Antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Study of Public Personnel in Kuwait.

In this study I examine the effects of procedural and distributive justice, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment upon Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) with samples drawn from six government organizations in Kuwait. Hierarchical regression analysis reveals that only procedural and distributive justice account for unique variances in Kuwaiti workers' OCB. Hence, previous assumptions regarding the influences upon OCB may be incorrect. The implications of these results upon organization behavior and actual management practices are also discussed.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), or "extra-role behavior," has received a great deal of attention from organizational behavior researchers in the last two decades. It was in the early 1980s that several empirical studies first addressed the notion of OCB.[1,2]

Whereas Organ defines OCB as "individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization"[3] Schnake defines it as "functional, extra-role, pro-social behavior, directed at individuals, groups, and/or an organization."[4] OCB thus includes discretionary "pro-social" ethical behavior, such as helping newcomers to the organization, assisting co-workers on the job, not taking unnecessary breaks, and volunteering to do things not "required" by a job description.

Katz observes that an organization in which members confine themselves to formal, in-role behavior will simply break down[5], while Smith et al. assert the importance of OCB in "lubricating" the social machinery of an organization.[6] Organ has also pointed out the significance of OCB for organizational efficiency, effectiveness, innovation, and adaptability within diverse organizations.[7]

Unfortunately, because investigations into this topic are still at an early stage, relatively little is yet known about the antecedents of, or key influences on, OCB. Job satisfaction and affective commitment have sometimes been considered antecedents to pro-social, extra-role behavior in organizations, but this is not always the case.[8] Organ & Rayan found, in their meta-analytic review of 55 studies, that satisfaction, fairness and organizational commitment were the only correlates of OCB in a considerable number of cases.[9]

The relationship between satisfaction, commitment, and OCB at the individual level, however, may create underlying positive attitudes about the job and the organization that encourage people to pursue or manifest extra-role behavior.[10 ]Although it has been found in several studies that job satisfaction and organizational commitment are related to OCB,[11,12,13,14] job satisfaction and organizational commitment have been found to be strongly related in other studies, and some scholars indicate that they should be examined together to discover their influence on OCB.[15, 16] Moreover, empirical research also supports the relationship between perceptions of fairness and OCB.[17,18,19]

Some researchers have argued that it would be beneficial to include "perceptions of fairness" when studying the impact of job satisfaction on OCB in order to describe the connection between these variables (fairness perceptions, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment).[20,21,22] As previous researchers have tied these variables together, I have chosen to term them "antecedent variables" for the purpose of this study in which I intend to examine the relative contributions of perceptions of fairness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment in predicting OCB.

Determinants of OCB

Job Satisfaction

The relationship between job satisfaction and OCB can be depicted in several ways. Organ & Konovsky suggest that job satisfaction is the strongest measure that correlates to OCB.[23] It has been found in 15 independent studies that a significant relationship exists between job satisfaction and OCB.[24] In their study of a sample of university employees, Bateman & Organ also detected a substantive relationship between job satisfaction and OCB 25 Smith et al. found that job satisfaction is correlated 0.31 with altruism, but not directly correlated to generalized compliance in either large or small organizations.[26] Schnake, Cochran, & Dumler conducted a study of a small manufacturing firm, which found that job satisfaction explained the variance in only two of the five OCB dimensions.[27] On the other hand, Hodson argues that pride in task completion is more related to OCB than job satisfaction.[28] In addition, job involvement, followed by affective commitment, organizational trust, and perceived needs were more correlated with OCB than job satisfaction.[29]

In contrast to previous studies, Schappe argues that job satisfaction is not related to OCB;[30] and Farh et al. maintain that their findings do not show that satisfaction accounts for unique variance either in altruism or the compliance dimensions of OCB.[31] Even so, some researchers are skeptical of the relationship between these two variables and consider such a relationship spurious. Instead, they believe that any divergences may be due to the nature of job satisfaction measures, which include perceptions of fairness. Thus, Organ claims that when job satisfaction and perceptions of fairness are measured together, the latter explains an increase in variance in OCB.[32] Scholl, Cooper, & McKenna found that pay equity correlated 0.41 with OCB, while the correlation of pay satisfaction was 0.19.[33] Research therefore suggests that fairness is a predictor of OCB, while job satisfaction is not.[34]

Moorman found that job satisfaction is not related to OCB, while procedural justice measures relate to four out of five OCB dimensions.[35] In a further study, Moorman also found that when the relationship between justice and OCB is controlled, job satisfaction no longer relates to OCB.[36] Furthermore, when perceptions of overall fairness are controlled, job satisfaction relates to only two out of five OCB dimensions.[37]

In their meta-analysis study, Organ & Rayan, contrary to previous studies, did not find that fairness was a better "predictor" of altruism than job satisfaction.[38] Moreover, in a sample of 145 government employees in the Southeastern United States, both organizational commitment and job satisfaction were significantly correlated with OCB, while the fairness of supervisors was not.[39]

Thus, we can conclude that the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB depends on the nature of the job satisfaction measure. The literature in this area suggests that cognitive or affective satisfaction measures differ in their relative effect on OCB. Williams & Anderson argue that the cognitive satisfaction measure was related to two types of OCB, while the affective satisfaction measure was not related to OCB.[40] Moorman goes even further and claims that cognitive satisfaction explains more variance in four of five dimensions than affective satisfaction in organizational settings.[41] Organ & Konovsky also found that cognitive satisfaction predicts two forms of OCBs, while affective satisfaction is not significant.[42] Others are not so quick to dismiss the influence of affective measures upon behavior, however, claiming that cognitive measures of job satisfaction explain more variance in OCB than affective measures of job satisfaction without dismissing the latter completely.[43]

Perceptions of Fairness

Organ & Konovsky claim that when subordinates are treated fairly throughout an organization, they are more likely to feel the need for a reciprocal social exchange relationship with the organization, provided they are confident that such "fair treatment" will continue. Most are unconcerned about the lack of reward for extra-role behavior. Yet, if subordinates are treated unfairly, their perception of their relationship with the company is more likely to be one of economic exchange, in which case they will simply execute actions that guarantee compensation for themselves. Feelings of fair treatment will increase the chances that OCB will occur.[44]

Empirical research supports the relationship between overall fairness and OCB.[45,46,47,48] On the other hand, Tansky postulates that overall fairness is only related to altruism.[49]

This study focuses on two forms of perception of fairness. First, procedural justice is defined as the fairness of the procedures themselves. Distributive justice is defined as the fairness of the outcomes received from organizational procedures.[50] Both procedural and distributive justice affect citizenship behavior within organizations. For example, distributive justice based on an "equity norm" reinforces a person's "belief that he or she is being treated fairly."[51] Procedural justice promotes a subordinate's faith in his or her supervisor and organization, and drives him or her to exhibit citizenship behavior that is often outstanding.[52]

Empirical research supports the profound relationship between procedural justice and OCB.[53,54,55,56] In contrast to prior studies, Schappe believes that procedural justice is not a predictor of OCB.[57] Farh et al.,[58] George,[59] Konovsky & Pugh,[60] Moorman, and Niehoff & Moorman[61] found that distributive justice shows a stronger relationship to OCB than procedural justice, whereas other researchers found no relationship between distributive justice and OCB.[63, 64,65,66]

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment is defined as "the relative strength of an individual's identification with and involvement in an organization."[67] Empirical research supports the relationship between organizational commitment and OCB.[68,69,70,71] Schappe examined the effects of job satisfaction, perceptions of fairness, and organizational commitment on OCB. Results indicated that only organizational commitment is a significant predictor of OCB.[72]

However, despite the strong relationship between organizational commitment and OCB, Williams & Anderson found that organizational commitment is not related to any form of OCB.[73] Moreover, no significant relationship exists between organizational commitment and the five dimensions of OCB.[74] In a survey of 420 workers in a national cable TV company, neither organizational commitment nor job satisfaction were found to be related to OCB.[75]

Hypotheses Tested

Based on the empirical evidence reviewed, the following hypotheses were tested.

1. Procedural justice will explain the unique variance in OCB.

2. Distributive justice will explain the unique variance in OCB.

3. Job satisfaction will explain the unique variance in OCB.

4. Organizational commitment will explain the unique variance in OCB.

Methods

Sample and Procedures

First, a random sample of six government ministries was selected from government organizations listed under the Kuwaiti civil service umbrella and operating under the civil service law and regulations of 1979. The researcher sent permission letters to each of the responsible undersecretaries to obtain permission to conduct the study in the selected organizations. Upon receiving permission, two research assistants distributed 600 questionnaires to government employees. Each questionnaire was accompanied by a cover letter assuring confidentiality. Data was collected in each organization by asking the respondents to return the completed questionnaires directly to the research assistants to assure that their anonymity was guaranteed.

Of the 600 questionnaires distributed, 297 were returned, for a response rate of 49.5 percent. Eighty percent of the respondents were Kuwaiti; the remaining 20 percent were non-Kuwaiti. Fifty-one percent of respondents were male, and 49 percent were female. In terms of age, 50 percent of respondents were 30 years old or younger, 38 percent were 31-40 years old, and the remaining 12 percent were 41 years old or older. Tenure ranged from less than five years (37 percent) to 5-10 years (34 percent), to more than 11 years (29 percent).

Measures

The following measures were used in the present study.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

OCB was assessed using a 30-item scale originally developed by Bateman & Organ.[76] The translation of the original English version of the questionnaire into Arabic was done by the researcher and reviewed by a colleague, an associate professor of English at Kuwait University, to assure clarity of terminology.

Rather than have supervisors rate subordinates on OCB, the researcher preferred peer evaluations of co-worker behavior. Peers are in daily contact with one another and in a better position to judge peer behavior than a supervisor. Tansky argues that OCB rating by the employee or co-worker may be more appropriate than supervisor rating since the peer may observe some behaviors that supervisors are not in a position to observe, and other Researchers[77] (e.g. Fox, Ben-Nahum, & Yinon;[78] Landy & Farr;[79] and Latham, Skarlicki, Irvine & Siegel[80]) have confirmed that peer ratings of OCB are a valid and reliable measure of an individual's behavior.

In the present study, peers were asked to respond to 30 scale items to indicate their agreement or disagreement in regard to each co-worker using a seven-point response scale ranging from 1 (= strongly disagree) to 7 (= strongly agree). Higher scores indicated more OCB and lower scores indicated less. The Cronbach Internal Reliability Coefficient for this study was 0.89.

Perceptions of Fairness

The perception of fairness was measured using the 11-item organizational justice scale developed by Niehoff & Moorman,[81] and translated into Arabic; this method was also employed in a study by Zayed.[82] Two forms of organizational justice were used in the present study as follows.

Procedural justice. The Arabic version of procedural justice,[83] was employed using a six-item scale developed originally by Niehoff & Moorman.[84] Scales ranged from 1 (= strongly disagree) to 5 (= strongly agree). This scale manifests the significance of applying fair, formal procedures either by the organization or the supervisor. This scale has held reliabilities above 0.90 in Western culture in several studies.[85,86] Cronbach's alpha for this scale in the Arabic culture was 0.81.[87] The reliability of the present study was determined by computing the Cronbach alpha coefficient to 0.86.

Distributive justice. This variable was measured using five items developed by Niehoff & Moorman,[88] and translated into Arabic; again, this has been used in a previous study by Zayed.[89] The scale shows the fairness of work outcomes pertaining to fairness of pay, work schedule, workload, and responsibilities. This scale ranged from 1 (= strongly disagree) to 5 (= strongly agree). Moorman reported--in a study pertaining to Western culture--reliability for this scale as being above 0.90.[90] In the Arabic culture, Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.66,[91] while, in the present study, the Cronbach Internal Reliability for this scale was 0.76.

Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment was gauged using a 15-item measure developed by Porter, Steers, Mowday & Boulian.[92] The translation of the original English language version of the questionnaire into Arabic was done and used in a prior study by Alquattan.[93] This scale assesses an employee's identification with an organization. Sample items would be: "I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful," and, "I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for."

Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement regarding each item on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (= strongly disagree) to 5 (= strongly agree). The coefficient alpha for this scale in the Western culture ranged from 0.82 to 0.93.[94,95,96] The coefficient alpha for this scale in the Arabic culture ranged from 0.83 to 0.85.[97,98] In the present study, the coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.85.

Job Satisfaction

To measure satisfaction, a 19-item job satisfaction scale developed by Alotaibi was used.[99] Respondents were asked to indicate their degree of satisfaction on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (= very dissatisfied) to 7 (= very satisfied) with regard to the various facets of their job--for example, "To what extent are you satisfied with your salary, promotion and rewards system, work schedule and job conditions?" The coefficient alpha ranged from 0.86 to 0.90.[100,101] In the present study, the coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.88.

Demographic Measures

Respondents were asked to report their nationality, sex, age, and tenure.

Results

Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and interrelations among the study variables. As indicated in this table, the internal consistency reliabilities of all variables measured in this study were quite respectable. The findings in Table 1 indicated that all the independent variables investigated were significantly related to citizenship behavior. Table 1 Mean, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Correlations for the Study Variables (N = 297) Variables Mean SD Alpha 1 1. Distributive justice 2.84 0.82 0.76 -- 2. Procedural justice 2.65 0.99 0.86 [***]

0.347 3. Commitment 2.96 0.68 0.85 [***]

0.363 4. Job satisfactions 2.98 0.67 0.88 [***]

0.568 5. OCB 4.54 0.85 0.89 [***]

0.222 6. Nationality [**]

-0.161 7. Sex [**]

-0.15 8. Tenure [***]

0.238 9. Age [***]

0.235 Variables 2 3 4 5 1. Distributive justice [***] [***] [***] [***]

0.347 0.363 0.568 0.222 2. Procedural justice -- [***] [***] [***]

0.418 0.531 0.307 3. Commitment [***] -- [***] [***]

0.418 -- 0.63 0.213 4. Job satisfactions [***] [***] -- [***]

0.531 0.630 0.310 5. OCB [***] [***] [***] --

0.307 0.213 0.310 6. Nationality [*] [***] [***] 0.004

-0.122 -0.338 -- --

0.230 7. Sex [*] [***] [***] 0.003

1.141 -0.328 -- -- 8. Tenure [*] [***] [***] 0.122

124 0.205 0.203 -- 9. Age [***] [***] [***] 107

0.220 0.264 0.234 -- Variables 6 7 8 9 1. Distributive justice [***] [***] [***] [***]

-- -- 0.238 0.235

-0.161 0.15 2. Procedural justice [*] -- [*] [***]

-- 0.141 0.124 0.220

0.122 3. Commitment [***] [***] [***] [***]

-- -- 0.205 0.264

0.338 0.328 4. Job satisfactions [***] [***] [***] [***]

-- -- 0.203 0.234 5. OCB 0.004 0.003 0.122 0.107

-- 6. Nationality -- [***] -- [***]

0.475 0.027 0.434 7. Sex [***] -- -- [***]

0.475 0.056 0.252 8. Tenure -- -- -- [***]

0.027 0.056 0.647 9. Age [***] [***] [***] --

0.434 0.252 0.647 [*] P [less than] .05 [**] P [less than] .01 [***] P [less than] .001

Both distributive and procedural justice variables were positively correlated with the citizenship behavior measure, the strongest correlation being associated with procedural justice. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment were significantly correlated with OCB.

None of the demographic variables, with the exception of tenure, correlated with OCB. A comparison of the results indicates that job satisfaction shows the strongest relationship to OCB, followed by procedural justice, distributive justice, and then organizational commitment.

Hierarchical Regression Analysis

A hierarchical regression analysis was performed using OCB as the dependent variable. In the first stage, four control variables (nationality, sex, age and tenure) were used as the independent variables. In the second stage, procedural justice was added to the equation. The third stage of the regression equation was to enter distributive justice data. Job satisfaction was added in the fourth stage. The final stage of the regression equation was to enter organizational commitment.

Table 2 shows the hierarchical regression analysis results for the OCB variable obtained while controlling for demographic variables including the change in R2. These results show that none of the control variables produces a significant change in R2. When procedural justice was added in the second stage, the amount of explained variance increased to 0.093 (P [less than] .001). Table 2 Hierarchical Regression Analysis with OCB as the Dependent variable (N = 297) Step Variable R2 R2 F 1 Controls 0.020 1.009 2 Procedural justice 0.093 0.073 16.041[***] 3 Distributive justice 0.115 0.021 4.793[*] 4 Job satisfaction 0.131 0.016 3.644 5 Organizational Commitment 0.134 0.003 0.666 [*] P [less than] .05 [**] P [less than] .01 [***] P .001

Consequently, the hypothesis that procedural justice will explain unique variance in OCB was supported. The addition of distributive justice in the third equation yielded a significant change in R2 (? R2 = 0.021) and, thus, the hypothesis that distributive justice will explain unique variance in OCB was also supported.

The addition of both job satisfaction in the third equation and organizational commitment in the fourth equation failed to cause a significant change in R2. Thus, the hypothesis that job satisfaction and organizational commitment will explain unique variance in OCB was not supported.

It can be also seen in Table 3 that, having controlled for demographic variables, the standardized beta coefficient for procedural justice was 0.176 (P [less than] .05), which was positive and significant, while the beta coefficients in the case of other predictor variables (distributive justice, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment) were not significant. Table 3 Standardized Regression Coefficients for All Variables in Complete Regression Equation (N = 297)

OCB Variable Beta T Predictor variables Procedural justice 0.176 2.311[*] Distributive justice 0.097 1.199 Job satisfaction 0.133 1.319 Organizational commitment 0.076 0.816 Controls Nationality 0.016 0.176 Sex 0.144 1.799 Tenure 0.111 1.164 Age -0.074 0.103 [*] P [less than] .05 [**] P [less than] .01 [***] P .001

Discussion and Implication

The purpose of this study was to test the predictive power of four variables as antecedents of OCB.

The findings of this study suggest that procedural and distributive justice both contribute toward explaining variance in OCB, with the strongest correlation associated with procedural justice (r = 0.222, P [less than] 001). This finding confirms the results of previous research.[102,103,104,105]

A possible explanation for this finding may be that, as Lind & Tyler[106] and Organ & Moorman[107] claim, in respect to procedural justice: "Fair procedures are important beyond the extent to which they explain a fair distribution." Furthermore, procedural justice predicts OCB, while distributive justice does not.[108] Organ & Moorman conclude that procedural justice, rather than distributive justice or job satisfaction, provides a better explanation of OCB.[109]

The results reported in Table 2 suggest that job satisfaction is positively correlated to OCB, but when distributive and procedural justice hold constant, hierarchical regression analysis shows that job satisfaction is no longer a significant predictor of OCB. There are several potential explanations for this result.

First, there is evidence from previous studies that job satisfaction is not strongly associated with OCB.[110] A number of studies have shown that fairness measures predict OCB better than job satisfaction measures.[111,112]

Secondly, other investigators have reported that job satisfaction is neither an antecedent of OCB,[113] nor a significant predictor of OCB.[114]

Thirdly, some researchers argue that the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB that has been found in the literature may be caused by job satisfaction measures, which include fairness. Thus, when fairness measures are controlled, job satisfaction no longer affects OCB.[115,116,117,118]

It is a subject for further investigation to note that organizational commitment is positively related to OCB; however, when hierarchical regression analysis is used, organizational commitment fails to produce a significant change in OCB. The nature of the relationship between these two variables is perplexing, since previous researches have drawn inconsistent results. For example, some researchers have found no significant relationship between organizational commitment and OCB.[119,120,121] In contrast, some empirical evidence suggests that organizational commitment is related to OCB.[122,123,124,125,126]

An important implication of this study is that supervisory fairness and management styles influence the perception of fairness. Therefore, supervisors should treat their subordinates fairly and should make fair decisions in reward allocation. When subordinates perceive that they are treated and rewarded fairly, they will reciprocate through performing citizenship behavior, to the benefit of their organization.

This study contributes in two ways to OCB literature. First, it provides confirming evidence that both procedural and distributive justice are antecedents of OCB in Eastern cultures. Secondly it helps to bridge the gap in OCB literature in Eastern cultures. The author hopes this will encourage other researchers to conduct research on this important but neglected area.

Several limitations should, however, be pointed out. First, the sample is unrepresentative of the general population. Due to time and financial constraints, the researcher selected a convenient sample of employees within certain governmental organizations. Thus, these results must be interpreted with considerable caution.

Secondly, this study is based on cross-sectional data and, thus, no causal relationship should be inferred. More longitudinal studies across organizations are needed. Finally, the data in this study was collected through self-reports, which creates the potential for common-method bias. The data should be collected, in future studies, at different times in order to reduce the potential for bias.

Notes

[1] Bateman, T. & Organ, D. (1983). "Job Satisfaction and the Good Soldier: The Relationship between Affect and Employee 'Citizenship,'" Academy of Management Journal, 26, 586-595.

[2] Smith, A., Organ, D. W. & Near, J. P. (1983). "Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature and Antecedents," Journal of Applied Psychology, 68 (4), 653-663.

[3] Organ, D. W. (1988). "Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome." Lexington. MA: Lexington Books.

[4] Schnake, M. (1991). "Organizational Citizenship: A Review Proposed Model and Research Agenda," Human Relations, 44, 735-759.

[5] Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1996). "The Social Psychology of Organizations." New York: Wiley.

[6] Smith, A., Organ, D. W. & Near, J. P. (1983). Op.cit.

[7] Organ, D. W. (1988). Op.cit.

[8] Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). "Extra-Role Behaviors: In Pursuit of Construct and Definitional Clarity (a bridge over muddied waters)," Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215-285.

[9] Organ, D. W. & Ryan, K. (1995). "Ameta - Analytic Review of Attitudinal and Dispositional Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior," Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802.

[10] Kidwell, Jr., R. E., Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. (1997). "Cohesiveness and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A multi-level Analysis Using Work Groups and Individuals," Journal of Management, 23 (6), 775-793.

[11] Bateman, T. & Organ, D. (1983). Op.cit.

[12] O'Reilly, C. & Chatman, J. (1986). "Organizational Commitment and Psychological Attachment: The Effects of Compliance, Identification and Internalization on Pro-Social Behavior," Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499.

[13] Organ, D. W. (1990). "The Motivational Basis of Organizational Citizenship Behavior," Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43-72.

[14] Puffer, S. M. (1987). "Pro-Social Behavior, Noncompliance Behavior and Work Performance among Commission Sales People," Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 615-621.

[15] Schappe, S. P. (1998). "The Influence of Job Satisfactions, Organizational Commitment, and Fairness Perceptions on Organizational Citizenship Behavior," Journal of Psychology, 132 (3), 277-290.

[16] Williams, L. J. & Anderson, S. E. (1991). "Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and in-role Behaviors," Journal of Management, 17, 601-617.

[17] Farh, J., Organ, D., & Podsakolf, P. (1990). "Accounting for Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Leader Fairness and Task Scope Versus Satisfactions," Journal of Management, 16, 705-721.

[18] Konovsky, M. A. & Folger, R. (1991). "The Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Organizational Citizenship Behavior," Unpublished manuscript, A. B. Freeman School of Business, Tulane University. In J. W. Tansky. (1993). "Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: What is the Relationship?" Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6 (3), 195-207.

[19] Niehoff, B. P. & Moorman, R. H. (1993). "Justice as a Mediator of the Relationships Between Methods of Monitoring and Organizational Citizenship Behavior," Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527-556

[20] Moorman, R. H. (1991). "Relationship between Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Do Fairness Perceptions Influence Employee Citizenship?" Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845-855.

[21] Organ, D. W. (1988). Op.cit.

[22] Schappe, S. P. (1998). Op.cit.

[23] Organ, D.W. & Konovsky, M.(1989). "Cognitive vs. Affective Determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behavior," Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157-164.

[24] Organ, D. W. & Lingl, A. (1995). "Personality, Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior," The Journal of Social Psychology, 135 (3) 339-350.

[25] Bateman, T. & Organ, D. (1983). Op.cit.

[26] Smith, A., Organ, D. W. & Near, J. P. (1983). Op.cit.

[27] Schnake, M., Cochran, D., & Dumler, M. (1995). "Encouraging Organizational Citizenship: The Effects of Job Satisfaction, Perceived Equity and Leadership," Journal of Management Issues, 7 (2), 209-221.

[28] Hodson, R. (1998). "Pride in Task Completion and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Evidence from the Ethnographic Literature," Work & Stress, 12 (4), 307-321.

[29] Munene, J. C. (1995). "Not-on-seat": An Investigation of Some Correlates of Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Nigeria," Applied Psychology: An International Review, 44 (2), 111-122.

[30] Schappe, S. P. (1998). Op.cit.

[31] Farh, J., Organ, D., & Podsakolf, P. (1990).

[32] Organ, D. W. (1988). Op.cit.

[33] Scholl, R. W., Cooper, E. A., & McKenna, J. F. (1987). "Referent Selection in Determining Equity Perceptions: Differential Effects on Behavioral and Attitudinal Outcomes," Personnel Psychology, 40, 113-124.

[34] Farh, J., Organ, D., & Podsakolf, P. (1990).

[35] Moorman, R. H. (1991). Op.cit.

[36] Moorman, R. H. (1993). "The Influence of Cognitive and Affective Based Job Satisfaction on the Relationship between Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior," Human Relations, 46, 759-776.

[37] Tansky, J. W. (1993). "Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: What is the Relationship?" Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6 (3), 195-207.

[38] Organ, D. W. & Ryan, K. (1995). Op.cit.

[39] Pond III, S. B., Nacoste, R.W., Mohr, M. F., & Rodrigues, C. M. (1997). "The Measurement of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Are We Assuming Too Much?" Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27 (17), 1527-1544.

[40] Williams, L. J. & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Op.cit.

[41] Moorman, R. H. (1993). Op.cit.

[42] Organ, D.W. & Konovsky, M. (1989). Op.cit.

[43] Watson, D. & Tellegen, A. (1985). "Toward a Consensual Structure of Mood," Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219-235.

[44] Organ, D.W. & Konovsky, M. (1989). Op.cit.

[45] Greenberg, J. (1993). "Justice and Organizational Citizenship: A Commentary on the State of the Science," Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal, 6, 1-8.

[46] Konovsky, M. A. & Folger, R. (1991). Op.cit.

[47] Niehoff, B. P. & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Op.cit.

[48] Organ, D.W. & Konovsky, M. (1989). Op.cit.

[49] Tansky, J. W. (1993). Op.cit.

[50] Greenberg, J. (1990). "Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow," Journal of Management, 16, 399-432.

[51] Farh, J. L., Earley, P., & Lin, shu-chi. (1997). "Impetus for Action: Cultural Analysis of Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Chinese Society," Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421-444.

[52] Konovsky, M. A. & Pugh, S.D. (1994). "Citizenship Behavior and Social Exchange," Academy of Management Journal, 37 (3), 656-669.

[53] Farh, J. L., Earley, P., & Lin, shu-chi. (1997). Op.cit.

[54] Moorman, R. H. (1991). Op.cit.

[55] Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). "Treating Employees Fairly and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Sorting the Effects of Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Procedural Justice," Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6, 209-225.

[56] Niehoff, B. P. & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Op.cit.

[57] Schappe, S. P. (1998). Op.cit.

[58] Farh, J. L., Earley, P., & Lin, shu-chi. (1997). Op.cit.

[59] George, J. M. (1991). "State of Trait: Effects of Positive Mood on Pro-Social Behavior at Work," Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 (2), 299-307.

[60] Konovsky, M. A. & Pugh, S.D. (1994). Op.cit

[61] Moorman, R. H. (1991). Op.cit.

[62] Niehoff, B. P. & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Op.cit.

[63] George, J. M. (1991). Op.cit.

[64] Konovsky, M. A. & Pugh, S.D. (1994). Op.cit

[65] Moorman, R. H. (1991). Op.cit.

[66] Niehoff, B. P. & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Op.cit.

[67] Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). "Employee Organizational Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover," New York: Academic Press.

[68] Carson, K. D & Carson, P. P. (1998). "Career Commitment, Competencies, and Citizenship," Journal of Career Assessment, 6 (2), 195-208.

[69] Morrison, E. W. (1994). "Role Definitions and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Importance of the Employee's Perspective," Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543-1567.

[70] Munene, J. C. (1995). Op.cit.

[71] O'Reilly, C. & Chatman, J. (1986). Op.cit.

[72] Schappe, S. P. (1998). Op.cit.

[73] Williams, L. J. & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Op.cit.

[74] Tansky, J. W. (1993). Op.cit.

[75] Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Op.cit.

[76] Bateman, T. & Organ, D. (1983). Op.cit.

[77] Tansky, J. W. (1993). Op.cit.

[78] Fox, S., Ben-Nahum, Z., & Yinon, Y. (1989). "Perceived Similarity and Accuracy of Peer Ratings," Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 781-786.

[79] Landy, F. & Farr, J. L. (1990). "Performance Ratings," Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-107

[80] Latham, G. P., Skarlicki, D. P., Irvine, D., & Siegel, J. P. (1993). "The Increasing Importance of Performance Appraisals to Employee Effectiveness in Organizational Settings in North America," In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.) International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 8-132.

[81] Niehoff, B. P. & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Op.cit.

[82] Zayed, A. M. (1995). "Relationship between Monitoring Methods and Employee's Perception of Organizational Justice: An Analytical Study (in Arabic)," Arab Journal of Administrative Sciences, 2 (2), 269-298.

[83] Zayed, A. M. (1995). Op.cit

[84] Niehoff, B. P. & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Op.cit.

[85] Moorman, R. H. (1991). Op.cit.

[86] Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). "Does Perceived Organizational Support Mediate the Relationship between Procedural Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior?" Academy of Management Journal, 41 (3), 351-357.

[87] Zayed, A. M. (1995). Op.cit

[88] Niehoff, B. P. & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Op.cit.

[89] Zayed, A. M. (1995). Op.cit

[90] Moorman, R. H. (1991). Op.cit.

[91] Zayed, A. M. (1995). Op.cit

[92] Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). "Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover among Psychiatric Technicians," Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.

[93] Alquttan, A. (1987). "The Relationship between Organizational Commitment, Personal Characteristics, and Job Performance (in Arabic)," Arab Journal of Administration, 2, 5-32.

[94] Angle, H. L. & Perry, J. L. (1981). "An Empirical Assessment of Organizational Commitment and Organizational Effectiveness," Administrative Science Quarterly, 26 (1), 1-14.

[95] Mathieu, J. E. & Hamel, K. (1989). "A Causal Model of the Antecedents of Organizational Commitment among Professionals and Nonprofessionals," Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34: 299-317.

[96] Shore, L. M. & Martin, H. J. (1989). "Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Relation to Work Performance and Turnover Intentions," Human Relations, 42 (7), 625-638.

[97] Alotaibi, A. (1993). "The Effects of Organizational Commitment on Job Performance for Kuwaitis and Expatriates in the Public Sector in Kuwait (in Arabic)," Arab Journal of Administrative Sciences, 1 (1), 109-134.

[98] Alquttan, A. (1987). Op.cit

[99] Alotaibi, A. (1991). "Job Satisfaction among Employees at the Public and Private Sectors in Kuwait (in Arabic)," Public Administration, 69,31-62.

[100] Alotaibi, A. (1991). Op.cit

[101] Alotaibi, A. ( 1992) "The Relationship between Some Personal Variations and Job Satisfaction: A Comparative Field Study of the National & Expatriate Manpower in the Governmental Sector in the State of Kuwait," Public Administration, 91-122.

[102] Konovsky, M. A. & Organ, D. W. (1996). "Dispositional and Contextual Determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behavior," Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 253-266.

[103] Konovsky, M. A. & Pugh, S.D. (1994). Op.cit

[104] Moorman, R. H. (1991). Op.cit.

[105] Niehoff, B. P. & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Op.cit.

[106] Lind,E, A . &Tyler, T, R. (1988). "The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice," New York: Plenum press.

[107] Organ, D. W. & Moorman, R. H. (1993). "Fairness and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: What are the Connections? Social Justice Research, 6 (1), 5-18.

[108] Moorman, R. H. (1991). Op.cit.

[109] Organ, D. W. & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Op.cit

[110] Smith, A., Organ, D. W. & Near, J. P. (1983). Op.cit.

[111] Farh, J., Organ, D., & Podsakolf, P. (1990).

[112] Moorman, R. H. (1991). Op.cit.

[113] Farh, J., Organ, D., & Podsakolf, P. (1990).

[114] Schappe, S. P. (1998). Op.cit.

[115] Moorman, R. H. (1991). Op.cit.

[116] Organ, D. W. (1990). Op.cit.

[117] Schappe, S. P. (1998). Op.cit

[118] Tansky, J. W. (1993). Op.cit.

[119] Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Op.cit.

[120] Tansky, J. W. (1993). Op.cit.

[121] Williams, L. J. & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Op.cit.

[122] Carson, K. D & Carson, P. P. (1998). Op.cit.

[123] Munene, J. C. (1995). Op.cit.

[124] Morrison, E. W. (1994). Op.cit.

[125] O'Reilly, C. & Chatman, J. (1986). Op.cit.

[126] Schappe, S. P. (1998). Op.cit Adam G. Alotaibi College of Administrative Sciences Kuwait University Kuwait Tel: (965) 251 5809 Fax: (520) 222- 1522 E-mail: Alotaibi@KUC 01.kuniv.Edu.Kw

Adam G. Alotaibi is an Associate Professor of Public Administration at Kuwait University. He received his Ph.D. in Public Administration. His current research interests include job stress, job burnout, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, job involvement, and OCB. This study was financially supported by research administration at Kuwait University, Grant#CPU030