Article

An Empirical Assessment of Impact Paradigm

19(1) 65–78
of Organizational Climate on © 2015 IMT
SAGE Publications
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0971890715585202
http://par.sagepub.com

Gurpreet Randhawa1
Kuldeep Kaur1

Abstract
Successful organizations need their employees to perform more than their usual job responsibilities
and this can be possible if the environment at workplace is supportive and conducive for them. The
present study is focused on organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and its most influencing ante-
cedent “organizational climate”. The sample consisted of 509 respondents working in a large-scale food
processing industry of Punjab. The data were collected through a structured questionnaire and were
analyzed using Pearson product–moment correlation and multiple regression analysis. The findings of
the study indicated a strong positive correlation between organizational climate and OCB. The results
of multiple regression analysis indicated that 67.6 per cent of the variance in OCB is explained by the
dimensions of organizational climate. Further, organizational climate dimensions such as supervisory
support, performance feedback, clarity of organizational climate, autonomy, pressure to produce, wel-
fare and participation are found to have a significant impact on OCB. The research provides the impli-
cations for managers to engross themselves into the activities that improve organizational climate to
ensure that the desired extra-role behavioural outcomes can be met.

Keywords
Organizational climate, organizational citizenship behaviour, perception, extra-role behaviour

Introduction
In order to stay competitive in the dynamic business environment, the organizations expect their
employees to go beyond their job responsibilities and perform beyond expectations. When employees of
the organization continuously perform beyond their job duties, they help in improving the overall
functioning of the organization and to encourage the employees for such behaviour, the organizations are
continuously focusing on various determinants that support such behaviour (Maamari & Messarra,
2012). One such kind of behaviour in which the employees go beyond their basic role requirements and

1
University Business School, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar.

Corresponding author:
Kuldeep Kaur, H.No. 437, Lane No. 5, A-Block, Guru Amar Das Avenue, Amritsar 143 001, Punjab, India.
E-mail: kuldeepksidhu@gmail.com
66 Paradigm 19(1)

that is beneficial to the organization is known as organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). In the field
of psychology and management, the OCB has been considered as a major variable that has a strong
interaction with other organizational outcomes (Bergeron, 2007; Bolino et al., 2002; Organ, 1988; Tang
et al., 2008). Research has also indicated that OCB has innately resulted in increased level of performance
and organizational profitability (Chompookum & Brooklyn, 2004; Kidwell et al., 1997). But, OCB
cannot be encouraged by giving rewards or formal motivation procedures (Podsakoff et al., 2009); rather,
the environment in which the employees perform their duties is considered to be directly and indirectly
affecting mental and emotional state of the employees (Stamper & Van Dyne, 2001). The organizational
climate which is favourable and positive for the employees results in pro-social behaviours, whereas the
climate which is unfavourable curbs discretionary effort (Cilla, 2011). This led to attract the attention of
researchers’ towards understanding the key factors that have a significant impact on OCB.
The current study exposition posits a more in-depth analysis of the relationship between organizational
climate and OCB specifically in the case of the large-scale food processing industry of Punjab. The food
processing sector due to its fast-paced growth and popularity among the global and national investors as
well as consumers, resulted in a great deal of interest among researchers in investigating the psychological,
financial and marketing perspectives of the industry (Kumbhar, 2008). Moreover, the Indian food
processing industry is one of the largest in the world in terms of production, consumption, export and
growth prospects. According to the Annual Survey of Industries (2011–2012), the state of Punjab is the
second-largest state in terms of total output of food products and the food processing industry in Punjab
is the second-largest industry after textiles. Due to the fast-paced growth, this industry is facing challenges
that are as diverse as the products they produce. The industry faces a number of challenges, such as,
changing consumption trends and thereby production trends, the entry of new products, equipment,
severe working conditions and scarcity of skilled workforce which resulted in longer working hours.
The research studies have indicated that in order to increase the productivity level, the industry has to
focus on the climate of the organization, as about 80 per cent of the present day productivity problems of
the organizations reside in their organizational climate (Akinyele, 2010). Moreover, food processing
industry is always under pressure of quality and quantity of product at the same time. Therefore, it
becomes utmost important for these organizations to encourage the employees to do work beyond their
specified job roles. It is not an easy task for the organizations to make the employees “organizational
citizens”. However, previous researchers have predicted that the organizational climate can influence
actions and direct behaviour of the employees to perform beyond their job roles (Farooqui, 2012;
Maamari & Messarra, 2012; Murugesan et al., 2013). In the light of the above discussion, the present
study attempts to examine the factors of organizational climate that have a major influence on the
citizenship behaviour of the employees and for this purpose, the following objectives have been framed:

1. To explore the correlation between the organizational climate and OCB.

2. To examine the influence of organizational climate dimensions on OCB.

Review of Literature

Organizational Climate
Human relation movement in the form of Hawthorne studies which were conducted in the 1930s diverted
the attention of the researchers from a “hard” physical environment towards “soft” psychological
environment. Kurt Lewin et al. in 1939 first proposed the concept of organizational climate (Lewin et al.,
1939). Later, numerous researchers have explored this concept, such as, Forehand and Glimer (1964),
Randhawa and Kaur 67

Tagiuri and Litwin (1968) and Payne and Pugh (1976). Tagiuri and Litwin (1968) defined organizational
climate as “a relatively enduring quality of the internal environment of an organization that (a) is
experienced by its members, (b) influences their behaviour, and (c) can be described in terms of the values
of a particular set of characteristics (or attributes) of the organization”. Massie (1985) quoted the term
“organizational climate” as perceptions of members towards the quality of the organizational environmental
factors and at the same time Poole (1985) asserted the importance of organizational climate as an essential
linkage between the organizational situation and the members’ cognitions, feelings and behaviours.
Later on, the researchers explored various dimensions of organizational climate. The multidimensional
nature of organizational climate allows it to encompass numerous organizational dimensions cited by
various researchers. A nine-dimensional structure earlier proposed by Litwin and Stringer (1968) was
criticized later on by Jones and James (1979) and they proposed six dimensions. These were further
reduced to four dimensions by James and James (1989). But this reduction in dimension limits the scope
of organizational climate. Meanwhile, in 2004, Patterson et al. conducted a vast study including a wide
range of organizations (55 manufacturing units) and a huge sample size of 6,756 employees and explored
17 dimensions of organizational climate. These dimensions were widely accepted as they cover almost
every aspect of organizational climate. The research in the present study has adopted the Patterson et al.
(2004) organizational climate measure to examine these dimensions in context of the food processing
industry of Punjab.

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

Employees perform many activities at work that are beyond their job description but are good for the
organization. The successful organizations rely on the willingness of employees to engage themselves in
such activities even though not rewarded (Katz, 1964; Katz & Kahn, 1966). Such voluntary behaviour of
the employees at the workplace is named as extra-role behaviour (Katz, 1964; Van Dyne et al., 1995),
pro-social behaviour (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), etc. But OCB is the most commonly used term in
literature in this regard (Organ, 1988; Parker, 1998; Podsakoff et al., 2009) and the people who are
engaged in such behaviour are called “organizational citizens” (Organ, 1988). The term OCB is defined
as “individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward
system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988).
Organ (1988) also identified a five-dimensional structure of OCB namely altruism, conscientiousness,
sportsmanship, courtesy and civic virtue. Based on this, Williams and Anderson (1991) proposed a two-
dimensional taxonomy as OCB-I and OCB-O. OCB-I deals with behaviours that are directed towards an
individual (includes altruism and courtesy) and OCB-O is linked to the organization (includes
conscientiousness, sportsmanship and civic virtue).

Relationship between Organizational Climate and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

Understanding the factors of the organizational climate that influence OCB is not an easy task for the
organizations. However, the past research has predicted that the climate of an organization can motivate
the employees to perform the activities that lead to OCB (Maamari & Messarra, 2012). Stringer (2002)
has also elucidated that different kinds of work climates can arouse different kinds of motivation that in
turn direct the employees to perform different kinds of activities. According to Ghasemi and Keshavarzi
(2014) and Hajirasouliha et al. (2014), the favourable organizational climate leads to inspiration and
encouragement among the employees to perform beyond their specified job roles leading to the
68 Paradigm 19(1)

achievement of organizational objectives. Further, the factors of organizational climate, such as,
communication, rewards, decision making and supervisory support, have been found to have a great
influence on the citizenship behaviour of the employees (Chen et al., 2008; Murugesan et al., 2013).
From the above discussion, the following null hypotheses can be framed:

H01: There is no significant relationship between organizational climate and OCB.

H02: There is no significant impact of organizational climate factors in determining the OCB.

Research Design

Sample of the Study

The present study examines the relationship of organizational climate with OCB as perceived by the
employees of the large-scale food processing industry of Punjab. The population consisted of 75 large-
scale food processing industries of Punjab employing 26,200 employees. The 75 companies were divided
into three strata based on the data of fixed investment available from the Department of Industries and
Commerce, Chandigarh. From the strata, a sample of 10 companies has been selected on the basis of
proportionate random sampling as shown in Table 1.
There were 2,672 employees working in 10 companies and approximately 20 per cent of employees
from each company have been considered for the collection of data. A total of 600 questionnaires were
distributed as per the plan of the study. However, out of them, only 522 returned the questionnaires. Out
of the 522, only 509 questionnaires were found completed, representing an 85 per cent response rate.
Thus, analysis of the data is based on 509 questionnaires and the data were collected through a structured
questionnaire. The average age of respondents lies between 31 and 40 years. The number of male
participants (n = 418) was higher than that of females (n = 91). The majority of respondents were
graduates and most of the respondents have experience of 6–15 years.

Measuring Instrument
Organizational Climate Measure
“Organizational climate measure” developed by Patterson et al. (2004) has been used to measure the
organizational climate of the food processing industry of Punjab. The scale consisted of 17 subscales
with a total of 82 items. The 17 subscales known as dimensions of organizational climate were labelled
as: autonomy, clarity of organizational goals, formalization, effort, efficiency, innovation and flexibility,

Table 1. Distribution of Population and Sample Size According to Strata

Number of Companies
Fixed Investment Fixed Investment Fixed Investment
10–50 Crores 50–100 Crores >100 Crores Total
Population of each strata 45 15 15 75
Proportionate sample size 6 2 2 10
from each strata
Source: Department of Industries and Commerce, Chandigarh.
Randhawa and Kaur 69

integration, outward focus, participation, performance feedback, pressure to produce, quality, reflexivity,
supervisory support, tradition, training and welfare. The respondents were asked to tick mark the
appropriate score on a four-point continuum (from 1 = definitely false to 4 = definitely true). Thirty-two
statements were negatively worded; so the scores of these items were reversed. The internal consistency
of the scale has been measured by using Cronbach’s a and it comes out to be 0.864.
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Individual
The individual’s OCB has been measured by using “Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (Individual)”
scale developed by Lee and Allen (2002). This encompasses a statement that leads to interpersonal
facilitation (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996), interpersonal harmony (Farh et al., 1997) and interpersonal
helping (Graham, 1991). Each participant was instructed to indicate how frequently they would
participate in the identified behaviours based on a 7-point scale (1 = never, 7 = always). The reliability
of the instrument was measured by using Cronbach’s a which is found to be 0.867.

Findings of the Study

Correlation between Organizational Climate and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

The relationship between the organizational climate and OCB has been analyzed using Pearson’s
correlation coefficient presented in Table 2.
Table 2 indicates the correlation between the organizational climate dimensions, the overall
organizational climate and OCB. The results have shown a strong positive correlation between the
overall organizational climate and OCB (r = 0.690, p < 0.01). The dimensions which have shown the
most significant positive correlation with OCB are participation (r = 0.469, p < 0.01), clarity of
organizational goals (r = 0.447, p < 0.01) and performance feedback (r = 0.427, p < 0.01). The other
dimensions of organizational climate which have indicated a positive correlation with OCB are
supervisory support (r = 0.391, p < 0.01), training (r = 0.373, p < 0.01), quality (r = 0.341, p < 0.01),
welfare (r = 0.330, p < 0.01), outward focus (r = 0.309, p < 0.01), innovation and flexibility (r = 0.306,
p < 0.01), effort (r = 0.305, p < 0.01) and reflexivity (r = 0.304, p < 0.01). The other dimensions of
organizational climate have shown relatively lower correlation or no significant correlation with OCB.
From the above discussion, we can conclude that there is a significant positive relationship between
organizational climate and OCB and thus we reject our null hypothesis (H01) that states that there would
be no significant relationship between organizational climate and OCB. Further, the impact of individual
dimensions on OCB has been examined by applying multiple regression analysis.

Multiple Regression Analysis

Multiple regression analysis has been applied on the dimensions of organizational climate (taken as
independent variables) and OCB (taken as a dependent variable) in order to study the impact of the
dimensions of organizational climate on OCB. The results have been presented in the form of a model
summary in Table 3. The Durbin–Watson value (1.865) has been found to be in an acceptable range
indicating that the data are free from significant autocorrelation.
The value of R (= 0.822) presented in Table 3 indicates good level prediction of OCB by the
dimensions of organizational climate. The value of R2 (= 0.676) shows that 67.6 per cent of the
variance in OCB has been explained by the dimensions of organizational climate and the value of
Table 2. Correlation between Organizational Climate and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

S.
No. Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
 1 Autonomy 1
 2 Clarity of organizational goals 0.127** 1
 3 Formalization –0.100* 0.280** 1
 4 Effort 0.088* 0.235** 0.262** 1
 5 Efficiency 0.077 –0.026 –0.274** –0.237** 1
 6 Innovation and flexibility 0.251** 0.254** 0.149** 0.263** –0.054 1
 7 Integration –0.079 0.192** 0.322** 0.246** –0.201** 0.103* 1
 8 Outward focus –0.035 0.217** 0.366** 0.225** –0.101** 0.363** 0.216** 1
 9 Participation 0.108* 0.434** 0.292** 0.295** –0.012 0.312** 0.307** 0.286** 1
10 Performance feedback –0.018 0.294** 0.362** 0.283** –0.209** 0.306** 0.230** 0.460** 0.382**
11 Pressure to produce –0.104* –0.127** –0.043 –0.039 –0.133** –0.140** –0.07 –0.01 –0.174**
12 Quality –0.002 0.216** 0.308** 0.243** –0.218** 0.231** 0.165** 0.332** 0.216**
13 Reflexivity 0.091* 0.185** 0.270** 0.223** –0.037 0.386** 0.08 0.329** 0.251**
14 Supervisory support 0.117** 0.171** 0.102* 0.169** 0.098* 0.04 0.092* –0.071 0.351**
15 Tradition –0.145** –0.087* –0.066 –0.175** 0.057 –0.327** –0.109* –0.261** –0.188**
16 Training 0.015 0.313** 0.247** 0.177** –0.134** 0.314** 0.107* 0.463** 0.321**
17 Welfare –0.101* 0.232** 0.359** 0.174** –0.096* 0.047 0.247** 0.265** 0.325**
18 Overall organizational climate 0.289** 0.586** 0.532** 0.496** –0.229* 0.546** 0.408** 0.566** 0.665**
19 OCB 0.253** 0.447** –0.296** 0.305** –0.036 0.306** 0.225** 0.309** 0.469**
(Table 2 Continued)
(Table 2 Continued)
S.
No. Parameter 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1 Autonomy
2 Clarity of organizational goals
3 Formalization
4 Effort
5 Efficiency
6 Innovation and flexibility
7 Integration
8 Outward focus
9 Participation
10 Performance feedback 1
11 Pressure to produce –0.022 1
12 Quality 0.314** –0.041 1
13 Reflexivity 0.258** –0.026 0.359** 1
14 Supervisory support 0.111* .033** 0.073 0.185** 1
15 Tradition –0.182** 0.175** –0.138** –0.290** –0.107* 1
16 Training 0.362** –0.021 0.280** 0.335** 0.045 –0.170** 1
17 Welfare 0.261** –0.215** 0.382** 0.202** 0.271** –0.105* 0.275** 1
18 Overall organizational climate 0.623** –0.202* 0.501** 0.536** 0.370** –0.229** 0.554** 0.489** 1
19 OCB 0.427** –0.022 0.341** 0.304** 0.391** –0.130** 0.373** 0.330** 0.690**
Source: Authors’ own.
Notes: **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.
72 Paradigm 19(1)

Table 3. Model Summary (Taking Organization Citizenship Behaviour as a Dependent Variable and Dimensions
of Organizational Climate as Predictor Variable)

Std. Error of Durbin– F

R R2 Adjusted R2 the Estimate Watson (df = 17,491) Sig.
0.822 0.676 0.664 3.276 1.865 60.161 0.000
Source: Authors’ own.

Table 4. Multiple Regression Coefficients (Taking Organizational Citizenship Behaviour as Dependent Variable
and Dimensions of Organizational Climate as Predictor Variables)

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients Collinearity Statistics
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF
(Constant) –22.095 2.566 –8.612 0.000
 1 Autonomy 0.360 0.053 0.189 6.813 0.000 0.858 1.166
 2 Clarity of organizational 0.366 0.054 0.204 6.762 0.000 0.728 1.373
goals
 3 Formalization –0.172 0.069 0.079 2.501 0.013 0.665 1.503
 4 Effort 0.242 0.067 0.105 3.584 0.000 0.776 1.289
 5 Efficiency 0.084 0.052 0.052 1.614 0.107 0.640 1.562
 6 Innovation and flexibility 0.266 0.067 0.114 3.951 0.000 0.800 1.249
 7 Integration 0.243 0.063 0.111 3.847 0.000 0.794 1.259
 8 Outward focus 0.082 0.061 0.045 1.341 0.181 0.588 1.700
 9 Participation 0.301 0.065 0.158 4.650 0.000 0.573 1.746
10 Performance feedback 0.371 0.068 0.174 5.455 0.000 0.652 1.534
11 Pressure to produce –0.356 0.056 0.178 6.394 0.000 0.857 1.167
12 Quality 0.258 0.102 0.077 2.524 0.012 0.702 1.424
13 Reflexivity 0.113 0.075 0.047 1.513 0.131 0.674 1.483
14 Supervisory support 0.505 0.053 0.282 9.488 0.000 0.747 1.339
15 Tradition 0.274 0.071 0.110 3.845 0.000 0.805 1.242
16 Training 0.220 0.096 0.072 2.281 0.023 0.671 1.489
17 Welfare 0.326 0.078 0.132 4.155 0.000 0.654 1.530
Source: Authors’ own.

adjusted R2 (= 0.644) has revealed that too many independent variables have not much altered the
actual results. The F value indicates that the dimensions of organizational climate have significantly
predicted the OCB, F(17,491) = 60.161 and p < 0.000.
Table 4 presents the multiple regression coefficients and by analyzing the column of “Collinearity
Statistics”, it has been found that in all the cases, the tolerance value has been found to be greater than
0.5 which shows that the independent variables are free of multicollinearity.
Randhawa and Kaur 73

From the value of unstandardized beta coefficients (b), we can connote that out of the 17 dimensions
of organizational climate, 14 dimensions have shown significant impact on OCB. The most significant
impact has been shown by supervisory support (b = 0.505, p = 0.000), followed by performance
feedback (b = 0.371, p = 0.000), clarity of organizational goals (b = 0.366, p = 0.000), autonomy
(b = 0.360, p = 0.000), pressure to produce (b = –0.356, p = 0.000), welfare (b = 0.326, p = 0.000) and
participation (b = 0.301, p = 0.000). The other dimensions which have shown significant impact on
OCB are tradition (b = 0.274, p = 0.000), innovation and flexibility (b = 0.266, p = 0.000), quality
(b = 0.258, p = 0.012), integration (b = 0.243, p = 0.000), effort (b = 0.242, p = 0.000), training
(b = 0.220, p = 0.023) and formalization (b = –0.172, p = 0.013). From the above results, we conclude
that there is a significant impact of organizational climate factors in determining the OCB; thus, we
reject our null hypothesis (H02).

Discussion and Research Implications

The present study examined the relationship between organizational climate and OCB. From the results,
it has been found that there is a strong positive correlation between these two constructs and the 67.6 per
cent variance in OCB is explained by the dimensions of organizational climate. This finding is consistent
with the findings of previous empirical evidence (e.g., Biswas & Varma, 2007; Ekvall, 1996; James
et al., 2008; Kangis et al., 2000). The most important organizational climate dimensions were found to
be supervisory support, performance feedback, clarity of organizational goals, autonomy, pressure to
produce, welfare and participation.
Support from the supervisors encourages the employees to engage in citizenship behaviour. A
supportive environment makes the employees more confident in performing job duties and hence
increases the productivity and it is important to increase citizenship behaviour among employees (Chen
et al., 2008). Rhoades et al. (2001) have also asserted that the support the employees receive from the
organization makes a good impression of the organization and they happily accept the goals and values
of the organization. Therefore, management as well as the immediate supervisors should be supportive
to their employees in various situations at the workplace.
Performance feedback significantly affects OCB (Jinyue, 2010; Peng & Chiu, 2010). According to
Ajgaonkar et al. (2012), the candid and regular feedback increases the sense of ownership towards the
job which helps in setting targets and fulfilling them. The employees become interested in helping others
and participate in organizational affairs and in the development of the organization. Thus, it is important
for the management to provide timely feedback to the employees that makes them aware about their
performance. The management should strengthen the performance management system with a regular
and candid feedback.
Clarity of organization goals is another important aspect that has shown significant influence on
OCB. The studies of Hu and Liden (2011) and Ahmadizadeh et al. (2014) have shown that clear goals
make employees to perform their job efficiently and effectively and are encouraged to help others.
Therefore, management should make sure that employees must be clearly aware about their individual
and organizational goals as it reduces role ambiguity and role conflict.
High autonomy results in increased willingness to work. Studies of Conger and Kanungo (1988)
asserted that increasing freedom at work has resulted in higher incidents of employees showing
citizenship behaviour specifically at the individual level. Similarly, Ajgaonkar et al. (2012) found that a
74 Paradigm 19(1)

high level of autonomy motivates to take control over the job and helps the employees to move ahead on
targets. Autonomy further enhances the sense of organizational trust and confidence in employees.
Therefore, it becomes important for organizations to strive to build autonomy in the job of employees as
it directly influences the productivity of employees. Close supervision on employees’ task makes them
irresponsible and demotivates them which may lead to industrial unrest.
The negative relationship between pressure to produce and OCB shows that increased pressure
reduced the willingness of employees to perform extra-role behaviour. The work pressure keeps
employees busy in their own dedicated task. Jain and Cooper (2012) concluded that the employees who
take initiatives in different tasks, when they perceive it as exerting higher work pressure they withdraw
their involvement from such OCB activities. It is important for employees to perform in-role behaviours
and remain productive while they can choose not to engage in citizenship behaviours. However, research
has indicated that extra activities in which the employees are involved have been considered positively
in their performance appraisal (Allen & Rush, 1998; Park & Sims, 1989).
Welfare facilities provided in the organization is an important aspect as it results in encouraging
citizenship behaviour. The organizations which are committed to the employees invest in their welfare
activities and the concern about their development creates an obligation among the employees to repay
the support received from the organization (Allen et al., 2003; Snape & Redman, 2010). Therefore, the
management should provide adequate welfare facilities that will surely make employees feel safe and
secure and in turn the employees are encouraged to participate in OCB activities and work effectively in
accomplishing their own task.
A positive relationship between participation and OCB is an important indication for the management
to encourage the participation of employees in various decision-making platforms of the organization
especially those which are directly related with employees. According to Somech and Bogler (1999),
employees who have participated in the decision-making process of the company have shown greater
responsibilities on their roles at work and exhibited citizenship behaviour. Greasley et al. (2005) also
indicated participation has a significant influence on extra-role behaviour.
The other dimensions, such as, quality concern, integration and traditional ways of doing things, is
appreciated by employees but if any change is needed it should be implemented gradually. The employees
want to try some new things and ways to do their job and that should be encouraged. Policies and
procedures should be at place and employees should be provided sufficient training. This will ultimately
result in a more favourable organizational climate.

Conclusion
The results of the present study clearly indicate that the organizational climate and its dimensions play a
key role in influencing OCB. The dimensions of the organizational climate, such as, supervisory support,
performance feedback, clarity of organizational goals, autonomy, pressure to produce, welfare and
participation, were found to have a strong influence on OCB. Therefore, it becomes necessary to
understand the importance of each dimension and work towards its betterment which in turn leads to a
positive organizational climate. A positive organizational climate results in better relationship between
the management and the employees which results in encouraging the employees to engage in performing
beyond their job and it is evident that the organizations which develop “organizational citizens” have a
significantly better chance to combat the current competitive storm.
Randhawa and Kaur 75

Limitations and Future Research

Limitations
This research has some limitations also. They are as follows:
First, the present study is limited to a large-scale food processing industry of Punjab and
therefore, the results may not be generalized to the whole food processing industry of Punjab
including micro-, small- and medium-scale industries, or even cannot be generalized to the food
industry that exists in other geographical areas.
Second, the sampling method used in the study has certain limitations in relation to the degree of
control of researcher on the questionnaire being distributed in the companies as well the degree to which
the sample has been considered as representative of the population of the study.
Third, the present research is confined to few psychological variables. The other important variables
could also be included such as job satisfaction, commitment, involvement, absenteeism, engagement
and stress.

Future Research
The future research can explore the micro-, small- and medium-scale food processing industries so as to
get a greater insight of the overall industry behaviour. The research can also be extended to other states
or India as a whole. Future research can also consider using longitudinal design and data from different
sources to analyze the relationship between organizational climate and OCB. The scope of research can
also be increased by considering other psychological variables.

References
Ahmadizadeh, Z., Hefzollesan, M., Ghalehgir, S., Yadollahzadeh, R., & Heydarinezhad, S. (2014). Investigating
the relation between organizational climate and organizational citizenship behavior in the physical education
offices employees in mazandaran province. Pedagogics, Psychology, Medical-biological Problems of Physical
Training and Sports, 5, 74–78.
Ajgaonkar, M., Baul, U., & Phadke, S. M. (2012). Relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and
job characteristics model of motivation: An empirical study. NMIMS Management Review, 1(April–May),
51–72.
Akinyele, S. T. (2010). The influence of work environment on workers’ productivity: A case study of selected oil and
gas industry in Lagos, Nigeria. African Journal on Business Management, 4(3), 299–307.
Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organizational support and supportive
human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of Management, 29(1), 99–118.
Allen, T. D., & Rush, M. C. (1998). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgment: A
field study and a laboratory experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 247–260.
Annual Survey of Industries. (2011–2012). Retrieved 24 July 2014, from http://mospi.nic.in/mospi_new/upload/asi/
Summ_Resul_ASI2011_12_9may14.pdf
Bergeron, D. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost?
Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1078–1095.
Biswas, S., & Varma, A. (2007). Psychological climate and individual performance in India: Test of a mediated
model. Employee Relations, 29(6), 664–676.
Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27(4), 505–522.
76 Paradigm 19(1)

Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4),
710–725.
Chen, C. H., Wang, S. J., Chang, W. C., & Hu, C. S. (2008). The relationship between leader member exchange,
trust, supervisor support, and organizational citizenship behavior: Case study of nurses. Journal of Nursing
Research, 16(4), 321–328.
Chompookum, D., & Brooklyn Derr, C. (2004). The effects of internal career orientations on organizational citizen-
ship behavior in Thailand. Career Development International, 9(4), 406–423.
Cilla, M. J. (2011). Exploring the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and organizational cli-
mates for creativity. Master’s Theses Paper 4086, Submitted to San Jose State University. Retrieved 15 March
2015, from http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=5085&context=etd_theses
Conger, J., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowering process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of
Management Review, 13(3), 471–482.
Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Management, 37,
656–669.
Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational
citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421–444.
Farooqui, M.R. (2012). Measuring organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) as a consequence of organizational
climate (OC). Asian Journal of Business Management, 4(3), 294–302.
Forehand, G. A., & Gilmer, B. (1964). Environmental variations in studies of organizational behavior. Psychological
Bulletin, 62(6), 361–382.
Ghasemia, B., & Keshavarzi, R. (2014). The relationship between organizational climate, organizational com-
mitment and organizational citizenship behaviour in a hospital environment. Reef Resources Assessment and
Management Technical Paper, 40(2), 759–773.
Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal I, 4(4), 249–270.
Greasley, K., Bryaman, A., Dainty, A., Prince, A., Soetanto, R., & King, N. (2005). Employee perceptions on
empowerment. Employee Relations, 27(4), 354–368.
Hajirasouliha, M., Alikhani, E., Faraji, A., Kamali, S., Aziziha, H., & Mousavi, S. (2014). An investigation on
the role of organizational climate on organizational citizenship behavior. Management Science Letters, 4(4),
771–774.
Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and
process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 851–862.
Jain, A. K., & Cooper, C. L. (2012). Stress and organisational citizenship behaviours in Indian business process
outsourcing organisations. IIMB Management Review, 24(3), 155–163.
James, J. R., Choi, C. C., Ko, C.-H. E., McNeil, P. K., Minton, M. K., Wright, M. A., & Kim, K. (2008). Organizational
and psychological climate: A review of theory and research. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 17(1), 5–32.
James, L. A., & James L. R. (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions: Explorations into the measurement
of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), 739–751.
Jinyue, W. (2010). Research on the relationship among job autonomy, job feedback and organizational citizen
behavior. Paper presented in 7th International Conference on Innovation and Management. Retrieved 3 August
2014, from http://www.pucsp.br/icim/ingles/downloads/papers_2010/part_5/1_Research%20on%20the%20
Relationship%20among%20Job%20Autonomy,%20Job%20Feedback.pdf
Jones, A. P., & James, L. R. (1979). Psychological climate: Dimensions and relationships of individual and aggre-
gated work environment perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23(2), 201–250.
Kangis, P., Gordon, D., & Williams, S. (2000). Organizational climate and corporate performance: An empirical
investigation. Management Decision, 38(8), 531–540.
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9(2), 131–146.
Katz, O., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Randhawa and Kaur 77

Kidwell, R. E., Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesiveness and organizational citizenship behavior: A
multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals. Journal of Management, 23(6), 775–793.
Kumbhar, M. R. (2008). A study of opportunities and threats of food processing industry in Konkan region. Doctoral
Dissertation, Shivaji University. Retrieved 17 September 2014, from http://hdl.handle.net/10603/9936
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behaviour and workplace deviance: The role of affect and
cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131–142.
Lewin, K., Lippit, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social cli-
mates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 271–301.
Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A., Jr. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate. Boston: Harvard University
Press.
Maamari, B. E., & Messarra, L. C. (2012). An empirical study of the relationship between organizational climate and
organizational citizenship behavior. European Journal of Management, 12(3), 1–14.
Massie, J. I. (1985). Essentials of management. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Private Limited.
Murugesan, S., Narayana Raja, P. N., & Kannan, M. (2013). Perceived organisational climate correlates organi-
sational citizenship behaviour: A study among the software professionals. American International Journal of
Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 3(2), 209–216.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Park, O. S., & Sims, H. P. (1989). Beyond cognition in leadership: Pro-social behavior and affect in managerial
judgment. Working paper, Seoul National University and Pennsylvania State University.
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational
interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 835–852.
Patterson, M. G., Warr, P. B., & West, M. A. (2004). Organizational climate and company performance: The role of
employee affect and employee level. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(2), 193–216.
Payne, R., & Pugh, D. S. (1976). Organizational structure and climate. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of indus-
trial and organizational psychology (pp. 1125–1174). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Peng, J. C., & Chiu, S. F. (2010). An integrative model linking feedback environment and organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 150(6), 582–607.
Podsakoff, N. P, Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level
consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta- analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1),
122–141.
Poole, M. S. (1985). Communication and organizational climate: Review, critique and a new perspective. In
R. D. McPhee & P. K. Tompkins (Eds), Tompkine organizational communication (pp. 245–248). London: SAGE
Publications.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of
perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 825–836.
Snape, E., & Redman, T. (2010). HRM practices, organizational citizenship behaviour, and performance: A multi-
level analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 47(7), 1219–1247.
Somech, A., & Bogler, R. (1999). Tacit knowledge in academia: Its effects on student learning and achievement. The
Journal of Psychology, 133(6), 605–616.
Stamper, C. L., & Dyne, L. V. (2001). Work status and organizational citizenship behavior: A field study of restau-
rant employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(5), 517–536.
Stringer, R. A. (2002). Leadership and organizational climate: The cloud chamber effect. Upper saddle River, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Tagiuri, R., & Litwin, G. H. (1968). Organizational climate: Exploration of a concept. Boston: Harvard University
Press.
Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Davis, G. M. T. W., Dolinski, D., Ibrahim, A. H. S., & Wagner, S.L. (2008). To help or
not to help? The good samaritan effect and the love of money on helping behavior. Journal of Business Ethics,
82(4), 865–887.
78 Paradigm 19(1)

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and defini-
tional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In L.L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds), Research in Organizational
Behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of
contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 525–531.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organi-
zational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617.

Authors’ bio-sketch

Gurpreet Randhawa is Assistant Professor at University Business School, Guru Nanak Dev University,
Amritsar, Punjab, India.

Kuldeep Kaur is Research Scholar at University Business School, Guru Nanak Dev University,
Amritsar, Punjab, India.
Copyright of Paradigm (09718907) is the property of Sage India and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.