Background of the Study

An organization is a structured group of people or a social unit that is included personnel to seek a collective goal (Voiculet, Belu, Parpandel & Rizea, 2010); the organizations play a significant role in making and moulding the organizational environment (Aldrich, 2008). Organizational forces and connected institutions create an effect on the environment of organizations and their performance, actions, and resources (Bienstock, De Moranville & Smith, 2003). So, to state, the environment of an organization is composed of its internal and external bodies and aspects (Powell & DiMaggio, 2012).

The features connected mainly with the internal environment are management, culture and employees, issues, matters, and occurrences (Thompson, 2011). The internal environment of the organizations consists of dealers and controllers of organizations, boards of directors, styles, culture, and the values of organizations (Anbalagan & Arulappan, 2009). And again, the weaknesses and the strengths connected with the organizations are internal environments (Evans & Davis, 2005).

The authorities and connected bodies that deal with outside the organizations are the external environments of the organizations (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). According to another point of view, the outer features of organizations, i.e., economic, political, and goals, and outside objects, issues, and circumstances relevant to organizations are external environments (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006).

It is recognized around the globe that employee behavior will be reshaped and changed by the organizations' environment. This behavior of employees can also be considered organizational citizenship behavior. Organ (1988) originated the term 'citizenship behavior'. He said that citizenship behavior in the organizations was not officially rewarded but it helped the efficient operation of the organizations. The literature shows all the aspects of organizational citizenship behavior, namely politeness and conscientiousness (Organ, 1997). Podskoff, Mackenzie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000) introduced the other aspects of citizenship behavior, i.e. supportive behavior, sportsmanship, loyal attitude and obedience of the employees in the organizations, personal initiative, civic virtue, self-development; and altruism (Polat, 2009 ).

The citizenship behavior in the organizations has not specified rules and requirements to be propagated in the organizations. It is the voluntary actions performed by the individuals that prove helpful in the valuable running of the organizations. Employees work as a unit in an organization and the employees’ citizenship behavior of the units helps in achieving the goals (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2000).

Employees' citizenship behavior in the organizations produces outcomes that are short term and so forth long term (Joireman, Daniels, George-Falvy & Kamdar, 2006). The employees that engage in citizenship behavior set high standards and perform well. They are competent in achieving goals and help to raise the standards of management with competence (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997).

On the other hand, the very important determinant that influences organizational citizenship behavior is organizational culture (Mustaffa, Rahman, Hassan & Ahmad, 2007). In the relevant literature, there are some other searches in which organizational environment and organizational citizenship behavior were explored concerning other variables. Thus Coyle?Shapiro, Kessler, and Purcell (2004) explored the relationship of organizational treatment with citizenship behavior as reciprocal elements which lead the organizational employees towards sound performance.

Likewise, the organizational citizenship behavior of the employees and their functional participation resulted in their better performance (Turnipseed & Rassuli, 2005). It explored a significant relationship among the variables i.e. organizational citizenship behavior, overall effectiveness, and the organizational work environment. Organizational citizenship behavior was also influenced by the employees’ attitudes (Todd, 2004).

The study of Farooqi (2011) found that there was little difference in conflict management and organizational environment between the old and new public universities of the Punjab province. Later on, It was explored the significant positive correlation between administrative style and organizational citizenship behavior in public middle schools (Ali & Waqar, 2013; Lian & Tui, 2012; Karolidis, 2016). Connected with these studies, Kar and Tewari (1999) also analyzed that the components of organizational culture were significantly correlated with organizational citizenship behavior. Following them, Polat (2009) only found the positive organizational citizenship behavior of middle school teachers. Relevant to the school administrators, the teachers displayed organizational citizenship behavior in the schools.

It may be extracted from the empirical pieces of evidence in connection with both the variables that both of them had been explored in relation to the other variables. There was no or little evidence that explored a relationship between the organizational environment of public universities and their teachers' citizenship behavior. The researchers felt it necessary to fill the gap; that's why this study aimed to find the relationship between universities' organizational environment and the citizenship behavior of their teachers.

To conduct this study, the following research questions were investigated.

1. Is there any gender-based difference in the organizational environment of public universities?

2. Is there any gender-based difference in teachers’ citizenship behavior in public universities?

3. Is there any relationship between the organizational environment with teachers' citizenship behavior in public universities?

Research Design

The approach to research was quantitative. The study took into account two factors: "organizational environment" and "citizen behavior." As the relationship of the organizational environment with the citizenship behavior of teachers was examined, the study was thus correlated. (Alexiev, Volberda & Bosch, 2016; Farooqi, 2011; Tahseen, 2015).

Population

The literature established the supremacy of the public universities (Farooqi, 2011; Nawaz & Muazzam, 2015). Therefore, the teachers of all the 32 (www.punjabhec.gov.pk ) public universities recognized by the higher education commission (HEC) were the population of the study.

Sample Of The Study

The researchers considered it difficult to gather

information from the entire population because of the scarcity of resources and limited time, as there are 32 public universities in Punjab. Every respondent from the population takes the chance of being selected in simple random sampling. Hence, the researchers applied the fishbowl method to choose six public universities for the study. The researchers adopted proportionate random sampling in the selection of the required sample. Through proportionate random selection, the researchers chose 400 teachers as the sample of the study since Gay, Mills, and Airasian (2011) expressed that if the population was more than five thousand, just four hundred might be chosen as the sample of the study.

Sources: www.gcuf.edu.pk www.uos.edu.pk www.bzu.edu.pk www.iub.edu.pk www.uog.edu.pk www.gcu.edu.pk

The following Diagram Shows a Pin Picture of the Whole Process of Sampling.

Sampling Flow Chart

Two adopted research instruments were used in the study. The first is Organizational Environment Scale (OES), developed by (Farooqi & Akhtar, 2014). It consists of thirty-eight (38) Likert statements. The second is Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale (OCBS) which was developed by Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990). It is comprised of 24 Likert statements. Both the tools were valid and reliable. The instruments were distributed among respondents with a little change for measuring the organizational environment and citizenship behavior of the teachers. The factor-wise distribution of the scales is given below.

Table 1. Items Factorial Division (Organizational Environment Scale)

Table 2. Items Factorial Distribution (Citizenship Behaviour Scale)

Data Collection

Two questionnaires were personally regulated to gather information. The researcher clarified the significance and commitment of the study to the respondents. The respondents were guaranteed that they would not suffer any loss in answering. The respondents’ support was recognized and their confidentiality was guaranteed.

Data Analysis

The analysis of the data along with research questions is described as under.

Research Question 1: Is there any gender-based difference in the organizational environment of public universities?

Table 3. Gender (Male, Female) Based Difference in Organizational Environment

N=400

To know the difference between male and female university teachers’ organizational environment, an independent sample t-test was computed. The mean score for males (M = 3.69) and females (M = 3.56) showed that both males and females met the scale marks agree. Thus, it was concluded from the table-3 that the data measure showed a significant difference between male and female faculty at the university level in the organizational setting (t = 2.006 and p-value = 0.045 < 0.05). The following presentation in the graphic shows the mean difference in organizational environment between both the genders (male and female).

Research Question 2: Is there any Gender-based Difference in Teachers' Citizenship Behavior in Public Universities?

Table 4. Gender (Male-Female) Based Difference in Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The comparison between male and female university teachers was calculated through an independent sample T-test. The mean representation of the values ??of men (M = 4.19) and women (M = 4.26) demonstrated that both men and women demonstrate organizational citizenship behavior at a high level in the Punjab province public universities. Thus, the data measurement in table-4 showed no significant difference between the organizational citizenship behavior of both the genders at the university level (t = -927 and p-value = 0.358> 0.05). The following presentation in the graph shows the mean difference in citizenship behaviour between both genders (male and female).

Research Question 3: Is there any Relationship between the Organizational Environment with Teachers' Citizenship Behavior in Public Universities?

Table 5. Relationship between Organizational Environment and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour at University Level

A correlation was found significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The data analysis in Table 5 showed a significant positive relationship between the organizational environment and teachers’ citizenship behavior at r = .218 and 0.000 < 0.01. The relationship between the variables was weak also.

? Both the male and female university teachers considered the organizational environment favorable for them.

? Both the genders of teaching faculties (males and females) showed a high spirit in organizational citizenship behavior at the university level.

? Although the relationship was weak, yet significant positive relationship was found between the organizational environment and the citizenship behavior of the university teachers.

Research showed that at the university level, there was a significant positive correlation between organizational environment and teacher citizenship behavior. Baird and Meshoulam (1988) also found in their research that the organizational environment was affected by the smooth function of the organization. Similarly, Aldrich (2008) also supported the findings of this study; he declared that the organizational environment was related to the success or failure of the organization. This study investigated the organizational citizenship behavior of university teachers and found that teachers showed high spirit in organizational citizenship behavior. A similar study in literature was related to the research at hand, in which Polat (2009) exposed secondary school teachers who practiced high organizational citizenship behavior.

There was a relationship between organizational environment and university teachers' citizenship behavior. From the findings of researches literature, a study by which Cameron (2010) analyzed that the development of organizations depended upon the effectiveness of their environment. Supporting the relevant scenario, Jones (2010) depicted that the organizational environment influenced all the working of the organizations. The empirical evidences were found by Evans and Davis (2005). Their findings were found favorable in respect of this study. They found that the internal environment of the organizations had a significant correlation with employees’ behavior and performance.

Keeping in mind the study at hand, the researchers may draw the following recommendations.

1. It was inferred that the university environment affected the citizenship behavior of the university teachers, so, the leaders must use their endeavors to make a useful organizational environment in the universities to improve the citizenship behavior of teachers.

2. It is suggested that in recruiting employees and managers, the set guidelines of the organizations should be kept in mind, with the goal that the chairmen message a better organizational environment to create citizenship behavior among the employees.

3. The study may be explored at the lower public and the private institutions.

4. This study was conducted in an educational environment; it may be carried out in a business environment.

5. The scope of the study can be enhanced from the province of Punjab to the other provinces.

6. This was a quantitative study; next, it might be qualitative or mixed-method.

7. A meta-analysis might be determined regarding both the variables.

8. The study may be explored in connection with the other variables apart from both.