ijcrb.webs.com J 2013 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL F O ... · and reliable, brave, knowledge-oriented...

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research

827

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

Organizational Citizenship Behavior as an Unavoidable Necessity for increasing

the Effectiveness of Organizations

Zahra Jafari Karfestani21

, Mostafa Azizi Shomami22

, Moslem Maleki

Hasanvand23

Abstract

In the current challenging world, the organizations to compete in the world level, meet

the needs and expectations of customers and compatibility with the transforming

nature of the job attempt to engage the employees that act beyond the task and role

determined in their job description. Against the past that the employees were expected

to act to the extent of formal roles, in the new psychological contracts, the behaviors

beyond the role is expected. Today, these efforts beyond the expectation are referred to

as behaviors in addition to the role or organizational citizenship behaviors in the

literature of organization and management science. Organizational citizenship

behavior is a completely voluntary behavior that the rewarding system is not able to

identify it directly but altogether it increases the effective performance in the

organization. In this paper, in addition to presenting the definitions of organizational

citizenship behavior, the classifications and formation of this behavior approaches are

studies, as well as its nature in the various cultures are discussed, ultimately the factors

affecting and forming the citizenship behavior together with its consequences are

explained.

Keywords: Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Dimension, Requirements and

conditions, Consequence

1- Introduction

The citizenship is a subject that was raised for the first time in the social sciences for

establishing the community spirit and solidarity among the society people (Fathi

Vajargah & Chokadeh, 2006). After democratic ruling system as a manner for ruling

over people by the people entered in the political systems, the necessity of people’s

presence in the governing interactions was revealed, thus the political sciences to

achieve the suitable scientific paradigms, borrowed the citizenship from social

sciences. The third presence of citizenship after presence in social sciences and

political sciences is appeared in education system. In fact, after proving the importance

and value of citizenship the education systems intended to extend and intensify this

21

M.A. in Educational Planning, University of Mazandaran(Instructor in Rodsar & Amlash Branch,

Islamic Azad University) 22

Ph.D Student in Educational Administration, Kharazmi University 23

M.A. in Educational Administration, Kharazmi University

ijcrb.webs.com



828

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

important factor. But presence of citizenship in the context of education was so

significant that today many of the world countries have considered the “citizenship

education (Kazemi & Chokadeh, 2005). Appearance of citizenship concept in

organization and management science under title of organizational citizenship

behavior indeed is formed as a combination of social, political and educational

science, based on the following assumptions:

1- The organizations are the major constituent elements of the community and

have major role in the humans lives;

2- The humans and their intellectual capitals are considered as the major elements

of organizations;

3- The major part of humans life is spent in the organizations and interaction with

them;

4- The new approaches of organization and management consider the responsible

and reliable, brave, knowledge-oriented human as the major agent in success of

organizations (Jamali et al, 2009).

2- History of “organizational citizenship behavior” concept formation

The “citizen” has been derived from Latin word “Civitas”. This word in Latin

Language is almost equivalent to “Polis” in Greek. Polis or city is not only a complex

of residents but is deemed as a political and independent unit (Baratalipour, 2005

quoted by Valipour, 2007). The root of citizenship is referred to the Greek and cities or

polis and ancient Rome city-states. This concept was raised upon appearance of

democracy in Greek city-states in the meaning of benefitting from rights, tasks and

active political participation. This citizenship is a topic which has been entwined with

the concept of culture of each society and whereas the culture of each land is resulted

from three essential territories including social activities, political environment and

economical status of that society, is completely unique and special and every culture

demands its own citizen (Oliver Heater, 1994; quoted by Shiani, 2002).

The citizenship has been bond with the human rights in social life (Parker, 2000;

quoted by Fathi Vajargah & Chokadeh, 2006). As well as, it is deemed as a social

contract, the main goals of which is to promote the welfare and security in the society

and necessarily discusses on this subject that the people how to behave to achieve such

goals (Merrifield, 1997; quoted by Shiani, 2008),

The citizen is a person who lives in a state-nation and has specified rights and

privileges as well as tasks vis-à-vis the government such as obeying the government

(Lagasse, 2000, quoted by Banks, 2008). Active and responsible citizenship doesn’t

mean only beginning to various local, national and international community but means

active participation in the social life and collective institutions as well. This

ijcrb.webs.com



829

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

responsible participation requires the correct and reasonable and caring use of material

and social public resources (Nord Warren, 2001, quoted by Lotfabadi, 2006).

In addition, the citizenship is not only a personal and individual topic but includes

other levels such as “Family Citizenship”, “Vocational Citizenship”, “Cultural

Citizenship” and such levels therein a person in any case has family, vocational,

cultural and such rights and responsibilities (Lotfabadi, 2006). One of the important

topics in the context of citizenship is organizational citizenship that refers to

conducting appropriate behaviors in the organization. Organizational citizenship

behavior (OCB) is the Latin root of “Otix” means moral derived from Greek work

“Otos” that means personal characteristic or custom (Solomon, 1984, quoted by

Sohrabi & Khanlari, 2009). According to the viewpoint of Solomon, the semantics and

root of this word indicates its substantial relationship with the interpersonal

characteristic, goodness of person, accurate social rules and moralities that leads the

individual’s behavior. On the other side, universal definition of moral includes a series

of factors that make moral or unmoral judge on a phenomenon or person. However,

two persons who are called as moral, may have different ideas about financial

punishment, persuasive behavior and discrimination and conduct differently

(Schermerhorn, 1999).

Although the term of organizational citizenship behavior has been raised for the first

time by Organ (1977), but this concept has been resulted from writings of Bernad

(1938) on the tendency to cooperation and studies of Ketz & Kan (1964, 1966) on the

spontaneous and unexpected performances and behaviors of the role (Hassani Kakhaki

& Gholipour, 2007). Foote & Tang (2008) believe that during the past few decades,

OCB has been changed to an important concept in psychology and management and

has been attracted intensively. According to the statement of Ashtiani & Kohan

(2009), the individual basis for the behaviors beyond the role requirements may be

sough in organizational analysis of Chester Barnard within 1930s that emphasizes on

the individual’s tendency to do their best for the organization. Ketz (1964) has

mentioned the importance of a group of innovative and spontaneous behaviors that

despite of being beyond the explicit and clear requirements of the role but are

necessary for organizational effectiveness. Organ (1991) defines OCB as the

individual behavior that is optional and voluntary, has not been identified directly and

explicitly by formal rewarding system and improves the effective performance of the

organization in general (Foote & Tang, 2008). In the next researches, several concepts

related to OCB have been considered including extra-role behavior, social citizen,

socialistic behaviors, and organizational spontaneity (Raminmehr et al, 2009).

ijcrb.webs.com



830

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

3- What is organizational citizenship behavior?

A group of texts related to OCB have used diverse terms for describing the excellent

capabilities of employees such as extra-role behavior, organizational spontaneity and

protecting the group benefits in order until the concepts have been collected and

integrated in the studies related to citizenship behavior. Despite of rather different

conceptualization and consequently the inconsistent applications, the most concepts

have a common point that the concept of OCB formed based on. Obviously, the most

of these concepts refer to this fact that when the employees are active and benevolent

to the organization, the organizational effectiveness is expected (Jung & Hong, 2008).

As Bienstocket et al (2003), the main objective of applying the early researches on

organizational citizenship behavior is to identify the responsibilities or behaviors of

employees in the organization; but was ever ignored. Although these behaviors were

measured in the traditional assessments of vocational performance incompletely or

even sometimes were neglected, but ultimately were effective on the improvement of

organization’s effectiveness. Appelbaum & Etal (2004) have defined these actions

conducted in working environment as follows: some optional and voluntary behaviors

that don’t form a part of formal tasks of the individual, nonetheless are conducted by

the own individual and casus the effective improvement of organization’s tasks and

roles. Such behaviors are different from technical task and performance and are mostly

voluntary and spontaneous which are different from specified and formal behaviors

related to the main job. On the other side, such behaviors have more positive effects on

the social, psychological, organizational and technical contexts (Ghafari Ashtiani &

Kohan, 2009).

Borman & Motowidlo (1993) quoted by Mendoza & Lara (2007) have defined OCB as

the context performance including a wide context of behavior which has not been

explained explicitly for job description but is effective on the organizational life. The

behavioral pattern available for context performance and OCB theoretically and

practically are very important for all human resources styles such as analysis of job,

employment, election, training, development, performance evaluation, refund and even

relationships between job and employee have very important concepts (Ghafari

Ashtiani & Kohan, 2009). Borman & Motowidlo (2001) have defined the term of

context performance and its relationship with OCB that has been mentioned by Organ

et al (Batman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Niyer & Organ, 1983) a few years ago. Both

terms are referred to the behavioral elements which are similar from many approaches.

As Organ, ideas on OCB are formed from this belief that job satisfaction affects the

tendency and desire of the individuals for helping the colleagues and their motivation

ijcrb.webs.com



831

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

for active participation in the organizational activities through different ways in order

to preserve and maintain the organization’s resources.

As well as, Smith (1983) quoted by Navabakhsh et al (2009) attempted to define the

specific behaviors reflecting these tendency and desire, upon the request of the

managers for describing the activities they tend their subordinates to do, but even they

cannot oblige them even aiding reward and punishment system, therefore OCB has

been manifested regardless of behavioral consequences of job satisfaction; it has been

assumed that they have more importance for organization’s effectiveness and in

principle they have been defined as behaviors that the managers tend their

subordinates to do, but they cannot oblige them to do what they tend. The ideas on

context performance have different origins. Borman & Motowidlo (2001) believe that

the research and experience in the employees selection focuses only on a part of

vocational performance and function and ignore the other parts of performance and

function context that they deem important and necessary for organization

effectiveness. In relation to the difference between both contexts of performance,

Borman & Motowidlo recommend that the part considered and identified by selection

process is called task performance including the activities explained commonly in job

description. Also, they believed that these activities are important organizationally

because they help the organization’s technical core directly by execution of a part of

technological process and indirectly by providing the materials and services required

for the organization.

In return, a part of performance context that as Borman & Motowidlo are ignored or

disregarded in selection process includes activities such as volunteering, having

diligence, helping, pursuing the laws and organizational goals. They state that these

activities protect the organizational, social and psychological environment therein

technical core is applied. Borman & Motowidlo assumed that such activities due to the

effect on the environment and context of technical core that are valuable

organizationally and introduced the term of context performance to refer to them.

Chen et al (2009) explained that OCB has been used for the first time for expressing

the extra-role behaviors and considering its relationship with job satisfaction. Such

behaviors may not be prescribed prior for a specified job. Extra-role behaviors

strengthen the social structure of organization but don’t affect the job performance.

There are not many definitions for citizenship behavior and what introduced as the

definition of this concept is derived mostly from Organ (1977); such behaviors are not

the essential requirements of role and description of employees job, thus OCB key

elements are specified as follows:

ijcrb.webs.com



832

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

- A behavior described beyond what described formally for organization

employees;

- A behavior not providing a reward directly or not appreciated through formal

structure of organization;

- An optional behavior conducted based on the individual will;

- A behavior that has considerable effect on the organizational performance and

organization’s success (Senobari, 1999).

Podsakoff believes that good citizenship is a thought including employees’ behaviors

such as performing the lateral tasks, voluntarily helping the others in cases, no one

supervise over them, taking effort towards promoting and helping the organization and

preserving the positive attitude and tolerating the difficulties in work (Bullino et al,

2002). Consequently, organizational citizenship behavior causes promotion and

improvement of organization performance and increasing its effectiveness by greasing

the organizations’ social components and cycles (Banks, 2008).

In the literature review, two main approaches are specified in the definitions related to

organizational citizenship behavior:

1- Behaviors of role and extra-role

2- All positive behaviors inside the organization.

a. In role and extra-role behaviors

The early researchers defined and emphasized the organizational citizenship behavior

separate from performance in the role and this behavior shall be considered as the

behavior beyond the role. Morisson (1994) has used the term of “perceived job

breadth” for distinguishing two categories of in-role and extra-role behaviors and

explained that whatever the employee perceives the job domain broader, defines more

activities as the “in-role” activities. This assumption emphasizes this point that an

important agent for determining an activity as the organizational citizenship behavior

is that the employees define their job responsibilities to which breadth. This argument

follows an important theoretical application means what the others define as

organizational citizenship behavior reflects the employees’ perception of their job

responsibilities breadth. This recommendation was focused in other studies, because

the behavior border in “in-role” and “extra-role” has not been defined clearly and is

varied from en employee to the other or from employees to the heads, therefore this

approach is contrary to what researchers conceptualize as the organizational

citizenship behavior, although some researchers attempted to explain the differences

between “in-role” and “inner-role”, and “extra-role” behaviors from one side, and

ijcrb.webs.com



833

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

conceptualizing the organizational citizenship behavior on the other side and establish

a relationship between them. For instance, as Organ (1988) a vital difference between

these activities is that if these behaviors are rewarded or in the event of non-

observation of such behaviors, deprivations are applied or not, because organizational

citizenship behavior and activities in this relation shall be perceived independent from

formal rewards, because organizational citizenship behavior is a behavior that is not

rewarded organizationally.

b. All positive behaviors

As the viewpoint of Hassani Kakhaki & Gholipour (2007) in another approach,

organizational citizenship behavior is considered separate from work performance.

Adopting such approach obviates the distinction problem between role and extra-role.

In this approach, organizational citizenship behavior shall be considered as a general

concept including all positive and improving behaviors of people inside the

organization together with full and responsible participation.

4- Dimension of organizational citizenship behavior

Despite of increasing attention to the subject of citizenship behavior, upon reviewing

the literature of this context, lack of consensus on the approaches of this concept is

cleared. The summary of literature review indicates that almost thirty different

citizenship behaviors are separable and various definitions have been presented, but

there are a lot of overlaps between them. Some approaches are as follows:

4-1 Organ model:

Probably the most valid classification for organizational citizenship behavior elements

has been presented by Organ (1977) that is used in the different researches. Organ has

presented a classification of organizational citizenship behavior approaches which

formed the concept of OCB as follows:

1- Conscientiousness: A mood therein the organization members perform specific

behaviors and work beyond the minimum task level required for conducting

that work or in other word, the individuals who express advanced citizenship

behavior. In the worst conditions and even in illness and disability state, they

continue their work that implies their high conscientiousness. This approach has

been considered as working conscience in the studies of Graham (1989) and

Fareh et al (1997), and as organizational obedience in studies applied by

Podsakoff et al (2000) and in Lambert (2000) model as the obedience that is

explained in the next sections.

2- Altruism: refers to the useful and effective behaviors such as creating closeness,

empathy and compassion between the colleagues that helps directly or

ijcrb.webs.com



834

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

indirectly the employees involved in working problems, for example helping

who have a high volume of work. As Graham (1989), altruism has been defined

as interpersonal assist and as Lambert (2000) as the participation and

responsibility that is explained in the next sections.

3- Civic virtue: including behaviors such as attending the extraordinary activities

when this presence is not required, supporting the presented development and

changes made by the organization managers and tendency to studying the book,

magazine and increasing general information and paying attention to the

hanging poster and notice in the organization for the others’ information. This

approach of organizational citizenship behavior is corresponding to the

faithfully support in Graham (1989) study and protection of organizational

benefits in the model of Fareh et al (1997), and organizational loyalty and civic

behavior in model of Podsakoff (2000) that is explained in the next sections.

4- Magnanimity: refers to patience against undesirable and unsuitable situations

without objection, dissatisfaction and complaining. As Graham (1989),

magnanimity has been defined as individual ardency, Podsakoff et al (2000)

defined as chivalry, and Lambert (2000) as loyalty that is explained in the next

sections.

5- Respect and reverence: this approach indicates the manner of behaving with the

colleagues, heads and audiences of organization. The people who behave with

the others with respect have advanced citizenship behavior. This factor has been

considered as social etiquettes in studies applied by Fareh et al (1997) and as

loyalty in the studies provided by Lambert (2000) that is explained in the next

sections.

4-2 Graham model:

The other model proceeding with the approaches of organizational citizenship

behavior is Graham model. He assumes 4 following approaches for this behavior, as

well:

1- Interpersonal helping: that focuses on helping the others to perform the jobs;

2- Individual ardency: describes the relationship with the others in working

environment towards individual or group academic advance;

3- Individual effort: performing a specified work equal or more than the person’s

assigned task;

4- Faithfully support: means improving the organization’s image outside it

(Graham, 1989; quoted by Amini, 2007).

ijcrb.webs.com



835

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

4-3 Fareh et al model:

Fareh et al (1997) have considered the elements of organizational citizenship behavior

according to the cultural conditions of China as follows:

Social etiquettes, altruism, work conscience, protecting the organizational benefits

(Fareh et al, 1997; quoted by Marcozy & Zihn, 2005).

4-4 Podsakoff et al model:

The model of Podsakoff et al (2000) indicated that almost thirty organizational

citizenship behaviors have been identified that in some cases there is a great

conceptual overlap between them. Upon collecting and classifying the different

viewpoints, seven main approaches of these behaviors are as follows:

1- Helping behaviors: including voluntarily helping the others or prevention from

happening problems related to work.

2- Sportsmanship: one of organizational citizenship behaviors that have been

considered less than helping behaviors. As Organ (1991), sportsmanship has

been defined as tendency to tolerating the unavoidable annoying conditions in

work without complaint and expressing the sadness.

3- Organizational loyalty: this category of behaviors including defending the

organization against the threats, participation in achieving the reputation for the

organization and collaboration with the others to achieve the whole benefits.

Organizational loyalty due to promotion of organizational position before

external beneficiaries is necessary. Protection and defend against external

threats and binding even in undesirable conditions may be deemed as loyalty.

4- Organizational obedience: organizational obedience has a long record in the

context of organizational citizenship behavior. Organizational obedience is

accepting the necessity and appropriateness of logic rules and organizational

regulations that are reflected in the job descriptions and policies of

organization. Respecting the rules and instructions, believing the work

completion at the appointed time and adequate consideration to the job indicates

the obedience. The reason for considering the this behavior as the

organizational citizenship behavior is that even despite of expecting every

person to obey all organizational regulations, rules and procedures at any

situation, many of employees don’t do it simply. Therefore, these employees

who obey all regulations and instructions out of conscience even in the event of

lacking supervision, are deemed as good citizens.

ijcrb.webs.com



836

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

5- Individual initiatives: this type of organizational citizenship behavior is an

extra-role behavior that is beyond the minimum expected general requirements.

The behaviors including tasks voluntary creative activity were explained as the

elements of this structure.

6- Civic behavior or virtue: the civic behavior is arising from interest or

commitment in the organization. Supervision over environment for the purpose

of identifying the opportunities and threats is a sample of these behaviors

(considering the changes of industry due to its effect on the organization) even

by personal reimbursement. This behavior reflects the individual’s

understanding of this point that he is a part of the whole, and as the citizens are

responsible for the society, he as an organization member has some

responsibilities for the organization. In Organ’s studies, this factor has been

considered as a civic behavior and as organizational collaboration in the studies

applied by Graham (1989) quoted by Amini (2007).

7- Self-growth: including voluntary behaviors of employees for improvement of

their knowledge, skills and capabilities. The characteristic of this behavior is

that the new group of skills is learned for development of collaboration domain

in organization, however this approach of organizational citizenship behavior

has not been studied in the literature, studies and researches. Nonetheless, it

seems this type of behaviors that are subject to the discretion of employees are

distinct from other organizational citizenship behavior contextually (Podsakoff

et al, 2000).

4-5 Lambert model:

Lambert (2000) classifies the characteristics of organizational citizenship behavior in

three categories as follows:

1- First class: obedience including respecting the structures and processes

regularly. This class, as the viewpoint of Lambert includes the Organ’s

conscientiousness factor.

2- Second class: loyalty and development of activities including rendering the

appropriate services to the employees and preserving the values. As Lambert,

loyalty includes the courtesy and magnanimity of Organ.

3- Third class: collaboration and responsibility including self-control under

regulations and laws. As Lambert, altruism and complaisance factors of Organ

are placed in this class.

ijcrb.webs.com



837

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

Considering the experts’ conceptualizations of organizational citizenship behavior

mentioned in table 1, a summary of organizational citizenship behavior’s approaches

has been presented.

Table 1-2: Summary of organizational citizenship behavior’s approaches

Organ (1977) Graham (1989) Fareh et al (1997) Podsakoff et al

(2000) Lambert (2000)

Conscientiousness

Altruism

Civic virtue

Magnanimity

Respect and

reverence

Interpersonal

helping

faithfully

support

individual

effort

individual

ardency

Social etiquettes

Altruism

working

conscience

protecting

organizational

benefits

Helping

behaviors

Sportsmanship

Organizational

loyalty

Organizational

obedience

Individual

initiatives

Civic virtue

Self-growth

Obedience

Loyalty and

activities

development

Collaboration

and

responsibility

In consideration of the foregoing, it is expected the meaning and structure of OCB to

be different in the various societies because of cultural content of each society and the

conditions and type of the environment OCB is occurred therein, therefore it is

necessary OCB to be considered culturally.

5- Organizational culture and citizenship

According to the definition, organizational citizenship behavior increases the

organizational effectiveness and efficiency and workforce productivity at any time and

continuously, so how may state that cultural and organizational environments for

instance USA and China are different in proposing the factors causing the increase in

organizational performance effectiveness and improvement? (Fareh et al, 2004).

For this purpose, Marcozy & Zihn (2005) explain that the globalization has closed all

the world corners to each other and causes increasingly the managers to pay attention

to culture and diversity topics. On the other side, the cultures structures and fields own

may persuade the performance of OCB or avoids its appearance. The studies indicated

that the cultural factors have considerable effect on the organizational citizenship

behavior (George & Jones, 1997; Lam, Hui & Law, 1992; Paine & Organ, 2000;

Coyne & Ong, 2007 quoted by Wang et al, 2010).

Moreover, there are several questions in connection with OCB and culture, deeper

studies are required to be applied thereon: if organizational citizenship behavior has

similar meaning in other cultures? If there are terms in other cultures that explain such

ijcrb.webs.com



838

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

phenomenon? If there is different perception of citizenship behavior in other cultures?

If there are different outcomes of citizenship behavior? If there are specified classes of

citizenship behavior such altruism and obedience appeared in studies of USA in other

cultures similarly? (Paine & Organ, 2000).

According to this theory which has been presented by analysis of Paine & Organ

(2000) of OCB cultural approaches; similar behaviors as the citizenship behavior or

approaches of contextual performance effective in a place maybe abortive and

affectless in other place. Thus, national culture may significantly adjust the

relationship between the rate of expression of citizenship behavior by the individuals

and the grade of their help to the organizational effectiveness.

As Mendoza & Lara (2007), the most of recent intercultural studies in relation to the

impact of culture on the organizational citizenship behavior indicate that a significant

relationship exists between nationality and definition of OCB as a part of the job. In

1997, Fareh et al in a study applied in Taiwan concluded that OCB is different in the

cultural areas, in general. Culture own express our opinion on behaviors related to the

organizational effectiveness.

The studies dealing with culture effects on the citizenship behavior comparing two

cultures of USA and China, concluded that the factors existing in each culture

determine OCB approaches and its content, e.g. comparing American and Chinese

cultures, factors such as dependence of Chinese companies to the government, leakage

of resources in China, superiority of American economic development to China,

Chinese pluralism culture versus American individualism culture, economy of the free

market in USA and risk of conflict in China were considered as factors affecting the

citizenship behavior and its concept in both societies (Fareh et al, 2004).

In continue, Hofstede (1984) quoted by Wang et al (2010) explained that two specified

approaches of culture include “individualism-pluralism” and “power distance”. Inside

a culture, these approaches may affect the quality of OCB perception.

Furthermore, the appeared behaviors may have different consequences according to

the culture. The pluralistic cultures may be the incentive for various behaviors that

benefits the organization as well as the internal groups. Performing beyond the tasks in

a group may be natural in pluralistic cultures but in the individualistic cultures may be

exceptional and extraordinary. Instrumental motivation of individual in the most

individualistic cultures has positive effect on OCB appearance. In other word, in the

individualistic cultures, OCB may be motivated and affect the evaluation of

employees’ performance and lead to reward and benefits for the employee. On the

other side, in the pluralistic cultures, loyalty and support of group is noticed. Hence, it

is not expected the instrumental motivation to determine the OCB, or OCB execution

ijcrb.webs.com



839

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

to be dependent to the reward the employees receive. In addition, the level of

commitment to the organization may affect the type or rate of citizenship behavior

(ibid).

According to Navabakhsh et al (2009) suggestion, the job, person and organizational

structure’s characteristics determine the commitment level of employees, although

these factors may be indeed a part of an intensive class of factors creating the culture

in a person. For instance, the commitment in a pluralistic culture due to the role and

importance of group may have higher level. It is expected the pluralistic cultures to

have higher level of commitment and this high level is related to the rate of citizenship

behavior expression.

In connection with the power distance and social classification that may affect the

citizenship behavior’s perception and performance in the different cultures, Paine &

Organ (2000) believe that the collaborative leadership in a culture with low power

distance persuades the individuals to the creativity and initiative beyond the specific

roles defined for them. Vise versa, the subordinates of a hierarchic leadership in the

cultures with high power distance may fulfill all their requests conveniently but fear

from the initiative and creativity that may be a challenge for the leader’s power and

authority. The individuals perform what their leaders requested, thus citizenship

behavior is limited.

In a culture with low power distance leader-member exchange is observed in the

society as a social exchange and the subordinates’ perception reasonable behavior in

such society causes the employees to express the citizenship behavior. The employees

in the societies with high power distance, even in the event of lack of reasonable laws,

may show citizenship behavior, because inequity has been accepted, whilst the

employees in the societies with low power distance may not show citizenship behavior

in case of observing inequity in the applicable procedures and laws.

6- Requirements and conditions for establishment of citizenship behavior

Establishment of each culture, system, characteristic etc. demands some requirements

and conditions. Organizational citizenship behavior is a topic placed in human

resources context. In principle, the subjects raised in this context have plenty of

complexities and difficulties, because its audience includes organizational humans that

don’t place in any specific frame and formula. As Sohrabizadeh et al, the following

agents and conditions have significant effect on organizing the organizational

citizenship behavior, as follows:

Requirements and conditions for establishment of organizational citizenship behavior

Leadership Organizational

support

Organizational

justice

Employment and

training

ijcrb.webs.com



840

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

6-1 Leadership

Trust, support and protection, patience and tolerating the managers and leaders are

considered as the most important traits for success of modern organizational models

and approaches. Organizational citizenship behavior as an organizational thought and

paradigm requests the managers and leaders to imagine their organization as a country

and consider organizational citizenship establishment as the main challenge of their

management as the voluntary commitment in connection with the goals, styles and

ultimately organization success. Citizenship behavior requests the leaders and

managers to promote the feeling of organization-interesting that is equal to civic virtue

in the citizenship topic as a basic culture in the organization. Expression of

Organizational citizenship behavior requires deep revising the position and importance

of subordinates. The leader is the center of attention, the leader expresses the

organizational goals, the leader should have the feeling of excellence, but the leaders

should know that in addition to all aforesaid and more than all, the leader in the

organizational life requires the subordinates taking effort with love and interest and

loyalty resulted from continuous presence in the organizational interactions in order to

achieve the organizational goals (Sohrabizadeh et al, 2010). The experiences and

achievements gained from failure of initial actions taken in establishment of

organizational citizenship behavior explain notable points as follows:

1- Usually, the managers instead of predicting and obviating the crisis assume the

employees as the agents of failure and blame them.

2- Usually, the managers focus on a group of tasks (majorly executive) and forget

the employees.

3- Usually, the managers instead of analyzing and detecting the problem, supply

the monetary and financial factors to solve the problems.

4- In many cases, they adopt low-cost and superficial methods to solve the

problems.

5- In many cases, the managers consider the ad hoc and short-term trainings

sufficient and eliminate the experience-oriented learning.

All the foregoing factors frustrate the current of organizational citizenship behavior in

the organizations. In addition to the said items, lack of patience, tolerance and long-

term and strategic thought encounter the establishment of modern systems in

problems. In order to organize the organizational citizenship behavior, the managers

and leaders should be pioneer. They own should manifest an organizational citizen.

The managers should ever revise their performance and attempt to analyze their

actions and so prevent any misunderstanding (Fattahi & Azami, 2008).

6-2 Organizational support

ijcrb.webs.com



841

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

Sohrabizadeh et al (2010) believe that the employees of an organization interest and

believe in the organization based on the valuation of organization for them and for

making welfare, comfort and security. This belief has been defined as organizational

support perception, in other word perception of organizational support is the belief and

perception of an individual concerning that his welfare and comfort and his

collaboration in the organization success is important for the organization, so high

level of this phenomenon (organizational support perception) causes the commitment

to be made in employees in order to compensate these privileges and benefits which

may be expressed as collaborative behaviors and organizational citizenship behaviors.

In other word, the man due to his social nature tends to show organizational

citizenship behavior in lieu for the supports of organization. Presenting the appropriate

organizational supports to the employees will lead to the dependency and belonging of

individuals to their organizations. They believe that the general factor affecting the

spirit and dependency of people to the organizational commitment is deemed as

supportive behavior, and other researches (Organ & Rian, 1995; Seyed Naghavi etal,

2010) indicate their significant relationship with the organizational citizenship

behavior (but the intensity of these correlations is different) that demonstrates the

importance of these variables for determination of organizational citizenship behavior.

6-3 Organizational justice

One of the most important consequences of organizational justice is organizational

citizenship behavior and its different contexts. Raminmehr et al (2009) indicated that

the managers and heads of units learned the principles of organizational justice during

training courses have been evaluated as just and fair people as the viewpoint of

subordinates and the same evaluation caused the subordinates to show more

citizenship behavior to the working unit and their colleges. Sohrabizadeh et al (2010)

believe that the employees feeling inequity, upon showing the negative reactions such

as abstaining effort, underemployment and weak organizational citizenship behaviors

and in the acute state by resigning from the job respond this inequity. According to the

theory of organizational justice, it is predicted that the employees react to existence or

lack of organizational justice in working environment. One of these reactions is

increasing or decreasing the outputs means that if the employees observe that no

justice is enforced in the organization involve in a negative stress, consequently for

reducing this stress they try to reduce their inputs and collaborations in the

organization. In such cases, they citizenship behavior may be reduced as well. Vise

versa, if the employees feel the organizational justice in an organization, they will be

stimulated to perform helping behaviors such as organizational citizenship behavior in

order to increase their inputs and collaborations in the organization. Podsakoff et al

ijcrb.webs.com



842

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

(1991) discuss that when the employees are behaved fairly in the organization and the

heads have good relationship with them, their organizational citizenship behavior is

increased. In the discussion on motivational basis for organizational citizenship

behavior, Organ (1991) believes that the sensation of justice has significant role in

promotion of organizational citizenship behavior. He has presented an expression

based on the social exchange, therein the employees to compensate the organization’s

fair behavior, express citizenship behavior.

6-4 Employment and training

Today, the paradigm of integrated quality control management has provided a

systemic requirement for promotion of organizations’ performance. Controlling the

inputs, processes, and products altogether are considered in the literature of this

approach (Hajikarimi, 2003). Sohrabizadeh et al (2010) stated that the new employed

workforces are deemed as organization inputs. The qualitative thoughts enforcing on

the organizations of contemporary world, attraction strategies and employment in

human resources management all emphasize on the care in employing processes. It is

obvious, if an organization to adopt new perspectives, trains the member forces to

learn that knowledge and considers some indicators for selection and training of new

personnel. Although organizational citizenship behavior is newborn in management

organization knowledge, but according to its functions, soon will be changed to a

necessary need for the organizations. Hence, it is required the organizations to apply

organizational citizenship behavior approaches such as altruism, magnanimity, civic

virtue, conscientiousness and respect and reverence in the employing and training

processes. DePaula & Shannon Moran (2001) believe that attention in suitable

selection of personnel and their training for performing the citizenship roles will have

important effect on consecutive costs reduction.

7- Outcomes and results of organizational citizenship behavior

As Senobari (2008), the major part of researches applied in the context of

organizational citizenship behavior is focused on the forming approaches and agents,

but within a few recent years, the studies in this context have considered the outcomes

and results of organizational citizenship behavior particularly focused on two key

topics as follows:

a. The effect of organizational citizenship behavior on the performance evaluation

b. The effect of organizational citizenship behavior on the organizational

performance and success

The above items are explained as below:

7-1 The effect of organizational citizenship behavior on the performance evaluation:

ijcrb.webs.com



843

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

For this purpose, Podsakoff et al (2000) have raised several major causes in connection

with the effect of organizational citizenship behavior on the evaluation of employees’

performance by the managers, as follows:

a. Retaliation rule:

The people try to compensate the others’ helps, pay attention to them and

behave fairly thereto. Thus, in the event the organizational citizenship behavior

has positive influence on the managers and organization, the managers consider

such behaviors for evaluation of employees’ performance.

b. Implicit performance theory:

The assessors believe in implicit theory in the simultaneous events or behaviors

occurrence, therefore if a manager trusts implicitly that citizenship behavior and

general performance of organization are in connection with each other and the

manager often observes the citizenship behaviors from the employees,

implicitly infers that the employees has high performance.

c. Behavioral impact and accessibility:

Upon evaluation of employees’ performance, the managers are seeking for

distinct information and whereas organizational citizenship behavior don’t

pertain to the required formal behaviors, these behaviors may be distinct forms

of behavior that are sought by the managers while evaluation of performance.

d. Characteristic processes:

Performance events and the behaviors with inner motivation and cause are most

prominent and mentioned in performance evaluation. Whereas organizational

citizenship behaviors don’t pertain to the formal tasks, therefore the managers

consider these behaviors as inner behaviors which are highly effective on

performance evaluation.

e. Misrepresenting correlations:

Misrepresenting correlations is arising from peoples’ tendency to establishing a

relationship between two things or events when they occur together

unexpectedly, moreover, Senobari (2008) mentioned that there are some

resources concerning this fact that misrepresenting correlations may be

observed while evaluations, as below:

1- The assessor may have no enough paradigms of citizenship behaviors or in-

role behaviors;

2- The assessor may be affected by a specific behavioral event;

3- The measurement scales may be mental or have not been defined

sufficiently;

ijcrb.webs.com



844

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

4- The assessor may have not enough motivation or knowledge for performing

his job as best;

5- Remembering the assessee’s behavior (performance) may be corrupted by

the assessor (all foregoing may result in significance of OCB in forming the

assessor’s evaluations).

7-2 The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on the organization performance

and success:

In the early studies applied in this context, the researcher understood that citizenship

behaviors are in connection with high performance. Shaemi & Mahmoudi (2008)

explained that in the first studied applied by Karambayya (1989) in this field, he

understood that the employees working in organizational units with high performance

have expressed citizenship behaviors more than employees working in units with low

performance.

According Tavakoli et al (2009), some researchers (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993 and

Smith, 1983) raised that the citizenship behaviors facilitate the organizational

performance by greasing the social machine of organizations and some other

(Podsakoff & McKenzie, 1997 and Organ, 1991) have considered specific cases,

therein citizenship behaviors affect the organizational behavior positively, as below:

7-2-1 Growth and productivity of others’ productivity:

1- The employees who own help the others, cause their high productivity;

2- The helping behaviors assisted ever and over time to better performance of

activities (Podsakoff & McKenzie, 1997; quoted by Tavakoli et al, 2009).

7-2-2 Increase in administrative productivity:

1- If the employees have civic virtue, the manager may utilize their beliefs and

suggestions for the improvement of organizational effectiveness;

2- Courteous and tactful employees avoid making problems for the others,

therefore prevent crisis in the organization (Podsakoff & McKenzie, 1997;

quoted by Tavakoli et al, 2009).

7-2-3 Freeing the resources for further production:

1- When the employees help the others in their working problems, provide more

opportunities for the managers to perform the organization’s activities;

2- The conscious and sagacious employees require lower supervision and control

and create this trust in the manager to assign more responsibility to them.

Therefore, they provide more opportunity and time for the manager to deal with

the important issues of organization;

ijcrb.webs.com



845

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

3- The experienced employees who train the new personnel and lead them cause

reduction of organization’s costs and allocating the resources for training the

employees;

4- The employees with humanistic and magnanimity behaviors cause the

manager’s time to be spent on more important organizational problems instead

of proceeding with partial claims and problems (Organ, 1991).

7-2-4 Prevention from allocating rare resources to preservation and maintenance

activities

1- Whereas citizenship behaviors strength the team spirit in working and causes

confidence, thus prevents from allocating organizational resources to group

preservation and maintenance activities;

2- The conscious and sagacious employees have lower intergroup conflict, so they

cause lower time to be spent for conflict management (Organ, 1991).

7-2-5 Coordination between team members and group activities:

1- Fattahi & Azami (2008) explain that the civic virtue together with voluntary

presence and active collaboration in the working sessions is effective on the

coordination between team members’ activity and increases the efficiency and

effectiveness;

2- Complaisance and politeness encountering the group members and other

organizational groups prevents the probability of occurring time consuming

problems.

7-2-6 Capability of recruiting and preserving the best personnel through attractive

working environment:

1- Helping activities cause strengthening the morals, performing group work and

team dependency feeling all of which strength the performance and help the

organization to recruit and maintain the capable employees;

2- Expressing magnanimous behaviors and lack of objection to partial problems

cause loyalty and organizational commitment feeling and employees’ survival

(ibid).

7-2-7 Stability of organizational performance

1- Performing the tasks of absent employees and helping whom have heavy

responsibilities will stabilize the performance of working unit;

2- The conscious employees have commonly high performance, thus reduce the

fluctuation in performance of working unit (Fattahi & Azami, 2008).

ijcrb.webs.com



846

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

7-2-8 Capability of organization in adaption to the environmental changes:

1- The employees having information on labor market, present good suggestions

in the organizational changes;

2- The employees active in the collaboration sessions, help to publish the

information in the organization and ultimately increase the organizational

responding;

3- The employees having magnanimity spirit help the others through learning new

skills in organizational growth and changes (Khodabakhsh & Khodabakhsh,

2008).

In consideration of the foregoing, it is expected the meaning and structure of OCB to

be different in the various societies because of cultural content of each society and

conditions and environment therein OCB is occurred; therefore OCB is required to be

considered culturally.

8- Conclusion and recommendations:

According to the changes and developments of the current age and upon entering the

organizations into the knowledge-oriented economy, the human resources is

considered from one side as the most vital strategic element in enhancement of

organization’s effectiveness and efficiency, on the other side, current organizations

require some personnel who tend to confront the existing norms and don accept to

perform the tasks as routine style. As well as, there should be some people who accept

the responsibility of their measures. Whereas one of the raised elements in this relation

is the concept of organizational citizenship behavior, recognizing the organizational

citizenship behavior seems to be required more than ever for increasing the

organizations’ effectiveness. It will not be realized unless the principles and rules

related to the organizational citizenship behavior to be identified and the beds required

for implementation of such behaviors to be provided. Although, the citizenship

behavior exists in different societies, but its culture and nature have unavoidable effect

on OCB and its type as well as the rate the people express it. It should be noticed that

various cultures may present different approaches and types of OCB and have different

perception of citizenship behavior approaches.

ijcrb.webs.com



847

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

References

- Amini, Bibi Akram; Rafiei, Mojtaba; Kalaei, Siavash (2007), Organizational

Citizenship Behavior, Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, 3rd year,

No. 25, P 32-46;[in Persian]

- Appelbaum, S. & Nicolas, B. & Erika, B. & Jonathan, B. & Rodney, C. &Isabelle,D.

&Chrystine, G. & Carlo, S.(2004). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: a Case Study

of Culture, Leadership and Trust, Management Decision, Vol.42, No.1, Pp.13-40.

- Banks.Ji.A.(2008). Diversity, group identity, and Citizenship education

- Bienstock,c.,Carol,W.DeMoranville,C.&K.Smith,L(2003). "Organizationalcitizenship

behavior and service quality",Journal of Service Marketing, Vol.17,No.4, pp. 357-378.

- Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H. and Bloodgood, J.M. (2002), Citizenshipbehavior and

the creation of social capital in organizations, Academy of Management Review,Vol

27,No 4,Pp 5-22.

- Borman, W. C&Motowidlo, S. J (2001). Expanding the criterion domain to include

elements of contextual performance, In N. Schmitt & W. C.

- Chen, Z. ,Eisenberger, R . Johnson, K. M., Sucharski, I. L. &Aselage J (2009).

Perceived organizational support and extra- role performance: Which leads to which?,

Journal of SocialPsychology,Vol149,No1, Pp119-134.

- Dipaola, M.F & Tschannen-Moran, M (2001).Organizational Citizenship Behavior in

schools and its relationship to school climate, journal of School Leadership, 11, Pp

424-447.

- Farh,J.L.,ZhongC.B.,Organ,D.W.(2004).“ Organization citizenship behavior in the

people’s republic of china” ,OrganizationScience,Vol .15 , No2 , Pp 251-273.

- Fathi Vajargah, Kourosh and Chokadeh, Sakineh (2006), Identification of Citizenship

Training Harms in Hidden Curriculum: Theoretical Education System from the

viewpoint of Women Teachers in Tehran and Presenting Strategies for Improvement

of its Status, Educational Initiative Journal, No. 17, 5th year, P 93-132; [in Persian]

- Fattahi, Mehdi and Azami, Amir (2008), Organizational Citizenship Behavior;

Definitions, Forming Factors, Consequences and Presenting an Initial Model, 1st

Conference of Organizational Citizenship Behavior Management, Faculty of

Management, University of Tehran; [in Persian]

- Foot,D., Tang,T.L.(2008). Job satisfaction and organizational citizen

behavior(OCB).department of management and marketing, Vol46, No6, Pp933-947.

- Ghafari Ashtiani, Peyman and Kohan, Ali (2009), Organizational Citizenship

Behavior: Paradigm of 21st Century Organizations, Management Scientific &

Research Journal, 20th year, P 145-160; [in Persian]

ijcrb.webs.com



848

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

- Hajikarimi, Abbasali (2003), Development of Human Resources and its Role in

Promotion of Social Responsibility of Organization, Culture, Values and Morals,

Management Massage Journal, No. 9 & 10, P 97-115; [in Persian]

- Hassani Kakhaki, Ahmad & Gholipour, Arian (2007), Organizational Citizenship

Behavior: Another Step towards Organization Performance Improvement for

Customer, Commercial Research Quarterly, No. 45, P 115-145; [in Persian]

- in a global age.educational researcher, Vol 37,No 3,Pp129-139.

- Jamali, Akhtar; Taghipourzahir, Ali; Salehi, Moslem (2009), Relationship between

Vocational and Organizational Factors and Organizational Citizenship Behavior of

Academic Board Members of Dist. 1 Units of IAU for the Purpose of Presenting the

Appropriate Model, Journal of Leadership and Educational Management of Islamic

Azad University, Garmsar Campus, 3rd year, No. 2, P 87-106; [in Persian]

- Jung Joo , Y. Hong, S.(2008).“ Organization citizenshipbehavior (OCB) ,TQM and

performance at the maquiladora”,International Journal of Quality & Reliability

Management,Vol.25,No.8.Pp124-152.

- Kazemi, Mohammad and Chokadeh, Sakineh (2005), Organizational Civil Behavior:

Expression of a Developed Aspect of Humans Behavior and Performance in

Organizational Life, 3rd International Conference on Management, Faculty of


- Khodabakhsh, Hashem and Khodabakhsh, Majid (2008), Assessment of

Organizational Citizenship Behavior of University of Tehran’s Professors, the 1st

Conference on Organizational Citizenship Behavior Management, Faculty of


- Lambert, S., J.(2000).Added Benefits: the link betweenwork – life benefits and

organizational citizenship behavior,Academy of management Journal,Vol43 ,Pp 801 -

815.

- Lotfabadi, Hossein (2006), Training National and International Citizenship along with

Strengthening the Students’ Identity and Value System, Journal of Educational

Initiatives, No. 17, 5th year, P 12-24; [in Persian]

- Mendoza,M.J.S. and Lara .P.Z.M(2007).''The impact of work alienationon

organizational citizenship behavior in the Canary Islands'', Internationaljournal of

organizational Analysis .Vol.15,No.1,Pp793-808.

- Morisson, E. (1994),“Role definitions and organizationalcitizenship behavior :

importance of the employees perspective ”,Academy of Management Journal

,vol.37,No.6.Pp25-41.

- Morkoczy, L. & Xin, K. (2005), The Virtues of Omission in Organizational

Citizenship Behavior, Goldmark.org/livia.

ijcrb.webs.com



849

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

- Navabakhsh, Mehrdad; Ghafari Ashtiani, Peyman and Kohan, Ali (2009),

Organizational Citizenship Behavior Context Management in Social Extra-roles,

Basirat Journal, 16th year, No. 43, P 55-79; [in Persian]

- Organ, D. W (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction causes –

performance hypothesis, Academy of management Review, 2, Pp46-53.

- Organ, D. W. (1991)."The subtle significance of job satisfaction", Clinical Laboratory

Management Review,Vol 4, Pp. 94-98.

- Paine J.B., Organ D.W.,(2000),“The cultural matrix of organizationalcitizenship

behavior : Some preliminary conceptual and empiricalobservations”, Human Resource

Management Review,Vol.10 ,No.1.Pp124-165.

- 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, Pp 13-53.

- Podskoff,P.M,Mackenzie,S,Moorman,R.&fetter,(1991).Transformational leader

behaviors and their effects on organizational behaviors, the leadership Quarterly, 1, Pp

107-142.

- Raminmehr, Hamid; Hadizadehmoghadam, Akram and Ahmadi, Iman (2009), Study

on the Relationship between Perception of Organizational Justice and Organizational

Citizenship behavior, case study: National Oil Products Distribution Co., Tehran Staff,

Development Management Research Journal, 1st year, No. 2, P 69-89; [in Persian]

- Schermerhorn. JR (1999). Management, 6th edition, New York John Wiley.-

- Senobari, Mohammad (2008), Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Concepts,

Definitions, Approaches and Effective Factors), Police Human Development Two-

month Journal, 5th year, No. 16, P 23-58; [in Persian]

- Shaemi, Ali and Mahmoudi, Somayeh (2008), Study on the Relationship between

Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Organizations’ Performance, 1st Conference

on Organizational Citizenship Behavior Management, Faculty of Management,

University of Tehran; [in Persian]

- Shiani, Maliheh (2002), A Sociological Analysis of Citizenship Status in Lorestan,

Iran Sociological Journal, 4th circulation, P. 3, P 60-80; [in Persian]

- Sohrabi, Babak and Khanlari, Amir (2009), Morals, Information Technology &

Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Journal of Morals in Science & Technology, 4th

year, No. 1& 2, P 1-10; [in Persian]

- Sohrabizadeh, Sanaz; Bastani, Peyvand and Ravangard, Ramin (2010), Study on

Factors affecting Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Staff Employees of Shiraz

ijcrb.webs.com



850

JANUARY 2013

VOL 4, NO 9

University of Medical Sciences, Bimarestan Quarterly, 9th year, No. 1&2, P 75-82; [in

Persian]

- Tavakoli, Zeinab; Abedi, Mohammadreza; Salehnia, Monireh (2009), Study on the

Effect of Organizational Citizenship Behavior Training on the Increase of

Organizational Commitment of Cultural & Recreational Organization of Esfahan

Municipality’s employees, Journal of Management Perspective, No. 3, P 105-124; [in

Persian]

- Valipour, Roghieh (2007), Study on Citizenship Contexts in Higher Education System

as the viewpoint of Students and Professors (case study: University of Mazandaran),

M.Sc. thesis on Educational Planning, University of Mazandaran: Faculty of Social

and Human Sciences. [In Persian]

- Wang, L,.Hinrichs,K, T,.Prieto,L,.Howell, J P,.(2010).”Five dimensions of

organizational citizenship behavior: Comparing antecedents and levels of engagement

in China and the US”. the Constructivist Vol 15, No 1, Available at:

http://www.odu.edu/educ/act/journal /dangel01.pdf.

http://www.odu.edu/educ/act/journal%20/dangel01.pdf

ijcrb.webs.com J 2013 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL F O ... · and reliable, brave, knowledge-oriented...

Documents

Transcript of ijcrb.webs.com J 2013 INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL F O ... · and reliable, brave, knowledge-oriented...