Diferencias de género en conducta prosocialel comportamiento de ciudadanía organizacional

  1. Dávila de León, María Celeste
  2. Finkelstein, Marcia A.
  3. Castien Maestro, Juan Ignacio
Revista:
Anales de psicología

ISSN: 0212-9728,  1695-2294

Año de publicación: 2011

Volumen: 27

Número: 2

Páginas: 498-506

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDIGITUM editor

Otras publicaciones en: Anales de psicología

Resumen

El comportamiento de ciudadanía organizacional (CCO) alude a las actividades que hacen los empleados y que exceden de los requeri-mientos formales del puesto, contribuyendo al efectivo funcionamiento de la organización. Estas conductas pueden estar dirigidas hacia los compañe-ros o hacia la organización en sí. El objetivo de este trabajo es analizar las diferencias en función del género en el desarrollo de CCO siguiendo la teoría funcional de las motivaciones y el modelo de la identidad de rol. Un total de 974 trabajadores cumplimentaron un cuestionario que evaluaba la frecuencia de estos comportamientos, los motivos para ponerlos en prácti-ca y la identidad de rol desarrollada. Los resultados hallados muestran que las mujeres ponen en práctica con mayor frecuencia CCO dirigido a per-sonas o grupos específicos de la organización, dan una mayor importancia al motivo de valores prosociales, es decir, al deseo de ayudar a los demás y de ser aceptado por ellos, y presentan una mayor identidad de rol como ciudadanas organizacionales que proporcionan ayuda a compañeros. Cuando se analiza el papel predictivo de los motivos y de la identidad de rol sobre CCO apenas se encuentran diferencias entre varones y mujeres. Se analizan los resultados hallados en función de diversas teorías.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Allen, T.D. (2006). Rewarding good citizens: The relationship between citizenship behavior, gender, and organizational rewards. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36 (1), 120-143.
  • Allen, T.D. y Rush, M.C. (2001). La influence of rate gender on ratings of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31 (12), 2561-2587.
  • Ashforth, B.E. y Kreiner, G.E. (1999). How can you do it?: Dirty work and the challenge of construting a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24, 413-434.
  • Ashforth, B.E. y Mael, F.A. (1996). Organizational identity and strategy as a context for the individual. En L.L. Cummings y B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour (pp.413-461). Creenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  • Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communication in Western man. Boston: Beacon Press.
  • Bolino, M.C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers of good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24, 82-98.
  • Borman, W.C. y Motowidlo, S.J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. En N. Schmitt y W.C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp.71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Borman, W.C. y Penner, L.A. (2001). Citizenship performance: Its nature, antecedents, and motives. En B. W. Roberts y R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace (pp. 45-61). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Borman, W.C., White, L.A. y Dorsey, D.W. (1995). Effects of ratee task performance and interpersonal factors on supervisor and peer ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 168-177.
  • Bridges, J.S. (1989). Sex differences in occupational values. Sex Roles, 20 (3/4), 205-211.
  • Callero, P., Howard, J.A. y Piliavin, J.A. (1987). Helping behaviour as role behaviour: Disclosing social structure and history in the analysis of prosocial action. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50 (3), 247-256.
  • Coleman, V.I. y Borman, W.C. (2000). Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 25-44.
  • Dávila, M.C. y Finkelstein, M.A. (2010). Predicting organizational citizenship behavior from functional analysis and role identity perspectivas: Further evidence in Spanish Employees. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13 (1), 276-282.
  • Dovidio, J.F., Piliavin, J.A., Schroeder, D.A., y Penner, L.A. (2006). The social psychology of prosocial behavior. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Eagly, A.H. (1987). Sex differences in social behaviour: A social-role interpretation. Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Eagly, A.H. (2009). The his o hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologyst, 64 (8), 644-658.
  • Eagly, A., Karau, S.J. y Makhijani, M.G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125-145.
  • Facteau, J.D. y Craig, S.B. (2001). Are performance appraisal ratings from different rating sources comparable? Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 215-227.
  • Farrell, S.F. y Finkelstein, L.M. (2007). Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Gender: Expectations and attributions for performance. North American Journal of Psychology, 9 (1), 81-96.
  • Finkelstein, M.A. (2006). Dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior: Motives, motive fulfillment y role identity. Social Behavior and Personality, 34 (6), 603-616.
  • Finkelstein, M.A. y Penner, L.A. (2004). Predicting organizational citizenship behavior: Integrating the functional and role identity approaches. Social Behaviour and Personality, 32 (4), 383-398.
  • Grube, J. y Piliavin, J.A. (2000). Role identity, organizational experiences, and volunteer experiences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1108-1120.
  • Heilman, M.E. y Chen, J.J. (2005). Same Behavior, different consequences: Reactions to men's and women's altruistic citizenship behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (3), 431-441.
  • Inglés, C.J., Benavides, G., Redondo, J., García-Fernández, J.M., Ruiz-Esteban, C., Estévez, C. y Huescar, E. (2009). Conducta prosocial y rendimiento académico en estudiantes españoles de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria. Anales de Psicologia, 25 (1), 93-101.
  • Kart, R. y Waismel-Manor, R. (2005). Organizational citizenship behaviour: What's gender got to do with it? Organization, 12 (6), 889-917.
  • Kidder, D.L. (2002). The influence of gender on the performance of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 28 (5), 629-648.
  • Kidder, D.L. y McLean, J. (2001). The good soldier: Who is s(he)? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 939-959.
  • Lee, K. y Allen, N.J. (2002). Organizacional citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (1)131-142.
  • López-Cabanas, M. y Chacón, F. (1999). Intervención psicosocial y servicios sociales: Un enfoque participativo. Madrid: Editorial Síntesis, S.A.
  • Lovell, S.E., Kahn, A.S., Anton, J., Davison, A., Dowling, E., Post, D. y Mason, C. (1999). Does gender affect the link between organizational citizenship behaviour and performance evaluation? Sex Roles, 41 (5/6), 469-477.
  • MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. y Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behaviour and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons' performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 123-150.
  • MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. y Fetter, R. (1993). The impact of organizational citizenship behaviour on evaluations of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 52, 489-499.
  • Moorman, R.H. & Blakely, G.L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127-142.
  • Morrison, E.W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee's perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543-1567.
  • Motowidlo, S.J. y Van Scotter, J.R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from extrarole performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475-480.
  • Omar, A. y Uribe, H. (2005). Las dimensiones de personalidad como predictores de los comportamientos de ciudadanía organizacional. Estudios de Psicología, 10 (2), 157-166.
  • Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behaviour: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
  • Organ, D.W., Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of actitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48 (4), 775-802.
  • Podsakoff, P.M. y MacKenzie, S.B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 351-363.
  • Podsakoff, P.M., Ahearne, M. y MacKenzie, S.B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behaviour and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262-270.
  • Rioux, S.M. y Penner, L.A. (2001). The causes of organizacional citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (6), 1306-1314.
  • Rudman, L.A. y Glick, P. (1999). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743-762.
  • Spence, J. y Helmreich, R. (1980). Masculine instrumentality and feminine expressiveness: Their relationships with sex role attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 147-163.
  • Tajfel, H. y Turner, J.C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. En S. Worchel y W.G. Austin (Eds.). Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp.7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
  • Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L. y Parks, J.M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (A bridge of muddied waters). Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215-285.
  • Vand Dyne, L. y Ang, S. (1998). Organizational citizenship behavior of contingente workers in Singapore. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 692-703.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet