testing reliability of organizational citizenship...

http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/index.asp 55 [email protected]

International Journal of Management (IJM) Volume 6, Issue 9, Sep 2015, pp. 55-66, Article ID: IJM_06_09_007 Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JTypeIJM&VType=6&IType=9 ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510 © IAEME Publication Journal Impact Factor (2015): 7.9270 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

___________________________________________________________________________

TESTING RELIABILITY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP

BEHAVIOR SCALE (OCBS) FOR NON-

TEACHING STAFF IN ACADEMICS

Ms. Niharika Singh

Skill Development centre, Second Floor, Department of Law building, Opposite PUMBA, Savitribai Phule Pune University Campus, Ganeshkhind,

Pune – 411007

Dr. Bajrang D. Kolekar

Principal, Rajaram Shinde Institute of Management

Chiplun, India

ABSTRACT

Organizational citizenship Behaviours is being researched for last three decades by the researchers. It is sometimes compared with the prosocial behaviour, organizational spontaneity, extra role behaviour and contextual

performance. Dennis Organ (1997), father of OCB has defined OCB as, “Individual Behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly

recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization.”

Different scales has been devised by the researchers to measure different

Organizational citizenship behaviour for different types of respondents. The current study aims to test the reliability of standardized questionnaire while

measuring the Organizational Citizenship Behaviour of the non – teaching staff in the academic sector. Doing this, test shall prove the relevance of the current scale for non – teaching staff that will surely direct the future

researchers to develop a new scale for non – teaching staff.

Key words: Organizational citizenship behaviour scale, Non – teaching staff

and reliability

Cite this Article: Ms. Singh. N. and Dr. Kolekar, B. D Testing Reliability of Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale (OCBS) for Non-Teaching Staff in

Academics, 6(9), 2015, pp. 55-66. http://www.iaeme.com/IJM/issues.asp?JTypeIJM&VType=6&IType=9

Ms. Niharika Singh and Dr. Bajrang D. Kolekar


1. INTRODUCTION

Organizational citizenship behavior concept was first identified by Dennis Organ, who is considered to be the father of Organizational citizenship behavior in the year

1988. He has defined as “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.”

Organizational Citizenship Behavior are the explicit behaviours exhibited by employees that shows their sacrifices, their commitment and the prosperity of the

organization. They defined them as “good soldiers” who act selflessly . According to Jon L. Pierce et.al. (2002), OCBs have these key features in comments:

They are voluntary on the part of the employee.

They are intentional ; the employee consciously, decides to perform them.

They are intended to be positively valued by the employee and the organization.

The behavior primarily benefits the organization (or co-workers) and not the employees themselves.

They also agree with opinion of the researchers having the types of OCB as Altruism, Compliance, Courtesy, Sportsmanship and Civic Virtue. In a research by

Van Dyne people exhibiting OCB shall demonstrate Organizational Obedience, Loyalty and Participation. They also gave some measres to measure one’s own level

of OCB. They also gave concept of convenatal relationship that talks about mutual benefits. As far as the determinants of OCBs are concerned, they gave two types : attitudinal ( like Job satisfaction, Fairness, Commitment & Leader supportiveness ) or

dispositional (Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Positive & Negative Affectivity )

Another interesting finding by Organ & Ryan that employee moral can be the best

predictor of whether employee will display OCB. Different management practices has direct or indirect effects on employee attitudes. Thus it shows that conducive practices or environment shall be a trigger for the high employee morale which in turn can led

to exhibition of OCB.

There was also a great curiosity among the researchers regarding why the people

should engage in such kind of activity. Hence, John W. Newstrom (2009) has talked about few reasons behind these ‘good soldiers’ engage in these actions:

Their personality disposes them to do so.

They hope that by doing so they will receive special recognition or rewards.

They are attempting to engage in image enhancement through managing the impressions that others forms of them.

There are different types of OCB which Fred Luthans (2011) has found as Loyalty OCBs, Service Delivering OCB, Participation OCBs that though all are undetected by

the reward system but they all lead to high performance and increases effectiveness.

Apart from the above mentioned adjectives OCBs has also been called as “ House

keeping behavior” by Gregory Moorhead & Ricky W. Griffin (2008) where apart from dos, they have mentioned about the don’t’s like finding fault with others, expressing displeasure, starting arguments and complaining about non – significant

things. They have also mentioned about the probable factors affecting OCB like Working condition, pay etc. Another term used for OCB was Prosocial Behavior by

Latest Marketing Techniques: Nexa the Next Generation Showrooms of Maruti Suzuki


Jerald Greenberg, Robert A. Baron (1999). Prosocial Behavior is defined as the action performed by individuals or groups that assist others without expecting a favour in

return.

Just as the employees have their own reasons to exhibit such behavior, similarly

employers also need their employees to engage in Organizational Citizenship Behavior. According to Steven L. McShane et.al. (2010), “Various forms of cooperation and helpfulness to other that support the organization’s social and

psychological context.” And thus OCB take many forms: Some are directed towards individuals which is known as Organizational citizenship behavior of individual

(OCBI) and Organizational citizenship behavior of organization (OCBO).

2. MEASURES OF OCB

Different measures have been designed and developed by researchers.The researchers

have the benefit of applying the diverse variety of culture specific scales.

The first scale was designed by Bateman and Organ (1983) which was used to

measure Organizational citizenship behaviour. According to them, “OCB include any of those gestures (often taken for granted) that lubricate the social machinery of the organization but that do not directly inhere in the usual notion of task performance.”

This scale was a 30 item OCB scale that comprises of variety of types of OCB like cooperation, altruism, compliance, punctuality, housecleaning, protecting company

property, conscientiously following company rules and dependability.

A 16-item scale was developed by Smith, Organ and Near (1983). According to them, “Citizenship Behaviors comprise a dimension if individual and group

functioning… The latter was regarded as a function of the formal organizationand the logic of facts.” This scale comprises of two factors namely Altruism and Generalized

Compliance.

The third scale was given by Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman, and fetter (1990), they identified the following five factors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior:

Altruism, Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship, Courtesy and Civic virtue.

Fourth scale was developed by Williams and Anderson (1991) that defined that

the Organizational citizenship Behavior has two broad categories : “ a) OCBO – behaviours that benefit the organization in general (eg. Gives advance notice when unable to come to work, adheres to informal rules devised to maintain order ), and b)

OCBI – behaviours that immediately benefit specific individuals and indirectly through this means contribute to the organization ( e.g. helps others who have been

absent, takes a personal interest in other employees)” This is a fourteen item scale with seven items on OCBO and seven items on OCBI.

Now there was a time for extension of basic domains of OCB and then Podsakoff

and MacKenzie (1994) came with a 14 item scale which identified the two new forms of OCB namely peacekeeping and cheerleading along with the other conventional

forms like Altruism, Courtesy, Civic Virtues and sportsmanship. In their words, “ Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCBs) are discretionary behaviours on the part of a salesperson that are believed to directly promote the effective functioning of an

organization, without necessarily influencing a salesperson’s objective sales productivity.”

Another scale of OCB designed by by Van dyne, Graham and Dienesch (1994) serves the need for Political science literature. They defined the fundamental categories as follows: “ Organizational obedience reflects acceptance of the necessity



and desirability of national rules and regulations governing organizational structure, job description and personnel policies. “ This was a 34 item scale comprising items on

obedience, loyalty, social participation, Advocacy Participation and Functional Participation.

The Van Dyne’s scale act as theoretical foundation for Moorman and Blakely (1995) when they came out with another scale on OCB. It was a 19 item scale that comprises of items on Interpersonal Helping, Individual initiative, Personal industry

and Loyal Boosterism.

After so many research development in the western culture it was found that most

of the researches, findings and measures were influenced by the western culture hence this attreacted few researchers to design something that shall be applicable in china and may be in dfferent cultures. And hence Farh, Earley and Lin (1997) came out

with a global scale on OCB. This was a 20 item Chinese OCB scale comprising of items on Identification with the company, Altruism towards colleague,

Conscientiousness, Interpersonal Harmony and Protecting company resources.

Till 1999, there was interest in Indian research as well towards this area. Few scales were developed by some Indian researchers as well. A scale by Sharma Vivek,

Jain Sangeeta (2014) was developed for Manufacturing sector. It was a 36 item scale comprising of factors like altruism, Organizational compliance, Sportsmanship and

Loyalty. Similarly another scale

Developed by Bakhshi Arti and Kumar Kuldeep (2009) to measure OCB of employees in any Indian organization. It is a 30 item scale comprising of items on

Conscientiousness, Courtesy, Sportsmanship, Helping Co-workers and civic virtue.

Though the scale provided by Bakhshi Arti and Kumar Kuldeep (2009) claims to

be an appropriate tool for any employee in any of the Indian organization, hence the researcher tried to find out if the scale is relevant for the non teaching staff as well in the organization.

Following are the list of some measures along with their psychometric properties:

3. RATIONALE FOR PRESENT STUDY

The present study aims to verify the feasibility of already existing scale on the non teaching staff in academics by testing its reliability for the aforesaid purpose.

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1. Standardized Scale

A standardized scale developed by Dr. Aarti Bakhshi and Kuldeep Kumar (2009) has been adopted for this study. The scale comprises of 30 items . These 30 items can be

grouped into five sub factors.

It measures the five variables through different items in the following pattern:

Factor 1 - Conscientiousness is measured by items 1, 7, 10, 13, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22.

Factor 2 - Courtesy measured by Items 4, 8, 16, 18, 23 and 28.

Factor 3 – Sportsmanship is measured by Items 3, 6,24,27,29,30. All the items under

this factor are negative items.

Factor 4 – Helping co worker is measured by 2, 5, 9, 11and 25.

Factor 5 – civic virtue can be measured by 12, 14,15 and 26.



Table 1 Psychometric Properties of Various Scales

Source: Kumar Rajiv (2005), Organizational citizenship performance in Non – Governmental organizations development of a scale

According to Dr. Aarti Bakhshi & Kuldeep Kumar (2009) rating response in the questionnaire needs to be measured in points because once the data is collected, their

number can be reduced by combining the items but it cannot be increased later. Hence the 5 point likert scale is used for data collection ie Never (1), Rarely (2), Sometimes

(3), Frequently (4) and Always (5).

4.2. Sample characteristics and Collection of Data

The data was collected from the non – teaching staff of different institutes and colleges ie basically the academic sector. Among them 26% respondents are female

and 74% are males. The respondents comprises of people from various designation starting from Peon, Jr clerk, Sr. Clerk and Section Officers. Their mean age was 34

years.

The data was collected by administering the questionnaire to the respondents individually. Since some of the respondents couldn’t understand English hence the

researcher has assisted the respondents while filling the questionnaire in making them understand the components of the questionnaire.



5. DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION

5.1. Item total Correlation

Item total correlation shows how one item is related to other item that are expected to

be measuring a common construct by finding the correlation of an item to a score (sum) of the other items. If there is low correlation, it shows that the item doesn’t fit

best into the lsit of questions. Items with high correlation show high reliability and ensures the reliability of the proposed scale as well.

Table 2 Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

OCB1 108.74 102.654 .329 .691

OCB2 109.77 98.768 .372 .684

OCB3 111.39 108.438 -.062 .713

OCB4 109.87 96.573 .279 .691

OCB5 109.21 98.824 .445 .681

OCB6 111.68 112.288 -.278 .721

OCB7 109.26 94.457 .534 .670

OCB8 109.71 100.898 .168 .702

OCB9 108.85 102.979 .225 .695

OCB10 108.77 105.686 .142 .700

OCB11 108.94 101.963 .339 .689

OCB12 108.77 104.112 .236 .695

OCB13 109.18 100.148 .301 .689

OCB14 108.60 104.507 .340 .694

OCB15 109.73 97.022 .345 .685

OCB16 109.18 98.247 .325 .687

OCB17 108.81 100.159 .492 .682

OCB18 109.18 103.034 .181 .698

OCB19 108.84 101.088 .346 .688

OCB20 109.06 99.799 .361 .686

OCB21 109.02 103.655 .184 .698

OCB22 109.32 102.386 .236 .694

OCB23 109.26 99.637 .367 .685

OCB24 111.21 102.168 .168 .700

OCB25 109.73 99.022 .323 .687

OCB26 109.53 105.761 .041 .709

OCB27 110.81 99.109 .265 .692

OCB28 110.32 103.304 .096 .708

OCB29 110.71 107.685 -.044 .717



Table 2 Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted

OCB1 108.74 102.654 .329 .691

OCB2 109.77 98.768 .372 .684

OCB3 111.39 108.438 -.062 .713

OCB4 109.87 96.573 .279 .691

OCB5 109.21 98.824 .445 .681

OCB6 111.68 112.288 -.278 .721

OCB7 109.26 94.457 .534 .670

OCB8 109.71 100.898 .168 .702

OCB9 108.85 102.979 .225 .695

OCB10 108.77 105.686 .142 .700

OCB11 108.94 101.963 .339 .689

OCB12 108.77 104.112 .236 .695

OCB13 109.18 100.148 .301 .689

OCB14 108.60 104.507 .340 .694

OCB15 109.73 97.022 .345 .685

OCB16 109.18 98.247 .325 .687

OCB17 108.81 100.159 .492 .682

OCB18 109.18 103.034 .181 .698

OCB19 108.84 101.088 .346 .688

OCB20 109.06 99.799 .361 .686

OCB21 109.02 103.655 .184 .698

OCB22 109.32 102.386 .236 .694

OCB23 109.26 99.637 .367 .685

OCB24 111.21 102.168 .168 .700

OCB25 109.73 99.022 .323 .687

OCB26 109.53 105.761 .041 .709

OCB27 110.81 99.109 .265 .692

OCB28 110.32 103.304 .096 .708

OCB29 110.71 107.685 -.044 .717

OCB30 112.19 107.700 -.002 .706

Table 2 shows the correlation between each item and a scale score that excludes that item. Items with negative item total correlation are not the good items and do not

significantly correlate with the total score. Thus there are four items which are not significantly correlated but due to less number of items, the insignificant items has not been excluded.



To find out the important items out of the 30 items, these items were factor analyzed using principal component method. The factors were also rotated using

orthogonal rotation (Varimax). Ten factors having Eigen values of more than 1 with total variance of 71.661 was found.

Table 3 Total Variance Explained

Component

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of

Squared Loadings

Rotation Sums of S quared

Loadings

Total % of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

%

1 5.144 17.146 17.146 5.144 17.146 17.146 3.328 11.092 11.092

2 2.928 9.760 26.905 2.928 9.760 26.905 2.644 8.813 19.905

3 2.276 7.587 34.493 2.276 7.587 34.493 2.245 7.483 27.388

4 2.070 6.900 41.392 2.070 6.900 41.392 2.209 7.364 34.752

5 1.853 6.176 47.569 1.853 6.176 47.569 2.157 7.191 41.943

6 1.670 5.568 53.136 1.670 5.568 53.136 1.858 6.192 48.135

7 1.523 5.078 58.215 1.523 5.078 58.215 1.846 6.152 54.287

8 1.453 4.842 63.056 1.453 4.842 63.056 1.747 5.825 60.112

9 1.393 4.642 67.699 1.393 4.642 67.699 1.740 5.801 65.913

10 1.189 3.962 71.661 1.189 3.962 71.661 1.724 5.748 71.661

11 .941 3.137 74.798

12 .891 2.970 77.768

13 .834 2.780 80.548

14 .770 2.566 83.114

15 .695 2.318 85.432

16 .627 2.089 87.521

17 .625 2.085 89.606

18 .515 1.717 91.324

19 .446 1.485 92.809

20 .380 1.265 94.074

21 .310 1.034 95.108

22 .276 .920 96.028

23 .262 .874 96.901

24 .209 .697 97.598

25 .191 .638 98.237

26 .167 .558 98.795

27 .120 .398 99.193

28 .099 .331 99.524

29 .085 .284 99.808

30 .058 .192 100.000

5.2. Extraction Method

Principal component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization



Its important to identify the value of loading to be 0.33 as minimum absolute value. However, considering the sample size of 62, a loading of 0.70 was considered

significant.

Table 4 Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

OCB1

OCB2

OCB4 .792

OCB5

OCB7

OCB8 .849

OCB9

OCB10

OCB11 .790

OCB12

OCB13 .801

OCB14

OCB15

OCB16

OCB17 .745

OCB18

OCB19 .798

OCB20

OCB21

OCB22 .784

OCB23

OCB24 .781

OCB25 .755

OCB26 .822

OCB27

OCB28

OCB3

OCB30

OCB6

OCB29

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser

Normalizat ion.

a. Rotation converged in 22 iterations.



All the significant factor loadings are shown in the Table 5. Also the communalities for each item is shown in the Table 3. It can be seen that only 9 items

(4,8,11,13,17,19,22,24 and 25) can load significantly on different factors, so these items have been included in the scale and rest of the items who cannot show

significant loadings are excluded from the scale.

5.3. Reliability Analysis

The reliability analysis has been done using SPSS version 16.0

Table 5 Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.702 30

The value of Cronbach’s Alpha for the item set is 0.702 which is greater than 0.7 and

is usually considered to be good.

6. RESULTS & FINDINGS

Thus, by analyzing the above findings, it is found that for the final scale for non –

teaching staff in academic sector, only 9 items (Sr. No. 4,8,11,13,17,19,22,24 and 25) were found to be significant and can be retained . Each statement is provided by 5

alternatives on Likert scale and the respondent is free to choose the most appropriate option. Amongst the items one item no. 24 is negative and rest are positive.

While analysing the data it is found that 95% of non teaching employees have

high level of Organizational citizenship Behavior and only 5% were found to have less citizenship attitude in their behavior. Though while observing the same responses

on sub scales as follows:

Conscientiousness - Only 3% of employees were found to have low conscientious behaviour and rest 97% were found to have high conscientiousness.

Courtesy – Strangely 37% of non – teaching employees were found to be low at courteous behaviour while 63% of them have high courteous behaviour.

Helping behaviour – Where 18% of non – teaching employees don’t show helping behaviour where as approx 82% of employees are helpful in their behaviour.

Sportsmanship – Once again only 63% of employees have sportsmanship attitude

which is quite low in comparison to other attitudes.

The results show that most of the non teaching staff are high at conscious

behaviour ie they follow the rules voluntarily, do not take extra breaks, obey organization’s rules and regulations by their own will and justify their pay by working and performing in the organization accordingly. Next important finding was that 82%

of employees have helping behaviour i.e. they help their colleagues in personal and official work related problems and they take time out of their schedule to help their

colleagues. Only 63% of employees are found to have courteous and Sportsmanship behaviour. Courteousness in behaviour denotes avoiding problems with other co-workers, do not abuse right of others and prevent problems with others. Well this is

the area where the non – teaching employees need to focus. Another important factor is Sportsmanship that includes avoiding complaints on small issues, focus on what is



right rather than wrong side and not to find faults always in the organization . Hence this is the area where the non – teaching staff needs to work upon.

7. SCOPE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Despite the limitations faced by the researcher namely limitation of scope, limitation

of sample size, time limitation etc, the study comes out with a relevant issue that the standardized questionnaire developed by Dr. Aarti Bakhshi & Kuldeep Kumar (2009) claimed to be an universal questionnaire for measuring the Organizational citize nship

behaviour of Employees in any Indian organization. Whereas the current study disproves this idea, as it comes out with the findings that not all the items in the

questionnaire are reliable when the standardized questionnaire is administered on the Non – teaching staff of Academic sector. Hence here is the scope for future researchers can be to design an Organizational Citizenship behaviour Scale applicable

to non-teaching staff in academics. This research paper also gives an insight that not all scales can be adopted as it is for all the kind of samples. There has to be some

modification or development of entirely new scale for measuring Organizational citizenship Behavior in different context or culture specific scales needs to be developed.

REFERENCES

[1] Bakhshi Dr. Aarti et.al. Organizational citizenship behaviour scale, PrasadPsycho, Paperback, 2009.

[2] Bateman, T. S. and Organ, D.W. Job satisfaction and the good soldier: the relationship between effect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 1983, pp. 587–595.

[3] Dr. Vivek, S. et.al. A scale for measuring Organizational citizenship Behavior in manufacturing sector, Pacific Business Review International, Volume 6, Issue 8, February 2014, pp. 57–62

[4] Luthans, F. Organizational Behavior – An evidence based approach. MGH USE/ISE, 12th edition, 2011.

[5] Moorhead, G. and Griffin, R. W. Organization behavior – Managing People and Organization. Dreamtech Press, 2009 edition.

[6] Greenberg, J. and Baron, R. A. Behavior in Organizations. Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, 5th Edition, 1999.

[7] Greenberg, J. and Baron, R. A. Behavior in Organization. Prentice Hall Of India Private Limited, eight edition, 2006.

[8] Newstrom, J. W. Organizational Behavior – Human Behavior at work. Tata McGraw Hill Education, 12th Edition, 2009.

[9] Pierce, J. L. et.al. Management Organizational Citizenship Behavior – An integrated perspective. South Western Thomas Learning, 2002.

[10] Rajiv, K. Organizational citizenship Performance in Non – governmental Organizations Development of a scale, 2005.

[11] Moorman, R. H. and Blakely, G. L. Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(2), 1995, pp. 127–142.

[12] Organ et.al. Organizational citizenship behaviour: Its nature, antecedents and consequences. Sage Publications, Inc., 2006.

[13] Patterson, M. et.al. Development and validation of an Organizational climate measure. Aston Business School, Aston University, 2004, pp 1–45.



[14] Podsakoff, P. M. and MacKenzie, S. B. Organizational Citizenship Behavior and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 1994, pp. 351–363.

[15] Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H. and Fetter, R. Transformational leader behaviours and their effects ob followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviours. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 1990, pp. 107–142.

[16] Stephen, R. and Judge, T. A. Organizational Behavior. Pearson Education, 13th edition, 2009.

[17] Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W. and Near, J. P. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 1983, pp. 653-663.

[18] McShane, S. L., Von Glinow, M. A. and Sharma, R. R. Organizational Behavior. Tata Mc Graw Hill, 4rth Edition, 2010.

[19] Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W. and Dienesch, R. M. Organizational citizenship Behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1994, pp. 765–802.

[20] Williams, L. J. and Anderson, S. E. Job Satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviours. Journal of Management, 17, 1991, pp. 601–617.

Table 6 List of Final Items

1. I prohibit behaviour harmful to my organization.

2. I avoid taking actions that hurt others.

3. I help colleagues to solve work- related problems.

4. I engage in self – study to increase the quality of work output.

5. I fulfil the responsibilities stated in my job description.

6. I perform tasks that are expected of me.

7. I take on extra responsibilities.

8. I complain about things which are not important.

9. I help new workers to adapt even though it is not required for me to do so.

testing reliability of organizational citizenship...

Documents