ICLTIBM 2022 10th International Conference on Leadership, Technology,

Innovation and Business Management 2022

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR AND EMPLOYEE

ENGAGEMENT
Irada Nabiyeva

Azerbaijan State University of Economics UNEC, Baku, Azerbaijan, irada.nabiyeva@unec.edu.az

Abstract
The main object of this paper is to explore Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and its importance in
the work environment. Employee engagement helps to strengthen organizational culture, improves
psychological climate, trust relationships within teams, and creates conditions for responsible attitude to one's
work. New results presented in paper confirm that really engaged employees do not just perform their duties,
but strive to do it as well as possible. Such employess will gladly take on additional obligations if it helps the
company to succeed. Engagement is a physical, emotional and intellectual state when employees tend to
perform the best work and achieve meaningful results. Such people are otherwise called motivated. If
employees share the company’s mission, they work more efficiently. Personnel is the most important
resource of any organization, since only with the assistance of specific people the company realizes its
activities. The principles of Organizational Citizenship Behavior are based on altruism, courtesy and
conscientiousness. Organizational citizenship is an employee’s willingness to go above and beyond in the
workplace by performing positive actions that benefit coworkers (even if they are excluded from the main
production process) and overall business. While writing this paper, the methods of analysis, comparative
analysis, and synthesis, as well as the method of analogy, were used to draw appropriate conclusions.

Keywords: Organization citizenship behavior, Employee engagement, Human resources management

Xülasə

Bu məqalənin əsas məqsədi Təşkilati Vətəndaşlıq Davranışı və onun iş mühitində əhəmiyyətini

araşdırmaqdır. İşçilərin işə cəlb edilməsi təşkilat mədəniyyətinin gücləndirilməsinə kömək edir, psixoloji
iqlimi, komandalar daxilində etimad münasibətlərini yaxşılaşdırır, işçinin öz işinə məsuliyyətli münasibət
üçün şərait yaradır. Məqalədə təqdim olunan yeni nəticələr təsdiqləyir ki, həqiqətən işə cəlb olunan işçilər
sadəcə öz vəzifələrini yerinə yetirmirlər, həm də bunu mümkün qədər yaxşı yerinə yetirməyə çalışırlar. Bu
cür işçi, şirkətin uğur qazanmasına kömək edərsə, məmnuniyyətlə əlavə öhdəliklər götürəcəkdir. Əmək
mühitinə cəlb olunma, işçilərin ən yaxşı işi yerinə yetirməyə və mənalı nəticələr əldə etməyə meylli olduqları
fiziki, emosional və intellektual vəziyyətdir. Belə insanlara başqa cür motivasiyalı deyilir. İşçilər şirkətin
missiyasını bölüşürlərsə, daha səmərəli işləyirlər. Kadrlar hər hansı bir təşkilatın ən vacib resursudur, çünki
şirkət yalnız konkret insanların köməyi ilə öz fəaliyyətini həyata keçirir. Təşkilati Vətəndaşlıq Davranışının
prinsipləri altruizm, nəzakət və vicdanlılığa əsaslanır. Təşkilati vətəndaşlıq, işçinin iş yoldaşlarına (əsas
istehsal prosesindən kənarda olsalar belə) və ümumi biznesə fayda gətirən müsbət davranış vasitəsilə sadəcə
vəzifəyə aid öhdəliklərindən kənara çıxmaq istəyidir. Bu məqaləni yazarkən müvafiq nəticələr çıxarmaq üçün
təhlil, müqayisəli təhlil və sintez üsullarından, eyni zamanda analogiya metodundan istifadə edilmişdir.
Açar sözlər: təşkilatın vətəndaşlıq davranışı, işçilərin cəlb edilməsi, insan resurslarının idarə edilməsi

1. Introduction

The “good soldier” syndrome, or organization citizenship behavior (OCB), is ultimately defined as
extra-role behavior which acts to achieve the organization's objectives.In the same way, dedication to work
may be a part of commitment to the organization for some people, while for others the two concepts are
unrelated. A narrower concept is loyalty to the position itself, as positions are changed, people are promoted
or retrained to do the job that is fundamentally different from the one for which they were hired, or they just
move on to other positions.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4570776

 To be effective and flexible, organizations adapt quickly to ever-changing external conditions,
customer requirements, and market trends—for instance, today companies are entering into long periods of
restructuring, they look for a new strategy, formulate a market mission, change top management and
personnel. The weight of those innovations inevitably falls more on some members of the organization than
on others. To some people, such changes might not seem fair, and they feel that they have a right to
complain; resistance to change slows down the development of the company and deprives it of competitive
advantages. Imagine that the IT department has implemented new technology or new enterprise software to
automate routine, simplify the process of team interaction and make communication with customers more
comfortable, but employees refuse to accept the changes (Dennis W. Organ et al., 2005). Employees need to
realize that innovations can be compatible with team members and will not change their lives much. To
smooth out some rough edges, managers should consider which products within the company need to be
replaced; is it possible to change habits and behavior of employees for the innovation; whether the beliefs of
employees match up with the use of the innovation; or what if the innovation will require additional time and
financial costs. Managers and leaders need to show employees their value, help them achieve personal and
corporate goals on their own, create a positive culture and retain talen (Timothy C., Bruce B.H., 2021)
It must be taken into account that working conditions change over time, with the development of
computer technology, automation in the field of employee management has acquired an important role. Large
corporations are implementing analytics systems, and even small companies are implementing human
resources systems, which are becoming key in developing new processes that will provide a fundamentally
new experience throughout the entire life cycle of an employee (Millner K., 2022).
The first attempts to comprehend human behavior arose in ancient times. Fundamental views on this
issue were outlined in the writings of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and other philosophers in the 4th-5th centuries
BC, who for the first time in the history of European Social Thought posed the problem of interaction of
individual and social environment, the correlation of individualism and collectivism.
The concept of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) was presented by Dennis Organ, who
described it as “discretionary behavior not directly and specifically accepted by a formal reward system…
but as behavior that in combination with groupmates’ behavior results in effectiveness” (Dennis W. Organ,
1988). OCB is discretionary behavior, this means not in line with established functional responsibilities, and
other than the job task described. OCB is performed by employees due to own personal choice. OCB exceeds
in its functionality and implementation the requirements imposed within the framework of functional
responsibilities.

2. Theoretical and conceptual Framework about OCB Issues

2.1 Theoretical Framework of OCB and Factors Affecting Employee Behavior in the Organization
Behaviorism is a philosophy of science based on the assumption that a science of behavior is possible.
Whether any one of the various scientific trends that currently exists should be called the "science of
behavior" is the subject of an ongoing debate. For better or worse, the science of behavior (according to
behaviorists) became known as behavior analysis (Baum, 1994). Skinner (1987) theorizes that it is necessary
to take into account processes within the organism, especially personal states (such as thoughts and feelings),
and suggests that environmental variables control these internal events in the same way that they control
observable behavior.
Some concepts comparable to OCB today can be found in the ideas of previous decades theorists.
Chester Barnard (1938), in “The Functions of the Executive”, referred to so-called informal ways of
cooperation not forming part of the formal administrative structure, he separated management efficiency
from management productivity, insisting that efficiency is possible only when the goals of the enterprise are
understood and accepted by all its employees. So, for the survival and prosperity of the organization, the
desire of all employees involved in the labor process is necessary. Roethlisberger and Dickson (1939)
analyzed Hawthorne's research and came to conclusion that relationships arising within the informal
organization often contribute to functioning of the formal system. Katz & Kahn (1966, 1978), in their
formulation of organizations as open systems, referred to voluntary contributions not specified in job
instructions or managerial directives (Dennis W. Organ, 2017).
OCB has been studied since the late 1970s. Over the past decades, interest in such behavior has
increased significantly. Organizational behavior has been associated with overall organizational efficiency
therefore such type of employee behavior has important implications in the workplace.
In the twentieth century, a huge contribution to the theory of organizational behavior was made by M.
Weber, E. Mayo, D. McGregor and others. In their opinion, a person's behavior is guided by some positive
ideas, intentions, motivations based on understanding the situation.
To explain human behavior in an organization, it is necessary to reveal the factors on the basis of
which employees behave in one way or another.They can be rational or irrational, depending on individual

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4570776

psychological properties of a person. The first type of factors is more predictable for the individual, and
therefore is affected by real organizational goals. (Kartashova L. V, 2015).
We can conclude that a person's behavior in an organization is a result of the action of a large number of
variables (Table 1), both personal and organizational environment. Therefore, managers, in order to
determine ways to improve the efficiency of a person’s labor activity, both individual and collective, need to
take into account the impact of numerous factors.

Table 1. Some of the Most Common Factors That Affect Human Resources in the Organization:

1. First of all, let's name the goals of the organization. Since an employee is a direct part of the organization,
he or she has a certain position, acts in accordance with duties, instructions, or in another way - in conformity
with the goals of the organization.

2. Nature of employees and features of character determine the behavioral attitudes that manifest themselves
over time in different situations.

3.Social norms and stereotypes of behavior are establishing in our society. They arise out of approval or
disapproval from other people for certain actions. An example is the dress code, people should regulate their
appearance based on positions.

4. Needs. From the point of view of organizational behavior, the organization creates such situations where
meeting of the employee needs leads to realization of the organizational goals. That is the way the
organization motivates employees

5. Employee expectations. People have their expectations for results of their behavior based on past
experiences, as well as an assessment of the current situation. If employees do not see that their behavior
leads to achievement of the goals necessary for the organization, they will simply lose interest in work and
generally in labor activities.

6. Perception. Normally, people do not react to facts, most often, they only react to what they perceive as
actually happening. It is not enough to create conditions that encourage employees to work if the manager
wants employees to strive to achieve the goal of the organization. The manager must show employees the
specific relationship between the desired behavior of employees and the satisfaction of their individual needs.

7. Attitude. The point of view gives a biased perception of environment, and this influences the behavior of
people in the organization. Attitude towards work is one of the most important factors that will determine
how people react to changes in working conditions and hours.

8. Position of the individual. We know that a person makes certain efforts to achieve a specific balance. In
simple words, a person tries to take positions that do not contradict each other. As a result, there is a complex
and interconnected structure of attitudes towards something and beliefs, and our behavior is built on their
basis. This structure is difficult to change. This is psychology - a person would rather reject a new idea than
change his or her worldview completely.

9. Selectivity of information. A person listens to that information or only to those people whose opinion
coincides with his or her own, and accordingly rejects information that contradicts his or her opinion. This
process reduces the opportunity for change.

10. Age. As people age, their ability to change diminishes. This happens under the influence of both internal
properties and under the influence of the environment.

2.2 Employee Motivation: Herzberg's Theory

According to Herzberg's two-factor theory, a psychologist and professor of management at the

University of Utah, motivation at work is related to two factors: satisfaction and dissatisfaction, that are
independent of each other. The theory is based on human needs. 200 engineers and accountants from a large
firm described situations when their work brought them special satisfaction and when they particularly

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4570776

disliked it. As a result of experiments, Herzberg came to conclusion that there are two main categories of
factors for assessing the degree of job satisfaction: factors that keep at work and factors that motivate to
work. Herzberg’s works are written primarily about human motivation at work. Dissatisfaction factors are
related to working conditions - hygiene, the minimum that should be. They are related to working conditions
and must be observed as a necessary minimum:
- Payroll policy
- Working conditions
- Salary
- Control system
- Status in the company
- Workplace safety
Herzberg stated that motivation cannot be based solely on the absence of dissatisfaction factors
(hygiene). Motivation factors (satisfaction) according to Herzberg's theory are related to development of a
person at work:
- Realization of capabilities and potential
- Career development
- Autonomy
- Area of responsibility
- Merit recognition
- Interest in work
This means that in order to truly motivate a team, it is necessary to maintain a hygiene minimum and
make sure that each employee is satisfied with the level of payment for work, position in the company and
feels safe in the workplace (Meskon Michael H. et al, 2007).

2.3 Relation Between OCB and Contextual Performance

OCB is often compared to contextual performance. Contextual performance is defined as activities that
employees perform to invest in social and psychological aspects of the organization; it has emerged as an
important factor of employee's job performance. Like OCB, this concept arose in response to realize that just
considering work behaviors related to a particular job ignores a large part in work area. Initially, experts in
this area focused only on activities that directly supported the organization's performance. As the job market
became more aggressive, employees had to go beyond what the job description formally required to stay
competitive. Contextual performance consists of three elements: persistence of enthusiasm, helping others,
rules to openly defend the purpose of the organization. OCB and contextual performance have common
qualities since they both consist of behavior distinct from the one needed to perform the routine working
functions (Borman W., Motowildo S., 1997).

2.4 X and Y Theory in Management Practice

Douglas McGregor proposed theory "X" and theory "Y", considering human motivation from two
opposite sides. Theory X assumes that most people are not interested in responsibility, they work either just
for money or out of fear of some threat, so employees will avoid responsibilities whenever possible. That is
the reason why they should be closely monitored, managers most likely think that rewards and punishments
are the only way to make employees focus on work. The theory X manager generally believes that all
potential employees are looking for benefits, in most cases, managers blame the person first, without raising
the question of whether the system, strategy, or lack of preparation should be blamed. As a result, in
companies based on Theory X, employees cannot express themselves creatively. In many cases, managers do
not understand why high salary, vacation opportunities, bonuses do not lead to motivation in employee, and
the reason is that these factors alone are not enough, as the employee must feel that his or her work is
appreciated. However, having developed the "X" theory, McGregor came to conclusion that such an
understanding of human nature is not true, and management built on this approach does not meet modern
needs. In this way, the theory "Y" was developed, the main postulate of which is that people are not lazy and
irresponsible. This theory proves that people can be self-directed and creative at work with the right
motivation. Theories "X" and "Y" describe people's attitudes and tendencies. A manager should stick to
Theory Y, but at the same time be mindful of Theory X, as some people need to be treated according to
Theory X for a while to help them fulfill themselves and move into the Y category (Douglas McGregor,
1957).

3. Participatory Management. Employee Involvement Programs.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4570776

 The concept of participatory management suggests the involvement of employees in the organizational
management. It is based on the premise that if an employee is interested in participating in intra-company
activities and receives satisfaction from work, then he or she works more productively and efficiently.
American sociologist Rensis Likert founded the theory of participatory management with the aim to attract
employees to the workplace and ultimately made it possible to enjoy work more. Participatory management
allows to link motives, incentives and needs of people working in groups, based on various forms of self-
administration of work collectives. Participation in management motivates a person to perform better, which
affects productivity and quality. By opening access to decision-making on issues of labor activities in the
organization, participatory management, firstly, motivates employees to do job better, and secondly, it
contributes to a greater return and contribution of the personnel to the organizational life. Thus, thanks to
participatory management, the potential of the organization's human resources is more fully utilized.
Participatory management programs represent shared decision making, when subordinates take part in
decision-making together with management, there is a kind of industrial democracy here. This is a
management style that requires cooperation of group members; it aims to build commitment and develop
initiatives within work teams therefore managers should delegate parts of power. In this way employees need
to communicate and collaborate as much as possible to be more productive, such type of communication can
occur either formally through briefings or surveys, or informally through daily consultations.
In fact, to be effective, members should have trust and confidence in their leaders, in many cases, the
reason that employees leave the company is their unfavorable relationship with managers, at the same time
and in turn leaders should avoid coercive techniques in management (Caughron and M. D. Mumford, 2012).
Employee's ability to work in company efficiently depends to some extent on manager. At this time, some
problems are revealed:
- insolvency on providing necessary instructions at an early stage of the crisis situation;
- assuming that all problems are temporary difficulties;
- strict control over the discipline of employees
- making rash decisions due to factors such as stress;
- resulting in high staff turnover, etc.
The most effective management system can be a situational approach. For example, when a company is
newly established, it is more convenient to guide, supervise and give instructions to employees. Strict
supervision of staff with sufficient experience creates obstacles in their activities and does not form
conditions for employees to properly express their capabilities. An experienced manager should always
recognize such skilled or hard-working employees. There also should take place certain fines and disciplinary
actions for maintaining disciplinary rules, and at the same time, incentive bonuses and motivational tools
should be included. Making working conditions favorable for workforce, applying wages according to labor
productivity is also a way to ensure effective functioning of employees.
Participatory management can be a real solution to energize labor collective and build commitment (A.
Pendleton, A. Robinson, 2010). Above all, forming a corporate culture that determines how a company's
employees and management interact and handle outside business transactions is of top importance.
Generally, corporate culture develops organically over the years from the cumulative qualities of people the
company hires.

3.1 E. Mayo Principles and the Hawthorne Experiment

People have long tried to change working conditions in order to get the most out of workers. Scientific
management school (1885-1920) - associated with the name of F.W. Taylor, Frank and Lilia Gilbreth, Henry
Gantt. Based on obtained information, experts changed work operations to eliminate unnecessary, unproductive
actions in the work, thereby trying to increase the efficiency of the work performed. F.W. Taylor developed a
number of methods for scientific labor organization based on the study of worker's movements through timing,
standardization of jobs and labor tools. Having worked in the construction industry for a long time, F. Gilbret
became familiar with the scale of labor inefficiency and understanding the weakness of organizational work,
decided to take a number of steps to eliminate it. He actively used cinematographs, scales, etc., which were
advanced measuring tools for that time. Thus, he believed that national welfare depends on the personal
education of workers, their knowledge and abilities, and their efforts for the development of society.Taylor and
Gilbreth began their careers as common laborers, and this influenced their views.
Representatives of the scientific school of management used scientific analysis to improve labor
productivity.Unlike them, the classics (1920-1950) had extensive work experience as senior managers in large
businesses. Henri Fayol studied management from a functional approach and divided it into planning,
organization, coordination and control. According to Oliver Sheldon, to formulate scientifically based and
accepted principles, it is necessary to prepare the philosophy of management. German sociologist Max Weber

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4570776

claimed that the ideal type of administrative organization is bureaucracy, as strictly formalized character of
bureaucratic relations, clarity of role distribution, personal interest of bureaucrats in achieving organization's
goals lead to timely and quality decisions based on carefully selected and verified information. The management
styles identified by the classical school of management were classified among authoritarian, democratic and
liberal types.
The leader of new forms and methods application in management was the American sociologist and
psychologist Elton Mayo, who later founded the "school of human relations" (1930-1950). He believed that
previous management methods were aimed at achieving financial efficiency, not cooperation. The "human
relations" school was a supporter of a new approach to management, an approach to organizations as a "social
system". It was noted that issues of technological efficiency of production should be studied in connection with
the social factor of the organization. Of course, each worker has unique physiological and material needs, and
their satisfaction becomes easier as the economy develops. At the same time, it is more difficult to satisfy human
social needs - communication, self-realization, recognition and etc.
Elton Mayo led a series of experiments at the western electric plant in Hawthorne (Burganova L. A.,
Savkina E. G., 2007). The results of these experiments significantly changed at that time the ideas about
employee's behavior in organizations. So, the term “Hawthorne” is a term used within several behavioral
management theories and is originally derived from the western electric company’s large factory complex
named Hawthorne works. Starting in 1905 and operating until 1983, Hawthorne works had 45,000 employees
and it produced a wide range of consumer products, Hawthorne factories are well-known for massive output
of telephone equipment and most importantly for its industrial experiments and researches conducted. In
Hawthorn, Elton Mayo conducted several experimental trials. This experiment, consisting of 4 stages, lasted
for a total of 13 years. The experiment began when the company applied to Mayo, after experiencing a high
turnover of personnel.
In phase 1, Mayo found out that communication in a team is an important factor. Research began with
a series of experiments to improve the lighting of workplaces in order to find ways to increase labor
productivity - when the intensity of light was increased, the output also increased. It was concluded that there
is no regular connection between output of workers and illumination in the factory. There must be some other
factor influencing productivity - labor productivity was related to the fact that workers felt special attention to
themselves as participants in the experiment.
In the 2nd stage, Mayo increased length of rest days, lunch break and salary level, i.e. changed working
conditions, and made it possible to achieve more productivity by stimulating motivation of workers. This
phase aimed at knowing not only the impact of illumination on production but also other factors like length
of the working day, rest hours, and some physical conditions. For this purpose a small group of six volunteers
were isolated from the rest of the staff and received increased wages for their work. The female workers were
also given more freedom of communication than was customary in the factory, as a result, a closer
relationship developed between them, they were friendly to each other and were asked to work in a very
informal atmosphere under the supervision of a researcher. The increase in productivity could not be
explained by any change in the physical conditions of work, whether the work was experimental or not.
However, it could be explained by what was called the formation of an organized social group, as well as a
special relationship with the leader of this group.
In the 3rd stage, the motivation factor was discovered to be necessary. The third phase of the
experiment was originally conceived as a simple plan to improve direct management of people and thereby to
make a systematic study of employees' attitudes to work. The plan subsequently grew into a huge program
that consisted of interviews with more than 20,000 employees, researchers interviewed a large number of
workers with regard to their opinions on work, working conditions and supervision. Research confirmed the
importance of social factors at workplace in total work environment, researchers found that efficiency and
status of each employee in the organization depended both on the employee himself or herself and on the
teamwork. To study the influence of colleagues on employee productivity, scientists decided to conduct a
fourth experiment (Elton Mayo, 1945).
In stage 4, Mayo observed a group of workers with mutual interests and came to conclusion that
informal groups have their own rules, for example - workers in the group should not work too much or vice
versa too little, also they should not try to stand out without taking into account interests of other members, it
is very important to help and support each other in the group - all this means that the group has its own rules
of behavior. The fourth phase was conducted by Roethlisberger and Dickson with a view to develop a new
method of observation and obtaining more exact information about social groups within a company. Based
on assumptions of scientific management, researchers have reasonably decided that those workers who work
faster than others and are motivated by the desire to earn more will motivate slower ones to increase output
(Henslin, James M., 2008). In fact, the more skilful workers tended to slow down their pace of work in order
to keep within the framework set by the group. They didn't want to be seen as disruptive to the rhythm or
seen as a threat to the well-being of other members of the group - those workers who tried to produce more

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4570776

than the group norms were isolated, harassed or punished by the group. However, those who were slower
than others actually tried to increase their productivity, as they didn't want the rest of the group to think they
were problematic workers. After the experiment, the production rates of this group were compared with their
earlier production rates, and it was observed that the group evolved its own production norms for each
individual worker.

3.2 Conclusions of the Hawthorne Experiment

The Hawthorne effect is a physiological phenomenon that produced a large number of information for
improving human labor behavior or performance indicators, and we cannot describe every result in detail
here. Here professional assessment of personnel performance – is a modern and efficient look (A.S.Volkov,
2021).The important features of the Hawthorne experiment were given in Table 2.

Table 2. The Important Features of the Hawthorne Experiment

A business organization is basically a social system - it is not just a techno-economic system

A new program aimed at improving job and personal relationships between managers and subordinates is
often successful only at the very beginning. However, after some time, leaders may revert to their old
habits.
The employer can be motivated by psychological and social incentives as his/her behavior is also influenced
by feelings, emotions and attitudes. Therefore economic wants are not the only method to motivate people.
Another important factor in improving labor productivity is the form of control. During the experiment,
managers controlled workers less than usual. Compared to the forms of control usually practiced by
managers, this gave better results. Management should learn to develop co-operative attitudes and not rely
merely on command.
Participation becomes an important instrument in human relations movement. In order to achieve
participation, effective two-way communication network is essential
The original orientation of the Hawthorne experiment came from flawed theories of scientific management.
Just like Taylor and Gilbreth, scientists wanted to find out the extent to which physical factors affect labor
productivity. Subsequently, it turned out that Mayo's great discovery, associated with the Hawthorne
experiment, was that social and psychological factors have a stronger influence on labor productivity than
physical ones, on the condition that the organization of works itself is already sufficiently effective.
High employee morale results in higher output
Thanks largely to behavioral science research rooted in Mayo's experiments, we now have a much clearer
understanding of nature and dynamics of formal and informal groups within the workforce.

4. Employee Engagement as a Key to Company Success

Demonstrating concern for the physical and mental health of company's workers should not just be seen
as a legal duty - there is also a clear business case. This may be a key factor in building trust, improving staff
retention, boosting productivity and paving a way for greater employee engagement. In modern times, human
resources management is one of the most important areas in the activities of many organizations. Earlier, the
main attention was paid to the development and improvement of technical progress, application of advanced
technologies, modification of management structures, now special importance is given to the human factor,
in other words, people determine the essence and effectiveness of business. The implementation of both
strategic goals and any short-term plans requires certain production behavior performed by employees.
Today, human resources are one of the main assets of the company. And in order to effectively manage
a company, it is important not only to plan activities, purchase good equipment and automate business
processes and production, but also competently manage these resources (Business Booster, 2021).The main
goal of the personnel management of the enterprise (organization) is to correctly direct and ensure the
required production behavior of each employee in order to achieve the organization's goals. Human factor as
capitalized resource is treated and valued as a source of income, as a long-term asset of firms and companies,
as its important element. Therefore, in industrially developed countries, labor force has not only become an
object of investment, but also investment in human capital has accelerated, which has led to an increase in the
quality of labor force (Nabiyeva I., 2022). During the Organizational Development era when work was more
monotonous, managers were forced to think about how they could make workers care about their work.
Earlier managers’ motivational arsenal depended heavily on using rewards and punishments, applying direct
social pressure, all of this was extrinsic to work itself. It would likely seem weird to old-school managers to
learn that the key rewards that drive worker engagement today come directly from engagement itself. How

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4570776

can it be possible? People feel good or excited about a task - when they make a judgment, choice and so on,
and their activities result in positive conclusion - it produces a glow of satisfaction (Kenneth W Thomas,
2009). Employee engagement directly affects the competitiveness, reputation and, ultimately, profit. Many
talented employees leave for companies that show a sincere concern for well-being. With record high layoffs,
turnovers and a workforce shortage, today managers are realizing that they need to provide more than standard
wellness programs and benefits to retain key employees.

4.1 Behavior as Reflection of the Internal Environment of the Organization and its Integral Element
The presence of human resources in organizations necessitates communication with the surrounding
contacts - subordinates, colleagues, managers. Within the framework of this communication, employees
implement certain models of behavior, which are understood as a set of rational and irrational actions of
people over a relatively long period of time for adapting to the environment under the influence of personal
and situational factors. In other words, behavior is a system of relations between people that lay within the
normative structure, but at the same time deviate from it (within certain limits) in act of the manifestation of
personal feelings, preferences, sympathy and interests.
Behavior forms the internal environment of the organization and serves as its integral element. In nature
personal factors of behavior are psychological. These factors can be divided into three groups: psychological
properties of the personality, psychological processes, psychological states. Psychological properties of a
person determine the characteristics of behavior and activity peculiar to the person over a long period of life
or even throughout life. Psychological states characterize the functioning of the psyche at the current moment
of time according to the criteria of efficiency, intensity, quality, etc. There are three classes of psychological
processes:
- Cognitive, providing a reflection of the surrounding world (sensations, perceptions, attention, memory,
thinking, imagination);
- Emotional-volitional or processes of mental regulation, providing features of behavior and activity
(experiences, efforts of will, goal setting, decision-making, etc.);
- Communicative, providing interaction of people both in performance of joint actions and in situations of
interpersonal communication (non-verbal and verbal communication).
The ground rules of individual and group behavior of participants are fixed by the organization itself,
establishing the scope of their duties, appropriate rights and powers, degree of liability, business partnership,
common goals, however the rules are also supplemented by informal norms that arise in the process of the
labor collective forming. Subsequently, human resources placed in definite organizational situations
necessarily behave in a different manner than if they were outside the organization. It stems from the fact that
the current organization is starting to have a strong effect on employees and as a result changes their
behavior. In other words, the individual and group behavior of people is largely determined by their inclusion
in the organization. Organizational behavior as a specific kind of behavior in general can be realized at three
levels:
1. Personal level (individual level), at which organizational behavior is caused by such factors as
abilities, character, temperament, moral attitudes etc.
2. Group level, at which organizational behavior is largely influenced by the age, gender, education and
experience of team members, interpersonal relations, etc.
3. Organizational level, at which behavior is influenced by official goals, norms and rules, corporate
culture.
The science of organizational behavior studies relationships of people in an organization and their
regularities, ways to increase efficiency of their activities, make managerial decisions, resolve conflicts, it
also tries to predict actions of people and their groups (main objects) in certain situations, etc. (Vesnin V.R.,
2014).

4.2 Peer Effects in the Workplace

Any organized group, including the labor collective, has formal and informal structures with own
status-role positions. Different members of the group are more or less similar or differ in way they consider
important and acceptable, or is secondary and unacceptable. All this creates a psychological microclimate,
the mood of the group, and members either value it or neglect it and may even quit jobs that are essentially
interesting to them. The most important features of a favorable socio-psychological climate are: trust of
group members to each other; benevolent and businesslike criticism; freeexpressing one's own opinion when
discussing issues relating to the entire team; lack of pressure from managers on subordinates and recognition
of their right to make decisions that are significant for the group, etc. (Andreeva G.N, 2004).
We’ve all experienced peer presssure, and it can be hard to behave any differently than our friends and
coworkers do. Since increasing number of tasks in organizations is performed by groups and teams, the

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4570776

possibilities of such pressure have become an evenmore important ethical issue for managers. Peer pressure
can be a kind of positive force in some ways, let's say, in groups where high effort and productivity serve as
norms, peer pressure from colleagues, direct or indirect, can contribute to high performance. Meanwhile a
group with high standards of ethical behavior, compliance with the Labor Code, internal disciplinary norms,
can also use peer pressure to minimize negative employee behavior. Thus, peer pressure somehow can
promote all types of good behaviors. Nevertheless, peer pressure can also be devastating. It can create a sense
of exclusion in team where members do not go along with group norms and can be very stressful and painful
for people who do not have a common understanding of issues with the rest of the group. In the meantime
peer pressure itself can be an unethical practice that discriminatory influences employees’ behavior and
thoughts. Besides while groups might pressure others into good behavior, they can just as easily sway them
to bad behavior.
So should we use group peer pressure? For a leader, it may be beneficial. In any case behavior should
highlight acceptance and rewarding of positive behavior, rather than rejection and exclusion (N. J. Fast, N.
Halevy, and A. D. Galinsky, 2012). There is also a popular opinion that in order to enhance creativity in
groups, norms should be lost (S. E. Humphrey et al, 2009). Here managers have an optimistic opinion of their
people, and they use a decentralized, participative management style.

4. Conclusion and Discussions

How can paper results be used in practice?

1. First of all, bureaucratic company policies need to be corrected and changed.
2. It is necessary to make sure that managers are not only leaders, but also mentors. Every employee
should be respected and supported.
3. Organizational culture, that is, corporate culture (a set of behavior patterns acquired by the
organization in process of adaptation to external environment and internal integration, which have
shown their effectiveness and are shared by the majority of members of the organization), plays a
very important role here.
4. It’s important to ascertain that the compensations and bonuses are in accordance with the market
standards. If employees are well compensated, why wouldn't they take the initiative?
5. To improve job satisfaction, it’s essential to ensure that workplaces are well-designed and
ergonomically effective.
6. It is also important to delegate responsibilities between employees fairly, count on their
individuality, seriously listen to their opinion and, if necessary, take action and thus let them feel
that they are valued.
Under favorable conditions, people perceive the need to take responsibility for granted, strive to
perform well and prove themselves. People also want to show their intelligence, they have a desire for
creativity and especially appreciate when they are given the opportunity to show their abilities. When
achieving the goals of the organization in which people are interested, people also show self-control. Under
appropriate conditions, the employee not only accepts responsibility, but also strives for it.
The analysis revealed important future study areas. First of all, as in other management studies, the
literature on human resource management is evolving and includes the development of new
techniques.Therefore, the paper suggests future studies to analyze the effect of these concepts during strategy
processes. In addition, many large companies such as the Big Four also provide a fruitful area of research in
managing people by goals and performance. In future studies, the authors could focus on these issues more
deeply. Finally, the relation of employee engagement concepts also provides another future agenda. Future
research may be more focused on finding ways to effectively manage human resources, organize payroll and
social-psychological motivators in the workplace, provide a fair delegation of labor functions, and employee
performance appraisal. Although based on analysis, the paper proposes recommendations for further
research, this study is also limited with investigated papers.

REFERENCES
A. Pendleton and A. Robinson, “Employee Stock Ownership, Involvement, and Productivity: An Interaction-
Base Approach,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 64, no. 1, 2010, P.3–29

Andreeva G.N., Social psychology. M: Aspect Press, 2004

A. S. Volkov, Professional staff appraisal is a modern look, St. Petersburg, 2021, 345 p.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4570776

Baum, W. M. (1994). Understanding behaviorism: Science, behavior, and culture. New York: HarperCollins,
P.3

Borman, W., & Motowildo, S., “Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel
selection research. Human Performance”, 10(2), P.99-109

Business booster / https://bbooster.online/stati/chelovecheskie-resursy.html / Human resources article, 2021

Burganova L. A., Savkina E. G., E. Mayo Management theory. Kazan, 2007

Caughron and M. D. Mumford, “Embedded Leadership: How Do a Leader’s Superiors Impact Middle-
Management Performance?”, 2012, P. 342–53

Dennis W. Organ, Philip M. Podsakoff, Scott Bradley MacKenzie, “Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its
Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences”, SAGE Publications Inc, 2005, P. 32

Dennis W. Organ, “Organizational Citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome”, Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books, 1988, P. 8.

Dennis W. Organ, “Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Recent Trends and Developments”, 2017,
downloaded from www.annualreviews.org / Access provided by University of Reading, P.3

Douglas McGregor Human Side Of Enterprise // Management Review. № 11. 1957. 41-49 pp.

Elton Mayo, “Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization”. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School
of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1945, P. 72

Henslin, James M., “Sociology: a down to earth approach” (9th ed.). Pearson Education., 2008, P. 140

Kartashova L. V. Organizational behavior: Textbook / L. V. Kartashova, T. V. Nikonova, T. O.

Solomanidina. - 2nd ed., M.: Infra-M, 2015, P.383

Kenneth W Thomas, “Intrinsic Motivation at Work: What Really Drives Employee Engagement”, Berrett-
Koehler Publishers, Second edition, 2009, P.241

Meskon Michael H., Albert Michael, Hedouri F. Fundamentals of Management, I. D. Williams, 2007. p.254.

Millner, Khan, The Role of Technology in HR Transformation, p. 77-80, 2022

N. J. Fast, N. Halevy, and A. D. Galinsky, “The Destructive Nature of Power without Status,” Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 48, 2012, P. 391–94.

Nabiyeva I. Collection of lectures on human resource management, UNEC, 2022

S. E. Humphrey, F. P. Morgeson, and M. J. Mannor, “Developing a Theory of the Strategic Core of Teams:
A Role Composition Model of Team Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology 94, no. 1, 2009, P.48–61

Skinner, B. F. (1987). Upon further reflection. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.P.55

Timothy Clark and Bruce Blackstone Hazen,“Business models for teams. How your company works and
what role each employee (really) plays.” , 2021

Vesnin V.R., “Theory of Organization and Organizational Behavior”, Prospekt Publishing House, 2014,
P.20-22

10

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4570776

 11

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4570776