Compulsory Citizenship Behavior and Organizational Commitment: The Role of Leader-Member Exchange

Introduction

Employees’ extra role behavior offers a significantly positive effect on an organization’s efficiency and effectiveness. Employees can perform voluntary extra role behavior without expectation for return. (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006). Organizational citizenship behavior is a discretionary behavior and not a precisely defined formal reward system (Organ, 1988). Because organizational citizenship behavior holds benefits for an organization, the supervisors and co-workers force an employee to show more extra role behavior. Most employees make concessions to the supervisor’s pressure for extra-role since they use as a strategic tool to reach personal goals and making requests in the future. Thus, the voluntary nature of organizational citizenship behavior can be experienced as compulsory in practice. Compulsory citizenship behavior (CCB) is the employee’s participation in additional-tasks that are contrary to their wish. It is a negative aspect of organizational citizenship behavior that arises from the social structure of the organization (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006; 2007).

This study has a twofold contribution. Firstly, previous research has shown that compulsory citizenship behavior has a negative effect on employees and organizations, such as reducing overall organizational performance and effectiveness, increasing job stress, causing staff to seek other employment and engaging in deviance behavior (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006; 2007). Present studies have not yet confirmed the theoretical foundations of the connection between compulsory citizenship behavior and its outcomes, especially on employee’s commitment to the organization. Thus, there is a need to investigate the link between compulsory citizenship behavior and commitment to the organization. Secondly, more important for us, previous studies have extensively made in Western and North-American countries which are individualistic and low power distance countries. Turkey is a good model of collectivistic and high power distance country (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). In a collectivist culture, the benefits of the community are more primary than individual benefits. Commitment towards a group and acting in compliance with group needs are more important than individual achievement (Kim, Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994). The request of extra-role behavior out of employees’ willing can be perceived differently from Western countries in collectivistic cultures, like as Turkey. Collectivistic culture may affect the perception of compulsory citizenship behavior in Turkey.

There is an interactional relationship between culture and management. In Turkish culture, hierarchy, age, and power specify the relationship between the supervisor and subordinates. The manager's requests for the extra role may have different consequences for the employees, in a cultural context perceived differently from the West (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010). Thus, compulsory citizenship behavior and its effects must also be tested in a collective and high power distance culture.

Leader-member exchange (LMX) describes the quality of affiliation among managers and employees, shapes the reciprocal attitudes and behaviors of leaders and subordinates. The way parties to the leader-member relationship engage in extra role behavior is ultimately affected by whether such work is considered compulsory or voluntary (Organ, 1988; Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997).