OCBs: Pt.6 The Dark Side

by Dr Deirdre O’Donovan, Lecturer in HRM and MA HRM Course Coordinator, Cork Institute of Technology.

Up to this post, this series has viewed Organizational Citizenship Behaviours (OCBs) through the conventional, traditional lens, discussing them as voluntary, positive behaviours which result in positive outcomes. There is, however, a dark side to OCBs.

First, while OCBs are supposed to be voluntary behaviours rooted in an individual’s good will, researchers such as Vigoda-Gadot (2007; 2006) and Bolino and colleagues (2004) have presented research suggesting that suggesting that some OCBs are undertaken by employees in response to pressure placed on them by individuals of significance, for example, managers. When managers or supervisors look to increase the workload of existing employees by involving them in tasks that go beyond their job description, they are essentially forcing the undertaking of OCBs. It is noteworthy though that giving employees extra work to do, that is beyond their role requirements, either through horizontal or vertical loading is often proposed as a motivation, engagement or confidence enhancing strategy. This post does not argue that such activities should stop, rather a balance must be struck and checks put in place. Are the extra activities being asked of employees because they are activities that the employee can or will willingly do, or because they will benefit the employee or both the employee and the organisation? Or, are the activities being forced upon the employee so that the organisation can do more for less by negatively exploiting their human capital? If the answer to the former is yes, then positivity is likely to result. If the answer to the latter is yes, however, then negativity, stress, and potential increased turnover and damaged morale is likely to result.

In addition to OCBs being undertaken as a result of supervisory pressure, they may also be undertaken in response to peer pressure. Essentially, individuals may find themselves engaging in supra-role behaviours not because they want to, rather because their colleagues are, so they feel they must. This can pose problems if employees are trying to undertake activities that they do not have the capabilities for, as this could result in creating more work for others. Additionally, if employees feel constant pressure to do more than they are capable of or have the ability for, they may begin to experience stress and overload, potentially resulting in burnout and negative health issues. Thus, while on the surface level it could be said that the employee is undertaking OCBs, they are perhaps creating more harm than good, as a consequence of the forced nature of the OCBs.

Another dark association with OCBs comes in the reality that not all instances of OCB are prosocial, originating in goodwill, rather may have their roots in self-serving motives. Individuals may only engage in OCBs when those OCBs will be noticed by others, or are likely to contribute to a better impression of the individual. When a promotion opportunity, for example, is on the horizon, an employee might engage in OCBs that will be visible to the deciding managers, in an effort to appear more deserving. Employees may also engage in OCBs to prove that they are more worthy of being retained by the organisation, rather than, as originally constructed, to “help out”.

Another negative reasoning behind undertaking OCBs lies in overcompensation i.e. individuals doing more in the workplace than they have to due to dissatisfaction in their own lives. This can present problems for the organisation when work becomes a crutch for the employee and underlying issues are not dealt with. It can result in exhaustion when employees continually volunteer for overtime or more difficult projects that will take extra time to avoid facing personal issues. Again, on the surface level, employees may look like they are engaged in positive, voluntary supra-role behaviours, but the dark roots are likely to mean that less of the organisational advantages come to fruition.

Finally, for this post at least, an issue lies in the knowledge that, often, the more an individual does, the more they are expected to do. In essence, OCBs may start off voluntary and supra-role in nature, but then become normalised, thereby losing their voluntary flavour, and simply becoming the source of extra work for employees who undertook them as a result of goodwill, while employees who did not undertake OCBs are just expected to do the actual job. This can create friction between employees in the same job role when it is realised that some are undertaking more work activities than others, but for the same level of compensation. It can also result in spiralling levels of supra-role behaviours between employees who want to appear the most committed. Neither scenario provides true benefits for the organisation, as employees whose extra work is normalised may become resentful and fatigued, while employees constantly trying to outdo each other may lose sight of the actual job they are being paid to do, meaning required performance suffers.

Ultimately, the purpose of this post is to encourage managers, supervisors and HRPs to be mindful of behaviours that constitute OCBs but, rather than simply be glad they are being undertaken, try to uncover their roots. Are employees engaged in OCBs because they want to be, or have to be? Is the same individual suddenly consistency volunteering to work late, and why? Is the actual job that employees were hired to do being undertaken? Negative answers to any of these questions should raise red flags.

About the author

Dr Deirdre O’Donovan is currently a lecturer in Human Resource Management in Cork Institute of Technology, Cork, Ireland, and the course coordinator for the MA in HRM. Previous research focussed on National Culture and Performance Management, while her current research interests are primarily rooted in Industrial/Organisational Psychology, Inclusion and HRM.
LinkedIn: Deirdre-O-Donovan-phd
Email: [email protected]