly, I hypothesize the following: 24 Hypothesis 3: Promotion OCB role perceptions will mediate the relationship of employee promotion focus and promotion OCB Hypothesis 4: Prevention OCB role perceptions will mediate relationship of employee prevention focus and prevention OCB. .. managers have been the primary source of items for OCB measures Indeed, for most OCB measures that I have reviewed (e.g Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983), researchers and managers have been the sole source for OCB items On the one hand, manager input makes sense because they are uniquely positioned to identify behaviors that are organizationally beneficial, and they have knowledge of the extent to which... discretionary On the other hand, when our focus is on choices, decisions, and deliberation, the actor’s perspective or employee’s perspective is vital Employees are the ones who make citizenship contributions, and it is their perception of families of behavior as serving 16 similar purposes that gives OCB constructs motivational meaning Employees are perhaps most familiar with the actual work they do, know the. .. in Southern Indiana (USA) by asking “What are the thing you would like your employees to do more of, but really can’t make them do, and for which you can’t guarantee any definite rewards, other than your appreciation” (Organ et al, 2006, p 16) The development of OCB dimensions was guided with the assumption that managers are knowledgeable of the kind of work employees do and accountable for the results... take employees perspective in generating OCB dimensions The assumption guiding my research is that the best way to separate out distinct facets of employee OCB and align them with their unique antecedents is to examine OCB phenomena from the standpoint of those engaging in the behavior the employees This is consistent with the basic premise of theories of reasoned action and planned behavior (Azjen . NEW DIRECTIONS FOR OCB RESEARCH: INCORPORATING THE EMPLOYEE’S PERSPECTIVE SANKALP CHATURVEDI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE 2008 NEW DIRECTIONS. DIRECTIONS FOR OCB RESEARCH: INCORPORATING THE EMPLOYEE’S PERSPECTIVE SANKALP CHATURVEDI {B.E. (CTAE, Udaipur), M.Tech (IIT, Kharagpur)} A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE. understanding of OCB within the context of motivation systems that make sense to employees the ones actually performing the citizenship behavior. To this point the emphasis of OCB researchers has