Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2020/Organisational citizenship behaviour motivation

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

General comment on structure and content[edit source]

Hey, I can see how this question is difficult to categorise and integrate theory and research! Your chapter looks really interesting.

Firstly, I think your case study is excellent and the quiz question really helped to engage me as a reader and to think deeply about what I'm reading. I especially love that you incorporated COVID, making it very contemporary! I feel continuing on with this, with examples for people to figure out what OCB subtype Joan is, would be great.

I feel that outlining some studies and what happened in them specifically will help balance the theory and research. For example, a study that showed OCB boosting moral and how they found this.

For your section on what motivates OCB, it might be good to have sections on different parts of the literature and discuss theory as needed, rather than having a section explaining the theory. Remember there are whole other chapters on these theories that you can link to after a brief explanation of what applies to your topic (e.g. Self Determination Theory). From what I have read in your chapter, maybe employee interaction, leader-member relationship or perceived organisational impartiality could be headings in this section? Of course, I don't know about this topic and it all depends on the literature you can access!

I hope this makes sense, best of luck with submission!--U3190052 (discusscontribs) 01:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Comments[edit source]

Hi Clare,

This looks like a great start to your chapter. I really like the use of a table for the OCB types. There are a few suggestions below which are hopefully helpful:

  • There are some spelling and grammar errors. I know this is a draft, but if you let me know when you're nearly done I'm happy to do a final proofread.
  • Your case study is really useful (and topical) and your focus questions relating to this is good. It might be worth also doing a question on what kind of OCB the reader thinks Joan is exhibiting. You could add a sentence into your case report that Joan enjoys her work and feels she's making an important contribution. This would make it clearer that it's alturistic.
  • Your explanation of Regulatory focus theory is really good - but it also might benefit from a visual aid. There is a figure showing RFT on the RFT wikipedia page, which might be useful to include here: or for a non-student example you could make your own. This can be done in word or powerpoint and saved as an image file to upload.
  • Think about creating direct hyperlinks to relevant wikipedia pages from within your text
  • This may sound like a really stupid tip - but if you're using UC Library to search for resources try using the American spelling 'organizational citizenship behavior', sometimes this can bring up different results.
  • If the focus of your chapter is on the different theories associated with OCB, maybe under each theory have sub-headings for 'supporting research' and 'criticisms and limitations'. This could also help inform your Advantages and consequences of OCB discussion. I think it may also be good to discuss a couple of examples of research which supports each theory.
  • As well as theories of motivation relating to organisational citizenship behaviour you could also have another section looking at other determinants, such as personality, job characteristics, psychological contracts etc.
  • Another interesting question in this area is does culture influence OCB? Are their certain cultural backgrounds (such as collectivist cultures) that are more likely to engage in OCB?
  • Some resources you may find useful:

Regulatory focus theory[edit source]

Self-determination theory[edit source]

Job Characteristics model[edit source]

Psychological contracts[edit source]

Influence of culture[edit source]

U3025324 (discusscontribs) 01:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Psychological Contract - Social Exchange relationship[edit source]

There is a lot of research on the psychological contract between an employer and their employees and how this motivates employee OCB. If you are interested in how the relationship between an employer and their subordinate influences behaviour, then there is also some great research on a theory called leader-member exchange theory. --Amy.lange1306 (discusscontribs) 13:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[]

Heading casing[edit source]

Crystal Clear app ktip.svg
FYI, the convention on Wikiversity is for sentence casing. For example, the wikitext should be:

== Cats and mice ==

rather than

== Cats and Mice ==

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Topic development feedback[edit source]

The topic development has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing the chapter plan. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Topic development marks are available via UCLearn. Note that marks are based on what was available before the due date, whereas the comments may also be based on all material available at time of providing this feedback.

Autoroute icone.svg

Title and sub-title[edit source]

  1. Very good
  2. Capitalisation of the title has been corrected to be consistent with the book table of contents

User page[edit source]

  1. Created
  2. About me
    1. Description about self provided
    2. Consider linking to your eportfolio page and/or any other professional online profile or resume such as LinkedIn. This is not required, but it can be useful to interlink your professional networks.
  3. Link provided to book chapter

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. Excellent - summarised with direct link(s) to evidence.

Section headings[edit source]

  1. Under-developed, 2-level heading structure - develop further.
  2. Aim for 3 to 6 top-level headings between the Overview and Conclusion, with up to a similar number of sub-headings for large sections.
  3. See earlier comment about Heading casing.

Key points[edit source]

  1. Overview - Consider adding:
    1. a description of the problem and what will be covered
    2. focus questions
    3. an image
    4. an example or case study
  2. Expand theory and research.
  3. Include in-text interwiki links for the first mention of key terms to relevant Wikipedia articles and/or to other relevant book chapters.
  4. Consider including more examples/case studies.
  5. Avoid overcapitalisation (APA style) - more info e.g., use "organizational citizenship behaviour" rather than "Organisational Citizenship Behaviour" - only capitalise proper nouns etc.
  6. Conclusion (the most important section):
    1. hasn't been developed
    2. what might the take-home, practical messages be?
    3. in a nutshell, what are the answer(s) to the question in the sub-title?

Image[edit source]

  1. Excellent
  2. could better explain how the image connects to key points being made in the main text.
  3. Cite each figure at least once in the main text.

References[edit source]

  1. Very good
  2. For APA referencing style, check and correct:
    1. capitalisation of 1st ref

Resources[edit source]

  1. Very good
  2. Some minor changes have been made to casing and style

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[]

Social Contribution - Research into psychological contract[edit source]

If you’re interested in how leadership predicts and influences employee motivation to engage in OCB here is an interesting article. - Impact of psychological contract fulfillment on organizational citizenship behavior --Amy.lange1306 (discusscontribs) 20:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]

How leadership influences employee motivation to engage in employee OCB - leader-member exchange[edit source]

Leader-member exchange is a social exchange theory and has been found to motivate employees to engage in OCB due to the reciprocal nature of the leader-subordinate relationship. There may be some research suggesting that the leader-member exchange facilitates the fulfillment of the three psychological needs outlined in self-determination theory, particularly relatedness, as high-quality leader-member exchanges are characterised by high mutual trust - Here is an article I found which suggests that empowerment mediates the relationship between OCB and LMX - DOI: 10.1007/s10490-009-9163-2 - Relationship between leader–member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviors: Examining the moderating role of empowerment--Amy.lange1306 (discusscontribs) 20:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Adding a table[edit source]

Hi, I thought I'd suggest that adding a table to your 'types of OCB' section may be a useful way to clearly summarize these key points. Here is a Wikiversity link to the table templates. --U3190415 (discusscontribs) 01:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Figures, abbreviations, APA formatting, APA referencing and subheading suggestion[edit source]

Hey! Your chapter is really great and you can tell you have done a lot of research. I really like your example and quizzes as I think they help concrete readers knowledge. I have added some suggestions and feedback below that you may find useful.

1. Just a reminder to refer to your figures within the chapter (see Figure 1).

2. You have abbreviated OBC in your outline, meaning you do not need to use the full name again throughout your book. However, in your focus question and subsequent heading you restated "Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB)". Maybe use the full name for the outline and focus question and from the next heading onwards use the abbreviation?

3. Just make sure you format your table in APA style. Meaning you need to have Figure 1, under that have the title in italics

4. When talking about theories you do not need to capitalise them, you only need to capitalise theorists names for example: Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This website may help clarify this and be useful:

5. For you last section where you speak about advantages and consequences. It may be easier to read if you split these up into subheadings.

Overall, your chapter is looking really great!! You have done an amazing job!

--U3190210 (discusscontribs) 03:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Social contribution[edit source]

you could additionally explore the economic benefits from the businesses perspective from lower staff turnover rates and the lowered associated costs with positive consequences of OCB. The volume number needs to be italicized in the reference list.

U3145017 (discusscontribs) 14:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Social Contribution[edit source]

Hi! Your book chapter has a lot of really useful information! One thing I may comment on is moving the case study further down a little bit as it looks a bit crowded right at the front. We are getting marked on the appearance of our book chapter as well so maybe adding another case study in a fancy box or a few more photos may be really useful and your book chapter will benefit from it! also adding another question to the mini quiz so it's not just one would be beneficial also. --U3190523 (discusscontribs) 21:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[]

Chapter review and feedback[edit source]

This chapter has been reviewed according to the marking criteria. Written feedback is provided below, plus there is a general feedback page. Please also check the chapter's page history to check for editing changes made whilst reviewing through the chapter. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below and/or contacting the reviewer. Chapter marks will be available later via UCLearn, along with social contribution marks and feedback. Keep an eye on Announcements.

Wikiuutiset logo typewriter.png

Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is an excellent chapter that successfully uses psychological theory and research to help address a practical, real-world phenomenon or problem.
  2. For additional feedback, see the following comments and these copyedits.

Theory[edit source]

  1. Relevant theories are well selected, described, integrated, and explained.

Research[edit source]

  1. Relevant research is well reviewed and discussed in relation to theory.

Written expression[edit source]

  1. Written expression
    1. Overall, the quality of written expression is very good.
    2. "People" is often a better term than "individuals"; similarly "participants" is preferred to "subjects".
    3. Avoid starting sentences with a citation unless the author is particularly pertinent. Instead, it is more interesting for the the content/key point to be communicated, with the citation included along the way or, more typically, in brackets at the end of the sentence.
    4. Avoid directional referencing (e.g., "As previously mentioned"). Instead:
      1. It is most often not needed at all, or
      2. use section linking.
    5. The chapter benefited from a well developed Overview and Conclusion, with clear focus question(s) and take-home messages.
    6. Avoid one sentence paragraphs. A paragraph should typically consist of three to five sentences.
    7. Use 3rd person perspective rather than 1st (e.g., "we") or 2nd person (e.g., "you")[1].
  2. Layout
    1. Avoid having sections with 1 sub-heading - use 0 or 2+ sub-headings.
    2. The chapter is well structured, with major sections using sub-sections.
  3. Learning features
    1. Very good use of embedded in-text interwiki links to Wikipedia articles.
    2. Promising use of embedded in-text links to related book chapters. Embedding more in-text links to related book chapters helps to integrate this chapter into the broader book project.
    3. Basic/No use of image(s).
    4. Good use of table(s).
    5. Good use of feature box(es).
    6. Very good use of quiz(zes).
  4. Grammar
    1. The grammar for some sentences could be improved (e.g., see the [grammar?] tags) and my copyedits.
    2. Check and make correct use of commas.
  5. APA style
    1. Figures and tables
      1. Use APA style for Table captions. See example.
    2. Citations are not in full APA style. For example:
      1. If there are three or more authors, cite the first author followed by et al., then year. For example, either:
        1. in-text, Smith et al. (2020), or
        2. in parentheses (Smith et al., 2020)
    3. References use correct APA style.

Social contribution[edit source]

  1. ~17 logged, useful, social contributions with direct links to evidence

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[]

Multimedia feedback

The accompanying multimedia presentation has been marked according to the marking criteria. Marks are available via the unit's UCLearn site. Written feedback is provided below, plus see the general feedback page. Responses to this feedback can be made by starting a new section below. If you would like further clarification about the marking or feedback, contact the unit convener.


Overall[edit source]

  1. Overall, this is a very good presentation.

Structure and content[edit source]

  1. Comments about the book chapter also largely apply to this section.
  2. There is too much content, in too much detail, within the allocated time frame, because the presentation feels rushed. Zoom out and provide a higher-level presentation at a slower pace. It is best to do a small amount well than a large amount poorly.
  3. The presentation is well structured.
  4. Consider adding an Overview slide (e.g., with focus questions), to help orientate the viewer about what will be covered.
  5. The presentation makes excellent use of theory.
  6. The presentation makes basic use of research.
  7. The presentation could be improved by making more use of examples or case studies.
  8. A Conclusion slide is presented with a take-home message(s).

Communication[edit source]

  1. The presentation makes effective use of text and image based slides with narrated audio.
  2. The visual presentation is interesting to watch. However, there is probably too much on some slides which is difficult to read whilst listening to the narrated audio.
  3. The narration is quite fast. Consider slowing down and leaving longer pauses between sentences. This can help the viewer to cognitively digest the information that has just been presented before moving on to the next point.
  4. Excellent/Consider using greater intonation to enhance listener interest and engagement.
  5. Consider improving articulation to enhance the clarity of speech.
  6. The audio communication is hesitant - could benefit from further practice.
  7. The font size is sufficiently large to make it easy to read.
  8. Some of the font size should be larger to make it easier to read.
  9. The visual communication is effectively supplemented by images.
  10. The visual communication could be improved by including some relevant images.

Production quality[edit source]

  1. The video is reasonably well produced. Canva made for appealing visual presentation and the inset webcam is a nice touch. However, the lack of meta-data isn't ideal. Perhaps a reasonable work around would have been to create a screencast of the Canva presentation and upload to a video-hosting site such as YouTube.
    1. The sub-title is missing from the opening slide - this would help to clearly convey the purpose of the presentation.
  2. Audio recording quality was OK - probably an on-board microphone was used because keyboard clicks were audible. Consider using an external microphone.
  3. Visual display quality was excellent.
  4. Image sources and their copyright status are not provided.
  5. A link to the book chapter is provided, but it is not an actively clickable hyperlink.
  6. A link from the book chapter is provided.
  7. A written description of the presentation is not provided.

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[]