Organizational citizenshipbehaviors in American andPortuguese public schools

Measuring the construct across cultures

Michael F. DiPaolaThe College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia, USA, and

Paula Maria Mendes da Costa NevesEscola Superior de Educacao, Instituto Politecnico de Coimbra,

Coimbra, Portugal

Abstract

Purpose – Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) have been studied in both private and publicsector organizations in countries around the globe. The purpose of this study is to compare theperceptions of the OCB construct between American and Portuguese public secondary school teachersand test an operational measure of the construct for schools across the two cultures.

Design/methodology/approach – Teachers’ perceptions of the OCB in their schools weremeasured using the Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale. This operational measure, developedin the USA, was translated for use with Portuguese teachers. Data from samples of US and Portuguesesecondary schools were compared. Principal axis factor analyses, reliability coefficients, and otherdescriptive data were used to verify the factor structures, number of factors, and reliability of themeasure across these two cultures.

Findings – Both versions of the OCB Scale (American and Portuguese) were reliable and stable; theyworked well for both high schools and middle schools in Portugal and in the USA. One factor oforganizational citizenship emerged. The operational measure used to measure OCB in public schools inthis study is reliable and stable, despite cultural differences.

Practical implications – OCB are important because they influence organizational effectiveness.Despite cultural variations, and dramatic historical differences in their public education systems, thisoperational measure of OCB was effective. It provides researchers and practitioners a reliable andvalid measure to assess the OCB of school organizations.

Originality/value – This was the first attempt to determine the integrity of an operational measureof OCB across cultures. The construct has been studied in schools in different countries using differentoperational measures, which blurred the definition of the construct and made it difficult to study andcompare to other variables of effectiveness.

Keywords Public schools, United States of America, Portugal, Community behaviour

Paper type Research paper

Measuring organizational citizenship of schoolsDespite the plethora of literature and research inspired by Organ’s (1988) pioneeringconceptualization of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB), the construct has onlyrecently been studied in the context of schools (Bogler and Somech, 2004; Cantrell et al.,2001; DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran, 2001; DiPaola and Hoy, 2004, 2005; Feather andRauter, 2004; Jurewicz, 2004; Somech and Ifat, 2007; Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2007). Several

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

JEA47,4

490

Received November 2007Revised May 2008Accepted June 2008

Journal of EducationalAdministrationVol. 47 No. 4, 2009pp. 490-507q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0957-8234DOI 10.1108/09578230910967464

of these studies focused on the citizenship behaviors of individual teachers, whileothers measured the collective OCB of teachers using the school as the unit of analysis.Their findings revealed some interesting insights into school organizations andidentified important correlates to OCB, including school climate, academic press,collegial principal leadership, mindfulness, effectiveness, and student achievement(DiPaola and Hoy, 2004, 2005; DiPaola et al., 2005; Jurewicz, 2004). The purpose of thisstudy was to compare the perceptions of the OCB construct between American andPortuguese public secondary school teachers and test the construct’s operationalmeasure across the two cultures.

Conceptualizing organizational citizenshipOrganizational efficiency had been found to be dependent upon individual behaviorsthat exceeded an employee’s job description (Katz and Kahn, 1966, 1978). Katz andKahn (1966) suggested that in order for an organization to survive, individuals had todisplay three types of behaviors:

(1) They had to join and stay within the system.

(2) They had to be dependable as they performed their role within the system.

(3) They had to demonstrate “innovative and spontaneous behavior (and perform)beyond role requirements for accomplishment of organizational functions”(Katz and Kahn, 1966, p. 337).

In other words, members of successful organizations not only meet expectations butalso exceed expectations. They tend to accept reasonable inconvenience withoutcomplaint, readily provide useful suggestions, assist co-workers, and significantlycontribute to the success of the organization. These workers engage in beneficialbehaviors that are not prescribed, but occur freely to help others achieve tasks. Suchbeneficial behaviors have been referred to as positive “citizenship” (Bateman andOrgan, 1983, p. 588) behaviors.

Organ (1988) argued that OCB needed to be considered as a measure of employeeperformance. The first rationale for his position was based in social exchange theory.He reasoned that when employees work in an environment that induces satisfaction,they “frequently feel bound by the norm of reciprocity” (Organ, 1988, p. 548), resultingin helpful and supportive behaviors. His second rationale was based on accumulatedevidence that “mood state or positive affect” (p. 548) also tended to produce citizenshipbehaviors. A review of the available literature led Organ to conclude that whencitizenship behaviors were included as measures of performance, the empirical datasupported the satisfaction-performance hypothesis.

Other also found that employee OCB, when aggregated over time and across people,influenced organizational effectiveness (Bolino and Turnley, 2003). Early researchregarding OCB viewed the construct through different lenses. Organ (1988) elaboratedfive specific categories of discretionary behaviors and the contribution of each toefficiency:

(1) Altruism is directed toward other individuals, but contributes to groupefficiency by enhancing individuals’ performances; participants help newcolleagues and give freely of their time.

Organizationalcitizenshipbehaviors

491

(2) Conscientiousness is the thoughtful use of time to enhance the efficiency of bothindividuals and the group; participants give more time to the organization andexert effort beyond the formal requirements.

(3) Sportsmanship increases the amount of time spent on organizational endeavors;participants decrease time spent on whining, complaining, and carping.

(4) Courtesy prevents problems and facilitates constructive use of time;participants give advance notices, timely reminders, and appropriateinformation.

(5) Civic virtue promotes the interests of the organization broadly; participantsvoluntarily serve on committees and attend functions.

When OCB was operationalized for the Chinese culture, five categories of discretionarybehaviors also emerged (Farh et al., 1997). A comparison of the five dimensions of theChinese citizenship behaviors scale with those identified by Organ (1988) revealedseveral similarities and differences. The dimensions of identification with thecompany, altruism toward colleagues, and conscientiousness were similar todimensions reported by Organ and appeared to be culturally neutral dimensions. Inthe Chinese measure, interpersonal harmony and protecting company resourcesreplaced sportsmanship and courtesy. The presence of interpersonal harmony andprotecting company resources in the Chinese citizenship behaviors scale wasattributed to cultural roots (Farh et al., 1997).

Other evidence also suggested that organizational citizenship is context specific; thebehaviors inherent in organizational citizenship vary from one type of organization toanother (Karambayya, 1989; Organ, 1988). Research also revealed that what somesupervisors defined and perceived as citizenship behaviors differed from what theirpeers and those being supervised recognized as OCB (Morrison, 1994). This suggeststhat perceptions of citizenship behaviors are subjective. Evidentially, differences incultures, contexts and individual perceptions impact how OCB is defined and operatesin different settings.

Researchers have operationalized OCB using different operational measures invarious contexts and found different factor structures for OCB. For example, Van Dyneet al. (1994) sorted OCB into factors of obedience, loyalty, social participation, advocacyparticipation, and functional participation. Although the number of factors comprisingorganizational citizenship has varied (Moorman and Blakely, 1995), most factoranalytic evidence suggests a two-factor structure. Williams (1988) developed atwo-dimensional definition of organizational citizenship behaviors: benefits to theorganization in general, such as volunteering to serve on committees, and benefitsdirected at individuals within the organization, such as altruism and interpersonalhelping. Skarlicki and Latham (1995) examined university organizational citizenshipand also found a two-factor structure (organizational and interpersonal) that underliesthe concept.

OCB in schoolsA recent attempt to operationalize OCB in Israeli schools at the group level resulted in athree-factor structure of citizenship behaviors. These factors included behaviors thatwere directed at helping other individuals, resulted in benefits to the organization, anddescribed a “collective tendency of fulfilling formal duties at work” (Vigoda-Gadot et al.,

JEA47,4

492

2007, p. 476). This third factor is troubling in that it is not consistent with the overallconceptualization of OCB as behaviors of workers that are not prescribed but occurfreely to help others achieve tasks (Organ, 1988). OCB are discretionary; that is, theyare a matter of personal choice and not an enforceable requirement of the role. Clearly“fulfilling responsibilities specified in a job description . . . fulfilling supervisor’sexpectations . . . meeting the formal requirements of the job . . . and engaging inactivities that will affect their performance evaluation” (Organ, 1988, p. 478) are notdiscretionary, altruistic behaviors (Organ et al., 2006), and therefore not OCB. It can beargued that this attempt to operationalize OCB at the group level did indeed also resultin a two-factor solution.

Organizational citizenship in schools in the USA, however, departs from most of theresearch in that all aspects of citizenship fold into an integrated whole. Six separatefactor analytic studies (DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran, 2001; DiPaola et al., 2005)found that there were not five separate dimensions of the construct, or even two forthat matter, but rather that a single dimension captured all aspects of organizationalcitizenship in schools; in other words, both benefits to the organization (helping theorganization) and benefits to the individual (helping individuals) combined into asingle, bipolar construct.

These results in schools in the USA are not surprising. First, the evidence suggeststhat organizational citizenship is context specific, that is, the behaviors inherent inorganizational citizenship vary from one type of organization to another (Karambayya,1989; Organ, 1988). Second, behaviors in public schools are different from those foundin most private sector organizations. Schools are service organizations staffed byteacher professionals who are generally committed to doing what is best for theirstudent-clients. The client is the prime beneficiary of the organization (Scott, 2003).Thus, in service organizations like schools, both the professional workers and theorganization should be committed to the best interests of their clients.

When that collective commitment exists, there is a high degree of congruencebetween professional goals and organizational goals. The distinction between helpingindividuals and furthering the organizational mission is blurred because in schools themission is synonymous with helping student-clients – schools are people-helpingorganizations (DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran, 2001). In the USA, teachers routinelyperform behaviors directed toward helping individuals, both students and colleagues,as part of their professional identity (DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran, 2001).

While OCB can be described many different ways, it generally refers to thosedesired work behaviors that typically exceed the specific job description and arebeneficial to individuals and the organization. Obviously, differences in contexts andindividual perceptions do impact how OCB is defined and operates in different settings(Karambayya, 1989; Morrison, 1994; Organ, 1988). Public schools in other countries arestructured differently, reflect different national beliefs and norms, and have evolved indifferent ways. Public schools in the USA evolved under individual states’ regulationsand have been governed by local school boards. Teachers typically enjoy professionalautonomy in their classrooms. In contrast, however, Portugal’s public schools evolvedduring a totalitarian regime, which controlled who taught and exactly what wastaught. Although that regime ended several decades ago, its’ impact on schools and thepeople working within them are felt to this day. Do these historical and culturaldifferences have an impact on how citizenship behaviors are viewed and operate in

Organizationalcitizenshipbehaviors

493

secondary schools? The purpose of this study was to compare the OCB constructbetween US and Portuguese public secondary schools, testing the construct’soperational measure across the two cultures.

Portuguese schoolsDuring a period known as “Estado Novo” (1926-1974), Portugal was ruled by a politicaltotalitarian regime. Public schools and the teachers were tightly controlled by the state.The minister of education had inspectors who monitored schools and the instructionwithin them to ensure that the schools and the teachers working in them reflected thestate’s ideology. This cadre of inspectors had absolute control of the management andadministration of services, pedagogy, inspections, and disciplinary actions for failureto comply (Curado, 2002). During this time, public schools educated a small percentageof Portuguese children and students’ formal schooling generally terminated at the endof elementary school; high schools were for the elite few.

These high schools were very bureaucratic organizations, each with a directorappointed by the central government who was responsible for aligning curricula andinstruction with the government’s ideology (Revez, 2004). This director evaluated thework of the teachers by visiting the classrooms to see what the teachers were doing.Directors had the authority to impose any modification or intervention in the work ofteachers when their teaching did not conform to the government’s rules. The schooldirector reported all violations to the inspector (Curado, 2002). Teachers had no controlover pedagogy in their classrooms or within their school. Their practice was governedby explicit rules about what to teach and how to teach it, accompanied by closesupervision of the director.

Following the 1974 revolution, schools existed in a climate of revolutionarytransformation. In 1976, with the legal adoption of the so-called “democraticmanagement” of schools, a collegiate management model emerged composed of threestructures:

(1) Directive board composed of three or five teachers, one non-teaching staffmember, and two students all elected by their peers.

(2) Pedagogical body comprised of representative teachers from all departments.

(3) Administrative body (Curado, 2002).

In this model a directive board manages the school, but has little autonomy sinceeducation is still very centralized; all schools must comply with the same rigid rules ofthe ministry of public education, for example, establishing the number of teachers,number of classes, and number of students in each class.

The democratic state, established by revolution in 1974, quickly focused oneducation and made significant changes. Public schools were made accessible to allchildren for the first time with compulsory attendance for all mandated for nine years.Unfortunately, the lack of material and human resources, particularly qualifiedteachers, was a real obstacle to school reform. This severe shortage of educated,professional teachers to accommodate the influx of students who previously weredenied access to an education was a real problem. In order to provide an education toeligible students, the government recruited individuals into the teaching ranks whowere neither well qualified nor professionally trained to teach. For the next 20 years the

JEA47,4

494

emphasis was on providing training and education for those unqualified teachers andthe establishment of new colleges to prepare teachers.

Despite these efforts, in 1990, more than 40 percent of the teachers working withchildren in fifth to 12th grades were not fully qualified (Teodoro, 1994). The adoption ofthe Education Act (Ministerio da educacao, 1986) focused attention on quality. Anatural consequence was the evaluation of the entire system of education.Improvements in the educational, pedagogic, organizational, economic, and financialaspects of the education system were sought. One result was the publication of theLegal System of School Autonomy (Ministerio da educacao, 1998), which gave schoolspower to self assess and be more autonomous of the centralized authority.

Portuguese teachersTeachers are civil servants who earn career status, that is, they achieve seniority andeventually, tenure rights in a specific school. Historically low birth rates during the lastdecade decimated student enrollments, resulting in a glut of trained teachers.According to the Federacao Nacional Professores (FENPROF (the federation of allteachers unions)) there were 40,000 unemployed teachers in the country in 2006. Stategovernment retains overall responsibility for the schools and for the recruitment of allteachers. Each year a national recruitment contest is held and successful teachers(based on professional status and time of service) are assigned to schools, based on thestudent/teacher ratio determined by the ministry of education. Up to this academicyear, each school has had a group of tenured teachers and all others have beenassigned every year. This placement of teachers is made at the national level by thegovernment; schools have no choice in those teachers assigned to them annually. Thisresults in a high level of teacher turnover annually for all schools. It is not uncommonfor a teacher to wait 15 years or more for a permanent place in a school near his/herhome.

As a result of these placement practices, nearly 50 percent of teachers changedschools more than three times and 21.3 percent changed five times or more during aten-year period (Teodoro, 1994). This constant turnover creates instability in allschools, both in the instructional staff and the educational program. It also inhibitsteachers from becoming “citizens” of the school. Little motivation exists to affiliatewith the school and its values. Studies in the USA report that high turnover causesintangible effects that make it difficult to build learning communities and sustaineffectiveness. The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF)(2002) reported that a serious long-term consequence of high teacher turnover was theerosion of teaching quality and student achievement. When schools lose teachers yearafter year, they also lose the teachers’ familiarity with school procedures, continuity ofthe school’s curriculum, and teacher involvement with colleagues and the overallschool community (Johnson and Birkeland, 2003). Researchers have found strong linksamong organizational conditions and employee motivation, commitment, and turnover(Ingersoll, 2001). High turnover undermines these conditions and diminishes the senseof community that is a hallmark of strong schools (NCTAF, 2002). Eventually, thisleads to a decline in student achievement (Sanders and Rivers, 1996).

A Portuguese teacher’s career ladder has ten stages; teachers generally progressfrom one stage to another automatically. Until 2007, teacher evaluations were doneinternally by a group of senior teachers in the school in which the teacher worked.

Organizationalcitizenshipbehaviors

495

These senior teachers, however, never directly observed the work of the teacher beingevaluated. Since no one directly observed the teachers’ classroom performance,teachers had complete autonomy inside their own classroom. The evaluation consistedof a document de reflexao crıtica (critical reflection by the teacher being evaluatedabout his/her work) focusing on activities performed since the last evaluation. Since theteacher prepared it him/herself, the evaluation was not based on actual performancebut on a self-reflective report about his/her pedagogical work. The overall judgment ofthe group of senior teachers, and the Executive Council to which it reports decidewhether or not the teacher had “satisfactorily” performed his/her duties in order tomove the teacher to the next career step. This council has no power to differentiate theteachers by the quality of performance; they merely give a satisfactory rating to allteachers. Teachers have the right to request additional “evaluations” if they are notsatisfied with the rating they receive (Curado, 2002).

At the beginning of 2007, the system of achieving career status has changed forteachers. Teachers no longer automatically progress to the top of the career ladder;objective criteria are being used to assess performance. For the first time, teachersremain in the same school assignment for three years. This should lead to a more stablefaculty within each school and has the promise of creating school communities whereteachers will develop an orientation to the school organization.

OCB in secondary schools: a cross-cultural comparisonThis study focused on teachers’ perceptions of OCB in secondary schools in the USAand Portugal. Researchers commonly measure cultural differences using individuals’responses, which are then aggregated according to criteria such as nationality (e.g.French versus Canadian) or another diversity characteristic (e.g. Latino versus White).This method presumes that people exposed to a common environmental context (e.g.being raised in Portugal or America) develop a shared understanding of the worldaround them, share specific values, and can be distinguished from others who do notshare these values. Thus, the term “cross-cultural” has been used to depict differencesin individuals’ values about cultural dimensions. In this study, Portuguese secondaryteachers’ perceptions of OCB and those of counterparts in the USA were compared totest the factor structure and reliability of the operational measure used.

MethodOCB are sure to be influenced by teachers’ basic relationships with their schoolorganizations, perceptions of role expectations, and the perceived expectations of theirorganizations. In order to investigate the cultural influences on OCB, data from middleschools and high schools in the USA were compared with data collected in Portuguesemiddle and high schools.

MeasuresItems from the OCB Scale (Appendix 1) were used to measure OCB in middle and highschools in both the USA and Portugal. The OCB Scale, developed in English in theUSA (DiPaola et al., 2005), was translated into Portuguese prior to being administeredto middle and high school teachers in Portugal. An individual fluent in both languagestranslated the OCB Scale into Portuguese (OCBP, Appendix 2). To verify the accuracyof the translation, another individual back translated the OCBP into English. The

JEA47,4

496

OCBP was then field tested with 20 secondary public school teachers to verifycomprehension and content validity of the items. Portuguese teachers had difficultyrelating to one of the items:

Teachers take the initiative to introduce themselves to substitutes and assist them

Substitute teachers did not exist in Portugal until 2004, when the Ministry of Educationintroduced this practice to schools. Prior to that time, when a secondary teacher wasabsent, students remained in the school but had a “holiday” from that class; that is,they received no instruction for that time slot and simply socialized for that time.Substitutes, generally not trained in the subject area of the classes they were assuming,were not well received by teachers, who felt they had to spend too much time in schoolpreparing for the substitute prior to being absent. Whenever a teacher was absent foran extended period of more than 30 days, a substitute trained in that specific disciplinewas provided. Consequently, the item was modified to: “When teachers need asubstitute, they take the initiative to introduce themselves to substitutes and assistthem.”Teachers expressed some concern about two other items:

(1) Teachers waste a lot of class time.

(2) Teachers give a lot of busy work.

Teachers were uncomfortable responding to these items because they do not knowwhat is happening in other classrooms. The high turnover rates create a situation inwhich teachers do not really get to know their colleagues and, thus, they were hesitantto provide a perception about how they practiced. Since the concerns expressed werenot about comprehending the items, but about their ability to respond accurately, theitems were not modified.

SampleData from samples of middle and high school teachers in the USA and Portugal wereused in this study. The sample of 97 US high schools and 75 middle schools in Ohiowere used in this study. The sample was similar to the population of middle and highschools in the state in terms of student enrollment, average teacher salary, averageteacher experience, and the size of the faculty. In brief, the sample of schoolsrepresented rural, urban, and suburban schools.

The sample of Portuguese schools comprised 33 middle and 30 high schools fromthe Portuguese districts of Porto, Aveiro, Coimbra, Leiria, Portalegre, Santarem, andViseu e Guarda. These schools are also representative of Portuguese secondary schoolsfrom urban, suburban, and rural settings.

Data collectionData were collected from the sample of US middle and high schools at regularlyscheduled faculty meetings. A member of the research team explained the generalpurpose of the study, assured the confidentiality of all responses, and asked teachers tocomplete the questionnaire. Graduate students who were also classroom teachers inthose schools collected data from the sample of Portuguese middle and high schoolteachers. They explained the general purpose of the study, assured the confidentialityof all responses, and asked their peers to complete the questionnaires.

Organizationalcitizenshipbehaviors

497

Factor analysisTo test the stability of the factor structure of the OCB in the USA, a principal axisfactor analysis specifying a single factor was performed. All 12 items loaded stronglyon the single factor; the factor loadings ranged from 0.53 to 0.89 and the entire factorexplained 58.82 percent of the variance. Further, the first factor was the only one withan eigenvalue greater than one. A comparison of the factor loadings between the highschool sample and the middle school sample revealed the same factor structure. In fact,the factor structure of the middle schools was more robust and provided a strongertheoretical fit with the underlying conceptual framework that predicted the emergenceof a single, integrated construct of organizational citizenship. Save for one item, all thefactor loadings were stronger in the middle school sample than in the high schoolsample. In addition, the alpha coefficient of reliability (alpha ¼ 0:93) for the OCB wasstronger in the middle school sample (see Table I). The OCB Scale was reliable andstable, working well for both high schools and middle schools. Construct validity wassupported by the factor analysis in both samples (DiPaola et al., 2005).

In order to determine the factor structure of the translated versions of the OCB Scale(OCBP) a principal axis factor analysis specifying a single factor was performed on thedata collected from the Portuguese middle and high school samples (Table II). In themiddle school sample, 11 of the 12 items loaded strongly on the single factor, having aneigenvalue of 6.78; the factor loadings ranged from 0.52 to 0.90 and the entire factorexplained 56.6 percent of the variance. Further, the first factor was the only one with aneigenvalue greater than one. The one item that did not load at an acceptable level was“Teachers give an excessive amount of busy work.” This was not surprising,considering the hesitancy expressed by the pilot group to respond to this item.

In the high school sample, 11 of the 12 items loaded strongly on the single factor,having an eigenvalue of 5.90; the factor loadings ranged from 0.41 to 0.89 and the entire

ItemsHigh schools(n ¼ 97) OCB

Middle schools(n ¼ 75) OCB

1. Teacher committees in this school work productively 0.59 0.892. Teachers begin class promptly and use class time

effectively 0.68 0.883. Teachers make innovative suggestions to improve the

overall quality of our school 0.66 0.854. Teachers volunteer to serve on new committees 0.66 0.765. Teachers give colleagues advance notice of changes in

schedule or routine 0.52 0.766. Teachers help students on their own time 0.49 0.757. Teachers voluntarily help new teachers 0.66 0.728. Teachers arrive to work and meetings on time 0.54 0.709. Teachers waste a lot of class time 20.56 20.68

10. Teachers volunteer to sponsor extra curricularactivities 0.62 0.68

11. Teachers give an excessive amount of busy work 20.48 20.6612. Teachers take the initiative to introduce themselves to

substitutes, and assist them 0.67 0.53% variance explained 40.82 58.82Alpha coefficient of reliability 0.86 0.93

Table I.A comparison of thefactor structures for theOCB in US high schoolsand middle schools

JEA47,4

498

factor explained 49.18 percent of the variance (Table III). The one item that did not loadat an acceptable level was “Teachers waste a lot of class time.” This was the other itemidentified by the pilot group. They were not comfortable answering because they didnot feel that they knew what anyone else was doing behind classroom doors.

Consequently, we eliminated the two items (“Teachers give an excessive amount ofbusy work” and “Teachers waste a lot of class time”) and performed an additionalprincipal axis factor analysis on each of the sample data sets. In the middle schoolsample, the ten items loaded strongly on the single factor, having an eigenvalue of 6.83;the factor loadings ranged from 0.71 to 0.91 and the factor explained 64.9 percent of thevariance. In the high school sample, the ten items also loaded strongly on the single

ItemsMiddle schools

(n ¼ 33)

5. Teachers volunteer to sponsor extra curricular activities 0.8964. Teachers volunteer to serve on new committees 0.8759. Teachers give colleagues advanced notice of changes in schedule or routine 0.849

11. Teachers committees in this school work productively 0.8178. Teachers begin class promptly and use class time effectively 0.7983. Teachers voluntary help new teachers 0.793

12. Teachers make innovative suggestions to improve the overall quality of ourschool 0.785

7. Teachers take the initiative to introduce themselves to substitutes and assistthem 0.776

6. Teachers arrive to work and meetings on time 0.7251. Teachers help students on their own time 0.7192. Teachers waste a lot of class time 0.518

10. Teachers give an excessive amount of busy work 0.168% variance explained 56.60Alpha coefficient of reliability 0.932

Table II.Principal axis factoring –

middle schools – OCBPScale (12 items)

ItemsHigh schools

(n ¼ 30)

12. Teachers make innovative suggestions to improve the overall quality of ourschool 0.893

5. Teachers volunteer to sponsor extra curricular activities 0.8884. Teachers volunteer to serve on new committees 0.840

11. Teachers committees in this school work productively 0.7647. Teachers take the initiative to introduce themselves to substitutes and assist

them 0.7528. Teachers begin class promptly and use class time effectively 0.7339. Teachers give colleagues advanced notice of changes in schedule or routine 0.6983. Teachers voluntary help new teachers 0.6966. Teachers arrive to work and meetings on time 0.6901. Teachers help students on their own time 0.551

10. Teachers give an excessive amount of busy work 0.4132. Teachers waste a lot of class time 20.016

% variance explained 49.18Alpha coefficient of reliability 0.902

Table III.Principal axis factoring –

high schools – OCBPScale

Organizationalcitizenshipbehaviors

499

factor, having an eigenvalue of 6.13; the factor loadings ranged from 0.57 to 0.90 andthe factor explained 57.3 percent of the variance (see Table IV).

The alpha coefficient of reliability for the OCBP was stronger in the middle school(alpha ¼ 0:94) sample than the high school sample (0.92). The translated OCB Scale(OCBP) with minor modification was reliable and stable; it worked well for both highschools and middle schools in Portugal. In both Portuguese samples, one factor oforganizational citizenship emerged. This integrated construct of organizationalcitizenship mirrored the findings in the study of American secondary schools where asingle factor also emerged (DiPaola et al., 2005; DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran, 2001).For a comparison of the US and Portuguese results see Table V.

Summary and discussionTeachers who voluntarily go out of their way to help their students, colleagues, andothers as they engage in the work of teaching and learning exemplify organizationalcitizenship. Teachers in schools with high citizenship take it upon themselves tovolunteer innovative suggestions, sponsor extra-curricular activities, and serve on newcommittees. Moreover, teachers help students on their own time, stay after school tohelp if necessary, and use time effectively. Organizational citizenship in schoolscontributes to a serious educational context in which teachers are rarely absent, makeefficient use of their time, work collaboratively, and emphasize professional activitiesrather than personal ones. Teachers use their talents and efforts to benefit all schoolparticipants.

In sum, organizational citizenship is discretionary; that is, it is a matter of personalchoice and not an enforceable requirement of the role. OCB are manifest without theexpectation of recognition or compensation. Moreover, such behaviors are not directlyrewarded; the rewards are at best indirect and uncertain. Although not every single

ItemsMiddle schools

(n ¼ 33)High schools

(n ¼ 30)

1. Teachers help students on their own time 0.708 0.5733. Teachers voluntary help new teachers 0.811 0.6964. Teachers volunteer to serve on new committees 0.885 0.8435. Teachers volunteer to sponsor extra curricular

activities 0.905 0.9046. Teachers arrive to work and meetings on time 0.715 0.6807. Teachers take the initiative to introduce themselves to

substitutes and assist them 0.759 0.7728. Teachers begin class promptly and use class time

effectively 0.795 0.7139. Teachers give colleagues advanced notice of changes in

schedule or routine 0.855 0.71611. Teachers committees in this school work productively 0.832 0.73312. Teachers make innovative suggestions to improve theoverall quality of our school 0.769 0.881Initial eigenvalue 6.83 6.13% variance explained 64.93 57.32Alpha coefficient of reliability 0.945 0.923

Table IV.Principal axis factoring –Portuguese middleschools and high schools– OCBP Scale (ten items)

JEA47,4

500

action contributes to organizational effectiveness, over time the accumulation of OCBimproves the effectiveness of the organization (Bolino and Turnley, 2003; Organ, 1997;Organ et al., 2006).

We found no difference in the factor structure of OCB between US and Portuguesesecondary schools. The survey item that did not load in the Portuguese middle schoolsample (“teachers give an excessive amount of busy work”) and the survey item thatdid not load in the Portuguese high school (“teachers waste a lot of class time”) doillustrate a difficulty in such cross-cultural comparisons. There is a real challenge intranslating survey items used to operationalize a construct like organizationalcitizenship. The items that were problematic in the Portuguese sample were statementsthat could not be translated literally. Teachers in the pilot group identified both itemsas problematic, but did not convey a problem in comprehension as much as having theability to respond accurately. Evidently, both problems existed with these items.

Items

USmiddle schools(n ¼ 75) OCB

Portuguesemiddle schools(n ¼ 33) OCBP

UShigh schools(n ¼ 97) OCB

Portuguesehigh schools

(n ¼ 30) OCBP

1. Teacher committees in thisschool work productively 0.89 0.83 0.59 0.73

2. Teachers begin classpromptly and use class timeeffectively 0.88 0.79 0.68 0.71

3. Teachers make innovativesuggestions to improve theoverall quality of our school 0.85 0.77 0.66 0.88

4. Teachers volunteer to serveon new committees 0.76 0.88 0.66 0.84

5. Teachers give colleaguesadvance notice of changes inschedule or routine 0.76 0.85 0.52 0.72

6. Teachers help students ontheir own time 0.75 0.71 0.49 0.57

7. Teachers voluntarily helpnew teachers 0.72 0.81 0.66 0.70

8. Teachers arrive to work andmeetings on time 0.70 0.71 0.54 0.68

9. Teachers waste a lot of classtime 20.68 20.56

10. Teachers volunteer tosponsor extra curricularactivities 0.68 0.90 0.62 0.90

11. Teachers give an excessiveamount of busy work 20.66 20.48

12. Teachers take the initiative tointroduce themselves tosubstitutes, and assist them 0.53 0.76 0.67 0.77

% variance explained 58.82 64.93 40.82 57.32Alpha coefficient of reliability 0.93 0.94 0.86 0.92

Table V.A comparison of the

factor structures for theOCB between US and

Portuguese high schools,and middle schools

Organizationalcitizenshipbehaviors

501

The highly centralized structure in Portugal in which the national ministry makesteacher assignments for each school is in stark contrast to the US system based on localcontrol. Portuguese teachers change schools often, having little time to becomeaffiliated with colleagues or their students. The high levels of teacher mobility inPortugal create a teacher work force that perceives their professional orientation ofservice to students a bit differently than its US counterpart. In the centralizedPortuguese system, the Ministry of Education prescribes all policies, regulations, andstaffing patterns, as well as the internal organization of all schools. The only autonomyteachers have is within the walls of their individual classrooms. Outside of theirclassrooms, all other activities are prescribed and regulated; like all other publicservants they are governed by bureaucratic mandates and requirements.

Teachers in the USA have been practicing in an era of national accountability,formally initiated with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB),which does target schools and hold them accountable for student learning. To fulfill therequirements of NCLB, a majority of states now rely on standardized testing as themost prevalent measure of student achievement. Schools also are held accountable forsuccess by meeting local or district level performance goals, using school improvementplans to guide their progress (Cooley and Shen, 2003). Although this movement doescentralize some decision-making, local policymaking, staffing, and the organization ofschools in the USA continue to be generally determined at the local level. In the USA,teacher professionals certainly have more autonomy outside their classrooms inshaping policy and procedures by working with local school leaders and policymakersthan teachers have in Portugal. Yet, based on our results, teachers in both Americanand Portugal have developed an orientation to both their profession and the schoolorganizations in which they serve their clients. This dual orientation reflects theirbelief that overall goals of their profession (service to students) and the goals oftheir school organizations are congruent: both are committed to the best interests oftheir students. A high degree of congruence between professional goals andorganizational goals, therefore, blurs the line between organizational and interpersonalcitizenship behaviors found in other types of organizations (DiPaola andTschannen-Moran, 2001).

The many decades of totalitarian rule in Portugal during the twentieth centurycontinue to have an impact on both the structure and values reflected in the publicschools. Attitudes about basic constructs such as rules, accommodating for individualdifferences, the value of universal education, and effectiveness shape behaviors,particularly in social institutions like public schools. Yet, despite some differences, theperceptions of secondary teachers in our samples about organizational citizenship wereconsistent: a unified, single-dimension construct of behaviors that help others and theirschools in serving their students’ needs.

Implications for research and practiceThe primary mission of any school should center on affecting student learning.Identifying a variable that correlates school leader influence and student learning issignificant and its need evident. A significant relationship was found between studentachievement on standardized tests and the level of OCB perceived by faculty membersin a sample of public high schools, even when controlling for socioeconomic factors(DiPaola and Hoy, 2005). Similarly, Jurewicz (2004) found a significant positive

JEA47,4

502

relationship between teacher OCB and student achievement on the grade eightstandard exams in English and mathematics. In a study of French-Canadian highschool teachers, Dussault (2006) found that individual teacher self-efficacy had apositive correlation with self-rated OCB in the areas of altruism, courtesy,conscientiousness, and civic virtue. In other words, teachers who believed they wereeffective also believed that they exhibited positive OCB. Another study found asignificant correlation between OCB and trust (Tschannen-Moran, 2003).

Given these findings, school leaders should promote and encourage citizenshipbehaviors in their schools. Studies suggested that leadership style influences thelikelihood of workers exhibiting extra-role behaviors. Transactional leaders were lesslikely to inspire OCB from their subordinates than leaders who adopted a moreaffective style (Boerner et al., 2007; Ehrhart and Nauman, 2004) such as servant-leaders(Ehrhart, 2004) and transformational leaders (Boerner et al., 2007; Purvanova et al.,2006). Other studies in school settings did reveal that certain characteristics oftransformational leaders were linked to the manifestation of OCB (Bogler and Somech,2004, 2005). When considered as a whole, the literature strongly suggested that leaderswho employed strategies that foster an environment of support within the workplacewere more likely to inspire their constituents to display extra-role behaviors.Educational leaders should be mindful of these findings and promote an atmosphere ofservice and support within their schools.

Schools are unique service institutions and certain altruistic behaviors are oftenregarded as the norm rather than the exception (DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran, 2001).Still, the presence of these behaviors has a positive impact on the effectiveness andefficiency of a school justifying further study. We have verified that our instrument is astable, reliable operational measure to continue OCB research in public schools.

References

Bateman, T.S. and Organ, D.W. (1983), “Job satisfaction and the good soldier: the relationshipbetween affect and employee ‘citizenship’”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4,pp. 587-95.

Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S.A. and Griesser, D. (2007), “Follower behavior and organizationalperformance: the impact of transformational leaders”, Journal of Leadership &Organizational Studies, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 15-26.

Bogler, R. and Somech, A. (2004), “Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organizationalcommitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior inschools”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 20, pp. 277-89.

Bogler, R. and Somech, A. (2005), “Organizational citizenship behavior in school: how does itrelate to participation in decision making”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 43No. 5, pp. 420-38.

Bolino, M.C. and Turnley, W.H. (2003), “Going the extra mile: cultivating and managingemployee citizenship behavior”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 17 No. 3,pp. 60-71.

Cantrell, S.M., Lyon, N., Valdes, R., White, J., Recio, A. and Matsum, L.U. (2001), “Pilot studyreport: the local district performance measures (tech. report for The Los Angeles UnifiedSchool District)”, Los Angeles, CA.

Cooley, V.E. and Shen, J. (2003), “School accountability and professional job responsibilities: aperspective from secondary principals”, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 87 No. 634, pp. 10-25.

Organizationalcitizenshipbehaviors

503

Curado, A.P. (2002), Politica de avaliacao de professores em Portugal, Fundacao CalousteGulbenkian, Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia, Lisboa.

DiPaola, M. and Hoy, W.K. (2004), “Organizational citizenship of faculty and achievement of highschool students”, The High School Journal, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 35-44.

DiPaola, M. and Hoy, W.K. (2005), “School characteristics that foster organizational citizenshipbehavior”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 387-406.

DiPaola, M. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001), “Organizational citizenship behavior in schoolsand its relationship to school climate”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 11, pp. 424-47.

DiPaola, M., Tarter, C.J. and Hoy, W.K. (2005), “Measuring organizational citizenship of schools:the OCB scale”, in Hoy, W. and Miskel, C. (Eds), Educational Leadership and Reform, Vol. 4,Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, pp. 319-41.

Dussault, M. (2006), “Teachers’ self-efficacy and organizational citizenship behaviors”,Psychological Reports, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 427-32.

Ehrhart, M.G. (2004), “Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-levelorganizational citizenship behavior”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 61-94.

Ehrhart, M.G. and Nauman, S.E. (2004), “Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: agroup norms approach”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 6, pp. 960-74.

Farh, J.L., Earley, P.C. and Lin, S.C. (1997), “Impetus for action: a cultural analysis of justice andorganizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society”, Administrative Science Quarterly,Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 421-44.

Feather, N.T. and Rauter, K.A. (2004), “Organizational citizenship behaviours in relation to jobstatus, job insecurity, organizational commitment and identification, job satisfaction andwork values”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 81-95.

Ingersoll, R. (2001), “Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: an organizational analysis”,American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 499-534.

Johnson, S.M. and Birkeland, S.E. (2003), “The schools that teachers choose”, EducationalLeadership, Vol. 60 No. 8, pp. 20-4.

Jurewicz, M. (2004), “Organizational citizenship behaviors of Virginia middle school teachers: astudy of their relationship to school climate and student achievement”, unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

Karambayya, R. (1989), “Organizational citizenship behavior: contextual predictors andorganizational consequences”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, NorthwesternUniversity, Evanston, IL.

Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1966), The Social Psychology of Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.

Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd ed., John Wiley& Sons, New York, NY.

Ministerio da educacao (1986), Ministerio da educacao, Lei de bases do sistema educativo, lei no.46/86, DR Serie I No. 237 (1986-10-14), pp. 3067-81.

Ministerio da educacao (1998), Ministerio da educacao, Decreto – Lei no. 115-A/98, DR Serie I-A1o., Suplemento No. 102 (1998-05-04), pp. 1988(2)-1988(12).

Moorman, R.H. and Blakely, G.L. (1995), “Individualism-collectivism as an individual differencepredictor of organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 16, pp. 127-42.

Morrison, E.W. (1994), “Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: the importanceof the employee’s perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 1543-67.

JEA47,4

504

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (2002), “Unraveling the “teachershortage” problem: teacher retention is the key”, Symposium Proceedings, DiPaola,Washington, DC.

Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior, DC Heath and Co., Lexington, MA.

Organ, D.W. (1997), “Organizational citizenship behavior: it’s construct clean-up time”, HumanPerformance, Vol. 10, pp. 85-97.

Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (2006), Organizational Citizenship Behavior:Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Purvanova, R.K., Bono, J.E. and Dzieweczynski, J. (2006), “Transformational leadership, jobcharacteristics, and organizational citizenship performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 19No. 1, pp. 1-22.

Revez, M.H.A. (2004), Gestao das organizacoes escolares lideranca escolar e clima de trabalho: umestudo de caso, Edicoes Cosmos, Chamusca.

Sanders, W. and Rivers, J. (1996), Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on Future StudentAcademic Achievement, University of Tennessee Value-added Research and AssessmentCenter, Knoxville, TN.

Scott, W.R. (2003), Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Skarlicki, D. and Latham, G. (1995), “Organizational citizenship behavior and performance in auniversity setting”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 12, pp. 175-81.

Somech, A. and Ifat, R. (2007), “Promoting organizational citizenship behavior in schools: theimpact of individual and organizational characteristics”, Educational AdministrationQuarterly, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 38-66.

Teodoro, A. (1994), A carreira docente: Formacao, Avaliacao, Progressao, Texto Editora, Lisboa.

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003), “Fostering organizational citizenship: transformational leadershipand trust”, in Hoy, W.K. and Miskel, C.G. (Eds), Studies in Leading and Organizing Schools,Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, pp. 157-79.

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W. and Dienesch, R.M. (1994), “Organizational citizenship behavior:construct redefinition, measurement, and validation”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 37, pp. 765-802.

Vigoda-Gadot, E., Beeri, I., Birman-Shemesh, T. and Somech, A. (2007), “Group-levelorganizational citizenship behavior in the education system: a scale reconstruction andvalidation”, Education Administration Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 462-93.

Williams, L. (1988), “Effective and non-effective components of job satisfaction andorganizational commitment as determinants of organizational citizenship and in-rolebehaviors”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

Appendix 1. OCB Scale

(1) Teachers help students on their own time.

(2) Teachers waste a lot of class time.

(3) Teachers voluntarily help new teachers.

(4) Teachers volunteer to serve on new committees.

(5) Teachers volunteer to sponsor extra curricular activities.

(6) Teachers arrive to work and meetings on time.

(7) Teachers take the initiative to introduce themselves to substitutes and assist them.

(8) Teachers begin class promptly and use class time effectively.

Organizationalcitizenshipbehaviors

505

(9) Teachers give colleagues advanced notice of changes in schedule or routine.

(10) Teachers give an excessive amount of busy work.

(11) Teacher committees in this school work productively.

(12) Teachers make innovative suggestions to improve the overall quality of our school.

Source: DiPaola et al. (2005).

Appendix 2. OCBP Scale

(1) Os professores ajudam os alunos fora do seu horario de trabalho.

(2) Os professores desperdicam muito tempo nas aulas.

(3) Os professores ajudam voluntariamente os novos professores.

(4) Os professores oferecem-se para integrar novos grupos de trabalho.

(5) Os professores responsabilizam-se espontaneamente por actividades extracurriculares.

(6) Os professores chegam pontualmente ao trabalho e as reunioes.

(7) Quando necessitam de ser substituıdos (faltas, atestado. . .) os professores tomam ainiciativa de se apresentarem aos professores substitutos e de os ajudarem.

(8) Os professores iniciam prontamente os trabalhos e fazem uma utilizacao eficaz do tempode aulas.

(9) Os professores avisam com antecedencia os colegas sobre alteracoes de horario oucalendario (faltas . . .).

(10) Os professores solicitam aos alunos um grau excessivo de actividades improdutivas.

(11) As equipas/grupos de trabalho de professores desta escola produzem resultados visıveis.

(12) Os professores apresentam sugestoes inovadoras para melhorar a qualidade global daescola.

ItemsHigh schools(n ¼ 97) OCB

Middle schools(n ¼ 75) OCB

1. Teachers help students on their own time 0.49 0.752. Teachers waste a lot of class time 20.56 20.683. Teachers voluntarily help new teachers 0.66 0.724. Teachers volunteer to serve on new committees 0.66 0.765. Teachers volunteer to sponsor extra curricular

activities 0.62 0.686. Teachers arrive to work and meetings on time 0.54 0.707. Teachers take the initiative to introduce themselves to

substitutes, and assist them 0.67 0.538. Teachers begin class promptly and use class time

effectively 0.68 0.889. Teachers give colleagues advance notice of changes in

schedule or routine 0.52 0.7610. Teachers give an excessive amount of busy work 20.48 20.6611. Teacher committees in this school work productively 0.59 0.8912. Teachers make innovative suggestions to improve the

overall quality of our school 0.66 0.85% variance explained 40.82 58.82Alpha coefficient of reliability 0.86 0.93

Table AI.A comparison of thefactor structures for theOCB in US high schoolsand middle schools

JEA47,4

506

Corresponding authorPaula Maria Mendes da Costa Neves can be contacted at: pneves@esec.pt

Items

USmiddle schools(n ¼ 75) OCB

Portuguesemiddle schools(n ¼ 33) OCBP

UShigh schools(n ¼ 97) OCB

Portuguesehigh schools

(n ¼ 30) OCBP

1. Teachers help students ontheir own time 0.75 0.71 0.49 0.57

2. Teachers waste a lot of classtime 20.68 20.56

3. Teachers voluntarily helpnew teachers 0.72 0.81 0.66 0.70

4. Teachers volunteer to serveon new committees 0.76 0.88 0.66 0.84

5. Teachers volunteer tosponsor extra curricularactivities 0.68 0.90 0.62 0.90

6. Teachers arrive to work andmeetings on time 0.70 0.71 0.54 0.68

7. Teachers take the initiative tointroduce themselves tosubstitutes, and assist them 0.53 0.76 0.67 0.77

8. Teachers begin classpromptly and use class timeeffectively 0.88 0.79 0.68 0.71

9. Teachers give colleaguesadvance notice of changes inschedule or routine 0.76 0.85 0.52 0.72

10. Teachers give an excessiveamount of busy work 20.66 20.48

11. Teacher committees in thisschool work productively 0.89 0.83 0.59 0.73

12. Teachers make innovativesuggestions to improve theoverall quality of our school 0.85 0.77 0.66 0.88

% variance explained 58.82 64.93 40.82 57.32Alpha coefficient of reliability 0.93 0.94 0.86 0.92

Table AII.A comparison of the

factor structures for theOCB between US and

Portuguese high schools,and middle schools

Organizationalcitizenshipbehaviors

507

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints