A systematic literature review on organizational citizenship behavior: conceptualization, antecedents, and future research directions

Abstract

This review study investigated two main questions on organizational citizenship behavior: first, how is OCB conceptualized in management studies? And the second question is, what are the antecedents of OCB in management studies? The study used a systematic review strategy to address the above questions. In this respect, clear inclusion and exclusion criteria were employed to select 53 relevant articles from the total of 2367 OCB articles obtained from various databases for analysis purpose. Other research methods were also used in the study, such as the collected data, which was analyzed via content analysis and finally presented descriptively using a descriptive research design. The finding shows that these days, OCB and OCBI/OCBO are still understood from 1988 Organ’s OCB constructs. There are limited studies on individuals’ dispositions, task characteristics, leadership behaviors, and group characteristics as types of antecedents of OCB in the existing literature. It is recommended to develop advanced OCB constructs that can be applicable to all types of organizations. As shown by the shortage of OCB studies in some types of antecedents, future researchers are advised to conduct their studies on individuals’ dispositions, task characteristics, leadership behaviors, and group characteristics using the conceptual framework suggested by this study.

Keywords:

• Organizational citizenship behavior
• conceptualization
• antecedents
• systematic review
• management studies

Reviewing Editor:

• Huifen (Helen) Cai, Middlesex University Business School, UK

Subjects:

• Introductory Work/Organizational Psychology
• Organizational Communication
• Leadership

1. Introduction

In today’s modern or postmodern world, organizations are facing challenges that influence all dimensions, ranging from their structure to specific programmes, which might affect organizations’ competence (Yaylaci, 2016). Contemporary organizations have to continuously make efforts to improve their competencies to become more valuable and effective (Sharma, 2016), which urges organizations to replace the traditional hierarchical structure with a team-oriented system (Vanaja et al., 2021). In this stance, employees willing to put in additional effort beyond their formal job descriptions are highly preferred by organizations (Sharma, 2016). Such willingness is identified as an extra-role behavior which is formally defined as Organizational citizenship behavior (Harper, 2015; Zhang, 2011).

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) is a newly emerging concept (Sharma et al., 2010) that was first introduced in the late 1970s and then officially defined in the 1980s. Its origins, however, can be traced back to the 1930s (Ocampo et al., 2018). Katz and Kahn (1966) were the first to observe employees’ extra-role behavior in the workplace; however, it was Bateman and Organ (1983) who coined the term ‘organizational citizenship behavior’ (OCB)—the time that greater scholarly interest in OCB teed off (Hazzi, 2018). The foundation of OCB is rooted in the notion that an individual’s willingness to cooperate is remarkably important and indispensable to every organization (Barnard, 1938). Likewise, Katz (1964) suggests to OCB with its assertion that, in addition to joining and staying with the organization and meeting performance standards, employees need to spontaneously go beyond their given roles. This idea was extended in 1978 by Katz and his colleague Kahn, describing spontaneous behaviors, which are intrinsically cooperative and unconditionally necessary to organizational functioning (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

According to Hart et al. (2016), various scholars were intrigued by the question of ‘why is job satisfaction is important to organizations?’, while the concept is only weakly related to job performance. Followed by, different scholars have also sought to identify behaviors that are important to organizations, however, are not formally required as part of the job, by defining OCB (Sharma et al., 2010). For instance, Organ (1988), the scholar who was defined OCB for the first time as individual behavior that is not rewarded by a formal reward system, but that, when combined with the same behavior in a group, results in effectiveness. It is a term that’s used to describe all the positive and constructive employee actions and behaviors (Vanaja et al., 2021), which are not necessarily part of their formal job description (Harper, 2015); it’s anything that employees choose to do, out of their own free will that supports their colleagues and benefits the entire organization (Campbell Pickford & Joy, 2016; Lee et al., 2013).

Another definition of OCB is behaviour that is not an enforced requirement of the role, which does not attempt to gain incentives, which is not an expressive behaviour owing to an emotional state, and which overall supports the welfare of the individual as well as the organisation (Hazzi, 2018). It refers to discretionary, non-required contributions by members to the organizations that employ them (Ozdemir, 2015). Hart et al. (2016) have also defined OCB as the behaviors of individuals that promote effectiveness in organizational functioning; it accomplishes this effectiveness by providing a positive social and psychological environment (Somech & Ohayon, 2019) - in which task work can flourish. Employees benefit from OCB insofar as it improves social relationships that affect job performance (Hart et al., 2016). In very general language, OCB describes actions in which employees are willing to go above and beyond their suggested role requirements (Sharma et al., 2010).

In recent years, scholars have given the field of OCB increasing attention (Podsakoff et al., 2014; Umdasch, 2021; Vanaja et al., 2021). For instance, many Industrial/Organizational psychologists have researched OCB; and has become of great interest to organizations (Newland, 2012). This has been a significant resurgence of academic interest during the past thirteen years on the topic of OCB (Alahakone & Shingi, 2014). In this regard, various typologies and dimensions of OCB have been posited; however, the most parsimonious structure consists of two major dimensions - roughly analogous to discretionary help and support to particular persons and discretionary levels of conformity to organizational rules (Daly et al., 2015).

These days, OCB is one of the most studied content areas in organizational behavior, with many published theoretical pieces, primary research, edited books, narrative reviews, and meta-analyses that describe the nature and functioning of the construct (Hart et al., 2016). Several researchers have thus been keen to understand the nature, sources, and contributions of OCB (e.g. Sharma, 2016). For instance, studies have shown that OCB contributes to enhancing productivity, better resource utilization, group coordination, and effective performance from 18 to 38%, which develops the employee’s ability to adapt to environmental changes (Sharma, 2016; Zhang, 2011). On the contrary, not a few researchers agreed that expecting or formalizing this behavior can lead to job creep or an unhealthy work/life balance; but letting it go unrecognized may diminish motivation (Campbell Pickford & Joy, 2016; Koopman et al., 2016). Thus, learning how to differentiate between those behaviors that are beneficial to all versus those that promote job creep, a poor work/life balance, and other negative effects will help maintain a healthy work environment (Campbell Pickford & Joy, 2016).

Currently, research on OCB has been rapidly growing (Lee et al., 2013; Lin et al., 2010; Harper, 2015; Sharma et al., 2010), however, this rapid growth in research has resulted in some conceptual confusion about the nature of the construct, antecedents, and outcomes (Campbell Pickford & Joy, 2016; Farh et al., 2012). For instance, OCB in public organizations as if ‘through a glass darkly’, providing an unclear and fragmentary picture of the causes, mechanisms, and consequences of OCB (de Geus et al., 2020; Ingrams, 2020). Likewise, extant studies have focused more on understanding the relationships between organizational citizenship and other constructs, rather than cautiously defining the nature, antecedents, and outcomes of citizenship behavior itself (Bolino et al., 2013; Dekas et al., 2013; Lin et al., 2010; Ocampo et al., 2018). As a result, it becomes difficult for organizations’ OCBs to modify the current workplace environment by raising issues, making changes on their own, or enhancing current relationships or processes (Halbesleben & Bellairs, 2016). Therefore, this systematic review was conducted to address how OCB is conceptualized and what are its antecedents in management studies.

This systematic review aims to make the following contributions. First, identifies the OCB studies based on sector, for instance, identifies in which sector OCB is more studied; the OCB studies are also discussed based on countries of origin to address their global reach. In addition, the OCB studies addressed based on their natures such as public and/or private, to get an understanding of which nature of the organization the management studies predominantly emphasized. Second, this study contributes to understanding how management studies are conceptualized OCB for example, from the old versions of OCB, OCBI, or OCBO to the current complex organizational environment perspectives. This is very essential to obtain knowledge about whether 1988 Organ’s OCB views are still operating in the contemporary context or not. And also informs which OCB measurement scales the management studies are using, and also recommends the advanced scales that should be used in the current organizations’ contexts.

Third, the study also has contributions exposing data collection and data analysis methods used in the existing OCB studies, which helps to understand the studies whether having qualitative and/or quantitative tendencies. For example, it can provide a clue on the types of respondents used for the data collection in the OCB studies such as whether employees themselves, supervisor, coworker, or supervisor & subordinate. Fourth, identifies the types of antecedents of OCB surveyed in management studies, and also addresses what type(s) of OCB antecedents’ sufficient research was not yet carried out. Lastly, this study also contributes by developing a conceptual model/framework on OCB antecedents applicable to future researchers, particularly those who have an interest in conducting research surveys on OCB antecedents of an organization.

2. Research methods

2.1. Research design

This study used descriptive design to show how OCB is conceptualized and what its antecedents, in management studies. According to Kothari (2004), descriptive design helps researchers describe and present the extant facts related to describing ex-post facto. A descriptive research design is one that seeks data in order to methodically characterize a phenomena, circumstance, or population (de Vaus, 2001). More specifically, it helps answer the what, when, where, and how questions regarding the research problem (Bickman et al., 2009). The descriptive method of research can involve the use of many different kinds of research methods to investigate the variables in question, which predominantly employs quantitative data (Williams, 2011). To satisfy the aforementioned aims, descriptive design is appropriate in this case (Birbirsa & Worku, 2022).

2.2. Research strategy

This study employed a systematic literature review strategy. According to Dewey and Drahota (2016), a systematic literature review identifies, selects, and critically evaluates research to address a clearly formulated question and follows a clearly defined protocol or plan where the criteria are explicitly stated before the review is conducted (Snyder, 2019). It entails a methodical search for studies and aims for a transparent report of study identification, making readers informed about what was done to identify studies and how the review’s results are located in the pertinent evidence (Cooper et al., 2018). Systematic literature, according to Greyson et al. (2019), is a thorough, transparent search of numerous databases and grey literature that can be replicated and reproduced by other scholars. By the same token, it importantly focuses on the criteria you have used to evaluate the literature found for inclusion or exclusion in the review (Snyder, 2019). As demonstrated by Banomyong, Varadejsatitwong, and Oloruntoba (2019), a systematic literature review is carried out to provide you with a broad understanding of your topic area, to demonstrate the work that has already been done in the field, and to highlight the research methods and theories that are being applied.

2.3. Data sources and data collection

The main objective of this study is to investigate how OCB is conceptualized in management studies and its antecedents. So, the researchers used secondary sources of data to achieve the set objectives. Accordingly, Google Scholar, Wiley Online Library, Emerald, SAGE Online, Tayler & Francis, Pubmed, Science Direct, and JSTOR were the main research databases addressed, and 53 high-quality peer-reviewed studies were selected out of 2367 articles and reviewed to conduct this study by exposing each and every article through critical eligibility criteria. Meline (2006) asserts that the eligibility requirements are initially enforced leniently to guarantee that pertinent research is included and that no study is eliminated without careful consideration. At the outset, studies are only excluded if they clearly meet one or more of the exclusion criteria; otherwise, studies are included in the pool for detailed examination at a later time (Ibid.). In more detail, exclusion criteria typically include publications that are irrelevant, duplicated, have unavailable full texts, or have only an abstract (Tawfik et al., 2019). And the inclusion criteria would be articles that contain information answering our research question, but the most important thing is that there should be clear and sufficient information, including positive or negative, to answer the question (Ibid.). The issue that reviewers might address at this point, according to Gliner et al. (2003), is which studies in the pool are pertinent to the objective of the intervention under evaluation. This may be the most crucial question that reviewers try to answer.

As indicated in Figure 1, apparent inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to select relevant studies to answer the research questions. Accordingly, the researchers used the following criteria for including a given study for analysis: time period, i.e. studies published within 2005–2022, should be published in English, and also have OCB keywords with relevant quality assessment. For instance, the time frame was selected on the basis of a particular controversy that emerged or a new intervention that was introduced. Whatever time period is chosen, reviewers are expected to provide sufficient rationale for it, as Meline (2006) says. On the other hand, the criteria used for excluding studies in this study are the reverse of the criteria employed for inclusion, such as studies published outside of the stated year interval (2005–2022), published in other languages than English, and studies that did not basically include OCB as a keyword. And also, studies would be excluded from this study because, basically, the studies lack relevance and quality and are duplicated.

Figure 1. Flow diagram of study’s’ screening and selection. Source: Adapted from (Rashman, Withers, & Hartley, 2009; Tawfik et al., 2019).

Regarding the search string, improvements are made while doing a trial search and looking for another relevant term within each concept from the retrieved papers. To search for an organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) trial, the research has used these descriptors in databases: ‘Organizational Citizenship Behavior’ OR ‘Citizenship Behavior’ OR ‘Organizational Citizenship’ OR ‘OCB’ OR ‘Group-Level Organizational Citizenship Behavior’ OR ‘Individual-Level Organizational Citizenship Behavior’ OR ‘Group-Level OCB’ OR ‘Individual-Level OCB’ OR ‘IOCB’ OR ‘GOCB’ OR ‘OCBO’ OR ‘OCBI’. The following Figure 1 clearly identifies and presents the screening and selection criteria used in this study.

Regarding the nature of the studies considered under this systematic review, as can be seen in Figure 2 below, the majority of the included studies are quantitative in nature, which covers 70% of the total selected studies, followed by systematic (9%), narrative (8%), mixed (7%), and qualitative (6%) studies.

Figure 2. Nature of the studies. Source: Own Survey (2022).

2.4. Data analysis

To analyze the data gathered for this study, a content analysis technique was used. Elo et al. (2014) define content analysis as a research technique used to identify the existence of specific terms, themes, or ideas within a given set of qualitative or quantitative data. It is a methodical, quantitative way of examining the meaning or content of an organisation and characterizing its phenomena (Riff et al., 2014). As a result, researchers and academics can measure and analyze the existence, meanings, and connections between particular terms, themes, or concepts using this analysis method, such as organisational citizenship behaviour (Elo et al., 2014). And finally, the findings were analyzed using descriptive statistics, particularly percentages presented in line, pie, and bar graphs as well as tables.

3. Discussion of findings

This part of the study focused on discussing findings obtained from relevant management studies exclusively conducted on organizational citizenship behavior in relation to its concepts and antecedents. This study considered three basic domains, such as presenting general results about organizational citizenship behavior, then discussing and addressing the two specific objectives presented in the introduction part. These objectives are: the first is to investigate how organizational citizenship behavior is conceptualized in management studies; and the second is to assess the antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior. Through all of these, it appears that this study will discuss the target group, level of analysis, models or theories used, and technique of analysis of the chosen studies in order to identify gaps that may allow for future research to be undertaken based on the gaps.

To address the first research objective, i.e. conceptualization of organizational citizenship behavior, 53 studies were considered, which comprised empirical and conceptual studies. For the second objective, which deals with addressing the antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior, the same relevant studies were used with various natures.

3.1. General results

In advance of addressing the specific objectives, some general issues are presented and discussed in the following section, such as OCB studies by sector, country (where OCB studies were conducted), and also OCB studies based on the nature of the organization.

Figure 3 presents OCB studies by sector; therefore, as can be observed from the figure above, a large number of studies (28) were conducted in the service sector. OCB studies done by taking into consideration both service and manufacturing cover the second-largest number, which is 14; manufacturing (5); and the rest 6 are not applicable to either of the cases. Out of the studies conducted in the service sector, education takes the leading position (12), particularly studies focused on primary and secondary school levels, and the next place is owned by other services such as hotel, health, petroleum distribution, shopping, security, banking, finance and insurance, transport, and government services (e.g. income tax assistance and municipal administration). Therefore, the finding shows that there is a lack of OCB studies in some sectors, like the manufacturing sector, and that the available studies conducted on the sector are only limited to information technology and textile industries. Likewise, there is also a shortage of OCB studies on tertiary-level education and other services (e.g. security, transport services, etc.). For instance, too few OCB studies were conducted at the university level (such as Martinescu et al., 2021). The next figure presents OCB studies by country (Figure 4).

Figure 3. OCB studies by sector. Source: Own survey (2022).

Figure 4. OCB studies by country. Source: Own survey (2022).

The above figure describes OCB studies by their countries of origin; thus, the result shows us that OCB is a concept with a global reach from all corners. However, there is a concentration of studies in specific countries, such as the USA (11), China (7), and Israel (5). In terms of the quantity of OCB studies, North America, Asia, and the Middle East are in the lead positions. On the contrary, countries from the two cotenants, such as Africa and Latin America, are prominently less represented in the OCB research, a trend that raises questions about the aspirations of generalizable social science knowledge on OCB (de Geus et al., 2020). Therefore, from the findings obtained, Africa and Latin American countries are the places where a shortage of OCB studies is exclusively seen. There is also a lack of OCB studies across countries, by considering two or more countries, or by being conducted at a multinational level. For example, according to the research findings of Rezaeian et al. (2013), the Iranian national culture’s employees’ perception of their organization’s trustworthiness can motivate them to perform in a proactive way; however, this may not be applicable at the MN level. The following figure presents OCB studies by nature of the organization.

As indicated in Figure 5 above, almost a considerable number of OCB studies were conducted at public and private organizations, with 28%(15), 38%(20), and 17%(9) of the studies being mixed, which were conducted by including both public and private organizations in the study. And the remaining 4%(2) and 13%(7) studies were not identified, not applicable, or did not fulfil the categorization, respectively. The result shows the majority of the OCB studies are conducted in private organizations, and conversely, there is a shortage of OCB studies conducted using and considering both natures of organizations i.e. public and private. This situation may result in a problem constructing an OCB model or framework that is equally applicable to all organizations. According to de Geus et al. (2020), even in public organizations, there is an unclear and fragmentary picture of the causes, mechanisms, and consequences of OCB. The next sections will present the conceptualization and antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior in the existing literature.

Figure 5. OCB studies by nature of organization. Source: Own Survey (2022).

3.2. Conceptualization of organizational citizenship behavior

The researchers employed two basic steps or ways suggested by de Geus et al. (2020) to investigate how OCB is conceptualized in management studies. The first step/way is through analysis of the terminology used to describe OCB and its cognates, such as extra-role behavior, and the second is through analysis of the measurement scales and research methodologies. Accordingly, the ways and steps identified above are discussed in the next sections using frequency data, as clearly indicated in Tables 1, 2, and 3.

Table 1. Types of OCB measured.

OCB Type	Number	Percentage
General OCB	18	34
OCBI	5	9
Extra-role behavior	13	24
Helping/prosocial behavior	3	6
OCBI&GOCB	3	6
GOCB	7	13
OCBI&OCBO	4	8
Total	53	100

Source: Own Survey (2022).

Table 2. Types of OCB measurement scales used.

Scale Author(s)	Number	Percentage
Author’s scale	15	28
Podsakoff et al. (1990)	9	17
Williams and Anderson (1991)	3	5
Organ (1988)	2	4
Podsakoff et al. (1997)	2	4
Farh et al. (1997)	2	4
LePine et al (2002)	1	2
Moorman and Blakely (1995)	1	2
Strauss and Corbin (1990)	1	2
Fox and Spector (1994)	1	2
Hunt et al. (1985)	1	2
Other/unclear/not applicable	15	28
Total	53	100

Source: Own survey (2022).

Table 3. Data collection methods and type of respondents, of OCB studies.

Data Source	Number	Percentage
Survey	37	70
Interview/ Focus Group Discussion	3	6
Document analysis	9	17
Mixed	4	7
Total	53	100
OCB Measured Using:
Self-reported	24	45
Supervisor	3	6
Coworker	7	13
Supervisor & Subordinate	9	17
Unclear/not applicable	10	19
Total	53	100

Source: Own Survey (2022).

As can be seen in Table 1 above, about the terminology used to describe OCB and its cognates, 18(34%), 5(9%), 13(24%), 3(6%), 3(6%), 7(13%), and 4(8%) of the studies used the constructs of OCB itself, OCBI, extra-role behavior, helping/prosocial behavior, OCBI&GOCB, GOCB, and OCBI&OCBO, respectively. This indicated that the majority of the studies, which include the OCB construct, OCBI, and OCBI&OCBO, account for 27(51%). Reflecting the historical development of the OCB construct from research on extra-role behavior recording 13(24%), and GOCB 7(13%), as shown in the above able, The latter concepts, such as helping/prosocial behavior and OCBI and GOCB, also have salience in the literature, though not nearly as much as OCB. Likewise, the results from the review suggest that the field of OCB studies in the organizations is significantly focused on OCB, along the lines of the construct first developed by Organ in 1988.

According to de Geus et al. (2020), most reviews, particularly systematic reviews of OCB, for instance, in the private sector, are primarily characterized as OCB or OCBI/OCBO dichotomies. They argued that there is a very critical issue for future studies to undertake: whether the OCBI/OCBO divide is entirely fit for a given sector, for example, the public sector, or whether there are subtle differences between sectors’ types of OCBI and OCBO in terms of whether they are equally important. Therefore, from the facts given above, it can be concluded that the existing studies were primarily focused on the constructs of OCB itself and its sub-dimensions, such as individual (OCBI) and/or organizational (OCBO), and not yet customized based on the organizations.

As shown earlier, the second step recommended by the scholar (de Geus et al., 2020) to assess how OCB is conceptualized in management studies is through analysis of the measurement scales and research methodologies. Accordingly, as can be easily observed in Table 2 above, the analysis of the OCB measurement scales shows that measurement is based on a small set of conventional scales and that OCB in different and several sectors is most often studied through quantitative surveys (for details, see Research Methods, pp. 9). The above table indicates the OCB studies measurement scales that are followed or developed by the authors of OCB studies. In this regard, the majority of the OCB studies’ measurement scales were developed by the authors themselves, based on multiple scales, which cover 15(20%) of the total studies, and the remaining scales were adapted from various scholars such as Podsakoff et al. (1990), 9(17%); Williams and Anderson (1991), 3(5%); Organ (1988), 2(4%); Podsakoff et al. (1997), 2(4%); Farh et al. (1997), 2(4%); LePine et al. (2002), 1(2%); Moorman and Blakely (1995), 1(2%); Strauss and Corbin (1990), 1(2%); Fox and Spector (1994), 1(2%); Hunt et al. (1985), 1(2%). Likewise, a considerable number of studies, which account for 15(28%), either adapted other scales or did not have entirely used OCB measurement scales or did not clearly state the scales in their studies.

As clearly shown, many early scales developed by Organ (1988), Podsakoff et al. (1990), Williams and Anderson (1991), Podsakoff et al. (1997), and Farh et al. (1997) are still used by various researchers. According to Runhaar et al. (2013), the Williams and Anderson scale adopts the OCBI and OCBO distinctions, though the underlying measures are almost similar to others, for instance, Organ. Table 2 indicates that the scale established by Podsakoff et al. (1990) is frequently used. As stated by Nishantha and Eleperuma (2018), the Podsakoff et al. scale marks a distinctive turn from the earlier scales by clearly centering the scale on Organ’s (1988) original five dimensions of OCB, such as altruism, sportsmanship, conscientiousness, civic virtue, and courtesy.

According to scholars (e.g. de Geus et al., 2020), the choice of scale can help advance particular kinds of research questions that are important for a given sector, for example, the public sector. They suggested using a scale developed by Lee and Allen (2002) to measure OCB that advanced earlier scales by removing items that have ambiguous relevance to the benefit of the organization such as time spent taking work breaks or making personal phone calls. On the other hand, Rainey (2014) stated that Williams and Anderson’s scale favors attempts to disentangle individual and organizationally based behaviors, OCBI/OCBO, given that organizations are characterized by unique organizational challenges and constraints. Therefore, even though there are several scales established to measure OCB, OCBI, or OCBO, one needs to test and adapt scales that fit a particular organization. The below table discusses OCB conceptualization from research method perspectives.

Regarding the data collection methods of OCB studies, Table 3 above shows that the majority of the studies employed a quantitative methodology and used a survey to collect their data, which covers 37, or 70%, of the total studies. The remaining studies used interview/focus group discussion (36%); document analysis (17%); and mixed methodology, which records 47% of the total. From the above result, it can be understood that there is a shortage of qualitatively conducted studies on OCB, for example, using interviews or other related qualitative data collection tools. As shown above, only three studies were conducted using qualitative approaches, such as Nutov and Somech (2017), Gefen and Somech (2019), and Love and Kim (2019). For instance, Gefen and Somech (2019) conducted a qualitative study to understand student organizational citizenship behavior using in-depth semi-structured interviews conducted with principals, teachers, and students, with a with a particular focus on elementary and middle schools in Israel. By the same token, there are also shortages of OCB studies conducted employing a mixed approach.

The same table reports whether the measurement scales used in surveys are taken from the perspective of employees themselves, reported by the employees’ supervisor, reported by the employees’ coworkers, reported by the employees’ supervisor and subordinates, or established by the company records or other sources. Accordingly, OCB is predominantly measured using self-reported items that account for 24(45%) of the studies; the remaining are presented as follows by their order: supervisor, coworker, and supervisor & subordinate, which records 3(6%), 7(13%), and 9(17%), respectively. Likewise, a substantial number of OCB studies, 10(19%), either did not apply the types of respondents or did not include the data in their studies. In a general format, the majority of the studies were carried out using self-reported items to measure individuals’ and/or organizations’ OCB. The following sections discuss data analysis methods and models employed by OCB studies.

As can be seen in Figure 6, 22% of the studies were analyzed using factor analysis (FA), 19% descriptive statistics (such as frequency, mean, median, and standard deviation, etc.), 15% structural equation modelling (SEM), 13% multiple linear regression model (MLRM), 11% others (data analysis methods used particularly to qualitative data and document analysis, e.g. content analysis method), 6% principal component analysis (PCA), 6% t-test, 4% hierarchical linear regression model (HLRM), and the remaining insignificant percent of studies used ANCOVA and ANOVA models as methods of analysis, which account for 2% and 2%, respectively. Therefore, this indicates that almost more than half of the studies focused on organizational citizenship behavior and employed inferential statistics. Likewise, a large majority of the OCB studies (83%) used a cross-sectional research design. The following figure presents the model and theory employed by OCB studies.

Figure 6. Data analysis methods. Source: Own survey (2022).

As indicated in Figure 7, only 19% of the studies were conducted using an apparent model or theory, 17% focused on model development, and the remaining 64% were carried out without a model or were unclear. Therefore, the majority of the past studies did not use clear models or theories to investigate organizational citizenship behavior, and there is also a contradiction. For instance, the studies that apparently used social exchange theory, such as Song and Kim (2021), Supriyanto et al. (2020), and Martinescu et al. (2021); the Job Demands-Resources model: Zhang et al. (2021), Chen et al. (2021), and Shim et al. (2019); social capital theory: Shrestha and Subedi (2020); organizational support theory: Dai et al. (2018); self-determination theory and conservation of resource theory: Qiu et al. (2020); and Ma et al. (2018) used leader-member exchange theory.

Figure 7. Model/theory employed.  Source: Own survey (2022).

3.3. Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior

Various literature results classify the antecedents of OCB differently. For instance, Rauf and Kumar (2015) divides the antecedents of OCB into four major types, such as individual (or employee) characteristics, task characteristics, organizational characteristics, and leadership behavior. Likewise, as insisted by Biswas and Mazumder (2017), the above types of antecedents of OCB can be further grouped into two: the first is attitudinal and dispositional, and the second one is leadership and work environment. However, to investigate the antecedents of OCB, in particular for this study, the researchers have used the types of antecedents of OCB suggested by Umdasch (2021), such as employees’ characteristics, task characteristics, leadership behaviors, and group characteristics. The following section provides details on the antecedents of OCB.

As can be seen from Table 4 above, about 26(49%) of the studies focused on employee characteristics as predictors of OCB. As stated by Umdasch (2021), employees’ characteristics as antecedents of OCB can be subdivided into three major parts: demographic, attitudinal, and dispositional. Demographics covers the demographic characteristics of individuals (e.g. age, rank, gender, tenure, etc.). Whereas, attitudinal and dispositional: employee satisfaction, organizational commitment, personality, and affectivity as examples. In this regard, out of the employee characteristics focused on OCB studies, the majority of them, which account for 13(50%), are based on attitudinal factors, particularly job satisfaction and organizational commitment. According to Rauf and Kumar (2015), job satisfaction and organizational commitment are the two most researched attitudinal factors in the existing literature. As shown in the findings (e.g. Hidayah & Harnoto, 2018; Maria et al., 2020; Saxena et al., 2019; Wagner, 2017; Zeinabadi, 2010; Ziegler et al., 2012), job satisfaction can predict OCB positively, and also, organizational commitment has a similar impact on OCB (e.g. Bogler & Somech, 2004; Lather & Kaur, 2015; Leephaijaroen, 2016; Ng, 2015; Pourgaz et al., 2015; Zeinabadi, 2010). In contrast, Bakhshi et al. (2011) argue that not all dimensions of organizational commitment—only normative commitment—have a significant positive impact on the aggregate measure of OCB. By the same token, many studies were conducted on demographic characteristics and their OCB relationship (e.g. Berbaoui et al., 2015; Dirican & Erdil, 2016; Mahnaz et al., 2013), and all concluded that OCB can be influenced by individuals’ demographic characteristics. However, very few studies were conducted on dispositional or personality characteristics as antecedents of OCB, which particularly did not fully emphasize the five dimensions of personality such as conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, emotional stability, and openness to experience. For instance, the study conducted in Nigeria by Akinbode (2011), in particular on employees of private and public human service organizations indicated that personality traits of extraversion and openness significantly predict workers’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB).

Table 4. Antecedents of OCB.

Types of antecedents	Number	Percentage
Employees Characteristics	26	49
Task Characteristics	10	19
Leadership Behaviors	7	13
Group Characterstics	1	2
Others	9	17
Total	53	100

Source: Own survey (2022).

The same table shows that a few studies were carried out in relation to the task characteristics and antecedents of OCB, which covers 10(19%) of the total studies. Task autonomy, task feedback, task significance, task interdependence, skill variety, task identity, and the intrinsically satisfying nature of a task are among the characteristics of tasks, according to Rauf and Kumar (2015). These characteristics can directly or indirectly refer to the structural and behavioral aspects of an organisation (Romar, 2004). It is confirmed that task characteristics have a positive and significant effect on OCB (Bendvold, 2013; Ueda, 2012). In this respect, from the indicated task characteristics antecedents of OCB-related studies, the majority predominantly focused on task autonomy, task feedback, task significance, and task interdependence. For example, performing an autonomous or significant task could lead to a higher OCB (Ueda, 2012). On the contrary, the finding of Sharma et al. (2010) indicated that some task variables have directly impacted particular elements of OCB, while other task variables demonstrated a mediating effect. Therefore, there are shortages of studies in relation to some dimensions of task characteristics such as skill variety, task identity, and the intrinsically satisfying nature of a task.

Regarding the type of leadership behavior antecedent of OCB, Table 4 reveals that a few OCB studies were in place in the existing literature, which accounts for 13%. Most of these OCB studies were conducted from the point of view of supportive leadership. According to Slåtten (2009), a supportive leader provides guidance to his or her subordinates, treats them fairly, and considers their input valuable. Leadership behaviors have significant positive effects on OCB (Dartey-Baah et al., 2019; Novitasari et al., 2020). These scholars (e.g. Al-Sharafi & Rajiani, 2013; Avey et al., 2011; Kaya, 2015; Nahum-Shani & Somech, 2011; Zacher & Jimmieson, 2013) have examined the relationship between leadership behavior and OCB, which has especially focused on ethical leadership, leadership practices, transformational leadership, spiritual leadership, transactional leadership, and charismatic leadership. Leadership appears to have a strong influence on an employee’s willingness to engage in OCB (Lee et al., 2013). However, rather than being associated with a particular leadership style, it is the quality of an employee’s relationship with his or her leader that counts (Lee et al., 2019).

According to Ma et al. (2018), the other leadership behavior that is positively related to OCB is the leaders’ contingent rewards behaviors such as expressing satisfaction or appreciation for good performance. In addition, leadership behaviors may also influence OCB indirectly through employee perceptions of fairness or justice in the workplace (Ince & Gül, 2011). Therefore, the above results show us there is no study yet conducted on the effects of the other dimensions of leadership behavior on OCB, for instance, contemporary leadership styles like servant leadership and the indirect effects of leadership behaviors on OCB.

Table 4 also presents the last type of antecedent of OCB, which is a group characteristic. As shown in the table, almost no study or only one study was conducted (Maksum et al., 2020) in the extant literature that investigated the effect of group characteristics on OCB. According to Rauf and Kumar (2015), like other types of antecedents, for example, leader behaviors and task characteristics, group characteristics would also be expected to influence OCB. Group cohesiveness is one of the main group characteristics, which explains the feelings of group members for one another and their wish to remain part of the group. The research findings of Maksum et al. (2020) revealed that group cohesiveness significantly predicts OCB.

In a general format, there are not sufficient studies conducted on the antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior, in the existing studies, particularly on individual dispositions, task characteristics, leadership behaviors, and group characteristics. Therefore, based on the results obtained above, we wish to conclude our work by proposing an interpretive framework, whose empirical testing we leave to future studies (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior. Source: Developed by the researchers (2022).

4. Conclusion and recommendation

4.1. Conclusions

The following critical conclusions were drawn from the findings of this study: First, the study investigated OCB studies based on sector, country, and nature of the organization. Accordingly, the findings have shown that a substantial number of OCB studies were found in the service sector; however, shortages of studies were observed in the manufacturing sector, and there is also a lack of studies in some parts of the service sector, for instance, at the tertiary level, such as higher educational institutions (e.g. university level). The result of the study shows that OCB is a concept with a global reach in all corners. However, there is a concentration of studies in specific countries, such as the USA, China, and Israel. Likewise, based on region, North America, Asia, and the Middle East are taking the leading positions in the number of OCB studies. On the contrary, countries from the two contents, such as Africa and Latin America, are prominently less represented in the OCB research, a trend that raises questions about the aspirations of generalizable social science knowledge on OCB (de Geus et al., 2020). There are also shortages of OCB studies conducted at a multinational level, considering multicultural experiences. In regard to the nature of the organization, OCB studies were almost equally conducted at both public and private organizations; however, limited studies were carried out in consideration of organizations of both natures. This may cause difficulty in obtaining a similar understanding of OCB, while the two natures of organizations might experience different cultures. Consequently, this situation could result in a problem in constructing an OCB model or framework that is equally applicable to all organizations.

Next, OCB studies have used different data collection and analysis methods. However, the findings of this study indicated that the majority of the data were collected using a self-reported method. Similarly, almost more than half of the studies focused on organizational citizenship behavior employed inferential statistics. Likewise, a large majority of the OCB studies used a cross-sectional research design. To this end, there is the possibility that OCB results might fluctuate if studies use data analysis tools and research design other than inferential statistics and a cross-sectional design such as qualitative tools and longitudinal design. And also, the majority of the past studies did not use clear models or theories to investigate organizational citizenship behavior, and there is also a contradiction.

Third, in regard to OCB conceptualization, the results from this review indicated that the field of OCB studies in the organizations is significantly focused on OCB, along the lines of the construct first developed by Organ in 1988, which is primarily characterized as the OCB or OCBI/OCBO dichotomy. And also, it is not yet customized based on the organizations’ types. According to the finding, the majority of the OCB studies’ measurement scales were developed by the authors themselves, based on multiple scales. In addition, a considerable number of studies have adapted the scales of other scholars, and Podsakoff et al.’s (1990) scale is the one that is frequently used.

Moreover, numerous types of antecedents were addressed in the existing OCB studies as predictors of OCB, such as individuals’ or employees’ characteristics, task characteristics, leadership behaviors, and group characteristics. However, the result of this study revealed that there are not sufficient studies conducted on the antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior, in the existing studies, particularly on individual dispositions, task characteristics, leadership behaviors, and group characteristics.

4.2. Recommendations

The researchers have provided the below recommendations, mainly based on the conclusions given above.

It is understood that the OCB studies have been conducted better sector-wise, however, future studies are recommended to give more emphasis on the manufacturing sector and at the tertiary level of education e.g. universities, while there are critical shortages of OCB studies in these areas in the existing literature. This study suggests that the majority of OCB studies have been concentrated and conducted in the United States, China, and Israel - and North America, Asia, and the Middle East in general. Therefore, future studies are advised to extend their focus on the less represented cotenants in the OCB studies like Africa and Latin America, which helps to recognize the aspirations of generalizable social science knowledge on OCB (de Geus et al., 2020). And also, while OCB-related studies are too culture-sensitive it is more suggested that future studies also investigate OCB at a multinational level.

It is evident that the present OCB studies were adequately conducted using public and private sectors, but it is also advised that if studies are conducted by sampling organizations from both sectors. This can contribute to developing a model/framework of OCB that is equally applicable to all organizations – because there is a high probability that both public and private sector organizational cultures will be taken into account during the investigation. In addition, the OCB studies have used various research methods, but as shown in the finding most of them were used inferential statics and a cross-sectional design, hence, future studies of OCB recommended employee qualitative analysis tools and longitudinal design, while there are too limited OCB studies in the extant literature using the research methods indicated above.

It is obvious that a remarkable number of studies were carried out on OCB conceptualization, however, according to this study’s findings, especially on top of the two steps advised by de Geus et al. (2020), to address how OCB is conceptualized in the existing literature, there are issues that future studies should give more emphasis. First, there is no OCB study conducted yet on customized OCB constructs, which would be applied as per organizations types, while all the previous studies primarily characterized as OCB or OCBI/OCBO dichotomy, in line with the construct developed by Organ. Second, the extant studies of OCB measurement scales adapted from Podsakoff et al.’ scale, therefore, future studies suggested testing and adapting scales fit to a particular organization, even though there are several scales established to measure OCB or OCBI/OCBO. Last, the majority of the studies were the employees themselves or self-report items to collect data in relation to their OCB. Thus, future studies recommended using other types of respondents than self-rating - while the probability is very high to committing bias in self-report (Eriksson & Ferreira, 2021; Gefen & Somech, 2019; Ma et al., 2018; Somech & Ohayon, 2019).

Finally, even though there are several types of antecedents that can predict OCB (such as employees’ characteristics, task characteristics, leadership behaviors, group characteristics), only a few types of antecedents were addressed in the existing studies, as predictors of OCB. Therefore, future studies advised focusing on the antecedents: individual dispositions, task characteristics, leadership behaviors, and group characteristics, and how these antecedents predict OCB.

5. Practical implication of the study

• Organisation managers can use their understanding of OCB to stop bad workplace habits and promote good ones. For instance, practitioners can influence lower turnover rates, lower rates of absence, and higher workplace trust.

• Managers of organisations should concentrate on creating conducive settings for OCB. Focusing on trust, organisational identification, and psychological empowerment can help organisation managers understand how to improve OCB.

• Lastly, this study also contributes by developing a conceptual framework on OCB antecedents applicable to future researchers, particularly those who have an interest in conducting research on OCB antecedents’ of an organization. It is hoped that testing these suggested antecedents in different organizational context will help the researchers to enrich the understanding of how various work conditions affect an employee’s willingness to engage in OCB. When the antecedents of this particular class of behaviors are better understood, managers would be more effective to cultivate the OCB among their employees.

6. Limitation and future research directions of the study

This systematic review is highly valued and contributed by investigating how OCB is conceptualized and what are its predictors in the extant literature. However, the study also has some limitations: a limited number of databases and journals were used, and also the number of articles considered in this study was very limited compared to the available published articles on OCB, which limit the generalizability of the findings obtained. In this regard, future researchers and scholars suggested using extended databases and journals, and also including more articles in their studies – which can enhance them to generate very comprehensive and more value-adding findings on the conceptualization and antecedents of OCB. In addition, future researchers and scholars can also extend this study by investigating the mediators and/or moderators of OCB, and also its outcomes.

Author contributions

Author 1: Muluken Ayalew Worku: has contributed significantly to the manuscript’s development by participating in its conception and design, data analysis and interpretation, paper drafting, critical revision for intellectual content, final approval of the version to be published, and author agreement to accept responsibility for all aspects of the work. Author 2: Kenenisa Lemi Debela: has contributed significantly to the manuscript’s development by participating in its conception and design, data analysis and interpretation, paper drafting, critical revision for intellectual content, final approval of the version to be published, and author agreement to accept responsibility for all aspects of the work.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Additional information

Funding

No funding was received.

Notes on contributors

Muluken Ayalew Worku

Mr. Muluken Ayalew Worku, Lecturer, Department of Management, College of Business and Economics, JimmaUniversity, Ethiopia; research interest: Management Strategies and Leadership.

Kenenisa Lemi Debela

Dr. Kenenisa Lemi Debela, Associate Professor, Department of Management, College of Business and Economics, Jimma University, Ethiopia; research interest: Leadership and Management.