Dr. Sapna Premchandani
Associate Professor (Management)
SRGP Gujarati Professional Institute, DAVV,
Vijay Nagar,
Indore (M.P.) 452010
Email: premchandanisapna@yahoo.com
Mobile No: 9754460151
Dr. Manish Sitlani
Associate Professor (Management)
IIPS, Devi Ahilya University,
Takshila Campus, Khandwa Road,
Indore (M.P.) 452017
Email-msitlani1@yahoo.com
Organizational Commitment as a Predictor of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A
Study of Employees Working in Service Organizations
Abstract
The current study examined the relationship between organizational commitments and
organizational citizenship behavior. The rationale of this paper was to study whether continuous,
affective and normative organizational commitments are strong predictors of OCBO or not. The
study was being conducted by collecting data from 375 employees working in different service
organizations in Indore and nearby areas. Results of ‘Structural Equation Model’ (SEM)
indicated that proposed structural model was found to be fit and path analysis indicated that
normative commitment produced the significant effect on organizational citizenship behavior
followed by affective organizational commitment where as continuous commitment produced the
weakest effect on organizational citizenship behavior.
Key words: Continuous commitment, affective commitment, normative commitment, OCBO, SEM
etc.
INTRODUCTION
Employees are often considered as company’s most valuable assets; especially in service sector
because total worth of an organization depends on the type of people it has. In today’s dynamic
environment, to sustain a competitive advantage, companies not only have to serve quality
product or service but also retain their intellectual capital which is the main source of creativity
and innovation. Organizations are now becoming more conscious about the positive work
behaviors and want their employees to go beyond the formal level of job description that is
required to perform a job consistently (Lavelle et al, 2009). Successful organizations want
employees who will perform other than their routine assigned tasks and work beyond their
expectations. In recent times tasks are mainly done in teams with higher flexibility and positive
attitudes. These organizations require employees who trust and help each other, stay away from
avoidable conflicts and occasionally agree to task-related nuisance. This discretionary behavior
is termed as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) which is not the part of job description.
Employees and organization may have different views regarding organizational commitments
and organizational citizenship behaviors. If organization has good commitments to its members,
than they will be more loyal to their organization. Likewise, when members work beyond their
expectations; the organization will treat them well. In the field of Organizational Behavior, the
major research on OCB started in 1990s and still ongoing at a steady pace. The current research
is focused on studying the effects of affective, continuous and normative commitment in
predicting the organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in service sector. The reason for
choosing three important dimensions of organization commitment as research variables is that
they affect job behavior and ultimately organizational outcomes. Positive attitude of people helps
the organization to improve its effectiveness. Further, researcher has not found the study who
proposed the structural model of continuous, affective and normative commitment to predict
OCBO. The current study would primarily be focused to aid in a better understanding of the
OCB in service sector.
Organization Commitment:
Organizational Commitment is very much important. It is vital for good performance and
productivity of an organization. In the last decades managers and behavioral scientists have
started giving a substantial attention on the organizational commitment of employees. In the
beginning the work on organizational commitment was carried out by Bcker (1960), and
followed by Etzioni (1961), Buchanan (1974) and Mowday et al. (1982). These studies viewed
organizational commitment as a single dimension concept. Further, Porter et al. (1974) described
organizational commitment as an emotional affection to the organization, characterized by an
intuition to remain in it; identification with the values and goals of the organization; and a
willingness to put extra effort.
Organizational commitment refers to “the relative strength of an individual’s identification with
and involvement in a particular Organization (Mowday Et.al 1979)”. Strongly committed
employees are more likely to continue their membership with the organization than those with
weak commitment.
Porter, et. al. (1974), opined that commitment has of two distinctive but related concepts, namely
attitudinal and behavioral commitment. Attitudinal commitment is the extent to which an
individual is trustworthy and dedicated towards its organization. It is an individual’s
identification and participation in the organization
In the behavioral approach, the employee is said to be committed to an organization if he/she is
bound by past actions of “sunk costs” (fringe benefits, salary as a function of age and tenure).
Thus, an individual becomes “committed” to an organization because it has become too costly
for the employee to leave. In this approach, organizational commitment is depicted as more
calculated in nature (Etzioni, 1961). Becker (1960) concentrated on what he termed the ‘side-bet
theory’, which attempted to explain the process by which employees attached themselves to
organizations through investments such as time, effort and rewards.
In 1990, Allen and Meyer (and Meyer and Allen in 1997) introduced following three approaches:
affective, continuance and normative commitment:
1. Affective Commitment (positive feelings to stay with organization): The employee’s
affective or emotional connection that he feels toward to the organization. It refers to the
employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and contribution in, the
organization.
2. Continuance Commitment (cost-consciousness): The perceived costs associated with
leaving the organization such as loss of associates, retirement benefit, such as pension,
common and well known work atmosphere, etc. that are better than the benefits of
taking a new employment in any other organization, or because there is no another
employment opportunities.
3. Normative Commitment (obligation-consciousness): It refers to an employee’s feeling of
obligation to remain with the organization [as employees have internalized the values
and goals of the organization].
Organization Citizenship Behavior
Organizational Citizenship Behavior is somewhat fresh concept considered under Organizational
Behavior. Different researchers define and interpret OCB in a similar manner. Jacqueline et al.
(2004) defined it as an extra-role behavior of employees which is not a formal part of their job
behavior but somewhat they do happily as a result of organizational work situation. Todd, 2003
opined that OCB has an overall impact on organization effectiveness. Organ (1988) defined OCB
as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or unconditionally recognized by the
formal reward system, and that promotes the successful functioning of the organization”.
Further, (Organ, 1997) redefined it to better differentiate between OCB and task performance.
He defined OCB as “task performance that supports the social and psychological environment in
which it takes place”. As organizational citizenship behavior is defined as helping behavior that
goes beyond the job description or task performance, it is important to understand that the
difference between task performance and OCB. Borman, (2004) defined OCB as participation in
events, procedures or actions that are not officially a part of the job description, but that do good
to the entire organization. It is considered as one of the vital factors influencing organizational
success (Organ, Podsakoff and MacKenzie 2006). Further, Borman (2004) differentiated OCB
and task performance in two ways. First, the tasks or different work activities that are needed to
carry out a job are distinctive to each job. Employees occupying same position might perform
different tasks in different organizations. A behavior that helps in one job will likely help an
organization in another job. Second, the predictors for task performance and OCB are different.
An employee’s personality, loyalty and dedication will predict OCB; an employee’s personal
abilities, knowledge, skills, and attitude will predict their task performance. The employees will
have higher task performance only when the job assigned to them is of their interest and as per
their knowledge, skills, and abilities than will those without the proper match.
Originally (Bateman and Organ, 1983) organized OCB into altruism and compliance. Later,
Compliance was re-named with conscientiousness. Further, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic
virtue were added by Organ in 1988. Finally, peacemaking and cheerleading were added into the
list of dimensions (Organ 1990). Furthermore, altruism, cheerleading, and peacemaking were
grouped into a new category named helping behavior (Organ, 1997). Final listed dimensions of
OCB are:
1. Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness refers to impersonal behavior that benefits the
organization as a whole. It is used to indicate that a particular individual is careful, organized,
responsible and hardworking.
2. Sportsmanship. Sportsmanship is an employee’s readiness to deal with unavoidable
inconvenience and poor situations without complaints or grievances, thus saving organizational
energies for job completion and reducing the workloads of managers (Organ and Ryan, 1995;
Organ, 1990).
3. Courtesy. Courtesy is demonstrated by preventing organization problems through
communication and general consideration for others.
4. Civic Virtue. Civic virtue is participating in the life and culture of the organization; this is not
considered behavior that is targeted at individuals, rather, this behavior targets the organization.
5. Helping behavior. Helping behavior includes altruism, peacekeeping, and cheerleading.
Voluntarily familiarize a new employee with organization, solving conflicts among employees,
and acknowledging fellow employees’ accomplishments.
In addition to this, (Williams and Anderson, 1991) categorized OCB into OCBI, behavior that is
directed towards the individual (i.e. courtesy and helping behavior) and OCBO, behavior that is
directed towards the organization (i.e. conscientiousness, civic virtue, and sportsmanship).
Further, Podsakoff, et al. (2009) conducted a research and reported that individual-level behavior
is likely to be related with performance evaluation ratings and reward allotment, where as
Organizational-level behavior was found to be related with employee competence, organizational
return, and productivity among employees.
Lee and Allen (2002) constructed a 16-item scale to measure OCBI and OCBO. The scale
includes statements that describe either OCBI or OCBO behavior which is useful in determining
the type of OCB that an individual is most likely to perform. Of the 16 items on the scale, eight
represent OCBI behaviors and eight represent OCBO behaviors. In the current study,
researchers picked eight statements that describe Organization Citizenship Behavior
towards Organization (OCBO) as one of the research variables.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A comprehensive review of available literature related to exogenous and endogenous constructs/
independent and dependent variables are carefully reviewed to explore the existing state of
research. From the review of relevant literature, it was found that Job-related attitudes influence
subsequent organizational citizenship behavior. Dick et al. (2006) opined that citizenship seems
to be discretionary behaviors of employees and the way they perceives the organization would
most likely affect their attitude to either perform well or withhold such performance.
OCB in general refers to behaviors that affect the organization or its members positively
(Poncheri, 2006). Turnipseed and Rassuli, 2005 defined OCB as protecting the organization
when it is criticized or advice peers to invest in the organization, or a behavior that exceeds
routine expectations (Joireman et al. 2006).
Organizational Commitment and OCB
Organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors are two undividable
constructs and very much related to employee and organizational performance. Several
researches, (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Organ and Ryan, 1995; Williams, Pitre and Zanuba,
2002) emphasized on organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors at
improving employee performance. (Rehan and Islam, 2013) have found organizational
commitment as an important antecedent of organizational citizenship behaviors. Further, they
opined that organizational commitment precedes organizational citizenship behaviors because
employee loyalty and identification with the organization result positive employee behaviors.
LePine, Erez and Johnson (2002) and linked organizational commitment with increased
organizational citizenship behavior
OCB can be affected by instilling in employees a perception of expertise in their job tasks (Todd,
2003). Organizational commitment has been conceptualized as composed of affective,
continuance, and normative commitments (Meyer and Allen 1984; Allen and Meyer 1990).
Employees tend to accomplish more for their organizations in a positive manner when they have
a strong emotional attachment to their organizations; therefore, their high affective
organizational commitment is expected to have a positive effect on their work behaviors,
including OCB. (Meyer et al.1989). Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is anything
constructive and productive those employees do, on their own wish, which supports co-workers
and benefits the organization. In general, employees who commonly show positive OCB may not
always be the top performers, but they are the ones who are known to ‘go the extra mile’ or ‘go
above and beyond’ the minimum efforts required to do a merely satisfactory job. Murali
Kumarn. C et al. (2013) reported a significant relationship between citizenship behavior and
organizational commitment. OCBs yield significantly higher outcomes in the long term than in
the short term for the organization (Joireman et al. 2006).
Social exchange theory specifies that an employee engages in OCB because the organization has
given them a good job and treats them equitably and fairly. This positive treatment compelled
these employees to give back to the organization that has given them so much. The employees
feel that they owe the organization and they attempt to pay back the organization through
performing OCB. Organizational concern is comprised of two elements. First, the individual
wants to help the organization because he or she associates with it. Second, the individual
believes that by impacting the organization in a positive manner he or she is also impacting the
individuals within the organization (Halbesleben et al., 2010). Additionally, Rioux and Penner’s
(2001), indicated that organizational concern is more associated with OCBO than OCBI
Zoe, S. D. (2007); found organizational commitments as predictor of organizational citizenship
behaviors. David et al (2008) focusing on the organizational commitment and found that it has an
impact on the organizational citizenship behavior. In one study, a meta-analysis has shown that
OCB correlated with organizational commitment (Jen, 2004). In the other research, Aaron (2004)
reported that organizational commitment was positively related to OCB.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The main objectives of the current study is


To explore the effect of various dimensions of Organization Commitment on OCBO in
service sector.
To propose and validate a structural model for studying the effects of various dimensions
of organization commitment on OCBO in service sector.
The sub-objectives are
i.
ii.
iii.
To explore the effect of continuous commitment on OCBO in service organizations.
To explore the effect of affective commitment on OCBO in service organizations.
To explore the effect of normative commitment on OCBO in service organizations.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Sample
The study was carried on 375 executives working in service industry in Indore and nearby
geographical areas, who were selected on convenient basis. The broad industries included within
were various banks, hospitals, big departmental stores, hospitality etc. Of the total number of
participants 66% were male and 34% were female with the age ranged from 25 to 56 years and
above and 47.2% had work experience of 1-10 years, 29.1% had 11-20 years’ experience, 20.5%
had 21-30 years, and 3.2% had above 31 years of work experience. Further, 21.6% were
traditional graduate, 24.5% traditional post graduate, 19.5% professional graduate, 34.4%
professional post graduate.
Tools for data collection
The instrument used in this study was a questionnaire developed on the basis of standard
measures taken from the relevant literature, validated across a large number of earlier studies. It
composed of 3 parts. The first part of the questionnaire deals with the questions related to the
demographic attributes of the employees. The second part contains a 19-item scale to determine
the level of organizational commitment. It is the enhanced scale proposed by Stephen Jaros
(2007), which is originally based on Meyer and Allen’s (1997) three-component model for the
measurement of organizational commitment.
Affective commitment: This index is used as a measure of employee affection with the
organization and is composed of seven items.
Continuous commitment: This index measures employee’ perceived costs associated with
leaving the organization and is composed of six items.
Normative commitment: This index measures employee’s feeling of obligation to remain with
the organization and is composed of six items.
Finally, in the third part, Lee and Allen’s (2002) scale that measures OCBO and OCBI was used
to measure the type of OCB intention. Of the 16 items on the scale, researcher picked eight items
of OCBO to carry out the study.
All the items (27) were intermixed in the questionnaire in order to avoid the same answer pattern
and are required to be completely filled. Participants were asked to evaluate themselves on each
of the item with response possibilities ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree.
DATA ANALYSIS
The data analysis was conducted with the help of SPSS 21.0 and SPSS Amos 21.0. On the basis
of variables and dimensions identified through available literature, Confirmatory Factor Analysis
was conducted to estimate and validate the measurement model. Thereafter, structural
relationships were proposed and related hypotheses relationship between independent and
dependent variables were tested through Structured Equation Modeling (SEM).
CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), a technique used to estimate measurement model which is
the very first step in Structural Equation Model (SEM). The main purpose of this estimation is to
specify the loading of each observed item (indicator) on a particular dimension (construct) and to
assure reliability and validity of measures and constructs. It has been discussed below:
CONSTRUCTS OF THE MEASUREMENT MODEL
The current study was undertaken on the basis of four constructs represented by 27 measured
parameters, which were identified from the available literature. These have been shown in the
following table-1, followed by proposed measurement model:
Refer Table-1
PROPOSED MEASUREMENT MODEL
Refer Fig-1
GOODNESS OF FIT OF MEASUREMENT MODEL
Goodness of Fit means how well the specified model reproduces the covariance matrix among
the indicator items (Malhotra and dash, 2011).
A four-factor measurement model was set up, and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
conducted to test the measurement model. The Goodness of Fit of model was evaluated on
different absolute fit indices such as goodness-of-fit-index (GFI) and adjusted goodness-of-fit
index (AGFI). Higher values are desirable, where as error or deviation was assessed by badness
2
of-fit, such as chi-square (X ), root mean square residual (RMSR), and the root mean square
residual error of approximation (RMSEA) so lower values of these indices are desirable. The
related values have been exhibited in table 2 below:
Refer Table-2
It can be seen from the table-2 that, all the fit indices collectively indicate that overall fit of the
measurement model is within the acceptable ranges.
Reliability and Validity of the Measurement Model
After assessing the fitness of measurement model-data, its reliability and validity were assessed,
which have been discussed below:
A standardized factor loading (SFLs) was used to test item reliability and composite reliability
was used to test construct reliability. Further, convergent validity was assessed by average
variance extracted (AVE). AVE is the variance in the indicators or observed variables that is
explained by the latent construct. Discriminant validity is achieved if the square root of the AVE
is larger than the correlation coefficients. In the current study, researcher dropped the item
OCBO-16 because of the negative factor loading. All the related values have been exhibited in
table 3 below:
Refer Table-3
As seen from table-3 above , Composite Reliability (CR) values for various measures such as
continuous commitment, affective commitment, OCBO and normative commitment were found
to be highly satisfactory 0.946, 0.958, 0.941, and 0.956 respectively, which exceeded the
recommended cutoff value of 0.7; and is reasonable enough to conclude that the scales are
reliable. AVE values were found to be greater than 0.7 and each item loading was greater than
0.70, which provides empirical support for the convergent validity.
Discriminant validity is achieved if the square root of AVE is larger than the correlation
coefficients. Results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicted that proposed measurement
model was said to be appropriate because of good model fitness and accepted values of
reliability and validity parameters.
SEM ANALYSIS
Conducting Path Analysis to Test Hypothesized Casual Relationship
After confirming the various dimensions and related variables of measurement model, a
structural model was proposed to test the hypothesized relationship between the constructs.
Finally, 26 measured variables with four constructs were taken together to develop structural
model. Organizational citizenship behavior toward organization (OCBO) is being taken as
endogenous (dependent) variable, whereas three dimensions i.e. Continuance Commitment (a),
Affective Commitment (b), and Normative Commitment (d) were taken as exogenous
(independent) variables. Following hypotheses were proposed to test the hypothesized
relationships:
H1 Continuous commitment will have direct and significant effect on OCBO in service
organization.
H2 Affective commitment will have direct and significant effect on OCBO in service
organization.
H3 Normative commitment will have direct and significant effect on OCBO in service
organization.
The proposed structural model has been exhibited in figure 2 below:
Proposed Structural Model
Refer Fig-2
Assessment of Proposed Structural Model
Refer table-4
It can be seen from table-4 that proposed structural model was found to fit the data satisfactorily
as the fit values were well within the acceptable ranges [X2=1762.885, p < 0.001, CFI=0.836,
NFI= 0.898, RMR=0.071]. As with the NFI, values for this statistic range between 0 and 1.0
with values closer to 1.0 indicating good fit. Though, experts like Malhotra, and Dash, (2011);
Hu and Bentler (1999), recommended the value of NFI, CFI and various other fit indices as 0.9
but some recommendations as low as 0.80 and above as a cutoff have also been preferred.
Collectively, these fit indices indicated that the structural model is acceptable.
HYPOTHESIS TESTING
The proposed hypothesized relationships were tested using path analysis, and the result of the
same has been exhibited below:
Refer Table-5
As seen from the table above, the effect of continuous commitment on OCBO is in hypothesized
direction and was statistically significant at 0.001 with standardized path coefficient (β) value
0.12, thus research hypothesis, H1 namely continuous commitment will have direct and
significant effect on OCBO in service organization is partially supported.
In H2, it was hypothesized that the affective commitment will have direct and significant effect
on OCBO in service organization. Table-5, (fig-2) showed that the effect of affective
commitment on OCBO is in hypothesized direction and was statistically significant at 0.001 with
standardized path coefficient (β) value 0.32, thus researcher accepted that affective commitment
produced the positive influence over OCBO.
H3 predicted that normative commitment will have direct and significant effect on OCBO in
service organization. As indicated in table-5, (fig-2) that the effect of normative commitment on
OCBO is in hypothesized direction and was statistically significant at 0.001 with standardized
path coefficient (β) value 0.94. This result strongly supported researcher’s belief that normative
commitment positively influences OCBO.
As all the hypothesized relationships were found significant, the proposed structured model
appeared to be the final structural model relating the dependent and independent constructs.
DISCUSSION
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is the term used to explain employees’ constructive
approach towards job roles and the organization. Organizational commitment and organizational
citizenship behaviors are considered as two indivisible constructs and very much linked to
employee and organizational performance. Several researchers including O’Reilly and
Chatman, (1986); Organ and Ryan, (1995) and Williams, Pitre and Zanuba, (2002) have
emphasized on organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors to
improve employee performance. In line with his, the current research studied the effects of
organizational commitments on OCBO. First, the study result indicated that the structural model
for continuous, affective and normative commitment and OCBO was confirmed. Second,
findings of path analysis indicated that normative commitment produced the significant effect on
organizational citizenship behavior followed by affective organizational commitment where as
continuous commitment produced the weakest effect on organizational citizenship behavior. This
finding of current study was consistent with the findings of Kilic (2013), which revealed a
positive relationship between affective commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors but
a positive and weak relationship between continuance commitment and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Finally, findings of the study revealed that affective and normative
commitments can strongly predict OCBO than continuous commitment.
CONCLUSION
Organizational citizenship behavior is considered as an important key for organizational
competitiveness, productivity and endurance in the fast changing global market. Murphy,
Athanasau and Neville (2002), opined that success, growth, efficiency and achievements, of any
organization depend on the behaviors of its employees. In order get these desirable behaviors,
various researchers have found organizational commitments as important antecedents’ to
organizational citizenship behaviors, Alizadeh et al (2012). Current study concluded that highly
affectionate employees are more loyal, perceive themselves as a member of the organization and
inculcate organizational values into their behaviors. They feel obligation to continue their
membership with no or less intention to quit the organization. Finally, it is interpreted that
affective and normative commitments can be strong predictors of OCBO; whereas continuous
commitment is perceived to be a week predictor.
IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS



Findings from this study have important and practical implications.
The study has revealed that organization commitment was strongly correlated with
organizational citizenship behavior towards organization. This becomes an important implication
for organizations because if employees are highly committed and loyal, than organizations
should reciprocate their loyalty in a positive way by treating them well. It is recommended that
organizations should follow such practices that are instrumental in inculcating commitment and
loyalty in employees
One of the prior studies, Alizadeh et al (2012) opined organization commitment as one of the
important antecedents of OCB. It may mean that continuous, affective and normative
commitments can increase the occurrence of positive behaviors (OCBO). It is advisable that
management should match individual as well as organizational interests to develop the positive
attitude among employees.
As the current study concluded organization commitments as predictors of organizational
citizenship behavior towards organization (OCBO). This implies that successful organizations
require employees who continuously show positive attitude and good job behaviors. So,
organizations should create the positive work environment, giving employees the platform of
growth and development to enhance their citizenship behavior.
LIMITATIONS AND SCOPE FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The current study has certain limitations attached with it. First, the size of sample (375) studied
is not considered as large enough to generalize the findings of the study. A larger sample would
be more appropriate which may facilitate in validating the findings. Second, the sample has been
chosen from different service organizations in Indore and nearby areas, and so it still needs to be
explored whether the findings of this study can be replicated in different sectors and
geographical area for further verification and generalization. Third, current study is undertaken
with the standardized measures taken from the available literature, future research could be done
by developing and validating the new measures for the variables in the study.
REFERENCES
Aaron, C. and Yardena, K. (2004), "Professionalism and organizational citizenship behavior: An
empirical examination among Israeli nurses," Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 19, pp.
386-405.
Alizadeh, Z., Darvishi, S., Nazari, K. and Emami, M. (2012). “Antecedents and consequences of
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)”. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research
in Business, 3 (9), 494-505.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization. Jounal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1-18.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252 276.
Bateman, T. S., and Organ, D. W. (1983.). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship
between affect and "citizenship." Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595. Doi:
10.2307/255908
Becker, H. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32
– 42.
Borman, W.C. (2004). The concept of organizational citizenship. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 13, 238-241. Doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.70
Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organization commitment: The socialization of managers in
work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 533–546.
David, A. F., and Thomas, L. T. (2008) "Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB): does team commitment make a difference in self-directed teams?," Management
Decision, vol. 46, pp. 933-947,
Dick, R.,Grojean, M., Christ, O., and Wieseke, J. (2006). Identity and the Extra Mile:
Relationships between Organizational Identification and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour.
British Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp.283–301.
Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organisations. New York:Free Press.
Halbesleben, J.R.B, Bowler, W.M., Bolino, M.C., and Turnley, W.H. (2010). Organizational
concern, prosocial values, or impression management? How supervisors attribute motives to
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1450-1489. Doi:
10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00625.x
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), "Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure
Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives," Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1),
1-55.
Jacqueline, A-M.,Shapiro, C., Kessler, I., and Purcell, J. (2004). Exploring Organizationally
Directed Citizenship Behaviour: Reciprocity or ‘It’s my job’? Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 41, pp. 1.
Jen, H. H. Bih; H. J. and Chyan, Y. (2004) "Satisfaction with business-to-employee benefits
systems and organizational citizenship behavior: An examination of gender differences,"
International Journal of Manpower, vol. 25, pp. 195-210.
Joireman, J.,Daniels, D., Falvy, J., and Kamdar, D. (2006). Organizational Citizenship Behavior
as Function Of Empathy Consideration of Future Consequences, And Employee Time Horizon:
An Initial Exploration Using An In-Basket Simulation of OCBs. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 36, No. 9, pp. 2266–2292.
Kashif, M., Khan, Y., and Rafi, M. (2011). An Exploration of the determinants of OCB in the
telecommunication sector of Pakistan. Asian Journal of Business Management, 3(2), 91-97.
Kilic, E. (2013). The relationship among organizational commitment and organizational
citizenship behavior: A research study on call center employees."IS, GUC" Industrial Relations
and Human Resources Journal, 15 (3), 83-93.
Lavelleet al, (2009). Commitment, procedural fairness, and organizational citizenship behavior: a
multi focianalysis” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 337–357 doi: 10.1002/job.518.
Lee, K., and Allen, N.J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: the
role of affect and cognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142. Doi: 10.1037//00219010.87.1.131
Lee, K., and Allen, N.J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: the
role of affect and cognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142. Doi: 10.1037//0021
9010.87.1.131
LePine, J.A., Erez, A. and Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of
organizational citizenship behaviour: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 52-5.
Malhotra, N., K. and Dash, S., (2011). Marketing Research: An applied Orientation, sixth
edition,
Meyer, J.P., and Allen, N.J. (1984). Testing the ‘side-bet theory’ of organizational commitment:
some methodological considerations, Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 372-378.
Meyer, J.P., and Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and
application. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Meyer, J.P., Paunonen, S.V., Gellatly, I.R., Goffin, R.D., and Jackson, D.N. (1989).
Organizational commitment and job performance: it’s nature of the commitment that counts,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 152-156.
Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., and Steers, R.M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The
psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover. San Diego,CA: Academic Press.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M.,and Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14: 224 –247.
Murali Kumaran, C., and Sivasubramanian, M. (2013). A Study on Organizational Citizenship
Behavior and Organizational Commitment among Employees. International Journal of
Management Volume 4, Issue 4, 103-110
Murphy, G., Athanasau, J., and Neville, K. (2002). Job satisfaction and organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 287-297.
O’Reilly, C., and Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological
attachment: the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on pro-social
behaviour. Journal of Applid Psychology, 7, 492-499.
Organ D, Podsakoff P, MacKenzie S (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature,
antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage Publications. p. 34.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: the good soldier syndrome. (pp. 143). Lexington: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1990), “The Motivational Basis of Organizational Citizenship Behavior”, in B. M.
Staw and L. L. Cumming (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, 12: 43-72, Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: it's construct clean-up time. Human
Performance, 10, 85-97. Doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2
Organ, D. W. and K. Ryan (1995), “A Meta-Analytic Review of Additional and Dispositional
Predictors of Organizational Behavior”, Personal Psychology, 48: 775-802.
Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M., and Blume, B.D. (2009). Individual- and
organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122-141. Doi: 10.1037/a0013079
Poncheri, R. (2006). The Impact of Work Context on the Prediction of Job Performance. North
Carolina State University.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., and Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 59, 603–609.
Rehan, M.F., and Islam, T. (2013). Relationship between organizational commitment
and citizenship behaviours. World'Journal'of'Management'and'Behavioral'Studies, 1 (1),
24<32.
Rioux, S. M., and Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: a
motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1306-1314. Doi: 10.1037//00219010.86.6.1306
Stephen Jaros (2007). The Icfai 8 Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. VI, No. 4.
Todd, S. (2003) A Causal Model Depicting the Influence of Selected Task and Employee
Variables on Organizational Citizenship Behavior.
Turnipseed, D., and Rassuli, A. (2005). Performance Perceptions of Organizational Citizenship
Behaviours at Work: A Bi-Level Study Among Managers And Employees. British Journal of
Management, Vol. 16, pp. 231–244.
Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-role and
extra-role behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 98–107.
Williams L, Anderson S (1991).Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors
of Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behaviors. J. Manage., 17:601-617
Williams, S., Pitre, R., and Zanuba, M. (2002). Justice and organizational citizenship behavior
intentions: Fair rewards versus fair treatment. The journal of social psychology, 142 (1), 33-44.
Yilmaz, K., and Bokeoglu, O.C. (2008). Organizational citizenship and organizational
commitment in Turkish primary schools. World Applied Sciences Journal, 3, 775-780.
Zoe, S. D. (2007) "The influence of service climate and job involvement on customer-oriented
organizational citizenship behavior in Greek service organizations: a survey," Employee
Relations, vol. 29, pp. 469-491.
Table-1
CONSTRUCTS WITH THEIR ABBREVIATION AND NUMBER OF MEASURED
VARIABLES IN MEASUREMENT MODEL
Constructs
Abbreviation
Continuous Commitment CC
Affective Commitment AC
Organization Citizenship Behavior
towards Organization. OCBO
Normative Commitment NC
a
b
c
No of measured
variables
6
7
8
d
Total
6
27
Table-2
GOODNESS OF FIT INDICES OF PROPOSED MEASUREMENT MODEL
Absolute fit indices
Model fit index
goodness-of-fit-index (GFI)
adjusted goodness-of-fit-index (AGFI)
chi-square (X2)
chi-square (X2)/df
root mean square residual (RMSR)
root mean square residual error of
approximation (RMSEA)
Recommended value
>0.90
>0.80
P</=0.05
<3.0
<0.09
<0.08
Value for measurement model
0.875
0.852
.000
3.343
0.005
0.064
Table-3
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASUREMENT MODEL
CFA Results of the Indicator Variables in Measurement Model
Construct
Continuous
commitment
Affective
commitment
Scale
Items
Std. Factor
Loading
(SRW)
Error
CC1
0.87
0.25
CC2
CC3
CC4
CC5
CC6
AF7
AF8
AF9
AF10
AF11
AF12
0.80
0.61
0.86
0.83
0.83
0.76
0.86
0.82
0.87
0.85
0.84
0.23
0.20
0.15
0.26
0.20
0.14
0.20
0.17
0.22
0.24
0.24
Composite
Reliability
(CR)
>.7
Average Variance
Extracted (AVE)
Convergent
validity, >.5
Square
Root of
AVE
0.946
0.75
0.87
0.958
0.77
0.88
OCBO
Normative
commitment
AF13
OCBO14
OCBO15
OCBO16
OCBO17
OCBO18
OCBO19
OCBO20
OCBO21
NC22
NC23
NC24
NC25
NC26
NC27
0.64
0.90
0.90
-0.22
0.82
0.88
0.82
0.77
0.76
0.89
0.87
0.80
0.75
0.83
0.77
0.18
0.26
0.24
0.19
0.21
0.27
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.29
0.26
0.29
0.24
0.23
0.18
0.956
0.72
0.85
0.941
0.76
0.87
Table-4
GOODNESS-OF-FIT STATISTICS (STRUCTURAL MODEL)
Incremental fit indices
Model fit index
Normed fit index (NFI)
Comparative fit-index (CFI)
chi-square (X2)
root mean square residual (RMSR)
Recommended value
>0.90
>0.80
P</=0.05
<0.09
Value for measurement model
0.898
0.836
.001
0.071
Table-5
RESULTS OF HYPOTHESIS TESTING
Path Analysis Results
Hypothesis
Path Relationship
Std. Path Coefficient
Significance p
Support
H1
a→c
CC→OCBO
0.12
***
√
H2
b→c
AC→OCBO
0.32
***
√
H3
d→c
NC→OCBO
0.94
***
√
***p<0.001
Fig. 1
PROPOSED MEASUREMENT MODEL
FIG-2: PROPOSED STRUCTURAL MODEL
Abbreviations
Exogenous Variables
a- Continuous commitment (CC)
b- Affective commitment (AC)
d- Normative commitment (NC)
Endogenous Variable
c- Organizational Citizenship
Behavior toward Organization
(OCBO)