Determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Since its introduction in 1983, the concept of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) has received a great deal of research attention. With the widespread belief that organizational citizenship behaviors are critical to enhance organizational effectiveness (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997), understanding the nature and determinants of OCB has been for long of immense interest to the organizational scholars.
The classical definition of OCB by Organ (1988) refers to “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly recognized by the formal reward system and that in aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988, p4). Every organization operates daily on numerous acts such as helpfulness, selflessness, and other instances that can be considered as citizenship behavior (Todd and Kent, 2006). The growing emphasis on team work and consultative activities has led to the increased need for individual initiative and cooperation making OCB imperative for the survival of the organizations (LePine et al, 2002). Previous empirical research findings support Organ’s position regarding the role of OCB in maximising employee as well as organizational performance (for e.g. Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994; Walz and Niehoff, 1996). Considering the significance of OCB, the next essential question that emerges is, what can the organizations do in order to increase these citizenship behaviors?
A plethora of research has been conducted to study the determinants of OCB. Previous research has mainly focused on four categories of antecedents namely: individual characteristics (e.g. personality, affect etc), task characteristics (task routinization, task feedback etc), organizational characteristics (staff support, organizational inflexibility etc) and leader behaviors (e.g. transformational leadership, transactional leadership etc) (Podsakoff et al, 2000). Although previous research has identified various antecedents of OCB, the relationship between certain variables and OCB have remained inconsistent across studies. Moreover most empirical researches on OCB have been conducted in the United States, using US employees as samples (Farh et al, 2004). The studies conducted in a non western context have been limited. Podsakoff et al (2000) opined the need for future research to examine the potential impact that cultural context might have on citizenship behaviors. According to Organ et al (2006), cultural context may influence how OCB is perceived and whether employees are inclined to demonstrate OCB.
The purpose of this study is to extend further the research on leader behaviors, task characteristics, organizational characteristics and individual characteristics as antecedents of OCB to a non western context. Owing to the lack of research on antecedents of OCB in non US context and the importance of identifying them in order to encourage OCB to better organization’s performance, the present study aims to explore the effect of determinants like instrumental leader behavior, supportive leader behavior, positive affect, negative affect, role overload and spatial distance on OCB in an Indian context. Previous researches, primarily conducted in the US, have empirically tested the effects of these variables on OCB. Investigating these past researches, the present study examining Indian employees, aims to explore if these findings hold true in a non western context. In attempting to do so, the present research also aims to study those variables that have failed to show a consistent relationship with OCB in the past.
SECTION 2: THEORIES AND HYPOTHESES
This section first discusses the meaning and the extant research on OCB and its dimension. Then theories on leadership, affect, role overload and spatial distance as antecedents of OCB are discussed, followed by the proposed hypotheses.
2.1 The OCB Construct
The concept of Organizational Citizenship Behavior can be traced back to the writings of Barnard (1938), who argued that the willingness of employees to put in cooperative efforts is vital for the effective realization of organizational goals. This argument was further supported by Katz (1964) who noted the importance of spontaneous and innovative behaviors that go beyond the formal role requirement but are indispensible for organizational effectiveness. Based on these insights, Bateman and Organ (1983) and Smith et al (1983) coined the term “Organizational Citizenship Behavior”.
Organ (1988) defined OCB as voluntary behavior that goes beyond the formal job description and that increases the organizations effectiveness. Since its conception, OCB has been the target of extensive research. In subsequent studies, various related positive work behavior constructs such as pro-social behavior (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986), civic citizenship (Graham, 1991), organizational spontaneity (George and Brief, 1992), extra role behavior (Van Dyne et al, 1995) and contextual performance (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993) were proposed and examined. Of all the various constructs, Organ’s (1988) OCB construct is one of the most attended ones, which has encouraged several empirical researches (Jahangir et al, 2004). Although there have been various definitions for OCBs, from the beginning OCBs have been viewed as behaviors that are “relatively more likely to be discretionary and less likely to be formally rewarded in the organization” (Podsakoff et at, 2000, p549).
Despite the specifics of the various construct, scholars have always considered OCB to be comprising of several behavioral dimensions. In their meta-analysis Podsakoff et al 2000, noted that there are almost 30 different forms of citizenship behaviors that overlap with each other to a great extent. Although various dimensions of OCB have been developed, Organ’s (1988) five dimension framework has been subject to most empirical research. Podsakoff et al, 1990 provided sound measure of these dimensions and have used the construct for several outstanding empirical studies (Lepine et al, 2002). Organ (1997) redefined OCB as “performance that supports the social and psychological environment in which task performance takes place’’ (p. 95). However this broad definition has yet to receive adequate empirical support (Messer and White, 2006); hence the present study will adopt Organ’s (1988) original definition of OCB. Organ (1988)’s five dimension framework, that highlights five specific categories of citizenship behaviors, will be used to measure OCB in this study. The five dimensions are as follows (Podsakoff et al, 1990, Podsakoff, et al, 2000):-
a) Altruism- Refers to behaviors that have the effect of helping another person with work related task or problem. For e.g. helping a coworker catch up with back log of work
b) Courtesy- Refers to behaviors aimed at preventing work related problems from occurring. For e.g. touching base with people before committing to actions that will affect them
c) Sportsmanship- Refers towillingness of employees to tolerate the inevitable inconveniences and impositions at work without complaining and filing grievances. For e.g. not complaining about trivial matters, maintaining a positive attitude even when things do not go their way.
d) Civic Virtue- Refers tobehaviors that indicate responsible participation in the political process of the organization. It represents a macro level interest in the organization as a whole. For e.g. attending meetings, keeping abreast of organizations issues are instances of Civic Virtue.
e) Conscientiousness- Refers to behaviors that go well beyond the minimum role requirements of the organization in terms of attendance, punctuality etc.
Interest in OCB has expanded to a variety of different domains including human resource management, marketing, leadership and strategic management (Podsakoff et al, 2000). According to Wagner and Rush (2000), OCB’s have an accumulative positive effect on organizations functioning (as cited in Jahangir et al, 2004). Podsakoff and Mackenzie (1997, p138) opined that OCB may enhance the efficiency of an organization by increasing managerial and coworker productivity, by freeing up resources for more productive purposes, by increasing the organizations ability to attract and retain the best people, by reducing variability in organizations performance and by increasing the organizations ability to adapt to environmental changes. Previous studies have empirically tested the relationship between OCB and organizational effectiveness. In their study of pharmaceutical sales teams, Mackenzie et al (1996) found citizenship behaviors to be positively related to sales team effectiveness (as cited in Podsakoff and Mackenzie, 1997). Similar results were also found by Walz and Niehoff (1996) in their study on performance measure in limited menu restaurants and Podsakoff and Mackenzie (1994) in their study of insurance agents.
Owing to the positive effects of OCB on individual as well as organizational performance, the need to identify reliable predictors of OCB has always been of great interest to researchers. Recognizing variables that encourage employees to exhibit OCB is also of practical importance to managers, as they may increase organizational productivity by promoting OCB among their employees. For this purpose, various employee, task, organizational and leader characteristics have been identified as reliable antecedents of OCB through numerous studies. The earliest research on the antecedents on OCB focused primarily on employee dispositions and leader behaviors (Podsakoff et al, 2000). Leader behaviors are reliable predictors of OCB. Past research primarily conducted in the US, has shown supportive and instrumental leadership to be positively related to OCB. However studies have also revealed that cultural context influence leader effectiveness (House et al, 2004). Hence the present study aims to examine whether these relationships between leader behavior and OCB remain consistent in a non US context. Among dispositional variables, positive and negative affect as predictors of OCB have attracted considerable attention. According to Borman et al (2001) further research is needed to better understand the unique effect of positive mood on citizenship behaviors. Thus the present study aims to examine the unique effect of positive mood as well as the effect of negative mood on Organ’s five dimensions of OCB.
In their review Podsakoff et al 2000, noted that task characteristics are important predictors of OCB and future research must pay more attention on these variables. Although role overload has shown to have an effect on OCB it has not received adequate attention. Furthermore among organizational characteristics only group cohesiveness has shown to have a significant relationship with OCB. Previous research has failed to show a consistent relationship between spatial distance and OCB. Thus the present study will also examine the effects of role overload and spatial distance on OCB. It is also important to note that majority of the research on OCB has been conducted in the West, mainly the US (Khalid et al, 2009). Thus it is imperative to see if the relationship between these variables and OCB examined in the US remain consistent in a non US context.
The present study, therefore, aims to extend the existing OCB research to a non US context by examining the effect of leader behavior, affect, role overload and spatial distance on OCB, using a sample of 125 Indian employees from a large private sector company in India.
2.2 Proposed Determinants of OCB
Having highlighted the various antecedents of OCB and gaps in previous research, this section will investigate the extant theories in relation to leader behavior, affect, role overload and spatial distance, followed by the proposed hypotheses.
2.2.1 Leader Behavior
Leaders play an important role in influencing subordinates OCBs. Past research has focused on the effect of various aspect of leadership like transformational leadership (for e.g. Podsakoff et al, 1990), charismatic leadership (for e.g. Deluga, 1995), leader member exchange (for e.g. Wayne et al, 2002) on OCB. OCB is strongly related to both formal and informal leadership (Euwema et al, 2007). In their review Podsakoff et al (2000) noted that transformational leadership in particular has received considerable amount of attention. In this study we focus on two forms of leadership i.e. instrumental leadership and supportive leadership that fit within the path goal theory framework.
Path Goal Theory of leadership
The path goal theory of leadership is a dyadic theory of supervision, which primarily deals with task and person oriented supervisory behavior (House, 1996). The Expectancy theory of motivation on which the path goal theory rests assumes that people choose the level of effort they wish to put forth at work based on their evaluation that increased effort will lead to increased performance, which will in turn lead to increased levels of reward (Organ et al, 2006). Based on this perspective, the path goal theory asserts that “the motivational functions of the leader consist of increasing personal payoffs to subordinates for their goal attainment, and making the path to these payoffs easier to travel by clarifying it, reducing roadblocks and pitfalls, and increasing the opportunities for personal satisfaction en route.” (House, 1971, p 324). There are four leader behaviors that fit into the path goal theory framework: instrumental leader behavior, supportive leader behavior, participative leader behavior and achievement oriented leader behavior. Research literature has mainly focused on instrumental and supportive leader behaviors. Even though the relationship between these behaviors and OCB is not a part of the original path goal framework, many scholars have argued that these behaviors influence OCB (Organ et al, 2006). The present study makes use of the following definitions of instrumental and supportive leadership:-
Instrumental leader Behavior
According to House and Dessler (1974) instrumental leader behavior refers to behavior directed towards clarifying subordinates role expectations. House (1996) opined that instrumental leaders provide “psychological structure for subordinates by letting them know what they are expected to do, scheduling and coordinating work, giving specific guidance and clarifying rules and procedures” (p 326). An instrumental leader clarifies their subordinate’s path by telling them what is expected of them and how they must achieve it, thereby reducing uncertainty about their jobs.
Supportive leader behavior
Supportive leaders are friendly and approachable leaders who express concern for their subordinate’s personal well being. According to House (1971) supportive leaders are sensitive towards their team members needs. In their study House and Rizzo (1972) argue that supportive leaders reduce role conflict, stress and anxiety.
Previous research has shown instrumental leadership to reduce role ambiguity (Podsakoff et al, 1993). According to Organ et al (2006) subordinates view instrumental and supportive leader behaviors as helping behaviors, since they reduce uncertainty and look out for the welfare of the employees. Schnake et al (1995) argued that these leader behaviors influences subordinates OCB as they may feel compelled to reciprocate to these helping behaviors. This argument is consistent with Blau’s (1964) social exchange theory, under which one may assume that subordinates who are satisfied with their leaders will display OCB in exchange of their leader’s supportiveness. Previous studies have shown that employees reciprocate by exhibiting OCB when they receive favourable treatment from the leaders (Deckop et al, 2003). Another way in which instrumental and supportive leaders may influence subordinate’s OCBs is through social learning process (Podsakoff et al 2000). Leaders act as role models to subordinates (Smith et al, 1983), in their study Krebs (1970) found prosocial behaviors to be particularly influenced by role models. Thus subordinates who have instrumental and supportive leaders will emulate these leader behaviors while interacting with other (for e.g. they will help their coworkers, care about the welfare of their coworkers, demonstrate more tolerance) thereby leading to the display of various citizenship behaviors like altruism, sportsmanship and courtesy.
According to Organ et al (2006), subordinate may develop a liking for their instrumental and supportive leaders as they reduce role uncertainty and show concern for their well being. This liking would translate into subordinates helping their leader in ways that will in enhance their OCB. Subordinate may become more tolerant towards certain setbacks at work, they may give suggestions, avoid taking long break and so on, owing to their liking towards their leader, thereby displaying OCB. This argument is further strengthened by Katz (1960) research on functional role of attitudes, which states that individuals form positive attitudes towards things that reduce uncertainty and enhance stability.
Past studies mainly conducted in the US, have found both leader role clarification and supportive leader behaviors to have both a direct as well as indirect effect on subordinates OCB (Podsakoff et al, 1996, Smith et al, 1983). In their review Podsakoff et al (2000) noted that both instrumental and supportive leader behaviors have a positive effect on employee’s citizenship behaviors. However it is important to note that leader effectiveness is influenced by cultural context (House et al, 2004). The present study aims to identify the determinants of OCB in an Indian organization. Previous research has found that the authority relations in India are predominantly parental in nature (Kakar, 1971), where subordinates seek direction and support from their supervisors (Sinha, 1970). Hence by extending the existing research, this study aims to examine if the relationship between these leader behaviors and OCB hold true in an Iian context.
Hypothesis 1.1: Instrumental leader behavior will be positively related to OCB
Hypothesis 1.2: Supportive leader behavior will be positively related to OCB
2.2.2 Affect
Numerous studies have focused on examining the impact of positive affect and negative affect on OCB. According to Borman et al (2001) future research is needed to better understand the unique effect of positive mood on citizenship behavior. Furthermore previous research has shown an inconsistent relationship between negative mood and citizenship behaviors (Clark & Isen, 1982). Thus the present study aims to examine the effects of positive and negative moods on Organ’s five dimensions of OCB. Affect in the context of this study refers to the employee’s mood state over a limited period of time.
The term ‘Affect’ encompasses of both moods and emotions. Moods are “generalized feeling states that are not typically indentified with a particular stimulus and not sufficiently intense to interrupt ongoing thought process”, whereas emotion are “normally associated with specific events and are enough to disrupt the thought process” (Brief and Weiss 2002, p282). While moods tend to be long lasting, emotions are short lived (Frijda, 1993). Forgas and George (2001) noted that moods affect the way people think and do things within an organizational setting. It is thus important to examine the relationship between moods and OCB. The two factor structure model of mood i.e. positive affect (mood) and negative affect (mood) has received considerable support. Research has also testified positive and negative affect as independent constructs (Watson and Clark, 1997).
Positive Affect or Mood (PA)
Enthusiasm, joy, excitement, pride are some of the positive mood states that an employee experiences when in a positive mood. Employees in a positive mood tend to be energetic and enjoy life (Cropanzano et al, 1993). Positive moods make people view things in a positive light (Carlson et al, 1988); hence it can be argued that employees in a positive mood will look at the positive side of things and be more tolerant towards any inconveniences caused at work thereby exhibiting citizenship behavior of sportsmanship. According to Clark and Isen (1982) individuals in a positive mood are more willing to offer help as they view the opportunity to display OCB more favourably than others. Rosenhan et al’s (1974) argued that positive moods reduce the psychological distance between oneself and others, thereby making employees attracted to their co worker. According to Isen and Baron (1991) positive mood state also encourages co operation and reduces aggression among employees. Thus we may expect employees in a positive mood to display OCB as they are more likely to co operate and prevent problems with coworkers from occurring and thereby exhibit courtesy. Carlson et al (1988) suggested that individuals who experience positive moods will seek to maintain those affective states by helping other, as helping others in turn puts them in a good mood. Furthermore individuals in a positive mood are also likely to exhibit OCB in an attempt maintain a constructive work environment (Penner et al, 1997). George and Brief (1992) noted that positive mood is a determinant of helping behavior and interpersonal cooperation. Isen (1993) further opined that people who experience positive affect value helping others more than thinking about the cost involved in doing so. Hence this study aims to examine if there exists a relationship between positive affect and OCB in the given context:-
Hypothesis 2.1 Positive Affect will be positively related to OCB
Negative Affect or Mood (NA)
Individuals in a negative mood feel negative affective states such as anxiety, fear and anger. People experiencing negative moods facilitate pessimistic tendencies, as their thoughts and perceptions are directed towards greater negativity owing to mood congruence (Raghunathan and Pham, 1999). Previous research has found that people in negative mood make “more critical” and “self deprecatory interpretation” of their own behavior (Forgas, 2002, p 10). Research conducted by Aderman and Berkowitz (1983) noted that concern about one’s own behavior makes people less likely to help others. People in negative moods also produce more avoidant and unfriendly behaviors thereby alienating their coworkers and managers (Forgas, 2002). Alienating coworkers further leads to negative interpersonal relationships which in turn make employees unwilling to help and co operate with others. Employees that experience negative mood states are also less likely to be tolerant towards any impediment at work and may complain about trivial matters at work. This can be supported by the argument that individuals in a negative mood are more sensitive to negative stimuli and react with greater intense emotions when experiencing negative job events (Brief and Weiss, 2002). Although Cialdini’s negative state relief model proposes that individual’s in negative mood are likely to help others, studies have shown that individuals in a negative mood to be less likely to help others (Thompson, Cowan, & Rosenhan, 1980). Considering these factors it may be proposed that:-
Hypothesis 2.2 Negative Affect will negatively related to OCB
2.2.3 Role Overload
In their review Podsakoff et al, 2000 argued that role perceptions impact some of the organizational citizenship dimensions. Past research has mainly focused on the relationship between role ambiguity, role conflict and OCB. Role overload is another aspect of one’s job that may have an impact on OCB (Organ et al, 2006). Very few studies have examined the impact of role overload as an antecedent of OCB. Thus the present research will examine the effect of role overload as a determinant of OCB.
Role overload may be defined as “having too many role demands and too little time to fulfil them” (Coverman, 1989, p 967). An employee feels overloaded when he/she has too much to do in the time available (Kahn et al, 1964). Role overload influences the way employees feel about themselves and their jobs. Previous research has shown role overload to result in reduced job satisfaction, feelings of anger, anxiety and personal failure (Kirmeyer and Dougherty 1988). Thus employees that are high on role overload may be less likely to exhibit OCB. OCBs are behaviors that go beyond one’s formal job requirements, thus logically exhibiting OCBs are likely to require additional time and energy (Bolino and Turnley, 2005). However employees who are overloaded with work may simply not have the time or the energy to help others or display OCB’s. Employees that have high role overload may have deadlines as they have a lot of work to be do in the time available to them. These deadlines are visible to others such as their immediate supervisor in the organizations. Thus when employees are overloaded it is more likely that they channelize all their energy and time into meeting those deadlines that are visible to other than exhibit citizenship behaviors (Moore and Love, 2005). Jex and Thomas (2003) suggested that when employees have demanding workload, they are less likely to dedicate themselves to the concerns of others in their work group. Cohen (1980) also argued that increased work load decreases employees helping behavior. Considering these factors it may be proposed that employees with increased work load are less likely to exhibit OCB, owing to the reduced discretionary time available to them and reduced commitment towards their work group (Organ et al, 2006).
Hypothesis 3.1 Role Overload will be negatively related to OCB
2.2.4 Spatial Distance
Various features of the work environment may influence employee’s OCB. In their review Podsakoff et al, 2000 opined that the relationships between organizational characteristics and OCB have been rather varied. Previous research has examined the effect of organizational characteristics on OCB through the substitutes of leadership model. Apart from group cohesiveness none of the other organizational characteristics within the substitute of leadership model have shown to have a consistent relationship with OCB. The present study primarily focus on the organizational characteristic of spatial distance and its impact on OCB.
Distance as defined by Leather (1978, p87) refers to a “relational concept, typically measured in terms of how far one individual is from the other”. Napier and Ferris (1993) referred to the distance between the supervisor and subordinate in an organization as “Dyadic Distance”. According to them dyadic distance is “a multidimensional construct that describes the psychological, structural, and functional distance between a supervisor and a subordinate” (Napier and Ferris 1993, p326). They defined structural distance within an organization as the distance caused by physical structure (i.e. work space) as well as organizational structure (i.e. the degree of centralization) and by supervisor structure (i.e. task and social contact between the supervisor and subordinate). This research mainly focuses on spatial distance, an aspect of structural distance and its effects on OCB. Spatial distance refers to the working distance between the employee and the supervisor, in this context it encompasses the distance caused due the work space as well as the task contact between the supervisor and the subordinate.
The amount of interaction opportunities within a dyad may influence an employee’s motivation, ability and opportunity to display OCB (Organ et al, 2006). Ferris and Rowland (1985) argued that reduced interaction between supervisor and subordinate affect the agreement and understanding between them. Increased spatial distance between the supervisor and subordinate may lead to increased task uncertainty owing to infrequent interaction between them. Employees who are spatially distant from their supervisors may also perceive them to be less supportive, thereby making them less motivated to exhibit OCB. Bradner et al (2002) further argued that physical distance has an effect on the ability to influence and the likelihood to co-operate (cited in Lojeski et al, 2006). In their study Liden and Graen (1980) argued that employees with high quality leader member exchange contribute beyond their formal job requirements than those employees with low quality leader member exchange. Thus increased spatial distance may lead to reduced display of OCB as previous researches have shown increased spatial distance to lead to lower quality leader member exchange (Dionne et al 2002, Napier and Ferris, 1993). In their research, Sundstorm (1986) found that decreased physical distance between the subordinate and supervisor leads to increased subordinate satisfaction. Research has shown that employees who are satisfied to with their jobs are more likely to displace OCBs (Organ and Ryan, 1995). Thus one may expect employee’s who are spatially distant from their supervisor to be less likely to exhibit OCB.
According to Fulk et al (1985) subordinates perception of their accessibility in terms of expressing their feeling to their supervisor determines their trust in the supervisor, thus increased spatial distance leads to low trust in the supervisor. Trust in supervisor has been found to have a positive impact to OCB (Aryee et al, 2002); as a result it may be argued that increased spatial distance may be negatively related to OCB. When the spatial distance between the superior and subordinate is high, the subordinates are less likely to be committed (Podsakoff et al, 1993) which would in turn lead to reduces OCB (Organ et al, 2006). In their study Podsakoff et al (1996) noted that spatial distance was negatively related to altruism even after controlling for other factors. Considering the above mentioned research findings it may be argued that:-
Hypothesis 4.1 Spatial Distance will be negatively related to OCB
SECTION 3: METHOD
3.1 Sample and Procedure
For this study, a standardised questionnaire was distributed across a large private sector company in India. In order to maintain confidentiality the organization will be referred to as Company X in this study. Company X is one of India’s largest private sector companies with an annual turnover of US$35.9 billion. The current global recessions has had a substantial effect on the Indian market. Management at Company X expressed concern about employee’s willingness to exhibit OCB due to the changes been undertaken within the organization owing to the current economic crisis. Although Company X is making efforts to ensure employees work in a secure and supportive environment, they expressed interest in knowing if management could take steps to enhance employee’s OCB.
200 questionnaires along with covering letters explaining the purpose of the study were distributed during the working hours with the permission of the HR department of the company. The questionnaire was administered across various departments to executives, managers, senior managers and general managers. The rationale for administering the survey across various departments and various managerial levels was to capture the diverse opinion about their immediate supervisor’s behavior, spatial distance and role overload, which vary across departments and the level of hierarchy. Respondents were asked to return the completed questionnaires in the pre addressed envelope provided to them. Of the 200 questionnaires, 125 completed questionnaires were returned giving a response rate of 62.5%. The respondents included 100 (80%) males and 25 (20%) females. Out of the total sample 36.8% employees were executives, 45.6% were managers, 9.6% were senior managers and 8% were general managers. The average age of the respondents was 35 years and average tenure was 7 years.
The questionnaire consisted of 70 items which was divided into 4 sections (attached as Appendix 1). Respondents were given clear instructions about how to fill the questionnaire and were expected to fill the questionnaire at one go to ensure that discussions with coworkers did not influence their responses. Steps were taken to ensure complete confidentiality, employees were given the assurance that responses would be used solely for the purpose of this study and the results would be reported only in aggregate form where in no individual responses could be identified. Once filled, the respondents sealed their responses in the pre addressed envelope provided to them and send it directly to the researcher.
3.2 Measures
The items for the questionnaire were taken from standardised scales; some items were modified to suit the requirement of the study.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
OCB was measured using modified items from the OCB scale developed by Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman and Fetter (1990). The scale was chosen because of its good psychometric properties (Podsakoff et al, 1990) and because it has been used extensively in several excellent studies (Lepine et al, 2002). Various dimensions of the scale as well as variations of the scale have previously been used for self report. The original scale required supervisors to assess their subordinates OCBs. In this study the items were reworded for employees to self report their OCB. Self report was important since the present study aimed at linking employee affect and OCB. According to Morrison (1994), relying on supervisor’s definition of OCB is problematic when there are individual factors such as affect that influence employee’s behaviors. Previous research has testified that Organ’s five dimensions of OCB can be measured in an Indian context (Chaitanya and Tripathi, 2001, Krishnan and Arora, 2008). Hence the scale was considered to be appropriate for the present study. The modified scale consisted of 21 items, of which 5 items measured courtesy, 5 items measured altruism, 4 items measured conscientiousness, 3 items measured sportsmanship and 4 items measured civic virtue. Since the scale was used for self report, one item measuring conscientiousness – “Is my most conscientious employee” and two items measuring sportsmanship – “Is the classic “squeaky wheel” that always needs greasing (R)” and “consumes a lot of time complaining about trivial matters (R) were excluded from the present questionnaire as they were considered to be inappropriate for self report. The negatively worded (reverse coded) items for sportsmanship were positively reworded as it was considered inapt to ask employees to rate dysfunctional behaviors. Respondents were asked to rate their OCB on a 5 point likert scale ranging from ‘1-Strongly Disagree’ to ‘5-Strongly Agree’. The internal consistency reliability for the items of the original scale ranged from (0.70 to 0.85) for each dimension. In this study, the internal consistency reliabilities for each dimension ranged from 0.71 to 0.88 and for the complete scale was 0.76.
Leader Behavior
Both instrumental and supportive leader behaviors were measured using LBDQ-Form XII developed by the Ohio State University. The LBDQ-Form XII was selected as it provides an accurate measure for the path goal theory’s leadership constructs (Schriesheim and Von Glinow, 1977) and it has been used extensively in previous leadership research. Instrumental leader behavior was measured by the 10 item initiating structure scale of LBDQ-Form XII, while supportive leader behavior was measured using the 10 item consideration scale of the LBDQ-Form XII. It is important to note that the items on the scale are directed towards group rather than individual based descriptions. However Schriesheim (1979) found that there is a strong relationship between both the group and individual descriptions and that measures comprising of either type of items produced the same co relations with the outcomes (cited in Mossholder et al, 1990, p381). Selmer (1997) noted that LBDQ instrument is not only applicable in the US but has also been successfully applied in Asia. Hence the measures were considered appropriate in the present study. Items such as ‘Lets group members know what is expected of them’ measured instrumental leader behaviors while items such as ‘Looks out for the personal welfare of group members’ measured supportive leader behaviors. Respondents were asked to rate how frequently their immediate supervisors engaged in the specified behaviors on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from ‘1-Never’ to ‘5-Always’. The internal consistency reliabilities for instrumental and supportive leader measures were α= 0.86 and α= 0.82 respectively.
Affect
To measure affect or mood of the respondents, the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) developed by Watson, Clark, Tellegen (1988) was used. The PANAS is a 20 item self report measure of both positive and negative affect. Positive affect was measured by 10 items such as ‘excited, determined, active, inspired, alert, attentive, interested, proud, enthusiastic and strong’ whereas Negative affect was measured by 10 items such as ‘nervous, upset, scared, jittery, irritable, afraid, hostile, guilty, ashamed and distressed’. Previous research has shown that both positive and negative affect constructs are reliable and independent regardless of the subject population or the time frame or cultural context (Watson and Clark, 1997). Hence this scale was considered appropriate for the present study. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they experienced each mood during the past few days on a 5 point likert scale ranging from ‘1-very slightly/not at all’ to ‘5-extremely’. The internal consistency reliabilities for positive affect and negative affect were α= 0.86 and α= 0.86 respectively.
Spatial Distance
Spatial distance was measured using 4 items measuring spatial distance (SPAT), from the original 74 item scale of revised substitute of leadership developed by Podsakoff, Niehoff, Mackenzie and Williams (1993). The scale is reliable with good psychometric properties (Podsakoff et al, 1993). Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they perceived their immediate supervisor to be spatially distant from them. SPAT included items such as ‘My immediate supervisor and I are seldom in actual contact or direct sight of one another’ which was measured on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from ‘1- Strongly Disagree’ to ‘5- Strongly Agree’. The internal consistency reliability for this measure was α=0.75.
Role Overload
Role overload was measured with the original Role Overload Scale, a three-item role overload scale developed by Beehr, Walsh and Taber (1976). The 3 items include, ‘I am given enough time to do what is expected of me on my job (reverse coded), ‘It often seems like I have too much work for one person to do’, ‘the performance standards on my job are too high’. Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with the given statement on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from ‘1-Strongly Disagree’ to ‘5-Strongly Agree’. The internal consistency reliability for this measure was α=0.64
3.3 Analysis
The five dimension of OCB are related to one another and are equivalent indicators of OCB (Lepine et al, 2002). Thus one can assume that all the observed quantities of the statements were contributing equally as a measure of OCB. Considering these factors the present study made use of the mean of each item for analysis. An overall score of OCB was created by computing the means across all the 21 items (Allen et al, 2000). In order to maintain consistency and retain the scale range from 1-5, a similar procedure was adopted for all other items measuring each of the independent variables.
Control Variables
Previous research has found demographic features such as gender (Kidder, 1998), age, and tenure (Morrison, 1994) to influence OCB (cited in Coyle-Shapiro, 2002). Hence age, gender and tenure were included as control variables. Designation and department of the employees were also included as control variables as these factors were linked to the tenure for some employee in the given organization and therefore could potentially influence their OCB.
In order to analyse the data, univariate analysis which consisted of descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis which consisted of Pearson’s co relation coefficients, multivariate analysis which consisted of multiple regressions and the Cronbach alphas for all measures were calculated using SPSS 16.0.
SECTION 4: RESULTS
Since the study made use of self report to measure OCB, it was essential to examine if there were any evident biases in the responses. The descriptive statistics for the OCB scale for this sample are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
OCB Descriptives
N |
Valid |
125 |
|
Missing |
.000 |
Mean |
|
4.125 |
Median |
|
4.100 |
Std. Deviation |
|
.282 |
Skewness |
|
.165 |
Std. Error of Skewness |
|
.217 |
Kurtosis |
|
-.296 |
Std. Error of Kurtosis |
|
.430 |
The mean for the OCB scale was 4.125 with a median of 4.100, a skewness of .165 with a standard error of skewness as .217 and a kurtosis of -.296 with standard error of kurtosis was .430. The descriptive statistics indicate that the responses were normally distributed as the mean and median are similar and the skewness and kurtosis are less than twice their standard errors. Overall in the organization there seems to be a high equity of OCB as noted by the higher mean value of 4.12 but there seems to be no evident skewness in the responses towards OCB, as marked by the normal distribution.
Table 2 below indicates the means, standard deviations and Cronbach alpha’s for all the variables studied in this research. Altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness and sportsmanship dimensions of OCB have comparable means of 4.06, 4.23, 4.41 and 4.31 respectively. Only civic virtue reported to have a relatively low mean of 3.61. Thus indicating that, the employees in the sample exhibited relatively low participation in the political process of the organization. The mean for instrumental leader behavior came out to be 4.14, indicating that the employees in the sample viewed their leaders to provide them with greater role clarification.
Table 2
Mean, Standard deviations and Cronbach reliabilities for all the variables
Variables |
Mean |
SD |
α |
OCB |
4.12 |
.28 |
0.76 |
OCB-Altruism |
4.06 |
.50 |
0.84 |
OCB- Courtesy |
4.23 |
.38 |
0.74 |
OCB-Conscientiousness |
4.41 |
.60 |
0.88 |
OCB-Sportsmanship |
4.31 |
.48 |
0.71 |
OCB- Civic Virtue |
3.61 |
.67 |
0.83 |
Instrumental Leader Behavior |
4.14 |
.61 |
0.86 |
Supportive Leader Behavior |
3.86 |
.63 |
0.82 |
Positive Affect |
3.92 |
.65 |
0.86 |
Negative Affect |
1.73 |
.64 |
0.86 |
Role Overload |
2.90 |
.56 |
0.64 |
Spatial Distance |
2.58 |
.82 |
0.75 |
As shown in the table 2, the mean for negative affect for the sample is low at 1.73. The low mean indicates that overall in the sample employees expressed almost no negative moods in the given time frame. The Cronbach alpha’s for all scales except role overload were above 0.70 thereby indicating good internal consistency reliabilities. The Cronbach alpha for role overload was less satisfactory at 0.64. This could probably be attributed to the fact that the role overload scale is multidimensionality in nature as it measures both the qualitative and quantitative role overload and has small number of items in the scale (Kelloway and Barling, 1990).
The Pearson’s correlation coefficients for the variables with OCB and its dimensions are presented in Table 3. The correlational analysis illustrates that the co relation coefficient between OCB and instrumental leaders behavior is positive and significant at r = .64, p ≤ 0.01. Thus Instrumental leader behavior is positively related to OCB, thereby supporting Hypothesis 1.1. The co relation coefficients between each of the dimensions of OCB and instrumental leader behavior also show a positive and significant relationship. Instrumental leaders behavior is positively related to altruism (ALT) at r = .37, p ≤ 0.01, to courtesy (COU) at r= .30, p ≤ 0.01, to conscientiousness (CONS) at r = .44, p ≤ 0.01, to sportsmanship (SPOR) at r = .18, p ≤ 0.05 and to civic virtue (CIVI) at r = .37, p ≤ 0.01. The results also indicate that the correlation coefficient between OCB and supportive leader behavior is positive and significant at r =.56, p ≤ 0.01. Thus Supportive leader behavior is positively related to OCB thereby supporting Hypothesis 1.2. Like instrumental leader behavior, supportive leader behavior too shows a significant and positive relationship with all the dimensions of OCB.
Table 3
Correlations
Variables |
Pearson’s Correlation with OCB and its Dimensions |
|||||
|
ALT |
COU |
CONS |
SPOR |
CIVI |
OCB |
Instrumental Leader Behavior |
.37** |
.30** |
.44** |
.18* |
.37** |
.64** |
Supportive Leader Behavior |
.34** |
.24** |
.28** |
.20* |
.39** |
.56** |
Positive Affect |
.12 |
.32** |
.24** |
.31** |
.09 |
.38** |
Negative Affect |
.06 |
-.06 |
-.17 |
-.10 |
-.03 |
- .12 |
Role Overload |
.07 |
-.03 |
.04 |
.09 |
.19* |
.16 |
Spatial Distance |
.19* |
-.15 |
.07 |
-.22* |
-.06 |
-.04 |
The two tailed test of significance was used. *p ≤ 0.05 **p ≤ 0.01
Alt= Altruism, Cou= Courtesy, Cons= Conscientiousness, Spor= Sportsmanship and Civi =Civic Virtue
As seen in the table 3, supportive leader behavior shows a positive relationship with altruism (ALT) at r =.34, p ≤ 0.01, with courtesy (COU) at r =.24, p ≤ 0.01, with conscientiousness (CONS) at r =.28, p ≤ 0.01, with sportsmanship (SPOR) at r =.20, p ≤ 0.05 and with civic virtue (CIVI) at r =.39, p ≤ 0.01. Furthermore there exists a positive and significant relationship between OCB and positive affect at r =.38, p ≤ 0.01, thereby supporting Hypothesis 2.1. Among the dimensions, only three dimensions of OCB show a positive significant relationship with positive affect. Positive affect showed a positive and significant relationship with courtesy (COU) at r = .32, p ≤ 0.05, with conscientiousness (CONS) at r = .24, p ≤ 0.01 and with sportsmanship (SPOR) at r = .31, p ≤ 0.01. It was interesting to note that altruism and civic virtue showed no significant relationship with positive affect.
Although previous researches have shown altruism to be positively related to positive mood, in the present study there seems to be no significant relationship between positive mood and OCB. This can possibly be explained by the mean of positive affect. As shown in Table 2, the mean for positive affect came out to be 3.92, which suggests that the positive mood among employees was not very high. As the mean of positive affect is relatively low, it may explain why it did not show a significant relationship with all the dimensions of OCB. Another possible reason for positive affect to show an insignificant relationship with altruism and civic virtue would be the current economic crisis. Owing to the current global recession and increased layoff, the existing employees have to deal with their own increased work pressures and under such circumstances even if an employee is in a positive mood he/she may not find the opportunity or time to help others with their work or voluntarily attend meetings. The correlational analysis further indicates no significant relationship between OCB, negative affect, role overload and spatial distance. Thereby providing no support for Hypothesis 2.2, Hypothesis 3.1 and Hypothesis 4.1.
After examining the relationship between the variables, a multiple regression was conducted with OCB as the dependent variables and all other variables as the independent variables in order to examine the strength of the association between the variables. The results of the multiple regression analysis are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Multiple regression analysis predicting OCB
OCB
Independent Variables β t Sig
Instrumental Leader Behavior .41** 4.73 .01
Supportive Leader Behavior .28** 3.42 .01
Positive Affect .16* 2.24 .02
Negative Affect -.02 - .31 .75
Role Overload .02 .32 .74
Spatial Distance -.05 - .79 .43
R2 .49
F 19.08**
*p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01
As shown in Table 4, 49% of variance in OCB was explained by instrumental leader behavior, supportive leader behavior and positive affect. Among all the variables, only three variables i.e. instrumental leader behavior, supportive leader behavior and positive affect proved to be significant predictors of OCB for the given sample. Instrumental leader behavior is the most significant predictor of OCB. The coefficient for instrumental leader behavior is β=.41 at p ≤ 0.01. Followed by supportive leader behavior which is the second most significant predictor of OCB (β =.28, p ≤ 0.01). Positive affect although relatively low in comparison to the leader behaviors also proved to be a significant predictor of OCB with β=.16 at p ≤ 0.05. In the given context, negative affect, role overload and spatial distance did not prove as significant predictors of OCB.
Since instrumental leader behavior, supportive leader behavior and positive affect proved to be significant predicators of OCB, a multiple regression was conducted with these predictors as independent variables and each of the dimensions of OCB as the dependent variable in order to determine the dimensions that were predicted by these variables. The results of the multiple regressions are present in Table 5 below.
Table 5
Multiple regression analysis predicting various dimensions of OCB
Dimensions of OCB
Independent variable ALT COU CONS SPOR CIVI
Instrumental Leader Behavior .26* .16 .39** .01 .23*
Supportive Leader Behavior .19 .09 .02 .13 .26**
Positive Affect -.02 .23** .09 .28* -.05
R2 .16 .14 .20 .11 .18
F 7.6** 6.9** 10.1** 5.2** 8.9**
*p ≤ 0.05 **p ≤ 0.01
Alt= Altruism, Cou= Courtesy, Cons= Conscientiousness, Spor= Sportsmanship and Civi =Civic Virtue
From the table it may be seen that, 16% variance in altruism (ALT) was significantly predicted by instrumental leader behavior alone. The coefficient for instrumental leader behavior was β=.26 at p ≤ 0.05. 14% variance in courtesy (COU) was predicted by positive affect alone. The coefficient for positive affect was β=.23 at p ≤ 0.05. 20% variance in conscientiousness (CONS) was predicted by instrumental leadership. The coefficient for instrumental leadership was β = .39 at p ≤ 0.01. 11% variance in sportsmanship (SPOR) was predicted by positive affect. The coefficient for positive affect was β =.28 at p ≤ 0.05. Civic virtue (CIVI) was significantly predicted by both instrumental leader behavior (β = 23, p < 0.05) and supportive leader behavior (β = .26, p ≤ 0.01). Together they accounted for 18% variance in civic virtue.
SECTION 5: DISCUSSION
The results of the studies provided support for Hypothesis 1.1 and Hypothesis 1.2. Both instrumental and supportive leader behaviors proved to be significant predictors of OCB in the given context. Instrumental leader behavior had the most significant positive relationship with OCB, thus indicating that increased role clarification by the supervisor lead to increased OCB. Supportive leader behavior too showed a significant positive relationship with OCB, indicating that increased leader support and concern about the employees welfare leads to increased OCB in the employees. These finding are similar to the findings of previous studies conducted in the US. However it is pertinent to note that these findings hold true in an Indian context because subordinates in an Indian organization expect their leaders to provide them with guidance and support. Based on Hofstede’s (1980) cultural framework, India is a collectivist culture. As opined by Tripathi (1990), the Indian society is characterised by expressive ties among people and emphasis on values such as respect for authority, affiliation and dependency. Previous research conducted on the authority pattern between the supervisor and the subordinate in India have argued that the authority relationships in India are predominantly parental in nature (Kakar, 1971). Kakar (1971) also argued that these parental authority relationships which include both nuturant and assertive leader behaviors are a feature of the authority relations at all levels in an Indian organization. Furthermore previous research has indicated that subordinates in Indian organization have a tendency to depend upon their leader for guidance, direction and support (Sinha, 1980). Indian subordinates prefer a personalized relationship with their leader rather than a contractual relationship (Dayal, 1976). Since the Indian culture emphasis on interdependence and mutual aid (Miller et al, 1990), employees seek support and role clarification from their supervisors.
The behavior of the leader is a reflection of the organizational culture which in turn is influenced by the societal culture (Kopelman et al 1990). Thus as seen from this study conducted in an Indian organization, leaders provided enough guidance and consistent support to their subordinates. These leader behaviors met the expectations of the subordinates in terms of reduced uncertainty and increased support. Consistent with previous research which states that subordinates exhibit OCB when they receive favourable treatment from their leaders, the subordinates in the given sample reciprocated by exhibiting OCB. As opined by Tripathi (1990), Indian society emphasis on values such as respect for authority, subordinates look up to their leaders. They view leaders as their role models and tend to emulate their leader’s behavior. The findings of this study are consistent with these beliefs. The results of this study indicate that instrumental leader behavior fosters the emergence of altruism, conscientiousness and civic virtue. The findings suggest that when leaders provide subordinates with greater role clarification, subordinates display OCB by helping their coworkers with work related tasks, by going beyond work requirements and by displaying participating in the political development of the organization. The results of the study also indicated supportive leader behavior to be a significant predictor of civic virtue. Increased support from the leaders, leads to increased macro level interest in the organization as a whole. This may be explained by the fact that when leaders extend support and concern about the welfare of their subordinates, the subordinate feel that their organization cares about their welfare and thereby they reciprocate by showing concern about the organization, thus exhibiting civic virtue.
The results of the study also indicate that positive affect among employees lead to increased OCB. These findings are consistent with prior theory which states that individuals in a positive mood tend to look at things in positive light (Carlson et al, 1988). The findings of this study indicate that individuals in a positive mood exhibit sportsmanship and courtesy. Individuals in a positive mood cooperate with others, prevent problems from occurring with their coworkers and are more tolerant towards any setbacks at work. The results of the study are consistent with these beliefs that employees in a positive mood aim to maintain constructive work environment (Penner et al, 1997). In the given sample, employees in a positive mood expressed more tolerance towards any inconveniences caused at work by displaying sportsmanship and prevented problems with the coworkers by exhibiting courtesy.
In the present study negative affect and spatial distance did not show any significant relationship with OCB. It may be noted that the mean for negative mood as noted in Table 2 was 1.73, indicating that most of the employees in the sample barely felt any negative moods. Since employees in the given sample did not report negative moods, it explains why there was no relationship between negative moods and OCB. A less than clear picture can be drawn with respect to the absence of a significant relationship between spatial distance and OCB, this can be attributed to the responses received from the sample considered in the present study. It was also interesting to note that, in the given context, role overload had no effect on OCB. This can probably be explained by the organizational culture that persists in Company X. The employees at Company X, like other private sector companies in India are encouraged to take up more work. The employees are more than willing to enthusiastically take up more work in order to get appreciation from their supervisors which will in turn lead to increased levels of reward. Under such circumstances an employee may not necessarily view role overload as overload but rather view it as a part of their job. This possibly explains why the mean for role overload (as present in Table 2) is the relatively low in spite of the current economic conditions. However it is essential to note that although employees may not consider their heavy workloads as overload, they might not necessarily have time or energy to exhibit OCB. This could probably be the reason as to why role overload failed to show a significant relationship with OCB. Based on the findings of this study some important practical implication can be made for the management of company X.
Practical Implications for Management of Company X
Since leader behavior and positive affect proved to have a significant positive relationship with OCB, management at Company X can initiate steps to maintain these leader behaviors and affective states in order to encourage employees to exhibit OCB. Management must encourage supervisors to exhibit instrumental leader behaviors. Supervisors must provide subordinates with role clarification as it was found to have the most significant effect on OCB. Management must also encourage leaders to offer support and show concern about the well being of their subordinates. Supportive leader behavior along with role clarification will also help employees deal with heavy workloads. Furthermore management may administer validated tests such as LBDQ Form-XII Self to supervisors. This will enable the management to better understand the supervisor’s belief of how they expect themselves to act as leaders. Management may also put such validated test into use while recruiting new employees at supervisory level in order to identify those leaders who are more likely to exhibit instrumental and supportive leader behaviors.
Management may also to some extent control certain factors that may alter employee’s affective states. Previous studies have shown factors such as unexpected small gifts, employee’s workspace to alter one’s affective states (Williams et al, 2000). Since positive affect proved to have a significant effect on OCB, management must take steps to pay more attention to employee’s moods. Management must try to maintain a pleasant working atmosphere which will in turn lead to pleasant affective states. Management must also focus on other factors such as task assigned or supportive working environment which may alter employee’s mood.
SECTION 6: CONCLUSION AND LIMITATION
Most organizations value employees who exhibit Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. The need to extent OCB research to a non US context is largely felt by a number of researchers. The present study though in a small way contributed to this growing need by extending the existing OCB research to an Indian context.
The results of the present study indicated instrumental leader behaviors and supportive leader behaviors to be significant predictors of OCB. Instrumental leader behavior had the most significant effect on OCB followed by supportive leader behavior. This is in conjunction with the parental authority relations that exist in an Indian organization. Thus the relationship between instrumental leader behavior and supportive leader behavior with OCB in the given context indicates the influence of the cultural values on leader behavior as a determinant of OCB.
Positive moods also indicated to have a significant positive effect on OCB. Positive affect significantly predicted sportsmanship and courtesy among employees in the given sample. Another interesting finding of this study was that role overload showed no significant effect on OCB due to the fact that employee’s perception of role overload seemed to be influenced by the organizational culture.
One limitation of the study is that it made use of self reports measures for all variables considered in this study which may possibly have led to common method bias. Another limitation of the study is that although the research findings indicated the impact of cultural values on the effects of leader behavior as a determinant of OCB, these findings not necessarily be generalised as the present study was conducted in a single Indian organization. Thus future research must dwell further on the relationship between leader behavior and OCB in India by undertaking a large scale research with employees from across the country. Given the current economic situation, future researcher might also find it interesting to explore the relationship between role overload and employee outcomes such as organizational commitment across various cultures.
Word Count: 9373.
References
Aderman, D & Berkowitz, L. (1983). ‘Self-Concern and the Unwillingness to Be Helpful’.Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 46 (4): 293-301.
Allen, T.D, Barnard, S. & Rush, M.C. (2000). ‘Ratings of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Does the source make a difference?’ Human Resource Management Review, Vol 10 (1): 97-114.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P.S., & Chen, Z.X. (2002). ‘Trust as a mediator of relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of social exchange model’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3): 267–285.
Barnard, C.I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bateman, T.S., & Organ, D.W. (1983). ‘Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee citizenship’. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 587–595.
Beehr, T.A., Walsh, J.T., & Taber, T.D. (1976). ‘Relationship of stress to individually and organizationally valued states: Higher order needs as a moderator’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61: 41-47.
Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bolino, M.C & Turnley, W.H (2005). ‘The Personal Costs of Citizenship Behavior: The Relationship between Individual Initiative and Role Overload, Job Stress, and Work–Family Conflict’. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, (4): 740–748.
Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). ‘Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance’. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman, Personnel selection in organisations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Borman, W.C, Penner, L.A, Allen, T.D & Motowidlo, S.J (2001). ‘Personality Predictors of Citizenship Performance’. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. Vol 9, No1/2: 52-69.
Brief, A.P & Motowidlo, S. J (1986). ‘Pro-social organizational behaviors’. Academy of Management Review, 10: 710-725.
Brief, A.P & Weiss, H.M (2002). ‘Organizational Behavior: Affect in the Workplace’. Annual Review Psychology, 53: 279-307.
Carlson, M., Charlin, V. & Miller, N. (1988). ‘Positive mood and helping behavior: A test of six hypothesis’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol, 55 (2): 211-229.
Chaitanya, S.K. and Tripathi, N. (2001). ‘Dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior’. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 37:217-230.
Clark, M. S., & Isen, A. M. (1982). ‘Toward understanding the relationship between feeling states and social behavior’. In A. H. Hastorf & A. M. Isen (Eds.), Cognitive social psychology (pp. 73-108). New York: Elsevier-North Holland.
Cohen, S. (1980). ‘After effects of stress on human performance and social behavior: A review of research and theory’. Psychological Bulletin, 88: 82-108.
Coverman, S. (1898). ‘Role Overload, Role Conflict, and Stress: Addressing Consequences of Multiple Role Demands’. Social Forces, Vol. 67, (4): 965-982.
Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M. (2002). ‘A psychological contract perspective on organizational citizenship behavior’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 927–946.
Cropanzano, R., James, K. and Konovsky, M. A. (1993). 'Dispositional affectivity as a predictor of work attitudes and job performance', Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14: 595-606.
Dayal, I (1976) ‘Cultural factors in designing performance appraisal system’, SRC Industrial Relations and Human Performance, New Delhi.
Deckop, J.R, Cirka, C.C & Andersson, L.M (2003). ‘Doing Unto Others: The Reciprocity of Helping Behavior in Organizations’. Journal of Business Ethics, 47: 101–113.
Deluga, R.J (1995). ‘The relationship between attributional charismatic leadership and organizational citizenship behavior’. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 25: 1652-1669.
Dionne, S.D, Yammarino, F.J & Atwater,L.E (2002). ‘Neutralizing substitutes for leadership theory: Leadership effects and common-source bias’. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 (3): 454-464.
Euwema, C.M, Wendt.H and Emmerik, H.V (2007). ‘Leadership styles and group organizational citizenship behavior across cultures’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1-23.
Farh, J. L., Zhong, C.B., & Organ, D. W (2004). ‘Organizational citizenship behavior in the People's Republic of China’. Organization Science, 15: 241-253.
Forgas, J.P (2002). ‘Feeling and Doing: Affective Influences on Interpersonal Behavior’. Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 13 (1): 1-28
Forgas, J. P. & George, J. M. (2001). ‘Affective influences on judgements and behavior in organizations: An information processing perspective’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1): 3–34.
Frijda, N.H. (1993). Moods, emotion episodes, and emotions. In M. Lewis and LM. Haviland
(Eds.). Handbook of Emotions (pp. 381-403). New York: Guilford
Fulk,J., Brief, A.P & Barr, S.H (1985). ‘Trust-in-Supervisor and Perceived Fairness and Accuracy of Performance Evaluations’. Journal of Business Research 13(4): 301-313.
George, J.M & Brief, A.P (1992). ‘Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work organizational spontaneity relationship’. Psychological Bulletin, 112: 310-329.
Graham JW (1991). ‘An essay on organizational citizenship behavior’.Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4: 249-270.
Hofstede, G. (1980). ‘Motivation, Leadership and Organization: Do American Theories Apply Abroad’. Organizational Dynamics, 42-63.
House, R. J (1971). ‘A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness’. Admninistative Scienice Quarterly, Vol. 16: 321-338.
House, R. J. (1996). ‘Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory’. Leadership Quarterly, 7: 323–352.
House, R. J., and Dessler, G. (1974) ‘The Path-Goal Theory of Leadership: Some Post Hoc and A Priori Tests’. In J. G. Hunt and L. L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency Approaches to Leadership, Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
House, R.J and Rizzo, J.R (1972). ‘Role Conflict and Ambiguity as Critical Variables in a model of Organizational Behavior’. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7: 467-505.
Isen, A. (1993). ‘Positive affect and decision making’. In M. Lewis & M. Haviiand (Eds.), Handbook of emotion (pp. 261-267). New York: Guilford
Isen, A. M. and Baron, R. A. (1991). 'Positive affect as a factor in organizational behavior'. In: Staw, B. M. and Cummings, L. L. (Eds) Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-54.
Jahangir N., Akbar M.M., Haq, M. (2004). ‘Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature and antecedents’. BRAC University Journal, Vol. I, (2):75-85.
Jex, S.M & Thomas, J.L (2003). ‘Relations between stressors and group perceptions: main and mediating effects’. Work and stress, Vol. 17 (2): 158-169.
Kahn, R .L., D.M. Wolfe, R.P. Quinn & J.D. Snoek.1964. Organizational stress. New York: Wiley.
Kakar. S (1971). ‘Authority Patterns and Subordinate Behavior in Indian Organizations’. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16 (3): 298-307.
Katz, D (1960). ‘The functional approach to the study of attitudes’. Public Opinion Quarterly., 24: 163-204.
Katz. D (1964). ‘Motivational basis of organizational behavior’. Behavioral Science, 9: 131-146.
Kelloway, E.K & Barling, J (1990). ‘Item content versus item wording: Disentangling Role conflict and Role Ambiguity’. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 75(6): 738-742.
Khalid, S.A., Ali, H., Ismail, M., Rahman, N,A., Kassim, K.M & Zain, R.S (2009). ‘Organizational Citizenship Behavior Factor Structure among Employees in Hotel Industry’ International Journal of Psychological Studies. Vol 1 (1): 16-25.
Kirmeyer, S.L and Dougherty, T.W (1988). ‘Work Load, Tension, and Coping: Moderating effects of Supervisor Support’. Personnel Psychology, 41: 125-139.
Kopelman, R. E., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1990). ‘The role of climate and culture in productivity’. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 282-318). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Krebs DL. (1970). ‘Altruism: An examination of the concept and a review of the literature’. Psychological Bulletin, 73: 258-302.
Krishnan, V.R and Arora, P (2008). ‘Determinants of Transformational Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior’. Asia-Pacific Business Review. Vol IV (1): 34-43.
Leather, D. (1978). Nonverbal communication systems. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
LePine, J.A, Erez, A & Johnson, D.E (2002). ‘The Nature and Dimensionality of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis’. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 (1): 52–65.
Liden, R.C. and Graen, G. (1980). ‘Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership’. Academy of Management Journal, 23(3): 451-465
Lojeski, K.S, Reilly, R., Dominick, P. (2006). ‘The role of virtual distance in innovation and sucsess’. Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1-10.
Messer, B.A.E & White, F.A (2006). ‘Employee’s mood, perception of fairness and organizational citizenship behavior’. Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 21 (1) :65-82.
Miller J.G, Bersoff D.M, Harwood R.L. (1990). ‘Perceptions of social responsibilities in India and the United States: moral imperatives or personal decisions?’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58: 33–47.
Moore, J.E & Love, M.S (2005). ‘IT professionals as organizational citizens’. Communications of ACM, Vol. 48, No. 6: 88-93.
Morrison, E. W. (1994). ‘Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective’. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6):1543–1567.
Mossholder, K.W., Niebuhr, R, E. and Norris D, R. (1990). ‘Effects of Dyadic duration on the relationship between leader behavior perceptions and follower outcomes’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.11: 379-388.
Napier, B.J & Ferris, G.R (1993). ‘Distance in Organizations’. Human Resource Management Review, Vol 3, (4): 321-357.
Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Organ D.W. (1997). ‘Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time’. Human Performance, l0: 85-97.
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M., and MacKenzie, S. (2006). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Organ, D.W & Ryan, K. (1995). ‘A meta analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior’. Personnel Psychology, 48: 775-802.
Penner, L.A, Midili, A.R & Kegelmeyer, J (1997). ‘Beyond Job Attitudes: A Personality and Social Psychology Perspective on the Causes of Organizational Citizenship Behavior’. Human Performance, 10(2): 111-131.
Podsakoff, P. M. & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31: 351–363.
Podsakoff P.M. & MacKenzie S.B. (1997). ‘The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research’. Human Performance, 10: 133-151
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer. W. H. (1996). ‘A meta-analysis of the relationships between Kerr and Jermier's substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and performance’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 380-399.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990). ‘Transformational Leader Behaviors and their effects on followers’ Trust in leader, Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors’. Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107–142.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G. (2000). ‘Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research’. Journal of Management, Vol 26 (3): 513-563.
Podsakoff, P.M, Niehoff, B.P, Mackenzie, S.B, William, M.L (1993). ‘Do substitutes of leadership really substitute for Leadership? An Empirical Examination of Kerr and Jermier’s Situational Leadership Model’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,54: 1-44.
Raghunathan, R and Pham, M.T (1999). ‘All Negative Moods Are Not Equal: Motivational Influences of Anxiety and Sadness on Decision Making’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Vol. 79 (1) : 56–77.
Rosenhan, D.L., Underwood, B. & Moore, B.S. (1974). ‘Affect moderates self gratification and altruism’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30: 546-552.
Schnake M, Cochran D, Dumler M. (1995). ‘Encouraging organizational citizenship: The effects of job satisfaction, perceived equity and leadership’. Journal of Managerial Issues, 7: 209-221.
Schriesheim, C & Von Glinow, M.A (1977). ‘The Path Goal Theory of Leadership: A theoretical and Empirical Analysis’. Academy of Management Journal, Vol.20 (3): 398-405.
Selmer, J (1997). ‘Difference in leadership behavior between expatriate and local bosses as perceived by their host country national subordinate’. Leadership and Organizational Journal. Vol 18 (1): 13-22.
Sinha, J.B.P (1980). The Nuturant Task Leader. New Delhi: Concept Publishing.
Smith, C.A., Organ D.W., & Near, J.P. (1983). ‘Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 653–663.
Sundstorm, E. (1986). Work Places: The Psychology of the Physical Environment in Offices and Factories. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, W. C., Cowan, C. L., & Rosenhan, D. L. (1980).’ Focus of attention mediates the impact of negative affect on altruism’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38: 291-300.
Todd, S. Y., & Kent, A. (2006). ‘Direct and indirect effects of task characteristics on organizational citizenship behavior’. North American Journal of Psychology, 8: 253-268.
Tripathi, R.C. (1990). ‘Interplay of values in the functioning of Indian organizations’. International Journal of Psychology, 25: 715–734
Van Dyne L, Cummings LL, McLean Parks J. (1995). ‘Extra-role behaviors: in pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters)’. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17: 215-285.
Walz, S.M & Niehoff, B.P (1996). ‘Organizational citizenship behaviors and their effect on organizational effectiveness in limited menu restaurants’. In J.B.Keys & L. N. Dosier (Eds), Academy of Management best paper proceedings, (pp. 307-311). Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management
Watson, D. & Clark, L.A (1997). ‘Measurement and Mismeasurement of Mood: Recurrent and Emergent Issues’. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68(2): 267-296.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A. and Tellegen, A. (1988b). 'Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 1063-1070.
Wayne, S. J., & Green, S. A. (1993). ‘The effects of leader-member exchange on employee citizenship and impression management behavior’. Human Relations, 46: 1431–1441.
Williams, S., Pitre, R. & Zainuba, M. (2000). ‘Does Mood Influence Organizational Citizenship Behavior Intentions? An Experimental Manipulation of Affective State’. Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 8(2): 49-59.
