Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors of Directors: An Integrated Framework of Director Role-Identity and Boardroom Structure

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While directors’ task boundaries are usually ambiguous, some of their activities or behaviors clearly constitute their formal duties, whereas others are usually perceived as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Applying identity theory, we present a theoretical model that demonstrates one of the key drivers for directors to engage in OCB with a focus on their role identity. We argue that an individual director’s role identity is one of the key factors that motivate directors to engage in OCB. Furthermore, we propose that two board-level contingencies, board capital, and informal board hierarchy order, can moderate the effect of directors’ role-identity salience on their OCB. That is, low levels of board capital and directors’ higher positions in a board’s informal hierarchy enhance directors’ motivation to engage in OCB.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See recent job descriptions for non-executive directors advertised on Financial Times and Indeed for companies such as InCommunities and the International Women’s Development Agency (IWDA) (accessed on 5 June 2015).

  2. While the board literature (e.g., Yoshikawa et al., 2014; Zajac and Westphal, 1996) commonly uses the term ‘outside directors’, Higgs Review (2003, p. 6.19) notes that “‘Outside director’ is a term used in the US and elsewhere but it is not widely recognized in the UK”. For the sake of convenience, this study considers outside directors to be both non-executive directors and independent non-executive directors because they are appointed to perform the same director duties.

  3. For instance, according to the UK’s Corporate Governance Code (2014) and Companies Act (2006, Clauses 170–177), the general duties of a director include “to act within powers; to promote the success of the company; to exercise independent judgment; to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence; to avoid conflicts of interest; not to accept benefits from third parties; and to declare interest in proposed transaction or arrangement”.

References

  • AICD. (2011). Position description for a non-executive director. New South Wales, AU: Australian Institute of Company Directors.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgments: A field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 247–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P. D. (1993). Fulfilling the public trust: Ten ways to help nonprofit boards maintain accountability. Washington, DC: National center for Nonprofit Boards.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, B. K., Haynes, K. T., & Zona, F. (2011). Dimensions of CEO-board relations. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1892–1923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, W. O., Helland, E., & Smith, J. K. (2006). Corporate philanthropic practices. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12(5), 855–877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capezio, A., Cui, L., Hu, H. W., & Shields, J. (2014). What governs directors’ monitoring behavior in China? The influence of director social identification, learning goal orientation, and avoidance orientation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(4), 899–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2011). Executive personality, capability cues, and risk taking: How narcissistic CEOs react to their successes and stumbles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(2), 202–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coca-Cola. (2013). Board of directors guidelines on significant corporate governance issues. Atlanta, GA: Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffey, B. S., & Wang, J. (1998). Board diversity and managerial control as predictors of corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(14), 1595–1603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, S. (2012). Mind the expectation gap: The role of a company director. New South Wales, AU: Australian Institute of Company Directors White paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Companies Act. (2006). Companies Act 2006. ‘Chapter 46’. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/pdfs/ukpga_20060046_en.pdf. Accsssed 5 June 2015.

  • Corporate Governance Code. (2014). The UK corporate governance code. London, UK: Financial Reporting Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D. R., & Dalton, C. M. (2011). Integration of micro- and macro-studies in governance research: CEO duality, board composition, and financial performance. Journal of Management, 37(2), 404–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Brio, E. B., Yoshikawa, T., Connelly, C. E., & Tan, W. L. (2013). The effects of CEO trustworthiness on directors’ monitoring and resource provision. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doz, Y. L., & Kosonen, M. (2007). The new deal at the top. Harvard Business Review, 85(6), 98–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A. C. (2003). Not the usual suspects: how to use board process to make boards better. Academy of Management Executive, 17(2), 101–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, D. P., & Milliken, F. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 489–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 310–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golden-Biddle, K., & Rao, H. (1997). Breaches in the boardroom: Organizational identity and conflicts of commitment in a non-profit organization. Organization Science, 8, 593–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., von Werder, A. V., & Zajac, E. J. (2008). New directions in corporate governance research. Organization Science, 19(3), 381–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, K. T., & Hillman, A. (2010). The effect of board capital and CEO power on strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 31(11), 1145–1163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He, J., & Huang, Z. (2011). Board informal hierarchy and firm financial performance: Exploring a tacit structure guiding boardroom interactions. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1119–1139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgs, D. (2003). Review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors. London, UK: The Department of Trade and Industry.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 383–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., Nicholson, G., & Shropshire, C. (2008). Multiple identities, identification and board monitoring and resource provision. Organization Science, 19(3), 441–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M. (2005). Accountability and creating accountability: A framework for exploring behavioural perspectives of corporate governance. British Journal of Management, 16(S1), S65–S79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IWDA. (2015). Position description: Non-executive director. Melbourne, VIC: International Women’s Development Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. G., Schnatterly, K., & Hill, A. D. (2013). Board composition beyond independence: Social capital, human capital, and demographics. Journal of Management, 39(1), 232–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, M., Walters, B. A., & Wright, P. (2008). Board vigilance, director experience, and corporate outcomes. Strategic Management Journal, 29(4), 363–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C. (2008). Clarifying the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviors, gender, and knowledge sharing in workplace organizations in Taiwan. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(3), 241–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C. C., & Peng, T. K. (2010). From organizational citizenship behaviour to team performance: The mediation of group cohesion and collective efficacy. Management and Organization Review, 6(1), 55–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorsch, J. W., & MacIver, E. (1989). Pawns or potentates: The reality of America’s corporate boards. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, K. D. (2007). Modeling role enactment: Linking role theory and social cognition. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 37(4), 379–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 351–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minichilli, A., Zattoni, A., Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2012). Board task performance: An exploration of micro- and macro-level determinants of board effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 193–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1543–1567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D. W. (1990). The subtle significance of job satisfaction. Clinical Laboratory Management Review, 4, 94–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource-dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 262–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for further research. Human Performance, 10(2), 133–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preston, J. B., & Brown, W. A. (2004). Commitment and performance of nonprofit board members. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(2), 221–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rego, A., & Cunha, M. P. E. (2008). Organisational citizenship behaviours and effectiveness: An empirical study in two small insurance companies. The Service Industries Journal, 28(4), 541–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J., McNulty, T., & Stiles, P. (2005). Beyond agency conceptions of the work of the non-executive director: Creating accountability in the boardroom. British Journal of Management, 16(s1), S5–S26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, J. J. (2002). Work values and organizational citizenship behavior: Values that work for employees and organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(1), 123–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serpe, R. T. (1987). Stability and change in self: A structural symbolic interactionist explanation. Social Psychology Quaterly, 50(1), 44–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serpe, R. T., & Stryker, S. (1987). The construction of self and the reconstruction of social relationships. In E. J. Lawler & B. Markovsky (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 4, pp. 41–66). Greenwich, CT: JAI and Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tam, O. K., & Hu, H. W. (2006). Supervisory boards in Chinese corporate governance. In L. S. Ho & R. Ash (Eds.), China, Hong Kong and the world economy: Study on globalization (pp. 327–347). New York, NY: Palgrave-Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, Y., Qian, C., Chen, G., & Shen, R. (2015). How CEO hubris affects corporate social (ir)responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 1338–1357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thoits, P. A. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54(2), 101–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thoits, P. A. (1992). Identity structures and psychological well-being: Gender and marital status comparisons. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(3), 236–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Coffey, B. S. (1992). Board composition and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(10), 771–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wei, Y. (2014). The benefits of organizational citizenship behavior for job performance and the moderating role of human capital. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(7), 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 540–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. J. (2003). Women on corporate boards of directors and their influence on corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 42(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Withers, M. C., Corley, K. G., & Hillman, A. J. (2012). Stay or leave: Director identities and voluntary exit from the board during organizational crisis. Organization Science, 23(3), 835–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoshikawa, T., Zhu, H., & Wang, P. (2014). National governance system, corporate ownership, and roles of outside directors: A corporate governance bundle perspective. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 22(3), 252–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajac, E. J., & Westphal, J. D. (1996). Director reputation, CEO-board power, and the dynamics of board interlocks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 507–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, D. H., & Chen, G. (2014). Narcissism, director selection, and risk-taking spending. Strategic Management Journal. doi:10.1002/smj.2322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, H., & Yoshikawa, T. (2015). Contingent value of director identification: The role of government directors in monitoring and resource provision in an emerging economy. Strategic Management Journal. doi:10.1002/smj.2408.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University, 50 Stamford Road, Singapore, 178899, Singapore

    Toru Yoshikawa

  2. Department of Management & Marketing, University of Melbourne, Level 10, 198 Berkeley St, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia

    Helen Wei Hu

Authors
  1. Toru Yoshikawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helen Wei Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Toru Yoshikawa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yoshikawa, T., Hu, H.W. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors of Directors: An Integrated Framework of Director Role-Identity and Boardroom Structure. J Bus Ethics 143, 99–109 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2808-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2808-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation