The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 4, No. 1, January 2016
Perception of Discrimination on OCB:
The Moderating Role of Job
Significance
Min-woo Lee*, Gi-Ryung Song** & Kyoung-seok Kim***
*Doctor’s Course, Management, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, SOUTH KOREA. E-Mail: midair{at}knu{dot}ac{dot}kr
**Doctor’s Course, Management, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, SOUTH KOREA. E-Mail: ryung{at}knu{dot}ac{dot}kr
***Professor, Management, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, SOUTH KOREA. E-Mail: kskim{at}knu{dot}ac{dot}kr
Abstract—We designed this research as examining a) the relationship of perception of discrimination and OCB
(organizational citizenship behavior), and b) the moderating effect of job significance on the relationship. The
sample has 214 respondents who is employees of various corporates of Korea. To test hypotheses, regression
analysis is used and OCB is divided into two dimensions of OCB-I, OCB-O according to the classification of
Williams & Anderson [18]. As a result, it is founded that perception of discrimination negatively affects both
OCB-I and OCB-O. On the contrary, job significance has positive effect on the OCB-I and OCB-O. However,
as a result of regression analysis, job significance has no meaningful moderating effect on the relationship
between perception of discrimination and OCB-O. Moreover, job significance has negative moderating effect
decreasing the slope of discrimination and OCB-I, which means employees having high significance on their
job more deeply reduce their OCB-I when they perceive the discrimination. Limitations and implications are
demonstrated on the conclusion.
Keywords—Job Characteristics; Job Significance; Moderating Effect; Organizational Citizenship Behavior;
Perception of Discrimination.
Abbreviations—Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA); In-Role Behavior (IRB); Organizational Citizenship
Behavior-Individual (OCB-I); Organizational Citizenship Behavior-Organization (OCB-O).
I.
I
INTRODUCTION
N the imaginary company, we compete with others
having homogenous swords and all opportunities are
equally distributed so that we are convinced of any results
of competitions. But, unfortunately, that is only dream and
we are always exposed of discrimination in the real world. In
fact, the problem is not about the existence, but the level of it.
Since all employees are having different abilities,
personalities, networks which they are having and even
demographics involving sex, age, education, location and so
on, so that the corporates have no alternatives but to invest
unequally to employees.
The important problem for the companies is that they
exposed of danger to lose their extra resources which is not
needed to lose during the process of choices. The loss is
mainly about their human resources that the employees
reducing their extra efforts to make themselves and their
organizations improved, because of perception of
discrimination. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
whose motivation is mainly about reciprocity is a
representative concept of the extra efforts performed by
employees [Organ et al., 12]. Because that citizenship
ISSN: 2321-242X
behavior is likely to be triggered by reciprocity, if the
employees feel that they are being treated unequally, they
will reduce their citizenship behavior. For example, an
employee perceive who feels that his or her organization
gives unfair opportunities or distributions to them is hard to
obey the organization’s rules of practices and they feel
cognitive dissonance so that they make an effort to eliminate
it through reducing their reciprocal behaviors. OCB is
important factor that makes organization healthy and efficient
[MacKenzie et al., 17], so its loss is coming to the corporates
as huge problem.
However, the process from discrimination to OCB does
not always occur as same way or level. Externally,
companies’ business environment doesn’t allow them to do
by themselves. Sometime the environment pushes them to
take unequal method, especially when they are in tough
competition or they have only insufficient resource and time,
and sometimes it gives wide range of selection to the
companies. Internal environment involving organization
values, practices, ownership, size and so on. Of the internal
factors, job characteristics are also taking important effect to
organization’s choices and employees’ feelings.
© 2016 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ)
6
The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 4, No. 1, January 2016
This research is focusing on the moderating effect of
this job characteristic to the relation between perceptions of
discrimination and OCB. Hackman & Oldham [7]
demonstrated the five dimensions of job characteristics
including variety, identity, significance, autonomy, and
feedback. We expect that the negative relation of employees’
perception of discrimination and OCB is moderated by job
characteristic, especially by job significance. When the
employee take the job which do a significant role in his or her
organization, even if they want to reduce their reciprocal
behaviors because of the perception of discrimination, they
cannot do that because they know that their change of stance
has significant effect to the whole job process and the
colleagues related to it. Thus we presume that the relationship
of perception of discrimination and OCB is becoming weak
under the condition of the employees’ whose job is
significant to its whole process or organization. In addition,
when the employees have a job of low significance, the
relationship of perception of discrimination and OCB is
stronger than the case of high significance.
II.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
2.1. Perception of Discrimination
The research of discrimination has been likely to focus on the
demographics such as sex, age, disability and origin [BaylSmith & Griffin, 1; Choma et al., 4; Neumark & McLennan,
11; Ragan & Tremblay, 16]. However, the theme of this
study is not on the demographics, but on the just
discrimination that embraces even demographics. In this
study, we defined the discrimination that employees’ feeling
about unfair treatment by organization in various aspects, so
we call it perception of discrimination. To discover the
aspects that employees could feel discrimination, to begin
with, it should be understood where the employees expect the
fairness.
Of the steps of human resource management, after
selection, there are some factors considered as important such
as employee development, task distribution, performance
evaluation, and promotion. Employee development embraces
employees’ job skill, interpersonal skill, know-how, values,
and the other abilities needed in the work place. Generally,
many companies are using education for this, for examples,
the technology seminars related with the companies’ field are
regularly opened so that the employees participate that and
develop their technical skills or organization conduct the
various education programs and make the employees to
participate it for development of the employees’ various
abilities. Since the education could be the steppingstone for
the employees who want to develop themselves or to be
promoted, they want and expect that the opportunity to
participate the education is distributed to all of them equally.
Employees also want to be treated equally at the task
distribution. The organization’s whole tasks are fixed at one
time but the employees of the organization are having
different task each other. It usually belongs to employees’
ISSN: 2321-242X
work abilities, current workloads, positions and even their
demographics. Occasionally, trivial things determine the
distribution. Although, unequal task distribution is inevitable
and employees cognize that, task has the feature that one’s
task is easy to be compared with others because they are in
same organization together and even they are always
communicating with each other. Thus, imbalance of task
distribution is likely to cause the perception of
discrimination.
The remaining factors are performance evaluation and
promotion, which are about the results of employee
performance and those are the most sensitive parts to the
employees because those factors are related to rewards of the
labor. Employees expect the justice in evaluation and
rewarding as important as they consider. They do not want to
be influenced by the factors unrelated to the evaluation of
their performance in the process of it.
Based on the above four parts, the perception of
discrimination is defined as opposite concept that the
employees cognize the unfair treatment in the parts of
opportunity of education, task distribution, performance
evaluation, and promotion. Using this concept, we measure
the perception of discrimination, which is assumed as the
factor influencing OCB.
2.2. The Relationship
Discrimination
of
OCB
and
Perception
of
Organ [13] defined OCB as contributions to the maintenance
and enhancement of the social and psychological context that
supports task performance. He redefined his first definition
[Organ, 14] because of shortage of explanation to its three
components (discretionary, unrewarded, and aggregate).
Although, his first definition had been criticized by the other
researchers, his classification of five dimensions of OCB
involving
altruism,
conscientiousness,
courtesy,
sportsmanship, and civic virtue is still available. OCB is also
divided to two parts of dimensions, which is altruism and
generalized compliance. The dimension of generalized
compliance embraces four dimensions of the five except
altruism. These classifications belong to the criterion of
content of the behavior.
On the other hand, Williams & Anderson [18] suggested
different classification that is focusing on the target of the
behavior. In the research that examined the job satisfaction
and organizational commitment as predictors of OCB and
IRB (in-role behavior), they divided the target of OCB into
two groups of individual and organization. The citizenship
behaviors whose target is individual were named as OCB-I
and the other behaviors against organization were named as
OCB-O that the initials of each concept were used. In fact,
OCB-I is the concept that is matching with altruism and
OCB-O is same with generalized compliance. Williams &
Anderson [18] were also mentioning on their paper that there
are two reasons. First, they avoided using the altruism and
compliance because those concepts imply restrictive
assumptions about rewards of performance. For example,
altruism is likely to be seen as pure behavior considering
© 2016 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ)
7
The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 4, No. 1, January 2016
others regardless of any external rewards, and compliance is
same as altruism. Second, they desired to prevent the
confusion between their concepts and previous concepts, so
that they labeled two dimensions as OCB-I and OCB-O.
Based on the social exchange theory [Homans, 9; Blau,
2], which takes important role of motivation theory of OCB.
Motivation of OCB could be divided into two macro groups
of social exchange and non-social exchange. Non-social
exchange is about the citizenship behavior which is triggered
by disposition, feeling, mood, value, and even personality
that are related to the performer’s individual factors. On the
contrary, social exchange means that people are having the
relationship that they deal with their society or its members,
and the exchanged things are not only tangible but also
intangible. The explanation of motivation of social exchange
theory to OCB focuses on the interaction of performer and
performer’s organization or its colleagues. The theory has
two dimensions composed of obligation to reciprocate and
expected reciprocity [Coyle-Shapiro. 5; Cropanzano &
Mitchell, 6; Korsgaard et al., 10]. Employees who perform
the OCB by obligation to reciprocate desire to make a return
for the benefits which they have been received by their
organizations. They want to give the positive effects to the
organization via performing OCB as much as they have been
received. Unlike this, expected reciprocity is about the
employee’s expectation that they could get some benefits
through doing OCB. The performer whose motivation is on
the expected reciprocity has their own special goal different
with the pure purpose of OCB, so that these behaviors are
sometimes called ‘political behavior’. Most of employees
have above motivations as mixed and the employees are
almost never having only one motivation.
Since, most of employees are having the motivation of
obligation to reciprocate, they sensitively respond to the
negative effects from the organization. If employees feel that
they are unfairly treated or that there are discrimination in the
organization, they are likely to reduce their extra efforts such
as OCB-I and OCB-O. For example, if one employee
experienced the discrimination at the task distribution that he
or she received heavy workloads for other members and they
couldn’t understand that treatment, they will easily lose their
faith to the organization and they will stop to make an effort
to obey the rule or practice of organization. Based on these
background theories, hypothesis 1 is established
Hypothesis 1. Perception of discrimination has
negative effect on both OCB-I and OCB-O.
2.3. The Moderating Effect of Job Characteristics
In the business field, there are lots of jobs that are having
various features. Hackman & Oldham [7, 8] suggested the
five core job characteristics that are variety, identity,
significance, autonomy, and feedback. Variety means that the
degree of diversity of skills and talents required for the job
and identity is about the degree of integration and completion
of the job. Significance is the degree of effects of the job to
other colleagues or whole work process and autonomy is the
degree of the employee’s power that he or she could exert in
ISSN: 2321-242X
the job. Finally, feedback is about the degree of provided
information of progress or significant thing to report [Piccolo
& Colquitt, 15].
Chen & Chiu [3] empirically proved that the indirect
effects of job characteristics to OCB. They found that the
four dimensions of job characteristics (variety, identity,
significance, and autonomy) are having significant
relationship with job involvement that is immediately linked
with OCB. Moreover, identity, significance, and autonomy
had positive effects to job involvement excepting variety that
had only negative effect. It is shown that feedback has no
significant relationship with job involvement. On the other
hand, Piccolo & Colquitt [15] examined the mediating effect
of job characteristics to the relationship between
transformational leadership and job behaviors involving task
performance and OCB. In this research, they found that the
latent variable of job characteristics has positive effect to
intrinsic motivation and goal commitment, and the intrinsic
motivation is positively related to two job behaviors and goal
commitment has positive effect to only task performance that
is one of two job behaviors. Consequently, job characteristics
are indirectly related to task performance and OCB with
positive effects.
Based on the finding that job characteristics has the
effect to OCB, it could be considered that job characteristics
do a moderating role between perception of discrimination
and OCB. However, of the five job characteristics, we only
assume that job significance has a moderating effect except
other four job characteristics. When, the employee feels
discrimination in the organization, they will give up
performing OCB. But, if they do not reduce their extra efforts
even though they are under the unfair treatment, why are they
doing that? For what? Of the five job characteristics,
significance is best suited for the reason. Although,
employees cognized that they received unjustifiable
treatment, they couldn’t give up the OCB because they had
already known that the results which are derived from
decreased OCB they reduced could adversely influence the
whole job process or other colleagues who is related to the
job. They want to reduce OCB, but they don’t do that because
of significance of their job. We postulate hypothesis 2
according to above deduction.
Hypothesis 2a. Job significance has a moderating
effect on the relationship between perception of
discrimination and OCB-I.
Hypothesis 2b. Job significance has a moderating
effect on the relationship between perception of
discrimination and OCB-O.
III.
METHOD AND ANALYTIC STRATEGY
Data for this study were collected from firms of Korea. The
sample which is used in this research has 214 respondents
composed of 116 male (54.2%) and 98 female (45.8%) and
the positions most were ordinary employees, 127 (59.3%), 50
respondents were assistant manager (23.4%), 22 respondents
were section chief (10.3%) and 15 were department head or
© 2016 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ)
8
The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 4, No. 1, January 2016
deputy head (7.0%). Unlike position, tenure was evenly that
49 respondents (22.9%) were under 2 years, 70 respondents
were from 3 to 5 years (32.7%), 66 respondents were from 6
to 10 years (30.8%) and 29 respondents had above 11 years
tenure (13.6%).
To test hypotheses, we use regression analysis by SPSS
22.0. The equation of regression analysis is made of 3
models. At the model 1, we insert the control variables only
and next, at the model 2, the variable of perception of
discrimination is inserted into previous equation. Through the
results of model 2, hypothesis 1 is examined whether it is
supported or not. Finally, at the model 3, the single term of
job significance and the interactive term that is perception of
discrimination × job significance are added, and hypothesis 2
is tested together. Since, we have two dependent variables
which are OCB-I and OCB-O, the analysis is separated by
two steps. The regression equations are being shown below.
OCB = β0 + β1·CV + ε
OCB = β0 + β1·CV + β2·PD + ε
OCB = β0 + β1·CV + β2·RO + β3·CSR +
Model 3.
β4·RO·CSR + ε
CV = Control variables, OCB = OCB-I and OCB-O, PD =
Perception of discrimination, JS = Job significance.
Model 1.
Model 2.
IV.
MEASURES
Perception of Discrimination
We used four dimensions of discrimination that were
theoretically classified in advance at the part of back ground
theory. One item was derived from each dimension of the
four which are education, task distribution, performance
evaluation, and promotion. The questionnaire had the similar
content that “I’m feeling that I received discriminative
treatment about education opportunities (or promotion
opportunities, performance evaluation, task distribution)”. All
questionnaires were measured by 5 points Likert type scale.
Since, items of this measure were intentionally established by
us, we examine the validity of this via Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA). As a result of the analysis, standardized
regression weights of all dimensions were satisfying the
criterion (minimum value = .673), and other model fits were
also adequate (CMIN = 20.359 [df = 2], GFI = .958, CFI =
.968, RMR = .036). Cronbach α was .898 that is fine value.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)
Williams & Anderson [18] used 14 items for measuring
OCB-I and OCB-O composed of each of 7 items. The
questionnaires of OCB-I have the contents that are similar to
altruism or helping others, but OCB-O is involving the
various type of contents that are mixed with sportsmanship,
courtesy, conscientiousness, and protecting organizational
property. Because of the feature of OCB-O, this measure had
a narrow Cronbach α value .611. At a rigorous standard, this
α value under .7 could be a problem that this research
variable doesn’t have the reliability to proceed analysis, but
considering the feature of OCB-O and employing the
generous standard, we could allow to use OCB-O variable
ISSN: 2321-242X
above .6 α value. Unlike OCB-O, OCB-I had appropriate α
value .872, because it has the relatively consistent contents,
for examples, “helps others who have been absent”, “takes a
personal interest in other employees”. OCB-O include items
such as “attendance at work is above the norm”, “conserves
and protects organizational property”.
Job Significance
There have been some ways to classify job characteristics
among researchers. In this research, we are using the measure
Hackman & Oldham [7, 8] used. They used job significance
to explain that the job has important role and effects to all
things related with it. We extracted only the part of
significance of five dimensions of job characteristics, for
examples, “the results of my job immediately influence on
the other employees”, “of the corporate’s jobs, mine is very
important”. Cronbach α value of significance is .759 meeting
the criterion.
V.
RESULT
Before demonstrating the results whether the hypotheses are
supported or not, we check the probabilities that there is
multicollinearity or autocorrelation. VIFs and Durbin-Watson
value of regression analysis are used to test these problems.
Satisfactorily, all values are being distributed in safe range,
which VIFs are from 1.029 to 1.640 and Durbin-Watson
values are 1.965 and 2.079 on the OCB-I and OCB-O.
Table 1 and 2 are showing the results of regression
analyses. The regression coefficients of analyses of OCB-I
and OCB-O are showing that the relationship between
perception of discrimination and OCB-I, O is negative. Of the
analysis on OCB-I as dependent variable, perception of
discrimination has -.282 β value (t value = -4.330, p < 0.001)
on the model 2 and the regression coefficient of the analysis
on OCB-O is also negative that is -.242 β value (t value = 3.612, p < 0.001), so that the hypothesis 1 is supported.
Table 1: The Result of Regression Analysis on the OCB-I
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Variable
β
t value
β
t value
β
t value
Sex
.204 2.383*
.222
2.698**
.199 2.682**
Age
.196 2.422* ..192
2.479*
.093
1.310
Education
.134
1.528
.150
2.276*
1.761
.112
-.282
Discrimination
-4.330*** -.249 -4.246***
Significance
.422 7.143***
Discrimination
× Significance
-.123 -2.087*
F
3.484*
7.521***
R2
.047
.126
15.218***
.306
∆R
.047*
.078***
.180***
*** p< .001, ** p< .01, * p< .05, N=214, independent variable: OCB-I,
two-tailed test.
© 2016 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ)
9
The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 4, No. 1, January 2016
As seen in the model 3 on the table 1, the single term of
job significance and interactive term with discrimination are
both having significant regression coefficient. The single
term of moderating variable has β value as .422 (t value =
7.143, p < 0.001) meaning that it positively affects OCB-I.
However, the interactive term of perception of discrimination
and job significance has the negative significant regression
coefficient which β value is -.123 (t value = -2.087, p < 0.05).
This result implies that the variable of significance has a role
that enhances the relationship between perception of
discrimination and OCB-I. On the contrary to our previous
assumption, job significance adversely drops the OCB-I
under the discrimination, which means that if the employee
under the high job significance perceives unfair treatment,
they will more reduce their extra efforts against other
employees. Although, hypothesis 2a is supported because it is
about the existence of moderating effect of job significance,
the directivity and content are different with our expectation.
Table 2: The Result of Regression Analysis on the OCB-O
Model 1
Variable
Model 2
Model 3
β
t value
β
t value
β
t value
Sex
.083
.958
.098
1.167
.101
1.245
Age
.150
1.831
.147
1.847
.093
1.195
Education
.071
.918
.690
.083
1.152
.052
-.242
Discrimination
-3.612*** -.224 -3.503***
.310 4.819***
Significance
Discrimination
× Significance
F
R
2
∆R
2
.031
.491
1.628
4.552**
7..324***
.023
.080
.175
.023
.057***
.095***
*** p< .001, ** p< .01, * p< .05, N=214, independent variable: OCBO, two-tailed test.
The result of regression analysis on the OCB-O is on
table 2, which is showing that the interactive term is not
having any significant coefficient to OCB-O. However, the
single term of job significance has effective regression
coefficient, which is positive meaning that job significance
influences OCB-O to be increased. Unlike our expectation,
on the case of OCB-O, job significance has no significant
moderating effect, so that the hypothesis 2b is not supported.
On the other hand, of the control variables, sex and age
are only has an meaningful relation with the OCB-I, and, on
the OCB-O, all control variables even education are not
related to the dependent variable.
VI.
CONCLUSION
Limitations
Hackman & Oldham [7, 8] used the five dimensions to
classify job characteristics, but, in this research, we are only
using the one dimension, job significance. Considering that
ISSN: 2321-242X
job characteristics are important factor influencing the
employees’ attitudes, it is advisable that all five job
characteristic dimensions as moderating variable. The
researchers should merely watch out the complexity of the
research model when they are using the five dimensions as
control variable. It could be considerable the way that
integrates job characteristics as one latent variable or it is also
available that the researchers divided job characteristics into
some groups of type via using clustering analysis. In addition,
there was a problem that OCB-O had narrow Cronbach α
value that threated the reliability of research model. OCB-O
is originally composed of diverse questionnaires that embrace
four other OCB dimensions except altruism so that it is likely
to lose the consistency of the contents. Finally, decisively, we
didn’t expect the results showing that job significance doesn’t
have the moderating effect doing a buffer role for the
negative relationship of perception of discrimination and
OCB so that it is needed for further study about the
phenomena.
Implications
Hypothesis 1 is supported as we expected, which means that
the employees who felt unfair treatment from their
organization are reducing their extra efforts such as OCB-I
and OCB-O. Cognitive dissonance could be occurred under
the perception of discrimination, and then the employees
make an effort to eliminate the dissonance through stopping
their reciprocal behavior. Although, unbalanced investment
and unfair treatment for employees sometimes are inevitable,
managers should be careful for the decreasing their human
resources’ performance, especially extra performance. OCB
is the important factor that makes organizations competitive,
but it is also hard to be triggered and controlled because it is
discretionary behavior. It is useful to managers that they are
reducing the discrimination through eliminating unjust
system or process and shared the organization practice
orientated toward equalitarianism.
On the other hand, it still remains as a question that
future research should focus on that the employees in the
significant job are showing deeply decreasing of OCB-I when
they perceive discrimination. Clearly, they have a
responsibility to their position, however, they too easily lose
their passion. It could be only explained that the employees
who have the significant job expect receiving more positive
effect from organization so that, under the discrimination,
they are more disappointed by the situation. This
phenomenon implies that the managers look more carefully at
the employees having a significant role on the job.
Job characteristic is meaningful one of the factors of
work place environment. Through this research, it is founded
that job characteristics can influence the variables of
organizational behaviors, attitudes and the relations of them.
So, finally, it is suggested for future research to focus more
on the mechanisms of job characteristics and its relationship
with other variables.
© 2016 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ)
10
The SIJ Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 4, No. 1, January 2016
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
P.H. Bayl-Smith & B. Griffin (2014), “Age Discrimination in
the Workplace: Identifying as a Late-career Worker and its
Relationship with Engagement and Intended Retirement Age”,
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 44, No. 9, Pp. 588–
599.
G. Blau (1964), “Exchange and Power in Social Life”, New
York: Wiley.
C.C. Chen & S.F. Chiu (2009), “The Mediating Role of Job
Involvement in the Relationship between Job Characteristics
and Organizational Citizenship Behavior”, The Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 149, No. 4, Pp. 474–494.
B. Choma, C. Hafer, F. Crosby & M. Foster (2012),
“Perceptions of Personal Sex Discrimination: The Role of
Belief in a just World and Situational Ambiguity”, Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 152, No. 5, Pp. 568–585.
J. A-M. Coyle-Shapiro (2002), “A Psychological Contract
Perspective on Organizational Citizenship Behavior”, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, Pp. 927–946.
R. Cropanzano & M.S. Mitchell (2005), “Social Exchange
Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 31, No. 6, Pp. 874–900.
J.R. Hackman & G.R. Oldham (1976), “Motivation through the
Design of Work: Test of a Theory”, Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, Vol. 16, No. 2, Pp. 250–279.
J.R. Hackman & G.R. Oldham (1980), “Work Redesign”,
Reading, MA: Addison -Wesley.
G. Homans (1961), “Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms”,
New York: Harcourt Brace.
ISSN: 2321-242X
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
M.A. Korsgaard, B.M. Meglino, S.S. Jeong & S.W. Lester
(2010), “Paying you back or Paying me Forward:
Understanding Rewarded and Unrewarded Organizational
Citizenship Behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95,
No. 2, Pp. 277–290.
D. Neumark & M. McLennan (1995), “Sex Discrimination and
Women's Labor Market Outcomes”, The Journal of Human
Resources, Vol. 30, No. 4, Pp. 713–740.
D.W. Organ, P.M. Podsakoff & S.B. MacKenzie (2006),
“Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents,
and Consequences”, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
D.W. Organ (1997), “Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It's
Construct Clean-Up Time”, Human Performance, Vol. 10, No.
2, Pp. 85–97.
D.W. Organ (1988), “Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The
Good Soldier Syndrome”, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
R.F. Piccolo & J.A. Colquitt (2006), “Transformational
Leadership and Job Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Core Job
Characteristics”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49,
No. 2, Pp. 327–340.
J.F. Ragan & C.H. Tremblay (1988), “Testing for Employer
Discrimination by Race and Sex”, Journal of Human
Resources, Vol. 23, No. 1, Pp. 123–137.
S.B. MacKenzie, P.M. Podsakoff & R. Fetter (1991),
“Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Objective
Productivity as Determinants of Managerial Evaluations of
Salespersons’ Performance”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, Pp. 123–150.
L.J. Williams & S.E. Anderson (1991), “Job Satisfaction and
Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational
Citizenship and In-Role Behaviors”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17, Pp. 601–617.
© 2016 | Published by The Standard International Journals (The SIJ)
11