Identity and the Extra Mile: Relationships between Organizational Identification and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
| Author | Rolf Van Dick,Jan Wieseke,Oliver Christ,Michael W. Grojean |
| Published date | 01 December 2006 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00520.x |
| Date | 01 December 2006 |
Identity and the Extra Mile: Relationships
between Organizational Identification and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
Rolf van Dick,
*
w
Michael W. Grojean,
w
Oliver Christ,
z
and Jan Wieseke
*
*
Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universita
¨t Frankfurt,
w
Aston University,
z
Philipps-University Marburg
The current study investigates the relationship
between Organizational Identification and Orga-
nizational Citizenship Behaviour (e.g. helping
colleagues, making innovative suggestions). We
replicate earlier findings of such a relationship
between those behaviours and organizational
identification using ten samples across different
occupational groups and countries in Study 1.
Study 2 investigates the relationship in a long-
itudinal approach. Study 3 looks into this
relationship on a group-level analysis while Study
4 extends our findings by linking identification to
customer perceptions and financial performance,
mediated by OCBs (Organizational Citizenship
Behaviours).
Introduction
This article deals with two constructs relevant to
employees’ organizational behaviour and organi-
zations’ performance, namely organizational
identification and organizational citizenship be-
haviour. The aim of the research presented in this
paper is to provide insight into the relationship
between these constructs. More specifically, we
will first establish a theoretical framework for the
proposed link between identification and organi-
zational citizenship behaviour. We will then test
this relationship in a meta-analysis across differ-
ent occupations and cultural contexts (Study 1),
will investigate the causal direction using cross-
lagged panel analysis (Study 2), provide a team-
level analysis of the relationship (Study 3) and
finally link it to financial performance and test
customer perceptions (Study 4).
Since the early 1990s, personnel psychologists
have become increasingly interested in the multi-
dimensional nature of job performance (e.g.
Campbell, 1990; Campbell, McCloy, Oppler
and Sager, 1992; Ilgen and Hollenbeck, 1991).
Specifically, Campbell et al. (1992) identified
eight possible job performance dimensions; some
of which focus on more technical proficiency
aspects of performance (e.g. job specific task
proficiency; written and oral communication task
proficiency; management/administration) and
some that focus on the more psycho-social
aspects of performance (e.g. demonstrating
effort; maintaining personal discipline; facilitat-
ing peer and team performance).
This expansion of performance into the social
realm of the job was also theorized by Borman
and Motowidlo (1993). In particular, Borman
and Motowidlo (1993) proposed that indivi-
dual performance can be categorized into either
task performance or contextual performance.
Task performance refers to those core technical
functions of individual behaviour within an
organization. Contextual performance is defined
as the elements of individual performance that
serve to maintain the broad social, organizational
and psychological environment in which the core
technical functions must operate.
Interestingly, this conceptual enlargement of
the job performance domain occurred almost
simultaneously with a resurgence of interest in the
This article was accepted for publication by Gerard P.
Hodgkinson on 8 September 2006 following two revisions.
British Journal of Management, Vol. 17, 283–301 (2006)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00520.x
r2006 British Academy of Management
role that job attitudes (e.g. satisfaction, organiza-
tional commitment, positive affect) play in work
performance. Specifically, job satisfaction has
received substantial attention due to the long and
widely held popular belief that job satisfaction is
positively related to job performance. Indeed, it
was a general failure to find such a relationship (or
in some cases, a much weaker than expected
relationship) that led Organ to posit that perhaps
jobsatisfactionwasrelatedtoanaspectof
work performance that is not directly reflected in
the kind of performance typically measured by
researchers. From this inference of multi-dimen-
sionality of job performance, Organ began an
exploration of what he termed ‘the Good Soldier
Syndrome’ or organizational citizenship behaviour
(1988) as it has come to be known.
While organizational citizenship behaviour has
proven fruitful for theoretical discussion and
provided substantive support for the concept that
job performance is a multi-dimensional con-
struct, there has been little support to suggest
that attitudes or (or even personality) play a
significant role in predicting the non-task specific
elements of job performance. Indeed, this has
proven vexing to researchers as they attempt to
unravel the nature of the antecedents of non-task
specific job performance. We propose that
organizational identification is an important
antecedent to organizational citizenship beha-
viour and we will use the Social Identity
Approach as a theoretical framework to under-
stand the link between identification and OCB.
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
In 1964, Katz stated that three basic types of
behaviour are essential for a functioning organi-
zation. First, people must be induced to enter and
remain within the organization. Second, they
must carry out specific task requirements in a
dependable fashion and third, there must be
innovative and spontaneous activity that goes
beyond the specific task requirements. In general,
organizational citizenship as envisioned by Organ
seems to correspond to this third type of
behaviour. While there is now consensus on the
label and nature of the construct tapping Katz’s
third basic behaviour, this has not always been
true. The construct has at times been labelled and
operationalized as organizational citizenship be-
haviour (Organ, 1988), organizational sponta-
neity (George and Jones, 1997), pro-social orga-
nizational behaviours (Brief and Motowidlo,
1986) and contextual performance (Borman and
Motowidlo, 1993).
In its original conceptualization, Organ (1988)
defined organizational citizenship behaviours
(OCBs) as extra-role behaviours that were non-
rewarded and in the aggregate promoted the
effective functioning of an organization. Organ
restricted OCBs to extra role behaviours because
to be a reflection of Katz’s (1964) innovation and
spontaneous behaviour, OCBs had to be volun-
tary and could not be part of the formal
requirements of a job. Since OCBs were concep-
tually limited to voluntary behaviours, Organ
eliminated any behaviours that were formally
rewarded from the conceptual space defining his
construct since any behaviour that is formally
rewarded becomes part of the employee–
employer contractual agreement and thus, be-
comes part of required task performance. Also, in
keeping with Katz’s original conceptualization,
OCBs had to be those behaviours that in the
aggregate are beneficial and contribute to
the efficient functioning of an organization.
While a worker could help his/her fellow employ-
ees, it would be considered an OCB only if it
ultimately contributed to the organization’s
functioning.
Research, however, has shown that this defini-
tion is too limiting. For example, Morrison
(1994) found that the way an employee’s role is
defined affects whether the employee will perceive
a behaviour as being required or not. Specifically,
employees that broadly define their roles are
more likely to see OCBs as part of their job
requirements. The limitation of citizenship to
non-rewarded behaviours was also found to be
an unnecessary restriction of the construct. These
and other findings convinced Organ to reassess
his conceptualization of OCBs, suggesting that
OCBs and contextual performance appear to be
near synonymous (Organ, 1997). Within the
present study, we consider OCB as an encom-
passing concept to be reflective of both the
narrower definition by Organ and the broader
conceptualization of Borman and Motowidlo.
For the context of the present study, we define
OCB as any discretionary individual extra-
role behaviour advantageous to the organization
(Turnipseed and Rassuli, 2005; see also Organ,
Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 2006, p. 3).
284 R. van Dick et al.
To continue reading
Request your trial