Antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behavior Among Educators in Language Education for Adult Immigrants in Norway

Abstract

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is discretionary and is neither directly nor explicitly recognized by the formal reward system. OCB promotes the efficient and effective functioning of a school organization. The purpose of this article is to explore the antecedents of OCB among educators of adult immigrants in Norway and to examine the relative impact of these aspects on OCB. The study is rooted in theories that have their focal point in employees’ perceptions of exchange. The methodology involved was a cross-sectional survey of 764 educators. The structural equation analysis indicated that factors such as relational trust between the leader and educators and perceptions of social exchange have a strong positive effect on the educators’ OCB. The article concludes with a discussion of how social practice among educators and school leaders is mobilized for sustained extra-role behavior that is advantageous to the organization.

Keywords

organizational citizenship behavior immigrants adult education social exchange theory

Migration accounts for much of the total population growth in many countries (Guo, 2010). The number of immigrants in several countries has proven to be a challenge for many reasons but is also important as a resource to advance education and economic development. Immigration to Norway in the 1960s was primarily labor immigration. During the past three decades, immigration to Norway has been largely composed of asylum seekers and refugees. To help adult immigrants (between 18 and 55 years of age) to integrate into society, the Norwegian authorities have introduced a training program and have established special schools designed for this purpose. The introduction program is based on two pillars: language acquisition and citizenship education. The providers of education for adult immigrants are organized in immigrant schools around the country. There are no special study programs required to teach adult education; however, 72% of the educators have at least a bachelor degree, and 16% have a master’s degree. The majority of educators has formal pedagogical training, and most are full-time educators who are paid by the municipalities for daytime teaching. Ordinary classroom teaching is most common, but there is no standard way of teaching. Competencies are prescribed in the national curriculum for Norwegian language and social studies for adult immigrants, but the formal curriculum gives no guidance concerning teaching methods. However, a methodological guide has been created. After 2010, a new regulation requires that what was previously a voluntary test in Norwegian be compulsory. This change in tuition reflects a common trend in a number of European countries, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, in which the laws have been tightened for language acquisition by immigrants. Now immigrants have to either pass the test or take a specific citizenship test in order to be granted Norwegian citizenship. Newly arrived refugees and their accompanying families have the right and duty to participate in a full-time introductory program. The municipalities are responsible for offering tuition in accordance with the law.

The immigrant populations of Norway and many other countries are quite diverse groups, consisting of individuals with a range of education levels. Many immigrants face cultural and linguistic barriers to participate in educational activities. It may be a challenge in Norway and other European countries (Andersson & Osman, 2008; Mattheoudakis, 2005) to motivate groups of immigrants with little previous education and to give them a boost in their host-country language acquisition, which should help them adjust to a new culture and society. Immigrant students are potentially vulnerable to difficulties, such as perceiving themselves as peripheral participants in the community and experiencing academic difficulties, which can undermine their feelings of legitimacy at times (O’Donnell & Tobbell, 2007). Therefore, adult educators need to act in accordance with organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Ho and Yip (2003) developed a similar adult education argument, “The morale of teachers in a country can seriously affect the quality of education” (p. 534).

It is seen as useful for society that educators develop goodwill and loyalty toward the school in which they teach, and therefore, OCB is a central factor in the improvement of immigrant education. OCB has been defined as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006, p. 3). OCB is related to the concept of social capital (i.e., social networks that facilitate individual or collective action; Coleman, 1988).

The country we analyze, Norway, belongs to a generous welfare state of the Nordic social-democratic type (Esping-Andersen, 1990), which offers a state-funded, 2-year program for newly arrived immigrants. Adult immigrants’ host-country language education is supplied by immigrant schools in Norwegian municipalities. Successful schools have educators who freely give their time and energy to perform OCB. Educators play a significant role in adults’ learning (Rogers & Horrocks, 2010) and are a linchpin in the education policies for immigrants (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2010).

Tests and administrative governance are, however, now introduced in the adult education sector in Norway. As mentioned, adult education is currently under political pressure. The media have strongly criticized the immigrant school sector. For instance, Johansen (2009) reported the following:

In 2003, 12,800 adult immigrants arrived and still live in Norway. Five years later, only 30.6% of them have taken and passed a verbal test in Norwegian. In written tests the results are even worse: Only 23.2% of the immigrants who came in 2003 have passed a test in written Norwegian. (p. 7)

The newspaper referred to the contents of a report from the Office of the Auditor General (OAGN, 2008) that criticized the ministries and their external directorates and the local councils. Aftenposten (2009) has reported that the education of immigrants has not been adequate. According to the newspaper, the “local authorities do not know when students begin, when they finish or what they are able to do,” and there is “appalling financial management” (p. 4). Many immigrants give up and then start again, so there is a high dropout rate.

Prominent politicians claim that the government guidelines are unclear and that the sector is poorly organized. However, the challenges educators face are so complex that the outlook for bureaucratic control and incentive management is not hopeful (O’Day, 2002). It is difficult to control adult educators’ performance in a similar manner to our control of manual workers’ performance. For this reason, it is important that educators are motivated to go above and beyond their formal job responsibilities. The purpose of this study is to explore the antecedents of OCB among adult educators and examine the relative impact of these aspects. The present study explores organizational factors influencing OCB. This is important because “cultural context may affect the forms of citizenship behavior observed in organizations” (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bacharach, 2000, p. 556). This study advances the understanding of adult education practices.

Although OCB has generated considerable scholarly attention, research on OCB has rarely focused on adult education. However, Ho and Yip (2003) made a similar argument. Developing citizenship and teacher training are important to adult education (Martin, 2003). DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran (2001) used the OCB approach in a study of compulsory schools. In our study, the concept of OCB is applied to adult education. As little management research has been conducted on adult immigrant education, and as immigrants’ education differs from other forms of education in significant respects, providing new knowledge of how educators perceive their own teaching role is a challenge. First, we outline the background. Second, we introduce the theoretical framework for analyzing the antecedents of OCB. Third, we analyze the data from a cross-sectional survey of 764 educators from immigrant schools in Norway. Fourth, we discuss the results, implications for practice, and directions for future research.

Background

In the parliamentary political debates of the 1990s about schooling and management in the school sector, divisions arose between political parties (Koritzinsky, 2000). The progressive-pedagogic philosophy thrived in sections of the political landscape and in educational practice. A progressive philosophy of adult education (Elias & Merriam, 1995) was dominant. This philosophy was that personal growth in the learning process occurs best on the learner’s own terms. The authorities resolved, for instance, to compel all schools to use project-based work to a more or less significant extent.

Relatively flexible requirements were at the core of Norwegian policy host-language education, and project work was highlighted as a good approach. The educational policies of the 1990s introduced stronger student rights. These included reinforced rights for immigrants within the educational system, whereas at the same time the requirements being made of immigrants were still relatively flexible.

During the past few years, a new educational discourse has been established for assessing education in Norway. Specifically, this change occurred in the wake of the publication of declining Norwegian results from international comparative surveys of the educational school systems in different countries. The solution to the quality problems in Norwegian education was a series of education reforms, which included adult education. As mentioned, the media have strongly criticized the immigrant education sector, asserting that the results have not been satisfactory.

The new direction in education policies with respect to the school system has influenced political methodology in relation to training opportunities for adult immigrants. New public management tools were introduced in the end of the 2000s, including language tests, and a new openness about individual schools’ test results were expected. This policy is somewhat aligned with a behaviorist philosophy of adult education, which emphasizes shaping desired behavior via measureable outcomes and criterion-referenced assessment (Elias & Merriam, 1995). Adult educators were expected to set higher expectations and put more pressure on immigrants as part of the ambition of improving outcomes among immigrants.

When the state spends significant resources on the teaching of adult immigrants, some politicians say that it may be seen as reasonable to make certain demands of immigrants—demands that involve individual limitations and consequences. In Norway, host-country language education is a right and a duty for all immigrants with legal residence. Newly arrived refugees and their accompanying families between 18 and 55 years of age have the right to participate in a full-time program. Immigrants are obliged to document their host-country studies or skills in order to gain a permanent residency permit.

The responsibility for quality schooling has been delegated to the local authorities, but the extent to which local authorities have been able to relate to this type of delegated responsibility has varied. To ensure quality in the work of the school and to ensure compliance with national regulations, “it is necessary for school governing bodies to be subjected to supervision and control” (Ministry of Education, 2008, p. 47). An increasing level of bureaucratic control in the Norwegian adult education sector includes the following:

Control of adult education schools, educators, and test results. This means more centralized control via evaluations carried out by assessment systems.

Clear standards are set against which performance is measured. There must be an increased pressure for positive outcomes. The system of national assessment will contribute to more reliable and valid assessment.

Leaders are to be held accountable for the results attained at immigrant schools. Publication of the host-country language test results will contribute to transparency.

Firm connections are established between leaders and the educators’ practices where these connections are loose at present. Control systems are put in place to ensure that schools follow legal requirements. Furthermore, an expert guidance group can be sent out to the schools to contribute to improvements.

Primary processes in schools for immigrant training are, however, hard to pin down despite attempts to measure the central aspects of the processes and outputs. For this very reason, it is important that educators are motivated to go above and beyond their formal job responsibilities.

Theoretical Framework

Social exchange theory is a possible theoretical explanation for OCB (Shore, Bommer, Rao, & Seo, 2009). Almost all aspects of life can be conceptualized in terms of exchanges (Homans, 1961). Shore, Tetrick, Lynch, and Barksdale (2006) made a distinction between economic exchange and social exchange. In this article, we hypothesize that both types of exchange perceptions exist concurrently in educational organizations. The study examines a model of perceived recognition from society, clear leadership, and relational building among employer–employee as antecedents and OCB as a consequence of employee–employer exchange. We focus on exchange concepts as mediating variables between leaders’ influences and educators’ engagement in activities directed toward helping their students. In doing so, we integrate two strands of research on employee–organization relationships (EOR) that have their focal point on employees’ perceptions of exchange: literature on EOR (Shore et al., 2009) and theory on trust in schools (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Both theoretical strands are rooted in Blau’s theoretical framework (Blau, 1986) and suggest that perceptions of social exchange may be an important determinant of employee behavior. Social exchange implies that educators perceive that they are treated favorably by their leader and feel a commitment to return the positive behavior in their teaching. Our study is designed to address whether Bryk and Schneider’s concept of leader–educator relationships and EOR concepts of exchanges are distinct constructs.

As previously mentioned, it is seen as useful for society that educators develop goodwill and loyalty toward the school in which they teach, and therefore, OCB is a central factor in school improvement. A premise in our theoretical approach is that quality development depends on school employees being able to identify with, involve themselves in, and engage themselves on behalf of their school and, for instance, demonstrating effective administrative management. When employees do this, they tend to work harder, more responsibly, and smarter (Pfeffer & Veiga, 1999), possibly leading to higher task performance. This argument is in line with commitment-centered systems for handling human resources in different kinds of public and private organizations (Kuvaas, 2008).

Studies on OCB have, to some degree, dealt with adult educators; however, the literature on primary and secondary school teachers is evolving. Somech and Bogler (2002) showed that teacher commitment was positively related to OCB. We hypothesize that teacher commitment is a mediating variable between managerial factors and OCB (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Furthermore, Bragger, Rodriguez-Srednicki, Kutcher, Indovino, and Rosner (2005) investigated how OCB among teachers was positively related to work–staff culture, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Work–staff culture predicts both commitment and OCB, but commitment does not mediate the relationship between work–staff culture and OCB.

A foundation of the EOR literature is that “employees develop exchanges for socio-emotional and economic reasons, and that the type of exchange relationship can predict employee motivation, attitudes and behavior in relation to the employer” (Kuvaas and Dysvik, 2009, p. 3500). Social exchange theory emphasizes personal associations on the part of both educators and students. Shore et al. (2006, p. 858) found support for the idea that social exchange and economic exchange “can operate relatively independently.” The significance of these two forms of motivation is an empirical question that we explored in this study. As previously mentioned, the primary processes in the school are hard to pin down despite attempts to measure the central aspects of the processes (e.g., student surveys) and the output measures (e.g., test results, exams, and value-added indicators). As such, it is important that educators are motivated to make an effort on behalf of the school during the course of their professional practice. OCB is the dependent variable in our hypothesized structural model, and social exchange is regarded as a significant prerequisite for OCB (Organ et al., 2006).

Schools for immigrant training are special organizational cases, because educators often act in insularity in their main work of teaching students and evaluating their work. An egg-crate structure of schooling with its separate and isolated classrooms is a characteristic of educators’ work conditions (Lortie, 1976). Their work situations are quite different when compared with careers that demand a high degree of immediate and direct interaction with colleagues during the course of work. Therefore, we argue that adult educators are of particular interest for research.

Schools for immigrant training are “loosely coupled” as organizations (Weick, 1976), and the employers have only partial oversight over their employees’ actions. Much of the educators’ work can take the form of hidden actions. In the absence of available information about educators’ effort and effectiveness, employers have to take into account sometimes unreliable and not easily interpretable indicators about educator performance: students’ test results, examination results, and information about presence in the school and classroom. In occupations based on performance-related pay (e.g., stock brokers, real estate agents), this control type of analysis perspective can contribute to a better understanding of workers’ actions, because the economic exchange is primarily a matter of the financial aspects (pay for performance) and the connection between effort and result is easily measurable (Laffont & Martimort, 2001). Actions can rest on self-interest and can thereby be understood as economic exchanges in which the rational decision taker makes a measured and coolly considered contribution based on the incentives enjoyed by the employee, for instance, an acceptable, but not superior, level of performance. Little research has been done on adult educators’ perceptions of social and economic exchanges. In this study, we explore social exchange, which means the “socio-emotional aspects of the employment relationship (i.e., feelings of obligation and trust”; Shore et al., 2006, p. 839. These aspects are not incorporated in economic exchanges. Trust is viewed as the basis of the relationship underlying social exchanges that entail unspecified obligations, such as when an individual does another party a favor and there is an expectation of some future accommodation (Blau, 1986).

Somech (2007) examined how schools are powerful suppliers of norms to their educators, and exchange relationships (and collective values) that form within schools may partly determine the level of OCB in schools. Organ et al. (2006) found that social exchange was the best explanation for OCB. Shore et al. (2006), Shore et al. (2009), and Kuvaas and Dysvik (2009) tested models that incorporated social and economic exchange and found evidence that social exchange was associated with higher elements of OCB among aerospace employees, business administration students, and temporary employees. We hypothesize, therefore, that social exchange will be positively related to OCB among educators.

In addition, leadership, administration, and management are factors that can influence social exchange and economic exchange (Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey, & Toth, 1997). Studies on educational leadership’s influence on learners’ attainment yield results that stand in contrast to more analytical studies of leadership. Meta-analyses (see, e.g., Hattie, 2009) indicate that leadership has only a small effect. On the other hand, more analytical studies (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008) show interesting results on the influences of leadership (Leithwood & Riehl, 2005). A leader’s articulation of strategic declarations can influence educators by affecting their expectations. When a leader influences an educator’s decision via his or her perception of conditional consequences, then this kind of clear leadership works through shifting the educators’ expectations (Schelling, 2006). However, clear leadership may also be persuasive and involve feelings of obligation (social exchange). Therefore, we hypothesize that clear expectations function as an antecedent to social exchange and economic exchange. Kuvaas and Dysvik (2009) examined the path between economic exchange and OCB among temporary employees (not educators) and found the path coefficient to be approximately zero. Thus, perceptions of economic exchange among educators are also expected to be unrelated to OCB. One exploratory question, then, is the following: “Does clear leadership—mediated by exchanges—influence OCB?” Another exploratory question is, “Does perceived support by society influence social exchange and teacher commitment, and thereof, OCB?”

Relational trust between leader and educators (also named leader–educator relation) culminates in social exchanges within the leader–educator role set (Bryk & Schneider, 2002), which catalyzes what we, in this article, call OCB among educators: “Principals play a key role in developing and sustaining relational trust” (Bryk & Schneider, 2002, p. 137), and “relational trust lubricates the necessary social exchanges among school professionals” (Bryk & Schneider, 2002, p. 123). We hypothesize that leader–educator trust is positively related to perceptions of social exchange.

Figure 1 presents the hypothetical model tested in this study. The model is rooted in a combination of Bryk and Schneider’s theory on trust in schools and literature on employee–organization relationships (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Leadership and relational building represent antecedents in the model, while social and economic exchange represents mediating variables. Our hypothetical model predicts that educators’ OCBs will be positively related to immigrant learners’ host-country language acquisition, building on previous studies such as that by DiPaola and Hoy (2005), who found a significant relationship between the faculty’s organizational citizenship behavior and student achievement on standardized tests. The inference we draw is that it is plausible that higher OCB may induce higher host-country language acquisition. However, it was not possible to measure the link between OCB and host-country language acquisition explicitly in the present study, because Norwegian law honors promises of full anonymity. We suggest, however, including explicit measures of learning outcomes in future studies, if possible.

Figure 1.

Hypothesized model

Method

The electronic survey was sent to 1,721 adult educators in Norway (all known by the Norwegian Agency for lifelong learning). The survey was implemented in 2010. A total of 764 responded, and the final sample consisted of 719 educators after respondents with more than 40% missing values on items within each scale were excluded. The response rate among educators in the survey was 44% of the total number of educators working in the immigrant schools.

A questionnaire must exhibit acceptable psychometric properties within the constraints of attitude measurement (Blunch, 2008). We selected items that appeared to tap the key facets of the concepts used in Figure 1. If the selected items measure the same unidimensional construct, the Cronbach alpha coefficient is the adequate reliability coefficient. The alpha generally increases as the intercorrelations among test items increase and is thus a measure of internal consistency reliability. Alpha values above .70 are commonly regarded as satisfactory.

Some items were taken from previous studies (Shore et al., 2006; Van Dyne & Lepine, 1998; Bryk & Schneider, 2002). Others were developed specifically for this study. The educators responded to items on a 7-point Likert-type scale between the categories strongly disagree and strongly agree, where alternative 4 represents a neutral midpoint. The electronic survey was distributed to the individual adult educators via the principals, who distributed the necessary instructions to their educators. Educators answered an electronic questionnaire comprising 70 self-report, Likert-style, and randomly ordered questions (normally within 20 minutes). The response data were exported electronically into the statistical program SPSS; that is, the procedures did not introduce error due to manual entering of data.

Dependent Variable

A measure of OCB (Van Dyne & Lepine, 1998) was adapted to a school context. The selected items were as follows: “Educators in this school share their knowledge and discuss students’ delivered work with other educators,” “I always do more in my job than is expected,” and “Educators in this school make a conscious effort to coordinate their teaching.”

Mediating Variables

We used social exchange and economic exchange measures developed by Shore et al. (2006) and selected three items from each measure. The items of economic exchange were as follows: “My relationship with my organization is strictly an economic one: I work and they pay me,” “My efforts are equal to the amount of pay and benefits I receive,” and “I watch very carefully what I get from my organization, relative to what I contribute.” The items of social exchange were as follows: “My relationship to the organization is based on mutual courtesy,” “I try to look out for the best interests of the organization because I can rely on my organization to take care of me,” and “My relationship to my organization is based on mutual trust; sometimes I give more than I receive, and sometimes I receive more than I give.” In addition, a construct measuring teacher commitment was used as a mediating variable. The items were as follows: “I feel loyalty to this school,” “I wouldn’t want to work in any other school,” and “This school means much for me personally” (Bryk & Schneider, 2002).

Independent Variables

Bryk and Schneider’s (2002) educator–leader relationships construct was used. The items were as follows: “In this school, it is OK to discuss feelings, concerns, and frustrations with the head,” “I trust the head at his or her word,” and “The head expresses a personal interest in educator professional development.” Furthermore, we developed a construct called clear leadership. The items were as follows: “Communication with the head helps me to understand what is expected of me in order that the school can achieve its goals,” “The head helps me to understand what is expected of me,” and “The head helps me to understand this school’s goals.” Furthermore, we developed a construct called perceived support from society. The items were as follows: “As a teacher, I feel truly valued by society,” “Teachers are too little recognized today” (reversed), and “The status of teachers in our society is too low” (reversed).

Repeated confirmatory factor analysis was used to identify the best indicators for the different constructs. Based on the factor analysis, items that did not meet our criteria were removed. Three items for each construct, as mentioned above, were used to operationalize the latent variable. Structural equation modeling (Blunch, 2008; Kline, 2005) is of central importance as a method for analysis of survey data. The structural model was analyzed using AMOS 18.

Results

Before testing the hypothesized model, we first investigated the measurement model. The fit statistics were at acceptable levels. Based on the results in the measurement model, we proceeded in our analysis of the structural model (see Figure 2). The main focus of the structure model is the influences of independent and mediating variables on OCB. The internal consistency was considered acceptable.

Figure 2.

A structural model (N = 719)

The Structural Model

The main focus of the structure model was the influences of independent and mediating variables on OCB. Because the concepts were measured using sets of indicators (Table 1), confirmatory factor analyses were used to assess the measurement and structure models. The assessments are based on the p value for the chi-square statistic, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), normed fit index (NFI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and comparative fit index (CFI). The standard criteria p > .05; NFI, GFI, and CFI > .95; and RMSEA < .05 were used for a good fit, and the criteria p > .05, GFI and CFI > .90, and RMSEA < .08 for acceptable fit between the model and the data (Blunch, 2008; Kline, 2005). According to these criteria and the values RMSEA = .048, p < .00, GFI = .943, and CFI = .965, the structure model provided an acceptable fit to the data (see Figure 2). Table 1 shows estimated effect components for the structural model with OCB as dependent variable.

Table 1.

Estimated Effect Components for the Structural Model with OCB as Dependent Variable

	Correlation	Total effect	Direct effect	Indirect effect	Spurious effect
Support	−.293	−.293	−.205	−.088
Leadership	.232	.019	.000	.019
Trust	.289	.274	.000	.274
Commitment	.475	.426	.426	.000	.049
Social exchange	.326	−.041	−.041	.000	.367
Economic exchange	−.283	−.182	−.182	.000	−.101

Note. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior. R²(OCB) = .30.

Discussion

This article contributes to social exchange research by including the adult educator profession as a new context of study. In our study, we replicated findings among another type of employee and expanded the analysis of antecedents. This article also contributes to adult education research, as the OCB approach is seldom used in the adult education literature. We have assumed that perceptions of exchange may mediate the relationship between the leader and OCB.

The most important purpose of this study was to develop a structural equation modeling (SEM) model to examine the factors that affect OCB. SEM has been seen as a useful technique for specifying, estimating, and testing hypothesized models describing asserted causal relations among variables (Kline, 2005). We used SEM to explore antecedents and the nature of exchanges between parties in the organization of educators’ work and to examine the relative impact of these aspects on OCB.

All the fit indices for RMSEA, CFI, and GFI indicated acceptable fit. By focusing on antecedents to exchange perceptions, we explored factors that lead to OCB. Path coefficients measure the degree of effect induced by one variable in the arrow-pointed variable. First, clear leadership and building relationships with teachers are distinct antecedents. Second, leader–teacher trust has a strong, direct impact on social exchange and further on OCB. Contrary to our expectations, we did not find support for the importance of clear leadership in OCB. This is very interesting, because clear leadership and management by objectives are strongly emphasized in the current governance regime of adult education in Norway and many other countries. An important inference is that leaders need to be aware of the nature of exchange perceptions among adult educators. Social exchange may be seen as mediating the relationship between leaders and adult educators. High levels of social exchange are associated with high levels of organizational citizenship behavior. Our study provides strong support for the importance of leader–educator trust in social exchange and, indirectly, in OCB. The results reveal that the leader–educator relationship is strongly related to educators’ social exchange perceptions and that teacher commitment is strongly related to OCB. Furthermore, social exchange mediates the association between the leader–educator relationship and OCB. The rather strong empirical relationship between the leader–educator relationship and social exchange may imply that these are not clearly distinct constructs. Future research is needed to develop more nuanced concepts of social exchange and its antecedents in leadership, management, and administration and in the ethical considerations of good behavior of adult educators (Siegel, 2000). Contrary to our expectations, perceived support from society had a negative impact on OCB. We are not able to explain this result.

By focusing on clear leadership as an antecedent to economic exchange perceptions, we explored factors that lead to OCB. Contrary to our expectations, we found that perceptions of economic exchange are not predictive of OCB. The measures of economic exchange did not function well in our study, and the reliability of economic exchange was satisfying but somewhat low. One interpretation is that clear leadership is not an important predictor and that leader–educator trust has a strong, direct impact on social exchange and OCB. These are interesting findings in an emerging age of accountability in adult education among several countries, which require further exploration. An important inference is that leaders need to be aware of the nature of exchange perceptions among educators.

The field of adult education will benefit from broadening its scope and integrating insights from educational management. This study advances the understanding of adult education practices by capturing essential aspects of educational management of which adult educators should be aware. Accountability thinking is seeping into the structures of adult education governance in several European countries. The results of this study can be interpreted as suggesting that the leader’s relationship building is useful in persuading adult educators to give more. Relationship building may be more useful in adult education than managerial demand and control. If so this kind of result-oriented leadership—inspired by high-powered incentive schemes—may preferably be combined with the building of good relationships.

Study Limitations

As with all similar studies, this study has certain limitations from methodological as well as conceptual perspectives. We acknowledge these limitations and argue that they set the foundation for future studies. First, it should be emphasized that relatively little quantitative research has been conducted in relation to working cultures at schools for adult immigrant education.

Second, longitudinal and quasi-experimental studies are necessary to come closer to inferences about causality. A cross-sectional study will represent only an instant image of an organization and does not allow us to test causal relationships among antecedents and inducement of exchanges. We have viewed OCB as a consequence of social exchange and relational trust between leader and employee. It is difficult to determine whether OCB is a consequence or a cause due to the cross-sectional nature of our data. Longitudinal research is needed to address the complexity of interactional dynamics between leaders and educators and the associated inducements on educators’ motivation. Decision making in organizations is embedded in a longitudinal context (Shapira, 1997), and the cross-sectional design does not permit examination of causal linkages (Van De Valk & Constas, 2011). Longitudinal studies are thus needed to enable researchers to draw strong causal inferences. However, we can confidently state that beliefs (such as perceived trust) precede action, but it can also be argued that effects from, for instance, leadership toward educators operate in the opposite direction from that assumed in our hypothetical model. More research along these lines can facilitate an understanding of the assumed causal relationships.

Third, another shortcoming is the use of self-reported questionnaire data. The subjective component of such data is undeniable. Independent judgments can provide interesting data about an employee’s performance, but it is difficult to carry out this process while honoring promises of anonymity.

A further shortcoming is that we did not have an opportunity to couple educators’ self-reporting to objective goals in terms of the educators’ task performance, because it was not possible to examine the associations between OCB and learning attainment. However, prior research (e.g., DiPaola & Hoy, 2005) has provided support for a strong relationship between a faculty’s organizational citizenship and student achievement on standardized tests (significant even after controlling for socioeconomic status). Conti (1985) found, however, that General Education Development students learned more in a teacher-centered environment. This is surprising, because we often think that good teaching matches the learners’ self-directed efforts (Hansman & Mott, 2010) and that adult educators need to foster their own advancement by enhancing self-direction (Grow, 1991). Some scholars mention that it is only when people make meaning at a self-authoring level that they prefer true self-direction in learning versus guidance by important others (Drago-Severson, 2008; Kegan, 1994).

Furthermore, there is a need to include factors from outside the adult education system to study what kinds of external factors influence the mobilization of effort on the part of educators, for instance, capacity building (Elmore, 2004). We used a parsimony principle in the research design: Only a limited number of antecedents of OCB were examined, because “given two different models with similar explanatory power for the same data, the simpler model is to be preferred” (Kline, 2005, p. 136). One challenge in relation to measuring such factors is that measurement becomes increasingly difficult in proportion to the factor’s remoteness in the hierarchical organization of the education sector. One possible solution is to examine a small number of cases in greater depth to attain a better understanding of the antecedents of OCB. A final limitation is that a 44% response rate leaves uncertainty about whether the selection is representative. However, a rate in this range is not unusual in social science studies and particularly not in teacher surveys. Furthermore, single source bias is a possible shortcoming in this study.

Implications for Practice

Despite its shortcomings, this study may contribute to our understanding of how adult educators’ perceptions of exchange mediate antecedents and consequences. If the associations between the independent variable, the mediating variables, and the dependent variable represent causal relationships, our findings may have implications for practice as well. This study emphasizes the importance of good relations between educators and leaders. During the past decade in Norway (as in many other countries), accountability devices have been established in systems of education governance. These devices put pressure on educators imposed by a sprawling external accountability system. When external pressure is increased, the individual educator secures his or her situation as much as possible by adapting to the new conditions. However, demanding the individual educator to volunteer more time and effort to meet new government demand might not be a productive solution. Rather, hierarchical, administrative accountability should be introduced, together with relational building. Increasing the knowledge base in relation to how school management decisions can influence the nature of the exchange relationship through educators’ attitudes and behaviors is highly relevant for practice and policy shaping, as well as for how educators perceive organizational politics (Cropanzano et al., 1997; Mintzberg, 1985).

Conclusion

This study used SEM to model survey data to examine the antecedents of OCB. Our results support the main tenets of social exchange theory and relational trust theory, namely, that good relations between educators and leaders are important for OCB and that educators respond to social exchanges by way of positive behaviors. We did not find support for the importance of clear leadership in OCB. Furthermore, we found that perceptions of economic exchange are not predictive of OCB. Our pattern of results also suggests that social exchange theory is appropriate for explaining OCB; however, further research is needed to explore the leaders’ impact on their employees in adult education. There are, however, grounds for emphasizing the complexity of factors. This article serves as a starting point that will stimulate further research exploring the contextual aspects of OCB in immigrants’ adult education. Possible extensions could be to examine the effects of other possibly relevant constructs derived from complementary theoretical frameworks.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bios

Eyvind Elstad is a professor in the Department of Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo. He is interested in adult education, educational management, and education governance.

Knut-Andreas Christophersen is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science, University of Oslo. His research interest is methodology.

Are Turmo is an associate professor in the Department of Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo. He is interested in science education and international comparative surveys of the educational school systems.

References

Aftenposten. (2009). Offentlige språkkurs dårlig løsning [Public language course is a poor solution]. Aftenposten, 26(10), 4.

Andersson

Osman

(2008). Recognition of prior learning as a practice for differential inclusion and exclusion of immigrants in Sweden. Adult Education Quarterly, 59, 42-60.

Blau

(1986). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

Blunch

N. J.

(2008). Introduction to structural equation modelling using SPSS and AMOS. London, England: Sage.

Bragger

J. D.

Rodriguez-Srednicki

Kutcher

E. J.

Indovino

Rosner

(2005). Work-family conflict, work-family culture, and organizational citizenship behaviour among educators. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 303-324.

Bryk

A. S.

Schneider

(2002). Trust in schools. A core resource for improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Coleman

(1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.

Conti

G. J.

(1985). The relationship between teaching style and adult student learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 35, 220-228.

Cropanzano

Howes

J. C.

Grandey

A. A.

Toth

(1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 159-180.

10.

DiPaola

M. F.

Hoy

W. K.

(2005). Organizational citizenship of faculty and achievement of high school students. The High School Journal, 88, 35-44.

11.

DiPaola

M. F.

Tsannen-Moran

(2001). Organizational citizenship behavior in schools and its relationship to school climate. Journal of School Leadership, 11, 424-447.

12.

Drago-Severson

(2008). 4 practices serve as pillars for adult learning. National Staff Development Council, 29(4), 60-63.

13.

Elias

J. L.

Merriam

S. B.

(1995). Philosophical foundations of adult education (2nd ed.). Malabar, FL: Kreiger.

14.

Elmore

(2004). School reform from the inside out. Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

15.

Esping-Andersen

(1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

16.

Grow

G. O.

(1991). Teaching learners to be self-directed. Adult Education Quarterly, 41, 125-149.

17.

Guo

(2010). Lifelong learning in the age of transnational migration. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 29, 145-147.

18.

Hansman

C. A.

Mott

V. W.

(2010). Adult learners. In Kasworm

Ross-Gordon

Rose

(Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (2010 ed., pp. 13-21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

19.

Hattie

(2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, England: Taylor & Francis.

20.

K. K.

Yip

K. H.

(2003). Lifelong professional development of teachers: A suggestion for overhaul of the INSET. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22, 533-541.

21.

Homans

G. C.

(1961). Social behavior. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

22.

Johansen

P. A.

(2009). Få tar skriftlig prøve [Few take written test]. Aftenposten, 25(10), 7.

23.

Kegan

(1994). In our heads. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

24.

Kline

R. B.

(2005). Principle and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guildford Press.

25.

Koritzinsky

(2000). Pedagogikk og politikk i L97: Læreplanens innhold og beslutningsprosessene [Pedagogy and Politics in L97: Curriculum content and decision-making]. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.

26.

Kuvaas

(2008). Lønnsomhet gjennom menneskelige ressurser: Evidensbasert HRM [Profitability through human resources: Evidence-based HRM]. Oslo, Norway: Fagbokforlaget.

27.

Kuvaas

Dysvik

(2009). Perceived investment in permanent employee development and social and economic exchange perceptions among temporary employees. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 2499-2524.

28.

Laffont

J. J.

Martimort

(2001). The theory of incentives: The principal-agent model. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

29.

Leithwood

Riehl

(2005). What do we already know about educational leadership? In Firestone

W. A.

Riehl

(Eds.), A new agenda for research in educational leadership (pp. 12-27). New York, NY: Educator College Press.

30.

Lortie

(1976). School teacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

31.

Martin

(2003). Adult education. Lifelong learning and citizenship: Some ifs and buts. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22, 566-579.

32.

Mattheoudakis

(2005). Language education of adult immigrants in Greece: Current trends and future developments. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 24, 319-336.

33.

Ministry of Education. (2008). Kvalitet i skolen [Quality in school]. White Paper No. 31. Oslo, Norway: Author.

34.

Mintzberg

(1985). The organization as political arena. Journal of Management Studies, 22, 133-154.

35.

O’Day

(2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 293-330.

36.

O’Donnell

V. L.

Tobbell

(2007). The transition of adult students to higher education: Legitimate peripheral participation in a community of practice. Adult Education Quarterly, 57, 312-328.

37.

Office of the Auditor General of Norway. (2008). Riksrevisjonens undersøkelse av tilbudet til voksne om grunnskoleopplæring og opplæring på videregående skolenivå [Office of the Auditor General’s review of the supply of adult secondary education (Document No. 3:14)]. Retrieved from http://www.riksrevisjonen.no/NR/rdonlyres/5C234EF6-FE5E-439E-90CB-9D7FB42A04BD/0/Dok_3_14_2007_2008.pdf

38.

O’Reilly

C. A.

Chatman

(1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.

39.

Organ

D. W.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

(2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents and consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

40.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2010). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. Paris, France: Author.

41.

Pfeffer

Veiga

J. F.

(1999). Putting people first for organizational success. Academy of Management Executive, 13(2), 37-48.

42.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Paine

J. B.

Bacharach

D. G.

(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563.

43.

Robinson

V. M. J.

Lloyd

C. A.

Rowe

K. J.

(2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 635-674.

44.

Rogers

Horrocks

(2010). Teaching adults. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

45.

Schelling

T. C.

(2006). Strategies of commitment and other essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

46.

Shapira

(1997). Introduction and overview. In Shapira

(Ed.), Organizational decision making (pp. 3-8). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

47.

Shore

L. M.

Bommer

W. H.

Rao

A. N.

Seo

(2009). Social and economic exchange in the employee-organization relationship: The moderating role of reciprocation wariness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 701-721.

48.

Shore

L. M.

Tetrick

L. E.

Lynch

Barksdale

(2006). Social and economic exchange: Construct development and validation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 837-867.

49.

Siegel

I. H.

(2000). Toward developing a universal code of ethics for adult educators. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 9, 39-64.

50.

Somech

(2007). Promoting organizational citizenship behaviour in schools: The impact of individual and organizational characteristics. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43, 38-66.

51.

Somech

Bogler

(2002). Antecedents and consequences of teacher organizational and professional commitment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 555-577.

52.

Van De Valk

L. J.

Constas

M. A.

(2011). A methodological review of research on leadership development and social capital: Is there a cause and effect relationship? Adult Education Quarterly, 61, 73-90.

53.

Van Dyne

Lepine

J. A.

(1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108-119.

54.

Weick

(1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.