Organisational Citizenship Behaviour and Counterproductive Work Behaviour Essay

Organisational behaviour is the plain of human behaviour in the cookplace, the interaction between people and the organisation, and organisation it egotism (Dubrin 2002, p. 2). In close to(prenominal) of the organisational behaviour literature re take care, the following five types of behaviours be often highlighted- task surgical operation, organisational citizenship, counterproductive cream behaviours, joining and staying with the organisation and work attendance (McShane, Olekalns & Travaglione, 2009). These undivided-level dependent variables argon present in most OB query which has a significant impact on the military strength of organisations.In my following essay, I kick be highlighting on ii of the above genes-mainly Organisational Citizenship doings (OCB) and counterproductive Work Behaviour (CWB).I leave behind be discussing on how various authors agree that divers(prenominal) ainities and positive hitivity levels contri howeveres to the emergence of OCB and that how different authors take in the arise of considering all OCB as volunteer acts found on own accord. In addition, I go out excessively be discussing the issue in which a consensus has been reached by most authors that vocation dissatisfaction is one bring factor of CWB and that CWB, organism defined as persecuteful in nature, has been challenged by some authors to be a excusable act.OCBOrganisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) has been defined as individual dispense that is discretionary, non directly or explicitly recognised by the formal reward system, and that in the coalesce promotes the effective functioning of the organization (Organ, cited in Vigoda-Gadot, 2006, p. 3) or as individual behavior that promotes the goals of the organization by contributing to its social and psychological environment (Organ Rotundo & Sackett, cited in Vigoda-Gadot, 2006, p. 3). Personality and Positive AffectivityPersonality refers to the enduring, inner characteristics of individuals that target their behaviour (Derlega et al, cited in Rothmann & barrel maker, 2008, p. 24) and individual(prenominal)ity traits predict what a person will do as contrary to what he or she can do (Rothmann & cooper 2008, p. 24).As such, it is concord that citizenship fulfilance is well predicted by personality variables (Penner, Allen, & Motowidlo, 2001 Hurtz & Donovan, cited in Barrick & Ryan 2003). It is kindredly stated that differences in citizenship performance by the employees are clearly level(p) to the differences in their personalities and attitudes (Landy & Conte 2004) and feelings about their work, overly known as affects (Lee & Allen 2002).I came across this survey done by (Bierhoff, Klein & Kramp, ed. potato 1996) in which first advocateers who rushed to the aid of the accident victims almost immediately scored lower on a measure of egocentrism- the absorption with one selfs lives and family. They also scored higher(prenominal) on a measure of e mpathy in which they expressed a greater level of concern for others (ed. Murphy 1996). From the above results, I feel that various personality factors do regulate the tendency of one to render armed good to others thereby performing citizenship performance which benefits the organisation as a whole.In addition to the above, I drive home learnt that the higher the level of positive affect, the higher the level of willingness to help is in individuals (ed. Murphy 1996). Besides the helping behaviour, I have also learnt that maintaining a positive imagination in the course of our work whitethorn also inadvertently lead us to performing supernumerary role behaviours (e.g. protecting the organisation and developing oneself in terms of upgrading ones skills to the benefit of the organisation) (George and Brief, cited in Lee & Allen, 2002). To my surprise, I found that positive affect is non fitting influenced on a personal level but also due to orthogonal environmental factors. These include the differences in shades of lightings at our workplaces (Baron et al, cited in ed. Murphy 1996) and blush presence of amiable smelling artificial fragrances in our workplaces (Baron & Bronfen 1994, cited in ed. Murphy 1996). Performed based on loose will? close to of the recent studies and researches on OCB have pointed out that it is based on military volunteer helping behaviours. However, (Vigoda-Gadot E 2006, p. 1 ) pointed out on focusing on the exploitive and abusive tendency of supervisors and counsellings to impose so-called voluntary or extra-role activities via compulsory mechanisms in the workplace, thereby refuting the accomplished description of OCB being performed based on reasoned will and free choice. In fact, some of these behaviours reason under OCB may well be reason under Compulsory Citizenship Behavior (CCB) (Vigoda-Gadot 2006, p. 1).By reviewing the antepast Theory (Griffin & Ebert 2005, p. 246) in which people are move to work toward s rewards that they want and that they believe they have a reasonable guess or expectancy of obtaining it in mind, I have actually agreed with the view that there is much possibility that OCB can also arise from other motives, some of them less voluntary or less self-initiated. Among these motivations are the abusive and exploitatory behavior of immediate supervisors and the pressure by management or peers to become involved in activities in which the employee would otherwise not involve himself (Tepper, cited in Vigoda-Gadot 2006, p. 3).CWBCounterproductive Work Behaviours (CWB) is defined as voluntary behaviours that have the potential to directly or indirectly harm the organisation (McShane, Olekalns & Travaglione T, 2009, p. 18).Job DissatisfactionJob dissatisfaction is defined as a set of unfavourable feelings and emotions with which employees view their work (Newstrom & Davis 1997, p. 255). It seems that authors have a consensus on job dissatisfaction contributing to the emer gence and high levels of CWB. It is stated that dissatisfied employees may engage in psychological withdrawal (e.g. dream during job), physical withdrawal (eg unauthorized absence, early departures, drawn-out breaks, work slowdowns) or even overt acts of infringement and retaliation for presumed wrong.There are many factors influencing job dissatisfaction which includes organisational factors like pay and promotion opportunities and the working actor itself. Group factors like the role of supervisor and co-workers personal factors like needs and aspiration and how are these met, and how individuals views he instrumental benefits of the job also contributes to job dissatisfaction( Rothmann & Cooper 2008, p. 24).Though I am in treaty that job dissatisfaction is a strong contributor to the performance of CWB, I feel that CWB may also be arrived by other factors like accrued work stress leading to the emergence of force-out which is one form of CWB. Similarly, theft cases in the company, which is another(prenominal) form of CWB, may just be a personal justification of the employees due to a acquaintance of lost equity in the course of their work (Newstrom & Davis 1997).Justifiable ActVarious authors held on to their individual stands regarding the topic on CWB. In most of my readings, authors agreed that CWB are actually harmful acts towards either individuals or towards the organisation itself. However, (Fox 2002) had presented a different point of view discussing the view that CWB may could well be a justifiable act which is clearly challenging the most conventional definition of CWB which is being negative in nature.(Fox 2002, p. 2) grow the definition of CWB to include unintentional harm, as long as the act itself is volitional- an act which is motivated by other reasons to cause harm. Hence with this expanded definition, it raises the possibility of constructive CWB. In their article, they have considered on 3 categories of contestations which are moral issues, role conflicts and productivity arguments.I personally feel strongly for the argument on role conflicts. Many of the withdrawal behaviours may be seen as counterproductive in the location of managers or even organisations. However, these behaviours shown may be infallible to be fulfilled by the employees in the perspectives of their family and even the community. Putting in simpler terms, employees may be expect by the society to perform these behaviours so as to be able to strike a work-life balance. Hence, I feel that CWB should not be seen as just a negative behaviour which is purely abnormal from an organisations objectives as I strongly feel for the presence of positive CWB.Key FindingsIn this modern age, to adapt and survive in a workplace, other than equipping oneself with the generic skill of task solving, it is also vital to place great importance on understanding fellow colleagues as this will lead to self knowledge and self acumen (Dubrin 2002, p. 4) . By understanding what motivates others to perform OCB through the study of organisational behaviour, it will also in turn allow employees to gain an understanding on what motivates them to have similar behaviours. Inadvertently, this may bring them to a greater level of job satisfaction which also leads to greater organisational say-so as a whole.In addition, studying organisational behaviours enhances a professional or managers persuasiveness relating to their interpersonal skills. Hence, if solid interpersonal skills are added on to ones professional or managerial knowledge, it will certainly be a reward towards an organisations overall service and productivity.Hence, info about organisational behaviours is vital to be known to the employees in organisations.ReflectionIf I were given a chance to assume the role of manager in an organisation, the judgment of having OCB being induced by compulsion as mentioned earlier on will certainly be omitted by me as I feel that though i t is an important goal of managers anywhere to make employees advised of the benefits of OCB and ideally, encourage it, it is far much important to conduct it through a legitimate way and not by other marrow such as abusive or exploitative activities. In this way, I believe conventional OCB will indeed be truly promoted as the employees will be constituent and going the extra mile for the organisation in the most genuine way as I agree with the view that a person who engages in OCB might receive appreciation and recognition that induce positive moods and there will be a greater likelihood of repeating the OCB (Miles et al, cited in Zirgham 2009, p. 85) which will greatly benefit the organisation.A discrepancy often exists among managers and employees about the definition of certain work tasks being in-role or extra-role. Each behaviour may be different for different people as every employee in an organization perceives job requirements differently (e.g. for service sectors), h elping others may be a routine, but some may see it as beyond their job scope. By acknowledging this in the position of an employee, I will be able to anticipate this feasible occurrence of conflict between managers and employees and thus, expand the boundaries for the definition of my job scope. In this way, I believe that my chances of managerial exploitation and workplace abuse by supervisors to perform compulsive OCB will be reduced to the minimum. inferenceOCB is a stable behaviour emerging in workplaces and it will always act as a value adding criterion in ones performance. However, it will only act as a value adding criterion only when it is performed through the free choice of employees and not by coercion means and negative external pressures. Thus, we have to be aware and alert so as to preserve the pilot burner positive results of OCB being performed, leading to a more successful and healthy establishment of an organisation.CWB is always seen as a conduct having an adve rse relationship with OCB. However, as the saying goes- there are always two sides to the same coin we should probably broaden our perspectives in our view towards CWB and accept the notion that CWB may not be necessary all detrimental in nature.