Elementary School Office Managers’

Positive Extra-Role Behaviours

By

Michael Joseph Logue

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Education

Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the

University of Toronto

Copyright by Michael Logue (2014)

ii

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OFFICE MANAGERS’

POSITIVE EXTRA-ROLE BEHAVIOURS

Doctor of Education, 2014

Michael Joseph Logue

Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education

University of Toronto

ABSTRACT

Elementary School Office Managers represent a workforce of over 5000 individuals

within the province of Ontario. While their impact on the school is known to the

principals, teachers, students, and parents with whom they interact on a regular basis,

their contributions have scarcely attracted the attention of educational scholars. Through

the lens of Public Service Motivation theory and Extra-Role Behaviour theory, this

research sought to identify the personal and work environment influences that impact

Elementary Office Managers’ Positive Extra-Role Behaviours in Ontario’s elementary

schools. Through face-to-face interviews with retired elementary office managers, this

research found that principal/leader supportiveness, job satisfaction, and individual

characteristics were key influences on research participants’ positive extra-role

behaviour. Possible implications of this research for school districts include: giving

consideration to office manger applicants’ pre-employment experiences; targeted training

for principals on how to nurture office managers’ extra-role behavior; the role of the

union as detractor to extra-role behaviour, and rethinking the office manager’s job

description.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is hard to believe that this doctoral journey started seven years ago. I feel

fortunate to have met a number of people along the way who challenged my thinking and

encouraged me to persevere. As part of a cohort of practicing administrators, I was

fortunate to be able to share my ‘on the job’ experiences with colleagues and consider the

praxis between theory and practice. In particular, I’d like to acknowledge the support and

guidance I received from my colleague and dear friend Kay Blair. As a community

leader, Kay taught me that we have a gift and an obligation to truly make a difference in

the lives of the people we encounter every day – thanks Kay!

Working full-time as an elementary school principal both served as my inspiration

for my research as well as a contributing factor to the delay in seeing the doctorate

through to completion. Finding the time to devote to this project was an exercise in self-

discovery which required a fair amount of grit. I am grateful to my thesis committee

members, Dr. Lyn Sharratt, Dr. Joe Flessa, and Dr. Blair Mascall. Lynn took me in when

I needed a practicum supervisor and wisely pointed me in the direction of CUPE

National. This led to a fruitful working relationship with Paul O’Donnell. Paul facilitated

the partnership with the Ottawa Carleton Catholic District School Board (OCCDSB) in

the survey of its members for my practicum. Joe Flessa, whether as one of my professors

in the doctoral program, or as a thesis committee member, consistently pushed my

thinking and challenged my assumptions – thanks Joe! My thesis advisor, Blair Mascall,

provided the guidance and support that I needed. When I was stuck, Blair had a calm and

prescient way of asking the right question to keep me moving. A short session with Blair

every now and again was just enough to allow me to refocus and set realistic goals –

iv

thanks for being there Blair and for taking a chance with me on this novel topic. I’d also

like to acknowledge the influence of Dr. Fred MacDonald on my scholarly development.

Fred’s high standards during coursework and the descriptive feedback he provided

encouraged me to achieve greater heights in my thinking and writing.

A project of this magnitude does not happen without having an impact on the

people who love you most. My father-in-law, Warren Jevons, graciously gave of his time

to proofread the first draft – thanks Warren. My brothers and sisters provided distraction

and levity by enquiring when I was going to finish this weekend course! To my children

Christian and Rachel, thanks for understanding that dad sometimes had to work on

weekends and evenings. You have grown into successful young adults and I am proud of

your accomplishments. I hope that you will continue your learning and fulfill your

dreams. To my wife Alison Jevons, whose support and encouragement were

immeasurable in seeing this through, I thank you. As with all things in our life together,

you have always been there to give me the love, support, and extra push when I needed it.

Now we can take back our weekends to walk, talk, and travel without worrying about

time for the doctorate – I love you!

Finally, I dedicate this dissertation to my parents John and Loretta Logue. From

11 Gundarun Street in NSW Australia, to our home in Canada 12000 miles away, you

moved five children and had the courage to start a new life. This thesis, in comparison, is

a minor accomplishment. You gave me the gift of self-confidence and the belief that I

could achieve whatever I put my mind to. Thank you for your assistance, both financial

and otherwise. I may be the first “doctor” in the family, but with your legacy, surely not

the last. Good on ya!

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................. iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... v

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 1

Background to the Study ................................................................................................ 1

Rationale ........................................................................................................................ 4

Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 6

Guiding Research Questions ......................................................................................... 6

Significance of the Research ......................................................................................... 7

Outline of Thesis Chapters............................................................................................. 8

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND METHODOLOGY ...................... 10

Definition of Terms........................................................................................................ 11

Public Service Motivation.............................................................................................. 14

Summary of Public Service Motivation ......................................................................... 26

In-Role Behaviour and Office Managers ....................................................................... 28

Extra-Role Behaviour .................................................................................................... 31

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour ........................................................................... 32

Contextual Performance................................................................................................. 35

Prosocial Organizational Performance .......................................................................... 36

Connecting Office Managers’ Extra-Role Behaviour to Existing Frameworks ............ 37

Conceptual Framework ...................................................................................... 47

CHAPTER THREE: OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ...... 48

Research Design............................................................................................................. 49

vi

Sample............................................................................................................................ 50

Participant Profile .......................................................................................................... 51

Researcher Bias .............................................................................................................. 55

Qualitative Research Perspective………………………………………………………56

Self-Report Dilemma……………………………………………………………….......59

Limitations of the Research ........................................................................................... 61

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ...................................................................................... 63

Part One: Research Question #1 .................................................................................... 63

Summary of Research Question #1................................................................................ 77

Part Two: Research Question #2.................................................................................... 81

Summary of Research Question #2 ............................................................................... 96

Part Three: Research Question #3.................................................................................. 98

Summary of Research Question #3................................................................................ 127

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................... 132

Significance of the Study ............................................................................................... 133

Main Findings ................................................................................................................ 133

Revised Conceptual Framework .................................................................................... 147

Should the Extra Really be Extra After All?...................................................................155

Recommendations for School Principals and Districts .................................................. 159

Implications for Future Research ................................................................................... 163

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 167

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 176

Appendix A: Sample Job Description for Office Managers ......................................... 176

Appendix B: Tally of Office Assistants and Office Managers by CUPE National ...... 177

Appendix C: Screening Email to Principals ................................................................. 181

vii

Appendix D: Participant Invitation - Consent Letter ..................................................... 182

Appendix E: Interview Guide ....................................................................................... 185

Appendix F: Data Display for Office Managers’ in-role and extra-role behaviour ...... 190

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Research on Antecedents of Public Service Motivation that Informs

Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................. 24

Figure 2.2: Sample of Prior Research of Influences on Teachers’ Organizational

Citizenship Behaviour .................................................................................................... 40

Figure 2.3: Summary of Research on Influences on Office Managers’ OCB ............... 43

Figure 2.4: Proposed Conceptual Framework for Office Managers’ Positive Extra-Role

Behaviour ....................................................................................................................... 47

Figure 3.1: Components of Data Analysis: Interactive Model………………………...58

Figure 4. 1: Likert Scale Ranking of Influences on Participants’ Extra-Role

Behaviour ....................................................................................................................... 92

Figure 4.2: Participants’ Top Three Rankings of Factors Influencing their

Extra-Role Behaviour .................................................................................................... 102

Figure 4.3: Influences on ERB Beyond those Stated in Response to

Sub-question 3.2 ............................................................................................................ 116

Figure 4.4: Relational or Making a Difference Orientation towards Extra-Role

Behaviour ....................................................................................................................... 120

Figure 4.5: Summary of Influences on Participants’ ERB by Research Question…….130

Figure 5.1: Revised Conceptual Framework Presenting Influences on Participants’

Extra-Role Behaviour .................................................................................................... 148

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Background to the Study

My interest in exploring Office Managers’ positive extra-role behaviour within

Ontario’s public schools owes its genesis to my interaction with these individuals through

my various roles as classroom teacher, resource teacher, vice principal, and principal.

While the frequency and nature of my involvement with office managers varied relative

to my role, it was clear as a practitioner that the office manager was a key individual

within the school. She was the person that answered the phone and who greeted me when

I arrived at the school. Regardless of the different school contexts in which I found

myself, she was the one consistent person I observed meeting with parents through

registrations and answering daily enquiries from staff and the community. When a

student came down to the office, it was the office manager who often assisted the student

with his/her question. Teachers appeared to rely on the office manager for locating their

daily attendance, purchasing the resources they needed for their classrooms, and liaising

with school administration. As I moved into the role of principal, I often relied on the

office manager to manage all aspects of the school in my absence and to support the

decisions I made. When assuming the leadership of a new school, the first question I was

likely to ask was, “who is the office manager?”, and “what is she like?” The pivotal role

of teachers notwithstanding, I subscribe to long-held school lore that the three most

important people within any school are the Head Secretary/Office Manager, the

2

custodian, and the teaching assistants – and usually in that order.

My time in schools also allowed me to observe office managers’ involvement in

activities that appeared to depart from the more traditional tasks of answering the phone,

registering students, and responding to daily enquiries. It was not unusual to work

alongside an office manager and teaching staff on a weekend as we constructed a float for

a fall fair, or to learn about an office manager purchasing groceries on her own time for

the school’s breakfast program. In my experience, office managers also organized and ran

school-wide fundraisers, and interacted with a variety of parents and community

members. I observed office managers join school committees, represent the school on a

monthly basis for school council evenings, and work side-by-side with teachers and

administration on school climate initiatives. Over the years, I was left with the impression

that schools where office managers engage in these ‘extra’ activities were more positive

places for students to learn, teachers to work, and the community to visit, than those

where they did not. And yet, I noticed that not all office managers that I encountered or

interacted with through my various roles became involved in the social fabric of their

school or community. Furthermore, not all office managers embraced the life of the

school beyond their in-role job description. Indeed, some appeared to be quite disgruntled

with their role, and in extreme cases, the office manager’s dissatisfaction had the

potential to permeate throughout the school. I found myself wondering what accounted

for this difference in attitude toward the role of office manager. I was also curious to

learn just how wide-spread office managers’ positive extra-role behaviours were and to

understand the office manager’s motivation for going above and beyond for their schools.

3

I embraced the opportunity to explore these questions through doctoral

coursework at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto.

My first foray into this research involved a small-scale qualitative study (Logue, 2008)

where I interviewed four office managers who spoke about the ways in which they went

above and beyond for their schools. They spoke about the types of activities that they

were involved in at their different school locations over their careers. They shared

personal anecdotes about the types of ‘extras’ they enjoyed doing as well as parts of their

job that they didn’t like. Analysis of interview transcripts allowed me to gain some

insight into both personal and work environment influences that could either encourage

or discourage going above and beyond the job description.

In 2010, through the practicum component of my program, I investigated the

contributions of office managers through an on-line survey of fifty-six office managers

within the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic District School Board (OCCDSB). This exploratory

quantitative study (Logue, 2010) was conducted in partnership with the Canadian Union

of Public Employees (CUPE) National and the OCCDSB and broadened my

understanding of the extra-role activities performed by office managers. It also allowed

me to gain a perspective on extra-role behavior in a geographically and culturally

different location than the Greater Toronto Area within a publicly-funded Catholic school

system.

These two preliminary studies (Logue 2008, 2010) allowed me to deepen my

understanding of the nature and frequency of office managers’ extra-role behaviours.

Furthermore, they provided me with important foundational knowledge about possible

individual and work environment influences on office managers’ positive extra-role

4

behavior engagement. These factors (among others) were included in the original

conceptual framework of this study’s proposal and provided an informed starting point

from which to delve deeper into the conditions that may encourage and predict office

managers’ extra-role behaviours. The knowledge that resulted from these two preliminary

studies, one qualitative and the other quasi-quantitative also helped direct the line of

questioning that I was interested in following for this dissertation. In pursuing this area of

study, I found that over time I became less concerned with what [italics added] the extra-

role contributions were (the actual examples of positive extra-role behaviours that the

office managers performed) and more interested in unearthing the motivation behind the

extra-role behaviours and the conditions within schools that would both support and

nurture these behaviours. Acting from the premise that increased extra-role behaviours

have the potential of making a positive contribution to the working and learning climate

in a school, I believed that understanding these conditions would be useful knowledge for

school and district leaders who want to encourage office managers’ positive extra-role

behaviours. Furthermore, recent research by Burns & DiPaola (2013) heightened my

interest in this phenomenon given the claim that organizational citizenship behaviours not

only impact school climate, but may also have positive implications for student learning.

Rationale

Similar to Ursula Casanova’s rationale for her research entitled, Elementary

School Secretaries: The Women in the Principal’s Office (1991), this study was borne

from a practitioner’s knowledge of the complexity of the office manager’s role and her

numerous unheralded contributions. In spite of the fact that there are in excess of five

thousand elementary Office Managers and Office Assistants in the province of Ontario,

5

(CUPE National, 2011) there continues to be a dearth of research that focuses on their

contributions to schools. This exploratory study gives consideration to office managers’

positive extra-role behaviour in the hopes of learning more about the conditions in

schools that would promote and nurture this positive behaviour. Office managers are not

paid extra for going above and beyond, nor can they take advantage of other quid-pro-

quo incentive programs that may be available to private sector employees. Furthermore,

as members of a CUPE local, office managers are well within their rights to strictly

follow their collective agreement which promotes ‘in-role’ rather than ‘extra-role’

activities and responsibilities. Appendix A provides a sample of an office manager’s job

description from within a GTA district school board. Given the lack of extrinsic incentive

from either the CUPE local or from the school board to engage in extra-role behaviours, I

explored theories that focused on intrinsic motivation that would account for altruistic

behaviours. Hence, this study considered alternate theories of motivation – theories that

recognize the challenges, restrictions and possibilities of the public service context to

which office managers belong. One such theory, Perry’s (1986) Public Service

Motivation theory allows for motivation that is altruistic in nature and geared to the

common good. There are also numerous extra-role behavior frameworks that have been

espoused by many scholars to account for helping behaviours within the workplace in

general, including Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, Contextual Performance, and

Prosocial Organizational Behaviour. These frameworks will be explored in detail in the

section dedicated to the literature review – Chapter 2.

This research makes a contribution to the nascent literature linking public service

motivation theory to extra role behaviours within public institutions (Kim, 2006; Pandey

6

et al., 2008). Furthermore, by illuminating office managers’ extra-role behaviours, this

research makes a needed contribution to the extra-role behaviour literature on schools

which, until now, has focused predominantly on teachers (Bogler & Somach, 2005;

Burns & DiPaola, 2013; DiPaola, 2001, 2005; Oplatka, 2006). The literature on public

service motivation and dominant extra-role behaviour constructs were reviewed and

provided a complementary framework within which to consider the nature and

motivation behind office managers’ discretionary contributions to their schools. Through

engaging in semi-structured interviews with experienced office managers, this qualitative

research will provide school and district leaders with much-needed accounts of their

experiences, while the subsequent analysis will identify potential conditions that may

encourage and support their extra-role behaviour.

Statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study was to identify the personal and work environment

factors that influence elementary school office managers’ positive extra-role behaviour

within Ontario’s public schools.

The following three sub-questions are proposed and support the problem statement:

1) Whether, and in which ways office managers differentiate between in-role

behaviour and extra-role behaviour?

2) What role, if any, do public service motivation sociohistoric antecedents play in

predisposing office managers to engage in positive extra-role behaviours within

schools? The following antecedents were explored: participants’ level of

7

education and field of study; parents’ occupations; parental modeling of values

including volunteering and giving back; and religious affiliations.

3) Which, if any, personal and work environment factors do office managers identify

as important influences on their extra-role behaviours?

Significance of the Research

CUPE National research (Appendix B) estimates that there was approximately

5100 elementary school office staff in Ontario’s schools in 2011. Yet, to this researcher’s

knowledge, this dissertation is the first of its kind to document the office manager’s

positive contributions from an extra-role perspective. As a result, this study has

meaningful implications for theory, research and practice, as it may serve as a starting

point for school-based research focusing on actors within the education system beyond

the traditional foci of principals and teaching staff. Furthermore, the pursuit of a

connection between public service motivation and extra-role behavior constructs as an

explanation of specific extra-role behaviour (Kim, 2006; Pandey et al., 2008) is currently

an under-researched phenomenon and, as such, this research will add to a nascent

literature base. With regards to methodology, both public service motivation and extra-

role behaviour literatures have traditionally been dominated by large-scale quantitative

studies (Camilleri, 2007; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Perry et al., 2008; Vandenabeele,

2011). Through engaging in semi-structured interviews with experienced office

managers, this research answered the call to “obtain a richer understanding of the reasons

why [italics added] individuals respond the way they do, rather than obtaining

quantitative responses to questions included in a questionnaire” (Reychav et al., 2010, p.

8

240). From a management perspective, district and school-based leaders will benefit from

a deeper understanding of office managers’ contributions and will gain an appreciation of

the conditions that are required in order to encourage and sustain extra-role behaviours.

Finally, office managers will be interested in this study as it may currently stand alone in

documenting their contributions and importance to Ontario’s public schools, above and

beyond their conventional in-role duties. Smith et al., (1983) advocated for the

importance of employees going above and beyond for their organization:

Substantive, citizenship behaviours are important because they lubricate the

social machinery of the organization. They provide the flexibility needed to work

through many unforeseen contingencies, [and] they enable participants to cope

with the otherwise awesome condition of interdependence on each other. (p. 654)

Outline of Thesis Chapters

Chapter Two commences with a presentation of key terms used in this research,

followed by a review of the Public Service Motivation and Extra-Role Behaviour

literatures. The review of the Public Service Motivation and Extra-Role Behaviour

literatures is essential to this study as these literatures encapsulate key components of the

conceptual framework that guides this research. Chapter Two concludes with the

proposed conceptual framework that I used to guide my inquiry into office managers’

extra-role behaviour.

Chapter Three presents an overview of the research design and methods. It offers

an explanation of the methods chosen for this exploratory study.

9

Chapter Four features the results of the research. The results are presented in

order of the research questions and include figures that present the data in a visual format

in addition to a brief explanation. This section includes rich, thick descriptions of the

participants’ responses to the research questions.

Chapter Five presents the discussion and conclusions of the research and focuses

on key themes that emerged through the analysis. A revised framework on how best to

conceptualize this phenomenon is proposed in light of the research findings. This chapter

also gives consideration to whether or not office managers’ current job descriptions could

encompass behaviours that are currently considered ‘extra’ and ponders the implications

of such a change. This chapter concludes with recommendations for school leaders and

district school boards in addition to suggestions for future research.

10

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND METHODOLOGY

Two primary considerations guide this literature review. First, the phenomenon

under investigation is extra-role behavior as opposed to in-role behavior. As a result, this

review will not concern itself with concepts and models related to an employee’s in-role

behavior described as “[. . .] knowledge, skills, and abilities, with a particular emphasis

on measures of cognitive abilities and general intelligence” (Organ et al., 2006, p. 31).

Rather, it will focus on the attitudinal variables and work environment factors that have

been empirically linked to public service motivation and extra-role behaviour. Second, a

comprehensive review of the voluminous literature on work motivation would be a task

beyond the scope of this research. After a review of the public service motivation

literature, this review summarizes the dominant extra-role behavior constructs that

dominate the business literature and gives consideration to the apparent challenges in

categorizing office managers’ extra-role behaviour within any single extra-role behaviour

construct.

The first section of this literature review includes the definitions of key terms that

are featured throughout this research including the following: office manager, extra-role

behavior, in-role behavior, public service motivation, individual citizenship behavior,

organizational citizenship behavior, organizational citizenship behavior – organization,

organizational citizenship behavior – individual, contextual performance, and pro-social

organizational behavior.

11

Definition of Terms

Office Manager: Traditionally referred to as Head Secretary in schools with more than

one secretary, and secretary in schools with one secretary, the office manager is the non-

teaching staff member whose office is usually located within the school’s main office.

She (all office managers in this study are female) reports directly to the school principal

and performs many of the functions of an executive assistant in a business or non-

academic environment.

Extra-role behaviour: Extra-role behaviour is also referred to in the literature as extra-

role performance, and represents the wider framework that encompasses employees’

discretionary work performance. A variety of definitions exists to explain the extra-role

behavior phenomenon. Van Dyne and LePine (1998) offered that “Extra-role behavior is

positive and discretionary. It is (1) not specified in advance by role prescriptions, (2) not

recognized by formal reward systems, and (3) not a source of punitive consequences

when not performed by job incumbents” (p. 108). Becker and Kernan (2003) offered the

following definition: “Extra-role performance refers to activities that are essential for

organizational effectiveness but are discretionary in nature “(p. 328). More recently,

Stoner et al (2011) described extra-role performance as “behaviours not formally required

by any particular job, yet which help to form the social context of all jobs, thus

facilitating effectiveness” (p. 94).

In-Role Behaviour: Constitutes the “. . . knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs), with a

particular emphasis on measures of cognitive abilities and general intelligence” (Organ et

al., 2006, p. 31). In-role behaviour has been described by Van Scotter et al., (2000) as

12

“patterns of behaviour that are directly involved in producing goods or services, or

activities that provide direct support for the organization’s core technical processes” (p.

526). One of the salient defining features of in-role behaviour that separates it from extra-

role behaviour from a management perspective is that failure on behalf of an employee to

offer a minimum standard of in-role behaviour can result in sanctions and even dismissal.

In-role behavior, then, can be both mandated by the employer and be the cause for

sanctions towards the employee in the event of substandard performance.

Public Service Motivation: “Is a cluster of attitudes towards performance of public

service” (Brewer & Selden, 1998, p. 431), while Vandenabeele (2007) expanded the

original definition to add that “public service motivation incorporates the beliefs, values

and attitudes that go beyond self-interest and organizational interest, that concern the

interest of a larger political entity and that motivate individuals to act accordingly

whenever appropriate” (p. 547).

Interpersonal Citizenship Behaviour: This concept falls under the broad umbrella of

organizational citizenship behavior. While the organizational citizenship behaviour

concept covers a wide range of extra-role pro-social behaviours within an organizational

context, interpersonal citizenship behavior is focused more narrowly on helping behavior

directed at co-workers (Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler 2000; Mossholder, Settoon, and

Henagan 2005; Settoon and Mossholder 2002).

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: “Individual behaviour that is discretionary, not

directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate

promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1998, p.4). Later,

13

Williams and Anderson (1991) delineated two categories of Organizational Citizenship

Behaviour, namely Organizational Citizenship Behaviour - Organization and

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour - Individual.

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour – Organization: are organizational citizenship

behaviours that benefit the organization and are focused on the organization itself, as

opposed to the individuals within the organization. Examples of organizational

citizenship behavior - Organization may include “…adhering to informal organizational

procedures by giving advance notice of an absence…” (Williams and Anderson, 1991, p.

3). Staying late to finish a work project or making innovative suggestions on how to

improve the organization’s goals may also be considered examples of organizational

citizenship behavior - organization.

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour – Individual: are citizenship behaviours which

“directly benefit individuals within the organization and benefit the organization

indirectly. An example of organizational citizenship behavior - individual would include

“helping another worker who has been absent catch up” (Williams and Anderson, 1991,

p.3).

Contextual Performance: Borman and Motowidlo (1993) defined contextual performance

as “behaviours that do not support the technical core itself so much as they support the

broader organizational, social, and psychological environment” (p. 73). The five

identified dimensions include: “volunteering for activities beyond a person’s formal job

expectations, persistence of enthusiasm and application when needed to complete

important task requirements, assistance to others, following rules and prescribed

14

procedures even when it is inconvenient, and openly espousing and defending

organization objectives” (p. 75).

Pro-social Organizational Behaviour: Brief and Motowidlo (1986) were the first to

define the pro-social organizational behaviour construct as behaviour that is “(a)

performed by a member of an organization, (b) directed toward an individual, group, or

organization with whom he or she interacts while carrying out his or her organizational

role, and (c) performed with the intention of promoting the welfare of the individual,

group, or organization toward which it is directed” (p. 711). The salient differences

between these extra-role behaviour constructs will be discussed in this chapter.

Public Service Motivation

Perry & Wise (1990) were the first scholars to provide an operational definition of

public service motivation as, “an individual’s predisposition to respond to motives

grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations” (p. 368). Their

interest in clarifying public service motivation was in part driven by a desire to account

for employee behaviour within the public sector, a topic that was of interest to Buchanan

(1975) and further developed by Rainey (1982) and Staats (1988) among others. Perry &

Wise’s (1990) original definition is still the widely accepted explanation of the public

service motivation concept, though other scholars (Brewer & Selden, 1998; Crewson,

1997; Perry & Hondeghem, 2008; Vandenabeele, 2007) have offered modifications to

this definition. From a broader perspective, Brewer & Selden (1998) stated that, “public

service motivation is a cluster of attitudes towards performance of public service” (p.

431), while Vandenabeele (2007) expanded the original definition to add that “public

15

service motivation incorporates the beliefs, values and attitudes that go beyond self-

interest and organizational interest, that concern the interest of a larger political entity and

that motivate individuals to act accordingly whenever appropriate” (p. 547). Crewson’s

definition (1997) placed public service motivation on the intrinsic side of the

dichotomous intrinsic-extrinsic rewards debate by stating that, “public service motivation

can be characterized as a reliance on intrinsic rewards over extrinsic rewards” (pp. 503-

04). More recently, Perry & Hondeghem (2008) contributed to the public service

motivation discussion by defining the construct as, “an individual’s orientation to

delivering service to people with the purpose of doing good for others and society” (p. 6).

An enduring and defining feature of public service motivation theory then appears to

reside in a predisposition on behalf of individuals to act in the public interest.

Rational, Normative & Affective Motivational Bases of Public Service Motivation:

The work of Knoke and Wright-Isak (1982) provided the framework for Perry

and Wise’s (1990) identification of three motivational bases of public service motivation,

namely: rational, normative and affective motives. Perry and Wise (1990) identified these

concepts as three analytically distinct categories, and others have since concurred that a

combination of these motives can be present at any time and may influence an

employee’s behaviour (Brewer et al., 2000; Perry, 1996; Perry, 1997). Rational motives

are understood as “actions that are grounded in individual utility maximization” (Perry &

Wise, 1990, p. 368). Perry & Wise (1990) identified three components of rationally-based

motivations within public service as follows: participation in the process of policy

formation; commitment to a public program because of personal identification; and

advocacy for a special or private interest (p. 370). Thus, it is proposed that public service

16

employees may be rationally attracted to public service work as the latter may provide the

best means or environment through which to satisfy a need, be it altruistic or otherwise.

Citing the work of Anthony Downs (1967), Perry & Wise (1990) claimed “one of

the most commonly identified normative foundations for public employment is a desire to

serve the public interest” (p. 368). This normative motivational base has since been

substantiated in numerous studies in North America (Brewer et al., 2000; Brewer &

Selden, 1998; Perry, 1996; Perry, 1997; Perry, 2000) and internationally (Giauque et al.,

2011; Vandenabeele, 2011). The three components of normative motivational bases for

performing public service (Perry & Wise, 1990) were identified as: social equity, the

desire to serve the public interest, and loyalty to duty and to the government as a whole.

The third motivational base for Perry & Wise (1990) resides in the affective

domain. They purported that “affective motives refer to triggers of behaviour that are

grounded in emotional responses to various social contexts” (p. 368). An individual, it is

suggested, may identify strongly with a public service ethic and make a decision to

contribute to a cause, not because she expects something in return, but rather because of

her emotional attraction to it. Simply stated, emotional attachments may draw someone to

public service as a result of conviction to the cause. Brewer et al. (2000) further

explained that “affective motives are grounded in human emotion, and they are

characterized by a desire and willingness to help others. These motives include altruism,

empathy, moral conviction, and other pro-social desires” (p. 255).

17

Public Service Motivation: Beyond Rational Theory:

In support of their efforts to conceptualize public service motivation and in light

of the then dearth of available literature specific to this fledgling theory, Perry and Wise

(1990) reviewed the wider literature on work motivation and determined that the

descriptions offered therein did not adequately encapsulate public service motivation. As

such, they identified distinguishing features that would appear to set public service

motivation apart from the prevailing private sector rational or humanistic theories of

work motivation. They proffered the following caution to work motivation theorists:

The great risk in the current trend of treating the public service like

private enterprise is that it fails to acknowledge unique motives

underlying public sector employment and the critical linkage between

the way a bureaucracy operates in an administrative state and the

advancement of social and democratic values. (Perry & Wise, 1990, p.

371)

Simply stated, rationally-based motives suggesting that employees weigh their reward for

a specific action and guide their behaviour accordingly, only offer a partial picture of an

employee’s motivation. Perry & Wise (1990) presented a similar critique of public choice

motivation as a theory “which is predicated on a model of human behaviour that assumes

that people are motivated primarily by self-interest” (p. 367), citing Niskanen (1971). A

decade later, Perry’s (2000) work continued to challenge the dominant work motivation

theories due to their inability to explain pro-social behaviours that are conventionally

thought to be common in public service. Furthermore if, as the assertion suggests,

18

individuals are motivated solely by rational motives and utility maximization, how does

one explain that employees on occasion will put themselves at risk for the public interest

(Brewer, 2003; Brewer & Selden, 1998; Houston, 2005) with no apparent personal gain?

Wright (2001) also identified a disconnect between a general acceptance that individuals

are perceived to engage in altruistic acts in their personal lives (e.g., caring for family

members and friends), yet the notion that these acts could extend into one’s work

environment is unaccounted for within rational choice theory. Wright (2001) furthered

the critique by signaling the absence of consideration of “organizational impact of work

motivation” (p. 575). He offered that, far from working in a bubble, public sector

employees are subject to constraints and enabling factors at the organizational level that

need to be taken into consideration when theorizing about work motivation. Following

the work of Perry & Porter (1982), Shamir (1991) continued this challenge by asserting

that “a task may not lead to any rewards, not even pleasure, and yet the task would be

motivating due to its meaning for the individual, for instance in terms of the affirmation

of his or her identity and collective affiliations” (p. 409).

Intrinsic-Extrinsic Motivation and Sector Differences:

One of the domains of public service motivation research that has generated a

considerable amount of literature concerns public service employees’ reward preferences

and, more specifically, how these reward preferences set them apart from their for-profit

counterparts. Houston (2000) offered the following to explain the difference between

intrinsic and extrinsic rewards:

Intrinsic rewards are derived from the satisfaction an individual receives from

19

performing a task. Examples of these are a sense of accomplishment and a

feeling of self-worth. In contrast, extrinsic rewards are those offered to

an employee by someone else. Examples of extrinsic rewards are a pay raise,

a promotion, job security, and status and prestige. (Houston, 2000, pp. 714-715)

A number of scholars (Brewer et al, 2000; Houston, 2000; Perry & Wise, 1990; Rainey,

1982; Wittmer, 1991; Wright, 2001), among others, have focused on testing the intuitive

assertion that public-sector employees are more likely to be motivated by intrinsic

rewards than their private or for-profit counterparts. Rainey (1982) was an early pioneer

in this field and his research on the importance of performing meaningful public service

revealed “. . . a significant positive relationship to work satisfaction for the public

managers, but not for the private sector group” (p. 288). In Rainey’s (1982) study,

private-sector managers also placed a higher priority on higher pay than did their public-

sector counterparts. Almost a decade later, Wittmer’s (1991) research employed a rank-

ordering procedure to measure value and reward preferences among managers in private,

hybrid, and public organizations. Wittmer (1991) deemed schools and hospitals to belong

to the hybrid category given that they exist essentially to provide public service, but that

they may share private-sector space, as in the case of private schools and hospitals.

Wittmer’s (1991) results indicated that “the most important item for the core private

sample was higher pay, whereas performing work helpful to others was most important

for both the core public and hybrid samples” (p. 377). Furthermore, Wittmer’s (1991)

research (subsequently supported by Crewson’s 1997 study) did not confirm the often

held belief that public sector employees place a premium on job security and instead, “the

data indicated that private managers, to a statistically significant degree, rate job security

20

as more important [when compared to hybrid organizations]” (p. 379). One of the

interesting findings in Wittmer’s (1991) research was the priority that all three sectors

placed on ‘co-worker respect’ as the latter “. . . is the second most important item for

each of the three groups” (p. 380).

At the turn of the century, Houston’s (2000) research involving 101 public sector

and 1356 private sector employees again investigated the intrinsic-extrinsic reward

preferences among the sectors. Whereas most previous studies, including Rainey (1982)

and Wittmer (1991), focused exclusively on managers’ perspectives, Houston’s (2000)

study included both management and administrative support staff in both sectors.

Houston (2000) asked participants to rank intrinsic and extrinsic job characteristics

including high income, short working hours, job security, chances for promotion and

work that is important. A comparative analysis revealed:

Employees in both sectors are more likely to rate meaningful work as the most

valued characteristic in a job. Whereas chances for promotion is the second most

likely job characteristic to be rated most importantly by public-sector workers,

private-sector employees rank high income second. (p. 720)

While Houston’s (2000) research supports previous claims (Rainey, 1982; Wittmer,

1991) that private-sector workers place a higher premium on salary and shorter working

hours, his research contradicts previously stated research regarding job security. In his

study, job security rated higher with public-sector employees than their private-sector

counterparts. Gabris and Simo’s (1995) research, on the other hand, found no difference

between the sectors on job security or higher pay. The conflicting evidence re: rewards

21

preferences between the sectors then should serve as a caution to researchers. There is

some evidence to suggest that it may be the nature of the work available to public sector

workers that provides them with the opportunity to meet altruistic needs particularly

working in schools as opposed to a superior orientation toward the ‘other’ when

compared to for-profit colleagues. This evidence may underscore the importance between

mission valence, employee values congruence, and job characteristics, as reflected in the

more recent research by Moynihan and Pandey (2008), and Vandenabeele (2011).

Socio-historic Antecedents of Public Service Motivation: Family, Education and

Religion:

In 1997, Perry identified a number of sociohistoric antecedents and summarized

them as follows: “an individual’s public service motivation develops from exposure to a

variety of experiences, some associated with childhood, some associated with religion,

and some associated with professional life” (p. 109). Other public administration scholars

(Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Perry, 2000; Perry et al., 2008; Vandenabeele, 2011) have

since contributed to the research on the antecedents of public service motivation. Perry

(2000) further developed his (1997) framework by adding the following critical variables

to the sociohistoric context including: motivational context (job characteristics,

organizational incentives and work environment variables), individual characteristics, and

behaviour of the individual. Perry (1997) found that the strongest predictors of public

service motivation were attributed to parental modeling, professional identification and

level of education. With regards to religion, he declared a negative finding between

church involvement and public service motivation but a positive finding between the

latter and closeness to God as an indication of a commitment to the ‘other’. Perry et al.’s

22

(2008) research found that public service motivation is significantly related to family

socialization, religious activity, and volunteer experiences” (p. 454). Almost fifteen years

after Perry’s (1997) first iteration of the antecedents of public service motivation,

Vandenabeele (2011) investigated the extent to which this can be related to institutional

antecedents and confirmed that “both family history and values within the institution

where one works are positively related to public service motivation” (p. 100). In his

survey of 3506 European civil servants, Vandenabeele (2011) found higher levels of

public service motivation in individuals where both parents had worked for the public

service and whose location of employment promoted public values (p. 90). His findings

pointed to the importance not only of pre-employment socialization (family, education,

religion), but also to the potential of a socialization-effect to public values in the

workplace.

Camilleri’s (2007) literature review of public service motivation antecedents

summarized the latter into five categories including: personal attributes, role states,

employee perception of the organization, employee-leader relations and job

characteristics (p. 360). Camilleri (2007) equated personal attributes to Perry’s (2000)

sociohistorical context and the remaining four antecedents to Perry’s (2000) motivational

context. Camilleri’s (2007) review revealed age to have a high positive relationship with

the commitment to public interest dimension of public service motivation (p. 367) [. . .]

while females reported a higher need for compassion [. . .] (p. 367). Contrary to Perry’s

(2000) findings, Camilleri’s (2007) research found that sociohistoric context variables do

not appear to directly influence public service motivation and its dimensions” (p. 368).

Furthermore, Camilleri (2007) found that . . . the motivational context variables (Perry,

23

2000), particularly those related to the organizational variables, are the most dominant

predictors of the public service motivation dimensions” (p. 368). Camilleri’s findings

emphasized the imperative for public-sector managers to create the “proper and

appropriate environment for their employees” (p. 373), and to “find ways of encouraging

public service motivation among its employees” (p. 373).

Congruence Between Mission Valence and Employee Values:

Vandenabeele’s (2011) research underscored the interplay between public-sector

employees and their work environment. While offering support for Perry’s 1997 findings

re: socio-historic antecedents of public service motivation, Vandenabeele’s (2011) work

reported that employees may enter public service with lower levels of public service

motivation and subsequently develop and enhance their public service motivation with

directed efforts from managers and co-workers who explicitly link public values to the

work of the organization. Moynihan and Pandey (2007) also attested to the potential of

the work environment as a significant predictor of employee beliefs. “…Therefore, we

expect that public employees’ beliefs about public service are at least partly influenced

by the nature of the environment in which they find themselves” (Moynihan and Pandey,

2007, p. 42). Their research also suggested the importance of communicating to public

employees the centrality of their role in the organization and the real benefits that their

contributions make to society, “an organizational trait that is currently unfamiliar to many

public employees” (p. 48).

Figure 2.1 provides a sample of the research dedicated to the identification of the

predictors of public service motivation. It includes the initial theoretical paper re:

24

antecedents of public service motivation (Perry, 1997) in addition to other seminal work

up to and including Vandenabeele’s recent 2011 research. Two broad categories of

antecedents emerge as strong predictors of public service motivation, namely

sociohistoric and job characteristic variables.

Author, date and nature

of study

Hypothesized Antecedents

of Public Service

Motivation

Predictors of Public

Service Motivation

Perry (1997)

Theoretical. Based on

research of plausible

antecedents of the four

public service motivation

domains.

Sociohistoric

Antecedents: parental

socialization, religious

socialization,

professional

identification, political

ideology, and individual

demographic

characteristics.

Parental modeling of altruistic or helping behaviour, professional identification / education, and religion (closeness to God, orientation to the other)

Perry (2000)

Theoretical. Develops a

new “process theory” of

public service

motivation.

Sociohistoric context,

motivational context,

individual characteristics

and behavior.

Suggests that theories of

public service motivation

should take into

consideration all four

sets of variables. “The

primary motivators for

public sector employees

are the interests that

attract them to the

public sector” (p. 484).

Sociohistoric context

Camilleri (2007)

Quantitative study

involving 3400 Maltese

Five personal attributes:

role states, job

characteristics,

employee-leader

relations, employee

Job Characteristics as

dominant predictors of

public service

motivation, particularly:

25

Author, date and nature

of study

Hypothesized Antecedents

of Public Service

Motivation

Predictors of Public

Service Motivation

public officers. perceptions of the

organization.

task significance dealing with others

Moynihan & Pandey

(2007)

Quantitative: 274

responses of a national

survey of state

government health and

human service

managers.

Sociohistoric context

Level of education membership in professional organizations Organizational environment (employee empowerment, clarification of goals)

Perry et al (2008)

Award winners of the

Daily Point of Light

Award and the

President’s Community

Volunteer Award.

Quantitative (525

surveys) and qualitative

(26 interviews).

Family socialization,

religious activity and

volunteering

experiences.

Religious activity Powerful life events /experiences trigger acts of service

Vandenabeele (2011)

Quantitative study based

on 3,506 state civil

servants in Belgium.

Institutional antecedents

“identities related to the

various institutions that

one is affiliated with (

e.g., the organization for

which one works, family,

political affiliation,

education, gender, and

age cohorts) correlate

with public service

Family history (parents working in public service) Exposure to values from within the institution

26

Author, date and nature

of study

Hypothesized Antecedents

of Public Service

Motivation

Predictors of Public

Service Motivation

motivation.

Figure 2.1: Research on Antecedents of Public Service Motivation that Inform

Conceptual Framework

Summary of Public Service Motivation

In his review of public-sector work motivation, Wright (2001) encapsulated the

somewhat conflicting evidence with regards to sector and rewards differences. “While the

specific findings regarding how sectors differ have not been consistent, sector differences

have been commonly, if not consistently, found” (p. 575). Wright’s (2001) summary is

indicative of the complexity of the public service motivation construct. There is a general

acceptance of the validity of public service motivation as a theory that explains many of

the extra-role behaviours that are observed within public institutions. However, scholars

have differed in their agreement on which sociohistoric and job characteristic antecedents

are the strongest predictors of public service motivation. Furthermore, public service

motivation should not be conceptualized as a phenomenon that only occurs in the public-

sector. In fact, it would be naïve to assert that only public-sector employees are

27

predisposed to engage in altruistic acts or are committed to the public interest. Similarly,

not all of an individual’s actions, regardless of the work sector to which he/she belongs

can be attributed to public service motivation. As Perry and Hondeghem (2008)

indicated:

Thus we conceive public service motivation as a type of motivation in

the public sector, but it does not cover all motives in the public sector.

Public service motivation may also transcend the public sector, that is,

characterize motivations in other arenas of society that involve pursuit of public

good. (p. 3)

Nevertheless, Brewer and Selden’s (1998) research on whistle blowers and Houston’s

(2005) work on public sector employees’ higher incidence of donating time, money and

blood, both favoured public-sector employees over their for-profit counterparts.

More recently, Pandey, Wright, and Moynihan (2008), and Kim (2006) shifted the focus

of investigation from incidents of public service motivation behaviours aimed at

benefitting society at large, to positive pro-social behaviours aimed at helping the

organization or individuals within the organization. These scholars give consideration to

whether “public service motivation can lead to positive interpersonal citizenship behavior

in routine displays of pro-social behavior that may not be at odds with organizational

goals” (Pandey et al., 2008, pp. 90-91). This more recent development has given rise to

research focusing on exploring a link between public service motivation and

interpersonal citizenship behavior – an avenue of inquiry that is germane to this study.

While there is currently paucity in the literature linking public service motivation

to behaviour in schools, public service motivation nevertheless may offer a lens through

28

which to understand elementary school office managers’ extra-role behaviour. As an

individual disposition, it may explain why office managers are attracted to work in

schools, and offer a partial explanation for their willingness to engage in positive

discretionary behaviours that are not formally required of them. A more fulsome

understanding of the nature and factors influencing this behaviour emerges through

consideration of the various extra-role behaviour constructs. First it will be instructive to

differentiate what is meant by in-role versus extra-role behaviour, as well as how the role

of the office manager has been represented in the literature.

In-Role Behaviour and Office Managers

The interest in employee in-role behaviour, as measured through increased task

production, dates back to the industrial revolution. It has been described by Van Scotter

et al., (2000) as “patterns of behaviour that are directly involved in producing goods or

services, or activities that provide direct support for the organization’s core technical

processes” (p. 526). Lipsky (1980) articulated the challenge facing management in

complex service organizations such as schools, hospitals, and police services. “The

management challenge perceived to be at the heart of the problem is how to make

workers’ needs for personal, material, or psychological gratification mesh with the

organization’s needs” (p. 17). It is presumed then that employees whose needs align with

those of the organization will work harder and more efficiently within their job

descriptions or in-role tasks.

29

One of the salient defining features of in-role behaviour that separates it from

extra-role behaviour from a management perspective is that failure on behalf of an

employee to offer a minimum standard of in-role behaviour can result in sanctions and

even dismissal. In-role behaviour, then, can be both mandated by the employer and be the

cause for sanctions towards the employee in the event of substandard performance. The

limited and mostly dated research that exists on office managers has centred on the

latter’s in-role duties. Standard in-role duties include: answering the phone; taking

attendance; using required computer software to generate reports for the Board and the

Ministry; and administering first-aid within guidelines. Appendix “A” provides a sample

job description for a head secretary or office manager.

The papers by Walker & Moffitt (1979), Mann (1980), and Coffman (2003),

with their respective titles: Pats on Back can make a Big Difference; How to Utilize your

Secretary Effectively; and Support Your Secretary, contributed little to our understanding

of the complexity of an office manager’s role. The general focus of these papers was on

the importance of communication between the principal and the head secretary. While

enhanced communication is indeed a worthy goal, the improvements proffered in these

articles were solely from the perspective of the principal, with the knowledge and

expertise of the office manager markedly absent.

Hart’s (1985), work, however, brought the complexity of the office manager’s

role to the fore. By employing Levinson’s (1959) tripartite role framework, he presented

the concept of role as prescribed, perceived, and performed, and in so doing,

acknowledged the multi-dimensionality of the office manager’s position within a school.

The role as prescribed referred to ‘in-role’ duties, the role as perceived as the hidden

30

aspects or duties, and the role as performed as organic in nature. The role as performed,

then, is dependent upon the variables in the workplace that will either constrict the role to

the prescribed in-role duties, or allow for the role to expand thus accessing untapped

potential.

Casanova’s (1991) mixed methods research still represents the most extensive

study on the role of secretaries (office managers). Her work challenged the widely-held

depiction of office managers as clerks, an image at least partially promoted by publishers

of principal training manuals. “In contrast, the elementary school secretary described in

the official documents resembled a generic business secretary. Job descriptions

emphasized the technical skills of the job while slighting the human aspect” (p. 114). In

analyzing formal job descriptions of school secretaries and text books that offered details

on the role, Casanova found that those descriptions were incompatible with her

observations of secretaries working in schools. Her observations revealed a school

secretary who spent most of her time interacting with people. Casanova (1991) stated:

“She thought of herself as an educator, and saw a direct relationship between her

efficiency in running the school and the success of the school and children within it” (p.

114). Reed and Salazar (1998), and more recently, Conley et al., (2010) added to a very

thin literature base on the multi-dimensionality of support staff. While these studies did

not focus exclusively on office managers and included the important work of custodians

and special education assistants, they underscored the importance of including all school

employees in movements aimed at educational reform. Indeed, to think narrowly about

the roles of different employee groups by confining them to their in-role job descriptions

31

has the potential of reducing the number of actors who may be capable and willing to

make meaningful contributions, above and beyond their in-role duties.

Katz (1964) cautioned organizations against the prevailing reliance on well-

defined roles and task performance to the detriment of innovative and spontaneous

behaviour by proclaiming: “An organization which depends solely upon its blue-prints of

prescribed behaviour is a very fragile social system” (p. 132). Further support for

behaviours ‘beyond the prescribed’ was provided by Smith et al., (1983) who stated:

Substantive, citizenship behaviours are important because they lubricate the

social machinery of the organization. They provide the flexibility needed to work

through many unforeseen contingencies, [and] they enable participants to cope

with the otherwise awesome condition of interdependence on each other. (p. 654)

Extra-Role Behaviour

Extra-role behaviour, also referred to in the literature as extra-role performance,

represents the wider framework that encompasses employees’ discretionary work

performance. A variety of definitions exist to explain this phenomenon. Van Dyne and

LePine (1998) offered that “Extra-role behaviour is positive and discretionary. It is (1)

not specified in advance by role prescriptions, (2) not recognized by formal reward

systems, and (3) not a source of punitive consequences when not performed by job

incumbents” (p. 108). Becker and Kernan (2003) offered the following definition: “Extra-

role performance refers to activities that are essential for organizational effectiveness but

are discretionary in nature “(p. 328). More recently, Stoner et al (2011) described extra-

32

role performance as “behaviours not formally required by any particular job, yet which

help to form the social context of all jobs, thus facilitating effectiveness” (p. 94).

Each of the three cited definitions appears to differ slightly from the other. Van

Dyne and LePine (1998) focused on the positive and discretionary nature of extra-role

behaviour. Becker and Kernan (2003) highlighted extra-role behaviour with respect to

organizational effectiveness, while Stoner et al., (2011) cited extra-role behaviour’s

importance in forming the social context for work. The differences notwithstanding, it is

important to note that all of the cited definitions included the distinction of extra-role

behaviour as discretionary in nature. Furthermore, extra-role behaviour can neither be

mandated, nor used as a punitive mechanism when absent. As a broad construct, extra-

role behaviour may be considered as an umbrella framework for more narrow and

restrictive behavioural constructs which are discussed here including: Organ’s (1988)

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour; Brief and Motowidlo’s (1986) Prosocial

Organizational Behaviour; and Borman and Motowidlo’s (1993) Contextual

Performance.

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

Dennis Organ’s Organizational Citizenship Behaviour framework, while defined

in 1988, owes its origins to two studies. The first was conducted by Bateman & Organ

(1983) in which the term organizational citizenship behaviour was first proffered. During

the same year, Smith et al.’s (1983) research coined the organizational citizenship

behaviour dimensions of altruism and general compliance. Organ (1988) presented a

more fulsome definition of organizational citizenship behaviour as “individual behaviour

33

that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system,

and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (p. 4). In

1988, Organ expanded the original two dimensions (Smith, Organ & Near, 1983) to five,

including:

altruism – discretionary behaviours that have the effect of helping a specific other

person with an organizationally relevant task or problem; conscientiousness –

discretionary behaviours on the part of the employee that go well beyond the

minimum role requirements of the organization, in the areas of attendance,

obeying rules and regulations, taking breaks, and so forth; sportsmanship –

willingness of the employee to tolerate less than ideal circumstances without

complaining – to “avoid complaining, petty grievances, railing against real or

imagined slights, and making federal cases out of small potatoes”; courtesy –

discretionary behaviours on the part of an individual aimed at preventing work-

related problems with others from occurring; and finally civic virtue – behaviour

on the part of an individual that indicates that he/she responsibly participates in, is

involved in, or is concerned about the life of the company. (p. 4)

The organizational citizenship behaviour construct has become arguably the most

frequently cited citizenship framework and has “received the preponderance of research

attention” (Hoffman et al., 2007, p. 555). In their review of the organizational citizenship

behaviour literature (Hoffman et al., 2007), identified “361 studies that dealt with

organizational citizenship behaviour” (p. 557). It has also been the subject of much

debate, specifically with regards to two key factors in the definition, namely: ‘not

explicitly recognized by the formal reward system’, and the reference to its

34

‘discretionary’ nature. Scholarly challenge on the latter was championed by Morrison

(1994) whose research demonstrated that study participants had a hard time

distinguishing between tasks that were in-role with those that were extra-role or

discretionary. As a result, Morrison (1994) determined that “organizational citizenship

behaviour is ill-defined and varies from one employee to the next and between employees

and supervisors” (Morrison, 1994, p. 1561). Criticism with regards to ‘behaviour that is

not explicitly recognized by the formal reward system’ centred on research citing

organizational citizenship behaviour as an important factor in performance appraisals

(MacKenzie et al., 1994; Podsakoff et al., 1994).

More recent research has in fact demonstrated that organizational citizenship

behaviour accounted for at least as much variation in employee performance appraisals as

in-role or task performance (Podsakoff et al., 2009). Organ, (1988) recognized what he

determined to be these ‘soft spots’ of the construct and foresaw the impending criticism.

In his article entitled, It’s Construct Clean-UP Time (1997), Organ addressed the concern

re: ‘recognition by the formal reward system’ by declaring “it is doubtful that persons

rendering these contributions would see a one-to-one correspondence between discrete

instances of such contributions and near-term payoffs” (p. 91). With regards to his

assertion of organizational citizenship behaviour as discretionary behaviours, however,

Organ (1997) conceded “a more tenable position is one that defines organizational

citizenship behaviour much along the lines of what Borman and Motowidlo (1993) called

contextual performance” (p. 85). A closer look at the contextual performance construct

and its likeness to organizational citizenship behaviour may explain why Organ (1997)

was prepared to make the above-mentioned concession.

35

Contextual Performance

Borman and Motowidlo (1993) defined contextual performance as “behaviours

that do not support the technical core itself so much as they support the broader

organizational, social, and psychological environment” (p. 73). The five identified

dimensions include: “volunteering for activities beyond a person’s formal job

expectations, persistence of enthusiasm and application when needed to complete

important task requirements, assistance to others, following rules and prescribed

procedures even when it is inconvenient, and openly espousing and defending

organization objectives” (p. 75). Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) identified two types

of behaviour related to the contextual performance construct: (1) interpersonal facilitation

(cooperative, considerate and helpful acts towards co-workers and, (2) job dedication

(working hard, taking initiative and following rules and promoting the organization’s best

interest” (p. 526). As underscored in LePine et al. (2002) meta-analysis of the contextual

performance and organizational citizenship behaviour literature, “the interpersonal

facilitation dimension of contextual performance overlaps with both the altruism and

courtesy dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior”, (cited in Stone-Romero et

al., 2009, p. 105). The comparative advantage to the contextual performance construct

when compared to organizational citizenship behaviour is that operationally it omits any

reference to the requirement that the behaviour be ‘discretionary’ or ‘not formally

recognized by the organization’. A third claim that is central to the organizational

citizenship behaviour construct and absent from the contextual performance framework is

any reference to the notion that, in their aggregate, these patterns of behaviours enhance

organizational effectiveness.

36

Prosocial Organizational Behaviour

Brief and Motowidlo (1986) were the first to define the prosocial organizational

behaviour construct as behaviour that is “(a) performed by a member of an organization,

(b) directed toward an individual, group, or organization with whom he or she interacts

while carrying out his or her organizational role, and (c) performed with the intention of

promoting the welfare of the individual, group, or organization toward which it is

directed” (p. 711). The authors identified thirteen specific prosocial organizational

behaviours grouped according to behaviours that are ‘functional’ or ‘dysfunctional’ in

nature. Brief and Motowidlo (1986) acknowledged overlap between the original

organizational citizenship behaviour dimension of altruism defined by Smith et al. (1983)

with a number of prosocial organizational behaviours including “assisting co-workers

with job related matters” (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986, p. 713). Whereas the operational

definitions of prosocial organizational behaviour and organizational citizenship behaviour

share a number of similar characteristics, the former does not stipulate that the prosocial

behaviour must specifically enhance organizational effectiveness. Organ et al., (2006)

identified this salient difference between the two constructs when they stated, “prosocial

organizational behaviour could include helping a coworker with a personal issue (e.g.,

offering advice about how to improve child care or save money while shopping),

provided that it occurs in the organizational setting” (p. 32). While these behaviours may

support the affective state of the workplace, organizational citizenship behaviour theorists

would not include them within their framework. Van Dyne et al., (1995), in their meta-

analysis of different extra role behaviour constructs, advocated dropping the prosocial

organizational behaviour construct. “Due to the breadth of behaviours that are

37

encompassed by the definition, Prosocial Organizational Behavior cannot consistently be

differentiated from other forms of extra-role behaviour” (pp. 272-273). Moreover, there is

no mention within the prosocial organizational behaviour framework of behaviour that is

beyond one’s job description. According to Organ (1990), “prosocial organizational

behaviour would include in-role behaviour in many instances” (p. 48). This distinction

sets prosocial organizational behaviour apart from the original conceptualization of

organizational citizenship behaviour.

Connecting Office Managers’ Extra-Role Behaviour to Existing Frameworks

This section of the literature review has endeavoured to briefly outline the three

dominant extra-role behaviour constructs including: prosocial organizational behaviour,

contextual performance, and organizational citizenship behaviour. Given that this study is

novel in its approach to investigating the extra-role behaviour of elementary school office

managers, and that there is a void of empirical research using this sample, it would be ill-

advised to predetermine whether public service motivation theory or a specific extra-role

behaviour construct would best capture office managers’ extra-role behaviour. Instead,

the information provided by participating office managers and the subsequent analysis of

their responses may provide a starting point on how best to categorize the various extra-

role behaviours. Furthermore, it is conceivable that office managers may disclose extra-

role behaviours that are not easily encapsulated by any of the constructs discussed in this

literature review. Indeed, new categories may emerge and this information will be

considered important for future and subsequent studies involving elementary school

office managers. One of the salient features in determining which behaviour best fits an

extra-role behaviour construct will be the office manager’s understanding of what she

38

determines to be in-role vs. extra-role. For example, if the office manager feels that the

behaviour that she is engaging in is expected and therefore no longer discretionary in

nature, the behaviour would be precluded from Organ’s original conception of the

organizational citizenship behaviour framework by definition. Indeed, Morrison (1994)

doubted the efficacy of extra-role behaviour research claiming that her participants were

unable to differentiate between in-role and extra-role tasks. Conversely, Van Dyne et al.,

(1998), among others, have stated that their research participants were able to make this

distinction. Nevertheless, it would appear that the office manager’s understanding of in-

role or extra-role activities warrants careful consideration in this research.

Stone-Romero et al., (2009) brought attention to what they perceived as a flaw

with describing organizational citizenship behaviour as ‘not formally recognized by the

organization’ in stating the following: “Because organizations use performance

evaluations as a basis for making decisions about increases in salary and promotions,

these behaviours are seemingly recognized by the formal reward system” (p. 115). This

statement, however, does not hold for office managers in Ontario’s schools. Given the

unionized environment within which office managers perform their duties, formally

recognizing office managers’ contributions through an increase in salary and/or

promotion are not tools that are available to direct supervisors (principals). Nevertheless,

it will be important to understand the extent to which informal rewards in the form of

recognition for the extra-role behaviour is deemed as an important influence on the office

manager’s desire to engage in extra-role behaviour. The reasons that office managers

offer for engaging in extra-role behaviour may reveal an altruistic (public service)

orientation or a relational (social exchange) orientation. This distinction may prove

39

salient when comparing responses about the variables that influence extra-role behaviour

for an office manager who is public service oriented as opposed to one who is relationally

oriented. It is possible that the latter may put greater importance on leader support,

inclusion, job satisfaction, participatory decision making and relationships with others

than the former who may base her decision as a result of mission valence, values

congruence and the significance of the extra-role behaviour to the organization’s goals.

The target of the extra-role behaviour, that is to say, who the office manager feels

is benefitting from the extra-role behaviour (individual or the school) has implications for

the various extra-role behaviour constructs discussed earlier. Organ (1988) was clear in

his articulation of the construct that in order to be considered organizational citizenship

behaviour, “that ultimately aggregated across time and individuals, [the