Exploring Behavioral Intentions in Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Development of a New Measure

Introduction

In contemporary organizations, voluntary employee behaviors beyond formal job duties are increasingly viewed as critical for performance and sustainability. Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) refers to voluntary, extra-role behaviors that employees exhibit beyond their job descriptions, without external pressure or the expectation of formal compensation, that benefit the organization (Soelton et al., 2020). Evidence indicates that organizational citizenship behavior not only mediates the effects of employees' commitment and knowledge-sharing on performance outcomes (Achmad et al., 2025) but is also positively associated with work-related well-being (Santos et al., 2023), suggesting that engaging in OCB can enhance psychological health and organizational results. However, when employees perceive OCB as compulsory rather than voluntary, this perceived pressure increases their workload and may deplete their resources, leading to work-related stress (Liu et al., 2019).

A common criticism of OCB measurement tools is that they were originally designed for leaders to evaluate their subordinates' OCB but are now often self-reported, making them more reflective of attitudes than actual behaviors (LePine et al., 2002; Podsakoff et al., 2003). Attitudes are cognitive-affective evaluations directed toward a specific object, person, or behavior, whereas behavioral intention reflects a more concrete commitment to action and serves as a more direct predictor of actual behavior. In the context of practical, work-related phenomena, it is therefore particularly important to measure behavioral intention, as it more accurately captures whether an employee is genuinely inclined to exhibit a given behavior, in contrast to attitudes which may be more abstract or generalized (Ajzen, 1991).

Building on these theoretical considerations, our study aims to develop a tool that reliably measures OCB, which can be completed solely by the employee and is less susceptible to social desirability bias by capturing behavioral intentions rather than attitudes.

We hypothesize that our instrument will correlate with existing questionnaire-based measures of OCB and will show stronger associations with related variables than previous research using these tools has identified.

Literature Review

Dimensions of OCB

OCB can be categorized both by its direction and by its content. In terms of direction, it is typically divided into behaviors directed at individuals (OCB-I) and behaviors directed at the organization (OCB-O) (Williams & Anderson, 1991). OCB-I involves helping behaviors directed toward coworkers, such as offering assistance or substituting for sick coworkers, whereas OCB-O includes actions that benefit the organization, such as adhering to informal rules and maintaining a positive work environment (Tan et al., 2019). In terms of content, Organ (1988) identified five dimensions of OCB: altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. Altruism and courtesy generally correspond to OCB-I, while conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue correspond to OCB-O (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Altruism involves actions like substituting for a coworker or alleviating their workload, while courtesy involves respecting others' rights and privacy. Civic virtue pertains to participating in organizational activities and staying updated with changes. Conscientious behavior includes behaviors such as punctuality, precision, and limited breaks. Sportsmanship implies refraining from unnecessary complaints or from exaggerating issues at work (Soelton et al., 2020).

OCB and Demographic Variables

Studies on gender and OCB have yielded mixed results, but recent findings suggest that women are more inclined to demonstrate OCB (Aftab et al., 2020). Consistent with gender role theory, men are more likely to engage in "heroic" or agentic forms of helping, whereas women are more likely to display relational and communal forms that foster harmonious relationships (Olsson et al., 2021). This pattern suggests that similar gendered expressions may also occur in workplace citizenship behaviors. Thus, gender differences in OCB may depend on whether the focus is on OCB-I or OCB-O.

Research suggests that older employees engage more in OCB than younger ones (Mahmud et al., 2025), which could be explained by already achieved career goals and seeking broader purpose, and the tendency that they are also more willing to share knowledge and value positive relationships (Wiktorowicz et al., 2022).

Though many studies suggest that individuals in higher hierarchical positions tend to exhibit greater OCB (Bhuchar et al., 2025; Fousiani et al., 2025), the literature lacks consensus on this matter. It is plausible that such behaviors are driven more by the desire to create favorable impressions and are perceived by managers as job responsibilities, rather than being genuinely voluntary (Liu et al., 2019). To mitigate this potential bias, our research concentrated on employees occupying lower hierarchical levels.

Longer organizational tenure is positively related to OCB, as employees develop a sense of belonging, stronger interpersonal relationships, and greater commitment. They are also perceived as stable, valuable members, which fosters positive attitudes toward the organization and reciprocal OCB (Pradhan & Mishra, 2020).

OCB and Belief in a Just World (BJW)

While justice is a universal norm, belief in justice varies among individuals and constitutes part of a person's life and personality. Heider (1958), within the framework of balance theory, argued that people tend to interpret the social world as a coherent and morally ordered system. This cognitive inclination reflects the principle of balance, whereby individuals expect justice to operate as an inherent force that aligns actions with their consequences. As he observed, "There is a tendency to see a good act leading to good, and a bad act leading to bad" (p. 81). Although Heider did not explicitly formulate the concept of a "Belief in a Just World," his work laid the conceptual foundation for later theorists. Building on this idea, Lerner (1980) developed the just world hypothesis, which posits that individuals are motivated to believe that people generally get what they deserve and deserve what they get. The belief in a just world (BJW) is an existentially protective illusion. Dalbert (1999) identified two dimensions of BJW: personal and general beliefs in justice. Personal BJW is more closely related to subjective well-being, while general BJW concerns beliefs about justice toward minority or disadvantaged groups.

Individuals who believe in a just world report higher job satisfaction and greater organizational loyalty, and they are more likely to engage in OCB. Altruism, one of the dimensions of OCB, correlates positively with BJW, as those who believe in a just world are more likely to help coworkers —an essential feature of OCB (Wang et al., 2023). Han et al. (2022) suggested that OCB helps maintain the belief in a just world among those who hold it, motivating them to contribute to organizational justice. Therefore, OCB can be seen as typical behavior for those who believe in a just world.

OCB and Perceived Organizational Justice

Perceived organizational justice refers to how employees evaluate fairness issues at work, such as unexpected layoffs, treatment of the employees, or salary disparities (Wiseman & Stillwell, 2022). Colquitt (2001) identifies four dimensions of justice: distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational. Distributive justice concerns resource allocation or rewards (e.g., wages, promotions), while procedural justice focuses on whether decision-making processes are unbiased and consistent. Interactional justice refers to whether the leader treats subordinates with dignity, while informational justice refers to the perceived fairness and adequacy of information provided for decision-making and understanding situations.

Perceived organizational justice can affect job satisfaction, commitment to the group, performance, and OCB (Hermanto & Srimulyani, 2022). This is underpinned by the mechanism that perceived justice creates positive emotions, which in turn reinforces the sense of organizational support (Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 2019). Studies have shown consistently that employees who perceive organizational justice as positive engage in more OCB (Donglong et al., 2020; Rahman & Karim, 2022).

The relationship between organizational justice and OCB is explained by social exchange theory as follows: By perceiving fairness in rewards, compensation, organizational processes, and interpersonal relationships, the employee not only maintains an economic relationship with the organization but also opens up to social relationships and becomes more committed over time (Liang et al., 2022).

Al-ali et al. (2019) stated that out of all dimensions of perceived organizational justice, OCB behavior is most accurately explained by interactional justice. If the employee doesn't perceive that they're being treated with dignity and fairness, they tend to "punish" the organization by reducing their engagement in OCB behaviors.

OCB and Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)

LMX theory highlights that leader-subordinate relationships shape resource allocation and work dynamics from both the leader (e.g., the focus given to an employee) and the subordinate (e.g., the effort invested in work) (Liang et al., 2022). Leaders form closer, trust-based ties with ingroup members and more formal ones with outgroup members, thus creating hierarchical differences within the group. High-quality LMX - marked by mutual trust, respect, loyalty, information sharing, and influence (Petrilli et al., 2024) - could foster employee support and involvement in decision-making, which can lead to a stronger bond between the leader and the subordinate, and thus the employee becomes a member of the ingroup (Tremblay et al., 2021). Such relationships enhance job satisfaction, commitment, performance, and OCB, as subordinates reciprocate positive experiences with extra-role behaviors (Santalla-Banderali & Alvarado, 2022; Dasgupta, 2024).

Materials and Methods

Sampling and Procedure

A convenience sampling method was applied using a Hungarian sample. Participants were recruited via online platforms. In order to ensure that the study results would be statistically valid, we conducted a power analysis using G*Power. Assuming seven independent variables, a desired effect size of 0.15, an alpha level of 0.05, and a statistical power of 90%, the required sample size was determined to be 130 participants. This criterion was met, as 191 valid responses were collected.

Participants were required to be at least 18 years of age, currently employed, and not occupy a top-level manager position. Participants were informed in accordance with the approved ethics protocol, and completion of the questionnaire was conditional upon providing informed consent. Data collection took place between October 2023 and March 2024. Ethical approval for the study was granted under the reference number UD-IP-2023/31.

The questionnaire included four major sections, in addition to the collection of demographic information. Demographic questions assessed participants' gender, age, type of residence, level of education, and work-related variables such as years in the labor market, years with the current employer, and type of occupation.

Instruments

Belief in a Just World

Belief in a just world was assessed using a scale originally developed by Dalbert (1999). The 13-item version was shortened and translated into Hungarian by Berkics (2008), resulting in an 8-item scale. Responses were given on a six-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ("Strongly disagree") to 6 ("Strongly agree").

The scale comprises two subfactors. Items 1, 3, 6, and 8 assess general belief in a just world, whereas items 2, 4, 5, and 7 assess personal belief in a just world. Example items for general belief include: "I think basically the world is a just place," and "I am confident that justice always prevails over injustice." Items reflecting personal belief include: "I believe that I usually get what I deserve," and "I think that important decisions that are made concerning me are usually just."

Perceived Organizational Justice

Perceived organizational justice was assessed using Colquitt's four-dimensional questionnaire (Colquitt, 2001). As no validated Hungarian version was available, we employed our own translation. Although the instrument covers all four dimensions of organizational justice, the present study focused exclusively on interpersonal justice, in line with prior literature.

Responses were recorded on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ("to a very small extent") to 5 ("to a very large extent"). Items concerning interpersonal justice required respondents to evaluate the extent to which their supervisor behaved with respect and courtesy during the implementation of decision-making procedures. A sample item is: "To what extent does your supervisor treat you with dignity?"

Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)

The quality of the relationship with supervisors was measured using the Leader-Member Exchange Scale (LMX) developed by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995), which includes one factor and seven items. Due to the absence of a validated Hungarian version, we used our own translation. Responses were provided on a five-point Likert scale, with the meaning of endpoints varying by item.

Sample items include: "How well does your leader understand your job problems and needs?" (1 = "Not at all", 5 = "To a very great extent") and "How would you characterize your working relationship with your leader?" (1 = "Extremely ineffective", 5 = "Extremely effective").

OCB - Questionnaire-Based

OCB was assessed using a 14-item version of the scale developed by Williams and Anderson (1991), translated into Hungarian by the authors, as no validated Hungarian version exists. Responses were recorded on a five-point Likert scale (1 = "Never", 5 = "Very frequently") based on participants' behavior in the past month.

The scale includes two subfactors: the first seven items pertain to OCB-I (interpersonal behaviors toward coworkers), and the remaining seven measure OCB-O (organizationally directed behaviors). Items 10, 11, and 12 are reverse-coded.

Example items from the OCB-I factor include: "I helped others who have a heavy workload," and "I passed along information to coworkers." Example OCB-O items include: "I gave advance notice when I was unable to come to work," and "My attendance at work was above the norm."

OCB - Scenario-Based

In addition to questionnaire-based measurement, we developed workplace-related scenarios to assess OCB (Table 1). Responses were given on a nine-point Likert scale, with endpoints tailored to the context of each scenario.

Following Organ's five-dimensional framework (Organ, 1988), we created three scenarios per dimension to guarantee a wide spectrum for different situations. Care was taken to avoid ethical dilemmas in the scenarios to ensure that responses would solely reflect OCB tendencies. Each dilemma offered two contrasting options: one prosocial (representing OCB) and one self-interested. To illustrate, consider a sample situation for the Altruism dimension. In this scenario, a newly hired coworker enters the workplace, about whom the respondent has previously received unfavorable information from acquaintances. The coworker lacks familiarity with organizational systems and processes, and their assigned mentor fails to provide adequate guidance. In this context, participants are asked to indicate whether they would be willing to provide support, even if doing so entails remaining at work beyond regular hours, by responding on a 9-point scale ranging from 1 ("I would not offer my help") to 9 ("I would offer my help"), thereby allowing for a graded measurement of behavioral intention rather than a binary decision. Such a format ensures sensitivity to individual differences in prosocial motivation and provides a nuanced assessment of OCB-related tendencies.

Table 1. Scenario-Based OCB Instrument (15 Items with Response Options).

Results and Discussion

Descriptive Statistics

Out of the 191 respondents, 58 (30.37%) identified as male and 133 (69.63%) as female. The mean age of the participants was 35.2 years. Regarding educational attainment, 108 individuals (56.54%) had either a bachelor's or a master's degree, 22 (11.52%) had a qualification beyond the master's level, 59 (30.89%) reported having completed secondary education (including general secondary schools and vocational schools), and 2 participants (1.05%) had completed only primary education. Data on employment type (i.e., intellectual, physical, or mixed) were incomplete, as responding to this item was not mandatory. As a result, responses from 24 individuals were missing; however, this did not affect the subsequent analyses. Among those who provided information, 130 participants (77.84%) reported working in intellectual occupations, 23 (13.78%) in physical occupations, and 14 (8.38%) in mixed roles. On average, participants had been active in the labor market for 13.7 years and had been working for their current organization for an average of 6.91 years.

Internal Consistency / Reliability

Internal consistency was acceptable across the measured constructs, with Cronbach's alpha values of .817 for the general belief in a just world and .895 for the personal belief in a just world. For leader-member exchange, the Cronbach's alpha value was .937, and .709 was for the OCB situational measure. The organizational dimension of OCB, measured by the questionnaire, showed questionable internal consistency (α = .604), falling below commonly accepted thresholds (α = .700). The interpersonal OCB subscale (α = .771) and the overall OCB scale score (α = .747) demonstrated acceptable internal consistency. Our scenario-based behavioral intention measurement tool, with a total of 15 items, had a reliability of .650, but, by leaving out the whole dimension of sportsmanship and the third item of courtesy and the first item of Civic Virtue, we had an internal consistency of .709. As explained in more detail in the next section, we recommend the use of the 10-item version, and one reason for that is the higher value of reliability.

Factor Analysis

We conducted an exploratory factor analysis, as this study did not involve the adaptation of an existing scale with an established structure, but rather the examination of a newly developed measurement instrument based on a theoretical model. Using the method of principal axis extraction and oblimin rotation, we determined the factors based on eigenvalues greater than 1. With this method, we determined one factor (Table 2). Items 6, 10, 11, 12, and 13 were excluded due to loadings below .30; these were the same items that had also been removed in the consistency analysis because of low reliability. It is not uncommon for OCB to be treated as a single factor, and several studies have approached it without distinguishing between OCB-I and OCB-O (LePine et al., 2002; Casu et al., 2021; Neves et al., 2024).

Table 2. Factor Loadings of Items from Exploratory Factor Analysis.

Correlations

Treated both the situational tool and the scale-based questionnaire as measuring a single OCB factor, a moderate correlation was found between the situational measure and the overall OCB scale (r = .398, p < .001; Table 3). This can be explained by the fact that although both instruments aim to assess the same phenomenon, in practice, they are suited to measure different aspects - namely, attitudes versus behavioral intentions.

We compared both tools with other relevant variables included in the study. Spearman correlations with the included variables can also be found in Table 3. As the belief in a just world is treated as comprising two distinct factors in the literature (Silva et al., 2024), we followed the same practice. Furthermore, drawing on the literature, organizational justice is also typically examined as several separate dimensions (Colquitt, 2001). In our study, we focused on the dimension of organizational justice most closely related to OCB - interpersonal justice (Al-ali et al., 2019).

Within the Spearman correlations, we also examined whether the differences between correlations derived from the same sample were statistically significant, using Williams' test. In the case of general belief in a just world, the difference in correlations was statistically significant: t(188) = -3.04, p = .0027. The estimated difference: Δρ = -.185 (two-tailed test).

No significant associations were observed between personal belief in a just world and either measurement tool. For interpersonal organizational justice, the difference approached significance at the exploratory 10% threshold (p = .094), which may be interpreted as marginal under a 10% significance level (common in exploratory research). Mathematically, the situational measure showed a stronger correlation, though the difference was not statistically convincing.

The correlation between LMX and OCB was identical across both measurement tools (situational and scale-based): r = .178, p = .014. This suggests that both methods capture the relationship between OCB and leader-member exchange to the same extent.

No significant differences were found regarding gender, age, or tenure. The fact that most comparisons did not yield significant differences between the two instruments does not undermine the value of the situational measure. On the contrary, it produced results consistent with, or even exceeding, those of the scale-based tool.

Table 3. Correlation between the situational OCB tool, OCB questionnaire, and the measured variables.

Conclusion

Organizational Citizenship Behavior has become an increasingly studied topic in the field of industrial-organizational psychology. Its practical relevance is supported and reinforced by the use of various measurement tools. One critique of questionnaire-based methods is their susceptibility to bias due to social desirability and response sets (Podsakoff et al., 2023). To address these issues, we developed a tool to measure behavioral intention. From an initial set of 15 items, we ultimately created a 10-item situational measure based on internal consistency and factor loadings. This was compared with the OCB questionnaire-based scale, revealing a moderate relationship between the two instruments. This suggests that both tools are suitable for measuring OCB, yet each of them approaches the construct from a distinct perspective. Measuring behavioral intention was not widespread in OCB, but it can open new angles to measure OCB. Based on the literature and the correlation with frequently studied variables associated with OCB, as well as the strength of the relationship between the scale-based and situational tools, it can be concluded that the situational measure performed adequately (sometimes even more strongly than the scale-based measure). This is noteworthy because behavioral intention measures often yield weaker statistical associations than direct comparisons of scale scores (Conner & Norman, 2022). Given that attitudinal constructs measured on thematically consistent scales tend to correlate more strongly due to thematic priming and response biases, the fact that the situational measure demonstrated comparable - or stronger - associations suggests its robustness and potential value as an alternative tool.

Limitations and Dimensions for Future Research

Our research has some limitations. The complexity of our scenarios could have contributed to why 5 out of the 15 scenarios, and the entire Sportsmanship dimension, had to be deleted from the tool. Cultural differences could have shaped how respondents understood cooperative behavior (Rossi et al., 2023). It is possible that participants interpreted certain situations in ways that diverged from the assumptions of the literature on which the instrument was based. For instance, in the scenario where an employee notices that their manager is presenting outdated data during a strategic meeting, our framework assumes that remaining silent would reflect OCB. However, respondents may have considered pointing out the error and constructively contributing to the discussion as the more cooperative and supportive action. These interpretative differences suggest that cultural context plays a role in shaping perceptions of organizational citizenship, an issue that warrants further investigation.

The obtained correlations were relatively weak; however, even the widely used questionnaire-based tool did not yield stronger correlations in line with expectations based on theoretical and empirical background.

Regarding future research, it is certainly worth conducting similar research with a larger sample size and in different cultural contexts, ensuring that the situations are as clear and unambiguous as possible. Future studies could focus on refining the situational measure by adapting it to different sectors or industries, allowing for a more precise assessment of OCB in varied organizational settings. For example, the Courtesy dimension of OCB could be interpreted differently in a customer service role, where courteous behavior may constitute a core evaluative standard, whereas in domains such as programming or payroll administration, it is non-essential to the formal requirements of task performance.

Moreover, specific research questions could be explored, such as how remote work influences different dimensions of OCB or how cultural differences shape the validity and application of the situational measure. Further methodological advancements, such as combining situational tools with complementary methods (e.g., interviews or case studies), could provide additional insights into the construct and enhance its accuracy.

As a conclusion, we state that the tool holds significant potential for studying OCB in further research; however, the tool should be refined and tested further. This could contribute not only to enhancing organizational behavior research but also to helping practitioners cultivate a positive organizational culture.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank all participants for their valuable time and effort in completing the survey.

Conflict of Interest: None

Financial Support: None

Ethics Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the universal ethical standards. Ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Debrecen (Approval No. UD-IP-2023/31). Participation was voluntary and anonymous, and informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection.