journal of advance management research, issn: 2393-9664 ...linkage between reward and citizenship is...

Journal of Advance Management Research, ISSN: 2393-9664

Vol.06 Issue-04, (April 2018), Impact Factor: 4.73

Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed International Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories

Journal of Advance Management Research, ISSN: 2393-9664 (JAMR) http://www.jamrpublication.com email id- [email protected] Page 264

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR AND JOB SATISFACTION :

A Theoretical Review

Dr. Debendra P Kar

Associate Professor

Institute of Management Technology, Hyderabad

Abstract

The concept of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) is comparatively new in the area

of behavioural research. However, very quickly it could manage to grab full attention of

researchers and now is one of the most studied aspect of organizational behaviour. The

concept basically talks about the extra-role behaviour of employees which are helpful to

maintain the overall effectiveness of the organization. This is much more critical to the

organization because these behaviours can not be managed or manipulated through any

actions or sanctions of the organizational processes. A lot of research works have been carried

out on OCB since its inception in 1983. These research works deal with identifying measures,

designing a construct, evaluating the antecedents and consequences of OCB etc. However, a lot

many of those researches directly or indirectly are getting connected to the area of Job

Satisfaction of employees. The present paper tries to give a theoretical perspective of the

relationship between Job Satisfaction and OCB.

Keywords: Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB), Job Satisfaction, Job performance, Job

description, Organizational commitment

Introduction

The concept of help is as old as the human civilization itself. This distinct character of human

beings is found in almost all organizations. We come across a number of persons who extend

all possible help and co-operation to their fellow beings. A good number of research has been

carried out on the nature, causes and implications of helping behaviour and co-operation in

organizations (Moore et al.1973; Berkowitz and Connor, 1966; Cialdini et al.1973;

Konecni,1972; Rawlings,1968; Regan,1971; Barnard,1938). However, in organizations these

helping behaviours are mainly characterized under a number of situations. These situations

may vary in its range from positive to negative mood. It may be compensatory or prosocial

in nature.

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB): Organizational Citizenship Behaviour is a

concept which refers to the performances those are not included in the prescribed job

description or job specification for a given job. These behaviours include any/all of those

gestures which are very often taken for granted. Though they lubricate the social machinery

of the organization, they do not directly fall within the usual notion of task performance.

Examples of such behaviours include helping co-workers with a job related problem,

accepting orders without a fuss, tolerating temporary impositions without complaint,




Journal of Advance Management Research, ISSN: 2393-9664 (JAMR) http://www.jamrpublication.com email id- [email protected] 65

helping to keep the work area cleaned and uncluttered, making timely and constructive statements about the work area/ unit, promoting a work climate that is tolerable, conserving and protecting organizational resources etc.

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour is proposed as a form of job performance which may be more strongly related to job satisfaction than performance measures employed in previous job satisfaction - job performance research. This concept holds more promise for organizational behaviours research than merely its relationship with job satisfaction. Organ (1988) argues that organizational citizenship, in aggregate, promotes the effective functioning of the organization. It is defined as supra-role behaviour, i.e. behaviour that goes beyond formal job descriptions but which is desired by an organization. Examples include punctuality, helping other employees, volunteering for things that are not required in the job, making innovative suggestions to improve department/ organization, not wasting time, keeping the work area cleaned and uncluttered, preserving/ minimising wastage of organizational resources etc. It also includes behaviour that a person refrains from doing even though he/she has every right to do so. Behaviours, like not finding fault with other employees frequently, expressing resentment, complaining about insignificant/ trivial matters are also included in this category. These supra-role behaviours appear to be largely unaffected by organizational reward/ punishment system for several reasons (Katz and Kahn, 1966). Firstly, citizenship behaviours are often very subtle and difficult to measure. It is very difficult

to include them in the formal performance appraisal system. While managers may see these

behaviours and consider them in subjective ratings of employees performance, the direct

linkage between reward and citizenship is likely to be very weak.

Secondly, engaging in citizenship behaviour may actually damage individual job performance.

For example, helping a co-worker who has fallen behind may cause the “good citizen"

employees to produce less than would otherwise be the case.

Finally, since citizenship behaviours do not find place in the formal role prescriptions,

punishment for failing to engage in these behaviour seems unlikely.

Measurement of OCB: Bateman and Organ (1983) popularised the concept of organizational

citizenship behaviour to denote those organizationally beneficial behaviours and gestures

that can neither be enforced on the basis of formal role obligations nor elicited contractual

guarantee of compensation. They are the first researchers who tried to develop a measure

(scale) of organizational citizenship behaviour by enumerating a list of employees’

behaviours that managers typically appreciate but are ill-equipped to demand except perhaps

to a limited degree. The Bateman and Organ scale provides a means for preliminary

investigation into correlates of organizational citizenship behaviour. They tried to establish a

causal connection between prior overall satisfaction and subsequent display of a host of

citizenship behaviours. In this context, they predict that there is a strong connection between

supervision and job satisfaction. Their contention for this prediction was that the immediate

supervisor represents the most direct source of variance in events that arouse a felt need to

reciprocate or that influence positive affect. Though the sample size (N=77) limits the

confidence to some extent, still they found a stronger statistical relation-ship between general

job satisfaction and the aggregate measure of organizational citizenship behaviour. They gave

the rationale for this strong relationship as organizational citizenship represents actions





more under volitional control of workers than conventional productivity measures. Prosocial

gestures are less likely to be constrained by other situational forces, and they pose very little

in the ability requirements.

Though Beteman and Organ's study is a novel and pioneering one, it offered little insight into

the dimensional structure of organizational citizenship behaviour. The factor analysis of the

measure proved almost uninterpretable. The entire factor loading of the 30 items

exclusively explained one general factor. Several other factors had no distinctive meaning

common to their respective group of items.

Smith et al. (1983) developed a more streamlined measure of organizational citizenship

behaviour through semi-structured interview conducted with the supervisory personnel

in two manufacturing organizations. The interviewers asked the supervisors to describe

actions of subordinates that they appreciated and regarded as helpful but could scarcely

demand on the basis of supervisory authority or remuneration. They tried to measure 16

such items pre-tested with a group of 67 managerial and professional people enrolled in an

evening MBA programme. They could find two clear factors from the analysis. They are

altruism (ALT) which comprises factors like, helping a specific person (either the supervisor

or a co-worker or any client) and generalised compliance comprising factors, like

conscientiousness in attendance, use of work time properly and adherence to various rules.

The study of Smith et al. (1983) was comparatively broader in its scope as it attempted to

assess the extent to which certain environmental forces and individual difference variables

could independently predict citizenship behaviours. The result obtained from the study shows

that factors, like job satisfaction and leader supportive behaviour are instrumental in

fostering citizenship behaviour. Urban/ rural background and education also proved to be

significant as antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviour. However, the citizenship

behaviour measure used in this study is rather simplistic and the dimensionality of citizenship

behaviour is not definite. The study did not address longitudinal relationships. The causal

models used to interpret the findings of this study may be viewed as somewhat arbitrary

regardless of the goodness of fit. Nevertheless, the study results show enough consistency

with previous social-psychological studies of prosocial behaviour. Interestingly, the results

suggest that citizenship behaviour in the work setting is worthy of study in its own rights.

From the review of the existing literature, it is clear that a good number of theoretical work

and empirical tests have been done to explain the construct, causes and effects of

organizational citizenship behaviour (Bateman and Organ,1983; Smith et al.1983; Organ, 1977,

1988; Organ and Konovsky, 1989; Podsakoff et al.1990; Moorman, 1991). Also presently

research on organizational citizenship behaviour is progressing at rapid pace. A number of

models have been suggested linking organizational citizenship behaviour with job attitudes,

like job satisfaction (Bateman and Organ, 1983; Smith et al.1983; Williams and Anderson,

1991), Organizational commitment (Becker, 1960), and perceptions of fairness (Moorman,

1991). It has also been related to leadership style (Farh et al.1990), inter-personal trust

(Podsakoff et al.1990) and leader member exchange relationship (Wayne and Green, 1993).





However, there have been questions regarding the nature of the construct and the ways in

which the concept has been operationalised (Schnake,1991). For example, two differing

operationalisations of organizational citizenship behaviour have surfaced in the recent years.

The first one is the traditional view forwarded by Organ (1988) which describes

organizational citizenship behaviour in a social exchange framework. In this framework

organizational citizenship behaviour includes those behaviours which aid the maintenance of

the pleasant and helpful relationships between organizational members. The second view,

suggested by Graham (1986, 1989), is grounded by the definition and dimensions of

organizational citizenship behaviour in political science theory. In this framework,

organizational citizenship behaviour becomes more controversial. Organizational citizen-

ship behaviour in one person's eye may not be organizational citizenship behaviour for others.

These two frameworks also do have the measurement construct in two different ways. The

first construct is developed by Organ and his colleagues in Indiana University and the second

one is developed by Graham.

Bateman and Organ (1983) for the first time attempted to measure organizational citizenship

behaviour in a longitudinal study designed to test if measures of job satisfaction are causally

related to organizational citizenship behaviour. However, the scale developed by them could

tap only one factor which explained the majority of variance and they termed it as

organizational citizenship behaviour. As it seems highly illogical (all behaviours under

organizational citizenship behaviour can be described under one factor), Smith et al. (1983)

refined the 30-item scale to 16-item scale and could explain the result in a more descriptive

and multidimensional model. They labelled these behaviours under two heads namely

altruism (behaviours which are directly and intentionally aimed at helping a specific person

in face to face situations) and generalized compliance (behaviours which pertain to a more

impersonal form of conscientiousness that does not provide immediate aid to any specific

person but are indirectly helpful to others involved in the system). This factor is labelled as

conscientiousness by Organ.

A number of studies have been done to develop a more refined construct of organizational

citizenship behaviour measurement taking the Smith et al. model as the base (Williams et

al.1986; Konovsky, 1986; Organ and Konovsky, 1989; Williams and Anderson, 1991). Organ

(1988) has recently proposed a five factor model of organizational citizenship behaviour.

This expanded model consists of the two Smith et al. dimensions, i.e. altruism and

conscientiousness and three new dimensions called courtesy, sportsmanship and civic

virtue.

Podsakoff et al. (1990) have developed an instrument designed to capture the five factors

suggested by Organ (1988). This measure has been used in two studies (Podsakoff et al.

1990; Moorman, 1991). In both the studies confirmatory factor analysis supports for the

psychometric properties of the scale and reports that the scale taps five organizational

citizenship behaviour factors.





Job Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: It is believed that

organizational citizenship behaviour is highly influenced by job satisfaction. There are two

distinct conceptual bases for this thought. Firstly, Social Exchange Theory (Adams,1965;

Balu,1964) predicts that, given certain conditions, people seek to reciprocate those who benefit

them. To the extent that a person's satisfaction results from the efforts of organizational

officials and such efforts are interpreted as volitional and non-manipulative in intent, the

person will seek to reciprocate those efforts. The person may not have the ability or

opportunity to reciprocate with greater work output or creative solutions to work related

problems. Citizenship behaviours are more likely to be under the person's control and thus,

more likely to be a salient mode of reciprocation.

A second basis for predicting this relationship is derived from a series of social psychological

experiments (Rosenhan et al.1974; Clark and Isen,1982). This strongly supports the contention

that prosocial gestures are most likely to occur when a person experiences a generalized

mood state characterized by positive affect. To the extent that job satisfaction (as

conventionally measured) reflects this positive affective state, it is likely that more satisfied

persons display more of the prosocial/ citizenship behaviour. As Rosenhan et al.(1974)

phrased it, positive affect tends to generalize whatever caused it to other stimuli (notably

persons) in the temporal and social context.

In the citizenship behaviour research it is convincingly argued that job satisfaction measures

reliably correlate with measures of organizational citizenship behaviour (Bateman and Organ,

1983; Smith et al.1983). Millar and Tesser (1986) have established that when both the

evaluation and the behaviour are driven by the same component- whether it be affective or

cognitive; the correlation between attitude and behaviour would be greater. In this context,

Organ and Konovsky (1989) tried to answer some fundamental questions of job satisfaction-

organizational citizenship behaviour correlation. They attempted to find which attitudinal

component predominates in job satisfaction measures and which component drives

organizational citizenship behaviour. It was further attempted by them to answer a crucial

question, like what difference does it make whether organizational citizenship behaviour is

cognitively or affectively driven. Organ and Konovsky (1986) summarised the findings from a

vast amount of data as organizational citizenship behaviour has a deliberate, controlled

character somewhat akin to conscious decision making rather than expressive emotional

behaviour.

However, the limitation of the study is that the interpretation has proceeded with overtones

of causality not strictly admissible from the cross-sectional nature of the data. Those who

consistently render higher levels of organizational citizenship behaviour may elicit in-formal

responses from their supervisors, co-workers or clients that express appreciation or provide

informal rewards. This, in turn, may enhance subjective appraisals of the work situation and

generalise judgements about such specific outcomes as pay. Also, those who freely offer

themselves in terms of organizational citizenship behaviour, for whatever dimly perceived

reasons, may experience a need to justify such inputs thereby cognitively augmenting

outcomes from the exchange with the organization. So, it needs additional evidence from





other types of research design to permit confident attributions of cause and effect. Also as the

predictor variables in the study of Organ and Konovsky could not explain more than 50 per

cent of variance of organizational citizenship behaviour, it seems that some important

variables are missing in the study.

The legacy of the work with job satisfaction and citizenship has not yielded unqualified

support for the causal power of all types of job satisfaction. Research on job satisfaction

measures and the causes of organizational citizenship behaviour suggest that the relationship

between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour may be more complex than

realized (Moorman,1993). In this context, two issues in the measurement of this relationship

are pertinent to be analysed. They are

a) the attitudinal basis underlying job satisfaction measures,

b) the relative effect of pure indicators of affect and cognition on job satisfaction.

Organ (1988,1990) has suggested that job satisfaction measures may differ to the extent to

which they tap more of an affective satisfaction or a cognitive satisfaction. Affective satisfaction

is the satisfaction that is based on overall positive emotional appraisal of the job. This

satisfaction focuses on whether the job evokes a good mood and positive feelings. Affectively

oriented measures of job satisfaction would include questions about a respondent's feelings

about the job or his mood while working. Positive feelings or a positive mood would then

indicate high job satisfaction.

On the other hand, cognitive satisfaction is the satisfaction that is based on a more logical and

rational evaluation of the job conditions. Cognitive satisfaction is an appraisal based on

comparisons which do not rely on emotional judgements but , instead, are evaluations of

conditions, opportunities or outcomes. Job satisfaction scale which reflects job cognition

include questions about the nature of job, the working conditions and the opportunities to

satisfy important needs. The questions seek information for appraisals of the job, not

descriptions of their feelings.

Organ and Near (1985) first suggested that measures of job satisfaction probably are based

on an employee's cognition about his/her job and not his/her affective responses. They noted

that most satisfaction measures ask respondents to compare facets of their job to some

referent (a cognitive process) and did not really ask for judgements about feelings and

emotions. However, empirical tests of this proposition by Brief and Roberson (1987) and

Williams (1988) found that while most measures of job satisfaction are cognitively based, some

measures are found to be based to some degree of affective influences. For example, Brief and

Roberson tested the relative effect of cognition and affect on three satisfaction measures and

found that both cognitive and affective influences are present. These three satisfaction

measures are

i) the job description index (JDI) (Smith et al. 1969),

ii) the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ), and

iii) the Faces Scale (Kunin, 1955, Dunham and Herman, 1975).





Canonical correlation and regressions analysis showed that of the three satisfaction measures,

MSQ is the most cognitive in its orientation while the Faces Scale is the most affective oriented.

JDI is found to be predominantly cognitive, but some affective influence is also present.

The partitioning of the above job satisfaction scales based on cognition or affect is not

surprising given the nature of the scales. For example, the MSQ is found to be mostly cognitive

in its orientation, consists of a list of job conditions which the respondent is asked to apprise.

The job conditions include the working condition, pay, quality of supervision and the degree of

autonomy and importance in the job. No mention is made about the types of feelings associated

with the work or the degree to which the work evokes positive or negative emotions. On the

other hand, the Faces Scale, found to be mostly affective; asks for no detailed appraisals. The

respondent simply reports which facial expression best approximates his/her own while

working. The faces range from very happy to very sad and clearly reflect an emotional

response to work.

Williams (1988) has also tested the relative cognitive and affective influence on job

satisfaction measures. In this study, he tested the Facet Free job satisfaction scale (Quinn and

Staines, 1979), the job diagnostic survey (JDS) satisfaction scale (Hackman and Oldham, 1975)

and the Brayfield and Rothe (1951) satisfaction scale. By examining the shared variance

among these satisfaction measures and factors represented by affect and cognition, he was

able to separate the variance in each measure into cognitive and affective components. His

results indicate that 27 per cent of the variance in the Facet Free scale and 18 per cent of the

variance in JDS could be explained by cognition, while only 10 per cent of the variance in the

Facet Frees and 12 per cent in the JDS could be explained by cognition. Conversely, 22 per

cent of the variance in the Brayfield and Rothe scale could be explained by affect and only 16

per cent by cognition.

Organ (1988) summarizing the researches on organizational citizenship behaviour concluded

that the researches do lend reasonable support to the hypothesis that organizational

citizenship behaviour and job satisfaction are bound together in a robust relationship. Though

a number of studies support that cognition would predict organizational citizenship

behaviour in a better way than affect, still the effect of affect on organizational citizenship

behaviour can never be ignored. Further the evidence related to mood and helping

behaviours also support the proposition that affective components influence behaviours in

an organization (Brown, 1985). It may also be argued that if cognition and effect are relatively

independent (Andrews and Witey, 1976; Organ and Near, 1985; Brief and Roberson, 1987),

cognition (perceived equity) may be more strongly related to certain type of organizational

citizenship behaviour such as generalized compliance while affect (job satisfaction) may be

more strongly related to dimensions like altruism. The studies on mood state (Berkowitz,

1972; Clark and Isen, 1982; Isen et al. 1976) support this conclusion.

Mel Schnake (1991) in his proposal for further research on organizational citizen-ship

behaviour has suggested that future research should untangle the relationship between job

satisfaction, perceived equity and organizational citizenship behaviour. This may require

replacing measures of job satisfaction with some new measures which tap only affect. In

this context, it may not be illogical to tap affect component of job satisfaction only. Though the





study of Bateman and Organ (1983) provide correlation evidence that job satisfaction and

citizenship behaviour are strongly related, the causal directionality between these two

could not be identified.

However, Smith et al. (1983) provide evidence for causal directionality between these two.

They divide citizenship into two dimensions, namely altruism (helping behaviours directed

towards specific persons) and generalized compliance (being a good citizen and doing what

is right). Smith et al. found significant direct effects of job satisfaction on altruism but not

on generalized compliance. Thus, it appears that job satisfaction may increase citizenship

behaviour if directed towards helping specific persons only. These behaviours may emerge

only in response to a situation where a specific individual has faced a problem or has

asked for help. As Fisher (1980) has pointed out that narrowly defined attitude measures are

more predictive of narrowly defined performance measures than of global measures of

performance. Perhaps this is true of citizenship behaviour as well. Various dimensions of

job satisfaction may be causally related to some types of citizenship behaviours but not others.

A few more empirical research results of the recent times have also confirmed the relationship

between Job Satisfaction and citizenship behaviours. Shokrkon and Naami (2009) found that

there is a significant effect of job satisfaction on organizational citizenship behavior. The

findings of Shokrkon and Naami (2009) is also supported by Badawy et al. (2016) where they

have concluded that there is a significant relationship between job satisfactions on

organizational citizenship behavior. In a study carried out by Serpian et al (2016) it has been

convincingly argued that the effect of Organizational Culture and Job Satisfaction variables on

Organizational Citizenship Behavior is highly significant.

According to Brunetto et al (2012), satisfaction in job has a positive impact on an individual in

an organization which is strongly related to the emotional feeling of a worker in the work place.

The job satisfaction in many ways makes an employee feel whether the job is pleasant or

unpleasant to be done (Brunetto et al 2012). It is observed that a good feeling in the job and

the workplace will give employees an opportunity for fostering longer and lasting

Organizational Citizenship Behavior. It has been a general observation that those workers who

have been satisfied in their job will usually exhibit positive feeling about their organization

and may also be willing to help others and do more than it is usually expected from them. The

probable reason for this behaviour could be because they would like to reciprocate their

positive experiences from their previous experience.

In some of the recent studies Swaminathan and Jawahar (2013), have proved that there is a

positive relationship between Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors

especially help-oriented ones (i.e. civic virtue, conscientiousness, altruism and courtesy). In

the studies carried out by Jena and Goswami (2013), it has been reported that satisfied

workers have positive OCB. They also found significant positive correlations between

dimensions of job satisfaction and OCB .

Conclusion: Job satisfaction include reaction or attitude of cognitive, affective, and evaluative

parameters of a job. It is an emotional or psychological condition or state which is perceived

by the job holder that is how much happiness or positive emotions are derived from the job





or work experienced by them in their respective job or workplace. The same or similar job

can have different meanings and implications to different people at different context and time

frame (Handoko 2012). Employees frequently and constantly interact with their co-workers

and superiors, adhere and comply to the rules and policies of the organization, work in groups

and teams to achieve the standard of performance and very often live in and with working

conditions that are not the most ideal. However, all these complex factors and elements

influence the satisfaction of job in some way or the other. This means that the researchers

need to take extra care for assessment or evaluation of employee job satisfaction and

dissatisfaction. It can be safely concluded that job satisfaction or dissatisfaction is highly

subjective and is an individual phenomenon. A number of critical issues need to be properly

addressed before collecting the data through the questionnaire with regard to the accuracy

and legitimacy of the responses. While it is a fact that no employee provides misleading

answer intentionally, there is always a possibility that many uncontrollable situational factors

can affect the quality of data collected. This may also possibly happen either because of the

improper understanding of the question s by the respondents and the extent to which

employees want to really frank in answering. Hence, the capturing of accurate and authentic

information from the respondents on job satisfaction is very critical in the studies.

REFERENCES

Adams, J.S. (1965) Inequality in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental

social psychology, 267-299, New York : Academic Press.

Balu, P. (1964) Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley

Barnard, C. (1938) The functions of the executive. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Bateman, T.S. and Organ, D.W. (1983) Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relation between

affect and citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595

Berkowitz, L. (1977) Social norms, feelings and other factors affecting helping and altruism. In L.

Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol 6, New York: Academic Press, 63-

68.

Berkowitz, L. and Connor, W.H. (1966) Success, failure and social responsibility. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 664-669.

Brayfield, A.H. and Rothe, H.F. (1951) An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,

35, 307-311.

Brief, A.P. and Roberson, L. (1987) Job attitude in organizations: An emploratory study. Paper

presented at National Meetings of Academy of Management, New Orleans, 1987.

Brown, R. (1985) Social Psychology. New York: Free Press.

Brunetto, Y., Teo, S. T., Shacklock , K., & Farr-Wharton , R. (2012). Emotional intelligence, job

satisfaction, well-being and engagement: explaining organisational commitment and turnover

intentions in policing . Human Resource Management Journal, 22 (4): 428-441





Cialdini, R.B., Darby, B.L. and Vincent J.E. (1973) Transgression and altruism: A case of hedonism.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 502-516.

Clark, M.S. and Isen, A.M. (1982) Towards understanding the relationship between feeling states

and social behaviour. In A. Hastorf and A.M. Isen (Eds). Cognitive Social Psychology, 73-108, New York:

Elsevier Science.

Cohen, R.L. and Greenberg, J. (1982) The justice concept in social psychology. In J. Greenberg and

R. L. Cohen (Eds) Equity and justice in social behaviour, New York: Academy Press.

Dunham, R. B. and Herman, J. B. (1975) Development of a female FACES scale for measuring job

satisfaction, Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 629- 631.

Farh, J., Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1990) Accounting for Organizational Citizenship

Behaviour : Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, 6, 705-722.

Graham, J. (1986) Principled organizational dissent : A theoretical essay. In B.M. Staw and L.L.

Cumings (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 8, 1-52,

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Graham, J. (1989) Organizational citizenship behaviour: Construct redefinition and validation.

Unpublished manuscript, Loyola University, Chicago.

Graham, J. (1991) An essay on organizational citizenship behaviour. Employee Responsibilities and

Rights Journal. 4 (4), 249-270.

Graham, J and Organ, D.W. (1993) Commitment and the covenantal organization. Journal of

Managerial Issues, 5, 485-502.

Hackman,J.R.,& Oldham, G.R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 60, 159-170.

Isen, A.M., Clark, M. and Schwartz, M.F. (1976) Duration of the effect of good mood on helping:

“Foot-prints on the sand of time”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34. 385-393.

Jena, R. K. & Goswami, R. (2013). Exploring the relationship between organizational citizenship

behavior and job satisfaction among shift workers in India. Global Business and Organizational

Excellence, 32(6), 36-46.

Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1966,1978) The social psychology of organizations. New York : Wiley.

Konecni, V.J. (1972) Some effects of guilt on compliance : A field replication. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 27, 239-247.

Kunin, T. (1955) The construction of a New Type of Attitude Measure. Personnel Psychology, 8, 65-

78.

Millar, M.G. and Tesser, A. (1986) Effects of affective and cognitive focus on the attitude-

behaviour relation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 270-276.

Moore, B.S., Underwood, B. and Rosenhan, D.L. (1973) Affect and altruism. Developmental

Psychology, 8, 99-104.





Moorman, R. H. (1991) Relationship between organizational justice and Organizational Citizen

Behaviour. Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology,

76, 845-855.

Moorman, R. H. (1993) The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction measures on

the relationship between satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. Human Relations,

46(6), 759-776.

Organ, D.W. (1977) A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction causes performance

hypothesis. Academy of Management Review, 2, 46-53.

Organ, D.W. (1988) Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: The good soldier syndrome. Lenington,

M.A. : Lexington Books.

Organ, D.W. (1990) The motivational basis of Organizational Citizen Behaviour. In B.M. Staw and

L.L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 12, 43-72, Greenwich, CT : JAI

Press

Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P (1985) Cognitive Vs. Affect in measures of job satisfaction. International

Journal of Applied Psychology, 20, 241-253.

Organ, D.W. and Kanovsky, M.A. (1989) Cognitive versus affective determinants of

Organizational Citizen Behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157-164.

Organ, D.W. and Lingl, A. (1995) Personality, Satisfaction and Organizational citizenship behaviour.

The Journal of Social Psychology, 135(3), 339-350.

Podsakoff, P.M., andMacKenzie, S. (1988). The structure of Organizational Citizenship Behavior.

Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie,S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990) Transformational leader

behaviour and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction and organization citizenship

behaviour. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

Quinn, R.P. and Staines, G.L. (1979) The 1977 quality of employment survey. Ann Arbor: Survey

Research Centre, Institute for Research, University of Michigan.

Rawlings, E.I. (1968) Witnessing harm to others : A reassessment of the role of guilt in altruistic

behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 377-380.

Regan, J.W. (1971) Guilt, perceived injustice and altruistic behaviour. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 18, 124-132.

Rosenhan, D.L., Underwood, B. and Moore, B. (1974) Affect moderates self-gratification and

altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 546-552.

Schnake, M. (1991) Organizational Citizenship : A review, proposed model and research agenda.

Human Relations, 44, 735-759.

Serpian*, Swasto Bambang, Utami Hamidah Nayati (2016), “The effect of organizational culture

and job satisfaction on organizational commitment, OCB and intention to leave”, RJOAS, 12(60),

December 2016.





Shokrkon, H. and Naami, A. (2009), “The relationship of job satisfaction with organizational

citizenship behaviour and job performance in Ahvaz factory workers”, Journal of

Education & Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 39-52.

Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P. (1983) Organizational citizenship behaviour : Its nature

and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.

Swaminathan, S. & Jawahar, P. D. (2013). Job satisfaction as a predictor of organizational

citizenship behaviour: An empirical study. Global Journal of Business Research, 7(1), 71-80.

Tarek A. El Badawy , Mona M. Kamel and Mariam M. Magdy (2016), Exploring the Relationship

between Organizational Culture, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior,

International Journal of Human Resource Studies2016, Vol. 6, No. 4 20

Wayne, S.J. and Green, S.A. (1993) The efects of leader member exchnge in employee citizenship

and impression management behaviour. Human Relations, 46(12), 1431-1440.

Williams, L.J. (1988) Affective and non-affective components of job satisfaction and organization

commitment as determinants of organizational citizenship and in-role

behaviours. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991) Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as

predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviours. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.

journal of advance management research, issn: 2393-9664 ...linkage between reward and citizenship is...

Documents