Description
Case Studies on a Conceptual Model for Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability (OCBS), Sustainability organizations seek to implement sustainability strategies which provide them with economic and cultural benefits attained through environmental responsibility. Recently, the natural environment has become a key strategic issue in both the business and academic communities.
Case Studies on a Conceptual Model for Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability (OCBS)
Abstract
This article extends literature of OCB (Organizational Citizenship Behavior) in the context of corporate sustainability. The author presents the concept of OCBS (Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability) as a variant, contending it’s appropriateness for today’s much needed behavioral competence to implement sustainability measure at organizational level. The formulation of OCBS espouses OCB with a twist. The viewpoint defended that a form of “constructive controversy” in behavioral attribution as oppose to compliance is necessary in the development of proactive and creative competence for corporation to meet multiple stakeholder’s needs and demands towards organizational, economic, social and environmental equity. The study identifies key determinants of OCBS, including sustainability culture, leadership support and organizational commit. Direction for further research is provided. Keywords: Corporate Sustainability, Environmental Performance, Sustainability Performance, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Organizational Commitment, Leadership and Supervisory Support, Corporate Social Performance, Environmental concern
1. Introduction
Corporations are the economic powerhouse of the world: of the 100 largest economies, 51 are corporations and only 49 are countries and revenue of fewer than
top 200 corporations are bigger than combined GDPs of all countries excluding top 10 GDPs (Anderson & Cavanagh, 2000). However, corporate influence does not stop there; it is persuasive to our very life, societies and nations: such corporate influence may happen through mass media advertisements, job opportunity, influence on public policy, governments and international economic and political agreements. Downside of such encompassing corporate influence is that it can drive us over the edge if left unchecked; the issue is much enticing than it is perceived on the surface. We the human, our societies and nations need corporations to transform earth’s resources into wealth (Dunphy, Griffiths & Benn, 2003) and thus to help run the contraption of world economy. However, the degree to which earth’s resources being exploited would leave little for future generation and ensued fallout could even threaten the human existence. Apart from environmental concerns, socio-economic challenges could also be somewhat attributed to behavioral issues of corporations. For example, recent financial turmoil that caused global “economic shakeup” has been linked to human actions and inactions related to corporations and regulatory bodies (FCIC, 2011). The presidential investigation team (USA) found that many investments and banking services firms directly or indirectly contributed to subprime lending meltdown, languishing 26 millions American without jobs. However, such detrimental behavior is nothing new and observed at many corporations e.g. Enron (Watkins, 2003; Swartz & Watkins, 2003; Seeger & Ulmer, 2003). This increasingly detrimental corporate behavior is a matter of concern that led to many regulatory measures. These legislative undertakings whether financial and/or environmental received less degree of success than anticipated in recent era due to increasing deprivation of endogenous qualities (FCIC, 2011; Dunphy, Griffiths & Benn, 2003; Romano, 2004) of corporations and lack of dynamic adjustments on the
part of regulatory measures (Broomley, 2007). Romano (2004) claims that legislative measure alone is not enough to curtail corporate misbehavior in the disposition towards economic, social and environmental equity. The issue here is that much written espousing doctrines overlooked importance of behavioral competence despite it’s subtle presence in many organizational discourse: e.g. organizational behavior, management science, human resources management, leadership, change management and organizational cultural studies. Most importantly, this subtle yet determining factor is a pursued “fundamentals” in sustainability discourse despite it’s otherwise implicit reference (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010; Linnenluecke, Russell & Griffiths, 2009; Salzmann, Ionescu-Somers & Steger, 2005). An interesting parallel to this scholarly inquiry is the postulation of Prof Denis Organ that received much attention in organizational studies. Prof Organ connoted a latent behavioral construct known as “Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)” that he posited as an effective conduit in organizational performance. The subsequent scholarly investigations found compelling data related to OCB and organizational effectiveness including it’s financial performance, employee retention and proactive competence at individual and group level. Despite the promise, OCB has many shortcomings including inapplicability of some behavioral dimensions e.g. “compliance” in the development of organizational capability to address multiple stakeholders’ needs and demands towards economic, social and environmental equity. In this paper, I seek to assess 1) why behavioral competence is important in corporate sustainability discourse, and suggest 2) theoretical proposition of OCBS (organizational citizenship behavior towards sustainability) deriving the concept by modifying OCB construct and contending it’s importance in organizational behavioral competence to meet endogenous and exogenous challenges.
2. Why Behavioral competence is important in Corporate Sustainability?
In order to examine the behavioral competence and the pursuit of sustainability in corporation, let us first review and explore the concept of corporate sustainability. I argue that despite much scholarly attention on the subject, there is lack of consensus on “what attributes” corporate sustainability should have and how to achieve them. More importantly the definition of “Corporate Sustainability” is yet not settled. Literature review indicates the need for corporations to develop proactive and creative competence meeting multiple stakeholders’ needs and demands (Asif et al, 2011) while resolving conflicts at organizational and financial, societal and environmental context. The term “Corporate Sustainability” is a derivative of broader notion of “sustainability”, which is in hitherto continuingly shaped by the converses of political, public and scholarly discourses. This process rendered the definitions of “sustainability” sometimes confusing and complex; some postulated the term “sustainability” as a means for handling deteriorating relationship between our biosphere and ongoing economic development (Faber, Jorna & Engelen, 2005; Chiesa, Manzini & Noci, 1999; WCED, 1987), others questioned the notion of “Sustainability” as vague and lacks direction whose scientific definition and measurement are debatable (Phillis & Andriantiatsaholiniaina, 2001; Solow, 1991). The discourse of “sustainability” therefore may draw over 50 definitions due to scholars of different disciplines e.g. ecology, biology, evolutionary biology, economics, sociology and anthropology, all having their own perspectives while defining or critiquing the concept of “sustainability” (Faber, Jorna & Engelen, 2005). An intelligent selection is not enough since it could easily lead to predisposition. Thus
a conceptual and logical discourse is imperative in the search and development of “sustainability” notion. It is in part an analytical persuasion of philosophical and logical exposition that unravels moves and counter-moves of scholars who tried to define “sustainability” using basic concepts. For examples, James C. Coomer in his book, “Quest for a Sustainable Society” describes “the sustainable society is one that lives within the self-perpetuating limits of its environment. That society... is not a "no growth" society... It is rather, a society that recognizes the limits of growth... [and] looks for alternative ways of growing" (Coomer, 1981; Kennucorked.com, 2009). On the other hand, WCED’s brundtland statement formulated, “Sustainable development is a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987). While Coomer (1981) emphasized a direct relationship between society and it’s environment, brundtland statement adds both intra and intergenerational equity to the perpetuation. Though both definitions are attentive about the basics of sustainability concept, their focus and completions are different. Similarly, Mihelcic et al’s (2003) elaboration of WCED’s definition of sustainability posits a pragmatic imposition of social, industrial and economic system as relevant to sustainability: “[the] design of human and industrial systems to ensure that humankind’s use of natural resources and cycles do not lead to diminished quality of life due either to losses in future economic opportunities or to adverse impacts on social conditions, human health and the environment” (Mihelcic et al, 2003). Analogous to this connotation, John Elkington coined the term Triple bottom-line (TBL) to encompass social and economic components with it’s historical relationship to environment (Hopkins, 2002). The TBL which is also known 3 Ps (People, planet and Profit) of sustainability rationalizes economic progress while maintains social inclusions minimizing environmental impact. It gained greater
acceptance in the late 1990s but not without critique. Few argued that giving equal weight to economic, social and environmental component is a vague postulation and lacks objective evaluation. O'Riordan, Cameron & Jordan (2001) and Lutzkendorf & Lorenz (2005) developed an alternative approach based on TBL in the “Three Pillars” or ‘Russian Doll” model. Rather than putting equal weights to social, economic and environmental factors, this alternative model suggest that economic capital is central to wealth creation which propels development (O'Riordan, Cameron & Jordan, 2001; Wilkinson & Reed, 2007) but inhibited by environmental and social factors. The model attempted to present a win-win paradigm of sustainability where TBL left off, however, is being increasingly rejected as over-simplistic and unattainable. In contrast, “The Natural Step” (TNS), a sustainability formulation defined by Dr. Karl-Henrik Robert emphasizes on collaborative rather than adversarial methods to develop consensus at all level of societal representatives including those that are unreached by scientific community (Bradbury & Clair, 1999). The TNS framework recognizes that life supporting natural structure is increasingly under threat due to increase in population and continued progress in global economy. It uses a metaphor of expanding “funnel” to describe impinging issues that our world in general and economic and industrial system in particular are subject to and how services of natural structure diminishes as consumption increase (naturalstep.org, 2011). However, the TNS framework is far from resolving inherent concerns of sustainability and remains as strategy tool. However, much of the debate is not about a strategy to implement sustainability measures rather whether concern for sustainability exists and whether the sustainability delineation should be based on normative or scientific discourse. Interestingly, many of the available definitions of sustainability innately put much
emphasis on a value system that is essential to develop consensus in otherwise a complex issue of economic progress and preservation of our common biosphere. Embedded within such sustainability discussions of finding common ground to eliminate discord between normative (e.g. ethical precondition) and scientific (operationalization) aspect of sustainability (Becker, 2006), though absence in much of the scholarly debate, is the behavioral element (Faber, Jorna & Engelen, 2005; Vlek & Steg, 2007). It is there the continued sustainability discourse finds common ground. Increasingly, the normative discourse of sustainability found support among environmentalists, WCED’s Brundtland statement (WCED, 1987) and in NGO treaties (Becker, 2006). Examples of these normative imperatives are intergenerational and intra-generational equities as discussed in Brundtland report (Becker, 2006). However, Brundtland statement also recognized the need for continued
economic progress and coined the term “sustainable Development” (WCED, 1987), an argument that finds basis in the of scientific “sustainability” discourse. The arguments in scientific dimensions however seek to discount normative arguments since the later relies on quantifiable evidence. Within this scientific dimension, some scholars reject the need for ecological concerns arguing that technological advancement can recover dissipated elements, others finds it hard to believe since laws of thermodynamics precludes such conception. This moves and counter moves generated a third dimension that centered on “policy” arguments as depicted in Agenda 21 (an initiative of UN with regard to sustainable Development). However, the only conduit that can foster interactions among these three dimensions is “Behavioral Attributions” (Faber, Jorna & Engelen, 2005; Vlek & Steg, 2007).
Figure 1. Behavioral attribution as the conduit of “sustainability” discourse.
Increasingly implicit discussions around behavioral attributions (Gomis et al, 2011) are sprinkled in many schools of thoughts and gaining traction. For example, FASTISE (Fulbright Academy of Science & Technology and Institute for Sustainable Enterprise) created a human value and sustainability forum to foster dialogues among corporate world and academic community regarding importance of human value in corporate sustainability discourse (FAST-ISE, 2010). This notion of bringing
together human values and institution was also espoused in brundtland statement when it coined the term “sustainable development”: “development that meets the needs of today without comprising the ability of future generation to meet their needs ” (WCED, 1987). This explains physical investment, investment knowledge and institutions as embodied within human capital (Toman, 1994) and by applying those material elements and through value ingrained response to achieve intergenerational and intra-generational equity. This notion of “Sustainable Development” served as the prelude for corporate sustainability. However, the intricate nature of scholars’ “bringing their own perspectives” to define context as observed in “sustainability definitions” are also prevalent in “Corporate Sustainability” discourse.
Figure 2. Imperatives of Behavioral Competence.
The figure 1 attempts to summarize the scholarly contentions and contributions and depicts a common theme of “behavioral competence” that is often ignored but increasingly gaining ground. The connotation of “behavioral competence” is implied in “sustainability” (WCED, 1987; Toman, 1994; Bradbury & Clair, 1999; Mihelcic et al., 2003; Faber, Jorna & Engelen, 2005; Vlek & Steg, 2007; FAST-ISE, 2010; Gomis
et al., 2011) sustainable development (Leiserowitz, Kates & Parris, 2005) and corporate sustainability (Bradbury & Clair, 1999; White, 1999; Paula & Cavalcanti, 2000; Coblentz, 2002; Ratner, 2004; Shields, Šolar & Martin, 2002; Gibson-Graham & Roelvink, 2009; Asif et al. 2011; Putnik, 2012; Pourdehnad & Smith, 2012).
Figure 3. Corporate Sustainability Timeline.
The early conceptualization of sustainability had narrow focus on environmental protection (Seuring & Muller, 2008) creating a necessity for corporation to report their environmental impact indicators of business activity. This led to preparation and distribution of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) reporting in many corporations and still continuing as parallel connotation to “Corporate Sustainability”. Some Scholars use CSR and corporate sustainability synonymously to describe integration of social, economic and environmental concern into corporate strategy and operations
(Berger, Cunningham & Drumwright, 2007). However, CSR remains a marginal activity towards corporate sustainability (Gray, Kouhy & Lavers, 1995; Quiroz-Onate & Aitken, 2007) and not mean to substitute or replace the later. A broader perspective of corporate responsibility in social, economic and environmental context begin to take shape since WCED coined the term “Sustainable Development” (WCED, 1987). As scholars begin to ponder on the subject each drawing upon their own perspective to define corporate sustainability, a variety of subsequent definitions of sustainability in organizational context begin to emerge. Some classified corporate sustainability narrowly as ecological concern (Shrivastava, 1995) other broadened it to include corporate economic activities with organizational concern about natural and social environment (Dunphy, Griffiths & Ben, 2003; Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002; Van Marrewijk, 2003). Consecutively, a number of theoretical underpinnings contended the importance of resolving conflicts at organizational, societal and environmental level. From organizational perspective, it means developing capability to meet multiple stakeholders’ needs and demands (Asif et al, 2012) towards organizational, financial, societal and environmental equity. Coblentz (2002) considers that a sustainable organization needs to be institutionally, financially and morally strong to face multiple stakeholders’ needs and demands. At Institutional level, this means incorporating three dimensions of organizational behaviors towards environment, social and economic aspect of corporate operational mandate (White, 1999). Linnenluecke, Russell & Griffiths (2009) and Linnenluecke & Griffiths (2010) add that sustainable organizations are capable and proactive and simultaneously flexible fostering a culture of sustainability through appropriate change management (Dunphy, Griffiths & Benn, 2007). To achieve this notion of organizational self-reliance or
competence, organizational and social learning (Shields, Šolar & Martin, 2002; Pourdehnad & Smith, 2012) are essential and it starts with financial sustainability that essentially runs the institutional contraption. Without financial sustainability it would be impossible for organization to hire staff or maintain it’s presence. However, in pursuit of financial stability, some organizations and their leaders have been involved in unsustainable and unethical practices e.g. accounting fraud. To curtail this behavioral issue, serious attention to ethics of doing business (Paula & Cavalcanti, 2000; Gibson-Graham & Roelvink, 2009), corporate governance (Aras & Crowther, 2008) and citizenship (Mayer, 2007) are required. Schneider & Meins (2011) termed this aspect of moral sustainability as “sustainability governance”.
3. The concept of OCB & OCBS
Social science since long observed certain altruistic behaviors that seem to integrate human values with service to be endowed. Schwartz (1977) argued that altruistic behavior occurs when individuals holds personal norms with regard to specific behavior. These norms are moderated by the awareness of the result of engaging or not engaging with specific behavior, for example, recycling behavior (Hopper & Nielson, 1991; Vining & Ebreo, 1992). Karp (1996) adds that individual values can influence behavior when moderated by situational concern. Professor Dennis Organ & his colleagues also made a similar observation that behavior is influenced by values and moderated by situational concern in an organizational setting. Organ called it OCB (Organizational Citizenship Behavior) and defined it as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of organizations”
(Organ, 1988). Organ initially presented his concept of OCB (Organ, 1977) as an exercise in devil’s advocacy (Organ, Podsahoff & MacKenzie, 2006) towards presenting an essay that supports popular notion of “worker satisfaction affected productivity” with a twist. The viewpoint defended the popular belief and draws distinction between quantitative measures of productivity and something more subtle, a form of worker’s contribution that often not reflected in such measures of individual and group output. These subtler contributions may take the form of helping behavior, following the spirit, workplace governance, accommodating changes to improve organization’s operational efficiency and so on. However, Organ did not
contemplated these subtler contributions as OCB rather an attempt to explain his professional colleagues that managerial belief on job satisfaction and it’s influence to productivity was not without merit. Two of Organ’s doctoral students Tom Bateman and C. Ann Smith, nonetheless, considered the essay as material for the audacity to propose some research and test the idea and added as material to a research project that primarily examines job overload on behavior and attitudes (Bateman & Organ, 1983). The research led to a crude measure of what was then called “qualitative performance” as oppose to “quantitative performance” – productivity. Though result of the study would hardly be a presage to OCB research that followed since then, it shows significant correlation between job satisfaction and OCB. If not for Ann smith who envisaged the link between this study and that of Hawthorne studies (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939), the concept of OCB would not have studied further. This interest led her to interview manufacturing plant supervisor in southern Indiana asking them question, “What are the things you would like your employee to do more of, but really cannot make them do and for which you cannot guarantee any definite rewards, other than your appreciation” (Smith, Organ
& Near, 1983). The assumption here is that managers are reasonably knowledgeable and can speak with some confidence about particular action by employees that help achieve certain result towards organizational effectiveness. Among the few attributes managers identified, helping behavior, punctuality, volunteer to do things not formally required by job, makes innovation suggestion to improve overall quality of the department and so on. Such behavior defers from that of “altruism”, according to researchers, the action may not have any motive and it may be directed towards a colleague or to the organization. It is neither motive driven nor an act of “selfless” service. Some attributes of the behavior for example, punctuality may be construed as “compliance”, however, Organ, Podsahoff & MacKenzie (2006)explains though “compliance” is a form of OCB but does not imply merely strict obedience to order. Larry Williams (Williams & Anderson, 1991) conducted a research to determine whether helping and compliance are empirically distinguishable from each other and from people of what they do to perform specific duty. The result shows compliance and helping other behavior fits that of hypothesized model for each. Organ’s taxonomy of OCB included following behavioral dimensions: a) altruistic or pro-social behavior, b) Conscientiousness, c) Sportsmanship, d) Courtesy and e) Civic Virtues. Organ (1990) later added two other attributes of OCB – cheerleading and peacemaking. However, those attributes did not receive much research interest. Instead, researchers have theorized that OCB includes a variant called “loyalty” (George & Brief, 1992; Graham, 1989, 1991). Important to this aspect is Katz’s (1964) notation on self-development and protecting the organization as behavioral element that does not occur in response to formal reward system. A literature review conducted by LePine, Erez & Johnson (2002) found 40 measures of OCB dimensions; however, their meta-analyses suggest seven factors that capture distinction within and
among OCB dimensions and those are: helping, compliance, sportsmanship, civic virtue, organizational loyalty, self-development and individual initiative. Since Organ’s initial observation on OCB, there have been significant scholarly work on the subject; however, scholars were not consistent about labeling it as Organ’s original notion of OCB (Morrison, 1994; Organ, 1988; Van Dyne, Graham & Dienesch, 1994). Some scholars labeled the OCB behavioral dimensions etc as 1. Pro-social behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; George, 1990, 1991; George & Bettenhausen, 1990; O’ Reilly & Chatman, 1986), 2. Organizational Spontaneity (George & Brief, 1992; George & Jones, 1997) and 3. Extra-role behavior (Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995). Another label that is quite common to human resources and industrial & organizational psychologists and overlaps the behavioral domains of OCB (Motowidlo, 2000) is “Contextual Performance” (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, 1997; Borman, White & Dorsey, 1995; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). However, contextual performance differs from Organ’s original notion of OCB which according to Professor Dennis Organ was solely discretionary. But the term “discretionary” varies person to person and situational context. This led Professor Organ to modify definition of OCB adding that such behavior “contributes to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports task performance” (LePine, Erez & Johnson, 2002). Nonetheless, regardless of different labeling, experts always conceived that OCB consists of several behavioral dimensions. Hence, if OCB is an “aggregate” model than formulating mathematical functions of the dimensions would not be difficult. This assumption led LePine, Erez & Johnson (2002) to conduct literature review and meta-analyses of the variants and domain attributes. The research suggests relationship among OCB variants/dimensions and domains attributes are generally
high and there is no significant difference among predictors across dimensions. Based on the result, LePine, Erez & Johnson (2002) suggest that it may be worth to define OCB dimensions collectively as latent construct. A group of researchers found that OCB can be link to many facets of enterprise level performance e.g. TQM & organizational Performance (Buentello, Jung & Sun, 2008), Sales performance & customer Satisfaction (Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 1997), organizational effectiveness and performance (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 1997; Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; George & Bettenhausen, 1990; Karambayya, 1990; MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Fetter, 1991, 1993; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Hui, 1993; Smith et al., 1983). Subsequently, a number of empirical studies also found positive correlation between OCB and individual-level performance (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991, 1993; Werner, 2000), aggregated individual performance (George & Bettenhausen, 1990; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994), group-level performance (Karambayya, 1990; Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997), and organizational-level performance (Walz & Niehoff, 2000). In a meta-analytical study of 2417 samples to measure OCB at group level Nielsen, Hrivnak & Shaw (2007) found positive correlation (.32) between OCB and organizational performance i.e. positive financial outcome. Daily, Bishop & Govindarajulu (2009) linked OCB to proactive environmental behavior and postulated a conceptual model of OCBE (Organizational Citizenship Behavior directed toward Environment). They argue that OCBE exists and are positively related to environmental performance and, as such, it is an aspect of an organization’s overall corporate citizenship and therefore important. Smith & O'Sullivan (2012) conducted a study among five largest UK organizations to identify how social marketers and organizations can reduce negative environmental
impact by harnessing a valuable resource, that of employees’ environmentally responsible organizational citizenship behaviors (EROCBs). Result shows employees engaged in OCB created and implemented new working practices achieving behavioral change at both the local and occasionally wider organizational level. These organizational outcomes linking OCB makes it an appropriate behavioral “latent” construct to furtherance research related organizational sustainability. Important to note here is that available literatures on OCB did not considered it’s potential for organizational sustainability though it’s link to organizational outcomes related environmental performance and effectiveness are well documented. I believe this is an omission which sooner or later will be corrected. I considered this an important context to pursue my research relating OCB (or a variation thereof) to the holistic concept of corporate sustainability. My observation is that certain behavioral dimensions of OCB may be incompatible with corporate sustainability while others are essential. This led me to develop a new conception based on OCB and denoted it as “OCBS” (Organizational Citizenship Behavior Towards sustainability). It is a discretionary act directed towards developing proactive and creative competence for organization to meet multiple stakeholders’ needs and demands towards organizational, social, economic and environmental equity. The OCBS differs from OCBE in concept that, unlike OCBE, it takes into context the holistic nature of sustainability as it pertains to organization. Similarly, OCBS differs from OCB in multiple behavioral dimensions. First it replaces OCB’s “compliance” behavioral dimension with “controlled discord”, a term that denotes employee(s)’s professional demeanor to question proposals/projects in an honorable way with intention to help develop a collective consensus for a better approach. The “controlled discord” also defers from deviant workplace behavior (DWB) (Appelbaum, Iaconi & Matousek,
2007) in certain behavioral attributions. It exhibits behavior that is comparable to positive demeanor of DWB (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2003) in certain behavioral attribution. For example, like positive DWB the “controlled discord” is a praiseworthy behavior that differs from norms of a referent group in honorable ways. It contributes to “positive organizational scholarship” (Cameron et al., 2005) and depicts behaviors such as innovative, creative performance and noncompliance with dysfunctional directives etc. The typology of “controlled discord” is depicted in figure 4. The positive DWB (Appelbaum, Iaconi & Matousek, 2007; Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2003) differs from OCB in many dimensions that are considered substantial departure from organizational norm and can benefit society by addressing ethically questionable behavior. In same connotation, “controlled discord” can be construed as departure from norms but exhibits attributes that are more in-tuned towards benefiting organization through positive change and scholarly contributions without creating conflict or status quo. It advances team spirit and produces positive result through innovative behaviors and creative performance.
Figure 4. Typology of “Controlled Discord”.
Another important difference between OCB and OCBS is that, unlike OCB, it emphasizes on sustainability culture (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2009) and value sets to develop appropriate behavioral attributions rather than alluding to the consign of individual’s domestic or household behavior (Fusco, 1991) e.g. recycling behavior (Hopper & Nielsen, 1991; Nielsen & Ellintong, 1983), pro-environmental behavior or altruistic-environmental behavior (Schultz & Zelezny, 1998).
4. Key antecedents of OCBS
Based on available literatures and my thoughts, the followings are four key antecedents of OCBS: Sustainability Culture, Leadership & Supervisory Support, Context Specific Knowledge Management System and Organizational Commitment.
Figure 5. Key antecedents and outcome of OCBS.
Sustainability culture Literature review indicates that relationship between human values, awareness and sustainability behaviors can be predicted, e.g, how human values (Schultz et al., 2005) and moral norms (Liere & Dunlap, 2006) relates to sustainability (Schultz et al., 2005; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002; Liere & Dunlap, 2006) or environmental awareness and individual value priorities relates pro-environmental behavior (Hopper & Nielsen, 1991). The link between values and environmental attitudes is explained in many scholarly studies (Grunert & Juhl, 1995; Nordlund & Garvill, 2002; Schultz & Zelezny, 2003; Stern et al., 1999; Tankha, 1998) though their conceptual language may vary e.g. environmental attitudes, environmental concern, and environmental
worldview (Dunlap & Jones, 2002a, 2002b; Fransson & Gärling, 1999; Schultz & Zelezny, 2003). A series of multivariate and structural equation analyses supported hypothesis that values influences attitude and attitude in turn influence behavior (Homer & Kahle, 1988). A hierarchical model of resource management developed by Shields & Mitchell (1997) provides insights to the interworks of value, culture and behavioral elements. Their research finds that “peoples’ objectives are a reflection of a contextual application of their held value sets”.
Figure 6. Hierarchical Model of Resource Management.
These held values are often influenced by culture, social, institution and ecological frameworks in which people live (Shields, Šolar & Martin, 2002) and through such development those values become an “ordered value set”. These ordered value sets are thought to be the primary element influencing individuals’ actions as depicted in figure 6.
To understand this concept further in organizational context, we need to explore organizational culture (OC) since it is regarded as the access point for the field of human resources and organizational behavior (OB). In fact, OC and OB to this aspect can be construed as synonymous due to anthropological origin of the definition of culture. In his book: Organizational Culture and Leadership" (Schein, 1992) Edgar H. Schein defined organizational culture as: "A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems" (Schein, 1992). Schein’s model of organizational culture presents three fundamental elements in OC: Basic Assumptions, Espoused values and Artifacts. The same connotation can be observed in other scholarly contentions on OC (Hofstede, 1981; Ouchi & Price, 1993; Pettigrew, 1979; Schwartz & Davis, 1981). Some scholars (Howard, 1998; Ott, 1989) view values, ideologies and beliefs are considered to be particularly important in the understanding of OC (please refer figure 7).
Figure 7. A diagrammatical representation of Values, Attitude, Behavior and OC.
Byles, Aupperle & Arogyaswamy (1991) argued that OC may have positive effect in overall organizational performance providing that OC aligns with strategic needs of the firm. Similar contentions are made by many other scholars about the influence of OC in organizational performance and Change (Marcoulides & Heck, 1993; Barney, 1986; Gordon & DiTomaso, 1992; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Ouchi, 1983), effectiveness (Denison & Mishra, 1995; Zheng, Yang & McLean, 2010) and behavioral competence at individual and group level e.g. OCB (Mohanty & Rath, 2012a; Mohant & Rath, 2012b). Consecutively, research suggests that any measure of “ambitious corporate sustainability activities and strategies have to be embedded in the organizational culture in order to be successful” (Baumgartner, 2009). These potentials are inviting and seem to be the reason behind increasing interest about OC in sustainability literatures. However, an organization may have different subcultures or competing value framework (CVF) in cultural orientation (Linnenluecke, Russell & Griffiths, 2009; Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010). The presence of subcultures may posit differences of how employees perceived corporate sustainability (Linnenluecke, Russell & Griffiths, 2009). This implies that unification of these subcultures is an important stepping stone towards achieving a cohesive perception of corporate sustainability. However, the unification subcultures innately do not answer the “what” questions related to sustainability at organizational and individual level. Therefore, a means for cultural augmentation is required that can influence collective consensus at organizational level. Such instrument of influence can be understood as “context specific knowledge management” system which helps defining critical imperatives of organizational sustainability culture, “basic assumptions”, “values” and “artifacts”. Zheng, Yang & McLean (2010) finds that knowledge management practice act as mediating agent in the relationship between
OC, strategy and organizational effectiveness. This finding is especially important in defining organization specific sustainability culture as it can aid in the understanding of what questions irrespective of top down, catalytic (Mirvis & Manga, 2010) and/or bottom-up approach to integrate change. These research findings led me to believe that “context specific knowledge management” practice is useful conduit in the development of organization specific sustainability culture that in turn impacts collective behavior of the organization leading towards OCBS. That is: H1: Context specific knowledge management system is imperative conduit in the development of Organizational Sustainability Culture, and H2: Organizational Sustainability Culture influence OCBS. Leadership & Supervisory Support Schein’s model of organizational culture claims that OC is a learning process which does not start at ground zero, however, has significant influence from founders and leaders as organization starts to develop (Schein, 1983). He observes that organizational culture and leadership are intertwined and explained this entanglement in the context of the organizational life cycle. According to him, organizational cultures reflect the values and beliefs of founders and leaders at the beginning. As the organization develops, it’s culture begun to shape through the process of formation, experience and learning which in turn excerpt influence over it’s leaders. In summarizing this conception, Bass & Avolio (1993) emulated the contention of Schein (1992) by proposing that the relationship OC and leadership and vice versa is an ongoing interplay in which the leader shapes the culture and in turn get shaped by the developed culture. A review of available literature suggests ample
scholarly underpinnings about the link between OC and leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1993; Nicholls, 1988; Quick, 1992; Schein, 1992; Simms, 2000; Ogbonna & Harris, 2000; Block, 2003; Tsai, 2001). With varying results, empirical analyses depict that interplay of OC and leadership has significant influence in organizational performance (Ogbonna & Harris, 2000), employees’ perception of OC and effective change management (Kavanagh & Ashkanasy, 2006), responsiveness of employee (Asree, Zain & Razalli, 2010) and firm performance (Asree, Zain & Razalli, 2010; Ogbonna & Harris, 2000). An exploratory investigation by Block (2003) depicts employees’ perception of OC depends on the leadership type of their immediate supervisor indicating that supervisory support is important conduit in EOR (Employee-Organizational-Relationship) and OC (Zhang et al., 2008) and creating an attitude towards organizational change (Rashid, Sambasivan & Rahman, 2004). It is, therefore, obvious that the interplay of OC and leadership has significant impact over organization’s behavioral competence in the context of OCB (Podsakoff et al., 1999). A collection of literatures also support such observation e.g. servant leadership can predict OCB (Vondey, 2010) at individual or unit-level (EhrHart, 2007); similarly, employees’ perception of leadership behavior (Greene-Shortridge, 2011) and shared leadership influences OCB (Khasawneh, 2011; Greene-Shortridge, 2011).
Consecutively, supervisory support towards environmental performance is well documented in literatures (Ramus & Steger, 2000; Ramus, 2001, 2002; Zutshi & Sohal, 2003). This discussion imparts that implementation of sustainability culture or cultural change to achieve corporate sustainability requires leadership and supervisory support, which in turn influences OC and OCB. Therefore, in-line with Daily, Bishop & Govindrajulu’s (2009) observation that links supervisory support to OCBE, it can
be contended that the interplay of sustainability culture, leadership and supervisory support will influence OCBS. That is, H3: Perceived leadership construct & supervisory support will impact
implementation of sustainability culture in an organization, H4: sustainability culture in turn will influence leaders and perceived supervisory support in the organization, and H5: perceived leadership construct & supervisory support will influence OCBS. Organizational Commitment Organizational commitment can be understood as having following three components (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982): i) Individual’s identification or strong belief with organization’s values and goals/missions that are manifested in pride and in defense of the organization. ii) iii) A willingness to long term membership with the organization, and Exhibits a high level of extra role behavior that is often referred to as OCB. Essentially, organizational commitment indicates a form of OCBS at individual or group level. Research has found significant positive correlation between organizational commitment and OCB. Williams & Anderson (1991) found that job satisfaction and organizational commitment are predictors of OCB and in-role behavior. Shore & Wayne (1993) observed that employees’ perceptions of organizational commitment to them (which can be termed as perceived organizational support or POS) create feeling of obligations and contributes to employees’ extra-role
behavior. They find organizational commitment and for this matter “POS” is a better predictor of OCB. Many studies also reported positive correlations between OCB and Organizational commitment (Gregersen, 1993; Yilmaz & Cokluk-Bokeoglu, 2008; Gautam et al., 2005). However, organizational commitment is rooted in the influence of OC towards developing employees’ thoughts, feeling and attitude towards change; for example, a study by Zain, Ishak & Ghani (2009) depicts that OC dimensions are determinants in motivating the employees’ commitment. The findings implicate that an organization needs to be aware of the importance of OC dimensions in providing a favorable working environment to its employees in attaining their full commitment for organizational success. Many other studies also reported similar findings (Jo & Joo, 2011; Silverthorne, 2004; Lok & Crawford, 2001). These research findings indicates that OC influences and in many cases act as catalyst for organizational commitment to develop which in turn influence employees’ OCB at individual and group level. Therefore, it can be hypothesized that organizations’ sustainability culture will influence organizational commitment, which in turn will impact employees’ OCBS. That is, H6: Organizational Sustainability Culture will influence Organizational
Commitment, and H7: Organizational Commitment, in turn, will influence OCBS. Sustainable Organizational Performance Earlier in corporate sustainability discussion, we learned that achieving sustainability performance in an organization requires the development proactive and creative competence towards meeting multiple stakeholders’ needs and demands. This implies that organization should have endogenous quality or capability to resolve conflict at
organizational and societal, and financial and environmental level. This reference of sustainability performance is holistic in nature and takes organizational, societal, economic and environmental equity into context. Professor organ and his colleagues argued that OCB has potential to improve organizational effectiveness and performance (e.g., Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Since then, many empirical studies supported professor Organ’s postulation and expanded OCB’s potentiality for organizational outcomes. For example, literature review expounded that OCB influences customer satisfaction and overall organizational effectiveness (Koys, 2001; Walz & Niehoff, 1996), profitability (Koys, 2001), performance quality and quantity produced (Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997), employee perception of service quality (Kelley & Hoffman, 1997), environmental performance (Daily, Bishop & Govindrajulu, 2009; Smith & O’Sullivan, 2012) and contextual performance (Werner, 2000). The internal collective processes that driven this organizational outcomes can also impact corporate level factor related CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility), governance and financial performance. Chun et. al. (2011) have experimented a hypothesis that employees’ collective organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) mediate the ethics–performance relationship at the organizational level. The hypothesis was tested using data collected from 3821 employees from 130 Korean companies and respective firm’s financial data. The results depicts that “collective organizational commitment and interpersonal OCB are meaningful intervening processes that connect corporate ethics to firm financial performance”. Scholars from different spectrum of management studies also found it’s potentiality in other areas of research e.g. innovation which is essential for firm’s long term viability.
Yi (2006) found that OCB can play a mediating role in organizational process leading to team innovation. The discussion above points out several important contexts regarding OCB, first, it identifies that OCB influences many facets of organizational life which in turn results many positive organizational outcomes including organizational effectiveness and financial and environmental performance. We also observed that OCB influences corporate governance and corporate ethics. This led me to believe that, subject to further research, OCB can potentially help develop behavioral competence to resolve conflicts at organizational level and to meet multiple stakeholders’ needs and demands. To denote OCBS, I added that “Controlled Discord” is one of the important distinctions of OCBS over OCB. I explained that “Controlled Discord” as behavioral dimension is better suitable for creative, scholarly and innovative demeanor. Dean Tjosvold and colleagues (Tjosvold, 1982, 1998, 2008; Tjosvold & Field, 1983; Tjosvold & Johnson, 1977; Tjosvold, Wedley, & Field, 1986) have presented convincing arguments along with strong supportive evidence that “constructive (taskrelated) controversy in a cooperative group context improves the quality of decision making and creativity” (West, 2002). This notion of “constructive controversy” essentially bears same connotation as “controlled discord”. Vollmer & Seyr (2012) adds that in a cooperative group context, “constructive controversy” has positive relationship to decision quality, commitment to decision, and impact on innovation. These group level outcomes are possible in workplace environment where team has ability to conduct open minded dialogue. These findings along with those related to OCB suggests OCBS has potential to resolve conflict at organizational, societal, financial and environmental level while creating organization’s capability to meet
multiple stakeholders’ needs and demands towards organizational, financial, social and environmental equity. That is,
H8: OCBS will influence organizational “sustainability” performance.
CONCLUSION
Survival of human species and the existence of our common biosphere innately depend on corporations’ survival and capability to meet multiple stakeholder’s needs and demands towards organizational, economic, social and environmental intergenerational equity. However, conflicts at organizational, economic and environmental level have caused much concern and impacted effective implementation of sustainability measures in corporations. The behavioral competence is thus essential to resolve such conflict and help develop viable and responsible corporation of future, without which corporation may find as much as threat to itself as it is to our common biosphere. In this paper, I presented a conceptual model of “OCBS” contending it’s importance in achieving sustainability performance at organizational level. This paper does not discount existing sustainability frameworks rather present an integrative purview emphasizing on proactive and creative competence than reactive approach. The behavioral normative presented here is a modest attempt at offering a methodology for change in organizations and a purview of creative and proactive competence in sustainability approach. This methodology incorporates the benefits of the sociological paradigm incorporating a bottom up approach by means of “value ingrained culture” that fosters creative, proactive competence and capability. It is a departure from the notion of sustainability in business that is much about compliance
and reactive in response. The work presented in this study contributes to the sustainability body of knowledge and serves the basis for further research.
REFERENCE
Anderson, S. & Cavanagh, J., 2000. Top 200: The Rise of Corporate Global Power. Institute of Policy Studies. Appelbaum, H.S., Iaconi, D.G. & Matousek, A., 2007. Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: causes, impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance, Vol. 7, No. 5 2007, pp. 586-598. Aras, G. & Crowther, D., 2008. Governance and sustainability: An investigation into relationship between corporate governance and corporate sustainability. Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 3. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. Asif, M., Searcy, C., Zutshi, A. & Ahmad, N., 2011. An integrated management systems approach to corporate Sustainability. European Business Review, Vol. 23 Iss: 4 pp. 353 – 367. Emerald. Asree, S., Zain, M. & Razalli, R.M., 2010. Influence of leadership competency and organizational culture on responsiveness and performance of firms. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. Barney, B.J., 1986. Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage? The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Jul., 1986), pp. 656-665. Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J., 1993. Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1): 112–17. 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. Baumgartner, J. R., 2009. Organizational culture and leadership: Preconditions for the development of a sustainable corporation. Sustainable Development, Volume 17, Issue 2, pages 102–113, January/February 2009 Becker, C., 2006. The human actor in ecological economics: Philosophical approach and research perspectives. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 6 0 (2 0 0 6) 1 7 – 2 3. ELSEVIER. Block, L., 2003. The leadership-culture connection: an exploratory investigation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 Iss: 6, pp.318 - 334 Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J.,1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J., 1997. Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99–109. Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W., 1995. Effects of rate task performance and interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 168–177. Bradbury, H. & Clair, J.A., 1999. Promoting Sustainable Organization with Sweden’s Natural Step. Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 13, No. 4. Brief, A.P. & Motowildo, S.J., 1986. Pro-social organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review. Bromley, W.D., 2007. Environmental regulations and the problem of sustainability: Moving beyond “market failure”. Elsevier. ScienceDirect. Buentello, O., Jung, J. & Sun, J. 2008. Exploring the casual relationships between Organizational citizenship Behavior, Total Quality Management & Performance. SWDSI 2008 Proceedings. Decision Science Institute. Available online at http://www.swdsi.org/swdsi08/paper/SWDSI%20Proceedings%20Paper%20S703.pdf . Byles, M.C., Aupperle, E.K. & Arogyaswamy, B., 1991. Organizational Culture and Performance. Journal of Managerial Issues Vol. 3, No. 4 (Winter 1991), pp. 512-527.
Cameron, K., Dutton, J., Quinn, R. and Spreitzer, G., 2005. ‘‘What is positive organizational scholarship?’’. Ross School of Business, Michigan University, Ann Arbor, MI, available at: http://www.bus.umich.edu/Positive/WhatisPOS/ Chiesa, V., Manzini, R. & Noci, G., 1999. Towards a sustainable view of the competitive system . Long Range Planning, 32(5), 519–530. Chun, S.J., Shin, Y., Choi, N.J. & Kim, S. M., 2011. How Does Corporate Ethics Contribute to Firm Financial Performance? The Mediating Role of Collective Organizational Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Management September 1, 2011 Coblentz, B. J., 2002. Organizational Sustainability: The Three Aspects that Matter. ERNWCA’s First Strategy Session, 2002. Dakar. Coomer, J.C., 1981. Quest for a Sustainable Society (Pergamon Policy Studies on Business and Economics). Pergamon Press. Daily, B.F, Bishop, J.W & Govindarajulu, N., 2009. A Conceptual Model for Organizational Citizenship Behavior Directed Toward the Environment. Business & Society. Sage Publication. Daily, B. F., Bishop, J. W., & Steiner, R., 2002. The impact of human resource management practices on employee perceptions of environmental performance. Proceedings at the National Decision Science Institute, San Diego, CA. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A., 1982. Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Denison, R. D. & Mishra, K. A., 1995. Toward a Theory of Organizational Culture and Effectiveness. Organization Science March/April 1995 vol. 6 no. 2 204-223 Dunlap, R. E. & Jones, R. E., 2002a. Environmental attitudes and values. In R. Fernandez-Ballesteros (Ed.), The encyclopedia of psychological assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 364-369). London: Sage. Dunlap, R. E. & Jones, R. E., 2002b. Environmental concern: Conceptual and measurement issues. In R. E. Dunlap & W. Michelson (Eds.), Handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 482-524). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Dunphy, D. C., Griffiths, A., & Benn, S. 2003. Organizational change for corporate Sustainability : A guide for leaders and change agents of the future. London: Routledge.
Dyllick, T. & Hockerts, K., 2002. Beyond the Business Case for Corporate Sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2002. E-Business, 2007. PESTEL Analysis. E-Business Blog. Available from the website at: http://veroniqca.blog.com/2355551/ (Accessed on April 24, 2009). Ehrhart, G. M., 2004. LEADERSHIP AND PROCEDURAL JUSTICE CLIMATE AS ANTECEDENTS OF UNITLEVEL ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR. Personnel Psychology, Volume 57, Issue 1, pages 61–94, March 2004.
Faber, N., Jorna, R. & Engelen, J.V., 2005. The Sustainability of “sustainability” – A Study into the conceptual foundations of the notion of “Sustainability”. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management. Vol. 7, No. 1. Imperial College Press.
FAST-ISE, 2010. 2010 FAST-ISE Sustainability. http://www.fulbrightacademy.org/page/FAST-ISE/. Full Bright Academy. Available online at
FCIC, 2011. THE FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY REPORT: FINAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE CAUSES OF THE FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CRISIS IN THE UNITED STATES. THE FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY COMMISSION. Available online at http://fcicstatic.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_full.pdf .
Fusco, M.A.C., 1991. Recycling in the office initially may be motivated by altruism but ultimately such efforts continue because they are cost effective. Employment Relations Today, 17, 333–335. Fransson, N. & Gärling, T., 1999. Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 369-382. Gautam, T., Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Uapdhyay, N. And Davis, A.,J., 2005. Organizational citizenship behaviour and organizational commitment in Nepal. Asian journal of social psychology, 8 (3), pp. 336-345. George, J. M., 1990. Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology.
George, J. , 1991. State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology. 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. George, J.M. & Brief, A. P., 1992. Feeling good doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work – organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin. George. M. J. & Jones, R. G., 1997. Organizational Spontaneity Context. Human Performance. Informa Ltd. Ghemawat, P. & Ricart, J.E., 1993. The organizational Tension between static and dynamic efficiency. Research Paper No. 225. IESE. University of Navarra. Gibson-Graham, J.K. & Roelvink, G., 2009. An Economic Ethics for the Anthropocene. Antipode Vol. 41 No. S1 2009 ISSN 0066-4812, pp 320–346 Gomis, A.J.B., Parra, M.G., Hoffman, W. M. & Mcnulty, R.E., 2011. Rethinking the Concept of Sustainability. Business and Society Review, 116:2 171–191. Wiley & Sons, Inc. Gordon, G.G. & DiTomaso, N., 1992. PREDICTING CORPORATE PERFORMANCE FROM ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE. Journal of Management Studies, Volume 29, Issue 6, pages 783–798, November 1992. Graham, J.W., 1989. Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, operationalization and validation. Unpublished working paper; Loyola University of Chicago. Graham, J.W., 1991. An essay of organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. Gray, R., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. (1995), “Corporate social and environmental reporting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 47-77. Greene-Shortridge, M. T., 2011. Leadership, Employee Well-Being and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Salary.com. Available online at http://business.salary.com/leadership-employee-well-being-andorganizational-citizenship-behaviors/ . Gregersen, H. B., 1993. Multiple commitments at work and extrarole behavior during three stages of organizational tenure. American Psychological Association. Grunert, S. & Juhl, H. J., 1995. Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic foods. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, 39-62.
Homer, M. P. & Kahle, R.L., 1988. A Structural Equation Test of Value-Attitude-Behavior Hierarchy. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, Vol. 54, No. 4.
Hopkins, D.J. M., 2002. Sustainability in the Internal Operations of Companies. Corporate Environmental Strategy, Volume 9, Issue 4, December 2002, Pages 398–408. Hopper, J. R., & Nielsen, J. M., 1991. Recycling as altruistic behavior: Normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environment and Behavior, 23, 195-220. Hofstede, G., 1981. Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management and Organizations, 10(4): 15–41. Howard, L. W., 1998. Validating the competing values model as a representation of organizational cultures. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 6(3): 231–250. Jo, J.S. & Joo, B.K., 2011. Knowledge Sharing: The Influences of Learning Organization Culture, Organizational Commitment and organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 2011 18: 353 originally published online 16 May 2011. Karp, D.G, 1996. Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, Vol 28, No. 1, P 111 -133. Sage Publications.
Katz, D., 1964. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science. Karambayya, R. 1990. Contexts for organizational citizenship behavior: Do high performing and satisfying units have better ’citizens’. York University working paper.
Kavanagh, H. M. & Ashkanasy, M.N., 2 006. The Impact of Leadership and Change Management Strategy on Organizational Culture and Individual Acceptance of Change during a Merger. British Journal of Management, Volume 17, Issue S1, pages S81–S103, March 2006.
Kelley, S. W., & Hoffman, D. K., 1997. An investigation of positive affect, prosocial behaviors, and service quality. Journal of Retailing, 73(Fall), 407–427. Kennucorked.com, 2009. What is Sustainability? http://www.kennuncorked.com/sustainable_defined.html. Kennucorked.com. Available online at
Khasawneh, S., 2011. Shared Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in Jordanian Public Universities: Developing a Global Workforce for the 21st Century. Educational Management Administration Leadership September 2011 vol. 39 no. 5 621-634. Kieweit, J.D. & Vos, F.J. J., 2005. ORGANISATIONAL SUSTAINABILITY: A CASE FOR FORMULATING A TAILOR-MADE DEFINITION. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, Vol. 9, No. 1 (March 2007) pp. 1–18. Koys, D. J., 2001. The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 101-114. LePine, J.A., Erez, A. & Johnson, D.E., 2002. The Nature and Dimensionality of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 1, 52–65. Liere, V.D. K. & Dunlap, E.R., 2006. Moral Norms and Environmental Behavior: An Application of Schwartz's Norm-Activation Model to Yard Burning. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Leiserowitz, A.A., Kates, W.R. & Parris, M. T., 2005. Do Global Attitudes and Behaviors Support Sustainable Development? Environment, Volume 47, Number 9, pages 22–38. Linnenluecke, M. & Griffiths, A., 2010. Corporate Sustainability and Organizational Culture. Journal of World Business. ELSEVIER. Linnenluecke, M., Russell, V.S. & Griffiths, A., 2009. Subculture and Sustainability Practice: the Impact on Understanding Corporate Sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment. Lok, P. & Crawford, J., 2001. Antecedents of organizational commitment and the mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Lutzkendorf, T., & Lorenz, D., 2005. Sustainable property investment: valuing sustainable buildings through property performance assessment. Building Research & Information, 33(3), 212-234. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. 1991. Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons’ performance. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 123–150. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. 1993. The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of sales performance. Journal of Marketing, 57: 70–80. Marcoulides, A. G. & Heck, H. R., 1993. Organizational Culture and Performance: Proposing and Testing a Model. Organization Science May 1993 vol. 4 no. 2 209-225. Mayer, D., 2007. Corporate Citizenship and Trustworthy Capitalism: Cocreating a More Peaceful Planet. American Business Law Journal, Volume 44, Issue 2, pages 237–286, Summer 2007. Mihelcic, J.R., Crittenden, J.C., Small, M.J., Shonnard, D.R., Hokanson, D.R., Zhang, Q., Chen H., Sorby, S.A., James, V. U., Southerland, J.W. & Schnoor, J.L., 2003. Sustainability Science and Eengineering: The Emergence of a New Metadiscipline. Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 37, No. 23. Mirvis, P. and Manga, J., 2010. “Integrating corporate citizenship: leading from the middle”, in Smith, N.C., Bhattacharya, C.B., Vogel, D. and Levine, D.I. (Eds), Global Challenges in Responsible Business, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 78-106. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. 1982. Employee organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press. Mohanty, J. & Rath, P.B., 2012a. INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ON ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: A THREE-SECTOR STUDY. GLOBAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH, VOLUME 6, NUMBER 1, 2012. Mohant, J. & Rath, P.B., 2012b. Can Organizational Culture be a Predictor of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors?. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, February 2012. Morrison, E. W., 1994. Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543–1567.
Motowidlo, S. J., 2000. Some basic issues related to contextual performance and organizational citizenship behavior in human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 115–126. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R.,1994. Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475480. NaturalStep.org, 2011. Our Approach – The Natural Step Framework. The Natural step. Available online at http://www.naturalstep.org/our-approach . Nicholls, J., 1988. The Transforming Autocrat. Management Today, March: 114–18. Nielsen, T.M., Hrivnak, G.A. & Shaw, M., 2007. OCB and Performance: A Group-Level Meta-Analytic Review. Social Science Resource Network. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1263927 [Accessed on March 10, 2010.]
Nielsen, M., & Ellintong, B. L., 1983. Social processes and resource conservation. In N. R. Feimer & E. S. Geller (Eds.), Environmental psychology: Directions and perspectives (pp. 312-388). New York: Praeger. Nordlund, A. & Garvill, J., 2002.Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34, 740-756. Ogbonna, E. & Harris, C.L., 2000. Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: empirical evidence from UK companies. International Journal of Human Resource Management 11:4 August 2000 766–788. O’Reilly, C. III & Chatman, J., 1986. Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology. O’Riordan, T., Cameron, J., & Jordan, A., 2001. Reinterpreting the Precautionary Principle. Cameron May, London. Ouchi, William G, 1983. Efficient cultures: exploring the relationship between culture and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (1). Ouchi, W. G., & Price, R. L., 1993. Hierarchies, clans, and theory Z: A new perspective on organization development. Organizational Dynamics, 21(4): 62. Organ, W.D, 1977. A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causes-performance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review. Organ, W.D., 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA. Organ, W.D., 1990. Fairness, productivity and organizational citizenship behavior: Tradeoffs in student and manager pay decisions. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, San Francisco. Organ, W.D, Podsakoff, M.P. & MacKenzie, B.S., 2006. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, antecedents, and Consequences. Foundation for Organizational Science: SAGE Publications. Organ, W. D. & Ryan, K., 1995. A Meta-Analytic Review of Attitudinal and Dispositional Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Personnel Psychology Inc. Ott, J. S., 1989. The organizational culture perspective. Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press. Paula, d., O. G. & Cavalcanti, 2000. Ethics: essence for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production. Peters, T., & Waterman, R. H., 1982. In search of excellence. New York: Harper & Row. Pettigrew, A. M., 1979. On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4): 570–581. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R., 1978. The External Control of Organizations: a Resource Dependence Perspective. Harper & Row, New York. Phillis, Y. A. & Andriantiatsaholiniaina, L. A., 2001. Sustainability: an ill-defined concept and its assessment using fuzzy logic. Ecological Economics. ELSEVIER. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B., 1994. Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 351–363. Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B., 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 262-270. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 1997. The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance, 10: 133–151. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, H. R. & Fetter, R., 1999. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors . The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1, Issue 2.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Hui, C. 1993. Organizational citizenship behaviors and managerial evaluations of employee performance: A review and suggestions for future research. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 11): 1–40. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pourdehnad, J. & Smith, C.A.P., 2012. Sustainability, organizational learning, and lessons learned from aviation . Learning Organization, The, Vol. 19 Iss: 1, pp.77 - 86 Putnik, D.G., 2012. Lean vs agile from an organizational sustainability, complexity and learning perspective. Learning Organization, The, Vol. 19 Iss: 3, pp.176 – 182. Quick, J.C., 1992. Crafting an Organizational Culture: Herb’s Hand at Southwest Airlines. Organizational Dynamics, 21(2): 45–56. Quiroz-Onate, D. & Aitken, M., 2007. Business and human rights: A critical assessment of the notion of CSR and measurement. Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, Vol. 6 Iss: 2, pp.79 – 90. Ramus, C. A. (2001). Organizational support for employees: Encouraging creative ideas for environmental sustainability. California Management Review, 43(3), 85-105. Ramus, C. A. (2002). Encouraging innovative environmental actions: What companies and managers must do. Journal of World Business, 37(2), 151-164. Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee eco-initiatives at leading-edge European companies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 605626. Rashid, A.Z.M., Sambasivan, M. & Rahman, A.A., 2004. The influence of organizational culture on attitudes toward organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Ratner, D. B., 2004. “Sustainability” as a Dialogue of Values: Challenge to the Sociology of Development. Sociology Inquiry Vol 74, No. 1. Robert, K-H., 2000. Tools and concepts for sustainable development, how do they relate to a general framework for sustainable development, and to each other? – Journal of Cleaner Production. Elsevier Science Ltd. Roethlisberger, F.J. & Dickson, W.J., 1939. Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Romano, R., 2004. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Making of Quack Corporate Governance. Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection. Yale Law School, NBER, and ECGI. Available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=596101. Schein, H.E, 1983. Organizational Culture: a Dynamic Model. Working paper. MIT. Schein, H.E, 1992. Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco. Schein, H.E, 2010. Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th Ed.). Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco. Schneider, A. & Meins, E., 2011. Two Dimensions of Corporate Sustainability Assessment: Towards a Comprehensive Framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, Volume 21, Issue 4, pages 211–222, May 2012. Schultz, W. P., & Zelezny, L. C., 1998. Values and pro-environmental behavior: A five country survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(4), 540-558. Schultz, P.W. & Zelezny, L. C., 2003. Reframing environmental messages to be congruent with AmericanValues. Human Ecology Review, 10, 126-136. Schultz, W. P., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, D. L., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P. & Franek, M., 2005. Values and their Relationship to Environmental Concern and Conservation Behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Sage Publications. Schwartz, M., 2001. The Nature of the Relationship between Corporate Codes of Ethics and Behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics. Springer Netherlands. Volume 32, Number 3, August, 2001. Schwartz, S.H., 1977. Normative influence on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Schwartz, H. & Davis, S. M., 1981. Matching corporate culture and business strategy. Organizational Dynamics, 10(1): 30–48. Seeger, W. M. & Ulmer, R.R., 2003. Explaining Enron: Communication and Responsible Leadership. Management Communication Quarterly August 2003 vol. 17 no. 1 58-84. Seuring, S. & Muller, M. 2008, “From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15, pp. 1699-710.
Shields, D.J. & Mitchell, J.E., 1997. A Hierarchical Systems Model of Ecosystem Management. Working Paper, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. Shields, D.J., Šolar, V.S. & Martin, W.E., 2002. The role of Values and Objectives in communicating Indicators of Sustainability. ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS. ELSEVIER. Elsevier Science Ltd. Shore & L. M. & Wayne, S. J., 1993. Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 78(5), Oct 1993, 774-780. Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4): 936–960. Silverthorne, C., 2004. The impact of organizational culture and person-organization fit on organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Taiwan. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, ISSN: 01437739. Simms, R. R., 2000. Changing an Organization's Culture Under New Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, May 2000, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 65-78 Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 655–663. Smith, M., A. & O’Sullivan, T., 2012. Environmentally responsible behavior in the workplace: An internal social marketing approach. Journal of Marketing Management. Solow, R.M., 1991. Sustainability: An Economist’s Perspective. Eighteenth J. Seward Johnson lecture presented to the Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Spreitzer, G.M. & Sonenshein, S., 2003. ‘‘Positive deviance and extraordinary organizing’’, in Cameron, K., Dutton, J. and Quinn, R. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, pp. 207-24. Spreitzer, G.M. & Sonenshein, S., 2004. ‘‘Toward the construct de?nition of positive deviance’’, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 828-47. Stern, P., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A. & Kalof, L., 1999. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81-97. Swartz, M. & Watkins, S., 2003. Power Failure: The Inside Story of the Collapse of Eron. Random House Digital, Inc., Mar 1, 2003 - 386 pages. Tankha, G., 1998. A psychological study of attitudes and awareness towards environmental pollution and degradation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Rajasthan University, Jaipur. Thøgersen, J. & Ölander, F., 2002. Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: A panel study. Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 23, Issue 5, October 2002, Pages 605–630. Tichy, N. M., McGill, A. R. and St. Clair, L., 1997. Corporate Global Citizenship: Doing Business in the Public Eye. The New Lexington Press. San Francisco. Tjosvold, D., 1982. Effects of approach to controversy on superiors’ incorporation of subordinates’ information in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 189–193. Tjosvold, D., 1998. Co-operative and competitive goal approaches to con?ict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 285–342. Tjosvold, D., 2008. Constructive Controversy for Management Education: Developing Committed, Open-Minded Researchers. Academy of Management Learning & Education;Mar2008, Vol. 7 Issue 1, p73. Tjosvold, D., & Field, R.H.G., 1983. Effects of social context on consensus and majority vote decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 500–506. Tjosvold, D., & Johnson, D.W., 1977. The effects of controversy on cognitive perspective-taking. Journal of Education Psychology, 69, 679–685. Tjosvold, D., Wedley, W.C., & Field, R.H.G., 1986. Constructive controversy, the Vroom-Yetton Model, and managerial decision-making. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 7, 125–138. Toman, M., 1994. Economics and “sustainability”: Balancing Trade-Offs and Imperatives. Land Economics, Vol 70, No. 4. University of Wisconsin Press. Tsai, Y., 2011. Relationship between Organizational Culture, Leadership Behavior and Job Satisfaction. BMC Helath Research Service.
Vallmer, A. & Seyr, S., 2012. Constructive Controversy in Innovation Processes – Application and Evaluation. Intl. Association for Conflict Management, IACM 25th Annual Conference. Social Science Research Networks. Vlek, C. & Steg, L., 2007. Human Behavior and Environmental Sustainability: Problems, Driving Forces, and Research Topics. Journal of Social Issues, Volume 63, Issue 1, pages 1–19, March 2007. Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. G., & Dienesch, R. M., 1994. Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, operationalization, and validation. Academy of Management Journal. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. M., 1995. Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Van-Marrewijk, M., 2003. Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3): 95–105. Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J., 1996. Evidence for two factors of contextual performance: Job dedication and interpersonal facilitation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525–531. Vondey, M., 2010. The Relationships among Servant Leadership, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, PersonOrganization Fit, and Organizational Identification. International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 6 Iss. 1, 2010. Vining, J. & Ebreo, A., 1992. Predicting recycling behavior from global and specific environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities. Journal of applied social Psychology.
Walz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (1996). Organizational citizenship behaviors and their effect on effectiveness in limited-menu restaurants. In J. B. Keys & L. N. Dosier (Eds.), Academy of management best paper proceedings (pp. 307-311). Statesboro, GA: Academy of Management. Walz, M.S. & Niehoff, P.Brian, 2000. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: Their Relationship to Organizational Effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Sage Publications. Watkins, S., 2003. Former Enron vice president Sherron Watkins on the Enron collapse. ACAD MANAGE PERSPECT November 1, 2003 vol. 17. Academy of Management. Werner, M.J., 2000. Implications of OCB and Contextual Performance for Human Resource Management. Human Resource Management Review, Volume 10, Issue 1, Spring 2000, Pages 3–24. West, A. M., 2002. Sparkling Fountains or Stagnant Ponds: An Integrative Model of Creativity and Innovation Implementation in Work Groups. APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2002, 51 (3), 355–424. White, L. A., 1999. Sustainability and the Accountable Corporation. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, Volume 41, Issue 8, 1999. Wilkinson, S.J. & Reed, R.G., 2007. The Structural and Behaviourial Barriers to Sustainable Real Estate Development. American Real Estate Society (ARES) Conference. Available online at http://www.naiop.org/foundation/ares07office2.pdf. Williams, J. L. & Anderson, E.S., 1991. Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behaviors. Journal of Management September 1991 vol. 17 no. 3 601617. WCED, 1987. Our Common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yi, T., 2006. Team Psychological Safety, Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Team Innovation: A Mediation Analysis. Tsinghua Tongfang Knowledge Network Technology Co., Ltd. Yilmaz, K. & Cokluk-Bokeoglu, O., 2008. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Organizational Commitment Turkish Primary Schools. World Applied Science Journal. Zain, M.Z., Ishak, R. & Ghani K.E., 2009. The Influence of Corporate Culture on Organisational Commitment: A Study on a Malaysian Listed Company. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, ISSN 1450-2275 Issue 17 (2009). Zhang, Y.A., Tsui, S. A., Song, J.L., Li, C. & Jia, L., 2008. How do I trust thee? The employee-organization relationship, supervisory support, and middle manager trust in the organization. Human Resource Management, Volume 47, Issue 1, pages 111–132, Spring 2008.
Zheng, W., Yang, B. & McLean, N.G., 2010. Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management. Journal of Business Research, Volume 63, Issue 7, July 2010, Pages 763–771
Zutshi, A. & Sohal, S. A., 2003. Stakeholder involvement in the EMS adoption process. Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 9 Iss: 2, pp.133 - 148
doc_173052746.doc
Case Studies on a Conceptual Model for Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability (OCBS), Sustainability organizations seek to implement sustainability strategies which provide them with economic and cultural benefits attained through environmental responsibility. Recently, the natural environment has become a key strategic issue in both the business and academic communities.
Case Studies on a Conceptual Model for Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability (OCBS)
Abstract
This article extends literature of OCB (Organizational Citizenship Behavior) in the context of corporate sustainability. The author presents the concept of OCBS (Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability) as a variant, contending it’s appropriateness for today’s much needed behavioral competence to implement sustainability measure at organizational level. The formulation of OCBS espouses OCB with a twist. The viewpoint defended that a form of “constructive controversy” in behavioral attribution as oppose to compliance is necessary in the development of proactive and creative competence for corporation to meet multiple stakeholder’s needs and demands towards organizational, economic, social and environmental equity. The study identifies key determinants of OCBS, including sustainability culture, leadership support and organizational commit. Direction for further research is provided. Keywords: Corporate Sustainability, Environmental Performance, Sustainability Performance, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Organizational Commitment, Leadership and Supervisory Support, Corporate Social Performance, Environmental concern
1. Introduction
Corporations are the economic powerhouse of the world: of the 100 largest economies, 51 are corporations and only 49 are countries and revenue of fewer than
top 200 corporations are bigger than combined GDPs of all countries excluding top 10 GDPs (Anderson & Cavanagh, 2000). However, corporate influence does not stop there; it is persuasive to our very life, societies and nations: such corporate influence may happen through mass media advertisements, job opportunity, influence on public policy, governments and international economic and political agreements. Downside of such encompassing corporate influence is that it can drive us over the edge if left unchecked; the issue is much enticing than it is perceived on the surface. We the human, our societies and nations need corporations to transform earth’s resources into wealth (Dunphy, Griffiths & Benn, 2003) and thus to help run the contraption of world economy. However, the degree to which earth’s resources being exploited would leave little for future generation and ensued fallout could even threaten the human existence. Apart from environmental concerns, socio-economic challenges could also be somewhat attributed to behavioral issues of corporations. For example, recent financial turmoil that caused global “economic shakeup” has been linked to human actions and inactions related to corporations and regulatory bodies (FCIC, 2011). The presidential investigation team (USA) found that many investments and banking services firms directly or indirectly contributed to subprime lending meltdown, languishing 26 millions American without jobs. However, such detrimental behavior is nothing new and observed at many corporations e.g. Enron (Watkins, 2003; Swartz & Watkins, 2003; Seeger & Ulmer, 2003). This increasingly detrimental corporate behavior is a matter of concern that led to many regulatory measures. These legislative undertakings whether financial and/or environmental received less degree of success than anticipated in recent era due to increasing deprivation of endogenous qualities (FCIC, 2011; Dunphy, Griffiths & Benn, 2003; Romano, 2004) of corporations and lack of dynamic adjustments on the
part of regulatory measures (Broomley, 2007). Romano (2004) claims that legislative measure alone is not enough to curtail corporate misbehavior in the disposition towards economic, social and environmental equity. The issue here is that much written espousing doctrines overlooked importance of behavioral competence despite it’s subtle presence in many organizational discourse: e.g. organizational behavior, management science, human resources management, leadership, change management and organizational cultural studies. Most importantly, this subtle yet determining factor is a pursued “fundamentals” in sustainability discourse despite it’s otherwise implicit reference (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010; Linnenluecke, Russell & Griffiths, 2009; Salzmann, Ionescu-Somers & Steger, 2005). An interesting parallel to this scholarly inquiry is the postulation of Prof Denis Organ that received much attention in organizational studies. Prof Organ connoted a latent behavioral construct known as “Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)” that he posited as an effective conduit in organizational performance. The subsequent scholarly investigations found compelling data related to OCB and organizational effectiveness including it’s financial performance, employee retention and proactive competence at individual and group level. Despite the promise, OCB has many shortcomings including inapplicability of some behavioral dimensions e.g. “compliance” in the development of organizational capability to address multiple stakeholders’ needs and demands towards economic, social and environmental equity. In this paper, I seek to assess 1) why behavioral competence is important in corporate sustainability discourse, and suggest 2) theoretical proposition of OCBS (organizational citizenship behavior towards sustainability) deriving the concept by modifying OCB construct and contending it’s importance in organizational behavioral competence to meet endogenous and exogenous challenges.
2. Why Behavioral competence is important in Corporate Sustainability?
In order to examine the behavioral competence and the pursuit of sustainability in corporation, let us first review and explore the concept of corporate sustainability. I argue that despite much scholarly attention on the subject, there is lack of consensus on “what attributes” corporate sustainability should have and how to achieve them. More importantly the definition of “Corporate Sustainability” is yet not settled. Literature review indicates the need for corporations to develop proactive and creative competence meeting multiple stakeholders’ needs and demands (Asif et al, 2011) while resolving conflicts at organizational and financial, societal and environmental context. The term “Corporate Sustainability” is a derivative of broader notion of “sustainability”, which is in hitherto continuingly shaped by the converses of political, public and scholarly discourses. This process rendered the definitions of “sustainability” sometimes confusing and complex; some postulated the term “sustainability” as a means for handling deteriorating relationship between our biosphere and ongoing economic development (Faber, Jorna & Engelen, 2005; Chiesa, Manzini & Noci, 1999; WCED, 1987), others questioned the notion of “Sustainability” as vague and lacks direction whose scientific definition and measurement are debatable (Phillis & Andriantiatsaholiniaina, 2001; Solow, 1991). The discourse of “sustainability” therefore may draw over 50 definitions due to scholars of different disciplines e.g. ecology, biology, evolutionary biology, economics, sociology and anthropology, all having their own perspectives while defining or critiquing the concept of “sustainability” (Faber, Jorna & Engelen, 2005). An intelligent selection is not enough since it could easily lead to predisposition. Thus
a conceptual and logical discourse is imperative in the search and development of “sustainability” notion. It is in part an analytical persuasion of philosophical and logical exposition that unravels moves and counter-moves of scholars who tried to define “sustainability” using basic concepts. For examples, James C. Coomer in his book, “Quest for a Sustainable Society” describes “the sustainable society is one that lives within the self-perpetuating limits of its environment. That society... is not a "no growth" society... It is rather, a society that recognizes the limits of growth... [and] looks for alternative ways of growing" (Coomer, 1981; Kennucorked.com, 2009). On the other hand, WCED’s brundtland statement formulated, “Sustainable development is a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987). While Coomer (1981) emphasized a direct relationship between society and it’s environment, brundtland statement adds both intra and intergenerational equity to the perpetuation. Though both definitions are attentive about the basics of sustainability concept, their focus and completions are different. Similarly, Mihelcic et al’s (2003) elaboration of WCED’s definition of sustainability posits a pragmatic imposition of social, industrial and economic system as relevant to sustainability: “[the] design of human and industrial systems to ensure that humankind’s use of natural resources and cycles do not lead to diminished quality of life due either to losses in future economic opportunities or to adverse impacts on social conditions, human health and the environment” (Mihelcic et al, 2003). Analogous to this connotation, John Elkington coined the term Triple bottom-line (TBL) to encompass social and economic components with it’s historical relationship to environment (Hopkins, 2002). The TBL which is also known 3 Ps (People, planet and Profit) of sustainability rationalizes economic progress while maintains social inclusions minimizing environmental impact. It gained greater
acceptance in the late 1990s but not without critique. Few argued that giving equal weight to economic, social and environmental component is a vague postulation and lacks objective evaluation. O'Riordan, Cameron & Jordan (2001) and Lutzkendorf & Lorenz (2005) developed an alternative approach based on TBL in the “Three Pillars” or ‘Russian Doll” model. Rather than putting equal weights to social, economic and environmental factors, this alternative model suggest that economic capital is central to wealth creation which propels development (O'Riordan, Cameron & Jordan, 2001; Wilkinson & Reed, 2007) but inhibited by environmental and social factors. The model attempted to present a win-win paradigm of sustainability where TBL left off, however, is being increasingly rejected as over-simplistic and unattainable. In contrast, “The Natural Step” (TNS), a sustainability formulation defined by Dr. Karl-Henrik Robert emphasizes on collaborative rather than adversarial methods to develop consensus at all level of societal representatives including those that are unreached by scientific community (Bradbury & Clair, 1999). The TNS framework recognizes that life supporting natural structure is increasingly under threat due to increase in population and continued progress in global economy. It uses a metaphor of expanding “funnel” to describe impinging issues that our world in general and economic and industrial system in particular are subject to and how services of natural structure diminishes as consumption increase (naturalstep.org, 2011). However, the TNS framework is far from resolving inherent concerns of sustainability and remains as strategy tool. However, much of the debate is not about a strategy to implement sustainability measures rather whether concern for sustainability exists and whether the sustainability delineation should be based on normative or scientific discourse. Interestingly, many of the available definitions of sustainability innately put much
emphasis on a value system that is essential to develop consensus in otherwise a complex issue of economic progress and preservation of our common biosphere. Embedded within such sustainability discussions of finding common ground to eliminate discord between normative (e.g. ethical precondition) and scientific (operationalization) aspect of sustainability (Becker, 2006), though absence in much of the scholarly debate, is the behavioral element (Faber, Jorna & Engelen, 2005; Vlek & Steg, 2007). It is there the continued sustainability discourse finds common ground. Increasingly, the normative discourse of sustainability found support among environmentalists, WCED’s Brundtland statement (WCED, 1987) and in NGO treaties (Becker, 2006). Examples of these normative imperatives are intergenerational and intra-generational equities as discussed in Brundtland report (Becker, 2006). However, Brundtland statement also recognized the need for continued
economic progress and coined the term “sustainable Development” (WCED, 1987), an argument that finds basis in the of scientific “sustainability” discourse. The arguments in scientific dimensions however seek to discount normative arguments since the later relies on quantifiable evidence. Within this scientific dimension, some scholars reject the need for ecological concerns arguing that technological advancement can recover dissipated elements, others finds it hard to believe since laws of thermodynamics precludes such conception. This moves and counter moves generated a third dimension that centered on “policy” arguments as depicted in Agenda 21 (an initiative of UN with regard to sustainable Development). However, the only conduit that can foster interactions among these three dimensions is “Behavioral Attributions” (Faber, Jorna & Engelen, 2005; Vlek & Steg, 2007).
Figure 1. Behavioral attribution as the conduit of “sustainability” discourse.
Increasingly implicit discussions around behavioral attributions (Gomis et al, 2011) are sprinkled in many schools of thoughts and gaining traction. For example, FASTISE (Fulbright Academy of Science & Technology and Institute for Sustainable Enterprise) created a human value and sustainability forum to foster dialogues among corporate world and academic community regarding importance of human value in corporate sustainability discourse (FAST-ISE, 2010). This notion of bringing
together human values and institution was also espoused in brundtland statement when it coined the term “sustainable development”: “development that meets the needs of today without comprising the ability of future generation to meet their needs ” (WCED, 1987). This explains physical investment, investment knowledge and institutions as embodied within human capital (Toman, 1994) and by applying those material elements and through value ingrained response to achieve intergenerational and intra-generational equity. This notion of “Sustainable Development” served as the prelude for corporate sustainability. However, the intricate nature of scholars’ “bringing their own perspectives” to define context as observed in “sustainability definitions” are also prevalent in “Corporate Sustainability” discourse.
Figure 2. Imperatives of Behavioral Competence.
The figure 1 attempts to summarize the scholarly contentions and contributions and depicts a common theme of “behavioral competence” that is often ignored but increasingly gaining ground. The connotation of “behavioral competence” is implied in “sustainability” (WCED, 1987; Toman, 1994; Bradbury & Clair, 1999; Mihelcic et al., 2003; Faber, Jorna & Engelen, 2005; Vlek & Steg, 2007; FAST-ISE, 2010; Gomis
et al., 2011) sustainable development (Leiserowitz, Kates & Parris, 2005) and corporate sustainability (Bradbury & Clair, 1999; White, 1999; Paula & Cavalcanti, 2000; Coblentz, 2002; Ratner, 2004; Shields, Šolar & Martin, 2002; Gibson-Graham & Roelvink, 2009; Asif et al. 2011; Putnik, 2012; Pourdehnad & Smith, 2012).
Figure 3. Corporate Sustainability Timeline.
The early conceptualization of sustainability had narrow focus on environmental protection (Seuring & Muller, 2008) creating a necessity for corporation to report their environmental impact indicators of business activity. This led to preparation and distribution of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) reporting in many corporations and still continuing as parallel connotation to “Corporate Sustainability”. Some Scholars use CSR and corporate sustainability synonymously to describe integration of social, economic and environmental concern into corporate strategy and operations
(Berger, Cunningham & Drumwright, 2007). However, CSR remains a marginal activity towards corporate sustainability (Gray, Kouhy & Lavers, 1995; Quiroz-Onate & Aitken, 2007) and not mean to substitute or replace the later. A broader perspective of corporate responsibility in social, economic and environmental context begin to take shape since WCED coined the term “Sustainable Development” (WCED, 1987). As scholars begin to ponder on the subject each drawing upon their own perspective to define corporate sustainability, a variety of subsequent definitions of sustainability in organizational context begin to emerge. Some classified corporate sustainability narrowly as ecological concern (Shrivastava, 1995) other broadened it to include corporate economic activities with organizational concern about natural and social environment (Dunphy, Griffiths & Ben, 2003; Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002; Van Marrewijk, 2003). Consecutively, a number of theoretical underpinnings contended the importance of resolving conflicts at organizational, societal and environmental level. From organizational perspective, it means developing capability to meet multiple stakeholders’ needs and demands (Asif et al, 2012) towards organizational, financial, societal and environmental equity. Coblentz (2002) considers that a sustainable organization needs to be institutionally, financially and morally strong to face multiple stakeholders’ needs and demands. At Institutional level, this means incorporating three dimensions of organizational behaviors towards environment, social and economic aspect of corporate operational mandate (White, 1999). Linnenluecke, Russell & Griffiths (2009) and Linnenluecke & Griffiths (2010) add that sustainable organizations are capable and proactive and simultaneously flexible fostering a culture of sustainability through appropriate change management (Dunphy, Griffiths & Benn, 2007). To achieve this notion of organizational self-reliance or
competence, organizational and social learning (Shields, Šolar & Martin, 2002; Pourdehnad & Smith, 2012) are essential and it starts with financial sustainability that essentially runs the institutional contraption. Without financial sustainability it would be impossible for organization to hire staff or maintain it’s presence. However, in pursuit of financial stability, some organizations and their leaders have been involved in unsustainable and unethical practices e.g. accounting fraud. To curtail this behavioral issue, serious attention to ethics of doing business (Paula & Cavalcanti, 2000; Gibson-Graham & Roelvink, 2009), corporate governance (Aras & Crowther, 2008) and citizenship (Mayer, 2007) are required. Schneider & Meins (2011) termed this aspect of moral sustainability as “sustainability governance”.
3. The concept of OCB & OCBS
Social science since long observed certain altruistic behaviors that seem to integrate human values with service to be endowed. Schwartz (1977) argued that altruistic behavior occurs when individuals holds personal norms with regard to specific behavior. These norms are moderated by the awareness of the result of engaging or not engaging with specific behavior, for example, recycling behavior (Hopper & Nielson, 1991; Vining & Ebreo, 1992). Karp (1996) adds that individual values can influence behavior when moderated by situational concern. Professor Dennis Organ & his colleagues also made a similar observation that behavior is influenced by values and moderated by situational concern in an organizational setting. Organ called it OCB (Organizational Citizenship Behavior) and defined it as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of organizations”
(Organ, 1988). Organ initially presented his concept of OCB (Organ, 1977) as an exercise in devil’s advocacy (Organ, Podsahoff & MacKenzie, 2006) towards presenting an essay that supports popular notion of “worker satisfaction affected productivity” with a twist. The viewpoint defended the popular belief and draws distinction between quantitative measures of productivity and something more subtle, a form of worker’s contribution that often not reflected in such measures of individual and group output. These subtler contributions may take the form of helping behavior, following the spirit, workplace governance, accommodating changes to improve organization’s operational efficiency and so on. However, Organ did not
contemplated these subtler contributions as OCB rather an attempt to explain his professional colleagues that managerial belief on job satisfaction and it’s influence to productivity was not without merit. Two of Organ’s doctoral students Tom Bateman and C. Ann Smith, nonetheless, considered the essay as material for the audacity to propose some research and test the idea and added as material to a research project that primarily examines job overload on behavior and attitudes (Bateman & Organ, 1983). The research led to a crude measure of what was then called “qualitative performance” as oppose to “quantitative performance” – productivity. Though result of the study would hardly be a presage to OCB research that followed since then, it shows significant correlation between job satisfaction and OCB. If not for Ann smith who envisaged the link between this study and that of Hawthorne studies (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939), the concept of OCB would not have studied further. This interest led her to interview manufacturing plant supervisor in southern Indiana asking them question, “What are the things you would like your employee to do more of, but really cannot make them do and for which you cannot guarantee any definite rewards, other than your appreciation” (Smith, Organ
& Near, 1983). The assumption here is that managers are reasonably knowledgeable and can speak with some confidence about particular action by employees that help achieve certain result towards organizational effectiveness. Among the few attributes managers identified, helping behavior, punctuality, volunteer to do things not formally required by job, makes innovation suggestion to improve overall quality of the department and so on. Such behavior defers from that of “altruism”, according to researchers, the action may not have any motive and it may be directed towards a colleague or to the organization. It is neither motive driven nor an act of “selfless” service. Some attributes of the behavior for example, punctuality may be construed as “compliance”, however, Organ, Podsahoff & MacKenzie (2006)explains though “compliance” is a form of OCB but does not imply merely strict obedience to order. Larry Williams (Williams & Anderson, 1991) conducted a research to determine whether helping and compliance are empirically distinguishable from each other and from people of what they do to perform specific duty. The result shows compliance and helping other behavior fits that of hypothesized model for each. Organ’s taxonomy of OCB included following behavioral dimensions: a) altruistic or pro-social behavior, b) Conscientiousness, c) Sportsmanship, d) Courtesy and e) Civic Virtues. Organ (1990) later added two other attributes of OCB – cheerleading and peacemaking. However, those attributes did not receive much research interest. Instead, researchers have theorized that OCB includes a variant called “loyalty” (George & Brief, 1992; Graham, 1989, 1991). Important to this aspect is Katz’s (1964) notation on self-development and protecting the organization as behavioral element that does not occur in response to formal reward system. A literature review conducted by LePine, Erez & Johnson (2002) found 40 measures of OCB dimensions; however, their meta-analyses suggest seven factors that capture distinction within and
among OCB dimensions and those are: helping, compliance, sportsmanship, civic virtue, organizational loyalty, self-development and individual initiative. Since Organ’s initial observation on OCB, there have been significant scholarly work on the subject; however, scholars were not consistent about labeling it as Organ’s original notion of OCB (Morrison, 1994; Organ, 1988; Van Dyne, Graham & Dienesch, 1994). Some scholars labeled the OCB behavioral dimensions etc as 1. Pro-social behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; George, 1990, 1991; George & Bettenhausen, 1990; O’ Reilly & Chatman, 1986), 2. Organizational Spontaneity (George & Brief, 1992; George & Jones, 1997) and 3. Extra-role behavior (Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995). Another label that is quite common to human resources and industrial & organizational psychologists and overlaps the behavioral domains of OCB (Motowidlo, 2000) is “Contextual Performance” (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, 1997; Borman, White & Dorsey, 1995; Motowidlo & Van Scotter, 1994; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). However, contextual performance differs from Organ’s original notion of OCB which according to Professor Dennis Organ was solely discretionary. But the term “discretionary” varies person to person and situational context. This led Professor Organ to modify definition of OCB adding that such behavior “contributes to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports task performance” (LePine, Erez & Johnson, 2002). Nonetheless, regardless of different labeling, experts always conceived that OCB consists of several behavioral dimensions. Hence, if OCB is an “aggregate” model than formulating mathematical functions of the dimensions would not be difficult. This assumption led LePine, Erez & Johnson (2002) to conduct literature review and meta-analyses of the variants and domain attributes. The research suggests relationship among OCB variants/dimensions and domains attributes are generally
high and there is no significant difference among predictors across dimensions. Based on the result, LePine, Erez & Johnson (2002) suggest that it may be worth to define OCB dimensions collectively as latent construct. A group of researchers found that OCB can be link to many facets of enterprise level performance e.g. TQM & organizational Performance (Buentello, Jung & Sun, 2008), Sales performance & customer Satisfaction (Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 1997), organizational effectiveness and performance (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 1997; Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; George & Bettenhausen, 1990; Karambayya, 1990; MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Fetter, 1991, 1993; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Hui, 1993; Smith et al., 1983). Subsequently, a number of empirical studies also found positive correlation between OCB and individual-level performance (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991, 1993; Werner, 2000), aggregated individual performance (George & Bettenhausen, 1990; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994), group-level performance (Karambayya, 1990; Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997), and organizational-level performance (Walz & Niehoff, 2000). In a meta-analytical study of 2417 samples to measure OCB at group level Nielsen, Hrivnak & Shaw (2007) found positive correlation (.32) between OCB and organizational performance i.e. positive financial outcome. Daily, Bishop & Govindarajulu (2009) linked OCB to proactive environmental behavior and postulated a conceptual model of OCBE (Organizational Citizenship Behavior directed toward Environment). They argue that OCBE exists and are positively related to environmental performance and, as such, it is an aspect of an organization’s overall corporate citizenship and therefore important. Smith & O'Sullivan (2012) conducted a study among five largest UK organizations to identify how social marketers and organizations can reduce negative environmental
impact by harnessing a valuable resource, that of employees’ environmentally responsible organizational citizenship behaviors (EROCBs). Result shows employees engaged in OCB created and implemented new working practices achieving behavioral change at both the local and occasionally wider organizational level. These organizational outcomes linking OCB makes it an appropriate behavioral “latent” construct to furtherance research related organizational sustainability. Important to note here is that available literatures on OCB did not considered it’s potential for organizational sustainability though it’s link to organizational outcomes related environmental performance and effectiveness are well documented. I believe this is an omission which sooner or later will be corrected. I considered this an important context to pursue my research relating OCB (or a variation thereof) to the holistic concept of corporate sustainability. My observation is that certain behavioral dimensions of OCB may be incompatible with corporate sustainability while others are essential. This led me to develop a new conception based on OCB and denoted it as “OCBS” (Organizational Citizenship Behavior Towards sustainability). It is a discretionary act directed towards developing proactive and creative competence for organization to meet multiple stakeholders’ needs and demands towards organizational, social, economic and environmental equity. The OCBS differs from OCBE in concept that, unlike OCBE, it takes into context the holistic nature of sustainability as it pertains to organization. Similarly, OCBS differs from OCB in multiple behavioral dimensions. First it replaces OCB’s “compliance” behavioral dimension with “controlled discord”, a term that denotes employee(s)’s professional demeanor to question proposals/projects in an honorable way with intention to help develop a collective consensus for a better approach. The “controlled discord” also defers from deviant workplace behavior (DWB) (Appelbaum, Iaconi & Matousek,
2007) in certain behavioral attributions. It exhibits behavior that is comparable to positive demeanor of DWB (Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2003) in certain behavioral attribution. For example, like positive DWB the “controlled discord” is a praiseworthy behavior that differs from norms of a referent group in honorable ways. It contributes to “positive organizational scholarship” (Cameron et al., 2005) and depicts behaviors such as innovative, creative performance and noncompliance with dysfunctional directives etc. The typology of “controlled discord” is depicted in figure 4. The positive DWB (Appelbaum, Iaconi & Matousek, 2007; Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2003) differs from OCB in many dimensions that are considered substantial departure from organizational norm and can benefit society by addressing ethically questionable behavior. In same connotation, “controlled discord” can be construed as departure from norms but exhibits attributes that are more in-tuned towards benefiting organization through positive change and scholarly contributions without creating conflict or status quo. It advances team spirit and produces positive result through innovative behaviors and creative performance.
Figure 4. Typology of “Controlled Discord”.
Another important difference between OCB and OCBS is that, unlike OCB, it emphasizes on sustainability culture (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2009) and value sets to develop appropriate behavioral attributions rather than alluding to the consign of individual’s domestic or household behavior (Fusco, 1991) e.g. recycling behavior (Hopper & Nielsen, 1991; Nielsen & Ellintong, 1983), pro-environmental behavior or altruistic-environmental behavior (Schultz & Zelezny, 1998).
4. Key antecedents of OCBS
Based on available literatures and my thoughts, the followings are four key antecedents of OCBS: Sustainability Culture, Leadership & Supervisory Support, Context Specific Knowledge Management System and Organizational Commitment.
Figure 5. Key antecedents and outcome of OCBS.
Sustainability culture Literature review indicates that relationship between human values, awareness and sustainability behaviors can be predicted, e.g, how human values (Schultz et al., 2005) and moral norms (Liere & Dunlap, 2006) relates to sustainability (Schultz et al., 2005; Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002; Liere & Dunlap, 2006) or environmental awareness and individual value priorities relates pro-environmental behavior (Hopper & Nielsen, 1991). The link between values and environmental attitudes is explained in many scholarly studies (Grunert & Juhl, 1995; Nordlund & Garvill, 2002; Schultz & Zelezny, 2003; Stern et al., 1999; Tankha, 1998) though their conceptual language may vary e.g. environmental attitudes, environmental concern, and environmental
worldview (Dunlap & Jones, 2002a, 2002b; Fransson & Gärling, 1999; Schultz & Zelezny, 2003). A series of multivariate and structural equation analyses supported hypothesis that values influences attitude and attitude in turn influence behavior (Homer & Kahle, 1988). A hierarchical model of resource management developed by Shields & Mitchell (1997) provides insights to the interworks of value, culture and behavioral elements. Their research finds that “peoples’ objectives are a reflection of a contextual application of their held value sets”.
Figure 6. Hierarchical Model of Resource Management.
These held values are often influenced by culture, social, institution and ecological frameworks in which people live (Shields, Šolar & Martin, 2002) and through such development those values become an “ordered value set”. These ordered value sets are thought to be the primary element influencing individuals’ actions as depicted in figure 6.
To understand this concept further in organizational context, we need to explore organizational culture (OC) since it is regarded as the access point for the field of human resources and organizational behavior (OB). In fact, OC and OB to this aspect can be construed as synonymous due to anthropological origin of the definition of culture. In his book: Organizational Culture and Leadership" (Schein, 1992) Edgar H. Schein defined organizational culture as: "A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems" (Schein, 1992). Schein’s model of organizational culture presents three fundamental elements in OC: Basic Assumptions, Espoused values and Artifacts. The same connotation can be observed in other scholarly contentions on OC (Hofstede, 1981; Ouchi & Price, 1993; Pettigrew, 1979; Schwartz & Davis, 1981). Some scholars (Howard, 1998; Ott, 1989) view values, ideologies and beliefs are considered to be particularly important in the understanding of OC (please refer figure 7).
Figure 7. A diagrammatical representation of Values, Attitude, Behavior and OC.
Byles, Aupperle & Arogyaswamy (1991) argued that OC may have positive effect in overall organizational performance providing that OC aligns with strategic needs of the firm. Similar contentions are made by many other scholars about the influence of OC in organizational performance and Change (Marcoulides & Heck, 1993; Barney, 1986; Gordon & DiTomaso, 1992; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Ouchi, 1983), effectiveness (Denison & Mishra, 1995; Zheng, Yang & McLean, 2010) and behavioral competence at individual and group level e.g. OCB (Mohanty & Rath, 2012a; Mohant & Rath, 2012b). Consecutively, research suggests that any measure of “ambitious corporate sustainability activities and strategies have to be embedded in the organizational culture in order to be successful” (Baumgartner, 2009). These potentials are inviting and seem to be the reason behind increasing interest about OC in sustainability literatures. However, an organization may have different subcultures or competing value framework (CVF) in cultural orientation (Linnenluecke, Russell & Griffiths, 2009; Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010). The presence of subcultures may posit differences of how employees perceived corporate sustainability (Linnenluecke, Russell & Griffiths, 2009). This implies that unification of these subcultures is an important stepping stone towards achieving a cohesive perception of corporate sustainability. However, the unification subcultures innately do not answer the “what” questions related to sustainability at organizational and individual level. Therefore, a means for cultural augmentation is required that can influence collective consensus at organizational level. Such instrument of influence can be understood as “context specific knowledge management” system which helps defining critical imperatives of organizational sustainability culture, “basic assumptions”, “values” and “artifacts”. Zheng, Yang & McLean (2010) finds that knowledge management practice act as mediating agent in the relationship between
OC, strategy and organizational effectiveness. This finding is especially important in defining organization specific sustainability culture as it can aid in the understanding of what questions irrespective of top down, catalytic (Mirvis & Manga, 2010) and/or bottom-up approach to integrate change. These research findings led me to believe that “context specific knowledge management” practice is useful conduit in the development of organization specific sustainability culture that in turn impacts collective behavior of the organization leading towards OCBS. That is: H1: Context specific knowledge management system is imperative conduit in the development of Organizational Sustainability Culture, and H2: Organizational Sustainability Culture influence OCBS. Leadership & Supervisory Support Schein’s model of organizational culture claims that OC is a learning process which does not start at ground zero, however, has significant influence from founders and leaders as organization starts to develop (Schein, 1983). He observes that organizational culture and leadership are intertwined and explained this entanglement in the context of the organizational life cycle. According to him, organizational cultures reflect the values and beliefs of founders and leaders at the beginning. As the organization develops, it’s culture begun to shape through the process of formation, experience and learning which in turn excerpt influence over it’s leaders. In summarizing this conception, Bass & Avolio (1993) emulated the contention of Schein (1992) by proposing that the relationship OC and leadership and vice versa is an ongoing interplay in which the leader shapes the culture and in turn get shaped by the developed culture. A review of available literature suggests ample
scholarly underpinnings about the link between OC and leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1993; Nicholls, 1988; Quick, 1992; Schein, 1992; Simms, 2000; Ogbonna & Harris, 2000; Block, 2003; Tsai, 2001). With varying results, empirical analyses depict that interplay of OC and leadership has significant influence in organizational performance (Ogbonna & Harris, 2000), employees’ perception of OC and effective change management (Kavanagh & Ashkanasy, 2006), responsiveness of employee (Asree, Zain & Razalli, 2010) and firm performance (Asree, Zain & Razalli, 2010; Ogbonna & Harris, 2000). An exploratory investigation by Block (2003) depicts employees’ perception of OC depends on the leadership type of their immediate supervisor indicating that supervisory support is important conduit in EOR (Employee-Organizational-Relationship) and OC (Zhang et al., 2008) and creating an attitude towards organizational change (Rashid, Sambasivan & Rahman, 2004). It is, therefore, obvious that the interplay of OC and leadership has significant impact over organization’s behavioral competence in the context of OCB (Podsakoff et al., 1999). A collection of literatures also support such observation e.g. servant leadership can predict OCB (Vondey, 2010) at individual or unit-level (EhrHart, 2007); similarly, employees’ perception of leadership behavior (Greene-Shortridge, 2011) and shared leadership influences OCB (Khasawneh, 2011; Greene-Shortridge, 2011).
Consecutively, supervisory support towards environmental performance is well documented in literatures (Ramus & Steger, 2000; Ramus, 2001, 2002; Zutshi & Sohal, 2003). This discussion imparts that implementation of sustainability culture or cultural change to achieve corporate sustainability requires leadership and supervisory support, which in turn influences OC and OCB. Therefore, in-line with Daily, Bishop & Govindrajulu’s (2009) observation that links supervisory support to OCBE, it can
be contended that the interplay of sustainability culture, leadership and supervisory support will influence OCBS. That is, H3: Perceived leadership construct & supervisory support will impact
implementation of sustainability culture in an organization, H4: sustainability culture in turn will influence leaders and perceived supervisory support in the organization, and H5: perceived leadership construct & supervisory support will influence OCBS. Organizational Commitment Organizational commitment can be understood as having following three components (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982): i) Individual’s identification or strong belief with organization’s values and goals/missions that are manifested in pride and in defense of the organization. ii) iii) A willingness to long term membership with the organization, and Exhibits a high level of extra role behavior that is often referred to as OCB. Essentially, organizational commitment indicates a form of OCBS at individual or group level. Research has found significant positive correlation between organizational commitment and OCB. Williams & Anderson (1991) found that job satisfaction and organizational commitment are predictors of OCB and in-role behavior. Shore & Wayne (1993) observed that employees’ perceptions of organizational commitment to them (which can be termed as perceived organizational support or POS) create feeling of obligations and contributes to employees’ extra-role
behavior. They find organizational commitment and for this matter “POS” is a better predictor of OCB. Many studies also reported positive correlations between OCB and Organizational commitment (Gregersen, 1993; Yilmaz & Cokluk-Bokeoglu, 2008; Gautam et al., 2005). However, organizational commitment is rooted in the influence of OC towards developing employees’ thoughts, feeling and attitude towards change; for example, a study by Zain, Ishak & Ghani (2009) depicts that OC dimensions are determinants in motivating the employees’ commitment. The findings implicate that an organization needs to be aware of the importance of OC dimensions in providing a favorable working environment to its employees in attaining their full commitment for organizational success. Many other studies also reported similar findings (Jo & Joo, 2011; Silverthorne, 2004; Lok & Crawford, 2001). These research findings indicates that OC influences and in many cases act as catalyst for organizational commitment to develop which in turn influence employees’ OCB at individual and group level. Therefore, it can be hypothesized that organizations’ sustainability culture will influence organizational commitment, which in turn will impact employees’ OCBS. That is, H6: Organizational Sustainability Culture will influence Organizational
Commitment, and H7: Organizational Commitment, in turn, will influence OCBS. Sustainable Organizational Performance Earlier in corporate sustainability discussion, we learned that achieving sustainability performance in an organization requires the development proactive and creative competence towards meeting multiple stakeholders’ needs and demands. This implies that organization should have endogenous quality or capability to resolve conflict at
organizational and societal, and financial and environmental level. This reference of sustainability performance is holistic in nature and takes organizational, societal, economic and environmental equity into context. Professor organ and his colleagues argued that OCB has potential to improve organizational effectiveness and performance (e.g., Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Since then, many empirical studies supported professor Organ’s postulation and expanded OCB’s potentiality for organizational outcomes. For example, literature review expounded that OCB influences customer satisfaction and overall organizational effectiveness (Koys, 2001; Walz & Niehoff, 1996), profitability (Koys, 2001), performance quality and quantity produced (Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997), employee perception of service quality (Kelley & Hoffman, 1997), environmental performance (Daily, Bishop & Govindrajulu, 2009; Smith & O’Sullivan, 2012) and contextual performance (Werner, 2000). The internal collective processes that driven this organizational outcomes can also impact corporate level factor related CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility), governance and financial performance. Chun et. al. (2011) have experimented a hypothesis that employees’ collective organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) mediate the ethics–performance relationship at the organizational level. The hypothesis was tested using data collected from 3821 employees from 130 Korean companies and respective firm’s financial data. The results depicts that “collective organizational commitment and interpersonal OCB are meaningful intervening processes that connect corporate ethics to firm financial performance”. Scholars from different spectrum of management studies also found it’s potentiality in other areas of research e.g. innovation which is essential for firm’s long term viability.
Yi (2006) found that OCB can play a mediating role in organizational process leading to team innovation. The discussion above points out several important contexts regarding OCB, first, it identifies that OCB influences many facets of organizational life which in turn results many positive organizational outcomes including organizational effectiveness and financial and environmental performance. We also observed that OCB influences corporate governance and corporate ethics. This led me to believe that, subject to further research, OCB can potentially help develop behavioral competence to resolve conflicts at organizational level and to meet multiple stakeholders’ needs and demands. To denote OCBS, I added that “Controlled Discord” is one of the important distinctions of OCBS over OCB. I explained that “Controlled Discord” as behavioral dimension is better suitable for creative, scholarly and innovative demeanor. Dean Tjosvold and colleagues (Tjosvold, 1982, 1998, 2008; Tjosvold & Field, 1983; Tjosvold & Johnson, 1977; Tjosvold, Wedley, & Field, 1986) have presented convincing arguments along with strong supportive evidence that “constructive (taskrelated) controversy in a cooperative group context improves the quality of decision making and creativity” (West, 2002). This notion of “constructive controversy” essentially bears same connotation as “controlled discord”. Vollmer & Seyr (2012) adds that in a cooperative group context, “constructive controversy” has positive relationship to decision quality, commitment to decision, and impact on innovation. These group level outcomes are possible in workplace environment where team has ability to conduct open minded dialogue. These findings along with those related to OCB suggests OCBS has potential to resolve conflict at organizational, societal, financial and environmental level while creating organization’s capability to meet
multiple stakeholders’ needs and demands towards organizational, financial, social and environmental equity. That is,
H8: OCBS will influence organizational “sustainability” performance.
CONCLUSION
Survival of human species and the existence of our common biosphere innately depend on corporations’ survival and capability to meet multiple stakeholder’s needs and demands towards organizational, economic, social and environmental intergenerational equity. However, conflicts at organizational, economic and environmental level have caused much concern and impacted effective implementation of sustainability measures in corporations. The behavioral competence is thus essential to resolve such conflict and help develop viable and responsible corporation of future, without which corporation may find as much as threat to itself as it is to our common biosphere. In this paper, I presented a conceptual model of “OCBS” contending it’s importance in achieving sustainability performance at organizational level. This paper does not discount existing sustainability frameworks rather present an integrative purview emphasizing on proactive and creative competence than reactive approach. The behavioral normative presented here is a modest attempt at offering a methodology for change in organizations and a purview of creative and proactive competence in sustainability approach. This methodology incorporates the benefits of the sociological paradigm incorporating a bottom up approach by means of “value ingrained culture” that fosters creative, proactive competence and capability. It is a departure from the notion of sustainability in business that is much about compliance
and reactive in response. The work presented in this study contributes to the sustainability body of knowledge and serves the basis for further research.
REFERENCE
Anderson, S. & Cavanagh, J., 2000. Top 200: The Rise of Corporate Global Power. Institute of Policy Studies. Appelbaum, H.S., Iaconi, D.G. & Matousek, A., 2007. Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: causes, impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance, Vol. 7, No. 5 2007, pp. 586-598. Aras, G. & Crowther, D., 2008. Governance and sustainability: An investigation into relationship between corporate governance and corporate sustainability. Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 3. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. Asif, M., Searcy, C., Zutshi, A. & Ahmad, N., 2011. An integrated management systems approach to corporate Sustainability. European Business Review, Vol. 23 Iss: 4 pp. 353 – 367. Emerald. Asree, S., Zain, M. & Razalli, R.M., 2010. Influence of leadership competency and organizational culture on responsiveness and performance of firms. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. Barney, B.J., 1986. Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage? The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Jul., 1986), pp. 656-665. Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J., 1993. Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1): 112–17. 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. Baumgartner, J. R., 2009. Organizational culture and leadership: Preconditions for the development of a sustainable corporation. Sustainable Development, Volume 17, Issue 2, pages 102–113, January/February 2009 Becker, C., 2006. The human actor in ecological economics: Philosophical approach and research perspectives. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 6 0 (2 0 0 6) 1 7 – 2 3. ELSEVIER. Block, L., 2003. The leadership-culture connection: an exploratory investigation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 Iss: 6, pp.318 - 334 Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J.,1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J., 1997. Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99–109. Borman, W. C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W., 1995. Effects of rate task performance and interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 168–177. Bradbury, H. & Clair, J.A., 1999. Promoting Sustainable Organization with Sweden’s Natural Step. Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 13, No. 4. Brief, A.P. & Motowildo, S.J., 1986. Pro-social organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review. Bromley, W.D., 2007. Environmental regulations and the problem of sustainability: Moving beyond “market failure”. Elsevier. ScienceDirect. Buentello, O., Jung, J. & Sun, J. 2008. Exploring the casual relationships between Organizational citizenship Behavior, Total Quality Management & Performance. SWDSI 2008 Proceedings. Decision Science Institute. Available online at http://www.swdsi.org/swdsi08/paper/SWDSI%20Proceedings%20Paper%20S703.pdf . Byles, M.C., Aupperle, E.K. & Arogyaswamy, B., 1991. Organizational Culture and Performance. Journal of Managerial Issues Vol. 3, No. 4 (Winter 1991), pp. 512-527.
Cameron, K., Dutton, J., Quinn, R. and Spreitzer, G., 2005. ‘‘What is positive organizational scholarship?’’. Ross School of Business, Michigan University, Ann Arbor, MI, available at: http://www.bus.umich.edu/Positive/WhatisPOS/ Chiesa, V., Manzini, R. & Noci, G., 1999. Towards a sustainable view of the competitive system . Long Range Planning, 32(5), 519–530. Chun, S.J., Shin, Y., Choi, N.J. & Kim, S. M., 2011. How Does Corporate Ethics Contribute to Firm Financial Performance? The Mediating Role of Collective Organizational Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Management September 1, 2011 Coblentz, B. J., 2002. Organizational Sustainability: The Three Aspects that Matter. ERNWCA’s First Strategy Session, 2002. Dakar. Coomer, J.C., 1981. Quest for a Sustainable Society (Pergamon Policy Studies on Business and Economics). Pergamon Press. Daily, B.F, Bishop, J.W & Govindarajulu, N., 2009. A Conceptual Model for Organizational Citizenship Behavior Directed Toward the Environment. Business & Society. Sage Publication. Daily, B. F., Bishop, J. W., & Steiner, R., 2002. The impact of human resource management practices on employee perceptions of environmental performance. Proceedings at the National Decision Science Institute, San Diego, CA. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A., 1982. Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Denison, R. D. & Mishra, K. A., 1995. Toward a Theory of Organizational Culture and Effectiveness. Organization Science March/April 1995 vol. 6 no. 2 204-223 Dunlap, R. E. & Jones, R. E., 2002a. Environmental attitudes and values. In R. Fernandez-Ballesteros (Ed.), The encyclopedia of psychological assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 364-369). London: Sage. Dunlap, R. E. & Jones, R. E., 2002b. Environmental concern: Conceptual and measurement issues. In R. E. Dunlap & W. Michelson (Eds.), Handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 482-524). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Dunphy, D. C., Griffiths, A., & Benn, S. 2003. Organizational change for corporate Sustainability : A guide for leaders and change agents of the future. London: Routledge.
Dyllick, T. & Hockerts, K., 2002. Beyond the Business Case for Corporate Sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2002. E-Business, 2007. PESTEL Analysis. E-Business Blog. Available from the website at: http://veroniqca.blog.com/2355551/ (Accessed on April 24, 2009). Ehrhart, G. M., 2004. LEADERSHIP AND PROCEDURAL JUSTICE CLIMATE AS ANTECEDENTS OF UNITLEVEL ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR. Personnel Psychology, Volume 57, Issue 1, pages 61–94, March 2004.
Faber, N., Jorna, R. & Engelen, J.V., 2005. The Sustainability of “sustainability” – A Study into the conceptual foundations of the notion of “Sustainability”. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management. Vol. 7, No. 1. Imperial College Press.
FAST-ISE, 2010. 2010 FAST-ISE Sustainability. http://www.fulbrightacademy.org/page/FAST-ISE/. Full Bright Academy. Available online at
FCIC, 2011. THE FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY REPORT: FINAL REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE CAUSES OF THE FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CRISIS IN THE UNITED STATES. THE FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY COMMISSION. Available online at http://fcicstatic.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_full.pdf .
Fusco, M.A.C., 1991. Recycling in the office initially may be motivated by altruism but ultimately such efforts continue because they are cost effective. Employment Relations Today, 17, 333–335. Fransson, N. & Gärling, T., 1999. Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 369-382. Gautam, T., Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Uapdhyay, N. And Davis, A.,J., 2005. Organizational citizenship behaviour and organizational commitment in Nepal. Asian journal of social psychology, 8 (3), pp. 336-345. George, J. M., 1990. Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology.
George, J. , 1991. State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology. 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. George, J.M. & Brief, A. P., 1992. Feeling good doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work – organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin. George. M. J. & Jones, R. G., 1997. Organizational Spontaneity Context. Human Performance. Informa Ltd. Ghemawat, P. & Ricart, J.E., 1993. The organizational Tension between static and dynamic efficiency. Research Paper No. 225. IESE. University of Navarra. Gibson-Graham, J.K. & Roelvink, G., 2009. An Economic Ethics for the Anthropocene. Antipode Vol. 41 No. S1 2009 ISSN 0066-4812, pp 320–346 Gomis, A.J.B., Parra, M.G., Hoffman, W. M. & Mcnulty, R.E., 2011. Rethinking the Concept of Sustainability. Business and Society Review, 116:2 171–191. Wiley & Sons, Inc. Gordon, G.G. & DiTomaso, N., 1992. PREDICTING CORPORATE PERFORMANCE FROM ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE. Journal of Management Studies, Volume 29, Issue 6, pages 783–798, November 1992. Graham, J.W., 1989. Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, operationalization and validation. Unpublished working paper; Loyola University of Chicago. Graham, J.W., 1991. An essay of organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. Gray, R., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. (1995), “Corporate social and environmental reporting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 47-77. Greene-Shortridge, M. T., 2011. Leadership, Employee Well-Being and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Salary.com. Available online at http://business.salary.com/leadership-employee-well-being-andorganizational-citizenship-behaviors/ . Gregersen, H. B., 1993. Multiple commitments at work and extrarole behavior during three stages of organizational tenure. American Psychological Association. Grunert, S. & Juhl, H. J., 1995. Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic foods. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, 39-62.
Homer, M. P. & Kahle, R.L., 1988. A Structural Equation Test of Value-Attitude-Behavior Hierarchy. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, Vol. 54, No. 4.
Hopkins, D.J. M., 2002. Sustainability in the Internal Operations of Companies. Corporate Environmental Strategy, Volume 9, Issue 4, December 2002, Pages 398–408. Hopper, J. R., & Nielsen, J. M., 1991. Recycling as altruistic behavior: Normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program. Environment and Behavior, 23, 195-220. Hofstede, G., 1981. Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management and Organizations, 10(4): 15–41. Howard, L. W., 1998. Validating the competing values model as a representation of organizational cultures. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 6(3): 231–250. Jo, J.S. & Joo, B.K., 2011. Knowledge Sharing: The Influences of Learning Organization Culture, Organizational Commitment and organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 2011 18: 353 originally published online 16 May 2011. Karp, D.G, 1996. Values and their effect on pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, Vol 28, No. 1, P 111 -133. Sage Publications.
Katz, D., 1964. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science. Karambayya, R. 1990. Contexts for organizational citizenship behavior: Do high performing and satisfying units have better ’citizens’. York University working paper.
Kavanagh, H. M. & Ashkanasy, M.N., 2 006. The Impact of Leadership and Change Management Strategy on Organizational Culture and Individual Acceptance of Change during a Merger. British Journal of Management, Volume 17, Issue S1, pages S81–S103, March 2006.
Kelley, S. W., & Hoffman, D. K., 1997. An investigation of positive affect, prosocial behaviors, and service quality. Journal of Retailing, 73(Fall), 407–427. Kennucorked.com, 2009. What is Sustainability? http://www.kennuncorked.com/sustainable_defined.html. Kennucorked.com. Available online at
Khasawneh, S., 2011. Shared Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in Jordanian Public Universities: Developing a Global Workforce for the 21st Century. Educational Management Administration Leadership September 2011 vol. 39 no. 5 621-634. Kieweit, J.D. & Vos, F.J. J., 2005. ORGANISATIONAL SUSTAINABILITY: A CASE FOR FORMULATING A TAILOR-MADE DEFINITION. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, Vol. 9, No. 1 (March 2007) pp. 1–18. Koys, D. J., 2001. The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 101-114. LePine, J.A., Erez, A. & Johnson, D.E., 2002. The Nature and Dimensionality of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, No. 1, 52–65. Liere, V.D. K. & Dunlap, E.R., 2006. Moral Norms and Environmental Behavior: An Application of Schwartz's Norm-Activation Model to Yard Burning. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Leiserowitz, A.A., Kates, W.R. & Parris, M. T., 2005. Do Global Attitudes and Behaviors Support Sustainable Development? Environment, Volume 47, Number 9, pages 22–38. Linnenluecke, M. & Griffiths, A., 2010. Corporate Sustainability and Organizational Culture. Journal of World Business. ELSEVIER. Linnenluecke, M., Russell, V.S. & Griffiths, A., 2009. Subculture and Sustainability Practice: the Impact on Understanding Corporate Sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment. Lok, P. & Crawford, J., 2001. Antecedents of organizational commitment and the mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Lutzkendorf, T., & Lorenz, D., 2005. Sustainable property investment: valuing sustainable buildings through property performance assessment. Building Research & Information, 33(3), 212-234. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. 1991. Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons’ performance. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 123–150. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. 1993. The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of sales performance. Journal of Marketing, 57: 70–80. Marcoulides, A. G. & Heck, H. R., 1993. Organizational Culture and Performance: Proposing and Testing a Model. Organization Science May 1993 vol. 4 no. 2 209-225. Mayer, D., 2007. Corporate Citizenship and Trustworthy Capitalism: Cocreating a More Peaceful Planet. American Business Law Journal, Volume 44, Issue 2, pages 237–286, Summer 2007. Mihelcic, J.R., Crittenden, J.C., Small, M.J., Shonnard, D.R., Hokanson, D.R., Zhang, Q., Chen H., Sorby, S.A., James, V. U., Southerland, J.W. & Schnoor, J.L., 2003. Sustainability Science and Eengineering: The Emergence of a New Metadiscipline. Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 37, No. 23. Mirvis, P. and Manga, J., 2010. “Integrating corporate citizenship: leading from the middle”, in Smith, N.C., Bhattacharya, C.B., Vogel, D. and Levine, D.I. (Eds), Global Challenges in Responsible Business, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 78-106. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. 1982. Employee organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press. Mohanty, J. & Rath, P.B., 2012a. INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ON ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: A THREE-SECTOR STUDY. GLOBAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH, VOLUME 6, NUMBER 1, 2012. Mohant, J. & Rath, P.B., 2012b. Can Organizational Culture be a Predictor of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors?. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, February 2012. Morrison, E. W., 1994. Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543–1567.
Motowidlo, S. J., 2000. Some basic issues related to contextual performance and organizational citizenship behavior in human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 115–126. Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R.,1994. Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475480. NaturalStep.org, 2011. Our Approach – The Natural Step Framework. The Natural step. Available online at http://www.naturalstep.org/our-approach . Nicholls, J., 1988. The Transforming Autocrat. Management Today, March: 114–18. Nielsen, T.M., Hrivnak, G.A. & Shaw, M., 2007. OCB and Performance: A Group-Level Meta-Analytic Review. Social Science Resource Network. Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1263927 [Accessed on March 10, 2010.]
Nielsen, M., & Ellintong, B. L., 1983. Social processes and resource conservation. In N. R. Feimer & E. S. Geller (Eds.), Environmental psychology: Directions and perspectives (pp. 312-388). New York: Praeger. Nordlund, A. & Garvill, J., 2002.Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34, 740-756. Ogbonna, E. & Harris, C.L., 2000. Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: empirical evidence from UK companies. International Journal of Human Resource Management 11:4 August 2000 766–788. O’Reilly, C. III & Chatman, J., 1986. Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology. O’Riordan, T., Cameron, J., & Jordan, A., 2001. Reinterpreting the Precautionary Principle. Cameron May, London. Ouchi, William G, 1983. Efficient cultures: exploring the relationship between culture and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (1). Ouchi, W. G., & Price, R. L., 1993. Hierarchies, clans, and theory Z: A new perspective on organization development. Organizational Dynamics, 21(4): 62. Organ, W.D, 1977. A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causes-performance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review. Organ, W.D., 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA. Organ, W.D., 1990. Fairness, productivity and organizational citizenship behavior: Tradeoffs in student and manager pay decisions. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, San Francisco. Organ, W.D, Podsakoff, M.P. & MacKenzie, B.S., 2006. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, antecedents, and Consequences. Foundation for Organizational Science: SAGE Publications. Organ, W. D. & Ryan, K., 1995. A Meta-Analytic Review of Attitudinal and Dispositional Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Personnel Psychology Inc. Ott, J. S., 1989. The organizational culture perspective. Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press. Paula, d., O. G. & Cavalcanti, 2000. Ethics: essence for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production. Peters, T., & Waterman, R. H., 1982. In search of excellence. New York: Harper & Row. Pettigrew, A. M., 1979. On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4): 570–581. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R., 1978. The External Control of Organizations: a Resource Dependence Perspective. Harper & Row, New York. Phillis, Y. A. & Andriantiatsaholiniaina, L. A., 2001. Sustainability: an ill-defined concept and its assessment using fuzzy logic. Ecological Economics. ELSEVIER. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B., 1994. Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 351–363. Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B., 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 262-270. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 1997. The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance, 10: 133–151. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, H. R. & Fetter, R., 1999. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors . The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1, Issue 2.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Hui, C. 1993. Organizational citizenship behaviors and managerial evaluations of employee performance: A review and suggestions for future research. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 11): 1–40. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pourdehnad, J. & Smith, C.A.P., 2012. Sustainability, organizational learning, and lessons learned from aviation . Learning Organization, The, Vol. 19 Iss: 1, pp.77 - 86 Putnik, D.G., 2012. Lean vs agile from an organizational sustainability, complexity and learning perspective. Learning Organization, The, Vol. 19 Iss: 3, pp.176 – 182. Quick, J.C., 1992. Crafting an Organizational Culture: Herb’s Hand at Southwest Airlines. Organizational Dynamics, 21(2): 45–56. Quiroz-Onate, D. & Aitken, M., 2007. Business and human rights: A critical assessment of the notion of CSR and measurement. Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, Vol. 6 Iss: 2, pp.79 – 90. Ramus, C. A. (2001). Organizational support for employees: Encouraging creative ideas for environmental sustainability. California Management Review, 43(3), 85-105. Ramus, C. A. (2002). Encouraging innovative environmental actions: What companies and managers must do. Journal of World Business, 37(2), 151-164. Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee eco-initiatives at leading-edge European companies. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 605626. Rashid, A.Z.M., Sambasivan, M. & Rahman, A.A., 2004. The influence of organizational culture on attitudes toward organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Ratner, D. B., 2004. “Sustainability” as a Dialogue of Values: Challenge to the Sociology of Development. Sociology Inquiry Vol 74, No. 1. Robert, K-H., 2000. Tools and concepts for sustainable development, how do they relate to a general framework for sustainable development, and to each other? – Journal of Cleaner Production. Elsevier Science Ltd. Roethlisberger, F.J. & Dickson, W.J., 1939. Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Romano, R., 2004. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Making of Quack Corporate Governance. Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection. Yale Law School, NBER, and ECGI. Available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=596101. Schein, H.E, 1983. Organizational Culture: a Dynamic Model. Working paper. MIT. Schein, H.E, 1992. Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco. Schein, H.E, 2010. Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th Ed.). Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco. Schneider, A. & Meins, E., 2011. Two Dimensions of Corporate Sustainability Assessment: Towards a Comprehensive Framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, Volume 21, Issue 4, pages 211–222, May 2012. Schultz, W. P., & Zelezny, L. C., 1998. Values and pro-environmental behavior: A five country survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(4), 540-558. Schultz, P.W. & Zelezny, L. C., 2003. Reframing environmental messages to be congruent with AmericanValues. Human Ecology Review, 10, 126-136. Schultz, W. P., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, D. L., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P. & Franek, M., 2005. Values and their Relationship to Environmental Concern and Conservation Behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Sage Publications. Schwartz, M., 2001. The Nature of the Relationship between Corporate Codes of Ethics and Behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics. Springer Netherlands. Volume 32, Number 3, August, 2001. Schwartz, S.H., 1977. Normative influence on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Schwartz, H. & Davis, S. M., 1981. Matching corporate culture and business strategy. Organizational Dynamics, 10(1): 30–48. Seeger, W. M. & Ulmer, R.R., 2003. Explaining Enron: Communication and Responsible Leadership. Management Communication Quarterly August 2003 vol. 17 no. 1 58-84. Seuring, S. & Muller, M. 2008, “From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15, pp. 1699-710.
Shields, D.J. & Mitchell, J.E., 1997. A Hierarchical Systems Model of Ecosystem Management. Working Paper, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. Shields, D.J., Šolar, V.S. & Martin, W.E., 2002. The role of Values and Objectives in communicating Indicators of Sustainability. ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS. ELSEVIER. Elsevier Science Ltd. Shore & L. M. & Wayne, S. J., 1993. Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 78(5), Oct 1993, 774-780. Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4): 936–960. Silverthorne, C., 2004. The impact of organizational culture and person-organization fit on organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Taiwan. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, ISSN: 01437739. Simms, R. R., 2000. Changing an Organization's Culture Under New Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, May 2000, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 65-78 Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 655–663. Smith, M., A. & O’Sullivan, T., 2012. Environmentally responsible behavior in the workplace: An internal social marketing approach. Journal of Marketing Management. Solow, R.M., 1991. Sustainability: An Economist’s Perspective. Eighteenth J. Seward Johnson lecture presented to the Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
Spreitzer, G.M. & Sonenshein, S., 2003. ‘‘Positive deviance and extraordinary organizing’’, in Cameron, K., Dutton, J. and Quinn, R. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA, pp. 207-24. Spreitzer, G.M. & Sonenshein, S., 2004. ‘‘Toward the construct de?nition of positive deviance’’, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 828-47. Stern, P., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A. & Kalof, L., 1999. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81-97. Swartz, M. & Watkins, S., 2003. Power Failure: The Inside Story of the Collapse of Eron. Random House Digital, Inc., Mar 1, 2003 - 386 pages. Tankha, G., 1998. A psychological study of attitudes and awareness towards environmental pollution and degradation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Rajasthan University, Jaipur. Thøgersen, J. & Ölander, F., 2002. Human values and the emergence of a sustainable consumption pattern: A panel study. Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 23, Issue 5, October 2002, Pages 605–630. Tichy, N. M., McGill, A. R. and St. Clair, L., 1997. Corporate Global Citizenship: Doing Business in the Public Eye. The New Lexington Press. San Francisco. Tjosvold, D., 1982. Effects of approach to controversy on superiors’ incorporation of subordinates’ information in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 189–193. Tjosvold, D., 1998. Co-operative and competitive goal approaches to con?ict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 285–342. Tjosvold, D., 2008. Constructive Controversy for Management Education: Developing Committed, Open-Minded Researchers. Academy of Management Learning & Education;Mar2008, Vol. 7 Issue 1, p73. Tjosvold, D., & Field, R.H.G., 1983. Effects of social context on consensus and majority vote decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 500–506. Tjosvold, D., & Johnson, D.W., 1977. The effects of controversy on cognitive perspective-taking. Journal of Education Psychology, 69, 679–685. Tjosvold, D., Wedley, W.C., & Field, R.H.G., 1986. Constructive controversy, the Vroom-Yetton Model, and managerial decision-making. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 7, 125–138. Toman, M., 1994. Economics and “sustainability”: Balancing Trade-Offs and Imperatives. Land Economics, Vol 70, No. 4. University of Wisconsin Press. Tsai, Y., 2011. Relationship between Organizational Culture, Leadership Behavior and Job Satisfaction. BMC Helath Research Service.
Vallmer, A. & Seyr, S., 2012. Constructive Controversy in Innovation Processes – Application and Evaluation. Intl. Association for Conflict Management, IACM 25th Annual Conference. Social Science Research Networks. Vlek, C. & Steg, L., 2007. Human Behavior and Environmental Sustainability: Problems, Driving Forces, and Research Topics. Journal of Social Issues, Volume 63, Issue 1, pages 1–19, March 2007. Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. G., & Dienesch, R. M., 1994. Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, operationalization, and validation. Academy of Management Journal. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. M., 1995. Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Van-Marrewijk, M., 2003. Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2–3): 95–105. Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J., 1996. Evidence for two factors of contextual performance: Job dedication and interpersonal facilitation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525–531. Vondey, M., 2010. The Relationships among Servant Leadership, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, PersonOrganization Fit, and Organizational Identification. International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 6 Iss. 1, 2010. Vining, J. & Ebreo, A., 1992. Predicting recycling behavior from global and specific environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities. Journal of applied social Psychology.
Walz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (1996). Organizational citizenship behaviors and their effect on effectiveness in limited-menu restaurants. In J. B. Keys & L. N. Dosier (Eds.), Academy of management best paper proceedings (pp. 307-311). Statesboro, GA: Academy of Management. Walz, M.S. & Niehoff, P.Brian, 2000. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: Their Relationship to Organizational Effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Sage Publications. Watkins, S., 2003. Former Enron vice president Sherron Watkins on the Enron collapse. ACAD MANAGE PERSPECT November 1, 2003 vol. 17. Academy of Management. Werner, M.J., 2000. Implications of OCB and Contextual Performance for Human Resource Management. Human Resource Management Review, Volume 10, Issue 1, Spring 2000, Pages 3–24. West, A. M., 2002. Sparkling Fountains or Stagnant Ponds: An Integrative Model of Creativity and Innovation Implementation in Work Groups. APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2002, 51 (3), 355–424. White, L. A., 1999. Sustainability and the Accountable Corporation. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, Volume 41, Issue 8, 1999. Wilkinson, S.J. & Reed, R.G., 2007. The Structural and Behaviourial Barriers to Sustainable Real Estate Development. American Real Estate Society (ARES) Conference. Available online at http://www.naiop.org/foundation/ares07office2.pdf. Williams, J. L. & Anderson, E.S., 1991. Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behaviors. Journal of Management September 1991 vol. 17 no. 3 601617. WCED, 1987. Our Common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yi, T., 2006. Team Psychological Safety, Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Team Innovation: A Mediation Analysis. Tsinghua Tongfang Knowledge Network Technology Co., Ltd. Yilmaz, K. & Cokluk-Bokeoglu, O., 2008. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Organizational Commitment Turkish Primary Schools. World Applied Science Journal. Zain, M.Z., Ishak, R. & Ghani K.E., 2009. The Influence of Corporate Culture on Organisational Commitment: A Study on a Malaysian Listed Company. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, ISSN 1450-2275 Issue 17 (2009). Zhang, Y.A., Tsui, S. A., Song, J.L., Li, C. & Jia, L., 2008. How do I trust thee? The employee-organization relationship, supervisory support, and middle manager trust in the organization. Human Resource Management, Volume 47, Issue 1, pages 111–132, Spring 2008.
Zheng, W., Yang, B. & McLean, N.G., 2010. Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management. Journal of Business Research, Volume 63, Issue 7, July 2010, Pages 763–771
Zutshi, A. & Sohal, S. A., 2003. Stakeholder involvement in the EMS adoption process. Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 9 Iss: 2, pp.133 - 148
doc_173052746.doc