CHAPTERONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1         Background of the Study

One of the most important areas of concern amongorganizational theorists and practitioners is organizational effectiveness. Agood mechanism for achieving it is through employees‟ willingness to performtheir duties beyond the formal specifications of job roles, termed extra-roleor discretionary behaviors (Organ, 1990). Increasing number of research onemployee‟s discretionary work behaviors signifies the importance of thisconstruct for the success of organizations. Multiple conceptualizations ofdiscretionary employee work behaviors exist in the literature (e.g., pro-socialorganizational behaviour, extra role behaviour, contextual performance, andorganizational citizenship behaviour [OCB]). Organ‟s (1988) conceptualizationof OCB has received major research attention compared to otherconceptualizations of discretionary employee behaviors (Van Dyne, Cummings,& Parks, 1995).

Organizational citizenshipbehaviors (OCBs) are behaviors that are not mandatory on the employees to carryout, but are helpful to the organization‟s effectiveness and goal attainment(Organ, 1988). In his words, Organ (1988, p. 4) defines organizationalcitizenship behaviour (OCB) as “behaviour that is discretionary, not directlyor explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregatepromotes the efficient functioning of the organization”. Organizationalcitizenship behaviors are usually performed by employees to support theinterests of the organization even though they may not directly lead toemployee

1

benefits (Moorman & Blakely, 1995). However,Organ (1988) acknowledges that OCB could have a beneficial cumulative effectfor an individual employee and that the employee might be considering thelong-term benefits.

Employee OCB also benefitsorganizations directly or indirectly. Direct organizational benefits includevolunteerism, assistance between co-workers, and unusual employee attendance toan important meeting, employee‟s punctuality and active participation in organizationalaffairs (Farh, Podsakoff, & Organ, 1990). Indirect benefits, as Smith,Organ, and Near (1983) stress, include lubricating the social machinery of theorganization. Also Katz (1964) considered such discretionary behaviouressential for strong organizational social systems. He posited that theorganization gains a measure of systemic resiliency from the small, spontaneousacts of selfless sensitivity, cooperation, and uncompensated contribution.

Employees exhibit OCBs in varioussituations. They exhibit OCBs when they help fellow workers who have difficultyin performing their work; when they exhibit endurance and perseverance inperforming their jobs; when they avoid doing things or saying things thattarnish the image of their organization; when they spend extra time to achieveobjectives; when they perform their job beyond requirements; or generally whenthey show extra concern about success of their organizations (Organ, 1988).From these scenarios it is clear that OCB could contribute to organizationalperformance in many ways. Podsakoff, Ahearne, and MacKenzie (1997) argue thatOCB has potential to enhance organizational performance through lubricating thesocial machinery of the organization, reducing friction, and increasingefficiency. OCB may also contribute to organizational success by

2

enhancing co-worker and managerial productivity,promoting better use of scarce resources, improving coordination, strengtheningthe organization‟s ability to attract and retain better employees, reducingvariability of performance, and enabling better adaptation to environmentalchanges (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). Researchdemonstrates that OCB can be an important resource to improve organizationalperformance in complex work environments demanding team oriented work practices(Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006).

In any part of this globe,economic development and social welfare are the ultimate goals of any credibleand legitimate government (Ali, Ali, & Raza, 2011), and therefore,governments are charged with the responsibility of managing the publicresources to ensure social welfare, or generate maximum public good throughtheir established institutions (public utilities). Utility entails all basicinputs required for the proper functioning of the economy and enhancing thestandard of living of the individuals (Ariyo & Jerome, 2004). Utilityservices involve a broad range of activities including water, electricity,transportation and telecommunication. Generally, these services impact greatlyon a country‟s living standards, and overall economic growth. Specifically,they affect capacities of the local industries to produce quality andaffordable products that can compete favourably in the global marketplace. Ithas been reported that the public utility sectors account for 7.1% to 11% ofthe GDP (World Bank, 1994), and the impacts of such services on humandevelopment and enhanced quality of life are just apparently enormous (Ariyo& Jerome, 2004).

However, the Nigerian public utilitieshave been performing abysmally largely due to employee performance relatedproblems. The problem of poor

3

performance among agencies of public utility sectorhas been a subject of considerable discussion (Jerome, 1999). Despite heavyinvestment in capital infrastructures, and high recurrent expenditures,efficient and effective provision of electricity, telephone, water, andtransport services has remained a heinous task to achieve. The Nigerian publicutilities have started to experience decreasing performance since the Nigeria‟soil boom years of the 1970s (Ariyo & Jerome, 2004). In more recent times,the problems in the public utility sectors have unfortunately reached crisisproportions when the Nigeria‟s electricity power system almost collapsed byincreasingly becoming erratic; water taps continuously remaining dry for mostof the time; and the performance of telecommunication and postal servicescontinuously remaining to be very unsatisfactory (Ariyo & Jerome, 2004).The experienced problem of the utility sector has led to negative consequenceson the Nigerian economy causing extremely high costs of operations within thereal sector, and lowering quality of life and well-being of the averageNigerians (Ariyo & Jerome, 2004). The Nigerian public could no longer getservices expeditiously from public sector organizations (Orabuchi, 2005).

In a survey of ten publiccorporations in Nigeria, Echu (2008) identified some striking problems thatindirectly affect employee willingness to perform beyond the contractualagreement (OCB) and employee performance generally, and consequently leading tooverall performance problems of public corporations including public utilitiesin Nigeria. These striking problems include massive fraud, misappropriation of resources,embezzlement and poor accountability. Other striking management relatedproblems affecting employee OCB and performance include the nature of humanresource practices in virtually all the public corporations. As a

4

result of some of these problems, employees becomehighly disenchanted and, therefore, have lost trust and confidence onmanagement of their corporations consequently leading to large scaledissatisfaction among employees. As repercussions, and reflections of the employees‟dissatisfaction, it has currently become a common practice for employees ofNigeria‟s public organizations to spend most part of their working hours doingthings that are not job related and of no value to their jobs (Echu, 2008).Other commonly noticed employee performance related problems include latecoming to work, absenteeism, indiscipline, high labour turnover and generallack of commitment, thus, indicating low performance of employees‟ voluntary behaviours(OCB).

The bulk of the performanceproblems and deficiencies of the Nigerian public sector could moreappropriately be attributed to managerial inefficiencies, and inappropriateleadership approaches. Previous studies have found that the current managementcapabilities to imbibe the culture of commitment, sacrifice, citizenship,discipline, and general motivation among their subordinates are grosslyinadequate to solve performance challenges of various Nigerian organizationsespecially the public utilities (Echu, 2008). Specifically and summarily, thereis a general consensus that the managements of Nigeria‟s public corporationsare by and large inefficient and ineffective (Adamolekun & Ayeni, 1990;Dogarawa, 2011; Esu

&  Inyang, 2009; Okeola &Salami, 2012). Ability of management of public utility sector to effectivelymotivate and sustain positive employee performance might be the most difficultchallenge and crucial responsibility to put the public utility sector in order.However, success in achieving sustained positive employee performance foreffective functioning of Nigerian public utilities is increasingly becoming an

5

eluding challenge considering the diverse workforcewith multi-cultural, religious, ethnic, and sectional backgrounds (Adamolekun& Ayeni, 1990; Echu, 2008).

In 2000, the intractableperformance problem faced by public corporations in Nigeria led to government‟sdecision to think of initial commercialization, and final privatization of thegovernment owned corporations. Till date, none among the Nigeria‟s publicutilities has gone beyond full commercialization. However, officialarrangements for execution of partial privatization programme for the electric,and telecommunication sectors have almost been concluded with a view to desiredperformance, sanity and efficiency. Although process and structural hiccups toperformance can be solved by implementing structural process improvements, orbusiness transformation, stimulating employees to perform at their highestlevel, as well as sustaining performance improvement still remains a fundamentalissue. Indeed, several transformation programs may fail to deliver expectedresults if the basic factors, including inculcating the art of servantleadership within the organization, and development of psychological ownershipfor the organization among employees, that can trigger employees‟ motivation toperform beyond their normal call of duty (OCB) remain neglected.

Servant leadership is aleadership style where a leader places interests of followers‟ over and abovehis/her own interests (Joseph & Winston, 2005). Servant leadership is motivatingto followers/subordinates because it focuses on followers‟ development,community building, authentic leadership, and shared leadership (Laub, 2003;Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008). The best indicator of servantleadership is that followers are more likely to become servants themselves. Onthe other hand, psychological ownership for the organization is a state of mindin which

6

an employee develops possessive feelings for theorganization (Dirks, Cummings, & Pierce, 1996). Psychological ownership forthe organization is found to be significantly related to positive employeeoutcomes especially organizational citizenship behaviors (Van Dyne &Pierce, 2004; VandeWalle, Van Dyne & Kostova, 1995).

The present study is aboutexploring the impact of servant leadership on employee OCBs through themechanism of psychological ownership. Performance of organizational citizenshipbehaviors by employees can be an important panacea for improving performanceand effectiveness in the Nigeria‟s ailing public utility sector organizations.Literature has offered support to the role of OCB in improving effectivefunctioning of organizations (Organ et al.,1988, 2006). Research has also indicated that OCB and counterproductive workbehaviors are significantly negatively correlated (Baker, 2005), which meansthat a person high on OCB scale will not likely exhibit signs of deviantbehaviour that can have negative effect on production, service delivery andindustrial harmony. The ailing or rather ineffective public utility sectororganizations, specifically Power Company (PHCN), Telecommunications Company(NITEL) and Water Board (KSWB) are expected to improve their OCB performancewhen their organizations practice the concept of servant leadership andmotivate development of psychological ownership among their employees.