Organisational citizenship behaviours and work motivation of employees in for-profit, public and nonprofit organisations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose:The purpose of the article is to determine the correlation that exists between OCB and work motivation among employees in for-profit, public, and nonprofit organisations.Design/methodology/approach: The cross-sectoral study was conducted in 2022.The sample consisted of employees representing three types of organisations: for-profit, public and nonprofit, one hundred from each type of entity mentioned.The opinions of the respondents were collected using a Google form and by means of a printed version of the survey questionnaire.In the research there were used the 12-item OCB scale developed by Spector.Employee motivation was examined using the WEIMS-PL scale, which is a translated equivalent of the Canadian Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale (WEIMS).Findings: The correlations between the OCB-P subscale (towards people in the organisation) and the WEIMS-PL subscales were mostly positive but only negligible.Stronger correlations were observed between the WEIMS-PL and OCB-O (towards the organisation) subscales, particularly in the for-profit and nonprofit entities.In most cases they were positive and moderate in strength.A strong correlation was found between intrinsic motivation and OCB-O in NPOs and a slightly weaker one in for-profits.In public organisations this correlation was negligible.The correlations between OCB-O and 3 of the 4 subtypes of extrinsic motivation were also stronger in NPOs and for-profits than in public organisations: introjected regulation, identified regulation and integrated regulation. Research limitations/implications:The study was only quantitative and not qualitative, relying solely on respondents' statements.The sample was purposively selected, which means that the results cannot be generalised, and the study only involved Polish organisations, which means that it was embedded in a specific cultural context that should be taken into account when formulating conclusions.In addition, the research was not longitudinal but crosssectional.The results might be different in a longitudinal study.The data were lagged, which does not allow for strong causal inferences.Moreover, the use of questionnaire-based research may have triggered a common method bias.Originality/value: The contribution of this study is that the OCB-WM correlation analysis was carried out in for-profit, public and nonprofit organisations, which has not been done before.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".