Determinants of Organizational Citizensh. docx

Determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Its Consequence
Dr

Bhavesh

Vanparia

(Asst.

Adipur,Gandhidham,Gujarat), Dr

professor

of

Tolani

Management

Institute,

Pooja Chavda (Asst. professor of Indu Management

Institute, Sevasi- Koyli Road, Vadodara, Gujarat), Priyanka Mehta ( Asst. professor Marwadi
Education Foundation Group of Institution, Bedi Rajkot ,Gujarat)

Abstract:
Theory and research on Organizational Citizenship Behaviours (OCB) has presumed OCB as
a set of desirable behaviours that contributes to the organizational effectiveness. So far OCB
has been connoted as one of the antecedents of organizational performance. However, the
antecedents of OCB are not thoroughly investigated. This study explores various existing
definitions of OCB and then examines the dimensions of OCB. This study will focus on
relation between OCB dimension and demographic variable like Gender, Education, Gender,
and Designation. These studies also focus on performance of OCB performance in different
sectors.

Key Words: Organizational Citizenship Behaviours, Transformational Leadership,
Complexity, Job Satisfaction, Structural Equation Modelling

Introduction:
The initial OCB concepts were introduced by Bateman and Organ in 1983. OCB is positive

for organizations and benefits both management and subordinates.OCB defines the
relationships among co-workers. Being helpful and supportive of colleagues in a way that
benefits the organization, working towards the organization’s goals.OCB is not always
formally recognized or rewarded, and concepts like ‘helpfulness’ or ‘friendliness’ are also
difficult to quantify. Yet OCB has been shown to have a considerable positive impact at the
organizational level, enhancing organizational effectiveness. OCB enhances employee
performance and wellbeing; outlines how OCB will benefit the company overall; explores
ways of encouraging OCB in the workplace. OCB refers to anything that employees choose
to do, spontaneously and of their own accord, which often lies outside of their specified
contractual obligations. In other words, it is discretionary. In this way it can facilitate future
reward gain indirectly.Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is referred as set of
discretionary workplace behaviors that exceed one’s basic job requirements. They are often
described as behaviors that go beyond the call of duty.There is consensus in this particular
field that OCB addresses silent behaviors for organizational enterprises (Barbuto, Brown,
Wilhite, & Wheeler, 2001). Successful organizations have employees who go beyond their
formal job responsibilities and freely give of their time and energy to succeed at the assigned
job. Organizations could not survive or prosper without their members behaving as good
citizens by engaging in all sorts of positive behaviors.
Objective of organization citizenship behaviour:
Throughout the years, it has become apparent that employees perform OCB for very different

reasons. Rioux and Penner (2001) indicated that there were three different motives for
engaging in OCB, which include: impression management, prosaical values, and
organizational concern.
1. Impression Management: Impression management involves the employee working
to build a positive image for their own personal gain and to avoid being perceived
negatively.
2. Prosocial: Values Prosocial values originate from a desire to be helpful. People
engaging in OCB because of prosocial values are genuinely concerned with the
welfare of others.

3. Organizational Concern: Organizational concern is based on social exchange theory.
Social exchange theory specifies that an employee engages in OCB because the
organization has given them a good job and treats them fairly.

Dimension of Organization citizenship behavior:
The underlying dimensions of OCB have been a work in progress. OCB was originally
organized into two dimensions: altruism and compliance (Bateman & Organ, 1983).
Compliance was later re-named conscientiousness. In 1988, Organ added sportsmanship,
courtesy, and civic virtue. Finally, peacemaking and cheerleading were added by Organ in
1990 to complete the list of dimensions. Altruism, cheerleading, and peacemaking were later

grouped together in a category known as helping behavior (Organ, 1997). The following list
contains definitions and examples of each of the five categories of OCB:
1. Conscientiousness: Conscientiousness refers to impersonal behavior that benefits the
organization as a whole. In other words, it refers to behavior that is not directed at
another individual. Examples of conscientiousness include an employee adhering to
an organization’s rules and regulations or an employee not using all of their vacation
or sick days.
2. Sportsmanship: Sportsmanship is an employee’s willingness to deal with poor
situations without complaining. It is the only form of OCB that involves declining to
participate in certain behaviors. For example, not engaging in gossip and not
complaining about office size would be considered good sportsmanship.
3. Courtesy: Courtesy is demonstrated by preventing organization problems through
communication and general consideration for others. An example of 11 courtesy
involves letting co-workers know how they can reach an employee who is on
vacation. The courteous behaviors attempt to prevent other employees from
encountering unpleasant surprises.
4. Civic Virtue: Civic virtue is participating in the life and culture of the organization;
this is not considered behavior that is targeted at individuals, rather, this behavior
targets the organization. An example of civic virtue would be attending company
events, such as meetings or picnics, which are not required for employees. It also

includes contributing opinions on important organizational issues. 5. Helping
behavior. Helping behavior includes altruism, peacekeeping, and cheerleading. Some
examples of helping behavior include volunteering to orient a new employee, solving
conflicts among employees, and acknowledging fellow employees’ accomplishments.

5.

Objectives:
The study aims to understand various dimension of OCB upon OCB in service sector context,
more specifically to examine the effect of commitment, environment and culture upon OCB.
The following objectives are taken for the study based on literature review.
1. To understand relationship between various dimensions like commitment, work
environment and organization culture upon OCB.
2. To understand the relationship between the job satisfaction and the above mentioned
dimensions of OCB.
3. To study the relationship between demographic variables and OCB of the respondent.

Hypothesis:
H1: There is significant difference in OBC dimensions with respect to Gender.
H2: There is significant difference in OCB dimensions with respect to marital status.

H3: There is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Education
Qualification.
H4: There is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Designation.
H5: There is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Experience.
H6: There is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Income.

Literature review
Research on the topic of organizational citizenship behaviors has dramatically increased over
the past decade. However, this rapid growth in research has resulted in the development of
several problems, including the need to better understand the conceptual similarities and
differences between various forms of citizenship behavior, as well as their antecedents and
consequences. In this paper, we have tried to address these issues, as well as identify useful
avenues for future research. Overall, this is an exciting and dynamic field of research, and we
are hopeful that this paper will help to speed progress in this area by highlighting several key
issues that are in need of attention.

R. S. D’Intino (1999) referred organization citizenship behaviour as “individual behavior that
is optional, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the
collective promotes the effective functioning of the organization” given by Organ, in 1988
and he proposed a theoretical and an empirical relationship linking organizational citizenship

behavior and two ideological orientations defined in social contract theory. He introduces
organizational cooperation and explains how early management theorists provided the
foundation that supports the organizational citizenship behavior concept. As per his study,
Citizenship theory include (1) individual extra-role actions can be distinguished from in-role
actions and (2) these extra-role behavior distinctions are important to organizational
employees and managers (Van Dyne &LePine, 1998). For that it was expected tht
organizations’ employees as global competition continues to require greater energy and
output. Individual helpful behaviors that serve to help other persons, work groups, or an
entire organization are the context for the academic and observed study of OCB. The person
who is satisfied from job will have cooperative behavior in the organization. Family,
neighbors, and friends are the primary reference, rather than work groups or the larger
community or society. They have found out that social and community experiences affect
workplace behavior.
Philip M. Podsakoff, Scott B. MacKenzie, et. all (2000) examined the various dimensions of
OCB and also critically evaluated the relationship of those constructs. More specifically, they
(a) explored the conceptual similarities and differences between the various forms of
“citizenship” behavior constructs identified in the literature; (b) summarized the empirical
findings of both the antecedents and consequences of OCBs; and (c) identified several
interesting directions for future research.
It was studied from the literature review that there was a great deal of conceptual overlap

between the constructs. The literature review captures seven common themes or dimensions:
(1) Helping Behavior, (2) Sportsmanship, (3) Loyalty, (4) Organizational Compliance, (5)
Individual Initiative, (6) Civic Virtue, and (7) Self Develop.

Tiffany Schroeder (2003) tried to clarify the social exchange explanation by outlining several
additional assumptions underlying the approach to OCB, and then used these assumptions to

highlight empirical and conceptual gaps. The purpose of the study was both to clarify
research from the social exchange perspective, and to spark inquiry into other possibilities.
The concept of OCB originally grew out of Dennis Organ’s reflections into clarifications for
the apparent non-relationship between job satisfaction and job performance (Organ, 1988). It
was then finally proposed as an alternative form of performance, separated from traditional
performance on the basis of its relative freedom from situational and ability constraints.
Nadim Jahangir, Mohammad Muzahid Akbar ET. All (2004), they explores various existing
definitions of OCB and then examines the dimensions of OCB. Based on the discussion on
the dimensions of OCB, a number of antecedents were identified. When the antecedents were
known, managers would be able to promote OCB among their employees for better
performance. Job Satisfaction & Organizational Commitment, Role Perceptions, Leadership
behaviors & LMX, Fairness Perceptions, Individual Dispositions, Motivational Theories,
Employee Age. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is referred as set of discretionary

workplace behaviors that exceed one’s basic job requirements. It was often described as
behaviors that go beyond the call of duty. Different definition of OCB Are
1) Barnard (1938)[24] stated that the willingness of individuals to contribute cooperative
efforts to the organization was indispensable to effective attainment of organizational
goals Barnard elaborated that efforts must be exerted not only to perform the
functions that contribute to the goals of the organization but also to maintain the
organization itself. Individuals differ in their willingness to contribute to the
“cooperative system”, and these individual differences in behavior cannot be
explained by individual differences in ability.
2) Katz and Kahn’s (1966) [25] extended this argument further. In any organization, they
claimed, the system would break down were it not for the “countless acts of
cooperation” exhibited by the employees. They further noted that the incentives that
motivate such spontaneous, informal contributions are different from those that
motivate task proficiency.
3) Organ (1988)[3] in OCB an individual’s behavior is discretionary. This behavior is not
directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and it in the aggregate
that promotes the effective functioning of the organization Katz's (1964) [28] paid
heed to the notion of employees’ extra-role behaviors. Katz noted that employees
willingly contribute extra efforts for the attainment of the organizational outcomes.

Organ relied on both the notions of Barnard (1938)[24] and Katz (1964)[28] to
develop his OCB construct.
4) A second definition of OCB comes from Van Dyne et al. (1995)[4], who proposed the
broader construct of "extra-role behavior" (ERB), defined as "behavior which benefits
the organization and/or is intended to benefit the organization, which is Discretionary
and which goes beyond existing role expectations" (p. 218) . Organ (1997)[29]
suggested that this definition did not provide much clarity, noting that one's "job role"
is dependent on the expectations of and communication from the role sender.
5) Borman and Motowidlo (1993[27], 1997[32]) proposed another construct called
‘contextual performance’ related to OCB that contribute to the effectiveness of the
organization by shaping the organizational, social, and psychological context that
serves as the catalyst for task activities and processes. As opposed to “task
performance” (i.e.the effectiveness with which job incumbents perform activities that
contribute to the organization’stechnical core) by “contextual performance” these
authors Referred to those behaviors that employees engage in many work behaviors
that fall outside the rubric of taskperformance.
6)

A recent review of the literature by Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine, and Bachrach
(2000)[34] identified a major weakness of this stream of research on OCB. The

authors argued that the literature has focused more on understanding the relationship
between OCB and other constructs, rather than carefully defining the nature
(dimensions) of citizenship behavior itself.

The review of the recent literature on OCB has distinguished between various dimensions of
OCB and has examined the relationships between them. Based on the discussion on OCB
dimensions; the concept of OCB had been articulated. Thereafter, a host of antecedents for
OCB was identified and armed with these antecedents a theoretical framework for OCB is
suggested.
Malay Biswas (2010) studied the Relationship between personality traits of individuals and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB). The aim of the research was to explore
relationship between Guna (personality trait), as conceived in Indian philosophy and

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. The author conducted Partial Least Square (PLS path
modeling) using Smart PLS software. Smart PLS allows implementing Partial Least Square
Analysis. (Hansmann and Ringle, 2004). The questionnaire administered to 134 employees of
three five star hotels, one Budget Hotel, one leading retail company, one multinational bank,
all located in Mumbai, India. They have not used any social desirability measures to evaluate
the result. The author carried out PLS procedures. Average age group was 24 years and 86%
of the sample was male. 91% of the employees subscribed to Hindu religion.
The findings of the research suggests that illuminitation ( Sattwa ) and Passion (Rajas)
element in Indian personality construct has significant relationship with OCB and has
potential predicted OCB. The author has followed the following framework for guiding the
discussion: at first the author has examined various elements of OCB , its constructs and
Guna constructs, fowlloed by a critical evaluation of theories which procides plausible reason
to believe that OCB can be predicted by Guna construct.
Omer Faruk Unal January (2013) studied to examine the relationship between the dimensions
of organizational citizenship and facet of job satisfaction. The purpose of the paper was to
empirically investigate and understand the impact of the facets of JS on the dimensions of
OCB within the context of a group of companies.
A total 330 questionnaire were sent to the respondents and 199 of them completed giving a
response rate 60.3. The data were processed using SPSS of companies in Istanbul in Turkey.
The analyses included reliability testing and factor analysis. Multiple regression analyses
were conducted to test hypotheses.
As per Omer FarukUnal Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is to protect the
organization against destructive and undesirable behaviors which prevent the organization’s
healthy operations, improves incumbents’ skills and abilities and increases performance and
productivity of organization by effective coordination. In this respect OCB is very closely
related with organization’s competiveness, organizational learning, adaptations for
environment and incumbents’ loyalty, commitment, performance and altruism (Basım and
Sener, 2006: 83-101). Organ (1988) identified five major types (dimensions) of OCB;
1. Altruism
2. Conscientiousness
3. Sportsmanship,
4. Courtesy
5. Civic virtue

Kuldeep Kumar, Arti Bakhshi found that almost all the measures used for measuring OCB
were developed in a western cultural context. So they developed such a measure for Indian
culture. The research design involves three broad stages: 1. Item generation, 2. scale
development and 3. Assessment of reliability and validity of the scale. Full-time employees
of various service organizations participated in the study. It was expected that the scale will
serve as a useful tool for researchers and practitioners in the field of organization behavior.
The concept, nature and measurement of OCB had been derived historically from three
sources (Farh et al. 1997). First, is the taxonomy offered by Katz (1964): The taxonomy was
cooperative activities with fellow members, actions protective of the system, creative ideas
for improvement, and self-training for increased individual responsibility. The second source
(Smith et al. 1983) was the dimensions found by interviewing the lower-level managers,
which yielded two major factors: altruism and compliance. The third source was the classic
Greek philosophy that suggests ‘loyalty’ and ‘boosterism’ as significant forms of OCB, but
also argues for the importance of principled dissent from organization practices and
challenges to the status quo (Graham 1991; Van Dyne et al. 1994).

Research Methodology
The main focus of this research is to measure when an employee influences to do
organizational Citizenship behavior. The environment in which this study is carried out is in
the Indian service sector: 1. Bank 2. Insurance 3. Hospital
Sample:
Data for this study was collected from 150 employees working in 3 service sector (Bank,
Insurance and Hospital of Gujarat, India. The questionnaires, together with cover letters
(seeking their cooperation) and were mostly personally handed to employees after a brief
personal communication concerning the topic and the goals of the study.
Survey instrument
This study uses the four dimensions of OCB proposed by literature review (Job satisfaction,
Organization commitment, organizational environment, and organization culture) as have
acknowledged the dimensions as the most widely used in organizational related studies.
Likert-like scale was used to measure the OCB elements, which used the anchors of 1
(Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).

Analysis:

Normality test

N

V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
V10
V11
V12
V13
V14
V15
V16
V17
V18
V19
V20
V21
V22
V23
V24
V25
V26
V27
V28
V29
V30
V31
V32
V33
V34
V35
V36
V37
Valid

Statistic
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
149
149
149
149
149
149
149
149
149
149
149
N 149

Descriptive Statistics
Skewness
Kurtosis
Std.
Statistic
-.338
-1.206
-.605
-.679
-1.141
-.818
-.886
-.719
-.845
-.817
-.724
-.827
-.962
-.783
-.454
-.681
-.779
-.502
-.668
-.735
-.860
-.482
-.995
-.624
-.546
-.831
-1.071
-.656
-.438
-.563
-.955
-1.160
-1.237
-1.215
-.178
-.644
-1.132

Error
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.198
.199
.199
.199
.199
.199
.199
.199
.199
.199
.199
.199

Statistic
-.705
1.132
-.191
-.203
.855
.379
.828
.504
.450
.694
.463
1.103
.688
.032
-.735
.052
.672
.025
.391
-.117
.934
.104
1.157
.752
.802
1.206
.572
-.071
-.205
-.273
.796
1.952
1.758
1.256
-.646
.663
1.187

Std. Error
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.394
.395
.395
.395
.395
.395
.395
.395
.395
.395
.395
.395

(listwise)

All skewness value is from -1.237 to -0.178 and kurtosis value is from -0.735 to 1.952.
According to the guideline suggested by Kline (1998), all variables are univariate normal and
the individual variable is normal in a univariate sense and that their combinations are also

normal. So researcher can conclude that OCB data is multivariate normal and should be used
for further multivariate analysis.

Looking to above
figure, OCB data is normally distributed.

In the Normal Probability Plot, we observed that our points have lie in a reasonably straight
diagonal line from bottom left to top right. This would no major deviations from normality.
Multicollinearity:
The correlations between the variables in your model are provided in the table labeled
Correlations. Check that your independent variables show at least some relationship with
your dependent variable (above .3 preferably). (Pallant, 2005)

Table:
Correlations
Organization
Work
Commitment

Pearson

Commitment Environment Culture
1
.490**
.043

Correlation
Sig.
(2-

Work
Environment

Organization
Culture

Job Satisfaction

Organization
Citizenship
Behaviour

OCB

tailed)
N
Pearson

150
.490**

150
.043

Citizenship

Satisfaction Behaviour
.028
.531**

OCB
.539**

.000

.599

.735

.000

.000

150
1

150
.611**

150
.580**

150
.439**

150
.780**

.000

.000

.000

.000

150
1

150
.854**

150
.365**

150
.777**

.000

.000

.000

150
1

150
.364**

150
.767**

.000

.000

150
1

150
.794**

Correlation
Sig.
(2- .000
tailed)
N
Pearson

Organization Job

150
.611**

Correlation
Sig.
(2- .599

.000

tailed)
N
Pearson

150
.580**

150
.854**

Correlation
Sig.
(2- .735

.000

.000

tailed)
N
Pearson

150
.439**

150
.365**

150
.364**

Correlation
Sig.
(2- .000

.000

.000

.000

tailed)
N
Pearson

150
.780**

150
.777**

150
.767**

150
.794**

.000

.000

.000

.000

150

150

150

150
.028

150
.531**

150
.539**

Correlation
Sig.
(2- .000

tailed)
N
150
150
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

.000
150
1

150

Researcher also checked that the correlation between each of our independent variables is not
too high. In OCB construct, the correlation between all independent variables are less than
0.9, therefore, as per guideline suggested by Pallant (2005) all variables will be retained.

Reliability analysis
Table: 4.12

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.929
37

According to Pavot, Colvin and Sandvik (1991), Employee Satisfaction Scale has good
internal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha coefficient reported of .60. In the current study
the Cronbach alpha coefficient was 0.92.
H1: There is significant difference in OBC dimensions with respect to Gender.
Table: 4.14

Independent Samples Test
Levene's
Test

for

Equality of
Variances

t-test for Equality of Means
95%
Sig.
(2-

Commitment Equal

F
.566

Sig. t
df
.453 -.256 148

Interval
Mean

Confidence
of

the

Std. Error

Difference
tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
.798 -.18845
.73495
1.26390

variances

1.64080

assumed
Equal

-.269 132.636 .789

-.18845

.70115

variances

-

1.19842

1.57532

not
Work

assumed
Equal

6.280 .013 1.277 148

.204

.60562

.47434

-.33173 1.54298

.245

.60562

.51699

-.42183 1.63307o9l

.020

2.08739

.89098

.32670

3.84807

2.350 116.915 .020

2.08739

.88814

.32846

3.84632

.008

2.32219

.85964

.62343

4.02095

2.697 115.170 .008

2.32219

.86103

.61668

4.02770

.184

1.64020

1.22849

-.78745 4.06785

1.340 116.948 .183

1.64020

1.22447

-.78480 4.06520

Environment variances
assumed
Equal

1.171 87.796

variances
not
assumed
Organization Equal
Culture

.012

.913 2.343 148

variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not

Job

assumed
Equal

Satisfaction

variances

.068

assumed
Equal

.794 2.701 148

variances
not
assumed
Organization Equal
Citizenship

variances

Behavior

assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed

.363

.548 1.335 148

Inference:
Commitment: Here the significant test value comes out as .453, which is greater than 0.05, it
means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant difference between
OBC dimensions with respect to Gender.
Work Environment: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.013, which is less than
0.05, it means that the alternative hypothesis is accepted and there is significant difference
between OBC dimensions with respect to Gender.
Organization Culture: Here the significant test value comes out as .913, which is greater than
0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant difference
between OBC dimensions with respect to Gender.
Job Satisfaction: Here the significant test value comes out as .794, which is greater than 0.05,
it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant difference between
OBC dimensions with respect to Gender.
Organization Citizenship Behavior: Here the significant test value comes out as .548, which
is greater than 0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant
difference between OBC dimensions with respect to Gender.
H2: There is significant difference in OCB dimensions with respect to marital status.
Table: 4.15

Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances

t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Sig.
(2-

Commitment Equal

F
2.728

Sig.
.101

t
df
-.434 147

Interval
Mean

of

the

Std. Error

Difference
tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
.665 -.35325
.81358
1.25457

variances

1.96107

assumed
Equal

-.508 88.902 .613

-.35325

.69514

variances

-

1.02800

1.73450

not
Work

assumed
Equal

3.562

.061

.894

147

.373

.47274

.52863

-.57197 1.51744

.796

53.559 .430

.47274

.59386

-.71811 1.66359

.009

2.60645

.98071

.66834

4.54455

2.600 61.780 .012

2.60645

1.00234

.60265

4.61025

2.533 147

.012

2.42603

.95784

.53312

4.31895

2.415 59.229 .019

2.42603

1.00463

.41594

4.43613

1.876 147

.063

2.52632

1.34673

-.13515 5.18778

1.520 47.763 .135

2.52632

1.66210

-.81600 5.86863

Environment variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Organization Equal
Culture

.009

.924

2.658 147

variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not

Job

assumed
Equal

Satisfaction

variances

.882

.349

assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
Organization Equal
Citizenship

variances

Behavior

assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed

2.734

.100

Inference:
Commitment: Here the significant test value comes out as .101, which is greater than 0.05, it
means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant difference between
OBC dimensions with respect to marital status.
Work Environment: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.061, which is greater than
0.05, it means that that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant difference
between OBC dimensions with respect to marital status.
Organization Culture: Here the significant test value comes out as .924, which is greater than
0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant difference
between OBC dimensions with respect to marital status.
Job Satisfaction: Here the significant test value comes out as .349, which is greater than 0.05,
it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant difference between
OBC dimensions with respect to marital status.
Organization Citizenship Behavior: Here the significant test value comes out as .100, which
is greater than 0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant
difference between OBC dimensions with respect to marital status.
H3: There is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Education Qualification.
Table: 4.16

ANOVA
Sum

of
df
2

Square
28.436

147
149
2

18.706

Work Environment

Groups
Within Groups 2749.801
Total
2806.673
Between
27.443

147
149
2

7.851

Organization Culture

Groups
Within Groups 1154.030
Total
1181.473
Between
205.756

147
149
2

27.689

Job Satisfaction

Groups
Within Groups 4070.218
Total
4275.973
Between
279.387
Groups
Within Groups 3748.007
Total
4027.393
Citizenship Between
55.347

147
149
2

25.497

Groups
Within Groups 7877.513
Total
7932.860

147
149

53.589

Commitment

Between

Organization
Behavior

Squares
56.872

Mean

13.722

102.878

139.693

27.674

F
1.520

Sig.
.222

1.748

.178

3.716

.027

5.479

.005

.516

.598

Inference:
Commitment: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.222, which is greater than 0.05, it
means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant variance in OBC
dimensions with respect to Education Qualification.
Work Environment: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.178, which is greater than
0.05, it means that that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant variance in
OBC dimensions with respect to Education Qualification.
Organization Culture: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.027, which is less than
0.05, it means that the alternative hypothesis is accepted and there is significant variance in
OBC dimensions with respect to Education Qualification.
Job Satisfaction: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.005, which is less than 0.05, it
means that the alternative hypothesis is accepted and there is significant variance in OBC
dimensions with respect to Education Qualification.

Organization Citizenship Behavior: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.598, which
is greater than 0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant
variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Education Qualification.
H4: There is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Designation.
Table: 4.17
ANOVA
Sum

Mean
df
2

Square
36.004

147
149
2

18.603

Work Environment

Groups
Within Groups 2734.665
Total
2806.673
Between
21.126

147
149
2

7.894

Organization Culture

Groups
Within Groups 1160.347
Total
1181.473
Between
1.710

147
149
2

29.077

Job Satisfaction

Groups
Within Groups 4274.263
Total
4275.973
Between
9.625
Groups
Within Groups 4017.769
Total
4027.393
Citizenship Between
55.534

147
149
2

27.332

Groups
Within Groups 7877.326
Total
7932.860

147
149

53.587

Commitment

Between

Organization
Behavior

Squares
72.009

of

10.563

.855

4.812

27.767

F
1.935

Sig.
.148

1.338

.265

.029

.971

.176

.839

.518

.597

Inference:
Commitment: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.148, which is greater than 0.05, it
means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant variance in OBC
dimensions with respect to Designation.
Work Environment: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.265, which is greater than
0.05, it means that that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant variance in
OBC dimensions with respect to Designation.

Organization Culture: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.971, which is greater
than 0.05, it means that that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant
variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Designation.
Job Satisfaction: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.839, which is greater than
0.05, it means that that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant variance in
OBC dimensions with respect to Designation.
Organization Citizenship Behavior: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.597, which
is greater than 0.05, it means that that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no
significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Designation.
H4: There is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Experience.
Table: 4.18
ANOVA
Sum

Mean
df
2

Square
25.627

147
149
2

18.744

Work Environment

Groups
Within Groups 2755.419
Total
2806.673
Between
7.991

147
149
2

7.983

Organization Culture

Groups
Within Groups 1173.483
Total
1181.473
Between
180.160

147
149
2

27.863

Job Satisfaction

Groups
Within Groups 4095.814
Total
4275.973
Between
198.860

Groups
Within Groups 3828.533
Total
4027.393
Organization Citizenship Between
226.688

147
149
2

26.044

147
149

52.423

Commitment

Between

Behavior

Inference:

Squares
51.254

of

Groups
Within Groups 7706.172
Total
7932.860

3.995

90.080

99.430

113.344

F
1.367

Sig.
.258

.500

.607

3.233

.042

3.818

.024

2.162

.119

Commitment: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.258, which is greater than 0.05, it
means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant variance in OBC
dimensions with respect to Experience.
Work Environment: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.607, which is greater than
0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant variance in
OBC dimensions with respect to Experience.
Organization Culture: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.042, which is less than
0.05, it means that that alternative hypothesis is accepted and there is significant variance in
OBC dimensions with respect to Experience.
Job Satisfaction: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.024, which is less than 0.05, it
means that that alternative hypothesis is accepted and there is significant variance in OBC
dimensions with respect to Experience.
Organization Citizenship Behavior: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.119, which
is greater than 0.05, it means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant
variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Experience.
H5: There is significant variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Income.
Table: 4.19

ANOVA
Sum

Mean
df
3

Square
13.854

146
149
3

18.939

Work Environment

Groups
Within Groups 2765.111
Total
2806.673
Between
34.329

146
149
3

7.857

Organization Culture

Groups
Within Groups 1147.144
Total
1181.473
Between
385.841

146
149
3

26.645

Job Satisfaction

Groups
Within Groups 3890.133
Total
4275.973
Between
456.740
Groups
Within Groups 3570.653
Total
4027.393
Citizenship Between
691.374

146
149
3

24.457

Groups
Within Groups 7241.486
Total
7932.860

146
149

49.599

Commitment

Between

Organization
Behavior

Squares
41.562

of

11.443

128.614

152.247

230.458

F
.731

Sig.
.535

1.456

.229

4.827

.003

6.225

.001

4.646

.004

Inference:
Commitment: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.535, which is greater than 0.05, it
means that do not reject the null hypothesis and there is no significant variance in OBC
dimensions with respect to Income.
Work Environment: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.229, which is less than
0.05, it means that that alternative hypothesis is accepted and there is significant variance in
OBC dimensions with respect to Income.
Organization Culture: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.003, which is less than
0.05, it means that that alternative hypothesis is accepted and there is significant variance in
OBC dimensions with respect to Income.
Job Satisfaction: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.001, which is less than 0.05, it
means that that alternative hypothesis is accepted and there is significant variance in OBC
dimensions with respect to Income.

Organization Citizenship Behavior: Here the significant test value comes out as 0.004, which
is less than 0.05, it means that that alternative hypothesis is accepted and there is significant
variance in OBC dimensions with respect to Income.

Regression
Table:
Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
R
R Square
Square
Estimate
.633(a)
.401
.388
5.707
a Predictors: (Constant), commitment, organization culture, work environment
Model
1

Table:
ANOVA(b)

Model
1

Regression
Residual

Sum of
Squares
3177.328
4755.532

df
3
146

Mean Square
1059.109
32.572

F
32.516

Sig.
.000(a)

Standardized
Coefficients

t

Sig.

Beta

B

Total

7932.860
149
a Predictors: (Constant), commitment, organization culture, work environment
b Dependent Variable: organization citizenship behaviour

Table:
Coefficients(a)
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Model
1

(Constant)
organization culture

B
17.366

Std. Error
3.353

5.179

Std. Error
.000

.513

.119

.377

4.321

.000

-.147

.259

-.057

-.569

.570

.912
.133
a Dependent Variable: organization citizenship behaviour

.542

6.855

.000

work environment
commitment

Here, in this test value of R-square is .401, which means that about 40 % variation in the
dependent variable – job satisfaction and OCB are explained jointly by all the independent
variable- organization culture, work environment, commitment.
F and sig.: The P-value is compare to chosen alpha level (0.05) and here the P-value is 0.00
which is smaller than 0.05, so that independent variable jointly explained variations in the
dependent variable.

As per regression analysis our OCB model is 39% fit. And ANOVA table shows that model is
valid for analysis and as per co-efficient table organization culture and commitment is more
important dimension for our model.

Conclusion:
The study increases our understanding of OCB in service sector. In closing, this study we
found that there are 3 most important dimension of OCB. On which we collected the data
from sector and we found that commitment is not affected by any demographic variable but
it’s not showing any importance in doing OCB. Gender is affected by work environment and
organization culture. For educated employees, experienced employees and employees from
different income group have different criteria for job satisfaction. And we found that
independent variables can jointly explain the variations in the dependent variable.

References:
Aquino, K. & Bommer, W. H. (2003). Preferential mistreatment: How victim status
moderates the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and workplace
victimization. Organizational Science, 14, 4, 374-385.
Borman, W. C. & Motowidlo, S. J. 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements
of
contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personality selection (pp.7198). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brief, A. P. & Motowidlo, S. J. 1986. Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of
Management Review, 10: 710-725.
Cheung F.A., Cheung S.F., Wada S., andZhang J. (2003). Indigenous Measures of Personality
Assessment in Asian Countries: A Review, Vol. 15, No. 3,280–289
Chin W.W. and Newsted P.R. (1999).Structural Equation Modeling Analysis with small
samples using Partial Least quares, in Hoyle R.H., Statistical Strategies for small sample
Research, Sage Publications,

Ehrhart, MG 2004, ‘Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level
organizational citizenship behavior.’ Personnel Psychology, 57, 61–94.
Farh JL, Earley, C & Lin, S 1997, ‘Impetus for action: a cultural analysis of justice and
organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society’, Administrative Sciences Quarterly,
42, 421 44

George, J. M. (1991), “State of Trait: Effects of Positive Mood on Pro-social Behavior at
Work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 299-307.
George, J. M. and Brief, A. P. (1992), “Feeling Good - Doing Good: A Conceptual Analysis
of Mood at Work-organizational Spontaneity Relationship”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol.112,
pp. 310-329 87 Katzell, R.A., Yankelovich, D., 1975. Work, productivity, and job satisfaction.
The Psychological Corporation, New York.
Kumar, K, Bakhshi, A & Rani, E 2009, ‘Linking the ‘Big Five’ personality domains to
Organizational citizenship behavior’, International journal of Psychological studies, 1, p.
2.
Kumar. R 2005, Organizational citizenship performance in non-governmental organizations:
Development of a scale: IIM, Ahmedabad.
Lee, K. & Allen, N. J. (2002), “Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Workplace
Deviance: The Role of affect and Cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, No.1,
pp. 131-142.
Morgan, R. and Hunt, D. (1994) ‘The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing’,
Journal of Marketing, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 20-38.
Mowday, R., Steers, R. and Porter, L. (1979) ‘The measurement of organizational
commitment’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 224-247.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time.
Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 157-164.
Paine, J. and Organ, D. (2000) ‘The cultural matrix of organizational citizenship behavior:
Some preliminary conceptual and empirical observations’, Human Resource Management
Review, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 45 – 59.
Williams, L. and Anderson, S. (1991) ‘Job satisfaction and commitment as predictors of
organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors’, Journal of Management, vol. 17, no. 3, pp.
601-617.
Wright, T. and Cropanzano, R. (2004) ‘The role of psychological well-being in job
performance: A fresh look at an age old quest’, Organizational Dynamics, vol. 33, no. 4, pp.
338-351.