In modern workplaces, the dynamics of employee behaviour are constantly evolving. One phenomenon gaining scholarly attention is compulsory citizenship behaviour (CCB). CCB describes actions that employees feel compelled to perform—often beyond their formal job description—under perceived pressure from supervisors, peers, or organisational norms. While such extra-role effort can appear beneficial, mounting evidence shows it can backfire, fostering a climate of silence where valuable ideas and concerns are withheld.

Defining Compulsory Citizenship Behaviour

Compulsory citizenship behaviour arises when employees engage in extra-role activities not out of genuine willingness but because of implicit or explicit expectations. The Oxford Review (2026) defines CCB as organisational citizenship performed under duress, distinguishing it from discretionary OCB that is driven by intrinsic motivation. Sources of pressure include direct supervisor demands, fear-based compliance, impression-management motives, and cultural norms that valorise self-sacrifice for the collective.

Empirical work highlights that CCB is especially prevalent in Eastern contexts—China, Turkey, and Taiwan report the highest frequencies (Oxford Review, 2026). In these cultures, collectivist values and hierarchical structures amplify the sense of obligation, pushing employees to adopt behaviours that may conflict with personal well-being.

CCB’s Role in Workplace Silence

Workplace silence refers to the deliberate withholding of ideas, concerns, or feedback despite the ability to speak up. A cross-sectional study of nurses in China and Malaysia (Li et al., 2025) found that 20.6 % of respondents exhibited high levels of silence directly attributable to CCB, with another 47.8 % showing moderate silence. The same research identified three dominant silence types: acquiescent (49.8 %), defensive (47.8 %), and disregardful (45.8 %). These figures illustrate how pressure to conform translates into a muted voice across the organisation.

Statistical analysis in the study revealed that CCB explained a substantial portion of variance in silence behaviours, underscoring a causal pathway: perceived coercion → reduced psychological safety → silence. When employees fear negative repercussions or view speaking up as futile, they retreat into silence, stifling innovation and eroding trust.

CCB’s Role in Workplace Silence Workplace silence refers to the deliberate withholding of ideas, concerns, or feedback despite the ability to speak up.

Consequences of Workplace Silence

Acquiescent silence emerges from resignation; employees believe their input will not change outcomes. Defensive silence is protective, aimed at avoiding retaliation. Disregardful silence reflects disengagement, where employees consciously opt out of organisational discourse. Prosocial silence—omitting information to protect colleagues or the firm—also surfaces, though less frequently. Each form hampers decision-making, weakens early-warning systems, and can accelerate turnover.

You may also like

AI & Technology

Exploring the Next Frontier in Biotechnology: Gene Therapy and Ethics

Dive into the world of gene therapy and synthetic biology, exploring their potential and ethical considerations in human enhancement.

Read More →

Beyond the immediate loss of ideas, silence amplifies burnout and work-family conflict, as employees carry the hidden burden of unvoiced stressors. Over time, this contributes to a culture of cynicism and reduced organisational identification.

Cultural Implications of CCB

The systematic review and meta-analysis cited by the Oxford Review (2023) documented strong positive correlations between CCB and felt obligation, work-family conflict, organisational cynicism, burnout, and counter-productive behaviours. Conversely, CCB showed moderate negative relationships with leader-member exchange, psychological safety, organisational identification, and job satisfaction. These patterns suggest that CCB erodes the relational foundations of a healthy workplace.

Importantly, the review found no significant link between CCB and discretionary OCB, confirming that CCB is a distinct construct rather than a heightened form of voluntary citizenship. This distinction matters for managers: interventions that simply reward extra effort may inadvertently reinforce coercive pressures.

Challenges in Remote and Hybrid Work Environments

As remote and hybrid models become mainstream, the mechanisms that generate CCB shift. Virtual communication can obscure informal cues, making employees uncertain about expectations and more susceptible to perceived pressure to “always be available.” Early evidence suggests that remote workers may experience heightened citizenship pressure through constant digital connectivity, which can exacerbate silence if they lack clear channels for feedback.

These patterns suggest that CCB erodes the relational foundations of a healthy workplace.

Organizations that proactively design virtual norms—such as explicit expectations around response times, regular check‑ins that invite dissent, and transparent decision‑making processes—can mitigate the risk of covert CCB and its silencing effects.

You may also like

Entrepreneurship & Business

Sales of New US Homes Hold Close to Fastest Pace Since 2023

New home sales in the US are holding steady, indicating a strong market as builders implement price cuts and incentives. What should buyers consider?

Read More →

Recognising compulsory citizenship behaviour as a driver of workplace silence equips leaders to intervene before silence becomes entrenched. By fostering psychological safety, clarifying role boundaries, and decoupling extra‑role effort from punitive expectations, firms can restore open dialogue, sustain employee well‑being, and unlock the innovative potential that lies beneath the surface.

Sources: Oxford-review, Doi, Bloomberg.