Today, higher education institutions face mounting pressure to deliver quality education, foster inclusive learning environments, and stay competitive amid rapid social, economic, and technological shifts. These issues are intensified by resource constraints, a more diverse student population, increased administrative tasks, and accountability standards. In this environment, the human factor—especially the proactive, voluntary efforts of academic staff—has become vital for the success of institutions. This has heightened attention on Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB), which describes voluntary actions beyond job duties that support the organization’s smooth functioning (Organ, 1988).

Originally stemming from industrial and organizational psychology, OCB includes behaviours such as helping colleagues, taking on additional tasks, showing initiative, and supporting the organization. These actions are typically unrewarded but significantly enhance organizational effectiveness. While extensively studied in corporate and public sectors, the use of OCB in educational settings among faculty and staff at schools, colleges, and universities has only recently gained attention. Given the complex and interconnected nature of academic work, where teamwork, collegiality, and institutional engagement are essential for achieving educational goals, the importance of OCB is both deep and multifaceted.

Faculty members often participate in activities beyond their official duties, such as mentoring students outside of class, serving on committees, organizing events, and supporting the growth of the institution. Although these efforts are voluntary, they are essential for fostering a positive academic environment and aiding students' overall development. Recognizing and understanding these extra-role behaviours is crucial for appreciating faculty contributions and for creating policies and workplace cultures that promote such engagement over time.

The importance of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) in academic settings is increasingly acknowledged because of its direct and indirect effects on institutional outcomes. Studies show that OCB can boost job satisfaction, team cohesion, student contentment, and overall success of institutions (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Somech & Ron, 2007). For example, when faculty members voluntarily support colleagues, share academic resources, or give constructive feedback, both teaching and research quality see improvements. Similarly, when administrative staff act courteously and diligently beyond their formal duties, the overall service and student experience improve. In environments where academic institutions often lack strict hierarchical oversight, promoting a culture of self-motivation and prosocial actions is crucial. OCB fosters trust, psychological safety, and a sense of community elements essential for innovation and shared governance. It also helps mitigate organizational stressors, supporting individual well-being and organizational resilience (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Moreover, in many developing countries, where high faculty-to-student ratios and overloaded administrative systems prevail, OCB can serve as a compensatory mechanism.

Faculty and staff going beyond their formal roles help address resource shortages, which is especially important in regions like India, where higher education faces the dual challenges of expansion and quality assurance. Recognizing the role of OCB in such contexts is vital for academic leadership, human resource planning, and policymaking. Despite these benefits, OCB is often undervalued in performance evaluations that mainly focus on measurable outputs like research publications and teaching hours. This oversight undervalues relational and emotional labour in academia and may discourage ongoing OCB participation. Therefore, a systematic understanding of how OCB manifests, what motivates it, and its effects on academic environments is crucial for developing more responsive and resilient institutions.

This conceptual paper critically examines the concept of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) in academic settings through a review of existing literature. While many studies have explored OCB in different organizational environments, there is a particular need to understand how OCB is perceived, practiced, and implemented within educational institutions. This review aims to identify key themes, pinpoint gaps in current knowledge, and develop a conceptual framework to guide future research and initiatives in the sector.

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) involves voluntary actions by employees that, while not officially rewarded, significantly support the smooth functioning of an organization (Organ, 1988). This idea was developed to overcome the limitations of traditional performance assessments, which primarily focus on task outcomes and overlook informal efforts that enhance organizational efficiency and cohesion. Organ (1988) laid out the core framework for OCB, defining it as “individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988, p. 4). The emphasis on “discretionary” actions highlights that these behaviours go beyond standard job responsibilities and are performed voluntarily. Examples include staying late to help a colleague, taking initiative in organizational growth, or demonstrating politeness and respect in daily interactions. The concept of OCB originates from the “good soldier syndrome,” introduced by Katz and Kahn (1966), which underlines the importance of extra-role behaviours for organizational success. They argued that organizations need more than just rule-following employees—they also rely on spontaneous, cooperative efforts. Consequently, OCB was introduced to identify actions that are not captured in formal performance metrics but are essential for boosting organizational effectiveness, especially in complex, interdependent settings like schools.

Dimensions of OCB

Organ (1988) initially proposed five key dimensions of OCB, each capturing a distinct type of discretionary behaviour:

Altruism

Altruism includes voluntary actions aimed at assisting specific individuals with organizational tasks or concerns (Podsakoff et al., 2000). In academic settings, it may involve a faculty member willingly helping a colleague prepare a course or advising a student outside of scheduled hours. This type of altruistic behaviour strengthens interpersonal bonds and fosters team cohesion.

Conscientiousness

This dimension involves going beyond fundamental job expectations such as punctuality, following institutional rules, and showing initiative (Organ, 1988). In academic contexts, it might include preparing thoroughly for classes, reliably meeting deadlines, or engaging actively in academic governance.

Sportsmanship

Sportsmanship reflects an employee’s capacity to handle difficult situations without complaining. It reduces conflicts within the organization and conserves time and effort that could otherwise be spent resolving disputes or dealing with dissatisfaction (Podsakoff et al., 2000). For example, an academic staff member who willingly takes on extra responsibilities during an accreditation process without resistance demonstrates sportsmanship.

Courtesy

Courtesy entails proactively preventing work conflicts by informing colleagues, consulting before making decisions impacting others, and communicating considerately (Organ, 1988). In academic environments, practicing courtesy can reduce misunderstandings and foster mutual respect.

Civic Virtue

Civic virtue entails responsible and proactive involvement in an organization's political activities. This includes attending voluntary meetings, staying updated on institutional news, and participating in decision-making. In educational settings, it is demonstrated through involvement in committee work, strategic planning, and quality assurance initiatives.

Later researchers, such as Podsakoff et al. (2000), expanded these dimensions to include aspects like loyalty, self-development, and personal initiative, acknowledging the evolving and context-specific nature of OCB.

Since its emergence in the 1980s, the concept of OCB has evolved considerably. Initially, research mainly viewed OCB as a personal trait shaped by factors such as personality, job satisfaction, and commitment (Smith et al., 1983). Over time, the scope expanded to include broader organizational and contextual influences, such as leadership styles, organizational justice, and perceived support (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Organ et al., 2006). The core principles of OCB are largely grounded in Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964), which posits that employees who feel they are treated fairly and supported are more likely to perform voluntary positive behaviours. This is especially relevant in academia, where faculty members' perceptions of autonomy, justice, and respect deeply impact their extra-role activities.

Organizational Support Theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986) suggests that employees are motivated to act in ways that benefit their organization when they feel their efforts are valued and their well-being is prioritized. In academic settings, this often results in voluntary actions like mentoring, serving on committees, or promoting the institution. Research on Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) has also evolved methodologically over time. While earlier studies mainly relied on self-report surveys in Western corporate contexts, recent work has broadened to include diverse sectors such as education and features mixed methods. Current investigations explore cross-cultural differences, gender impacts, and sector-specific OCB expressions (Yadav & Kumar, 2017), highlighting the importance of context in understanding and applying this concept.

Research on OCB has expanded from its influence on organizational performance to also cover its effects on employee well-being, burnout, and work-life balance. Experts caution that excessive participation in OCB, especially when unrecognized or exploited, can lead to role overload and emotional exhaustion—an issue particularly relevant in higher education, where faculty face substantial demands (Bolino et al., 2010). Overall, the perception of OCB has shifted from viewing it as a fixed trait to recognizing it as a dynamic, context-sensitive phenomenon. This change is especially significant in education, which relies heavily on collaboration and relationships. Promoting and recognizing OCB in academic settings is therefore essential for fostering supportive, effective, and resilient organizational cultures.

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) is increasingly important in educational settings, especially as schools, colleges, and universities face challenges such as globalization, accountability demands, limited resources, and rising student expectations. In these environments, OCB refers to voluntary actions by educators, administrators, and support staff that go beyond their formal responsibilities, helping to ensure smooth functioning and effectiveness of the institution (Somech & Ron, 2007). For example, teachers may mentor students outside class, organize extracurricular activities, or support colleagues with lesson planning. Such behaviours create a positive learning environment and enhance student outcomes (DiPaola & Hoy, 2005). In higher education, OCB becomes even more crucial due to the complex demands of teaching, research, and service. Faculty often engage in tasks like curriculum development, advising students, informal peer mentoring, and committee work—typically without additional pay or formal recognition (Organ et al., 2006). OCB also involves administrative and support staff, not just faculty. These staff demonstrate OCB by building strong relationships with students and colleagues, proactively solving problems, and assisting with tasks outside their official duties (Kagaari & Munene, 2007). For instance, a registrar helping students with academic procedures or a librarian providing extra research support exemplify citizenship behaviours that improve service quality. Although voluntary and not officially acknowledged, these actions foster a positive organizational climate, promote teamwork, and contribute to the institution's overall success. As a result, educational institutions rely heavily on OCB to maintain quality standards, meet stakeholder expectations, and encourage ongoing improvement (Yadav & Kumar, 2017).

While OCB has been extensively studied in the corporate and public sectors, its expression in academic environments exhibits unique traits. First, because academic work often requires independence, faculty members mainly work with little supervision. This autonomy fosters self-initiated citizenship behaviours but also depends heavily on personal motivation and institutional culture (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001). Second, academic settings encourage collegiality and shared governance through collaboration. Faculty participation in departmental meetings, curriculum committees, and strategic planning often reflects civic virtue and courtesy—key elements of OCB (Organ, 1988). Even though participation is voluntary, it is essential for inclusive decision-making and overall effectiveness. Third, emotional labour—involving mentoring students, supporting distressed learners, or resolving conflicts—goes beyond formal duties but significantly influences the academic environment. These actions demonstrate altruism and courtesy, vital aspects of OCB (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2000). Fourth, faculty identity and intrinsic motivation play a crucial role in maintaining OCB. Educators who strongly identify with their roles or institutions tend to engage in extra-role behaviours voluntarily, without expecting tangible rewards (Bogler & Somech, 2004). This internal motivation distinguishes academic OCB from that in more hierarchical or reward-based sectors. Finally, contextual factors like the institution's type, size, and location affect how OCB manifests and its importance. For example, faculty at smaller or rural institutions often show higher levels of OCB due to close-knit communities and limited resources, whereas urban institutions may encounter more difficulties in fostering shared purpose and voluntary cooperation (Nguni, 2005).

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) plays a vital role in the smooth operation of educational institutions. Its importance is particularly pronounced in academic settings, where success depends not only on formal duties but also on voluntary efforts from faculty, staff, and administrators. Gaining insight into the factors that affect OCB in these environments is key to understanding what drives these voluntary actions. Research indicates that in academia, OCB is shaped by both personal factors—such as job satisfaction, motivation, and personality traits—and organizational factors, like leadership style, cultural environment, and perceived organizational support (Podsakoff et al., 2000; Organ et al., 2006).

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is a key predictor of organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). When people find their work rewarding, they often go beyond their official duties to help colleagues and support the organization (Organ & Ryan, 1995). In schools, satisfied teachers are more likely to participate in departmental tasks, develop curricula, and mentor students. Research by DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran (2001) shows that higher teacher job satisfaction correlates with more altruistic and conscientious behaviours, which benefit the school community.

Work Motivation

Intrinsic motivation plays a key role in OCB, especially in academia where values like intellectual independence and ethics are vital. Based on Ryan and Deci’s (2000) self-determination theory, people are more likely to participate in extra-role behaviours when their core psychological needs such as autonomy, competence, and relatedness—are fulfilled. Faculty motivated by internal factors, such as assisting students or advancing institutional objectives, are more likely to willingly take on discretionary tasks without external prompting.

Personality Traits

Individual personality traits are crucial. Employees exhibiting high conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability usually show Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) (Organ et al., 2006). In academic environments, conscientious faculty often go beyond their basic duties to ensure quality teaching and research. Similarly, agreeable individuals tend to help colleagues or resolve conflicts amicably. Ilies et al. (2009) found that these traits can predict prosocial behaviours within organizations, including educational settings.

Organizational Commitment and Identification

Organizational commitment is essential, representing the psychological bond an individual has with their organization. When academic staff align with the institution's goals and values, they usually become more engaged and actively contribute to its success (Meyer & Allen, 1997). Bogler and Somech (2004) found that teachers' organizational commitment is positively linked to organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB), particularly in aspects such as civic virtue and altruism.

Organizational-Level Factors Influencing OCB

Leadership Style

Leadership style plays a crucial role in shaping organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). Transformational leaders—who motivate, inspire, and challenge followers intellectually are generally associated with higher OCB levels among academic staff (Nguni, Sleegers, & Denessen, 2006). They foster trust, autonomy, and a shared sense of purpose, all of which are essential for encouraging voluntary efforts. In contrast, transactional leadership—which emphasizes task completion and reward systems—may be less effective in academic settings that prioritize creativity and intrinsic motivation (Bass, 1999). Additionally, servant leadership—centered on empathy, active listening, and addressing others' needs—has demonstrated a positive connection to OCB in educational contexts. Such leaders cultivate a supportive environment where staff feel respected and empowered, boosting their likelihood to perform citizenship behaviours (Eva et al., 2019).

Institutional Culture and Climate

Institutional culture, comprising shared beliefs, norms, and values, greatly shapes staff behaviour. A culture that encourages collaboration and participation fosters mutual respect, information sharing, and collegiality, thereby boosting organizational citizenship behaviour (Somech & Ron, 2007). Schools with a positive climate make faculty and staff feel safe, supported, and appreciated, which increases their willingness to exceed their formal roles (DiPaola & Hoy, 2005). On the other hand, toxic or overly competitive environments can impede OCB by promoting self-interest over teamwork. Therefore, institutions should aim to develop cultures that emphasize teamwork, transparency, and shared responsibility.

Perceived Organizational Support (POS)

Perceived Organizational Support (POS)—which indicates how much employees feel their organization appreciates their contributions and cares about their well-being is a crucial factor influencing organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) within organizations. POS, grounded in Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964), posits that individuals tend to reciprocate kindness with positive actions. In academic contexts, when faculty perceive recognition and support—such as fair policies, opportunities for growth, and respectful treatment—they are more likely to participate in extra-role activities like volunteering for committees, mentoring students, and collaborating across departments (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). A study by Kagaari and Munene (2007) in Ugandan universities found that lecturers who experienced high levels of support and autonomy showed a significant increase in OCB participation. These results align globally, indicating that POS generally promotes organizational citizenship in educational settings.

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) plays an important role in educational settings by boosting overall performance and effectiveness. When faculty, staff, and administrators willingly engage in activities outside their official roles—such as committee service, student mentoring, or backing institutional projects, they play a crucial role in cultivating a high-achieving academic atmosphere (Organ et al., 2006).

Impact on Institutional Performance and Effectiveness

In academic institutions, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) is crucial for boosting overall performance and effectiveness. When faculty, staff, and administrators voluntarily go beyond their official roles—by serving on committees, mentoring students, or initiating improvements—they help create a highly effective educational environment (Organ et al., 2006). Universities are increasingly assessed through various metrics such as student satisfaction, accreditation results, retention rates, and research output. OCB supports these goals by encouraging collaboration and better communication (DiPaola & Hoy, 2005). For example, dedicated faculty members deliver consistent courses, manage classes efficiently, and offer prompt feedback to students—directly contributing to academic success. At the organizational level, acts of civic virtue and altruism among staff promote active engagement in governance and strategic planning, boosting responsiveness and innovation (Bogler & Somech, 2004). Such behaviours also enhance teamwork among departments, supporting quality assurance, curriculum development, and student services—key functions that improve operational efficiency (Somech & Ron, 2007). The voluntary nature of OCB allows institutions to benefit from discretionary effort without external incentives. Over time, this effort improves organizational performance and helps foster a culture of excellence and accountability (Podsakoff et al., 2009).

Influence on Student Outcomes and Learning Environment

OCB positively impacts student achievement and the overall learning environment. When faculty exhibit high citizenship behaviour, they often go beyond their basic teaching duties by providing extra support, guidance, and mentorship to students (DiPaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001). Such behaviours are linked to better academic performance, increased engagement, and higher student satisfaction. Classroom-related OCB includes making lectures more engaging, giving prompt and detailed feedback, and offering additional office hours. These actions enhance students' understanding and foster a sense of belonging within the academic community (Kagaari & Munene, 2007). For students, this can lead to increased motivation, lower dropout rates, and improved academic results. Support staff and administrators also play a vital role by delivering efficient services, addressing issues proactively, and communicating clearly. Their conscientiousness and politeness help create a student-centered environment, which is key to satisfaction and loyalty (Yadav & Kumar, 2017). Additionally, institutions that promote a strong OCB culture often focus on fairness, emotional support, and inclusion—essential for creating safe, inclusive learning spaces. Such environments encourage higher retention, perseverance, and success among students (Nguni, 2005).

Effects on Faculty Morale and Collegiality

A key internal benefit of OCB in academic environments is its positive impact on faculty morale and camaraderie. It fosters a supportive, collaborative atmosphere that enhances job satisfaction and emotional well-being among faculty. Participating in altruistic and courteous actions helps create a work culture rooted in mutual respect and shared responsibilities (Organ, 1997). Strong collegial bonds are particularly vital in academia, where teaching, research, and administrative tasks rely heavily on teamwork. OCB promotes cooperation by building trust, reciprocity, and common goals (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2000). Supporting colleagues, especially during emotionally or cognitively demanding situations, generates a positive cycle that boosts morale and reduces burnout. Acts of civic virtue and good sportsmanship also mitigate organizational politics and conflicts common in hierarchical, bureaucratic educational settings. Faculty displaying sportsmanship tend to handle challenges calmly, fostering harmony (Podsakoff et al., 2000). In stressful times—such as accreditation, curriculum reforms, or leadership changes—faculty engaging in OCB act as stabilizers, maintaining morale and organizational stability. When faculty feel supported and appreciated for their extra efforts, they remain motivated and committed to their institution (Chen et al., 1998). Elevated faculty morale, in turn, promotes teaching innovation, research output, and active academic engagement, key to thriving in competitive higher education (Organ et al., 2006).

The impact of OCB in academia goes beyond individual acts of kindness, influencing structural, educational, and cultural dimensions. Institutions with frequent OCB tend to operate more efficiently, provide better learning environments, and foster stronger internal cohesion. By encouraging voluntary extra-role behaviours among staff, universities can boost their overall performance while cultivating a community based on empathy, teamwork, and high standards. Recognizing and promoting OCB should be a strategic focus for educational leaders, including developing recognition programs, fostering inclusive leadership, and creating a culture that values volunteer efforts and collegiality. As academic institutions adapt to societal changes and global challenges, OCB remains vital for their sustainability and future success.

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) is widely regarded as a vital component that enhances organizational effectiveness across various sectors, including education. This narrative review identifies several emerging themes from academic research, clarifying how OCB manifests within educational environments. Major themes include the different facets of OCB, the effects of institutional culture and leadership, the influence of contextual factors such as a country's developmental stage, and mixed empirical findings related to faculty engagement and institutional results. Scholarly studies highlight the complex nature of organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB), building on Organ's (1988) core dimensions—altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue. Faculty and staff often perform tasks beyond their roles, such as mentoring, committee work, curriculum design, and supporting events (DiPaola & Hoy, 2005; Kagaari & Munene, 2007). These voluntary actions, which often go unnoticed, significantly enhance institutional cohesion and outcomes, including job satisfaction, commitment, student success, and efficiency (Podsakoff et al., 2000; Somech & Ron, 2007). High OCB levels foster a collaborative environment, improve morale, and reduce staff turnover (Bogler & Somech, 2004). Leadership styles, especially transformational and supportive leadership, influence OCB, with fair, empowering, and communicative leaders encouraging discretionary efforts (Nguni, 2005; Yadav & Kumar, 2017).

While the literature generally underscores the beneficial effects of OCB in academic contexts, it also reveals subtle complexities and contradictions. For example, some research demonstrates a direct link between OCB and organizational performance (Podsakoff et al., 2009), whereas others suggest that excessive OCB could lead to role overload, burnout, and reduced job performance, particularly when expectations become unclear or institutional recognition is absent (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007; Bolino et al., 2010). This indicates a curvilinear or threshold effect, where an overload of OCB might impair both individual and organizational effectiveness. Although OCB often correlates with higher job satisfaction, external pressures like publication quotas and administrative tasks may compel faculty to limit their extra-role activities and concentrate on core responsibilities (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2000). This highlights increasing tension between institutional demands and limited personal resources in higher education. Another emerging issue concerns how OCB is perceived and rewarded: typically, in academia, OCB is not officially recognized during tenure or promotion decisions, which can discourage faculty from engaging in such behaviours (Organ et al., 2006). This institutional oversight can create a gap between expected and actual rewards, especially in resource-limited settings. Additionally, the gender dimension of OCB appears complex. Some studies suggest that female faculty members are more likely to engage in communal behaviours, such as helping and mentoring, types of OCB often undervalued in academic reward systems (Kidder & Parks, 2001). This highlights an important gender-related aspect of OCB in academia that warrants further exploration.

The review emphasises that, although organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) is a well-known concept in academia, its various forms, causes, and impacts differ based on context and may sometimes even conflict. Generally, OCB boosts institutional effectiveness, fosters a positive learning atmosphere, and strengthens collegial bonds. However, overdependence on OCB without sufficient structural support can result in negative consequences such as burnout and inequality. Recognising these complexities is essential for policymakers, administrators, and educational leaders who seek to leverage OCB effectively. Future studies should explore the contextual influences on OCB in greater depth, especially in underrepresented regions, and find ways to sustainably integrate it into academic routines.

1. Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398410
2. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.
3. Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.02.003
4. Bolino, M. C., Klotz, A. C., Turnley, W. H., & Harvey, J. (2010). Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 543–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.644
5. Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., Gilstrap, J. B., & Suazo, M. M. (2010). Citizenship under pressure: What’s a “good soldier” to do? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 835–855. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.635
6. Chen, X. P., Hui, C., & Sego, D. J. (1998). The role of organizational citizenship behavior in turnover: Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 922–931. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.922
7. DiPaola, M. F., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Organizational citizenship behavior in schools and its relationship to school climate. Journal of School Leadership, 11(5), 424–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460101100502
8. DiPaola, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2005). Organizational citizenship of faculty and achievement of high school students. The High School Journal, 88(3), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2005.0002
9. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
10. Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004
11. Ilies, R., Fulmer, I. S., Spitzmuller, M., & Johnson, M. D. (2009). Personality and citizenship behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 945–959. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013329
12. Kagaari, J. R. K., & Munene, J. C. (2007). Engineering lecturers’ competencies and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) at Kyambogo University. Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(9), 706–726. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590710833622
13. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. Wiley.
14. Kidder, D. L., & Parks, J. M. (2001). The good soldier: Who is s/he? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(8), 939–959. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.119
15. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application.
16. Nguni, S. (2005). Transformational leadership in Tanzanian education: A study of the effects of transformational leadership on teachers’ job satisfaction, commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Twente]. https://doi.org/10.3990/1.9789036509849
17. Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 145–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600565746
18. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books.
19. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2
20. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x
21. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Sage Publications.
22. Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual-and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013079
23. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00047-7
24. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698
25. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
26. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653–663. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.653
27. Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in schools: The relationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teachers’ extra-role behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5–6), 649–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00012-3
28. Somech, A., & Ron, I. (2007). Promoting organizational citizenship behavior in schools: The impact of individual and organizational characteristics. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 38–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X06291254
29. Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007). Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination of compulsory extra-role behavior in the workplace. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(3), 377–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-006-9034-5
30. Yadav, R. K., & Kumar, R. (2017). Organizational citizenship behavior in education sector: A review of literature. International Journal of Research in Economics and Social Sciences, 7(10), 190–199.