OCB: What happens in your team in your absence
I recently stopped to consider a concept that, although it is more than half a century old, directly challenges current leadership: Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB).
It is not new. Authors such as Dennis Organ were already studying it in the 1960s. However, a recent publication by Ben Tiggelaar led me to take a closer look at it and realise how useful it still is as a framework for understanding what is happening in many organisations today.
OCB refers to behaviours that do not appear in job descriptions or KPIs, nor are they usually associated with bonuses, but which make a clear difference to how an organisation functions in practice.
I am talking, for example, about:
- Helping a colleague without being asked
- Proactively sharing relevant information
- Pointing out a risk before it escalates, even if it is uncomfortable
- Stepping up when something gets stuck, even when it is not your responsibility
These are not heroic gestures. They are everyday behaviours, often discreet, that sustain collective work when processes, roles and organisational charts are no longer sufficient.
The important thing is not to acknowledge that these types of behaviours exist. The important thing is to understand why they appear naturally in some contexts and disappear completely in others, even when there are experienced, competent and well-intentioned people involved.
It is common to think that they depend mainly on individual attitude, personal involvement or ‘sense of mission’. However, research and experience suggest that these behaviours are largely influenced by the context in which one works.
And that context is not neutral. It is the result of accumulated decisions, repeated signals over time and what is systematically rewarded, tolerated or avoided.
Organisational Citizenship Behaviour cannot be demanded. The moment it is expected or imposed, it ceases to be voluntary and loses its meaning. Instead, it can be encouraged or discouraged by very specific daily messages, often sent without full awareness.
For example:
- How mistakes are dealt with. If mistakes result in penalties, few people will risk stepping outside their formal boundaries.
- How disagreement is managed. If there is a relational or political cost to dissent, silence will be the safest option.
- How invisible effort is recognised. If only visible effort, effort that looks good, or effort that reaches the top is recognised, the things that really sustain day-to-day operations are neglected.
When these behaviours weaken, the effect is usually neither immediate nor spectacular. Instead, something more subtle emerges: teams that comply but do not raise the alarm, late decisions, unmentioned risks and problems that are only managed once they can no longer be nuanced.
The system continues to function, but with less shared judgement, less distributed initiative and greater dependence on constant intervention. Everything seems to be under control until it is no longer the case.
However, there is an important nuance that should not be overlooked. Not everything that goes beyond one’s role is necessarily healthy. When ‘going the extra mile’ becomes an unspoken expectation, constant availability becomes the norm and helping others ceases to be a choice and becomes a covert obligation, commitment can turn into exhaustion, resentment and, over time, cynicism.
Confusing commitment with silent sacrifice is a serious mistake. This may not always be evident in indicators, but it can erode the quality of work, relationships and decision-making.
This explains why, although the concept is old, it is particularly relevant today. In increasingly complex and interdependent organisations, formal processes alone are no longer sufficient. Much of effective functioning depends on how people collaborate, share criteria and take responsibility for matters beyond their formal remit.
It is neither a management technique nor a passing fad. It is a consequence. It reveals more about the system and leadership style than it does about individuals.
When a team strictly limits itself to doing the bare minimum, the question should not be why there is a lack of commitment, but rather what context has been created that makes going the extra mile seem unnatural, unsafe or unworthy.
There are dynamics that do not appear in organisational charts, KPIs or incentive systems, yet they make all the difference between an organisation functioning very well and merely getting by.
In this article, I share some thoughts on organisational citizenship behaviour and its relationship with leadership. I am not talking about it as a technique or a trend, but as a direct consequence of the context that is created every day.
Rather than discussing commitment, it is a question of observing what happens when no one is watching and examine the sometimes invisible signals that influence people’s decisions to either get involved or limit themselves to the bare minimum.
What, in your experience, makes a team go the extra mile… or stop doing so?
Executive Coach for leaders who want to make a difference
