See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236823072

Organizational Citizenship of Faculty and Achievement of High

School Students

Article  in  The High School Journal · January 2005

DOI: 10.1353/hsj.2005.0002

CITATIONS READS

182 1,265

2 authors:

Michael F. Dipaola Wayne K. Hoy

College of William and Mary The Ohio State University
26 PUBLICATIONS   961 CITATIONS    132 PUBLICATIONS   17,775 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Exploring Academic Optimism in Virginia Secondary Schools View project

Operational Measure of Principal Support- Relationship of Principal Support to Teachers' Job Satisfaction, Trust, School Climate View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael F. Dipaola on 12 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 All successful organizations, including suc-
cessful high schools, have employees who go
beyond their formal job responsibilities and
freely give of their time and energy to succeed.
Organ was the first to use the phrase “organi-
zational citizenship behavior” (OCB) to denote
organizationally beneficial behavior of work-
ers that was not prescribed but occurred freely
to help others achieve the task at hand
(Bateman & Organ, 1983). The willingness of
participants to exert effort beyond the formal
Organizational Citizenship of obligations of their positions has long been
Faculty and Achievement of High recognized as an essential component of effec-
tive organizational performance.
School Students
Research on organizational citizenship behav-
ior has produced some intriguing insights in a
Michael F. DiPaola variety of organizational settings (Organ, 1988;
The College of William and Mary Organ & Ryan, 1995), but it has been neglect-
ed in the study of schools. In an earlier paper
Wayne K. Hoy (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001), Organ’s
The Ohio State University concept of organizational citizenship (Organ,
1988; Organ & Ryan, 1995) was developed and
applied to public schools. This analysis builds
on that earlier work.
In this analysis, the concept of organizational
citizenship behavior is reviewed and then
applied to schools. A set of hypotheses linking
organizational citizenship behavior with stu-
dent achievement in high schools is developed
and tested. A significant relationship was
found between student achievement on stan-
dardized tests and the level of organizational
citizenship behaviors of the faculty in the high
school sample studied. The relationship
remained significant even after controlling for
socioeconomic status (SES). Finally, a set of
suggestions for further research and a series of
practical suggestions for high school adminis-
trators are provided.

Successful organizations have employees who

go beyond their formal job responsibilities and
freely give of their time and energy to succeed
at the task at hand. Such altruism is neither pre-
scribed nor required; yet it contributes to the
smooth functioning of the organization. In an
earlier paper (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran,
2001), Organ’s concept of organizational citi-
zenship (Organ, 1988; Organ & Ryan, 1995) was
© 2005 The University of North Carolina Press
35
The High School Journal – Feb/ Mar 2005
developed and applied to public schools. The Organizational citizenship behavior was
current analysis builds on that earlier work. described by Organ and his colleagues (Smith,
First, we review the concept of organizational Organ, &Near, 1983) as having two basic dimen-
citizenship behavior, then we apply the concept sions—altruism and generalized compliance.
to schools, and finally, we develop and test a set Altruism is helping behavior directed at specif-
of hypotheses linking organizational citizen- ic individuals. When individuals have specific
ship behavior with student achievement. problems, need assistance, or seek help, altruis-
tic people go the extra mile in assisting them.
Conceptual Framework
The other class of citizenship behavior is gener-
The three major variables of this study are orga-
alized compliance, which is a more impersonal
nizational citizenship behavior, student
conscientiousness: doing things “right and
achievement, and socioeconomic status.
proper” for their own sake rather than for any
Organizational Citizenship Behavior specific person. Conscientiousness in use of
Organ was the first to use the phrase “organiza- time is the hallmark of this dimension.
tional citizenship behavior” (OCB) to denote Organizational participants’ behavior far sur-
organizationally beneficial behavior of workers passes any enforceable minimum standards;
that was not prescribed but occurred freely to workers willingly go far beyond stated expecta-
help others achieve the task at hand (Bateman & tions.
Organ, 1983). Research on organizational citi-
In attempting to further define organizational
zenship behavior has produced some intriguing
citizenship behavior, Organ (1988) highlights
insights in a variety of organizational settings
five specific categories of discretionary behav-
(Organ, 1988; Organ & Ryan, 1995), but it has
ior and explains how each helps to improve
been neglected in the study of schools. Teachers
efficiency in the organization.
perform the task of teaching. They are profes-
sionals in the sense that they study a relatively • Altruism (e.g., helping new colleagues and
long time to master the fundamentals of teach- freely giving time to others) is typically
ing (expertise) and their primary commitment is directed toward other individuals, but con-
to their students (service to clients). Teaching is tributes to group efficiency by enhancing
a complex activity that requires professional individuals’ performance.
judgments; it cannot adequately be prescribed
• Conscientiousness (e.g., efficient use of time
in teachers’ job descriptions or contracts. Thus
and going beyond minimum expectations)
organizational citizenship behavior is an espe-
enhances the efficiency of both an individual
cially important aspect of the performance of
and the group.
faculty in schools.
• Sportsmanship (e.g., avoids complaining and
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is
whining) improves the amount of time spent
defined as “performance that supports the
on constructive endeavors in the organiza-
social and psychological environment in which
tion.
task performance takes place” (Organ, 1997, p.
95). Such behavior is said to “lubricate the • Courtesy (e.g., advance notices, reminders,
social machinery of the organization” (Bateman and communicating appropriate informa-
& Organ, 1983, p. 588). The willingness of par- tion) helps prevent problems and facilitates
ticipants to exert effort beyond the formal obli- constructive use of time.
gations of their positions has long been recog-
• Civic Virtue (e.g., serving on committees and
nized as an essential component of effective
voluntarily attending functions) promotes
organizational performance. For example, more
the interests of the organization.
than a half century ago, Barnard (1938) stated
that the willingness of individuals to contribute Empirical research on the dimensions of orga-
cooperative efforts to the organization was nizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) has gen-
indispensable to effective attainment of organi- erated somewhat conflicting results. A few
zational goals. researchers have been successful in identifying
four categories of OCB (Moorman & Blakely,
36
 Organizational Citizenship and Achievement
1995), but the weight of the factor analytic evi- ple—schools are people-helping organizations.
dence suggests a two-factor structure. For exam- Most previous studies were performed in pri-
ple, Williams (1988) found a two-dimensional vate sector organizations where altruistic
definition of OCB: 1) benefits to the organiza- behavior towards coworkers was not necessari-
tion in general, such as volunteering to serve on ly intertwined with behaviors that support the
committees (OCBO), and 2) benefits directed at organization and its mission. Teachers routine-
individuals within the organization, such as ly perform behaviors directed toward helping
altruism and interpersonal helping (OCBI). individuals, both clients and colleagues, as part
More recently, Skarlicki and Latham (1995) of their professional identity (DiPaola &
examined OCB in a university setting; their data Tschannen-Moran, 2001).
also supported a two-factor structure, (organiza-
Teachers who voluntarily help their new col-
tional and interpersonal) that underlies organi-
leagues and go out of their way to introduce
zational citizenship behavior.
themselves to others define organizational citi-
Organizational citizenship behavior in schools, zenship behaviors in schools. Teachers in such
however, departs from most of the earlier schools take it upon themselves to make inno-
research in that all aspects of OCB fold into a vative suggestions, to volunteer to sponsor
single integrated conception of citizenship. In extra-curricular activities, and to volunteer to
two separate factor analytic studies, DiPaola serve on new committees. Moreover, teachers
and Tschannen-Moran (2001) found that there help students on their own time, stay after
are not five separate dimensions of the con- school to help if necessary, and resist the
struct, or even two for that matter, but rather temptation to give students busy work.
that one dimension captures all aspects of orga- Organizational citizenship behavior in schools
nizational citizenship in schools. In other connotes a serious educational context in
words, both benefits to the organization (help- which teachers are rarely absent, make efficient
ing the organization) and benefits to the indi- use of their time while at school, work produc-
vidual (helping individuals) combine into a sin- tively with their colleagues, and give high pri-
gle, bipolar construct. ority to professional activities over personal
ones while in school. They use their talents and
These results in schools are not surprising for at
efforts to help both students and the school to
least two related reasons. First, the evidence
achieve.
suggests that organizational citizenship behav-
iors are context specific, that is, the behaviors Student Achievement
inherent to organizational citizenship vary from One of the hallmarks of school effectiveness is
one type of organization to another student achievement in academic disciplines.
(Karambayya, 1989; Organ, 1988). Second, pub- How well students are achieving is determined
lic schools are quite different from most private by judgments of teachers, teacher-made tests,
sector organizations. Schools are service organ- grades, and standardized tests. In this era of
izations staffed by teacher professionals who standards and accountability, most states now
are generally committed to doing what is best employ a standardized set of tests to assess the
for their students. The client (students in the performance of schools within their state.
case of schools) is the prime beneficiary of the Schools and districts get “report cards” based
organization (Blau & Scott, 1962). Thus, in serv- on these tests that indicate the school’s per-
ice organizations like schools, both the profes- formance and progress. The Ohio Department
sional workers and the organization are com- of Education has developed a set of proficiency
mitted to what is in the best interests of the tests to assess the success of schools. The focus
client. Consequently, there is a high degree of of the current study is mathematics and reading
congruence between professional goals and achievement, two hallmarks of educated stu-
organizational goals. The distinction between dents. These two indicators are not the only cri-
helping individuals and furthering the organi- teria of school effectiveness, but they are by all
zational mission is blurred because in schools accounts important ones.
the mission is synonymous with helping peo-

37
The High School Journal – Feb/ Mar 2005
Socioeconomic Status (SES) Indeed, adherence to only the letter of the for-
Socioeconomic status (SES) is another impor- mal role is typically not sufficient to promote
tant variable to consider when looking at school effectiveness and efficiency. Organizations need
achievement because it is invariably a strong participants who go beyond formally prescribed
predictor of student success (Coleman, et al., roles. Unexpected and unique situations arise
1966), in fact, it is difficult to find organization- in organizations that require spontaneous, cre-
al variables that are as potent in predicting ative, and new behaviors. Flexibility and extra
achievement. The wealth associated with high effort are required (Hoy & Sweetland, 2000,
SES is generally a predictor of high achieve- 2001). Borman and Motowidlo (1993) have pro-
ment in schools. Students from higher SES posed that individuals contribute to organiza-
schools have many of the important ingredients tional effectiveness by doing things that are not
for success as part of their home environment— necessarily their main task functions but are
books; computers; and educated parents who important because they shape the organization-
help, support, and reinforce academic and al and social context that supports task activi-
intellectual pursuits, to mention only a few ties.
advantages. No study of student achievement of
In general, citizenship behaviors contribute to
schools is complete without considering the
organizational performance because these
impact of SES on student achievement. What
behaviors provide an effective means of manag-
educational researchers are seeking are vari-
ing the interdependencies between members of
ables that are malleable, that is, that can be
a work unit and, as a result, increase the collec-
changed relatively easily because SES is not
tive outcomes achieved (Organ, 1988; 1990,
amenable to much change. The challenge is to
1997; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983).
find factors that have as strong an influence on
Organizational citizenship also reduces the
student achievement as SES.
need for an organization to commit scarce
Organizational Citizenship and Student resources to maintenance functions, thus free-
Achievement ing up more resources for goal-related activities.
There has been no research that we know of that Moreover, administrators, for example, are able
links organization citizenship behavior and stu- to devote a greater proportion of their time to
dent achievement in school. In particular, this important activities such as planning, problem
inquiry is concerned with three questions: solving, and organizational analysis.
• Does the organizational citizenship behavior Individual, group, and organizational character-
facilitate student achievement within a istics all influence organizational citizenship
school? behaviors (Koberg, Boss, Bursten, & Goodman,
1999). Citizenship behaviors are not inspired by
• If so, how does such behavior work to
the same motivations that induce people to join,
improve achievement?
stay, and perform within the contractual, formal
• How can the school improve the organiza- role definitions (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983).
tional citizenship behavior of faculty? Research shows that organizational citizenship
behaviors are positively related to organization-
An Organizational Citizenship-Student
al outcomes and group-level performance in a
Achievement Hypothesis
variety of organizations (George &
Organizations have been defined as systems of
Bettrnhausen, 1990; Graham, 1986;
formal positions and roles (Blau & Scott, 1962)
Karambayya, 1989; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, &
in which participants conform to the expecta-
Fetter, 1991; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994;
tions of their positions. Organizational citizen-
Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983).
ship behaviors go beyond the official blueprint
of the organization; they are extra behaviors, Organizational citizenship behaviors are not
that is, they are not officially prescribed. Such only perceived to make important contributions
behaviors do not directly conform to the usual to organizational performance but are regarded
notion of job performance, but nevertheless by leaders as significant in the performance of
they tend to be functional for the organization. individuals (Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995;
38
 Organizational Citizenship and Achievement
MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991; Orr, after school to help are accepting personal
Sackett, & Mercer, 1989; Werner, 1994). A key to responsibility for student achievement and are
overall performance in the minds of many man- persisting in their teaching efforts. Such teach-
agers were the extra things people did well ers are also more likely to be resilient and to try
above and beyond the call of duty. Workers per- different curricular approaches and teaching
ceived to be the most effective by managers strategies to improve their teaching effective-
were individuals who were not only productive ness.
themselves but also made those around them
Hence, we hypothesize that: Faculty organiza-
more productive “by helping, by being good
tional citizenship behavior is positively associ-
sports, and/or exhibiting civic virtue”
ated with student achievement in both mathe-
(Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994, p. 359).
matics and reading. Although the hypothesis is
Another factor in the resultant efficiency and stated as an association between citizenship
effectiveness derived by organizations with behavior of the schools and achievement, we
greater citizenship behaviors is a reduction in believe that the relationship is an instance of
employee turnover. The cost of employee reciprocal causality, that is, organizational citi-
turnover is reduced in organizations that foster zenship behavior produces higher student
citizenship behaviors; in fact, individuals who achievement, and conversely, higher student
exhibit such behaviors are less likely to leave achievement reinforces and produces greater
the organization (Chen, Hui, & Sego, 1998; organizational citizenship behaviors.
Koberg, Boss, Bursten, & Goodman, 1999).
A Test of the Organizational Citizenship-
Clearly a construct related to so many positive
Student Achievement Hypothesis
individual and organizational outcomes is wor-
To test this hypothesis, data were collected and
thy of study. In schools, is citizenship behavior
analyzed from a typical set of high schools in
related to student achievement? And, if so,
Ohio.
why?
Sample. The current study consisted of a sam-
Thus far, our analysis of the general literature
ple of 97 high schools in Ohio. Although proce-
on organizational citizenship behavior paints a
dures were not used to ensure a random sample
positive picture. In schools with such faculties,
from the population of high schools, care was
teachers should exert extra effort and be willing
taken to select urban, suburban, and rural
to try innovative approaches; administrators
schools from diverse geographic areas of the
should be able to devote more resources and
state. Only schools with 15 or more faculty
energy to teaching-related issues rather than
members were candidates for the study. One
routine management and monitoring; teachers
hundred and forty-nine high schools were invit-
and administrators should be more likely to
ed to participate, but for a variety of reasons
engage in cooperative activities like helping col-
only 97 agreed to be in the study (65%). High
leagues and promoting behavior that is good for
schools were defined by grade configurations
the collective; and teachers should be more
that included grades 9-12 and grades 10-12. The
likely to remain in such schools and thus mini-
high schools in the sample represented the
mize the costs of recruitment, selection, and
entire range of socioeconomic status (SES); in
socialization of new faculty.
fact, data from the Ohio Department of
In addition to these general positive outcomes Education support the representativeness of the
of organizational citizenship behaviors, such sample in terms of size, socioeconomic status,
behavior should also have more direct influ- and urban-rural balance.
ences on student learning. Faculty citizenship
Organizational Citizenship Behavior in School
behavior should promote more responsibility,
Scale (OCBSS). An organizational citizenship
persistence, and resilience in teaching—all of
behaviors scale (OCBSS) was administered to
which should lead to higher student perform-
teachers in each school. The scale consisted of
ance (Bandura, 1997). Teachers who are willing
15 Likert items with a 4-point scale in which
to go the extra mile with students by working
the response choices included rarely occurs,
with students on their own time and staying
39
The High School Journal – Feb/ Mar 2005
sometimes occurs, often occurs, and very fre- bers of each school, during a regularly sched-
quently occurs (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, uled faculty meeting, as part of a larger study. A
2001). Teachers were asked to describe the trained researcher personally administered the
extent to which they agree with such statements research instrument in each school. All teacher
as responses were anonymous, and because the
unit of analysis was the school, data were aggre-
“Teachers voluntarily help new teachers.”
gated to the school level. SES and proficiency
“Teachers volunteer to sponsor extra-curricular test data for each high school were collected
activities.” from the Ohio Department of Education.
“Teachers volunteer to serve on new Statistical Analyses. The focus of this study is
committees.” the aggregate—the collective faculty percep-
tions of organizational citizenship behavior for
“Teachers leave immediately after school is
each school. Organizational citizenship is a
over (score is reversed).”
description of the school. Accordingly, analyses
The OCBSS measures the citizenship behavior were performed on school means; that is, indi-
of the school faculty; it is a collective not an vidual teacher responses were aggregated to the
individual measure. Scores are aggregated to school level. Moreover, student achievement, as
the school level. noted above, was also a school property
because it was measured as the percent of stu-
A copy of the entire scale can be obtained from
dents in each school passing the 12th-grade pro-
the first author and schools are invited to use
ficiency test in mathematics.
the scale without cost to assess the organiza-
tional citizenship of their schools. There is Results
strong reliability and validity evidence for the The organizational citizenship-achievement
scale (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001). In hypothesis was supported in this study. A sig-
the present sample, the reliability coefficient for nificant and positive correlation was found
the scale was also strong (alpha = .87). between organizational citizenship behavior of
the faculty of a school and the student achieve-
School Achievement. School achievement in
ment of the schools for both reading and math-
mathematics and reading was measured by the
ematics. Organizational citizenship behavior
Ohio Department of Education. Each year stu-
and the percentage of students passing the 12th-
dents take a 12th-grade proficiency test in math-
grade proficiency test were correlated for read-
ematics and reading. Content validity evidence
ing (r = .30, p < .01) and for mathematics (r =
is provided by the extensive involvement of
.34, p < .01); the greater the amount of faculty
expert educators in the development and selec-
organizational citizenship behavior, the higher
tion of items. Reliabilities of the test for the past
the level of student achievement.
five years have ranged from .91 to .92. The state
establishes passing rates for all schools in Ohio. The one school property, however, that consis-
Because we were interested in the school as the tently predicts student achievement in school is
unit of analysis, we focused on the percentage the SES of the parents and community.
of students that passed these exams. Wealthier school districts have higher academ-
ic achievement than poorer ones. Indeed that
Socioeconomic Status (SES). An index of SES
was the case for schools in this sample; the
was created by the Ohio Department of
higher the SES, the higher the student achieve-
Education based on a composite measure of the
ment in reading (r = .27, p< .01) and mathemat-
inhabitant’s typical income, overall level of
ics reading (r = .37, p< .01). If we control for
education, and their professional leanings. The
SES, does citizenship behavior still make a sig-
state’s index was used as a measure of socioe-
nificant impact on student achievement? The
conomic status for the high school.
answer is yes! We controlled for SES and calcu-
Data Collection and Analysis lated the partial correlation of organizational
Data for faculty organizational citizenship citizenship and student achievement. The cor-
behavior were collected from the faculty mem- relation remained substantial and significant
40
 Organizational Citizenship and Achievement
(partial r = .28, p< .01) for reading and (partial r sis (Goddard, Sweetland, & Hoy, 2000) each
= .30, p< .01) for mathematics. have an independent effect on school achieve-
ment (controlling for SES). To that small list, we
One more statistical analysis was performed to
may now add faculty organizational citizenship
compare the relative importance of the impact
behavior.
of SES and organizational citizenship on stu-
dent achievement. We entered both SES and The theoretical rationale for linking organiza-
organizational citizenship simultaneously into tional citizenship behavior to student achieve-
a regression equation predicting school ment was also supported by the results. We the-
achievement in reading and mathematics. For orized that organizational citizenship of a
reading, the standardized beta weights were school would impact the achievement of stu-
similar in predicting achievement—(beta = 27, dents because teachers in such schools would
p < .01 for organizational citizenship and beta = spontaneously reach out to students and col-
.23 for SES, p < .01), with organizational citi- leagues, exert extra effort, and be more willing
zenship slightly higher. For mathematics, the to try innovative approaches to curriculum and
standardized beta weights, again, were similar instruction. It appears that such teachers are
in predicting achievement—(beta = 28, p < .01 personally invested in the success of students
for organizational citizenship and for SES beta and take responsibility for student learning.
= .33, p < .01), with SES slightly more impor- Consequently, their practice reflects more per-
tant. The conclusion is clear: Faculty organiza- sistence in their teaching efforts. Teachers who
tional citizenship of a school is an important are willing to go the extra mile with students by
factor in the level of student achievement in working with students on their own time and
schools. Faculty organizational citizenship has staying after school to help students demon-
a significant independent effect on school stu- strate personal responsibility for student
dent achievement in addition to the effect of achievement and persist in their teaching
SES on achievement; in fact, faculty citizenship efforts. Such teachers are also more likely to be
behavior has approximately the same impact as resilient and to try different curricular
SES. The results of the statistical analysis may approaches and teaching strategies when their
be viewed in Table 1. regular teaching tactics are not effective.
Discussion Schools with a high degree of organizational cit-
There are only a few organizational properties izenship also free administrators from routine
that seem to make a difference in school monitoring and checking and enable them to
achievement beyond socioeconomic status: fac- engage in more productive activities in support
ulty trust in students and parents (Goddard, of teaching and learning. With organizational
Tschannen-Moran, & Hoy, 2001; Bryk & citizenship behaviors come a number of related
Schneider, 2002), collective efficacy (Goddard, activities that focus on teaching and learning
Hoy, & Woolfolk, 2000), and academic empha- and make schools more productive.

Faculty Organizational Citizenship

Achievement
r Partial r controlling Standardized Beta
For SES Weight
Reading .27* .28* .28*
Mathematics .37* .29* .33*
*p < .01

Table 1. Correlations and Standardized Beta Weights for the Relationship Between Faculty
Organizational Citizenship and School Student Achievement

41
The High School Journal – Feb/ Mar 2005
Research Questions Moran, 2001) provide enough information to
Organizational citizenship behavior of faculty is begin to formulate some suggestions for prac-
a new concept that has received little attention tice. One of the keys to improving student learn-
in the research literature on schools. Yet, the ing is to find ways to help teachers to exert extra
concept seems an important one that is directly effort, persist in their teaching, innovate, and to
and indirectly linked to school achievement. A persevere despite initial failure. Strong organi-
systematic agenda of research is needed to zational citizenship is quite consistent with
examine both the antecedents and conse- such behavior. Moreover, the fact that such
quences of organizational citizenship behavior. behavior is an organizational feature suggests
Consider only a few of the research questions in that these schools have cultures that encourage
need of answers: and support behavior that goes far beyond rou-
tine and formal expectations. Teachers who
• The findings of this study were for high
find themselves in such schools are likely to
schools. We suspect the results will be the
discover that citizenship behaviors are the
same for elementary and middle schools, but
norm rather that the exception; consequently,
that remains an empirical question.
individuals will feel the subtle pressure of their
• What factors facilitate the development of colleagues to follow that norm.
organizational citizenship behaviors?
Cultivating organizational citizenship in
For example, how is organizational citizen-
schools is like changing the culture of the
ship related to the development of faculty
school; it is slow, and not a simple process. The
trust in colleagues, in parents, in students,
key is that most of the teachers voluntarily
and in the principal? How pivotal is the
expend extra effort and time to make the school
development of teacher trust?
a better place. We suspect that once a critical
• Is gender an important variable in the devel- mass of the teachers is engaged in organization-
opment of organizational citizenship? al citizenship behavior, then the rest will follow.
We offer the following suggestions for princi-
• How do the variables of academic press, trust
pals:
in parents, and collective efficacy interact
with organizational citizenship to produce • Lead by example; be a good organizational
student achievement? In other words, how citizen and reinforce those behaviors when
do these important organizational features you observe them in your school.
work together?
• Be supportive and flexible in dealing with
• To what extent do organizational politics your teachers; principals who focus on
impede or facilitate the development of orga- enforcing the rules and regulations will not
nizational citizenship behaviors? be successful in motivating teachers to go the
extra mile.
• To what extent are teacher empowerment
and shared decision making important to the • Have as few formal rules as possible; formal-
development of organizational citizenship ity breeds rule-oriented behavior and
behaviors? rigidity.
• To what extent are reflective and mindful • Try not to permit the teaching contract to get
administrators necessary to the promotion of too specific in terms of what teachers can
a culture of organizational citizenship? and cannot do. If the contract is specific,
work with the union leadership to enhance
The list goes on and on, but the preceding set of
flexibility.
questions illustrate the heuristic nature of the
concept and the need for further study. • Nurture the informal organization; work
with the informal teacher leaders, and
Practical Suggestions
encourage novel solutions to problems. Limit
Both the current study and the earlier one on
your use of the formal apparatus.
citizenship behavior (DiPaola & Tschannen-

42
 Organizational Citizenship and Achievement
• Praise your teachers when they demonstrate Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J.,
McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York,
good organizational citizenship behavior; R. L, (1966). Equality of educational opportunity.
informal praise may be the best. Simply let Washington, DC: National Center for Educational
your teachers know that you appreciate their Statistics.
DiPaola, M. F. & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001,
extra efforts. September). Organizational citizenship behavior in
schools and its relationship to school climate. Journal
• Treat teachers as professionals, that is, as of School Leadership, 11, 424-447.
individuals with expertise in teaching and George, J. M. & Bettrnhausen, K. (1990). Understanding
commitment to their students. Give them prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover:
A group level analysis in a service context. Journal of
autonomy to experiment and to make impor- Applied Psychology, 75, 698-709.
tant decisions about teaching and learning. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., Woolfolk, A. (2000).
Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and
• Design a mentoring system in which experi- effect on student achievement. American Educational
enced teacher, who routinely demonstrate Research Journal, 37, 479-507.
Goddard, R. D., Sweetland, S., & Hoy, W. K. (2000).
organizational citizenship behaviors social- Academic emphasis of urban elementary schools and
ize new teachers. student achievement in reading and mathematics: A
multilevel analysis. Educational Administration
• Protect your teachers from administrative Quarterly, 36, 683-702.
trivia—unnecessary meetings, too much Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K.
(2001). Teacher trust in students and parents: A mul-
paper work, silly rules, busy work, etc. tilevel examination of the distribution and effects of
teacher trust in urban elementary schools.
• With your teachers, develop high levels of Elementary School Journal, 102, 3-17.
academic success, and then support and help Graham, J. W. (1986). Organizational citizenship
teachers achieve those goals. informed by political theory. Paper presented at the
Academy of Management meeting, Chicago, Il.
In brief, principals should develop an organiza- Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2000). Bureaucracies
that work: Enabling not coercive. Journal of School
tional structure and school culture that helps Leadership, 10, 525-541.
teachers do their jobs unfettered by bureaucrat- Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Designing better
ic rules and procedures (Hoy & Sweetland, schools: The meaning and nature of enabling school
structure. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37.
(2000, 2001). The focus of the school should be 296-321.
collegiality, informality, professionalism, and Karambayya, R. (1989). Organizational citizenship
volunteerism. behavior: Contextual predictors and organizational
consequences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
References Northwestern University, Evanston, Il.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of con- Koberg, C., Boss, R., Bursten, R., & Goodman, E.
trol. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co. (August, 1999). Getting more than you bargained for:
Barnard, C.I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Empirical evidence of organizational citizenship
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. behavior from the health care industry? Paper pre-
Bateman, T. S. & Organ, D.W. (1983). Job satisfaction sented at the annual meeting of the Academy of
and the good soldier: The relationship between affect Management, Chicago.
and employee citizenship. Academy of Management MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991).
Journal, 26, 587-595. Organizational citizenship behavior and objective
Blau, P. & Scott, R. (1962). Formal organizations: A productivity as determinants of managerial evalua-
comparative approach. San Francisco: Chandler. tions of salespersons’ performance. Organizational
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 123-
the criterion domain to include elements of contextu- 150.
al performance. In N .Schmitt, & W.C. Borman, (Eds.), Moorman, R. H. & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-
Personality Selection (pp. 71 – 98). San Francisco: collectivism as an individual difference predictor of
Jossey-Bass. organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of
Borman, W.C., White, L. A., & Dorsey, D. W. (1995). Organizational Behavior, 16 (2), 127-142.
Effects of task performance and interpersonal factors Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behav-
on supervisors and peer ratings. Journal of Applied ior. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co.
Psychology, 80, 168-177. Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organiza-
Bryk, A. S. & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools. tional citizenship behavior. Research in
New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Organizational Behavior, 12, 43-72.
Chen, X. P., Hui, C., & Sego, D. J. (1998). The role of Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behav-
organizational citizenship behavior in turnover: ior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance,
Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key 10, 85-97.
hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 922-
931.

43
The High School Journal – Feb/ Mar 2005
Organ, D. W. & Ryan, K (1995). A meta-analytic review Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983).
of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organi- Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s nature and
zational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-
48, 775-802. 663.
Orr, J. M., Sackett, P. R., & Mercer, M (1989). The role of Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference:
prescribed and nonprescribed behaviors in estimating Examining the impact of in-role and extra-role behav-
the dollar value of performance. Journal of Applied iors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 34-40. Psychology, 79, 98-107.
Podsakoff, P. M. & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Williams, L. (1988). Effective and noneffective compo-
Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit nents of job satisfaction and organizational commit-
effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 351- ment as determinants of organizational citizenship
363. and in-role behaviors. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
Skarlicki, D., & Latham G. (1995). Organizational citi- tion, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
zenship behavior and performance in a university
setting. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences,
12, 175-181.

44
View publication stats