Employee Engagement and Organizational Effectiveness: The Role of Organizational Citizenship...

102IJBIT / Volume 6 / Issue 1 / October - March 2013 |

1Aakanksha Kataria, Research Scholar, Department of Humanities & Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee (IITR) Roorkee, India.2Pooja Garg, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Humanities & Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee (IITR), Roorkee, India.3Renu Rastogi, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Humanities & Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee (IITR), Roorkee, India.

ABSTRACT

In order to achieve and sustain organizational effectiveness, through employees’ increased contributions, organizations, apart from task proficiency, becoming increasingly reliant on employees’ discretionary efforts at workplace. To take part in their potent inclination, this paper intends to explore employee engagement and OCB literatures to investigate the interrelationships between employee engagement, OCB, and organizational effectiveness. A retrospective analysis is carried out of existing theoretical and empirical research studies to support the associative interrelationship between employee engagement, OCB, and organizational effectiveness. This integrative review subsequently considers two alternative models and propositions to establish causal relationships between employee engagement, OCB, and organizational effectiveness. Findings indicate that employee engagement has potential to drive OCB. Engaged employees also have the greatest potential to augment organizational effectiveness through their higher levels of OCB. This study suggests that value-based organizations through their HR architecture should adopt high performance HR practices to sustain high levels of employee engagement, since the psychological mechanism of engagement drives OCB by which an organization achieves effectiveness. Furthermore, this study mainly focuses on employees as engaged in their work roles, since these employees are highly capable of stimulating positive workplace behaviors and organizational performance. The study contributes to employee engagement and organizational effectiveness literatures by adding the notion of employee engagement as a significant antecedent of organizational effectiveness through OCB.

KEY WORDS: Employee Engagement, Organizational Effectiveness, Citizenship Behaviour.

JEL CLASSIFICATION: M24

1. INTRODUCTIONAchieving organizational effectiveness is the ultimate purpose to be focused by any organization that takes enormous effort to maximize employees’ task efficiency, commitment, and sustain intrinsic motivation to perform well in difficult times. This is why recent efforts to improve organizational performance have begun to inculcate positive organizational concepts like optimism, trust, and engagement (Koyuncu et. al., 2006). As a matter of fact, among optimism, trust, and engagement, leaders and managers across the globe recognize employee engagement as one of the most vital element that affects organizational effectiveness (Welch, 2011).

The continuance of employee engagement goes beyond the traditional notions of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job involvement etc. Engagement involves the active use of emotional, cognitive, and behavioral energies at workplace while working in coherence with the organization’s objectives and strategies (Andrew & Sofian, 2011). Also, engaged employees being focused, energetic, and fully engrossed in their jobs are highly motivated to direct their focused energy towards organizational goals (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Barbera, & Young, 2009). Certainly, organizational performance and effectiveness is a function of the collaborative efforts of engaged employees (Bakker, 2011). Engaged employees experience greater attachment to their work and organization (Organ, 1994; Schaufeli & Bakker. 2004) and they are more likely to do things that augment organizational effectiveness (Saks, 2008). For instance, engaged employees are optimistic and spontaneous, they tend to exhibit positive attitudes and proactive behaviors at

work place (Schaufeli et al., 2002; Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008) including low absenteeism, helpful attitude towards co-workers and adherence to company rules etc., more popularly known as organizational citizenship behavior (Organ, 1988). Engaged employees bring enduring state of fulfilment at workplace while feeling intrinsically motivated to exhibit positive feelings such as sharing, assisting, cooperating, and supporting, and thus create a holistic framework of the positive psychological, social, and organizational context of work. In this regard, research studies in organizational sciences have recently begun to report a positive association between employee engagement and OCB (Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004; Christian et al., 2011; Schaufeli, Taris, & Bakker, 2006; Shimazu & Schaufeli, 2009).

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), a positive psychological approach of engaged employees towards work and organization is concerned with those informal duties and tasks that go beyond the set boundaries of one’s job (Organ, 1988). The presence of OCB has been advocated for the increased organizational effectiveness (Katz & Kahn, 1966; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 1997). OCB has been observed to encompass those behaviors which lubricate the social machinery and construct the psychological fabric of an organization. Hence, OCB is widely considered both critical and beneficial to organizations (Wei et al., 2010). OCB literature has produced an impressive amount of substantive research on antecedents of OCB (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1996; Podsakoff et al., 2000). However, the constant evolution of the psychological process of employee engagement has lately begun to emerge as yet another important pathway for the evocation of OCB (Wei et al., 2010). This furthers the need

Employee Engagement and Organizational Effectiveness:

The Role of Organizational Citizenship BehaviorAakanksha Kataria1 Pooja Garg2 Renu Rastogi3


to improve our existing understanding of causal relationships among antecedents and consequences of OCB. In the current study, we attempt to include ‘organizational effectiveness’ variable that has received less attention in previous research to throw light on the potential significance of employee engagement through OCB. We are affirmative that academic efforts that explore how psychological mechanisms encourage and motivate employees to more actively engage in OCB and their impact on organizational effectiveness would most likely provide considerable implications for human resource development scholars and professionals.

Furthermore, as aforementioned, employee engagement encourages OCB (Bakker, Demerouti, & Verberke, (2004); Babcock-Roberson, & Strickland, 2010; Christian et. al., 2011), and OCB have been well documented in literature augmenting the effectiveness of an organization (Walz & Niehoff, 2000). Taking the same context ahead, it is proposed that employee engagement is related to organizational effectiveness and OCB functions as a mediator in the relationship between employee engagement and organizational effectiveness. The paper does not ostensibly replicate the previous acquisitions linking employee engagement to OCB and OCB to organizational effectiveness, but thoroughly envisages construction of a comprehensive framework that organizes relevant literature to support the connections between employee engagement and organizational effectiveness via OCB. In this direction, the paper seeks to acknowledge this existing yet not explicitly empirically examined link in the extant literature with regard to employee engagement and organizational effectiveness, and exploring organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) as a significant mediator persuading the predicting variable to the criterion variable. No study, to the best of our knowledge has proposed this unique combination of variables and the potential mediating mechanism of OCB between employee engagement and the organizational effectiveness. Therefore, the paper sets forth a new area of potential interest for research and practice in organizational sciences that could be further explored and build upon.

2. STATE OF ThE ART, ThEORETICAL FRAmEWORK, AND CONCEpTUAL mODEL2.1 Employee engagementConsiderable attention is given to the notion of employee engagement in contemporary organizations due to the recently reported positive relationship between engagement and direct measures of organizational effectiveness as job performance, output, quality, customer satisfaction, profits, and business growth (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Coffman & Gonzalez- Molina, 2002; Buchanan, 2004; Gallup Organization, 2004; Hewitt Associates LLC, 2005; Fleming and Asplund, 2007; Lockwood, 2007; Sundaray, 2011). Therefore, engaged employees nowadays is at the central focus of various organizations.

Though emergence and vast popularity of the concept has often been attributed to practitioners’ community, yet a great deal of research from researchers and academicians establishing the instrumentality of the concept, and identifying its differential antecedents and consequences has been flourishing lately (Sonnetag, 2011; Rurkkhum & Bartlett, 2012).

Kahn (1990), in his first and foremost qualitative study on engagement states, “Engaged employees drive personal

energies (physical, cognitive, and emotional) into their work roles”. In this connection, psychological experiences were identified as significant and necessary for an employee to invest his/her personal energies into their work role performance. Three psychological conditions were also articulated as a result of this notion a) meaningfulness (identification with one’s work/creative and challenging work, autonomy etc.), b) safety (elements of social systems), and c) availability (sense of having physical and psychological resources). In this context, engagement was presumed as having positive outcomes for both individual as well as organizations. The fulgent beginning of engagement literature with the works of Kahn (1990) has drifted considerable attention and inclination of researchers in recent times. Hence, numerous definitions on engagement have been produced thereafter:

Harter et al., (2002) defined engagement as “the individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work”.

Schaufeli et al., (2002) defined engagement as “a positive fulfilling, work related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption”.

Robinson et al., (2004) defined engagement as “a positive employee attitude towards the organization and its values, involving awareness of business context, and work to improve job and organizational effectiveness”.

Saks, (2006) defined employee engagement as “a distinct and unique construct that consists of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components that are associated with individual role performance” (p. 602).

Shuck & Wollard, (2010) distinctly defined employee engagement as “an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral state directed toward desired organizational outcomes”.

In sum, an emerging body of research is using a common conceptualization of employee engagement connoting it as high levels of personal investment in terms of physical, cognitive, and emotional energies in the work tasks performed on a job (e.g. Kahn, 1990; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Mayet et al., 2004; Rich, et al., 2010; Schaufeli et al., 2002; Christian et al., 2011). Bakker & Schaufeli (2008) claimed that organizations need more engaged employees who feel energetic, dedicated and absorbed by their work. Schaufeli’s three-factor model that captures engagement in terms of vigor, dedication, and absorption components has been one of the most popular measures (Wefald et al., 2011) due to its vast validity in majority of countries across the world (Bakker et al., 2008).

Vigor- vigor refers to the positive core affect in employees that is characterized by the high levels of positive energy and mental resilience while working, and the willingness to invest time and efforts in job tasks.

Dedication- contains the emotional framework of engagement. It is a state in which employees perceive their work as a significant and meaningful pursuit.

Absorption- refers to the cognitive aspect where employees experience their work as engrossing and something on which

Aakanksha Kataria et al.Employee Engagement and Organizational Effectiveness: The Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

czIJBIT / Volume 6 / Issue 1 / October - March 2013 |

they are fully concentrated and one finds it difficult to detach himself from work.

Engaged employees are happily involved and experience their work as engrossing and something to which they can devote their full concentration (Bakker et al., 2010, 2011). Hence, engagement is inferred as a positive experience in itself which has positive consequences for the organizations (Bhatnagar, 2012) in terms of high commitment, task proficiency, less employee turnover, less absenteeism, higher productivity, and consequently, increased performance of the organization. Employee involvement, commitment, and performance are directly connected to the goals of an organization (Denison et al., 2004). Engaged employees would make a big difference if organizations provide positive psychological climate, good working conditions, job resources, and organizational support to inspire them to give their best and go extra-mile to enhance the effective functioning of the organization. In addition, employees perform better when they experience positive practices at work place for instance, being treated with respect, provided with opportunities to develop their career, adequate reward and recognition for high performance etc. In fact, employees desire positive feelings about their work experiences that go beyond global attitudes of job satisfaction or commitment (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Harter, Schmidt, & Keyes, 2003; Wagner & Harter, 2006). Therefore, it is a two way process and much effort is needed on the part of organizations to nurture and leverage engagement. Providing employees a positive work environment is of ominous significance where employees can improvise and consequently help their organization to flourish in the present scenario.

2.2 Organizational Citizenship behavior (OCB)Barnard’s (1938) impression of the “willingness to cooperate” has directed considerable interest from industry and management towards that constituent of job performance other than formal role requirement or task performance which has substantial impact on the capability of an organization to achieve its long term goals. In addition, his concern for the cooperative efforts on part of employees in terms of sharing information among organization members to make the organization function smoothly prefigures that willingness of individuals to engage in spontaneous and cooperative gestures are instrumental for the vitality of organizations (Walz & Niehoff, 2000). While expanding and refining his idea, several authors have made significant contributions thereafter to describe employees’ positive and cooperative gestures as those extra role behaviors that are instrumental to the organizational effectiveness (Katz & Kahn, 1966, 1978). Organ, (1988) subsequently conceptualized these efforts as organizational citizenship behaviors that are discretionary, not directly and explicitly recognized by the organizational reward system, and that in aggregate, promote the effective functioning of the organization. Borman & Motowidlo, (1993) conceived the idea as contextual or citizenship performance and defined this type of performance as behaviors that are not directly related to the main task activities but are significant because they support the organizational, social, and psychological context that serves as the critical catalyst for tasks to be accomplished. Further, while sharing a common belief, these behaviors have been defined and termed differently in literature in terms of extra-role behaviors (Dyne et al., 1995), prosocial behaviors (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), organizational spontaneity (George

& Brief, 1992), and as contextual performance (Motowidlo, 1997), but organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is more comprehensive and popular term that describes these wide range of cooperative behaviors that are positive, voluntary, non obligatory, and goes beyond the set requirements of a job (Turnipseed & Wilson, 2009). More recently, while broadening the scope of the construct, Organ (1997) reshaped the definition of OCB’s as behaviors that facilitate “the maintenance and enhancement of social and psychological context that supports task performance”, explicating similarity to the conceptualization of contextual performance by Borman & Motowildo (1993).

Further, although there exists a lack of consensus on the dimensionality of OCB among researchers as almost 30 overlapping or somewhat different forms of OCB’s have been identified (Podsacoff et al., 2000), but Organ’s (1988) taxonomy delineating citizenship behaviors in terms of altruism, courtesy, civic virtue, conscientiousness, and sportsmanship has been widely accepted, popular and much studied in literature reporting the greatest amount of empirical research (LePine et al., 2002).

a. Altruism refers to the helping approach of an employee towards fellow employees.

b. Conscientiousness denotes impersonal behaviours for instance, obeying rules.

c. Sportsmanship invoke behaviors that includes not complaining on fiddling issues and willingness to tolerate less than ideal circumstances

d. Civic Virtue behaviors that indicate employees’ participation and concern about the life of organization such as participating in meetings, and

e. Courtesy reflects in discretionary behavior such as positive gestures of consulting and passing along the information, aimed at preventing work related problem with others (Organ, 1988).

Given the rationality for a significant association between OCB and organizational effectiveness (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 1994; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983; Williams & Anderson, 1991), it has been observed that employee’s extra efforts in form of citizenship behavior enable supervisors to devote more time in planning organizational activities, promote optimum utilization of organizational resources, enhances co-workers’ and managerial productivity, make organization a better place to work and thereby resulting into better functioning and smooth running of the organization. In fact, reduced absenteeism, increased employee satisfaction and employee retention, are some other contributions of OCB towards increased organizational performance and effectiveness (Chahal & Mehta, 2010; Chughtai & Zafar, 2006; Khalid & Ali, 2005; Podaskoff & Mackenzie, 1997). Although there is a considerable agreement about the salience of OCB in extant literature, yet there is no consensus on the understanding of sources of OCB. OCB are largely considered as a matter of personal choice based on three underlying motives (motivational factors): a) prosocial values b) organizational-concern c) self-concern (Thayer, 2008). OCB are conceived as predominantly goal-directed behavior that is initiated by internal goals set by an individual. In addition, researchers have emphasized the attitudinal and dispositional

Aakanksha Kataria et al. Employee Engagement and Organizational Effectiveness: The Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior


factors which determine the extent to which one exhibit OCB (LePine et al., 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 2000) whereas others focused on its contextual factors articulating OCB as an outcome of situational cues that define role- requirements and responsibilities to employees, motivate and provide opportunities or constrains the display of OCB (Farh et al., 2004). Figure_I highlights the possible direct or indirect antecedents and consequences based on a collective review of 37 international research studies conducted with an aim to recognize substantive antecedents and consequences of OCB. Although, the studies undertaken for review are having different locations, samples, times etc., but the theoretical underpinning and the findings are more or less similar in terms of its antecedents and outcomes. It can be clearly seen in Figure_I that OCB is influenced by so many factors and also that it leads to plethora of individual and organizational outcomes.

2.3 Organizational EffectivenessDeeply embedded in the organizational literature is the construct of effectiveness (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1983). It is one of the most sought after dependent variable and worthy subject in organizational sciences, and as well as the ultimate focus of every managerial effort. Organizational effectiveness has been widely accepted as “the degree to which an organization realizes its goals” (Daft, 1995). The term effectiveness is well- rounded to encompass several aspects of efficiency and adaptability (Cetin & Cerit, 2010). An effective organization is both efficient in economic and technical aspects, and able to adapt itself to the external changes as well (Carnall, 2003). Mott (1978) has observed three aspects of organizational effectiveness a) productivity b) adaptability c) flexibility.

i. Productivity deals with the quantity and quality of the product or service, and the efficiency with which it is delivered.

i. Adaptability has two constituents: symbolic adaptability and behavioral adaptability. Symbolic adaptability refers to both anticipating problems in advance and developing satisfactory and timely solutions to them in addition to staying abreast of new technologies and methods applicable to the activities of the organization. Behavioral adaptability explicates prompt and prevalent acceptance of solutions (Mott, 1972; Luthans et al., 1988).

i. Flexibility has been considered as a separate and independent index of organizational effectiveness. It is conceptually different from adaptability as organizational changes that result from meeting emergencies are usually temporary, usually the organization returns to its pre-emergency structure, whereas adaptive changes are more likely to be permanent (Mott, 1972; Samantara, 2004).

In sum, organizational effectiveness must address the need to maintain internal efficiency while optimizing the use of organizational resources, increase adaptability and ability to sustain through the external inconsistencies, and achieve its objectives and goals as well. However, there have been many foci on defining organizational effectiveness (Mzozoyana, 2002).

Katz & Kahn (1966), defined organizational effectiveness as “the maximization of return to the organization by all means”.

Organizational effectiveness is defined in terms of the extent to which an organization achieves its goals (Steers, 1977).

Hannan & Freeman (1977), defined organizational effectiveness as “the degree of congruence between organizational goals and observable outcomes”.

Mott (1972), defined organizational effectiveness as “the ability of an organization to mobilize it centres of power, for action, production and adaptation”. Effective organizations are those that tend to produce more and adapt more easily to environmental and internal problems than do other similar organizations.

Organizational effectiveness is “a company’s long term ability to achieve consistently its strategic and operational goals” (Fallon & Brinkerhoff, 1996).

In sum, organizational effectiveness is a broad construct encompassing a wide variety of competing perspectives. In addition, varied viewpoints on the conceptualization of the construct predominantly specify its multidimensional character to ponder upon and the complexity of its vast scope have made it difficult to gain consensus over its precise measurement.

2.4 Evaluating organizational effectivenessCreating and designing effective organizations is important (Hitt, 1988; Handa & Adas, 1995).Though, the complexity inherited in the nature of the most critical determinant of organizational success, yet a variety of approaches and frameworks have been developed in literature to understand the composite domain of organizational effectiveness. Table I. presents the most popular approaches to organizational effectiveness.

In essence, the term organizational effectiveness is envisaged as a blend of multiple constituents placing a challenge for its precise and consensual measurement (Cameron, 1986; Green & Griesingev, 1996). Mott’s (1972) measurement of perceived organizational effectiveness has been found to be the most frequently used criteria in various models pertaining to effectiveness (Steers, 1975; Sharma & Samantara, 1995; Luthans et al., 1988).

2.5 Employee engagement and organizational effectivenessEmployees’ contribution in terms of task proficiency, proactivity, mental resilience, and commitment is of utmost significance and acts as the building block for the sustenance and growth of any firm. Noted in this direction, employees’ active commitment and involvement is of greater substance when it comes to innovation, organizational performance, and competitive advantage (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008). There are two reasons that enable the study in linking employee engagement to organizational effectiveness. First, employee engagement has emerged as a critical element for business success (Slatten & Mehmetoglu, 2011). Engagement is a pleasurable experience for employees (Sonnentag et al., 2012), which drives proactivity, innovation at workplace, and increases employees’ ability to adapt to workplace changes in emergencies. Even more, they tend to be resilient in the face of difficulties and consequently drive organizational flexibility.

Second, when employees are engaged they are more likely



Organizational Citizenship

Behavior (OCB)

Attitudinal factors -Job satisfaction -Organizational commitment -Justice & fairness perceptions

Dispositional factors -Personality Agreeableness, Conscientiousness -Traits Empathy, Helpfulness -Positive affect

Motivational Factors Expressive functional motives -Role identity -Ego protection -Self-enhancement Instrumental functional motives -Economic & Cost-benefit considerations Citizenship Motivation Scale -Prosocial values -organizational concern -Impression management

Contextual Factors Task characteristics

-Task demands -Job autonomy -Intrinsically satisfying tasks -Task-interdependence

Social Relationships -Relationship with supervisors Transformational leadership, LMX -Relationship with Co-workers Interpersonal relationship quality, intensity of friendship, TMX, group cohesiveness, cooperative group norms

Individual Consequences

-High performance ratings by supervisors -Favourable Self-evaluations -Self-esteem, personal control, self-efficacy, confidence -Personal Development -Physical and Mental Health -Individual well-being Higher positive affect, social rewards, intrinsic rewards -Life satisfaction

Organizational Consequences

Unit performance -Enhanced coordination -Reduced need for maintenance -Operating efficiency -Customer service quality -Performance quality and quantity -Unit sales Organizational Effectiveness -Organizational productivity -Organizational flexibility -Organizational adaptability -Organizational efficiency

-Employee retention -Talent acquisition -Team effectiveness -Managerial effectiveness -Optimization of scarce resources -Stable organizational performance -Environmental performance

Figure I. Direct or Indirect Sources and Consequences of OCB.


to do things that substantiate organizational effectiveness (Saks, 2008). Engaged employees tend to work harder and go beyond the call of the duty (Lockwood, 2007; Chalofsky & Krishna, 2009). In addition, engaged employees experience great passion for their work, produce better quality goods, and feel that their contribution helps in moving the company forward (Kennedy & Daim, 2010). Following the above arguments on the influence of employee engagement on organizational effectiveness, we propose that,

P1. Employees’ level of engagement will significantly predict organizational effectiveness.

2.6 Employee engagement, OCB, and organizational effectiveness2.6.1 Employee engagement and OCBEmployee engagement, an active psychological state of employees’ (Parker & Griffin, 2011), is often associated and described in congruence with OCB. Organ (1988) defined OCB as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by formal reward system, and that in aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization”.

When employees are engaged in their work, they increase the occurrence of OCB’s, i.e., when employees have choices,

they will act in a way that furthers their organization’s interests (Kennedy & Daim, 2010). Towers Perrin, (2003) have reported that engaged employees bring discretionary efforts to work, in the form of extra time, brain power and energy. In addition, engaged employees are emotionally attached to their organization and highly involved in their job with a great enthusiasm for the success of their employer while going extra mile beyond the formal job requirements (Markos & Sridevi, 2010). Engaged and attached employees put more efforts in their jobs, and are likely to perceive higher obligations of their employers (Bal, Cooman, & Mol, 2011). This states the willingness of engaged employees to exhibit behaviours that go beyond the set boundaries of their jobs. Several studies in this direction have established that engaged employees being proactive, vigorous and consecrated are more consistent to invest their personal resources and act more freely to display extra-role behaviour than others. In other words, they are more likely to be better in contextual performance in addition to the task performance (Bakker, 2011; Christian et. al., 2011). Furthermore, engaged employees’ relatively enduring state of being active reflect interpersonal facilitation and their constant willingness to find meaning in work keeps them emotionally engaged (i.e. job dedication). Both of them (interpersonal facilitation and job dedication) have long been recognized as inherent concepts of OCB (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996).


Approach Perspective on effectiveness

Perspective on organization Main focus Criticism/ Support

Goal-attainment(Price, 1968)Most widely discussed and used (Molnar & Rogers, 1976; Weese, 1996). Most logical approach (Chelladurai &Haggerty, 1991)

“as the degree to which an organization achieves its goals”

Organizations are deliberate, rational, goal seeking entities that are created to achieve predetermined and specified goals (Price, 1968; Perrow, 1970; Love & Skitmore, 1996)

is on identification of organizational goals and operating objectives like profits, productivity, quality etc. to measure performance and

A partial measure of organizational effectiveness, an organization may have conflicting goals and further, goals may shift over time due to internal and external inconsistencies (Weese, 1997; Pratt & Eitzen, 1989; Hossein et al., 2011)

System resource (Yuchtman & Seashore, 1967)

“as the ability of an organization, in either absolute or relative terms, to exploit its environment in the acquisition of scarce and valued resources to sustain its functioning”

-Views organization as an open system of various interrelated subsystems.

- Organization is able to attract resources to ensure viability (Hossein et al., 2011).

is on inputs, attracting necessary resources and on the transformation processes. It is concerned with the extent to which resources acquired from the environment are officially used to produce goods or services (Schermerhorn et al., 2004).

Single set of evaluative criteria (Connoly, 1980). Failure to consider the political nature of organization.Measurement of all systems needs are difficult to develop (Cunningham, 1977; Cetin & Cerit, 2010)

Internal process (Steers, 1977)

Organizations that can offer a harmonious and efficient internal environment are viewed as effective. For instance, trust, integrated systems, and smooth functioning.

There is a clear linkage between the internal processes of an organization and its desired outputs.

is on the internal logic and consistency among the throughput processes of the organization as they convert an organization’s inputs into desired outputs (Pfeffer, 1977; Steers, 1977; Hossein et al., 2011).

Views only one sided view of effectiveness lacks identification of valued internal processes and methods to assess them (Hossein et al., 2011).Failure to consider the political nature of organizations where different stakeholders work together to meet their expectations.

Strategic constituency (Connolly et al., 1980)

Strategic constituent groups determine the way organizations are functioning and what is to be perceived as effective or ineffective

The organization has a number of constituencies, with different degrees of power, and each trying to satisfy its demands. Individuals, groups, and other stakeholders having common interests in organizational activities exert influence on the decisions of organizations.

is on the human resources. Specifically, this approach focuses its attention on the minimal satisfaction of all the strategic constituencies of the organization for instance, consumers of the products, supporters, facilitators, dependents and the resource providers (Cameron, 1981; Ashraf & Kadir, 2012).

Internal and external constituent groups would have different perspectives while evaluating the effectiveness of the organization.

Competing values (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1981;1983)Most rigorous and influential multidimensional approach. Particularly designed to measure effectiveness in profit organizations (Balduck & Buelens, 2008; Hossein et al., 2011).

This approach combines four basic models of organizational effectiveness, each focuses on a different criterion.-Rational goal model- Open systems model-Internal process model-Human relation model

Organizations can be evaluated in varied ways assuming there is “no best” criteria that is valued and used in assessing organizational effectiveness.

is on maintaining balance or capacity among the focus of the organization (people vs. organization), the organizational structure (flexibility vs. control) and the processes and outcomes (means vs. ends).

A tool for improved understanding of organizational effectiveness.

Table 1. Various Approaches to Organizational Effectiveness.



Thus, OCB indicates the employee’s responses to their employment relationship and it is profoundly associated with employee engagement. It has been recently observed that, engaged employees consistently demonstrate three general behaviours which improve organizational effectiveness: a) Say- the engaged employee proponents for the organization’s reputation to its customers, co-workers and potential employees b) Stay- the engaged employee stays with the organization despite of the opportunities available outside c) Strive- the engaged employee invest extra time, efforts and take initiatives to see that the employer succeeds (Baumruk and Gorman, 2006; Markos & Sridevi, 2010).

Although employee engagement is most commonly outlined in terms of extra- role performance or discretionary efforts (Macey & Schneider, 2008, Fine et al., 2010), yet it has not been suggested to delimit the state of engaged employees in terms of going extra mile (Schaufeli &Bakker). In fact, engaged employees are enthusiastic about their work and dedicated completely to find meaning in their work, and profoundly engrossed to put forth their efforts towards the attainment of organizational goals. They are more likely to exert extra efforts like helping co-workers, compliance to rules etc. which have been considered as instrumental for the effective functioning and smooth running of organizations (Organ, 1988).

2.6.2 OCB and organizational effectivenessOCB derives its widespread interest and pragmatic significance primarily from the premise that these behaviors enhance organizational effectiveness (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 2009). OCB presents contributions that are altruistic in nature and when aggregated over time and persons, may enhance the performance by lubricating the social machinery and constructing the psychological fabric of the organization, reducing friction, and /or increasing efficiency (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 2009; Smith et al., 1983). Employees’ increased tendency to exhibit helping behavior at work help new co-workers in becoming productive faster and assisting co-workers with heavy workloads spread positive gain spiral of positive emotions at workplace which in turn increase team effectiveness. There are several other paths for the enhanced organizational efficiency through OCB. For instance, as discussed earlier, OCB increases managers’ self efficacy by reducing their time to be spend on work related matters instead employees positive workplace behaviors free up resources for more productive purposes while allowing managers to devote more time in improvement and developmental activities (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; MacKenzie et al., 1991, 1993; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 1993; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 2009). Podsakoff & Mackenzie (2009) empirically examined the theoretical underpinnings of the relationship between OCB and organizational effectiveness and observed that OCB accounted for a significant amount of variance in performance quality, quality of performance, financial efficiency etc. In addition, altruistic behavior was observed as having most significant effects on performance. Furthermore, recently OCB has been explored in relation to the organizations’ environmental management activities while putting it into the category of green behavior (Ramus, 2001; Ramus & Killmer, 2007; Boiral, 2005). It has been recognized as one of the main success factors in terms of employee-driven pro-environmental initiatives and suggestions in corporate greening (Boiral & Paille´, 2012). For instance,

employees’ behaviors for recycling, saving energy, voluntary active engagement in organizations’ environmental initiative, and helping colleagues to take environmental concerns into account may all seem trivial but the cumulative effect of all these eco-initiatives ultimately contribute to improved organizational performance.

Thus, on the basis of findings, assumptions, and axioms in extant literature delineating the relationship between employee engagement, OCB, and organizational effectiveness, it is inferred that employee engagement is positively associated with organizational effectiveness and OCB can be seen as a significant intervening variable between employee engagement and organizational effectiveness.

P2. Engaged employees exhibit OCB’s through which they augment organizational effectiveness.

The discussion above leads to a distinct view of recognizing OCB as mediating the relationship between employee engagement and organizational effectiveness. Figure I shows an OCB oriented view of employee engagement that drifts organizational effectiveness. The model suggests that the concept of employee engagement and organizational effectiveness can be viewed from OCB perspective and provides a platform for further research.

However, in spite of the widespread belief that OCB enhances organizational performance, causality of this relationship has been marked as under examined in previous literature. It has not yet been crystal clear that OCB causes organizational performance or organizational performance causes OCB. It might also possible that effective units have more time, are under less pressure, and/or have satisfied members significantly affecting the extent to which employees are engaged in OCB (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 2009). This literature finding places a distinct possibility of treating OCB as an outcome of effectiveness i.e. units which have engaged employees are more effective which in its turn encourages employees to exhibit OCB.

P3. Engaged employees enhance organizational effectiveness which encourages OCB.

+ +

+

Employee Engagement

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

Organizational Effectiveness

Vigor (affective engagement)

Dedication (emotional engagement)

Absorption (cognitive engagement)

Courtesy Civic-Virtue Altruism

Productivity

Flexibility

Adaptability

Conscientiousness

Sportsmanship

Figure 2. proposed conceptual model colligating between the latent constructs of organizational effectiveness.

+ + +

Employee Engagement

Organizational Effectiveness

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

Vigor (affective engagement)

Dedication (emotional engagement)

Absorption (cognitive engagement)

Productivity Flexibility Adaptability

Altruism

Courtesy

Civic-Virtue

Conscientiousness

Sportsmanship

Figure 3. proposed conceptual model colligating between the latent constructs of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).



2. DISCUSSIONOrganizations immensely concentrate on attracting and retaining extraordinary employees who are not only capable and willing to perform job tasks efficiently but also are keen to voluntarily invest extra efforts in their jobs through which achieving and sustaining organizational effectiveness is viable. Effective functioning of an organization depends on employees’ efforts extending beyond the formal job requirements (Barnard, 1938; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Organ, 1988; Yen & Niehoff, 2004). Therefore, an ideal employee do not only demonstrates high levels of task performance but also exhibit high levels of OCB’s (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2012).

Given the relevance of OCB’s with regard to achieving organizational effectiveness, contemporary organizations take much effort in finding possible ways to increase the contribution of employees. For instance, inculcating positive workplace practices in order to provide an effective HRD climate and highly engage their employees. In this study, a systematic literature review was conducted to explore the mediating mechanism of OCB in the relationship between employee engagement and organizational effectiveness. Specifically, engaged employees’ active state of emotional attachment to their work and organization increases the occurrence of behaviors which promote efficient and effective functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988; Roberson, & Strickland, 2011). It is reckoned that engaged employees are more credible to behaviours like altruism, conscientiousness and sportsmanship. In other words, fully absorbed and dedicated employees behave in ways that are more virtuous and courteous and disengaged employees tend to exhibit less organizational citizenship behaviors (Bakker et al., 2004). In this connection, one of the possible reasons could be engaged employees’ increased likelihood of experiencing positive emotions and that they are more vigorous to achieve their goals. “Vigor” refers to the high levels of positive affect and spontaneous attitude of engaged employees towards task associated with their jobs. Various researches (Spector & Fox, 2002; Bennett & Stamper 2001) have signified “positive affectivity”, as an antecedent or proximal cause of OCB. Engaged employees by their consistent willingness and ability to invest extra efforts elevate the effectiveness of organization. Also, engaged employees, being task proficient are able efficiently manage resources such as time, efforts, and energy to benefit co-workers and organization. Furthermore, being completely dedicated and responsible of their own personal development, they consider all aspects of their work to be part of their domain and step outside of their set boundaries or formal job requirements (Christian et. al., 2011). Therefore, OCB can be described as a performance related outcome variable of employee engagement (Shuck, Reio, & Rocco, 2011). This process has greater impact on organizational effectiveness since it effects employees’ contribution in terms of increased productivity, adaptability, and flexibility, and positive social and psychological makeup of an organization which consequently leads to the smooth running of an organization. Thus, on the basis of preliminary and conceptual evidences and support from previous studies, the proposed consequential model preconceives organizational effectiveness as organizational level outcome of employee engagement and illustrates the possible treatment of OCB as mediating variable through which the focal independent variable “employee engagement” is able to influence the dependent variable of interest i.e.

“organizational effectiveness”.

Although literature has examined the relationships between employee engagement and the bottom line organizational outcomes such as profitability, business growth, customer satisfaction, and less absenteeism (Sundaray, 2011), these focused entirely on engaged employees’ capability and willingness to perform job tasks, and their greater involvement and commitment towards workplace duties than the increased probability of engaged employees to extend their efforts beyond the prescribed role requirements which construct the psychological fabric of organizations and their contribution towards organizational effectiveness. However, emphasizing the significance of employee engagement on achieving organizational effectiveness, current literature has already focused on engaged employees’ agility, zest, and positive attitudinal and behavioral energies. Therefore, greater importance shall be given to reinforce organizational citizenship behaviors through supporting the development of high engagement level in employees. In this direction, organizations should provide a supportive human resource development climate to help employees thrive at workplace. For instance, fulfilment of psychological contract, workplace spirituality, performance management, managerial support, justice, trust, transparency, integrity, career development opportunities, effective leadership are the dynamic constituents of the holistic perspective on favourable psychological climate, which in turn, create conditions for employees to flourish at workplace. These positive workplace practices would enforce deep psychological connections with organization and engaged employees will be more likely to exhibit profound interest in the life of their organization.

In the literature, the relations between employee engagement and OCB have been recently examined (Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004; Christian et al., 2011; Schaufeli, Taris, & Bakker, 2006; Shimazu & Schaufeli, 2009). Most of the research studies examined this relationship ended up with observing a positive association. This paper furthers the existing body of literature by linking employee engagement and OCB with organizational effectiveness. Furthermore, a distinct possibility of treating OCB as an outcome of employee engagement and organizational effectiveness has also been presented with a view to provide an alternative solution to the observed relationships between elite study variables. Therefore, testing the above stated models empirically would help to formulate appropriate structure of the model and the strength of the proposed arguments. In this direction, construct developed by Schaufeli et al., (2002) could be used to measure engagement. For OCB, Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1989) have developed suitable measures. Further, organizational effectiveness construct could be chosen from the studies of Mott (1972), added with the objective data on profitability and output of the organizations chosen for the study.

The present paper analyzes organizational effectiveness only through the impact of employee engagement and OCB. In future, this study could also be extended to examine the mediation role of turnover intensions, job performance, and managerial effectiveness. Empirically examining the extent of impact of these engagement outcomes would support and motivate organizations to find the best ways to highly engage their employees for enhanced organizational success and performance.



3. CONCLUSIONThe current study represents a unique and humble attempt to explore the functional relationship between employee engagement, OCB, and organizational effectiveness. We applied a theoretical perspective to integrate previous research on employee engagement, OCB, and organizational effectiveness. In addition, review of the relevant literature suggested that inclusion of OCB enhances the relationships between employee engagement and organizational effectiveness. Thus, individuals with higher levels of engagement are more likely to exhibit OCB - in ways that would be expected to achieve and sustain organizational effectiveness. The primary contribution of this study is its attempt to bring into light much-needed models for the organizational effectiveness literature and its attempt to include OCB as a significant construct mediating the relationship between employee engagement and organizational effectiveness. It might theoretically be possible that the combined effect of both factors (i.e. employee engagement and OCB) is greater than each one, alone; creating a potential avenue for further empirical research in this and allied directions. The study also presents an expedient view point on employee engagement-organizational effectiveness-OCB link that serves an interesting platform for future research. To conclude, it would be appropriate to posit that organizations must account psychological processes of positive psychological climate and effective performance management systems conducive to the maintenance and development of high levels of employee engagement which may have promising organizational outcomes.

Acknowledgments: The funding agency for this study was the University Grant Commission which provided a grant in the form of Junior Research Fellowship to pursue a full-time Ph.D. from Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee. However, the implications, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the funding body.

REFERENCES 1. Andrew, O.C. and Sofian, S. (2011), Engaging People

who Drive Execution and Organizational Performance, American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, Vol. 3, pp. 569-575.

2. Ashraf, G. and Kadir, S. (2012), A Review on the Models of Organizational Effectiveness: A Look at Cameron’s Model in Higher Education, International Education Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2.

3. Babcock-Roberson, M.E. and Strickland, O.J. (2010), The relationship between charismatic leadership, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behaviors, The journal of Psychology, Vol. 144, pp. 313-326.

4. Bakker, A.B. and Bal, P.M. (2010), Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 189-296.

5. Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2008), Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29, pp. 147-154.

6. Bakker, A.B. Albrecht, S.L. and Leiter, M.P. (2011), Key questions regarding work engagement, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 4-28.

7. Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Verbeke, W. (2004), Using the Job Demands-Resources model to predict burnout and performance, Human Resource Management,

Vol. 43, pp. 83-104.8. Bal, P.M., Cooman, R. and Mol, S.T. (2011), Dynamics

of psychological contracts with work engagement and turnover intentions: The influence of organizational tenure, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 30.

9. Balduck, A.L. and Buelens, M. (2008), A two-level competing values approach to measure nonprofit organizational effectiveness, Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium.

10. Barnard, C.I. (1938), The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

11. Bateman, T.S. and Organ, D.W. (1983), Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee citizenship, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 587-595.

12. Baumruk R. and Gorman B. (2006), Why managers are crucial to increasing engagement, Melcrum Publishing.

13. Bennett, R.J. and Stamper, C.L. (2001), Corporate citizenship and deviancy: A study of work behavior, in C. Galbraith., & M. Ryan (Eds.), International research in the business disciplines: Strategies and organizations in transition, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, pp. 265–284.

14. Bhatnagar J. (2012), Management of innovation: role of psychological empowerment, work engagement and turnover intention in the Indian context, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 928–951.

15. Boiral, O. (2005), The impact of operator involvement in pollution reduction: Case studies in Canadian chemical companies, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 14, No. 6, pp. 339–360.

16. Boiral, O. and Paillé, P. (2012), Organizational Citizenship Behaviour for the Environment: Measurement and Validation, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 109, pp. 431–445.

17. Borman, W.C. and motowidlo, S. J. (1997), Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research, Human Performance, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 99-109.

18. Borman,W.C. and motowidlo, S.J. (1993), Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance, in, N. Schmitt., W. C. Borman., and Associates ed., Personnel selection in organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 71-98.

19. Brief, A.P. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1986), Prosocial organizational behaviors, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, No. 7, pp. 10-725.

20. Buchanan, L. (2004), The Things They Do for Love, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82, No.12.

21. Buckingham, m. and Coffman, C. (1999), First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest managers do differently, Simon and Schuster Australia, Sydney.

22. Cameron, K.S, Sulton, R.I. and Whetten, D.A. (1988), Readings in Organisational Decline, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.

23. Cameron, K. (1981), Domains of organizational effectiveness in colleges and universities, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 24, No.1, pp. 25-47.

24. Carnall, C.A. (2003), Managing Change in Organizations, 4th ed. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

25. Cetin, C.K. and Cerit, A.G. (2010), Organizational effectiveness at seaports: A systems approach, Maritime



Policy and Management, Vol. 37, pp. 195–219.26. Chahal, H. and Mehta, S. (2010), Antecedents and

consequences of organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB): a conceptual framework in preference to health care sector, Journal of Services Research, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 25-44.

27. Chalofsky, N. and Krishna, V. (2009), Meaningfulness, Commitment, and Engagement: The Intersection of a Deeper Level of Intrinsic Motivation, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 11, No.2, pp. 189-203.

28. Chelladurai, p. and haggerty, T.R. (1991). Measures of organizational effectiveness in Canadian national sport organizations. Canadian Journal of Sport Science, Vol. 16, pp. 126-133.

29. Christian, M.S., Garza, A.S., and Slaughter, J.E. (2011), Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64, pp. 89-136.

30. Chughtai, A.A., and Zafar, S. (2006), Antecedents and Consequences of Organizational Commitment among Pakistani university teachers, Applied H.R.M. Research, Vol. 11, No.1, pp. 39-64.

31. Coffman, C. and Gonzalez-Molina, G. (2002), A new model: Great organizations win business by engaging the complex emotions of employees and customers’, Excerpt from Follow This Path. Warner Books, The Gallup Management Journal, pp. 12-21.

32. Connolly, T., Conlon, E.J. and Deutsch, S.J. (1980), Organizational effectiveness: a multiple-constituency approach, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5, pp. 211-217.

33. Cunninghan, J.B (1977), Approaches to the Evaluation of Organisational Effectiveness, Academy of Management Review, pp. 463 -474.

34. Daft, R.L. (1995), Organization theory and design, St. Paul: West Publishing.

35. Denison, D.R., Haaland, S. and Goelzer, P. (2004), Corporate culture and organizational Effectiveness: is Asia different from the rest of the world?, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 98-109.

36. Fallon, T. and Brinkerhoff, R.O. (1996), Framework for organizational effectiveness, Paper presented at the American Society for Training and Development International Conference.

37. Farh, J.L., Zhong, C. B. and Organ, D.W. 2004, Organizational citizenship behavior in the People’s Republic of China, Organization Science, Vol. 15, pp. 241-253.

38. Fine, S., Horowitz, I., Weigler, H. and Basis, L. (2010), Is good character good enough? The effects of situational variables on the relationship between integrity and counterproductive work behaviors, Human Resources Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 73−84.

39. Fleming, J.H. and Asplund, J. (2007), Human Sigma: Managing the Employee-Customer Encounter, New York: Gallup Press.

40. George, J.m. and Brief, A.p. (1992), Feeling good—doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work—organizational spontaneity relationship’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 112, pp. 310–329.

41. Green, J.C. and Griesingev, D.W. (1996), Board Performance and Organizational Effectiveness in Nonprofit Social Services Organizations, Nonprofit

Mnagement & Leadership, Vol. 6, No. 4.42. handa, V. and Adas, A. (1996), Predicting the level

of organizational effectiveness: a methodology for the construction firm, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 341-352.

43. Hanna, M.D., Newman, W.R. and Johnson, P. (2000), Linking operational and environmental improvement through employee involvement, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 148–165.

44. hannan, m.T. and Freeman, J. (1977), The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929-964.

45. Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002), Business-unit level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 268-279.

46. Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Keyes, C.L.M. (2003), Wellbeing the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies, in C. L., Keyes. and J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: The positive person and the good life, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 205- 224.

47. Hewitt Associates. (2004), Hewitt Associates study shows more engaged employees drive improved business performance and return, Press Release, May.

48. Hitt, A.M. (1988), The measuring of organizational effectiveness: multiple domains and constituencies, Management in Review (MIR), Vol. 28, pp. 28- 39.

49. Hossein, E., Ramezanineghad, R., Yosefi, B., Sajjadi, S. N. and Malekakhlagh, E. (2011), Compressive review of organizational effectiveness in Sport, Sport Management International Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 5- 21.

50. Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 692-724.

51. Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1978), The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.), New York: Wiley.

52. Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1966), The social psychology of organizations, New York: Wiley.

53. Kennedy, E. and Daim, T.U (2010), A strategy to assist management in workforce engagement and employee retention in the high tech engineering environment, Evaluation and Program Planning, Vol. 33, No.4, pp. 468-76.

54. Khalid, S.A., and Ali, H. (2005), The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on withdrawal behavior: A Malaysian study’, International Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 30-40.

55. Koyuncu, M., Burke, R.J. and Fiksenbaum, L. (2006), Work engagement among women managers and professionals in a Turkish bank, Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 299–310.

56. LePine, J.A., Erez, A. and Johnson, D. (2002), The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 52–65.

57. Lockwood, N.R. (2007), Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantages: HR’s strategic role, SHRM Research Quarterly.

58. Love, peter E.D., and Skitmore, martin R. (1996), Approaches to Organisational Effectiveness and Their Application to Construction Organisations, in A. Thorpe,



(Eds.), Proceedings 12th Annual Conference and Annual General Meeting, The Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Sheffield Hallam University.

59. Luthans, F., Welsh, D.H.B., and Taylor, L. (1988), A descriptive model of managerial effectiveness, Group & Organization Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 148-162.

60. Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008), The meaning of employee engagement, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 3-30.

61. macey, W.h., Schneider, B., Barbera, K.m. and Young, S.A. (2009), Employee engagement: Tools for analysis, practice and competitive advantage, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

62. Markos, S. and Sridevi, M.S. (2010), Employee engagement: The key to improving performance, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5, pp. 89-95.

63. May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2004), The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 11-37.

64. molnar, J.h. and Rogers, D.C. (1976), Organisational effectiveness: an empirical comparison of the goal and system resource approaches, Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 401-13.

65. motowidlo, S.J., Borman,W.C. and Schmit, m.J. (1997), A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance, Human Performance, Vol. 10, pp. 71–83.

66. mott, p.E. (1972), The Characteristics of Effective Organizations, Harper and Row: NewYork.

67. Mzozoyana, M.G. (2002), Faculty and administrator perceptions of organizational effectiveness at historically black colleges and universities: Different views or different models of organization?, Dissertation Abstracts International, UMI No. 3049093.

68. Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

69. Organ, D.W. (1994b), Personality and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 20, 465-478.

70. Organ, D. W., and Ryan, K. (1995), A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48, pp. 775-802.

71. Organ, D.W. (1997), Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time, Human Performance, Vol. 10, pp. 85–97.

72. Parker, S.K. and Griffin, M.A. (2011), Understanding active psychological states: Embedding engagement in a wider nomological net and closer attention to performance, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 60–67.

73. Perrow, C. (1970), Organisational analysis: a sociological review, Belmont, California, Wadsworth.

74. pfeffer, J. (1977), Usefulness of the concept, in P.S. Goodmann and J.M. Pennings (Eds.), New perspectives on organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 132-143.

75. podsakoff, p.m., macKenzie, S.B., paine, J.B. and Bachrach, D.G. (2000), Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research, Journal of

Management, Vol. 26, pp. 513-563.76. Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S. (1989), A Second

generation measure of organizational citizenship behavior, Working Paper, Indiana University Bloomington.

77. podsakoff, p.m. and macKenzie, S.B. (1997), Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research, Human Performance, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 133-151.

78. posdakoff, p.m. and mackenzie, S.B. (1994), Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness, Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), Vol. 31, pp. 351-363.

79. podsakoff, p.m., macKenzie, S.B., paine, J.B., and Bachrach, D.G. (2000), ‘Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future Research,’ Journal of Management, 26, 3, 513–563.

80. Posdakoff, P.M. and Mackenzie, S.B. (2009), Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestion for future research, Human Performance, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 133-151.

81. Pratt, S.R. and Eitzen, D.S. (1989), Contrasting leadership styles and organizational effectiveness: The case of athletic teams, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 70, No. 2, pp. 312-322.

82. Price, J.L. (1968), The study of organizational effectiveness, Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 3-15.

83. Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1981), A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness, Public Productivity Review, Vol. 5, pp. 122-140.

84. Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983), A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis, Management Science, Vol. 29, pp. 363-377.

85. Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010), Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53, pp. 617–635.

86. Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. (2004), The Drivers of Employee Engagement. Brighton, Institute for Employment Studies.

87. Rurkkhum, S. and Barlett, K.R. (2012), The relationship between employee engagement and organizational citizenship behavior in Thailand, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 15, pp.157-174.

88. Saks, A.M. (2008), The meaning and bleeding of employee engagement: How muddy is the water?, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 40-43.

89. Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 293–315.

90. Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. and Bakker, A.B. (2006), Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide: On the differences between work engagement and workaholism, in Burke, R. (Ed.), Work hours and work addiction, Northampton, MA: Elgar, 193-252.

91. Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, m., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory analytic approach, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 71-92.

92. Schermerhorn, J.R. Jr., hunt, J.G. and Osborn, R.N. (2004), Core Concepts of Organizational Behavior. Wiley: Hoboken, NJ.

93. Sharma and Samantara, (1995), Conflict management in



an Indian firm, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 439-453.

94. Shimazu, A. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009), Towards a positive occupational health psychology: The case of work engagement, Jap J Stress Sci., Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 181-187.

95. Shuck, B. and Wollard, K. (2010), Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations, Human Resource development Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 89-110.

96. Shuck, B., Reio, T.G. and Rocco, T.S. (2011), Employee engagement: an examination of antecedents and outcome variables, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 13, , No. 4, pp. 419-428.

97. Slåtten, T. and Mehmetoglu, M. (2011), Antecedents and effects of engaged frontline employees: A study from the hospitality industry, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 21, pp. 88-107.

98. Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P. (1983), Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68, No. 4, pp. 653-663.

99. Somech, A. and Drach-Zahavy, A. (2012), Organizational citizenship behaviour and employee’s strain: Examining the buffering effects of leader support and participation in decision making European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1.

100. Sonnentag, S. (2011), Research on work engagement is well and alive, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 29–38.

101. Sonnentag, S., Mojza E.J., Demerouti, E. and Bakker, A.B. (2012), Reciprocal Relations between Recovery and Work Engagement: The Moderating Role of Job Stressors, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 33, pp. 98-109.

102. Spector, P.E. and Fox, S. (2002), An emotion-centered model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior (CWB) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 269–292.

103. Steers, R.m. (1977), Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 46-56.

104. Steers, R.m., (1975), Problems in the measurement of organisational effectiveness, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 546-58.

105. Sundaray, B.K. (2011), Employee engagement: A driver of organizational effectiveness, European Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 3, No. 8, pp. 53-59.

106. Thayer, S.E. (2008), Psychological climate and its relationship to employee engagement and organizational citizenship behaviors, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minnesota.

107. The Gallup Organization. (2004), Engagement vs. satisfaction among hospital teams, Retreived from http://www.gallup.com/poll/10903/engagement-vs-satisfaction-among-hospital-teams.aspx

108. Towers Perrin HR Services. (2003), Working today: Understanding what drives employee engagement, available at: www.towers perrin.com.

109. Turnipseed, D.L. and Wilson, G.L. (2009), From discretionary to required: The migration of organizational citizenship behavior, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol.15, pp. 201-216.

110. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L. and mcLean parks, J. (1995), Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct

and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters), in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Greenvich, CT: JAI Press, 215-285.

111. Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006a), Compulsory citizenship behavior: Theorizing some dark sides of good soldier syndrome in organization, Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, Vol. 36, pp. 77–93.

112. Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006b), Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination of compulsory extra-role behavior in the workplace, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 21, pp. 377–405.

113. Wagner, R. and Harter, J.K. (2006), The great elements of managing. Washington, DC: The Gallup Organization.

114. Walz, S.M. and Niehoff, B.P. (2000), Organizational citizenship behaviors: Their relationship to organizational effectiveness, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, Vol. 24, pp. 108-126.

115. Weese, W. J. (1997), The development of an instrument to measure effectiveness in campus recreation programs, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 11, pp. 263-274.

116. Wefald, A.J., Reichard, R.J. and Serrano, S.A. (2011), Fitting Engagement into a Nomological Network: The Relationship of Engagement to Leadership and Personality, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 522–537.

117. Wei, Y.-C., Han, T.-S., and Hsu, I-C. (2010), High-performance HR practices and OCB: a cross-level investigation of a causal path, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 21, No. 10, pp. 1631–1648.

118. Welch, M. (2011), The evolution of the employee engagement concept: communication implications’, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 328-346.

119. Williams, L.J., and Anderson, S.E. (1991), Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp. 601-617.

120. Yen H.R. and Nieoff B.P. (2004), Organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational effectiveness: examining relationships in Taiwanese Banks, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 34, No. 8, pp. 1617–1637.

121. Yuchtman, E. and Seashore, S.E. (1967), A system resource approach to organizational effectiveness, American Sociological Review, Vol. 32, pp. 891- 903.


Copyright of International Journal of Business Insights & Transformation is the property ofInternational Journal of Business Insights & Transformation and its content may not becopied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder'sexpress written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles forindividual use.

Employee Engagement and Organizational Effectiveness: The Role of Organizational Citizenship...

Documents

Transcript of Employee Engagement and Organizational Effectiveness: The Role of Organizational Citizenship...