Description
Sustainability is the capacity to endure. In ecology the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems. For humans, sustainability is the potential for long-term maintenance of well being, which has ecological, economic, political and cultural dimensions.
Case Study on Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability
This article extends literature of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) in the context of corporate sustainability. The author presents the concept of Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability (OCBS) 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 Organizational Citizenship Behavior (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. Keywords: Bilateral corporate sustainability, sustainability performance, organizational citizenship behavior, organizational commitment, organizational sustainability JEL: D23, M12
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 and 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
surface. We the human, our societies and nations need corporations to transform earth' s
resources into wealth (Dunphy, Griffiths and 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
advertisements, job opportunity, influence on public policy, governments and international
economic and political agreements. Downside of 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
" economic shakeup" has been linked to human such 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 meltdown, contributed languishing to 26 subprime millions lending American
29 Chowdhury
without jobs. However, such detrimental behavior is nothing new and observed at many
(OCB)" that he posited as an effective conduit in organizational performance. The subsequent
corporations e.g. Enron (Watkins, 2003; Swartz and Watkins, 2003; Seeger and Ulmer, 2003). This increasingly detrimental corporate
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,
behavior is a matter of concern that led to many regulatory undertakings measures. whether These financial legislative and/or
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) has many shortcomings including inapplicability of some behavioral dimensions e.g. " compliance" in the development of organizational capability to address demands multiple towards stakeholders' economic, needs social and and
environmental received less degree of success than anticipated in recent era due to increasing deprivation of endogenous qualities (FCIC, 2011; Dunphy, Griffiths and 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
environmental equity. assess 1) why
In this paper, I seek to behavioral competence is
important in corporate sustainability discourse, and suggest 2) theoretical proposition Behavior of
Organizational
Citizenship
towards
Sustainability (OCBS) deriving the concept by modifying OCB construct and contending it' s importance in organizational behavioral
doctrines overlooked importance of behavioral competence despite it' s subtle presence in many organizational discourse: e.g.
competence to meet endogenous and exogenous challenges. 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"
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 and Griffiths, 2010; Linnenluecke, Russell and Griffiths, 2009; Salzmann, Ionescu-Somers and 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
corporate sustainability should have and how to achieve them. More importantly the definition of " Corporate Sustainability" Literature review indicates is yet not settled. the need for
corporations to develop proactive and creative
30
competence
meeting
multiple
stakeholders'
" Quest for a Sustainable Society"
describes
needs and demands (Asif et al, 2011) while resolving conflicts at organizational and financial, societal and environmental context. The term " Corporate Sustainability" derivative of broader notion of " sustainability" , which is in hitherto continuingly shaped by the converses of political, public and scholarly is a
" 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; Pogash, 2009). On the other hand, WCED' s " Sustainable brundtland statement is a
discourses. This process rendered the definitions of " sustainability" complex; " sustainability" some as sometimes confusing and postulated a means the for term handling
formulated,
development
development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future (WCED,
generations to meet their own needs"
deteriorating relationship between our biosphere and ongoing economic development (Faber, Jorna and Engelen, 2005; Chiesa, Manzini and Noci, 1999; WCED, 1987), others questioned the notion of " Sustainability" direction whose are as vague and lacks definition (Phillis and and
1987). While Coomer (1981) emphasized a direct relationship between society and it' s
environment, brundtland statement adds both intra and intergenerational Though the focus both basics and equity to the are
perpetuation. attentive concept, about their
definitions of
scientific debatable
sustainability are
measurement
completions
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, 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
different. Similarly, Mihelcic et al' s (2003) elaboration of WCED' s definition of
sustainability posits a pragmatic imposition of social, relevant industrial and economic " [the] system design as of
to sustainability:
human and industrial systems to ensure that humankind' s use of natural resources and Jorna and cycles do not lead to diminished quality of life d ue 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
development of " sustainability"
notion. It is in
part an analytical persuasion of philosophical and logical exposition that unravels moves and
connotation, John Elkington coined the term Triple Bottom-Line (TBL) to encompass social and economic components with it' s historical For relationship to environment (Hopkins, 2002). The TBL which is also known 3 Ps (People, planet and
counter-moves of scholars who tried to define " sustainability" using basic concepts.
examples, James C. Coomer in his book,
31 Chowdhury
Profit) of sustainability rationalizes economic progress minimizing while maintains social impact. inclusions It gained
diminishes (naturalstep.org,
as
consumption 2011). However,
increase the TNS
environmental
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
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 and Jordan (2001) and Lutzkendorf and 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
consensus in otherwise a complex issue of economic common progress and preservation of our biosphere. Embedded within such
suggest that economic capital is central to wealth creation which propels development (O'Riordan, Cameron and Jordan, 2001; Wilkinson and Reed, 2007) but inhibited by environmental and social factors. The model attempted to present a winwin paradigm of sustainability where TBL left off, however, is being increasingly rejected as oversimplistic and unattainable. In contrast, " The
sustainability discussions of finding common ground to eliminate discord between normative (e.g. ethical precondition) aspect of and scientific
(operationalization)
sustainability
(Becker, 2006), though absence in much of the scholarly debate, is the behavioral element
(Faber, Jorna and Engelen, 2005; Vlek and Steg, 2007). It is there the continued sustainability defined discourse finds common ground. Increasingly, the normative discourse of sustainability found support among environmentalists, WCED' s
Natural Step" (TNS), a sustainability formulation by Dr. Karl-Henrik Robert emphasizes on collaborative rather than adversarial methods to develop consensus at all level those of societal are
representatives
including
that
Brundtland statement (WCED, 1987) and in NGO treaties (Becker, 2006). Examples of these
unreached by scientific community (Bradbury and 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
normative imperatives are inter-generational 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,
impinging issues that our world in general and economic and industrial system in particular are subject to and how services of natural structure
1987), an argument that finds basis in the of scientific " sustainability" discourse. The
32
arguments in scientific dimensions however seek to discount normative arguments since the later relies on quantifiable evidence. Within this
values and institution was also espoused in brundtland statement when it coined the term " sustainable development" : " development that
scientific dimension, some scholars reject the need for ecological concerns arguing can 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
technological
advancement
recover
dissipated elements, others finds it hard to believe since laws of thermodynamics precludes conception. This moves and counter moves generated a third dimension that centered on " policy" arguments as depicted in Agenda 21
embodied within human capital (Toman, 1994) such 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. three However, the intricate nature of scholars' to define " sustainability
(an initiative of UN with regard to sustainable Development). However, the only conduit that can foster interactions among these
dimensions is " Behavioral Attributions" (Faber, Jorna and Engelen, 2005; Vlek and Steg, 2007).
" bringing their own perspectives" context definitions" as observed in
are also prevalent in " Corporate
Sustainability" discourse. The figure 2 attempts to summarize the scholarly depicts a contentions common that and theme is often contributions of and
" behavioral ignored but
competence"
increasingly gaining ground. The connotation of Figure 1. Behavioral attribution as the conduit of "Sustainability" discourse. Increasingly implicit discussions around " behavioral " sustainability" competence" is implied in
(WCED, 1987; Toman, 1994;
Bradbury and Clair, 1999; Mihelcic et al., 2003; Faber, Jorna and Engelen, 2005; Vlek and Steg, 2007; FAST-ISE, 2010; Gomis et al., 2011) gaining sustainable development (Leiserowitz, Kates and Parris, 2005) and corporate sustainability
behavioral attributions (Gomis et al, 2011) are sprinkled in many schools of thoughts and traction. For example, Fulbright Academy of Science and Technology (FAST) and Institute for Sustainable Enterprise (ISE) created a human and sustainability forum to foster dialogues corporate world and academic community regarding corporate 2010). importance sustainability of human value in
(Bradbury and Clair, 1999; White, 1999; Paula value and Cavalcanti, 2000; Coblentz, 2002; Ratner, among 2004; Shields, Š olar and Martin, 2002; GibsonGraham and Roelvink, 2009; Asif et al. 2011;
discourse
(FAST-ISE,
Putnik, 2012; Pourdehnad and Smith, 2012).
This notion of bringing together human
33 Chowdhury
Figure 2. Imperatives of Behavioral Competence.
The early conceptualization of sustainability had narrow focus on environmental protection (Seuring and Muller, 2008) creating a necessity
for corporation to report their environmental impact indicators of business activity. This led to
34
Figure 3. Corporate Sustainability Timeline. preparation and distribution of Corporate Social Responsibility corporations connotation Some corporate (CSR) and to still reporting continuing as in many parallel corporate responsibility in social, economic and environmental context begin to take shape since WCED coined the term " Sustainable As scholars
Corporate Sustainability
" Corporate use
Sustainability" . CSR synonymously and to
Development"
(WCED, 1987).
Scholars sustainability
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
describe integration of
social,
economic and
environmental concern into corporate strategy and operations (Berger, Cunningham and
emerge. Some classified corporate sustainability narrowly as ecological concern (Shrivastava,
Drumwright, 2007).
However, CSR remains a
marginal activity towards corporate sustainability (Gray, Kouhy and Lavers, 1995; Quiroz-Onate and Aitken, 2007) and not mean to substitute or replace the later. A broader perspective of
1995) other broadened it to include corporate economic activities with organizational concern about natural and social environment (Dunphy,
35 Chowdhury
Griffiths and Ben, 2003; Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002; Van Marrewijk, 2003). Consecutively, underpinnings a number the of theoretical of
curtail this behavioral issue, serious attention to ethics of doing business (Paula and Cavalcanti, 2000; Gibson-Graham and Roelvink, 2009),
contended
importance
corporate governance (Aras and Crowther, 2008) and citizenship (Mayer, 2007) are required.
resolving conflicts at organizational, societal and environmental level. From organizational
Schneider and Meins (2011) termed this aspect of moral sustainability as " sustainability
perspective, it means developing capability to meet multiple (Asif stakeholders' et al, needs 2012) societal and
governance" . The concept of OCB and OCBS Social science since long observed
demands
towards and
organizational,
financial,
certain
environmental equity. Coblentz (2002) considers that a sustainable organization needs to be institutionally, financially and morally strong to face multiple At stakeholders' Institutional level, needs this and means
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 and engaging with specific behavior, for example, recycling behavior (Hopper and Nielson, 1991; Vining and Ebreo, 1992). Karp (1996) adds that and individual values can influence behavior when moderated by situational concern. Professor
demands.
incorporating three dimensions of organizational behaviors economic towards aspect environment, of corporate social
operational
mandate (White, 1999). Linnenluecke, Russell and 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,
Dennis Organ and 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 and defined it as " individual behavior that is
Griffiths and Benn, 2007). To achieve this notion of organizational self-reliance or competence, organizational and social learning (Shields, Š olar and Martin, 2002; Pourdehnad and Smith, 2012) are essential and it starts with financial
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
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
presented his concept of OCB (Organ, 1977) as an exercise in and devil' s MacKenzie, advocacy 2006) (Organ, towards
Podsahoff
presenting an essay that supports popular notion of " worker satisfaction affected productivity" with a twist. The viewpoint defended the popular
36
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 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. contemplated " OCB" rather these an However, Organ did not subtler attempt contributions to explain as his
make them do and for which you cannot guarantee any definite rewards, other than your appreciation"
(Smith, Organ and Near, 1983).
The assumption here is that managers are group 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
professional colleagues that managerial belief on satisfaction and it' s influence to productivity was not without merit. Two of Organ' s doctoral Bateman and C. Ann Smith, students Tom nonetheless,
suggestion to improve overall quality of the job 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
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 and Organ, 1983). The
the behavior for example, punctuality may be construed as " compliance" , however, Organ, Podsahoff and MacKenzie (2006)explains though " compliance" as is a form of OCB but does not Larry 1991)
research led to a crude measure of what was then oppose called to " qualitative " quantitative performance" performance"
imply merely strict obedience to order. Williams (Williams and Anderson,
productivity. Though result of the study would hardly be a presage to OCB research that followed since then, it shows significant
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
correlation between job satisfaction and OCB. If not for Ann smith who envisaged the link between this study and that of Hawthorne studies
behavior fits that of hypothesized model for each. Organ' s taxonomy of OCB included following of OCB behavioral dimensions: a) altruistic or pro-social behavior, b) Conscientiousness, c)
(Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939), the concept would not have studied further. This interest led her to interview manufacturing plant supervisor in southern Indiana asking them
Sportsmanship, d) Courtesy and e) Civic Virtues. Organ (1990) later added two other attributes of OCB cheerleading and peacemaking.
question, " What are the things you would like
your employee to do more of, but really cannot
37 Chowdhury
However, those attributes did not receive much research interest. Instead, researchers have
Van Scotter and 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" and person and situational varies person to context. This led
theorized that OCB includes a variant called " loyalty" (George and Brief, 1992; Graham,
1989, 1991). Important to this aspect is Katz' s (1964) notation on self-development
protecting the organization as behavioral element does not occur in response to formal reward A literature review conducted by LePine, Erez and 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 and Dienesch, 1994). Some scholars
Professor Organ to modify definition of OCB that adding that such behavior " contributes to the system. maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological performance" 2002). context (LePine, that Erez regardless supports and of task
Johnson, different
Nonetheless,
labeling, experts always conceived that OCB consists of several behavioral dimensions. model than functions be difficult. of the This
Hence, if OCB is an " aggregate" formulating dimensions mathematical would not
assumption led LePine, Erez and 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
labeled the OCB behavioral dimensions etc as 1. Pro-social behavior (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986; George, 1990, 1991; George and Bettenhausen, 1990; O' Reilly and Chatman, 1986), 2.
difference among predictors across dimensions. Based on the result, LePine, Erez and 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 e.g. facets TQM of and enterprise level
Organizational Spontaneity (George and Brief, 1992; George and Jones, 1997) and 3. Extra-role behavior (Van Dyne, Cummings, and McLean Parks, 1995). Another label that is quite common to human resources and industrial and
performance
organizational
Performance (Buentello, Jung and Sun, 2008), Sales performance and customer Satisfaction (Podsakoff and Mackenzie, 1997), organizational
organizational psychologists and overlaps the behavioral domains of OCB (Motowidlo, 2000) is " Contextual Performance" (Borman and
effectiveness and performance (Bateman and Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff and
Motowidlo, 1993, 1997; Borman, White and Dorsey, 1995; Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994;
Mackenzie, 1997; Borman and Motowidlo, 1993;
38
George and Bettenhausen, 1990; Karambayya, 1990; MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Fetter, 1991, 1993; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Hui, 1993; Smith et al., 1983). Subsequently, a number of empirical studies also found positive correlation between OCB and individual-level performance (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Fetter, 1991, 1993; Werner, 2000), aggregated individual
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
performance (George and Bettenhausen, 1990; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994), group-level performance Ahearne, (Karambayya, and MacKenzie, performance 1990; Podsakoff, and and
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 " Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards
1997), (Walz
organizational-level
Niehoff, 2000). In a meta-analytical study of 2417 samples to measure OCB at group level Nielsen, Hrivnak and Shaw (2007) found positive correlation (.32) between OCB and organizational performance i.e. positive financial outcome. Daily, Bishop and Govindarajulu (2009) linked OCB to proactive environmental behavior and postulated a conceptual model of Organizational Citizenship Behavior directed toward Environment (OCBE). They argue that OCBE exists and are positively related to environmental performance and, as such, it is
Sustainability (OCBS)" . It is a discretionary act directed towards developing proactive and
creative competence for organization to meet
an
aspect
of
an
multiple stakeholders'
needs and demands
organization' s overall corporate citizenship and therefore important.
Smith and O'Sullivan (2012) conducted a study among five largest UK organizations to identify how social marketers and organizations can reduce harnessing employees' negative a environmental valuable resource, impact that by of
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
environmentally
responsible
dimension with " controlled discord" , a term that denotes employee(s)' s professional
organizational citizenship behaviors (EROCBs). Result shows employees engaged in OCB created
demeanor to question proposals/projects in an
39 Chowdhury
honorable way with intention to help develop a collective consensus for a better approach. The " controlled discord" also defers from deviant
and Sonenshein, 2003) differs from OCB in many dimensions that are considered substantial
departure from organizational norm and can benefit society by addressing ethically
workplace behavior (DWB) (Appelbaum, Iaconi and Matousek, It to 2007) exhibits positive in certain behavior demeanor behavioral that of is DWB
questionable behavior. In same connotation, " controlled discord" can be construed as
attributions. comparable
departure from norms but exhibits attributes that are more in-tuned through towards positive benefiting change and
(Spreitzer and 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
organization
scholarly contributions without creating conflict or status quo. It advances team spirit and produces positive result through innovative behaviors and creative performance. Another important difference between OCB and and OCBS is that, unlike OCB, it emphasizes on sustainability culture (Linnenluecke and Griffiths, is DWB 2007; 2009) and value sets to develop appropriate behavioral attributions rather than alluding to the
" positive organizational scholarship" (Cameron et al., 2005) and depicts behaviors such as innovative, creative performance
noncompliance with dysfunctional directives etc. The typology of " controlled discord" depicted in figure Iaconi 4. and The positive
(Appelbaum, Spreitzer).
Matousek,
Substantial Departure from Organizational norms
Positive Deviant Behavior Departure from norms Benefit society from ethically questionable behavior
Controlled Discord Departure from norm Benefits organizations through scholarly, innovative and creative behaviors
Corporate Sustainability
Insubstantial Departure from Organizational norms
Departure from business norm Benefits organization, society & environment
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Departure from job requirements Benefits organizations
Figure 4. Typology of "Controlled Discord"
40
consign of individual' s domestic or household behavior (Fusco, 1991) e.g. recycling behavior (Hopper and Nielsen, 1991; Nielsen and
moral norms (Liere and Dunlap, 2006) relates to sustainability (Schultz et al., 2005; Thøgersen and Ölander, 2002; Liere and Dunlap, 2006) or environmental awareness and individual value and priorities relates pro-environmental behavior
Ellintong, 1983), pro-environmental behavior or altruistic-environmental Zelezny, 1998). Key antecedents of OCBS Based on available literatures and my thoughts, the followings are four key antecedents of OCBS: Sustainability Culture, Leadership and Supervisory Support, Management Commitment. Context System Specific and Knowledge Organizational behavior (Schultz
(Hopper and Nielsen, 1991).
The link between
values and environmental attitudes is explained in many scholarly studies (Grunert and Juhl, 1995; Nordlund and Garvill, 2002; Schultz and Zelezny, 2003; Stern et al., 1999; Tankha, 1998) though their conceptual language may vary e.g.
environmental attitudes, environmental concern, and environmental worldview (Dunlap and Jones,
Figure 5. Key antecedents and outcome of OCBS Sustainability culture Literature between review human indicates values, that relationship and 2002a, 2002b; Fransson and Gärling, 1999; Schultz and Zelezny, 2003). A series of
awareness
multivariate and supported
structural that
equation analyses values influences
sustainability behaviors can be predicted, e.g, how human values (Schultz et al., 2005) and
hypothesis
attitude and attitude in turn influence behavior
41 Chowdhury
(Homer and Kahle, 1988). A hierarchical model of resource management developed by Shields Mitchell (1997) provides insights to the interworks of value, culture and behavioral
the
definition
of
culture.
In
his
book:
Organizational Culture and Leadership" (Schein, and 1992) Edgar H. Schein defined organizational culture as: "A pattern of shared basic
elements. Their research finds that " peoples' objectives are a reflection of a contextual
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 These presents three fundamental elements in OC: actions Basic Assumptions, Espoused values and
application of their held value sets" . These held values are often influenced by culture, social, institution and ecological
frameworks in which people live (Shields, Š olar and Martin, 2002) and through such development those values become an " ordered value set" . ordered value sets are thought to be the primary element influencing individuals' as depicted in figure 6.
Artifacts. The same connotation can be observed in other scholarly contentions on OC (Hofstede, 1981; Ouchi and Price, 1993; Pettigrew, 1979; Schwartz and 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 see Figure 7).
Figure 6. Hierarchical Model of Resource Management To understand this concept further in Figure 7. A diagrammatical representation of Values, Attitude, Behavior and OC Byles, Aupperle and Arogyaswamy (1991) argued that OC may have positive effect in overall organizational performance providing that OC aligns with strategic needs of the firm. Similar
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
42
contentions are made by many other scholars about the influence of OC in organizational performance and Change (Marcoulides and Heck, 1993; Barney, 1986; Gordon and DiTomaso, 1992; Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Peters and Waterman, 1982; Ouchi, 1983), effectiveness (Denison and Mishra, 1995; Zheng, Yang and McLean, 2010) and behavioral competence at individual and group level e.g. OCB (Mohanty and Rath, 2012a; Mohant research and Rath, 2012b). that any
system which helps defining critical imperatives of organizational assumptions" , sustainability " values" culture, and " basic
" artifacts" .
Zheng, Yang and 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 and Manga, 2010) and/or bottom-up approach to integrate change. be These research findings led to believe that " context specific knowledge management"
Consecutively,
suggests
measure of " ambitious corporate sustainability activities and strategies have to be embedded in the organizational culture in order 2009). to
successful"
(Baumgartner,
These
potentials are inviting and seem to be the reason behind increasing interest about OC in
practice is useful conduit in the development of organization specific sustainability culture that in turn impacts collective behavior of the
sustainability literatures. However, an organization may have different subcultures or competing value framework (CVF) in cultural orientation (Linnenluecke, Russell and Griffiths, 2009;
organization leading towards OCBS. That is: H1 : Context specific knowledge management system is imperative conduit in development of Organizational Sustainability Culture. H2: Organizational Sustainability Culture
Linnenluecke and Griffiths, 2010). The presence of subcultures may posit differences of how employees perceived corporate sustainability
influence Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability. Leadership and 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
(Linnenluecke, Russell and 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" sustainability at level. Therefore, questions related to and for individual cultural
organizational a means
augmentation is required that can influence collective consensus at organizational level. Such instrument of influence can be understood as " context specific knowledge management"
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
43 Chowdhury
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
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, perception Shortridge, 2007); of similarly, employees' (Greeneleadership
summarizing this conception, Bass and (1993) emulated the contention of
Avolio Schein
leadership and
behavior shared
(1992) by proposing that the relationship OC and leadership and vice versa is an ongoing
2011)
influences OCB (Khasawneh, 2011; GreeneShortridge, 2011). Consecutively, supervisory
interplay in which the leader shapes the culture and in turn get shaped by the developed
support towards environmental performance is well documented in literatures (Ramus and
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 and Harris, 2000; Block, 2003; Tsai, 2001). With varying results, empirical analyses leadership depict has that interplay of OC and in
Steger, 2000; Ramus, 2001, 2002; Zutshi and Sohal, 2003). This discussion imparts that
implementation of sustainability culture or cultural change requires to achieve corporate sustainability support,
leadership and
supervisory
which in turn influences OC and OCB. Therefore, in-line with Daily, Bishop and Govindrajulu' s (2009) observation that links supervisory support
significant
influence
organizational performance (Ogbonna and Harris, 2000), employees' perception of OC and
to OCBE, it can be contended that the interplay of sustainability culture, leadership and
effective change management (Kavanagh and Ashkanasy, 2006), responsiveness of employee (Asree, Zain and Razalli, 2010) and firm
supervisory support will influence OCBS. That is, H3: Perceived leadership construct and
performance (Asree, Zain and Razalli, 2010; Ogbonna and Harris, 2000). An exploratory investigation employees' by Block (2003) depicts
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. H5: Perceived supervisory leadership support construct will and
perception of OC depends on the
leadership type of their immediate supervisor indicating that supervisory support is important conduit in EO R (Employee-Organizational-
influence
Relationship) and OC (Zhang et al., 2008) and creating change an attitude towards organizational and Rahman,
Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability. Organizational Commitment Organizational commitment can be understood of OC as having following three components (Mowday, Porter, and Steers, 1982):
(Rashid,
Sambasivan
2004). It is, therefore, obvious that the interplay and leadership has significant impact over organization' s behavioral competence in the
44
i) Individual' s identification or strong belief with organization' s values and
working environment to its employees in attaining their full commitment for organizational success. Many other studies also reported similar findings (Jo and Joo, 2011; Silverthorne, 2004; Lok and Crawford, 2001). These research findings indicates that OC influences and in many cases act as catalyst for organizational commitment to develop which in
goals/missions that are manifested in pride and in defense of the organization. ii) A willingness to long term membership with the organization, and iii) Exhibits a high level of extra role behavior that is often referred to as OCB. Essentially, organizational commitment
turn influence employees'
OCB at individual and
indicates a form of OCBS at individual or group level. Research has found significant positive correlation between organizational commitment and OCB. Williams and Anderson (1991) found that job satisfaction and organizational
group level. Therefore, it can be hypothesized that organizations' sustainability culture will
influence organizational commitment, which in turn will impact employees' H6: Organizational OCBS. That is, Culture will
Sustainability
commitment are predictors of OCB and in-role behavior. Shore and Wayne (1993) observed that employees' perceptions of organizational
influence Organizational Commitment. H7: Organizational Commitment, in turn, will influence Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability. Sustainable Organizational Performance to find Earlier in corporate sustainability discussion, we learned that achieving sustainability performance in an organization requires the development proactive meeting and multiple creative competence towards and
commitment to them (which can be termed as perceived organizational support or POS) create feeling employees' of obligations extra-role and contributes They
behavior.
organizational commitment and for this matter " POS" studies is a better predictor of OCB. Many also reported positive correlations
stakeholders'
needs
between OCB and Organizational commitment (Gregersen, 1993; Yilmaz and Cokluk-Bokeoglu, 2008; Gautam et al., 2005). is rooted However, in the
demands. This implies that organization should have endogenous quality or capability to resolve conflict at organizational and societal, and
organizational
commitment
financial and environmental level. This reference of sustainability performance is holistic in nature and takes organizational, societal, economic and environmental equity into context.
influence of OC towards developing employees' thoughts, feeling and attitude towards change; for example, a study by Zain, Ishak and Ghani (2009) depicts in that OC dimensions the employees' are
Professor Organ and his colleagues argued that OCB has potential to improve organizational effectiveness and performance (e.g., Bateman and Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ, and Near, 1983). Since then, many empirical studies
determinants
motivating
commitment. The findings implicate that an organization needs to be aware of the importance of OC dimensions in providing a favorable
45 Chowdhury
supported professor Organ' s postulation and expanded OCB' s potentiality for organizational outcomes. expounded satisfaction For that and example, OCB literature review customer
The
discussion contexts
above
points
out OCB,
several first, it
important
regarding
identifies that OCB influences many facets of organizational life which in turn results many positive organizational outcomes including
influences overall
organizational
effectiveness (Koys, 2001; Walz and Niehoff, 1996), profitability (Koys, 2001), performance quality Ahearne, and and quantity produced 1997), (Podsakoff, employee
organizational effectiveness and financial and environmental performance. We also observed that OCB influences corporate governance and corporate ethics. This led me to believe that,
MacKenzie,
perception of service quality (Kelley and Hoffman, environmental performance (Daily, Bishop and Govindrajulu, 2009; Smith and O' Sullivan, 2012) and contextual performance (Werner,
subject to further research, OCB can potentially 1997), help develop behavioral competence to resolve conflicts at organizational level and to meet multiple stakeholders' denote OCBS, I needs and demands. To added that " Controlled
2000). The internal collective processes that driven this organizational outcomes can also impact corporate Social level factor related CSR
Discord" is one of the important distinctions of OCBS over OCB. I explained that " Controlled Discord" as behavioral dimension is better
(Corporate
Responsibility),
governance
and financial performance. Chun et. al. (2011) have experimented a hypothesis that
suitable for creative, scholarly and innovative demeanor. Dean Tjosvold and colleagues
employees' commitment and
collective organizational
organizational citizenship
(Tjosvold, 1982, 1998, 2008; Tjosvold and Field, 1983; Tjosvold and Johnson, 1977; Tjosvold, Wedley, and Field, arguments 1986) along have with presented strong
behavior (OCB) mediate the ethics- performance relationship at the organizational level. The
convincing
hypothesis was tested using data collected from 3821 employees from 130 Korean companies and respective firm' s financial data. The results depicts that
supportive evidence that " constructive (task-
related) controversy
in a cooperative group
context improves the quality of decision making and creativity"
" constructive
" collective and interpersonal
organizational OCB are
(West, 2002). This notion of
controversy" essentially bears
commitment
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.
same connotation as " controlled discord" . Vollmer and Seyr group (2012) context, adds that in a
cooperative
" 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.
46
These findings along with those related to OCB suggests OCBS has potential to resolve conflict at organizational, societal, financial and
methodology for change in organizations and a purview of creative and proactive competence in sustainability approach. This methodology
environmental level while creating organization' s capability to meet multiple stakeholders' and demands towards organizational, financial, social and environmental equity. That is, H8: Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability will influence organizational " sustainability" performance. CONCLUSION Survival of human species and the existence of our common biosphere innately depend on needs
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 here has several limitations; first, no KPI (Key
Performance Indicators) has been defined for organizational sustainability performance. Future research needs to consider the definition of Corporate Sustainability given in this paper and develop appropriate KPI from that notion to test hypotheses and while measuring organizational
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
sustainability performance. Secondly, a set of sustainability cultural attributes should be defined
environmental level have caused much concern and impacted effective implementation of The essential to
to integrate sustainability cultural interventions for OCBS. The paper presents discussion related to sustainability culture which could serve as the prelude to develop those measurable attributes. Such attributions can then be tested through hypotheses e.g. H2. Third, author suggests that
sustainability measures in corporations. behavioral competence is thus
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. This Paper presents a conceptual model of " OCBS" achieving contending sustainability it' s importance performance in at
researcher Incident
develops Technique
appropriate (CIT)" to
" Critical observe the
development of " Controlled Discord" behavioral dimension of OCBS to test H2, H5 and H7.
organizational level. However, the 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
These limitations may actually serve as the prerequisites to furtherance the research towards measuring organizational sustainability
performance. Nevertheless, the work presented in this study contributes to the sustainability body of knowledge and serves the basis for further research.
47 Chowdhury REFERENCES
Anderson, S. & Cavanagh, J. (2000). Top 200: The Rise of
contextual performance, (71-98). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Borman, W. C. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection
Corporate Global Power. Institute of Policy Studies.
Appelbaum, H.S., Iaconi, D.G. & Matousek, A. (2007). Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: causes, Borman, W. C., White, L. A. & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance, 7(5): 586- 598. of rate task performance and interpersonal factors on Aras, G. & Crowther, D. (2008). Governance and supervisor and peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied research. Human Performance, 10, 99- 109.
sustainability: An investigation into relationship between governance and corporate sustainability.
Psychology, 80, 168- 177.
Bradbury, H. & Clair, J.A. (1999). Promoting sustainable corporate organization with Sweden' s natural step. Academy of
Management Decision, 46(3): 433-448.
M., Searcy, C., Zutshi, A. & Ahmad, N. (2011). An
Management Executive, 13(4): 63-74. Asif,
Brief, integrated management systems approach to corporate organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, sustainability. European Business Review, 23(4): 353 11(4): 710-725. 367. Bromley, W.D. (2007). Environmental regulations and the Asree, S., Zain, M. & Razalli, R.M. (2010). Influence of problem leadership competency and organizational culture on failure" . Ecological Economics, 63, 676-683. Buentello, O., Jung, J. & Sun, J. (2008). Exploring the casual of sustainability: Moving beyond " market A . P. & Motowildo, S.J. (1986). Pro-social
responsiveness and performance of firms. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(4):
500-516. Barney, B.J. (1986). Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage?. Academy of
relationships between Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Total Quality Management & Performance.
SWDSI
Proceedings, Decision Science Institute. Byles, M.C., Aupperle, E.K. & Arogyaswamy, B. (1991).
Management Review, 11(3): 656-665.
Bass, B.M. & Avolio, and B.J. (1993). Transformational Culture. Organizational culture and performance.
Journal
of
Leadership
Organizational
Public
Managerial Issues, 3(4): 512-527.
Cameron, K., Dutton, J., Quinn, R. & Spreitzer, G. (2005).
Administration Quarterly, 17(1): 112- 17.
Bateman, T. S. & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and
What is positive organizational scholarship?. Ross School of Business, Michigan University, Ann Arbor, available at:
the good soldier: The relationship between affect andhttp://www.bus.umich.edu/Positive/WhatisPOS. employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal , Chiesa, V., Manzini, R. & Noci, G. (1999). Towards a 26(4), 587-595. Baumgartner, leadership: J. R. (2009). for Organizational culture the development of and a sustainable view of the competitive system. Long Range
Preconditions
Planning, 32(5): 519- 530.
Chun, S.J., Shin, Y., Choi, N.J. & Kim, S. M. (2011). How does corporate ethics The contribute mediating to role firm of financial Collective
sustainable corporation. Sustainable Development, 17(2): 102- 113.
performance? Becker, C. (2006). The human actor in ecological economics:
Organizational Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Philosophical approach and research perspectives. Behavior, Journal of Management, 20. 1-25.
Ecological Economics, 60, 1 7- 2 3.
Block, L. (2003). The leadership-culture connection: An
Coblentz, B. J. (2002). Organizational Sustainability: The three
aspects that matter. ERNWCA' s First Strategy Session,
exploratory investigation.
Leadership
&
Organization
Dakar. Coomer, J.C. (1981). Quest for a Sustainable Society (1st Borman,
Development Journal, 24(6): 318 - 334.
W. C. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Personnel selection
ed.). New York: Pergamon Press.in
organizations. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.),
Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
Daily, B.F., Bishop, J.W & Govindarajulu, N. (2009). conceptual model for Organizational Citizenship Behavior
A
48
directed toward the environment. Business & Society, 48, 243-256. Daily, B. F., Bishop, J. W. & Steiner, R. (2002). The impact
static.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, 333335. Fransson, N. & Gärling, T. (1999). Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and
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: AddisonWesley Publishing Company. Denison, R. D. & Mishra, K. A. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness.
research findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 369-382. Gautam, T., Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Uapdhyay, N. & Davis, A.,J. (2005). Organizational citizenship behaviour Dunlap, R. and organizational commitment in Nepal. Asian Journal of (Ed.), The
Organization
Science, 6(2): 204-223.
E. & Jones, R. E. (2002a). Environmental attitudes and values. In R. Fernandez-Ballesteros
Social Psychology, 8 (3): 336-345.
George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in 364-369). groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 107-116. George, J. , 1991. State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology,
encyclopedia of psychological assessment (Vol. 1, pp. London: Sage. Dunlap, R. E. & Jones, R. E. (2002b). Handbook of environmental sociology. In R. E. Dunlap & W. Michelson (Eds.),
Environmental
concern:
Conceptual
and
76(2): 299-307. George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A grouplevel 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 spontaneity of the mood at work -
measurement issues: 482-524. Westport: 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, 11, 130-141.
E-Business. (2007). PESTEL Analysis. E-Business Blog. Available at:http://veroniqca.blog.com/2355551 (Accessed on April 24, 2009). Ehrhart, G. M. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational
organizational
relationship.
Psychological
Bulletin, 112(2): 310-329.
George. M. J. & Jones, R. G. (1997). Organizational spontaneity context. Human performance, 10, 153-170. Ghemawat, P. & Ricart, J.E. (1993). The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency. Strategic
citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1): 61- 94. Faber, N., Jorna, R. & Engelen, J.V. (2005). The sustainability of " sustainability" A study into the conceptual
Management Journal, 14(2): 59-73.
Gibson-Graham, J.K. & Roelvink, G. (2009). An Economic Ethics for the Anthropocene. Antipode, 41(1): 320- 346. Gomis, A.J.B., Parra, M.G., Hoffman, W. M. & Mcnulty, R.E. (2011). Rethinking the concept of sustainability. Business 1-33.
foundations of the notion of " sustainability" . Journal of
Environmental Assessment Policy and Management. 7(1):
and Society Review, 116(2): 171- 191.
FAST-ISE. Academy. (2010).
FAST-ISE
Available
sustainability.
online
Full
Bright at
Gordon, G.G. & DiTomaso, N. (1992). Predicting corporate performance f ro m organizational culture.
Journal
of
http://www.fulbrightacademy.org/page/FAST-ISE/. FCIC. (2011). The financial crisis inquiry report: final report of
Management Studies, 29(6): 783- 798.
Graham, J.W. (1989). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, operationalization and validation. Working paper, Loyola University, Chicago.
the national commission on the causes of the financial and economic crisis in the united states. the financial crisis inquiry commission.
Available online athttp://fcic-
49 Chowdhury
Pogash, K. (2009). What is Sustainability?. Available online athttp://www.kennuncorked.com/sustainable_defined.html. 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, 39(5): 621-634. Kieweit, J.D. & Vos, F.J. J. (2005). Organizational sustainability: A case for formulating a tailor-made definition.
Graham, J.W. (1991). An essay of organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4(4): 249- 270, Gray, R., Kouhy, R. & Lavers, S. (1995), Corporate social and environmental reporting.
Accounting,
Auditing
&
Accountability Journal, 8(2): 47-77.
Greene-Shortridge, M. T. (2011). Leadership, employee wellbeing and organizational citizenship behaviors. Available online athttp://business.salary.com/leadership-employeewell-being-and-organizational-citizenship-behaviors Gregersen, H. B., 1993. Multiple commitments at work and extrarole behavior during three stages of organizational tenure. 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. 87(1):52- 65. Liere, V.D. K. & Dunlap, E.R. (2006). Moral norms and environmental behavior: An application of Schwartz's normactivation model to yard burning. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 8(2): 174- 188. Leiserowitz, A.A., Kates, W.R. & Parris, M. T. (2005). Do global attitudes and behaviors support sustainable development? Environment. 47(9): 22- 38. Linnenluecke, M. & Griffiths, A. (2010). Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. Journal of World Business, 45(4): 357-366. Linnenluecke, M., Russell, V.S. & Griffiths, A. (2009). Subculture and sustainability practice: The Impact on understanding corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(7): 432-452. Lok, P. & Crawford, J. (2001). Antecedents of organizational commitment and the mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(8): 594- 613. 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. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol 50, Issue: 1. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M. & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of sales performance. Journal of Marketing, 57(1): 70-80. Marcoulides, A. G. & Heck, H. R. (1993). Organizational culture and performance: Proposing and testing a model.
Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 9(1): 1- 18.
Journal of Business Research, 26, 31-47.
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, 54, 638-646. Hopkins, D.J. M. (2002). Sustainability in the internal pperations of companies. Strategy, 9(4): 398- 408.
Corporate Environmental
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. 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, 18(3): 353364. Karp, D.G. (1996). Values and their effect on proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior , 28(1): 111 -133. Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9(2): 131- 146. Karambayya, R. (1990). Contexts for organizational citizenship behavior: Do high performing and satisfying units have better ' citizens' . Working paper, York University. Kavanagh, H. M. & Ashkanasy, M.N. (2006). The Impact of leadership and change management strategy on organizational culture and individual acceptance of change during a merger, British Journal of Management, 17(1): 81- 103. Kelley, S. W. & Hoffman, D. K. (1997). An investigation of positive affect, prosocial behaviors, and service quality. Journal of Retailing, 73, 407- 427.
Organization Science. 4(2): 209-225.
Mayer, D. (2007). Corporate citizenship and trustworthy capitalism: Co-creating a more peaceful planet. American Business Law Journal, 44(2): 237- 286. 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 engineering: The emergence of a
50
new meta-discipline. Environmental Science & Technology, 37, 5314-5324. Mirvis, P. & Manga, J. (2010). Global challenges in responsible business, In Smith, N.C., Bhattacharya, C.B., Vogel, D. & Levine, D.I. (Eds.), Integrating corporate citizenship: Leading from the middle : 78-106. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 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, 6(1): 65-76. Mohant, J. & Rath, P.B. (2012b). Can organizational culture be a predictor of organizational citizenship behaviors?.
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3): 468- 481. Ouchi, W. G. & Price, R. L. (1993). Hierarchies, clans, and theory Z: A new perspective on organization development. Organizational Dynamics, 21(4): 62-70. Organ, W.D. (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causes-performance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 2(1): 46-53. Organ, W.D. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior. The
good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Organ, W.D. (1990). Fairness, productivity and organizational
citizenship behavior: Tradeoffs in student and manager pay decisions. Paper presented at Meeting of the Academy of
Management, San Francisco. Organ, W.D, Podsakoff, M.P. & MacKenzie, B.S. (2006).
International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 3(1): 76-79.
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee' s perspective. Academy of Management Journal , 37(6): 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(1): 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(4): 475480 NaturalStep (2011). Our approach - The natural step framework. Available onlinehttp://www.naturalstep.org/our-approach. Nicholls, J. (1988). The Transforming Autocrat. Management Today, 114- 18. Nielsen, T.M., Hrivnak, G.A. & Shaw, M. (2007). OCB and performance: A group level meta-analytic review. Working paper no 38, Social Science Resource Network. Nielsen, M., & Ellintong, B. L. (1983). Environmental psychology: Directions and perspectives. In N. R. Feimer &E. S. Geller (Eds.), Social processes and resource conservation: 312-388. New York: Praeger. Nordlund, A. & Garvill, J. (2002). Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34,740756. 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): 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, 71(3): 492-499. O' Riordan, T., Cameron, J. & Jordan, A. (2001). Reinterpreting the Precautionary Principle. London: CMP Publishing. Ouchi, W. G. (1983). Efficient cultures: relationship between culture exploring the organizational
Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and Consequences. London: SAGE Publications.
Organ, W. D. & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4): 775-800. Ott, J. S. (1989). The organizational culture perspective . California: Dorsey Press. Paula, D., O. G. & Cavalcanti, R.N. (2000). Ethics: essence for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 8(2): 109- 117. Peters, T., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence. London: HarperCollins. Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4): 570- 581.
at
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row. Phillis, Y. A. & Andriantiatsaholiniaina, L. A. (2001). Sustainability: an ill-defined concept and its assessment using fuzzy logic. Ecological Economics, 37(3): 435-456. 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, 1(2): 107-142. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Hui, C. (1993). Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Organizational
and
citizenship behaviors and managerial evaluations of employee performance: A review and suggestions for future research: 1- 40. Greenwich: JAI Press.
51 Chowdhury
Pourdehnad, J. & Smith, C.A.P. (2012). Sustainability, organizational learning, and lessons learned from aviation. Learning Organization, 1, 77-86. Putnik, D.G. (2012). Lean vs agile from an organizational sustainability, complexity and learning perspective. Learning Organization, 19(3): 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, 6(2): 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): 605-626. Rashid, A.Z.M., Sambasivan, M. & Rahman, A.A. (2004). The influence of organizational culture on attitudes toward organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 25(2): 161- 179. Ratner, D. B. (2004). " Sustainability" as a dialogue of Values: Challenge to the Sociology of Development. Sociology Inquiry, 74(1): 50-59. 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, 8, 243-254. Roethlisberger, F.J. & Dickson, W.J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Romano, R. (2005). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the making of quack corporate governance. Yale Law Journal , 114, 1521-1611. Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers, A. & Steger, U. (2005). The business case for corporate sustainability: Literature review and research options. European Management Journal , 23(1): 27-36. Schein, H.E. (1983). Organizational culture: A dynamic model. Working paper, no. 0086H. MIT. Schein, H.E. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schein, H.E. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. (4th Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schneider, A. & Meins, E. (2011). Two dimensions of corporate sustainability assessment: Towards comprehensive framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(4): 211- 222. Schultz, W. P. & Zelezny, L. C. (1998). Values and proenvironmental behavior: A five country survey. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 29(4): 540-558. a Schultz, P.W. & Zelezny, L. C. (2003). Reframing environmental messages to be congruent with American values. Human Ecology Review, 10(2): 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, 36(4): 457- 475. Schwartz, M., 2001. The nature of the relationship between corporate codes of ethics and behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(3): 247-262. Schwartz, S.H. (1977). Advances in experimental social psychology. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Normative influence on altruism: 10, 221-279. New York: Academic Press. 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, 17(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 , 16(15): 1699- 1710. 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. Shields, D.J., Š olar, V.S. & Martin, W.E. (2002). The role of values and Objectives in communicating Indicators of Sustainability. Ecological Indicators, 2(2): 146-160. 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. 5, 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, 25(7): 592-599. Simms, R. R. (2000). Changing an organization's culture under new leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(1): 65-78. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W. & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4): 653- 663. Smith, M., A. & O' Sullivan, T. (2012). Environmentally responsible behavior in the workplace: An internal social marketing approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3,4): 469-493. Solow, R.M. (1991). Sustainability: An economist' s perspective. Eighteenth J. Seward Johnson lecture presented to the Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
52
Spreitzer, G.M. & Sonenshein, S. (2003). Positive Organizational Scholarship. In Cameron, K., Dutton, J. &Quinn, R. (Eds.), Positive deviance and extraordinary organizing: 207-224. Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco. Spreitzer, G.M. & Sonenshein, S. (2004). Toward the construct defi nition of positive deviance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6): 828-847. 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 E ro n. New Currency/Doubleday. Tankha, G. (1998). A psychological study of attitudes and
Vlek, C. & Steg, L. (2007). Human behavior and environmental sustainability: Problems, driving forces, and research topics. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1): 1- 19. Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. G. & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, operationalization, and validation. Academy of Management Journal. 37(4): 765-802. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L. & McLean Parks, J. M. (1995). Research in organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Extra-role behaviors: In
pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters): 17, 215- 285.
Van-Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR York : 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.
awareness towards environmental pollution 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, 23(5): 605- 630. Tichy, N. M., McGill, A. R. & St. Clair, L. (1997). Corporate Global Citizenship: Doing Business in the Public Eye. In New Lexington (Eds.). An agenda for corporate global citizenship: 1-22. San Francisco: New Lexington Press. Tjosvold, D. (1982). Effects of approach to controversy on superiors' incorporation of subordinates' information in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 189193. 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 management education: Developing committed, openminded researchers. Academy of Management Learning & Education;Mar2008, 7 (1): 73-85. 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.
and
International Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1): 3-27.
Vining, J. & Ebreo, A. (1992). Predicting recycling behavior from global and specific environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 22(20): 1580-1607. Walz, S. M. & Niehoff, B. P. (1996). Organizational citizenship behaviors and their effect on effectiveness in limited-menu restaurants. Academy of management best paper proceedings: 307-311. Statesboro: Academy Management. Walz, M.S. & Niehoff, B.P. (2000). Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: Their relationship to organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24(3): 108-126. Watkins, S. (2003). Former Enron vice president Sherron Watkins on the Enron collapse. Academy of Management Executive, 17(4): 119-125. Werner, M.J. (2000). Implications of OCB and contextual performance for human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1): 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, 51(3): 355- 424. White, L. A. (1999). Sustainability and the accountable corporation. Environment, Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 41(8): 30-43. Wilkinson, S.J. & Reed, R.G. (2007). The structural and
of
for
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 Behavior, 7, 125- 138. Toman, M. (1994). Economics and " sustainability" : Balancing trade-offs and imperatives. Land Economics , 70(4): 399-413. Tsai, Y. (2011). Relationship between Organizational Culture, Leadership Behavior and Job Satisfaction. BMC Health Research Service, 11(1): 98-106. Vallmer, A. & Seyr, S. (2012). Constructive controversy in innovation processes - Application and evaluation. Paper presented at Intl. Association for Conflict Management Annual Conference, South Africa.
behavioral barriers to sustainable real estate development in ARES. Proceedings of the 23rd American Real Estate
Society Conference, 1-12, San Francisco. Williams, J. L. & Anderson, E.S. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management , 17(3): 601-617. WCED (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53 Chowdhury
Yi, T. (2006). Team psychological safety, organizational citizenship behavior and team innovation: A mediation analysis. Nankai Business Review; 2005-06. Yilmaz, K. & Cokluk-Bokeoglu, O. (2008). Organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational commitment. World Applied Science Journal, 39(50: 775-780. Zain, M.Z., Ishak, R. & Ghani K.E. (2009). The Influence of corporate culture on organizational commitment: A Study on a Malaysian listed company. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 17, 1626. 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 , 1, 111- 132. 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, 63(7): 763- 771. Zutshi, A. & Sohal, S. A. (2003). Stakeholder involvement in the EMS adoption process. Business Process Management
Journal, 9(2): 133-148.
doc_238443103.docx
Sustainability is the capacity to endure. In ecology the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems. For humans, sustainability is the potential for long-term maintenance of well being, which has ecological, economic, political and cultural dimensions.
Case Study on Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability
This article extends literature of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) in the context of corporate sustainability. The author presents the concept of Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability (OCBS) 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 Organizational Citizenship Behavior (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. Keywords: Bilateral corporate sustainability, sustainability performance, organizational citizenship behavior, organizational commitment, organizational sustainability JEL: D23, M12
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 and 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
surface. We the human, our societies and nations need corporations to transform earth' s
resources into wealth (Dunphy, Griffiths and 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
advertisements, job opportunity, influence on public policy, governments and international
economic and political agreements. Downside of 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
" economic shakeup" has been linked to human such 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 meltdown, contributed languishing to 26 subprime millions lending American
29 Chowdhury
without jobs. However, such detrimental behavior is nothing new and observed at many
(OCB)" that he posited as an effective conduit in organizational performance. The subsequent
corporations e.g. Enron (Watkins, 2003; Swartz and Watkins, 2003; Seeger and Ulmer, 2003). This increasingly detrimental corporate
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,
behavior is a matter of concern that led to many regulatory undertakings measures. whether These financial legislative and/or
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) has many shortcomings including inapplicability of some behavioral dimensions e.g. " compliance" in the development of organizational capability to address demands multiple towards stakeholders' economic, needs social and and
environmental received less degree of success than anticipated in recent era due to increasing deprivation of endogenous qualities (FCIC, 2011; Dunphy, Griffiths and 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
environmental equity. assess 1) why
In this paper, I seek to behavioral competence is
important in corporate sustainability discourse, and suggest 2) theoretical proposition Behavior of
Organizational
Citizenship
towards
Sustainability (OCBS) deriving the concept by modifying OCB construct and contending it' s importance in organizational behavioral
doctrines overlooked importance of behavioral competence despite it' s subtle presence in many organizational discourse: e.g.
competence to meet endogenous and exogenous challenges. 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"
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 and Griffiths, 2010; Linnenluecke, Russell and Griffiths, 2009; Salzmann, Ionescu-Somers and 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
corporate sustainability should have and how to achieve them. More importantly the definition of " Corporate Sustainability" Literature review indicates is yet not settled. the need for
corporations to develop proactive and creative
30
competence
meeting
multiple
stakeholders'
" Quest for a Sustainable Society"
describes
needs and demands (Asif et al, 2011) while resolving conflicts at organizational and financial, societal and environmental context. The term " Corporate Sustainability" derivative of broader notion of " sustainability" , which is in hitherto continuingly shaped by the converses of political, public and scholarly is a
" 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; Pogash, 2009). On the other hand, WCED' s " Sustainable brundtland statement is a
discourses. This process rendered the definitions of " sustainability" complex; " sustainability" some as sometimes confusing and postulated a means the for term handling
formulated,
development
development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future (WCED,
generations to meet their own needs"
deteriorating relationship between our biosphere and ongoing economic development (Faber, Jorna and Engelen, 2005; Chiesa, Manzini and Noci, 1999; WCED, 1987), others questioned the notion of " Sustainability" direction whose are as vague and lacks definition (Phillis and and
1987). While Coomer (1981) emphasized a direct relationship between society and it' s
environment, brundtland statement adds both intra and intergenerational Though the focus both basics and equity to the are
perpetuation. attentive concept, about their
definitions of
scientific debatable
sustainability are
measurement
completions
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, 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
different. Similarly, Mihelcic et al' s (2003) elaboration of WCED' s definition of
sustainability posits a pragmatic imposition of social, relevant industrial and economic " [the] system design as of
to sustainability:
human and industrial systems to ensure that humankind' s use of natural resources and Jorna and cycles do not lead to diminished quality of life d ue 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
development of " sustainability"
notion. It is in
part an analytical persuasion of philosophical and logical exposition that unravels moves and
connotation, John Elkington coined the term Triple Bottom-Line (TBL) to encompass social and economic components with it' s historical For relationship to environment (Hopkins, 2002). The TBL which is also known 3 Ps (People, planet and
counter-moves of scholars who tried to define " sustainability" using basic concepts.
examples, James C. Coomer in his book,
31 Chowdhury
Profit) of sustainability rationalizes economic progress minimizing while maintains social impact. inclusions It gained
diminishes (naturalstep.org,
as
consumption 2011). However,
increase the TNS
environmental
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
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 and Jordan (2001) and Lutzkendorf and 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
consensus in otherwise a complex issue of economic common progress and preservation of our biosphere. Embedded within such
suggest that economic capital is central to wealth creation which propels development (O'Riordan, Cameron and Jordan, 2001; Wilkinson and Reed, 2007) but inhibited by environmental and social factors. The model attempted to present a winwin paradigm of sustainability where TBL left off, however, is being increasingly rejected as oversimplistic and unattainable. In contrast, " The
sustainability discussions of finding common ground to eliminate discord between normative (e.g. ethical precondition) aspect of and scientific
(operationalization)
sustainability
(Becker, 2006), though absence in much of the scholarly debate, is the behavioral element
(Faber, Jorna and Engelen, 2005; Vlek and Steg, 2007). It is there the continued sustainability defined discourse finds common ground. Increasingly, the normative discourse of sustainability found support among environmentalists, WCED' s
Natural Step" (TNS), a sustainability formulation by Dr. Karl-Henrik Robert emphasizes on collaborative rather than adversarial methods to develop consensus at all level those of societal are
representatives
including
that
Brundtland statement (WCED, 1987) and in NGO treaties (Becker, 2006). Examples of these
unreached by scientific community (Bradbury and 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
normative imperatives are inter-generational 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,
impinging issues that our world in general and economic and industrial system in particular are subject to and how services of natural structure
1987), an argument that finds basis in the of scientific " sustainability" discourse. The
32
arguments in scientific dimensions however seek to discount normative arguments since the later relies on quantifiable evidence. Within this
values and institution was also espoused in brundtland statement when it coined the term " sustainable development" : " development that
scientific dimension, some scholars reject the need for ecological concerns arguing can 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
technological
advancement
recover
dissipated elements, others finds it hard to believe since laws of thermodynamics precludes conception. This moves and counter moves generated a third dimension that centered on " policy" arguments as depicted in Agenda 21
embodied within human capital (Toman, 1994) such 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. three However, the intricate nature of scholars' to define " sustainability
(an initiative of UN with regard to sustainable Development). However, the only conduit that can foster interactions among these
dimensions is " Behavioral Attributions" (Faber, Jorna and Engelen, 2005; Vlek and Steg, 2007).
" bringing their own perspectives" context definitions" as observed in
are also prevalent in " Corporate
Sustainability" discourse. The figure 2 attempts to summarize the scholarly depicts a contentions common that and theme is often contributions of and
" behavioral ignored but
competence"
increasingly gaining ground. The connotation of Figure 1. Behavioral attribution as the conduit of "Sustainability" discourse. Increasingly implicit discussions around " behavioral " sustainability" competence" is implied in
(WCED, 1987; Toman, 1994;
Bradbury and Clair, 1999; Mihelcic et al., 2003; Faber, Jorna and Engelen, 2005; Vlek and Steg, 2007; FAST-ISE, 2010; Gomis et al., 2011) gaining sustainable development (Leiserowitz, Kates and Parris, 2005) and corporate sustainability
behavioral attributions (Gomis et al, 2011) are sprinkled in many schools of thoughts and traction. For example, Fulbright Academy of Science and Technology (FAST) and Institute for Sustainable Enterprise (ISE) created a human and sustainability forum to foster dialogues corporate world and academic community regarding corporate 2010). importance sustainability of human value in
(Bradbury and Clair, 1999; White, 1999; Paula value and Cavalcanti, 2000; Coblentz, 2002; Ratner, among 2004; Shields, Š olar and Martin, 2002; GibsonGraham and Roelvink, 2009; Asif et al. 2011;
discourse
(FAST-ISE,
Putnik, 2012; Pourdehnad and Smith, 2012).
This notion of bringing together human
33 Chowdhury
Figure 2. Imperatives of Behavioral Competence.
The early conceptualization of sustainability had narrow focus on environmental protection (Seuring and Muller, 2008) creating a necessity
for corporation to report their environmental impact indicators of business activity. This led to
34
Figure 3. Corporate Sustainability Timeline. preparation and distribution of Corporate Social Responsibility corporations connotation Some corporate (CSR) and to still reporting continuing as in many parallel corporate responsibility in social, economic and environmental context begin to take shape since WCED coined the term " Sustainable As scholars
Corporate Sustainability
" Corporate use
Sustainability" . CSR synonymously and to
Development"
(WCED, 1987).
Scholars sustainability
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
describe integration of
social,
economic and
environmental concern into corporate strategy and operations (Berger, Cunningham and
emerge. Some classified corporate sustainability narrowly as ecological concern (Shrivastava,
Drumwright, 2007).
However, CSR remains a
marginal activity towards corporate sustainability (Gray, Kouhy and Lavers, 1995; Quiroz-Onate and Aitken, 2007) and not mean to substitute or replace the later. A broader perspective of
1995) other broadened it to include corporate economic activities with organizational concern about natural and social environment (Dunphy,
35 Chowdhury
Griffiths and Ben, 2003; Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002; Van Marrewijk, 2003). Consecutively, underpinnings a number the of theoretical of
curtail this behavioral issue, serious attention to ethics of doing business (Paula and Cavalcanti, 2000; Gibson-Graham and Roelvink, 2009),
contended
importance
corporate governance (Aras and Crowther, 2008) and citizenship (Mayer, 2007) are required.
resolving conflicts at organizational, societal and environmental level. From organizational
Schneider and Meins (2011) termed this aspect of moral sustainability as " sustainability
perspective, it means developing capability to meet multiple (Asif stakeholders' et al, needs 2012) societal and
governance" . The concept of OCB and OCBS Social science since long observed
demands
towards and
organizational,
financial,
certain
environmental equity. Coblentz (2002) considers that a sustainable organization needs to be institutionally, financially and morally strong to face multiple At stakeholders' Institutional level, needs this and means
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 and engaging with specific behavior, for example, recycling behavior (Hopper and Nielson, 1991; Vining and Ebreo, 1992). Karp (1996) adds that and individual values can influence behavior when moderated by situational concern. Professor
demands.
incorporating three dimensions of organizational behaviors economic towards aspect environment, of corporate social
operational
mandate (White, 1999). Linnenluecke, Russell and 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,
Dennis Organ and 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 and defined it as " individual behavior that is
Griffiths and Benn, 2007). To achieve this notion of organizational self-reliance or competence, organizational and social learning (Shields, Š olar and Martin, 2002; Pourdehnad and Smith, 2012) are essential and it starts with financial
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
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
presented his concept of OCB (Organ, 1977) as an exercise in and devil' s MacKenzie, advocacy 2006) (Organ, towards
Podsahoff
presenting an essay that supports popular notion of " worker satisfaction affected productivity" with a twist. The viewpoint defended the popular
36
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 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. contemplated " OCB" rather these an However, Organ did not subtler attempt contributions to explain as his
make them do and for which you cannot guarantee any definite rewards, other than your appreciation"
(Smith, Organ and Near, 1983).
The assumption here is that managers are group 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
professional colleagues that managerial belief on satisfaction and it' s influence to productivity was not without merit. Two of Organ' s doctoral Bateman and C. Ann Smith, students Tom nonetheless,
suggestion to improve overall quality of the job 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
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 and Organ, 1983). The
the behavior for example, punctuality may be construed as " compliance" , however, Organ, Podsahoff and MacKenzie (2006)explains though " compliance" as is a form of OCB but does not Larry 1991)
research led to a crude measure of what was then oppose called to " qualitative " quantitative performance" performance"
imply merely strict obedience to order. Williams (Williams and Anderson,
productivity. Though result of the study would hardly be a presage to OCB research that followed since then, it shows significant
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
correlation between job satisfaction and OCB. If not for Ann smith who envisaged the link between this study and that of Hawthorne studies
behavior fits that of hypothesized model for each. Organ' s taxonomy of OCB included following of OCB behavioral dimensions: a) altruistic or pro-social behavior, b) Conscientiousness, c)
(Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939), the concept would not have studied further. This interest led her to interview manufacturing plant supervisor in southern Indiana asking them
Sportsmanship, d) Courtesy and e) Civic Virtues. Organ (1990) later added two other attributes of OCB cheerleading and peacemaking.
question, " What are the things you would like
your employee to do more of, but really cannot
37 Chowdhury
However, those attributes did not receive much research interest. Instead, researchers have
Van Scotter and 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" and person and situational varies person to context. This led
theorized that OCB includes a variant called " loyalty" (George and Brief, 1992; Graham,
1989, 1991). Important to this aspect is Katz' s (1964) notation on self-development
protecting the organization as behavioral element does not occur in response to formal reward A literature review conducted by LePine, Erez and 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 and Dienesch, 1994). Some scholars
Professor Organ to modify definition of OCB that adding that such behavior " contributes to the system. maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological performance" 2002). context (LePine, that Erez regardless supports and of task
Johnson, different
Nonetheless,
labeling, experts always conceived that OCB consists of several behavioral dimensions. model than functions be difficult. of the This
Hence, if OCB is an " aggregate" formulating dimensions mathematical would not
assumption led LePine, Erez and 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
labeled the OCB behavioral dimensions etc as 1. Pro-social behavior (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986; George, 1990, 1991; George and Bettenhausen, 1990; O' Reilly and Chatman, 1986), 2.
difference among predictors across dimensions. Based on the result, LePine, Erez and 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 e.g. facets TQM of and enterprise level
Organizational Spontaneity (George and Brief, 1992; George and Jones, 1997) and 3. Extra-role behavior (Van Dyne, Cummings, and McLean Parks, 1995). Another label that is quite common to human resources and industrial and
performance
organizational
Performance (Buentello, Jung and Sun, 2008), Sales performance and customer Satisfaction (Podsakoff and Mackenzie, 1997), organizational
organizational psychologists and overlaps the behavioral domains of OCB (Motowidlo, 2000) is " Contextual Performance" (Borman and
effectiveness and performance (Bateman and Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff and
Motowidlo, 1993, 1997; Borman, White and Dorsey, 1995; Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994;
Mackenzie, 1997; Borman and Motowidlo, 1993;
38
George and Bettenhausen, 1990; Karambayya, 1990; MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Fetter, 1991, 1993; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Hui, 1993; Smith et al., 1983). Subsequently, a number of empirical studies also found positive correlation between OCB and individual-level performance (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Fetter, 1991, 1993; Werner, 2000), aggregated individual
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
performance (George and Bettenhausen, 1990; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994), group-level performance Ahearne, (Karambayya, and MacKenzie, performance 1990; Podsakoff, and and
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 " Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards
1997), (Walz
organizational-level
Niehoff, 2000). In a meta-analytical study of 2417 samples to measure OCB at group level Nielsen, Hrivnak and Shaw (2007) found positive correlation (.32) between OCB and organizational performance i.e. positive financial outcome. Daily, Bishop and Govindarajulu (2009) linked OCB to proactive environmental behavior and postulated a conceptual model of Organizational Citizenship Behavior directed toward Environment (OCBE). They argue that OCBE exists and are positively related to environmental performance and, as such, it is
Sustainability (OCBS)" . It is a discretionary act directed towards developing proactive and
creative competence for organization to meet
an
aspect
of
an
multiple stakeholders'
needs and demands
organization' s overall corporate citizenship and therefore important.
Smith and O'Sullivan (2012) conducted a study among five largest UK organizations to identify how social marketers and organizations can reduce harnessing employees' negative a environmental valuable resource, impact that by of
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
environmentally
responsible
dimension with " controlled discord" , a term that denotes employee(s)' s professional
organizational citizenship behaviors (EROCBs). Result shows employees engaged in OCB created
demeanor to question proposals/projects in an
39 Chowdhury
honorable way with intention to help develop a collective consensus for a better approach. The " controlled discord" also defers from deviant
and Sonenshein, 2003) differs from OCB in many dimensions that are considered substantial
departure from organizational norm and can benefit society by addressing ethically
workplace behavior (DWB) (Appelbaum, Iaconi and Matousek, It to 2007) exhibits positive in certain behavior demeanor behavioral that of is DWB
questionable behavior. In same connotation, " controlled discord" can be construed as
attributions. comparable
departure from norms but exhibits attributes that are more in-tuned through towards positive benefiting change and
(Spreitzer and 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
organization
scholarly contributions without creating conflict or status quo. It advances team spirit and produces positive result through innovative behaviors and creative performance. Another important difference between OCB and and OCBS is that, unlike OCB, it emphasizes on sustainability culture (Linnenluecke and Griffiths, is DWB 2007; 2009) and value sets to develop appropriate behavioral attributions rather than alluding to the
" positive organizational scholarship" (Cameron et al., 2005) and depicts behaviors such as innovative, creative performance
noncompliance with dysfunctional directives etc. The typology of " controlled discord" depicted in figure Iaconi 4. and The positive
(Appelbaum, Spreitzer).
Matousek,
Substantial Departure from Organizational norms
Positive Deviant Behavior Departure from norms Benefit society from ethically questionable behavior
Controlled Discord Departure from norm Benefits organizations through scholarly, innovative and creative behaviors
Corporate Sustainability
Insubstantial Departure from Organizational norms
Departure from business norm Benefits organization, society & environment
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Departure from job requirements Benefits organizations
Figure 4. Typology of "Controlled Discord"
40
consign of individual' s domestic or household behavior (Fusco, 1991) e.g. recycling behavior (Hopper and Nielsen, 1991; Nielsen and
moral norms (Liere and Dunlap, 2006) relates to sustainability (Schultz et al., 2005; Thøgersen and Ölander, 2002; Liere and Dunlap, 2006) or environmental awareness and individual value and priorities relates pro-environmental behavior
Ellintong, 1983), pro-environmental behavior or altruistic-environmental Zelezny, 1998). Key antecedents of OCBS Based on available literatures and my thoughts, the followings are four key antecedents of OCBS: Sustainability Culture, Leadership and Supervisory Support, Management Commitment. Context System Specific and Knowledge Organizational behavior (Schultz
(Hopper and Nielsen, 1991).
The link between
values and environmental attitudes is explained in many scholarly studies (Grunert and Juhl, 1995; Nordlund and Garvill, 2002; Schultz and Zelezny, 2003; Stern et al., 1999; Tankha, 1998) though their conceptual language may vary e.g.
environmental attitudes, environmental concern, and environmental worldview (Dunlap and Jones,
Figure 5. Key antecedents and outcome of OCBS Sustainability culture Literature between review human indicates values, that relationship and 2002a, 2002b; Fransson and Gärling, 1999; Schultz and Zelezny, 2003). A series of
awareness
multivariate and supported
structural that
equation analyses values influences
sustainability behaviors can be predicted, e.g, how human values (Schultz et al., 2005) and
hypothesis
attitude and attitude in turn influence behavior
41 Chowdhury
(Homer and Kahle, 1988). A hierarchical model of resource management developed by Shields Mitchell (1997) provides insights to the interworks of value, culture and behavioral
the
definition
of
culture.
In
his
book:
Organizational Culture and Leadership" (Schein, and 1992) Edgar H. Schein defined organizational culture as: "A pattern of shared basic
elements. Their research finds that " peoples' objectives are a reflection of a contextual
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 These presents three fundamental elements in OC: actions Basic Assumptions, Espoused values and
application of their held value sets" . These held values are often influenced by culture, social, institution and ecological
frameworks in which people live (Shields, Š olar and Martin, 2002) and through such development those values become an " ordered value set" . ordered value sets are thought to be the primary element influencing individuals' as depicted in figure 6.
Artifacts. The same connotation can be observed in other scholarly contentions on OC (Hofstede, 1981; Ouchi and Price, 1993; Pettigrew, 1979; Schwartz and 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 see Figure 7).
Figure 6. Hierarchical Model of Resource Management To understand this concept further in Figure 7. A diagrammatical representation of Values, Attitude, Behavior and OC Byles, Aupperle and Arogyaswamy (1991) argued that OC may have positive effect in overall organizational performance providing that OC aligns with strategic needs of the firm. Similar
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
42
contentions are made by many other scholars about the influence of OC in organizational performance and Change (Marcoulides and Heck, 1993; Barney, 1986; Gordon and DiTomaso, 1992; Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Peters and Waterman, 1982; Ouchi, 1983), effectiveness (Denison and Mishra, 1995; Zheng, Yang and McLean, 2010) and behavioral competence at individual and group level e.g. OCB (Mohanty and Rath, 2012a; Mohant research and Rath, 2012b). that any
system which helps defining critical imperatives of organizational assumptions" , sustainability " values" culture, and " basic
" artifacts" .
Zheng, Yang and 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 and Manga, 2010) and/or bottom-up approach to integrate change. be These research findings led to believe that " context specific knowledge management"
Consecutively,
suggests
measure of " ambitious corporate sustainability activities and strategies have to be embedded in the organizational culture in order 2009). to
successful"
(Baumgartner,
These
potentials are inviting and seem to be the reason behind increasing interest about OC in
practice is useful conduit in the development of organization specific sustainability culture that in turn impacts collective behavior of the
sustainability literatures. However, an organization may have different subcultures or competing value framework (CVF) in cultural orientation (Linnenluecke, Russell and Griffiths, 2009;
organization leading towards OCBS. That is: H1 : Context specific knowledge management system is imperative conduit in development of Organizational Sustainability Culture. H2: Organizational Sustainability Culture
Linnenluecke and Griffiths, 2010). The presence of subcultures may posit differences of how employees perceived corporate sustainability
influence Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability. Leadership and 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
(Linnenluecke, Russell and 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" sustainability at level. Therefore, questions related to and for individual cultural
organizational a means
augmentation is required that can influence collective consensus at organizational level. Such instrument of influence can be understood as " context specific knowledge management"
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
43 Chowdhury
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
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, perception Shortridge, 2007); of similarly, employees' (Greeneleadership
summarizing this conception, Bass and (1993) emulated the contention of
Avolio Schein
leadership and
behavior shared
(1992) by proposing that the relationship OC and leadership and vice versa is an ongoing
2011)
influences OCB (Khasawneh, 2011; GreeneShortridge, 2011). Consecutively, supervisory
interplay in which the leader shapes the culture and in turn get shaped by the developed
support towards environmental performance is well documented in literatures (Ramus and
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 and Harris, 2000; Block, 2003; Tsai, 2001). With varying results, empirical analyses leadership depict has that interplay of OC and in
Steger, 2000; Ramus, 2001, 2002; Zutshi and Sohal, 2003). This discussion imparts that
implementation of sustainability culture or cultural change requires to achieve corporate sustainability support,
leadership and
supervisory
which in turn influences OC and OCB. Therefore, in-line with Daily, Bishop and Govindrajulu' s (2009) observation that links supervisory support
significant
influence
organizational performance (Ogbonna and Harris, 2000), employees' perception of OC and
to OCBE, it can be contended that the interplay of sustainability culture, leadership and
effective change management (Kavanagh and Ashkanasy, 2006), responsiveness of employee (Asree, Zain and Razalli, 2010) and firm
supervisory support will influence OCBS. That is, H3: Perceived leadership construct and
performance (Asree, Zain and Razalli, 2010; Ogbonna and Harris, 2000). An exploratory investigation employees' by Block (2003) depicts
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. H5: Perceived supervisory leadership support construct will and
perception of OC depends on the
leadership type of their immediate supervisor indicating that supervisory support is important conduit in EO R (Employee-Organizational-
influence
Relationship) and OC (Zhang et al., 2008) and creating change an attitude towards organizational and Rahman,
Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability. Organizational Commitment Organizational commitment can be understood of OC as having following three components (Mowday, Porter, and Steers, 1982):
(Rashid,
Sambasivan
2004). It is, therefore, obvious that the interplay and leadership has significant impact over organization' s behavioral competence in the
44
i) Individual' s identification or strong belief with organization' s values and
working environment to its employees in attaining their full commitment for organizational success. Many other studies also reported similar findings (Jo and Joo, 2011; Silverthorne, 2004; Lok and Crawford, 2001). These research findings indicates that OC influences and in many cases act as catalyst for organizational commitment to develop which in
goals/missions that are manifested in pride and in defense of the organization. ii) A willingness to long term membership with the organization, and iii) Exhibits a high level of extra role behavior that is often referred to as OCB. Essentially, organizational commitment
turn influence employees'
OCB at individual and
indicates a form of OCBS at individual or group level. Research has found significant positive correlation between organizational commitment and OCB. Williams and Anderson (1991) found that job satisfaction and organizational
group level. Therefore, it can be hypothesized that organizations' sustainability culture will
influence organizational commitment, which in turn will impact employees' H6: Organizational OCBS. That is, Culture will
Sustainability
commitment are predictors of OCB and in-role behavior. Shore and Wayne (1993) observed that employees' perceptions of organizational
influence Organizational Commitment. H7: Organizational Commitment, in turn, will influence Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability. Sustainable Organizational Performance to find Earlier in corporate sustainability discussion, we learned that achieving sustainability performance in an organization requires the development proactive meeting and multiple creative competence towards and
commitment to them (which can be termed as perceived organizational support or POS) create feeling employees' of obligations extra-role and contributes They
behavior.
organizational commitment and for this matter " POS" studies is a better predictor of OCB. Many also reported positive correlations
stakeholders'
needs
between OCB and Organizational commitment (Gregersen, 1993; Yilmaz and Cokluk-Bokeoglu, 2008; Gautam et al., 2005). is rooted However, in the
demands. This implies that organization should have endogenous quality or capability to resolve conflict at organizational and societal, and
organizational
commitment
financial and environmental level. This reference of sustainability performance is holistic in nature and takes organizational, societal, economic and environmental equity into context.
influence of OC towards developing employees' thoughts, feeling and attitude towards change; for example, a study by Zain, Ishak and Ghani (2009) depicts in that OC dimensions the employees' are
Professor Organ and his colleagues argued that OCB has potential to improve organizational effectiveness and performance (e.g., Bateman and Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ, and Near, 1983). Since then, many empirical studies
determinants
motivating
commitment. The findings implicate that an organization needs to be aware of the importance of OC dimensions in providing a favorable
45 Chowdhury
supported professor Organ' s postulation and expanded OCB' s potentiality for organizational outcomes. expounded satisfaction For that and example, OCB literature review customer
The
discussion contexts
above
points
out OCB,
several first, it
important
regarding
identifies that OCB influences many facets of organizational life which in turn results many positive organizational outcomes including
influences overall
organizational
effectiveness (Koys, 2001; Walz and Niehoff, 1996), profitability (Koys, 2001), performance quality Ahearne, and and quantity produced 1997), (Podsakoff, employee
organizational effectiveness and financial and environmental performance. We also observed that OCB influences corporate governance and corporate ethics. This led me to believe that,
MacKenzie,
perception of service quality (Kelley and Hoffman, environmental performance (Daily, Bishop and Govindrajulu, 2009; Smith and O' Sullivan, 2012) and contextual performance (Werner,
subject to further research, OCB can potentially 1997), help develop behavioral competence to resolve conflicts at organizational level and to meet multiple stakeholders' denote OCBS, I needs and demands. To added that " Controlled
2000). The internal collective processes that driven this organizational outcomes can also impact corporate Social level factor related CSR
Discord" is one of the important distinctions of OCBS over OCB. I explained that " Controlled Discord" as behavioral dimension is better
(Corporate
Responsibility),
governance
and financial performance. Chun et. al. (2011) have experimented a hypothesis that
suitable for creative, scholarly and innovative demeanor. Dean Tjosvold and colleagues
employees' commitment and
collective organizational
organizational citizenship
(Tjosvold, 1982, 1998, 2008; Tjosvold and Field, 1983; Tjosvold and Johnson, 1977; Tjosvold, Wedley, and Field, arguments 1986) along have with presented strong
behavior (OCB) mediate the ethics- performance relationship at the organizational level. The
convincing
hypothesis was tested using data collected from 3821 employees from 130 Korean companies and respective firm' s financial data. The results depicts that
supportive evidence that " constructive (task-
related) controversy
in a cooperative group
context improves the quality of decision making and creativity"
" constructive
" collective and interpersonal
organizational OCB are
(West, 2002). This notion of
controversy" essentially bears
commitment
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.
same connotation as " controlled discord" . Vollmer and Seyr group (2012) context, adds that in a
cooperative
" 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.
46
These findings along with those related to OCB suggests OCBS has potential to resolve conflict at organizational, societal, financial and
methodology for change in organizations and a purview of creative and proactive competence in sustainability approach. This methodology
environmental level while creating organization' s capability to meet multiple stakeholders' and demands towards organizational, financial, social and environmental equity. That is, H8: Organizational Citizenship Behavior towards Sustainability will influence organizational " sustainability" performance. CONCLUSION Survival of human species and the existence of our common biosphere innately depend on needs
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 here has several limitations; first, no KPI (Key
Performance Indicators) has been defined for organizational sustainability performance. Future research needs to consider the definition of Corporate Sustainability given in this paper and develop appropriate KPI from that notion to test hypotheses and while measuring organizational
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
sustainability performance. Secondly, a set of sustainability cultural attributes should be defined
environmental level have caused much concern and impacted effective implementation of The essential to
to integrate sustainability cultural interventions for OCBS. The paper presents discussion related to sustainability culture which could serve as the prelude to develop those measurable attributes. Such attributions can then be tested through hypotheses e.g. H2. Third, author suggests that
sustainability measures in corporations. behavioral competence is thus
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. This Paper presents a conceptual model of " OCBS" achieving contending sustainability it' s importance performance in at
researcher Incident
develops Technique
appropriate (CIT)" to
" Critical observe the
development of " Controlled Discord" behavioral dimension of OCBS to test H2, H5 and H7.
organizational level. However, the 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
These limitations may actually serve as the prerequisites to furtherance the research towards measuring organizational sustainability
performance. Nevertheless, the work presented in this study contributes to the sustainability body of knowledge and serves the basis for further research.
47 Chowdhury REFERENCES
Anderson, S. & Cavanagh, J. (2000). Top 200: The Rise of
contextual performance, (71-98). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Borman, W. C. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection
Corporate Global Power. Institute of Policy Studies.
Appelbaum, H.S., Iaconi, D.G. & Matousek, A. (2007). Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: causes, Borman, W. C., White, L. A. & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Effects impacts, and solutions. Corporate Governance, 7(5): 586- 598. of rate task performance and interpersonal factors on Aras, G. & Crowther, D. (2008). Governance and supervisor and peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied research. Human Performance, 10, 99- 109.
sustainability: An investigation into relationship between governance and corporate sustainability.
Psychology, 80, 168- 177.
Bradbury, H. & Clair, J.A. (1999). Promoting sustainable corporate organization with Sweden' s natural step. Academy of
Management Decision, 46(3): 433-448.
M., Searcy, C., Zutshi, A. & Ahmad, N. (2011). An
Management Executive, 13(4): 63-74. Asif,
Brief, integrated management systems approach to corporate organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, sustainability. European Business Review, 23(4): 353 11(4): 710-725. 367. Bromley, W.D. (2007). Environmental regulations and the Asree, S., Zain, M. & Razalli, R.M. (2010). Influence of problem leadership competency and organizational culture on failure" . Ecological Economics, 63, 676-683. Buentello, O., Jung, J. & Sun, J. (2008). Exploring the casual of sustainability: Moving beyond " market A . P. & Motowildo, S.J. (1986). Pro-social
responsiveness and performance of firms. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(4):
500-516. Barney, B.J. (1986). Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage?. Academy of
relationships between Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Total Quality Management & Performance.
SWDSI
Proceedings, Decision Science Institute. Byles, M.C., Aupperle, E.K. & Arogyaswamy, B. (1991).
Management Review, 11(3): 656-665.
Bass, B.M. & Avolio, and B.J. (1993). Transformational Culture. Organizational culture and performance.
Journal
of
Leadership
Organizational
Public
Managerial Issues, 3(4): 512-527.
Cameron, K., Dutton, J., Quinn, R. & Spreitzer, G. (2005).
Administration Quarterly, 17(1): 112- 17.
Bateman, T. S. & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and
What is positive organizational scholarship?. Ross School of Business, Michigan University, Ann Arbor, available at:
the good soldier: The relationship between affect andhttp://www.bus.umich.edu/Positive/WhatisPOS. employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal , Chiesa, V., Manzini, R. & Noci, G. (1999). Towards a 26(4), 587-595. Baumgartner, leadership: J. R. (2009). for Organizational culture the development of and a sustainable view of the competitive system. Long Range
Preconditions
Planning, 32(5): 519- 530.
Chun, S.J., Shin, Y., Choi, N.J. & Kim, S. M. (2011). How does corporate ethics The contribute mediating to role firm of financial Collective
sustainable corporation. Sustainable Development, 17(2): 102- 113.
performance? Becker, C. (2006). The human actor in ecological economics:
Organizational Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Philosophical approach and research perspectives. Behavior, Journal of Management, 20. 1-25.
Ecological Economics, 60, 1 7- 2 3.
Block, L. (2003). The leadership-culture connection: An
Coblentz, B. J. (2002). Organizational Sustainability: The three
aspects that matter. ERNWCA' s First Strategy Session,
exploratory investigation.
Leadership
&
Organization
Dakar. Coomer, J.C. (1981). Quest for a Sustainable Society (1st Borman,
Development Journal, 24(6): 318 - 334.
W. C. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Personnel selection
ed.). New York: Pergamon Press.in
organizations. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.),
Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
Daily, B.F., Bishop, J.W & Govindarajulu, N. (2009). conceptual model for Organizational Citizenship Behavior
A
48
directed toward the environment. Business & Society, 48, 243-256. Daily, B. F., Bishop, J. W. & Steiner, R. (2002). The impact
static.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, 333335. Fransson, N. & Gärling, T. (1999). Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and
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: AddisonWesley Publishing Company. Denison, R. D. & Mishra, K. A. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness.
research findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 369-382. Gautam, T., Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Uapdhyay, N. & Davis, A.,J. (2005). Organizational citizenship behaviour Dunlap, R. and organizational commitment in Nepal. Asian Journal of (Ed.), The
Organization
Science, 6(2): 204-223.
E. & Jones, R. E. (2002a). Environmental attitudes and values. In R. Fernandez-Ballesteros
Social Psychology, 8 (3): 336-345.
George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in 364-369). groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 107-116. George, J. , 1991. State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology,
encyclopedia of psychological assessment (Vol. 1, pp. London: Sage. Dunlap, R. E. & Jones, R. E. (2002b). Handbook of environmental sociology. In R. E. Dunlap & W. Michelson (Eds.),
Environmental
concern:
Conceptual
and
76(2): 299-307. George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A grouplevel 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 spontaneity of the mood at work -
measurement issues: 482-524. Westport: 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, 11, 130-141.
E-Business. (2007). PESTEL Analysis. E-Business Blog. Available at:http://veroniqca.blog.com/2355551 (Accessed on April 24, 2009). Ehrhart, G. M. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational
organizational
relationship.
Psychological
Bulletin, 112(2): 310-329.
George. M. J. & Jones, R. G. (1997). Organizational spontaneity context. Human performance, 10, 153-170. Ghemawat, P. & Ricart, J.E. (1993). The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency. Strategic
citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1): 61- 94. Faber, N., Jorna, R. & Engelen, J.V. (2005). The sustainability of " sustainability" A study into the conceptual
Management Journal, 14(2): 59-73.
Gibson-Graham, J.K. & Roelvink, G. (2009). An Economic Ethics for the Anthropocene. Antipode, 41(1): 320- 346. Gomis, A.J.B., Parra, M.G., Hoffman, W. M. & Mcnulty, R.E. (2011). Rethinking the concept of sustainability. Business 1-33.
foundations of the notion of " sustainability" . Journal of
Environmental Assessment Policy and Management. 7(1):
and Society Review, 116(2): 171- 191.
FAST-ISE. Academy. (2010).
FAST-ISE
Available
sustainability.
online
Full
Bright at
Gordon, G.G. & DiTomaso, N. (1992). Predicting corporate performance f ro m organizational culture.
Journal
of
http://www.fulbrightacademy.org/page/FAST-ISE/. FCIC. (2011). The financial crisis inquiry report: final report of
Management Studies, 29(6): 783- 798.
Graham, J.W. (1989). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, operationalization and validation. Working paper, Loyola University, Chicago.
the national commission on the causes of the financial and economic crisis in the united states. the financial crisis inquiry commission.
Available online athttp://fcic-
49 Chowdhury
Pogash, K. (2009). What is Sustainability?. Available online athttp://www.kennuncorked.com/sustainable_defined.html. 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, 39(5): 621-634. Kieweit, J.D. & Vos, F.J. J. (2005). Organizational sustainability: A case for formulating a tailor-made definition.
Graham, J.W. (1991). An essay of organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4(4): 249- 270, Gray, R., Kouhy, R. & Lavers, S. (1995), Corporate social and environmental reporting.
Accounting,
Auditing
&
Accountability Journal, 8(2): 47-77.
Greene-Shortridge, M. T. (2011). Leadership, employee wellbeing and organizational citizenship behaviors. Available online athttp://business.salary.com/leadership-employeewell-being-and-organizational-citizenship-behaviors Gregersen, H. B., 1993. Multiple commitments at work and extrarole behavior during three stages of organizational tenure. 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. 87(1):52- 65. Liere, V.D. K. & Dunlap, E.R. (2006). Moral norms and environmental behavior: An application of Schwartz's normactivation model to yard burning. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 8(2): 174- 188. Leiserowitz, A.A., Kates, W.R. & Parris, M. T. (2005). Do global attitudes and behaviors support sustainable development? Environment. 47(9): 22- 38. Linnenluecke, M. & Griffiths, A. (2010). Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. Journal of World Business, 45(4): 357-366. Linnenluecke, M., Russell, V.S. & Griffiths, A. (2009). Subculture and sustainability practice: The Impact on understanding corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(7): 432-452. Lok, P. & Crawford, J. (2001). Antecedents of organizational commitment and the mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(8): 594- 613. 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. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol 50, Issue: 1. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M. & Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations of sales performance. Journal of Marketing, 57(1): 70-80. Marcoulides, A. G. & Heck, H. R. (1993). Organizational culture and performance: Proposing and testing a model.
Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 9(1): 1- 18.
Journal of Business Research, 26, 31-47.
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, 54, 638-646. Hopkins, D.J. M. (2002). Sustainability in the internal pperations of companies. Strategy, 9(4): 398- 408.
Corporate Environmental
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. 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, 18(3): 353364. Karp, D.G. (1996). Values and their effect on proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior , 28(1): 111 -133. Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9(2): 131- 146. Karambayya, R. (1990). Contexts for organizational citizenship behavior: Do high performing and satisfying units have better ' citizens' . Working paper, York University. Kavanagh, H. M. & Ashkanasy, M.N. (2006). The Impact of leadership and change management strategy on organizational culture and individual acceptance of change during a merger, British Journal of Management, 17(1): 81- 103. Kelley, S. W. & Hoffman, D. K. (1997). An investigation of positive affect, prosocial behaviors, and service quality. Journal of Retailing, 73, 407- 427.
Organization Science. 4(2): 209-225.
Mayer, D. (2007). Corporate citizenship and trustworthy capitalism: Co-creating a more peaceful planet. American Business Law Journal, 44(2): 237- 286. 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 engineering: The emergence of a
50
new meta-discipline. Environmental Science & Technology, 37, 5314-5324. Mirvis, P. & Manga, J. (2010). Global challenges in responsible business, In Smith, N.C., Bhattacharya, C.B., Vogel, D. & Levine, D.I. (Eds.), Integrating corporate citizenship: Leading from the middle : 78-106. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 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, 6(1): 65-76. Mohant, J. & Rath, P.B. (2012b). Can organizational culture be a predictor of organizational citizenship behaviors?.
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3): 468- 481. Ouchi, W. G. & Price, R. L. (1993). Hierarchies, clans, and theory Z: A new perspective on organization development. Organizational Dynamics, 21(4): 62-70. Organ, W.D. (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causes-performance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 2(1): 46-53. Organ, W.D. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior. The
good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Organ, W.D. (1990). Fairness, productivity and organizational
citizenship behavior: Tradeoffs in student and manager pay decisions. Paper presented at Meeting of the Academy of
Management, San Francisco. Organ, W.D, Podsakoff, M.P. & MacKenzie, B.S. (2006).
International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 3(1): 76-79.
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee' s perspective. Academy of Management Journal , 37(6): 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(1): 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(4): 475480 NaturalStep (2011). Our approach - The natural step framework. Available onlinehttp://www.naturalstep.org/our-approach. Nicholls, J. (1988). The Transforming Autocrat. Management Today, 114- 18. Nielsen, T.M., Hrivnak, G.A. & Shaw, M. (2007). OCB and performance: A group level meta-analytic review. Working paper no 38, Social Science Resource Network. Nielsen, M., & Ellintong, B. L. (1983). Environmental psychology: Directions and perspectives. In N. R. Feimer &E. S. Geller (Eds.), Social processes and resource conservation: 312-388. New York: Praeger. Nordlund, A. & Garvill, J. (2002). Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34,740756. 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): 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, 71(3): 492-499. O' Riordan, T., Cameron, J. & Jordan, A. (2001). Reinterpreting the Precautionary Principle. London: CMP Publishing. Ouchi, W. G. (1983). Efficient cultures: relationship between culture exploring the organizational
Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and Consequences. London: SAGE Publications.
Organ, W. D. & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4): 775-800. Ott, J. S. (1989). The organizational culture perspective . California: Dorsey Press. Paula, D., O. G. & Cavalcanti, R.N. (2000). Ethics: essence for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 8(2): 109- 117. Peters, T., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence. London: HarperCollins. Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4): 570- 581.
at
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row. Phillis, Y. A. & Andriantiatsaholiniaina, L. A. (2001). Sustainability: an ill-defined concept and its assessment using fuzzy logic. Ecological Economics, 37(3): 435-456. 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, 1(2): 107-142. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Hui, C. (1993). Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Organizational
and
citizenship behaviors and managerial evaluations of employee performance: A review and suggestions for future research: 1- 40. Greenwich: JAI Press.
51 Chowdhury
Pourdehnad, J. & Smith, C.A.P. (2012). Sustainability, organizational learning, and lessons learned from aviation. Learning Organization, 1, 77-86. Putnik, D.G. (2012). Lean vs agile from an organizational sustainability, complexity and learning perspective. Learning Organization, 19(3): 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, 6(2): 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): 605-626. Rashid, A.Z.M., Sambasivan, M. & Rahman, A.A. (2004). The influence of organizational culture on attitudes toward organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 25(2): 161- 179. Ratner, D. B. (2004). " Sustainability" as a dialogue of Values: Challenge to the Sociology of Development. Sociology Inquiry, 74(1): 50-59. 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, 8, 243-254. Roethlisberger, F.J. & Dickson, W.J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Romano, R. (2005). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the making of quack corporate governance. Yale Law Journal , 114, 1521-1611. Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers, A. & Steger, U. (2005). The business case for corporate sustainability: Literature review and research options. European Management Journal , 23(1): 27-36. Schein, H.E. (1983). Organizational culture: A dynamic model. Working paper, no. 0086H. MIT. Schein, H.E. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schein, H.E. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. (4th Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schneider, A. & Meins, E. (2011). Two dimensions of corporate sustainability assessment: Towards comprehensive framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(4): 211- 222. Schultz, W. P. & Zelezny, L. C. (1998). Values and proenvironmental behavior: A five country survey. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 29(4): 540-558. a Schultz, P.W. & Zelezny, L. C. (2003). Reframing environmental messages to be congruent with American values. Human Ecology Review, 10(2): 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, 36(4): 457- 475. Schwartz, M., 2001. The nature of the relationship between corporate codes of ethics and behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(3): 247-262. Schwartz, S.H. (1977). Advances in experimental social psychology. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Normative influence on altruism: 10, 221-279. New York: Academic Press. 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, 17(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 , 16(15): 1699- 1710. 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. Shields, D.J., Š olar, V.S. & Martin, W.E. (2002). The role of values and Objectives in communicating Indicators of Sustainability. Ecological Indicators, 2(2): 146-160. 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. 5, 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, 25(7): 592-599. Simms, R. R. (2000). Changing an organization's culture under new leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(1): 65-78. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W. & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4): 653- 663. Smith, M., A. & O' Sullivan, T. (2012). Environmentally responsible behavior in the workplace: An internal social marketing approach. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3,4): 469-493. Solow, R.M. (1991). Sustainability: An economist' s perspective. Eighteenth J. Seward Johnson lecture presented to the Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.
52
Spreitzer, G.M. & Sonenshein, S. (2003). Positive Organizational Scholarship. In Cameron, K., Dutton, J. &Quinn, R. (Eds.), Positive deviance and extraordinary organizing: 207-224. Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco. Spreitzer, G.M. & Sonenshein, S. (2004). Toward the construct defi nition of positive deviance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6): 828-847. 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 E ro n. New Currency/Doubleday. Tankha, G. (1998). A psychological study of attitudes and
Vlek, C. & Steg, L. (2007). Human behavior and environmental sustainability: Problems, driving forces, and research topics. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1): 1- 19. Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. G. & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, operationalization, and validation. Academy of Management Journal. 37(4): 765-802. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L. & McLean Parks, J. M. (1995). Research in organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Extra-role behaviors: In
pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters): 17, 215- 285.
Van-Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR York : 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.
awareness towards environmental pollution 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, 23(5): 605- 630. Tichy, N. M., McGill, A. R. & St. Clair, L. (1997). Corporate Global Citizenship: Doing Business in the Public Eye. In New Lexington (Eds.). An agenda for corporate global citizenship: 1-22. San Francisco: New Lexington Press. Tjosvold, D. (1982). Effects of approach to controversy on superiors' incorporation of subordinates' information in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 189193. 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 management education: Developing committed, openminded researchers. Academy of Management Learning & Education;Mar2008, 7 (1): 73-85. 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.
and
International Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1): 3-27.
Vining, J. & Ebreo, A. (1992). Predicting recycling behavior from global and specific environmental attitudes and changes in recycling opportunities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 22(20): 1580-1607. Walz, S. M. & Niehoff, B. P. (1996). Organizational citizenship behaviors and their effect on effectiveness in limited-menu restaurants. Academy of management best paper proceedings: 307-311. Statesboro: Academy Management. Walz, M.S. & Niehoff, B.P. (2000). Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: Their relationship to organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 24(3): 108-126. Watkins, S. (2003). Former Enron vice president Sherron Watkins on the Enron collapse. Academy of Management Executive, 17(4): 119-125. Werner, M.J. (2000). Implications of OCB and contextual performance for human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1): 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, 51(3): 355- 424. White, L. A. (1999). Sustainability and the accountable corporation. Environment, Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 41(8): 30-43. Wilkinson, S.J. & Reed, R.G. (2007). The structural and
of
for
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 Behavior, 7, 125- 138. Toman, M. (1994). Economics and " sustainability" : Balancing trade-offs and imperatives. Land Economics , 70(4): 399-413. Tsai, Y. (2011). Relationship between Organizational Culture, Leadership Behavior and Job Satisfaction. BMC Health Research Service, 11(1): 98-106. Vallmer, A. & Seyr, S. (2012). Constructive controversy in innovation processes - Application and evaluation. Paper presented at Intl. Association for Conflict Management Annual Conference, South Africa.
behavioral barriers to sustainable real estate development in ARES. Proceedings of the 23rd American Real Estate
Society Conference, 1-12, San Francisco. Williams, J. L. & Anderson, E.S. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management , 17(3): 601-617. WCED (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53 Chowdhury
Yi, T. (2006). Team psychological safety, organizational citizenship behavior and team innovation: A mediation analysis. Nankai Business Review; 2005-06. Yilmaz, K. & Cokluk-Bokeoglu, O. (2008). Organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational commitment. World Applied Science Journal, 39(50: 775-780. Zain, M.Z., Ishak, R. & Ghani K.E. (2009). The Influence of corporate culture on organizational commitment: A Study on a Malaysian listed company. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 17, 1626. 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 , 1, 111- 132. 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, 63(7): 763- 771. Zutshi, A. & Sohal, S. A. (2003). Stakeholder involvement in the EMS adoption process. Business Process Management
Journal, 9(2): 133-148.
doc_238443103.docx