View
5
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR IN A NON-U.S. CONTEXT:
ITS DIMENSIONS, ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES
Chi-Wei Liu 1, Pei-Wen Huang 2 and Chien-Li Chen3
1 Lecturer, Management School, HungKuang Technology University, Taichung,
Taiwan
Doctoral student, Graduate School of Management, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung,
Taiwan 2 Lecturer, Department of International Trade, Cheng-Shiu University, Kaohsiung,
Taiwan
Doctoral student, Graduate School of Management, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung,
Taiwan 3Doctoral student, Graduate School of Management, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung,
Taiwan
Correspondence:
Lecturer, Management School, HungKuang Technology University, Taichung,
Taiwan
Doctoral student, Graduate School of Management, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung,
Taiwan
Tel: 886 7 4 2623 3427
E-mail: wliu01@ms15.hinet.net
ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR IN A NON-U.S. CONTEXT:
ITS DIMENSIONS, ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES
ABSTRACT
The empirical research on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is based on
American value and these U.S.-based behavioral theories have been treated as
applicable to a universal population. Yet, OCBs are organization-specific, and have a
cultural component. This implies that without taking the factor of culture into
consideration while investigating the socially-based citizenship behavior, our
knowledge on OCBs will be parochial. An increasing growth of OCB in a non-U.S.
context corresponds to the call that more attention needs to be focused on
cross-cultural issues and their implications for theories of behavior. Nevertheless, it is
remarkable that what our understanding of OCB beyond a non-U.S. context seems so
fragmental. What appears to be missing is an integrated and comprehensive
understanding of OCB research in a non-U.S. context. By an extensive review on
OCB research in non-U.S. contexts involving a total of 126 papers, we present the
results of our findings and generate the relevant propositions. The purpose of this
study aims to be at the inception of increasing the understanding about OCB research
in a non-U.S. context. Specifically, it: (a) explores the conceptual comparison
between the various dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior in U.S.-based
dimensions and non-U.S. dimensions; (b) generalizes the variables that have been
identified as antecedents of OCB in a non-U.S. context; (c) summarizes the
consequences of organizational citizenship behavior in a non-U.S. context; and ends
up with a conclusion.
Keywords: organizational citizenship behavior, non-U.S. context, antecedent, _______________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has been the focus of attention from
organizational behavior researchers (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000;
Organ & Ryan, 1995; Organ, 1997; George & Battenhausen, 1990) since Organ (1988)
proposed that organizational citizenship behavior could influence individual and
organization performance. The available empirical findings also support that these
citizenship behaviors have a positive impact on enhancing organization performance
(Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Krllowicz & Lowery, 1996; Podsakoff, Ahearne &
MacKenzie 1997).
OCBs initially did not have a very substantial impact on the field (Podsakoff, et al.,
2000). According to Podsakoff’s survey (2000), only 13 papers were published on
OCBs topics from 1983 to 1988. The interest has been on the increase, so during the
period from 1993 to 1998 more than 122 papers have been published on OCBs and
related constructs. Furthermore, these papers show that the interest in OCB research
has expanded from the field of organizational behavior to a variety of different
domains and disciplines, including human resource management, marketing, hospital
and health administration, community psychology, industrial and labor law, strategic
management military psychology, economics, leadership and international
management (Podsakoff, et al., 2000).
Although interest in the theory and research on OCB is on the increase, the rapid
growth on the OCB research has produced some unfortunate consequences (Podsakoff,
et al., 2000). For example, people from different cultures will not necessarily conform
to similar sets of beliefs and values, and will have different views or interpretation
with the situations or preferences for outcomes (Adler, 1989; Hofstede, 1980).
Accordingly, these citizenship dimensions with a cultural component are
organization-specific (Podsakoff, Niehoff, Mackenzie, & Williams, 1993; Turnipseed
& Mrukison, 2000). Thus, while investigating the socially-based citizenship behavior,
researchers should examine the contextual dimensions of OCB under certain societal
culture and economic institutional framework (Farh, Zhong, & Organ, 2004).
Hofstede also emphasized the assertion that when making any comparisons across
cultural lines, cultural differences must be taken into consideration (Hofstede, 1980,
1984). In accordance with the assertion, Podoskaff et al. (2000) suggested that
research was needed on the potential impact that cultural context might have on
citizenship behavior. But it is surprising that most of the studies on OCB before 1998
in Podsakoff et al’s. (2000) study either generalized U.S. samples to a global
phenomenon, or examined non-U.S. samples with U.S.-based OCB questionnaire.
Only few studies took the factor of culture into consideration (cf. Farh, Podsakoff, &
Organ, 1990; Farh, Earley, & Lin, 1997; Chen, Hui, & Sego, 1998). As a result,
because of the limited perspective of the research generated in the United States and
the lack of contrary information, many U.S.-based behavioral theories have been
treated as applicable to a universal population (Boyacigillar & Adler, 1991), and this
phenomenon is termed as parochial perspective by Boyacigillar & Adler (1991),
which has begun to fall under increasing criticism (Fok, Hartman, Villere & Freibert,
1996). It implies that cultural differences were not considered large enough to
override the predictive and explanatory nature of behavioral theories developed in the
United States (Fok, et al, 1996 ).
As the related discussion, it is noticeable that what our understanding of OCB
beyond a non-U.S. context seems so fragmental that it needs further investigating
especially in an era of globalization, in which managers are caused to attend to issues
of culture and diversity. What appears to be missing is an integrated and
comprehensive understanding of OCB research in a non-U.S. context. Thus, a detailed
understanding of OCB research in a non-U.S. context is another important lacuna in
current research. This exploratory research, being at the inception of increasing our
understanding about OCB research in a non-U.S. context, aims to make itself valuable
by investigating studies on organizational citizenship behavior in a non-U.S. context.
To be specific, the purpose of this study is to appeal for readers’ attention to the OCB
phenomena in a non-U.S. context and to broaden our knowledge on OCB in these
contexts.
DATA COLLECTION
Given our focus on OCB in a non-U.S. context, this research applies a
citation-based analysis, one method of Meta Research to search for studies on OCB.
In order to make a linkage with Podsakoff’s data base (1983-1998) and have a better
understanding about the prevailing development on OCB research (that is, post-1998),
we focus our search on studies published between January 1999 and January 2003 in
those journals that listed in SSCI (Social Science Citation Index). 101 papers with the
key word OCB are presented, as indicated in Table 1. Among the 101 papers, data in
37 papers are collected from non-U.S. contexts but only 9 papers take a culture
orientation to examine their studies (cf., Goodman, & Svyantek, 1999; Cohen, 1999;
Brockner, Chen, Mannix, Leung, & Skarlicki, 2000; Lee, Pillutla, & Law, 2000;
Bierhoff, Muller, & Kupper, 2000; Wong, Wong, & Ngo, 2002; Smith, et al., 2002;
Rob & Zemsky, 2002; Tierney, Bauer, & Potter, 2003).
Year
Searching 1999 2000 2001 2002 *2003 Total
Key word
with OCB 16 34 21 29 1
101
Title
with OCB 11 6 9 9 0
35
Abstract
with OCB 10 6 18 22 0
56
Citation and
Abstract with
OCB
21 30 37 49 1
138
Table 1. Yearly Publications on Organizational Citizenship Behavior in SSCI
Literatures up to January 2003 a The details of the reference are recorded in an additional file. It is at the convenience for your referral.
In order to get the data more comprehensive, we also search OCB research
through ProQuest database and get 25 papers interpreting issues of OCB from culture
perspective or taking the culture factor into consideration in their studies ( Please refer
to Table 2). Specifically, researchers are beginning to ask about the extent to which
culturally conditioned differences will affect an individual’s behavior (cf. Paine &
Organ, 2000; Chhokar, Zhuplev, Fok, & Hartman, 2001; Kuehn & Al-Busaidi, 2002).
Simply put, these studies respond to Hofstede’s and Padoskaff’s calls and provide a
further understanding about OCB in a non-U.S. country. These findings support our
contention that an increasing attention has been focused on cross cultural issues and
their implications for theories of behavior (cf. Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Fok, et
al.,1996; Farh, et al,, 1997; Turnipseed & Murkison, 2000; Chhokar et al., 2001; Paine
& Organ, 2000; Matthew S O’Connell, Dennis Doverspike, Watts, & Hattrup, 2001;
Alotaibi, 2001; Kuehn & Al-Busaidi, 2002).
Searching
Method
Citation&
Abstract(OCB) Article Tile(OCB)
Article Text(OCB)/
Publication
Title(Journal of
International..
Citation &
Abstract
( OCB +
culture)
Cumulative
Publish 280 129 103 25
Searching
Method
Citation &
Abstract
( OCB+ Journal
of
International…)
Article Title
(OCB)/ Citation &
Abstract(Culture)
Article
Title(OCB)/Publication
Title(Journal of
International…)
Cumulative
Publish 11 7 4
Table 2. Cumulative Publications on Organizational Citizenship Behavior with
cultural perspective in ProQuest database up to Dec. 15, 2003
The findings on Table 1 and Table 2 show that extensive research on OCB has
been conducted in recent years and it is exciting to notice that there is an increasing
interest in OCB research from a non-U.S. cultural perspective. With an aim to
increase our understanding about OCB research in non-U.S. contexts, this study focus
on examining dimensions of OCB generating in non-U.S. contexts, the antecedents
and the consequences of OCB in non-U.S. contexts. To begin with, we present the
conceptual comparison between organizational citizenship behavior in a U.S.-based
and a non-U.S. base. In the second section, we summarize the variables that have been
identified as antecedents of OCB in a non-U.S. context. In the section that follows, the
consequences of organizational citizenship behavior in a non-U.S. context is
discussed. The study ends with some discussion for future study.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Organ (1988) described OCB as a discretionary behavior, not directly or explicitly
recognized by the formal reward system but in the aggregate promotes the
performance of the organization. Based on our data-base, this is the definition of most
OCB research adopts. The recognition of the definition of OCB is to great extent
consistent. On the other hand, the literature has focused more on understanding the
relationships between organizational citizenship and other constructs, rather than
carefully defining the nature of citizenship behavior itself (Podsakoff, et al.,2000).
Types of these extra-role behaviors lack of consistency. There are almost 30
conceptual definitions on the dimensionality of OCB and much conceptual overlap
occurs between these constructs (Podsakoff, et al., 2000). Though variant perspectives
to examine OCB research have broadening our knowledge on OCB (Podsakoff, et
al.,2000), a review of the literature in this area reveals a lack of consensus about the
dimensionality of these spontaneous citizenship behaviors. Accordingly, it is essential
that we have a further understanding about types of OCB in non-U.S. contexts
because OCB is a behavior with culture component. It implies that people from
different culture will have different perception and recognition about these citizenship
behaviors. Thus, in the following section, we investigate if there is any global OCB
dimension, and if local OCB dimensions do exist, what are the factors causing
people’s variant recognition about OCB.
Global OCB dimension. Seven common themes or dimensions on OCB are
presented by Podsakoff, et al. (2000): Helping Behavior, Sportsmanship,
Organizational Loyalty, Organizational Compliance, Individual Initiative, Civic Virtue,
and Self Development. Based on three sources of the partitioning and measurement of
OCB (i.e., the original article by Katz (1964), interviews with lower level managers,
classic Greek philosophy perspective), Farh, et al. (2004) categorized nine major
dimensions of OCB: Altruism, Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship, Courtesy, Civic
Virtue, Functional Participation, Advocacy Participation, Loyalty and Voice.
Nevertheless, these two categorizations of OCB dimensions originate in a Western
social cultural context. This consequently arises some wonderings to be clarified:
Whether these concepts of OCB would reflect the same dimensionality in a non-U.S.
context? Is there an identical interpretation, perception or meaning on OCB across
variant cultures?
In order to have a better understanding about OCB in a non-U.S. context, Farh et
al. (1997) examined different forms of citizenship behavior observed in Taiwan and
the potential moderating effect that traditionality and modernity had on the
relationship between organizational justice and citizenship behavior. They argued that
they got three etic dimensions in Taiwan similar to those found in the U.S. (cf.,
Identification with Company (similar to Civic Virtue), Altruism toward Colleagues
(identical to Western altruism in definition, very similar item contents),
Conscientiousness (identical to Western conscientiousness in definition, very similar
item contents). In a related study, Farh et al. (2004) used an inductive approach to
examine forms of OCB in the People’s Republic of China and had a comparison with
the Western society. The analysis revealed 10 dimensions of OCB and found that five
out of the ten common dimensions (cf. Taking Initiative (similar to
Conscientiousness), Helping Coworker (similar to Altruism or Helping), Voice
(similar to Voice in western research but broader), Participation in Group Activities
(similar to Civic Virtue) and Promoting Company Image (similar to Loyalty, or Loyal
Boosterism) are similar to those in the U. S. context. To examine Germans’ perception
about the organizational citizenship behavior, Bierhoff et al.,(2000) proposed a
German version of the Organizational Citizenship Behavior Questionnaire (GOCBQ).
Bierhoff et al. (2000) argued that the GOCBQ measures a general altruism orientation,
which can be interpreted as a stable trait. His finding is consistent with what is
proposed in Farh et al. (1997, 2004). Accordingly, with the limited studies on the
OCB dimension in a non-U.S. context, we propose the first proposition:
Proposition 1a: Altruism is a universal dimension of OCB across variant
cultures.
Farh et al. (2004) argued that the five common dimensions (Taking Initiative,
Helping Coworker, Voice, Participation in Group Activities and Promoting Company
Image) are similar to those that have been empirically investigated in the Western
OCB literature (Conscientiousness, Altruism or Helping, Voice, Civic virtue, Loyalty).
They proposed that these dimensions are supposed to have broad utility across
cultures in spite that the specific behaviors that constitute the construct domain of
these dimensions are far from identical. Nevertheless, the empirical findings in a
non-U.S. context, besides Altruism, only Consciousness and Civic Virtue were found
(Farh et al., 1997; Hui, Law & Chen, 1999; Menguc, 2000; Doverspike, Norris-Watts
& Hattrup, 2001; Chen & Francesco, 2003; Farh et al., 2004; Yoon & Suh, 2003). One
interesting phenomenon among these studies is the contexts of the studies took place.
The samples were all in Asia with the exception of Doverspike et al. (2001) (cf. Farh
et al., 1997: Taiwan, Hui, Law & Chen, 1999: China ; Menguc, 2000: Turkish;
O’Connell, Doverspike & Hattrup, 2001: Mexican; Chen & Francesco, 2003: China;
Farh et al., 2004: China; Yoon & Suh, 2003: Korea ). Does this finding convey any
information? Does it mean that Consciousness, and Civic Virtue are the etic
dimensions of OCB in Asia? Restricted by the limited studies, our wonderings needs
further exploring. Whereas, to our knowledge, we propose the following propositions:
Proposition 1b: Consciousness and Civic virtue are OCB dimensions more
pronounced for employees in Asia than in other areas.
Local OCB dimension. Farh et al. (1997) found that there were two other emic
dimensions that appeared to be specific to the Taiwanese culture (cf. Interpersonal
Harmony and Protecting Company Resources). In his another study with China as the
context, Farh et al. (2004) found that one dimension (cf. Social Welfare Participation)
was found in his study but not evident at all in western literature and four dimensions
(cf. Self-learning, Protecting and Saving Company Resources, Keeping Workplace
Clean, and Interpersonal Harmony) had been discussed in prior Western OCB
literature but did not figure importantly in established measures of OCB. With the
restriction of language, it is a pity that we are unable to get further findings in
Bierhoff et al.’s (2000) GOCBQ. Hence, besides the local-based OCB dimension we
discuss in this study, it is highly possible there might be other distinctive dimension
found in studies written in their native languages. Though, with the limited findings, it
is conceivable that local-based dimension of OCB will emerge with respect to variant
national culture. Thus, in the following section, we will turn our focus on studies in a
non-U.S. context and examine the different findings. Specifically, we will investigate
the factors influencing non-Americans’ perception about the construct of U.S.-based
OCB.
Factors Influencing Perception of the Construct of U.S.-valued OCB in a non-U.S.
Context. Farh et al.(2004) found that five extended dimensions of OCB (Self-learning,
Protecting and Saving Company Resources, and Keeping Workplace Clean) have
been mentioned by Western researchers, but without empirical investigation. Why
these dimensions emerge in PRC sample but do not figure prominently in the Western
OCB literature? Is it one of the cultural or national consequences? To be precise, what
national characteristic result in the difference? Farh et al. (2004) suspected it might be
related to different stages of economic development because PRC is at the
comparatively earlier stage of economic development to Western society. In
Turnipseed & Murkison’s study (2000), they also focused on the relationship between
the level of economic environment and the occurrence of variant OCB by comparing
the United States and Romania and found that economic situation had an effect on
triggering different dimension of citizenship behaviors. In their study, Romanian score
for Participation were the highest, although lower than those of the U.S. Turnipseed &
Murkison (2000) attributed it to that the Romanian’s perceived need to fully take part
in the organization to achieve job security in this period of rising unemployment.
Similarly, the increase in downsizing and cost cutting may influence U.S. workers to
engage in organization directed OCB. Simply put, status of economic in a country
may influence the happenings of variant OCBs. Thus,
Proposition 2a: Different status of economic in a country will exist with
respect to facilitating occurrence of different OCB.
Moreover, both PRC and Romania are not only at the early stage of economic
development, but they were communist bureaucracy before both began their
economic reformation. Owing to the great difference from the U.S. in political
development, it is highly possible different political development is one of the reasons
for Romanians to have different interpretation and recognition about the concept of
OCB. In Turnipseed & Murkison’s study (2000), the sample data produced difference
between Rumanians and Americans. The greatest difference was in Loyalty, which
may reflect rebellion against the inefficient economic system and a lack of clear,
goal-directed rules and regulations. Turnipseed & Murkison argued the low Romanian
Loyalty scores suggest that the workers do not identify with their managers and the
organization, which was intuitively acceptable given the history of the country and its
economy under the Communists. The influence of legacy of communist system is also
examined in Farh et al.’s (2004) study. They found the emergence of social welfare
participation, the emic dimension of OCB in PRC, as the manifestation of its
association with the legacy of communist system. Hence,
Proposition 3a: Different political development in a country will exist with
respect to interpretation about the concept of different OCBs.
. Proposition 3b: Different political development in a country will exist with
respect to facilitating occurrence of different OCBs.
In this section, the focus is on the dimensions of American-valued OCB which do
not appear in a non-U.S. context. Three major dimensions of OCB (Sportsmanship,
Courtesy, and Advocacy Participation) in the Western literature did not emerge in
PRC sample (Farh et al., 2004). Consistent with this finding, the three dimensions
were present neither in Farh et al. (1997) with Taiwanness as sample nor in Lam, et al.
(1999) with Chinese as sample. Lam et al. (1999) found that in comparison with
employees from Australia and the U.S., employees from Hong Kong and Japan were
more likely to consider sportsmanship and courtesy as in role behaviors. Farh et al.
(2004) referred the findings to an issue of uncertainty avoidance as well as power
distance. Uncertainty avoidance defined by Hofstede (1984) is to identify a culture’s
comfort with uncertainty as a part of their existence. And power distance dimension is
the degree to which a culture accepts that there are inequalities between various
groups within a culture, social classes and organizational hierarchy (Hofstede, 1984).
Thus, it is possible that sportsmanship matters more in a low uncertainty-avoidance,
low power distance culture, in which individuals might reasonably challenge
decisions and actions by managers. On the other hand, in a cultural context of higher
power distance and risk aversion, such challenges might be expected to be rare in any
case.
In a similar vein, Jagdeep et al. (2001) also adopted the perspectives of
uncertainty avoidance and power distance to investigate the relationship between
culture and equity sensitivity with five countries as sample: America, England, France,
India and Russia. With the assumption that more benevolent orientation will lead to
more OCB, they proposed that in low uncertainty avoidance cultures, socialization
may lead individuals toward staying with and being more committed to an employer,
accordingly, toward higher levels of benevolence. On the other hand, in high power
distance culture, employees may accept the organization’s “right” with ease to expect
obedience and then will be oriented toward benevolence. In terms of differences
across cultures upon individuals’ perceptions of the benevolent, the results showed
that Indian, American and Russian samples scored the highest respectively, where the
higher the score, the more benevolent the group, and the British as well as the French
samples scored the lowest. Taken together, among the five peoples, Indians (low
uncertainty avoidance, high power distance) are most oriented toward benevolence.
Thus, the finding supports that different power distance and degree of uncertainty
avoidance will cause variant interpretation or occurrence of OCBs. Hence,
Proposition 4a: Different degree of power distance in a country will exist
with respect to variant interpretation about the concept of OCB
Proposition 4b: Different degree of power distance in a country will exist
with respect to facilitating occurrence of different OCB
Proposition 5a: Different degree of uncertainty avoidance in a country
will exist with respect to variant interpretation about
the concept of OCB
Proposition 5b: Different degree of uncertainty avoidance in a country
will exist with respect to facilitating occurrence of
different OCB
Two other emic dimensions appeared to be specific to the Taiwanese culture (cf.
Interpersonal Harmony and Protecting Company Resources) (Farh et al., 1997). The
researchers asserted that the presence of Interpersonal Harmony and Protecting
Company Resources in the Chinese citizenship behavior scale can be attributed to
their cultural roots (Farh et al., 1997). The cultural root of interpersonal harmony in
the Chinese citizenship behavior scale is a cherished cultural value found in Chinese
societies (Yang, 1993) and this may explain their apparent emic nature in China. The
Chinese have long been known for their concern about harmony and unity in social
relationships (Yang, 1993). Thus, following Farh et al. (1997), Farh et al. (2004) also
found these two extended dimensions in PRC. Farh et al. (2004) attributed the
presence of interpersonal harmony by using specificity or diffuseness in different
national cultures, the term introduced by Trompenaars (1996). The notion of
specificity or diffuseness in cultures is akin to the concept of
individualism/collectivism identified by Hofstede (1984) to great extent. Farh et al.
(2004) pointed out the individualism dimension identifies cultures where members are
self oriented and place an emphasis on individual initiative and achievement. This
concept is consistent with the concept of specificity by Trompenaars (1996) to some
extent. On the other hand, cultures identified as displaying opposite behaviors are
labeled collectivist, which may correspond to the term of diffuseness by Trompenaars
(1996). Thus, it supports us to explain the findings in China or in Taiwan from the
perspectives of individualism-collectivism. In terms of the impact of
individualism-collectivism on OCB, similar findings are found in Moorman et al’s
research (1995). The result suggests that if an individual holds collectivistic values or
norms, he would be more likely to perform citizenship behaviors. Accordingly,
Proposition 6a: Different individualism/collectivism dimension in a
country will exist with respect to different interpretation
about the dimension of OCB.
Proposition 6b: Different individualism/collectivism dimension in a
country will exist with respect to facilitating
occurrence of different OCB.
ANTECEDENTS OF OCB IN A NON-U.S. CONTEXT
According to Organ and Rayan’s meta-analytic review of 55 studies (1955), job
attitude is a robust predictor of OCB and satisfaction, fairness and organizational
commitment are the only correlates of OCB in a considerable number of cases.
Podsakoff et al., (2000) concluded that empirical research has focused on four major
categories of antecedents of OCB: individual (or employee) characteristics, task
characteristics, organizational characteristics and leadership behaviors. They further
pointed out that among these antecedents, job attitudes, job satisfaction, perceptions
of fairness, organizational commitment, task variables and various types of leader
behaviors appear to be more strongly related to OCBs than the other antecedents.
These findings correspond to what is found in Staufenbiel’s (2000) literature review
on the antecedents and consequences of OCB. Staufenbiel (2000) found positive
relationships between OCB and job satisfaction, fairness perceptions, organizational
commitment and leadership behavior. By using meta-analysis, LePine, Erez and
Johnson (2002) concluded that job satisfaction, organizational commitment, fairness,
trait conscientiousness and leader support are the highly-examined predictors of OCB
in most empirical studies.
Based on the data of our study, antecedents of OCB could be categorized as job
satisfaction (cf. Mason & Griffin, 2002; Spiess,2000), perception of fairness (cf.
Folger & Skarlicki, 1999; Hendrix, Robbins, Miller & Summers, 1999; Brockner, et
al.,2000; Charness & Levine, 2000; Pillai, Schriesheim & Williams, 2000; Staufenbiel,
2000; Naumann & Bennett, 2002), trust, organization commitment and leadership(cf.
Bruins, Ellemers & Degilder, 1999; Cunningham & Macgregor, 2000; Campbell,
2000; Tan & Tan, 2000; Rogelberg, Luong, Sederburg & Cristol, 2000; Pillai,
Schriesheim & Williams, 2000; Staufenbiel, 2000; Mackenzie, Podsakoff & Rich,
2001; Goodwin, Wofford & Whittington, 2001; Barbuto, Scholl, Hickox & Boulmetis,
2001; Bierhoff & Spanke, 2002; Maurer, Pierce & Shore, 2002; Wong, Wong & Ngo,
2002; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Tierney, Bauer & Potter, 2003) and task variables (cf.
Hui, Law & Chen, 1999; Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Somech & Drachzahavy, 2000;
Chattopadhyay & George, 2001; Ryan, 2002). These antecedents are to great extent
consistent with what is found in the related studies. If we put the focus on the
antecedents of OCB in non-U.S. contexts, could the similar findings be generated? Is
it possible that the cultural context itself may encourage or dissuade OCB-type
performance, thus attenuating the effect of established antecedents of OCB as found
in North American studies (Paine & Organ, 2000).
Turning our attention now to the antecedents of OCB in non-U.S. contexts, research
reveals that job satisfaction, perception of equity, organization commitment, trust, and
procedural justice or distributive justice all have positive relationships with
citizenship behaviors (Fork et al.,1996; Farh et al. 1997; Dyne & Ang, 1998; Hui, et
al., 1999; Menguc, 2000; Paine & Organ, 2000; O’Connell M.S., Doverspike D.,
Norris-Watta C. & Hattrup K., 2001; Alotaibi, 2001; Chhokar et al., 2001; Kuehn &
Al-Busaidi, 2002; Mahn Hee Yoon & Jaebeom Suh, 2003; Chen & Francesco,
2003).
Job satisfaction. The relationship between job satisfaction and OCB in a non-U.S.
context can be depicted in several ways. Kuehn and Al-Busaidi (2002) conducted a
study of public and private-sector organizations in the Sultanate of Oman. OCB were
measured with the revised and validated version of OCB from Podsakoff, Mackenzie,
Moorman and Fetter (1990). Results indicated that job satisfaction and normative
commitment were significant predictors of OCB, while job characteristics were not.
In a similar vein, Yoon and Suh (2003) examined the relationships between
employees’ OCBs with job satisfaction, trust in manager, and customer’s perceived
service quality in travel agencies in Korea. Three western-dimensions of OCBs
(altruism, civic virtue and sportsmanship) were used for explaining the hypothetical
relationships of OCBs with service quality. They also detected a substantive
relationship between job satisfaction and trust in manager was significantly related to
OCB (Yoon and Suh, 2003).
Furthermore, Alotaibi (2001) examined the effects of job satisfaction, procedural
and distributive justice, and organizational commitment upon OCB with samples
drawn from six government organizations in Kuwait. Alotaibi (2001) observed that
only procedural and distributive justice account for unique variances in Kuwaiti
worker’s OCB. This result was similar to what Moorman found in 1991. Moorman
(1991) argued that job satisfaction was not related to OCB but procedural justice. In
his further study, Moorman (1993) claimed that when the relationship between justice
and OCB was controlled, job satisfaction no longer related to OCB. His interpretation
echoed what was found in Alotaibi’s study. Hence,
Proposition 7a: Job satisfaction will be a significant correlate of OCB
in a non-U.S. context.
Proposition 7b: Job satisfaction will be neutralized to predict OCB in
a non-U.S. context when the relationship between
justice and OCB is controlled.
Commitment. Meyer and Allen (1984) proposed a three component conceptualization
of organizational commitment: affective commitment (AC), continuance commitment
(CC) and normative commitment (NC). Empirical research supports the profound
relationship between commitment and OCB. In recent years, in order to investigate
the cross-cultural applicability of Meyer and Allen’s (1984) commitment model, more
and more researchers have considered the model’s dynamics in other cultures (Wiener,
1982; Allen & Meyer, 1996; Dyne & Ang, 1998; Kuehn & Al-Busaidi, 2002; Chen &
Francesco, 2003). Researchers have concluded that AC has been regarded as an
important factor in predicting in-role performance as well as extra-role behaviors
(Dyne & Ang, 1998; Allen & Meyer, 1996; Wiener, 1982). In terms of affective
commitment, Dyne and Ang (1998) conducted their study in Singapore with sample
of 155 professional workers from a bank and a hospital. By investigating the impact
of commitment and psychological contract on contingent workers’ OCBs, they found
that the relationship was stronger for contingent workers than for regular employees,
indicating that when contingent workers have positive attitudes about their
relationship with an organization, they engage in OCB. Kuehn and Al-Busaidi (2002)
examined the predictors of OCB in Sultanate of Oman, and found that besides job
satisfaction, normative commitment was a significant predictor of OCB. Chen and
Francesco (2003) also examined the relationship between the three components of
organizational commitment and in-role as well as extra-role performance. Data of 253
supervisor-subordinate dyads from the People’s Republic of China were analyzed.
Results showed that AC related positively to in–role performance but negatively
correlated with OCB; moreover, NC moderated the relationship between AC and
in-role performance and OCB. We might attribute what was found in Chen and
Francesco’s study (2003) and Dyne and Ang’s study (1998) to the impact of
collectivism. We often assume that commitment may be higher in more collectivist
societies. Nevertheless, Redding, Norman and Schlander (1994) examined a study of
Korean society and found that commitment was strongest to one’s blood relations and
all other relationships or member-ships were secondary. Korean employees’
organizational commitment was lower than that of either Japanese or American
employees. Thus, in a sense, collectivist cultures do not invariably manifest higher
organizational commitment; the commitment might lie elsewhere (Paine and Organ,
2000). Nonetheless, on the other hand, the family and the organization often coincide
among Koreans and Chinese (Paine and Organ, 2000). So, in line with this, we
propose that collectivist cultures score higher in organizational commitment, which in
turn would be associated with higher OCB. Thus, to our knowledge,
Proposition 8a: Affective commitment and normative commitment, but
not continuance commitment, will be significant predictor of
OCB in a non-U.S. context.
Proposition 8b: Affective commitment and normative commitment will be
significant antecedents of OCB in a non-U.S. context with a
collectivism-orientation culture, relatively to an
individualism-orientation culture.
Perception of equity, justice & trust. Organ and Konovsky (1989) claimed that when
subordinates are treated fairly throughout an organization, they are more likely to feel
the need for a reciprocal social exchange relationship with the organization, provided
they are confident that such “fair treatment” will continue. Fok et al. (1996) examined
the relationship among equity theory, equity sensitivity, and organizational citizenship
behavior. The samples of this study were118 working professionals from the United
Kingdom, mainland China, France and the United States. Preliminary support was
found that individuals from different cultures have different equity sensitivity
orientations and different approaches to organizational citizenship. In a related
research, Chhokar et al. (2001) examined the relationships between equity theory,
equity sensitivity and OCB, getting 338 working professionals from Great Britain,
France, India, Russia and the United States. Similar findings were obtained from their
study: individuals from different cultures differ in their equity sensitivity orientations,
and also differ in their preference for benevolence. This conclusion supports the
contention that cultural differences will impact individuals’ perception of fairness.
Accordingly,
Proposition 9a: Differences across cultures will exist with respect to level
of equity sensitivity.
In terms of fairness, Greenberg (1990) further posed two forms of fairness:
procedural justice and distributive justice. Procedural justice is defined as the fairness
of the procedures themselves; distributive justice is defined as the fairness of the
outcomes received from organizational procedures. Empirical findings in non-U.S.
contexts also support the relationship between overall fairness and OCB (cf. Fok et
al.,1996; Farh et al., 1997; Menguc, 2000; Alotaibi, 2001; Chhokar et al., 2001). With
the aim to understand variations in citizenship behavior within a culture, Farh et
al.(1997) examined the relationship between OCB and organizational justice in two
studies under a Chinese context. Two cultural characteristics (traditionality and
modernity) and one individual (gender) characteristic were used to examine their
effect on OCBs. The result demonstrated that organizational justice (both distributive
and procedural) was most strongly related to citizenship behavior for individuals who
endorsed less traditional or high modernity, values. Alotaibi (2001) empirically
examined the impact of distributive justice, procedural justice, job satisfaction and
organizational commitment upon OCB with samples drawn from six government
organizations in Kuwait. Similarly, only procedural and distributive justice accounted
for unique variances in Kuwaiti worker’s OCB in Alotaibi ‘s study. Menguc (2000)
tested a social exchange model of OCB, examining the two potential antecedents of
OCB (procedural justice and trust toward sales managers) across two sale situations in
Turkey, and found that procedural justice and trust toward sales managers are the
antecedents of OCBs. In terms of the impact of trust toward the manager on OCB in
Menguc (2000)’s study, similar findings also found in other non-U.S. contexts (cf.
Yoon and Suh, 2003; Hui et al., 1999). Thus,
Proposition 9b: Procedural justice and distributive justice are significant
antecedents of OCB in a non-U.S. context.
Proposition 9c: Trust to the manager is a significant correlate of OCB in
a non-U.S. context.
In this section, we investigate the antecedents of OCB in non-U.S. contexts and
our generation yields some interesting findings. There is a high consensus between
the antecedents of OCB in non-U.S. contexts and in the U.S. context. Though Paine
and Organ (2000) supposed that culture might moderate the effects of antecedents that
in the U.S. have been interpreted as having direct effects on OCB, to our knowledge,
it seems that we failed to support this contention. Some distinctive OCB dimensions
in non-U.S. contexts are presented earlier in this study. Conceptually, each form of
OCBs should have unique antecedents or they are essentially equivalent constructs.
However, based on what is generated in this study, we attribute the results partly to
the existence of similar OCB-enablers among people across over diverse cultures.
Besides, in this study, all the related research on examining the antecedents of OCB in
non-U.S. contexts, with one exceptions (cf. Farh et al.,1997), all applied the
U.S.-based OCB scales to analyze the phenomena in non-U.S. contexts. Accordingly,
we attribute why the antecedents of OCB in both U.S.-based context and non-U.S.
contexts are so consistent to the application of similar OCB questionnaires in both
contexts. This of these two interpretations could have better explanation power needs
more future research to investigate.
CONSEQUENCES OF OCB in a NON-U.S. Context
OCB has been regarded as an important concept in that it is thought to contribute
to effective functioning of the organization, and consequently, its competitiveness
(Krllowicz & Lowery, 1996; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Podsakoff, Ahearne &
MacKenzie 1997). Conceptually, there are several reasons why citizenship behaviors
could enhance organizational competitiveness (Organ, 1988, 1990; Podsakoff &
MacKenzie, 1994, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 1997). For example, as Podsakoff &
MacKenzie (1997) summarized OCBs may contribute to organizational performance
by enhancing productivity, utilizing resources more productively, helping to
coordinate activities, enabling the organization’s adaptation to changeable
environment or strengthening the organization’s ability by attracting best employees.
Whereas, to our knowledge, it is surprising that this conceptual plausibility, compared
with the interest in identifying the antecedents of OCBs, has received little empirical
attention (Podsakoff, et al., 2000). And generally speaking, the empirical research
supports Organ’s assertion that the “good soldier” syndrome is related to organization
performance (cf. Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Ahearne,
1996; Walz & Niehoff, 1996; Podsakoff et al., 1997). However, the findings are
inconsistent. For example, helping behavior was found to enhance performance in
some research (MacKenzie, et al.,1996; Walz & Niehoff, 1996; Podsakoff et al., 1997)
but also appeared to have a negative impact on performance (Podsakoff & MacKenzie,
1994). Besides the effects of OCBs on organizational performance, research also
examined the effect of OCBs on managerial evaluations of performance and
judgments regarding pay raises, promotions, etc (Podsakoff et al., 2000:533). It
showed that OCB has a positive impact on important personnel decisions made by
managers and there is evidence to suggest that in-role and extra-role performance may
interact when influencing managerial judgments and decisions (Podsakoff et al.,
2000:543). Could these findings also be generated from OCB in non-U.S. contexts?
Compared with what was found in the antecedents of OCB in a non-U.S. context,
our findings on the consequences of OCB in non-U.S. contexts is relatively fewer.
When examining the impact of OCB on the performance in a non-U.S. context, it
could be categorized into the effect on performance evaluation and on organizational
performance. To our knowledge, OCB/contextual performance has a positive impact
on performance appraisal process in a non-U.S. context. Krilowicz & Lowery (1996)
found that supervisory evaluations were found to be determined as much by
citizenship behavior as by object performance for Dominican workers, which parallels
finding for American workers. In terms of performance, in Turnipseed & Murkison’s
(2000) study, they found that good citizenship behaviors contribute positively
differently in the U.S. and in Romania, and they proposed that OCB contribute
positively in a greater magnitude to productivity in the U.S. than in Romania and their
assumption was supported in the study. Wener (2000) conceptually proposed that the
impact of OCB on the organizational performance should gain more attention and he
suggested that OCB and contextual performance should be integrated into HRM
practice and research.
Based on the fragment findings, there is lack of consistence on the consequences
of OCB in a non-U.S. context. This phenomenon corresponds to great extent to what
was generated from research in the U.S. context. The conceptual plausibility that
OCB will influence organization effectiveness is only examined by few studies.
Podsakoff & MacKenzie, (1997) claimed that in terms of the effect of OCB on
organizational success, citizenship behaviors have been hypothesized to influence
organizational success through a wide variety of different mechanisms. This opinion
makes us critically re-think about the existence of mediating mechanisms in the
relationship between OCB and organization performance, especially facing the few
findings on the impact of OCB on organizational performance. We wonder if it is with
high possibility that the impact of OCB on organization performance only exists at the
presence of some mediating effect. Or is it the different mediating mechanism that
results in different consequences? These wonderings on the knowledge on OCB need
clarifying in the future research.
CONCLUSION
As Podsakoff et al. (2000) claimed research was needed on the potential impact
that cultural context might have on organizational citizenship behavior, our study
serves as a response to this call and to increase our understanding of OCB in non-U.S.
contexts. In closing, this study contributes to our knowledge in several important
ways. First and foremost, this study shows that what is considered to be OCBs vary
markedly across cultural boundaries. By an extensive reviews and a comparison we
conducted involving types of OCB in the U.S. context and non-U.S. contexts, we
present the universal dimension of OCB and several extended dimensions of non- U.S.
OCB. Furthermore, in terms of the factors influencing peoples’ perception of OCBs,
several deceive factors are generated: status of economic, political development,
power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism dimension.
Second, our study generates several antecedents of OCB in non-U.S. contexts: job
satisfaction, perception of equity, organization commitment, trust, and procedural
justice or distributive justice. We also investigate the underlying assumption about the
similarity between the antecedents of OCB in non-U.S. contexts and the U.S. context.
Third, our study summarizes the consequence of OCB in non-U.S. contexts. We
emphasize the contention that there should be a wide variety of different mechanisms,
through which the effect of OCB on organizational success could embodied
(Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997).
Based on the findings of this study, we attempt to identify some future research
directions. First, culture conditions our recognition about what spontaneous behaviors
will enhance the organization functioning. In order to have a more comprehensive
understanding about OCB across over diverse culture, there is a need of local version
of the organizational citizenship behavior questionnaire. Second, to our knowledge,
there is consensus about the antecedents of OCB across variant cultures. To
investigate the underlying reasons causing this interesting phenomenon, it would be
worthwhile to explore other possible antecedents; especially the indirect relationship
should be taken into account. Third, in the related research in this study, self-report
instruments to collect data from research subjects are highly applied. Most of the
research utilizes the questionnaire contains both the antecedents and outcome
variables. Under this condition, it is highly possible to have the occurrence of
common method variance (CMV). Thus, how to handle the CMV problem effectively
and how to avoid this kind of problem through a sound survey design are in need of
attention.
REFERENCES
Adler, N. J. 1989. Cross-cultural interaction: The international comparison fallacy?
Journal of International Business Studies, 515-537.
Alotaibi, G. A. 2001. Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior: A study of
public personnel in Kuwait. Public Personnel Management, 30: 363-376.
Bierhoff, H. W., Muller, G. F., & Kupper, B. 2000. Prosocial work
behavior-development and examination of a measurement for understanding
voluntary work engagement. Gruppendynamik-Zeitschrift fur Angewandte
Sozialpsychology, 31: 141-153.
Boyacigillar N.A., & Adler, N. J. 1991. The parochial dinosaur: organizational science
in a global context. Academy of Management Review, 16:262-290.
Brockner, J., Chen, Y. R., Mannix, E.A., Leung, K., Skarlicki, D. P. 2000. Culture and
procedural fairness- when the effects of what you do depend on how you do it.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 138-159. Charness G. & Levine D.I. 2000. When Are Layoffs Acceptable-Evidence from a
Quasi-Experiment. Industrial & Labor relations Review, 53(3):381-400
Chen Z. X., & Francesco A. M. 2003. The Relationship Between the Three
Components of Commitment and Employee Performance in China. Journal of
Vocatioanl Behavior, 62:490-510.
Chhokar J. S., Zhuplev A., Fok L.Y., & Hartman, S. J. 2001. The impact of culture on
equity sensitivity perceptions and organizational citizenship behavior: A
five-country study. International Journal of Value-based Management,
14:79-82.
Cohen, A. 1999. The relation between commitment forms and work outcomes in
Jewish and Arab culture. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54:371-391.
Dyne & Ang, 1998. Organizational Citizenship Behavior of Contingent Workers in
Singapore. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 692-703.
Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. 1997. Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of
justice and extra-role behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 42:421-444.
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.
Fok, Lillian Y, Hartman, Sandra J, Villere, Maurice F, Freibert, & Ralph C III. 1996. A
study of the impact of cross cultural differences on perceptions of equity and
organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Management,
13:3-15. Folger R. & Skarlicki D.P.,1999. Unfairness and Resistance to Change-Hardship as
Mistreatment. Journal Of Organizational Change Management, 12(1):35-50.
George, J. M., & Battenhausen, K. 1990. Understanding prosocial behavior, sales
performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 75: 698-709.
Goodman, S. A., & Svyantek, D. J. 1999. Person-Organization Fit and Contextual
Performance-Do Shared Values Matter. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
55:254-275.
Greenberg, J. 1990. Organizational Justice: Yesterday Today and tomorrow. Journal
of Management, 16:399-432. Hendrix W.H., Robbins T., Miller J. & Summers T.P. 1999. Effects of Procedural and
Distributive Justice on Factors Predictive of Turnover. Journal Of Social Behavior And Personality, 13(4): 611-632.
Hofstede, G. 1980. Motivation, leadership and organization: Do American theories
apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 42-63.
Hofstede, G. 1984. Culture’s Consequences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Hui C., Law K. S., & Chen Z. X. 1999. A Structural Equation Model of the Effects
Negative Affectivity, Leader-Member Exchange, and Perceived Job Mobility on
In-role and Extra-role Performance: a Chinese Case. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 77: 3-21.
Katz, D.1964. Motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science,
9:131-146.
Krilowicz, T. J, & Lowery, C. M. 1996. The impact of organizational citizenship
behavior on the performance appraisal process: A cross-cultural study.
International Journal of Management, 13:94-101.
Kuehn, K. W., & Al-Busaidi, Y. 2002. Citizenship behavior in a non-western context:
An examination of the role of satisfaction, commitment and job characteristics
on self-reported OCB. International Journal of Commerce & Management,
12:107-125.
Lam, S. S. K., Hui, C., & Law, K. S. 1999. Organizational citizenship behavior:
comparing perspectives of supervisors and subordinates across four
international samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84:594-601.
Lee, C., Pillutla, M., & Law, K. S., 2000. Power-distance, gender and organizational
justice. Journal of Management, 26: 685-704.
LePine J. A., Erez A.and Johnson D. E. 2002. The nature of dimensionality of
organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1): 52- ? Mason C.M. & Griffin M.A., 2002. Group Task Satisfaction- Applying the Construct
of Job-Satisfaction to Groups. Small Group Research, 33 (3): 271-312
Matthew S O’Connell, Dennis Doverspike, Christina Norris-Watts, & Keith Hattrup,
2001. Predictors of organizational citizenship behavior among Mexican retail
salespeople. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9:272-281.
Menguc Bulent, 2000. An Empirical Investigation of a Social Exchange Model of
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Across Two Sales Situations: a Turkish
Case. The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 20: 205-214.
Meyer J.P. & Allen N.J., 1984. Testing the “Side Bet Theory” of Organizational
Commitment: Some Methodological Considerations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 67:372-278.
Moorman R. H., 1991. Relationship between Organizational Justice and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence
employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76:845-855.
Moorman R. H., Niehoff, B.P., & Organ C.W. 1993. Treating employees fairly and
organizational citizenship behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction,
organizaitonal commitment and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities
and rights Journal, 6:209-225.
Moorman, Robert H., Blakely, & Gerald L, 1995. Individualism-collectivism as an
individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 16: 127-143.
O’Connell M.S., Doverspike D., Norris-Watta C. & Hattrup K., 2001. Predictors of
Organizational Citizenship Behavior among Mexican Retail Salespeople.
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9:272-280.
Organ, D. W., 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: the good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. and Konovsky, M., 1989. Cognitive versus affective determinants of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
74:157-164.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan K., 1995. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and
dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel
Psychology, 48:775-802.
Organ, D. W. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time.
Human Performance, 10:85-97.
Paine, J. D., & Organ, D.W. 2000. The cultural matrix of organizational citizenship
behavior: some preliminary conceptual and empirical observations. Human
Resource Management Review, 10:45-59.
Podsakoff P.M., Niehoff, B.P., Mackenzie, S.B., & Williams, M.L., 1993. Do
substitute for 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.
Podsakoff P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 1994. Organizational statutes for leadership
really AnCitizenship behavior and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of
Marketing Research, 3:351-363.
Podsakoff P. M., Ahearne M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 1997. Organizational citizenship
behavior and the quantity and quality for work group performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82:262-270.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Paine, B. P., & Bachrach, D. G. 2000.
Organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review of the theoretical and
empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of
Management, 26:513-563.
Rob,R. & Zemsky, P. 2002. Social Capital, Corporate Culture, and Incentive Intensity.
Rand Journal of Economics, 33:243-257.
Smith, P.B. et al., 2002. Cultural-values, sources of guidance, and their relevance to
managerial behavior- a 47-nation study. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology,
33:188-208. Spiess E. 2000. Professional Values, Forms of Cooperation, and Work Satisfaction.
Gruppendynamik – Zeitschrift Fur Angewandte Sozialpsychologie, ,31(2):185-196
Staufenbiel T. 2000. Antecedents and Consequences of Voluntary Work Engagement. Gruppendynamik – Zeitschrift Fur Angewandte Sozialpsychologie,31(2):169-183
Tan, H. H., & Tan, C. S. F. 2000. Toward the Differentiation of Trust in Supervisor
and Trust in Organization. Genetic Social and General Psychology
Monographs, 126:241-260.
Tierney, P., Bauer, T. N. & Potter, R. E. 2003. Extra-role behavior among Mexican
Employees-the Impact of LMX, group acceptance and job-attitudes.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10:292-303.
Trompenaars, F.1996. Riding the waves of culture. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Turnipseed D. L., & Mrukison E. 2000. A bi-cultural comparison of organization
citizenship behavior: Does the OCB phenomenon transcend national culture?
The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 8 : 200-222.
Wiener, Y. 1982. Commitment it organizations: A normative View. Academy of
Management Review, 7: 418-428.
Wong, Y. T., Wong, C. S., & Ngo, H. Y. 2002. Loyalty to supervisor and trust in
supervisor of workers in Chinese Joint ventures- a test of 2 competing models.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13: 883-900.
Yang, K. S., Yu, A. B., & Yeh, M. H. 1993. Chinese individual modernity and
traditionality: Construct definition and measurement (in Chinese). Proceedings
of the interdisciplinary Conference on Chinese Psychology and Behavior,
287-354.
Yoon M. H., & Suh J., 2003. Organizational Citizenship behaviors and service Quality
as External Effectiveness of Contact Employees. Journal of Business Research,
56:597-611.
Recommended