Organizational Commitment and Organizati. pdf
INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW
ISSN: 2320-9704 - ONLINE ISSN:2347-1662 - PRINT IMPACT FACTOR:0.875
VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2015
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL
CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: TREND AND RELATIONSHIP.
LIHA MENA
Research Scholar, Department of Commerce, North-Eastern Hill University, Umshing, Mawlai
Shillong Meghalaya.
ABSTRACT
The literature on Organizational Commitment (OC) and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)
have undergone many developments over the past six decades. With every new addition to the pool of
literature the constructs have not only become clearer but also increasingly complex. Throughout the
study we witness ample proof of the subjects being more than ‗common-sense‘ concepts. This study is
made with an attempt to follow the trend from the inception till date and also to understand the
link/relationship between the two constructs.
Keywords: Organizational Commitment, Organizational Citizenship Behavior.
G
R
INTRODUCTION
.O
Employees, the most prized resource of any organization, alone can make or break any organization.
Studying Organizational Behavior empowers the leadership to encourage/discourage employee
behavior according to the suitability of organizational goals as the areas extend to all forms of
employee reaction. Two of the most undoubtedly significant areas are OC and OCB. The objective of
this paper is to review the existing literature on both the constructs and understand the type of
relationship they enjoy.
R
R
M
I. C
OBJECTIVE
W
The study aims to observe the trend and progress of OCB and in the subject of Organizational
Behavior and to understand the link between the former two.
METHODOLOGY
W
W
To fulfill our objective all the significant studies from the 1950‘s to present have been reviewed
without confining to a few journals alone.
TREND IN OC
In 1956, Becker observed a pattern in employees he called consistent lines of activity and explained it
as individuals teaching themselves to identify with their respective jobs after spending considerable
amount of time on the job. In his later, more refined, study (1960) Becker developed the theory of side
bets and defined commitment as a relationship based on contract of economic exchange. In the form
of periodic salary/wages, individuals gained from the organization, while making the sacrifice of their
effort and time for the organization. The longer an individual honoured the contract the harder it
became for them to disengage from the pattern of activity (membership) in the organization. Becker‘s
theory was supported by Ritzer and Trice (1969) and Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972) who defined
commitment as the unwillingness of employees to leave an organization for increments in pay, status,
professional freedom or greater collegial friendship. According to these studies commitment was to
be measured by evaluating the reasons, if any, which could cause a person to leave his organization.
www.icmrr.org
18
[email protected]
INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW
ISSN: 2320-9704 - ONLINE ISSN:2347-1662 - PRINT IMPACT FACTOR:0.875
VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2015
According to these studies OC was only seen when employee had something dear at stake and fear to
lose which was what made them stay back with their organizations. Hrebiniak & Alutto (1972) made
a study to learn the process through which an individual started identifying with his organization and
found commitment as an exchange and accrual phenomenon which depended on the employee’s
perception of accumulation of investments in his employing organization . Porter et al. (1974) filled
this gap of emotional variable by stating that commitment was an attitude centered economic contract
and thus the focus shifted from tangible side-bets to psychological attachment. O‘Reily and Chatman
(1986) identified OC as arising from -1) compliance- in order to avoid punishment or gain reward, 2)
identification- with the organization‘s goals and values and 3) internalization- of organizational goal
and personal goals. It was however; difficult to empirically distinguish between the later two and
created confusion. Unlike previous contributors who focused on OC to only study effect on turnover
they described it as an antecedent of OCB.
Meyer & Allen (1984) made a comprehensive study of the concepts economic contract and
psychological attachment and discussed them as Continuance Commitment (CC) and Affective
Commitment (AC) respectively; thus combining the studies of attitudinal and behavioral commitment.
A third dimension of Normative Commitment (NC) was added in 1990. CC is said to be present when
an employee is aware that he is bound to stay because of the costs associated with leaving. AC has
been defined as the emotional attachment of an employee to stay with the organization because he
wants to and NC has been observed when employees feel a moral obligation to stay back with their
employees. Meyer, Becker & Van Dick (2006) refined the conceptual meaning of NC by adding two
dimensional concept of ‗indebted obligation‘ which arises the need to meet others obligation and has
been theorized to correlate with CC; and ‗moral imperative‘ which reflects individuals strive to meet
valued outcomes and correlates with AC. This model of three constituents of OC has been called the
Three Component Model (TCM). AC and CC came from distinguishing the side-bet theory of Becker
and the components were more or less similar to cohesion, continuance and control commitment as
explained by Kanter (1968). Rather than types of commitment the writers believed that AC, NC and
CC were components of commitment and that a single employee could display more than one of these
components in varying degree. Each of these commitments, as per the writers could be individually
measured and compared.
G
R
.O
R
R
M
I. C
W
W
W
In 2007 Cohen introduced the multi-dimensional or a four component model which looked at OC
strictly as an attitude to minimize the mixture of commitment with the possible behavioral outcomes.
The model was made with two bases of time (pre and post entry) and commitment propensity
(instrumental and psychological/affective). The variables that affect commitment propensity were
grouped as: personal characteristics, Job expectation and circumstances associated the new hire‘s
decision to join the organization. Although this model looks appealing it has still not been widely
accepted. Somers (2009) suggested studying the combined effect and influence of AC, NC & CC and
proposed 8 combinations of which only 5 were empirically proved. This is a more complex model and
has not been tested satisfactorily so far rendering Meyer & Allen‘s TCM most prevalent.
Some of the most commonly studied variables affecting OC have been that of personal and
demographic variables, job characteristics and quality of work experience. The demographic variables
of age and tenure are said to affect commitment positively as increase in these imply the accumulation
of time investment which result in higher desire to stay with the current employer (Becker, 1956;
Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972; Rao & Reddy, 2013). Hrebiniak & Alutto, (1972) in their study found
females to be more committed than their male counterparts. However; Rao & Reddy, (2013) and
Mohammed & Eleswed, (2013) found Gender as an insignificant factor. Marital status of an employee
www.icmrr.org
19
[email protected]
INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW
ISSN: 2320-9704 - ONLINE ISSN:2347-1662 - PRINT IMPACT FACTOR:0.875
VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2015
is seen to affect the level of commitment as Married and separated employees show a higher level of
commitment than unmarried people (Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972). With higher Level of Education
employees have been observed to display lower levels of commitment by Mowday et al. (1982).
However, Bakshi et al. (2011) and Mohammed & Eleswed (2013) also found that educational
qualification did not affect commitment. An Individual‘s need for achievement has also been
identified as an important factor affecting OC (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Cohen (2007) listed values,
beliefs, personality and pre employment attitudes as important demographic determinants of OC.
Meyer et al. (1993) studied different job characteristics like professional role conflict, dissatisfaction
and role tension/ambiguity as important predictors of OC and said that clearer and more meaningful
jobs enhanced OC positively. Task identity, opportunities for social interaction, feedback (Weiner,
1982) and job expectation (Cohen, 2007) are also said to positively increase OC. Mathieu & Zajac,
(1990) found that an individual‘s skill set and autonomy in the job impacted OC significantly.
Some of the factors associated with Organization that influence OC are, as per Becker (1960), the
number and magnitude of investments and side bets (in the organization) made by individuals over
time. Farrell & Rusbult (1986) found that individuals who perceived they lacked alternatives
developed OC. Wiener (1982) studied employee‘s individual experiences (both prior and after entry
into the organization) and social pressures and how they determined the development of OC in
employees over time. He came to a conclusion that OC could be influenced by both personal
predispositions and organizational intervention. Meyer & Allen (1987) also studied work experiences
as an important variable as it helped fulfill employees‘ psychological needs to feel comfortable within
the organization by improving one‘s perception of personal importance, trust in the organization,
organizational dependability and investment in the organization.
G
R
.O
R
R
M
I. C
TREND IN OCB
In 1964, Katz identified two types of roles played by employees. In-role behavior strictly related to
actions necessary to successfully complete one‘s work. Extra-role behaviors on the other hand, were
actions that were not necessarily required but nevertheless witnessed when, for e.g., employees
helping each other with work related issues. The formal conception of Organizational Citizenship
Behavior (OCB) started with Bateman & Organ‘s 1983 work. Organ (1997) reworded the definition
of OCB as ―individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the
formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the
organization‖. This definition has three critical aspects of being discretionary, not relating to the
formal reward system and the third aspect of promoting aggregate effectiveness of the organization
and hence employees displaying one or more than one of these desired behaviors are considered ‗good
citizens‘ of the organization.
W
W
W
Many researchers have found different dimensions to OCB; however, the most prominent and often
repeated ones have been that of Altruism, Civic Virtue, Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship and
Courtesy. Smith et al. (1983) defined altruism as ‗behaviors that directly and intentionally aimed at
helping a specific person in face to face situations ‘. As these actions are discretionary therefore any
case of not-helping or non-performance; a colleague is not considered punishable. Podsakoff et al.
(2000) demonstrated altruism to significantly relate to performance evaluations. Altruism is often
passed on as more feminine characteristics (Kidder, 2002) noticed more often in female employees
than in male. It is the most common of all OCBs and appears in all most all studies (Smith et al.,
1983; Organ, 1988; Williams & Anderson, 1991; George & Brief, 1992; George & Jones, 1997;
Podsakoff, 2000; etc). Synonymous to politeness, in the organizational context, Courtesy means to
www.icmrr.org
20
[email protected]
INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW
ISSN: 2320-9704 - ONLINE ISSN:2347-1662 - PRINT IMPACT FACTOR:0.875
VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2015
include behaviors that prevent problems and to take necessary steps to lessen the effects of the
problem in the future (Organ, 1988; Organ et al., 2006). The main idea of courtesy is avoiding actions
that make colleagues‘ work harder and working to improve ease in operation. Research efforts have
found that employees who exhibit courtesy reduce intergroup conflict and thereby reduce the time
spent on conflict management activities (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Like altruism, courtesy is also
considered a feminine characteristic and is said to be affected by the employee‘s gender (Kidder,
2002). Organ (1988) defined sportsmanship as the behavior of warmly tolerating the irritations that
are an unavoidable part of nearly every organizational setting . It refers to not complaining
unnecessarily and being tolerant towards difficulties that may be experienced in the workplace. Organ
et al. (2006) further define sportsmanship as an employee‘s ―ability to roll with the punches‖ which,
in turn, helps save organizational energy and time. Podsakoff et al. (1997) revealed that good
sportsmanship enhances the morale of the work group and subsequently reduce employee turnover. It
is considered as one of the masculine characteristic (Kidder, 2002). Civic virtue is defined as active
participation and concern of an employee in the organization‘s political life and supporting its
function. It includes actions such as attending meetings which need not be mandatorily attended and
keeping oneself updated with the changes in the organization (Organ, 1988). In line with the gendereffect civic virtue is considered more masculine (Kidder, 2002). The literal definition of
Conscientiousness is ‗the personality trait of being thorough, careful, or vigilant and implies a desire
to do a task well‘. As per the literature of OCB a conscientious employee is one who is organized,
accountable and hardworking. Organ (1988) defined it as ‗dedication to the job which exceeds formal
requirements such as working long hours, and volunteer to perform jobs besides duties ‘. Kidder
(2002) posited the fact that males are more likely to engage in conscientious behavior than females in
view of the fact that males have preference for equity over equality.
G
R
.O
R
R
M
Apart from organizing the constructs on the basis of ‗actions‘, Williams & Anderson (1991) provided
a different approach of categorizing them based on ‗target of action‘. OCB-I were behaviors directed
towards individuals (colleagues, supervisor etc) and OCB-O were actions directed to the organization
as a whole. As altruism and courtesy take place in direct interaction between individuals they fall
under the category of OCB-I. Conscientiousness, Civic virtue and Sportsmanship are considered as
behaviors directed to the organization and therefore fall under the category of OCB-O.
I. C
W
W
W
As OCBs are discretionary each employee makes a personal decision to ‗do‘ or ‗not-to-do‘ and in
whatever degree that he or she may see right. These choices are made depending on variables like
personal characteristics (positivity/agreeableness) (Podsakoff et al., 2000; Sharma et al., 2011),
demographic variability, individual perception and attitudes etc. Demographic variability arises due to
differences in one‘s age, gender, tenure, educational qualification and other factors that are more
individual specific and the organization has little or no control over them. However, employee
perception and attitudes depend on factors like fairness and organizational justice (Sharma et al.,
2011) and is something over which the organization has some control. As behaviors are consequent
actions of perception and attitudes these have been most widely studied by researchers. The most
investigated of job attitudes is job satisfaction and OC (e.g. Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988;
Smith et al., 1983; O‘Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Personal values and ethics have also been considered
important antecedents of OCB. As discussed earlier the demographic variable of gender (Kidder,
2002) has also been studied to predict OCB in some studies whereas in some studies it has also been
found to have no impact (Francis, 2014; Dhiman & Sharma, 2014). Age, Work experience,
Educational qualification, Marital status etc were also found irrelevant in these studies.
www.icmrr.org
21
[email protected]
INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW
ISSN: 2320-9704 - ONLINE ISSN:2347-1662 - PRINT IMPACT FACTOR:0.875
VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2015
Variables that are more directly related to one‘s job (eg. feedback, autonomy, skill set and feeling of
doing a significant work) (Podsakoff et al., 1996) have been seen as controllable factor that can be
worked upon by the organizations to improve OCB. Supportiveness of the leadership has also been
found to impact both OC and OCB significantly (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988; Smith et al.,
1983; O‘Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Bhal, 2005).There have been many studies offering a wide range of
dimensions to understand OCB, however, we see a trend of agreement on the matter that OCBs help
improve organizational effectiveness (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2009) and enhance favorable
psychological climate for employees and organizations.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OC AND OCB
The generally accepted view in Psychology of behavior formation is that a behavior (here OCB) is the
casual effect of an attitude (here OC). From the above reviews of literature we realize that the
relationship between OC & OCB have been that of complimentary in most studies. Majority of the
studies consider OC as the predictor of OCB and not vice versa. A deeper understanding of
relationship between OC and OCB has been studied by correlating individual components of both. Of
the three constituents of OC- AC, NC & CC, the most desirable is the AC and its relation with OCB
has been widely studied. Organ and Ryan (1995) found strong correlations between AC and both the
OCB types of altruism and general compliance. Meyer et al. (2002) also found strong correlation
between OCB and AC.
G
R
.O
NC, which is not studied as frequently as the AC & CC, still showed positive relation with OCB.
Socio-cultural factors that are more specific to a society, in a way, can better predict NC. Therefore, in
collectivist societies NC is more witnessed than in individualist society. NC is expected to be an
important predictor of OCB in collectivist society than in an individualist society (Moorman &
Blakely, 1995). Gautam et al (2005) strengthened the finding of Moorman & Blakely (1995) when
they found NC to be even stronger predictor, of OCB, than AC CC in Nepal (a collectivist society).
Meyer et al. (2002) also found NC to be a strong predictor of both altruism and general compliance.
R
R
M
I. C
W
As for CC, many studies have found CC to be unrelated to OCB (Meyer et al., 1993; Organ & Ryan,
1995; Meyer et al., 2002). There have also been many studies where no significant relationship
between OCB and CC could be established (Meyer et al., 2002) Gautam et al. (2005) found CC to be
negatively related to compliance and unrelated to altruism. In the cause and effect relation of the two
constructs there are more studies that support the idea that OC leads to OCB and fewer that support
the opposite (of OCB leading in OC). More thorough research needs to be done to overcome this
inconsistency in these subjects.
W
W
CONCLUSION
From reviewing the literature we see how the trend is moving to more multi-dimensional explanations
due to the attempts made to decrease vagueness and conceptual overlap. We witness the evolution of
the subjects from being ‗single-celled‘ to becoming full blown systems with multiple systems in
themselves. The topics that were once considered ‗common-sense‘ have consistently produced ever
increasing scientific explanations for every situation. The clarity in the relationship between OC and
OCB is however not as clear as we may like and hence presents itself as a research-gap. The causeand-effect relationship of the two is, therefore, open for further study.
www.icmrr.org
22
[email protected]
INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW
ISSN: 2320-9704 - ONLINE ISSN:2347-1662 - PRINT IMPACT FACTOR:0.875
VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2015
REFERENCES
1. Allen, N.J. & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The Measurement of antecedents of affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 63, 01-18.
2. Bakshi, A., Sharma, A. D., & Kumar, K. (2011). Organizational commitment as
predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. European Journal of Business &
Management, 3(4), 78-87.
3. Bateman, T.S. & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The
relationship between affect and employee ‗citizenship‘. Academy of Management,
26(4), 587-595.
4. Becker, H. S. & Caper, J. W. (1956). The Development of identification with an
occupation. American Journal of Sociology, 61(4), 289-298.
5. Becker, H.S. (1960). Notes on concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology,
66(1), 32-40.
6. Bhal, K. T. (2005). Dyadic and average leadership styles as predictors of subordinate
satisfaction, commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Indian Journal of
Industrial Relations, 40(3), 372-385
7. Cohen, A. (2007). Commitment before and after: An evaluation and reconceptualization
of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 17(3), 336-354.
8. Dhiman, R. k. & Sharma, A. (2014). Organizational citizenship behavior among
teachers educators. International Research Journal of Human Research and Social
Sciences, 1(7), 50-62.
9. Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C. E. (1986). Exchange variables as predictors of job
satisfaction, job commitment and turnover: The effects of rewards, costs, alternatives,
and investments. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 78-95.
10. Francis, U. (2014). Organizational citizenship behavior and demographic factors among
oil workers in Nigeria. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 19(8), 87-95.
11. Gautam, et al. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior and organizational
commitment in Nepal. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 305-314.
12. George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis
of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Pyschological Bulletin,
112(2), 310-329.
13. George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in context. Human
Performance, 10(2), 153–170.
14. Hrebiniak, L. G. & Alutto, J.A. (1972). Personal and role-related factors in the
development of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(4),
555-573.
15. Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment
mechanisms in utopian societies. American Sociological Review, 33(4), 499-517.
16. Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral
Sciences. 9(2), 131-146.
17. Kidder, D. L. (2002). The influence of gender on the performance of organizational
citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 28(5), 629-648.
18. Mathieu, J. E. & Zajac, Dennis, M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the
antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological
Bulletin, 108(2), 171-194.
19. Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the ―side-bet theory‖ of organizational
commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
69(3), 37-378.
G
R
.O
R
R
M
I. C
W
W
W
www.icmrr.org
23
[email protected]
INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW
ISSN: 2320-9704 - ONLINE ISSN:2347-1662 - PRINT IMPACT FACTOR:0.875
VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2015
20. Meyer, J.P: & Allen, N.J. (1987) A longitudinal analysis of the early development and
consequences of organizational commitment. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, 19(2), 199-215.
21. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J. & Smith, C. (1993). Commitment to organizations and
occupations: Extension and Test of a Three-component Conceptualization. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538-551.
22. Meyer, J. P, Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L. & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,
Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-analysis of
Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 61(1), 2052.
23. Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Van Dick, R. (2006). Social identities and Commitments
at work: toward an integrative model. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 27(5), 665683.
24. Mohammed, F. & Eleswed, M. (2013). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment:
A correlation study in Bahrain. Research Journal of Business, Humanities and
Technology, 3(5), 43-53.
25. Moorman, R. H. & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-Collectivism as an individual
difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 16(2) 127-142.
26. O'Reilly, C. A. & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological
attachment: The effects of compliance, identification and internalization on prosocial
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3) 492−499.
27. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior : The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
28. Organ, D. W. & Ryan, K. (1995). A Metaanalytic review of oattitudinal and
dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology,
48(4), 775-802.
29. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It‘s construct clean-up time.
Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97.
30. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational
Citizenship Behavior. Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. Sage Publication:
Thousand Oaks.
31. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. (1996). Transformational leader
behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,
commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management,
22(2), 259-298.
32. Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne. M. & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship
behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82(2), 262-270.
33. Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individualand organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122-141.
34. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G. (2000).
Organizational citizen ship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical
literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563.
35. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., Richard, T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974).
Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric
technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 603-609.
G
R
.O
R
R
M
I. C
W
W
W
www.icmrr.org
24
[email protected]
INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW
ISSN: 2320-9704 - ONLINE ISSN:2347-1662 - PRINT IMPACT FACTOR:0.875
VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2015
36. Rao, D. S., & Reddy, A. V. (2013). A study on the organizational commitment of
managers in public sector banks of Andhra Pradesh. Asian Journal of Research in
Business Economics and Management, 3(11), 239-251.
37. Ritzer, G. & Trice, H. M. (1969). An empirical study of Howard Becker‘s side bet
theory. Oxford University Press, 47(4), 475-478.
38. Sharma, J. P., Bajpai, N. & Holani, U. (2011). Organizational citizenship behavior in
public and private sector and its impact on job satisfaction: A comparative study in
Indian perspective. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(1), 67-75.
39. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W. & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior:
Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663.
40. Somers, M. J. (2009). The combined influence of affective, continuance and normative
commitment on employee withdrawal. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 74 (1), 75-81.
41. Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. The Academy of
Management Review, 7(3), 418-428.
42. Williams, L.J. & Anderson, S.E. (1991). Job Satisfaction and Organizational
Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behaviors.
Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617.
G
R
.O
R
R
M
I. C
W
W
W
www.icmrr.org
25
[email protected]
ISSN: 2320-9704 - ONLINE ISSN:2347-1662 - PRINT IMPACT FACTOR:0.875
VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2015
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL
CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: TREND AND RELATIONSHIP.
LIHA MENA
Research Scholar, Department of Commerce, North-Eastern Hill University, Umshing, Mawlai
Shillong Meghalaya.
ABSTRACT
The literature on Organizational Commitment (OC) and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)
have undergone many developments over the past six decades. With every new addition to the pool of
literature the constructs have not only become clearer but also increasingly complex. Throughout the
study we witness ample proof of the subjects being more than ‗common-sense‘ concepts. This study is
made with an attempt to follow the trend from the inception till date and also to understand the
link/relationship between the two constructs.
Keywords: Organizational Commitment, Organizational Citizenship Behavior.
G
R
INTRODUCTION
.O
Employees, the most prized resource of any organization, alone can make or break any organization.
Studying Organizational Behavior empowers the leadership to encourage/discourage employee
behavior according to the suitability of organizational goals as the areas extend to all forms of
employee reaction. Two of the most undoubtedly significant areas are OC and OCB. The objective of
this paper is to review the existing literature on both the constructs and understand the type of
relationship they enjoy.
R
R
M
I. C
OBJECTIVE
W
The study aims to observe the trend and progress of OCB and in the subject of Organizational
Behavior and to understand the link between the former two.
METHODOLOGY
W
W
To fulfill our objective all the significant studies from the 1950‘s to present have been reviewed
without confining to a few journals alone.
TREND IN OC
In 1956, Becker observed a pattern in employees he called consistent lines of activity and explained it
as individuals teaching themselves to identify with their respective jobs after spending considerable
amount of time on the job. In his later, more refined, study (1960) Becker developed the theory of side
bets and defined commitment as a relationship based on contract of economic exchange. In the form
of periodic salary/wages, individuals gained from the organization, while making the sacrifice of their
effort and time for the organization. The longer an individual honoured the contract the harder it
became for them to disengage from the pattern of activity (membership) in the organization. Becker‘s
theory was supported by Ritzer and Trice (1969) and Hrebiniak and Alutto (1972) who defined
commitment as the unwillingness of employees to leave an organization for increments in pay, status,
professional freedom or greater collegial friendship. According to these studies commitment was to
be measured by evaluating the reasons, if any, which could cause a person to leave his organization.
www.icmrr.org
18
[email protected]
INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW
ISSN: 2320-9704 - ONLINE ISSN:2347-1662 - PRINT IMPACT FACTOR:0.875
VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2015
According to these studies OC was only seen when employee had something dear at stake and fear to
lose which was what made them stay back with their organizations. Hrebiniak & Alutto (1972) made
a study to learn the process through which an individual started identifying with his organization and
found commitment as an exchange and accrual phenomenon which depended on the employee’s
perception of accumulation of investments in his employing organization . Porter et al. (1974) filled
this gap of emotional variable by stating that commitment was an attitude centered economic contract
and thus the focus shifted from tangible side-bets to psychological attachment. O‘Reily and Chatman
(1986) identified OC as arising from -1) compliance- in order to avoid punishment or gain reward, 2)
identification- with the organization‘s goals and values and 3) internalization- of organizational goal
and personal goals. It was however; difficult to empirically distinguish between the later two and
created confusion. Unlike previous contributors who focused on OC to only study effect on turnover
they described it as an antecedent of OCB.
Meyer & Allen (1984) made a comprehensive study of the concepts economic contract and
psychological attachment and discussed them as Continuance Commitment (CC) and Affective
Commitment (AC) respectively; thus combining the studies of attitudinal and behavioral commitment.
A third dimension of Normative Commitment (NC) was added in 1990. CC is said to be present when
an employee is aware that he is bound to stay because of the costs associated with leaving. AC has
been defined as the emotional attachment of an employee to stay with the organization because he
wants to and NC has been observed when employees feel a moral obligation to stay back with their
employees. Meyer, Becker & Van Dick (2006) refined the conceptual meaning of NC by adding two
dimensional concept of ‗indebted obligation‘ which arises the need to meet others obligation and has
been theorized to correlate with CC; and ‗moral imperative‘ which reflects individuals strive to meet
valued outcomes and correlates with AC. This model of three constituents of OC has been called the
Three Component Model (TCM). AC and CC came from distinguishing the side-bet theory of Becker
and the components were more or less similar to cohesion, continuance and control commitment as
explained by Kanter (1968). Rather than types of commitment the writers believed that AC, NC and
CC were components of commitment and that a single employee could display more than one of these
components in varying degree. Each of these commitments, as per the writers could be individually
measured and compared.
G
R
.O
R
R
M
I. C
W
W
W
In 2007 Cohen introduced the multi-dimensional or a four component model which looked at OC
strictly as an attitude to minimize the mixture of commitment with the possible behavioral outcomes.
The model was made with two bases of time (pre and post entry) and commitment propensity
(instrumental and psychological/affective). The variables that affect commitment propensity were
grouped as: personal characteristics, Job expectation and circumstances associated the new hire‘s
decision to join the organization. Although this model looks appealing it has still not been widely
accepted. Somers (2009) suggested studying the combined effect and influence of AC, NC & CC and
proposed 8 combinations of which only 5 were empirically proved. This is a more complex model and
has not been tested satisfactorily so far rendering Meyer & Allen‘s TCM most prevalent.
Some of the most commonly studied variables affecting OC have been that of personal and
demographic variables, job characteristics and quality of work experience. The demographic variables
of age and tenure are said to affect commitment positively as increase in these imply the accumulation
of time investment which result in higher desire to stay with the current employer (Becker, 1956;
Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972; Rao & Reddy, 2013). Hrebiniak & Alutto, (1972) in their study found
females to be more committed than their male counterparts. However; Rao & Reddy, (2013) and
Mohammed & Eleswed, (2013) found Gender as an insignificant factor. Marital status of an employee
www.icmrr.org
19
[email protected]
INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW
ISSN: 2320-9704 - ONLINE ISSN:2347-1662 - PRINT IMPACT FACTOR:0.875
VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2015
is seen to affect the level of commitment as Married and separated employees show a higher level of
commitment than unmarried people (Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972). With higher Level of Education
employees have been observed to display lower levels of commitment by Mowday et al. (1982).
However, Bakshi et al. (2011) and Mohammed & Eleswed (2013) also found that educational
qualification did not affect commitment. An Individual‘s need for achievement has also been
identified as an important factor affecting OC (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Cohen (2007) listed values,
beliefs, personality and pre employment attitudes as important demographic determinants of OC.
Meyer et al. (1993) studied different job characteristics like professional role conflict, dissatisfaction
and role tension/ambiguity as important predictors of OC and said that clearer and more meaningful
jobs enhanced OC positively. Task identity, opportunities for social interaction, feedback (Weiner,
1982) and job expectation (Cohen, 2007) are also said to positively increase OC. Mathieu & Zajac,
(1990) found that an individual‘s skill set and autonomy in the job impacted OC significantly.
Some of the factors associated with Organization that influence OC are, as per Becker (1960), the
number and magnitude of investments and side bets (in the organization) made by individuals over
time. Farrell & Rusbult (1986) found that individuals who perceived they lacked alternatives
developed OC. Wiener (1982) studied employee‘s individual experiences (both prior and after entry
into the organization) and social pressures and how they determined the development of OC in
employees over time. He came to a conclusion that OC could be influenced by both personal
predispositions and organizational intervention. Meyer & Allen (1987) also studied work experiences
as an important variable as it helped fulfill employees‘ psychological needs to feel comfortable within
the organization by improving one‘s perception of personal importance, trust in the organization,
organizational dependability and investment in the organization.
G
R
.O
R
R
M
I. C
TREND IN OCB
In 1964, Katz identified two types of roles played by employees. In-role behavior strictly related to
actions necessary to successfully complete one‘s work. Extra-role behaviors on the other hand, were
actions that were not necessarily required but nevertheless witnessed when, for e.g., employees
helping each other with work related issues. The formal conception of Organizational Citizenship
Behavior (OCB) started with Bateman & Organ‘s 1983 work. Organ (1997) reworded the definition
of OCB as ―individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the
formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the
organization‖. This definition has three critical aspects of being discretionary, not relating to the
formal reward system and the third aspect of promoting aggregate effectiveness of the organization
and hence employees displaying one or more than one of these desired behaviors are considered ‗good
citizens‘ of the organization.
W
W
W
Many researchers have found different dimensions to OCB; however, the most prominent and often
repeated ones have been that of Altruism, Civic Virtue, Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship and
Courtesy. Smith et al. (1983) defined altruism as ‗behaviors that directly and intentionally aimed at
helping a specific person in face to face situations ‘. As these actions are discretionary therefore any
case of not-helping or non-performance; a colleague is not considered punishable. Podsakoff et al.
(2000) demonstrated altruism to significantly relate to performance evaluations. Altruism is often
passed on as more feminine characteristics (Kidder, 2002) noticed more often in female employees
than in male. It is the most common of all OCBs and appears in all most all studies (Smith et al.,
1983; Organ, 1988; Williams & Anderson, 1991; George & Brief, 1992; George & Jones, 1997;
Podsakoff, 2000; etc). Synonymous to politeness, in the organizational context, Courtesy means to
www.icmrr.org
20
[email protected]
INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW
ISSN: 2320-9704 - ONLINE ISSN:2347-1662 - PRINT IMPACT FACTOR:0.875
VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2015
include behaviors that prevent problems and to take necessary steps to lessen the effects of the
problem in the future (Organ, 1988; Organ et al., 2006). The main idea of courtesy is avoiding actions
that make colleagues‘ work harder and working to improve ease in operation. Research efforts have
found that employees who exhibit courtesy reduce intergroup conflict and thereby reduce the time
spent on conflict management activities (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Like altruism, courtesy is also
considered a feminine characteristic and is said to be affected by the employee‘s gender (Kidder,
2002). Organ (1988) defined sportsmanship as the behavior of warmly tolerating the irritations that
are an unavoidable part of nearly every organizational setting . It refers to not complaining
unnecessarily and being tolerant towards difficulties that may be experienced in the workplace. Organ
et al. (2006) further define sportsmanship as an employee‘s ―ability to roll with the punches‖ which,
in turn, helps save organizational energy and time. Podsakoff et al. (1997) revealed that good
sportsmanship enhances the morale of the work group and subsequently reduce employee turnover. It
is considered as one of the masculine characteristic (Kidder, 2002). Civic virtue is defined as active
participation and concern of an employee in the organization‘s political life and supporting its
function. It includes actions such as attending meetings which need not be mandatorily attended and
keeping oneself updated with the changes in the organization (Organ, 1988). In line with the gendereffect civic virtue is considered more masculine (Kidder, 2002). The literal definition of
Conscientiousness is ‗the personality trait of being thorough, careful, or vigilant and implies a desire
to do a task well‘. As per the literature of OCB a conscientious employee is one who is organized,
accountable and hardworking. Organ (1988) defined it as ‗dedication to the job which exceeds formal
requirements such as working long hours, and volunteer to perform jobs besides duties ‘. Kidder
(2002) posited the fact that males are more likely to engage in conscientious behavior than females in
view of the fact that males have preference for equity over equality.
G
R
.O
R
R
M
Apart from organizing the constructs on the basis of ‗actions‘, Williams & Anderson (1991) provided
a different approach of categorizing them based on ‗target of action‘. OCB-I were behaviors directed
towards individuals (colleagues, supervisor etc) and OCB-O were actions directed to the organization
as a whole. As altruism and courtesy take place in direct interaction between individuals they fall
under the category of OCB-I. Conscientiousness, Civic virtue and Sportsmanship are considered as
behaviors directed to the organization and therefore fall under the category of OCB-O.
I. C
W
W
W
As OCBs are discretionary each employee makes a personal decision to ‗do‘ or ‗not-to-do‘ and in
whatever degree that he or she may see right. These choices are made depending on variables like
personal characteristics (positivity/agreeableness) (Podsakoff et al., 2000; Sharma et al., 2011),
demographic variability, individual perception and attitudes etc. Demographic variability arises due to
differences in one‘s age, gender, tenure, educational qualification and other factors that are more
individual specific and the organization has little or no control over them. However, employee
perception and attitudes depend on factors like fairness and organizational justice (Sharma et al.,
2011) and is something over which the organization has some control. As behaviors are consequent
actions of perception and attitudes these have been most widely studied by researchers. The most
investigated of job attitudes is job satisfaction and OC (e.g. Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988;
Smith et al., 1983; O‘Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Personal values and ethics have also been considered
important antecedents of OCB. As discussed earlier the demographic variable of gender (Kidder,
2002) has also been studied to predict OCB in some studies whereas in some studies it has also been
found to have no impact (Francis, 2014; Dhiman & Sharma, 2014). Age, Work experience,
Educational qualification, Marital status etc were also found irrelevant in these studies.
www.icmrr.org
21
[email protected]
INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW
ISSN: 2320-9704 - ONLINE ISSN:2347-1662 - PRINT IMPACT FACTOR:0.875
VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2015
Variables that are more directly related to one‘s job (eg. feedback, autonomy, skill set and feeling of
doing a significant work) (Podsakoff et al., 1996) have been seen as controllable factor that can be
worked upon by the organizations to improve OCB. Supportiveness of the leadership has also been
found to impact both OC and OCB significantly (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ, 1988; Smith et al.,
1983; O‘Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Bhal, 2005).There have been many studies offering a wide range of
dimensions to understand OCB, however, we see a trend of agreement on the matter that OCBs help
improve organizational effectiveness (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2009) and enhance favorable
psychological climate for employees and organizations.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OC AND OCB
The generally accepted view in Psychology of behavior formation is that a behavior (here OCB) is the
casual effect of an attitude (here OC). From the above reviews of literature we realize that the
relationship between OC & OCB have been that of complimentary in most studies. Majority of the
studies consider OC as the predictor of OCB and not vice versa. A deeper understanding of
relationship between OC and OCB has been studied by correlating individual components of both. Of
the three constituents of OC- AC, NC & CC, the most desirable is the AC and its relation with OCB
has been widely studied. Organ and Ryan (1995) found strong correlations between AC and both the
OCB types of altruism and general compliance. Meyer et al. (2002) also found strong correlation
between OCB and AC.
G
R
.O
NC, which is not studied as frequently as the AC & CC, still showed positive relation with OCB.
Socio-cultural factors that are more specific to a society, in a way, can better predict NC. Therefore, in
collectivist societies NC is more witnessed than in individualist society. NC is expected to be an
important predictor of OCB in collectivist society than in an individualist society (Moorman &
Blakely, 1995). Gautam et al (2005) strengthened the finding of Moorman & Blakely (1995) when
they found NC to be even stronger predictor, of OCB, than AC CC in Nepal (a collectivist society).
Meyer et al. (2002) also found NC to be a strong predictor of both altruism and general compliance.
R
R
M
I. C
W
As for CC, many studies have found CC to be unrelated to OCB (Meyer et al., 1993; Organ & Ryan,
1995; Meyer et al., 2002). There have also been many studies where no significant relationship
between OCB and CC could be established (Meyer et al., 2002) Gautam et al. (2005) found CC to be
negatively related to compliance and unrelated to altruism. In the cause and effect relation of the two
constructs there are more studies that support the idea that OC leads to OCB and fewer that support
the opposite (of OCB leading in OC). More thorough research needs to be done to overcome this
inconsistency in these subjects.
W
W
CONCLUSION
From reviewing the literature we see how the trend is moving to more multi-dimensional explanations
due to the attempts made to decrease vagueness and conceptual overlap. We witness the evolution of
the subjects from being ‗single-celled‘ to becoming full blown systems with multiple systems in
themselves. The topics that were once considered ‗common-sense‘ have consistently produced ever
increasing scientific explanations for every situation. The clarity in the relationship between OC and
OCB is however not as clear as we may like and hence presents itself as a research-gap. The causeand-effect relationship of the two is, therefore, open for further study.
www.icmrr.org
22
[email protected]
INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW
ISSN: 2320-9704 - ONLINE ISSN:2347-1662 - PRINT IMPACT FACTOR:0.875
VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2015
REFERENCES
1. Allen, N.J. & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The Measurement of antecedents of affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 63, 01-18.
2. Bakshi, A., Sharma, A. D., & Kumar, K. (2011). Organizational commitment as
predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. European Journal of Business &
Management, 3(4), 78-87.
3. Bateman, T.S. & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The
relationship between affect and employee ‗citizenship‘. Academy of Management,
26(4), 587-595.
4. Becker, H. S. & Caper, J. W. (1956). The Development of identification with an
occupation. American Journal of Sociology, 61(4), 289-298.
5. Becker, H.S. (1960). Notes on concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology,
66(1), 32-40.
6. Bhal, K. T. (2005). Dyadic and average leadership styles as predictors of subordinate
satisfaction, commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Indian Journal of
Industrial Relations, 40(3), 372-385
7. Cohen, A. (2007). Commitment before and after: An evaluation and reconceptualization
of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 17(3), 336-354.
8. Dhiman, R. k. & Sharma, A. (2014). Organizational citizenship behavior among
teachers educators. International Research Journal of Human Research and Social
Sciences, 1(7), 50-62.
9. Farrell, D., & Rusbult, C. E. (1986). Exchange variables as predictors of job
satisfaction, job commitment and turnover: The effects of rewards, costs, alternatives,
and investments. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 78-95.
10. Francis, U. (2014). Organizational citizenship behavior and demographic factors among
oil workers in Nigeria. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 19(8), 87-95.
11. Gautam, et al. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior and organizational
commitment in Nepal. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 305-314.
12. George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis
of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Pyschological Bulletin,
112(2), 310-329.
13. George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in context. Human
Performance, 10(2), 153–170.
14. Hrebiniak, L. G. & Alutto, J.A. (1972). Personal and role-related factors in the
development of organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(4),
555-573.
15. Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organization: A study of commitment
mechanisms in utopian societies. American Sociological Review, 33(4), 499-517.
16. Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral
Sciences. 9(2), 131-146.
17. Kidder, D. L. (2002). The influence of gender on the performance of organizational
citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 28(5), 629-648.
18. Mathieu, J. E. & Zajac, Dennis, M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the
antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological
Bulletin, 108(2), 171-194.
19. Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the ―side-bet theory‖ of organizational
commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
69(3), 37-378.
G
R
.O
R
R
M
I. C
W
W
W
www.icmrr.org
23
[email protected]
INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW
ISSN: 2320-9704 - ONLINE ISSN:2347-1662 - PRINT IMPACT FACTOR:0.875
VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2015
20. Meyer, J.P: & Allen, N.J. (1987) A longitudinal analysis of the early development and
consequences of organizational commitment. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science, 19(2), 199-215.
21. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J. & Smith, C. (1993). Commitment to organizations and
occupations: Extension and Test of a Three-component Conceptualization. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538-551.
22. Meyer, J. P, Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L. & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective,
Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization: A Meta-analysis of
Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 61(1), 2052.
23. Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Van Dick, R. (2006). Social identities and Commitments
at work: toward an integrative model. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 27(5), 665683.
24. Mohammed, F. & Eleswed, M. (2013). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment:
A correlation study in Bahrain. Research Journal of Business, Humanities and
Technology, 3(5), 43-53.
25. Moorman, R. H. & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-Collectivism as an individual
difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 16(2) 127-142.
26. O'Reilly, C. A. & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological
attachment: The effects of compliance, identification and internalization on prosocial
behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3) 492−499.
27. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior : The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
28. Organ, D. W. & Ryan, K. (1995). A Metaanalytic review of oattitudinal and
dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology,
48(4), 775-802.
29. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It‘s construct clean-up time.
Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97.
30. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational
Citizenship Behavior. Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. Sage Publication:
Thousand Oaks.
31. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. (1996). Transformational leader
behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,
commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management,
22(2), 259-298.
32. Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne. M. & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship
behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82(2), 262-270.
33. Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individualand organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122-141.
34. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G. (2000).
Organizational citizen ship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical
literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563.
35. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., Richard, T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974).
Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric
technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 603-609.
G
R
.O
R
R
M
I. C
W
W
W
www.icmrr.org
24
[email protected]
INTERCONTINENTAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE RESEARCH REVIEW
ISSN: 2320-9704 - ONLINE ISSN:2347-1662 - PRINT IMPACT FACTOR:0.875
VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2015
36. Rao, D. S., & Reddy, A. V. (2013). A study on the organizational commitment of
managers in public sector banks of Andhra Pradesh. Asian Journal of Research in
Business Economics and Management, 3(11), 239-251.
37. Ritzer, G. & Trice, H. M. (1969). An empirical study of Howard Becker‘s side bet
theory. Oxford University Press, 47(4), 475-478.
38. Sharma, J. P., Bajpai, N. & Holani, U. (2011). Organizational citizenship behavior in
public and private sector and its impact on job satisfaction: A comparative study in
Indian perspective. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(1), 67-75.
39. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W. & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior:
Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-663.
40. Somers, M. J. (2009). The combined influence of affective, continuance and normative
commitment on employee withdrawal. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 74 (1), 75-81.
41. Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. The Academy of
Management Review, 7(3), 418-428.
42. Williams, L.J. & Anderson, S.E. (1991). Job Satisfaction and Organizational
Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behaviors.
Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617.
G
R
.O
R
R
M
I. C
W
W
W
www.icmrr.org
25
[email protected]