University teachers’ organizational citizenship behavior

www.theinternationaljournal.org> RJSSM : Volume: 07, Number: 12, April 2018 Page 156

University teachers’ organizational citizenship behavior (a case study on Hawassa

University teachers, Ethiopia)

Mengistu Anisa (MA-HRM)

Hawassa University College of Business and Economics

School of management and accounting

Abstract Purpose: The main purpose of this study was to explore the university teacher organizational citizenship behavior in the case of Hawassa University Ethiopia. In this study, the impact of job

satisfaction & organizational commitment on organizational citizenship behavior has also been

analyzed.

Methodology: The data was collected from 314 teachers of Hawassa University in the six campuses

namely; Main, Agricultural,Health, WondoGnet, IOT and Awada campuses through questionnaires.

Finding: The result of 297 respondents reveals that jobsatisfaction & organizational commitment have

positive relation with organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) of university teachers.

Research limitation: This research finding is based on two antecedents only future studies that encompass other antecedents of OCB like; training and development opportunity, promoting,

motivation at work and others should be carried out within different work settings in order to enrich literature on OCB.

Originality: There is no research conducted in Hawassa University in relation to organizational

citizenship behavior.

Key words: Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior

1. Introduction

1.1. Background of the study

It was 1983 when Bateman and Organ introduced the term “citizenship” as behaviors that

lubricate the social machinery of the organization and labelled employees who engage in such

behaviors as “good citizens” (p. 654). Although the history of OCB is not very old, its roots can be

traced back to Barnard (1938), who pointed out that in order to achieve organizational goals,

employees should be willing to contribute efforts to the cooperative system. Katz (1964) and Katz and

Kahn (1966) observed that constructive and cooperative behaviors beyond traditional job requirements

are essential for the successful functioning of an organization,Meglino, and Korsgaard (2008).

A major concern of managers is motivating employees to cooperate for business success (Smith, Carroll & Ashford, 1995), and this is becoming more difficult and challenging due to the

uncertain nature of the work environment. In today’s complex business world, an employee performs his or her activity crossing over different functions within the organization. This place added demands

on workers at all levels in organizations. Performance of numerous tasks and an in-depth

understanding of technologies are demanded by organizations (Snow, Miles & Coleman, 1992).

Cooperation and innovation beyond formal job descriptions are important needs for organizations

since it is impossible from the point of view of organizations to predict all of the behaviors they will

need from their employees while adapting to changes in the environment that surrounds them (Organ,

Podsakoff&MacKenzie, 2006). The work behaviors needed by organizations beyond traditional role

related behaviors (e.g., work output, quantity, quality) are described by the term OCB (Bateman &

Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ & Near, 1983).

OCB is an individual’s helpful and cooperative behavior that facilitates the lubrication of the

social machinery of the organization, decreases friction, provides flexibility, and leads to efficiency

(Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith et al.,1983). Extra-role behaviors promote the efficiency and


effectiveness necessary for productive organizations (Organ et al., 2006). OCB results in higher

organizational performance through enhancing co-worker and manager productivity, freeing resources

up from maintenance functions, improving coordination between team members and across work groups, enhancing the organization’s ability to adapt to environmental changes (Podsakoff,

MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000). Such a positive relationship between OCB and organizational effectiveness is found in many scientific empirical studies (e.g., Bachrach, Powell &Bendoly, 2004;

Karambayya, 1990; MacKenzie, Podsakoff&Ahearne, 1998; Podsakoff&MacKenzie, 1994;

Walz&Niehoff, 1996).As Katz (1964) pointed out it is not possible for an organization to foresee all

contingencies within its operations, or to anticipate environmental changes accurately, or to control

human variability perfectly. Therefore, “an organization which depends solely upon its blueprints of

prescribed behavior is a very fragile social system” (Katz, 1964, p.132). What is necessary

fororganizational survival and effectiveness is employees who contribute to organizational functioning

by engaging in extra role behaviors such as helping a new co-worker or one that has heavy workload, voluntarily attending and actively participating in unit meetings, paying attention to self- development

to become versatile and being flexible in terms of tasks that can be performed, and not complaining about petty problems. Aggregated over time and persons, OCB become important since they facilitate

the accomplishment of organizational goals and enhance organizational performance (Allen & Rush,

1998). Empirical research has shown that OCBs benefit the organizations in many ways such a customer satisfaction, quality and quantity of the service or product, sales performance, customer

complaints, and revenue (Karambayya, 1990; Podsakoff&MacKenzie, 1994; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, &Ahearne, 1998; Walz&Niehoff, 1996; Koys, 2001; Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009).

Podsakoff and associates (2006) defined certain ways by which OCBs may affect organizational

performance. Additionally, OCBs may enhance the stability of organizational performance by

reducing variability. Furthermore, OCBs may improve an organization’s ability to adapt to

environmental changes. Lastly, OCBs may enhance organizational effectiveness by creating social

capital.

The main aim of this research is to analyze the level of OCBs amongst the universities teachers

in HawassaUniversity, Ethiopia. High level education like university is provided so its quality and deliverance matters a lot. The research was revealing the reasons due to which some teachers show

more cooperative and supportive behavior than the others. Quality is dependent on professional development so teachers' work cannot be alienated from development. Participation of all the persons

that are involved in teaching and learning is necessary for quality development. (Odhiambo, 2008).

This study will help the other researchers, academicians inanalyzing the factors affecting teachers OCB particularly in the context of Hawassauniversities teachers and other universities in the

country. Admitting that University teachers are the main value creators of today’s organizations and the organizations’ success depends on their performance, identifying the variables that trigger

engagement in OCBs among University teachers makes sense. Therefore, the present study aims to

discover the job satisfaction and organizational commitment variables that influence engagement in

OCBs in university teachers in case of Hawassa University, Ethiopia.

1.2. Statement of the problem

On behave of the above background there are different problems that initiate researcher to

conduct this study. Organ’s claims that University teachers who are preparing for their courses, teaching, doing research, and writing are not by construction exhibiting OCB, no matter how well their

teaching and research are judged by others. Such a teacher is performing in-role responsibilities of his or her job with respect to his or her contractual obligations to the organization. Such behaviors lack

university teachers in Ethiopia particularly in Hawassa University. However, a teacher showing citizenship behaviors such as picking up waste from the classroom, rearranging the chairs for a more

functional classroom setting, protecting the organization’s technological resources, or perhaps

engaging in a conversation in the community that will promote the organization in a positive manner, or even arranging a movie night for the students before finals week is performing citizenship


behaviors. A crucial point for citizenship behavior that needs to be underlined in this example is that

the teacher is not paid extra for engaging in citizenship behavior and the punishment of the teacher for

lack of engagement in OCBs is not possible from the point of view of the university. Organizational citizenship behavior is a group of organizationally beneficial behaviors and gestures that can be neither

enforced on the basis of formal role obligations nor elicited by contractual guarantee of recompense (Organ, 1990, p. 46). OCB is an extra-role behavior based on helping colleagues or showing

conscientiousness for the organization (Finkelstein & 11 Penner, 2004). Employers or managers

cannot enforce OCB and cannot promise specific or immediate incentives to employees for performing

OCBs (Organ et al., 2006).

University teachers’ performance is further suffocated by their failure to engage in discretional

behaviors which are not rewarded for but highly impact on their performance. Despite the fact that

extra rolebehavior is not rewarded, it highly influences performance and the failed attempt of teachers

to engage in extra roles has undermined the university performance. The other reason conducted this research were after exploring OCB activities of teacher the

study also focuses on job satisfaction and organizational commitment ofHawassa University teachers as an antecedent of OCB. In relation to the above facts on OCB relate problems in the university

setting, the researcher will attempt to address the following questions.

• What is the level of OCB performed by Hawassa University teachers?

• How job satisfaction and organizational commitment influence the occurrence of OCB in the

university?

• What mechanisms the University management used to enhance teacher’s OCB in the

university.

1.3. Significance of the study

It has been argued that OCB, aggregated over time and persons, contribute to the organizational

performance and accomplishment of organizational goals (Podsakff, Mackenzie, Paine, & Bachrach,

2000; Organ, Podsakoff, &MacKenzie, 2006). Organ (1997) summarizes the importance of OCB by

resembling it to the social lubricant of the organizational machinery. Knowing the positive

consequences of OCB on organizations, this study used for managers to pay attention to the means of

improving job scope, job satisfaction, andorganizational commitment in order to improve teachers’

engagement in OCBs.

This study specifically targeted knowledge workers who are perceived as the dominant source

of competitive advantage to the modern enterprise. Unlike manual workers knowledge workers own the means of production. That is “the knowledge between their ears is a totally portable and enormous

capital asset” (Drucker, 1999, p.87). Therefore, managements tend to take great care with how they manage knowledge workers (Sajeva, 2007). University management should also notice that when

teachers are satisfied, they tend to show OCBs. Hence university management may adapt procedures to

improve job satisfaction. Specifically, this study provides the following significance; Based on the

result and suggestion at the end of research the study would help enhancing teacher’s OCB in Hawassa

University, the result of this study help University managers to identify the factors that affect the

occurrence of OCB. In addition, the readers of this study basically teachers by understanding each

dimension of OCB, those who performing in-role responsibilities (preparing for their courses,

teaching, doing research, and writing) only will be benefited by understanding the importance of

participating in such OCB activities. The study will be used as a literature for further researchers who

are interested in conducting researchers on university teachers OCB and other related variables.

1.4. objective of the study

1.4.1. General Objective

The overall objective of this study was to assess university teachers’ OCB and its antecedents

in the case of Hawassa University, Ethiopia


1.4.2. Specific Objectives

• To examine the level of teachers’ OCB inHawassa the University.

• To examine the relationship between the antecedents (factors); job satisfactionand

organizational commitment on teachers’ OCBin the university.

• To examine the outcomes of participating in OCB as a university teacher.

• To identify the university management involvement for enhancing OCB.

2. Material And Methods

2.1. Description of the study area

The study area of the researcher is at the Hawassa University which founds in the capital city of Southern Nation Nationalities People Republic. HawassaUniversity far from Addis Ababa the

capital of the country 273 KM to the south. HawassaUniversity has six campuses thoseare Main Campus, Institute of technology, Referral Campus, Wondo Genet, Agricultural and Awada Campus.

2.2. Study Variables and Measures

The variables that are being considered are described in the theoretical framework. Job

satisfaction and organizational commitment used as the independent variable, and OCB is the

dependent variable. A 44-item questionnaire was used that consists of two parts, the first part of the

questionnaire focused on the demographic data that included information about campus of teachers,

years of employment, qualification, marital status, sex and age. While the second part required respondents, view regarding to the antecedents’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment and

OCB. OCB was considered as alatent construct and the average of all 10 items were calculated to measure OCB. Respondents are asked to rate the items on a five-point scale. The scale was designed as

1= “Strongly Disagree”, and 5= “Strongly Agree”. “I attend meetings that are not mandatory, but are

considered important” are example. The job satisfaction part consists of 14 items and participants are

expected to rate each of them on a 5-point Likert type scale according to their level of satisfaction with

the related item. The 5- point scale is designed as 1 = “Very Dissatisfied” and 5 = “Very Satisfied”. The commitment scale consists of 14 items; Respondents are asked to rate the items on a five-point

scale. The scale was designed as 1= “Strongly Disagree”, and 5= “Strongly Agree”.

2.2.1. Sample and Procedure

The study population were based on 1460 university teachers in the six campuses of Hawassa

University. Each teacher will have equal chance of being represented on the sample. A stratified

sampling design was used to select an estimation of 314 university teachers in the six campuses. The

sample size is determined based onsample size determination formula; n = N /1+ N * (e) 2

Where n = the sample size

N = the population size

e =Margin of error acceptable or measure of precision is 0.05

n = 1460/1+ 1460* (0.05)2

n = 314

Respondents from this campus were provided the information about the variables under study.

To take appropriate sample in each campus the researcher first identifies each stratum total population.

Then sample for the study taken proportionally according to the number of population. Accordingly,

table 1 shows that the stratum, the population in each campus (stratum), and the sample taken.


2.3. Methodology

2.3.1. Instruments of data collection

The main instrument of data collection that was used is a structured questionnaire to get

primary data from respondents. A respondent questionnaire was used to get quantitative data about the

relationship between teachers’ OCB and antecedents of it.

2.3.2. Procedure for data collection

Data was collected through paper and pencil questionnaires. Participants were asked to rate themselves on each of the five scales. Inorder, not to distort the accuracy of the data and increase the

participation rate, noname and job title of the participants were asked. Moreover, the use of the data for scientific purposes and strict confidentiality about anything revealing the identity of the participant

were emphasized. This helped to ease the hesitation of participants and convinces them to participate

to the survey. The quantitative data were generated using questionnaires that were distributed to the

respondents by the researcher. After duration of time set between the researcher and the respondents,

questionnaires were collected by the researcher and the research assistants from the respective

campuses were distributed.

2.4. Theoretical framework of the research

2.4.1. Antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

From the figure 1 the first two boxes indicate the common antecedents for the occurrence of

OCB. As a result, the researcher considered those antecedents as the independent variable of the study.

2.4.1.1. Job Satisfaction and OCB

The debate on the relationship between satisfaction and performance has a long-lasting history.

In fact, as Bateman and Organ (1983) rightly pointed out, any notion that satisfaction “causes” performance is regarded as naive folk wisdom, not supportable by the empirical research (p. 587). The

meta-analysis by Bowling (2007) also demonstrated that the casual relationship between job satisfaction and performance is spurious. However, Organ (1977) proposed that the lack of empirical

support for such a relationship stems from the definition of performance. Prior research that

investigated the link between satisfaction and performance failed because of measurement of wrong

kind of performance (Moorman, 1993; Van Dick, Grojean, Christ, &Wieseke, 2006). Instead of

traditional measures of performance of in-role performance, such as quality and quantity, discretionary

extra-role performance such as OCBs should be focused in order to understand the

relationshipbetween work attitudes and performance. Organ (1988) suggested that job satisfactionand

OCB were linked in a robust bond. Following Organ’s suggestion, the first attitude whose relationship

with OCB investigated was job satisfaction (Moorman, Niehoff, & Organ, 1993).

According to Organ (1990), the basis of the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB is social

exchange theory which states that when certain conditions are present people reciprocate those who

benefit them. Blau (1964) suggested that the link between employee and organization is based on

exchange relationship and he identified two types of exchange relationship: social and economic. As cited by Coyle-Shapiro (2002) what is central to social exchange theory is the norm reciprocity


(Gouldner, 1960) according to which people feel obliged to respond positively to favorable treatment

of others.

2.4.1.2. Organizational Commitment and OCB

From 30 years the concept of organizational commitment is evolving. (Putterill&Rohrer, 1995).

Organizational commitment of the employees get positively influences if there are opportunities to work challenging tasks. (Chew & Chan, 2007). According to Parish, Cadwallader& Busch (2008).

Employees commit more positively to the change occurring at workplace only when they judge the

role autonomy. Depending upon the level of attachment of an individual the consequences of

commitment varies accordingly (O’Reilly &Chatman, 1986).

2.4.2. OCB and its dimensions

Organ (1988) identified a multiple dimension of OCB based on prior research (Bateman &

Organ, 1983; Smith et al., 1983). There are five dimensions that compose the OCB construct. The five dimensions of OCB are altruism, civic virtue, courtesy, sportsmanship, and conscientiousness. Organ

(1988a, p. 11) distinguishes it by stating that, anyone who has served as a supervisor or administrator knows immediately how sportsmanship contributes toorganizational effectiveness: it maximizes the

total amount of stamina- especially the stamina of administrators that can be devoted to constructive

purposes. Organ’s new conceptualization adds sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue to the original

two OCB factors, and changes the label generalized compliance to conscientiousness. Organ (1988a,

p.10) explained this change, the researcher own view now is that compliance too often connotes servile obedience to authority figures and fails to convey what is justas likely to be inner-directed, even

nonconformist in character. A sample items to measure each dimensions of OCB

• Altruism: “I help others who have heavy workloads.”

• Civic virtue: “I keep abreast of changes in the organization.”

• Courtesy: “I try to avoid creating problems for co- workers.”

• Conscientiousness: “I believe in giving an honest day’s work for an honestday’s pay.”

• Sportsmanship: “I am the classic “squeaky wheel” that always needsgreasing.”

3. Data Analysis And Interpretation

For quantitative data, management was begun with coding of the instruments. The data

wasbeing checked, cleaned, polished, recorded and labelled using an SPSS (Statistical Package for

Social Scientists) adopted for windows version 20. From a total of 314 questions distributed the

respondents were return 297 of them therefore the analysis based on the 297 respondents. a number of

tests will be conducted and these include; descriptive statistics which will be involved computation of

the mean, standard deviation and scale end points among others. The researcher was used Pearson

correlation coefficient to test the relationships between the study variables. Regression analysis was

determined by the analytical tools of (SPSS) program.

3.1. Demographic of respondents

The demographics consider in this study are campus, work experience, qualification, marital

status, sex and age. Table 2 shows the frequency and percentage of demographic characteristics of

respondents.


The descriptive statistics related to campus, work experience, qualification, marital status, sex and age of the 297 participants is given in detail in table2 . There are 14.4 % who are employed less

than 1 year, 21.2% teachers are employed 1 year to2 years, 20.9 % are employed 3 years to 4 years and 19.9 % are employed 5 years to 6 years, 26.6% teachers employed for more than 6 years. The table

also represents 29.7 % of teachers holding the Bachelor’s degree are GA-I, GA-II and assistance

lecturer, 53.9 % of teachers holding the Master’s degree, 16.7% of teachers holding above masters

either assistance professors or Doctoral degree. According to the table among the 297 teachers 26.9 %

are from main campus and 9.1 % are from agriculture campus, 20.5 % are from health science, 11.1%,

24.9% and 7.4% from Wendo Genet, IOT and Awada campus. According to the table, 54.9% of

teachers are unmarried and 45.1% are married. 74.4% respondents are males and females represent

25.6% of the total respondents. In the selected sample, mostly teachers are young as the table shows

that there are 56.9 % of teachers who are in between the age of 20 to 30, 23.6% in between 31 to 35

years, 13.8% teachers ages are 35 years above.


3.2. Correlation between major variables with demographics

The correlation matrix illustrated by table 3 shows the bivariate correlationsbetween the

variables of interest. When the association between demographicvariables was considered, there is no such significant relationship of demographicvariables with job satisfaction, organizational commitment

and OCB. The relation with organizational commitment and OCBwas positive with (r=.246 p=0.01).

Besides, as expected, age was found to bepositively correlated with work experience with (r=.263

p=0.01).Anotherdemographic variable, gender, was not significantly associated with

organizationalcommitment and.

Table 4 is showing the mean, standard deviation and correlation valuesbetween the

independent and dependent variables. Mean and standard deviationof OCB is 3.387 and 0.549. Then there isorganizational commitment its mean and standard deviation is 3.093 and 0.425 andthe


correlation value between OCB and OC is .337(**). Then job satisfaction means and standard

deviation value is 3.108 and 0.795 thecorrelation value job satisfaction and OCB is .246(**). So, these

values show thepositive relationship among the variables.

Table 5 shows that the regression analysis. In this case job satisfaction andorganizational

commitment are the independent variables and OCB is the dependentvariable. The r square value is

.367 and the significance is .000 t values also varysignificance so it proves that job satisfaction and organizational commitment have thepositive impact on the OCB.

4. Discussion

4.1. Job satisfaction as an antecedent of OCB

The correlation value between job satisfaction and OCB is .246 and the beta value is .152

which shows significant relationship between the job satisfaction and OCB. It indicates that OCB of the university teachers increase as they have been provided with more job satisfaction mechanisms.

The association between job satisfaction and OCB has been widely investigated in the literature and job satisfaction was suggested as a robust predictor of OCB (e.g., Bateman & Organ 1983; Moorman,

Niehoff, & Organ, 1993; Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ, 1990). Bateman and Organ (1983) and Smith,

Organ, and Near (1983) pointed out that to the extent job satisfaction represents a positive mood state,

satisfied employees engage in citizenship behaviors. As a result of the study conducted by two samples

from a university, Bateman and Organ (1983) found that the relationship between job satisfaction and

OCB was considerably stronger than the results suggested by research that investigated the link

between performance and job satisfaction. Although the value of correlation in this study is positive

but it low which shows that the job satisfaction mechanisms are not that much high that can facilitate

the university teachers in raising OCB. The job satisfaction mechanisms are very important in

motivating teachers; universities spend in job satisfaction of employees in order toattain their goal and objectives. In the case of teachers, the value increases more because teachers are the one who develop

the students on which the future of the nation depends. So, for improving the quality of education there should be the number of job satisfaction mechanisms that assist the teachers in developing their

motivation and morals which ultimately can enhance the student learning requirements.

4.2. Organizational commitment as an antecedent of OCB

The results reveal that the organizational commitment and OCB are very closely associated with each other. The correlation value between OC and OCB is 0.337** and the beta value is 0.288

which indicates the positive relationship between the organizational commitment and OCB. As an

important predictor of OCB, the link between organizational commitment and OCB has been

examined in the literature. Its relations with performance, prosaically behaviors, and OCB have been

widely studied (e.g., Becker &Kernan, 2003; Schappe, 1998; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Lavelle, Brockner,

Konovsky, Price, Henley, Taneja, &Vinekar, 2008). In their meta-analysis, Organ and Ryan (1995)


found strong correlations between organizational commitment and two forms of OCB (i.e., altruism

and generalized compliance). Meyer and colleagues (2002) also found strong correlations between

OCB and organizational commitment.In Hawassa University context OCB of teachers are moderate as the results reveal this and it is due to their level of organizational commitment. Due to the high OCB

teachers are very cooperative, supportive and compassionate in solving the student’s problems and understanding their learning power and according to that the teachers deliver the education which is

outrival the quality level of education which is advantageous for the universities. OCB is the result of

the organizational commitment. (Foote et al., 2005). So, the question is confirmed by the results that

organizational commitment as an antecedent of OCB and as the organizational commitment of the

universities teachers increases the OCB also magnifies.

4.3. Conclusion

The main aim of this research was to study the impact of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on University teacher OCB. The result of the study shown that, the selected antecedents

which are job satisfaction and organizational commitment have a direct and positive impact on the OCB of teachers. Which means the enhancement of one antecedent causes the enhancement in the

university performance. The value of R square of the model in which the impact of job satisfaction and

organizational commitment are analyzed on the OCB is 0.367 which shows the model fitness is good

and appropriate and it also shows that the impact of independent variables on OCB. When aggregated

over time and people, organizational citizenship behaviors enhance organizational effectiveness in several ways, such as improving coworker and managerial productivity, ability of the organization to

adapt the environmental changes, and resource utilization.Knowing the positive consequences of OCB

on University managers should pay attention to the means of improving job scope, job satisfaction, and

organizational commitment in order to improve teachers’ engagement in OCBs. Today it becomes

crucial to have the workforce that have the higher level of OCB especially the teachers because it

affects the quality of education and this OCB can be develop if there is high level of job satisfaction

and organizational commitment.

4.4. Implications for Future Research

The study intended to analyses the effects of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on OCB of university teachers. Only two antecedents that are job satisfaction and organizational

commitment are analyzed whereas there can be other antecedents too that can play a very significant

role in enhancing the OCB of teachers for example training and development opportunities,

empowerment, compensation and supervisor support so a number of antecedents can be tested in

Hawassa University teachers. As suggested by many researchers, the positive outcomes of OCB have

been measured in terms of financial performance such as profitability and return of investment.

However, there may be other measures to understand the positive effect of citizenship behavior on

organizational effectiveness. Therefore, future research may measure organizational effectiveness by

focusing on a different aspect of the organizational performance suchas customer satisfaction,

customer retention, and product and service quality. Inconclusion, future studies that encompass other

antecedents of OCB should be carriedout within different work settings in order to enrich literature on

OCB.

References

Allen, T.D. & Rush, M.C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance

judgments: a field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 247 - 60.

Barnard C.I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bateman, T.S. & Organ, D.W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between

affect and employee "citizenship." Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595.


Becker, T.E &Kernan, M.C. (2003). matching commitment to supervisors and organizations to in-role

and extra-role performance. Human Performance, 16(4), 327- 348.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley

Bowling, N. A. (2007). Is the job satisfaction-job performance relationship spurious? A meta analytic

examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71,167-185.

Bowling, N. A. (2010). Effects of job satisfaction and conscientiousness on extra-role behaviors.

Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(1)1, 119-130.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A-M. (2002). A psychological contract perspective on organizational citizenship

behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 927-946.

Farh, J.L., Podsakoff, P.M., & Organ, D.W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship

behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, 76, 705 721.

Finkelstein, M. A. & Penner, L. A. (2004). Predicting organizational citizenship behavior: Integrating

the functional and role identity approaches. Social Behavior and Personality, 32,383-398.

Foote.D.A., Seipel.S.J., Johnson.N.B., &Duffy.M.K. (2005). Employee commitment and

organizational policies. Management Decision, 43(2), 203-219.

Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.

Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., &Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the criterion domain? A

quantitative review of OCB literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 555-566.

Karambayya, R. (1990). Contextual predictors of organizational citizenship behavior.

Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131 146.

Katz, D. & Kahn, R.L. (1966). The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley

Koys, D.J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and

turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 54,

101-114.

Kanter, R. M. (1989). The new managerial work. Harvard Business Review, 4,85-92.

Lavelle, J.J., Brocken, J., Konovsky, M.A., Price, K.H., Henley, A.B., Taneja, A., &Vinekar, V.

(2008). Commitment, procedural fairness, and organizational citizenship behavior: A multifocal

analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 337-357.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P.M., &Ahearne, M. (1998). Some possible antecedents and

consequences of in-role and extra-role salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 62, 8798.

Moorman, R.H. (1993). The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction measures on the

relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Relations, 46, 759-

776.

Moorman, R.H., Niehoff, B.P., & Organ, D.W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and organizational

citizenship behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and

procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 6(3), 209-225.

Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and

normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and

consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52.

Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of OCB .Research in Organizational Behavior, 12,43-72.

Organ, D.W. & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of

organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 8, 775-802

O'Reilly, C. & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The

effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 71, 492-499.


Organ, D.W. (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causes performance

hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 2, 46-53.

Organ, D.W. (1988a). Organizational citizenship behavior. The good soldier syndrome. Lexington,

MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D.W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. Human

Performance, 10(2), 85-97.

Organ, D.W. &Lingl, A. (1995). Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior.The

Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 339-350.

Odhiambo.G.(2008). Elusive search for quality education: The case of quality assurance and teacher

accountability. International Journal of Educational Management,22(5), 417 – 431

Organ,D. W. Podsakoff, P. M., &MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its

nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M., & Blume, B.D. (2009). Individual- and

organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta- analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 94, 122-141.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship

behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future

research. Journal of Management, 26(3),513-563.

Schappe, S.P. (1998). The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and fairness

perceptions on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Psychology, 132(3), 277-290.

Sajeva, S. (2007). Identifying factors affecting motivation and loyalty of knowledge workers.

Economics and Management, 12, 643-652.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and

antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68,653-663.

Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and

antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.

Smith, K. G., Carroll, S. J., & Ashford, S. J. (1995). Intra- and Inter organizational cooperation:

Toward a research agenda. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1),7-23.

Snow, C. C., Miles, R. E. &Coleman,H. J. (1992). Managing 21st century network organizations.

Organizational Dynamics, 21(3), 5-20.

Van Dick, R., Grojean, M., Christ, O., &Wieseke, J. (2006). Identity and the extra mile: relationships

between organizational identification and organizational citizenship behavior. British Journal of

Management, (17), 283-301.

Walz, S.M. &Niehoff, B.P. (1996) Organizational citizenship behaviors and their effect on

organizational effectiveness in limited-menu restaurants. In J. B. Keys & L. N. Dosier (Eds.), Best

papers proceedings 1996, Academy of Management.

Documents

University teachers’ organizational citizenship behavior