The Relationship between Organizational Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Faculty Members

Laxmi Priya Das^*
*Correspondence: Dr. Laxmi Priya Das, Department of Business and Computer Studies, Siksha O Anusandhan University (SOA), Bhubaneswar, India, Email:

Keywords

Organizational citizenship behavior • Organizational commitment • Faculty members • Normative • Continuance

Introduction

Commitment is an essential and psychological structure and researchers have used this to evaluate the attitude of people in various settings. This construct is important and fundamental. In respect to the organizational commitment, there are various studies conducted by Allen and Mayer [1]. Three dimensions have been introduced like affective, normative commitment and continuance commitment. Affective commitment involves the affective attachment of workers to recognize and participate in operational practices for the organization. Continuance commitment involves the commitment that individuals have to remain with an organization with their emotions and feelings and normative commitments is focused on giving an organization meaning and the employee seems to have an organizational life in general.

Organizational citizenship behavior

Today, the willingness of workers to work more is one of the major goals. OCB has become a crucial psychological and management structure over recent decades which have broad relationships with other constructs. OCB can incorporate organizational culture since the psychological features are directly and indirectly affected by its [2].In recent years, OCB has increased interest in psychology and management literature. Organ considers OCB as personal behavior which is arbitrary, not clearly and explicitly demonstrated by a formal management system of organization which usually enhances the effectiveness of the organization. Arbitrary means activity is not part of the task and role behaviors, not part of the employee commitment, but is voluntary and it will not be punished if it is not performed [3]. OCB is beneficial to employees in so far as it promotes social relationships that have an impact on job performance. Organ defines OCB as “Individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization”.

OCBs are vital to economic growth, because organizations can not anticipate the wide range of subordinate behaviors to achieve the objectives through job descriptions Organ. Researchers contend the organizational functioning of OCBs is critical [4]. Barnard emphasizes on the ‘willingness to cooperate’. This ‘willingness to cooperate’ is distinct from the efficiency, ability or value of individual commitments. Katz and Kahn in their social and psychological study, operating through an open system model of organization, and brought attention to the different groups of behaviors these are vital for the success of an organization. Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) is commonly defined as “Individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in aggregate promotes the effective functioning of an organization [5-7].”

Good citizenship requires a range of actions, such as taking on additional duties, voluntary support for other workers in their jobs, ensuring the growth of their own field and career, implementing the rules of the organization, supporting, defending and maintain a good approach and to consider job drawbacks. Researchers have different points of view with respect to the factors of OCB. Two factors of organizational citizenship behavior have been established by Smith. Altruism is the first way to solve a problem by running a business with such aspects as helping overwhelmed employees to get the job done. Later, the OCB’s five dimensions were identified in (1988): altruism, courtesy, civic virtue, conscientiousness and sportsmanship. They are:

Altruism: Altruism concerns mainly organizational members in terms of helping approach. It includes behaviors that supports coworkers who work heavily and orients new people voluntarily or even without being asked for their jobs. Through altruism a person does not expect any help because he or she wants to improve the welfare of others.

Conscientiousness: Conscientiousness indicates impersonal behavior that helps the entire organization. In other words, it applies to behavior that is not related to someone else. For example, an employee who follows the rules of an organization, or an employee who does not waste any vacation or sick day.

Sportsmanship: Sportsmanship is the ability of the worker to work without complaining in difficult circumstances. It is the only form of OCB that leads to behavior deterioration. For example: Sportsmen would be considered good sportsmanship not to engage in gossip and not to complain about the office matter.

Courtesy: Courtesy is demonstrated through communication and general concern for others and preventing organizational problems. The courteous behavior tries to avoid unpleasant surprises for other employees.

Civic virtue: This is not regarded as an individual behavior, but rather as the organizations target. This offers insight on critical organizational issues.

Organizational commitment

Organizational commitment is a force which connects an individual to a course of action which is significant for one or several goals [8]. This can be regarded as a feeling reflected by the motivation and desire to work, the urge to assume liability and the ability to know. Accordingly, this dedication has been described as a sort of fanatical emotional attachment to organizational values and goals, and not only through instrumental values, but through the role of the person in the values and objectives of an organization and about the organization in general [9].

The above definitions convey a similar message; commitment concerns the identity, relation, trust in organizational principles and objectives of the employee. It requires the trust and determination of the staff to achieve the organization’s objectives. Commitment can be used as an indicator that an individual treats himself or herself as a social exchange relationship with the organization [10]. In modern “learning” organizations workers are increasingly expected to show commitment, inspiration, dedication and initiative. The organization’s success depends not just on how the organization enables human resources, but also on how it increases the organization’s commitment. Employee involvement and professional workers seem to be important if an organization can survive and succeed in quality, adapt and even respond to changes in quality [11].The literature on commitment distinguishes three distinct, most important modes of commitment, such as affective, continuance and normative. Such three modes of commitment are the fundamental and building blocks of the organizational commitment framework.

It is conceptualized by Allen and Meyer and suggested a three component commitment measure consisting of:

Affective commitment: The employee’s emotional connection and in the organizational participation.

Normative commitment: The employee’s feeling of obligation to stay with the organization.

Continuance commitment: A responsibility based on costs related to the employee leaving of the organization.

Affective commitment

Affective Commitment (AC), which includes accepting and internalizing the interests and ideals of the other party, a desire to make an effort and do something on behalf of that party. O Reilly proposed that workers may display distinct levels of affective commitment (i.e., affiliation based attachment) to specific organizational institutions, top management of the company, their immediate bosses, colleagues and their workgroup. Affective commitment defines the willingness of a person to continue to work with the organization despite the organization’s emotional affection and identity. The value of organizational involvement is not limited only to organizations making profit. Wang, Indridason reported that employee affective commitment was found to be of vital public sector significance. Employees who are emotionally connected can excel in the success of organizations providing the public service.

Theory of organizational support can help to understand the emotional commitment of employees. When the company starts to respect and care for employee interest through an exchange, they become emotionally attached and display improved results. Organizational assistance is counterproductive to having employee membership. Employees with high affective commitment can be more likely than others to assume that preferential treatment represents the benevolent nature of the organization rather than external constraints, thereby growing perceived support for the organization [12]. Further affective commitment was found to have negative connections with absenteeism and to have favorable, if low, relationships with different forms of success. Employees with a strong emotional commitment may represent low workplace absence as they believe in the organization’s ideals and priorities and want to participate and enhance results. In many organizations, reduced absenteeism or improved performance resulting from affective commitment can be rewarded, resulting in increased perceived organizational support.

It is easy to understand that getting affective commitment from employees is not an easy task for organizations particularly in times of economic or financial crisis. A good indicator of work behavior is affective commitment. Workers who respect organizational objectives and interact with the organization are likely to perform more than those workers who simply remain within an obligation (normative) or a desire to continue (continuous). Affective commitment outweighs the other two aspects of commitment (normative and continuous) in having workers’ hearts and minds [13]. Those workers who feel emotionally committed to the organization and are affectively dedicated to the organization should be able to make greater efforts on the organization’s behalf than those who are not.

Normative commitment

The second type of commitment is Normative Commitment (NC), which includes expected obligations to preserve job affiliations and. The theory of normative commitment represents the internalization of pressure to behave according to the interests of the organization [14]. Such stresses can be an adherence to an organization’s goals and principles and a belief in the moral responsibility and duties of being committed to the organization and define actions affected by high commitment beyond absolute enhancement or punishment. One way to weaken excessive normative commitment could be to allow individual members to deviate from the prevailing culture of team decision making.

Continuance commitment

Continuance commitment defines to remain with the organization as a result of understanding the costs (tenure, salary, benefits, pension and family commitment, etc) associated with the lack of job opportunities elsewhere and quit the firm. Employees get committed because they don’t want to risk the advantages associated with their work. Continuance commitment based on the decision of a worker to quit or choose to remain a part of the organization and relies on their knowledge of the existence of alternatives and incentives if they were to leave the organization [15]. Continuous commitment entails psychological costs for workers and when workers experience a lack of opportunities they may feel ‘caught’ with adverse effects such as deviant behavior, work dissatisfaction, high absenteeism and lower efficiency.

Materials and Methods

Descriptive-correlation study has been applied in this research. The population of this study consists of 163 faculty members. The questionnaires include demographic characteristics (age, gender, qualification, designation, department) and Allen and Mayer’s organizational commitment questionnaire was applied which includes 18 items. The three subscales of organizational commitment are: affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment. 5-point Likert scale has been used in this study. To check the reliability of this study, cronbach’s alpha has been applied. OCB questionnaire of Podsakoff contained 24 questions. OC questionnaire of Allen and Mayer contained 18 questions.

Results and Discussion

The study findings indicated that the reliability of AC is 0.781, the reliability of NC is 0.717, the reliability of CC is 0.755 and the reliability of OCB is 0.810. It has been stated that if the values are more than 0.07, it indicates the scale is accurate. The overall reliability is 0.831. The values of AC, NC, CC and OCB are more than 0.7. This indicates the scale is accurate. The overall reliability is 0.831 which represents the scale is accurate and reliable Table1 .

The mean of affective commitment is 3.12, normative commitment is obtained 3.61, continuance commitment mean is found to be 3.32 and the mean of OCB is 3.77. The standard deviation value of AC is 0.942, the standard deviation value of normative commitment is 1.42, and the standard deviation value of continuance commitment is 0.080 and the standard deviation value of OCB is 0.219. The variance of affective commitment is 0.888, the variance of normative commitment is 0.131, the variance of continuance commitment is 0.048 and the variance of OCB is 0.166 in Table 2 .

Affective commitment and organizational citizenship behavior, there is positive and significant relationship (r=0.273, p=0.001). There is also positive relationship between continuance commitment and OCB (r=0.360, p=0.000). There is positive and significant relationship between normative commitment and organizational citizenship behavior, (r=0.167, p=0.051). Between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior, there also positive and strong relation exists (r=0.368, p=0.000). It has been statistically proved that a p-value less than 0.05 are significant Table 3.

Conclusion

In 2011, there was a significant and positive relationship between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior among nurses of hospitals in Isfahan province. In 2012, a study “staff organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior among the transportation services staff in Thailand industrial estate” represents the impact of organizational culture, normative commitment and continuance commitment on organizational citizenship behavior. In 2013, it was investigated that between the components of organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior, significant and positive relationship exists. In 2015, a significant relationship was found between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. This study was investigated among the private banking employees.

To assess the correlation between the components of organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior, correlation research design was applied. To check the reliability among the variables, cronbach’s alpha, statistical method has been used.

The current study indicated that positive and significant relationship exists between organizational commitment components and organizational citizenship behavior. Therefore, the citizenship behavior of faculty members and organizational commitment should be improved by making use of effective strategies. It is understood that faculty members pleased with their work are more likely to display organizational citizenship behaviors. These findings prove that organizations which retain committed faculty members successfully can show organizational citizenship behaviors. In the organization, the workforce of the committed persons is very significant and their committed level should be specified.

Acknowledgement

We would like than the editor and anonyms reviewers for the supportive comments and suggestion.

References

1. Meyer, John P and Natalie J Allen. “Testing the” Side-Bet Theory” of Organizational Commitment: Some Methodological Considerations.” J Appl Psychol 69(1984):372-378.
2. Stamper, Christina L and Linn Van Dyne. “Work Status and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Field Study of Restaurant Employees.” J Occup Organ Psychol 22(2001): 517-536.
3. Podsakoff, Philip M, Scott B MacKenzie, Julie Beth Paine and Daniel G Bachrach. “Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future Research.” J Manag Stud 26 (2000): 513-563.
4. Organ, Dennis W and Mary Konovsky. “Cognitive Versus Affective Determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behavior.” J Appl Psychol 74(1989): 157-164.
5.  Organ, Dennis W and Katherine Ryan. “A Meta‐Analytic Review of Attitudinal and Dispositional Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior.” Pers Psychol 48 (1995): 775-802.
6. Organ, Dennis W and Katherine Ryan. “A Meta‐Analytic Review of Attitudinal and Dispositional Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior.” Pers Psychol 48 (1995): 775-802.
7. Tang, Thomas Li-Ping and Randy K Chiu. “Income, Money Ethic, Pay Satisfaction, Commitment, and Unethical Behavior: Is the Love of Money the Root of Evil for Hong Kong Employees?” J Bus Ethics 46 (2003): 13-30.
8. Dennis, W Organ and Janet P Near. “Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It’s Nature and Antecedents.” J Appl Psychol 68 (1983): 653-663.
9. Sojoudi, S and Farzin Farahbod. “Organizational Commitment and Performance Management: The Roles of Trust and Justice.” Trends adv sci eng 6 (2012): 55-63.
10. Meyer, John P and Lynne Herscovitch. “Commitment in the Workplace: Toward a General Model.” Hum Resour Manag Rev 11 (2001): 299-326.
11. Cropanzano, Russell and Marie S Mitchell. “Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review.” J Manag Stud 31 (2005): 874-900.
12. Schappe, Stephen P. “The Influence of Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Fairness Perceptions on Organizational Citizenship Behavior.” J Psychol 132 (1998): 277-290.
13. Allen, Natalie J and John P Meyer. “The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective, Continuance and Normative Commitment To The Organization.” J Occup Psychol 63 (1990): 1-18.
14. Meyer, John P and Natalya M Parfyonova. “Normative Commitment in the Workplace: A Theoretical Analysis and Re-Conceptualization.” Hum Resour Manag Rev 20 (2010): 283-294.
15. Farh, Jiing-Lih, Philip M, Podsakoff and Dennis W Organ. “Accounting For Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Leader Fairness and Task Scope Versus Satisfaction.” J Manag Stud 16 (1990): 705-721.