The relationship between social capital and organizational citizenship behavior in universities

Transcription

1 The relationship between social capital and organizational citizenship behavior in universities Sanaz Abdollahi Department of Management, Rafsanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rafsanjan, Iran Mohammadbagher Gorji Department of Management, Aliabad Katoul Branch, Islamic Azad University, Aliabad Katoul, Iran Abstract- The primary concern of this research is to survey and determine the relationship between social capital and organizational citizenship behavior among public universities of Golestan province. Method: The present research is an applied, correlation survey. The population of the study was 205 who were selected using simple random sampling method. Data collection instruments were two separate standard questionnaires about social capital and organizational citizenship behavior with acceptable validity and reliability. To analyze data, Pearson s correlation coefficient formula has been applied. The results reveal that there isn t any statistically significant and direct correlation among the components of social capital (i.e. cognitive, relational and structural) and organizational citizenship behavior. Key words: social capital, structural capital, relational capital, cognitive capital, organizational citizenship behavior Introduction Social capital is a relatively new concept in the literature of sociology. Categories such as rapport, friendship, sympathy, and social relationships among members of a social unit are some of the outcomes of social capital. Over the past two decades, Robert Putnam and James Colman gave credence to social capital concept by their investigations. Putnam emphasized horizontal relationships among individuals and Coleman stressed resultant social capital, relying on vertical cooperation and relations among people in civil societies as the cause of social capital (Alagheband, 2005). From an organizational point of view, Ghoshal and Nahapiet define social capital as the sum of available actual and potential resources, accessible through a network of relationships of an individual or a social unit (Sabatini, 2008). In their opinion, social capital is one of the important organizational capabilities and assets that can help the organizations create and share knowledge and build sustainable organizational advantage for them, compared to other organizations. 68

2 From an organizational point of view, Nahapiet and Ghoshal categorize different aspects of social capital to three different levels namely, cognitive, relational and structural. Organizational citizenship behavior was first proposed by Organ (Organ et al, 1938). It was then developed by the works of Barnard (1938) regarding the willingness to cooperate and studies of Katz on spontaneous and innovative behaviors in 1964, 1966 and Since organizational citizenship is not an official duty, it is considered as a behavioral index for replying to peer relationships. Organizational citizenship behavior can be recognized as those behaviors which are not part of official organizational duties, but their impact on organizational performance is evident. This type of behavior is a sort of extra-role which is in contrast to in-role behaviors. In-role behaviors refer to those job behaviors that are stipulated in an organization s official duties and roles and are recognized and rewarded by the official system of the organization. In contrast, extra-role behaviors are the ones which go beyond the official roles of the staff. Of such behaviors avoiding unnecessary conflicts, helping out colleagues at workplace, tolerating an imposed condition to the organization and getting involved in organizational activities can be mentioned (Robbins,2001 Hui. C2001, Organ,1988). The present study is designed to evaluate the relationship between social capital and organizational citizenship behavior in public universities of Golestan province, including Golestan University, Payame- Noor University of Gorgan, Gonbad University and Payame-Noor University of Gonbad which are prominent public universities in the area. Therefore, the main research hypothesis is whether there is a statistically significant relationship among the components of social capital and organizational citizenship behavior in the public universities of Golestan province. The concept of social capital The concept of social capital was first proposed by sociologists and was applied in their researches. This, has gradually attracted the scholars in the other fields of social science in recent decades. Moreover, It has been used in organizational and management courses as well as sociology, political science and economy (Darani & Rashidi, 2008). In general, there are two main approaches in regard to definition of social capital: A. The definition of social capital based on its functions. B. The definition of social capital based on its structure. In James Coleman s conception, social capital is defined with its function. He believes that social capital is not a single entity but a variety of entities with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspects of social structure and they all facilitate certain actions of actors within on organization. He goes on to say that social capital like the other types of capital is 69

3 generative, making it possible to reach particular goals which are impossible to attain without it (Coleman, 2011). One useful consideration to recognizing social capital in business realm is the work of Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1989) entitled Social capital, Intellectual capital and he Organizational Advantage. They have suggested three distinct dimensions for social capital specifically, structural, relational and cognitive. They will be explained concisely as follows. A. Structural dimension. The structural dimension concerns the properties of the network as a whole and refers to the overall pattern of connections among individuals which in turn indicates who people reach for social resources and how they reach them. This dimension includes ties between individuals, network configuration and proper organization. In general, this dimension explores the areas in which actors connect to each other. The patterns of connection among the staff are described and the benefit of such connectivity is studied (Samrin & Moghimi, 2010). B. The relational dimension. This dimension captures the essence of relationships in an organization. In other words, while the structural dimension is focused on whether or not the staff are related in an organization, the relational dimension focuses on the nature and quality of these interpersonal relationships. In fact, this dimension highlights effective relationship among the colleagues who trust and like each other and are identified within a network. This dimension includes trust, norms, commitments and identity (Samrin & Moghimi, 2010). C. The cognitive dimension. This dimension explains the extent of shared features among the individuals through shared language and codes and exchange of common stories. Common language and stories increase the level of understanding among network members and the staff s ability in predicting other colleagues actions. This dimension like the relational dimension explains the nature of connections among the individuals in an organization and includes sublanguage, shared codes and stories (Samrin & Moghimi, 2010). Moreover, the use of social capital concept due to the globalization process and weakening of national governments has been in favor with policy makers and social policy makers (Ahmadi & Feizabadi, 2011). The elements of social capital Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) categorized different aspects of social capital with an organizational approach: cognitive, relational and structural capitals which will be explained briefly. A. Cognitive element. The cognitive element of social capital refers to those resources that provide representations, interpretations and systems of shared meanings among groups. The 70

4 most prominent aspects of this dimension of social capital are shared language and principles as well as shared stories. B. Relational element. The relational element of social capital describes a type of personal relationships that people make due to their interaction background. The most important aspects of this dimension of social capital are trust, requirements and identity. C. The structural element. This element of social capital refers to all connections among individuals, that is who do you have access to and how do you have this access. The most important aspects of this element are network relationships, configuration of network relationships and proper organization (Burt, 2000). Organizational citizenship behavior The primary researches in this regard focused on recognizing responsibilities and behaviors of the staff which were usually measured incompletely (or were totally ignored) in evaluating their job performance, but are effective in improving organizational goals (Bienstock et al, 2003: 360). There have been different definitions for citizenship behavior. In some of them organizational citizenship behavior is described as a group of voluntary ands optional behaviors that, while are excluded from individuals official duties, it is operated by the staff and results in the effective improvement in tasks and rules in an organization (Appelbaum, 2004:19). Organizational citizenship behavior refers to individual and voluntary behaviors that will improve effectiveness and efficiency of the organization. However, they are not directly rewarded by the official systems of the organization (Hall, 2009: 382). The employees who possess this property express behaviors beyond their official duties and operate more than the necessities of their roles. Their goal is not getting rewarded; they put their best effort to improve and consolidate the organization (Taghavi et al, 2009). Research hypotheses and goals The present study seeks to determine optimum social capital in two public universities of Golestan province and its relationship with organizational citizenship behavior of their staff. To do so, the following is the main hypothesis of the study. There is a meaningful relationship among the elements of social capital and organizational citizenship behavior in the public universities of Golestan province. And the auxiliary hypotheses are: 1. There is a relationship between cognitive capital and organizational citizenship behavior in the public universities of Golestan province. 2. There is a relationship between structural capital and organizational citizenship behavior in the public universities of Golestan province. 71

5 3. There is a relationship between relational capital and organizational citizenship behavior in the public universities of Golestan province. Method This research can be considered applied from the viewpoint of the goal and a survey by virtue of different opinions. Also, as it evaluates the possible relationship among the variables can be called correlation. The population of the study was all the staff and professors of public universities in Golestan province and 205 of them were the participants of the study. Simple random sampling was used. Both library and field research (including two standard questionnaires, one related to Nahapiet and Ghoshal s social capital, the other one Podsakoff s organizational citizenship behavior) were employed. In order to analyze the data, SPSS software and statistical methods like Pearson s correlation coefficient have been applied. Findings To test the auxiliary hypothesis regarding whether there is a significant relationship between the cognitive capital and organizational citizenship behavior, Pearson s correlation coefficient formula was used. The results are presented in table 1. Table1. The matrix of correlation coefficient, cognitive capital-ocb variables N Correlation Coefficient Significance level Cognitive capital-ocb **: p value<0.01 *:p value<0.05 As (R= , sig= 0.635>0.05), the null hypothesis is rejected and it can be stated that there is no statistically significant correlation between the cognitive capital and organizational citizenship behavior, with 99% of confidence and a tolerance less than 1%. To test the second auxiliary hypothesis regarding the existence of a significant relationship between the structural capital and organizational citizenship behavior, Pearson s correlation coefficient formula was used. The results are presented in table 2. Table2. The matrix of correlation coefficient, structural capital-ocb variables N Correlation Coefficient Significance level Structural capital-ocb **: p value<0.01 *:p value<

6 As (R= -0.16, sig= 0.020>0.05), the null hypothesis is rejected and it can be stated that there is no statistically significant correlation between the structural capital and organizational citizenship behavior, with 95% of confidence and a tolerance less than 5%. To test the third auxiliary hypothesis regarding the existence of a significant relationship between the relational capital and organizational citizenship behavior, Pearson s correlation coefficient formula was used. The results are presented in table 3. Table3. The matrix of correlation coefficient, relational capital-ocb variables N Correlation Coefficient Significance level Relational capital-ocb **: p value<0.01 *:p value<0.05 As (R= -0/05, sig= > 0.05) the null hypothesis is rejected and it can be stated that there is no statistically significant correlation between the structural capital and organizational citizenship behavior, with 95% of confidence and a tolerance less than 5%. Finally, in order to test the main hypothesis, i.e. if there is of a significant relationship between social capital and organizational citizenship behavior, Pearson s correlation coefficient formula was used. The results are presented in table 4. Table4. The matrix of correlation coefficient, social capital-ocb variables N Correlation Coefficient Significance level Social capital-ocb **: p valu<0.01 *:p valu<0.05 As ( R= , sig= > 0. 05) the null hypothesis is rejected and it can be stated that there is no statistically significant correlation between social capital and organizational citizenship behavior, with 99% of confidence and a tolerance less than 1%. Conclusion The purpose of this study was description of some aspects of social capital and evaluation of relationship between social capital and organizational citizenship behavior. As paying attention to social capital is one of the most important concerns of modern organizations, and citizenship behavior is one of the criteria for the organizations and the correlation between these two 73

7 variables hasn t been paid much attention, the correlation between organizational citizenship behavior and social capital was considered. To do so, one main hypothesis and three auxiliary hypotheses were put forward. The relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and social capital was regarded in the main hypothesis of the study. The results from Pearson s correlation coefficient showed no statistically meaningful relationship between the variables. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected and with 99% of confidence and a tolerance less than 1%, revealing no meaningful relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and social capital. In the first auxiliary hypothesis, the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and cognitive capital was considered. Based on table 1, it can be stated that there is no meaningful relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and cognitive capital. In the second auxiliary hypothesis, the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and structural capital was considered. Based on table 2, it can be stated that there is no meaningful relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and structural capital. In the third auxiliary hypothesis, the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and relational capital was considered. Based on table 3, it can be stated that there is no meaningful relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and relational capital. The findings of the study can also be used for the other organizations. Proper steps to establish the optimum values of individuals social capital based on their capabilities, developing a connection and close cooperation with the colleagues, creating more coordination in works, higher degrees of job safety, emphasizing the personnel s self-control and the manager s closer attention to criticisms and suggestions of the employees can pave the way for the personnel s satisfaction which in turn leads to their better behavior. References -Alagheband, M. (2005). An introduction to social capital. Marefat Journal of Sociology Darani, K. & Rashidi, Z. (2008). Considering definitions, concepts and the manner of creating social capital with an emphasis on social trust. The Journal of Cultural Engineering. 18(2). -Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Trans. Manouchehr Sabouri. Tehran: Ney Publication Print. 74

8 -Moghimi, S. M. et al. (2010). The effect of social capital on organizational excellence. Strategic Management Studies. 3, Ahmadi, A. & Feizabadi, H. (2011). Considering the effect of promoting social capital on improving organizational performance. Case study: The staff organizations of Tehran Municipality. 6(3), Taghavi, M. & Shafizadeh, H (2009). Fundamentals of knowledge management. Quarterly Journal of Park Development Centers. 18, Sabatini, F. (2008). "Does social capital improve labor productivity in Small and Medium Enterprises?". International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 9(5), Robbins SP(2001) Organizational behavior. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prance-Hall -Hui C, Lam SK(2001) Can good citizens lead the way in providing quality service? Acad Manag,vol;5pp: Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington,. MA: Lexington Books -Burt, R.S (2000):"The network structure of social capital", research in organizational. - Bienstock, C., Demoranville, W. C., and Smith, K.R. (2003). "Organizational citizenship behavior and service quality", journal of services marketing, Vol.17 No.4 pp Appelbaum, S., Bartolomucci, N., Beaumier, E., Boulanger, J., Corrigan, R., Dore, I., Girard, C., and Serroni, C.( 2004). "Organizational citizenship behavior : a" case study of culture, leadership and trust management decision Vol.42 No.1, pp Hall, A. T., Zinko, R. P., Alexia A. F., and Gerald R. (2009). "Organizational citizenship behavior and reputation: mediators in the relationships between accountability and Job performance and satisfaction", Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies Volume 15 Number 4, pp