Redalyc.Role Perceptions and Motivations to Perform
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Academia. Revista Latinoamericana de Administración ISSN: 1012-8255 [email protected] Consejo Latinoamericano de Escuelas de Administración Organismo Internacional Espejo, Alvaro Role perceptions and motivations to perform organizational citizenship behaviors Academia. Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, núm. 48, 2011, pp. 1-14 Consejo Latinoamericano de Escuelas de Administración Bogotá, Organismo Internacional Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=71623420002 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Academia, Revista Latinoamericana de Administración, 48, 2011, 1-14 Copyright 2011 de Cladea, http://revistaacademia.cladea.org ROLE PERCEPTIONS AND MOTIVATIONS TO PERFORM ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIORS PERCEPCIONES DE ROL Y MOTIVACIONES PARA DESEMPEÑAR COMPORTAMIENTOS CIUDADANOS EN LA ORGANIZACIÓN Alvaro Espejo Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Santiago de Chile, Chile [email protected] ABSTRACT RESUMEN Using a sample of supervisors from a Chilean retail Este estudio analiza el efecto que tiene la percepción company, we studied the effects of employees’ role de los empleados acerca de su rol en tres tipos de com- perceptions on three types of organizational citi- portamiento ciudadano en la organización (OCB) zenship behavior (OCB) and on their motivation to y en su motivación para llevar a cabo estas conduc- perform these behaviors. We recognized four types tas. Para ello, se considera una muestra de supervi- of motives: extrinsic, intrinsic, altruistic, and insti- sores de una empresa del sector retail en Chile. Se tutional. Results showed that when employees are distinguen cuatro tipos de motivos: 1) extrínsecos, externally motivated to perform OCB (by extrinsic 2) intrínsecos, 3) altruistas y 4) institucionales. Los or institutional motives), their motivation increases resultados muestran que cuando los empleados están when they perceive the behaviors as in-role. However, motivados en forma externa para llevar a cabo estos when employees are internally motivated to perform comportamientos (por motivos extrínsecos o insti- OCB (by intrinsic or altruistic motives), their motiva- tucionales), su motivación aumenta cuando perci- tion is mostly independent of their role perceptions. ben estos comportamientos como parte de su rol. Sin embargo, cuando los empleados están motivados Key words: OCB, motivation, role, Chile. en forma interna para llevar a cabo estos compor- tamientos (por motivos intrínsecos o altruistas), su motivación es en general independiente de las per- cepciones acerca de su rol. Palabras clave: OCB, motivación, rol, Chile. CONSEJO LATINOAMERICANO DE ESCUELAS DE ADMINISTRACIÓN, CLADEA 1 Role percepTioNS AND MOTIVATioNS TO perForM orGANIZATioNal ciTIZENship behaViors 1. Introduction concern and prosocial values, came from litera- ture on volunteerism, and reflected a desire to The concept of organizational citizenship contribute either to the organization or to other behavior (OCB) was originally developed in people. These two altruistic motives were sig- 1983 as a way to link attitudes and performance nificantly related to OCB, after controlling for (Organ, 2004). Initially, OCB was perceived as the effects of personality orientation and organ- including only extra-role behaviors. However, izational justice. The third motive they studied studies starting with the one by Morrison (1994) as a possible cause of OCB was impression showed that some employees may perceive management (IM), i.e. the desire to enhance one behavior as extra-role, whereas another their image in the organization (Bolino, 1999). employee may perceive the same behavior as in- Results of the study by Rioux and Penner were role. Therefore, Organ (1997) extended the con- far from conclusive on this issue: IM motives struct of OCB to include behaviors perceived as only related to the OCB dimension of sports- in-role or extra-role, as long as these behaviors manship. Moreover, in a further study, Finkel- are not enforceable and do not have system- stein and Penner (2004) found a negative effect atic rewards associated with them. Although of IM motives on OCB directed toward the there is extensive research on OCB, there are organization. This negative relationship was few studies on the effect of OCB-related role also found by Espejo and Cardona (2005) in a perceptions (McAllister, Kamdar, Morrison & study of Latin American managers. These con- Turban, 2007) and none relating these percep- flicting results might be due to differences in tions to motives. role perceptions. For example, Yun, Takeuchi Several studies have shown that different & Liu (2007) found that role ambiguity moder- employees perceive OCBs in different ways. ates the relationship between self-enhancement Some think of them as part of their role, motives and OCB. In order to clarify the effect whereas others consider them to be beyond the of role perceptions on motives, in this study we call of duty (eg. McAllister et al., 2007; Mor- analyze how different motives to perform OCB rison, 1994; Van Dyne, Kamdar & Joireman, are affected by the employee’s perception of the 2008). Most studies on OCB role perceptions behavior as in-role or extra-role. have focused on its effect on the level of OCB In the following section, we will review the performed (Morrison, 1994) and on its mod- relevant literature on OCB, role perceptions, erating effects on the relationships between and motivation, and present the hypotheses for OCB and several antecedents (Chiaburu, 2007; this study. Next, we will describe the methods Coyle-Shapiro, Kessler & Purcell, 2004; McAl- we use and then we will present the results of the lister et al., 2007; Van Dyne et al., 2008). We analyses. We will end with a discussion of the argue that these moderating effects of OCB role results, and also identify the limitations of this perceptions on the level of OCB are due to a dif- study and offer avenues for further research. ference in the employees’ motives for perform- ing OCB and that the effects differ according to 2. Theory and hypotheses the type of behavior. Although most research on OCB has disre- 2.1. OCB dimensions garded the direct motives for these behaviors, Smith, Organ and Near (1983) were the first recent studies show that underlying motives are to measure OCB and to propose a set of OCB important for a better understanding of OCB dimensions. Factor analyses on their initial (Donia, Johns & Raja, 2010). Penner, Midili questionnaire gave place to the emergence of and Kegelmeyer (1997) were the first to pro- two factors: altruism and general compliance. pose a functional approach to OCB, seeking to Later, different studies added other dimensions answer the critical question of: “why has OCB to the OCB measure. One of the most relevant occurred?” (p. 118). Rioux and Penner (2001) alternative measures of OCB is the one by Van explored the effect of three types of motives Dyne, Graham and Dienesch (1994) based on on OCB. Two of these motives, organizational political philosophy. Using exploratory factor 2 ACADEMIA, REVISTA LATINOAMERICANA DE ADMINISTRACIÓN, 48, 2011 ESPEJO analysis, they identified five factors: loyalty, and promotive. His main point of disagree- obedience, and three types of participation ment was the distinction between in-role and (social, advocacy, and functional). The other extra-role. Although the same Organ (1990) scales developed are mainly variations of the conceptualized OCB as an extra-role con- original Smith et al. (1983) questionnaire. struct, he changed his position due to the dif- In their review of the OCB literature, Pod- ficulties distinguishing in-role from extra-role sakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach (2000) behaviors (Morrison, 1994). What some indi- identified seven dimensions. Because there viduals consider extra-role others see as in-role, is considerable overlap among different OCB so some behaviors would be OCB for certain dimensions, Coleman and Borman (2000) tried individuals and would not be OCB for others. to establish the common phenomena behind Therefore, Organ adopted a definition of OCB them. They suggested that dimensions in the cit- based on the concept of contextual perfor- izenship performance domain can be grouped mance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Borman in three categories: interpersonal (OCBI), job/ and Motowidlo defined contextual perfor- task (which we call OCBT), and organizational mance in opposition to task performance. They (OCBO). In order to come to this classification, state that task performance “is the proficiency they examined all dimensions in the literature with which job incumbents perform activities through exploratory factor analysis, multidi- that are formally recognized as part of their mensional scaling analysis, and cluster analy- jobs, … activities that contribute to the organi- sis. Traditional dimensions, such as altruism, zation’s technical core either directly by imple- conscientiousness, and loyalty fit this new clas- menting a part of its technological process, or sification. Altruism corresponds to behaviors indirectly by providing it with needed materi- directed toward specific individuals (OCBI), als or services” (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, p. such as helping to orient new coworkers. Con- 73). Contextual performance therefore refers scientiousness