Next Article in Journal
Asymmetric and Symmetric Link between Quality of Institutions and Sectorial Foreign Direct Investment Inflow in India: A Fresh Insight Using Simulated Dynamic ARDL Approach
Previous Article in Journal
Progress or Regress? A Systematic Review on Two Decades of Monitoring and Addressing Land Subsidence Hazards in Semarang City
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 24
10.3390/su132413762
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Work Tenure and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors; A Study in Ghanaian Technical Universities

by
Eli Ayawo Atatsi
1,2,*,
Jol Stoffers
2,3,4 and
Ad Kil
5,6
1
Department of Management Sciences, Ho Technical University, Ho P.O. Box HP 217, Volta Region, Ghana
2
Faculty of Management, Open Universiteit of the Netherlands, 6419 AT Heerlen, The Netherlands
3
Research Centre for Employability, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, 6131 MT Sittard, The Netherlands
4
Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA), Maastricht University, 6211 LM Maastricht, The Netherlands
5
Entrepreneurship, Governance and Stewardship Center, Nyenrode Business Universiteit, 3621 BG Breukelen, The Netherlands
6
Research Center, Wittenborg University of Applied Sciences, 7331 VZ Apeldoorn, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(24), 13762; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413762
Submission received: 8 October 2021 / Revised: 29 November 2021 / Accepted: 6 December 2021 / Published: 13 December 2021
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study investigates linear and non-linear associations among work tenure, organizational tenure, and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB), and between leader–member exchange (LMX) and OCBs. A deductive approach was employed to collect data from academics. Using a convenience sample of 364 lecturers from six technical universities in Ghana, stepwise OLS regression analysis suggests that LMX correlates positively with OCBs. The relationship between work tenure and OCB was positive, with longer-tenured employees engaging in more OCBs. The effect of organizational tenure was, however, non-significant. Findings from this study have both theoretical and practical implications. Theoretically, this study adds to the literature on OCBs and LMX, and further enhances the understanding of how tenure in an organization can foster employee productivity. Practicaly, human resource practitioners and managers of higher education institutions can benefit from the findings of this study due to the implicit effects of both work and organizational tenure on workers’ attitudes, behaviors, and performance. This is a novel and pioneering study in an understudied context that examines work tenure, organizational tenure, LMX, and OCB in six public technical universities.

1. Introduction

Organizational and work tenure have important implications for work-related behaviors and performance [1,2,3,4], but the complex association between tenure and job-related outcomes is not fully understood. Meta-analytic evidence suggests that the strength of the positive association between organization commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) decreases as organizational tenure increases [3]. One interpretation of this finding is that the positive association between affective organizational commitment and OCB decreases as the likelihood of human capital accumulation decreases with organizational tenure [3] (p. 534). This argument appears strong, but it contradicts arguments concerning two forms of tenure—organizational and work tenure. The meta-analysis refers to organizational tenure, and yet human capital accumulation is more likely to decline with work tenure than with organizational tenure per se. We address this argument and simultaneously test a non-linear association between both work and organizational tenure and engagement in OCBs.
OCBs are extra-role behaviors that promote performance at work, which is important to organizational survival [5,6]. An employee’s commitment can be necessitated by various factors [7], such as work tenure [8,9,10], associated with human capital. Individuals advance in work life during the occupations through which they acquire knowledge, experience, and skills, which promote their productivity in the job market [3,11,12]. However, two arguments exist regarding OCB and work tenure. Research suggests that, due to long-term acquisition of knowledge and skills, longer-tenured workers are more prone to engage in OCBs [8,13,14]. However, research also suggests that, as work tenure increases, human capital accumulation increases too; however, as tenure goes beyond some age, such accumulation reduces and a gradual loss of performance/OCB results from fatigue, lack of motivation, obsolescence, or experience [3,4,10,15]. Wei corroborates this by arguing that, as workers’ work experience grows, they gain more experiential human capital regarding their jobs than just intelligential human capital, and they are, thus, less likely to engage in helping behaviors, unlike workers with less work experience [12].
The relationship between organizational tenure and OCB can be explained using two theoretical perspectives—social capital and role clarity. Social capital represents the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of the relationships possessed by an individual or a social unit. Social capital, thus, comprises both the network and the assets that may be mobilized through that network [16] (p. 243).
Social capital is, thus, a resource acquired from associations among individuals, organizations, societies, and communities [17]. As workers advance in organizational tenure, their social capital increases, including relational links fostered with people within and outside the organization, encouraging employees to engage people directed OCBs [3,17,18]. The second perspective is role clarity, which informs employees’ knowledge of the expertise required to undertake a job, since workers continually gain better understanding of their job requirements, their competencies, and what constitutes satisfactory performance [19,20]. Employees become familiar with both the inter- and intra-role expectations that are essential to performance while they accumulate organizational tenure [21,22]. Therefore, OCB might be common during early years of employment in an organization but decrease with organizational tenure as role clarity increases due to employees’ adeptness.
Studies on work tenure, organizational tenure, and leader–member exchange (LMX) are of strategic significance to higher education institutions (HEIs) because understanding their associated underpinnings promotes performance and enables HEIs to fulfill their missions [8,9,23,24,25]. Besides training the manpower required for national development [26], HEIs represent assets that build knowledge-based economies [27,28]. Through core functions of teaching, research, and community service [29,30], HEIs promote socioeconomic development through faculty (i.e., a wealth of institutional knowledge) [31,32]. Teaching and community service promote human capital creation and building of social cohesion [33], and research provides knowledge creation, development, innovation, and dissemination [34]. The interdisciplinary nature of these core mandates in facilitating knowledge for development, social cohesion, and effective functioning of faculty has implications for performance and management of HEIs. To accelerate efficient development of faculty to match global trends and remain competitive globally, focus must be on factors and behaviors that influence performance.
In line with this, understanding work tenure/experience, organizational tenure, LMX, and extra role behaviors offer insights into employment relationships to employers [2,35,36,37,38]. Curnalia and Mermer argue that tenure represents an essential component that helps HEIs draw on the expertise, interests, and ideas of lecturers to meet organizational goals and guide change [31]. Empirical studies associate LMX quality with positive employee outcomes [39,40], suggesting that it is important in higher education because it promotes autonomy and citizenship behaviors [24]. Although results are inconsistent regarding the relationship between OCBs and work experience when assessed in American nursing contexts [9]; academics in Tehran universities [41]; moderation by organizational tenure in the relationship between organizational culture and OCBs among Ghanaian bankers [7]; studies of heterogeneous organizations related to LMX and OCB [42]; and a meta-analysis of OCBs, commitment, and organizational tenure [3], no study collectively examines work tenure, organizational tenure, LMX, and OCBs in HEIs.
Although critical to models of work performance and behavior [43], and assessed in most human resource functions [44,45], tenured employees have received little attention in research, resulting in inconclusive evidence regarding how tenure affects performance [4]. Most research assesses tenure either as a moderator or control variable [7,14,46]. Kegans et al. [9] argue that work tenure and experience represents the length of time in an occupation or workforce, with empirical evidence suggesting that tenure influences OCBs [7,47]. Research suggests that OCBs represent a dynamic concept that influence organizational efficiency, effectiveness, and performance positively [9,48]; however, with regards to cultivating a workforce that strives for performance, research has not adequately addressed the relationship between OCB and work tenure, organizational tenure, LMX, and its implications, especially in a Ghanaian higher-education context. Prottas et al. [49] point out the scarcity of research on tenure and its effects on faculty behaviors in HEIs.
In HEIs, tenure and LMX not only have implications for managerial practice [24,35], but play other roles because faculty members are not only expected to impart knowledge, but also generate knowledge by conducting research, developing programs, creating curricula, advising, mentoring, engaging in shared governance [49], and strengthening followers’ (i.e., faculties’) perceptions of job satisfaction and OCBs [24]. Ucanok [38] argues that a comprehension of employee work tenure is necessary to interpret dynamics that underpin OCBs and develop organizational strategies. Defining OCB, Eatough et al. [50] highlight its tendency to improve the social and psychological contexts in which the technical core of an organization operates, and research suggests that, as employees advance in work and organizational life, their social interaction perceptions affect altruistic attitudes and behaviors [2]. Assessing a range of OCBs’ antecedents, researchers have found congruence between attitudinal predictions and citizenship behaviors [51]. The second contribution of this paper is, therefore, to explore the association between LMX and OCBs in an under-studied African context.
Using arguments from Ng and Feldman [3], this study first explores linear and non-linear associations between work and organizational tenure and OCBs, and it then tests the positive association between LMX and OCBs among a sample of technical university lecturers in Ghana. Although research on tenure, climate, culture, and OCBs appears in literature that assesses the Ghanaian banking industry [7,52], tenure is conceptualized as a moderator in such literature. Examining non-linear relationships thus offers both theoretical and practical implications for HEIs. No study assesses this relationship in a Ghanaian higher-education context, and thus the current study makes four contributions to the literature. First, we concurrently test the linear and non-linear association between organizational and work tenure on one hand and OCB, which is a significant contribution since the two types of tenure are substitutions for different concepts in literature. Second, we contribute to literature on work tenure and OCBs in HEIs by assessing whether lecturers’ tenure affects OCBs positively or negatively since it exploits faculty members’ tacit knowledge, skills, and expertise. Third, we add to empirical literature on tenure and OCBs from a Ghanaian higher-education perspective. Four, we examine the positive relationship between LMX and OCB in an understudied milieu. The following part of the paper will be structured as follows: theoretical background, literature review, methodology, results, discussions, and conclusions.

2. Theoretical Background

Social Exchange Theory, OCBs, Tenure, and LMX

Espousing reciprocity is essential to social relationships. The social exchange theory (SET) [53] explains the relationship between OCBs and tenure due to social interactions that occur in organizations [54]. Employees who perceive that they are valued and respected respond positively during exchanges through behaviors. Employees’ attempts to discharge their duties well in organizations are based on reciprocal returns on investments as intrinsic, material, or social rewards, and these mutual exchanges transpire within the social embeddedness of the employment context [55]. Research suggests that, as employees mature in organizational life, they acquire broader and greater knowledge regarding organizational goals and the workplace, which enables them to engage in and facilitate OCBs [14]. In organizations in which supervisors treat employees fairly, social exchange and the norm of reciprocity suggest that employees reciprocate in several ways, including engaging in OCBs [53,56]. Employees similarly assess their social exchange relationships by observing an organization’s equity and sensitivity to employee needs and support; they perceive that social exchange is important and that it informs their attachment to the organization positively [57]. Employees respond to organizational support by engaging in OCBs [58,59]. Therefore, irrespective of work tenure, employees engage in positive social exchanges with supervisors and organizations when they have positive perceptions of the organization.
Tenure also influences employees’ attachment to an organization and a desire to engage in positive behaviors [52], and acquiring firm-specific knowledge [60] and broader knowledge about their work environments that expedite OCBs [14]. Therefore, social exchanges are inherent in an organization, and reciprocal relationships between leaders and subordinates inform an employee’s work tenure in an occupation. SET explains reciprocal exchanges between supervisors and employees [61,62], and LMX reflects the quality relationships that a supervisor cultivates among employees, designed to enhance their performance and benefit both the supervisor and organization [63,64]. Newman et al. [65] and Khan and Malik [42] demonstrate how leadership influences followers by facilitating social exchanges through high-quality LMX between leaders and followers, thus encouraging and enabling followers to reciprocate with OCBs.

3. Literature Review

3.1. OCB

Organ [5] defines OCBs as individual behaviors that are discretionary—i.e., not directly or explicitly recognized by a formal reward system—and aggregately promote effective functioning in an organization (p. 4). OCBs differ from in-role performance because they are not prescribed by job-related behaviors [66]. Mensah and Bawole [67] characterize OCBs as those that make employees engage in extra responsibilities, such as helping coworkers with jobs, encouraging a positive work environment, avoiding conflicts, and participating in organizational activities. OCBs, thus, support the organization by bolstering and maintaining its social system [6,68], which are essential to organizational survival [66].
Despite the role OCBs play in helping organizations attain their goals, most empirical studies on the topic have been conducted in the Americas, Europe, and Asia [22,48]. OCBs have also been assessed among several other organizational variables, such as job satisfaction, leadership, and culture [69], commitment [3], and job insecurity [70]. Although some empirical studies assess OCBs in a Ghanaian context, little attention has been paid to HEIs [23,71]. Toga et al. [72] and Eyupola [73] argue that encouraging OCBs among lecturers as value creators is important in global HEIs. Since organizations rely on employees who engage in OCBs, and since long tenures facilitate OCBs [14], examining the tenure and OCBs of lecturers aids understanding of work tenure and OCB relationships, and adds to OCB literature from a Ghanaian perspective. Organ’s [5] five-factor model of OCB comprises altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue, but a proliferation of OCB research led to lack of consensus regarding the dimensionality of OCB as a construct [74]. We, thus, use Podsakoff et al.’s [75] scale to measure the construct.

3.2. Leader–Member Exchange

Leadership research acknowledges associations whereby people have the ability to influence others to accept new values, attitudes, and goals, and put in effort on behalf of and in pursuance of the same [76]. Based on SET [53], LMX refers to the quality of dyadic relationships (i.e., high or low) that exists between supervisors and their subordinates over time, and the extent of emotional aid and interchange of valued job-related resources [77,78,79]. Employees in the high-quality group are called in-group employees [80], in which exchanges are more social and involve mutual respect, trust, affect, loyalty, and obligation [81,82]. Supervisors, thus, appeal to subordinates’ higher-order social needs to put collective interests before short-term personal fulfillment [77], which aids citizenship behaviors [62]. Low-quality or out-group LMX is based on exchanges related to time and monetary transactions [83]. Khan and Malik [42] and Sun et al. [84] assess banks, information technology, and research and design organizations in Pakistan, and a manufacturing firm in China, finding a positive relationship between LMX and OCB. A relationship between LMX and OCB in a study of faculty members was also found in Turkish universities [85]. Therefore:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
LMX correlates positively with engagement in OCBs.

3.3. Work Tenure

Despite the importance of work tenure during human resources management, research provides inconclusive evidence concerning how job tenure influences or leads to decay in employee performance [4,86]. Tenure has been examined from a variety of perspectives, with research treating job tenure as the length of time in a position [4], length of employment in an organization [87], and overall work experience in an occupation [86]. Empirical research commonly uses it as a control variable to estimate job-related attributes, determine human capital characteristics, and assess effects associated with characteristics of a sample and work outcomes [35,43,87,88,89]. However, work tenure has not been delineated fully from experience because, over time and through training and other organizational contextual factors, employees upgrade their knowledge and skills through experiences across a career [43]. We examine work tenure/experience, referring to accrued number of years an individual has in an occupation or at a job [9]. As tenure increases, employees acquire knowledge, skills, and abilities that enhance performance [90]. Ng and Feldman [14] found a positive relationship between tenure and OCBs, but work tenure might influence employees’ OCBs differently [9,10].
Contradictions are common in the literature regarding short- and long-tenured workers and OCBs. One proposition is that longer-tenured employees have accumulated extensive human capital in their organizations, which helps them engage in more OCBs than younger employees [14]. However, some research suggests that shorter-tenured employees engage in performance behaviors more often than longer-tenured workers do [46], and that longer-tenured employees are disinterested in engaging in OCBs due to a loss of physical and emotional energy [91].

3.4. Organizational Tenure

The growth and success of an organization depend on the performance of its employees, and one aspect of that performance is organizational tenure [87]. Organizational tenure has been defined as the length of time an individual has spent in an organization [92], which develops an affective bond between employee and organization [7] and promotes desirable employee behaviors, such as OCBs, which include employees’ effort to willingly help co-workers. Some research suggests that workers with longer tenures have better performance [92,93]. Organ [5] assesses the importance of OCBs in attaining efficiency, effectiveness, and adaptability in organizations, and Kim [94] reports a relationship between organizational tenure and OCBs.
Given older employees’ attachments to organizations, long-tenured employees have positive attitudes and behaviors that result from the length of time spent in the organization, and acceptance of the organization’s values and policies [95]. Thus, longer-tenured employees dedicate more resources to social-oriented tasks (e.g., helping others and making constructive suggestions) than to other, technically oriented job tasks. Organizational tenure is similarly affected by role clarity—the longer an employee stays with an organization, the more proficient he/she becomes in a work role [20]. We, therefore, argue that once employees become versatile at their job functions, due to accrued organizational tenure, they engage in fewer OCBs, unlike low- and average-tenured employees, who are compelled to engage in OCBs to show their value, or perform OCBs to fulfill needs [96,97]. Yadav and Rangnekar [22] found that role clarity is more significant among longer-tenured employees, and thus:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
The relationship between work and organizational tenure and OCBs is an inverted U-shape, such that the relationship is positive for low to average work tenure and negative for average to high work tenure. This relationship is more prominent for work versus organizational tenure.

4. Methods

A sample was drawn from six public technical Ghanaian universities (the initial six polytechnics converted to technical universities), and we used a quantitative design through self-administered questionnaires and cross-sectional surveys which collect data from academic staff members. Cross-sectional surveys were undertaken to enable large collection of data from a target population within a specified time [98]. This technique was employed to meet the purpose of the research; aid in the study of a homogenous sample; and help the researchers, through statistical deductions, to investigate and describe human behavior through casual associations between variables [98,99]. Convenience sampling was used to collect responses from 498 lecturers, of which 364 were usable during analysis.

Measures

OCBs were measured using Podsakoff et al.’s [75] 24-item instrument, which was scored on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Sample items included “I help others who have heavy workloads” (altruism), “My attendance at work is above the norm” (conscientiousness), “I am a classic ‘squeaky wheel’ that needs greasing” (sportsmanship), “I take steps to try to prevent problems with other employees” (courtesy), and “I attend functions that are not required, but help the company image” (civic virtue). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale was 0.86. Work tenure was measured using respondents’ years of work experience, and organizational tenure was measured using respondents’ average years in the organization. LMX was measured using Graen and Uhl-Bien’s 7-item instrument, which was scored on a 5-point Likert scale [77]. Sample items included “Do you know where you stand with your leader?” and “Do you usually know how satisfied your leader is with what you do?”. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale was 0.85.

5. Results

Correlations among model variables are presented in Table 1.
To test the hypotheses, we used stepwise OLS regression, with OCB as a dependent variable. During the first step, we entered gender, age, and education as control variables to assess main effects of LMX, organizational tenure, and work tenure. During the second step, we entered squared terms for work and organizational tenure. Results of OLS analyses are summarized in Table 2.
Age was the only control variable that had a negative correlation with OCB (β = −0.15, p = 0.03), suggesting that older employees engage in fewer OCBs than younger employees do. Accounting for age effects is critical when estimating tenure effects to disentangle the latter from confounding influences of age. Similar to Ng et al. [100], we did not find an effect of gender on OCB. Shown in Table 2, LMX correlated positively with OCB (β = 0.25, p < 0.0001), supporting H1. Work tenure correlated positively in both Model 1 (β = 0.25, p < 0.001) and Model 2, suggesting that employees with longer work experience engage in more OCBs than employees with shorter work experience do. The correlation between organizational tenure and OCB was non-significant (β = 0.001, p = 0.94), and the quadratic term for work tenure correlated negatively (β = −0.23, p = 0.006, Model 2), suggesting a non-linear association. Since the correlation with work tenure remained positive (β = 0.39, p < 0.0001), we find that the relationship between work tenure and OCB is decreasingly positive; as work tenure increases from low to average, so does employees’ engagement in OCBs; and, as work tenure further increases from average to high, the increase in OCBs is no longer significant, supporting H2. Figure 1 shows this non-linear association.
The quadratic correlation of organizational tenure was marginally significant (β = 0.17, p = 0.05), but in the opposite direction of that hypothesized, suggesting a U-shaped association between organizational tenure and OCB. This finding suggests that, as organizational tenure increases from low to average, employees decrease engagement in OCBs, and as organizational tenure further increases from average to high, engagement in OCBs increase. Figure 2 shows this non-linear relationship.

6. Discussion

Despite implications of organizational tenure and work tenure/experience to OCBs, the complex link between the two is not fully comprehensible. This study simultaneously tests linear and non-linear associations between work and organizational tenure and engagement in OCB, and the relationship of LMX on OCB of technical university lecturers. Findings suggest that LMX correlates with OCB, corroborating extant studies regarding this association [42,78,101]. A positive association between LMX and OCB can be explained using SET [53], which suggests that employees reciprocate with extra-role behaviors when they perceive leaders’ financial, emotional, and social support [42,102]. Given faculty members’ high degrees of expertise and their passion for tasks and issues regarding professional interest, leaders in HEIs should establish high-quality relationships with subordinates to encourage OCBs [24]. Since high-quality LMX promotes emotional support, supervisory feedback, and better decision-making, which deepen employees’ desires for both in- and extra-role behaviors [103], HEI managers should develop policies that encourage high-quality exchanges. This development of high-quality relationships of management with workers irrespective of levels of engagement, thus, becomes infused into the organizational work culture. Senior workers can reciprocate this path charting for the engagement in OCB for all workers.
Findings from the current study corroborate findings from Dirican and Erdil [8] and Kegans et al. [9] regarding the relationship between work experience and OCBs. Results suggest that employees with longer work tenures/experience engage in more OCBs than shorter-tenured employees do, which corroborates Dirican and Erdil [8] but contradicts Sethi [10]. One explanation is that, as people advance through occupations or stay longer in an occupation, they accrue work experiences related to human capital [3,14,104]. Dirican and Erdil [8] suggest that longer-tenured individuals at academic institutions engage in OCBs because they hold high academic ranks and positions, and thus they perceive a sense of belonging to the institution. However, decreased engagement in OCBs as work tenure increases from average to high might be the result of employees not learning much because they acquired adequate knowledge and skills on the job or in the field, or due to fatigue or obsolescence [3,15,105]. Identifying a curvilinear relationship helps managers, stakeholders, and practitioners in HEIs find inflection points during tenure at which lecturers’ citizenship behaviors are likely to change, and thus address them to avoid a downturn. HEI managers should constantly introduce training, seminars, conferences, and workshops that consistently allow academicians to learn new things, especially given constant dynamism related to HEIs globally. OCBs are thus enhanced, developed, and facilitated during all stages of an employee’s tenure. HEI managers should also foster team learning through institutional collaborations, both home and abroad, to give employees, irrespective of tenure, leverage that enhances their human capital [106] and motivates them to engage in OCBs.
The relationship between organizational tenure and OCB can be explained using role clarity and social capital. Role clarity increases with organizational tenure, since such employees simply go through the motions of work, which might account for the decrease in OCBs among low to average tenured employees [22]. However, OCBs increase among longer-tenured employees due to creation of social capital within and outside the organization over the years, which encourages engagement in OCBs, as reflected in the findings. Observing both scales for work and organizational tenure and OCB, it is noteworthy for managers to take a critical look at the points of deflection since it is indicative that workers in such ranges have gained some levels of seniority of the work place. Thus, knowledge, expertise, and other needed resources are required to propel the organization forward with their continuous engagement in OCB. Considering the dynamism associated to workplaces in the global landscape, new technologies, new job descriptions, promotions, or job rotations could be introduced for workers in this segment by managers. This can lead to the continual engagement in OCB. Findings from this study reflect SET because it explains the link between a lecturer’s exchanges with leaders in promoting OCB and responses to OCBs at various levels of their work and organizational tenure.
The negative relationship between age and OCBs among older employees is supported by Wagner and Rush [107] and Smith et al. [108]. One explanation for older employees engaging in fewer OCBs is the choice of whether to offer help as an emotional or affective response, or whether the worth of OCBs has been assimilated as part of their organizational lives, unlike younger employees, who respond to OCBs based on their perceptions of fair treatment [107]. Since longer tenure associates with advanced age, a difference might be evident in the types of performance engagement of older/longer-tenured employees in comparison to younger employees [14].
This study enhances understanding of work tenure, organizational tenure, and LMX in encouraging OCBs, contributing to literature on OCBs, work tenure, organizational tenure, and LMX, especially in HEIs from a Ghanaian perspective. It also suggests how faculty members’ intangible human resources can be maximized in HEIs at fulfilling core mandates of teaching, research, and community service when attention is paid to leadership and tenure. By creating a supportive culture that capitalizes on both human and social capital, and the clear role of faculty and organizational members, managers can encourage employee resources that generate added value for HEIs and other organizations.

6.1. Conclusions

This study appears to be the first to simultaneously examine the linear and non-linear associations among work tenure, organizational tenure, and OCBs on the one hand, and between LMX and OCBs on the other, with the results suggesting the study’s significance to HEI stakeholders. The importance of lecturers, irrespective of tenure, cannot be overemphasized since they affect socioeconomic growth through extension of knowledge, skills, mentorships, and shaping individuals for accelerated national development. Of equal importance are quality leader exchanges, which encourage extra-role behaviors in followers and affect long-term performance.
Theoretically, this research contributes to the literature on OCB and LMX, and broadens the scope of scholarly understanding on the interactions of organizational and work tenure in encouraging OCB.
Findings from the study suggest that HEI managers encourage engagement of employees in citizenship behavior in various ways. Operationalizing work factors, such as work tenure/experience, organizational tenure, and LMX into human resources practices in HEIs, promote OCBs. Managers and stakeholders of HEIs, especially in a Ghanaian context, can use this study as a reference when considering how faculty members contribute to performance, which might direct policies and practices that enhance OCBs among faculty members throughout their work and organizational tenures.

6.2. Limitations and Future Research

This study used cross-sectional, self-report questionnaires to collect data, the results of which might have been influenced by a common method bias. Some participants might not have provided accurate information, but since respondents completed the questionnaires anonymously, it reduced the possibility of biased responses [109]. The questionnaires were administered to technical university lecturers using convenience sampling, and thus findings might not be representative of all higher institutions in Ghana.
We, therefore, recommend including other HEIs in Ghana during future studies. Similarly, future research should use focus groups to assess interrelations between lecturers’ perceptions of work tenure/experience and OCBs to identify other factors that promote or hinder interactions of these variables in facilitating faculty members’ OCBs. This study should be replicated in traditional universities, since they represent models that direct the activities of technical universities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.A.A., J.S. and A.K.; methodology, E.A.A., J.S. and A.K.; software, E.A.A., J.S. and A.K.; validation, E.A.A., J.S. and A.K.; formal analysis, E.A.A., J.S. and A.K.; investigation, E.A.A., J.S. and A.K.; resources, E.A.A., J.S. and A.K.; data curation, E.A.A., J.S. and A.K.; writing—original draft preparation, E.A.A., J.S. and A.K.; writing—review and editing, E.A.A., J.S. and A.K.; visualization, E.A.A.; supervision, E.A.A., J.S. and A.K.; project administration, E.A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Research Ethics Committee) of Ho Technical University Ghana (protocol date: 05/01/2017).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy reasons.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Atatsi, E.; Stoffers, J.; Kil, A. Factors affecting employee performance: A systematic literature review. J. Adv. Manag. Res. 2019, 16, 329–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ng, T.W.H.; Feldman, D.C. Age, work experience, and the psychological contract. J. Organ. Behav. 2009, 30, 1053–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ng, T.W.H.; Feldman, D.C. Affective organizational commitment and citizenship behavior: Linear and non-linear moderating effects of organizational tenure. J. Vocat. Behav. 2011, 79, 528–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ng, T.W.H.; Feldman, D.C. Does longer tenure help or hinder job performance? J. Vocat. Behav. 2013, 83, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Organ, D.W. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome; Lexington Books: Lexington, MA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  6. Organ, D.W. Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Hum. Perf. 1997, 10, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Delle, E.; Kumassey, A.S. The moderating role of organizational tenure in the relationship between organizational culture and organizational citizenship behavior: Empirical evidence from the Ghanaian Banking industry. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. 2013, 5, 73–82. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dirican, A.; Erdil, O. An exploration of academic staff’s organisational citizenship behavior and counter work behaviour in relation to demographic characteristics. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 235, 351–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kegans, L.; McCambey, R.B.; Hammond, H. Organizational citizenship behavior and work experience. Hosp. Top. 2012, 90, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sethi, U.J. Work experience and organizational citizenship behavior: A study of the telecom sector in India. Int. J. Manag. IT Eng. 2019, 9, 115–128. [Google Scholar]
  11. Becker, G. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar]
  12. Wei, Y. The benefits of organizational citizenship behavior for job performance and the moderating role of human capital. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2014, 9, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Hafidz, S.W.M.; Hoesini, S.M.; Fatimah, O. The relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counter work behavior. Asian Soc. Sci. 2012, 8, 32–37. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ng, T.W.H.; Feldman, D.C. Organizational tenure and job performance. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 1220–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bagger, J.; Fontaine, F.; Postel-Vinay, F.; Robin, J.M. Tenure, Experience, Human Capital and Wages: A Tractable Equilibrium Search Model. of Wage Dynamics; Working Paper No. CWP12/14; Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice (CEMMAP): London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Nahapiet, J.; Ghoshal, S. Social capital, intellectual capital and organizational advantage. Acad Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 242–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bolino, M.C.; Turnley, W.H.; Bloodgood, J.M. Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Acad Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 505–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ko, S.-H.; Choi, Y.; Rhee, S.-Y.; Moon, T.W. Social capital and organizational citizenship behavior. Double mechanism of emotional regulation and job engagement. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Barron, A.; Armstrong, M. Out of the box. People Manag. 1998, 23, 38–41. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kauppila, O. So what am I supposed to do? A multi-level examination of role clarity. J. Manag. Stud. 2013, 51, 737–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bauer, T.A.; Bodner, T.; Erdogan, B.; Truxillo, D.M.; Tucker, J.S. Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 707–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Yadav, M.; Rangnekar, S. Role clarity and organizational citizenship behaviour: Does tenure matter? A study on Indian power sector. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2016, 17, 207S–224S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Alabi, G. Understanding the relationship among leadership effectiveness, leader-member interactions and organizational citizenship behavior in higher institutions of learning in Ghana. J. Int. Educ. Res. 2012, 8, 263–278. [Google Scholar]
  24. Power, R.L. Leader-member theory in higher and distance education. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn. 2013, 14, 277–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Wolcott, A.M.; Bowdon, M.A. Leader-member exchange (LMX) and higher education leadership: A relationship building tool for departmental chairs. J. Excel. Coll. Teach. 2017, 28, 43–61. [Google Scholar]
  26. Woldegiorgis, E.T.; Doevenspeck, M. The changing role of higher education in Africa: A historical reflection. High. Educ. Stud. 2013, 3, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Barrett, B. The dual roles of higher education institutions in the knowledge economy. In Globalization and Change in Higher Education; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  28. Olssen, M.; Peters, M.A. Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. J. Educ. Policy 2005, 20, 313–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Benneh, G. Research management in Africa. High. Educ. Policy 2002, 15, 249–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Boohene, R.; Agyapong, D. Centre for Entrepreneurship and Small Enterprises Development. In Entrepreneurship Centres; Maas, G., Jones, P., Eds.; University of Cape Coast: Cape Coast, Ghana, 2017; pp. 125–139. [Google Scholar]
  31. Curnalia, R.M.L.; Mermer, D. Renewing our commitment to tenure, academic freedom, and shared governance to navigate challenges in higher education. Rev. Commun. 2018, 18, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sohn, D.-W.; Kenney, M. Universities, clusters, and innovation systems: The case of Seoul, Korea. World Dev. 2007, 35, 991–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Altbach, P.G. Globalization and the University: Realities in an unequal world. In International Handbook of Higher Education; Forest, J.J.F., Altbach, P.G., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; Volume 18. [Google Scholar]
  34. Atuahene, F. Rethinking the missing mission of higher education: An anatomy of the research challenge of African Universities. J. Asian Afr. Stud. 2011, 46, 321–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Agarwal, U.A.; Bhargava, S. Effects of psychological contract breach on organizational outcomes: Moderating role of tenure and educational Levels. Vikalpa 2013, 38, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Chaurasia, S.; Shukla, A. The influence of leader-member exchange relations on employee engagement and work role performance. Int. J. Organ. Theory Behav. 2013, 16, 465–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gyekye, S.A.; Haybatollahi, M. Organizational citizenship behaviour: An empirical investigation of the impact of age and job satisfaction on Ghanaian industrial workers. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2015, 23, 285–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ucanok, B. The effects of work values, work value congruence and centrality on organizational citizenship behavior. Int. J. Behav. Cogn. Educ. Psychol. Sci. 2009, 1, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  39. Stoffers, J.M.M.; Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M.; Notelaers, G.L.A. Towardsl a moderated mediation model of innovative work behaviour enhancement. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2014, 27, 642–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Stoffers, J.M.M.; Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M.; Schrijver, I. Towards a sustainable model of innovative work behaviors’ enhancement: The mediating role of employability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Jafari, P.; Bidarian, S. The relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 47, 1815–1820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Khan, M.N.; Malik, F.M. My leader’s group is my group. Leader member exchange and employees’ behaviours. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2017, 29, 551–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tesluk, P.E.; Jacobs, R.R. Toward an integrated model of work experience. Pers. Psychol. 1998, 51, 321–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Birasnav, M.; Rangnekar, S. Structure of human capital enhancing human resource management practices in India. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2009, 4, 226–238. [Google Scholar]
  45. Decramer, A.; Smolders, C.; Vanderstraeten, A. Employee performance management culture and system features in higher education: Relationship with employee performance management satisfaction. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2013, 24, 352–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wright, T.A.; Bonett, D.G. The moderating effects of employee tenure on the relation between organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 1183–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Turnipseed, D.; Murkison, G. Good soldiers and their syndrome: Organizational citizenship behavior and the work environment. N. Am. J. Psychol. 2000, 2, 281–303. [Google Scholar]
  48. Organ, D.W. Organizational citizenship behavior: Recent trends and developments. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018, 5, 295–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Prottas, D.J.; Shea-Von Fossen, R.J.; Cleaver, C.M.; Andreassi, J.K. Relationships among faculty perceptions of the tenure process and their commitment and their engagement. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 2017, 9, 242–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Eatough, E.M.; Chang, C.; Miloslavic, S.A.; Johnson, R.E. Relationships of role stressors with organisational citizenship behavior: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 619–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Organ, D.W.; Ryan, K. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Pers. Psychol. 1995, 48, 775–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Agyeman, B.C. Perceived organizational climate and organizational tenure on organizational citizenship behavior: An empirical study among Ghanaian banks. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. 2013, 5, 132–142. [Google Scholar]
  53. Blau, P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar]
  54. Shore, L.M.; Bommer, W.H.; Rao, A.N.; Seo, J. Social and economic exchange in the employment-organization relationship: The moderating role of reciprocation wariness. J. Manag. Psychol. 2009, 24, 701–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Van Emmerik, H.; Sanders, K. Social embeddedness and job performance of tenured and untenured professionals. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2004, 41, 40–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Dulebohn, J.H.; Bommer, W.H.; Liden, R.C.; Brouer, R.; Ferris, G.R. Consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. J. Manag. 2012, 38, 1715–1759. [Google Scholar]
  57. Cardona, P.; Lawrence, B.S.; Bentler, P.M. The influence of social and work exchange relationships on organizational citizenship behavior. Group Organ. Manag. 2004, 29, 219–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rhoades, L.; Eisenberger, R. Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 698–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Shaheen, S.; Bukhari, I.; Adil, A. Moderating role of psychological capital between perceived organizational support and organizational citizenship behavior and its dimensions. Int. J. Res. Stud. Psychol. 2016, 5, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Slaughter, S.A.; Ang, S.; Boh, W.F. Firm-specific human capital and compensation-organizational tenure profiles: An archival analysis of salary data for IT professionals. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2007, 46, 373–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Huang, J.; Wang, L.; Xie, J. Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior: The roles of identification with leader and leader’s reputation. Soc. Behav. Personal. 2014, 42, 1699–1711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ilies, R.; Nahrgang, J.D.; Morgeson, F.P. Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Hapsari, C.; Stoffers, J.; Gunawan, A. The influence of generational diversity management and leader–member exchange on innovative work behaviors mediated by employee engagement. J. Asia-Pac. Bus. 2019, 20, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Karriker, J.H.; Williams, M.L. Organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior: A moderated -mediated model. J. Manag. 2009, 35, 112–138. [Google Scholar]
  65. Newman, A.; Schwarz, G.; Cooper, B.; Sendjaya, S. How servant leadership influences organizational citizenship behavior: The roles of LMX, empowerment, and proactive personality. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 145, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Podsakoff, N.P.; Whiting, S.W.; Podsakoff, P.M.; Blume, B.D. Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 122–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Mensah, J.K.; Bawole, J.N. Testing the mediation effect of person-organisation fit on the relationship between talent management and talented employees’ attitudes. Int. J. Manpow. 2018, 39, 319–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. LePine, J.A.; Erez, A.; Johnson, D.E. The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 52–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Darto, M.; Setyadi, D.; Riadi, S.S.; Hariyadi, S. The effect of transformational leadership, religiosity, job satisfaction, and organizational culture on organizational citizenship behavior and employee performance in the regional offices of national institute of public administration, Republic of Indonesia. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. 2015, 7, 205–219. [Google Scholar]
  70. Lam, F.C.; Liang, J.; Ashford, S.J.; Lee, C. Job insecurity and organizational citizenship behavior: Exploring curvilinear and moderated relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 2015, 100, 499–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dwomoh, G.; Gyamfi, L.A.; Luguterah, A.W. Effect of organizational citizenship behavior on performance of employees of Kumasi Technical University: Moderating role of work overload. J. Manag. Econ. Stud. 2019, 1, 18–34. [Google Scholar]
  72. Toga, R.; Khayundi, D.A.; Mjoli, T.Q. The impact of organizational commitment and demographic variables on organisational citizenship behaviour. Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci. 2014, 5, 643–650. [Google Scholar]
  73. Eyupoglu, S.Z. The organizational citizenship behavior of academic staff in North Cyprus. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2016, 39, 701–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Podsakoff, P.; MacKenzie, S.; Paine, J.; Bachrach, D. Organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. J. Manag. 2000, 26, 513–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Moorman, R.H.; Fetter, R. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadersh. Q. 1990, 1, 107–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hogg, M.A.; Martin, R.; Epitropaki, O.; Mankad, A.; Svensson, A.; Weeden, K.C. Effective leadership in salient groups: Revisiting leader-exchange theory from the perspective of social identity theory of leadership. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2005, 31, 991–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Graen, G.B.; Uhl-Bien, M. Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadersh. Q. 1995, 6, 219–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Han, Y.; Sears, G.; Zhang, H. Revisiting the “give and take” in LMX: Exploring equity sensitivity as a moderator of the influence of LMX on affiliative and change -oriented OCB. Pers. Rev. 2018, 47, 555–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wayne, S.J.; Green, S.A. The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship and impression management behaviour. Hum. Relat. 1993, 46, 1431–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Liden, R.C.; Maslyn, J.M. Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. J. Manag. 1998, 24, 43–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Dansereau, F.; Graen, G.; Haga, W. A vertical dyad approach to leadership within formal organizations. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perf. 1975, 13, 46–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Uhl-Bien, M.; Maslyn, J.M. Reciprocity in manager-subordinate relationship: Components, configurations, and outcomes. J. Manag. 2003, 29, 511–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Graen, G.B.; Scandura, T.A. Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Res. Organ. Behav. 1987, 9, 175–208. [Google Scholar]
  84. Sun, L.Y.; Chow, I.H.S.; Chiu, R.K.; Pan, W. Outcome favorability in the link between leader–member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior: Procedural fairness climate matters. Leadersh. Q. 2013, 24, 215–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Inelmen, K.; Selekler-Goksen, N.; Yildirim-Öktem, Ö. Understanding citizenship behaviour of academics in American- vs Continental European-modeled universities in Turkey. Pers. Rev. 2017, 46, 1142–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. McDaniel, M.A.; Schmidt, F.L.; Hunter, J.E. Job experience correlates of job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 1988, 73, 327–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Steffens, N.K.; Shemla, M.; Wegge, J.; Diestel, S. Organizational tenure and employee performance: A multilevel analysis. Group Organ. Manag. 2014, 39, 664–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Farrell, J.N.; McDaniel, M.A. The stability of validity coefficients over time: Ackerman’s (1988) model and the general aptitude test battery. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 60–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Judge, T.A.; Cable, D.M.; Boudreau, J.W.; Bretz, R.D. An empirical investigation of the predictors of executive career success. Pers. Psychol. 1995, 48, 485–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Sturman, M.C. Searching for the inverted u-shaped relationship between time and performance: Meta-analyses of the experience/performance, tenure/performance, and age/performance relationships. J. Manag. 2003, 29, 609–640. [Google Scholar]
  91. Luthans, F.; Avolio, B.J.; Avey, J.B.; Norman, S.M. Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Pers. Psychol. 2007, 60, 541–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. McEnrue, M.P. Length of experience and the performance of managers in the establishment phase of their careers. Acad. Manag. J. 1988, 31, 175–185. [Google Scholar]
  93. Wagner, J.A., III; Ferris, G.R.; Fandt, P.M.; Wayne, S.J. The organizational tenure-Job involvement relationship: A job-career experience explanation. J. Organ. Behav. 1987, 8, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kim, J. The effects of relative organizational tenure on job performance in the public sector. Public Pers. Manag. 2018, 47, 335–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Schmidt, W.H.; Posner, B.Z. Managerial Values in Perspective; AMA Membership Publications Division, American Management Associations: New York, NY, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  96. Brockner, J. The effects of work layoffs on survivors: Research, theory and practice. Res. Organ. Behav. 1988, 10, 213–255. [Google Scholar]
  97. Zhang, Y.; Liao, J.; Zhao, J. Research in organizational citizenship continuum and its consequences. Front. Bus. Res. China 2011, 5, 364–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Saunders, M.; Lewis, P.; Thornbill, A. Research Methods for Business Students, 6th ed.; Pearson Education Limited: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  99. Etikan, I.; Musa, S.A.; Alkassim, R.S. Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. Am. J. Theor. Appl. Stat. 2016, 5, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Ng, T.W.; Lam, S.S.; Feldman, D.C. Organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior: Do males and females differ? J. Vocat. Behav. 2016, 93, 11–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Waismel-Manor, R.; Tzimer, A.; Berger, E.; Dikstein, E. Two of a kind? Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. The moderating role of leader-member similarity. J. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 40, 167–181. [Google Scholar]
  102. Vidyarthi, P.R.; Liden, R.C.; Anand, S.; Erdogan, B.; Ghosh, S. Where do I stand? Examining the effects of leader-member exchange social comparison in employee work behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 95, 849–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Loi, R.; Ngo, H.; Zhang, L.; Lau, V.P. The interaction between leader-member exchange and perceived job security in predicting employee altruism and work performance. J. Organ. Psychol. 2011, 84, 669–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Mahony, D.M.; Klimchak, M.; Morrel, D.L. The portability of career-long work experience. Propensity to trust as a substitute for valuable work experience. Career Dev. Int. 2012, 17, 606–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Schulz, E.; Chowdhury, S.; Van de Voort, D. Firm productivity moderated link between human capital and compensation: The significance of task-specific human capital. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2013, 52, 423–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Stoffers, J.M.M.; Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. An innovative work behaviour-enhancing employability model moderated by age. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 2018, 42, 143–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Wagner, S.L.; Rush, M.C. Altruistic organizational citizenship behavior: Context, disposition and age. J. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 140, 379–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Smith, C.A.; Organ, D.W.; Near, J.P. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. J. Appl. Psychol. 1983, 68, 653–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Tehseen, S.; Ramayah, T.; Sajilan, S. Testing and controlling for common method variance: A review of available methods. J. Manag. Sci. 2017, 4, 142–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 13762 g001 550
Figure 1. The non-linear association between work tenure and OCBs.
Figure 1. The non-linear association between work tenure and OCBs.
Sustainability 13 13762 g001
Sustainability 13 13762 g002 550
Figure 2. The non-linear association between organizational tenure and OCB.
Figure 2. The non-linear association between organizational tenure and OCB.
Sustainability 13 13762 g002
Table
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations.
MeanSD123456
1. Gender1.800.40–
2. Age2.080.860.077–
3. Education level4.351.79−0.0450.038–
4. LMX01.000.0310.0550.105 *–
5. Work tenure13.787.75−0.0050.705 ***−0.0030.049–
6. Organizational tenure9.735.82−0.0290.558 ***0.0670.0350.651 ***–
7. OCB01.000.0520.0800.101 *0.271 **0.190 **0.147 **
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 2. Results of stepwise regression analyses.
Table 2. Results of stepwise regression analyses.
Model 1 (Control Variables and Main Effects)Model 2 (Quadratic Effects Included)
1. Gender0.01−0.004
2. Age−0.15 *−0.15 *
3. Education0.060.06
4. LMX0.25 ***0.26 ***
5. Work tenure0.25 **0.39 ***
6. Organizational tenure0.07−0.08
7. Work tenure 2 −0.23 **
8. Organization tenure 2 0.17 †
R20.120.14
F change7.58 ***3.79 *
Standardized coefficients reported in the model. R2 variance explained in OCB; Work tenure 2 quadratic for work tenure; Organization tenure 2 quadratic for organizational tenure; † significant variable in an organization, p < 0.10; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Atatsi, E.A.; Stoffers, J.; Kil, A. Work Tenure and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors; A Study in Ghanaian Technical Universities. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13762. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413762

AMA Style

Atatsi EA, Stoffers J, Kil A. Work Tenure and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors; A Study in Ghanaian Technical Universities. Sustainability. 2021; 13(24):13762. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413762

Chicago/Turabian Style

Atatsi, Eli Ayawo, Jol Stoffers, and Ad Kil. 2021. "Work Tenure and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors; A Study in Ghanaian Technical Universities" Sustainability 13, no. 24: 13762. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413762

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop