Organisational Citizenship Behaviours: A Review of Theoretical and Empirical Literature on Predicting Factors and Suggestions for Future Research.
In today’s competitive business environment organisations constantly strives for achieving excellence by enhancing employee’s efficiency and effectiveness. One way, organisations can achieve this objective is through Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) (Bolino & Turnley, 2003; Organ, 2006). Organ and colleagues first conceptualized OCB in 1988. Organ (1988, p.4) defined OCB as “individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognised by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization.”
Researches have identified numerous dimensions of OCB (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). Organ (1988) suggested a five-factor model composed of five dimensions; altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, civic virtue and sportsmanship, which most conceptualisations of OCB are based on. Altruism refers to behaviours that involve helping another person, such as helping a colleague with a heavy workload. Courtesy involves being polite and courteous to prevent work related problems, for example, informing a coworker or a change that may affect them introduced by you. Conscientiousness refers to doing more than just the minimum to prevent and minimize error, in terms of attendance and punctuality. Civic virtue refers to employees genuine concern and interest in the existence of the organisation (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000), for example attending meetings and keeping up-to-date with issues facing the organisation. Sportsmanship involves employees tolerating less-than-ideal conditions and being accepting of changes. These five dimensions are commonly split into two distinct categories: individual-directed behaviours (OCBI) and organisation-directed behaviours (OCBO) (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Altruism and courtesy are associated with OCBI and conscientiousness, sportsmanship and civic virtues are connected to OCBO.
OCB has been associated with increased productivity and profitability, innovation and process improvement, customer satisfaction and retention and above all, ability of the employees to cope with unforeseen problems within the organisation (Jha & Jha, 2012). OCBs may also contribute to organisational success by freeing up resources so they can be used for more productive proposes, reducing the need to devote scarece resources to purely maintenance functions and by enabling the organisation to more effectively adapt to environmental changes. The adaptability of an organisation also increases its chances of being successful on a global scale, especially with the increase of globalisation. This relationship has created widespread interest in the antecedents of OCB. Numerous factors have been put forward as antecedents over the years throughout literature. Podsakoff et al. (2000) reviewed all the literature and concluded that the five most influential factors were job satisfaction, organisational justice, organisational commitment, leadership supportiveness, and trait conscientiousness. The purpose of this paper is to provide empirical and theoretical evidence to illustrate that job satisfaction, perceived fairness, organisational commitment, leadership supportiveness, and trait conscientiousness can predict OCB.

Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is one of the most studied determinants of OCB. Locke (1976, p. 1300) defined the concept of job satisfaction “as a pleasure of positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences.” Satisfied workers are more prone to undertake activities that are not formally required by their employer but that ultimately benefit the organization (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 1988). The current literature has reached a consensus that job satisfaction and OCB are significantly positively correlated (Jahangir, Akbar, & Haq, 2004; Kim, 2006; Tsai & Wu, 2010).
There are multiple understandings underlying this relationship. The most discussed is the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), which is when an individual feels obliged to reciprocate gestures in a relationship. In the context of OCB, the relationship of interest is between the employee and the organisation. People can be satisfied with their job for various reasons such as interesting work, receiving full appreciation of the work done, and good working conditions (Karim & Rehman, 2012). These satisfied employees display gratitude to the organisation by engaging in OCBs as they feel a need to reciprocate the gestures and build a lasting relationship (Jena & Goswami, 2014). Secondly, employees that are satisfied with their job are concerned with their job performance, relationships with others, whether policy goals are achieved, and most of all they are concerned with organisational success (Tsai & Wu, 2010). This concern for organisational success sees them voluntarily engaging in OCBs, such as helping others with work-related problems, deadlines and taking on extra roles. Both of these theories illustrate that job satisfaction can predict whether employees will engage in OCB.
Organ and Ryan (1995) conducted a meta-analysis of 28 studies and found a modest relationship between job satisfaction and all five dimensions of OCB. However, one should note that the majority of the studies used self-report measures for both OCB and job satisfaction. More recent research has shown an increased willingness to exert more effort for the organization and to engage in OCB when the employee is satisfied (Paulin, Ferguson, & Bergeron, 2006). As research continues to progress and reduce limitations as above, it becomes more obvious that job satisfaction can predict OCB.

Organisational Justice
Organisational justice or fairness is another significant factor that can predict OCB. Organisational justice comprises of employees’ perceptions about the extent to which they are treated fairly in organizations according to Greenberg (1990). Organisational justice can be categorised into three specific components; distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice. Distributive justice refers to the allocation of rewards and resources in the organisation, which is typically achieved when there is an acceptable balance between employees’ contributions and compensations. Procedural justice concerns the processes through which decisions are made (Tziner & Sharoni, 2014). Thirdly, interactional justice consists of two components; interpersonal and informational. The interpersonal component defines the degree to which employees are given proper and respectful treatment. On the other hand, the informational component defines the extent to which explanations given are compatible with the decisions reached (Tziner & Sharoni, 2014).
Theoretically underpinning this relationship is the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), where people feel obligated to reciprocate behaviours exchanged. In terms of organisational justice, the exchange is not between people but between the organisation and employees (Organ et al., 1988). Where the employee felt obliged to engage to in OCBs when the organisation provided fairness among co-workers. This is able to account for the OCBs directed at the organisation but not for the OCBs directed at individuals among the organisation. So a multifoci approach emerged in the literature on organisational justice and suggested that employees not only consider the different types of justice (i.e., distributive, procedural, and interactional) but also consider the source that is perceived as fair or unfair (i.e., organisation and supervisors) (Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007). Through this approach the norm of reciprocity can explain both organisation and individual directed OCBs.
Empirically this relationship has been supported as researchers have indicated that there is moderate positive relationship between organisational justice perceptions and overall OCB (Yılmaz & Taşdan, 2009). It must be noted that these findings were limited to perceptions of primary school teachers. However further research has consistently pointed to a positive association between perceptions of organizational justice and OCB, indicating higher OCB manifestations among employees who perceived that the organization and its leaders treated them fairly (Tziner & Sharoni, 2014).
There is a clear relationship between organisational justice and OCB, and given the importance of justice organisations should consider implementing fairness training to work groups especially when levels of individual directed OCBs are lower than desired.

Organisational Commitment
Another factor that is able to significantly predict the probability that an individual will engage in OCBs is organisational commitment. Organisational commitment refers to an active relationship that reflects the relative strength of an individual’s connection with and involvement in the organisation (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). They further categorised organisational commitment into three dimensions: a strong belief in and acceptance of the organisations goals and values, a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organisation, and a strong desire to maintain membership in the organisation.
Meyer and Allen (1991) later identified the three dimensions of organisational commitment as affective, continuance, and normative commitments. Affective commitment refers to the employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organisation. Continuance commitment refers to an awareness of the costs associated with leaving and benefits of staying with the organisation. Normative commitment reflects a feeling of obligation to continue employment as a reasonable way of reciprocating the goodwill enjoyed in the organisation. Affective commitment is considered the most influential factor on OCBs, as a result of the emotional attachment, which is then followed by normative commitment and lastly continuance commitment (Murphy, 2009). This can be understood as committed employees who desire to stay at an organisation, often increase their work effort to secure their position (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Supporting this relationship is the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). Where an individual feels obliged to reciprocate gestures to the organisation when they are treated well. Being treated well refers to emotional attachment, which is defined as affective commitment in this context. The tendency for individuals to reciprocate resources and support received from leaders and organisations is so prevalent in the context of OCBs.
A meta-analysis conducted by Organ and Ryan (1995) revealed that affective organisational commitment was significantly related to both the individual-directed and organisational-directed OCBs . Additionally Bolon (1996) showed that affective commitment is the most important commitment component in terms of explaining unique variance in OCB. Similarly, recent studies have found a significant positive correlation between affective commitment and OCBs (Bland, Center, Finstad, Risbey, & Staples, 2006; Cohen, 2006; Karim & Rehman, 2012). Despite the overwhelming body of supporting research on organisational commitment and OCB the variables used to measure organisational commitment have been limited. For example, Bland, Center, Finstad, Risbey and Staples (2006) used total hours worked per week as a measure and given the multidimensionality of commitment it is unlikely that this would have captured the concept completely. Another limitations in this relationship is that commitment is is hampered by ambiguity in the definition of the measurements of the construct itself; this makes it difficult to compare results of various studies. For example consider the differences between types of commitment (career commitment and organisational commitment). Notwithstanding these limitations there is a abundant research showing that organisational commitment can predict OCB.

Leader Supportiveness
Leaders play an important role in influencing subordinates OCBs. Theoretically underpinning this relationship is House's (1971) path-goal theory of leadership. The path-goal theory of leadership is based on dyadic relationship between formally appointed superiors and subordinates in their everyday functioning. There are three leadership styles under the theory; instrumental leadership, supportive leadership and transformational leadership, that increase OCBs among subordinates if implemented effectively (Organ, 2006). Instrumental leaders facilitate role clarity, for example they inform subordinates what exactly is expected of them (House, 1996). Supportive leaders are approachable and friendly leaders who express concern about the wellbeing of their employees. Transformational leaders have high performance expectations of subordinates but also motive, inspire and support them (House, 1996).
According to Organ et al (2006) subordinates view instrumental and supportive leader behaviours as helping behaviours, since they look out for the well being of subordinates and reduce ambiguity. These leader behaviours influences subordinates as they may feel obliged to reciprocate to them, resulting in the subordinate engaging in OCBs. This is consistent with the Social Exchange Theory (SET), under which subordinates who are satisfied with their leaders will display OCBs in exchange for their leader’s supportiveness (Blau, 1964). Previous studies have shown that employees reciprocate by displaying OCB when they receive desirable treatment from their leaders (Deckop, Cirka, & Andersson, 2003).
A transformational leader can increase the likelihood of an individual engaging in OCB as not only do they build commitment to their vision for the organisation, but they are also role models. Therefore they not only “talk the talk” but “walk the walk” as well. Employees who work for transformational leaders are motivated to go above and beyond what is expected of them for the benefit of their organisation (Bolino & Turnley, 2003).
Another similar theory that clearly depicts that leadership affects the degree to which employees engage in OCBs is the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory (Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). LMX refers to the quality of relations shared between leaders and their employees. Four distinct dimensions of LMX have been identified as; affect, loyalty, contribution, and professionalism (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). Employees tend to perform OCBs if their leader shares valuable resources, information and support with them (Podsakoff et al., 2000). This is a result of the norm of reciprocity, where employees reciprocate their leaders behaviour in the form of OCBs.
This relationship has been empirically supported by a meta-analysis of 329 studies conducted by Ilies et al. (2007), as they found a meaningful relationship with a population correlation (r=.37). However this analysis only looked at LMX as a whole, it is likely that some dimensions of LMX, such as affect and loyalty, will be stronger predictors of OCBs than professionalism (Liden & Maslyn, 1998). More recent research has gone on to provide empirical evidence regarding these claims, where Bhal, Guati and Ansari (2009) have shown that the loyalty aspect of LMX is the strongest predictor of OCB. From the current literature and research it is clear that leaders and supervisors behaviours can predict employees’ involvement in OCB.

Trait Conscientiousness
Personality is one of the influential factors in creating individual differences and can predict if an individual is likely to engage to in OCB or not. Conscientiousness, one of the Big-Five personality constructs (Costa & McCrae, 1997), has been recognised as the strongest dispositional antecedent of OCB (Lv, Shen, Cao, Su, & Chen, 2012). Being conscientiousness encompasses dependability, planfulness, self-discipline, and perseverance. Additionally a conscientiousness person will go well beyond what is minimally required of them in respect to attendance, punctuality, housekeeping, conserving resources, and related matter of internal maintenance amongst the organisation (Podsakoff et al., 2000).
Conscientiousness traits can be linked to the more organisational direct forms of OCB, such as civic virtue. For example a conscientiousness employee is more likely to be punctual, have regular attendance, obey rules of work group governance, and principled conduct can be classed as conscientious behaviours, therefore it can be viewed as a dispositional antecedent OCB (Podsakoff et al., 2000).
This relationship had lacked empirical evidence until it was specifically studied among managerial personnel. Singh and Singh (2009) found that there was positive moderate correlation between all five dimensions of OCB. However it must be noted that this study was limited to only managers, which typically require a specific personality, restricting the generalizability of these findings to all personnel in organisations. Another study expanded these findings by studying the relationship in a university population (Mahdiuon, Ghahramani, & Sharif, 2010). Mahdiuon, Ghahramani and Sharif (2010) found that conscientiousness was the greatest predictor out of the Big-Five personality model with a significant positive correlation (r=.38, p<.001). A multiple regression was also conducted and showed that 14% of the variance in OCB was explained by conscientiousness. The relationship with conscientiousness still needs much more research to completely understand it, as it is considered both a predictor and dimension of OCB. Baring this in mind, personality is one of the most basic dimensions of human input to an organisation that can be easily measured and predict OCB. Therefore, it would be obscene for organisations to not administer personality tests when employing people, as conscientiousness can predict organisational directed OCB.

Conclusion and Future Research
OCB is an important key for organisational competitiveness, profitability and survival in the rapidly changing global market. This importance has lead to copious amounts of research on its determinants. Having different conceptualisations of OCB results in some studies reporting significant relationships between the predicting factors and OCB and others reporting non-significant relationships between these variables. This makes it difficult to determine whether these differences are a result of the operationalisations of the OCBs, the sample or context of the study, or other potential factors. Despite this it is clear from the various meta-analyses and theories that the five factors suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2000) (job satisfaction, organisational justice, organisational commitment, leadership supportiveness, and trait conscientiousness) can predict OCB. As a result of Organ’s (1988) definition that OCB promotes the effective functioning of an organization there is a paucity of research examining the negative outcomes of citizenship behaviours in organisations. There is abundant research on the positive outcomes of OCB. Some suggested negative outcomes on individuals are work-family conflict and role overload (Jena & Goswami, 2014). Hence, future research should focus on the negative outcomes of OCB, so it can be determined whether these out way the positive outcomes or how the negative outcomes can be minimalised. Additionally, all the research is based around profitable organisations. Non-for-profit organisations and volunteers provide a number of important services to our society. Examining the relationship in this context would provide extensive evidence for the field. Finally studies in the OCB field have been predominantly in the lower level positions, as Organ (1988) noted that job descriptions for higher level positions are more open-ended and make it more difficult to distinguish between in-role behaviours and OCB. Future research could possibly look at developing a method to be able to distinguish between in-role behaviours and OCB in higher-level positions. This would enable predicting factors to be studied across a more generalizable sample. Given the significance of OCBs it is important that these future research directions are considered.

References
Bhal, K. T., Gulati, N., & Ansari, M. A. (2009). Leader‐member exchange and subordinate outcomes: test of a mediation model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(2), 106–125. doi:10.1108/01437730910935729
Bland, C. J., Center, B. A., Finstad, D. A., Risbey, K. R., & Staples, J. (2006). The Impact of Appointment Type on the Productivity and Commitment of Full-Time Faculty in Research and Doctoral Institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 89–123. doi:10.1353/jhe.2006.0002
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. Transaction Publishers.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). Going the extra mile: Cultivating and managing employee citizenship behavior. The Academy of Management Executive, 17(3), 60–71.
Bolon, D. (1996). Organizational citizenship behavior among hospital employees: a multidimensional analysis involving job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Hospital & Health Services Administration, 42(2), 221–241.
Cohen, A. (2006). The relationship between multiple commitments and organizational citizenship behavior in Arab and Jewish culture. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 105–118. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.12.004
Deckop, J. R., Cirka, C. C., & Andersson, L. M. (2003). Doing Unto Others: The Reciprocity of Helping Behavior in Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(2), 101–113. doi:10.1023/A:1026060419167
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. doi:10.2307/2092623
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432. doi:10.1177/014920639001600208
House, R. J. (1971). A Path Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(3), 321–339. doi:10.2307/2391905
House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323–352. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7
Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 269–277. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.269
Jahangir, N., Akbar, M. M., & Haq, M. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Retrieved from http://dspace.bracu.ac.bd/handle/10361/517
Jena, R. K., & Goswami, R. (2014). Measuring the Determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. Global Business Review, 15(2), 381–396. doi:10.1177/0972150914523587
Jha, S., & Jha, S. (2012). Determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: A Review of Literature (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2141013). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2141013
Karim, F., & Rehman, O. (2012). Impact of Job Satisfaction, Perceived Organizational Justice and Employee Empowerment on Organizational Commitment in Semi-Government Organizations of Pakistan. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 3(4), 92–104.
Kim, S. (2006). Public service motivation and organizational citizenship behavior in Korea. International Journal of Manpower, 27(8), 722–740. doi:10.1108/01437720610713521
Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a Multifoci Approach to the Study of Justice, Social Exchange, and Citizenship Behavior: The Target Similarity Model†. Journal of Management, 33(6), 841–866. doi:10.1177/0149206307307635
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionafity of Leader-Member Exchange: An Empirical Assessment through Scale Development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43–72. doi:10.1177/014920639802400105
Locke, E. A. (1976). The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction1. Hand book.
Lv, A., Shen, X., Cao, Y., Su, Y., & Chen, X. (2012). Conscientiousness and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Role of Organizational Justice. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 40(8), 1293.
Mahdiuon, R., Ghahramani, M., & Sharif, A. R. (2010). Explanation of organizational citizenship behavior with personality. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 178–184. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.069
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509–516. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. doi:10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(2), 224–247. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(79)90072-1
Murphy, M. J. (2009). Contingent Faculty: What Impacts Their Organizational Commitment?. ProQuest.
Organ, D. W. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior : its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome (Vol. xiii). Lexington, MA, England: Lexington Books/D. C. Heath and Com.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A Meta-Analytic Review of Attitudinal and Dispositional Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775–802. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x
Paulin, M., Ferguson, R. J., & Bergeron, J. (2006). Service climate and organizational commitment: The importance of customer linkages. Journal of Business Research, 59(8), 906–915. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.03.004
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Organizational Performance: A Review and Suggestion for Future Research. Human Performance, 10(2), 133–151. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1002_5
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. doi:10.1177/014920630002600307
Singh, A. K., & Singh, A. P. (2009). Does personality predict organisational citizenship behaviour among managerial personnel. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 35(2), 291–298.
Tsai, Y., & Wu, S.-W. (2010). The relationships between organisational citizenship behaviour, job satisfaction and turnover intention. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19(23-24), 3564–3574. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2010.03375.x
Tziner, A., & Sharoni, G. (2014). Organizational citizenship behavior, organizational justice, job stress, and workfamily conflict: Examination of their interrelationships with respondents from a non-Western culture. Revista de Psicología Del Trabajo Y de Las Organizaciones, 30(1), 35–42. doi:10.5093/tr2014a5
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617. doi:10.1177/014920639101700305
Yılmaz, K., & Taşdan, M. (2009). Organizational citizenship and organizational justice in Turkish primary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(1), 108–126. doi:10.1108/09578230910928106