Organizational Citizenship Behavior What. pdf

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Ronit Kark and Ronit Waismel-Manor J. Martin and Knopoff, 1997). Furthermore, we would like to suggest

different dynamics that explain why and how OCB holds different organizational implications for women and men, thus contributing to the reinforcement and reproduction of the existing order of men’s dominance and women’s subordination. We conclude with a discussion of the ‘darker side’ of OCB for both men and women, and consider the changes needed in the organizational literature and research, which would offer

a different understanding of the gendered and social consequences of OCB.

Feminist Framework for Analysis of OCB

In the last decade, feminist scholars have recognized that organizations are gendered in theory, practice, and discourse (e.g. Acker, 1990; Cal´as and Smircich, 1992; Fletcher, 1999; Hearn and Parkin, 1983; J. Martin, 1990). To say that an organization is gendered means that advantage, power and control versus disadvantage, exploitation and disempower- ment are organized in terms of distinction between what is constructed as male and female in the workplace (Acker, 1990). According to this perspective, ‘gender is not an addition to ongoing processes, conceived as gender neutral. Rather, it is an integral part of those processes, which cannot be properly understood without an analysis of gender’ (Acker, 1990: 146). Thus, while organizational logic appears to be gender neutral, there is a gendered substructure that underlies both practical guides for managers and academic theories, and this substructure is reproduced in practical work activities, as well as in the texts of organizational theorists (Acker, 1990; P. Martin, 1996; J. Martin, 2000).

Recent organizational analysis from a feminist perspective questions the gendered nature of organizational theory and practices through the critique and re-reading of mainstream organizational theories (for reviews, see Cal´as and Smircich, 1996; Kark, 2004; J. Martin, 2000). Following this stream of work, we seek to critique the concept of OCB and demonstrate that OCB theorizing is not gender neutral. This is done by first examining the OCB construct as an instance of gendered constitu- tion of knowledge and, second, by exploring the potential differential consequences of this mode of conceptualization for women and men. Feminist theories are a collection of diverse theories (Cal´as and Smircich, 1996; Lorber, 2001; Tong, 1998). For our critique, we draw on two different feminist perspectives, namely: the poststructural feminist per- spective and the ‘post liberal’ critical gender perspective, which consider gender as socially constructed and whose primary focus is on gender relations.

These different epistemological perspectives lead us to different forms of critique. Poststructuralism helps us unveil the ways in which knowl- edge of what comprises OCB (e.g. the organizational literature of OCB, the theory, language and metaphors used) is gendered, highlighting some forms of citizenship behavior and excluding other behaviors that are

Organization 12(6)

Articles arguably as important as those included. Following these lines, the

current paper challenges some of the fundamental assumptions of OCB, giving prominence to the gendered aspects of the concept.

Our analysis shows that the theory is constructed in ways likely to perpetuate men’s dominance while facilitating women’s subordination. In order to examine this claim, we analyse the rhetorical nature of the text, by making visible the language and metaphors used to build the theory of OCB. We apply strategies of poststructural inquiry (e.g. J. Martin, 1990; Weedon, 1997) enabling us to reveal assumptions in ways particularly sensitive to the suppressed interests of members of dis- empowered, marginalized groups. Such strategies include a search for significant silences in the text, a focus on claims that a given state of affair is ‘natural’, and questioning of dichotomous thinking (e.g. Fondas, 1997; J. Martin, 2000; Mumby and Putnam, 1992).

We use the ‘post liberal’ perspective to study how OCB is affected by gendered expectations and practices patterned within organizational processes. This perspective helps us uncover the ways that work prac- tices, gender stereotypes, gendered expectations and enactment of OCB impact the potential differential consequences which this mode of con- ceptualization might have for women and men. The ‘post liberal’ perspective—a general name we use for different but related theories among them the ‘post equity’ perspective (Meyerson and Kolb, 2000), critical social construction feminism (Lorber, 2001) and socialist feminist theories of organizations (Acker, 1990; Cal´as and Smircich, 1996)—suggests that sex differences are socially constructed and are historically and culturally created and maintained through gender and power relations. According to this perspective, observed differences between women and men are not inherent, but rather are created and sustained through social processes and systems of power relations evi- dent in the gendered substructure of organizations (Acker, 1990; Ely and Meyerson, 2000). This gendered substructure is manifested in various internal dynamics and practices that appear as though they frame and treat women and men ‘the same’ but are actually male-preferential, because they are premised on men’s bodies, men’s lives, men’s time and men’s ability to valorize work over home, family and personal life (Acker, 1990; P. Martin, 1996). Gender, therefore, is a complex set of social and power relations enacted across an array of social practices ranging from formal policies and procedures to informal patterns of everyday social interaction within organizations.

The paper proceeds as follows. First, we focus on the general concept of OCB and the metaphors used to define it. Second, drawing from feminist poststructuralism, we examine the components of OCB, unveil- ing their gendered connotations and demonstrating that some of these extra-role components can be seen as stereotypically feminine and con- gruent with women’s role in society, while others can be seen as stereo- typically masculine and as more likely to be attributed to and enacted by

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Ronit Kark and Ronit Waismel-Manor men. Subsequently, drawing mainly on the ‘post liberal’ perspective, we

explore the different dynamics by which both the feminine and mascu- line components of OCB enable a persistence of the status quo, devaluing women’s extra-role behavior. Subsequently, we consider the wider social implications of OCB and the ‘darker side’ of the theory. Finally, we consider the changes needed in the OCB literature that would offer a different understanding, which brings the hidden into light as gender/ power relations under OCB.

It is important to note that, although we focus on the gendered meanings of OCBs, many of the ideas we discuss can be relevant to understanding the meaning of OCB for other minority group character- istics, such as race, ethnicity and social class, or the intersection between gender and these different social identity categories. This is of sig- nificance because gender is rarely experienced alone; rather, it simultane- ously interacts with other social identities.

The Concept of OCB

Bateman and Organ (1983) introduced the construct of OCB, drawing upon concepts of super role behaviors presented by Katz and Kahn (1966). OCB has been defined as an ‘individual behavior that is dis- cretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization’ (Organ, 1988: 4). Later, Organ (1997) redefined OCBs ‘as contributions to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports task performance’ (Organ, 1997: 91), and hence, removed the requirements that OCB be discretionary and unrewarded (Motowidlo, 2000). For example, such behaviors include helping a new employee to catch up, helping a co-worker to deal with work overload or staying at work after hours (Organ, 1988).

Over the past two decades, researchers interested in behaviors that generally fit the definition of OCB did not always label them as such. These behaviors include prosocial organizational behaviors (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986) and contextual performance (Motowidlo, 2000). As Van Dyne et al. (1995) asserted, the proliferation of various forms of extra- role behaviors ‘have muddied the waters concerning definitions of extra- role behavior . . .’ (Van Dyne et al., 1995: 216). Regardless of the specifics of the definition, however, researchers have always conceived of OCB as

a multidimensional concept (LePine et al., 2002; Motowidlo, 2000). Organ’s (1988) framework and its five dimensions: altruism (e.g. assist-

ing others who have heavy workloads), conscientiousness (e.g. work attendance beyond the norm), sportsmanship (e.g. not complaining about trivial matters), courtesy (e.g. consulting with others before taking action) and civic virtue (e.g. involvement in the political process of the organiza- tion) have been the subject of the greatest amount of empirical research (LePine et al., 2002). Several other conceptualizations have been pro- posed and operationalized (Morrison, 1994; Van Dyne et al., 1994). For

Organization 12(6)

Articles example, based on political philosophy, Van Dyne et al. (1994) suggested

five dimensions that underlie OCB: obedience, loyalty, social participa- tion, advocacy participation and functional participation.

Podsakoff et al. (2000) review the literature on citizenship-like behav- iors and identify almost 30 potential different constructs of citizenship behavior. Nevertheless, they were able to organize them into seven dimensions resembling much of Organ and colleagues’ classification (e.g. Organ, 1988; Smith et al., 1983). LePine et al. (2002) who recently conducted a meta-analysis of OCB dimensions, note that ‘the literature on OCB and related concepts is fairly diverse with respect to both the nature of the behavioral dimensions studied, and perhaps more so the jargon used by scholars to label the dimensions’ (LePine et al., 2002: 54). One reason for the ambiguity concerning the definition and operational- ization of OCB is that the research has mostly focused on linking predictors to an overall measure of OCB or to a specific OCB dimension, rather than carefully defining the nature of citizenship behavior itself and developing a theory that can guide OCB measurement and analysis (LePine et al., 2002; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Researchers have only recently started to systematically address the question of which OCB operationalization is most appropriate, and how the different dimensions are related to one another (Coleman and Borman, 2000; LePine et al., 2002; Motowidlo, 2000).

LePine et al. (2002) argue that Organ’s five-dimensional framework has attracted the largest amount of empirical research for at least three reasons. First, Organ’s framework has the longest history, and he and his colleagues have been very prolific with respect to publishing their work. Second, Podsakoff et al. (1990) provided the field with a sound measure of Organ’s five dimensions, which has been the basis for OCB measure- ment in a large number of empirical studies. Third, OCB scholars generally assumed that over the long term, Organ’s dimensions are beneficial across situations and organizations; therefore, they usually measure all or most of the dimensions in the same way across studies. Because Organ’s metaphors and components (1988), as well as the survey items of Podsakoff et al. (1990), are the most known and commonly used measures, we submit them to a gender analysis. However, we also extend our analysis beyond their choice of scales.

Reading Gendered Metaphors: The ‘Citizen’ and The ‘Good Soldier’

According to feminist poststructuralism, discourses and language do not represent the ‘truth’, rather they are ways of constituting knowledge. Discourse is more than a way of thinking and producing meaning; it constitutes the ‘nature’ of what we define as reality (Weedon, 1997). Following this perspective, it is important to focus on the language, the symbols and the images used in OCB theorizing to unveil the voices

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Ronit Kark and Ronit Waismel-Manor represented within the concept. At first glance, the image or metaphor of

‘citizenship’ in the concept of OCB appears as a gender-neutral and a positively innocent concept.

Bateman and Organ (1983), who first suggested the concept of citizen- ship, explain their choice of this concept as follows:

Katz and Kahn (1966) have noted the many occasions in which organiza- tional functioning depends on supra-role behavior—behavior that cannot

be prescribed or required in advance for a given role. These behaviors include any of those gestures (often taken for granted) that lubricate the social machinery of the organization but that do not directly inhere in the usual notion of task performance. Examples that come into mind include: helping co-workers with a job related problem; accepting orders without a fuss; tolerating temporary impositions without complaint . . . promoting a work climate that is tolerable and minimizes the distractions created by interpersonal conflict . . . For lack of better term, the present authors shall refer to these acts as ‘citizenship’ behaviors. (Bateman and Organ, 1983: 588)

From a poststructuralist perspective, which points to the plurality of language and the impossibility of fixing meaning (Weedon, 1997), the meaning of ‘citizenship’ appears to be arbitrary. Citizenship, as demon- strated in the text above, is chosen for lack of a better term. However, citizenship has connotations that do not apply well to employment relations. Citizens, by virtue of birth, have profound rights in society, whereas employees have neither permanent status with their places of employment, nor a guarantee of voice unless represented by unions. Over time, several researchers sought to subsume a variety of terms/notions under a single signifier ‘citizenship’ (e.g. Manville and Ober, 2003). Whether or not the term citizenship, or any other arbitrary term is used, is of no importance, except that designating the concept ‘citizenship behavior’ is not ‘innocent’—it is loaded with politically significant meaning—of seeming equality and privilege. By choosing the term ‘cit- izenship’, the dominant interests of organizations are echoed, partly misleading employees, practitioners and scholars to believe that employ- ees resemble ‘citizens’ and are afforded the rights and privileges of citizens—which can be repaid to the organization by employees’ per- formance of citizenship behavior. 2

Furthermore, although the concept ‘citizenship’ appears at first glance as a gender-neutral concept, Pateman (1986), in a discussion of women and political theory, points out the gendered nature of the concept ‘citizen- ship’. According to Pateman, ‘in order for the individual to appear in liberal theory as a universal figure, who represents anyone and everyone, the individual must be disembodied’ (Pateman, 1986: 8). However, if the individual is not presented as an abstract figure, it would be clear that the individual represents one sex and one gender, not a universal being. The political fiction of the universal ‘individual’ or ‘citizen’, fundamental to the

Organization 12(6)

Articles ideas of democracy, excludes women, judging them as lacking the capabil-

ities necessary for participation in civil society. Although women now have citizen rights in democratic states, they still stand in an ambiguous relationship to the universal individual who is ‘constructed from a male body so that his identity is always masculine’ (Pateman, 1988: 233). Pateman further asserts that the image of ‘citizen’ rests on assumptions of access to and acceptance in the public arena, assumptions that traditionally only applied to males. As commonly noted, the channels leading to political power are few and limited for women, while men have access to high political echelons via different roads (Fogiel-Bijaoui, 1996). Furthermore, women are underrepresented in most countries in governing institutions. Thus, women are constructed as ‘passive’ or second-rate citizens, who are not interested in politics, which is seen as a natural result of their feminine nature and their mother/wife duties (Izraeli, 1997). The study by Miller et al. (1991) illustrates how pervasive this assumption may be. According to the results of their study, when male and female college students were asked to imagine a typical American voter, approximately 75% of the students envisioned the voter as male. Both male and female students tended to see the male as the norm, concluding that a man is a better example of a voter (or citizen) than is a woman. Thus, although not intentional, the choice of the term ‘citizenship’ infers that the employee demonstrating extra-role behavior is likely to be a ‘man’.

Another pervasive metaphor used in the literature to describe employees enacting extra-role behaviors is that of the ‘good soldier’. In the first paper introducing the concept of OCB, the metaphor of the ‘good soldier’ was included in the paper’s title (Bateman and Organ, 1983). Subsequently, Organ (1988) used this metaphor to name his first influen- tial book ‘Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syn- drome’. This metaphor of the ‘good soldier’ is strongly associated with masculinity and male stereotypes (Kidder and McLean Parks, 1993). 3

Using this metaphor for naming primary and influential works in the field of OCB can promote the association between OCB and masculinity. Following the path of Bateman and Organ, the use of this metaphor has become common practice (Allan and Rush, 1996; Bolino, 1999). For example, ‘the more an individual engages in OCB the more likely he or she is to be seen as a good soldier’ (Bolino, 1999: 92). However, referring to Bolino’s words, we believe that this is not likely to be the case for women in comparison to men because it is unlikely that women will be perceived as ‘soldiers’, and even less likely that they will be seen as ‘good soldiers’.

Furthermore, in different cultures and countries, women’s roles in the military help produce and reproduce their marginalization as citizens. For example, in Israel, which is the only country in which military service is compulsory for women as well as for men, women did not serve in combat roles until recently and were (and still are) mostly active

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Ronit Kark and Ronit Waismel-Manor in home front and support functions. This restriction limits women’s

ability to advance to high-level commanding ranks. Israeli men and women tend to consider as a given that, because women do not take part in combat units, they have less entitlement as citizens to influence the political agenda, and that high-ranking officers of the Israel Defense Forces have a natural cachet to be those that deserve and can automati- cally be advanced to senior political echelons (Fogiel-Bijaoui, 1996; Izraeli, 1997).

Therefore, the ‘good citizen’ metaphor, and moreover that of a ‘good soldier’, most probably constructs a male image of the prototype employee who exhibits OCBs, and presents women as those who are limited, almost by definition, in achieving the qualities of a good worker who performs extra-role behaviors.

The Gendered Nature of OCB Components

Apart from the general concept of citizenship and the prominent met- aphor of a soldier, the different components of OCB evoke images having gendered connotations. In this section, we present definitions of the different components and note their gendered associations. This lays the groundwork for exploring the dynamics leading to the devaluation and possibly the disappearance of women’s OCBs. 4

According to poststructuralist feminism, language and discourse can

be seen as serving the interests of dominant groups by constituting systems of signification that both express and reconstitute the dominant ideological structure of an organization (Cal´as and Smircich, 1996; Weedon, 1997). Constructing theories and naming concepts in a certain manner, which becomes accepted as the objective representation of the organizational phenomena, favors dominant groups (i.e. men), while disadvantaging or even silencing the interests of other groups (i.e. women). These naming dynamics are evident in our analysis above regarding the use of the gendered metaphors: ‘citizen’ and ‘good soldier’. To further demonstrate these dynamics, we examine each of the under- lying dimensions of OCB for evidence of gendering in the labels chosen to name the dimensions, and also in the content of what is presented as ‘the knowledge’ of what comprises OCB components. These components are altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy and civic vir- tue.

The first two components, altruism and conscientiousness, are con- sidered as helping behaviors (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Altruism is defined by Organ as all the ‘discretionary behaviors that have the effect of helping

a specific other person with an organizationally relevant task or problem’ (Organ, 1988: 8). Altruism is characterized as a helping behavior, which involves voluntarily helping others with work-related problems. The OCB altruism scale by Podsakoff et al. (1990) includes items such as

Organization 12(6)

Articles ‘helps others who have been absent’, ‘helps others who have heavy work

loads’ and ‘is always ready to lend a helping hand to those around him/ her’ (Podsakoff et al., 1990: 121). Courtesy is also a form of helping behavior; however, it is distinct from altruism. While altruism is defined as coming to the aid of someone who already has a problem, courtesy implies helping someone prevent a problem from occurring, or taking steps in advance to mitigate the problem (Organ, 1988). Courtesy items include gestures such as being ‘mindful of how his/her behavior affects other people’s jobs’, ‘avoid creating problems for coworkers’ and taking ‘steps to try to prevent problems with other workers’ (Podsakoff et al., 1990: 121). According to Podsakoff et al. (2000), other related dimensions of helping behaviors suggested at a later stage by Organ (1990) include cheerleading, the words and gestures of encouragement and reinforce- ment of coworkers’ accomplishments and professional development and peacemaking, which are actions that help to prevent, resolve and mitigate non-constructive interpersonal conflict.

These types of helping behaviors, which focus on the welfare of others, are stereotypically associated with the female gender role. Women are typically perceived as concerned with the welfare of others, as caring and considerate of others, and as higher in empathy and sympathy (e.g. Eagly and Crowley, 1986). Such characteristics are likely to facilitate helping behaviors. The dimension of cheerleading, espe- cially, has a strong gendered connotation, and is highly identified as a women’s role. It brings to mind the ‘Rah-Rah girl’ with the short skirt twirling a baton in football games.

The three remaining OCB dimensions are related to stereotypical notions of masculinity and to the male gender role. Sportsmanship is ‘a willingness to tolerate the inevitable inconveniences and imposition of work without complaints’ (Organ, 1990: 96). These are mostly behaviors that people refrain from doing, such as avoiding whining and making grievances (Organ, 1988), even when there is a problem and the employees’ complaints can be seen as justifiable (Kidder and McLean Parks, 1993). It is operationalized with reversed items such as: ‘tends to make “mountains out of molehills” ’ and ‘is the classic “squeaky wheel” that always needs greasing’ (Podsakoff et al., 1990: 121). The domain of sports, in general, and sports(man)ship more specifically, is typically seen as a man’s domain. Patricia Martin (1996) comments in her analysis of the discourse of men and on ‘doing of masculinity’ in organizations: ‘I could practically smell the “locker-room sweat”’ (P. Martin, 1996: 186). The odor is evoked from this concept of sportsmanship as well.

Civic virtue is defined as: ‘responsible, constructive involvement in the political process of the organization, including not just expressing opin- ions but reading one’s mail, attending meetings, and keeping abreast of larger issues involving the organization’ (Organ, 1990: 96). It includes behaviors such as attending ‘meetings that are not mandatory, but are

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Ronit Kark and Ronit Waismel-Manor considered important’ and attending ‘functions that are not required but

help the company image’ (Podsakoff et al., 1990: 121). Subsequent work has expanded the civic virtue dimension to include ‘voice’ behaviors that are more in line with the metaphor of citizenship: ‘Voice is making innovative suggestions for change and recommending modifications to standard procedures even when others disagree’ (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998: 109). The authors’ scale includes items such as, ‘speaking up with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures’ and ‘communicating his/her opinions about work issues to others even if his/ her opinion is different and others in the group disagree with him/her’ (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998: 112). Men are perceived as more proactive and assertive than women (e.g. Eagly et al., 1992), and may therefore be seen as performing more ‘voice’. Men are also more likely to have the means and resources to become involved in politics and to contribute to the company’s image (Acker, 1990; Pateman, 1988). The results from a study performed by Kidder (2002) show that men were more likely to report performing civic virtue behaviors during their work than women.

The last component, conscientiousness, ‘is a pattern of going well beyond minimally required levels and attendance, punctuality, house- keeping, conserving resources and related matters of internal main- tenance’ (Organ, 1990: 96). It includes behaviors such as work attendance beyond the norm, refraining from taking extra breaks and ‘obeying company rules and regulations even when no one is watching’ (Podsakoff et al., 1990: 121). Smith et al. (1983), as well as Morrison (1994), who modified measures from both Posdakoff et al. (1990) and Smith et al. (1983), use only time-related items to operationalize conscientiousness (e.g. ‘being punctual every day’, ‘not spending time on personal calls’ and ‘coming to work early if needed’) (Morrison, 1994: 1553). Some aspects of this dimension would also stereotypically be related to men, who are able to stay for long hours at work, or come early, and limit their breaks and days off, because they are usually not the ones who are expected to invest time and working hours in the private sphere, attending to the needs of their spouses and children (Acker, 1990; Hochschild, 1989; J. Martin, 1990). Other items measure conscientiousness as housekeeping, which is traditionally women’s domain because they tend to be those who are responsible for household maintenance (Hochschild, 1989).

It is important to reiterate that these different dimensions are used to define, measure and evaluate employees’ OCBs, and therefore they have important material implications for men and women in organizations. Although these components are presented in the theory as gender- neutral, they may be seen as associated with different gender stereotypes, through the language chosen to name the concepts (e.g. cheerleading versus sportsmanship), which automatically tie the concepts to gender, and more subtly through the characteristics and behaviors they empha- size which have different connotations relating to gender stereotypes.

Organization 12(6)

Articles Thus, it could be argued that some of the components associated with

OCB (e.g. altruism and courtesy), although not exclusively, are stereo- typically associated with women’s behaviors, while others (e.g. sports- manship, civic virtue and conscientiousness) highlight characteristics that are stereotypically associated with men.

The representation of both genders in the components of OCB may be interpreted as contributing to the notion that women and men can equally perform extra-role behaviors, or at least can each perform more successfully some aspects of OCBs, leading to the evaluation of both men and women as good organizational citizens. However, we assert that there are different dynamics at work regarding extra-role behaviors that have been overlooked by the OCB theory, and these dynamics contribute to the reproduction of power relations between men and women in organiza- tions. This, we claim, eventually leads to the devaluation of women’s extra-role work.

To further illustrate this discussion a focus on the component of good sportsmanship may serve as a good example. First, we can see that the concept of sportsmanship in the English language is by definition focused on masculinity. Second, the sphere of sports, in the past, and to

a more limited extent up to the present, is highly identified as a masculine sphere, where women take an active role mostly as ‘cheer- leaders’ (see the above component of cheerleading—Organ, 1990). In the business world, it has been noted by various researchers that men’s background in sports is considered a valuable training for organizational success, and provides an image for team work, champions and tough competitiveness (Acker, 1990; Tannen, 1994). Furthermore, conversation on sports topics in some organizations, and the encouragement of joint sports activities during working hours (e.g. going to play golf together), were noted as playing a major role in the exclusion of women in organizations (Tannen, 1994).

According to poststructuralists, re-reading a text using substitutions of phrases and metaphors within the text, that are apparently chosen arbitrarily, can reveal the worldview and ideology represented by the original text and sound alternative voices (J. Martin, 1990). In her work

on the psychological construct of ‘field dependence’, 5 Haaken (1988) notes that this apparently value-neutral representative of ‘knowledge’ and reality is tied to specific social interests and ideologies. Unsurpris- ingly, experimental studies found women to be significantly more field dependent than men. While Haaken (1988) did not challenge the results of the field dependence research, she offered an entirely different inter- pretation of the meaning of the empirical findings, suggesting to re-name the construct ‘field relatedness’ or ‘contextual sensitivity’. Reforming the concept in this manner is likely to carry other associations of this notion, stressing the importance of sensitivity to environmental cues.

Similarly, in relation to the OCB construct of ‘sportsmanship’, another possible label for the ‘willingness to tolerate the inevitable inconve-

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Ronit Kark and Ronit Waismel-Manor niences of work without complaints’ could be ‘patience’. This substitu-

tion, even without changing the definition of the sportsmanship component, would inevitably lead to another image of who is likely to perform this type of citizenship behavior.

Apart from the language and the choice of words, the very definition of good sportsmanship (i.e. the willingness to tolerate the inevitable incon- veniences and imposition of work without complaints, whining and grievances) creates gendered dichotomies that set the norm of what is a good citizen and what is not. The implications of good sportsmanship are that emotional responses, sharing of sore feelings, paying attention to details and responses that seem personal and subjective should be ruled out. According to this logic, the ideal employee should be rational, objective, impersonal, compliant and under control. The definition of good sportsmanship does not take into account the alternative possibility that, when individuals care about their work, they might decide not to behave in compliant ways. Instead, they may attempt to convey informa- tion that can be used for diagnosis and assessment; for example, by letting their supervisors know they are suffering and having a hard time by ‘whining’.

Furthermore, the ‘good sports’ are employees who do not make a ‘mountain out of a molehill’ and are not the ‘squeaky wheel’. However, this concept of good sportsmanship circumvents the question of who defines what is ‘a mountain’ and what is ‘a molehill’, and who tends to

be perceived as the whiner and the ‘squeaky wheel’. It is likely that people with minority status (e.g. women) are those that people from higher status groups (e.g. men) tend to view as the squeaky wheel. When people in power protest or speak out, it is seen as a legitimate and helpful feedback, but when individuals with limited power in the organization (e.g. women) protest, their expression may be labeled by others as whining. 6

Therefore, we contend that the stereotypically masculine definitions and assumptions that are embodied in the language, of what are, for example, ‘good sports’, suppress various aspects of organizational life, leading to an unrealistic and narrow view of the concept of OCB. Stereotypic feminine attributes such as emotions and subjectivity (e.g. ‘whining’ and voicing grievances as an act of communication, sharing and caring) serve to challenge these organizational assumptions. One can justifiably pose the question of why these characteristics are absent from the definition of OCB.

Gendered Dynamics in the Practice of OCB

How is OCB devaluated and silenced when enacted by women? Drawing mainly on the ‘post liberal’ perspective (Acker, 1990; Lorber, 2001; Ely and Meyerson, 2000), we demonstrate below how the gendered sub- structure of organizations is reproduced in differential expectations and attributions toward men’s and women’s OCBs, and reflected in the

Organization 12(6)

Articles different practical OCB work activities and evaluation of men’s and

women’s OCBs.

Gendered Enactment of OCB: What Counts as OCB?

In studying OCB, researchers have primarily used measures that tap the frequency of OCB. This was guided by the assumption that ‘the more an individual engages in OCB, the more likely he or she is to be seen as a “good soldier”’ (Bolino, 1999: 92). However, by focusing solely on the frequency of citizenship behaviors, researchers neglected other important features suggested by Bolino (1999), such as the type of OCB, the target of action, timing, audience, and magnitude. Bolino posits that OCBs might have a different effect and gain more appreciation and reward when the type of OCB enacted is that most valued by the organization or the managers; when the target of the behavior is a powerful person in the organization (i.e. supervisor versus co-worker as the focus of the behavior); when they are timed strategically (i.e. executed at critical junctures); when there is an audience present witnessing the employees’ citizenship behaviors; and when the behavior is dramatic (i.e. costly and appears to involve self-sacrifice). These characteristics can be central to understanding how different ways in which OCBs are enacted can influence the image enhancement of the individual actor. More specifi- cally, the ways in which women and men enact OCBs, or refrain from enacting them, can shape the differential perception of them as good citizens and account for the gendered nature of OCB.

Although the excellent work by Bolino (1999) on citizenship behaviors and impression management advances our understanding of OCB, he does not consider how the actors’ social identity characteristics (i.e. gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation) might influence the way in which OCBs might be enacted by the individual and noticed and valued by the observers. In this regard, we would like to suggest that the characteristics of OCBs suggested by Bolino (i.e. type, target, magnitude, timing and audience), and the way they are interpreted and evaluated, are likely to be influenced by the actors’ gender, among other attributes.

Findings summarized in an extensive meta-analysis on gender dif- ferences in helping behaviors by Eagly and Crowley (1986) show that women and men differ in their helping behaviors regarding the charac- teristics mentioned by Bolino (1999). According to the findings of Eagly and Crowley (1986), those helping behaviors expected of men are of greater magnitude and more dramatic than those expected and performed by women. They encompass non-routine and heroic, risky acts of rescu- ing others, the target of these behaviors is commonly strangers, and the presence of audience, as well as the availability of other helpers, may also be relevant to heroic helping. Thus, bystanders may elicit greater helping behaviors from men than from women because the hegemonic gendered perceptions suggest that ‘heroic status’ is achieved only if there is public recognition for one to exploit. As summarized in the words of

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Ronit Kark and Ronit Waismel-Manor Hoffer (1951): ‘there is no striving for glory without vivid awareness of an

audience’ (Hoffer, 1951: 65). Thus, according to Eagly and Crowley (1986), the availability of other potential helpers may also increase men’s helping behaviors because heroism is achieved by being the one person among many who is willing to take the risk involved in helping. The helping expected of women mainly consists of caring for others, primarily individuals they know in close relationships. These helping behaviors, which are usually not considered as heroic acts and are most often not witnessed by an audience, are not likely to elicit high levels of organizational image enhancement and appreciation, although they may play a critical role for individuals and for the organization. Applying these findings to the concept of OCB, it is likely that women and men will enact different types of helping OCBs. The above discussion implies that, even when we focus on helping OCBs, which can be seen as more characteristic of women and as giving women an advantage over men, the different social value attributed to different types of enactment of helping behaviors (i.e. common/routine versus heroic) may result in the devaluation of women’s helping citizenship behaviors in organizations.

The Valuation of Gendered Expectations

People’s implicit hypotheses about men and women include differing expectations about their behavior and professional competence. These are likely to play a major role in shaping our differential expectations of men’s and women’s OCBs and the way individuals will interpret and evaluate their citizenship behaviors. We suggest that OCBs displayed by women might possibly be overlooked because of three different but related dynamics, which shape expectations: (1) congruence and incon- gruence with gendered social expectations; (2) the sex segregation of occupations; and (3) the gendered structuring of OCB.

Congruence and Incongruence with Gendered Social Expectations

When focusing on gender congruent behavior, it might be the case that there will be prior social expectations that women will perform the feminine helping aspects of OCB (i.e. altruism and courtesy) to a greater extent than men (Allen, 2000). Because different judgment standards may

be used to evaluate men’s and women’s helping behaviors, the assess- ment of their citizenship behavior may be held to a different standard. More specifically, if a female performing helping OCBs is judged as a good organizational citizen, it may be that she is in fact a very good organizational citizen, because prior social expectations may lead to the use of very high standards when evaluating the helping OCBs of women. Consequently, even when men and women perform helping OCBs at similar levels, the evaluation of OCB may be higher for men than for women (Allen, 2000).

Organization 12(6)

Articles However, would women be rewarded for acting in an incongruent

manner, i.e. enacting the masculine aspects of OCB (e.g. civic virtue and sportsmanship), as men are for enacting the feminine aspects of OCB? Research suggests that when women enact incongruent behaviors, such as displaying political skills, working long hours, displaying good sports- manship by behaving in a non-emotional, indifferent manner and taking

a stand on organizational issues, instead of being valued for performance of these less expected OCBs, they might be penalized. Support for this assertion comes from a meta-analysis of studies on evaluation of women as leaders. This study suggests that women are at a particular dis- advantage and are seen as less effective when their leadership style is perceived as masculine and as a violation of expectations of ‘feminine’ behavior (Eagly et al. 1992). Thus, a woman enacting OCBs such as staying very late hours at work, for example, might not be rewarded and valued as a good citizen. Rather, she might be perceived as a workaholic and possibly as a mother/wife with limited commitment to her family and children.

However, for the male managers, leading in a feminine manner did not create a disadvantage (Eagly et al., 1992). This implies that a man being perceived as behaving in a non-congruent way (e.g. enacting the feminine components of OCB, offering and displaying helping behaviors) might get much appreciation and value for this. As asserted by McDowell (1997), ‘feminine characteristics in a masculine body may offer the best of all worlds’ (McDowell, 1997: 208). Therefore, helping citizenship behavior performed by men may be more likely to be noticed and remembered, whereas helping OCB performed by women may be less likely to be remembered and noticed.

Consistent with this line of thought, Allen and Rush (1998) found that behavioral observation accuracy ratings of OCBs differed across ratee sex. Specifically, raters made the most accurate behavioral observations when males engaged in OCB and when females did not. An empirical study by Chen and Heilman (2001) also provides some support for the assertion that differential expectations of men and women would influence the ways in which their helping OCBs are perceived and valued. Their study demonstrates that, when women performed helping OCBs, their perform- ance was rated no differently from that of women about whom the raters had no information concerning their OCBs. However, when women refused to provide helping OCBs, their performance ratings were lower. In contrast, when men refused to perform helping OCBs, their job performance was rated no differently compared to the case in which no OCB information was provided regarding their behaviors. However, when men performed helping OCBs, their performance ratings were significantly higher in comparison to the two earlier conditions. Not surprisingly, this comparison also revealed that men were evaluated significantly higher than women when performing OCBs, but also when OCBs were withheld by men and women.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Ronit Kark and Ronit Waismel-Manor Another related dynamic through which women’s OCBs can be

devalued is by the misinterpretation of their actions by attribution of self- serving motivation to their behavior. Bolino (1999) suggests that the relationship between citizenship behavior and the image of the good organizational citizen is moderated by the observer’s attribution of the individual’s motives. He asserts that the relationship will be weaker when observers view OCBs as motivated by self-serving motivations (i.e. impression management). According to Fletcher (1999), the display of certain helping behaviors by women, which are perceived as being in- line with the female gender role, can be interpreted as an expression of women’s need to be liked, and/or their emotional dependence, rather than the desire to contribute to the workplace. Thus, these attributions may substantially limit the recognition of women’s behaviors as good citizenship behaviors, as well as the rewards they are likely to receive for these behaviors.

Furthermore, women also risk the misinterpretation of their motivation when performing OCBs that are not in-line with the gendered social expectations. According to Patricia Martin (1996), the process of evalu- ation is affected by assumptions of legitimacy, meaning that it is assumed that men and women do not have equal rights for power and hierarchical authority. When women display OCB characteristics and behaviors that are perceived as masculine (i.e. participating in the political life at work) and that might contribute to their power in the organization, they might

be challenging these assumptions of legitimacy, and thus their behavior might not be valued. According to Ridgeway (1982), when a contribution is legitimate, there is no need to question the contributor’s motivation in making it. Thus, for members with high external status characteristics, motivation should have little impact on contribution acceptance and influence. However, when a person with low external status characteristics attempts to gain recognition for task contribution, he or she will be challenging implicit legitimacy assumptions. Within a group, if the judgment is that a person is motivated by a desire to help the group in accomplishing the task, the contribution should be accepted and the person’s status enhanced but, if the person is thought to be motivated primarily by a desire for self- aggrandizement, the influence attempt will fail. On this matter, work by Ridgeway (1982) on achieving status in groups showed that women in mixed sex groups achieved fairly high influence and status when they appeared group-oriented, but very low status when they appeared as self- oriented. Males achieved high influence regardless of their motivation.

Thus, the gendered power dynamic described above suggests that, when men display masculine OCBs, attributing motivation should have very little effect on the status attained. However, this is not the case for women who wish to attain a more influential status within group relations. Women also have to invest extra effort to demonstrate that they

Organization 12(6)

Articles are motivated by concern for the organization and not for their own good

when performing OCBs that are perceived as better suited to men.

The Sex Segregation of Occupations

Helping behavior is associated with service professions, in which women are over-represented. Women’s concentration in service and support occupations is likely to contribute to the expectation that they will perform higher levels of helping OCBs, and this in turn contributes to the devaluation of that behavior. According to Eagly and Crowley (1986), helping behaviors are required by many of the occupational roles women perform (e.g. secretaries are expected to help their bosses, and social workers to help poor and oppressed people). Women are particularly well represented in occupations that focus on some form of personal service such as teaching and nursing.

According to Bateman and Organ (1983), OCBs may be considered ‘extra-role’ because they are not specifically required by the job. How- ever, the distinction between job requirements and helping OCBs is often

a difficult one to make. Therefore, because individuals performing ser- vice roles are expected to display helping behaviors, it is likely that their extra-role helping behaviors will be overlooked as part of their role. The results from the study by Kidder (2002) support this assertion, showing that nurses, regardless of their gender, were more inclined to perform altruistic behaviors than engineers, even after controlling for the respon- dents’ beliefs that the OCBs were a part of their job. Because women primarily occupy these service professions, and people tend to associate service with women’s work, women are those who are most likely to be affected by this dynamic of devaluing helping.

Furthermore, women are not only overrepresented in service occupa- tions, but also in low status jobs. Subordinate status in hierarchical role relationships increases the likelihood that individuals will be providers of services rather than recipients (Eagly and Crowley, 1986). Because men’s jobs tend to have higher status than women’s jobs in organizations of all kinds, men are more likely to receive aid in attaining job-relevant goals, while women are more likely to provide such aid. Furthermore, because gender functions generally as a status cue (Ragins, 1997; Ridge- way, 1982), assistance in attaining longer-term goals may be dispropor- tionately directed toward men and delivered by women within organizational contexts. This dynamic is likely to raise expectations that women, most likely in subordinate status, will deliver such assistance and that this will be seen as part of the basic requirements of their roles and not as valued extra-role behaviors, which would grant women the status of good citizens.

The Gendered Structuring of OCB

Women might also face more difficulty in performing some OCBs (i.e. conscientiousness and civic virtue) due to structural barriers imposed by

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Ronit Kark and Ronit Waismel-Manor their dual roles (at home and in the organization) and their limited access