You are on page 1of 14

International Journal of Public Administration

ISSN: 0190-0692 (Print) 1532-4265 (Online) Journal homepage:

Citizenship as Targeted Behavior: Responses to

Organizational Justice and the Role of Culture

Muhammad Mubbashar Hassan, Sundas Azim & Syed Moqaddas Abbas

To cite this article: Muhammad Mubbashar Hassan, Sundas Azim & Syed Moqaddas Abbas
(2016): Citizenship as Targeted Behavior: Responses to Organizational Justice and the Role of
Culture, International Journal of Public Administration, DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2015.1136943

To link to this article:

Published online: 14 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 19

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] Date: 17 April 2016, At: 23:01

Citizenship as Targeted Behavior: Responses to Organizational Justice and the

Role of Culture
Muhammad Mubbashar Hassan, Sundas Azim, and Syed Moqaddas Abbas
Management Sciences Department, Mohammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad, Pakistan

The study aimed at reviewing citizenship as targeted behavior in response to justice perceptions Cross-cultural; equity;
and investigating the role of within-culture differences on citizenship responses to organizational organizational citizenship
behavior; Pakistan
fairness perceptions. Data were solicited from 150 employees and their supervisors representing
various public sector entities of Pakistan. Results showed that distributive and interactional fair-
ness predict interpersonal organizational citizenship behavior. Organizational fairness did not
predict citizenship behavior targeted at organizations. Organizational justice had negative values
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016

of citizenship behavior for higher values of collectivism. Findings and implications for human
resource management practitioners and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Introduction (equity theory) aspects of a wider social exchange per-

spective (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000).
Employee dependence on employing organizations for
However, responses to justice are not the same across
the fulfillment of economic needs creates an exchange
cultures and individual differences within cultures also
relationship between the two, resulting in reciprocity of
exist (Brockner et al., 2001; Elamin, 2012, Farh, Earley, &
the sort of treatment received (Adams, 1965; Gouldner,
Lin, 1997; Farh et al., 2004). Moreover, Cheung (2013)
1960). Accordingly, in exchange for equitable treatment,
voiced the concern that most of the OJ studies have been
employees exhibit behaviors that benefit the organization
conducted in the Western countries, especially North
and are beyond those formally required (Aryee, Budhwar,
America, and those applicability of those results in
& Chen, 2002; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Coyle-
other cultures may be questionable (p. 554). On the
Shapiro, Kessler, & Purcell, 2004; Poncheri, 2006).
other side, Hui, Lee, and Rousseau (2004) stated that a
However, responses to fairness information are not the
countrys prevalent culture can alter the impact of
same across cultures and within-culture individual differ-
known predictors on organizational citizenship beha-
ences also exist (Lam, Schaubroeck, & Aryee, 2002;
viors (OCBs). These differences of justice perceptions
Moorman & Blakely, 1995). The current study draws
and known fluctuations in OCBs due to the culture
theoretical support from the phenomenal work of
warrant the need to study this important relationship
Hofstede (1983) and supporting literature to investigate
in a collectivist culture. In the collectivistic culture of
the role of within-culture individual differences on
Pakistan, the role of individual differences in individu-
responses to organizational justice (OJ) perceptions in a
alism/collectivism on responses to justice perceptions
predominantly collectivistic society.
remains understudied.
According to the social exchange theory, negotiated
In the Pakistani context, Quratulain, Khan, and Peretti
exchanges form the basis of social relationships (Blau,
(2012) found OJ to be more strongly associated with
1964; Emerson, 1976; Homans, 1958). In line with the
OCBs for employees with individualistic orientations.
theory, behavioral responses to justice perceptions have
However, individualism did not influence responses to
been described as manifestations of social exchange at
justice in other researches (Lam et al., 2002).
the workplace (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).
Furthermore, studies have also shown that collectivistic
Employees also weigh outcomes received against inputs
values are more strongly related to favorable responses to
given to the organization (Adams, 1963, 1965). In other
justice (Moorman & Blakely, 1995). This disparity in
words, responses to justice perceptions at the workplace
literature and the dearth of researches on the topic in
converge social (social exchange) and organizational

CONTACT Muhammad Mubbashar Hassan Management Sciences Department, Mohammad Ali Jinnah University,
Islamabad Expressway, Kahuta Road, Zone-V, Islamabad, Pakistan. Tel: 00923008567080.
2016 Taylor & Francis

Pakistan calls for further studies. Additionally, Organs Literature review

(1989) dimensions of OCB used by Quratulain et al.
Organizational justice
(2012) are not suitable for all business contexts as shown
by Gupta and Singh (2012). They proposed OCB be In accordance with the basic economic theory, the idea
studied as individually and organizationally directed of unlimited wants and the distribution of limited
behavior in the collectivist Indian culture. Because resources (Robbins, 2008) is likely to cause satisfaction
Pakistani and Indian cultures are alike in being collectivist to few and dissatisfaction to many, triggering feelings of
(Hofstede, 1983), this study assesses OCB in Pakistan as inequity. At the workplace, justice perceptions are
directed behavior through William and Andersons formed after evaluations of decisions regarding various
(1991) interpersonal and organizational dimensions of aspects of work (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan,
OCB, answering calls for studies on workplace behavior 2005). The construct of OJ has its roots in the equity
in a nonwestern culture. The said scales are comprehen- theory (Adams, 1963, 1965), whereby employees tend
sive and capture OCB most inclusively (Podsakoff, to reduce inequity caused by a disparity in their out-
Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). come/input ratio and by a comparison of the outcome/
While a large number of studies on OCB have been input ratio with that of others (Greenberg, 1990a; Lam
conducted in the past, the public sector remains rela- et al., 2002). OJ refers to peoples perceptions of fair-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016

tively understudied. The need to study these concepts ness in their organizations (Colquitt et al., 2005). It has
in the public sector is very much present because the assumed a multidimensional structure over time, with
public organizations employment dynamics and the three-dimensional model finding most support.
employees attitudes and behaviors are very different Researchers focused on the distributive dimension of
from that of the corporate sector. For example, Rainey justice during the distributive justice wave from the
(1991) stated that the wage structure of public sector 1950s to the 1970s (Colquitt et al., 2005). Distributive
employees is lower than that of the private sector justice refers to employee perceptions of organizational
employees but they have a more stable work environ- fairness regarding rewards allocation. However, later
ment and their jobs are more secure. Similarly, Shim studies began focusing on other justice dimensions.
and Faerman (2015) stated that motivational bases for Other dimensions of OJ tap justice as fairness of
government employees to be engaged in prosocial procedures governing decisions (procedural justice)
behavior might be different from those of private sector and communication with employees and treatment
employees (p. 26). Moreover, most of the public orga- with dignity and respect (interactional justice). Work
nizations orientation is toward serving the society, on procedural justice in the organizational setting
whereas the private sector is mostly concerned with began with the work of Leventhal (1980). Bies and
financial results. These significant differences necessi- Moag (1986) introduced interactional justice as justice
tate the need for more studies to be conducted on perceptions related to the quality of interpersonal treat-
public sector in order to establish a framework for ment received when procedures are implemented.
public organizations managers to enhance such pro- Treatment with dignity and the communication dimen-
organization behaviors. sion were later differentiated into informational justice
This study investigated OCB responses to justice in and interpersonal justice (Colquitt, 2001; Greenberg,
various public sector entities of Pakistan. An under- 1990b). However, the three-dimensional model of OJ
standing of individual differences in employees justice remains most widely investigated and OJ as a construct
perceptions should help shape policies that are per- has implications for a wide range of individual and
ceived as fair, enabling employees to exhibit citizen- organizational outcomes (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992;
ship behaviors in return. OCBs are known to improve Wooten & Cobb, 1999).
individual and organizational performance; hence, the Researches in Western cultures show that distributive
emphasis in literature on the construct (Ozer, 2011; justice does not influence citizenship behaviors
Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). Overall, the study (Moorman, 1991). Individuals in those cultural and
attempted to highlight the importance of justice to organizational settings value fair procedures and com-
enable organizations to form policies perceived as munication more than rewards. Americans, for example,
fair and to make way for increased theoretical under- are likely to believe fair procedures will lead to fair
standing of individual orientations of culture as a distribution of outcomes even if outcomes are currently
moderator of justice perceptions in a predominantly low (McFarlin & Sweeney, 2001). Interactional justice is
collectivistic culture. also of prime importance for perceptions of justice as

employees believe they are entitled to treatment with In being influenced by motives (Rioux & Penner,
dignity (Miller, 2001). Considerable amount of literature 2001), OCBs may not be overlooked as passive behavior
from those countries assesses fairness as procedural and without an aim. The beneficiary perspective assumes
interactional fairness (Skarlicki & Latham, 1997). that OCBs benefit selected entities of an employees
However, employees in some societies may value distri- organization. A beneficiary of OCB may be the organi-
butive justice more than fair procedures and interaction. zation, peers, or supervisors that benefit from such
behaviors. Accordingly, two categories of OCB, that
is, interpersonal citizenship behavior (OCBI) and citi-
Organizational citizenship behavior
zenship behavior directed toward the organization
First proposed by Bateman and Organ (1983), the concept (OCBO) form the prime dimensions of OCB
of OCBs became widely studied for their individual and (Williams & Anderson, 1991). OCBI includes behaviors
organizational-level consequences and implications for that benefit individuals and are indirectly beneficial for
organizational effectiveness (Podsakoff, Ahearne, & the organization, whereas OCBO are behaviors that are
MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 2009; Walz & Niehoff, beneficial for the organization as a whole.
1996). Employees display OCBs whenever they defend It is hard to find studies in the public sector where
their employing organization in response to it being criti- OCB is operationalized using a beneficiary perspective,
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016

cized and urge their colleagues to invest in the organization that is, OCBI and OCBO. One such example is a study
(Turnipseed & Rassuli, 2005). Such behaviors are discre- by Pandey, Wright, and Moynihan (2008) where
tionary, not formally rewarded, benefit the organization, Interpersonal Citizenship Behavior, that is, helping
and induce other forms of helping behaviors (Deckop, behaviors directed at co-workers (p. 91) is found to be
Cirka, & Andersson, 2003; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; an outcome of public service motivation. Another
Organ, 1988; Skarlicki & Latham, 1997; VanDyne & recent example is Cheungs (2013) study where the
LePine, 1998). VanYpreen, Berg & Willering (1999) sug- impact of interactional (interpersonal and informa-
gested OCBs are behaviors and gestures that are not pre- tional) justice is explored on OCBI and OCBO sepa-
scribed and are distinguishable from enforceable in-role rately. While a recent study by Shahzad, Siddiqui, and
behaviors. These include helping behaviors (George & Zakaria (2014) explored a similar model in Pakistan,
Brief, 1992; George & Jones, 1997), sportsmanship OCB was not studied from the beneficiary perspective
(MacKenzie et al., 1999; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994), leaving unclear conclusion on the target of that OCB.
organizational loyalty (Graham, 1991), and defending While Lilly (2015) did segregate OCB by its target, she
organizational objectives (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, only used OCBO and reported a positive impact of all
1997), among others (Podaskoff, Mackenzie, Paine, & three justice dimensions on OCBO. The main advan-
Bachrach, 2000). tage of using such a framework is that the target of
The concept of OCB has its roots in social exchange OCB (individuals or the organization) stands out
theory framework (Deckop, Mangel, & Cirka, 1999). clearly so that the recipient being ignored can be stu-
Accordingly, organizations that solicit feedback are fair died in further detail for possible solutions for
and provide a supportive environment such as fairness improvement.
and obligate employees to reciprocate (Blau, 1964;
Sommer & Kulkarni, 2012). Researchers have pointed out
Organizational justice and organizational
various predictors of OCB such as personality traits,
citizenship behavior
employee perceptions of fairness, job satisfaction, leader
behaviors, task characteristics, motives, and role identity As repeatedly demonstrated by empirical findings
(Finkelstein & Penner, 2004; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Pareke including meta-analyses, fairness perceptions at the
& Susetyo, 2011). Regardless of the antecedents, employees workplace largely impact employee citizenship beha-
reciprocate favorable reward allocation decisions with posi- viors (Chen, Len, Tung, & Ko, 2008;
tive behaviors such as OCBs(Podsakoff et al., 2009). Goudarzvandchegini, Gilaninia, & Abdesonboli, 2011;
Furthermore, OCBs are influenced by culture. For instance, Kamdar, McAllister, & Turban, 2006; LePine, Erez, &
people in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan view courtesy Johnson, 2002; Messer & White, 2006; Podsakoff et al.,
and sportsmanship as in-role behavior unlike people in 2000) by fostering feelings of support, trust, and emo-
Australia and the US (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007). In tional well-being among employees (Aryee et al., 2002;
the Pakistani context, Bukhari (2008) and Bukhari, Ali, Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998; Moorman,
Shahzad, and Bashir (2009) found altruism, conscientious- Niehoff, & Organ, 1993). Furthermore, in accordance
ness, and civic virtue as crucial determinants of discretion- with the social exchange theory (Homans, 1958),
ary behaviors. employees who experience discrimination (Ensher,

Grant-Vallone, & Donaldson, 2001) and injustice lim- In view of the literature cited above, hypotheses were
its contributions toward the organization to formal formulated to test the relationship between OJ and
enforceable behaviors and reserve OCBs. Unlike pre- OCB in Pakistan.
viously thought, it is fairness perceptions and not job
satisfaction that predicts OCBs (Moorman, 1991, 1993; H1: Employees with higher perception of distributive
Organ, 1997). Even very recent studies, involving justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice
diverse samples and industries, have reported a posi- would have higher levels of OCBI.
tive impact of OJ on OCBs, that is, zbek, Yoldash,
and Tang (2015); Al Afari and Abu Elanain (2014); H2: Employees with higher perception of distributive
Choi, Moon, Ko, and Kim (2014). justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice
Social exchange underlies differential responses to would have higher levels of OCBO.
justice dimensions (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, &
Taylor, 2000). In exchange for equitable treatment,
employees demonstrate citizenship behaviors
(Konovsky & Pugh, 1994) directing such behaviors
toward the source of justice perceptions. Furthermore, hofstedes (1980) work paved the way for studies on
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016

researchers have shown citizenship behaviors to vary as cross-cultural differences in organizational behavior
being directed toward various beneficiaries (Coleman & with wide-ranging implications for researchers, organi-
Borman, 2000; Williams & Anderson, 1991). These zations, and human resource management experts alike
beneficiaries may be broadly grouped as individuals (Dong & Liu, 2010; Fadil, Segrest-Purkiss, Hurley-
and organizations. Employees are said to exhibit inter- Hanson, Knudstrup, & Stepina, 2004; Hansen &
personal OCBs (OCBI) and organizational OCBs Brooks, 1994). National culture may influence organi-
(OCBO) when the behaviors are directed toward indi- zations in a number of ways such as management
viduals and organizations, respectively. decisions, organizational culture, work teams, work-
OJ dimensions are known to have differential place behavior, and the relevant effective human
impact on OCBs (Williams, Pitre, & Zainuba, 2002). resource practices (Francis, 1995; Gougeon & Hutton,
Some researchers have posited that fairness in inter- 1993); hence, the importance for scholars and man-
personal interactions like open communication and agers. Along with individualism/collectivism (I/C),
treatment with dignity leads to citizenship behaviors Hofstedes cultural dimensions include power dis-
(Erkutlu, 2011; Moorman, 1991) while others have tance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity/fem-
reported that fairness of rewards also leads to OCBs ininity. I/C is the degree to which individuals are
(Farh et al., 1997; Quratulain et al., 2012). Distributive integrated into groups and is considered to be one of
justice does not influence citizenship behaviors in the the most important cross-cultural differences (Triandis,
Western cultures (Moorman, 1991). Despite the dif- 2001; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca,
ferential impact, other studies also show that all justice 1988). Individualism is an orientation towards self as
dimensions positively impact OCBs (Aslam & Haque; an autonomous individual while collectivism is
2011; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). All OJ dimen- described as an orientation towards self as embedded
sions are known to be positively associated with OCBs in a complex web of social relationship (Ramamoorthy
in the collectivist Indian society (Gupta & Singh, & Flood, 2002). Individualists prefer competitiveness,
2013). solitary work environment, and self-reliance, whereas
Furthermore, justice dimensions differentially collectivists prefer supremacy of group goals and
impact OCBI and OCBO (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, group-oriented behaviors (Kulkarni et al., 2010;
Porter, & Ng, 2001). Research on behaviors at the Ramamoorthy & Carroll, 1998; Triandis, 1995).
workplace focuses on behavior as a targeted response. Individuals within a culture develop personalities
This targeted response perspective is crucial toward that conform to the overall national culture of indivi-
understanding the differential outcomes of justice dualism or collectivism (Triandis, 2001). Thus, if a
dimensions on behavior. OCBs are directed toward culture fosters collectivism, most people within the
the source of justice: the organization or peers, culture would hold interdependent communal values
hence, OCBI and OCBO. When injustice is believed and likewise for individualism. However, despite the
to originate from within the organization itself, it is overall trend in culture, individual differences within
likely to impact OCBO. If it stems from unjust treat- national cultures also exist (Moorman & Blakely, 1995).
ment by supervisors, it is likely to impact OCBI The approach of measuring I/C directly from respon-
(Aryee et al., 2002; Ertrk, 2007). dents rather than as a collective national culture has

been adopted by several researchers like Earley (1989, H3: Employees who exhibit higher levels of collecti-
1993), Wagner (1995), and Lam et al. (2002). This vism will exhibit higher level of OCBI in a rela-
approach shows that individuals may also form cogni- tionship between OJ and OCBI.
tive structures that differ from the predominant cul-
ture. Pakistan was described as a collectivist society by H4: Employees who exhibit higher levels of collecti-
Hofstede (1983); however, individual differences are vism will exhibit higher level of OCBO in a rela-
likely to influence behaviors in the work setting. tionship between OJ and OCBO.

Impact of I/C on the relationship between OJ Research methodology

and OCB
Sample and procedure
The role of culture in influencing perceptions of
justice and relevant outcomes is well established in Sample was drawn from various public sector organiza-
extant literature (Greenberg, 2001). An orientation tions including telecom, banking, and oil & gas sectors.
toward society as individualistic is likely to empha- Data were solicited from various industries to ensure
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016

size individual achievement such as equity than variations in justice perceptions and to avoid contextual
equality (Gelfand et al., 2007). According to the constraints associated with any particular organization
study, individualistic cultures equate equity with or industry (Rousseau & Fried, 2001). Matching ques-
justice, whereas collectivists emphasize equality. tionnaires were distributed to subordinates (200) and
Collectivist employees are more likely than their supervisors (40) in each organization and each super-
counterparts to form fairness perceptions (Earley & visor rated five subordinates. The time lag between
Gibson, 1998). Similarly, I/C may also have differ- questionnaires distribution to subordinates and super-
ential effects on justice dimensions (Hang-yue, visors was of 2 weeks. Matching questionnaires from
Foley, & Loi, 2006). 150 dyads were received, representing approximately
Roe and Ester (1999) suggested that along with work 75% of respondents we surveyed. The relatively high
values general values also impact the work perfor- percentage of response was due to personal contacts of
mance. However, individual differences in the levels the researchers. The data were collected from all man-
of I/C within the predominantly collectivist and indivi- agement cadre employees representing the knowledge
dualistic cultures also contribute to justice perceptions workers, who could understand the research objectives
and behavioral outcomes (Fang & Lim, 2002). The and questionnaires easily.
extent to which certain employee behaviors are related Participants were mostly males (80%), and more
to individual outcomes may depend on the degree of I/ than 50% of the population was less than 32 years of
C an individual holds (Erdogan & Liden, 2006). age. Seventy percent of the respondents had a masters
Moorman and Blakely (1995) and Dyne, Garahm, and degree and higher education.
Diensch (1994) found a significant relationship
between IC and OCB. Dyne, Vandewalle, Kostowa,
Latham, and Cummings (2000) found this relation to
hold true in a longitudinal study, providing even more OJ and I/C were measured through self-reporting of
rigorously tested evidence. employees, whereas citizenship behavior was measured
Interdependent communal relationships as mani- by obtaining supervisory responses. All the scales were
fested in a collectivistic orientation are likely to lead measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
to helping behaviors. OCB is related to collectivist disagree; 7 = strongly agree).
orientation because it requires that time and energy
be spent on helping others, rather than achieving Organizational justice
personal goals (Cohen & Avrahami, 2006). OJ dimensions were assessed using the scales developed
Contextual influences such as interpersonal relation- by Niehoff and Moorman (1993). Distributive justice
ships, interdependence, and culture influence OCBs scale consists of five items such as I think that my level
(George & Jones, 1997) because of differences in how of pay is fair. Cronbachs alpha for distributive justice
individualists and collectivists perceive experiences for the selected sample was 0.777.
and respond to fairness perceptions (Finkelstein, Procedural justice scale consists of six items such as
2012). Managements decisions regarding my job are made in

an unbiased manner.. Cronbachs alpha for procedural (p < .01) and 0.23 (p < .05), respectively, providing
justice for the sample was 0.790. provisional support for hypothesis H1. Procedural jus-
Niehoff and Moormans (1993)s interactional justice tice and OCBI were not significantly correlated. OCBO
scale consists of nine items such as When decisions are was not significantly correlated with any dimension of
made about my job, the senior/s treat me with kindness OJ. Thus, no support was found for hypothesis H2.
and consideration. Cronbachs alpha for interactional Table 2 shows results of regression analysis for test-
justice for the sample was 0.894. ing hypotheses H1 and H2. The results show distribu-
tive justice ( = 0.20, p < .05) and interactional justice
Individualism/collectivism ( = 0.232, p < .05) significantly predicted OCBI.
I/C construct was assessed using the six-item scale of Procedural justice did not significantly predict OCBI
Dorfman and Howell (1988). The scale measured indi- ( = 0.153, n.s.). The R2 for the model was 0.132, with
vidualistic/collectivistic orientations through items that a change of 0.117 at a significance level of p < .01. For
elicit responses to statements such as Group welfare is H1, the relationship between distributive and interac-
more important than individual rewards. Cronbachs tional justice and OCBI was accepted. OCBO is not
alpha for the scale was 0.783. significantly predicted by OJ dimensions. H2 was
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016

OCBI and OCBO Table 3 shows the results for moderated regression
OCBI and OCBO were assessed through William and analysis. Moderation was tested in two models.
Andersons (1991) scales. The scales consist of items Demographic variables of gender, age, and tenure were
such as Tries to help others who have been absent controlled in step 1. In step 2, justice dimensions and I/C
and Attendance at work is above the norm.. variables were controlled. Previously significant relation-
Cronbachs alpha for OCBI and OCBO was 0.754 and ships between distributive and interactional justice with
0.786, respectively. OCBI (Table 2) became insignificant when I/C was entered
into the model in step 2 (Table 3). R2 for step 2 was 0.467.
In step 3, the three interaction terms were entered.
Data analysis method Interaction terms for procedural ( = 0.123, p < .01)
and interactional justice ( = 0.030, p < .01) gave signifi-
Regression analysis was conducted in SPSS to check the cant results. R2 for step 3 was 0.555 with a change of 0.088
impact of OJ dimensions on OCBI and OCBO. Two (p < .000). Thus, hypothesis H3 was accepted.
econometric models were used to check the effect of In testing for moderation for OCBO, a previously
moderator on the relationship between OJ and OCBI insignificant relationship between interactional justice
and OCBO. Baron and Kennys (1986) prescribed and OCBO (Table 2) became significant ( = 0.209,
method was used for moderation analysis. p < .01), when I/C was included in step 2 (Table 3). R2 for
step 2 was 0.481. In step 3, only the interaction term for
Results distributive justice gave significant result ( =0.229,
p < .000). R2 for step 3 was 0.581 with a change of
Table 1 shows reliabilities, means, standard deviations, 0.100 (p < .000). Thus, hypothesis H4 was accepted.
and correlations among the variables. Correlation
between distributive justice and procedural justice,
0.35; distributive justice and interactional justice, 0.38;
and procedural and interactional justice, 0.69; were Results of H1 showed that employees respond by show-
significant at p < .01. The correlation between OCBI ing extra-role behaviors toward supervisors and peers
and OCBO was 0.70 (p < .01). Correlations of distribu- when organizations are distributively and interactionally
tive and interactional justice with OCBI were 0.29 fair. Procedural fairness did not lead to such behavior

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities.

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Distributive justice 4.16 1.01 (0.777)
2. Procedural justice 4.16 0.94 0.35** (0.790)
3. Interactional justice 4.31 0.94 0.38** 0.69** (0.894)
4. Individualism/collectivism 4.39 0.91 0.24** 0.09 0.28** (0.783)
5. OCBI 4.47 0.82 0.29** 0.08 0.23* 0.66** (0.754)
6. OCBO 4.63 0.83 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.65** 0.70** (0.786)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

Table 2. Regression analysis results for OCBI and OCBO. contrast to literature cited in this study, for employees
OCBI OCBO in Pakistan, fairness of rewards possibly implies that
Predictors R2 R2 R2 R2 fair procedures are in place that decided on those fair
Step 1 outcomes. Whether employees take fair procedures as
Control variables 0.015 0.44
Step 2 an indication of fair rewards or fair reward distribution
Distributive justice 0.20* 0.114 as an indication of the organizations procedural fair-
Procedural justice 0.153 0.117
Interactional justice 0.232* 0.132 0.117** 0.032 0.066 0.022* ness has not received much attention of researchers.
* p < .05; ** p < .01. Results for H2 suggest that employees do not respond
with OCBO to justice. They possibly consider supervisors
as the source of justice and not the organization per se,
according to the findings. Yardan, Kse, and Kse not reducing behaviors such as taking undeserved breaks,
(2014) had somewhat similar results since they reported not making efforts to conserve and protect office prop-
an insignificant relationship between procedural justice erty and adhere to informal rules devised to maintain
and three OCB dimensions, namely sportsmanship, order. Furthermore, perhaps the fairnessOCBO rela-
altruism, and courtesy. Awang and Ahmed (2015) also tionship can be better explained through considering the
reported that while distributive and interactional justice role of commitment toward the organization that is fos-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016

predicted OCB, procedural justice had no significant tered by organizational fairness (Lavelle et al., 2009).
relation with OCB. A possible explanation for these Similar results were reported by Balfour and Wechsler
results is that fairness of procedures is attributable to (1991), where the public employees were found to have
the organization and not to supervisors and fellow work- low willingness to go beyond the assigned duties and exert
ers. In addition, perhaps employees associate fair extra effort on the job. In a study comparing the public
rewards to supervisors who provide feedback on their and private sector employees work motivations, Buelens
performance, thus showing citizenship behavior that and Van den Broeck (2007) also found the public sector
benefits supervisors. Psychological processes determine employees motivation to expend extensive efforts lower
the beneficiary of citizenship behavior (McNeely & than that of private employees. Another possible line of
Meglino, 1994) and employees target citizenship beha- reasoning can be that because the supervisors in the
vior toward certain beneficiaries (Lavelle et al., 2009) in Pakistani public sector are given significant authority
line with social exchange theory. This explanation is and power to be exercised over their subordinates the
supported by other literature on directed behavior employees consider their supervisors to be a more prox-
(Dalal, 2005). Another possible explanation can be imal target of perceived fairness. Likewise, Cheung (2013)
drawn from Lee, Pillutla, and Laws (2000) study where stated that employees attribute the interactive justice per-
the authors stated that high-power distance made ceptions to their supervisors due to the same propinquity
employees less responsive to procedural justice. While of relation.
power distance was not in the scope of this study, H3 and H4 found moderated effects of I/C on citi-
Hofstede (1983) has classified Pakistan as a country zenship responses to justice, but contrary to expecta-
that is high on power distance. tions, perceived justice had negative values of
The relative importance of distributive justice over citizenship behavior for higher values of collectivism.
procedural justice is in line with literature that suggests In other words, people with lower collective orienta-
economic factors may render reward outcomes more tions were likely to respond with citizenship behaviors
valuable for employees (Quratulain et al., 2012). In to perceived justice. For highly collectivist individuals,

Table 3. Moderating regression analysis of individualism/collectivism with OJ and OCB.

Predictors R2 R2 R2 R2
Step 1
Control variables 0.015 0.44
Step 2
Distributive justice 0.0116 0.018
Procedural justice 0.018 .037
Interactional justice 0.019 0.209*
I/C 0.556** 0.467 0.452*** 0.630*** 0.481 0.436***
Step 3
I/C distributive justice 0.093 0.229***
I/C procedural justice 0.123* .015
I/C interactional justice 0.030* 0.555 0.088*** 0.013 0.581 0.100***
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .000.

equity may not suffice for citizenship behavior. these has an indirect positive effect on the other, mak-
Researchers of I/C repeatedly cite literature that sug- ing sure that OCBs are displayed directly toward both
gests collectivists value equality, whereas individualists beneficiaries may lead to a multiplied positive effect on
value equity (Fadil, Williams, Limpaphayom, & Smatt, the organizational effectiveness.
2005; Ramamoorthy & Flood, 2002). Also, collectivists To summarize, the study contributed to existing
may show cooperative behaviors for collective reasons literature on justice and collectivism. Findings show
(Wagner, 1995), regardless of fairness. that employees attribute fairness to supervisors who
Another possible explanation is that because distribute rewards and interact with them on behalf of
employees are not formally required to show citizen- the organization. We draw attention to findings that
ship behavior some form of free rider tendencies or under certain conditions distributive fairness may
individual loafing may explain why collectivism attenu- become more or equally important as procedural fair-
ated effects of justice on OCBs. Research suggests that ness. Findings indicate that employees take reward dis-
collectivists show individual loafing, that is, reduced tributions as an indication of fair procedures. This
performance under low shared responsibility for per- study also substantiates the idea that cultural values
formance (Earley, 1989, p. 578). Collective orientation influence behaviors. However, for collectivists,
may foster beliefs that other beneficiaries of fairness mediated paths to citizenship may better explain beha-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016

have a role to play in helping others around the work- vioral responses to fairness. Collectivists probably also
place and in conserving office property, etc. In the carry free rider tendencies that may be overcome using
absence of formal recognition for citizenship behaviors, human resource practices that create a team-collectivis-
such loafing may help employees preserve individual tic culture.
energies without violating their collectivistic group
The study has implications for human resource Future research suggestions
management personnel especially from the public sec- From findings on the role of collectivism, we suggest
tor. Though fairness is likely to lead to citizenship future studies check for conditions under which collec-
responses toward others at work, managers may need tivists are likely to harbor free rider tendencies. Future
to look into practices that encourage citizenship toward studies should explain whether employees perceive dis-
the organization. Perhaps organizations in Pakistan tributive fairness as an indication of the organizations
should not dwell on the predominantly collectivist fairness in decision-making or whether fairness of pro-
orientation but work toward creating a team-collecti- cedures is taken to mean fair rewards will follow.
vistic culture as proposed by McAtavey and
Nikolovska (2010). Such a team collectivistic culture
may be instrumental in overriding individual differ- References
ences in collectivism, as well as enabling employees to
Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding inequity.
attribute the culture to organizations, paving the way Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67 (5), 422
for citizenship behaviors toward the organizations. 436. doi:10.1037/h0040968
Bies and Moag (1986) postulated that interactional Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in
justice leads to OCBI, whereas procedural justice Experimental Social Psychology., 2, 267297.
enhances the OCBO levels of employees. Although Al Afari, T. S., & Abu Elanain, H. M. (2014). Procedural and
distributive justice as mediators of the relationship
interactional justice is predicting OCBI in this study, between interactional justice and work outcomes: An
perceptions of procedural justice are not having any empirical study of the UAE public health care sector.
significant impact on both dimensions of OCB. Journal of Applied Business Research, 30 (4), 10911108.
It is a point worth noting for the public sector doi:10.19030/jabr.v30i4.8657
managers that their employees, even if they perceive Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as
mediator of relationship between organizational Justice
OJ to be present, do not display OCBs toward their
and work outcomes: Test of social exchange model.
employing organizations. This is an indication that Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 267285.
employees are considering their supervisors to be the doi:10.1002/job.138
originator of OJ organization and not the organization Aslam, M. S., & Haque, A. (2011). The influence of distribu-
as a whole. This situation needs attention and efforts tive justice on organizational citizenship behavior:
should be done by public sector employers to change Mediating role of emotional exhaustion and organizational
attachment. International Journal of Business and Social
this perception and make it clear that the organization Science, 2 (15), 155165.
is determined to ensure high levels of OJ. While OCBI Awang, R., & Ahmad, W. M. R. W. (2015). The impact of
and OCBO are interrelated and presence of any one of organizational justice on organizational citizenship

behavior in Malaysian higher education. Mediterranean demographic characteristics and OCB. The Service
Journal of Social Sciences, 6 (5 S2), 674678. Industries Journal, 26 (8), 889901. doi:10.1080/
Balfour, D. L., & Wechsler, B. (1991). Commitment, perfor- 02642060601011707
mance and productivity in public organizations. Public Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of
Productivity & Management Review, 14 (4), 355367. Justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational
doi:10.2307/3380952 Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86 (2), 278321.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormed- doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2958
iator variable distinction in social psychological research: Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. underlying structure of the citizenship performance
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173. domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10 (1),
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and 2544. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00037-6
the good soldier: The relationship between affect and Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organiza-
employee Citizenship. Academy of Management tional justice: A construct validation of a measure.
Journal, 26 (4), 587595. doi:10.2307/255908 Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3), 386400.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
Communication criteria of fairness. Research on Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L.
Negotiations in Organizations, 1, 4355. Greenwich, CT: H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-
JAI Press. analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3), 425445.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016

York, NY: Wiley. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005).
criterion domain to include elements of contextual What is organizational Justice? A historic overview. The
performance. Personnel Selection in Organizations, 71 Handbook of Organizational Justice, 1, 358. Lawrence
(98), 7198. Erlbaum Associates.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., Kessler, I., & Purcell, J. (2004).
and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel Exploring organizationally directed citizenship behavior:
selection research. Human Performance, 10 (2), 99109. Reciprocity or Its my job? Journal of Management
doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1002_3 Studies, 41, 85106. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00422.x
Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange
Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., & Shapiro, D. (2001). theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management,
Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power dis- 31 (6), 874900. doi:10.1177/0149206305279602
tance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship
Psychology, 37 (4), 300315. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1451 between organizational citizenship behavior and counter-
Buelens, M., & Van den Broeck, H. (2007). An analysis of productive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
differences in work motivation between public and private 90 (6), 12411255. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241
sector organizations. Public Administration Review, 67 (1), Deckop, J. R., Cirka, C. C., & Andersson, L. M. (2003). Doing
6574. doi:10.1111/puar.2007.67.issue-1 unto others: The reciprocity of helping behavior in orga-
Bukhari, Z. (2008). Key antecedents of OCB in banking nizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 47 (2), 101113.
sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Business and doi:10.1023/A:1026060419167
Management, 3 (12), 106115. Deckop, J. R., Mangel, R., & Cirka, C. C. (1999). Getting
Bukhari, Z., Ali, U., Shahzad, K., & Bashir, S. (2009). more than you pay for: Organizational citizenship beha-
Determinants of organizational citizenship behavior in vior and pay for performance plans. Academy of
Pakistan. International Review of Business Research Management Journal, 42 (4), 420428. doi:10.2307/257012
Papers, 5 (2), 132150. Dong, K., & Liu, Y. (2010). Cross-cultural management in
Chen, Y. J., Len, C. C., Tung, Y. C., & Ko, Y. T. (2008). China. Cross Cultural Management: An International
Associations of organizational justice and ingratiation with Journal, 17 (3), 223243. doi:10.1108/13527601011068333
organizational citizenship behavior. The beneficiary per- Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of
spective. Social Behavior and Personality, 36 (3), 289302. national culture and effective leadership patterns:
doi:10.2224/sbp.2008.36.3.289 Hofstede revisited. Advances in International
Cheung, M. F. (2013). The mediating role of perceived orga- Comparative Management, 3 (1), 127150.
nizational support in the effects of interpersonal and infor- Dyne, L. V., Garahm, G. W., & Diensch, R. M. (1994).
mational justice on organizational citizenship behaviors. Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34 (6), measurement and validation. Academy of Management
551572. doi:10.1108/LODJ-11-2011-0114 Journal, 37 (4), 765802. doi:10.2307/256600
Choi, B. K., Moon, H. K., Ko, W., & Kim, K. M. (2014). A Dyne, L. V., Vandewalle, D., Kostowa, T., Latham, M. E., &
cross-sectional study of the relationships between organi- Cummings, L. L. (2000). Collectivism, propensity to trust
zational justices and OCB: Roles of organizational identi- and self-esteem as predictors OCB in non-work settings.
fication and psychological contracts. Leadership & Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 323. doi:10.1002/
Organization Development Journal, 35 (6), 530554. (SICI)1099-1379(200002)21:1<3::AID-JOB47>3.0.CO;2-6
doi:10.1108/LODJ-08-2012-0103 Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: The
Cohen, A., & Avrahami, A. (2006). The relationship between comparison of USA and China. Administrative Science
individualism, collectivism, the perception of Justice, Quarterly, 34 (4), 565581. doi:10.2307/2393567

Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets west meets Mideast: Further Journal, 40 (10), 16331643. doi:10.2224/
explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work sbp.2012.40.10.1633
group. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (2), 336348. Finkelstein, M. A., & Penner, L. A. (2004). Predicting orga-
doi:10.2307/256525 nizational citizenship behavior: Integrating the functional
Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. (1998). Taking stock in our and role identity approaches. Social Behavior and
progress on individualism/ collectivism: 100 years of soli- Personality, 32 (4), 383398. doi:10.2224/sbp.2004.32.4.383
darity and community. Journal of Management, 24 (3), Francis, J. L. (1995). Training across cultures. Human
265304. doi:10.1177/014920639802400302 Resource Development Quarterly, 6 (1), 101107.
Elamin, A. M. (2012). Perceived organizational justice and work- doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1532-1096
related attitudes: A study of Saudi employees. World Journal of Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural
Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, organizational behavior. Annual Reviews Psychologist, 58,
8 (1), 7188. doi:10.1108/20425961211221633 479514. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085559
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good:
Review of Sociology, 335362. doi:10.1146/annurev. A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational
so.02.080176.002003 spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112 (2),
Ensher, E. A., Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Donaldson, S. I. (2001). 310329. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.310
Effects of perceived discrimination on job satisfaction, organi- George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational sponta-
zational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and neity in context. Human Performance, 10 (2), 153170.
grievances. Human Resource Development Quarterly. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1002_6
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016

doi:10.1002/1532-1096(200101/02)12:1<53::AID- Goudarzvandchegini, M., Gilaninia, S., & Abdesonboli, R.

HRDQ5>3.0.CO;2-G (2011). Organizational justice and organizational citizen-
Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2006). Collectivism as a mod- ship behavior case study: Rasht public hospitals.
erator of responses to organizational justice: Implications International Journal of Business Administration, 2, 4.
for leader-member exchange and ingratiation. Journal of doi:10.5430/ijba.v2n4p42
Organizational Behavior, 27 (1), 117. doi:10.1002/(ISSN) Gougeon, T. D., & Hutton, S. I. (1993). Effects of culture and
1099-1379 gender on principal-teacher communication in schools.
Erkutlu, H. (2011). The moderating role of organizational Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4 (3), 277290.
culture in the relationship between organizational justice doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1532-1096
and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership & Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preli-
Organization Development Journal, 32 (6), 532554. minary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2),
doi:10.1108/01437731111161058 161178.
Ertrk, A. (2007). Increasing organizational citizenship beha- Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship
viors of Turkish academicians: Mediating role of trust in behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4
supervisor on the relationship between organizational justice (4), 249270. doi:10.1007/BF01385031
and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Greenberg, J. (1990a). Employee theft as a reaction to under-
22 (3), 257270. doi:10.1108/02683940710733089 payment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of
Fadil, P., Segrest-Purkiss, S. L., Hurley-Hanson, A. E., Applied Psychology, 75 (5), 561568. doi:10.1037/0021-
Knudstrup, M., & Stepina, L. (2004). Distributive justice 9010.75.5.561
in Northern Mexico and the US: A cross-cultural compar- Greenberg, J. (1990b). Organizational justice: Yesterday,
ison. Cross Cultural Management: An International today and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16 (2),
Journal, 11 (3), 324. doi:10.1108/13527600410797819 399432. doi:10.1177/014920639001600208
Fadil, P. A., Williams, R. J., Limpaphayom, W., & Smatt, C. Greenberg, J. (2001). Studying organizational Justice cross-
(2005). Equity or equality? A conceptual examination of culturally: Fundamental challenges. International Journal
the influence of individualism/collectivism on the cross- of Conflict Management, 12, 365375. doi:10.1108/
cultural application of equity theory. Cross Cultural eb022864
Management: An International Journal, 12 (4), 1735. Gupta, V., & Singh, S. (2012). Empirical evaluation of dimen-
doi:10.1108/13527600510798114 sionality of organizational citizenship behavior for Indian
Fang, F., & Lim, V. K. (2002, December). Collectivism, business context. Psychological Studies, 57 (4), 392403.
machiavellianism, perceived organizational justice and doi:10.1007/s12646-012-0154-x
organizational citizenship behavior: An empirical study of Gupta, V., & Singh, S. (2013). An empirical study of the
chinese employees. In The Second International Conference dimensionality of organizational justice and its relation-
on Electronic Business, Taipei, Taiwan. ship with organizational citizenship behaviour in the
Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: Indian context. The International Journal of Human
A cultural analysis of organizational Justice and organiza- Resource Management, 24 (6), 12771299. doi:10.1080/
tional citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative 09585192.2012.709188
Science Quarterly, 42 (3), 421444. doi:10.2307/2393733 Hang-yue, N., Foley, S., & Loi, R. (2006). The effects of
Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. (2004). cultural types on perceptions of justice and gender
Organizational citizenship behavior in the People's inequity in work place. International Journal of Human
Republic of China. Organization Science, 15(2), 241253. Resource Management, 17, 983998. doi:10.1080/
Finkelstein, M. A. (2012). Individualism/collectivism and 09585190600693264
organizational citizenship behavior: An integrative frame- Hansen, C. D., & Brooks, A. K. (1994). A review of cross-
work. Social Behavior and Personality: an International cultural research on human resource development. Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 5 (1), 5574. doi:10.1002/ relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (4),
(ISSN)1532-1096 738748. doi:10.2307/1556364
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International McAtavey, J., & Nikolovska, I. (2010). Team collectivist culture: A
Studies of Management & Organization, 10 (4), 1541. remedy for creating team effectiveness. Human Resource
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational Development Quarterly, 21 (3), 307316. doi:10.1002/hrdq.
practices and theories. Journal of International Business v21:3
Studies, 14 (2), 7589. McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Procedural Justice as predictors of satisfaction with perso-
Journal of Sociology, 597606. doi:10.1086/222355 nal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management
Hui, C., Lee, C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Psychological Journal, 35, 626637. doi:10.2307/256489
contract and organizational citizenship behavior in China: McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (2001). Cross-cultural
Investigating generalizability and instrumentality. Journal applications of organizational Justice. Justice in the
of Applied Psychology, 89, 311321. doi:10.1037/0021- Workplace: from Theory to Practice, 2, 6795.
9010.89.2.311 McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of dis-
Kamdar, D., McAllister, D. J., & Turban, D. B. (2006). All in positional and situational antecedents in prosocial organi-
a days work: How follower individual differences and zational behavior: An examination of the intended
Justice perceptions predict OCB role definitions and beha- beneficiaries of prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied
vior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (4), 841855. Psychology, 79 (6), 836. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.836
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.841 Messer, B. A., & White, F. A. (2006). Employees mood,
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016

Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior perceptions of fairness, and organizational citizenship
and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37 behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21 (1), 65
(3), 656669. doi:10.2307/256704 82. doi:10.1007/s10869-005-9018-x
Kulkarni, S. P., Hudson, T., Ramamoorthy, N., Marchev, A., Miller, D. T. (2001). Disrespect and the experience of injus-
Georgieva-Kondakova, P., & Gorskov, V. (2010). tice. Annual review of psychology, 52 (1), 527553.
Dimensions of individualism-collectivism: A comparative Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational
study of five cultures. Current Issues of Business and Law, justice and organizational citizenship behavior: Do fairness
5, 1. doi:10.5200/1822-9530.2010.03 perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of
Lam, S. S. K., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. (2002). Applied Psychology, 76 (6), 845855. doi:10.1037/0021-
Relationship between organizational Justice and work 9010.76.6.845
related outcomes: A cross national study. Journal of Moorman, R. H. (1993). The influence of cognitive and
Organizational Behavior, 23 (1), 118. doi:10.1002/job.131 affective based job satisfaction measures on the relation-
Lavelle, J. J., Brockner, J., Konovsky, M. A., Price, K. H., Henley, ship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship
A. B., Taneja, A., & Vinekar, V. (2009). Commitment, pro- behavior. Human Relations, 46 (6), 759776. doi:10.1177/
cedural fairness, and organizational citizenship behavior: A 001872679304600604
multifoci analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30 (3), Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-
337357. doi:10.1002/job.v30:3 collectivism as an individual difference predictor of orga-
Lee, C., Pillutla, M., & Law, K. S. (2000). Power-distance, nizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational
gender and organizational justice. Journal of Management, Behavior, 16, 127142. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-
26 (4), 685704. doi:10.1177/014920630002600405 1379
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does
and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: perceived organizational support mediates the relationship
A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied between organizational Justice and organizational citizen-
Psychology, 87 (1), 52. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.52 ship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41 (3),
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity 351357. doi:10.2307/256913
theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993).
relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship
(Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfacction, organiza-
(pp. 2755). New York, NY: Plenum Press. tional commitment and procedural justrice. Employees
Lilly, J. (2015). The impact of justice type on organizational Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6 (3), 209225.
citizenship behavior: Do outcome favorability and leader doi:10.1007/BF01419445
behavior matter? Current Psychology, 34 (1), 2649. Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a med-
doi:10.1007/s12144-014-9238-1 iator of the relationship between methods of monitoring
Mackenzie, S. B., & Posdakoff, P. M. (1994). Organizational and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of
citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal Management journal, 36 (3), 527556.
of marketing research, 31(3), 351363. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Paine, J. B. (1999). Do good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
citizenship behaviors matter more for managers than for Organ, D. W. (1989). Organizational citizenship behavior:
salespeople?. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, The good solider syndrome. Academy of Management
27 (4), 396410. Review, 14 (2), 294297.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its
(2000). Integrating Justice and social exchange: The differ- construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10 (2), 85
ing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work 97. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organiza-
attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational tional citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis.
citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48 (4), 775 Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (6), 1306. doi:10.1037/
802. doi:10.1111/peps.1995.48.issue-4 0021-9010.86.6.1306
zbek, M. F., Yoldash, M. A., & Tang, T. L. P. (2015). Theory Robbins, L. (2008). The nature and significance of economic
of justice, OCB, and individualism: Kyrgyz Citizens. Journal science. In Daniel M. Hausman (Ed.), The Philosophy of
of Business Ethics, 118. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2553-0 Economics: An Anthology (pp. 7399). New York, NY:
Ozer, M. (2011). A moderated mediation model of the rela- Cambridge University Press.
tionship between organizational citizenship behaviors and Roe, R. A., & Ester, P. (1999). Values and work: Empirical
job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (6), findings and theoretical perspective. Applied Psychology: An
1328. doi:10.1037/a0023644 International Review, 48 (1), 121. doi:10.1111/
Pandey, S. K., Wright, B. E., & Moynihan, D. P. (2008). apps.1999.48.issue-1
Public service motivation and interpersonal citizenship Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location. Location,
behavior in public organizations: Testing a preliminary Location: Contextualizing Organizational Research.
model. International Public Management Journal, 11 (1), Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22 (1), 113.
89108. doi:10.1080/10967490801887947 Shahzad, A., Siddiqui, M. A., & Zakaria, M. (2014). Linking
Pareke, F., & Susetyo, S. (2011). Modeling the causal relation- organizational justice with organization citizenship beha-
ship of organizational justice, job satisfaction and organiza- viors: Collectivism as moderator. Pakistan Journal of
tional citizenship behavior. Cambridge Business & Commerce and Social Sciences, 8 (3), 900913.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016

Economics Conference, Cambridge, University, Shim, D. C., & Faerman, S. (2015). Government employees
Cambridge, UK. June 2729, 2011. ISBN: 9780974211428. organizational citizenship behavior: The impacts of public
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of service motivation, organizational identification, and sub-
organizational citizenship behavior on organizational per- jective OCB norms. International Public Management
formance: A review and suggestion for future research. Journal, 129.
Human Performance, 10 (2), 133151. Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1997). Leadership training
Podaskoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, in organizational Justice to increase citizenship behavior
D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A cri- within a labor union: A replication. Personnel Psychology,
tical review of theoretical and empirical literature and 50 (3), 617633. doi:10.1111/peps.1997.50.issue-3
suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, Sommer, K. L., & Kulkarni, M. (2012). Does constructive
26 (3), 513563. doi:10.1177/014920630002600307 performance feedback improve citizenship intentions and
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, job satisfaction? The roles of perceived opportunities for
B. D. (2009). Individual and organizational level conse- advancement, respect, and mood. Human Resource
quences of OCB: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Development Quarterly, 23 (2), 177201. doi:10.1002/
Psychology, 94 (1), 122141. doi:10.1037/a0013079 hrdq.v23.2
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and per-
Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and sonality. Journal of Personality, 69 (6), 907924.
quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied doi:10.1111/1467-6494.696169
Psychology, 82 (2), 262. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.262 Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder,
Poncheri, R. M. (2006). The impact of work context on the CO: Westview press.
prediction of job performance. (Masters dissertation) USA: Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., &
North Carolina State University Retrieved from http:// Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism-collectivism: Cross-cul- tural perspective on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of
Quratulain, S., Khan, A. K., & Peretti, J. M. (2012). The moder- Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (2), 323338.
ating impact of Hofstedes cultural dimensions on the rela- doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.323
tionship between organizational justice and organizational Turnipseed, D. L., & Rassuli, A. (2005). Performance percep-
citizenship behaviors: A study in Pakistani work context. tions of organizational citizenship behaviors at work: A bi-
European J. Cross-cultural Competence and Management, 2 level studies among managers and employees. British
(2), 149171. doi:10.1504/EJCCM.2012.047089 Journal of Management, 16, 231244. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
Rainey, H. G. (1991). Understanding and managing public 8551.2005.00456.x
organizations. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice
Ramamoorthy, N., & Carroll, S. J. (1998). Individualism/ extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive
collectivism orientations and reactions towards alternative validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (1), 108119.
human resource management practices. Human Relations., doi:10.2307/256902
51, 571. doi:10.1177/001872679805100501 VanYpreen, N. W., Berg, A. E., & Willering, M. C. (1999).
Ramamoorthy, N., & Flood, P. C. (2002). Employee attitudes Towards a better understanding of the link between
and behavioral intentions: A test of the main and moder- participation in decision making and organizational citi-
ating effects of individualism-collectivism orientations. zenship behavior: A multilevel analysis. Journal of
Human Relations, 55 (9), 10711096. doi:10.1177/ Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 377
0018726702055009020 392. doi:10.1348/096317999166734

Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Williams, S., Pitre, R., & Zainuba, M. (2002). Justice and
Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management organizational citizenship behavior intentions: Fair rewards
Journal, 38 (1), 152173. doi:10.2307/256731 versus fair treatment. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142
Walz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (1996). Organizational citizen- (1), 3344. doi:10.1080/00224540209603883
ship behaviors and their effect on organizational effective- Wooten, K. C., & Cobb, A. T. (1999). Career development
ness in limited-menu restaurants. In Academy of and organizational justice: Practice and research implica-
management proceedings (Vol. 1996, 1, pp. 307311). tions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10 (2),
Academy of Management. 173179. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1532-1096
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and Yardan, E. D., Kse, S. D., & Kse, T. (2014). The effect of
organizational commitment as predictors of organizational employees perceptions of organizational justice on orga-
citizenship behavior and in-role behaviors. Journal of nizational citizenship behavior: An application in Turkish
Management, 17 (3), 601617. doi:10.1177/0149206391017 public hospital. Journal of Human Resources and Labor
00305 Studies, 2 (2), 129148.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016