{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013322884012539185, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.692771084337349, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Enlightenment political philosophy and organizational citizenship behaviour: Contextualizing historical discourse

Abstract Organizational citizenship behaviours are employee contributions that management neither explicitly requires nor formally rewards. While the definition is straightforward, the theoretical meaning of the citizenship construct remains ambiguous. Some regard citizenship behaviours as sacrifice for the good of the whole, while others view them as motivated by long-term selfinterest. An influential line of organizational research invokes enlightenment republican political philosophy to conceptualize citizenship behaviours as manifestations of civic virtue. I challenge the suitability of this republican understanding of organizational citizenship. I argue that transposing highly contextualized enlightenment discourse to the modern workplace violates the critical assumptions upon which republican thinkers insisted. Misapplication of republicanism is not only ahistorical, but managerialist and hegemonic, for it normalizes a language of employer privilege and employee obligation. I conclude that republicanism's enlightenment foil – liberalism – provides a more suitable basis for developing the theoretical meaning of organizational citizenship.