From Discretionary to Required

Abstract

The distinction between organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and required behavior remains questionable more than two decades after its conceptualization. To examine the conceptual confusion, OCB was assessed for consistency with the traditional definition. OCB perceived as owed to the organization was also identified. Results indicate that many OCBs are perceived as part of the job description, rewarded, and punished. This highlights the definitional problem: What is the theoretical and pragmatic difference between OCB and required behavior, or what does the label OCB mean? Assuming that OCB exists (perhaps at organization entry), it is argued to migrate from discretionary to psychologically required. Results are discussed in terms of role sending, leader—member exchange, and reinforcement by managers. Rather than reduce the worth of the OCB construct, we suggest that it remains valuable: discretionary, extrarole OCB may be a midpoint between a formal job description and expanded work behavior migrating to psychologically required.

Citizenship Pressure as a Predictor of Daily Enactment of Autonomous and Controlled Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Differential Spillover Effects on the Home Domain

“…Although OCB was originally defined as a discretionary behavior (Organ, 1988), some scholars questioned the voluntary nature of OCB (e.g., compulsory citizenship behavior; Vigoda-Gadot, 2006; Turnipseed and Wilson, 2009; Spector and Fox, 2010). In the current study, both perspectives on OCB were integrated.…”

“…Traditionally, research (see meta-analysis of Podsakoff et al, 2009) focused on the positive consequences of OCB for the organization (e.g., higher productivity, higher customer satisfaction) and employee (e.g., less absenteeism, less turnover intentions). However, scholars started to question the exclusive voluntary nature of OCB (e.g., for some theoretical papers see Vigoda-Gadot, 2006; Spector and Fox, 2010; Spitzmuller and Van Dyne, 2013; Grant and Bolino, 2016) and associated beneficial outcomes (e.g., Halbesleben et al, 2009, 2010; Turnipseed and Wilson, 2009; Gailliot, 2010; Weinstein and Ryan, 2010; Koopman et al, 2016; Spanouli and Hofmans, 2016; Liu et al, 2017; Yam et al, 2017; Gabriel et al, 2018). Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci and Ryan, 1985; Ryan and Deci, 2000) states that employees can experience different underlying reasons to engage in a similar behavior.…”

Examining Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the Context of Human Resource Development

“…OCB has enjoyed a great deal of research attention particularly in the managerial and behavioral science fields (Dekas, Bauer, Welle, Kurkoski, & Sullivan, 2013; Fassina, Jones, & Uggerslev, 2008; Turnipseed & Wilson, 2009). As such, its definition and attributes have been revised as new theoretical understandings and empirical evidence have been put forward.…”

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

“…This is one of the central questions in understanding the role and conceptualization of OCB for transitioning soldiers. Whereas most civilian organizations treat these behaviors as discretionary , U.S. Army culture treats these behaviors as expected (Turnipseed & Wilson, 2009; U.S. Army, 2015b).…”