JOB INSECURITY AND OCB

Transcription

1 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB A LITERATURE REVIEW IN SEARCH OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP Bachelor Thesis Organization & Strategy 2010 Name: I. (Ivan) de Bree ANR: Supervisor: A.J.A.M. (Fons) Naus Department: Tilburg School of Economics and Management Number of words: 7973 Date: 8 th June, 2010

2 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page 1 Management summary The recession of 2009 internationally led to mass lay offs, which will have caused feelings of job insecurity among workers. Despite a growing consciousness that job insecurity negatively influences some worker behaviors, still little research has been conducted to its impact. In order to fill one gap in current literature, this study dealt with the implications of perceived job insecurity for organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Although most literature on OCB does not identify insecurity as an antecedent, some researchers did find a relationship. Furthermore, correlations between job insecurity and (other) antecedents of OCB are consistently found, which suggests a mediated impact. Therefore, the conducted research focuses on the identification of a direct relationship as well as its mediators. A literature review was conducted, by use of citation indexes like Web of Science. The renowned literature in the field of OCB and job insecurity was discussed to define these concepts. Job insecurity was defined as the experience of an unwanted threat of job loss and OCB as voluntarily performed extra role behavior with the intention to positively contribute to the functioning of the firm. The remainder of the literature study was strictly kept to these definitions, differences between adopted definitions accounted for most contradictions in current literature. Subsequently, in order to identify possible mediators or a non mediated relationship between insecurity and OCB, all antecedents of OCB were identified. No non mediated relationship was found. However, several antecedents showed up to be influenced by job insecurity. It was concluded that morale factors are the most influential mediators. The paper was concluded by a framework visualizing the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB with all identified mediators: Morale factors, health, psychological contract, perceived organizational support, role ambiguity, role conflict, group characteristics, and collectivistic orientation. These results will be useful for managers, as they provide a better insight into the effects of perceived job insecurity. The negative impact of insecurity on morale factors must be acknowledged and managers must be aware of the exchange relationships OCB is part of. Furthermore, this study adds to the current literature base by providing a discussion of the relationship between insecurity and OCB and especially its mediators. An overview of the mediators has not been provided before. Furthermore, an accurate definition of the concepts and an overview of the antecedents of OCB adds up by providing a good insight and a starting point for future research. After all, empirical research is needed to confirm the findings. The results plead for adopting a unanimous view on OCB, based on at least two dimensions. Furthermore, future research should discriminate between OCB and other forms of extra role behavior.

3 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page 2 Table of contents Management summary... 1 Table of contents... 2 Chapter 1: Introduction Problem indication Problem statement Research questions Structure Relevance Research methods... 5 Chapter 2: Defining Job insecurity and OCB Job insecurity Organizational citizenship behavior Dimensions of OCB Conclusion... 9 Chapter 3: Antecedents of OCB Employee characteristics Task characteristics Organizational characteristics Leadership behaviors Group characteristics Cultural context Conclusion Overview of the antecedents of OCB Chapter 4: Job insecurity s influence on the antecedents of OCB Employee characteristics Task characteristics Organizational characteristics... 20

4 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page Leadership behaviors Group characteristics Cultural context Conclusion Overview of the influence of job insecurity Chapter 5: Job insecurity s influence on OCB Overview of job insecurity s influence on OCB Chapter 6: Discussion and recommendations Discussion of the conducted research Relevance Strengths and limitations Recommendations for future research References... 29

5 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page 4 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Problem indication The economic recession of 2009 internationally resulted in budget cuts and reorganizations. Within many firms, this involved mass layoffs of permanent workers, which fits the general tendency to more temporary work relationships (Adkins, Werbel, & Farh, 2001). Although layoffs are traditionally used for costs reduction purposes, there is growing consciousness that the threat of being fired influences employees performances. Recent literature (e.g. Jeurissen, 2009; Reisel, Chia, Maloles, & Slocum, 2007) has recognized a negative influence of a feeling of job insecurity on extra role behavior. One such behavior is organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Feather & Rauter, 2004; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000; Wong, Wong, Ngo, & Lui, 2005), so it is plausible that job insecurity also affects OCBs. Nevertheless, most existing literature on OCB (e.g. Organ, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Tang & Ibrahim, 1998) does not identify job insecurity as an antecedent of citizenship behavior. Feather and Rauter (2004) actually did find a positive correlation of 0,24 between job insecurity and OCBs for employees with a temporary contract, and a negative correlation of 0,10 for permanent workers. However, these researchers failed to acknowledge the distinction between OCB, performed for the company s interest, and impression management behavior (e.g. Bolino, 1999), performed for one s own interest. This presumably accounts for the found positive correlation for temporary workers. Other researchers (e.g. De Witte, 2005; Pearce, 1993; Sverke, Hellgren, & Näswall, 2002) found job insecurity to negatively influence organizational commitment and satisfaction, both antecedents of OCB (Williams & Anderson, 1991). This suggests the existence of a mediated relationship. 1.2 Problem statement The preceding leads to the following problem statement: How does perceived job insecurity influence a worker s organizational citizenship behavior? 1.3 Research questions A literature study will be conducted to answer this question. It will be based on three research questions which allow for the identification of a direct relationship as well as a mediated relationship between job insecurity and OCB : 1. What is perceived job insecurity and what is organizational citizenship behavior?

6 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page 5 2. Which antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior can be identified? 3. (How) does perceived job insecurity influence the antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior? 1.4 Structure Figure 1 visualizes the relationships that will be studied. In chapter 2, perceived job insecurity and OCB will be defined by answering the first research question. It has to be noted that the antecedents of job insecurity and the effects of OCB will not be studied. Subsequently, this paper will deal with the second and third research question, respectively in chapter 3 and 4. This is followed by an answer to the main question in chapter 5 and a discussion and recommendations in the last chapter. 1. Job insecurity Figure 1: conceptual model Antecedents of OCB (mediators) OCB 1.5 Relevance By answering the main question, this research contributes to the, still limited, scientific insight into the impact of job insecurity on workers behavior. The current literature base provides no overview of the impact of job insecurity on the antecedents of OCB, not to mention the absence of a thorough study of the (mediators of the) relationship between insecurity and OCB. This study will fill these gaps. This will also be relevant for management purposes, as it creates a better understanding of the consequences of uncertainty and a more temporary nature of work relationships. This helps managers to make decisions based on a better understanding of costs and benefits and to deal with the effects of job insecurity. 1.6 Research methods As mentioned, this study is conducted as a secondary literature review, without the use of primary sources. For each subject, a few key articles have served as a foundation and starting point to reveal more relevant literature by use of Citation Indexes like Web of Science. This is useful to identify recent developments as well as the way ideas are received in the academic world. Although more importance is ascribed to much cited papers from renowned journals, other academic papers are also used in order to establish a versatile view. Furthermore, recent studies are compared with the established literature base to recognize developments. Finally, it must be noted that Web of Science does not record working papers. However, these papers are consciously excluded because of the difficulties in checking their reliability.

7 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page 6 Chapter 2: Defining Job insecurity and OCB 2.1 Job insecurity Security is identified as one of the human needs by Maslow and Herzberg (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984). Maslow stated that security creates, amongst others, stability, structure, safety and freedom of fear and threat (ibid.). Definitions of job insecurity often contain some of these elements. For instance, Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt (1984) and Heany, Israel and House (1994) adopt the view on job insecurity as a (potential) threat of the current work situation. The concept of job insecurity can be split up in a real threat that a worker will lose his job and a worker s perception of such a threat. Various personal and environmental conditions, like the firm s internal and external reporting and the worker s need for security, account for the difference between perceived and objective insecurity (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984). Perceived job insecurity appears to influence an employee s behavior much more than objective insecurity does (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Mohr, 2000). Therefore, most studies (De Witte, 2005; Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Sverke et al., 2002) deal with job insecurity as an experienced threat. This implies that workers in the same objective situation may perceive different degrees of insecurity (Sverke et al., 2002; Wong et al., 2005) and that perceived insecurity can even exist when there is no objective threat (De Witte, 2005). Perceived job insecurity is concerned with insecurity about the future (Sverke et al., 2002) and is often based on the current economic or business situation and a worker s personal position (De Witte, 2005; Mohr, 2000). When perceiving job insecurity, an employee is involuntarily engaged in this situation and feels powerless to change it (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1984; Reisel et al., 2007). Considering the preceding discussion, this paper will be based on the definition of job insecurity as the experience of an unwanted threat of job loss. Here, the word threat covers the possibility that a negative event will take place in the future. Therefore, the definition does not cover situations with a certainty of job loss. Furthermore, unwanted covers the involuntary nature of the concept and the powerlessness to change the situation. This definition is different from De Witte s (2005), who supposes worries about the situation to be part of it. However, this goes more into the outcomes of job insecurity than into the characteristics of the concept itself. By including job loss, the definition is also different from Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt s (1984), who consider insecurity about chances of promotion and the content of the current job to be part of the concept. In fact, this insecurity can better be seen as part of the concept

8 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page 7 of work insecurity (e.g. Jeurissen, 2009), which deals more with a worker s personal career and the content of his current job. 2.2 Organizational citizenship behavior By containing a wide variety of definitions, current literature shows the versatility of OCB. There seems to be consensus in literature about defining OCB as a kind of extra role behavior (e.g. Feather & Rauter, 2004; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Nevertheless, Organ (1997) opposes this by supposing that workers can consider OCBs to be part of their function. However, his criticism is ungrounded when, following Somech & Drach Zahavy (2000), extra role behavior is defined as behavior that goes beyond specified [emphasis added] role requirements (p. 650). Adopting this, and thereby following Feather and Rauter (2004) and Podsakoff et al. (2000), in this paper OCB will be seen as a kind of extra role behavior. Nevertheless can OCB be distinguished from other types of extra role behavior, as it is characterized by the intention to make a positive contribution to the functioning of the firm (Bowling, 2010; Feather & Rauter, 2004; Organ 1997). Hence, behavior with the intention to create a positive impression for a worker s own interest, as identified as impression management behavior by Bolino (1999), is another kind of extra role behavior. Because a worker is not explicitly asked to exhibit OCB (Feather & Rauter, 2004), it concerns a voluntary choice. However, it cannot be excluded that OCB will (indirectly) be rewarded (Organ, 1997). Following the foregoing, in this paper OCB will be defined as voluntarily performed extra role behavior with the intention to positively contribute to the functioning of the firm Dimensions of OCB Considering this definition, all expressions of OCB should be characterized by the intention to benefit the functioning of the firm. So not surprisingly, LePine, Erez and Johnson (2002) found OCB to be a one dimensional construct. This implies they do not study the various expressions of OCB as being different constructs. Therefore, all expressions are supposed to have the same antecedents and effects. However, the studies in which the existence of multiple dimensions is found (e.g. Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Podsakoff et al. 2000; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch 1994; Williams & Anderson, 1991) cannot be ignored as they deliver much evidence for the existence of distinctive dimensions. Following Williams and Anderson (1991), the various expressions of OCB can be divided in OCB towards the organization (OCB O) and OCB towards individuals (OCB I).

9 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page 8 However, literature provides little empirical confirmation for this two dimensionality, whereas there is much more evidence for the existence of more dimensions (Organ, Podsakoff, & Mackenzie, 2006). OCB I behaviors mainly deal with kinds of helping behavior, like altruism and courtesy (Podsakoff et al., 2000), which indeed can be interpreted as one dimension (e.g. Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994). However, OCB O seems to consist of multiple dimensions, since there is strong empirical evidence for the distinction of organizational compliance, sportsmanship, and civic virtue as separate dimensions (Organ et al., 2006). This results in the distinction of four dimensions of OCB, as displayed in figure 2. In this paper, OCB and OCB in general refer to all four dimensions. It must be noted that this dimensionality does not include organizational loyalty, self development and individual initiative, as identified by Podsakoff et al. (2000), as distinctive dimensions of OCB. After all, there is little evidence that these three can really empirically be distinguished from the four adopted (Organ et al., 2006). However, the adopted approach is supportive to the five dimensionality, including altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy and civic virtue, as used in many studies (e.g. Fassina, Jones, & Uggerslev, 2008; Piercy, Cravens, Lane, & Vorhies, 2006; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Altruism and courtesy are namely taken together in the dimension helping behavior and expressing conscientiousness is covered by organizational compliance. OCB in general Helping behavior Organizational compliance Sportsmanship Civic virtue Figure 2: dimensions of OCB Before determining the antecedents of OCB, a further understanding of the adopted dimensions is needed. The first, Helping behavior, is concerned with structurally assisting other people, like colleagues, customers, and suppliers, with solving problems or preventing problems from happening (Organ, 1997; Organ et al., 2006; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Organizational compliance concerns acceptance of a firm s rules and procedures, such that they are voluntarily obeyed, even without supervision (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Examples of this are being on time and not taking excessive breaks as an expression of adherence to the company and the

10 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page 9 readiness to cooperate (Organ et al., 2006). This is not different from in role behavior because of the kind of compliance, but because of its degree (ibid.). Sportsmanship involves not complaining about trivial matters, keeping up a positive attitude and not being led by self interest (Norris Watts & Levy 2004; Podsakoff et al., 2000). A more far reaching citizenship behavior is the responsibility expressed in civic virtue, which is the desire to actively contribute to an organization s policy and supporting the organization at the cost of one s selfinterest (Organ, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 2000). 2.3 Conclusion Concluding, this paper will be grounded on a one dimensional view on job insecurity as the experience of an unwanted threat of job loss, as well as on a four dimensional approach on OCB with helping behavior, organizational compliance, sportsmanship, and civic virtue as distinctive dimensions. Furthermore, OCB is defined as voluntarily performed extra role behavior with the intention to positively contribute to the functioning of the firm. As a result of this definition, every dimension must be performed with the intention to benefit the functioning of the firm. The next chapter will reveal more about the origins of this intention.

11 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page 10 Chapter 3: Antecedents of OCB Previous literature has identified many antecedents of OCB. The most important will be discussed in this section, classified in six categories. The first four are taken from Podsakoff et al. (2000) and involve employee, task, and organizational characteristics and leadership behaviors. However, these do not accurately cover the influence of coworkers and culture, therefore group characteristics and cultural factors are added. This results in the six categories as displayed in figure 3. As these factors are the preconditions for and the drivers of OCB, all antecedents must somehow influence a worker s ability, motivation or opportunity to engage in OCB. However, citizenship behaviors are, in contrast to in role performance, not that dependent on a worker s ability (Organ et al., 2006). Antecedents of OCB Employee characteristics Task characteristics Organizational characteristics Leadership behaviors Group characteristics Cultural context Figure 3: antecedents of OCB 3.1 Employee characteristics Employee characteristics mainly involve personality and demographic characteristics, role perceptions and morale factors (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Of all six categories, this is the most studied. Morale factors concern an attitude (Organ et al., 2006) and comprehend perceived fairness, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and perceived leader supportiveness (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 2000), although the latter is also part of the leadership behaviors. Trust in the organization (e.g. Wong et al., 2005) and job involvement (e.g. Chen & Chiu, 2009) also fit in this category. Furthermore, organizational loyalty as identified by, amongst others, Podsakoff et al. (2000) is a kind of psychological commitment (King, 2000). The morale factors are the most important motivators of OCB (Organ et al., 2006; Organ & Ryan, 1995), and are all found to have a

12 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page 11 significant positive influence (e.g. Chen & Chiu, 2009; Fassina, et al., 2008; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Wong et al., 2005). Of the Big five personality characteristics (extraversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness (Organ et al., 2006)), only conscientiousness is found to have a direct influence on OCB (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Although Konovski and Organ (1996) also found an influence on other OCB dimensions, most literature (e.g. Borman, Penner, Allen, & Motowidlo, 2001; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 2000) only indentifies a positive influence on organizational compliance. This is not surprisingly, as it was already stated in section that expressing conscientiousness is covered by the dimension organizational compliance. The other four personality characteristics have at most an indirect influence via their impact on morale factors (Organ et al., 2006; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 2000). However, the impact of other characteristics, like need for achievement and organization based self esteem (e.g. Tang & Ibrahim, 1998), needs further investigation. Little research has been conducted to the impact of role perceptions. Role conflict and ambiguity hypothetically create an opportunity for OCB (Konovski & Organ, 1996). However, empirical research (e.g. Podsakoff et al.,2000; Tompson & Werner, 1997) shows the existence of a negative impact. Podsakoff et al. (2000) found that this impact is mainly directed to helping behavior and sportsmanship. Furthermore, this relationship may be mediated by satisfaction (e.g. Podsakoff et al.,2000) or commitment (e.g. Tompson & Werner, 1997). Many researchers (e.g. Feather & Rauter, 2004; Wagner & Rush, 2000; Podsakoff et al., 2000) hypothesized a relationship between demographic variables and OCB, but either the found relationship seemed to be fully mediated (e.g. Feather & Rauter, 2004) or the demographic variable was a moderator itself (e.g. Wagner & Rush, 2000). Mental and physical health are assumed to lower performance in general (Adler et al., 2006). Despite a lack of empirical evidence, it can intuitively be concluded that a bad state of mental health lowers a worker s ability to engage in OCB, particularly helping behavior. A bad state of physical health will complicate citizenship behavior in general. Finally, some other employee characteristics may also influence OCBs. However, most of them, like experience and training, are not consistently found as antecedents (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Furthermore, researchers who identified antecedents like indifference to rewards (e.g. Podsakoff et al., 2000) presumably found an impact on impression management behavior (see Bolino, 1999) instead of OCB.

13 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page Task characteristics Like employee characteristics, task characteristics are also found to be important antecedents of OCB (e.g. Organ et al., 2006; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch, 1994). Podsakoff et al. (2000) found intrinsically satisfying tasks and task feedback to be positively related to OCB, whereas task routinization negatively influenced OCB. Although task feedback, which creates awareness of the effects of a worker s behavior, motivates for all OCBs (Van Dyne et al., 1994), a stronger impact on helping behavior and civic virtue is supposed as these dimensions provide more feedback (Organ et al., 2006). However, most relationships are assumed to be mediated by job satisfaction (ibid.). In addition, Organ et al. (2006) hypothesize an impact of task interdependence, which refers to the mutual interdependence of people by carrying out their tasks, and task autonomy, a worker s own responsibility for his task. Cardona, Lawrence and Bentler (2004) identified commitment as a mediator of this relationship and Van Dyne et al. (1994) the exchange relationship, which will be discussed in the next section. Despite the mentioned studies, little research has been conducted in this area. 3.3 Organizational characteristics Following Podsakoff et al. (2000) and Organ et al. (2006), organizational formalization and flexibility, distance between workers and the leader, organizational constraints and perceived organizational support (POS) are organizational characteristics that theoretically influence OCB. In addition, if job insecurity directly influences OCB, it is also part of this category. It must be noted that the influence of rewards outside a leader s control, as identified by Podsakoff et al. (2000), suggests a relationship with another kind of extra role behavior, performed for one s own interest. Although several relationships are hypothesized, research has not been able to consistently identify an impact of formalization and inflexibility on OCB (Organ et al., 2006; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Distance is identified as another organizational characteristic. Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Bommer (1996) found a negative relationship between spatial distance and altruism (covered by helping behavior), conscientiousness (covered by organizational compliance), and civic virtue. However more recently, Podsakoff et al. (2000) have concluded that such a relationship is not consistently found. Intuitively, a large psychological distance with executives lowers motivation and opportunity for OCB (Organ et al., 20006) and a large physical distance presumably complicates helping behavior. However, literature lacks empirical investigation of these relationships.

14 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page 13 Organizational constraints, like a lack of money, support and training, complicate in and extra role tasks (Organ et al., 2006). Therefore, a negative relationship with OCB can be expected. However, empirical evidence lacks support for this as well. Jex, Adams, Bachrach, and Sorenson (2003) actually did find a negative relationship with OCB, which appeared to be moderated by commitment. Only in the case of low commitment, the effect was negative, otherwise it was positive. Feather and Rauter (2004) confirmed the existence of a positive relationship, but this seems to be grounded on impression management instead of OCB. Nevertheless, a positive impact of POS is well supported by empirical evidence (e.g. Organ et al., 2006; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Randall, Cropanzano, Bormann, & Birjulin, 1999; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). It refers to the organization s concern with an employee s welfare, involving a fair compensation and looking after a worker s needs (Randall et al., 1999). Although Podsakoff et al. (2000) only identified a significant relationship with altruism, Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) found a stronger relationship with the other OCB dimensions (Organ et al., 2006). Therefore, it is hard to conclude about the exact influence on the different dimensions. More recently, full mediation by commitment is found (Cardona et al., 2004; Organ et al., 2006) and findings of Randall et al. (1999) also suggest mediation by satisfaction. As will be discussed further on in this section, POS can also be seen as an input of the psychological contract. Therefore, the impact is considered to be partly mediated by the exchange relationship of that contract. In their discussion of the antecedents of OCB, Tang & Ibrahim (1998), Podsakoff et al. (2000) and Organ et al. (2006) did not include job (in)security. Little research has been conducted to its direct influence on citizenship behaviors. Although some (e.g. Feather & Rauter, 2004; Van Dyne & Ang, 1998) identified a non mediated relationship, their view on OCB or job insecurity is not consistent with the adopted view in this paper. The positive relationship for temporary workers as found by Feather and Rauter (2004), is presumably based on impression management and the existence of possible mediators was not taken into account when identifying the negative relationship for permanent workers. Van Dyne and Ang (1998) found a negative relationship, but investigated job insecurity of temporary workers. Nevertheless, King (2000) also found a negative correlation, moderated by the psychological contract. In fact, job security is assumed to be an input of this contract (e.g. Coyle Shapiro, 2002; De Witte, 2005; De Witte et al., 2004), which involves the perceived mutual obligations between an employee and his employer (De Witte, 2005). This results in an exchange between, amongst others, salary, POS, and job security and things like a worker s performance, compliance and loyalty.

15 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page 14 When salary, POS, or security is lowered, this violates the contract and will result in less employee inputs to restore the balance. OCB is one of these worker s inputs (De Witte, 2005) and is easily adjustable without being punished for it. Therefore, when an organization lowers its inputs, for instance POS or job security, this will negatively influence OCBs (e.g. Robinson & Morrison, 1995; Wong et al., 2005). However, the current literature base stays inconclusive about the contract s impact on the individual citizenship dimensions. The negative impact of violation on satisfaction and commitment, as found by De Witte, (2005) and Lee and Pecce (2007), suggests a partly mediated relationship. Furthermore, violating the contract lowers trust in the organization, which is identified as a morale factor. 3.4 Leadership behaviors Following Podsakoff et al. (2000), leadership behaviors can be divided into transformational and transactional leadership behaviors and behaviors identified with the leader member exchange (LMX) theory. Empowerment can be added as another antecedent in this category (Organ et al., 2006) Supported by more recent studies (e.g. Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006; Vigoda Gadot, 2007), Podsakoff et al. (2000) found a consistently positive relationship between the various transformational leadership behaviors, like core transformational leadership behaviors, expressing high performance expectations, intellectual stimulation, and providing an appropriate role model and all kinds of OCB. In contrast with these findings, based on data of Podsakoff et al. (1996), Organ et al. (2006) found no relationship between intellectual stimulation and OCB. Furthermore the impact of transformational leadership may be mediated by the motivators job satisfaction and trust in the leader (e.g. Organ et al., 2006), organizational characteristics (e.g. Vigoda Gadot, 2006), task characteristics, or commitment (e.g. Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). Additionally, this category also contains behaviors like providing and stimulating the acceptance of shared group norms and goals (Organ et al., 2006), which are considered to be motivators of helping behavior (Yee & Van Dyne, 2005). In contrast to the social exchange of transformational behaviors, transactional leadership is based on a more economical exchange of punishments and rewards. However, when identifying them as antecedents, one must be cautious that the extra role behavior is not motivated by these rewards. For instance, the positive relationship as found by Podsakoff et al. (2000), Organ et al. (2006), and Vigoda Vagot (2006), is based on research that not accurately discriminated OCB from impression management (see Bolino, 1999). But after all, transactional leadership is supposed to offer more fairness of rewards and confidence about appreciated behaviors (Organ et al., 2006) and thereby stimulates morale factors like fairness perceptions and satisfaction. Therefore, the found correlations presumably subsist after controlling for impression management behavior.

16 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page 15 As related concepts, trustworthiness of and trust in the leader are consistently found to motivate for OCB (e.g. Chiaburu & Lim, 2008; Organ et al., 2006; Wat & Shaffer, 2005; Wong et al., 2006). However, the impact on the individual OCB dimensions was not (accurately) studied. Furthermore, following Organ et al. (2006) and Wat & Shaffer (2005), trust may also act as a mediator of other relationships between leadership behaviors and OCB. Finally, empowerment, for instance enhancing a worker s participation and the meaningfulness of his work, can be identified as an antecedent of OCB. Several dimensions of empowerment, under which self efficacy, status, self determination, competence, and meaningfulness, are found to be motivators of OCB (Bogler &Somech, 2004; Wat & Shaffer, 2005). Furthermore, following Organ et al (2006), empowerment is supposed to enhance job satisfaction All these leadership behaviors can be seen as input of the LMX, which involves the exchange between an employee and his leader. Like in the psychological contract, less inputs of the leader will be compensated with less employee inputs, like OCB, and vice versa. This is consistently supported by recent studies (e.g. Van Dyne, Kamdar, & Joireman, 2008; Waismel Manor, Tziner, Berger, & Dikstein, 2010). 3.5 Group characteristics Podsakoff et al. (2000) identified group cohesiveness as an antecedent of all OCB dimensions. Feeling part of the in group is supposed to be a precondition for helping behavior. Accordingly, the relationship with helping is the strongest and most consistently found (e.g. Kiddwell, Mossholder, & Bennett, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Yee & Van Dyne, 2005). Cohesiveness also supports and drives Team Member Exchange (TMX), which is the perception of exchanges and relationships with other group members (Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007; Organ et al., 2006). TMX enhances efforts for the group s interest and trust in group members (Organ et al., 2006) and is therefore not surprisingly found to be a motivator of helping behavior by Kamdar and Van Dyne (2007). Furthermore, the found influence on satisfaction (Organ et al., 2006) also suggests a mediated relationship. Somewhat related to the TMX is perceived team support, the perception that the group values one s efforts and cares for one s well being (Bishop, Scott, & Burroughs, 2000). Based on a social exchange, appreciation will be compensated by more efforts or helping behavior. The latter is confirmed by quite recent studies (Organ et al., 2006) Finally, Organ et al. (2006) identify group potency as a possible antecedent of OCB. This concerns a belief in the group and one s individual contribution to its performance (Organ et al., 2006). However, the existence of an influence on OCB is not empirically supported.

17 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page Cultural context Although an impact of cultural context on OCB is expected, little research has been conducted in this area (Podsakoff et al., 2000; Paine & Organ, 2000). Paine and Organ (2000) hypothesized an influence of power distance and the collectivistic orientation of a culture. Collectivism involves a focus on and dedication to the group, whereas power distance is the extent to which workers are able to influence each other s behavior (Paine & Organ, 2000). A more collectivistic orientation will most likely motivate to help coworkers, less power distance is presumably also a motivator and may create more opportunity for helping behavior. More recently, Cohen (2006, 2007) has confirmed these hypotheses and suggested partly mediation by commitment. Furthermore, as what explicitly is asked from employees may differ between cultures, culture can influence how OCB is perceived and what extra role behavior is (Organ et al., 2006). 3.7 Conclusion Based on current literature, it can be concluded that the morale factors positively influence all kinds of OCB and account for the biggest impact. Of the personality characteristics, only conscientiousness is consistently found to stimulate OCB, and only the organizational compliance dimension. Furthermore, role ambiguity and conflict are found to negatively affect at least helping behavior and sportsmanship. With respect to health, a negative influence on OCB is expected, presumably the most meaningful between mental health and helping behavior. The literature on demographic variables suggests no direct impact of this category. Intrinsically satisfying tasks and task feedback are found to positively influence OCB in general, although feedback seems to mainly influence helping behavior and civic virtue. Routinization is expected to lower citizenship behaviors. Due to a lack of empirical evidence and logical hypotheses, the other task characteristics are not adopted as antecedents. Likewise, no consistent conclusion can be drawn about formalization and inflexibility. Following expectations and some empirical evidence, organizational constraints complicate OCB in general. Although not well empirically supported, distance is likely to discourage OCBs. As part of the psychological contract, perceived organizational support and job security are both positively related to OCB. Although the strongest impact is directed to helping behavior, the transformational leadership behaviors are found to stimulate all OCB dimensions. Given the underlying motivation of OCB, no non mediated impact of transactional leadership is expected. Empowerment is supposed to create more opportunity for OCB and trustworthiness of the leader is found to be a motivator. All these

18 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page 17 leadership behaviors can be seen as inputs of the LMX, more employer inputs will result in more employee inputs. Of the group characteristics, group cohesiveness has the most significant positive relationship with OCB, primarily with helping behaviors. Furthermore, it stimulates TMX, which also drives helping. Likewise, perceived team support mainly stimulates helping behavior. Group potency is expected to influence citizenship behaviors in general. Finally, a higher collectivistic orientation drives helping behavior and low power distance facilitates helping. Table 1 summarizes these conclusions. If an antecedent influences all four dimensions, this is mentioned as an influence on OCB in general. When it influences all kinds of OCB but has a considerable higher impact on one or more specific dimensions, the box OCB in general is filled in as well as the box(es) of these specific dimensions. Furthermore, it must be noted that the table does not discriminate between hypothesized and empirically supported relationships. In the next chapter, job insecurity s influence on the identified antecedents will be discussed.

19 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page Overview of the antecedents of OCB Category Antecedents OCB in general Helping behavior Sportsmanship Organizational compliance Civic virtue Morale factors + Employee characteristics Conscientiousness + Role ambiguity and conflict / / Physical health + Mental health + + Task characteristics Organizational characteristics Leadership behaviors Group characteristics Cultural characteristics Intrinsically satisfying tasks + Task feedback Routinization Organizational constraints Distance Psychological contract POS / / / Transformational leadership behaviors + Transactional leadership behaviors + Trustworthiness of the leader Empowerment LMX Group cohesiveness + TMX + Perceived team support + Group potency Collectivistic orientation + Power distance / / + Table 1: Antecedents of OCB

20 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page 19 Chapter 4: Job insecurity s influence on the antecedents of OCB In chapter 3, six categories of antecedents of OCB were identified and discussed. Not all of them will be influenced by job insecurity. In fact, most are not, but it provides a good overview to discuss them all. It must be noted that based on the definition adopted in chapter 2, in this paper job insecurity is equivalent to subjective job insecurity. 4.1 Employee characteristics Starting with the morale factors, job insecurity is most consistently found to have a strong negative influence on job satisfaction (De Witte & Näswall, 2003; Reisel et al., 2007; Sverke et al., 2002). Furthermore, it lowers organizational commitment, involvement, and loyalty (De Witte & Näswall, 2003; King, 2000; Sverke et al., 2002). Insecurity has an immediate, short term, effect on these morale factors (Sverke et al., 2002) and lowers a worker s well being in general (De Witte, 2005). This can mainly be ascribed to a feeling of uncertainty, instead of the threat itself (ibid.). Because personality is a long term stable characteristic, job insecurity will not be able to really influence dispositional factors. Likewise, no influence on demographic variables is possible. However, they can play a moderating role on the impact of insecurity (e.g. Mak & Mueller, 2000; Näswall, Sverke and Hellgren, 2005) There might be a perceived contradiction between long term goals and the subjective risk of being fired in the short term. Therefore, an influence on role perceptions, like increasing perceived role ambiguity and conflict, is likely to exist. However, no empirical research was found testing this hypothesis. Furthermore, job insecurity might cause stress and tensions. Therefore, it is supposed to negatively influence mental and physical health on the longer term (Sverke et al., 2002). This hypothesis is quite consistently supported by empirical studies (e.g. Cheng, Chen, Chen, & Chiang, 2005; D Souza, Strazdins, Lim, Broom, & Rodgers, 2003; Sverke et al., 2002). 4.2 Task characteristics Job insecurity does not change objective task characteristics. Amongst others, routinization, feedback, autonomy, responsibility and interdependence will therefore not be affected. However, employees probably perceive their task as being less intrinsically satisfying when they think they might not be able to complete it due to a lay off. However, as a related concept, intrinsic task motivation is limited dependent on its context (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Furthermore, to my

21 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page 20 knowledge, no research has been conducted to insecurity s impact on subjective task characteristics. Therefore, the existence of a meaningful relationship is not assumed in this paper. 4.3 Organizational characteristics In the discussion of the psychological contract in section 3.3, job security was already identified as one of the contract s inputs. As discussed, more insecurity negatively influences the exchange relationship of the psychological contract (De Witte, 2005; Robinson & Morrison, 1995; Wong et al., 2005). Job insecurity hypothetically also influences perceptions of another employer s input in this exchange relationship, namely perceived organizational support. Despite a lack of empirical evidence, it is intuitively clear that less job security lowers the perception of the employer s concern with an employee s welfare and the perception of the employer s consideration of an employee s needs. Therefore, insecurity will negatively influence POS, which will partly mediate job insecurity s impact on the psychological contract. Insecurity will not complicate carrying out extra role tasks as it has no meaningful impact on the (perceived) money, support and training provided and needed for those tasks. Therefore, organizational constraints are not affected by job insecurity. Likewise, job insecurity will not be able to influence (perceptions of) an organization s formalization and flexibility. 4.4 Leadership behaviors In fact, job insecurity may influence objective transformational leadership behaviors, or a worker s perception of them. Chapter 5 will reveal whether an impact of insecurity on helping behavior exists. If so, job insecurity will have a mediated negative impact on transformational behaviors. After all, less helping behavior performed by a leader hypothetically lowers (the perception of) transformational leadership behaviors. However, the impact on (the employees perception of) expressed performance expectations and intellectual stimulation will be limited. Likewise, job insecurity will not significantly influence the economical exchange of transactional leadership or the degree of empowerment of workers. These hypotheses correspond with the absence of empirical evidence for a relationship between job insecurity and leadership behaviors. Therefore, no meaningful relationship is supposed. 4.5 Group characteristics Ballien & De Witte (2009) identified job insecurity as a stimulator of workplace bullying. This may be ascribed to the anger (e.g. Ballien & De Witte, 2009) and dissatisfaction (e.g. Reisel et al., 2007)

22 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page 21 caused by perceptions of insecurity. As a result, group cohesiveness will be negatively affected. Furthermore, for those bullied, perceived team support will also be reduced. Additionally, insecurity can entail perceived unfairness within the group when an employee perceives to face more insecurity than his co workers do. This will also reduce group cohesiveness and probably the TMX. However, because of a lack of empirical research, relationships with group characteristics are only theoretical. 4.6 Cultural context Although feelings of uncertainty can spread across society, it is not plausible that this affects stable factors like a culture s power distance and collectivism. Not surprisingly, in literature only a moderating role of the cultural context is found. Probst and Lawler (2006) concluded that behavior of workers from a collectivistic culture was more negatively affected by job insecurity than behavior of those with an individualistic orientation. However, a workers collectivistic orientation is only partly based on his cultural background. In fact, job insecurity may lower a worker s own collectivistic orientation when it stimulates individuals to perform in their own interest to keep their job. 4.7 Conclusion Job insecurity negatively influences morale factors, like job satisfaction, commitment and loyalty. Although not empirically proven, it may positively relate to role conflict and ambiguity. Furthermore, insecurity negatively affects mental and physical health. Demographic variables and dispositional factors are not influenced. Of the task characteristics, only the intrinsic satisfaction derived of tasks may be influenced by job insecurity. But as a result of the discussion in section 4.2, it will not be regarded as a meaningful relationship. As an input of the psychological contract, job insecurity is found to negatively influence the exchange relationship of this contract. Furthermore, this relationship will be partly mediated by the negative impact on POS. Organizational constraints, flexibility and formalization are not affected by insecurity. No impact on leadership behaviors is empirically proven and the hypothesized relationships are not supposed to be meaningful. However, a negative impact on group cohesiveness and perceived team support is likely. The TMX is presumably also negatively affected. Finally, job insecurity was not found to influence cultures. However, a negative influence on a worker s collectivistic orientation is supposed.

23 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page 22 Figure 4 visualizes these conclusions. The dotted lines indicate a theoretical relationship, whereas an uninterrupted line visualizes a relationship supported by empirical evidence. This figure will, in combination with table 1, be leading when answering the main question in the next chapter Overview of the influence of job insecurity Figure 4: The relationships between job insecurity and the antecedents of OCB

24 DE BREE 2010 JOB INSECURITY AND OCB Page 23 Chapter 5: Job insecurity s influence on OCB In the two previous chapters, the antecedents of OCB and the impact of job insecurity on those factors was discussed. Based on the findings, it will be possible to conclude about the relationships hypothesized in figure 1 and to answer the main question; How does perceived job insecurity influence a worker s organizational citizenship behavior? Job insecurity was defined as the experience of an unwanted threat of job loss and OCB as voluntarily performed extra role behavior with the intention to positively contribute to the functioning of the firm. A four dimensional approach on OCB was adopted, involving helping behavior, organizational compliance, sportsmanship, and civic virtue as separate dimensions. In chapter 3, the antecedents of OCB were identified (see section 3.7 and table 1). but not all of them were found to be influenced by job insecurity in chapter 4. Of all job insecurity s influences, the negative impact on morale factors is the strongest and best empirically supported. Furthermore, some other factors influenced by insecurity (POS, TMX, Role conflict and ambiguity) are found to be related to satisfaction, suggesting a partly mediated impact on satisfaction. The morale factors itself can be seen as the most influential antecedents of OCB. Therefore it can be concluded that a strong negative motivational impact of job insecurity on OCB exists, which is mediated by morale factors. Other motivators negatively influenced by insecurity are group cohesiveness, perceived team support, TMX, collectivistic orientation and POS. Furthermore, job insecurity is hypothesized to positively influence role ambiguity and conflict. Although insecurity s influence on these factors is mainly theoretical, their impact on OCB is empirically supported. Therefore, based on the assumptions and empirical evidence, they also mediate a negative relationship between job insecurity and citizenship behaviors. Furthermore, by negatively influencing a worker s health, insecurity lowers the ability to engage in OCB. Therefore, health can also be identified as a mediator of a negative impact of job insecurity on OCB. As an input of the psychological contract, job insecurity has a negative influence on its exchange relationship. This will result in less employee inputs, under which OCB. Therefore, the contract mediates a negative relationship between insecurity and OCB. Concluding, in this research no non mediated relationship between job insecurity and OCB has been made plausible. Mediated relationships were identified and all of them appeared to be negative. The existence of a negative relationship is supportive to the negative correlations found by Feather &