Counterproductive Behaviours and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour: A literature review

In this literature review, closer looks is taken at specific behaviours people in an organisation

tend to adopt, such as counterproductive behaviours, organisational citizenship, and the

reasons why people adopt those behaviours, and how to influence or shape negative

behaviours in a way that meets organisational objectives. Also, the role of communications

between employees and managers will be discussed as a way to avoid such negative work

behaviours.

Prof (Mrs)TAZEENTAJ MAHAT

Asst Prof , Global Business School, Bhairidevarkoppa

HUBLI-580 025

9480049567,tazeentaj@gmail.com,mahat@globalbschool.in

Prof (Miss)TEJASHWINI PATIL

Lecturer, Global Business School, Bhairidevarkoppa

HUBLI-580 025

teju@globalbschool.in

Counterproductive work behaviours can be viewed as a form of protest in which

organisational members express dissatisfaction with or attempt to resolve injustice within the

organisation (Kelloway, Francis, Prosser & Cameron 2009)

Common forms of counterproductive behaviours may include ineffective job performance,

absenteeism, turnover, unsafe behaviours and it may even include criminal activity and sexual

harassment, which clearly have very negative consequences and can be very destructive and

costly to the organisation.

For example, organisations set goals and objectives that they (with help of employees) want

to achieve, whether in the short or the long term. These objectives may include, profitability,

safe workplace, the reputation of being socially responsible, and so on. According to Jex’s

definition of counterproductive behaviour, any employee who hinders the achievement of

organisational objectives is being counterproductive. Counterproductive behaviour is also a

result of the inner motive of the employee. For instance, a retail employee who steals

merchandise from his/her employer is obviously doing it intentionally and most likely, for a

personal gain. On the other hand, it is entirely possible for an employee to engage in

counterproductive behaviour without intending to. For example, an employee who is poorly

trained or lacking in ability may want very badly to perform well, but may not accomplish

that goal (Jex 2002).

Based on the definition provided by Kelloway, Francis, Prosser and Cameron,

counterproductive behaviour (whether it was intentionally or unintentionally done) occurs

with no doubt, in most (if not all) organisations, and in many forms.

Poor job performance is a common example of counterproductive work behaviours. It is often

difficult for an organisation to recognise poor performance and in which level of the

organisation it is actually occurring. It simply consumes a lot of time to detect it, and difficult

to measure. And sometimes, managers of an organisation take poor performance as an

intentional action, while in some cases, it is not.

The level of training and the technologies adopted highly influence the level of productivity

of an employee. If an employee does not receive adequate training, he/ she will not be able to

be productive enough.

It can also be caused by low self-esteem or negative psychological effects. For example, a

teacher, regularly getting negative comments about his/her teaching performance or

capabilities. Eventually, this teacher will lose motivation to perform well (Jex 2002).

Causes of counterproductive behaviours may not be clear for some organisations.

Therefore, managers should try to closely examine employee behaviours, to collect more

information about the actual atmosphere of the work, and the consistency of a particular

behaviour, because often, managers do not have a clear vision of the day-to-day work, and the

day-to-day communications or relationships between employees, until, they come to realise

the existence of counterproductive behaviours or actions.

Communications between employees and their employers can prevent all forms of

counterproductive behaviours. In general terms, communication can be described as a process

which conveys information between people (Rollinson 1993).

In some organisations, employees do not get to hear about even minor matters which affect

them until they are overtaken by events. This can result in employees, developing extremely

poor opinion of management, and they sometimes, impute a negative motive for them, being

“kept in the dark”. Ineffective or inadequate communications or flow of information can

quickly lead to speculations and rumours.

It is better to regard effective communication as a process which allows the differences

between employees and managers to surface and be dealt with. More optimistically, it will

perhaps go further by helping employees and managers to better understand each other’s

viewpoint and find mutually accepted solutions to their differences ( Rollinson 1993).

Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) is one other common positive behaviour

adopted by employees who are happy about their work. It is defined as the individual

behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognised by the formal reward

system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organisation

(Maharaj & Schelcheter 2007). That is, the employee voluntarily adopts this behaviour and

not required or compulsory as part of their job.

Organ (1988) identified five categories of OCB: (1) altruism -- the helping of an individual coworker on a task (2) courtesy -- alerting others in the organization about changes that

may affect their work, (3) conscientiousness -- carrying out one’s duties beyond the minimum requirements, (4) sportsmanship -- refraining from complaining about trivial matters, and (5) civic virtue -- participating in the governance of the organization

Each dimension of OCB offers a different rationale for this relationship. Altruism or helping coworkers makes the work system more productive because one worker can utilize his or her slack time to assist another on a more urgent task. Acts of civic virtue may include offering suggestions for cost improvement or other resource saving ideas, which may directly influencing efficiency. To a lesser extent, conscientiousness employees, as well as those who avoid personal gain or other negative behaviors, demonstrate compliance with company policies and maintain predictable, consistent work schedules, increasing the reliability of the service. As reliability increases, the costs of rework are reduced, making the unit more efficient (Berry & Parasuraman, 1991). 2.2. Job satisfaction Smith (1983) and Bateman and Organ (1983) conducted the first research on the antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behavior, finding job satisfaction to be the best predictor. After 17 years of research, job satisfaction is still the leading predictor of OCB (Organ & Ryan, 1995). This is problematic because, descriptively, job satisfaction is in and of itself a challenging outcome sought by organizational managers. The resulting implications are restricted to suffice that OCB is likely when workers are satisfied. There are just as many questions regarding the antecedents of job satisfaction as there are questions about the antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors. But according toPenner, Midili & Kegelmeyer, (1997) the job satisfaction is not only one reason for the accurate prediction of OCB 2.3. Motivation Motivation is another observation for understating OCB. Three motive paradigms are often researched. Viewing OCB from these three motive paradigms, one can more easily account for the various approaches taken in prior OCB research. The altruistic path is covered quite well with the affiliation motive and part of the achievement motive, but the darker side is more clearly understood from the power motive. It is easy to see why OCB may correlate with ratings of performance and why. This motive-based view also helps make sense of the disparate findings of research seeking personality correlates of OCB (Organ, 1994). A wide variety of personality traits have been examined in research but results have been disappointing, as the only consistent correlation emerging is between the "big five" trait of conscientiousness and the OCB dimension of the same name. By viewing OCB as caused by multiple motives, one can see that different personality traits could predict OCB depending on the citizen's motive. It is possible, however, that there are indirect outcomes of OCB that are related to the employees' motives. For example, if OCB are exhibited for power motives, supervisors may reinforce such behaviors with extrinsic rewards, promotions, or more visible assignments. Supervisors may be oblivious to such motives, seeing only the observable behaviors. Coworkers, on the other hand, may see the behaviors from a different, more political viewpoint. As the power-oriented citizen gains support for such behaviors from above, other employees can become discouraged and disengaged, not wanting to "play politics" to get ahead. The resulting outcome may be a culture of distrust, gossip, complaints, or subtle

1

conflict, eroding cohesion and team building in the unit. Finally, the affiliation-oriented citizen may perform OCB to such a degree that the employee-employer relationship becomes dysfunctional. Similar to the concept of co-dependence in personal relationships, the dysfunctional relationship may cause more harm than good for the work environment. Motive-based theories of behavior suffer from lack of research methodologies that can validly measure the constructs. It may be necessary to approach research from an attribution point of view. That is, instead of asking subjects about their own motives, seek the opinions and perceptions of coworkers as to the motives of the target person. Such a research strategy may also begin to reveal the indirect effects of motive-based OCB. Since OCB have been found to be associated with effectiveness measures in organizations, their importance cannot be denied. 3. Summary

From the research above, Collectivism have a positive relationship with

subsequent organizational citizenship. Propensity to trust have a positive

relationship with subsequent organizational citizenship. Research generally agrees

that satisfied employees deliver satisfied customers. The main two reasons for this is

that if employees are happy and satisfied about their job, they will display friendliness

to customers, which in turn, encourages customers to be loyal to that specific

organisation. The second reason is that if the organisation succeeded in keeping its

employees satisfied, employees are less likely to quit their jobs, eventually, employees

gain better knowledge and skills and better serve customers. This also means that

there’s a consistent service, because customers are served by the same employees.

(McShane and Travaglione 2007)

Happy employees are more likely to develop a sense of meaning and belonging to the

organisation, and more likely to do volunteer things altruistically. For example, helping

other employees, performing extra duties, and so on.

Job characteristics (that is, the attributes of a particular job) may affect OCB through

employees' perceptions, for example, the sense of responsibility, commitment of

completing a task, etc… regarding the motivating potential inherent in job

characteristics (Chen and Chiu 2009). An employee who’s more committed to

completing his/her tasks, is more likely to value and understand the workplace

environment and the relationships among other members of the organisation, creating

a sense of meaningfulness of the job, and as a result, enhancing OCB.

2

Chen and Chiu suggest that employees with motivation and commitment to their

organisation, are more likely to display higher job involvement (that is, the extent in

which an employee is committed and involved with his/her job), and are more willing

to put more effort to fulfil their duties and might as well, fulfil extra duties.

Employees who demonstrate a sense of identity towards their organisation are more

likely to perform well, considering their work as the center of their self-concept.

Based on a research, adopted by Maharaj and Schechter (2007) management should

focus more on OCB to gain a competitive advantage, and promote the display of

OCB.

From the different opinions used in this literature review, it can be clearly seen that all

the different authors have agreed upon the different types of organisational behaviours

and their causes. Kelloway, Francis, Prosser and Cameron have agreed with Jex on the

definition of counterproductive behaviour and the forms it can take, whether it is done

intentionally or unintentionally. While Rollinson stated that the causes of such

behaviours are unclear unless communications between supervision and employees

take place to minimise conflicts, achieve convergence of views and keep employees

updated about what happens in the organisation. Maharaj and Scheltcher defined

Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) as the individual’s discretionary

behaviour towards the organisation that is not recognised by the organisation’s reward

system. They pointed out that such behaviours are beneficial to the organisation as

employees are more willing to help other employees, might as well get extra work

done, and so on. They also claimed that management should focus more on OCB to

gain a competitive advantage.

Chen and Chiu suggested that employees who show commitment and job involvement

are more likely to better understand the environment of the organisation and the

relationships among other employees and with their supervisors.

Job satisfaction is one other indicator of employee’s OCB. According to the Free

3

Management Library, job satisfaction is one's feelings or state-of-mind regarding the

nature of their work. Chen and Chui suggested that the fulfilment of job

characteristics and employee perceptions creates an inner motivation to put more

effort into their work, have more commitment towards the organisation, become more

satisfied and eventually more involved with their job, creating OCB.

Dawis pointed out the importance of distinguishing between the two different types of

job satisfaction (Intrinsic and Extrinsic satisfaction). He also suggested that the

fulfilment of job characteristics and employee perceptions creates an inner motivation

to put more effort into their work, have more commitment towards the organisation

and eventually become more involved with their job, creating OCB.

When two experienced figures have different views and ideas about the same point

(i.e. the organisational behaviours in an organisation), they are actually putting these

ideas and views out of their experience and feedback individually, and each one of

them has definitely different reaction and perception according to firstly their

satisfactions and secondly to the different environments where they gained these

views. Even if they agree about a certain point in this regard, they may differ in the

means or methods used to achieve same results, because there might be different

methodologies leading to same outcomes, and each one of these figures may suggest

different methodology but both agree to achieve same outcomes. Ultimately, having

these differences between the two will impact positively on the overall knowledge and

will rise further discussions of how and what is the best way to meet the goals.

In any organisation, whether employers or employees all need to have a reasonable

exposure to organisational behaviours to achieve the planned objectives of their

organisation. The behaviours of the employees are based on their perceptions, hence,

4

it is important that management of an organisation understands these perceptions by

discussions, listening and communications. This will reduce conflict between

managers and their employees be holding circular meetings together, and having

mutual feedbacks. It is ideal to hold these meetings in order to reinforce the certain

behaviours desired to see increase. Furthermore, improving social relationships

between employees would enhance the team work which is crucial in supporting and

implementing the planned organisational objectives.CONCLUSIONThe review of the recent

literature on OCB has distinguished between various dimensions of OCBand has examined the relationships

between them.

Based on the discussion on OCB dimensions, the concept of OCB has been articulated. Thereafter, ahost of antecedents for OCB was identified and armed with these antecedents a theoreticalframework for OCB is suggested.Antecedents to OCB are the factors that enhance or impede the level of employees’ performance in an organization. It is revealed from the various empirical studies that there is a positive relationship between OCB and the performance of the organization (Cardona, Lawrence, & Bentler,2004[58]; Hodson, 2002)[59]. For practicing managers, the main implication of the current studyis that knowing the antecedents managers could be better able to foster employees’ OCB. Apart fromthe traditional measures of employee productivity, it is important for managers to monitor that set ofwork behaviors that goes beyond the role

description but also are important contributors to Organizations want and need employees who will do those things that aren’t in any job description. And the evidence indicates that those organizations that have such employees outperform those that don’t. As a result, some human subject studies are concerned with organizational citizenship behavior as a dependent variable.

Organizational citizenship behaviors have often been conceptualized as inherently a socially desirable class of behaviors. It has been the purpose of this paper to strip away any biases and attributions for social desirability and to examine the behaviors in their strictlyobservable form. In doing so, a variety of motives can be examined as potential reasons why employees might exhibit OCB. Achievement, affiliation, and power are not new ideas, but the application of these motives to the study of OCB does provide a new lens through which to view OCB. Much research is still needed to validate the ideas expressed in this paper. As defined by Organ (1988), OCB reflects a “good soldier syndrome” which is so necessary for the prosperity and good functioning of every organization. It means doing a better job, making an effort above and beyond formal requirements, and filling the gap between procedures and regulations on the one hand, and dynamic reality on the other. OCB is usually perceived as exerting exceptionally good behaviors for the sake of the organization and informally supporting its members. To date, and as far as we could find, no study has investigated the meaning and implications of OCB behaviors in the third sector. Obviously, such behaviors are important to private organizations since they affect their competitiveness and profitability. must be committed to increasing OCB among their paid employees. Thus, OCB represent a powerful element of free-will conduct, most relevant in third-sector organizations, which highlight values of voluntary personal actions especially among paid employees. Consequentlyit is interesting to examine how OCB is manifested in interpersonal relationships within work units of the non-profit sector.

5

Organizational citizenship is discretionary behavior that is not part of an

employee’s formal job requirements, but that nevertheless promotes the effective

functioning of the organization. (Robbins, 1996). Successful organizations need

employees who will do more than their usual job duties and provide performance

that is beyond expectations. In short, in order to reach that goal, fill full

employees job satisfaction, understand they motivation and create suitable work

environments are most important thing in management reality.

6

References:

Jex, S.M, 2002, Organisational Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, INC, New York

Kelloway E, Franicis C, Prosser M & Cameron J, 2009, Counterproductive work

behaviour as protest, Department of Psychology, Saint Mary’s University, NS,

Canada, 7 Aug 2009. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?

_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4J-4W55T39-

1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&

_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d9f92ca3c4f

ee695994118e8172227d6

Rollinson D, 1993, Understanding Employee Relations, Addison-Wesley, UK

Maharaj I, Schelchter A, 2007, ‘Management Dynamics’, MEANING IN LIFE

AND MEANING OF WORK: RELATIONSHIPS with ORGANISATIONAL

CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR, COMMITMENT, AND JOB SATISFACTION,

Vol.16, Iss.3, P24, 18 pgs.

McShane S, Travaglione T, 2007, Organisational Behaviour, 2nd Edition,

McGraw-Hill Australia ptd ltd, NSW, Australia, Alisa Brackley du Bois.

Chen C.c, Chiu S.F, 2009, ‘The Journal of Social Psychology’, THE MEDIATING

7

ROLE of JOB INVOLVEMENT AND ORGANISATIONAL CITIZENSHIP

BEHAVIOUR, Vol.149, iss.4, Pg.474, 21 pgs.

Free Management Library, 2008, Job Satisfaction, Free Management Library,

Minnesota, 8 Aug 2009, http://managementhelp.org/prsn_wll/job_stfy.htm

Dawis R, 1992, Job Satisfaction, Lawrence K. Jones, 8 Aug 2009,

http://www.careerkey.org/asp/career_options/job_satisfaction.html

R. Hannam & N. Jimmieson. The relationship between extra-role behaviours and job burnout forprimary school teachers: A preliminary model and development of an organisational citizenshipbehaviour scale. Presented at AARE Conference, December 1-5. Retrieved June 25, 2004, fromwww.aare.edu.au/02pap/han02173.htm (2002)

B. P. Niehoff. A motive-based view of organizational citizenship behavior: applying anold lens to a new class of organizational behaviors. Paper presented at the 28th Annual NationalAgricultural Education Research Conference.Retrieved July 10, 2004, from www.sba.muohio.edu/management/mwAcademy/2000/3c.pdf (2001) [58] P. Carrdona, B. Lawrence, & P. Bentler. The

8

9