The Relationship of Perceived Superior Support and Individualism-Collectivism with Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in Primary Schools

Abstract

Backgrund Teaching profession is becoming increasingly demanding extra effort and dedication from teachers. Meeting this demand mainly depends on building and maintaining organizational citizenship behaviors. However, schools encounter forces restricting their ability to motivate teachers to build organizational citizenship behaviors (Someck & Bogler, 2002). Studies of organizational citizenship behaviors tend to focus on individual characteristics. Recently, some researchers have realized that these behaviors are better understood by examining their relationship with organizational characteristics (Dipaola and Hoy, 2005). Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of individual characteristics (dispositional variables of affectivity and employees' attitude), perceived superior support and organizational characteristics (organizational values of individualism vs. collectivism) on organizational citizenship behaviors in school settings. Method The sample consisted of 172 volunteer teachers working in the eight primary schools in the province of Ankara during the 2008-2009 school year. There instruments, namely Perceived Superior Support Scale (Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988), Individualism-collectivism Scale (Hanges & Dicken, 2004), and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Scale (Dipaola,Tarter and Hoy, 2005) were adapted to Turkish with permission used for data gathering. The internal consistency coefficient of Cronbach's alpha for Perceived Superior Support Scale was .96, for Individualism-Collectivism Scale .78 and for Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Scale .89. To analyze the data, Pearson Moments Correlation Coefficient (r), and Multiple Regression Analysis techniques were used. Findings and Discussion Teachers' organizational citizenship behavior level (?=3.50) and perceived superior support level (?=3.43) were relatively high, while schools individualism-collectivism (?=3.21) was observed at moderate level. A relatively low positive and significant relationship between perceived superior support and organizational citizenship behavior were observed. Determination coefficient showed that 7% of the total variance in organizational citizenship behavior of teachers was explained by the perceived superior support. There was also a moderate positive and significant relationship between individualism-collectivism and organizational citizenship behavior (r=0.36; p<.01). Determination coefficient indicated that 13% of organizational citizenship behavior was explained by collectivism. As a result of multiple regression analyses, when partial correlations were examined, the correlation between perceived superior support and organizational citizenship behavior was calculated as 0.01. The partial correlation between individualism-collectivism and organizational citizenship behavior was computed as 0.25. A moderate significant relationship between both perceived superior support and individualism-collectivism, and organizational citizenship behavior was computed as 0.25. A moderate significant relationship between both perceived superior support and individualism-collectivism, and teachers' organizational citizenship behavior was found as (R=0.355, R2=0.126, p<.01). Results showed that both perceived superior support and collectivism improves teachers' organizational citizenship behavior. Examining these variables together, it was demonstrated that collectivism was the most effective predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. These findings were consistent with results of previous studies. Buluç's (2008) also stated that ‘there is a significant relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and managerial and technical support levels in an organization. Similarly, Buchanan (1974) found a positive relationship between emotional devotion and organizational support for employees. Finally, the results about individualism-collectivism support the idea that shared goals, and schools where there is a strong solidarity among teachers encourage teachers to behave in congruence with organizational citizenship behavior (Hofstede, 1993; Triandis, 1993). These findings demonstrated that, as stated by George and James (1997), organizations have an important affect on individual behaviors. Schools' organizational characteristics by presenting strong values and emphasizing the importance of social exchange may facilitate organizational citizenship behaviors.

Keywords

• organizational citizenship behavior , perceived superior support , ındividualism-collectivism.

İlköğretim Okullarında Algılanan Yönetici Desteğinin ve Bireycilik-Ortaklaşa Davranışçılığın Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı ile İlişkisi

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı, ilköğretim okullarında algılanan yönetici desteğinin ve bireyciliğe karşı ortaklaşa davranışçılığa ilişkin örgütsel değerlerin örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışıyla (ÖVD) ilişkisini incelemektir. Veriler Ankara'da sekiz ilköğretim okulunun 172 öğretmenine uygulanan anketlerin sonucunda elde edilmiştir. Araştırmada okullardaki yönetici desteğinin düzeyi “Algılanan Yönetici Desteği Ölçeği” ile okul ortamının ortaklaşa davranışçılık düzeyine ilişkin veriler “Bireycilik- Ortaklaşa Davranışçılık Ölçeği” ile öğretmenlerin örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışları düzeyleri ise“Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı Ölçeği” ile belirlenmiştir. Verilerin analizinde Pearson Moments korelasyon katsayısı ve Regresyon analizi teknikleri kullanılmıştır. Araştırma bulguları algılanan yönetici desteğinin ve ortaklaşa davranışçılığın ÖVD ile ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Regresyon analizi sonuçları ise ortaklaşa davranışçılığın algılanan yönetici desteğine göre ÖVD'nin daha fazla yordayıcısı olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı , algılanan yönetici desteği , bireycilik-ortaklaşa davranışçılık

Kaynakça

1. Blau,P.(1964).Exchance and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.
2. Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior in school : How does it relate to participation in decision-making? Journal of Educational Administration, 43, 4209-438.
3. Bontempo, R., Lobel, S., & Triandis, H. (1990). Compliance and value internalization in Brazil and the U.S. : Effects of allocentrism and anonymity. Journal of Cross Culturel Psychology, 21, 200-213.
4. Buchanan, B.(1974).Building organizational commitment:The socialization of managers in work organizations. Aministrative Science Quarterly, 19(1), 533-546.
5. Buluç, B. (2008). Ortaöğretim okullarında örgütsel sağlık ile örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışları arasındaki ilişki. Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi,6 (4), 571-602.
6. Çakır, Ö.(2001).İşe Bağlılık olgusu ve etkileyen faktörler, Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.
7. Çetin, M.Ö. (2004). Örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
8. Demarais, A.,-White,V. (2004). İlk izlenimler. (Çev. Burçin Tarhan Tanlasa). İstanbul: Kuraldışı Yayıncılık.

9. Dipaola, M., Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Organizational citizenship behavior in schools and its relationships to school climate. Journal of School Leadership, 11, 424-447.
10. Dipaola, M.F., & Hoy, W.K. (2005a). School characteristics that foster organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of School Leadership, 15, 308- 326.
11. Dipaola, M.F., & Hoy, W.K. (2005b). Organizational citizenship of faculty and achievement of high scohool students. The High School Journal, 88, 35-44.
12. Dipaola,M.F., Tarter,C.J. & Hoy, W.K. (2005). Measuring organizational citizenship of schools: The OCB scale. In W.Hoy and C.Miskel (Eds.), Educational Leadership and Reform,(4), 314-341. Greenwich, CN: Information Age Publishing.
13. Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfuction. Journal of Applied Psycholog, 82, 812-820.
14. Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, L.I., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee refention. Journal of Applied Psychqolog, 87, 565-573.
15. Flynn, F.J. (2003). How much should I give and how often? The effects of generosity and frequence or favor exchange on social status and productivity. The Academy of Management Journal, 46, 539-553.
16. George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior sales performance and turnover: A group level analysis in a service contex. Journal of Applied Psycholog, 75, 698-709.
17. George, J. M., & Brief, A.P. (1992). Feeling good doing good: A conceptual analysis of the moad at work organizational spontaneity reletaionship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310-329.
18. George, J.M., & Jones, G.R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in contex. Human Performance, 10, 153-170.
19. George,J.M.,& Bettenhausen,K.(1990).Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance and turnover:A group level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698-709.
20. Gerstner, C.R., & Day, D. V. (1994). Cross-cultural comparsion at leadership prototypes. Leadershnip Quarterly, 5, 121-134.
21. Hanges,P.J.,& Dickson,M.(2004).The devolopment and validation of the Globe culture and leadership scales. In. R.J. House, P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W.Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The Globe study of societies. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.
22. Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in managemenet theories. Academy of Management Executive, 7, 81-94.
23. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç.(2004). Yeni insan ve insanlar. 10. Basım. Psikoloji-Psikiyatri Dizisi : (1). İstanbul: Evrim Yayınevi ve Bilgisayar San. Tic. Ltd. Şti.
24. Konovsky, M.A. Pugh, S.D.(1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656-669.
25. Kottke, J.L., Sharafinski, C.E. (1988). Measuring perceived suppervisory and organizational support. Educational and Psychoolgical Measument, 48, 1075-1079.
26. Lam, S.S.K., Chen, X.P., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Participative decision making and employee performance in diffierent cultures: The moderating effects of allocentrism / idiocentrism and efficacy. Academyh of Management Journal, 45, 905-915.
27. Lambert, S.J. (2000). Added benefits: The link between work life benefits and organizational citizenship behavior. The Academy of Management Journal, 43, 801-815.
28. Moorman, H. R. & Blakely, L.G. (1995). Individualism – collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal at Organizational Behavior, 16, 127-142.
29. Newmann, F.M., King, B., & Youngs, P. (2000). Professional development that addresses school capacity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, L.A.
30. Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behaviour: The good soldier syndroma. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
31. Organ, D.W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43-72.
32. Organ, D.W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personel 5, 109-119.
33. Organ, D.W.(1997).Organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 20, 465-478.
34. Özdevecioğlu, M. (2003). Algılanan örgütsel destek ile örgütsel bağlılık arasındaki ilişkilerin belirlenmesine yönelik bir araştırma. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. Dergisi, Cilt 18, Sayı 2, 113-130.
35. Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A riview and suggestions for future research. Human Performance, 10, 133-151.
36. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bacharach, D.G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestionas for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563.
37. Randall, M.L, Cropanzano, R., Bormaan, C.A., & Birjulin, A. (1999). Organizational politics and organizational supports as predictiors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 159-174.
38. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A rewiew of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714.
39. Sargut, S. A. (2001). Kültürler arası farklılaşma ve yönetim. Ankara: İmge Kitabevi
40. Schein, H.E.(1990).Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109-119.
41. Schnake, M.(1991).Organizational citizenship behavior: A review, proposed model, and research agenda. Human Relations, 49, 735-759.
42. Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding organizational citizenship behavior in schools: The relationships between job satisfaction, sence of efficacy, and teachers extra – role behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 649-659.
43. Somech, A., 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 Psycholog, 77, 281-298.
44. Somech, A. & Bogler, R. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of teacher organizational and Professional commitment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 555-577.
45. Somech, A. & Ron, I. (2007). Promoting organizational citizenship behavior in schools:The impact of indvidual and organizational characteristics. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 38-66.
46. Triandis, H.C. (1993). Culture and Social behavior. New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
47. Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, co: Westview.
48. Van Der Vegt, G.S., Van De Vliert, E., & Oosterhof, A. (2003). Informational dissimilarity and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of intrateam interdependence and team identification. The Academy of Management Journal, 46, 715-727.
49. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215-285.
50. Wagner, J., III. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on coopearation in groups : Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152-164.
51. Wagner, J.A., Moch, M.K. (1986). Individualism-collectivesm: concept and measure. Group and Organization Studies, 11, 280-304.
52. Yıldırım, A.ve Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. 5. Baskı. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.