Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) In Educational Settings: A Narrative Review

Janet Hanson; Muhammad Niqab; Tasleem Arif

doi:https://doi.org/10.31384/jisrmsse/2022.20.1.2

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) In Educational Settings: A Narrative Review

Janet Hanson

¹ , Muhammad Niqab ✉

² , Tasleem Arif ³

1 Azusa Pacfic University, California, United States

2 Department of Education , Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University, Sheringal Dir(U), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

3 Department of sports sciences and Physical Education,, University of Haripur, Haripur, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

Abstract

Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) is a crucial foundation of every human organization. The main purpose of this review paper is to highlight the importance of the OCB in educational settings. Educational institutes have the leaders, employees and resources (tangible and intangible). OCB dimensions, in particular: altruism, civic virtue, courtesy, consciousness and sportsmanship, have shown great significance in making associations between employees more powerful thereby improving group performance and influencing positive outcomes of the organization and improvements in school outcomes (as nonprofit service institutions) require the expression of OCB by their employees. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) to stem negative behaviors and enhance positive workplace behaviors. Research has shown the benefits of critically examining the development of OCB in both school leadership and educators. This narrative review of the OCB construct focuses on the role, types, existence of, measurement of, and importance of OCB in educational settings. Implications for the next steps in the process are provided for policymakers, administrators, and teachers to promote OCB in their schools.

Keywords

OCB, dimensions of OCB, organizational effectiveness, educational settings, leadership, intellectual capital

INTRODUCTION

Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) is a crucial foundation of every human organization.Organ (1997) characterised OCB as, “Performance that contributes to the social and psychological context in which task performance occurs” (p. 95). OCB is a behaviour of individual, which is observed as going beyond his/her stipulated assigned task (Fahmi & Permana, 2019). Three basic features of OCB include that the behaviour is voluntary, useful to the organization, and has a multi-dimensional aspect (Firouzi, Harati, & Shahraki, 2014). Scholars have emphasised relevance of OCB for the success of organization because it is the optional conduct of employees that increases group efficacy (Cohen & Kol, 2004). The multidirectional nature of OCB affects the individuals, groups (or teams), and the overall performance of the organization (Poohongthong, Surat, & Sutipan, 2014). When individuals in the organization demonstrate OCB, the group with whom they work has a greater chance of demonstrating superior execution, resulting in improved organizational viability (Kernodle & Noble, 2013; Schnake & Dumler, 2003). During the COVID 19 pandemic,Khalid, Rahman, Darus, and Shahruddin (2021) reported students identified high levels of OCB behaviours in their teachers as they supported the transition to online learning platforms.

OCB was first explored exclusively in corporate and mechanical units.Barnard (1938) introduced the concept of OCB using the system approach while examining organizations. In addition,Katz (1964) asserted that for any institute to operate properly, personnel must exhibit three types of conduct: workers must be motivated to join and stay with the organization; workers must be able to meet job requirements or play a specific function as and when defined; and workers must have the capacity to innovate and do so spontaneously, even beyond their assigned responsibilities (Werner, 2002). Organ and his co-researchers formalised and familiarised the construct of OCB during the early 1980s. Surprisingly, nobody realised at the time OCB was first introduced byBateman and Organ (1983) how OCB would gain such significance in both public and private sector organizations. Organ (1988) proposed the OCB theory as:

[i]ndividual behaviour that is discretionary, not formally or openly acknowledged by the formal incentive system, but improves the effective operation of the organization in aggregate. The phrase “discretionary” refers to behaviour that is not composed mainly of the function or job requirements, i.e. the explicitly established requirements of the person’s employment contract with the business. Because the behaviour is a matter of personal choice, its absence is not often seen as punitive. (p.4)

Various studies have focused on different factors of OCB and its related outcomes in organizations.Campbell and Im (2016) tried the role of change-oriented OCB as a mediator between Public sector management (PSM) and turnover purpose. While (Vigoda-Gadot, 2000) observed that appropriate work attitudes such as job satisfaction and decision involvement mediate the association between general citizenship behavior and OCB. Similarly Vigoda-Gadot and Beeri (2011) observed that awareness of politics negatively mediates the relationship between leadership and OCB and that awareness of politics mediates the relationship of job congruence with Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. Furthermore,Geus, Ingrams, Tummers, and Pandey (2020) provided an excellent model of the antecedents, mediators, moderators, and outcomes of OCB in the public sector from a literature review. Antecedents included organizational commitment, justice, public service motivation, good leadership, and affective commitment. Mediators included organizational commitment, psychological empowerment, organizational identification, and job satisfaction. Moderators were intrinsic motivation, justice, and a norm of reciprocity. Finally, the outcomes of OCB in an organization included individual performance, knowledge sharing, and workplace deviance (p. 267).

Organ (1988) assessed OCB on five dimensions: conscientiousness, sportsmanship, civic virtue, courtesy, and altruism. These have been made as the principles of measurements of OCB (Kernodle et al., 2013). Later, different analysts characterised these dimensions based on distinctive connections observed in various forms of an individual’s organizational behaviours.

In sum, OCB was described as an idea which makes comprehensible the behavioural reason for employee natural behaviour related to their work performance (Fajar & Soeling, 2017). OCB refers to a worker’s voluntary behaviour shown to increase the viability and boost an organization effectiveness (Cohen et al., 2004; Fajar et al., 2017; Firouzi et al., 2014). Therefore, the major advantage of OCB is that it has a favourable impact on both the individual's and the group’s work productivity leading to improved organizational outcomes (Poohongthong et al., 2014).

The objective of study

The current study is being conducted in response to feedback from a researcher at a workshop conducted in University Malaya in 2015, that there is no OCB at educational institutions. These statements triggered the authors to review the research on OCB in educational settings. As a result, it was discovered that the identification of the OCB construct had celebrated its silver jubilee in the educational paradigm (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2000). This current study sought to contribute an up-to-date review of the inventory of this tale. So, the fundamental goal of this study is to provide an awareness that OCB is important, not just in specialty units, representative bodies, or private organizations, but also in the educational context. Schools are also organizations requiring adequate processes and performance of their employees to accomplish their objectives.

From the facts found in a review of available literature, the concept and theory of OCB were developed from a considered theoretical framework, which typically helps the investigator attain a better knowledge of the problem in the review process. This theoretical review will rely on the social exchange theory — a sociological perspective, as the lens to view the topic (Tamunomiebi & Onah, 2019).Homans (1958) stated that social exchange theory was established to improve the knowledge related to individual conduct in developing one’s social efforts. In the upcoming sections, a review of the available literature on OCB will focus on the role, types, existence and importance, measurement, and dimensions of OCB in educational settings.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Role of OCB in Organizations

Organizational success largely depends on anticipatory and proactive measures taken by workers, which will influence a favourable climate in that organization (Ong, Mayer, Tost, & Wellman, 2018). Thus, organizations now promote OCB to improve employee performance and enhance production (Hart, Gilstrap, & Bolino, 2016). The concept of teamwork is closely related to OCB (Bizri, 2018; Hanson, 2017; Hanson, Niqab, & Bangert, 2021; Mallick, Pradhan, Tewari, & Jena, 2014). The significance of OCB in strengthening an organization is crucial; demonstrating considerable influence on organizational productivity and adequacy, increasing the chances of reaching organizational goals, improving administration, and promoting joint efforts and decision making (Aksel, Serinkan, Kiziloglu, & Aksoy, 2013; Kernodle et al., 2013; Polat, 2009; Sharma, Bajpai, & Holani, 2011; Yi, Nataraajan, & Gong, 2011). The International Trade Commission has declared OCB most beneficial for both workers and owners since high OCB levels correlate with a reduction in non-attendance and more positive feelings by workers towards their work (Bergeron, Shipp, Rosen, & Furst, 2013).

Levels of OCB

In private sector literature, OCB is measured at two levels, 1) OCBI, termed prosocial conduct, which occurs when individuals and teams assist colleagues in tasks that sustain the organization, and 2) OCBO, which occurs when a worker applies efforts to ensure the sufficiency of the organization directly (Jain & Rizvi, 2018; Runhaar, Konermann, & Sanders, 2013). Both types of OCB are required for the success of any organization, including educational institutions. OCBI is more compelling as it creates collaborations between workers more gainful (Lee, Woo, & Kim, 2017; Memon, Salleh, Baharom, Nordin, & Ting, 2017). An example of OCBI in schools occurs when highly invested instructors are more welcoming toward colleagues. OCBO occurs when highly engaged instructors have a good attitude about the organization (Runhaar et al., 2013). There was also a considerable correlation between organizational justice and teacher OCB, as well as a favourable and clear association between OCB and student accomplishment. Furthermore, instructors saw that their leaders had an outstanding direct impact on student accomplishment, whilst their colleagues indirectly influenced students’ academic performance (Burns & Dipaola, 2013). The most widely used organizational citizenship behaviour scale (OCBS) was developed by Lee and Allen (2002), and comprised is of 16 items, which measure both OCBI and OCBO. Among the variables found to explain increases in OCB in an organization were leadership, administration, equity/reasonability, social justice, trust, courtesy, and the personality of the leader (Cohen & Keren, 2010; Ertürk, 2007; Malik, Ghafoor, & Iqba, 2012; Poohongthong et al., 2014). When these components are examined and supported, OCB in organizations should improve.

Influence of employee values orientations on OCB

Understanding employee values and motivations are crucial in supporting the development of OCB because values “guide selection or evaluation of behaviour, people, and events” (Gnanarajan, Kengatharan, & Velnampy,2020, pp. 105 & 106). One’s willingness to cooperate, innovate, and go beyond one’s job duties is values driven. For example, OCB is the result of different underlying motives. Schwartz and Sagiv (1995) identified a variety of value orientations that motivate employees to participate in organizational activities, including four dimensions: “Self-transcendence, self-enhancement, openness to change, and conservation - structured in patterns of conflict and compatibility” (p. 439).

The prosocial elements of OCB have been the focus of much of the OCB research in the literature reviewed. This other-oriented aspect of OCB provides “its positive connotation as the ‘good soldier syndrome.” However, some employees’ motivations for “other-oriented deeds” are motivated in the service of self-interest. When this is the case, these individuals were considered “good actors” (Bolino, Varela, Bande, & Turnley, 2006 as cited in Gnanarajan, Kengatharan, & Velnampy,2020, p.106). Indeed, OCB presents an instantaneous link between what an employee presents and their performance (Kernodle et al., 2013; Kernodle, 2007).

Relationship between OCB and intellectual capital

Hanson et al. (2021) reported that OCB mediated principal leadership skills (PLS) in promoting the development of IC in schools. Further, according to research done at a public institution in western Iran,Kianfar, Siadat, Hoveida, and Abedi (2013) reported a statistically significant correlation between OCB and organizational IC. Organizations have two kinds of assets: material assets and immaterial assets. Organizations will only be productive if they can manage both material and immaterial assets. Intellectual capital is an intangible resource. According to Bhasin (2012), in the early days, 70 per cent of ventures were made in the direction of the material assets, while just 30% of speculations were made to improve intellectual capital. However, in recent decades, research demonstrates that intellectual capital enhancement, estimate, appraisal, and observation are now receiving much greater attention. For example, 67 per cent of the venture has been allotted for immaterial resources such as research and development, IT, training, and aptitudes and capacities, while the remaining 33 per cent of the venture was made in substantial resources. Along with the dimensions of intellectual capital, OCB can increase human resource development by increasing employee commitment to the company, impact leadership qualities and social capital, and knowledge sharing behaviour (KSB), frequently recognised as OCB (Karim & Majid, 2017).

Relationship between leadership styles and OCB in schools

Earlier non-educational studies of OCB discovered a relationship between leadership styles and OCB. OCB occurs most frequently in organizations with fair and unbiased assessment systems (Ahmed, 2016; Muthuraman & Al-Haziazi, 2017). The words shared, dispersed, transformative, and collaborative leadership styles can all be used interchangeably to refer to supportive leadership behaviours and open-minded attitudes that contribute to the advancement of effective collaborative groups in an organization (Bostanci, 2013). The relationship between OCB in schools and teachers’ perceptions of their principal using a transformative leadership style is higher than that of principals using a transactional style (Arar & Nasra, 2019; Jayarathna, 2019).Khan, Ismail, Hussain, and Alghazali (2020) concurred, noting the significant role a transformational leadership style played in promoting creativity and innovation in schools leading to OCB. Using the social exchange theory,Bodla, Tang, Dick, and Mir (2019) reported a curved shaped link between OCB and a dictatorial leadership style. The following section discusses the research exploring the connection between the OCB dimensions (civility, benevolence, civic virtue, and sportsmanship) and leadership styles.

Benevolence and civic virtue. Transformational, organizational, and behavioural leadership skills showed a substantial correlation with the OCB dimensions of benevolence and civic virtue in a study done in numerous Pakistani schools.
Civility. Transformational, organizational, and behavioural leadership skills demonstrated a weak link with the OCB dimension of civility. This suggests that some leadership skills are less able to successfully manage teacher complaints about their burdens.
Sportsmanship. Organizational leadership skills were shown to be strongly associated with the OCB dimension of sportsmanship. OCB is closely linked to the term behavioural initiative (Walumbwa & Schaubroeck, 2009). Behavioural motivational skills are also strongly associated with sportsmanship. These connections demonstrated that all the initiative abilities influenced teacher sportsmanship behaviour.

Existence and importance of OCB in the school setting

OCB affects the overall operations of an educational institution and positively impacts students’ academic performance (Neves, Paixão, Alarcão, & Gomes, 2014). According to (Popescu & Deaconu, 2013), recognising and implementing OCB in the classroom improves teacher effectiveness and substantially impacts school operations. In schools, OCB influences various factors, including relationships between an organization’s leaders and members, trust, organizational fairness, organizational climate, and the leader’s persona. Teacher OCB is significantly higher in public schools than those reported by teachers in private schools (Cohen et al., 2010; Geus et al., 2020). (Popescu et al., 2013) discovered a connection between OCB and overall school adequacy. (Somech & Oplatka, 2014) identified three directions of OCB in the school context: OCB toward students, colleagues, and the school as cited by (Gnanarajan et al., 2020).

Table 1: OCB Determinants

OCB determinants (private sector)	OCB determinants (public sector)	OCB determinants identified in an Asian country
Satisfaction	Job Satisfaction	--
Commitment	Commitment	--
Perceptions of fairness*	Organizational trust**	--
Perceptions of pay equity*	Perceived organizational support**	Perceived organizational support
Intrinsic and extrinsic job cognition	Job efficacy	Teachers’ self-efficacy
Moral development	Sense of educational calling	Teacher values***
Contextual factors and group cohesiveness	School culture (individualism-collectivism)	Student behaviour patterns and pupil control ideology***
Socialisation experiences (Gnanarajan et al., 2020)	School climate	Work-family conflict***
Leadership (Poohongthong et al., 2014)	Educational leadership (Gnanarajan et al., 2020)	--
*Dimensions tend toward transactional vs transformational leadership models (Hanson, 2017)	**Dimensions explained by social exchange process and associated with the nature of the relationship with the supervisor, though this relationship can vary across cultures (Gnanarajan et al., 2020).	***Dimensions developed from teacher and administrators’ perceptions and experiences in schools. These align well with the dimensions reported in other literature on the topic (Gnanarajan et al., 2020).

Note: School climate is “the collective mood, or morale” of the people in the school compared with school culture which is the “unwritten rules [expectations] to which group members conform in order to remain in good standing with their colleagues” (Gruenert, 2008, p. 57)

Researchers reported the importance of recognising the cultural context of a study when determining the factors of OCB. Cultural context influences a teacher’s attitude and a teacher’s attitude showed a significant and positive relationship with a teacher’s OCB. A teacher’s attitude was shown to be related to their ability to capture the attention of students, coworkers, and stakeholders. In an Asian context, the teachers’ OCB towards others declined (Alwi, Wiyono, Bafadal, & Imron, 2021). This is an important finding because organizations with limited worker collaboration have been shown to fail (Dipaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Oplatka, 2009). Further, the bureaucratic aspect of educational organizations and their adherence to unyielding processes and poor standards may negatively impact teachers’ attitudes toward choosing high levels of participation in schools.

In sum, the performance of schools today is contingent mainly on the teachers’ eagerness to go above and beyond the allowed job scope, such as assisting overworked partners and directing newly appointed teachers to be more dedicated (Cohen et al., 2010; Somech & Ron, 2007). Table 1 compares the determinants of OCB in the private sector versus the public sector and teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of determinants of OCB from a qualitative exploration of a secondary school in an Asian context (Gnanarajan, Kengatharan, & Velnampy, 2020, pp.99-105)

OCB in educational setting

Somech et al. (2000) focused on OCB in educational situations and developed a quantitative method for OCB in educational organizations. Joining them,Dipaola et al. (2001) conducted a study on OCB and its link to school climate. Due to various socioeconomic inequalities, it emerges that the operationalisation of the OCB has changed (Farh, Zhong, & Organ, 2004). Later,Dipaola, Tarter, and Hoy (2005) developed a new scale for assessing Organizational citizenship behaviours in schools (OCBS), which is now extensively used in numerous research. However, because research on OCB in educational institutions is unusual, operationalisations of OCB in the literature are neither uniform nor unanimous (Oplatka & Stundi, 2011).Polat (2009) researched the amount of OCB in Turkish schools, whileOplatka (2009) investigated the effects of OCB on teachers, students, and schools in Israel. They concluded that teachers’ OCB was inextricably linked to the school’s reputation.Khalid, Jusoff, Othman, Ismail, and Rahman (2010) conducted a study to investigate the link between OCB and student progress, and they discovered a relationship between the two.

Organizational justice enhances OCB, which raises students’ performance. Increasing organizational trust improves workers’ OCB (Kianfar et al., 2013). There has been a positive relationship between the trust of employees and OCB (Ertürk, 2007). A leader’s personality has a few attributes that can improve OCB in an organization. Leader and member (LMX) is a link between a leader and a follower that enables the leader to assess the amount of OCB displayed by workers and their performance (Kernodle, 2007). Consequently, leadership plays a critical role in spreading OCB in schools.

According to Maharjan (2014), five variables impact OCB among Nepalese university professors: job fulfillment, job pressure, organizational fairness, leadership backing, and organizational duty. When employees inside a company believe they are being treated fairly and impartially, their OCB increases, which boosts the organization performance. One of these is reimbursement fairness, a good forecaster of OCB because of the strong relationship between payment and OCB (Owor, 2016). Principals directly supervise teachers; thus, supervisors should be concerned about teachers’ well-being. Extrinsic and intrinsic prizes have been shown to significantly correlate to OCB (Islam, Akter, & Lecturer, 2015; Lee, Kim, & Kim, 2013; Tufail, Muneer, & Manzoor, 2017). Principals may motivate teachers by awarding incentives based on their performance. Additionally, supervisors should recommend teachers for promotion when warranted, further boosting their morale (Fahmi et al., 2019).

OCB scales for schools

Popescu et al. (2013) investigated OCB as a mediator in secondary schools in Romania. According to their conclusions, OCB is crucial for academic institutions. Despite students having a modest degree of OCB, group level OCB is stronger than measures on the individual scale OCB. (Dipaola et al., 2001) devised a 15-item OCB scale to measure educational environments. They employed a four-point Likert scale with a scale reliability rating of 0.96. The data revealed a robust connection between school climate and OCB. Furthermore, they found large amounts of OCB in schools where administrators demonstrated collegian leadership. The amount of OCB found varied among primary, middle, and high schools. They also showed a large impact of the organizational structure on OCB and observed that a teacher’s refined knowledge impacted the OCB level and increased learning.

(Dipaola et al., 2001) devised a 15-item OCB scale to measure educational environments. They employed a four-point Likert scale with a scale reliability rating of 0.96. The data revealed a robust connection between school climate and OCB. Furthermore, they found large amounts of OCB in schools where administrators demonstrated collegial leadership. The amount of OCB found varied among primary, middle, and high schools. They also showed a large impact of the organizational structure on OCB and observed that a teacher’s refined knowledge impacted the OCB level and increased learning.

Dar and Raja (2014) led a study on OCB and organizational justice in Pakistani educational institutions. They utilised a 12-item, Likert-style scale to collect data from a sample of school instructors. According to his study findings, there is a considerable demand for enhancing OCB in educational institutions, which necessitates familiarity, teamwork, tuning in, and unity. That study demonstrated that controlling teaching relationships in a bureaucratic approach will significantly aggravate the issue, resulting in a decline in voluntary behaviours.Somech and Ohayon (2020) established the relationship between a leader’s OCB and the team OCB. The researchers reported this positive relationship was significant under high levels of organizational justice but non-significant under low levels.

Neves et al. (2014) investigated teachers’ viewpoints on measuring OCB levels in Portuguese schools. They utilised a six-point Likert scale with 16 items to assess the concept. The data was confirmed to be normal by examining skewness and kurtosis, and Cronbach Alpha (0.90) for OCB and its sub-measurements was recorded. The outcomes of their study showed that the construct of the scale was helpful in assessing the amount of OCB in schools.

Shaheen, Gupta, and Kumar (2016) performed a qualitative study in India and identified a new component of teacher OCB, including prosocial behaviours. Their study revealed “[t]eacher’s OCB is found to have three determinants, OCB-Individual, OCB-Organization and OCB-Prosocial. Involvement of parents in [the] school is[sp] redesigning and affecting the actions of [the] teacher” (p. 1095). (Shaheen et al., 2016) explained that prosocial behaviour is considered an extra-role behaviour that is directed towards parents as “customers for the school” (p. 1112). However, there may develop confusion over a teacher’s in-role and extra-role behaviours which can result in ambiguity and uncertainty for teachers (Oplatka, 2009). This researcher also emphasised the importance of recognising the context of the study. India is a country where individuals tend toward collectivism. Therefore, teachers may hold “the desire to develop a feeling of groupness with other members” (Kapoor, Hughes, Baldwin, & Blue, 2003)

Niqab et al. (2019) developed a new OCB scale and tested it in the context of Pakistani secondary public schools. Gaining teachers’ perspectives on OCB at their school was beneficial for updating and aiding educational leaders in underserved areas and informing continuous improvement processes, expanding a school capacity, and ensuring quality education to children. According to the findings, the OCB scale examined in this study provided a three-factor model consisting of supportive leadership (SL), civic virtue (CV), and collaborative problem solving (CPS) as amalgamations of items from four of the five theoretical constructs operationalised on (Organ & Ryan, 1995) measurement model. The study findings offered first-hand validation of the trustworthiness of the newly created OCB instrument.

In Texas, USA, a new tool has been developed called The Texas Teacher Evaluation and Support System (T-TESS), which “may be used as a robust and strategic planning tool to assist administrators in guiding their faculty members toward substantial professional, pedagogical, and personal growth” (Krimbill, Goess, & Escobedo, 2019 , p.21)The Texas Education Agency T-TESS aligned with the dimensions of OCB and was developed in response to OCB research showing that “schools with high levels of stakeholder OCB tend to have greater morale, better attendance (of both employees and students), and higher rates of student achievement” (p. 15). The T-TESS was designed to promote OCB in Texas schools by reframing the lens through which teacher evaluation is viewed, increasing creativity and avoiding a “one size fits all” approach. The tool provides for the teacher to develop an individual plan that will identify the professional development needed. Improvements sought include increasing specific in-context skills such as promoting improved school cultures. The T-TESS also includes feedback loops through coaching sessions on ways to meet student needs and improve overall student outcomes (Texas Education Agency, 2016) as cited byKrimbill et al. (2019). This approach makes sense when one recognises that the energy that may be used to elevate the status of OCB in educational settings can only be channeled via the personalities of educators. Fundamentally, the process should begin with the teacher induction process because a sound staffing process will produce eligible and worthy teachers who are expected to be capable of promoting and demonstrating OCB to effectively achieve the school goals (Fahmi et al., 2019).

OCB and school bullying

Because “OCB is a significant factor in influencing safe and positive campus climates” researchers explored the relationship between OCB and school bullying (Goess & Smith, 2018, p. 66). However, their results showed lower SES was the only statistically significant factor in predicting school bullying. Larger school sizes also correlated with lower SES, which increased school bullying. Though OCB did not directly connect with school bullying, school climate has been shown to explain school bullying (Smith & Hoy, 2004). OCB then can be considered a potential tool to use in the fight against school bullying by using research-based strategies to improve the school climate through improvements in OCB indirectly.

OCB and intellectual capital in schools

Shrestha and Subedi (2020) conducted a study among Dhading District school teachers. They discovered that thriving social capital stimulates high OCB, as evidenced by good relationships among them. Additionally, teachers demonstrated decent behaviour, kindness, and companionship towards coworkers; engaged in commitment and volunteer work; and accepted responsibilities and additional work in their schools. Many studies reported that OCB could be responsible for increasing an organization’s intellectual capital, or social and human capital.Hanson et al. (2021) explained OCB mediated principal leadership skills (PLS) in promoting the development of IC in schools.

Counterproductive work behaviours (CWB)

Whitney, Greenwood, and Murphy (2009) emphasised that generational differences concerning an individual’s core values and manners can contribute to variations in work related behaviours. Hence, these differences can be observed in the workplace and may or may not be helpful for the organization (Tamunomiebi et al., 2019). Individuals born between the years 1965 and 1980 have been described as Generation X.Schwartz, Patota, and Schwartz (2007) stated that Gen X individuals were found more likely to demonstrate OCBI and OCBO than previous generations due to their more diverse thinking internationally and scientifically, also for being generally well-educated, enthusiastic about offering help to coworkers and the institute in issues associated with the workplace. However, resentments may build up when a few teachers take on extra work because they see the need to keep the school functioning smoothly when other employees are not performing their contracted duties. Resultantly, the same employees going above and beyond might exhibit CWBs due to their perceptions of inequity and injustice.

Organizational factors contributing to teachers OCB

The study ofGnanarajan et al. (2020) identified a variety of factors related to teacher OCB in schools including “work-family conflict, perceived organizational support, teacher values, teachers’ self-efficacy, student behaviour patterns, and teachers’ pupil control ideologies” (p. 95). (Gnanarajan et al., 2020) suggested administrators pay close attention to ensure teachers do not become overburdened by work duties, avoid work-family conflicts, provide support for teachers’ work and personal needs on the job, and ensure appropriate professional development to ensure teachers have the necessary skills to handle student discipline issues and avoid stress related issues. Administrators are encouraged to ensure the workplace recognizes and aligns school goals with teachers’ values (Hanson, 2017). Consistent with Medina (2021), administrators should promote the teachers’ sense of worth on the job through recognition and professional development, leading to increased teacher self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and desire to stay on the job.

Implications and recommendations

Policymakers, public service sector managers/leaders, and educators can take proactive measures to explore the variables summarised in the literature for their particular contexts and consider the individual propensities, group dynamics, and organizational elements that are of interest to their school. The next step for improving OCB in schools includes identifying exploratory designs to collect data to determine if teachers’ perceptions of OCB in their schools are the actual theories-in-use (Argyris & Schön, 1978). School personnel can use the Johari window to identify the differences between what one knows about oneself/team/school and what one doesn’t know related to promoting OCB resulting in positive school cultures (Dick & Dalmau, 2000). Developing OCB in schools requires a deeper understanding of organizing for making common meaning, integrating new knowledge into the system, and creating IC to improve functioning. To begin, school leaders can work with the faculty to identify and clarify a common purpose, identify how the organization/group solves problems, match the individuals’ goals and skills with school goals and job duties needed in the organization, and schedule time together during the work day to develop team identities, promote emotional safety (so individuals and teams can challenge their assumptions), and identify targeted professional development to improve skills (Hanson, 2017). Quality professional development programs for teachers have been shown to enhance their self-efficacy in the job and positive outlook at work leading to improvements in teacher OCB (Gnanarajan et al., 2020).

Promoting OCB requires school leaders to facilitate joint problem solving and decision-making in areas that permit collaborations with faculty. These steps, or stages of organizing, are necessary for building an improved culture based on common understandings and norms. This promotes individuals to go beyond their in-job duties because they trust their contributions will benefit themselves and others.

Research on OCB in schools has come late to the field of cultural development and uses borrowed variables from the private sector research on OCB. Further study should be done to develop a context-relevant theory for OCB in educational institutions that provides actionable constructs to understand the specific field further. Additionally, research designs exploring the construct of OCB in schools tend to be quantitative survey research. A deeper exploration of the context of schools and employees’ perceptions and experiences may yield a richer field of construct development for further study and exploration (Geus et al., 2020). Finally, (Gnanarajan et al., 2020) study recommended next steps for research should be on the relationship between student behaviour patterns and teachers’ OCBs.

Conclusion

OCB in schools has been defined byBurns et al. (2013) as the extent to which educators fulfill such tasks and duties which are not part of their job description. Many researchers have contributed to the study of OCB in various contexts using various metrics after (Organ, 1988) initial construct development. OCB has gained significance in the previous decades in educational institutions throughout the globe (Hanson et al., 2021; Niqab et al., 2019; Somech et al., 2000; Somech et al., 2007). There is no exaggeration in saying that OCB is a distinguished and rising field of study that can be extremely useful in providing an understanding of elements that enhance the ability of schools to improve outcomes (Kernodle et al., 2013). The literature reports links between OCB and job satisfaction, commitment, trust, perceived organizational support, job efficacy, sense of educational calling, positive school culture and climate, educational leadership skills/styles, and student behaviour patterns (Gnanarajan et al., 2020). The dimensions of OCB can be explained by the social exchange process and are associated with the nature of the teacher’s relationship with the supervisor, understanding that this relationship can vary across cultures (Gnanarajan et al., 2020). Developing and using OCB in educational contexts improves student performance, teachers, collaborative teams, and schools.

[1] Gruenert, S . 2008. They are not the same thing. https://www.naesp.org/sites/default/files/resources/2/Principal/2008/M-Ap56.pdf

[2] Organ, D W . 1997. Organizational citizenship behaviour: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance 10(2):85–97.

[3] Fahmi, I & Permana, J . 2019. Building Organizational citizenship Behavior (OCB) through Personality and Work Perception of Teachers. In: 2nd International Conference on Research of Educational Administration and Management (ICREAM 2018). Atlantis Press .

[4] Firouzi, M, Harati, H & Shahraki, R . 2014. Probing the effect of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) on social capital (SC) International Journal of Advanced Research in Science and Technology 3(3):136–139.

[5] Cohen, A & Kol, Y . 2004. Professionalism and organizational citizenship behavior: An empirical examination among Israeli nurses. Journal of Managerial Psychology 19(4):386–405.

[6] Poohongthong, C, Surat, P & Sutipan, P . 2014. A study on the relationships between ethical leadership, work-life balance, organizational socialisation, and organizational citizenship behaviour of teachers in Northern Thailand. International Journal of Behavioral Science (IJBS) 9(2):17–28.

[7] Kernodle, T A & Noble, D . 2013. Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s importance in academics. American Journal of Business Education (AJBE) 6(2):235–239.

[8] Schnake, M E & Dumler, M P . 2003. Levels of measurement and analysis issues in organizational citizenship behaviour research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 76(3):283–301.

[9] Khalid, S A, Rahman, N Abdul, Darus, N A & Shahruddin, S . 2021. Lecturers’ organizational citizenship behaviours during COVID-19 Pandemic. Asian Journal of University Education 17(2):215–226.

[10] Barnard, C I . 1938. The functions of the executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

[11] Katz, D . 1964. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral science 9(2):131–146.

[12] Werner, J M . 2002. Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-role and extra-role behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology 79:98–107.

[13] Bateman, T S & Organ, D W . 1983. Job satisfaction and the good soldier: the relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of Management Journal 26(4):587–595.

[14] Organ, D W . 1988. Organizational citizenship behaviour: The good soldier syndrome. England, UK: Lexington Books

[15] Campbell, Jesse W & Im, Tobin . 2016. PSM and Turnover Intention in Public Organizations: Does Change-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior Play a Role? Review of Public Personnel Administration 36(4):323–369.

[16] Vigoda-Gadot, Eran . 2000. Internal Politics in Public Administration Systems: An Empirical Examination of Its Relationship with Job Congruence, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and In-Role Performance. Public Personnel Management 29(2):185–210.

[17] Vigoda-Gadot, Eran & Beeri, Itai . 2011. Change-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Public Administration: The Power of Leadership and the Cost of Organizational Politics. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(3):573–596.

[18] Geus, P C J C De, Ingrams, A, Tummers, L & Pandey, S K . 2020. Organizational citizenship behavior in the public sector: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Public Administration Review 80(2):259–270.

[19] Fajar, A P & Soeling, P D . 2017. The effect of HRM practices on employee organizational citizenship behavior in ICT companies. In: 1st International Conference on Administrative Science, Policy and Governance Studies (ICAS-PGS 2017) and the 2nd International Conference on Business Administration and Policy (ICBAP 2017). . Atlantis Press .

[20] Somech, A & Drach-Zahavy, A . 2000. Understanding extra-role behaviour in schools: the relationships between job satisfactions, sense of efficacy, and teachers’ extra-role behaviour. Teaching and Teacher Education 16(5):649–659.

[21] Tamunomiebi, M D & Onah, G O . 2019. Organizational citizenship behaviour: A critical review of its development in a diversity driven workplace. . The Strategic Journal of Business & Change Management 6(1):41–60.

[22] Homans, G C . 1958. Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology 63(6):567–606.

[23] Ong, M, Mayer, D M, Tost, LP & Wellman, N . 2018. When corporate social responsibility motivates employee citizenship behavior: The sensitising role of task significance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 144:44–59.

[24] Hart, T A, Gilstrap, J B & Bolino, M C . 2016. Organizational citizenship behavior and the enhancement of absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Research 69(10):3981–3988.

[25] Bizri, R . 2018. Diversity management and OCB: the connection evidence from the Lebanese banking sector. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 37(3):233–253.

[26] Hanson, J L . 2017. Manage you mindset: Maximise your power of personal choice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield

[27] Hanson, J L, Niqab, M & Bangert, A . 2021. Educational context of intellectual capital: An exploratory four-factor study. (Vol. 1, pp. 31-62) Springer Nature 10.1007/978-981-16-1692-1_2

[28] Mallick, E, Pradhan, R K, Tewari, H R, Jena, L K & . 2014. Organizational citizenship behaviour, job performance and HR practices: A relational perspective. Management and Labor Studies 39(4):449–460.

[29] Aksel, I, Serinkan, C, Kiziloglu, M & Aksoy, B . 2013. Assessment of teachers’ perceptions of organizational citizenship behaviors and psychological empowerment: an empirical analysis in Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 89:69–73.

[30] Polat, S . 2009. Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) display levels of the teachers at secondary schools according to the perceptions of the school administrators. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 1(1):1591–1596.

[31] Sharma, J P, Bajpai, N & Holani, U . 2011. Organizational citizenship behaviour in public and private sector and its impact on job satisfaction: A comparative study in Indian perspective. International Journal of Business & Management 6(1):67–75.

[32] Yi, Y, Nataraajan, R & Gong, T . 2011. Customer participation and citizenship behavioral influences on employee performance, satisfaction, commitment, and turnover intention. Journal of Business Research 64(1):87–95.

[33] Bergeron, D M, Shipp, A J, Rosen, B & Furst, S A . 2013. Organizational citizenship behavior and career outcomes. The cost of being a good citizen. Journal of Management 39(4):958–984.

[34] Runhaar, P, Konermann, J & Sanders, K . 2013. Teachers’ organizational citizenship behaviour: considering the roles of their work engagement, autonomy and leader–member exchange. Teaching and Teacher Education 30:99–108.

[35] Jain, N R & Rizvi, I A . 2018. Impact of corporate citizenship on organizational citizenship behaviour of managers: A study from selected Indian banks. Global Business Review 20(6).

[36] Memon, M A, Salleh, R, Baharom, M N R, Nordin, S M & Ting, H . 2017. The relationship between training satisfaction, organisational citizenship behaviour, and turnover intention. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance 4(3):267–290.

[37] Lee, Y H, Woo, B & Kim, Y . 2017. Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Mediating role of affective commitment. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 13(3):373–382.

[38] Burns, W & Dipaola, M F . 2013. A study of organizational justice, organizational citizenship behavior, and student achievement in high schools. American Secondary Education 42(1):4–23.

[39] Lee, K & Allen, N J . 2002. Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology 87:131–142.

[40] Cohen, A & Keren, D . 2010. Does climate matter? An examination of the relationship between organizational climate and OCB among Israeli teachers. The Service Industries Journal 30(2):247–263.

[41] Ertürk, A . 2007. Increasing organizational citizenship behaviors of Turkish academicians: mediating role of trust in supervisor on the relationship between organizational justice and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology 22(3):257–270.

[42] Malik, M E, Ghafoor, M M & Iqba, H K . 2012. Leadership and personality traits as determinants of organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) in banking sector of Pakistan. World Applied Sciences Journal (8) 1152–1158.

[43] Gnanarajan, A H, Kengatharan, N & Velnampy, T . 2020. Exploring the prevalence of teachers’ organizational citizenship behaviour and its determinants: Evidence from an under-researched cultural milieu. Qualitative Research in Education 9(1):95–123.

[44] Schwartz, S H & Sagiv, L . 1995. Identifying culture-specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 26(1):92–116.

[45] Bolino, M C, Varela, J A, Bande, B & Turnley, W H . 2006. The impact of impression-management tactics on supervisor ratings of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27(3):281–297.

[46] Kernodle, T A . 2007. Antecedents and consequences of organizational citizenship behavior: A hierarchical linear modeling study. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences 68(3-A).

[47] Kianfar, V, Siadat, S A, Hoveida, R & Abedi, A . 2013. Investigating structural relation of organizational trust, and organizational citizenship behavior to intellectual capital at state universities in the west of Iran. International Journal of Learning and Development 3(4):114–122.

[48] Bhasin, M L . 2012. Measurement and disclosure of intellectual capital in a developing country: An exploratory study. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research 2(8):63–75.

[49] Karim, D N & Majid, A H A . 2017. The effect of high performance HR practices on knowledge sharing behavior: the mediating role of employee engagement. International Postgraduate Business Journal 9(2):74–88.

[50] Ahmed, N O A . 2016. Impact of human resource management practices on organizational citizenship behavior: An empirical investigation from banking sector of Sudan. International Review of Management and Marketing 6(4):964–973.

[51] Muthuraman, S & Al-Haziazi, M . 2017. Examining the factors of organizational citizenship behavior with reference to corporate sectors in Sultanate of Oman. International Review of Management and Marketing 7(1):413–422.

[52] Bostanci, A B . 2013. The prediction level of teachers’ organizational citizenship behaviors on the successful practice of shared leadership. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 51:177–194.

[53] Jayarathna, D Y . 2019. Impact of transformational leadership on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB): Mediating effect of psychological empowerment: A study on apparel sector Sri Lanka. Journal of Business School 2(4):1–15.

[54] Arar, K & Nasra, M Abu . 2019. Leadership style, occupational perception and organizational citizenship behavior in the Arab education system in Israel. Journal of Educational Administration 57(1):85–100.

[55] Khan, M A, Ismail, F B, Hussain, A & Alghazali, B . 2020. The interplay of leadership Styles, innovative work behavior, organizational culture, and organizational citizenship behavior. SAGE Open (1) 10.

[56] Bodla, A A, Tang, N, Dick, R Van & Mir, . 2019. Authoritarian leadership, organizational citizenship behavior, and organizational deviance: Curvilinear relationships. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 40(5):583–599.

[57] Walumbwa, F O & Schaubroeck, J . 2009. Leader personality traits and employee voice behavior: mediating roles of ethical leadership and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(12):75–86.

[58] Neves, P C, Paixão, R, Alarcão, M & Gomes, A D . 2014. Organizational citizenship behaviour in schools: Validation of a questionnaire. The Spanish Journal of Psychology 17(17e):1–8.

[59] Popescu, A M & Deaconu, A . 2013. High-school, organizational citizenship behaviour moderator. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 92:735–740.

[60] Somech, A & Oplatka, I . 2014. Organizational citizenship behavior in schools: Examining the impact and opportunities within educational systems. Routledge

[61] Alwi, M, Wiyono, B B, Bafadal, I & Imron, A . 2021. The relationship between personality, attitude, and organizational citizenship behavior of senior high school teachers in Indonesia. International Journal of Instruction 14(2):345–368.

[62] Oplatka, I . 2009. Organizational citizenship behaviour in teaching: The consequences for teachers, pupils, and the school. International Journal of Educational Management 23(5):375–389.

[63] Dipaola, M & Tschannen-Moran, M . 2001. Organizational citizenship behavior in schools and its relationship to school climate. Journal of School Leadership 11(5):424–447.

[64] Somech, Anit & Ron, Ifat . 2007. Promoting organizational citizenship behaviour in schools: The impact of individual and organizational characteristics. Educational Administration Quarterly 43(1):38–66.

[65] Farh, J L, Zhong, C B & Organ, D W . 2004. Organizational citizenship behavior in the People’s Republic of China. Organization Science 15(2):241–253.

[66] Dipaola, M, Tarter, C & Hoy, W . 2005. Measuring organizational citizenship in schools: The OCB Scale. Educational Leadership and Reform 4:319–341.

[67] Oplatka, I & Stundi, M . 2011. The components and determinants of preschool teacher organizational citizenship behaviour. International Journal of Educational Management 25(3):223–236.

[68] Khalid, S A, Jusoff, H K, Othman, M, Ismail, M & Rahman, N A . 2010. Organizational citizenship behavior as a predictor of student academic achievement. International Journal of Economics and Finance 2(1):65–71.

[69] Maharjan, S . 2014. Factors affecting organizational citizenship behaviour. (Unpublished Mini Research) Nepal: University Grants Commission

[70] Owor, J J . 2016. Human resource management practices, employee engagement and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) in selected firms in Uganda. African Journal of Business Management 10(1):1–12.

[71] Tufail, M S, Muneer, S & Manzoor, M . 2017. How organizational rewards and organizational justice affect the organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior: Analysis of Pakistan service industries. 171–182 http://www.cityuniversity.edu.pk/curj/Journals/Journal/special_aic_16/18.pdf

[72] Islam, M S, Akter, S & Lecturer, F A . 2015. Factor affecting organizational citizenship behaviour of corporate sector in Bangladesh. European Journal of Business and Management 7:7–17.

[73] Lee, U H, Kim, H K & Kim, Y H . 2013. Determinants of organizational citizenship behavior and its outcomes. Global Business and Management Research. An International Journal 5(1):54–65.

[74] Dar, A & Raja, N . 2014. Organizational citizenship and organizationaljustice in Pakistani schools. Journal of Business and Managemnt (IOSR-JBM) 16(1):156–160.

[75] Somech, A & Ohayon, B E . 2020. The trickle-down effect of OCB in schools: The link between leader OCB and team OCB. Journal of Educational Administration 58(6):629–643.

[76] Shaheen, M, Gupta, R & Kumar, Y . 2016. Exploring dimensions of teachers’ OCB from stakeholder’s perspective: A study in India. The Qualitative Report 21(6):1095–1117.

[77] Kapoor, S, Hughes, P C, Baldwin, J R & Blue, J . 2003. The relationship of individualism-collectivism and self-construals to communication styles in India and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 27(6):683–700.

[78] Niqab, M, Hanson, J, Bangert, A, Kannan, S, Sharma, S & Ghaffar, A . 2019. Measuring organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) in secondary schools in Pakistan and a comparison with factors of a school growth mindset culture. International Journal of Learning and Development 9(2).

[79] Organ, & Ryan, K . 1995. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology 48:775–802.

[80] Krimbill, E M, Goess, D E & Escobedo, P V . 2019. Organizational citizenship and teacher evaluation: Using the T-TESS to promote OCB and improve student outcomes. School Leadership Review 14(1).

[81] Texas Education Agency 2016. Texas Teacher Evaluation and Support System.

[82] Goess, D E & Smith, P A . 2018. Crossing boundaries: Organizational citizenship behavior and protecting students from bullying. Elementary School Journal 119(1):52–72.

[83] Smith, P A & Hoy, W K . 2004. Teachers’ perceptions of student bullying: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Journal of school Leadership 14(3):308–326.

[84] Shrestha, M & Subedi, D . 2020. Organizational Citizenship Behavior among Teachers of Nepal: Did Locale Contribute it’s in School Settings? American Journal of Economics and Business Management 3(1):1–23.

[85] Whitney, J G, Greenwood, R A & Murphy, E F . 2009. Generational differences in the workplace: Personal values, behaviors, and popular beliefs. Journal of Diversity Management 4(3):1–8.

[86] Schwartz, N, Patota, D & Schwartz, T . 2007. Leveraging generational differences for productivity gains. Journal of United States Academy of Business 11(2):3.

[87] Medina, M R . 2021. Authentic leadership: A study of the relationship between authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior among research administrators at research universities. Research Management Review 25(1):71–91.

[88] Argyris, C & Schön, D . 1978. Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. New York: McGraw-Hill

[89] Dick, B & Dalmau, T . 2000. Argyris and Schön: Some Elements of Their Models.