Çalışanların Öğrenen Örgüt Algısının Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışlarına Etkisi

Year 2009, Issue: 22, 55 - 66, 01.08.2009

H. Nejat Basım Harun Şeşen Cenk Sözen Köksal Hazır

Abstract

Günümüzün rekabet yoğun işyaşamında, örgütlerin birer öğrenen örgüte dönüşümü, onların rekabetçi yeteneklerini artırmalarınısağlamaktadır. Ayrıca, günümüzde çalışanların sadece kendilerinden beklenen rol davranışlarınıdeğil, bunun ötesindeki, gönüllü sergilenen rol ötesi davranışlarıda sergilemeleri beklenmektedir. Örgüt yazınında bu tür davranışlar örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışları ÖVD olarak isimlendirilmektir. Öğrenmeyi destekleyen, astlarıgüçlendiren bir liderlik sitilini uygulayan, takım çalışmasına ve iletişime değer veren yapılarıile öğrenen örgütler, çalışanların rol ötesi davranışlar sergilemeleri için uygun bir ortam hazırlayabilirler. Bu temel düşünceden hareketle yürütülen çalışmanın amacı, çalışanların öğrenen örgüt algılarının, örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışlarına etkilerini araştırmaktır. Yabancıveya yerli yazında böyle bir araştırmanın daha önce yürütülmemişolmasıise çalışmanın önemli bir boşluğu doldurmasınısağlamaktadır. Çalışmaya, Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren 20 farklıfirmadan 436 beyaz yakalıçalışan katılmıştır. Analiz bulguları, araştırmaya katılan çalışanların öğrenen örgüt algılarıile örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışlarıarasında aynıyönlü ve anlamlıbir ilişki olduğunu göstermiştir. Regresyon analizi sonuçlarıise sürekli öğrenme, diyalog ve araştırma, gömülü sistemler ve destekleyici liderlik boyutlarının ÖVD üzerinde ilave varyans açıkladığını; ancak takım çalışması, güçlendirilmişçalışanlar ve sistemler arasıbağlantıboyutlarının ise ÖVD üzerinde böyle bir etki yaratmadığınıortaya koymuştur. Bu bulgular, öğrenen örgüt algısının çalışanların örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışlarıüzerinde önemli bir etken olduğunu göstermektedir. Ayrıca araştırma bulgularıyöneticiler açısından değerlendirildiğinde de önemli sonuçlar sunmaktadır. Örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışları, çalışanların gönüllü ve örgütün işleyişine katkıyapan davranışlar olduğundan, bu tür davranışların çalışanlar tarafından sergilenmesi, hem örgütün ürün ve hizmet kalitesinin artmasına yardımcıolmakta, hem de böyle bir artışiçin hiçbir ilave maliyet ödenmemektedir. Şu halde bu davranışlarıartıracak yönde örgütü dönüştürmek, yönetsel anlamda da fayda sağlayabilecektir. Araştırmada, ortaya konulan bulgular tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

Örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı, öğrenen örgüt, sürekli öğrenme, destekleyici liderlik

The Effect of Employees’ Learning Organization Perceptions on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

Abstract

Discretionary behaviors that promote the effectiveness of organizations differ from formal role behaviors. These informal role behaviors have been termed as prosocial organizational behavior Brief and Motowidlo, 1986; George, 1990 or organizational citizenship behavior OCB; Bateman and Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988; Smith et al., 1983 . Dennis Organ and his colleagues Bateman and Organ 1983; Smith et al., 1983 were the first to conceptualize OCB, describing it as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization” Organ, 1988, p. 4 . Briefly, these behaviors are not compulsory in job definitions, are not rewarded or punished by organization management, and are discretionary. Dimensions of OCB include altruism discretionary behavior that intends to help others in the organization about a certain problem , conscientiousness a general compliance that requires employees to go beyond their minimum job requirements , courtesy intentions that consider others before acting or deciding and informing them about the actions , civic virtue employees’ self-responsibility about organizational problems and attention to the social and political life of the organization and sportsmanship willingness to accept the inevitable problems or matters that are related to the job; Organ, 1988 . As the ability to survive in an uncertain and turbulent environment is becoming more vital for work organizations today, the need for employees who voluntarily contribute to the organizational welfare beyond their formal roles is greater than ever Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2004 . Therefore, organizational climate and structure need to be designed to support the emergence of OCBs. Transforming an organization into a learning organization by spreading the learning culture throughout the organization may both expedite to cope with the uncertainty of the environment more effectively and to meet with OCBs more frequently because employees’ expectations will be satisfied. In this study we tried to demonstrate how employees’ perceptions about their companies in the case the companies being learning organizations would affect their OCBs. Many studies have focused on the antecedents of OCB or OCB’s relation with some organizational factors. However, the learning capacity of the organization as an antecedent of OCB has not been treated as often. A common result of all these studies is that employee perceptions about the job atmosphere are crucial if employees are to behave beyond formal roles or display OCB Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2004 . In learning organizations, people focus on continuous learning processes that are carried out collectively by all of the employees rather than on their own performance results. In such organizations, people expand their own points of view beyond formal role definitions and develop a system approach Senge, 1996 . This approach facilitates organizational learning so that learning ability of the organization can support OCB within the organization Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2004 . In some studies, it is suggested that OCB could support interpersonal relations in the organization and that it also might be a useful tool for managers to use in fostering a lively work climate Kidwell et al., 1997 . In this respect, the discretionary characteristic of OCB might be both a motivational factor and one of the most important antecedents of teamwork in an organization. As another antecedent of OCB, the clarity of the job might be conceptualized as the extent to which employees know what to expect in their daily routine and how explicitly rules and policies of the organization are communicated. OCB is closely connected to job clarity, comprehensible norms and rules, and good planning of work Turnipseed and Murkison, 1996 . Job clarity is especially related to the shared vision dimension of the concept of learning organization. Sharing the vision among the organization members may increase the clarity of the job. Podsakoff et al., 1996 suggested that if the employees knew the future of their work, their OCB exhibitions would be augmented. Leader attitudes also play a key role in the emergence of OCBs in an organization Brightman and Moran, 1999; Ehrhart, 2004; Turnipseed and Murkison, 1996 . Some leader behaviors, especially transformational leadership behaviors, positively influence OCBs. Many studies have found a direct link between transformational leadership and OCB e.g., Kent and Chelladurai, 2001; Koh et al., 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1990, 1996 . In conclusion, given the interactions described above, it can be summarized that organizational structure and climate have a direct impact on the emergence of OCBs. Thus, we may expect more OCBs from employees in a learning organization than from those in an unlearning one. Hence, the hypotheses can be stated as follows: Hypothesis 1. There will be a positive relationship between employees’ learning organization perceptions and their OCBs. Hypothesis 2. All of the learning organization dimensions will contribute significantly to each of the OCBs independently. In this study, the participants of the survey are white-collar workers from 20 different middle or large-sized companies in Turkey. The questionnaires, consist of Learning Organization Scale and OCB Scale, were posted to the human resources departments of the firms with an information note. Of the 600 questionnaires sent, 460 76.6% were returned. As a result, 436 valid responses were used in the study. Findings indicated that intercorrelations between the learning organization and OCB dimensions show statistically significant positive relations between the learning organization and OCB dimensions p < 0.01 . Although intercorrelations between learning organization dimensions were high .71 ≤ r ≤ .86 , they were average .50 ≤ r ≤ .67 between OCB dimensions. The relation between the learning organization and OCB dimensions was significant, positive, and average .24 ≤ r ≤ .55 . Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed to test whether learning organization dimensions explained additional variance in OCBs. The final model for altruism included continuous learning β = .11; p < .05 , dialogue and inquiry β = .12; p < .05 , and providing leadership β = .12; p < .05 . The conscientiousness model contained continuous learning β = .14; p < .05 and dialogue and inquiry β = .16; p < .01 . The courtesy model comprised dialogue and inquiry β = .18; p < .001 and providing leadership β = .09; p < .05 . The sportsmanship model contained continuous learning β = .13; p < .05 , dialogue and inquiry β = .14; p < .01 , and embedded systems β = .13; p < .05 . Lastly, the civic virtue model included continuous learning β = .16; p < .01 and dialogue and inquiry β = .32; p < .001 . It is interesting that team learning, empowerment, and systems connections dimensions had no significant effects on any of the OCB dimensions. The results of this study indicate that there is a significant and positive relation between employees’ learning organization perceptions and their OCBs. Whereas the structures of the organizations are being transformed toward a learning organization, OCBs performed by employees found to be increased, yielding support for Hypothesis 1. To explore whether learning organization dimensions explained additional variance in OCBs, we conducted a hierarchical regression analysis. Results showed that the dimensions of continuous learning and dialogue and inquiry were the most important factors in predicting and explaining the variance of OCBs. Although embedded systems and supportive leadership helped to explain additional variance of OCBs, other learning organization dimensions team learning, empowerment, and systems connections had no significant effect; therefore, Hypothesis 2 was partly supported

Keywords

Organizational citizenship behavior, learning organization, continuous learning, providing leadership The type of research: Research

References

• Barksdale, K. and Werner, J. M. (2001). Managerial ratings of in-role behaviors, Organizational citizenship behaviors and overall performance: Testing different models of their relationship. Journal of Business Research, 51, 145-155.
• Basim, H. N., Sesen, H. and Korkmazyurek, H. (2007). A Turkish translation, validity and reliability study of the learning organization questionnaire. World Applied Sciences Journal, 2(4), 368-374.
• Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
• Bateman, T. S. and Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595.
• Bergeron, D. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? Academy of Management Journal, 32(4), 1078-1095.
• Braham, J. B. (1996). Creating a learning organization, California: Kogan Page.
• Brighman, B. K. and Moran, J. W. (1999). Building organizational citizenship. Management Decision, 37(9), 678-685.
• Burgoyne, J. (1999). Design of the times. People Management, 5(11), 39-44.
• Burns, B. M. and Collins R. W. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviour in the US context. hhtp//hsb.baylor.edu/ramsower/acis/ papers/burns.htm (23.02.2005).
• Chen, X. P., Lam, S. K., Schaubroeck, J. and Naumann, S. (2002). Group organizational citizenship behavior: A conceptualization and preliminary test of its antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1-6.
• Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E. and Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 160-169.
• Daft, R. L. (2002). Organization theory and design, 7th Ed. New York: South Western Thomson Learning.
• Daily, B. F., Bishop, J. W., Govindarajulu, N. (2009). A conceptual model for organizational citizenship behavior directed toward the environment. Business Society, 48, 243-256.
• Deluga, R. J. (1995). The relation between trust in the supervisor and subordinate organizational citizenship behavior. Military Psychology, 7(1), 1-16.
• Dibella, A. and Nevis, E. C. (1998). How organizations learn? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Drew, S. A. W. and Smith, P. A. C. (1995). The learning organization: change proofing and strategy. The Learning Organization, 2(1), 4-14.
• Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61-94.
• Evan, W. M. (1993). Organization theory research and design. New York: Macmillian Publishing.
• Farh, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M. and Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, 16, 705-721.
• Feather, N. T. and Rauter, K. A. (2004). Organizational citizenship behaviors in relation to job status, job insecurity, organizational commitment and identification, job satisfaction and work values. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 81-94.
• Fok, L. Y., Hartman, S. J., Patti, A. L. and Razek, J. R. (1999). The relationship between equity sensitivity, growth need strength, organizational citizenship behavior and perceived outcomes in the quality environment: A study of accounting professionals. Journal of Social and Personality, 15(1), 99-120.
• Folger, R. (1993). Justice, motivation and performance beyond role requirements. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 239-248.
• Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 78-91.
• George, J. M. and Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in context. Human Performance, 10, 153-170.
• Graham, J. W. (1989). Organizational citizenship behavior: construct redefinition, operationalization and validation. Unpublished research report, Loyola University of Chicago.
• Greenberg, J. and Baron, R. A. (2000). Behavior in organizations, 7th Ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
• Guns, B. and Anundsen, K. (1998). The faster learning organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Hernandez, M. and Watkins, K. E. (2003). Translation, validation and adaptation of the Spanish version of modified dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Human Resource Development International, 6(2), 187-196.
• Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P. and Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 555-566.
• Hunt, S. T. (1999). On the virtues of staying inside the box: Does organizational citizenship behavior detract from performance of some jobs ? Unpublished research result.
• Jacobs, R. L. (1995). Impressions about the learning organizations: What is to see behind the curtain. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6(2), 119-122.
• Jones, A. M. and Hendry, C. (1995). The learning organization: Adult learning and organizational transformation. British Journal of Management, 5, June: 153-162.
• Jones, G. R. (1995). Organizational theory text and cases. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
• Katzenbach, J. R. and Smith, D. K. (1994). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. New York: Harper Collins Reissue.
• Kent, A. and Chelladurai, P. (2001). Perceived transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and citizenship behavior: A case study in intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 15, 135-159.
• Kidwell, R., Mossholder, K. and Benneth, N. (1997). Cohensiveness and organizational citizenship behavior”. Journal of Management, 23(6), 775-793.
• Kline, P. and Saunders, L. B. (1997). Ten steps to a learning organization. New York: Great River Books.
• Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M. and Terborg, J. R. (1995). The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 319-333.
• Lepine, J., Erez, A. and Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52-65.
• Marquardt, M. J. (1996). Building the learning organization. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
• Martin, C. L. and Bies, R. J. (1991). Just laid off but still a good citizen? Only if the process is fair. Unpublished research note, Academy of Management, Florida
• Min-Huei, C. (2004). An investigation of the relationship of organizational structure, employee’s personality and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Journal of American Academy of Business, September, 428-431.
• Moorman, R. H. and Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism – collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127-142.
• Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P. and Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 209-225.
• Morrrison, E. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1543-1567.
• Netemeyer, R., Mckee, D. O. and Mcmurran, R. (1997). An investigation into the antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior in a personnel selling context. Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 85-98.
• Niehoff, B. P. and Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 527-556.
• O’Reilly, R. and Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the effects of compliance, identification and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.
• Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, England: Lexington Books.
• Organ, D. W. and K. A. Ryan (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802.
• Organ, D. W. and Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 157-164.
• Organ, D. W. and Lingl, A. (1995). Personality, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 135(3), 339-350.
• Ortenblad, A. (2004). The learning organization: towards an integrated model. The Learning Organization, 11(2), 129-144.
• Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. (1991). The learning company. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
• Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M. and Mackenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262-270.
• Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B. and Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and subtitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22, 259-298.
• Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H. and Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
• Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B. and 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.
• Probst, G. and Buchel, B. (1997). Organizational learning: The competitive advantage of the future. London: Prentice-Hall.
• Redding, J. C. and Catalanello, R. F. (1994). Strategic readiness: The making of the learning organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Rioux, S. and Penner, L. (1999). The causes of organizational behavior: motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1306-1314.
• Robbins, S. P. (1990). Organization theory structure, design and applications. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Rosen, R. (2005). Life itself: A comprehensive inquiry into the nature, origin, and fabrication of life (Complexity in ecological systems). New York: Columbia University Press.
• Schappe, S. (1998). The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment and fairness perceptions on OCB. Journal of Psychology Interdisciplinary and Applied, 32/3, 277-291.
• Schnake, M. and Dumler, M. P. (1993). The relationship between traditional leadership, super leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Group and Organizational Management, 18/3, 352-366.
• Senge, P. M. (1996). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.
• Smith, C. A., Organ, D. and Near, Y. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.
• Somech, A. and Drach-Zahavy, A. (2004). Exploring organizational citizenship behavior from an organizational perspective: The relationship between organizational learning and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 281-298.
• Tang, T. L. P. and Ibrahim, A. H. S. (1998). Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior revisited: Public Personnel in the United States and in the Middle East. Public Personnel Management, 27, 529- 551.
• Tompson, H. B. and Werner J. M. (1997). The impact of role conflict / facilitation on core and discretionary behaviors: testing a mediated model. Journal of Management, 23(4), 583-601.
• Tschannen-Moran, M. (1999). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 39, 513-521.
• Turnipseed, D. and Murkison, G. (1996). Organizational citizenship behavior an examination of influence the workplace. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 17, 42-47.
• Turnipseed, D. and Murkison, G. (2000). Good soldiers and their syndrome: Organizational citizenship behavior and the work environment. North American Journal of Psychology, 2(2), 1-16.
• Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W. and Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organization citizenship behavior: Construct, redefinition, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 765-802.
• Van Scotter, J. R. and Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525-531.
• Vandyne, L. and J. A. Lepine (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108-119.
• Vey, M. A. and Campbell, J. P. (2004). In-role or extra-role organizational citizenship behavior: Which are we measuring ? Human Performance, 17(1), 119-135.
• Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1993). Sculpturing the learning organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Watkins, K. and Marsick, V. (1997). Dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire [survey]. Warwick, RI: Partners for the Learning Organization.
• Williams, L. and Anderson, S. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.
• Williams, S. and Shiaw, W. T. (1999). Mood and organizational citizenship behavior: The effects of positive affect on employee OCB intentions. The Journal of Psychology, 133(6), 656-668.
• Williams, S., Pitre, R. and Zainuba, M. (2002). Justice and organizational citizenship behavior intentions: Fair treatment, The Journal of Social Psychology, 142 (1), 33-44.
• Yang, B., Watkins, K. E. and Marsick, V. J. (2004). The construct of the learning organization: dimensions, measurement and validation. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(1), 31-55.
• Yeo, R. K. (2005). Revisiting the roots of learning organization. The Learning Organization, 12(4), 368- 382.
• Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.