1. Introduction and Theoretical Background
In organizations where hierarchical structures are either tall or much emphasized, it is of the utmost importance to have an affectionate relationship amongst colleagues. Being helpful, cooperative and supportive of coworkers in a way that aids in the achievement of workplace goals is expressed in the context of pro-social behaviour [
1]. LePine et al. [
2] observe that the term pro-social behaviour has only recently emerged to describe employees’ willful behaviour within various workplace social environments and systems, and it has since grown into a significant field of research, owing to the growing importance of autonomous and team-based work over strict traditional hierarchies [
2]. As a result, understanding pro-social behaviour is becoming increasingly important for the long-term survival and sustainability of social networks as well as workplace employee obligations [
3,
4,
5]. Globally, the phrase pro-social behaviour connotes any positive workforce deeds that support the social and psychological relations of organizational members or the workplace itself. The workforce is becoming increasingly multicultural as a result of globalization, and for workplaces to function effectively, pro-social behaviour must be practiced and present, as it influences both individual and group-level factors such as employee performance, employer branding or compensation strategies, productivity, effectiveness, cost-cutting measures, customer satisfaction and sustainability [
6,
7]. It is believed that educational institutions are the locus of sustained national development. Consequences of this assertion are evidenced by the growth in academia, specifically in terms of empirical studies conducted at universities that proffer solutions to societal decadence, while also breeding political, administrative and charismatic leaders. Furthermore, there is the interconnectivity of university/academic and administrative functions facilitated by technological advancement and the need for optimal acquisition and dissemination of knowledge.
Ucho and Atime [
8], and Zheng et al. [
9] believe that the construct of pro-social behaviour, from its conception, has been considered multidimensional, through volunteering and general compliance [
8,
9]. These dimensions help to advance workplace performance in different ways. Volunteering entails helping behaviours, while general compliance behaviour serves to profit the workplace. The deconstruction of pro-social behaviour dimensions further resulted in a five-factor model consisting of volunteering, courtesy, collaboration, decision support and sportsmanship [
8]. Pro-social behaviours cannot be demanded actively but passively. Employees cannot be compelled but should rather be persuaded to perform or exhibit pro-social behaviours. Similarly, the employees do not or cannot expect any form of formal payments for engaging in pro-social behaviours. However, pro-social behaviours do not go unnoticed [
6]. Organ [
10], and Tambe and Shanker [
11] note that the administrators do often take into cognizance and recognize pro-social behaviours exhibited by their subordinates either directly or indirectly through acts of preferential treatment, performance grading and promotions [
10,
11]. It has been observed that university administration and education around the globe, particularly in Africa, are unfortunately bisected with a myriad of issues/problems ranging from work overload of academic staff to inadequate funding which diminishes volunteering tendencies/behaviours; career and personal life pressures; an erratic and politicized tenure of administrative positions due to a biased or centralized appointment/election process, that has further mitigated its competitive edge; depleted infrastructure; and techno-stress brought about by information technology (IT). In addition to these inadequacies/deficiencies, these universities are also plagued by the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, and social vices such as lockdown of offices, corrupt practices and examination malpractices. In today’s increasingly dynamic and competitive business world, workplaces are faced with the challenges of addressing predator-market wants and expectations while also dealing with urbane necessities and technological innovation [
12]. The measurement of public sector performance, especially with regards to the provision of services in workplaces such as universities, has become an ambiguous issue. Blanchard [
13] argues that successful performance in university administration should result in positive growth. Universities, in particular, are designed to produce a trained workforce, which is a precondition for national progress [
13]. They function as national and societal growth, centres for technological and scientific innovation, skill development, the generation of quality entrepreneurial graduates and strategic research [
14].
Universities are complex adaptive systems; this adaptive feature of universities is occasioned by the fact that the world is undergoing an unprecedented change due to the increasing level of global interactions especially in academia. Giving credence to this point, Amodu et al. [
15] concur that this emerging era and dynamism require the continuous evaluation of the modus operandi of universities, in order to ensure that the decision-making process keeps pace with the dynamic nature of university administration [
15]. In recent times, the focus has been on how to align the tangible resources (the administrators) and the physical infrastructure within clearly delineated and assigned jobs to achieve workplace objectives. Despite this, there is an urgency to shift emphasis to the intangible resources; the behavioural assets which enable these tangible/physical resources to perform optimally. Workplace performance is the result of a company’s capabilities multiplied by the motivation of its employees [
16]. For a variety of reasons, a company’s lack of skill may impede good performance. There is an understanding that university administration’s performance and sustainability should be improved in accordance with the overall goals of pro-social behaviour. Employees feel ecstatic and content when they observe that they are treated equitably by their employers, and this impacts their pro-social behaviours [
17]. Universities are where knowledge acquisition takes place, and employees at these workplaces are generally expected to put in extra-role actions. These employees’ voluntary actions are very essential in universities as they are a medium that requires the extra-role behaviours, which are significantly helpful for effective moulding/shaping of the character of young adults/citizens [
18]. Therefore, for university administration to return to its core purposes, a conscientious rejuvenation and re-awakening of pro-social behaviours must be inspired and recognized; hence, the looming of its utmost floundering. It is against this backdrop, and in line with the dearth of empirical evidence, that necessitated this study on the impact of pro-social behaviours on workplace performance and sustainability of university administration.
1.1. Social Exchange Theory (SET)
The social exchange theory’s principles underpin the theoretical synergy of workplace performance in general and pro-social behaviour in particular. The most prominent theoretical framework in the study of pro-social behaviour is social exchange theory. Its illustrious beginnings may be traced back to the 1920s when it merged sciences including anthropology, psychology and sociology. Despite the diversity of perspectives on social exchange, scholars agree that it entails a variety of interactions that result in responsibilities [
19,
20]. These interactions are frequently viewed as interconnected and dependent on the actions of others. Although it only happens in certain circumstances, social exchange theory emphasizes the capacity of these interdependent interactions to form high-quality ties [
19,
20]. In today’s workplaces, the inter-relational corpus as a component of social exchange theory has gotten a lot of attention [
21,
22]. According to this relationship, most workplace antecedents lead to interpersonal contacts, also known as the social exchange [
23]. Social exchange relationships arise when managers look after their employees, which has both positive and bad repercussions. As a result, the social exchange hypothesis is a mediating or intervening variable that promotes a beneficial and equitable transaction between parties, resulting in successful workplace behaviour and favourable employee attitudes [
19,
20].
1.2. Research Objectives
The broad objective was to investigate the impact pro-social behaviours on workplace performance and sustainability of university administration, while specifically, it sorts to:
Ascertain the extent at which volunteering impacts longevity development of university administration, and
Determine the level at which collaboration impacts the competitive edge of the university administration.
3. Research Methodology
The study employed the survey approach, which focuses on the specific phenomenon, and both academic and non-academic personnel from the University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus were used as sample respondents for the study’s data collection and analytics. Data were collected using a well-structured questionnaire set which was designed utilizing the five (5) point Likert scale queries on the study theme and also prepared for easy comprehension to elicit factual and interpretive information. The research population figure was quoted as 1026 (as of January 2022) and was provided by the office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (administration) of the university. The selected respondents/staff were purposively chosen based on their involvement in the university administration, responsibilities/duties and job description; while the administration of the questionnaire was completed randomly to co-opt all administrative spheres of the university (faculties/departments, registry, bursary, student affairs, works/maintenance, security and ICT departments). The Bill Godden [
73] mathematical formula was used to obtain a sample size of 264, while each stratum of the staff was estimated using the Bowley proportional allocation statistical technique, giving a 102 and 162 for both academic and non-academic staff, respectively [
73]. The questionnaire was delivered to the respondents in 264 copies, with 202 copies (or 77%) duly completed and returned, and 62 copies (or 23%) not returned. To ensure that the questionnaire items were correct, content and face validation were used. A reliability test was also executed using Cronbach alpha, which yielded a value of 0.733. This indicates that things are quite dependable. The data collected were analyzed using a simple linear regression of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences, Version 20. We rejected the null hypothesis if the calculated value at the 5% significance level with the appropriate degree of freedom was greater than the table value; otherwise, we did not reject.
3.1. Data Presentation and Analyses
R = 0.808
R2 = 0.621
F = 2.371 × 103
T = 18.600
DW = 1. 531
3.2. Discussion
The regression sum of squares (1123.548) is higher than the residual sum of squares (245.460), implying that the model does not account for as much variation in the dependent variable. The significance value of the F statistic (0.000) is less than 0.05, implying that the variation explained by the model is not random. Volunteering and longevity development have a favourable link, according to R, the correlation coefficient, which is 0.808. Changes in volunteering account for 62.1% of the variation in longevity development, according to the R square coefficient of determination. The error of the estimate is modest using the linear regression model, with a value of about 0.68838. There is no autocorrelation, according to the Durbin–Watson statistic of 1.531, which can be estimated to 2. The volunteering coefficient of 0.808 suggests a statistically significant positive link between volunteering and longevity development (t = 18.600). As a result, the null hypothesis that volunteering has no impact on a university administration’s longevity development should be rejected, and the alternative hypothesis that volunteering has an impact on a university administration’s longevity development should be accepted. This result is in line with the findings of Bykov [
52] and Omoankhanlen et al. [
64], who found that volunteering had a favourable impact on civil workers’ long-term commitment in Rivers state [
52,
64]. Organizational citizenship behaviour and motives were found to be strongly associated with well-being by Dávila and Finkelstein [
65], with altruistic intents having a larger association than egoistic goals [
65]. Furthermore, the Rožman et al. [
40], Murphy and Ackermann [
19] and Bülbül [
66] studies asserted collaboration and compassionate exchanges were found to contribute significantly to social exchanges in offices [
19,
40,
66]. Bierhoff and Rohmann [
74], and Rachlin [
75] observed that pro-social activities are influenced by selfless mind-sets in general and social duty in particular [
74,
75]. Likewise, they noted that when people are engaged in decision-making, selfless behaviours are prompted. However, they contradict Masood et al.’s [
68] position that a direct relationship exists between lower job complexity and adequate supervisory relationship; in addition to the findings that worker creativity has shown weaker significance with a prolonged competitive benefit for firms in the region [
68].
Table 5.
The level at which collaboration impacts the competitive edge of university administration.
Table 5.
The level at which collaboration impacts the competitive edge of university administration.
S/NO | OPTION | SA | A | U | D | SD | Total |
---|
1 | Staff participation in decision-making is consistent in the university. | 20 | 30 | 27 | 90 | 35 | 202 |
2 | Ceremonies or functions held by the organization help to strengthen the workplace’s reputation. | 25 | 67 | 25 | 58 | 27 | 202 |
Table 6.
Model summary b.
Table 6.
Model summary b.
Model | R | R Square | Adjusted R Square | Std. Error of the Estimate | Durbin–Watson |
---|
1 | 0.879 a | 0.773 | 0.773 | 0.54352 | 1.561 |
Table 7.
ANOVA a.
Model | Sum of Squares | Df | Mean Square | F | Sig. |
---|
1 | Regression | 510.381 | 1 | 510.381 | 1727.670 | 0.000 b |
Residual | 149.776 | 200 | 0.295 | | |
Total | 660.157 | 201 | | | |
Table 8.
Coefficients a.
Model | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficients | t | Sig. |
---|
B | Std. Error | Beta |
---|
1 | (Constant) | −0.448 | 0.059 | | −7.571 | 0.000 |
Collaboration | 1.329 | 0.032 | 0.879 | 41.565 | 0.000 |
R = 0.879
R2 = 0.773
F = 1727.670
T = 41.565
DW = 0.161
3.3. Discussion
The regression sum of squares (510.381) is greater than the residual sum of squares (149.776), implying that the model explains more of the variation in the dependent variable. With a significance value of less than 0.05, the F statistics show that the variation explained by the model is not due to chance. With a value of 0.879, the correlation coefficient, R, demonstrates a favourable relationship between collaboration and competitive advantage. Changes in collaboration account for 77.3% of the fluctuation in the competitive edge, according to the R square coefficient of determination. The error of the estimate is modest with the linear regression model, with a value of about 0.54352. There is no autocorrelation, according to the Durbin–Watson statistic of 1.561, which is approximated to 2. The correlation coefficient of 0.879 suggests a statistically significant positive and substantial link between collaboration and competitive edge (t = 41.565). Therefore, the null hypothesis that collaboration does not impact the competitive edge of university administration is rejected and the alternative hypothesis that collaboration impacts the competitive edge of university administration is thus accepted. This result is in complete disagreement with the findings of Grönlund et al. [
71] which claimed that deliberation, which is a civic virtue characteristic, did not affect the citizen’s participation in political affairs [
71]. Additionally, Anais [
70] asserts that civic virtue exemplifies further the prevalence of the inability, apathy and prejudice of citizens of [
70]. Nonetheless, it validates the findings of Margaretha [
30] and Podsakoff et al. [
58] that motivation, and engagement of work had a significant positive influence on individual level consequences, and firm prolonged viability [
30,
58]. Pradhan and Jena [
67] maintained the position that employee development created an edge in terms of competition and rivalry [
67]. Furthermore, it supports Chanana [
47], and Yasar et al. [
38], who found a positive significant relationship between job engagement, competitiveness, firm-learning and performance [
38,
47]; and Suhag et al. [
69], and Obrenovic et al. [
49] who found that knowledge sharing, and process innovation had a positive impact on improved engagement and job satisfaction [
49,
69].
5. Limitations and Scope for Future Research
Among the most prominent limitations of this study was the paucity of research materials on the subject matter, together with time constraints on the part of the respondents. However, this was addressed by sourcing relevant related literature, both in print and online, which gave significant insight on the discourse. Additionally, the respondents were met at lecture venues or staff meetings, which gave them a collapsed time to address the survey.
Having made our modest contribution, we propose a scope for future research. There are two aspects of importance to this study. The first hinges on the observation that a quantum of studies have been completed on organizational behaviours. While this has brought about an abundance of literature on the topic, a closer look at these studies shows that there are few-to-no consensuses on what firms should do to mitigate the diminishing tendencies of pro-social behaviours brought about particularly by a lack of financial rewards. A systematic investigation and review must be carried out with emphasis on the methodology, policy and administrative implications of such on the universities. Secondly, more studies must focus on firms in the financial and telecommunications sectors. These sorts of firms are highly complex, dynamic, organically structured and probably more vulnerable to workplace stressors, resulting in them needing as much help as possible. It also makes them the most affected in employee turnover cases, resulting in a dire scarcity of talent, after a competitor firm beckons. Hence, pro-social behaviours as a criterion for recognizing and rewarding employees should become a veritable strategy for organizational sustainability.