Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Brazilian version of the scale of Organizational Citizenship Behavior for Knowledge Workers

Abstract

This study is the translation, cultural adaptation and validation of the scale of Organizational Citizenship Behavior for Knowledge Workers (OCB-KW), developed by Dekas (2010) and Dekas, Bauer, Welle et al. (2013). The protocol suggested by Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin et al. (2000) was used, composed of the translation stages, synthesis, back-translation, evaluation committee, equivalence of pre-test and submission and appraisal. Furthermore, by means of a pilot study, the final version of the instrument was applied to a sample of 247 individuals. As results, the scale of OCB-KW was validated, presented adequate reliability indices and can be used in future studies in the area of administration, increasing the production of scientific knowledge on the subject.

Keywords:
Organizational Citizenship Behavior; Translation; Cross-cultural adaptation; Scale validation

Resumo

Este estudo consiste na tradução, adaptação transcultural e validação da escala “Comportamentos de Cidadania Organizacional para Trabalhadores do Conhecimento”, desenvolvida por Dekas (2010) e Dekas, Bauer, Welle et al. (2013), para o português do Brasil. Para alcançar esse objetivo, utilizou-se o protocolo sugerido por Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin et al. (2000), composto pelas etapas de tradução, síntese, retradução, comitê de avaliação, pré-teste de equivalência e submissão e avaliação. Além disso, por meio de um estudo piloto, aplicou-se a versão final do instrumento a uma amostra de 247 indivíduos. Os resultados indicam que a referida escala apresenta validade e índices de confiabilidade adequados, podendo ser utilizada em futuros estudos de Administração e de áreas afins, ampliando a produção de conhecimento científico acerca do tema.

Palavras-chave:
Comportamentos de cidadania organizacional; Tradução; Adaptação transcultural; Validação de escala

Resumen

Este estudio consiste en la traducción al portugués de Brasil, adaptación cultural y validación de la escala de comportamientos de ciudadanía organizacional para trabajadores del conocimiento, desarrollada por Dekas (2010) y Dekas, Bauer, Welle et al. (2013). Para lograr este objetivo se utilizó el protocolo sugerido por Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin et al. (2000), compuesto por los pasos de traducción, síntesis, retrotraducción, comité de evaluación, pretest de equivalencia y presentación y evaluación. Por otra parte, por medio de un estudio piloto, se aplicó la versión final del instrumento a una muestra de 247 sujetos. Los resultados indican que la mencionada escala presenta índices de validez y fiabilidad adecuados y se puede utilizar en futuros estudios de Administración y campos relacionados, lo que amplía la producción de conocimiento científico sobre el tema.

Palabras clave:
Conductas de ciudadanía organizacional; Traducción; Adaptación transcultural; Validación de escala

INTRODUCTION

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is considered to be an important measure of organizational behavior and is considered to be essential in terms of worker (PODSAKOFF, PODSAKOFF, MAKENZIE et al., 2014) and company performance (ORGAN, 2018). Within the areas of Work Psychology and Organizational Behavior, OCB constitutes a multifaceted construct which has greatly expanded through research over the past few decades.

However, studies of this subject have prioritized investigations of individual and dispositional behavior, and there has been a gap in terms of the social work context of OCB. As Estivalete, Costa and Andrade (2014) indicate, few international studies have advanced in the sense of analyzing social context interactions and OCB (EVANS and DAVIS, 2005; VAN DIJKE, CREMER, MAYER et al., 2012; WALLUMBVA, LUTHANS, AVEY et al., 2011). In Brazil, the reality is even more critical, because there are few studies about OCB and none of them consider social context in their analyses (ESTIVALETE, COSTA and ANDRADE, 2014; ANDRADE, 2017).

Dekas (2010) points out that recent changes in the organization of work have led to changes in the nature of OCB, making it necessary to broaden the perspectives of the social context that permeates this behavior (DEKAS, BAUER, WELLE et al., 2013).

Considering the nature of contemporary work, knowledge workers have assumed a prominent role. In these emerging configurations, knowledge workers are considered to be the individuals with the motivation and capacity to create new ideas, share their knowledge and add value to an organization (LIN and JOE, 2012). From a broader point of view, Dekas, Bauer, Welle et al. (2013) emphasize that, due to the current speed of business competitiveness, all modern workers whose main product is knowledge capital can be considered knowledge workers.

Based on these assumptions associated with changes in the social context of work, Dekas (2010) and Dekas, Bauer, Welle et al. (2013) have proposed a typology that has given birth to the Organizational Citizenship Behavior - Knowledge Worker (OCB-KW) scale, composed of the Employee Sustainability, Social Participation, Civic Virtue, Voice and Helping dimensions. It was developed in the United States and has been validated in the English language by various studies with the objective of evaluating this individual behavior within the context of work. As Organ (2018) points out, there is a need for new empirical studies in contexts that explore the distinct realities of these American studies.

Thus, the objectives of this study are: a) to translate and cross-culturally adapt the OCB-KW scale to Brazilian Portuguese; and b) to validate this scale within the Brazilian context. As Epstein, Santo and Guillemin (2015) recommend, if this questionnaire is available in other languages, researchers should adapt and validate it instead of creating a new one, because cross-cultural adaptation is quicker, and it is assumed that it will produce equivalent measures. Thus, it is important that the instrument be translated to the language of the country in which it will be used, and that it be adapted to the socio-cultural characteristics of the investigated population, which will make a faithful evaluation possible (BARBOSA and GAVIÃO, 2011).

THEORETICAL REFERENCES

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The pioneering studies of organizational citizenship behavior were based on the pillars disseminated by Barnard (1938) and Katz and Kahn (1978). According to Barnard (1938), organizations can be defined as cooperative systems operated by human resources and not just the product of mechanical engineering, as argued by the school of Scientific Management. On the other hand, Katz and Kahn (1978) defend the idea that being a member of an organization also implies being a citizen of the community in which one exists.

Based on these theoretical conceptions, the notion of OCB was addressed by the studies of Dennis W. Organ and his colleagues (Bateman and Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988; 1997). Organ (1988) defines organizational citizenship as a discretionary, individual behavior, which is not explicitly recognized by the formal system of compensation and contributes to the efficient functioning of an organization; to the author this discretionary, individual behavior cannot be imposed as an obligation or induced by the guarantee of formal compensation. Nasra and Heilbrunn (2015) also argue that the willingness of workers to fulfill this role does not assure organizational efficiency, because the voluntary aspects associated with OCB are important to the improvement of efficiency indicators.

After receiving some criticism, Organ (1997) proposed alterations in the definition of OCB, coming to understand it as contextual performance which sustains the social and psychological environment in which these tasks are performed. This formulation associated OCB with the contextual performance construct presented by Borman and Motowidlo (1997), which is defined as types of interpersonal and voluntary behavior that support the social and motivational context where this organizational work is being performed.

The behavioral categories that are part of contextual performance include: a) persisting with extra effort and enthusiasm when they are necessary to successfully execute one’s own tasks; b) volunteering to execute tasks that are not associated with one’s position; c) helping and cooperating with others; d) obeying organizational rules and procedures even when they are personally inconvenient; e) helping and defending organizational goals (BORMAN and MOTOWIDLO, 1997; REGO, 2002). To Meynhardt, Brieger and Hermann (2018), workers who have a positive experience in terms of their work tend to become involved with OCB, reflecting positive effects that go beyond the professional sphere, and can also contribute to the worker’s personal life.

However, more recent studies (MARINOVA, MOON and VAN DYNE, 2010; PODSAKOFF, WHITING, PODSAKOFF et al., 2009; PODSAKOFF, PODSAKOFF, MAKENZIE et al., 2014) indicate the potential benefits of a more subtle approach in terms of its conception, considering two distinct aspects. First of all, workers differ to the extent to which they perceive OCB to be part of the exercising of their role or as an extra-role within organizations (VAN DYNE, ANG and KOH, 2008; Yaghoubi, YAZDANI and KHORNEGAH, 2011). Secondly, OCB sometimes is perceived as being rewarded by organizations through performance evaluations, promotions or recognition. (MARINOVA, MOON and VAN DYNE, 2010). The results of these empirical studies indicate the need for additional theories that can explain OCB in depth (Salamon and DeutSch, 2006; ANDRADE, 2017; ANDRADE, COSTA, ESTIVALETE et al., 2017; ORGAN, 2018). As Chow, Lai and Loi (2015) point out, there are countless aspects related to this subject that have not been extensively explored, and there also is no consensus within the literature about the dimensions of the OCB construct (ANDRADE, COSTA, ESTIVALETE et al., 2017; COSTA, ESTIVALETE and ANDRADE, 2017). In addition, as Dekas, Bauer, Welle et al. (2013) state, the workplace has changed and with this change the fundamental nature of OCB for modern workers has changed as well.

In order to examine the workplace and its interaction with OCB in greater depth, Dekas, Bauer, Welle et al. (2013) propose a new lens, which one can use to view this behavior, bringing it closer to a focus on the social context. They speak of an “organizational citizen,” which is a type of work role that is limited by contextual factors instead of being a caricature of an individual who is engaged in the same fixed type of behavior in all work contexts.

Considering that the nature of work has gone through countless changes, Dekas, Bauer, Welle et al. (2013) propose a new model for OCB that considers knowledge workers. In analyzing the OCB models that exist in the literature (BATEMAN and ORGAN, 1983; KATZ e KAHN, 1978; ORGAN, 1988; 1997; PODSAKOFF, MACKENZIE, PAINE et al., 2000; PODSAKOFF et al., 2000). Dekas (2010) and Dekas, Bauer, Welle et al. (2013), state that some dimensions, such as obedience, may not adequately represent the social context of knowledge workers.

Thus, based on these studies, the authors evaluated these dimensions and proposed a typology which created the OCB-KW scale composed of the factors present in Box 1.

Box 1
Organizational Citizenship Behavior for Knowledge Workers Scale Factors

The OCB-KW scale has been reproduced in countless samples and it has demonstrated satisfactory reliability, with Cronbach’s Alphas between 0.78 and 0.88 (DEKAS, 2010; DEKAS, BAUER, WELLE et al., 2013). Of these categories, three of them are aligned with the existing dimensions of citizenship in the literature: Civic Virtue, Voice and Helping. The two other categories, Employee Sustainability and Social Participation, are dimensions which were proposed in the model developed by Dekas, Bauer, Welle et al. (2013). To these authors, these dimensions have emerged from the contemporary social context, which requires that workers be aware of a new profile which is proactive and includes participation in the social sphere.

The OCB-KW scale represents an advance over OCB studies in that it includes the Employee Sustainability and Social Participation dimensions, which signal the changes which have taken place in the workplace and the profile of knowledge workers. These aspects led us to choose this scale for the realization of this study.

METHODOLOGY

This study consists of the translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the OCB-KW scale, which seeks to identify the perspectives of these workers on OCB within the workplace context.

This scale is based on studies developed by Dekas (2010) and Dekas, Bauer, Welle et al. (2013), which have resulted in a revised version which features 23 items validated by Dekas, Bauer, Welle et al. (2013) in English. The items were divided into 5 dimensions: Employee Sustainability (4 items), Social Participation (4 items), Civic Virtue (5 items), Voice (4 items) and Helping (6 items). Those responding to this instrument were asked to classify the degree to which they agree with each item using a 5 point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).

The translation and cross-cultural adaptation process was realized based on a protocol suggested by Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin et al. (2000), composed of 6 steps: a) translation; b) synthesis; c) back-translation; d) an evaluation committee; e) a pre-test of equivalence; f) submission and evaluation.

The first step realized was an initial translation of the scale from English to the target language (Brazilian Portuguese) by two independent professionals from the Administration area who are native speakers of Portuguese and are also fluent in English. One of the translators was informed of the study’s underlying objectives and concepts to avoid ambiguity and unexpected meanings derived from the original items. As suggested by Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin et al. (2000), one of the translators was informed of the study’s underlying objectives and concepts, being a professional in this area with previous knowledge about this particular subject. The other author was not informed about the concepts used in this study and did not have previous knowledge of this particular subject (naive translator) (BEATON, BOMBARDIER, GUILLEMIN et al., 2000).

Once the two translations were concluded (translation 1 = T1 and translation 2 = T2), the translators and one of the authors met to complete the synthesis step. This consisted of a synthesis of the two translations, comparing them with the original instrument. As recommended by Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin et al. (2000), a written report was produced to document the process, including the problems that occurred and how they were resolved.

During the third phase, the first version was back-translated into English by a native translator (whose first language is English), who was not aware of the study’s original goals and the original version, thus generating the second version. Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin et al. (2000) suggest the realization of a back-translation performed by two professionals. However, for this study, we opted to have one translator perform this procedure, in the same way in which some studies have been conducted in the field of Psychology (GONÇALVES and PILLON, 2009; GOLDFELD, WIETHAEUPER, TERRA et al., 2007).

After this process, we began the fourth step, which was performed by an evaluation committee consisting of four bilingual researchers and specialists in the areas of Administration and Education, who evaluated the second version and the original instrument. This committee then analyzed whether there were discrepancies between the original version, the first versions in Portuguese and the back-translation.

As Guillemin, Bombardier and Beaton (1993) and Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin et al. (2000) point out, the evaluation committee should evaluate the following types of equivalence: a) semantic equivalence, associated with equivalence in terms of the meaning of words, analyzing whether there are difficulties in terms of grammar or vocabulary; b) idiomatic equivalence, related to the equivalence of the expressions and colloquial expressions that have been translated to the other language; c) experiential equivalence, which should be considered when situations evoked or portrayed in the original version should be in agreement with the context of the target-culture; d) conceptual equivalence, which refers to the validity of the explored concept and what happens to people in the target-culture, since these items could be equivalent in terms of semantic significance, but not in terms of conceptual equivalence.

Next, during the fifth step, we performed a pre-test with the application of a questionnaire to 30 members of the target public. During this phase, Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin et al. (2000) indicate that the application of a questionnaire should be followed by an interview with each respondent, in order to identify what the individual understands in relation to each item and the selected response. In this study, the questionnaires were answered by members of the target population, without any intervention by the researcher and with no interview. We opted instead to add the alternative “I did not understand” to each of the 23 questions to determine which questions were not understood. During this step, there were no difficulties with the questions or the terms employed for a majority of the respondents (90%). Since this was in line with the established limit of at least 80% (GUILLEMIN, BOMBARDIER e BEATON, 1993), there was no need for a new evaluation by the committee.

Finally, the sixth step consisted of the submission and evaluation of the documentation utilized in the scale translations and the cross-cultural adaptation process by the evaluation committee. In this phase, the committee evaluated the reports and forms prepared during the various phases, performing a type of auditing as suggested by Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin et al. (2000). The authors also suggested that in this phase there is the possibility of getting into contact with the author of the original instrument for an evaluation of this documentation. In this study, we did get in touch with the author of the original instrument (DEKAS, 2010) - who did not deem it necessary to send the documentation related to the translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the scale.

Figure 1 illustrates the steps involved in translating and adapting the scale.

Figure 1
Steps in the Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the Organizational Citizenship Behavior for Knowledge Workers Scale and the Pilot Study

Thus after the realization of the pre-test, we generated a final version of the instrument and applied it to a pilot study with a sample of 247 individuals. The data analysis of the pilot study was performed with support from the computer program SPSS for the statistical tests. Initially factor analysis was performed, and then we used the internal consistency of Cronbach’s Alpha to confirm the reliability of the theoretical constructs.

RESULTS

Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Organizational Citizenship Behavior for Knowledge Workers scale

During the first step, two professionals from the Administration area who are fluent in English independently translated the OCB-KW scale into Portuguese.

To conduct this translation in an independent manner, the researchers compared the translations to identify discrepancies that could be discussed by the translators during a later phase (Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin et al., 2000). This technique is highly recommended by many investigators to achieve translations with the greatest possible equivalence (Brislin, 1970; TAKARA, BEECHER, OKISHI et al., 2015).

During the next step (synthesis), the two translations - identified as T1 and T2 - were compared by professionals and one of the study’s authors. The discrepancies between the versions were pointed out and discussed together with the respective researchers, and thus modifications were made to the initial version based on a consensus, which resulted in the first version in Portuguese. To achieve this consensus, the professionals based their decisions on two criteria: the meaning that the original instrument was measuring; and the colloquial use of the Portuguese language utilized in the work environment under study.

Box 2presents the items of the original version, a summary evaluating the translations made with the 2 being equal (T1 = T2), similar (T1 ≈ T2) or different, with the necessity of a consensus to establish the final translation (T3) - which resulted in the first Portuguese version.

Box 2
Original version, translations and the first Portuguese version of the Organizational Citizenship Behavior for Knowledge Worker scale

In terms of the items in the OCB-KW scale, the two translators and the participating author opted to change the verb tense from third person to first person singular, since the OCB evaluated refers to the behavior of the respondents themselves. As may be observed in Box 2, for this scale most of the items demonstrated a consensus between the translators with there being similar (T1 ≈ T2) or equal translations (T1 = T2).

In some cases, even though the terms utilized were correct from the point of view of a literal translation, we opted for a version that considered semantic, idiomatic, experiential and conceptual equivalence, in order to improve their comprehension by the examined population. As Epstein, Santo and Guillemin (2015) affirm, cross-cultural adaptation can present some peculiarities. In the first place, the translation can involve linguistic problems because the two languages can have words which are not equivalent or idiomatic expressions. Secondly, the adaptation to another culture itself may constitute a problem, because it may have a very different meaning or no meaning at all within another specific cultural context (EPSTEIN, SANTO and GUILLEMIN, 2015).

Thus for Item 5, for the term personal basis we opted for “vida pessoal,” instead of “nível pessoal.” For Item 8, the term playful was translated as “divertido” and not “brincalhão.” The expression improve processes for getting work done in Item 16, was translated as “melhorar os processos de trabalho,” instead of “melhorar o processo em obter o trabalho feito.” In Item 19, the expression willingly helps was translated as “ajudo com prazer” rather than “ajudo de boa vontade.” In addition, the expression to lend a helping hand, in Item 20, was translated as “pronto para ajudar,” rather than “estender a mão.”

In the same way as the study developed by Prudêncio, Messias, Mamade et al. (2015), which realized a Brazilian cross-cultural adaptation and validation for an instrument dealing with expectations and satisfaction in terms of pre-natal care, those responsible for the translation performed a semantic analysis and proposed alterations in the literal translation, considering cultural aspects in order to achieve greater comprehension on the part of the target audience.

In the second phase, the first version was back-translated into English by an English professor, a native of the United States and a Brazilian resident, which generated a second version in English. As emphasized by Guillemin, Bombardier and Beaton (1993), this step helped improve the quality of the result of the definitive adaptation. A back-translation, when well done, can signal problems in the translations, resulting in a deeper discussion and as a result, a better cross-cultural adaptation.

After this process, we initiated the fourth step, which was conducted by an evaluation committee, consisting of four bilingual researchers and specialists in the areas of Administration and Education, who evaluated the second version and the original instrument. The fourth step proposed by Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin et al. (2000) can be associated with validation of the content, which permits a refining of the instrument based on specialist analysis. Considering that this instrument was not applied to the Brazilian reality, it was necessary to validate the content - which consists of a systematic and subjective evaluation to verify whether the instrument in fact measures what it should measure (HAIR, MONEY, BABIN et al., 2005).

The committee analyzed the existence of discrepancies between the back-translation, the original version and the first version in Portuguese, establishing as a result the second version in Portuguese. As Epstein, Santo and Guillemin (2015) state, the role of a committee of specialists is crucial to reevaluating the translation, making critical decisions, and arriving at a consensus in terms of all discrepancies to consolidate the final version of the questionnaire.

First the back-translation (B) and the original version (OV) were compared by the committee members. When there were differences between them, modifications were made until a consensus was reached, which resulted in the second Portuguese version. Box 3presents the back-translation items, the evaluation of the committee members, and the second Portuguese version, as well as a comparison between the translations (the first and second Portuguese versions).

Box 3
Back-translation, evaluation, and the second Portuguese version of the Organizational Citizenship Behavior for Knowledge Workers scale

Considering the back-translation of the OCB-KW scale and the original version, a few sentences needed to be adjusted. For Item 8, the back-translated term cheerful, described in the original version as playful, translated in the first version as “divertido,” was altered in the second Portuguese version to “animado.” For Item 12, the back-translated expression knowledge exchange, originally described as knowledge sharing, and originally translated as “troca de conhecimento,” was modified in the second version to be “compartilhamento de conhecimento,” which is closer to the meaning of the original version. In Item 21, the back-translated expression to avoid, originally translated as “prevenir”, was altered to “evitar,” which is closer to the meaning of the original version to prevent.

Even considering the similarity between the back-translation and the original version, the evaluation committee perceived the need to make small changes in Items 3, 6, 9, 10 and 13. For Item 3, the expression “fazer sua saúde e seu bem-estar,” used in the first version, was substituted in the second Portuguese version by the expression “fazer de sua saúde e de seu bem-estar”. For Item 6, the term “celebro” from the first version was altered in the second version to “comemoro.” For Item 9, the expression “mas ajudam a comunidade da empresa” was altered in the second Portuguese version to “mas que ajudam a comunidade da empresa.” In the same way, for Item 10 the expression “mas são consideradas importantes” was changed in the second version to “mas que são consideradas importantes.” In addition, for Item 13 it was considered necessary to include the expression “voluntariamente,” to bring the translation in line with the original version.

Similar procedures were adopted by Barbosa and Gavião (2011) when they adapted a questionnaire about quality of life and oral health in Brazil. Despite the similarities between the back-translation and the original version, the authors opted to change some terms considered to be unsatisfactory in terms of the respondents’ comprehension.

In addition to this, the second Portuguese version was analyzed by two professionals in the Education area and three professionals in the area of Administration, who did not make alterations in the version proposed by the committee.

The fifth step consisted of administering the pre-test by applying this questionnaire to a group of 30 members of the target population. The respondents were between the ages of 19 and 43 and their education ranged from high school graduates to graduate students. The questionnaires were answered by these individuals without any intervention by the researcher. No difficulties were verified in terms of comprehension of the prepared items or terms used by a majority of the respondents (27 indivíduals, totaling 90%). Thus, after the pre-test was conducted, the final version of the instrument was generated.

Finally, the sixth step consisted of submitting and evaluating the documents and reports generated during the process to the evaluation committee. At this point, the committee members reviewed the previous steps, reevaluating each completed phase.

After the conclusion of these steps, the final version of the instrument was applied in a pilot study to a sample of 247 individuals from two organizations in the education sector and evaluated statistically through exploratory factor analysis, and we will present the results in the following section.

Validation of the Organizational Citizenship Behavior for Knowledge Workers scale

The initial tests included the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO), which should be greater than or equal to 0.6 in order to explain the correlation between each pair of variables and the other variables in the study (LATIF, 1994), and Bartlett’s test of sphericity, which seeks to examine the hypothesis that the variables in the population are not correlated (MALHOTRA, 2006). The sample adequacy and sphericity tests were satisfactory, with the KMO coefficient being 0.809 and Bartlett’s test yielding a significant result (sig 0.000).

In relation to commonalities, which represent the proportion of variance explained by a factor and which in practice should be greater than 0.5 (LATIF, 1994), we found that none of the variables in the evaluated scale had a value of less than 0.5.

Afterwards, during the factor extraction step, we looked at the eigenvalues, which represent the amount of variance in the original variables which can be associated with a factor, considering just variables with values above 1.0 (HAIR, BLACK, BABIN et al., 2009). The other criterion used refers to the percentage of variance explained by factors, and its satisfactory level should be concentrated around 60%, according to Malhotra (2006). The OCB-KW scale obtained a 27.2% explanation of the variance for the first factor, with the seven factors all together explaining 65.6% of the total variance.

To analyze the reliability of the factors, we used the Cronbach’s Alpha test of reliability, which according to Hair, Black, Babin et al. (2009), can present a coefficient ranging from 0 to 1, with values above 0.6 indicating satisfactory internal consistency (MALHOTRA, 2006). Considering these criteria, one factor in the OCB-KW scale was excluded (Factor 7). This factor combined Variable 3 (Apoio o esforço dos outros em fazer de sua saúde e de seu bem-estar uma prioridade), which belongs to the Employee Sustainability dimension, and Variable 17 (Incentivo outros do grupo a emitirem opiniões relacionadas a assuntos que afetem o grupo), which belongs to the Voice dimension. Table 1 illustrates the scale factors and their Cronbach’s Alpha values.

Table 1
Cronbach’s Alpha Values for the Factors of the Organizational Citizenship Behavior for Knowledge Workers Scale

Instrument	Factor	Number of Variables	Cronbach’s Alpha
Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale	Factor 1	5	0.832
	Factor 2	3	0.773
	Factor 3	3	0.707
	Factor 4	3	0.626
	Factor 5	3	0.707
	Factor 6	4	0.628
	Factor 7	2	0.490

• Source: Elaborated by the authors.

Thus, as a result of the factor analysis, we found 6 dimensions or factors in this scale. We would also like to emphasize that all of the variables that make up these factors have a factor weight greater than 0.40, which indicates adequate representativeness, with greater factor weights indicating better items (AVRICHIR and DEWES, 2006). A more detailed analysis of each factor makes it possible to evaluate its component variables, the corresponding dimensions of the original model, and the factor weights of each of the items, as well as the factors assigned to them, as is illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2
Factor weights of the dimensions obtained with the Varimax rotation and original corresponding factors from the Organizational Citizenship Behavior scale

Factor 1 - Civic Virtue
Variables	Original Factor	Factor Weight
10. Participo de reuniões que não são obrigatórias, mas que são consideradas importantes.	Civic virtue	0.838
12. Participo de oportunidades de compartilhamento de conhecimento organizadas pela empresa (p. ex. palestras, cursos de formação).	Civic virtue	0.805
13. Participo voluntariamente de projetos especiais que não fazem parte das minhas tarefas de trabalho.	Civic virtue	0.651
9. Participo de eventos que não são obrigatórios, mas que ajudam a comunidade da empresa.	Civic virtue	0.632
11. Me mantenho atualizado com as novidades da empresa (p. ex. mudanças da empresa).	Civic virtue	0.563
Factor 2 - Voice
Variables	Original Factor	Factor Weight
14. Faço sugestões criativas aos colegas.	Voice	0.791
15. Expresso minhas opiniões sobre assuntos relacionados ao trabalho, mesmo quando outros discordam.	Voice	0.763
16. Faço sugestões construtivas para melhorar os processos de trabalho.	Voice	0.708
Factor 3 - Altruism with Colleagues
Variable	Original Factor	Factor Weight
Considero o impacto de minhas ações sobre os colegas.	Helping	0.705
23. Me comunico com os outros antes de iniciar ações que possam afetá-los.	Helping	0.690
21. Tento evitar problemas para os colegas de trabalho.	Helping	0.674
Factor 4 - Employee Sustainability
Variables	Original Factor	Factor Weight
8. Sou animado nas interações do ambiente de trabalho.	Social participation	0.730
1. Faço os outros se sentirem confortáveis sendo eles mesmos no trabalho.	Employee sustainability	0.722
2. Expresso minha personalidade autêntica no trabalho.	Employee sustainability	0.560
Factor 5 - Helping
Variables	Original Fator	Factor Weight
18. Ajudo os colegas que têm uma sobrecarga de trabalho.	Helping	0.776
20. Estou sempre pronto para ajudar aqueles ao meu redor.	Helping	0.632
19. Ajudo com prazer os colegas a resolverem problemas relacionados ao trabalho.	Helping	0.605
Factor 6 - Social Participation
Variables	Original Factor	Factor Weight
7. Participo de atividades sociais informais com colegas de trabalho durante o expediente.	Social participation	0.768
6. Comemoro os eventos pessoais dos meus colegas (p. ex. aniversário, casamento).	Social participation	0.655
5. Procuro conhecer a vida pessoal dos meus colegas.	Social participation	0.558
17. Incentivo outros do grupo a emitirem opiniões relacionadas a assuntos que afetam o grupo.	Voice	0.528

• Source: Elaborated by the authors.

Factor 1 of the OCB-KW scale as proposed by Dekas, Bauer, Welle et al. (2013) groups all the items related to actions and responsibilities which indicate the recognition of being part of something greater into the “Civic virtue” dimension. For Factor 2 they grouped items related to participation and suggesting improvements in aspects of the organization into the “Voice” dimension (DEKAS, 2010).

In terms of Factor 3, the assertions associated with the “Helping” dimension in the original model are here termed “Altruism with colleagues,” because they include variables associated with voluntary actions by workers that help colleagues in preventing or overcoming difficulties in the performance of their work (MARINOVA, MOON and VAN DYNE, 2010). To Moon et al. (2005) the “Helping” dimension can be considered interpersonal and promotes the organization’s success, which is associated with the “Altruism” dimension proposed by Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine et al. (2000).

For Factor 4, the assertions associated with the “Employee sustainability” factor of the OCB-KW model predominate, grouping together items associated with participation in maintenance and preventive health measures together with individual and collective well- being (DEKAS, 2010), as well as a variable from the “Social participation” factor, which includes items related to participation in social activities that are not directly related to work (DEKAS, BAUER, WELLE et al., 2013). Thus, even though these variables were placed in distinct dimensions in the model proposed by Dekas, Bauer, Welle et al. (2013), it may be perceived that the meaning of Factor 4 includes the content of “Employee sustainability,” and the interpretation of Variable 8 (“Sou animado nas interações do ambiente de trabalho”) can also be associated with the content of this factor.

In relation to Factor 5, variables of the original dimension “Helping” predominate and the same denomination is used, but it should be remembered that in the OCB-KW scale proposed by Dekas, Bauer, Welle et al. (2013), the “Helping” factor consists of six variables, while in this study the items of this factor have been divided among Factors 3 and 5.

In Factor 6, denoted as “Social participation,” 3 variables associated with the original dimension of the same name predominate with there also being another variable from the “Voice” dimension. Thus, even though it belongs to the original OCB-KW dimension, Variable 17 (“Incentivo outro a emitirem opiniões relacionadas a assuntos que afetam o grupo”) can also be interpreted as being related to social activities not directly related to work (DEKAS, 2010), which justifies its inclusion in the “Social participation” dimension.

In general, it may be observed that all of the dimensions proposed by Dekas, Bauer, Welle et al. (2013) have been maintained, even though two variables have been excluded and two others have been regrouped. In addition, even though these variables have been allocated in factors that are different from the original, there is coherence between these variables and their factor meanings. The results obtained through exploratory factor analysis and the value for Cronbach’s Alpha demonstrate that the OCB-KW scale is relatively stable for use in studies that seek to analyze the individual’s perspective regarding this construct.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

The OCB-KW scale, developed by Dekas (2010) and Dekas, Bauer, Welle et al. (2013), presents a distinct proposal for OCB. This model considers employee sustainability, social participation, civic virtue, voice and helping, amplifying the theoretical and empirical perspectives related to this construct.

The objective of this article has been to translate, culturally adapt and validate this scale in Brazilian Portuguese. Our processes have rigorously followed the procedures recommended by Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin et al. (2000), in order to guarantee the scientific robustness, validity and quality of the Brazilian version of this scale. After arriving at the final version of this scale, it was applied to a sample of 247 individuals, which confirmed the reliability of the 6 factors obtained, and only two of the variables of the original instrument were excluded.

We believe that this study represents an advance in terms of OCB studies and presents a pioneering scale to evaluate the perspective of individuals in terms of their own behavior, based on emerging work configurations for knowledge workers in Brazil. The results presented in this article indicate that this OCB-KW scale demonstrates adequate validity and reliability indices. Thus, this scale can be used in future studies of Administration and related areas, expanding the scientific knowledge of this area and can also be combined with studies related to other subjects.

Even though this study has rigorously utilized the methods that can be applied in terms of the translation, adaptation and validation of other instruments, we should point out a few limitations. The first of these has to do with the absence of interviews during the pre-test phase when we decided to add the “I did not understand” option to a Likert type scale of response options. Another limitation has to do with the application of this scale to a sample restricted to 247 respondents which, even though it meets the statistical requirements for validation of the instrument, should be expanded in future studies.

Thus, we suggest replicating this scale using other samples through quantitative studies, and also combining the use of statistical analyses which can examine the results obtained in this study, such as confirmatory factor analysis. We also recommend the application of this scale to different kinds of organizations, as well as its use in studies that seek to evaluate OCB as an antecedent or consequence, or investigate its relationships with other constructs.

• ANDRADE, T. Antecedentes contextuais dos comportamentos de cidadania organizacional. 189 f. Tese (Doutorado em Administração) U- niversidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, 2017.
• ANDRADE, T. et al. Comportamento de cidadania organizacional: um olhar à luz dos valores e da satisfação no trabalho. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, v. 19, n. 64, p. 236-262, 2017.
• AVRICHIR, I; DEWES, F. Construção e validação de um instrumento de avaliação do desempenho docente. Revista Eletrônica de Ciência Administrativa, v. 5, n. 2, p. 1, 2006.
• BARBOSA, T. S.; GAVIÃO, M. B. D. Qualidade de vida e saúde bucal em crianças - parte II: versão brasileira do Child Perceptions Questionnaire. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, v. 16, n. 7, p. 3267-3276, 2011.
• BARNARD, C. The function of the executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938.
• BATEMAN, T. S.; ORGAN, D. W. Job satisfaction and the good soldier: the relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of Management Journal, v. 26, n. 4, p. 587-595, 1983.
• Beaton, D. E. et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine, v. 5, n. 24, p. 3186-3191, 2000.
• BORMAN, W. C.; MOTOWIDLO, S. J. Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, v. 10, n. 2, p. 99-109, 1997.
• BRISLIN, R. W. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, v. 1, n. 3, p. 185-216, 1970.
• CHOW, C. W. C.; LAI, J. Y. M.; LOI, R. Motivation of travel agents’ customer service behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: the role of leader-member exchange and internal marketing orientation. Tourism Management, v. 48, p. 362-369, 2015.
• COSTA, V. F.; ESTIVALETE, V. F. B.; ANDRADE, T. Comportamento de cidadania organizacional: as visões de colaboradores e de gestores de uma indústria de eletrodomésticos. Revista Eletrônica de Administração, v. 23, n. spe., p. 262-261, 2017.
• DEKAS, K. H. Citizenship in context: investigating the effects of work group climate on organizational citizenship perceptions and behavior. 287 f. Tese (Ph.D. in Business Administration) - University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 2010.
• DEKAS, K. H. et al. Organizational Citizenship Behavior, version 2.0: a review and qualitative investigation of OCBs for knowledge workers at Google and beyond. The Academy of Management Perspectives, v. 27, n. 3, p. 219-237, 2013.
• EPSTEIN, J.; SANTO, R. M; GUILLEMIN, F. A review of guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires could not bring out a consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, v. 68, n. 4, p. 435-441, 2015.
• ESTIVALETE, V. F. B.; COSTA, V. F.; ANDRADE, T. Organizational citizenship behavior: a comparative study between Brazilian and international scientific output from 2002 to 2012. Business and Management Review, v. 4, n. 3, p. 427-441, 2014.
• EVANS, W. R.; DAVIS, W. D. High-performance work systems and organizational performance: the mediating role of internal social structure. Journal of Management, v. 31, n. 5, p. 758-775, 2005.
• Ghisi, G. L. D. M. et al. Desenvolvimento e validação da versão em português da Escala de Barreiras para Reabilitação Cardíaca. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, v. 98, n. 4, p. 344-352, 2012.
• GOLDFELD, P. R. M. et al. Adaptação transcultural do Inventory of Countertransference Behavior (ICB) para o português brasileiro. Revista de Psiquiatria do Rio Grande do Sul, v. 29, n. 1, p. 56-62, 2007.
• GONÇALVES, A. M. S.; PILLON, S. C.Adaptação transcultural e avaliação da consistência interna da versão em português da Spirituality Self Rating Scale (SSRS). Revista de Psiquiatria Clínica, v. 36, n. 1, p. 10-15, 2009.
• GUILLEMIN, F.; BOMBARDIER, C.; BEATON, D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, v. 46, n. 12, p. 1417-1432, 1993.
• HAIR, J. F. et al. Fundamentos de métodos de pesquisa em administração. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2005.
• HAIR, J. F. et al. Análise multivariada de dados. 6. ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2009.
• KATZ, D.; KAHN, R. L. Psicologia social das organizações. 2. ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 1978.
• LATIF, S. A. A análise fatorial auxiliando a resolução de um problema real de pesquisa de marketing. Caderno de Pesquisas em Administração, São Paulo, v. 0, n. 0, p. 1-10, 1994.
• LIN, C.; JOE, S. To share or not to share: Assessing knowledge sharing, interemployee helping, and their antecedents among online knowledge workers. Journal of business ethics, v. 108, n. 4, p. 439-449, 2012.
• MALHOTRA, N. K. Pesquisa de Marketing: Uma Orientação Aplicada. 4. ed.Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2006.
• MARINOVA, S.; MOON, H.; VAN DYNE, A. L. Are all good soldier behaviors the same? Supporting multidimensionality of organizational citizenship behaviors based on rewards and roles. Human Relations, v. 63, n. 10, p. 1463-1485, 2010.
• MEYNHARDT, T.; BRIEGER, S. A.; HERMANN, C. Organizational public value and employee life satisfaction: the mediating roles of work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, v. 40, n. 3, p. 1-34, 2018.
• MOON, H.; VANDYNE, L.; WROBEL, K. The Circumplex Model and the Future of Organizational Citizenship Research. In: TURNIPSEED, D. (Ed.) A Handbook on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Review of ‘Good Soldier ’ Activity in Organizations. New York: Nova Science, 2005.
• NASRA, M. A.; HEILBRUNN, S. Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior in the Arab educational system in Israel: the impact of trust and job satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, v. 43, n. 1, p. 1-17, 2015.
• ORGAN, D. W. Organizational citizenship behavior: the good soldier syndrome. Lexington: Lexington, 1988.
• ORGAN, D. W. Organizational citizenship behavior: its construct clean-up time. Human Performance, v. 10, p. 85-97, 1997.
• ORGAN, D. W. Organizational citizenship behavior: recent trends and developments. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, v.1, n.1, p. 17.1-17.12, 2018.
• PODSAKOFF, P. M. et al. Organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, v. 26, n. 3, p. 513-563, 2000.
• PODSAKOFF, N. P. et al. Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, v. 94, p. 122-141, 2009.
• PODSAKOFF, N. et al. Consequences of unit-level organizational citizenship behaviors: a review and recommendations for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, v. 35, p. S87-S119, 2014.
• PRUDÊNCIO, P. S. et al. The cultural and linguistic adaptation to Brazilian Portuguese and content validity of the patient expectations and satisfaction with prenatal care instrument. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, v. 27, n. 5, p. 1-9, 2015.
• REGO, A. Climas éticos e comportamentos de cidadania organizacional. Revista de Administração de Empresas, v. 42, p. 50-63, 2002.
• SALAMON, S. D.; DEUTSCH, Y. OCB as a handicap: an evolutionary psychological perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, v. 27, n. 2, p. 185-199, 2006.
• TAKARA, R. et al. Translation of the Outcome Questionnaire-45 (OQ) into Japanese: a cultural adaptation. Psychotherapy Research, v. 27, n. 2p. 1-13, 2015.
• VAN DIJKE, M. et al. When does procedural fairness promote organizational citizenship behavior? Integrating empowering leadership types in relational justice models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, v. 117, n. 2, p. 235-248, 2012.
• VAN DYNE, L.; ANG, S.; KOH, C. Development and validation of the CQS: the cultural intelligence scale. In: ANG, S.; VAN DYNE, L. (Ed.). Handbook on cultural intelligence: theory, measurement and applications. New York: M. E. Sharpe, 2008. p. 16-38.
• WALLUMBVA, F. O. et al. Retracted: authentically leading groups - the mediating role of collective psychological capital and trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior, v. 32, n. 1, p. 4-24, 2011.
• YAGHOUBI, N. M.; YAZDANI, B. O.; KHORNEGAH, K. The relationship between organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and social capital (SC). American Journal of Scientific Research, v. 24, p. 121-126, 2011.

• We thanks to Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) for the support received for the execution of this research.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  Jul-Sep 2018
• Date of issue
  Sept 2018

History

• Received
  16 Sept 2016
• Accepted
  26 Apr 2018