6 pages hr task in 18 hours (Deadline is 6am Tuesday PST)

International Business Research; Vol. 8, No. 4; 2015

ISSN 1913-9004 E-ISSN 1913-9012

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

210

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and Rewards

Ali Alkahtani 1

1 Department of Human Resource Management, King Abdul Aziz University Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence: Ali Alkahtani, Department of Human Resource Management, King Abdul Aziz University

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. E-mail: [email protected]

Received: January 13, 2015 Accepted: February 15, 2015 Online Published: March 25, 2015

doi:10.5539/ibr.v8n4p210 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v8n4p210

Abstract

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) has attracted the attention of academicians and practitioners due to

its proven significance towards organizational effectiveness. The current study aims to estimate empirically the

degree of relationship between OCB and Organizational Rewards given to employees. The study will answer the

question that “Does the display of OCB have any impact on the rewards given to employees by the organization?”

Five most widely acknowledged dimensions of OCB - Altruism, Courtesy, Sportsmanship, Conscientiousness,

and Civic Virtue -have been considered for analysis purposes. OCB is measured through self-evaluation as well

as peer evaluations to avoid any social desirability effect and common method variance errors. The

organizational rewards taken in the study are Salary Increment, Promotion and Performance Appraisal Grade.

The current study includes all of these together for analyzing this relationship with rigor. This is the first ever

study of OCB which incorporates all five major dimensions of OCB (measured through self-reporting as well as

through peer reports) and three well acknowledged types of rewards together in a single study. The study thus

draws various practical implications for organizational managers on basis of the empirical findings from banking

sector of Pakistan.

Keywords: organizational citizenship behaviors, organizational loyalty, organizational compliance, individual

initiative, civic virtue, and self-development

1. Introduction

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB) is defined as “Individual behavior 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. By discretionary, we mean that the behavior is not an enforceable requirement of the role or

the job description, that is, the clearly specifiable terms of the person‟s employment contract with the

organization; the behavior is rather a matter of personal choice, such that its omission is not generally understood

as punishable.” (Organ, 1988, p. 4).

The research interest in OCB is increasing dramatically which is shown by the growth of number of papers

published on the topic. While only 13 papers were published on this and related topics during 1983-1988, more

than 122 papers have been published on these topics during 1993-1998 (Podsakoff et al., 2000).

Early researches focused primarily on OCB and its antecedents then in early 90s the research started focusing on

the OCB consequences. The key issues in consequences have been (a) Managerial evaluation of performance and

judgments regarding salary increment, promotion etc., and (b) Organizational performance and its effectiveness.

Organ (1988) proposed “loose coupling” between employee performance and rewards i.e. employee can expect

an indirect link between OCB and organizational reward.

OCB is expected to produce higher rewards because the employer may reciprocate to the employee for the

benefits gained because of OCB. It enhances (i) unit and organization‟s efficiency, (ii) ability to attract and retain

capable employees (George & Bettenhausen, 1990), and (iii) ability to adapt to changing environment.

Therefore the compensation researchers have moved their attention from older concepts of equity (Adams, 1965)

to the newer and wider concept of fairness and procedural and distributive justice (Milkovich & Newman, 1996).

Hence focus o the current study is to analyze the relationship of OCB with rewards as its consequences. The

rewards included in the study are Salary Increment, Promotion, and Performance Appraisal Grade.

This study is a significant contribution in the OCB literature as it was conducted in Pakistan. This is quite

shocking that OCB has been extensively studied in Western cultures but only a few studies exist for other regions

www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 8, No. 4; 2015

211

of the world. Especially, research in Eastern cultures covers China (Wanxian & Weiwu, 2006; Farh et al., 1997;

Farh et al., 2004; and Sun, 2001); Kuwait (Alotaibi, 2001); India (Moideenkutty et al., 2005); Taiwan (Huang et

al., 2003); Oman (Kuehn & Al-Busaidi, 2002) and Singapore (Van Dyne & Ang, 1996). Investigating OCB in

Pakistan was warranted as, to date, no study on OCB has been done. The cultural contexts may affect the

frequency of different types of citizenship behaviors, strengths of the relationship between citizenship behaviors

and consequences (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Pakistan is quite different from the developed world in legal and

regulatory conditions and societal effectiveness at enforcing social norms. It is on the lower side of regulatory

conditions and high on enforcing social norms. It is also different from the developed world because of religion,

historical background, stage of economic development etc. Its national and organizational culture is also quite

different from that of the west. Thus the current study aimed at analyzing the OCB relationship with number of

rewards as its consequences in Pakistan.

Most of the OCB studies have included one or a few dimensions as Dulebohn et al. (2005) stated that they have

only examined two types of OCB while other well established dimensions identified by researcher should also be

examined. The future research which includes these dimensions will contribute to the literature. Thus For

analyzing the OCB relationship with rewards, five extensively researched dimensions of OCB are measured in

the present study.

There is lack of consensus among OCB ratings from different sources (Allen et al., 2000) implying usage of

multiple raters simultaneously (Becker & Vance, 1993; Moorman, 1991). Therefore, in addition to the

self-reported OCB, peer evaluation of OCB was also taken. Two peers for each sample employee were

approached independently by the researcher. Self as well as peer ratings of OCB were taken for each sample in

order to avoid social desirability effect of self rating of OCB (Schnake, 1991), and “common variance error”

(Gonzalez & Garazo, 2006). Which are very common and problematic concern in OCB studies (Bell & Menguc,

2002). Following the recommendation of Bettencourt (1998), employee OCB score was obtained by averaging

the peers and employee responses also used by Van Dyne & Ang (1996).

The current study addresses all the research concerns discussed above by conducting research on OCB in

Pakistan, empirically testing OCB-Rewards relationship, taking multiple ratings of OCB and including most

widely acknowledged dimensions of OCB and multiple rewards in the same study

The next section provides rationale of expecting OCB and Rewards relationship. Research design and

Methodology, Analysis and Interpretations, and Conclusions are discussed in subsequent sections.

2. Literature Review

2.1 OCB and Performance Evaluations

Based on Chester Barnard‟s (1938) concept of the “willingness to cooperate,” and Daniel Katz‟s (1964)

distinction between „dependable role Performance‟ and „innovative and spontaneous behaviors‟ Organ (1988, p.

4) was the first person to differentiate discretionary behaviors from the prescribed behaviors and labeled the term

as Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB) After Organ coined these behaviors as Organizational citizenship

Behavior, researchers worked on it and kept on identifying different dimensions of OCB. Some of these

dimensions were distinct while the others were overlapping. Overall, more than 30 dimensions of OCB have

been identified over time but there is huge overlapping in these terms. Podsakoff et al. (2000) have classified

these into seven common dimensions: (1) Helping Behavior, (2) Sportsmanship, (3) Organizational Loyalty, (4)

Organizational Compliance, (5) Individual Initiative, (6) Civic Virtue, and (7) Self Development.

It is very important to study the factors which effect the performance evaluation because this evaluation is

subsequently used for many important decisions in the organization including promotion and transfer decisions

(Cocanougher & Ivancevich, 1978), identifying the training programs (Churchill et al. 1976; Dubinsky & Staples,

1981) and compensation (Chonko, 1986; Ilgen & Feldman, 1983). Early studies of performance evaluation

(Behrman & Perreault, 1982; Heneman, 1986; Weitz, 1978) have shown very small percentage (6% to 9%)

variance in subjective performance evaluations due to the objective measures of performance. Podsakoff,

MacKenzie, and Hui (1993) have indicated that there are certain behaviors, which can not be measured using the

objective criterion, known as extra-role behaviors taken into consideration in performance evaluations. Organ

(1988, 1990, 1997) has continuously emphasized that one such behavior may be OCB.

“Schema triggered affect” (Fiske & Pavelchak, 1986) explains the underlying reason of this relationship.

Usually managers try to identify the „good employee‟ and the „bad employee‟ while evaluating the performance.

If the employee engages in OCB, there are fair chances that he/she will be labeled as „good employee‟ leading to

positive affect and hence resulting in positive performance evaluation. Similarly, the Performance evaluator

www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 8, No. 4; 2015

212

always look for distinctive information (DeNisi, Cafferty, & Meglino, 1984) and as OCB is taken as distinct

behavior, it is quite obvious that such behavior will be given some consideration in evaluation.

Another probable reason could be Reciprocity of Supervisor. When an experienced employee provides assistance

to a less experienced coworker with a work-related problem (example of OCB) that the supervisor would have to

deal with otherwise, the supervisor may reciprocate with a more favorable rating of the experienced employee‟s

performance.

Many studies (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991; Motowidlo & Van Scotter,

1994; Orr, Sackett, & Mercer, 1989; Parks & Sims, 1989; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Podsakoff, MacKenzie,

& Hui, 1993; Werner, 1994) have empirically proved the fact that significant variance in overall subjective

performance evaluations can be attributed to OCB. Podsakoff et al. (2000) narrated the number studies in which

significant effect on performance evaluation was observed by each dimension. Altruism/Helping was proved to

effect OCB in 8 studies out of 10 studies, Courtesy impact on OCB was proven in 1 study out of 6,

Sportsmanship effect was observed in 5 studies out of 8, Conscientiousness was proved to effect Performance

rating in all the 3 studies while the Composite OCB Measure-Performance Evaluation relationship was proved in

the only 1 study undertaken till now. Thus with possible exception of courtesy, each of citizenship behavior had a

significant effect on performance evaluations in the majority of the studies in which it was included. Werner

(1994) and Whiting, Podsakoff, and Pierce (2008) studies are very important as these confirmed positive causal

relationship between OCB and Performance Evaluations.

OCB is not only considered in performance evaluations but also contributes more variance in performance

evaluations than the objective performance. A meta-analysis by Podsakoff et al. (2000), in which 11 sample

studies were included, showed that, on average, objective performance contributed 9.5% only whereas 42.9%

was contributed by OCB and these both contributed 61.2% in overall performance evaluations. Barksdale and

Werner‟s (2001) recent study adds to this emerging literature by proving that higher Altruism of employee leads

to higher performance rating.

In addition to the studies done in developed countries like USA, there are some studies of Asian cultures.

MoideenKutty et al. (2005) examined this relationship pharmaceutical company of India and found that objective

performance contributes 9% variation in subjective performance evaluation, while 32% variation was explained

by only OCB. But only two dimensions of OCB namely Sportsmanship and Civic Virtue were measured in the

study. Similarly, Krilowicz & Lowery (1996) deduced that supervisory evaluations were found to be determined

as much by OCB as by objective performance for Dominican and American workers.

Based on the literature available, the current study examines whether Performance Evaluation is affected by

Altruism, Courtesy, Sportsmanship, Conscientiousness, Civic Virtue, and OCB-Composite.

2.2 OCB and Other Rewards

OCB is expected to impact rewards. One particularly likely explanation of this effects is the norm of reciprocity

(Gouldner, 1960). This means that as the OCB is beneficial to the manager and the organization, the employee is

reciprocated by both beneficiaries. In support of this fact Blau (1964) and Homans (1961) have noted that people

try to reciprocate a favor to those who have helped them, done them a favor, or treated them fairly. Therefore,

when a subordinate performs citizenship behaviors (e.g., by helping a coworker who has fallen behind in his or

her work or who has been absent from work because of an illness) that free up the supervisor‟s time to work on

more important matters, one would expect that the organization would tend to reciprocate this help by

compensating with good rewards. Also from a social exchange perspective, organization may feel a sense of

obligation to the employee in response to the behavior shown which is valuable by the organization i.e OCB.

Thus the organization wants to reward the employee in return of OCB in order to maintain equitable social

exchange with the employee (Wayne, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002).

These premises have been proved in the OCB literature. For example, two studies by Mel and Michael (1997)

were conducted, the results of which suggested that employees perceive a link between rewards and

organizational reward practices and OCB. Deluga (1998) proved that employees who perform only the

prescribed job and do not engage themselves in OCB receive fewer rewards. Similarly Dulebohn et al. (2005)

proved that employees who display more OCB receive higher rewards than those who don‟t exhibit such

behavior. For salary and/or reward recommendation Parks and Sims (1989), Allen and Rush (1998), and Kiker

and Motowidlo (1999) have proved that OCB had significant effect on these decisions. Parks & Sims (1989), Orr,

Sacket, & Mercer (1989) also gathered evidence to support that promotion recommendations are significantly

related with OCB. Still there is a wide gap in the research that studies have not been done for analyzing the

impact of OCB on Rewards. Impact of OCB on number of rewards including promotions, training,

www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 8, No. 4; 2015

213

compensation (Podsakoff et al., 2000) pay raise decisions, performance ratings, material resources given to

employees.” (Dulebohn et al., 2005) and Salary Increment (Allen, 2006). Whiting, Podsakoff, & Pierce (2008)

directed that Researchers should pay additional attention to impact of OCB on pay allocation and promotions

decisions in organizations… future research should include outcomes of managerial evaluations of employee

performance, such as reward allocation and promotion decisions...Additional research will be needed to see if

our findings can be replicated in other contexts.

Hence the current study is undertaken to analyze that whether rewards including Increment in salary and

promotion are affected by Altruism, Courtesy, Sportsmanship, Conscientiousness, Civic Virtue, and

OCB-Composite.

3. Research Design and Methodology

3.1 Sample

As emphasized by Stamper and Van Dyne (2003), the employees in service industry are the key players in

achieving customer satisfaction, retention, and organizational performance. Banking industry, being a key

service sector of Pakistan, has been selected for the study. The studies of OCB drawing sample from the banks

include Ann et al. (1983); Hui, Lam, and Law, (2000); Williams, Pitre, and Zainuba, (2002) etc. It is a vibrant

and remarkably growing sector of the Pakistan economy. Therefore, a random sample set of employees of

different commercial banks were selected where two groups of employees participated in the study. One group

was the sample and the other group served as the raters of sample employees‟ OCB. For each sample employee

two colleagues/peers were selected as raters. 800 employees were selected to fill out the questionnaire

containing OCB scale, and rewards information. For each sample employee two peers were selected for

evaluation of OCB shown by sample employee. This means that for those 800 sample employees 1600 peers

were selected and were given 1600 questionnaires. Out of those 800 questionnaires, 530 were returned yielding a

response rate of 66.25%. This process of collecting behavioral responses from three different sources involved

risk in terms of comprehensive data set collection (Wagner & Rush, 2000). For each sample employee

questionnaire peer evaluation questionnaires were matched and 405 questionnaires had their complete set of peer

evaluations yielding final response rate of 50.62%. Various questionnaires with inconsistent and missing data

were eliminated and finally responses of 360 sample employees and 720 raters were used for the analysis.

31.7% of sample employees have not received any promotion throughout their tenure in the current bank while

27.2%, 25.8%, 9.2%, 3.3% and 2.5% have received 1,2,3,4 and 5 promotions respectively.

Out of the 360 employees 64.1% have not received promotion and 35.9% have been promoted in the current

working year.

37.7% have received 50% or less, 17.7% have received 51%-100%, 11.4% have received 101%-200%, 5.1%

have received 201%-300%, 4.5% have received 301%-400%, 3.6% have received 401%-500%, 3%have received

501%-600% and 17.1% have received 601% or more Total Salary Increment for the entire Tenure.

15.2% have received 5% or less, 46% have received 6%-15%, 19.4%have received 16%-25%, 11% have

received 26%-35%, and 4.2% have received36%-45% and 46% or more Salary Increment in the current working

year.

47.7% have attained A grade, 40.8% have attained B grade, 10.9%have attained C grade and .6% have attained D

grade for the performance they have shown in the current year.

3.2 Measures

3.2.1 Organizational Citizenship Behavior

In order to measure the construct in full detail OCB was measured using the 32-item scale developed by

Konovsky & Organ (1996). Permission for the use of scale was taken from the authors. The items reflect the five

dimensions of OCB proposed by Organ (1988)-Altruism, Courtesy, Sportsmanship, Conscientiousness, and

Civic Virtue.

 Altruism mean that employee help others with organizationally relevant tasks (e.g. voluntarily helping less

skilled or new employee).

 Courtesy means preventing problems deriving from the work relationship (e.g. encouraging discouraged

co-workers for professional development).

 Sportsmanship implies that employees have a positive attitude and are willing to tolerate less than ideal

circumstances without complaining.

www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 8, No. 4; 2015

214

 Civic virtue means that employees responsibly participate in, and are concerned about, the welfare of the

company (e.g. attending non-required meetings, giving creative suggestions for improvements).

 Conscientiousness is dedication to the job and desire to exceed formal requirements in aspects such as,

punctuality or conservation of resources (e.g. working long days or keeping the organization‟s rules).

(Organ, 1988).

The five dimensions have been most widely acknowledged and used in research (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002;

Also see Gonzallez & Grazo, 2006 for detailed references). Each dimension was measured with 7, 13, 5, 4, 3

items respectively. For each OCB item, the responses were rated on a seven-point Likert scale (1=Strongly

Disagree to 7= Strongly Agree). Authors reported the reliabilities of 0.90, 0.87, 0.88, 0.84 and 0.80 for each

dimension respectively. In the current study the items were slightly modified to fit the present setting (e.g., “I

stay informed about developments in the company” was changed to “I stay informed about developments in the

bank”). The Cronbach Alpha was calculated for each dimension which was 0.912, 0.945, 0.897, 0.844, and 0.835,

and 0.953 respectively for each dimension and Composite measure of OCB. As self and peers, both ratings were

taken, the single score for each item was reached by averaging the self and peer ratings for every sample

(Wagner & Rush, 2000)

3.2.2 Organizational Rewards

Three organizational rewards measured are as follows:

 Promotion: Promotion was measured through

o Total Promotions: Total number of promotion received by the employee for the tenure served.

o Current Promotion: It was dummy coded as 0= Not promoted in the current year and 1=

Promotion received in the current year

 Salary Increment: Salary increment was measured as

o Total Salary Increments: Measured in terms of Total Percentage increment in salary for the

tenure served.

o Current Salary Increment: Measured in terms of Percentage salary increment received in the

current year.

 Performance Evaluation Grade: Performance evaluation was taken as the grade awarded to the employee

in organization‟s annual performance report. The grades given in the banks are A, B, C, D. It was

nominally coded as A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1.

3.3 Analysis Techniques

Correlation analysis was done to ascertain the relationship of OCB with the rewards and t-test was used for the

significant difference in the display of OCB by the promoted and not promoted employees. General Linear

Model Multivariate Analysis was performed to investigate the impact of OCB on rewards received by employee.

4. Analysis and Interpretations

Following the discussed methodology, the data was collected from banking sector employees and analyzed for

testing the OCB-Rewards relationship using Correlation, t-test and General Linear Multivariate Method. The

reward variables taken in the study are Total Promotion, Promotion, Total Salary Increment, Current Salary

Increment and Annual Performance grade. Altruism, Courtesy, Sportsmanship, Conscientiousness, and Civic

Virtue dimensions are taken to measure OCB. This section is divided into two sub sections:

 Association of OCB and Rewards

 Rewards as consequences of OCB

4.1 Association of OCB and Rewards

Association of OCB and Rewards is analyzed using correlation analysis, the results are summarized in the Table

on page: 8. Altruism is positively related to all the rewards included but significant positive correlation is proved

for Total Promotion(r=0.110, p<0.05), Total Salary Increment (r=0.115, p<0.05), and Current Salary Increment

(r=0.134, p<0.05). Courtesy is proved to be positively related to all the rewards except Current Salary Increment.

The required significance level is achieved for Total Promotion (r=0.092, p<0.10), and Total Salary Increment

(r=0.097, p<0.10). Sportsmanship is also positively related to all the rewards except Current Salary Increment.

This relationship is proved to be significant for Annual Performance Grade (r=0.091, p<0.10). Conscientiousness

is positively significantly related to Total Promotion (r=0.0116, p<0.05), Promotion (r=0.106, p<0.05), and

www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 8, No. 4; 2015

215

Annual Performance Grade (r=0.097, p<0.10). Civic Virtue is positively related to all the rewards. Positive

significant correlation is proved with Total Promotion (r=0.166, p<0.01), and Annual Performance Grade

(r=0.097, p<0.10). As expected the Composite Measure of OCB is proved to be positively related to Total

Promotion, Promotion, Total Salary Increment, Current Salary Increment and Annual performance Grade.

Significant Positive Correlation is proved with Total Promotion (r=0.111, p<0.05) and Total Salary

Increment(r=0.111, p<0.05).

Table 1. Correlation of rewards and OCB

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 Total Promotions

2 Promotions 0.346***

3 Total Salary Increments 0.547*** 0.000

4 Current Salary Increment 0.076 0.143*** 0.115**

5 Annual Performance Grade 0.141** 0.117** -0.032 0.077

6 Altruism 0.110** 0.037 0.115** 0.134** 0.063

7 Courtesy 0.092* 0.050 0.097* -0.016 0.052 0.794***

8 Sportsmanship 0.013 0.039 0.063 -0.079 0.091* 0.169*** 0.298***

9 Conscientiousness 0.125** 0.033 0.116** -0.024 0.054 0.626*** 0.773*** 0.219***

10 Civic Virtue 0.166*** 0.106** 0.040 0.060 0.097* 0.633*** 0.736*** 0.118** 0.693***

11 OCB 0.111** 0.060 0.111** 0.010 0.086 0.836*** 0.943*** 0.507*** 0.806*** 0.754***

To check whether the people who are promoted show significant different level of OCB than the people who are

not promoted, Independent Sample t-test was run. The results are summarized in the table below

Table 2. T-test of promotion and OCB

Promotion Mean S.D T

Altruism No 5.41 .764 0.721

Yes 5.47 .718

Courtesy No 5.55 .726 0.971

Yes 5.62 .660

Sportsmanship No 4.07 1.125 0.738

Yes 4.16 1.16

Conscientiousness No 5.55 .801 0.627

Yes 5.60 .769

Civic Virtue No 5.42 .883 2.098*

Yes 5.61 .762

OCB- Composite No 5.27 .659 1.159

Yes 5.35 .614

Note. *p≤0.05.

The results show that people who show different level of Civic Virtue are promoted in the current year than the

people who are not promoted. This difference is proved to be significant. Mean of all the dimensions and

OCB-Composite is higher for the people who are promoted than those of the people who are not promoted.

Significant difference is proved only for Civic Virtue. For all other dimensions of OCB and OCB-Composite, no

significant difference was proved. This result highlights the fact that employees who are promoted take

macro-level interest commitment

www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 8, No. 4; 2015

216

4.2 Rewards as Consequences of OCB

The next step is to analyze the impact of OCB on rewards. According to the hypotheses OCB is supposed to have

significant impact on the rewards employee receives. For the said purpose, General Linear Model Multivariate

Analysis was chosen as impact of each OCB dimension on multiple rewards variable needs to be scrutinized. All

individual dimensions of OCB including Altruism, Courtesy, Sportsmanship, Conscientiousness and Civic Virtue

as well as OCB-Composite were taken as independent variables whereas all the rewards variables including

Total Promotion, Promotion, Total Salary Increment, Current Salary Increment and Annual Performance Ratings

were taken as dependent variables. Each dimension individually and OCB-Composite was regressed for the

rewards variables.

The first dimension, Altruism, was taken as independent variable and the rewards which proved to be

significantly correlated to it are taken as dependent variable in the first model. The results are summarized in the

following table.

Table 3. GLMM of altruism and rewards

Independent Dependent

ALTRUISM

Total Promotion 0.002**

0.018***

Total Salary Increment

Current Salary Increment 0.022***

Note. ***Significant at the 0.01 level; **Significant at the 0.05 level.

Altruism predicts the Total Salary Increment and Current Salary Increment. Though significantly correlated to

Total Promotion, Altruism is not proved to be significant predictor of it. The relationship of Altruism, Total

Salary Increment and Current Salary Increment is proved to be significant. Thus Altruism predicts the Salary

increment an employee receives for the current year as well as for the entire period of service in the bank.

The next tested model is for the Courtesy dimension of OCB. Total Promotion and Total Salary increment were

proved to be significantly correlated to Courtesy and hence have been included in the model as dependent

variables. The results are displayed in the Table 4.

Table 4. GLMM of courtesy and rewards

Independent Dependent

COURTESY Total Promotion 0.009*

0.009*

Total Salary Increment

Note. *Significant at the 0.10 level.

Courtesy predicts Total Promotion and Total salary Increment which means the number of promotions and

percentage salary increment employee receives throughout the period of service in the bank is significantly

dependent on the level of Courtesy shown.

In the next model Sportsmanship is regressed for all the rewards variables. Following results were attained:

Table 5. GLMM of sportsmanship and rewards

Independent Dependent

SPORTSMANSHIP

Total Promotion 0.001

Promotion 0.002

Total Salary Increment 0.002

Current Salary Increment 0.013**

APG 0.004

www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 8, No. 4; 2015

217

The Current Salary Increment is significantly dependent on the Sportsmanship whereas other rewards variables

are not proved to be significantly effected by the level of Sportsmanship. Fourth model is formulated taking

Conscientiousness as independent variable and Total Promotion and Total Salary Increment as dependent

variables. Results of the model are displayed in the following Table.

Table 6. GLMM of conscientiousness and rewards

Independent Dependent

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS Total Promotion 0.015**

0.011**

Total Salary Increment 0.013**

Note. **Significant at the 0.05 level.

Conscientiousness predicts Total Promotion and Total Salary Increment which means the number of promotions

and percentage salary increment employee receives throughout the period of service in the bank is significantly

dependent on the level of Conscientiousness shown.

Next model tested is for Civic Virtue dimension. Total Promotion, Promotion and Annual Performance Rating

are significantly correlated with Civic Virtue therefore have been included in the model as dependent variables.

Results of the model are presented in the following Table.

Table 7. GLMM of civic virtue and rewards

Independent Dependent

Civic Virtue

Total Promotion 0.018**

0.005**

Promotion 0.007

Annual Performance Rating 0.009*

Note. ***Significant at the 0.01 level; **Significant at the 0.05 level.

Results show that Total Promotion and Annual Performance Rating are significantly dependent on the Civic

Virtue.

OCB-Composite was regressed for the significantly correlated rewards variables, results are shown in the Table

below.

Table 8. GLMM of OCB and rewards

Independent Dependent

OCB-Composite Total Promotion 0.013**

Total Salary Increment 0.012**

Note. **Significant at the 0.05 level.

OCB-Composite is proved to be significant predictor of Total Promotion and Total Salary Increment. It indicates

that the number of promotions and percentage salary increment employee receives throughout the period of

service in the bank is significantly dependent on the level of OCB shown.

5. Conclusion

The purpose of this research was to test relationship of possible variables (Total Promotion, Promotion, Total

Salary Increment, Current Salary Increment, and Annual Performance Grade) with OCB in the service sector

context. We explored these factors in the context of Pakistan in order to fill the gap and contribute to the

emerging theoretical explanation of OCB. Study results indicate that OCB is related to the rewards. Altruism,

Courtesy, Conscientiousness and Civic Virtue dimensions OCB-Composite are related to Total Promotions an

employee has received from the organization. Promotion is related to Civic Virtue dimension. The people who

www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 8, No. 4; 2015

218

are promoted display higher level of Civic Virtue than those who have not been promoted. Altruism, Courtesy

and Conscientiousness as well as OCB-Composite are related to Total Salary Increments an employee receives.

Altruism is related to Current Salary Increment. Sportsmanship and Civic Virtue are related to the Annual

Performance Grade the employee receives. All these relationships of OCB and rewards are proven to be

significant and positive. Altruism is positively significantly related to the maximum number of rewards proving

that higher Altruism leads to more and higher rewards because Altruism is valued much more than any other

OCB dimension. This means that the employees who frequently help other coworkers in work-related problems

receive more and higher rewards than those who help less frequently.

General Linear Multivariate Method (GLMM) results confirm to our expectations that OCB impact the rewards

received by employee. Altruism impacts Total Salary Increments and Current Salary Increment positively. The

employees, who frequently lend a helping hand to the co-workers, receive higher salary increments than those

who help less frequently. Courtesy and Conscientiousness positively predicts Total Promotions and Total Salary

Increments The employees, who prevent problems arising from work relationships and those who adhere to the

rules and regulations of the organization climb up the rank ladder faster and get higher salary increments for the

period of service in the organization. Sportsmanship predicts Current Salary Increment positively implying that

employees who tolerate inconveniences without complaining receive more pay raise than those who often

complain. Civic Virtue positively predicts Total Promotions and Annual Performance Grade indicating that

employees who take active interest in the life of the organization receive more promotions and better

performance grade than other employees. This finding is in line with the findings of Indian study by

MoideenKutty et al. (2005). OCB-Composite is positive predictor of Total Promotions and Total Salary

Increments proving that employees displaying higher level of OCB receive more promotions and higher salary

increments throughout their period of service in the organization. At least two rewards are proven to be

consequences of OCB-Composite as well as all o its dimensions except Sportsmanship indicating considerable

impact of OCB on rewards.

Our findings are important because they suggest that managers consider Civic virtue to be an important part of

an employee‟s overall contribution to the organization and that is why rate those employees higher on the

performance evaluation as compared to others. Hence employees who want good performance rating need to

perform not only the job prescribed behavior but also need to take interest in the life of the organization by

attending non required meetings, taking initiatives for improvements, and welcoming change in the organization

etc. Knowing that employees are evaluated on their OCB, it is important to know that they consider it to be air.

Johnson et al. (2009) proved that evaluating employees on OCB was taken as fair by employees. OCB

weightings of 30–50% were perceived as the most fair. Another interesting result is that Sportsmanship is proved

to impact Current Salary Increment. This implies that employees‟ tolerance of inconveniences and no complain

attitude is immediately rewarded by giving more salary increment. This may be because no complain attitude is

taken as indication of satisfaction and commitment to the company. Sportsmanship is not proved to impact other

rewards as it is less visible form of OCB than others.

A closer look into the results of the study reveals that the OCB does not impact rewards in the short term only

but also in the long-term as among others Total Promotion and Total Salary Increment has been found to be

significant consequences of OCB. Total Promotions and Total Salary Increment is proved to be consequence of

maximum number of OCB dimensions as well as of Composite Measure of OCB. This implies that the display of

OCB leads to more promotions and higher salary increments for the employee for the period of service in the

organization. Hence even if the employee does not immediately receive any reward in the result of OCB, he can

expect rewards over the long run. This may have been because of the fact that immediate dissemination of

rewards is not always possible for the organization, due to numerous reasons, even if it intends to reward

employee for the display of OCB. As Podsakoff et al. (2009) found relatively stronger, positive relationship of

OCB with reward allocation decisions than actual rewards implying that OCBs have a substantial impact on

reward recommendations which may not always translate into the actual administration of rewards.

OCB dimensions and OCB-Composite either have no effect on some of the rewards or have positive effects on

the other rewards. OCB does not negatively affect any of the reward in any case. Thus employees must show

higher OCB in order to receive higher rewards. All employees should know that their rewards are positively

affected by OCB and be careful about their behavior. The employees should be rewarded according to their

performance whether job related or OCB and merit pay plans should be discouraged because they restrain the

display of many of citizenship behaviors.

www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 8, No. 4; 2015

219

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social change. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology (Vol. 83, pp. 247-260).

Allen, T. D. (2006). Rewarding good citizens: The relationship between citizenship behavior, gender, and

organizational rewards. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(1), 120-143.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00006.x

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, 247-260.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.247

Allen, T. D., Barnard, S. M., Rush, M. C., & Russell, J. E. A. (2000). Ratings of organizational citizenship

behavior: Does the source make a difference? Human Resource Management Review, 10, 97-114.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00041-8

Alotaibi, A. G. (2001). Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior: A study of public personnel in Kuwait.

Public Personnel Management, 30(3), 363-376.

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

Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.653

Barksdale, K., & Werner, J. M. (2001). Managerial ratings of in-role behaviors, organizational citizenship

behaviors, and overall performance: Testing different models of their relationship. Journal of Business

Research, 51, 145-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00061-2

Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive thirtieth anniversary edition (1968). Cambridge, M. A:

Harvard University Press.

Becker, T. E., & Vance, R. J. (1993). Construct validity of three types of organizational citizenship behavior: An

illustration of the direct product model with refinements. Journal of Management, 19, 663-682.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639301900309

Behrman, D. N., & Perrault, W. D. (1982). Measuring the performance of industrial salespeople. Journal of

Business Research, 10, 355-370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(82)90039-X

Bettencourt, L. (1998). The service-oriented citizenship performance of customer-contact employees. UMI

dissertation services. Arizona State University.

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

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for

personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99-109.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_3

Chonko, L. B. (1986). Organizational commitment in the salesforce. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales

Management, 6, 19-27.

Churchill, Jr. G. A., Neil, M. F., & Orville, C. W. Jr. (1976). Organizational climate and job satisfaction in the

salesforce. Journal of Marketing Research, 13(4), 323-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3151014

Cocanougher, B. A., & Ivanoevich, J. M. (1978). Bare‟ Performance Rating for Sales Force Personnel. Journal of

Marketing, 42, 87-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1250540

Deluga, R. J. (1995). The relation between trust in the supervisor and subordinate organizational citizenship

behavior. Military Psychology, 7, 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp0701_1

DeNisi, A. S., Cafferty, T. P., & Meglino, B. M. (1984). A cognitive view of the performance appraisal process: A

model and research propositions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 360-396.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90029-1

Dubinsky, A. J., & William A. S. (1981). Are industrial salespeople buyer oriented? Journal of Purchasing and

Materials Management, 17, 12-19.

Dulebohn, J. H., Shore, L. M., Kunze, M., & Dookeran, D. (2005). The differential impact of OCBs and

influence tactics on leader reward behavior and performance ratings over time. Organizational Analysis,

13(1), 73-90.

Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational

www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 8, No. 4; 2015

220

citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 421-444.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393733

Farh, J. L., Zang, C. B., & Organ, D. W. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in the People‟s Republic of

China. Organization Science, 15(2), 241-253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0051

Fiske, S. T., & Pavelchak, M. (1986). Category-based versus Piecemeal-based affective responses:

Developments in Schema-triggered affect. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgens (Eds.), The Handbook of

Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior (pp. 167-203). Guilford: New York.

George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A

Group-level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698-709.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.6.698

Gonzalez, J. V., & Garazo, T. G. (2006). Structural relationships between organizational service orientation,

contact employee job satisfaction and citizenship behavior. International Journal of Service Industry

Management, 17(1), 23-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09564230610651561

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25,

161-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2092623

Heneman, R. L. (1986). The relationship between supervisory ratings and results oriented measures of

performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 811-826.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00596.x

Homans, G. (1961). Social behavior: It’s elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Huang, J. H., Jin, B. H., & Yang, C. (2003). Satisfaction with business-to-employee benefit system and

organizational citizenship behavior: An examination of gender differences. International Journal of

Manpower, 25, 196-210.

Hui, C., Lam, S. S. K., & Law, K. K. S. (2000). Instrumental values of organizational citizenship behavior for

promotion: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 822-828.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.822

Ilgen, D. R., & Feldman, J. M. (1983). Performance appraisal: A process focus. In B. Staw & L. Cummings

(Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour (Vol. 5). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Johnson, S., Holladay, C., & Quinones, M. (2009). Organizational citizenship behavior in performance

evaluations: Distributive justice or injustice? Journal of Business & Psychology, 24(4), 409-418.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9118-0

Kiker, D. S., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1999). Main and interaction effects of task and contextual performance on

supervisory reward decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 602-609.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.602

Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of organizational

citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(3), 253-266.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199605)17:3<253::AID-JOB747>3.0.CO;2-Q

Krilowicz, T. J., & Lowery, C. M. (1996). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on the performance

appraisal process: A cross cultural study. International Journal of Management, 13, 94-100.

Kuehn, K. W., & Al-Busiadi, Y. (2002). Citizenship behavior in a non-western context: An examination of the

role of satisfaction, commitment and job characteristics on self-reported OCB. International Journal of

Conflict Management, 12(2), 107.

LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of OCB: A critical review and

meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.52

Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective

productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salesperson performance. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90037-T

Mel, S., & Michael, P. D. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: The impact of rewards and reward

practices. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9(2), 216-229.

Milkovick, G. T., & Newman, J. M. (1996). Compensation (5th ed.). Chicago: Irwin Publications.

Moideenkutti, U., Blau, G., Kumar, R., & Nalakath, A. (2005). Relationship of organizational citizenship

www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 8, No. 4; 2015

221

behavior and objective productivity to managerial evaluations of performance in India. International

Journal of Commerce and Management, 15, 221-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10569210580000198

Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors:

Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845-855.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.845

Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from

contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475-480.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.475

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

Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W. (1990a). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in Organizational

Behavior, 12, 43-72.

Organ, D. W. (1990b). The subtle significance of job satisfaction. Clinical Laboratory Management Review, 4,

94-98.

Orr, J. M., Sackett, P. R., & Mercer, M. (1989). The role of prescribed and nonprescribed behaviors in estimating

the dollar value of performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 34-40.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.34

Park, O. S., & Sims, H. P. Jr. (1989). Beyond cognition in leadership: Prosocial behavior and affect in

managerial judgment. Working paper, Seoul National University and Pennsylvania State University.

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(1), 122-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013079

Podsakoff, P. M., & Mackenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior and sales unit effectiveness.

Journal of Marketing Research, 3(1), 351-363.

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., & Hui, C. (1993). Organizational citizenship behaviors and managerial

evaluations of employee performance: A review and suggestions for future research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.),

Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 11, pp. 1-40). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600307

Schnake, M. E. (1991). Equity in effort: The “sucker effect” in co-acting groups”. Journal of Management, 17,

41-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700104

Stamper, C. L., & Van, D. (2003). Organizational citizenship: A comparison between part-time and full-time

service employees. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44, 33-42.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-8804(03)90044-9

Sun S. B. (2001). Predicting job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior with individualism and

collectivism in P.R. China and United States. Published dissertation, University of South Florida.

Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (1996). Organizational citizenship behavior of contingent workers in Singapore.

Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 692-703. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256965

Wagner, S. L., & Rush, M. C. (2000). Altruistic organizational citizenship behavior: Context, disposition, and

age. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140(3), 379-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540009600478

Wanxian, L., & Weiwu, W. (2006). A demographic study on citizenship behavior as in-role orientation.

Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 1016.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in

perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,

590-598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.590

Weitz, B. A. (1978). The relationship between salesperson performance and understanding of customer decision

making. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 501-516. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3150621

Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-role and extra-role

behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 98-107.

www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 8, No. 4; 2015

222

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.1.98

Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Pierce, J. R. (2008). Effects of task performance, helping, voice and

organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 125-139.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.125

Williams, S., Pitre, R., & Zainuba, M. (2002). Justice and organizational citizenship behavior intentions: Fair

rewards versus fair treatment. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(1), 33-44.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540209603883

Copyrights

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution

license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

Week 1 Resources/Whats in Store for HR in 2015.pdf

• What's in Store for HR in 2015