Keywords

OCB, Employee Loyalty, Employee Compliance, Individual Initiative, Sportsmanship, Firm Survival.

Introduction

It is generally believed that the business operating environment occasioned by global capitalism has been unpredictable, complex and competitive which has made manufacturing firms face fragile challenges that are characterized by both internal and external complexities. Thus, organisations through their workforce are necessitated to continually develop their products as well as enhance their productivity and processes for continued relevance to be ensured (Ibukunoluwa et al., 2015). Twenty first century organisations have started ascribing their successes to their human resources as assiduous and committed workforce, who do not only perform assigned duties but also execute them beyond the expectation of their employers which tends to benefit the organisation as a whole (Kumari & Thapliyal, 2017).

Some researchers posit that firms cannot survive or prosper without employees exhibiting extra role behaviours as the survival of any organisation is deeply influenced by its employees (Christiansen & Chandan, 2017; Organ, 2018). Organisations in their effort to remain in the market must ensure that employees display or exhibit positive behaviours or disposition that will position the organisation for competitive advantage. The in-role and extra-role dimensions of employee behaviour have been identified as one of the strategies used by organisations in the pursuit of firms’ survival. In-role performance behaviours are roles specified and written in an employee job description while extra-role performance behaviour is not stipulated in the worker’s job description but vital to achieve organisational goals. This is however essential because no organisation can anticipate all contingencies in its internal and external work environment perfectly, thereby making organisations not to solely descriptions rely on written job.

This study became necessary because of the worrisome state of manufacturing firms in Nigeria. For instance, Olamade et al. (2013) assert that 60% of the manufacturing firms in Nigeria are indisposed, 30% are in extinct and only 10% are functioning at a viable level which is corroborated by Vanguard (2019) that majority of Nigeria manufacturing firms are unproductive. Moreso, having observed that firms are challenged both by internal and external complexities; it is pertinent to examine how organisations can explore their human resource for survival. It has been observed that most firms do not understand how to foster employee behaviour to create a firm-level competitive advantage as observed by (Wei et al., 2013). This fact is also corroborated by Abdu & Jibir (2018) that most firms in developing economies like Nigeria are faced with limited human capabilities to be innovative.

Nevertheless, most studies on OCB in Nigerian context focused on the aviation, education, oil and gas, banking, service and tourism industries but limited studies have been explored on the manufacturing sector (Gabriel, 2015; Uzonwanne, 2014; Eketu & Ogbu, 2015; Obiora & Okpu, 2014; Abiante, 2018). This study examined the potential influence of OCB on the survival of Nigeria manufacturing firms and how managers can foster a positive work climate that will facilitate the display of this behaviour which will consequently place the firm in a competitive position for survival and sustainability. The importance of this study emancipated from its aims which are to:

i. Evaluate the antecedents of OCB in work environment

ii. Assess the influence of OCB on firms’ productivity and survival

iii. Explore the different dimensions of OCB and their individual attributes

iv. Examine some theoretical underpinnings of OCB that can facilitate strategic managerial approach to fostering it in the workplace.

Literature Review

Organisational Citizenship Behaviour

The concept of OCB is very important in this 21^st century organisations which are characterized by different complexities and as observed by Kotter (2012) that surviving firms will continue to witness disruptions and the biggest challenge firms will contend with is changing people’s behaviour. Sridhar & Thiruvenkadam (2014) posits that every organisation must foster unlimited performances of assistance without which the structure would be disrupted. This can be justified because formal structures are not embodiment of perfection (Amah, 2017). In addition, extra role act is fundamental to organisation success because it enhances the formal structure for a productive work environment as a result of the dynamic and unpredictable work environment. Thus, these behaviours which are helpful and cooperative are essential for organisational operations and success. This implies that, for organisations to be successful, employees must be motivated to remain with the organization, understand and fulfill their role requirements based on their job description and they must be willing to do more than is required (Amah, 2017).

As working under changing conditions has become an indispensable feature for firms, organisations cannot but become more reliant on employees who are keen to contribute to positive change irrespective of the prescribed job requirements (Aftab et al., 2018). This however makes OCB to be one of the most widely studied topics in organisational behaviour research in recent years (Emami et al., 2012; Eyupoglu (2016). Gabriel (2015) define OCB as individual behaviour that is discretionary, not recognized by the formal reward system, and that in total promotes the effective functioning of the organisation. This implies that the behaviour is not an enforceable requirement of the role or the job description in an employee employment contract with the organisation. Thus, the behaviour is rather a matter of personal choice, such that its omission is not generally understood as punishable.

OCBs are the behaviours that are optional to employees which are not part of employees' prescribed functions (Oladipupo, 2016). Tambe (2014) describes OCB as behaviours that are not formally demanded and directly compensated but can be useful to the processes of the organisation. In another perspective, Rauf (2016) defines OCB has behaviours that surpass defined roles but are essential for firm’s success. OCB also can be seen as individual behaviour in the workplace, not directly recognized by an organisation’s formal reward system, yet serves to promote the general well-being of the organisation (Kandeepan, 2016). Nadim et al. (2016) clearly describe OCB as workplace undertakings that go beyond an employee’s prescribed work roles which contribute to the effective functioning of a firm.

Another contextual definition of OCB according to Sridhar & Thiruvenkadam (2014) is the array of cooperative behaviours that are positive, intended and non-obligatory that goes beyond the set requisite of the job but are significant because they support the social, organisational and psychological components to accomplish both individual and organisational performance. More so, OCB is a behaviour that is beyond the stipulated roles and above the organisation regulation and procedures (Tambe, 2014). In addition, OCB extends beyond the expected role of an organisation which fosters cooperation among co-workers, work groups, and/or the firm (Akturan & Çekmecelio?lu, 2016). Nevertheless, OCB can be described as a discretional behaviour that is not part of job roles and not acknowledged by the organisation compensation structure but enhances the firm’s effectiveness, efficiency and overall performance of the organisation (Acaray & Akturan, 2015).

Antecedents of OCB

Going by Shayista et al. (2018) definition of OCB as the participation of employees in activities and acts that are not embedded in the job description but favourable to the organisation as a whole. Since these acts are discretionary in nature and do not come with reward, it is essential to identify the precursors that drives employees to go into these acts. The importance of managers understudying the antecedents of OCB cannot be overemphasized. This is because Chen (2016) and Organ (2018) assert that organisations must encourage and retain employees that perform their duties which surpass the formal stipulated roles. Similarly, employees must also display new and creative behaviours that are beyond role requirements for the realisation of organisational objectives. It is suggested that within every work group, behaviour or acts of cooperation must be present without which the system might not survive as formal structures. Meanwhile, cooperative act is considered an indispensable necessity for firms to augment the formal structure processes in order to foster effectiveness.

As a result of the aforementioned, it will be important to explore the antecedents of OCB. Several factors were identified such as individual, task, organisational and leadership characteristics as antecedents of OCB. Individual characteristics include the worker attitudes, worker role perception, demographic variables, employee abilities and individual differences. Task characteristics that foster OCB according to Kasa & Hassan (2016) entails task feedback and inherently satisfying task. In the same vain, organisational characteristics as posited by Kasa & Hassan (2016) include organisational level of flexibility, advisory/staff support, perceived organisational support, while leadership characteristics like contingent reward behaviour and supportive leader behaviours can all potentially precede OCB. However, Igbinomwanhia & Akinmayowa (2014) also identified job fulfillment, perceived organisational justice, personality, organisational collectivism and individualism culture orientation, and spiritualism as antecedents of OCB.

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction according to Yuen et al. (2018) is a notion in organisational behaviour research that is commonly conceptualised as an emotional variable that emancipate from an assessment of an individual’s job experience. Job satisfaction is a term that defines an optimistic feeling and effective reaction towards a job, occasioned from an assessment of its characteristics (Yuen et al., 2018). Employees are critical instrument for the survival and success of any organisation. Managers have the responsibility to motivate and propel employees to be actively involved, engaged and committed to achieving corporate and strategic goal of the organisation. The performance of employees is proportional to the level of job satisfaction which will undoubtedly directly reflect in employee work behaviours as asserted by (Wen et al., 2019). Mushtaq et al. (2014) also opine that contented employees have more tendencies to display positive behaviours that can effectively contribute to the overall performance of the organisation (Osibanjo et al., 2016). Wen et al. (2019) identified moderate amount of work, promotions, sufficient training, personal development, job stability, competitive salary, adequate reward and punishment system and positive work environment as factors that determines employee satisfaction.

Lannoo & Verhofstadt (2016) posit that the attributes of job satisfaction have a positive correlation with job performance, which ultimately drives organisational performance. A worker who is exceedingly fulfilled with his work will perform better than his colleague who is discontented. More so, Kum, et al (2018) suggested that a satisfied employee tends to be present at work more often (i.e. low absenteeism), makes fewer mistakes, are more productive, and has stronger intention to remain in the organisation. Nevertheless, OCB scholars like Kashif et al. (2011) and Organ (2018) observed that there is a relationship between job contentment and OCB behaviour as satisfied employees would apparently be willing to help others and participate in extra role behaviour in their job.

Organisational Justice

An employee's resolution to give his or her services to his organisation wholeheartedly, go extra mile (OCB) or not is reliant on the employee feelings about the job, pay, promotion, managers, or coworkers. An employee positive or negative feeling about his job holistically refers to perception of organizational justice (Balogun et al., 2012). Igbinomwanhia & Akinmayowa (2014) suggested that when an employee perceives that he/she is being fairly treated in the organisation and self-assured that such fair treatment will continue he/she will be motivated to return to the organisation behaviours like extra role behaviour. This implies that, the positive or negative perception of employees about the organisational justice may have its impact on the individual motivation to go extra mile and impact firms’ performance.

Perceived organizational justice (POJ) is personal as employees tend to equate their input/output ratio with others in their circumstances to make conclusion with the state of those around them. Szu, Hsein and I-Heng (2016) also suggest that employees rely on fairness judgments when confronted with daily decisions to work together with others in support of the collective good or to act from a place of self-interest.

Personality Trait

Rauf (2016) define trait as a constant form of characters, predispositions or features that make an individual behaviour permanent. This implies that personality traits are lasting forms of thought, feeling and behaviour that are consistent over a period of time and justify people’s behaviour across different culture. Hislop et al. (2018) elaborated on the five Personality trait dimensions which are neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Conceptually, agreeableness and conscientiousness trait elements dispositional share some attributes of OCB. Thus personality trait can predict performance of OCB to a larger extent as some scholars believed that some people are naturally predisposed to exhibiting OCB (Igbinomwanhia & Akinmayowa, 2014).

This study also observed that value orientation is also a source of individual behaviour and that the value orientation of an individual can influence his behaviour because one’s personality can be shaped by factors such as family, philosophy, history, culture, value orientation, religion, economy, society, politics and organization (Mashlah, 2015). The most widely used model of values is the Schwartz’s (2012) value theory that identifies 10 broad values based on the motivations namely; hedonism, power, tradition, security, conformity, benevolence, universalism, self-direction, stimulation and achievement. It is however discovered that universalism, benevolence and conformity have the same attributes with OCB dimensions like defending the environment, organisational loyalty and organisational obedience behaviour as depicted in Figure 1.

Collectivism and Individualism Culture Orientation

Individualism according to Ramamoorthy et al. (2014) refers to a conviction of one's personality bounded by one's own self while collectivism refers to a person's identity as repressed in the social entity to which the individual belongs. Ramamoorthy et al. (2014) opine that individualism attributes include competition, out group orientation, independence, self-reliance, equity in exchange relationships and autonomy while collectivism traits are in-group orientation, equality, interdependence, and cooperation. In a broader context, collectivist societies, are guided by the prevailing norms that allows the group takes care of the interests of individual in return for the individual giving up his or her self-interest and goals for the benefit of the group's interests and goals and on the contrary, in individualistic societies, an individual is free to go after his own interests and goals.

Collectivism is one of the dispositional characteristic that has been associated with OCB because collectivist societies or organisations are driven by strong and cohesive groups whose members define them in terms of their group membership where the welfare and happiness of the whole takes priority over individual desires and pursuits (Fernández-Salinero San Martín & Topa, 2019). Christiansen & Chandan (2017) posit that people that possess collectivistic values or norms have the tendency to exhibit OCB and display cooperative behaviours.

Influence of OCB on Firm Survival

Based on the significance of this study it will be important to explore the advantages both individuals and organisations are exposed to in the course of this research. There are substantial empirical and conceptual studies on OCB and its outcome both on the individual and organisational as depicted in Table 1. Articles in reputable data bases between 2009 and 2019 were explored and were summarized in tabular form. The dependent variable (DV and independent variable (IV) of each study are identified as well as the results summarized. Some OCB scholars categorised OCB into OCBI- Individual and OCBO- Organisation. This implies that some OCB’s are beneficial either to the employee or the organisation.

Table 1: Analysis Of Benefits Of Ocb To The Individual And Organisation
No	Authors	Type of Study	Variables Tested	Result
1	Dorothea (2013)	Empirical	The Relationship between OCB (IV), and Counterproductive Work Behaviour (CWD) (DV)	There is a positive relationship between employee engagement and OCB and also between employee engagement and CWB. The relationship between OCB and CWB is negative.
2	Mallick et al., (2015)	Empirical	OCB (IV), HR practices (Moderating variable) Job performance (DV)	OCB significantly predict job performance (OCBI).
3	Gabriel (2015)	Empirical	OCB (IV) and Organisational resilience (DV)	OCB is positively significant to organisational resilience (OCBO).
4	Yusoff et al., (2017)	Empirical	OCB in manufacturing organisations (DV): The influence of commitment, leadership and teamwork on altruism (IV).	The results of this study show that leadership, organizational commitment and teamwork, have an impact on the nature and frequency of OCB (altruism)
5	Podsakoff et al., (2009)	Empirical	OCBI and OCBO- Independent Variable (IV), Impact on individual and Organisation Dependent Variable (DV)	OCBI is positively related to employee performance and OCBO is positively related to organisational effectiveness and customer satisfaction.
6	Kumari & Thapliyal (2017)	Empirical	OCB (IV) and Organisational effectiveness (DV)	Study indicated that OCB is significantly and positively correlated with organisational effectiveness (OCBO).
7	Rastogi & Garg (2011)	Empirical	OCB (IV) and Employee psychological wellbeing (DV)	There is a correlation between employee wellbeing and OCB.
8	Banahene et al., (2017)	Empirical	OCB (IV) and Job satisfaction and loyalty (DV)	Employee compliance, altruism and enthusiasm have direct relationship and significant effect on job satisfaction and less direct effect on employee loyalty.
9	Braun et al., (2013)	Empirical	OCB (IV) and Temporal organisation effectiveness (DV)	Helping behaviour also known as altruism is inevitable for time based projects.
10	Hart et al., (2016)	Conceptual	OCB (IV) and Enhanced absorptive capacity (DV)	Organisation should seek to hire employees that possess conscientiousness and agreeableness personality characteristics. OCB can enhance absorptive capacity (OCBO).

Dimensions of OCB

Researchers hold various opinions with respect to the dimensionality of OCB. Since the introduction of the concept of OCB, Alt & Spitzeck (2016) observe that several different dimension have been identified which are undeniably overlapping among its categorization. Obviously, there hasn’t been any reached consensus on the classification of OCB dimensions as there are many researchers on OCB with different dimensions. However, the dimensions developed by Dash & Pradhan (2014) and Tambe (2014) will be explored. They are civic virtue, employee compliance, employee loyalty, sportsmanship, individual initiative, self-development and helping behaviour.

Individual Initiative Behaviour

This OCB dimension involves engaging in task-related behaviours at a degree that is above minimally required or generally expected standard. Such behaviours according to Tambe (2014) consist of voluntary deeds of creativity and innovation fostered to enhance organization’s performance. It also involves exhibiting extra enthusiasm and effort to accomplish one’s job, volunteering to take on extra responsibilities, and encouraging others in the organisation to do the same (Oludayo et al., 2018).

Personal initiative in a broader context according to Christiansen & Chandan (2017) can be described as employee behavioural dispositions that are always consistent with organisational mission, have long term focus, goal directed and action oriented towards work that goes beyond what is formally required of the job. This implies that personal initiative involves an active approach that is driven by self-oriented and proactive approach in the pursuit of a goal. Christiansen & Chandan (2017) further stated that personal initiatives may lead to organisational effectiveness because no organisation is an embodiment of perfection as unplanned events occurs unexpectedly, thus, managers must see individual initiative behaviour as inevitable.

Self-Development Behaviour

Self-development is one of key dimensions of OCB according to Tambe (2014). Self-development includes voluntary behaviours employees engage in to improve their knowledge, skills, and abilities. According to Tambe (2014) this behaviour entails behaviours like taking advantage of innovative training courses, getting acquainted with recent developments in one’s field and learning new skills of accomplishing one’s task. Falola et al. (2018) succinctly describe this behaviour as an effort by the employee in a firm confronted with a new machine breakdown, he or she may call for a professional to fix it, but the employee through his or her intention for self-development i: e improved knowledge and skills can learn how to fix the problem on his own should there be any reoccurrence.

Sportsmanship Behaviour

Sridhar & Thiruvenkadam (2014) define sportsmanship as a disposition to endure the unavoidable inconveniences and pressure of work without complaining. Sportsmanship behaviour according to Uzonwanne (2014) entails individual’s refraining from reporting trifling encounters within the organization. It entails employees’ demonstrating tolerance without complaining in the fewer manners ideal circumstances or not making a big deal out of small matters (Zhang, 2014). More so, sportsmanship behaviours are aimed at sustaining a friendly work environment and fostering unity which contributes to organisational effectiveness (Khadija et al., 2014).

Extant literature on sportsmanship observe that such behaviour positively relates to work group performance and the more employees display this attitude, the less time and energy a manager wastes in getting their cooperation (Ibukunoluwa et al., 2015; Özdemir & Ergun, 2015). This implies that, the presence of sportsmanship allows managers to dedicate a substantial proportion of their time to productive activities like planning, organizing resources and monitoring performance. However, lack of sportsmanship behaviour as opine by Ibukunoluwa et al. (2015) may likely lead to negative implication on group or team unity and make the work environment unconducive to attract or retain productive workers.

Helping Behaviour

Notionally, helping behaviour involves willingly assisting co-workers with or inhibiting the incidence of work related issues. Helping others with work-related problems stakes the same features with Ibukunoluwa et al. (2015) altruism and cheerleading dimensions. Ibukunoluwa et al. (2015) described altruism as a behaviour aimed at helping a co-worker in most cases new employees’ such as familiarizing new employee and helping them when confronted with weighty workload that can lead to citizenship fatigue. Helping behaviours are actions that are designed to assist another person with a problem or to relieve them of their stress in the work place. This behaviour can be referred to as discretionary actions to assist a colleague with a work related issues like assisting a co-worker complete an uncompleted task. Paciello et al. (2013) added that empathy majorly drives an individual to render helping behaviour as it has the ability to share and be affected by others’ emotive states.

Employee Loyalty Behaviour

Employee loyalty according to Tambe (2014) involves being committed to the organisation and promoting the course of the firm to other stakeholders, guarding and preserving it against external dangers and consistently committed to the organisation. Commitment is an expressive state that brings an individual to his firm. It involves employee affection to the organisation and being psychologically involved to it (Veronica & Indradevi, 2014). Thus, committed employees add value to the organisation because they offer realistic support and consistently pursue the success of the organisation.

Employee Compliance Behaviour

This behaviour stressed employee internalisation ability and the acceptance of the organisation’s guidelines and procedures which fosters a painstaking adherence to them whether they are monitored or not. This behaviour is regarded as a form of citizenship behaviour because even though all workers are expected to obey organisational rules, and procedures always many employees simply do not. Thus an employee who painstakingly obeys all rules and regulations is displaying citizenship behaviour (Organ, 2018). According to Anita and Cass (2019) organisational rules, procedures and regulations are aimed towards the organisation and its employees, by ensuring the company compliance with the law as well as protecting the reputation of the organisation. Some factors responsible for low level of organisational compliance according to Ghosh & Shum (2019) are stress, emotional instability and presence of unethical superiors. However, inadequate level of organisational compliance can potentially lead to reduced job satisfaction, increased mistrust in management, financial harm and deteriorating performance as stated by (Bryant et al., 2010).

Civic Virtue Behaviour

According to Organ (2018) civic virtue includes a holistic interest in and commitment to the organisation. This is a worker disposition to engross enthusiastically in organisational activities, observe its environment holistically for its best interests even at the employee’s cost. Several definitions on civic virtue emphasized employee involvement. Gabriel (2015) defined civic virtue as an employee engrossment in the organizational activities and being consistent with sensitive issues of the firm.

Christiansen & Chandan (2017) also describe organisational participation of an employee as the concern in organisational affairs steered by best standards of virtue, being informed and expressed through consistent participation in organisational activities like attending non required meetings, sharing informed opinions and new ideas with others. These behaviours justify a person’s acknowledgment of being part of the entire organisation. It entails the active involvement of employees in addressing organisational issues and providing innovative solutions to foster organisational growth and development (Kim, 2014). Güllüce & Erkiliç (2015) also stated that it refers to commitment to the organisation as a whole and its interest at the macro level like participating actively in administration such as suggesting ideas as to strategies the organisation can employ. Furthermore, civic virtue behaviour is seen as the root of social cohesiveness within the organisation which is positively associated to work performance (Mustaq and Umar, 2015). The model depicted in Figure 2 can be tested empirically in Nigeria manufacturing industry to determine or examine the level of influence and resultant effect of OCB variables on firm survival.

Methods

Search Strategy

A systematic search was piloted to identify contexts describing the construct of OCB. The primary searches were conducted from different reliable data bases. The search was restricted to literature written in English only. Restrictions were placed on the year of publication from 2009 to 2019 which can be qualitative and quantitative with local and foreign publications inclusive. Studies were selected from business, management, psychological, academic research, operations and production management journals as well as human resource and management data bases. Titles and abstracts of extant research were also studied and full-texts of related studies accessed from Sage, Elsevier, ProQuest Journal Central, Astor, Web of Science Master Journalist, Ebsco, NUC Virtual Library and Scopus.

Theoretical Underpinning and Managerial Implications

The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) is an extension of the theory of reasoned action (TRA). TRA according to Lange et al. (2012) is useful in describing behaviours under a person’s willful i.e. discretional (volitional) control and not suitable in explaining behaviours not under willful control. Though OCB behaviours are discretionary in nature, studies on its antecedents asserted that they can be influenced by both internal and external factors. These factors can foster the display of a given behaviour like the degree of employee’s access to requisite information, intelligence, trait, experience, skills, abilities, emotions, social support and the degree to which an individual can overcome external barriers that may pose a challenge to behaviour performance (Lange et al., 2012). This implies that when the control over these factors is high, the intention to perform a particular behaviour is also high.

Moreso, social exchange theory proposes that employee's behaviour is the result of an exchange relationship. Social exchange theory according to Gabriel (2015) involves individual voluntary behaviour that originates through a sequence of social interactions. Social exchange also refers to the reciprocal relationships between two or more parties that are driven on voluntary actions of exchange. Lyons & Scott (2012) described the process of social exchange as a reciprocity activity that begins with an individual giving an input into a relationship and receives an output from the same relationship. There are two types of reciprocity in this context namely positive and negative that implies an individual will reciprocate positively to positive treatment and negatively to negative treatment (Brent, 2012).

Wan & Antonucci (2016) observe that these positive or negative behavioural consequences modify subsequent behaviours in order to realize preferred results and reduce costly ones because as individuals interact with others over time, they tend to select social exchanges that have favourable consequences and do their best to eliminate those that have negative consequences. According to social exchange theory Gabriel (2015) posit that reciprocity-driven interactions have consequences for behaviour dispositions and it either enhances positive or negative work attitudes and performance as corroborated by Lyons & Scott (2013).

Conclusion and Recommendation

Organisational citizenship behaviour has been a contemporary issue in workplace that managers in 21^st century organisations consider essential. Firms now ascribe their successes to their employees as hardworking and dedicated employees, who perform both in role and extra role duties are essential for survival. This is being corroborated by Christiansen & Chandan (2017) that firms cannot survive or prosper without employees exhibiting extra role behaviours as the survival of any organisation is deeply influenced by its employees.

Managers of Nigeria manufacturing firms are expected to explore the antecedents of OCB and the underlying theories supporting these discretionary behaviours. These behaviours are essential because no organisation can anticipate all contingencies in its internal and external work environment perfectly, thereby making organisations not to solely rely on written job descriptions. These behaviours are essential in the manufacturing sector that requires continuously improvement on products, productivity and processes for sustained relevance. Behaviours like self-development, helping behaviour, sportsmanship and loyalty can be of impact to firm survival as corroborated by Rauf (2016) that employee’s behaviours and attitudes have crucial influence on both organisational and individual performance.

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to appreciate Covenant University center for research, innovation and discovery (CU-CRID) for providing adequate support in carrying out this research.

References

1. Abdu, M., & Jibir, A. (2018). Determinants of firms innovation in Nigeria.Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences,39(3), 448-456.
2. Abiante, D. (2018). Organizational citizenship behaviour and employee performance in Nigeria deposit money banks, Rivers state, International Journal of Advanced Academic Research Social and Management Sciences, 4 (12), 17-32
3. Acaray, A., & Akturan, A. (2015). The relationship between organizational citizenship behaviour and organizational silence.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,207, 472-482.
4. Aftab, N., Rashid, S., & Ali Shah, S.A. (2018). Direct effect of extraversion and conscientiousness with interactive effect of positive psychological capital on organizational citizenship behavior among university teachers.Cogent Psychology,5(1), 1514961.
5. Akturan, A., & Çekmecelio?lu, H.G. (2016). The effects of knowledge sharing and organizational citizenship behaviors on creative behaviors in educational institutions.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,235, 342-350.
6. Alt, E., & Spitzeck, H. (2016). Improving environmental performance through unit-level organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment: A capability perspective.Journal of Environmental Management,182, 48-58.
7. Amah, O.E. (2017). Organizational Citizenship Behavior Across Cultures: Are Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scales Transferable Across Cultures?.Research Journal of Business Management,11(2), 56-66.
8. Balogun, S.K., Ojedokun, O., & Owoade, O.A. (2011). Influence of perceived organizational justice on performance of organisational citizenship behaviour among employees of a Nigerian organisation.International Review of Business and Social Sciences,1(2), 1-16.
9. Banahene, S., Ahudey, E., & Asamoah, A. (2017). The measurement of organizational citizenship behaviour and its impact on job satisfaction and loyalty among Christian workers in Ghana.International Journal of Business Marketing and Management,2(5), 20-33.
10. Braun, T., Ferreira, A.I., & Sydow, J. (2013). Citizenship behavior and effectiveness in temporary organizations.International Journal of Project Management,31(6), 862-876.
11. Bryant, P.C., Davis, C.A., Hancock, J. I., & Vardaman, J.M. (2010). When rule makers become rule breakers: Employee level outcomes of managerial pro-social rule breaking.Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal,22(2), 101-112.
12. Chen, W.J. (2016). The model of service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior among international tourist hotels.Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,29, 24-32.
13. Christiansen, B., & Chandan, H.C. (2017).Handbook of Research on Human Factors in Contemporary Workforce Development. IGI Global.
14. Dash, S., & Pradhan, R.K. (2014). Determinants & consequences of organizational citizenship behavior: a theoretical framework for Indian manufacturing organisations.International Journal of Business and Management Invention,3(1), 17-27.
15. Eketu, C.A., & Ogbu Edeh, F. (2015). The role of social intelligence on workers’ extra-role behaviour of independent road transport companies in Port Harcourt, Nigeria.International Journal of Business and Management Invention.
16. Emami, M., Alizadeh, Z., Nazari, K., & Darvishi, S. (2012). Antecedents and consequences of organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB).Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business,3(9).
17. Eyupoglu, S.Z. (2016). The organizational citizenship behaviour of academic staff in north cyprus.Procedia Economics and Finance,39, 701-704.
18. Falola, H.O., Oludayo, O.O., Igbinoba, E.E., Salau, O.P., & Borishade, T.T. (2018). Measuring work engagement strategies and employees’ behavioural outcomes in Nigerian Universities.Journal of Business and Retail Management Research,13(2), 98-106.
19. Fernández-Salinero San Martín, S., & Topa, G. (2019). Motivational Orientations and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: The Moderator Role of Perceived Discrimination in the Brexit Context.Behavioral Sciences,9(3), 31.
20. Gabriel, J.M.O. (2015). Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and corporate resilience in the domestic aviation sector in Nigeria.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rivers state university of science and technology.
21. Ghosh, A., & Shum, C. (2019). Why do employees break rules? Understanding organizational rule-breaking behaviors in hospitality.International Journal of Hospitality Management,81, 1-10.
22. Güllüce, A.Ç., & Erkiliç, E. (2015). Investigating the Organizational Citizenship Behaviours of Hotel Business Employees through Structural Equation Modelling: A Study in Rize Province.Open Journal of Leadership,4(01), 35.
23. Hart, T.A., Gilstrap, J.B., & Bolino, M.C. (2016). Organizational citizenship behavior and the enhancement of absorptive capacity.Journal of Business Research,69(10), 3981-3988.
24. Hislop, D., Bosua, R., & Helms, R. (2018).Knowledge management in organizations: A critical introduction. Oxford University Press.
25. Ibukunoluwa, O.E., Anuoluwapo, A.G., & Agbude, G.A. (2015). Benefits of Organizational Citizenship Behaviours for Individual Employees.Covenant International Journal of Psychology,1(1).
26. Igbinomwanhia, O.R., & Akinmayowa, J.T. (2014). The determinants of citizenship behaviour in Nigerian Organisations.European Journal of Business & Management,6(35), 155-167.
27. Kandeepan, V. (2016). Organisational citizenship behaviour of non-academic staff members in the university system of Sri Lanka: A case study in university of Jaffna.International Journal of Information Research and Review,3(1), 1710-1716.
28. Kasa, M., & Hassan, Z. (2016). Flow experience and organizational citizenship behaviour among hotel employees: moderating effect of socio-cultural factor.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,224, 101-108.
29. Kashif, M., Khan, Y., & Rafi, M. (2011). An Exploration of the Determinants of OCB in the Telecommunication Sector of Pakistan.Asian Journal of Business Management,3(2), 91-97.
30. Khadija, M., Mirza, A., & Sami, W. (2014). A Study on job satisfaction, motivation and organisational citizenship behaviour.International Journal of Management Sciences and Business Research,3(11), 1-12.
31. Kim, H. (2014). Transformational leadership, organizational clan culture, organizational affective commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior: A case of South Korea's public sector.Public Organization Review,14(3), 397-417.
32. Kotter, J.P. (2012).Leading change. Harvard business press.
33. Kumari, P., & Thapliyal, S. (2017). Studying the impact of organizational citizenship behaviour on organizational effectiveness.Human Resource Management,4(1), 9-21.
34. Lange, P.A.M., Kruglanski, A.W., & Higgins, E.T. (2012).Handbook of theories of social psychology.
35. Lannoo, S., & Verhofstadt, E. (2016). What drives the drivers? Predicting turnover intentions in the Belgian bus and coach industry.Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,91, 251-259.
36. Lyons, B.J., & Scott, B.A. (2012). Integrating social exchange and affective explanations for the receipt of help and harm: A social network approach.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,117(1), 66-79.
37. Mallick, E., Pradhan, R.K., Tewari, H.R., & Jena, L.K. (2015). Organizational citizenship behaviour, job performance and HR practices: A relational perspective.Management and Labour Studies,39(4), 449-460.
38. Mashlah, S.A.M.E.R. (2015). The role of people’s personal values in the workplace.International Journal of Management and Applied Science,1(9), 158-64.
39. Mushtaq, K., Ahmed, M., & Warraich, S. (2014). A study on job satisfaction, motivation and organizational citizenship behavior.International Journal of Management Sciences and Business Research,3(11).
40. Nadim, M., Hassan, M.M., Abbas, S., & Naveed, A. (2016). The role of organizational commitment and perceived organizational support in promoting organizational citizenship behavior.PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences,2(3).
41. Obiora, J.N., & Okpu, T. (2014). Organizational citizenship behaviour and learning organization in the hospitality industry: a lesson for Nigeria’s sustainable development.International Journal of Advanced Research in Statistics, Management and Finance,2(1), 90-101.
42. Oladipupo, L. (2016). The influence of perceived occupational stress on the organizational citizenship behaviour of bankers in Ikeja, Lagos State.European Scientific Journal,12(17).
43. Olamade, O.O., Oyebisi, T.O., & Egbetokun, A.A. (2013). Manufacturing Business Environment In Nigeria: Strategic Characteristics And Implications.Advances in Management and Applied Economics,3(6), 53.
44. Oludayo, O.A., Falola, H.O., Obianuju, A., & Demilade, F. (2018). Work-Life Balance Initiative as a Predictor of Employees' Behavioural Outcomes.Academy of Strategic Management Journal.
45. Organ, D.W. (2018). Organizational citizenship behavior: Recent trends and developments.Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,80, 295-306.
46. Osibanjo, O., Salau, O.P., Falola, H., & Oyewunmi, A.E. (2016). Workplace stress: implications for organizational performance in a Nigerian public university.Business: Theory and Practice,17, 261.
47. Özdemir, Y., & Ergun, S. (2015). The relationship between organizational socialization and organizational citizenship behavior: the mediating role of person-environment fit.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,207, 432-443.
48. Paciello, M., Fida, R., Cerniglia, L., Tramontano, C., & Cole, E. (2013). High cost helping scenario: The role of empathy, prosocial reasoning and moral disengagement on helping behavior.Personality and Individual Differences,55(1), 3-7.
49. Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M., & Blume, B.D. (2009). Individual-and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology,94(1), 122.
50. Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P.C., Kulkarni, S.P., & Gupta, A. (2014). Individualism–collectivism and tenure intent among knowledge workers in India and Bulgaria: Moderating effects of equity perceptions and task interdependence.The Journal of High Technology Management Research,25(2), 201-209.
51. Rastogi, R., & Garg, P. (2011). Organizational citizenship behavior: Towards psychological well-being of employees.International Journal of Arts & Sciences,4(22), 13.
52. Rauf, F.A. (2016). Two sides of the same coin: harmful or helpful? A critical review of the consequences of organizational citizenship behavior.Journal of Advance Management and Accounting Research,3(9).
53. Schwartz, S.H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values.Online readings in Psychology and Culture,2(1), 11.
54. Scott, B.A. (2013). A conceptual framework for the study of popularity in the workplace.Organizational Psychology Review,3(2), 161-186.
55. Shayista, M., Sabiya, M., & Nazir, N. (2018). Personality traits and organisational citizenship behaviour: A review, International Journal of Advance and Innovative Research, 5 (4), 304-308
56. Sridhar, A., & Thiruvenkadam, T. (2014). Impact of employee engagement on organization citizenship behaviour.BVIMSRs Journal of Management Research,6(2), 147-155.
57. Tambe, S. (2014). A study of organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and its dimensions: A literature review.
58. Uzonwanne, F. (2014). Organizational citizenship behaviour and demographic factors among oil workers in Nigeria.Journal of Humanities and Social Science,19(8), 87-95.
59. Vanguard. (2019). Manufacturing sector in 20 years: Our position- LCCI, Retrieved 10th November, 2019 from https://www.vanguardngr.com/2019/05/manufacturing-sector-in-20-years-our-position-lcci/
60. Veronica, E., & Indradevi, R. (2014). Key predictors of employee commitment and organizational citizenship behavior.Asian Social Science,10(13), 22.
61. Wan, W.H., & Antonucci, T.C. (2015). Social exchange theory and aging.Encyclopedia of Geropsychology, 1-9.
62. Wei, Y., O'Neill, H., Lee, R.P., & Zhou, N. (2013). The impact of innovative culture on individual employees: The moderating role of market information sharing.Journal of Product Innovation Management,30(5), 1027-1041.
63. Wen, X., Gu, L., & Wen, S. (2019). Job satisfaction and job engagement: Empirical evidence from food safety regulators in Guangdong, China.Journal of Cleaner Production,208, 999-1008.
64. Yuen, K.F., Loh, H.S., Zhou, Q., & Wong, Y.D. (2018). Determinants of job satisfaction and performance of seafarers.Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,110, 1-12.
65. Yusoff, M.A.M., Razak, M.R.A., Said, A.M.A., Noor, M.N.M., & Yusof, A. Organizational citizenship behaviour in manufacturing organizations: the influence of commitment, leadership, and teamwork on altruism.
66. Zhang, S. (2014). Impact of job involvement on organizational citizenship behaviors in China.Journal of Business Ethics,120(2), 165-174.