Advertisement

Does organizational formalization facilitate voice and helping organizational citizenship behaviors? It depends on (national) uncertainty norms

  • Ronald Fischer
  • Maria Cristina Ferreira
  • Nathalie Van Meurs
  • Kubilay Gok
  • Ding-Yu Jiang
  • Johnny R J Fontaine
  • Charles Harb
  • Jan Cieciuch
  • Mustapha Achoui
  • Ma Socorro D Mendoza
  • Arif Hassan
  • Donna Achmadi
  • Andrew A Mogaji
  • Amina Abubakar
Open Access
Research Note

Abstract

Prosocial work behaviors in a globalized environment do not operate in a cultural vacuum. We assess to what extent voice and helping organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) vary across cultures, depending on employees’ perceived level of organizational formalization and national uncertainty. We predict that in contexts of uncertainty, cognitive resources are engaged in coping with this uncertainty. Organizational formalization can provide structure that frees up cognitive resources to engage in OCB. In contrast, in contexts of low uncertainty, organizational formalization is not necessary for providing structure and may increase constraints on discretionary behavior. A three-level hierarchical linear modeling analysis of data from 7,537 employees in 267 organizations across 17 countries provides broad support for our hypothesis: perceived organizational formalization is weakly related to OCB, but where uncertainty is high; formalization facilitates voice significantly, helping OCB to a lesser extent. Our findings contribute to clarifying the dynamics between perceptions of norms at organizational and national levels for understanding when employees may engage in helping and voice behaviors. The key implication is that managers can foster OCB through organizational formalization interventions in uncertain environments that are cognitively demanding.

Keywords

organizational citizenship behavior culture uncertainty formalization multilevel analysis 

Résumé

Dans un environnement globalisé, les comportements de travail prosociaux ne se développent pas dans un vide culturel. Nous évaluons dans quelle mesure l’appel et l’aide aux comportements de citoyenneté organisationnels (CCO) varient selon les cultures, en fonction du niveau perçu par les employés de la formalisation organisationnelle et de l’incertitude nationale. Nous prédisons que dans les contextes d’incertitude, les ressources cognitives sont engagées pour faire face à cette incertitude. La formalisation organisationnelle peut fournir une structure qui libère les ressources cognitives pour s’engager dans des CCO. En revanche, dans les contextes de faible incertitude, la formalisation organisationnelle n’est pas nécessaire pour fournir une structure et peut accroître les contraintes sur le comportement discrétionnaire. Une analyse de modélisation linéaire hiérarchique à trois niveaux de données de 7 537 employés dans 267 organisations de 17 pays fournit un large soutien à notre hypothèse : la formalisation organisationnelle perçue est faiblement liée aux CCO, sauf si l’incertitude est élevée; la formalisation facilite considérablement l’appel, encourageant dans une moindre mesure les CCO. Nos résultats contribuent à clarifier la dynamique entre les perceptions des normes aux niveaux organisationnel et national pour comprendre quand les employés peuvent s’engager dans des comportements d’aide et d’appel. La principale conséquence est que les dirigeants peuvent favoriser les CCO par des interventions de formalisation organisationnelle dans des environnements incertains qui sont cognitivement exigeants.

Resumen

Los comportamientos de trabajo prosocial en un ambiente globalizado no operan en un vacío cultural. Evaluamos en qué medida expresar y ayudar los comportamientos de ciudadanía organizacional (OCB) varían entre las culturas, dependiendo del nivel percibido por los empleados de formalización organizacional y de incertidumbre nacional. Predecimos que, en los contextos de incertidumbre, los recursos cognitivos están comprometidos a sobrellevar esta incertidumbre. La formalización organizacional puede dar una estructura que libera los recursos para comprometerse con comportamientos de ciudadanía organizacional. En contraste, en contextos de baja incertidumbre, la formalización organizacional no es necesaria para dar estructura y puede aumentar las restricciones sobre el comportamiento discrecional. Un análisis de un modelo linear de tres niveles jerárquicos de datos de 7.537 empleados en 237 organizaciones en 17 países brinda un amplio respaldo a nuestra hipótesis: la formalización organizacional percibida está débilmente relacionada con los comportamientos de ciudadanía organizacional, pero cuando la incertidumbre es alta; la formalización facilita la expresión de manera significativa, ayudando a los comportamientos de ciudadanía organizacional en una menor medida. Nuestros hallazgos contribuyen a clarificar las dinámicas entre las percepciones de las normas en los niveles organizacionales y nacionales para entender cuando los empleados se comprometen a ayudar y expresar los comportamientos. La implicación clave es que los gerentes pueden promover los comportamientos de ciudadanía organizacional mediante las intervenciones de formalización organizacional en entornos de incertidumbre que son cognitivamente demandantes.

Resumo

Comportamentos de trabalho prosociais em um ambiente globalizado não operam em um vácuo cultural. Nós avaliamos em que medida verbalização e comportamentos de cidadania organizacional (OCB) variam de acordo com as culturas, dependendo do nível percebido pelos funcionários de formalização organizacional e da incerteza nacional. Nós prevemos que em contextos de incerteza, recursos cognitivos estão empenhados em lidar com essa incerteza. A formalização organizacional pode fornecer uma estrutura que libera recursos cognitivos para se envolver em OCB. Em contraste, em contextos de baixa incerteza, a formalização organizacional não é necessária para fornecer tal estrutura e pode aumentar restrições ao comportamento discricionário. Uma análise de modelagem linear hierárquica de três níveis de dados de 7.537 funcionários em 267 organizações em 17 países oferece um amplo apoio à nossa hipótese: a formalização organizacional percebida está fracamente relacionada aos OCB, mas onde a incerteza é alta; a formalização facilita significativamente a verbalização, ajudando OCB em menor medida. Nossos achados contribuem para esclarecer a dinâmica entre percepções de normas a nível organizacional e nacional para entender quando funcionários podem se envolver em comportamentos de ajuda e verbalização. A principal implicação é que gerentes podem promover OCB por meio de intervenções de formalização organizacional em ambientes incertos que são cognitivamente exigentes.

概要

全球化环境中的亲社会工作行为不是在文化真空中运作的。我们评估在多大程度上建言和助人的组织公民行为(OCB)随文化变化,取决于员工们对组织形式化和国家不确定性的认知度。我们预测在不确定性情境下,认知资源用来应对这种不确定性。组织形式化可以提供释放认知资源来参与OCB的结构。相比之下,在低不确定性的情境下,组织形式化对提供结构并不是必要的,且可能会增加对酌情行为的限制。对来自17个国家267个组织的7,537名员工的数据进行的三级分层线性模型分析,对我们的假设提供了广泛的支持:感知的组织形式化与OCB弱相关,但不确定性较高; 正规化明显促进建言,对OCB帮助较小。我们的研究结果有助于澄清组织和国家层面的规范认知之间的动态关系,以了解员工何时可以参与助人和建言行为。关键的启示是管理者能够在认知苛刻的不确定的环境中通过组织形式化干预来培育OCB。

Introduction

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is central for the survival of modern businesses (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). Voice and helping behaviors are two types of OCB (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998) that allow for more efficient and smooth functioning of the organization and more innovation and creativity (Organ et al., 2006). Helping is defined as proactive interpersonal behavior directed towards others that strengthens existing relationships (Van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995; Tröster & van Knippenberg, 2012). Voice behavior involves speaking up with suggestions for change, challenging work routines that hinder effectiveness, and acting on one’s own initiative to make changes to one’s own task routines. OCB is essential for organizations to thrive, but they can be risky for individuals (especially voice, due to its potentially challenging nature), and therefore only flourish in certain contexts.

Compared with the wealth of research on individual-level predictors of OCB, such as motivation and personality, there has been less exploration of organizational and national-level predictors of OCB (Carpenter, Berry, & Houston, 2014; Eatough, Chang, Miloslavic, & Johnson, 2011). This relative neglect is problematic, because the contribution of organizational factors may be contingent on the larger context, making one-size-fits-all recommendations inappropriate for international businesses (Beugelsdijk, Kostova, & Roth, 2017; Clark, Li, & Shepherd 2017; Mahajan & Toh, 2017; Tsui, Nifadkar, & Ou, 2007). Understanding the interaction of contextual variables at organizational level and in a cultural context at the national level for facilitating OCB is important for business (Smith, Peterson, & Thomas, 2008; Tröster & van Knippenberg, 2012; Tsui et al., 2007). Our objective is to examine the joint influence of organizational formalization and national uncertainty on OCB to deepen our understanding of when and how culture matters for international business (Kirkman, Lowe, & Gibson, 2017; Beugelsdijk et al., 2017).

Uncertainty negatively affects work behavior at multiple levels of analysis (Cheng & Chan, 2008; Eatough et al., 2011; Griffin, Guedhami, Kwok, Li, & Shao, 2017). Discretionary behaviors such as OCB require cognitive resources and higher levels of cognitive control: uncertainty is cognitively taxing and reduces both feelings of control and the ability of individuals to pay attention to discretionary behaviors (e.g., Eatough et al., 2011; Paas, van Gog, & Sweller 2010; Qian, Cao, & Takeuchi, 2013; Shin, Taylor, & Seo, 2012). Uncertainty is a powerful motivator to engage in coping behavior to re-establish certainty, but this motivation may interfere with discretionary work behaviors (van den Bos & Lind, 2002). People prefer certainty about how to behave and what to expect in one’s immediate and extended social and physical environment for reasons of social survival (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Hogg, 2007; van den Bos & Lind, 2002) but environments differ in their overall predictability (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; see also Doh, Rodrigues, Saka-Helmhout, & Makhija, 2017). We focus on nation-level processes that characterize perceptions of uncertainty within nations, due to institutional, political, and economic forces that shape everyday routines and practices (Beugelsdijk et al., 2017; House et al., 2004; for institutional approaches to uncertainty, see also Schubert, Baier, & Rammer, 2017; Young, Welter, & Conger, 2017).

At the organizational level, formalization is likely to influence levels of OCB. One standard assumption in management is that increasing formalization, in the sense of rules and procedures, reduces employee freedom by prescribing and enforcing procedures and regulations about appropriate actions – constraining employees’ ability to engage in discretionary behaviors and risking the alienation of employees, which is likely to decrease motivation to engage in OCB (Adler, 2012; Hirst, van Knippenberg, Chen, & Sacramento, 2011; Juillerat, 2010; Organ et al., 2006; Organ & Greene, 1981). At the same time, formalization enables efficiency in production through standardizing work procedures, which helps to overcome role ambiguities and allows individuals to understand better what is expected of them (Organ & Greene, 1981). This clarification of roles and responsibilities reduces conflict and role stress, and promotes cooperation, which in turn is likely to set conditions that facilitate OCB (Adler, 2012; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, & Snoek, 1964). Therefore the empirical links between formalization and OCB have been mixed (see also Raub, 2008), suggesting that the extent to which formalization is conducive for OCB may depend on the larger context within which a business is operating (Hirst et al., 2011; Jiang, Colakoglu, Lepak, Blasi, & Kruse, 2014).

Bringing the two lines of research together via perceived norms, we argue that organizational formalization has compensatory effects on OCB (cf., Kristof, 1996), depending on the level of national uncertainty. Importantly, we argue that perceptual representations of uncertainty and formalization are driving these effects. Normative perceptions play a crucial role for understanding how contextual features influence work behavior (Leung & Morris, 2015; Morris, Hong, Chiu, & Liu, 2015). Employees form impressions of what people around them typically do, both within their organization and their larger national context. These perceptions then form descriptive norms that function as ‘social autopilots,’ allowing effort-free and tactical navigation of the social environment (Leung & Morris, 2015; Morris et al., 2015).

We predict that in contexts of perceived national uncertainty, employees use their cognitive resources to cope with the perceived uncertainty and regain a sense of control, and therefore, they are unlikely to engage in discretionary behaviors that require additional cognitive demands. OCB is therefore reduced due to limited levels of available cognitive resources. In these environments, perceived organizational formalization can compensate by increasing employees’ sense of control through providing structure and clarity and thereby reducing the needs of organizational members to expend cognitive resources on coping with uncertainty. Clear normative perceptions of rules and procedures (‘I know what others around here do and therefore, I know what is expected of me’) allow employees to rely on these norms as a form of ‘social autopilot’ (Morris et al., 2015). Therefore, by freeing up cognitive resources and reducing levels of anxiety due to uncertainty, organizational formalization can facilitate higher levels of OCB in countries with high uncertainty. In contrast, when nation-level uncertainty is low, employees have sufficient cognitive resources to perform OCBs. Here, organizational formalization constrains members to engage in discretionary behavior and decreases degrees of freedom. Therefore, formalization reduces levels of OCB (see Kahn et al., 1964).

In summary, we propose that organizational and cultural context interact across levels in facilitating OCB (Jiang et al., 2014). We hypothesize that perceived formalization is positively associated with both voice and helping behavior in nations with higher perceived uncertainty, whereas these relationships are weakened or negative in nations with higher perceived certainty.

Methods

Sample

We sampled 7,537 employees from 267 organizations (average N = 27.7) in 17 countries recruited through professional networks with the aim of achieving a cross-section of locally relevant and representative organizations. Given the diversity of industries and business forms globally, we explicitly decided not to sample match organizations, as this would result in locally unrepresentative samples. We targeted medium and large local organizations that represent typical employers in the particular region of the nation (see Table 1). We controlled for demographic and organizational variables, and we found that they do not change any of the main findings reported (Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 2).
Table 1

Sample information and nation-level variable means

 

N

Age

Age (SD)

% Male

% Managers

Uncertainty

Formalization

Voice

Helping

Belgium

222

36.5

10.90

60.20

15.80

2.37

4.77

5.08

5.22

Brazil

794

34.6

18.00

51.00

9.60

3.44

4.60

5.49

5.74

Canada

664

38.4

12.50

46.50

21.70

2.58

4.61

5.30

5.51

Egypt

98

31.4

8.10

44.60

18.40

3.61

4.23

5.47

5.91

Indonesia

214

34.9

9.80

61.50

26.20

3.03

4.88

5.23

5.45

Kenya

427

34.2

9.10

53.00

24.10

3.20

4.82

5.08

5.26

Lebanon

478

33.2

9.70

51.80

14.90

3.52

4.60

5.24

5.39

Malaysia

220

33.5

7.70

41.70

36.80

2.90

4.91

5.12

5.31

NZ

1546

35.6

12.20

52.60

20.10

2.80

4.75

5.22

5.39

Nigeria

35

31.6

5.70

90.60

37.10

2.78

5.24

5.30

5.30

Philippines

694

35.9

9.50

53.70

31.80

2.98

5.00

5.37

5.54

Poland

893

33.8

10.70

39.70

6.80

2.86

4.59

4.85

5.22

Saudi Arabia

286

32.1

7.90

86.00

10.10

3.13

4.48

5.30

5.59

Taiwan

423

32.3

7.80

55.30

7.10

3.06

4.51

4.81

5.07

Turkey

316

36.5

8.50

49.60

7.00

3.37

4.79

5.11

5.31

UAE

32

36.6

8.90

56.30

34.40

2.91

4.58

5.37

5.57

UK

195

45.2

9.70

32.80

NA

2.81

4.58

5.40

5.63

Table 2

Descriptive statistics

 

Mean

SD

Voice

Helping

Age

Manager

Formalization

Employee support

Voice

5.20

1.21

     

Helping

5.43

1.11

.72*

    

Age

35.18

11.69

.12*

.09*

   

Manager

0.17

0.38

.11*

.07*

.12*

  

Formalization

4.69

0.43

.09*

.09*

.03*

.06*

 

Employee support

4.45

0.61

.17*

.17*

.04*

.11*

.44*

 

Uncertainty

2.99

0.30

.05*

.06*

−.09*

−.06*

−.08*

−.22*

Note: * p < .05.

Formalization and employee support are disaggregated from the organizational to the individual level; certainty is disaggregated from the nation level to the individual level.

Measures

Dependent Variables

For OCB, we used five voice items and seven helping items from Van Dyne and LePine (1998). The answers were recorded on a scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). Reliability overall was good (voice: α = .89; helping: α = .91). Self-report measures of OCB have been found to provide valid estimates of OCB effects (Carpenter et al., 2014). We conducted a series of pilot studies with employees in the UK, US, Germany, Turkey, Argentina, Brazil, Malaysia, and NZ (total N = 2,213), which suggested that voice and helping scales captured behaviors that (a) are important for businesses, (b) are empirically distinct and provide non-redundant information, and (c) show better validity and reliability across the cultural samples studied compared to other instruments measuring OCB (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990) or in-role versus extra-role behavior (William & Anderson, 1991; further details about our pilot studies testing the helping and voice constructs across cultural samples are included in the online supplementary material for this article).

Independent Variables

For perceived organizational formalization, we adapted five formalization items (Fischer et al., 2014) from the Competing Value Framework of Organizational Culture (Cameron & Quinn, 1999) that captures central elements of formalization (Fry & Slocum, 1984). An example item is: “The jobs are performed according to previously defined procedures.” Perceived norms were measured on a scale ranging from “never” (1) to “always” (7). Cronbach’s alpha was adequate (total sample: α = .78). The intraclass correlation (ICC) for formalization at the organization level was .10 (.12 for organizational support, a control variable discussed below), and the average agreement rwg (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) for formalization within organizations was .92 (.90 for organizational support); both indicators justify aggregation to the organization level. Multilevel fit between individual and organizational level (constraining loadings to be equal) was acceptable: χ2 (82) = 908.31, p < .0001, CFI = .94, TLI = .94, RMSEA = .042, SRMRwithin = .042, SRMRbetween = .083.

For perceived uncertainty, we adopted four items measuring normative perceptions of nation-level uncertainty (Sully de Luque & Javidan, 2004), with an example item being: “Most people lead highly structured lives with few unexpected events” measured on five-point scales (reversed scored, 1 “very typical” to 5 “not at all typical”). These items are phrased in terms of observable behaviors, therefore, allowing us to capture perceptions of descriptive norms using a referent-shift consensus model (Chan, 1998). Higher scores indicate more uncertainty. Reliability at the nation level was .87, showing acceptable measurement properties at the intended theoretical level. The average ICC(1) was .054, justifying aggregation. A multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) testing metric invariance across levels demonstrated acceptable fit: χ2 (12) = 695.42, p < .0001, CFI = .95, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .025, SRMRwithin = .018, SRMRbetween = .074. Hence, the structure fits well at both levels.

All variables were translated using an expert committee approach with adjudicators (Harkness, Pennell, &, Schoua-Glusberg, 2004). A simultaneous confirmatory factor analysis including all measures showed good fit: χ2 (289) = 4057.19, p < .0001, CFI = .96, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .044, SRMR = .033. Testing cross-cultural measurement invariance, we found acceptable fit for configural invariance: χ2 (4913) = 12,628, p < .0001, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .063; and metric invariance: χ2 (5249) = 13,493, p < .0001, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .063, ΔCFI = .006, ΔRMSEA = .000.

Control Variables

In order to isolate the effect of formalization on OCB in the context of (un)certainty, we conducted an array of sensitivity tests to analyze the effect of control variables at the individual, organizational, and national level. For further information on these sensitivity tests, please see the online supplementary material for this article.

At the individual level, we controlled for age and managerial position, because these variables correlated with OCB in previous studies (e.g., Carpenter et al., 2014; O’Driscoll & Roche, 2015). No gender differences were found, and therefore gender is not included in our models.

At the organizational level, organization-based support (from leaders, co-workers, general perceptions of support) is one of the strongest predictors of OCB, exceeding other theoretically important predictors such as personality and leadership perceptions (Carpenter et al., 2014), and one of the most effective organization-level facilitators of voice behavior specifically (Chiaburu, Lorinkova, & Van Dyne, 2013). Controlling for broad organizational support as one of the empirically strongest predictors of OCB makes our analyses conservative. We measured organizational support with six items (Fischer et al., 2014, for example: “employees are supported by their superiors”). We also controlled for industry, comparing primary, retail and sales, finance, and education with a residual category.

At the nation level, we controlled for economic development using Gross National Income (GNI) per Capita adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity. We also controlled for power distance, which refers to the extent to which cultures are hierarchically differentiated, and is conceptually related to formalization (Lee & Antonakis, 2014): more hierarchical cultures rely more on formalized rules and authority (Huang & Van de Vliert, 2003). It is important to control for power distance to differentiate uncertainty management dynamics from cultural socialization effects (individuals prefer formalization because they are socialized into a hierarchical system). We created a composite score, averaging Hofstede’s (1980) and GLOBE’s (House et al., 2004) power distance scores with Schwartz’s (2006) Hierarchy index. This index showed good validity and reliability (see Supplementary Material for more information).

Analytical Strategy

We used a three-level model in HLM6.01 (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) to predict variability in helping and voice behavior at level 1. Age as a control variable at level 1 was centered on the national mean. At level 2, we entered formalization (and organizational support as a control variable) centered on the national mean. Industry effects at level 2 were dummy-coded. At level 3, we entered grand-mean centered uncertainty to examine the theoretically predicted interaction effect of uncertainty on formalization slopes. Nation-level control variables were also grand-mean centered.

Common method variance and response styles are a major concern in self-report measures (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). To control for method variance, we randomly split our sample, with one random half used for estimating the individual-level effects (voice and helping behavior) and the other random half used for estimating the organization-level effects (formalization norms). The evaluation of organizational norms is therefore independent from the responses to the self-report behaviors, ruling out common method explanations for our pattern of findings. This method is equivalent to obtaining peer reports of the environmental context variables (organizational norms at level 2) and has been used successfully in previous research (Ostroff, Kinicki, & Clark, 2002).

Results

Our hypothesis predicted an interaction between perceived formalization at the organizational level and perceived uncertainty at the nation level. For voice, we found a significant effect, which explained 99.57% of the variability in slopes across countries (see Table 3). Supporting our hypothesis, the effect of formalization is stronger in contexts of higher uncertainty norms and is weaker for lower uncertainty norms (see Figure 1). For helping behavior, the interaction was in the predicted direction, but only marginally significant (p = .07), explaining 31.12% of the conditional variance in slopes between countries. In the supplement, we report additional analyses in which we controlled for age and occupation (level 1); organizational support and dummy-coded industry effects (level 2), as well as rival explanatory variables at the nation level (wealth and power distance, level 3). For control variables, managers reported higher levels of voice behavior. Among organization-level control variables, organizational support showed a strong and positive effect on both helping and voice. Greater organizational support was associated with increased levels of OCB. Importantly, the interaction effect of uncertainty by formalization on voice remained significant when controlling for all these variables: γ011 = .65, p < .001. The interaction effect for helping was in the predicted direction, but not significant: γ011 = .08, p > .05.
Table 3

Results of the three-level multilevel analysis

 

Voice

Helping

 

Random intercept model

Level 2 model

Level 3 model

Random intercept model

Level 2 model

Level 3 model

Intercept γ000

5.20**

5.20**

5.20**

5.44**

5.44**

5.44**

Formalization γ010

 

0.17#

0.19**

 

0.19**

0.20**

Uncertainty γ001

  

0.25

  

0.31#

Formalization × uncertainty γ01

  

0.70**

  

0.36#

Variance components

      

 e (level 1)

1.335

1.334

1.335

1.070

1.069

1.069

 r0 (level 2)

0.076

0.059

0.056

0.099

0.089

0.085

 U000 (level 3)

0.031

0.030

0.026

0.028

0.028

0.022

 u01 (level 3)

 

0.042

0.000

 

0.014

0.010

Note: ** p < .01; * p < .05; # p < .10.

Figure 1

Interaction between perceived formalization (level 2) and national uncertainty (level 3) on voice behavior (level 1).

Discussion

We found that perceived organizational formalization is more strongly associated with increased voice (and also to some extent helping) OCB in highly uncertain cultural environments at the nation level. Organizations operating in uncertain macro-level environments can benefit from clearly specified rules and procedures to foster voice and helping OCB. Our research clarifies the conflicting results of both formalization and uncertainty at organizational level on OCB, when nation-level uncertainty is not being considered (Hirst et al., 2011; Mahajan & Toh, 2017). Our results contextualize previously noted negative effects of formalization (Adler, 2012; Juillerat, 2010; Organ & Greene, 1981; Organ et al., 2006) by identifying under what circumstances such effects are subverted.

Normative perceptions play a crucial role for understanding how contextual features influence work behavior (Leung & Morris, 2015; Morris et al., 2015). We expand previous work on antecedents of OCB by examining the interplay of perceived norms at organizational and cultural levels, adopting a poly-contextual meso-level approach (Tsui et al., 2007). The results show that organization-level findings alone shed light on only part of the context of international business. Businesses operating in countries with higher uncertainty and with less stable institutional, political, and economic forces that shape everyday routines and practices (House et al., 2004) are advised to rethink their organizational practices to provide the necessary support and structure for local employees (see also related work on institutional voids, e.g., Doh et al., 2017). Our study provides one specific case study which demonstrates these compensatory effects on OCB. Importantly, we demonstrated that shared normative perceptions are important for statistically predicting OCB. This is an important avenue for further research as more and more businesses move into national contexts that are culturally, economically, and institutionally different from Western societies and norms vary from Western expectations.

In terms of limitations, the diversity of business and economic environments did not allow us to match organizations across cultures, which may increase the error variance at the organizational and nation level, reducing the likelihood of significant findings (Schmitt, Allik, McCrae, & Benet-Martinez, 2007). Thus the fact that we nevertheless obtained significant results supports the robustness of the observed effects. We did not include individual difference variables in our study beyond the demographic control variables; future research could test the relative importance of organizational versus individual variables in a multilevel framework.

Perceived norms have significant managerial implications, especially for understanding differences between cultures (Morris et al., 2015). Managers can help employees to free up energy and cognitive resources by providing clear guidelines on how to perform their work. To the extent that these formalization norms provide normative guidance without being coercive (Adler, 2012), the levels of certainty that such norms may encourage can motivate employees to help their co-workers and to come forward with ideas for improvement of work procedures. The provision of formal rules and guidelines can be particularly effective in those contexts where employees are faced with uncertainty on a daily basis. For example, if there is uncertainty about employability laws at government level (e.g., due to political changes), a company that makes a clear statement about their roles and procedures can instill trust and confidence among staff to voice their opinions. Our exploration of whether employees’ voice and helping behavior are facilitated or obstructed through formalization allows for a more balanced understanding of how and in which cultural contexts formalization creates value for organizations.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research was supported by various grants by Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, and the School of Psychology at Victoria University of Wellington. Ronald Fischer was supported by a Marie-Curie Cofund Senior Fellowship while resident at the Aarhus Institute of Advanced Studies, Denmark. The work of Jan Cieciuch was supported by Grant 2011/01/D/HS6/04077 from the Polish National Science Centre. We are grateful for comments and suggestions by Anne-Wil Harzing, Paul Griseri, Jonathan Searle, Peter Smith, Mark Peterson, Diana Boer, and Melanie Vauclair during various stages of the preparation process as well as the editor Mary Zellmer-Bruhn and three anonymous reviewers who provided constructive feedback.

Supplementary material

41267_2017_132_MOESM1_ESM.docx (27 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 28 kb)

References

  1. Adler, P. S. 2012. The ambivalence of bureaucracy: From Weber via Gouldner to Marx. Organization Science, 23: 244–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beugelsdijk, S., Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2017. An overview of Hofstede-inspired country-level culture research in international business since 2006. Journal of International Business Studies, 48: 30–47.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-016-0038-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. 1961. The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  4. Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. 1999. Diagnosing and changing organizational culture based on the competing values framework. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  5. Carpenter, N. C., Berry, C. M., & Houston, L. 2014. A meta-analytic comparison of self-reported and other-reported organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35: 547–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 234–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheng, G. H.-L., & Chan, D. K.-S. 2008. Who suffers more from job insecurity? A meta-analytic review. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57: 272–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiaburu, D. S., Lorinkova, N., & Van Dyne, L. 2013. Employees’ social context and change-oriented citizenship: A meta-analysis of leader, co-worker, and organizational influences. Group and Organization Management, 38: 291–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, D. R., Li, D., & Shepherd, D. A. 2017. Country familiarity in the initial stage of foreign market selection. Journal of International Business Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0099-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doh, J., Rodrigues, S., Saka-Helmhout, A., & Makhija, M. 2017. International business responses to institutional voids. Journal of International Business Studies, 48: 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eatough, E. M., Chang, C. H., Miloslavic, S. A., & Johnson, R. E. 2011. Relationships of role stressors with organizational citizenship behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 619–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischer, R., et al. 2014. Organizational practices across cultures: An exploration in six cultural contexts. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 14: 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fry, L. W., & Slocum, J. W. Jr. 1984. Technology, structure, and workgroup effectiveness: A test of a contingency model. Academy of Management Journal, 2: 221–246.Google Scholar
  14. Griffin, D., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C. C. Y., Li, K., & Shao, L. 2017. National culture: The missing country-level determinant of corporate governance. Journal of International Business Studies, 48: 740–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harkness, J., Pennell, B. E., & Schoua-Glusberg, A. 2004. Survey questionnaire translation and assessment. In: S. Presser et al. (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 453–473). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., Chen, C. H., & Sacramento, C. A. 2011. How does bureaucracy impact individual creativity? A cross-level investigation of team contextual influences on goal orientation–creativity relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 624–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Hofstede, G. H. 2001. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Hogg, M. A. 2007. Uncertainty–identity theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39: 69–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (Eds.) 2004. Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Huang, X., & Van de Vliert, E. 2003. Where intrinsic motivation fails to work: National moderators of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jiang, Y., Colakoglu, S., Lepak, D. P., Blasi, J. R., & Kruse, D. L. 2014. Involvement work systems and operational effectiveness: Exploring the moderating effect of national power distance. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(3): 332–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Juillerat, T. L. 2010. Friends, not foes? Work design and formalization in the modern work context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: 216–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., & Snoek, J. Y. R. 1964. Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. 2017. A retrospective on Culture’s Consequences: The 35-year journey. Journal of International Business Studies, 48: 12–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kristof, A. L. 1996. Person–organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualisations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49: 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee Y. T., & Antonakis J. 2014. When preference is not satisfied but the individual is: How power distance affects person–job fit. Journal of Management, 40: 641–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leung, K., & Morris, M. W. 2015. Values, schemas, and norms in the culture–behavior nexus: A situated dynamics framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(9): 1028–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mahajan, A., & Toh, S. M. 2017. Group cultural values and political skills: A situationist perspective on interpersonal citizenship behaviors. Journal of International Business Studies, 48: 113–121.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-016-0036-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morris, M. W., Hong, Y., Chiu, C., & Liu, Z. 2015. Normology: Integrating insights about social norms to understand cultural dynamics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 129: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Driscoll, M. P., & Roche, M. 2015. Age, organizational citizenship behaviors and counterproductive work behaviors. In N. A. Pachana (Ed.), Encyclopedia of geropsychology (pp. 1–11). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Organ, D. W., & Greene, C. N. 1981. The effects of formalization on professional involvement: A compensatory process approach. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26: 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 2006. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A. J., & Clark, M. A. 2002. Substantive and operational issues of response bias across levels of analysis: An example of climate-satisfaction relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paas, F., van Gog, T., & Sweller, J. 2010. Cognitive load theory: New conceptualizations, specifications and integrated research perspectives. Educational Psychology Review, 22: 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviours and their effect on trust, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviours. Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Qian, C., Cao, Q., & Takeuchi, R. 2013. Top management team functional diversity and organizational innovation in China: The moderating effects of environment. Strategic Management Journal, 34: 110–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Raub, S. 2008. Does bureaucracy kill individual initiative? The impact of structure on organizational citizenship behavior in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27: 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. 2002. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Schmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martinez, V. 2007. The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38: 173–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schubert, T., Baier, E., & Rammer, C. J. 2017. Firm capabilities, technological dynamism and the internationalisation of innovation: A behavioural approach. Journal of International Business Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0101-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schwartz, S. H. 2006. A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5: 136–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shin, J., Taylor, M., & Seo, M. 2012. Resources for change: The relationships of organizational inducements and psychological resilience to employees’ attitudes and behaviors toward organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 55: 727–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith, P. B., Peterson, M., & Thomas, D. 2008. Handbook of cross-cultural management. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sully de Luque, M. F., & Javidan, M. 2004. Uncertainty avoidance. In R. J. House, P. M. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. 2007. Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33: 426–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tröster, C., & van Knippenberg, D. 2012. Leader openness, nationality dissimilarity, and voice in multinational management teams. Journal of International Business Studies, 43: 591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. 2002. Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34: 1–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. 1995. Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  52. Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 108–119.Google Scholar
  53. William, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviours. Journal of Management, 17, 601–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Young, S. L., Welter, C., & Conger, M. (2017). Stability vs. flexibility: The effect of regulatory institutions on opportunity type. Journal of International Business Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0095-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018
corrected publication September 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald Fischer
    • 1
  • Maria Cristina Ferreira
    • 2
  • Nathalie Van Meurs
    • 3
  • Kubilay Gok
    • 4
  • Ding-Yu Jiang
    • 5
  • Johnny R J Fontaine
    • 6
  • Charles Harb
    • 7
  • Jan Cieciuch
    • 8
  • Mustapha Achoui
    • 9
  • Ma Socorro D Mendoza
    • 10
  • Arif Hassan
    • 11
  • Donna Achmadi
    • 1
    • 12
  • Andrew A Mogaji
    • 13
  • Amina Abubakar
    • 14
  1. 1.School of PsychologyVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Salgado de Oliveira UniversityRio de JaneiroBrazil
  3. 3.International Management & Innovation Department, School of BusinessMiddlesex UniversityLondonUK
  4. 4.Department of Business Administration, College of Business AdministrationWinona State UniversityWinonaUSA
  5. 5.Department of PsychologyNational Chung Cheng UniversityChiayiTaiwan, ROC
  6. 6.Department of Personnel Management, Work and Organizational PsychologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  7. 7.Department of PsychologyAmerican University of BeirutBeirutLebanon
  8. 8.University Research Priority Program Social NetworksUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  9. 9.Arab Open University, KuwaitAl-Ardia AradiaKuwait
  10. 10.UBHC, Rutgers UniversityUnionUSA
  11. 11.International Islamic University MalaysiaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  12. 12.Canterbury District Health BoardHillmorton HospitalChristchurchNew Zealand
  13. 13.Department of PsychologyBenue State UniversityMakurdiNigeria
  14. 14.Department of Psychology and Public HealthPwani UniversityKilifiKenya

Personalised recommendations