Citizenship behavior and effectiveness in temporary organizations

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 862 – 876 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Citizenship behavior and effectiveness in temporary organizations Timo Braun a,⁎, Aristides I. Ferreira b , Jörg Sydow b

a

a Freie Universität Berlin, School of Business & Economics, Department of Management, Germany ISCTE — Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Business Research Unit, FCT (PEst-OE/EGE/UI0315/2011), Portugal

Received 21 April 2012; received in revised form 29 August 2012; accepted 4 September 2012

Abstract Studying temporary organizations from a behavioral perspective, we theorize how Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) as a form of cooperative effort may enhance the effectiveness of this type of organization, rendering the temporary organizations vital, even beyond their termination. Building upon such a perspective, a quantitative, cross-sectional study was conducted, with 247 project managers and workers participating. Principal component analysis and hierarchical regression analysis were performed. The results reveal that OCB not only facilitates meeting the “iron triangle” (time, budget, quality) of project management but also improves the relationship quality among individual actors beyond the termination of projects. This relationship is partially moderated by project duration. The implications of the findings are discussed. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved. Keywords: Temporary organizations; Projects; Organizational citizenship behavior; OCB; Effectiveness; Performance; Relational

1. Introduction An ‘organizational turn’ in project research has diverted interest from developing instruments for project management to understanding projects as “temporary systems” (e.g. Lundin and Söderholm, 1995) embedded in organizations (e.g. Hobday, 2000), portfolios (e.g. Archer, 1999), networks (e.g. Jones, 1996), ecologies (e.g. Grabher, 2004a,b) and/or fields (e.g. Windeler and Sydow, 2001). There are unique features inherent to temporary organizations which set them apart from permanent organizations. These features are especially their temporariness and institutionalized termination, their specific team structures that are set up in order to accomplish a particular and usually non-repetitive but rather complex task and, finally, their embeddedness in a social and historic context (Bakker, 2010; Engwall, 2003; Jones and Lichtenstein, 2008; Kenis et al., 2009; Lundin and Söderholm, 1995; Sydow et al., 2004). These features are not only characteristic of projects as the most common form of temporary ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 49 30 838 53385; fax: + 49 30 838 56808. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Braun), [email protected] (A.I. Ferreira), [email protected] (J. Sydow). 0263-7863/$36.00 © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.09.003

organization (Turner and Müller, 2003) but also of time-limited collaborations, event organizations, project-based organizations etc. (Söderlund, 2011), more often than not of interorganizational character. The specific features of temporary organizations, and in particular the limited time issue, can create countervailing forces that may have a substantial impact on how individuals cooperate, support each other and build a shared identity. On the one hand, short duration, especially when coupled with institutionalized termination, can limit the occurrence of cooperative efforts because there is not enough time available and the time horizon of the venture is limited. Drawing from work and organizational psychology, we know that affect and cooperative attitudes, being in a reciprocal relationship with position tenure and organizational tenure, need time in order to develop (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Moreover, if temporary organizations are comprehended as single occurrences, then cooperative efforts might be perceived as not being reciprocated in the future (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002). On the other hand, projects can be very vivid, with a high potential of identification, flexibility and entrepreneurship involved (Lindkvist, 2004). Especially creative projects can create an experience of timelessness by becoming involved in attractive

T. Braun et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 862–876

work activities (Mainemelis, 2001) that focus the team attention on the immediate present, drawing project workers into the here and now and engrossing them in the task at hand (Bakker et al., in press). Thereby, a more heuristic as opposed to systematic mode is applied, which may include ‘non-bureaucratic’ cooperative efforts as well. While this holds true for unique projects in the creative industries, this may be less the case with more routine projects in manufacturing, information technology, or construction industries. A key concept in the field that describes cooperative efforts like the ones mentioned above is Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Known in short as OCB, this is defined as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988). There is empirical evidence that OCB not only promotes effectiveness outcomes (Organ et al., 2006; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 1997), but also increases the social capital in organizations, e.g. by improving the relationship quality among co-workers and by increasing liking and trust (Bolino et al., 2002). Based upon the evidence that OCB enhances intraorganizational performance, we analyze citizenship behaviors as a predictor for effectiveness in temporary organizations. First empirical evidence suggesting that citizenship behaviors are present in interorganizational contexts (Autry et al., 2008) and the insight of OCB driving effectiveness in permanent organizations make us believe there might be such a positive impact in temporary organizations as well. More precisely, we will theorize how OCBs may drive effectiveness in temporary organizations while taking the conditions of temporality and termination into consideration. Towards this end, we derive several hypotheses and utilize a quantitative survey to test them. Our work is guided by the following overarching research questions: If citizenship behaviors enhance the effectiveness of temporary organizations, (a) how do these behaviors relate to the immediate project outcomes and (b) what is their impact beyond the termination of projects? In our study we take into account two perspectives on effectiveness: first, following the classical project management literature, we apply the “iron triangle” of time, budget and quality. These measures are most common in project management practice and also dominate the research into projects as temporary organizational forms (Oerlemans and Meeus, 2009). Second, we adopt a more comprehensive perspective considering the embeddedness of projects (Engwall, 2003) in more than temporary contexts. In particular, we analyze whether citizenship behaviors have an effect beyond a project as a single occurrence. We argue and show empirically that citizenship behaviors have such an effect by improving the quality of relationships among project actors who have collaborated in previous projects. This implies that project-based work can effectively build upon existing relationships established by project staff in (terminated) projects of the past. The paper is structured as follows: first, we elaborate on the nature of temporary organizations and briefly review prior

863

research on their main features. After introducing the OCB concept and theorizing how this concept may be transferred to the context of temporary organizations, we derive the hypotheses. Second, we introduce our quantitative methodology. This section includes information about our sample and the procedure by which we gathered our data, the measures we applied, and the methods of analysis. Third, we present the results of our analysis. Fourth, we discuss our findings against the backdrop of the previously introduced theoretical concepts of OCB as well as those of temporary organizations. This section also contains theoretical and practical implications, limitations and directions for future research. 2. Theoretical background Temporary organizations occur in various industries, including traditional ones like construction or pharmaceuticals, but also in creative industries like film-making, theater or advertising, and in service industries such as consulting or software-development (Sydow et al., 2004). There are some unique features inherent in temporary organizations that deserve attention before starting to look at the role of OCB in the context of temporary organizations. First of all, temporary organizations can be distinguished from permanent organizations by time (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). Time is fundamental to understanding temporary organizations, since their duration is usually limited and short rather than long (Bakker, 2010). Temporary organizations have a starting point that can be defined by a formal kick-off event, although in the case of pre-project politics and more complex initiation processes this starting point can be fuzzier. The end or ‘close-out’ is usually set by a deadline by which a task has to be accomplished (Bakker, 2010), while there are cases where the institutionalized termination is repeatedly postponed or just abandoned (Müller-Seitz and Sydow, 2011). The limited time of temporary organizations leads to a mode of information processing that can be quite different to the one that is prevalent in organizations with a longer time horizon. In particular, teams with a short time frame focus more on the immediate present, they “jump into action”. This leads to a mode of information processing that is more heuristic rather than systematic and elevates the importance of task completion over the adherence to processes (Bakker et al., in press). Secondly, temporary organizations usually rely on teams, including interdependent sets of people working together (Goodman and Goodman, 1976). Empirical studies often analyze project teams as groups of individuals rather than organizational entities (Bakker, 2010). In the classical project management literature this also includes how to motivate, communicate and build commitment in team environments (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995), usually conceived as widely isolated from their organizational context (Engwall, 2003). Thirdly, temporary organizations are characterized by a specific task. The task is usually the reason why a temporary organization is set up (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). The task dominates the becoming as well as the being of the temporary organization and it seems to be more important for its members than it would be for members of a permanent organization (Bakker, 2010; Katz, 1982). Tasks of temporary organizations can be repetitive or –

864

T. Braun et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 862–876

probably more often – unique (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). Temporary organizations, in particular projects, not only cut through organizational departments and hierarchies but also organizational boundaries (Midler, 1995). Most early studies, nevertheless, took on a ‘lonely project’ perspective on temporary organizational forms. These studies basically ignored not only the organizational but also the wider social and historic context (Engwall, 2003). Recent research increasingly emphasizes a contextual perspective on temporary organizational forms (Bakker, 2010), e.g. looking at their historic, regional, organizational and social embeddedness (Grabher, 2004a,b; Sydow and Staber, 2002; Windeler and Sydow, 2001). Although the notions of project and temporary organization are often used synonymously, distinguishing between them makes sense from an organization theory perspective. Projects are, together with a few other organizational phenomena (e.g. events), a particular type of temporary organization. At the same time they are likely to be part of another temporary organization such as project networks. Furthermore, they are mostly embedded in (permanent) organizations and organizational fields. There are studies that focus on project-based organizing at the firm level (Hobday, 2000), while others look at the wider context of a project-based industry, a project network or a community of practice (cf. Bakker, 2010). Contextualizing allegedly isolated projects opens up new avenues for research, not least from a behavior perspective that focuses on what is commonly called “citizenship behavior” and how it may impact on the effectiveness of temporary organizations.

2.1. Organizational citizenship behavior in temporary organizations Since the concept was first introduced in 1983, OCB has been of increasing interest and has influenced many of the other related concepts (Podsakoff et al., 2000). This popularity can be attributed to its managerial relevance, especially its potential effects on organizational functioning (Organ et al., 2006; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997). As stated earlier, OCB is commonly defined as behavior that is performed voluntarily, not explicitly rewarded and nevertheless useful for organizational functioning (Organ, 1988); it is usually categorized as “extra-role”-behavior. Even though there is no immediate reward when an individual performs OCB, the concept is sensitive to reciprocity, as it is closely tied to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Konovsky and Pugh, 1994). In face of this theoretical background, the differentiation between in-role behavior (which is based upon formal contracts, job descriptions, etc.) and OCB is not always easy, and the two phenomena are not mutually exclusive. We are aware of this, and assume this difficulty will also be prevalent in the context of our research because rewards in projects can be very informal and very significant at the same time, e.g. when citizenship behaviors are important to procure a follow-up contract or when they are part of the expected performance. Nevertheless, we argue in line with Organ (1997) that the OCB concept does not neglect rewards entirely, but that “the important

issue here is that such returns not be contractually guaranteed” (Organ, 1988). Apart from a huge body of studies in organizational settings (Organ et al., 2006; Podsakoff et al., 2000), there is some first empirical evidence of the prevalence of OCB in interorganizational arrangements, taking into account Organ's construct definition (e.g. Autry et al., 2008; Skinner et al., 2009). But how can the construct, which is typically conceived as being multi-dimensional, be translated into a context in which the interorganizational dimension may matter at least as much as the organizational dimension? Findings of a qualitative study discuss the conventional dimensions of the construct and demonstrate their relevance for this kind of context, cf. Braun et al. (in press): Helping behavior describes actions which are directed towards helping a person in face-to-face situations (Smith et al., 1983). This behavior is voluntary and solves or prevents problems among staff. This dimension has been identified as an important form of citizenship behavior by almost every scholar working in this area (e.g. Borman and Motowidlo, 1993; George and Brief, 1992; Smith et al., 1983). In the project context this dimension is directed towards single persons or the entire project team, who more often than not have formal work contracts with different organizations. Consequently, this behavior crosses organizational boundaries. This is not trivial, since the accountability of performed tasks or accomplished working hours to particular organizations may become jeopardized. However, such project-specific helping behavior is essential in temporary organizations. Organizational loyalty captures endorsing, supporting and defending organizational objectives (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993), which also includes spreading goodwill, protecting the organization and defending it against threats, even under adverse conditions (Podsakoff et al., 2000; Van Dyne et al., 1994). Applying this dimension to temporary organizations, the major difference here is an actor's organizational belonging (to a parent organization), which can be in conflict with his belonging to the temporary organization. Team members often hold employment contracts with one of the participating parental organizations. Therefore, the team members have to report to their line managers in the first place. The temporary organization creates a second point of reference for loyalty (Braun et al., in press). While the consequences of this multiple membership are still rather unclear, they could be complementary but also competing. Organizational compliance entails the acceptance of rules, regulations and procedures and their internalization in individual behavior. Compliance is not directed towards co-workers but more generally towards the well-being of the organization (Smith et al., 1983). It is relevant, as even though people are obliged to behave in a particular way and obey corporate regulations, rules and procedures at any time, some of them do not or do not always do so. A “good citizen” obeys rules and regulations even when nobody is watching (Podsakoff et al., 2000). For temporary organizations, this issue could be generally applicable because they tend to be characterized by horizontal rather than hierarchical coordination (e.g. Bechky, 2006). Aside from that, project-based compliance entails the formal and informal rules and procedures established by the management

T. Braun et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 862–876

which initiated the temporary organization, by the project manager, and/or in a more or less democratic process, e.g. by the project team. Objects of compliance are, in the project contexts, for instance, communication procedures, information sharing policies, deadlines and punctuality. Nowadays, many projects are “virtual” and project participants can collaborate solely over the internet and telephone. In this context the case where nobody is watching compliance issues is the rule rather than the exception. Individual initiative describes task-related behaviors that extend beyond the minimal expected performance or requirement levels. In that sense they are voluntary and a kind of extra-role behavior, which usually contains moments of creativity and innovation. The objective is to improve the individual and/or the organizational performance. Doing so, employees show enthusiasm, and they tackle additional tasks or motivate fellow employees to do the same (Podsakoff et al., 2000). As for temporary organizations, this dimension appears to be very similar to the related OCB dimension. For example, project participants proactively use their knowledge of past projects, organizational or interorganizational, in order to make suggestions for improvement in the current project without being asked to do so. Civic virtue is prevalent when individuals engage actively in the governance of an organization, e.g. participating in meetings and internal policy debates, contributing to corporate strategizing (Organ, 1988). This dimension represents an employee's over-arching interest and commitment towards the organization (Podsakoff et al., 2000). To translate this dimension to the macro-level context of temporary organizations and to minimize the overlap with the initiative dimension, we conceptualize the dimension as relationship maintenance beyond the termination of the project. In practice, this behavior can be vital, for example, when participating at industry conferences or project management venues, when having lunch with former project co-workers, or when calling previous colleagues simply to catch up. Civic virtue and relationship maintenance have in common that both occur aside the operative day to day work and address the engagement in macro-level processes. The focus of these behaviors is strategic, with a long-run orientation. Relationship maintenance refers to ongoing relationships beyond single projects while civic virtue captures similar behaviors but within permanent organizations. Some of these dimensions (e.g. helping behavior and loyalty), can be found in the vast majority of OCB studies, while others (like initiative) are used less frequently. In addition, it should be noted that the dimensions have been re-conceptualized several times during the development of the construct; and the application of different conceptualizations in empirical research is very common anyway (e.g. Podsakoff et al., 2000; Van Dyne et al., 1994). One distinction that is widely accepted and that we also refer to in our empirical section subsumes behaviors that are directed towards individuals (e.g. helping behavior and initiative) under the term “OCB-I” and behaviors that are directed at the organization as a whole (e.g. compliance and loyalty) under the term “OCB-O” (Organ, 1997; Williams and Anderson, 1991).

865

During the past years, some studies opened up the OCB concept to new contexts such as interorganizational supply chains (Autry et al., 2008; Skinner et al., 2009), customer relationships (Groth, 2005), and temporary or contingent work (Blatt, 2008; Moorman and Harland, 2002). The latter bear relevance for temporary organizations because these studies show that OCB is prevalent even in short-term work, cuts across organizational boundaries, and exists under the socially ambiguous standing of personnel (Blatt, 2008). 2.2. The impact of OCB on the effectiveness of (temporary) organizations In management research there has been a long controversy about the construct of effectiveness. The construct has been operationalized in various ways and it seems somewhat intangible (Oerlemans and Meeus, 2009). Campbell (1977) demonstrates that there is a high conceptual overlap between different effectiveness measures. Steers (1975) questions the value of the construct and Bluedorn (1980) even proposes discarding it altogether. In an empirical paper, Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) develop a framework which incorporates various aspects and measures of effectiveness grouped into three ‘value dimensions’. The first dimension entails the organizational focus of effectiveness and ranges from a micro focus addressing the well-being of individuals in the organization to a macro focus referring to the well-being of the organization itself. The second dimension covers the organizational structure and ranges from an emphasis on organizational stability to an emphasis on organizational flexibility. The third dimension relates to organizational means and ends, ranging from a focus on processes (such as planning and goal setting) to a focus on outcomes (such as efficiency and productivity). Within each of these dimensions, Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) identify dilemmas that make it practically impossible to simultaneously address all of these effectiveness “values”. A review by Podsakoff et al. (2000) shows that the impact of OCB on several of these effectiveness measures has been subject to research in the past. There is empirical evidence for a substantial link between OCB and organizational performance such as increasing employee and management productivity, unleashing resources, reducing maintenance functions, improved coordination, improved employer branding and attractiveness, increased performance, and improved ability to adapt to environmental changes. According to Huang et al. (2004) as well as Oerlemans and Meeus (2009), a vast majority of studies on effectiveness in temporary organizations focuses on the “iron triangle” of meeting cost-, time- and quality-related goals, even though there is an increasing diversity in success operationalizations. For example, Ika (2009) differentiates between project success frameworks which are used as a universal tool or a context-specific tool and those used as a social construct. Moreover, the results of this study suggest a shift of research to project, portfolio, and program success instead of focusing on single projects only. In a similar vein, Jugdev and Müller (2005) show that project success measures over time have developed in the sense that they

866

T. Braun et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 862–876

capture additional parts of the project life cycle. While from the 1960s to 1980s only the production/implementation phases were subject to project success evaluation, gradually more phases from conception and planning to handover, utilization and close down were included. In the sense of the “iron triangle”, time-, cost-, and qualityrelated outcomes have also been assessed by some studies on OCB. Although these studies assume a context that is (intra-) organizational and permanent, there are some contextual factors that make us believe these studies are of value to the study of temporary organizations that stretch beyond the boundaries of single organizations: a study by Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1994) examines the impact of helping behavior, sportsmanship, and civic virtue on a composite index of performance at the level of a sales unit. Just as in temporary organizations, sales units have clear and measurable tasks (e.g. numbers of contracts to be sold per unit/per agent). Furthermore, this study was conducted at a unit level (as opposed to organizational level), where people interact directly just as they do in project teams. Another similarity to projects is the time-frame. Of course sales units do not exhibit an institutionalized termination like projects do, but they plan and measure sales in fixed periods, (e.g. quarters or years). The study by Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1994) measures effectiveness using an index that was calculated to provide a weighted average of four indicators: (a) the turnover brought in by agents, (b) the amount by which the agents exceeded the previous year's average agent production level, (c) the average number of policies sold per agent, and (d) the total number of policies sold. The study found that all three types of citizenship behaviors had significant effects on unit-level performance (accounting for 17% of the variance). Another study by Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997) analyses the effects of helping behavior, sportsmanship, and civic virtue on the quantity and the quality of paper produced. The sample consists of 40 work crews at a paper mill. The compensation for each crew member was comprised of a combination of hourly wages and gain-sharing, based on the quantity and quality of the paper that the unit/team produced. While the time dimension seems to be less prevalent in this study, the team structure comes close to those in temporary organizations, with major interdependencies within the team and gain-sharing at the team level. The study found that helping behavior and sportsmanship correspond positively to the quantity of paper produced, and that helping behavior increased production quality (accounting for 26% of the variance in the quality measure and for 17% variance in the quantity measure). Both studies suggest that OCBs have an impact on the overall work quality of the group. Based upon that we suggest:

concerning their use in order to avoid wastage and improve efficiency. The study found that helping behavior corresponded to the overall operating efficiency, to revenue per full-time equivalent, to customer satisfaction, to quality of performance, and, in addition, to reduced costs of wastage. The efficiency argument matches well with the budget argument in temporary organizations because whether or not a project exceeds the given budget informs us what input was needed to achieve the project outcomes. Therefore we suggest:

H1a. The perceived quality of work will increase with a higher level of citizenship behavior in a temporary organization.

Since the limited time is the foremost feature of temporary organizations (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995), the impact of the project duration on the citizenship-effectiveness relationship should receive particular attention. As described above, the OCB literature suggests that a longer duration (in permanent organizations measured as position tenure) stimulates citizenship behaviors (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002; Podsakoff et al., 2000), while the literature on temporary organizations points towards the vividness of projects and the engagement of the team in

Another study by Walz and Niehoff (1996) tested the impact of OCBs on a variety of performance measures in fast food restaurants. Fast food restaurants are known to be highly standardized in terms of their products and services, operating procedures, and efficient use of resources. As for the resources – comparable to budgets in projects – there are clear guidelines

H1b. Tasks are more likely to be completed within the given budget with a higher level of citizenship behavior in a temporary organization. Besides the empirical evidence that OCB influences organizational functioning in various ways (Organ et al., 2006; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 2009), we found no study that explicitly addresses the question of whether OCB helps to meet schedules. Nevertheless, we argue that performing tasks on time is conceptually related to organizational functioning. If schedules are stretched and tasks are postponed, this will have negative impacts on other efficiency measures. What is more, limited time can focus a project team on the completion. Instead of planning and keeping processes they tend to do what is needed to get the job done (Bakker et al., in press). This might entail citizenship behaviors such as helping or showing initiative. Therefore, we propose that: H1c. Tasks are more likely to be completed according to the time schedule with a higher level of citizenship behavior in a temporary organization. In addition to partial effectiveness measures, we analyze citizenship behavior with regard to the perceived overall project success, as a global indicator for the organizational perception of project success as well as the perception of success by the customers. In an empirical study, Walz and Niehoff (1996) present evidence that OCB drives customer satisfaction alongside other effectiveness measures. This is plausible from a temporary organization perspective as well. If customers recognize that employees are doing whatever is necessary for the project (e.g. voluntary efforts, non-bureaucratic problem-solving orientation) than they will tend to attribute positive connotations to the project. Taken together, we assume that H1d. The overall project success will increase with a higher level of citizenship behavior in a temporary organization.

T. Braun et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 862–876

order to get the challenge done (Bakker et al., in press). The latter refers to work where creativity is extraordinarily important, while projects which are mainly repetitive or those that seem to be a never-ending story and coming close to permanency are neglected (Müller-Seitz and Sydow, 2011). Taking this fact in combination with the insights from the OCB literature and knowing that our sample covers rather conventional (“less creative”) projects, we assume that in longer projects the potential effect of citizenship behavior is more likely to occur as opposed to short projects:

867

to connect projects to the wider social context and in that way make future collaborations smoother. Therefore we propose: H3. The relationship quality among co-workers in future temporary organizations will increase with a higher level of citizenship behavior in past temporary organizations. In the next section we will describe our methodology and after this we present the results of our empirical study. 3. Methods

H2. The relationship between citizenship behavior and effectiveness is positively moderated by the project duration.

3.1. Sample and procedure

Over the past years scholars of temporary organizations have tried increasingly to incorporate more advanced measures that represent multi-dimensional, strategic aspects of project effectiveness (Shenhar et al., 2001). In addition to the short-term “iron triangle” criteria presented above, long-term measures of project effectiveness (organizational benefits, reputation and image) are suggested in the literature (Bryde, 2008). Moreover, Oerlemans and Meeus (2009) observe a trend in the literature which they describe as a subjective, ‘psychosocial’ dimension of project success (e.g. satisfaction level). Furthermore, the project-level dimensions of effectiveness are often complemented by organization-level dimensions, such as the project's contribution to organizational performance. Finally, Oerlemans and Meeus (2009) acknowledge a trend towards the internal dimensions of project effectiveness being supplemented increasingly by external dimensions such as the level of satisfaction of external stakeholders. Obviously, there has been progress in the conceptualization and the measures of effectiveness in temporary organizations over recent years. The models have become more complex and additional dimensions that go beyond the “iron triangle” are being included. These dimensions go beyond the perspective of a project as an “island” (Engwall, 2003) and take into account the context into which temporary organizations are embedded (e.g. customer relationships, issues of the parent organization or broader stakeholder relations). From an organization theory viewpoint, this is not surprising, since we know that taking the embeddedness of projects seriously is crucial for project success (Engwall, 2003). Furthermore, personal and institutional relationships from previous projects remain latent after the termination of a project and can be re-activated and built upon (Windeler and Sydow, 2001). The literature suggests that OCB can help to establish such relationships that go beyond the termination of a project. More specifically, OCB is assumed to have a positive impact on the social capital of organizations. Bolino et al. (2002) propose that OCB influences social capital on a structural dimension by creating and configuring network ties, on a relational dimension by improving mutual liking, trust and identification, and on a cognitive dimension by supporting a shared language or adding shared narratives. In a similar vein, we argue that citizenship behavior relates to underlying project networks and helps to facilitate relationships beyond the termination of immediate projects. Consequently, OCB may be able

A quantitative analysis was conducted in order to examine the relationship between citizenship behaviors and the effectiveness dimensions of temporary organizations. The quantitative survey was composed for this study, which could be filled out online. Our sample relates more to a broader conceptualization of temporary organizations (instead of projects in a narrower sense). The sample includes a cross-sectional set of respondents who work in a variety of (mostly but not exclusively interorganizational) projects from classical construction projects to project based IT implementation and creative projects such as event management. However, the latter represent only a small minority of the sample. The study was supported by the International Project Management Association (IPMA) and in particular its representations in Germany and Portugal. The IPMA has more than 40,000 members in approximately 40 national associations. The IPMA is a non-profit, Swiss-registered organization for the promotion of project management internationally, founded in Vienna by a European group of managers in 1965. Members are project managers and project workers in various sectors. The IPMA promotes the project management profession and provides standards and establishes guidelines for project management professionals. As a major part of this, the IPMA delivers certification programs for various qualification levels. The survey was announced by the e-mail newsletters of the IPMA Germany and Portugal, at practitioner conferences organized by the IPMA, and on its official websites in both countries. Furthermore, IPMA groups on different social networks such as Facebook and Xing were informed. Since the invitation to participate in the survey was not personalized, a return quote cannot be calculated. However, a leading IPMA representative, looking at the descriptive statistics, confirmed that “the sample is a very good approximation of the member structure except for a slight over-representation of the IT-sector at the expense of traditional industries in particular manufacturing as well as consulting services”. The sample consists of 247 respondents from Germany (48%) and Portugal (52%) who are regularly engaged in project-based work. The respondents are project managers (73%) and other project members, i.e. project workers (27%). The average age is 40. Sixty-seven percent of the respondents are male and 31% are female. About two thirds of the respondents have more than

868

T. Braun et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 862–876

6 years of experience in project-based work. Almost half of the respondents are in a managerial position with direct reports (65%) and budget control (57%), while most of the respondents engage in operative everyday work (83%). The vast majority (92%) work predominantly in project structures. Projects in the IT-sector are likely to be over-represented (47% of the sample) while projects in manufacturing (4% of the sample) seem to be under-represented. Seventy-three percent of the projects were interorganizational and only 27% completely internal. Regarding project size in terms of budget and numbers of companies/employees involved, the sample covers a broad range of different projects. The same applies to the duration (between several months and several years), whereby the average is around 1.5 years. 3.2. Measures A 7-point Likert scale (7 = “I totally agree”, 1 = “I do not agree at all”) was used for all citizenship behavior and effectiveness items in order to measure the extent of the respondent's agreement with each item. Consequently, a higher score indicated stronger agreement. All questions were related to the latest fully completed project in which the respondent was involved. Furthermore, the entire survey is based on self-evaluations by the respondents; the limitations resulting from this will be discussed below. The dependent variables were derived from the classical project management literature. The “iron-triangle” was measured as perceptions of quality, adherence to schedule, and keeping to budget 1 (Pheng and Chuan, 2006). In addition, an item that measures the general project success from an internal (organizational) perspective was included (Mahaney and Lederer, 2010) and complemented by an external perspective on its effectiveness using an item that captures customer satisfaction (Pheng and Chuan, 2006). The general success item and the customer satisfaction item were combined into a construct that we call “overall project success”. Besides these classical measures, which – as argued in the theory section – reinforce the perspective of the project as an “island” (Engwall, 2003), we added variables that account for the embeddedness of projects. This is of particular importance, since we wish to show that citizenship behaviors have an effect on the quality of relationships among project actors beyond the termination of the project. In order to measure the strength of relationships, multiple related dimensions have been utilized by different academic disciplines (Duck, 2007). In organizational behavior, the leader–member-exchange (LMX) stream of research has assessed the relationship of leaders and subordinates (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). However, for the purpose of our study LMX does not seem appropriate, since it assumes a clear hierarchy and relates to intraorganizational relationships. In marketing research there has also been a long controversy of relationship quality between organizations and

1 The variable ‘keeping to budget’ is only part of the German sample (n = 119).

clients (Bovea and Johnson, 2001). Here, in line with our study, the relationships go beyond organizational boundaries (to their customers). However, the focus on client satisfaction – not surprisingly – dominates most of the marketing literature (Bovea and Johnson, 2001). Nevertheless, an article by Henning-Thurau and Klee (1997) chooses a dimensionality that seems to be more appropriate for our study. They propose a three component construct consisting of the 1) quality perception of the relationship, 2) perceptions of trust, and 3) commitment to the relationship. We combine these components to a multi-item construct labeled “relationship quality”. The independent variables were measured in five dimensions, 1) helping behavior, 2) project loyalty, 3) project-based compliance, 4) individual initiative, and 5) relationship maintenance, while each dimension was operationalized as a multi-item construct (3–5 items). We used well-established OCB scales to the extent that they seemed plausible for the context of temporary organizations. The constructs were refined by the insights from an explorative pre-study based upon 25 semi-structured, qualitative interviews (Braun et al., in press). This enabled us to account for the specific features of temporary organizations. As for the helping behavior dimension, the items are oriented on the altruism scale of Podsakoff et al. (1990), and the German version stems from Staufenbiel and Hartz (2000). The items were adapted to the project team (instead of the organization). Some helping behavior and altruism scales incorporate items that describe helping behaviors towards new employees who enter the company when getting settled (Moorman and Blakely, 1995; Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994; Smith et al., 1983). We dropped this aspect because it does not seem to be relevant to many short-term projects, where there are no or little changes in staffing. As for project loyalty, we used the loyalty scale of Van Dyne et al. (1994) and revised it towards projects. The development of the compliance scale was based upon the pre-study by Braun et al. (in press). The respective items are very specific to projects, such as complying with timelines, project instructions, and rules that were set up in the kick-off meeting. The compliance dimension of early OCB scales assumes ‘normal’ forms of work, meaning an intraorganizational setting with a clear hierarchy and full attendance of all employees (Smith et al., 1983; Williams and Anderson, 1991). These scales put the emphasis on punctuality, not taking too many breaks, and not having personal phone conversations. Based on the insights of our pre-study, this does not reflect the reality of the distributed, partially virtual project teams that we find nowadays. The initiative dimension is based on the respective scale by Staufenbiel and Hartz (2000) and revised towards projects. In the literature there are two theoretical positions concerning how initiative should be operationalized — either as participating in the organization and making constructive suggestions (George and Brief, 1992; Van Dyne et al., 1994) or as motivating and encouraging co-workers (Moorman and Blakely, 1995). We follow the first position more and see initiative as directed towards the project itself and not the co-workers. Finally, the relationship maintenance dimension is inspired by the civic virtue construct by Organ (1988), meaning the involvement in strategic and political macro-processes

T. Braun et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 862–876

through participating at meetings, debates etc. In the pre-study, we found in line with Windeler and Sydow (2001) and others that in the landscape of temporary organizations macro-processes often endure beyond the institutionalized termination of projects. More precisely, project members keep in touch beyond the termination of the project and proactively maintain relationships. In the survey, a new 3-item scale was used to capture relationship maintenance. Table 1 in the following section provides a summary of how our scale was developed with regard to previous OCB-research. Several control variables have been used to check for other potential influences on the dependent variable. We used variables that cover demographic features, namely gender, age, country and tenure (project experience in years), as well the project-specific control variables of project scope (intra- vs. interorganizational),

869

project size (number of participating individuals), and the duration of the project (in years). We have included the project specific control variables in order to show that the phenomena we found are valid for various forms of temporary organizations and their specific settings. 3.3. Analysis We used a Principal Components Analysis to prove construct validity and conducted a Cronbach's reliability test regarding all items of the citizenship behavior and the relationship quality constructs. Correlation analysis was applied in order to see interdependencies between single items. Thereafter, hierarchical regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses. The demographic control variables were entered in step 1 of the

Table 1 Conceptual development of citizenship behavior dimensions in temporary organizations. OCB-Dimension

Construct definition

Example

Adopted, context sensitive dimension

Construct definition

Example

Helping behavior

Behavior directed towards helping a person in face-to-face problem situations1

Assisting someone with a heavy workload in completing his or her tasks

Helping behavior

Behavior directed towards helping coworkers in a temporary organization when solving problems

Helpinga coworker to fix a problem even though it is not part of any contract

Organizational loyalty

Identification with and allegiance to the firm as a whole2

Defending one's own organization if it is criticized from the outside

Project loyalty

Allegiance to the temporary organization as a whole, sometimes but not necessarily sacrificing the interests of one's own or the employer organization for the common good

Defending the temporary organization when it is criticized from the outside

Organizational Compliance

A more impersonal form of conscientiousness that is indirectly helpful to others; doing what a “good employee ought to do”3

Demonstrating respect for policies

Projectbased compliance

Orientation toward the rules, policies and processes of the temporary organization

Adhering to the quality standards of the temporary organization and to the rules that were set up at kick-off

Individual initiative

Conscientiously performing tasks by voluntarily going above minimum required level4

Volunteering to take on additional responsibilities

Individual initiative

Performing tasks of the temporary organization with creative and innovative efforts that go beyond contractual arrangements

Making suggestions for improvements in processes, services, etc.

Civic Virtue

Responsible, constructive involvement in organizational governance processes5

Attending meetings; participating in policy debates; engaging in strategic planning

Relationship maintenance

Keeping personal contacts to co-workers of the temporary organization even beyond its termination and regularly updating those contacts in meetings, calls etc.

Talking to former colleagues e.g. at conferences, by phone, personally etc.; catching up on a regular basis in order to keep contacts alive

Conceptual development process adapted from Autry et al. (2008) and specified for temporary organizations. Based on Podsakoff et al. (1990) and the German OCB-scale by Staufenbiel and Hartz (2000), adjusted. 2 Based on Van Dyne et al. (1994), adjusted. 3 Based on Braun et al. (in press). 4 Based on Staufenbiel and Hartz (2000), adjusted. 5 Based on Organ (1988), but reframed towards the NCB-dimension of Braun et al. (in press). 1

870

T. Braun et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 862–876

equation. In step 2 the project-specific control variables were added. In step 3 the citizenship behavior dimensions that are targeted towards the temporary organization itself (OCB-O), meaning loyalty, compliance and initiative, were included. And finally, in step 4, the citizenship behavior dimensions targeted towards co-workers (OCB-I), representing helping behavior and relationship maintenance, were added. A usefulness analysis (Darlington, 1968) was conducted to examine the unique contribution of the OCB-I and the OCB-O dimensions to a prediction of variance in the dependent variable. Specifically, steps 3 and 4 were also performed in reverse order. This permitted an examination of the variance that is explained by OCB-I dimensions in excess of the OCB-O dimensions, and vice versa. 4. Results and test of hypotheses The items measuring citizenship behavior in temporary organizations were factor analyzed (principal components, varimax rotation), and the results are summarized in Table 2. In this table we suppressed factor loadings with values below

0.30 and changed the original order of the survey items for the sake of clarity. Most of the measures prove to be valid, as the items of each citizenship dimension strongly loaded on a separate factor. The scale we applied initially consisted of 30 items (6 items per citizenship dimension). The principal components analysis showed that 10 items were strongly loading either on several factors or on factors that they could not be logically attributed to. We decided to drop these items because the factor loadings of the 3–5 remaining items per construct prove to be capable of measuring the underlying dimension in terms of its nature and main content. In the final model, the Kaiser–Guttman scree test and the Velicer test allowed us to identify 5 emergent factors that respond to different substantive categories of citizenship behavior having eigenvalues greater than 1 and jointly accounting for 58.92% of the variance. Factor 1 (Cronbach's α = 0.85) represents relationship maintenance based on four items. Factor 2 (α = 0.75) contains four items measuring initiative. Factor 3 (α = 0.70) represents compliance and contains five items. Factor 4 (α = 0.68) represents the dimension of loyalty, consisting of four

Table 2 Rotated component matrix and extraction of citizenship behavior dimensions, correlations between constructs, reliability and extracted average variance. Dimensions RM 10_RM. Occasionally, I catch up with former external project workers. 8_RM. I maintain contacts to particular external project employees, even when we are not currently participating in the same project. 9_RM. Occasionally, I contact selected external project employees of previous projects. 7_RM. I keep in touch with particular external project workers, even beyond the project close-out. 6_INI. I make innovative suggestions to improve the project work. 5_INI. I outline chances and potentials that could arise in the course of the project. 3_INI. I propose my own ideas and suggestions in the operative project work, even when it is not explicitly requested. 2_INI. I keep myself informed about developments within the project, also outside my field of duty. 19_CO. I follow strictly the rules and instructions that apply to the project. 17_CO. I strictly comply with the rules which were set during the kick-off meeting. 18_CO. I conform to all contractual obligations I have in the project with great care. 20_CO. I immediately inform the respective supervisor if I cannot meet deadlines. 22_ CO. I make the necessary improvements if the critique of my performance is justified. 15_LO. I defend the project when it is criticized from the outside. 13_LO. I feel strongly committed to the project. 12_LO. I describe the project positively if someone from outside asks me. 14_LO. I do everything necessary so that the project objectives are achieved. 27_HB. I help project staff when they have heavy workloads. 28_HB. I offer the project team members a helping hand if they need it at some stage in the course of the project. 26_HB. I intervene and try to balance interests when disputes in the project team occur. Correlations between constructs Initiative Loyalty Compliance Helping Behavior Eigenvalues Explained variance (%) Cronbach's alpha Construct composite reliability Extracted average variance (EVA square root) Principal components analysis; varimax rotation.

IN

CO

LO

HB

0.83 0.81 0.80 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.64 0.62 0.75 0.69 0.64 0.59 0.52

0.33 0.74 0.74 0.70 0.48 0.81 0.81 0.60

0.40 0.17 0.21 0.29 5.39 26.95 0.85 0.96 0.70 (0.83)

– 0.40 0.44 0.33 2.37 11.86 0.75 0.90 0.70 (0.83)

– 0.34 0.36 1.51 7.54 0.70 0.94 0.73 (0.85)

– 0.29 1.35 6.75 0.68 0.95 0.76 (0.87)

– 1.16 5.82 0.70 0.94 0.75 (0.87)

Gender (0 = F, 1 = M), age (1 = 20N, 2 = 21–30, 3 = 31–40, 4 = 41–50, 5 = 51–60, 6 = 60b), country (1 = Portugal, 2 = Germany), tenure (1 = 1 yearN, 2 = 1–3 years, 3 = 4–6 years, 4 = 6 years b), project scope (1 = interorganizational, 2 = intraorganizational), project size (1 = 2–6 persons, 2 = 7–50 persons, 3 = 51–150 persons, 150 b persons), project duration (1 = 6 monthsN, 2 = 1 yearN, 3 = 2 yearsN, 4 = 2 years b). ⁎ p b 0.05. † p b 0.01.

0.66 3.53 0.52 3.48 0.64 2.13 2.48 5.77 6.10 5.89 5.96 5.10 5.36 5.50 5.86 5.83 5.10

0.47 1.06 0.48 0.90 0.45 0.90 1.12 0.89 0.67 0.64 0.73 1.16 1.74 1.46 1.25 1.12 1.20

−0.048 0.026 − 0.013 −0.010 −0.071 0.128 0.034 0.101 0.107 0.066 −0.011 −0.050 −0.193 ⁎ −0.019 −0.062 0.098

0.055 0.515 † −0.105 0.094 0.186 † 0.124 0.172 † 0.099 0.158 ⁎ 0.010 0.167 † 0.046 0.053 0.077 0.019

−0.101 −0.260 † −0.094 −0.006 −0.099 −0.022 −0.173 † 0.087 0.076 −0.045 – −0.049 −0.116 −0.272 †

− 0.068 0.113 0.203 † 0.175 † 0.167 † − 0.003 0.175 † 0.057 0.153 0.137 0.130 ⁎ 0.081 0.085

− 0.219 † − 0.193 † 0.029 − 0.117 − 0.049 − 0.044 0.023 0.037 0.096 0.046 0.053 0.111

0.432 † 0.094 0.140 ⁎ 0.127 ⁎ 0.115 − 0.006 − 0.078 0.049 0.042 0.070 0.092

0.041 0.117 0.086 0.066 − 0.063 − 0.224 † − 0.166 − 0.157 ⁎ − 0.204 † 0.126

0.286 † 0.355 † 0.333 † 0.294 † 0.199 † 0.189 ⁎ 0.278 † 0.263 † 0.288 †

0.341 † 0.440 † 0.205 † 0.195 † 0.117 0.171 † 0.257 † 0.194 †

0.404 † 0.167 † 0.168 † 0.220 ⁎ 0.251 † 0.314 † 0.286 †

0.403 † 0.177 † 0.262 † 0.156 ⁎ 0.256 † 0.317 †

0.141 ⁎ 0.345 † 0.247 † 0.188 † 0.210 †

0.388 † 0.589 † 0.634 † 0.172 †

0.441 † 0.484 † 0.050

0.793 † 0.236 †

0.237 †

871

1. Gender 2. Age 3. Country 4. Tenure 5. Project scope 6. Project size 7. Project duration 8. Helping 9. Loyalty 10. Compliance 11. Initiative 12. Relationship M. 13. Time 14. Budget 15. Quality 16. Overall success 17. Relationship Q.

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 SD Mean

Table 3 Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of main study variables.

items, and factor 5 (α = 0.70) is based upon three items indicating helping behavior. The internal consistency of the citizenship behavior model was assessed by computing composite reliability coefficients for each latent variable. Values for the five composites ranged from 0.90 (initiative) to 0.96 (relationship maintenance), which is higher than the value of 0.60 suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981). Concerning the discriminant validity, the average variance extracted (AVE) for the five constructs was higher than 0.70, a value above the cut-off of 0.50 suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981). According to the authors, the square root of the AVE for each construct should be higher than the correlation between the specific construct and other PCB constructs. Data in Table 2 suggest discriminant validity, as the items belonging to the construct explain more variance than do the items of the other constructs. Overall, the results support the factorial independence of the five citizenship behavior constructs. As for the dependent variable, the constructs of ‘overall project success’ and ‘relationship quality’ have alpha coefficients of 0.81 and 0.78 respectively, which are deemed well acceptable (Hair et al., 1992). Scale means, standard deviations, and correlations are reported in Table 3. The correlation analysis shows that each citizenship behavior dimension is significantly correlated to time, budget or quality outcomes. There is a particularly strong correlation between all citizenship behavior dimensions on the one hand and the variables “overall success” and “relationship quality” on the other, with significance at a level of p b 0.01. The results of the hierarchical regression analysis are summarized in Table 4. It includes the quality factors (adjusted R 2 and F) of the regression models and the standardized β-values of the independent variables. Previously, we had tested regression assumption with the use of collinearity statistics. All of the VIF scores were below 5.0, which means that these variables did not contain redundant information (Field, 2004). For all the models tested, the hierarchic regression analysis explains between 12% and 22% of the explained variance. The results of the regression models reveal that the inclusion of OCB-O in step 3 explains unique variance in quality (ΔF = 6.62, ΔR 2 = 0.08, p b 0.01), budget (ΔF = 3.99, ΔR 2 = 0.10, p b 0.01), time (ΔF = 3.92, ΔR 2 = 0.05, p b 0.01), overall project success (ΔF = 11.13, ΔR 2 = 0.13, p b 0.01), and relationship quality (ΔF = 10.14, ΔR 2 = 0.11, p b 0.01). The inclusion of OCB-I in step 4 explains unique variance for quality (ΔF = 7.05, ΔR 2 = 0.05, p b 0.01), budget (ΔF = 3.80, ΔR 2 = 0.06, p b 0.05), overall project success (ΔF = 2.89, ΔR 2 = 0.02, p b 0.10), and relationship quality (ΔF = 2.98, ΔR 2 = 0.02, p b 0.05). The usefulness analysis shows that reversing steps 3 and 4 explains additional variance in quality, overall success and relationship quality, implying the necessity of both OCB-O and OCB-I dimensions for predicting effectiveness. Each of the citizenship behavior dimensions predicted at least one effectiveness measure at a significant level of p b 0.05. Table 4 shows that compliance (β = 0.21, p b 0.01), helping behavior (β = 0.14, p b 0.05) and relationship maintenance (β = 0.19, p b 0.01) were all positively related to the quality dimension of effectiveness, providing some support for

16

T. Braun et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 862–876

872

Table 4 Regression results predicting effectiveness in temporary organizations. Quality − 0.02 − 0.01 − 0.05 0.13

Step 2 5. Project scope 6. Project size 7. Project duration

Budget 0.02 0.02 − 0.04 0.15 ‡

Step 4 11. Helping 12. Relationship M. Adjusted R2 F Δ R2 F for Δ R2

b

0.02 1.06 ns 0.02 1.06 ns

0.07 2.19 ⁎ 0.05 3.64 †

– –

0.15 3.63 † 0.08 6.62 †

0.09 11.72 †

0.14 ⁎ 0.19 † 0.20 4.38 † 0.05 7.05 †

0.04 2.43 ‡ 0.07 2.44 ‡

0.04 – 3.59 ⁎ –

German sample only (n = 119). Sub-group of intraorganizational projects too small ( n = 18). ⁎ p b 0.05. † p b 0.01. ‡ p b 0.10. b

b

− 0.16 ‡ − 0.13 − 0.16 − 0.10 a

a

0.27 ‡

b

0.19

− 0.03 0.13 − 0.06 0.07

Overall success 0.02 0.16 ⁎ − 0.06 0.11

− 0.02 − 0.03 0.14 ‡ 0.13 ‡ − 0.03 − 0.02 0.10 0.08

− 0.06 0.07 − 0.12 ‡ 0.03

− 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.00 − 0.01 − 0.30 † − 0.29 † − 0.28 †

b

0.16 0.10 0.08 − 0.28 ⁎ − 0.23 ‡ − 0.19

0.10 0.13 ‡ 0.21 † 0.25 † − 0.04 − 0.12

Reversing steps 3 and 4 – Δ R2 – F for Δ R2 a

− 0.03 − 0.02 −0.20 ⁎ − 0.14 − 0.02 − 0.02 − 0.16 − 0.15 a a 0.30 0.04 0.16 ⁎ 0.13 ‡ 0.29 ‡ 0.31 ⁎

0.01 0.04 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.07 − 0.25 † − 0.25 † − 0.22 †

Step 3 8. Loyalty 9. Compliance 10. Initiative

Time

0.12 0.18 ‡ 0.12

0.13 0.15 0.04

0.07 5.53 ⁎ 0.05 2.74 ‡

0.15 6.35 † 0.10 3.99 †

0.00 0.28 † 0.20 6.47 † 0.06 3.80 ⁎

– –

0.11 6.79 †

0.05 – 2.10 ns –

0.02 2.05 ‡ 0.04 2.05 ‡

−0.01 0.10 −0.11 0.06

Relationship quality −0.07 0.05 −0.06 0.05

− 0.07 0.05 − 0.05 0.20

0.10 0.02 −0.31 † 0.05

−0.00 0.04 0.04 0.11 ‡ 0.17 ⁎ 0.12 ‡ † † −0.32 −0.31 − 0.29 †

0.13 ‡ 0.13 ‡ 0.04

0.11 0.10 0.01

0.08 3.85 † 0.08 6.06 †

0.12 3.98 † 0.05 3.92 †

0.10 0.04 0.12 3.57 † 0.01 1.43 ns

– –

0.03 4.23 ⁎

0.02 – 2.03 ns –

0.01 1.50 ns 0.03 1.50 ns

0.10 0.05 0.06 0.01 −0.04 −0.03 −0.33 † −0.31 † −0.30 † 0.03 0.01 −0.01 −0.03 0.10 0.06

0.17 ⁎ 0.22 † 0.09

0.15 ⁎ 0.19 † 0.04

0.08 3.57 † 0.08 6.19 †

0.20 6.40 † 0.13 11.78 †

0.13 ‡ 0.08 0.21 5.91 † 0.02 2.89 ‡

– –

0.08 10.28 †

0.07 – 6.52 † –

0.10 9.18 † 0.11 6.86 †

0.00 0.05 0.08

0.01 0.04 0.09

0.02 0.13 ‡ 0.25 †

0.00 0.10 0.21 †

0.10 6.16 † 0.02 1.61 ns

0.20 7.89 † 0.11 10.14 †

0.11 ‡ 0.10 0.22 7.15 † 0.02 2.98 ⁎

– –

0.08 10.37 †

0.05 5.01 †

T. Braun et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 862–876

Step 1 1. Gender 2. Age 3. Country 4. Tenure

T. Braun et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 862–876

hypothesis 1a. Hypothesis 1b predicted that with a higher level of citizenship behavior, tasks would be more likely to be completed within the budget. Table 4 also illustrates that this was supported by the relationship maintenance dimension (β = 0.28, p b 0.01). Hypothesis 1c, which proposed that citizenship behavior has a positive impact on adherence to the project schedule, was not supported by the data. Neither of the citizenship behavior dimensions supports H1c, although there was a small influence in the loyalty (β = 0.13, p b 0.1) and compliance (β = 0.13, p b 0.1) dimensions in step 3 of the hierarchical regression model. Hypothesis 1d predicted that citizenship behavior will positively influence the overall project success. And indeed, loyalty (β = 0.15, p b 0.05), compliance (β = 0.19, p b 0.01) and helping behavior (β = 0.13, p b 0.1) support this hypothesis. Hypothesis 2 proposes a moderation effect of project duration in the citizenship–effectiveness relationship. The results offer partial support for a negative moderation effect, meaning that the influence of citizenship on effectiveness is higher for projects with short duration as opposed to projects with a longer duration. More precisely, significant negative moderation effects (β = 0.22, β = 0.28, β = 0.29, respectively with p b 0.01 for all values) were found for citizenship behaviors predicting quality, time and overall success. This is the opposite of what we have expected, thus Hypothesis 2 is rejected. Beyond the “iron triangle”, the aim of our study was to show that citizenship behaviors may link projects to a broader temporal and social context, in particular beyond the institutionalized termination of a project. More precisely, Hypothesis 3 predicted that citizenship behavior will enhance relationship quality among project members in future projects. As Table 4 displays, the initiative (β = 0.21, p b 0.01) and helping behavior (β = 0.11, p b 0.1) dimensions support this hypothesis. To sum up, each of the citizenship behavior dimensions predicts at least one effectiveness measure, while none of the citizenship behavior dimensions can predict all measures. This is not surprising because of the multi-dimensionality of the construct. Meanwhile, the high inter-correlations between the dimensions prove their relatedness. 5. Discussion The results of the study bear relevance for research on temporary organizations as well as research on OCB. Despite some obvious limitations, they also have implications for managerial practice. Not least, these limitations offer future research opportunities. 5.1. Implications As for temporary organizations, the study contributes theoretically and empirically to the efforts of researchers to describe and to measure effectiveness. In the past and even to the present day, the framework of the “iron triangle” consisting of time-, budget- and quality-related outcomes dominates the effectiveness research in this field (Huang et al., 2004). In order to account for this, our aim was to introduce a concept that – to

873

some extent – indicates effectiveness in the sense of this conception. And indeed, our findings suggest that each of the citizenship behavior dimensions predicts parts of the “iron triangle” (H1a, H1b, H1c), respectively overall project success (H1d). This result is in line with research findings on OCB in permanent organizations, where effects on similar variables such as output per year, product quality etc. have been tested (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997). This holds true for interorganizational collaborations as well. Indeed, Autry et al. (2008) show that interorganizational citizenship behaviors can lead to positive financial results and performance advantages over competitors. We have expected that limited time, together with their institutionalized termination, is a crucial feature of temporary organizations and may thus have a strong influence in the relationship between citizenship behavior and effectiveness. Against Hypothesis 2, which predicted a positive moderation effect of project duration in this relationship, we found the opposite. Referring to the “countervailing forces” argument that we introduced in the theory section, our results support the perspective of the unique character of temporary organizations, in particular their vividness and potential to engross people in the task at hand (Bakker et al., in press). This entails doing whatever is necessary to get the immediate work done. This can include citizenship behaviors such as helping co-workers who have got stuck in their work or finding creative solutions for a problem and thereby focusing more on the project completion than on the regular processes (e.g. job descriptions, work flows). Our results are surprising insofar as this effect holds true across our sample with a vast majority of projects that are not considered to be explicitly creative, let alone part of the so called creative industries. However, this finding is also supported by qualitative evidence that we gained in the pre-study. For example, a project manager for consulting services stated: “Sometimes [project] partners do much more than we expect, e.g. they proactively come to us and say‚ ‘can I do you any favour — we want this done in a joint effort.’” In addition to the classical measures, our study goes one step further, following Engwall's (2003) suggestion to view projects not as “islands” that are isolated from context, but rather as being embedded socially and temporarily. While most of the classical effectiveness measures reinforce the temporariness of projects and fail to consider context, we have argued that adopting a behavioral perspective and drawing from the OCB concept would help to overcome this limitation. Applying OCB to temporary organizations, we theorized and found empirical support (H3) for the thesis that citizenship behavior in a current project will improve the relationship quality with (selected) staff in future projects. In line with this finding, in the qualitative pre-study a project manager in an automotive manufacturing firm mentioned: “The project partners know that such relationships consist of a mutual giving and taking. They have gained experiences in the past, they know each other well enough and they are confident that the other party will act just as they do.” This finding confirms one of the propositions made by Bolino et al. (2002), who argue that citizenship behaviors increase social capital on a structural, a relational and a cognitive level; namely, our findings support their proposition on the relational level.

874

T. Braun et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 862–876

Furthermore, this quote shows the influence of long-term reciprocity inducing OCBs (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002). Taken together, this study demonstrates not only the importance of OCB for the effectiveness of immediate projects but also that – through adopting an organizational behavior perspective – it contributes to the perspective of projects as ‘more than just temporary’ systems (Bakker, 2010). This perspective has been developed over the past years. We go one step further and break it down to micro actions of individuals. As for the OCB research, our contribution is vice versa: we take into account the organizational context of interorganizational projects. Except for Autry et al. (2008) this has been scarce in OCB research. We think this is an important contribution because OCB can help to not only understand how individuals behave but also how organizational forms such as project networks evolve. The study has a range of managerial implications, especially for human resource management in temporary organizations (cf. Bredin and Söderlund, 2011). First of all, in the process of personnel selection or – more precisely – project staffing, management should consider whether there are existing relationships among project members from past collaborations. Project members can be interviewed to find out whom they have worked with and if there are existing relations that they can build upon. If so, our findings, in line with other studies, suggest that project workers can utilize or re-activate these relationships (Windeler and Sydow, 2001) in order to give the project a smoother start. Second, when training and developing project staff the context, which is specific to temporary organizational forms, should receive much more attention than it has done in the past. This is a logical consequence of Engwall's (2003) proposition, and it would make project workers aware of their networks and relate their behavior to the past and future. Third, performance evaluations should not only contain measures at the immediate project level but also long-term measures that account for the embeddedness in and of temporary organizations.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), expecting that a onefactor CFA model will fit the data well. Considering these approaches, we loaded all the 34 variables into an Exploratory Factor Analysis in a first phase (using principal component analysis with Varimax rotation) and examined the unrotated solution to determine the number of factors that accounted for the variance in the variables. From the factor analysis, 10 factors emerged, accounting for 66.97% of the explained variance. The first factor (largest) accounted for only 21.49% of the variance. The CFA showed that the one-factor model did not fit the data well, χ 2(527) = 2241.18, p b 0.01, TLI = 0.337, CFI = 0.413, RMSEA = 0.115 (LO = 0.110, HI = 0.120), meaning that the general factor (the common method variance) did not account for the majority of the covariance among the measures. Despite the results, this approach did not statistically control common method variance effects (Podsakoff et al., 2003: 889). However, results suggested that common variance is not a great concern and, thus, may not affect the main conclusions of the present study. As a second limitation, the hierarchical regression analysis explains quite a small part of the variance of the effectiveness measures, even if the results are very significant. It seems that the theoretical concepts that were applied should not be interpreted as an ultimate framework to explain effectiveness as a whole, but rather to point towards some behavioral aspects that tend to predict various performance measures. Looking at previous OCB research, the explained variance at a level of 15–20% is not extraordinary low at all (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997). What is more, our sample potentially has a “sample selection bias” towards projects with IT-focus and the perspective of project managers. This has implications for the generalizability of our results. While the results should prove validity for projects with IT focus (which certainly is a significant proportion of all projects in the field), we have to be more tentative about generalizing our findings to other functional areas or industry sectors.

5.2. Limitations 5.3. Future research The present study has some limitations that threaten the validity and, therefore, practical relevance of our findings. First, the self-referential data impose restrictions, mainly because of socially desired responses (Crowne and Marlowe, 1964). Ideally, additional data should be gathered by colleagues and/ or supervisors to avoid single-method problems. In order to avoid a “common method bias” (Podsakoff et al., 2003), this would be particularly useful with respect to effectiveness measures. Unfortunately, such data were not available to our study. Although this is an obvious restriction, it seems to be an issue not only of this particular study but a rather widespread problem in OCB research (Organ et al., 2006). In order to control common method biases we opted for the Harman's one-factor test, which is one of the widely used techniques in the literature (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The main assumption of this technique is that if a substantial amount of common method variance is present, a single factor will emerge from the Exploratory Factor Analysis (Aulakh and Gencturk, 2000). Other researchers (e.g., Iverson and Maguire, 2000) have used

Several avenues for future research could be pursued. In terms of replication, further studies with different samples should examine the potential of citizenship behaviors in the setting of temporary organizations and interorganizational work. This is of particular interest because temporary organizations can differ tremendously across different industries (Sydow et al., 2004). With respect to extension, additional research could explore other moderating variables or further elaborate on the variables that we used. For example, we identified the duration of projects as a moderating variable. Moreover, for some variables we found significant differences between Germany and Portugal; these differences could be analyzed in a cross-cultural comparison study. Finally, we applied basic statistical methodology. A more comprehensive model, e.g. applying structural equation modeling and/or longitudinal studies, could help to check for even more interdependencies between the tested variables and probably explain a higher proportion of the variance.

T. Braun et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 862–876

Appendix A. Operationalizations of the dependent variables

Dependent variables (7-point Likert scale) Quality 1. The (quality) targets have been met. Budget 2. The project was completed within the given budget. Time 3. The project was completed within the given timeframe. Overall Success 4. All requirements by the customer have been fulfilled. 5. From the perspective of my organization, the project was successful. Relationship Quality Because of this project… 6. …I personally receive more collaboration-requests from project workers than I received before. 7. …I collaborate more closely with particular project workers than I did before. 8. …I collaborate more trustfully with particular project workers than I did before.

References Archer, N.P., 1999. An integrated framework for project portfolio selection. International Journal of Project Management 17, 207–216. Aulakh, P.S., Gencturk, E.F., 2000. International principal-agent relationships: control, governance and performance. Industrial Marketing Management 29, 521–538. Autry, C.W., Skinner, L.R., Lamb, C.W., 2008. Interorganizational citizenship behaviors: an empirical study. Journal of Business Logistics 29, 53–74. Bakker, R.M., 2010. Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: a systematic review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews 12, 466–486. Bakker, R.M., Boroş, S., Kenis, P., Oerlemans, L.A.G., in press. It's only temporary: time frame and the dynamics of creative project teams. British Journal of Management. Bechky, B.A., 2006. Gaffers, gofers, and grips: role-based coordination in temporary organizations. Organization Science 17, 3–21. Blatt, R., 2008. Organizational citizenship behavior of temporary knowledge employees. Organization Studies 29, 849–866. Blau, P., 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. Wiley, New York. Bluedorn, A.C., 1980. Cutting the Gordian knot: a critique of the effectiveness tradition in organizational research. Sociology and Social Research 64, 477–496. Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H., Bloodgood, J.M., 2002. Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review 27, 505–522. Borman, W.C., Motowidlo, S.J., 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In: Schmitt, N., Borman, W.C. (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations. Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco, CA, pp. 71–98. Bovea, L.L., Johnson, L.W., 2001. Customer relationships with service personnel: do we measure closeness, quality or strength? Journal of Business Research 54, 189–197. Braun, T., Müller-Seitz, G., Sydow, J., in press. Project citizenship behavior? — An explorative analysis at the project-network-nexus. Scandinavian Journal of Management. Bredin, K., Söderlund, J., 2011. Human Resource Management in ProjectBased Organizations: The HR Quadriad Framework. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

875

Bryde, D., 2008. Perceptions of the impact of project sponsorship practices on project success. International Journal of Project Management 26, 800–809. Campbell, J.P., 1977. On the nature of organizational effectiveness. In: Goodman, P., Pennings, J. (Eds.), New Perspectives on Organizational Effectiveness. Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco, CA. Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M., 2002. A psychological contract perspective on organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23, 927–946. Crowne, D.P., Marlowe, D., 1964. The Approval Motive. Wiley, New York. Darlington, R.B., 1968. Multiple regression in psychological research and practice. Psychological Bulletin 69, 161–182. Duck, S., 2007. Human Relationships. Sage, London. Engwall, M., 2003. No project is an island: linking projects to history and context. Research Policy 32, 789–808. Field, A., 2004. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage, London. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18, 39–50. George, J.M., Brief, A.P., 1992. Feeling good-doing good: a conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin 112, 310–329. Goodman, R.A., Goodman, L.P., 1976. Some management issues in temporary systems: a study of professional development and manpower — the theatre case. Administrative Science Quarterly 21, 494–501. Grabher, G., 2004a. Learning in projects, remembering in networks? Communality, sociality, and connectivity in project ecologies. European Urban & Regional Studies 11, 103–123. Grabher, G., 2004b. Temporary architectures of learning: knowledge governance in project ecologies. Organization Studies 25, 1491–1514. Graen, G.B., Uhl-Bien, M., 1995. Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly 6, 219–247. Groth, M., 2005. Customers as good soldiers: examining citizenship behaviors in internet service deliveries. Journal of Management 31, 7–27. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1992. Multivariate Data Analysis. MacMillan, New York. Henning-Thurau, T., Klee, A., 1997. The impact of customer satisfaction and relationship quality on customer retention: a critical reassessment and model development. Psychology & Marketing 14, 737–769. Hobday, M., 2000. The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing complex products and systems? Research Policy 29, 871–893. Huang, X., Soutar, G.N., Brown, A., 2004. Measuring new product success: an empirical investigation of Australian SMEs. Industrial Marketing Management 33, 117–123. Ika, L.A., 2009. Project success as a topic in project management journals. Project Management Journal 40, 6–19. Iverson, R.D., Maguire, C., 2000. The relationship between job and life satisfaction: evidence from a remote mining community. Human Relations 53, 807–839. Jones, C., 1996. Careers in project networks: the case of the film industry. In: Arthur, M. (Ed.), The Boundaryless Career: A New Employment Principle for a New Organizational Era. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 58–75. Jones, C., Lichtenstein, B.B., 2008. Temporary inter-organizational projects: how temporal and social embeddedness enhance coordination and manage uncertainty. In: Cropper, S., Ebers, M., Huxham, C., Ring, P.S. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Inter-organizational Relations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 231–255. Jugdev, K., Müller, R., 2005. A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project success. Project Management Journal 36, 19–31. Katz, R., 1982. The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 27, 81–104. Kenis, P., Janowicz-Panjaitan, M., Cambré, B. (Eds.), 2009. Temporary organizations. Prevalence, Logic and Effectiveness. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Konovsky, M.A., Pugh, S.D., 1994. Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal 37, 656–669. Lindkvist, L., 2004. Governing project-based firms: promoting market-like processes within hierarchies. Journal of Management and Governance 8, 3–25.

876

T. Braun et al. / International Journal of Project Management 31 (2013) 862–876

Lundin, R.A., Söderholm, A., 1995. A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management 11, 437–455. Mahaney, R.C., Lederer, A.L., 2010. The role of monitoring and shirking in information systems project management. International Journal of Project Management 28, 14–25. Mainemelis, C., 2001. When the muse takes it all: a model for the experience of timelessness in organizations. Academy of Management Review 26, 548–565. Mathieu, J.E., Zajac, D.M., 1990. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin 108, 171–194. Midler, C., 1995. ‘Projectification’ of the firm: the Renault case. Scandinavian Journal of Management 11, 363–375. Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G.L., 1995. Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 16, 127–142. Moorman, R.H., Harland, L.K., 2002. Temporary employees as good citizens: factors influencing their OCB performance. Journal of Business & Psychology 17, 171–187. Müller-Seitz, G., Sydow, J., 2011. Terminating institutionalized termination: why Sematech became more than a temporary system. In: Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., Frederiksen, L., Täube, F. (Eds.), Project-based Organizing and Strategic Management. Bingley, Emerald, pp. 147–186. Oerlemans, L., Meeus, M., 2009. Turning a negative into a positive: how innovation management moderates the negative impact of TO complexity on the effectiveness of innovative interorganizational temporary collaborations. In: Kenis, P., Janowicz-Panjaitan, M., Cambre, B. (Eds.), Temporary Organizations: Prevalence, Logic and Effectiveness. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 220–258. Organ, D.W., 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. The Free Press, Lexington. Organ, D.W., 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior: it's construct clean-up time. Human Performance 10, 85–97. Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., 2006. Organizational Citizenship Behavior. It's Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. Sage, Thousand Oaks. Pheng, L.S., Chuan, Q.T., 2006. Environmental factors and work performance of project managers in the construction industry. International Journal of Project Management 24, 24–37. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., 1994. Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research 31, 351–363. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., 1997. Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: a review and suggestion for future research. Human Performance 10, 133–151. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., Fetter, R., 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly 1, 107–142. Podsakoff, P.M., Ahearne, M., MacKenzie, S.B., 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 82, 262–270. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., Bachrach, D.G., 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical

and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management 26, 513–563. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88, 879–903. Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M., Blume, B.D., 2009. Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 94, 122–141. Quinn, R.E., Rohrbaugh, J., 1983. A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science 29, 363–377. Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., Maltz, A.C., 2001. Project success: a multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Planning 34, 699–725. Skinner, L.R., Autry, C.W., Lamb, C.W., 2009. Some measures of interorganizational citizenship behaviors: scale development and validation. International Journal of Logistics Management 20, 228–242. Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., Near, J.P., 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology 68, 653–663. Söderlund, J., 2011. Pluralism in project management: navigating the crossroads of specialization and fragmentation. International Journal of Management Reviews 13, 153–176. Staufenbiel, T., Hartz, C., 2000. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Entwicklung und erste Validierung eines Messinstruments. Diagnostica 46, 73–83. Steers, R.M., 1975. Problems in the measurement of organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 20, 546–568. Sydow, J., Staber, U., 2002. The institutional embeddedness of project networks: the case of content production in German television. Regional Studies 36, 215–227. Sydow, J., Linkvist, L., DeFillippi, R., 2004. Project-based Organizations, Embeddedness and Repositories of Knowledge. Organization Studies 25, 1475–1489. Turner, J.R., Müller, R., 2003. On the nature of the project as a temporary organization. International Journal of Project Management 21, 1–8. Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W., Dienesch, R.M., 1994. Organizational citizenship behavior: construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal 37, 765–802. Walz, S.M., Niehoff, B.P., 1996. Organizational citizenship behaviors and their effect on organizational effectiveness in limited-menu restaurants. In: Keys, J.B., Dosier, L.N. (Eds.), Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings. Briarcliff Manor, NY, pp. 307–311. Williams, L.J., Anderson, S.E., 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management 17, 601–617. Windeler, A., Sydow, J., 2001. Project networks and changing industry practices — collaborative content production in the German television industry. Organization Studies 22, 1035–1061.