By Rejoice Esi ASANTE (PhD)
I recently experienced something odd and potentially harmful to any business which got me thinking about the consequences of employee work behaviour.
I paid a visit to a neighbourhood shopping mall to buy some groceries and found myself complaining about the high cost of some of the vegetables.
One of the shop assistants attending to me quickly advised me to get my groceries from the local market because they were cheaper.
I was surprised because this was an attendant who was to encourage me, a customer, to buy from the shop seeing that her salary will come from the purchases and repeat purchases.
The attendant was practically directing me to their competitors, thinking she was doing me a favour. Imagine if this attendant gave similar advice to two or more customers, the mall would have lost buyers and repeat buyers. This is an example of negative employee behaviour and is an issue of concern for many employers.
Every organization is aimed at providing superior customer service and relies on employees as internal stakeholders to deliver such services.
Many strategies have been adopted over the years to ensure that employees behave well corporately to ensure repeat service and customers. They include active listening, empathy, problem solving abilities, product knowledge, anticipating customer needs and building a team culture.
Other strategies adopted are effective communication, analytical behaviour, feedback, managing expectations among several others. Research also points to employee behaviour which is crucial for customer satisfaction.
This is because employee behaviour has a lot of impact on the organization and its customers. However, not much has been done to strategically improve the role of employees as stakeholders.
Whether a customer will repeat purchase of a product or service, depends largely on the satisfaction they received from employees. This article examines the effect of employee in-role and extra-role behaviour in customer satisfaction and the role of organisations to facilitating this strategy according to research findings.
Employee/Work Behaviour
Behaviour has been defined in many ways by different disciplines. Psychologists define it as all responses of man and animals to any stimulates, including the explicit behavior and the implicit behaviour. Zhu (2012) contend that the behaviour of the employee refers to a series of dynamic reactions, as a member of the organization, to the internal and the external environmental stimulates.
Similarly, Thornton and McKinney (2023) explained that employee behavior, refers to the way in which employees respond to specific circumstances or situations in the workplace, and it has to do with their interactions with other employees and their motivation at work.
On the other hand, work behaviour refers to activities employees perform to meet the responsibilities and goals of their roles. It largely has to do with how employees work to complete tasks (Bamboohr n/d), e.g. creativity, conscientiousness, cautiousness, activeness and passiveness among others. Employee behaviour can be positive or negative, with consequences for the organization.
Negative behaviour such as arrogance and rudeness to customers, can harm customer perception about the organization, hence performance, while positive behaviours improve harmony and peace leading to productivity in the organization (Thornton and McKinney, 2023).
Both employee behavour and work behaviour are dependent on the roles that individuals play in the context of work especially when the work is routine. Gilstrap and Hart (2020) note that there is the role of prescribing, that is telling others what to do and how to perform routine tasks, and there is the role of performing, that is executing or performing the routine task.
Gilstrap and Hart (2020) contend that when it comes to routine and repetitive work, employee behaviors affect ostensive and performative dimensions of routines, conceptualizing routines to mean repetitive, recognizable patterns of actions carried out by multiple actors (Feldman & Pentland, 2003).
Those acting in prescriber roles seek primarily to shape the ostensive dimension by communicating what performers are to do, while those acting in performer roles primarily shape the performative dimension by showing prescribers (and other performers) what they have done. Prescribers and performers use proactive behaviors to inject change into routines
How employees interact with customers, weather negative or positive, have been found to highly correlate with customer perceptions of service quality and overall satisfaction (Kattara et al, 2008).
In role and Extra roles Behaviours
Employee behaviour is generally viewed in several dimensions. There are external factors found outside the organization in addition to the work environment, and those inside the organization including leadership, coworkers and outcomes of performance. The model of Employee behaviour.
Two dimensions of employee behaviour, have been reported to impact customer satisfaction. Zhu (2013) contend that they are in role and extra role employee behaviours. In-role behaviour refers to expected employees behaviour in performing a service or serving customers, while extra-role behaviour refers to the discretionary behaviour of employees that exceeds existing role expectations (Bettencourt and Brown, 1997; Morrison, 1996). These dimension according to Zhao et al., (2018) have a major role to play in customer satisfaction with service delivery.
The Social Psychology of Organizing clearly defined the in-role behavior as the necessary or the expected behavior for the accomplishment of job duties. The extra-role behavior refers to the collection of a series of actions that are not included in the statement of work or related to the employee’s position or the role in the organization (Katz et al. 1964).
Attiogbe et al., (2024), also found that while employees’ extra-role behaviour has significant positive effect on customer service, employees’ in-role behaviour had no significant effect on customer service. The findings confirm an earlier one by Zhao et al, (2018) which indicated that employees’ extra role and in role behaviours have a strong effect on customer service.
Employee behaviour can however be enhanced during training and it is important for employers to understand the dimension of employee behaviour that can effectively promote customer service. The findings bring to the fore, the need for organisations and managers to begin to devise strategies to build and improve employee behaviour to enhance superior customer service.
Attiogbe et al., (2024), suggest that Managers should continuously improve upon the behaviour of employees through orientations, workshops and mentoring. Behaviour stimuli such as awards, appreciations and recognition for best workers would have to be encouraged to induce employees to act beyond their prescribed-roles.
Research on employee behavior include many aspects, such as the deviance of the employee in the workplace, the silence of the employee, the pro-social behavior of the employee, and so on. Weick (1979) in The Social Psychology of Organizing, clearly defined the in-role behavior as the necessary or the expected behavior for the accomplishment of job duties. The extra-role behavior refers to the collection of a series of actions that are not included in the statement of work or related to the employee’s position or the role in the organization.
In-role behaviors are the formal, expected duties and tasks an employee is hired to perform, directly tied to their job description and organizational goals. Extra-role behaviors are spontaneous, voluntary actions that go beyond these formal requirements, such as helping coworkers or contributing to a positive work environment, often referred to as Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs).
While in-role behavior ensures basic organizational function, extra-role behavior is vital for adaptability and overall organizational effectiveness (Attiogbe et al., 2024; Yanhan, 2013; Vey and Campbell, 2004)
The Role Theory, provides the theoretical foundation for the explanation of the difference and the consistence of the individual behavior. It explains how individuals behave in social situations by analyzing the roles they play, arguing that much of the daily behaviors we exhibit are shaped by socially defined categories and their associated expectations, norms, and behaviors (Miller, 2023).
The society set the general behavior principles or standards for the implementers of certain social role. In organizations, individuals are members of the organization, whose behaviors should be different according to the difference of specific positions. With this basis, the concept of the in-role behavior comes into being.
Strategies to promote positive in-role and extra-role behaviours
Katz et al. (1964). believed that the in-role behavior was such a kind of behavior that was described and defined as one part of employees’ work and reflected in the official salary system in the organization. It means the core-task behavior. The Extra-Role Behavior, seen as the practical significance of the organizational citizenship behaviour, can enhance the effectiveness and the operation efficiency of the organization by the transformation of organizational resources, transforming resources, and adaptability.
The organizational citizenship behavior can be divided into two categories. The first focusing on the organization. For example, adhering to the informal rules that aim at maintaining the work orders. The second category is the individual-oriented organizational citizenship behaviour, indirectly contributing to the organization by for example, helping absent colleagues to complete tasks. The organization-oriented citizenship behaviour is labeled common obedience or compliance. The individual-oriented organizational citizenship behavior is labeled altruism. Promoting these behaviours, must be done strategically and deliberately.
Obedience or compliance can be promoted by establishing clear, accessible policies, adopting a strong compliance culture led by example from leadership, providing ongoing training and education, communicating clearly consequences for non-compliance, the use of defaults to guide behaviour, and ensure open communication channels for employees to raise concerns (Nieweler, 2023; Open Declare, n/d).
Altruism behaviour which has to do with putting others’ needs ahead of individual needs, often sacrificing time, resources, or comfort to help, can be promoted when by leaders modelling altruistic behavior, nurturing a supportive culture that values empathy and mutual aid, providing opportunities for volunteering and community service, and recognize and reward employees’ selfless actions (Perry, 2021; Mosunic, 2025). Emphasizing human connection through stories, creating inclusive environments, and encouraging mentorship also help to nurture a more altruistic workplace.
Generally, to improve employee work behaviour, organisations have to address root causes of negative behaviour, and promoting positive behaviour. Positive In-role and behaviours that are directly related to the job tasks and responsibilities and often tied to formal rewards and punishments by the organization, must be clearly communicated and rewarded. Employees must feel valued, respected and heard in an accessible environment with clear goals to exhibit positive in-role behaviours.
The extra-role behaviours which are discretionary actions that are not officially required but contribute to the social and functional effectiveness of the organization, must be highly commended. Seeing that the extra-roles are a series of actions that are not described or defined as a part of the work or reflected in the official salary system of the organization (Zhu, 2013), businesses must identify such behaviours strategically promoted and tied to performance rewards and also inculcated such behaviours into the culture of the organization.
