Organizational citizenship behavior: Scale development and validation

Nguyen N. D. Phuong, Le N. T. Dong. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 11(1), 15-24

15

Nguyen Ngoc Duy Phuong^1*, Le Nguyen Thanh Dong¹

¹International University, Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

^*Corresponding author: [email protected]

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

DOI:10.46223/HCMCOUJS.

soci.en.11.1.1904.2021

Employees are expected to perform specific roles in an

organization as specified by their job descriptions and

superior’s expectations. Bidarian and Jafari (2012) found that

employees play an important role in activities in the

organization, such as their social interaction with colleagues

and leaders to conduct the activities. These extra-role

behavior’ are behaviors termed as Organizational Citizenship

Behavior (OCB). Although many OCB studies have been

conducted in Vietnam, it is under adequate. Based on Organ

(1988) and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, and Bachrach

(2000), this research develops and confirms the OCB scale in

the higher education context. The mixed-method (in-depth

interview of one vice-rector, two HR managers, three deans,

and collecting quantitative data from 317 academician and

non-academic staff) was used to develop a new scale suitable

to the Vietnamese context. The research results determine

Received: May 31^st, 2021

Revised: June 10^th, 2021

Accepted: June 12^th, 2021

Keywords:

altruism; civic virtue;

conscientiousness; courtesy;

organizational citizenship

behavior; sportsmanship

OCB

factors

include

altruism,

conscientiousness,

sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue.

1. Introduction

In the management field, the efficiency of a company or improving its performance

stands an extreme position in the organizational leader mindset. The simple solutions are to

upgrade the technologies or enhance procedures. However, all organizations understand that

human resources are the ultimate key to open the next stage. In other words, the performance of

organizations is affected by the utilization of using human resources (Becker, 1962). Employees

are expected to perform specific roles in an organization as specified by their job descriptions

and superior’s expectations. Nowadays, almost all organizations use Key Performance Index

(KPI) systems as a scale to evaluate employees’ performance. When an individual performs

his/her tasks as described, they only meet the standard of expectations. Organizations expected

their employees to perform specific tasks or exhibits particular behavior above and beyond their

call of duty, such as helping their new colleagues, which are not part of their job duties. Bidarian

and Jafari (2012) found that employees play an important role in activities in the organization,

such as their social interaction with colleagues and leaders to conduct the activities. These ‘extra-

role behavior’ are behaviors termed organizational citizenship behavior. Organ (1988)

introduced the phenomenon of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB). It is defined as

“individuals’ 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” (p. 4). Good citizenship behavior is categorized by altruism, conscientiousness,

sportsmanship, and courtesy. Organizations should consider OCB as an essential factor for

16

Nguyen N. D. Phuong, Le N. T. Dong. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 11(1), 15-24

increasing the spontaneous, innovative, and cooperative attitudes to respond to the constantly

changing demands aiming to promote efficiency.

The dimensions of OCB suggested by Organ (1988) and colleagues is the inspiration for

many researchers. For example, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) contributed

to OCB by developing the fifth dimension to OCB - civic virtue. As a result, OCB can be

classified into five dimensions: altruism - discretionary behaviors that have the effect of helping

a specific another person with an organizationally relevant task or problem; conscientiousness -

discretionary behaviors on the part of the employee that goes well beyond the minimum role

requirements of the organization, in the areas of attendance, obeying rules and regulations,

taking breaks, and so forth; sportsmanship - the willingness of the employee to tolerate less than

ideal circumstances without complaining; courtesy - discretionary behavior on the part of an

individual aimed at preventing work-related problems with others from occurring; civic virtue -

behavior on the part of an individual that indicates that he/she responsibly participates in, is

involved in or is concerned about the life of the company. To conduct OCB researches,

researchers generally measured the dimensions of OCB suggested by Organ (1988) by using

scales such as those developed by Podsakoff et al. (2000). Therefore, this study, the suggestion

of Podsakoff et al. (2000), is used as the foundation to build and determine OCB scales.

2. Literature review

The term Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) has been used to describe work

behaviors that the formal reward system could not recognize but promotes the effective

functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988). Many researchers are interested in the belief that

job satisfaction, organizational commitment strength influence organizational effectiveness

through behaviors that are not mentioned in the job description but managers want. Since the

awareness of OCB by Organ (1988), attention to behaviors that suitable for the definition of

OCB has increased dramatically (Podsakoff et al., 2000).

Organ, Podsakoff, and MacKenzie (2005) argued that satisfied employees have higher

OCB because they want to reciprocate to the organization that already treats them well. Wagner

and Hollenbeck (2010) strengthen this notion. Numerous pieces of literature regarding the

relationship between job satisfaction and OCB are easily obtained. When the satisfaction was

high, then OCB increased. Other scholars such as Foote and Li-Ping Tang (2008); Intaraprasong,

Dityen, Krugkrunjit, and Subhadrabandhu (2012); Mohammad, Quoquab, and Alias (2011); and

Talachi, Gorji, and Boerhannoeddin (2014) also found a positive and significant relationship

between job satisfaction and OCB. That is, the individual who satisfied with the job displayed

high OCB. In addition, Prasetio, Yuniarsih, and Ahman (2017) have found that job satisfaction

has a positive and significant effect on OCB with a correlation of 0.334.

O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) have found that OCB dimensions such as identification

and internalization were positively related to OCB-type behaviors. Later, Schappe (1998)

considered job satisfaction, procedural justice, and OC to investigate their influence on OCB.

The organizational commitment had the only significant relationship to OCB. Rana, Iftikhar,

Abbasi, and Abbas (2018) argued that committed employees were more likely to exhibit

citizenship behaviors. The meta-analytic work of Organ and Ryan (1995) supported the view that

commitment was related to OCB.

Motowidlo (2000) agreed that there is an overlap between OCB and performance context

behaviors, such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment, but there are some critical

definitional differences. Organ (1997) re-defined OCB as behavior that contributes “to the

Nguyen N. D. Phuong, Le N. T. Dong. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 11(1), 15-24

17

maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports task

performance” (p. 95). This modified definition of OCB is very similar to the suggestions by

Podsakoff et al. (2000). In summary, this study conducted the five dimensions of OCB from

Organ et al. (2005).

Dimension of organizational citizenship behavior scale

OCB is about discretionary behavior and contributions that are not explicitly associated

with the specific job requirements. In addition, OCB has been thought of as personal and

arbitrary behaviors which were not correctly defined by the formal remuneration system of the

organization and generally increased the organization’s performance (Bateman & Strasser,

1984). Arbitrary means that this behavior is not among the occupational duties or role behaviors.

It is not among the employees’ recruitment commitment, and employees don’t need to do it

(Podsakoff et al., 2000).

Organ (1988) suggested a five-factor conceptualization, and it has been the foundation of

much researches on OCB. These factors are:

(i) Altruism is directed towards other individuals but contributes to group efficiency by

enhancing individual performance; participants help new colleagues and freely give

of their time;

(ii) Conscientiousness is the clever use of time to enhance both individuals and the

group; participants give more time to the organization and exert effort beyond the

formal requirements;

(iii) Sportsmanship increases the amount of time spent on organizational endeavors;

participants decrease whining, complaining, and carping;

(iv) Courtesy prevents problems and facilitates constructive use of time; participants give

advance notices, timely reminders, and appropriate information;

(v) Civic virtue promotes the organization’s interests broadly; participants voluntarily

serve on committees and attend functions.

Further research on the dimensionality of OCB has concluded that future studies could

condense the original five dimensions of OCB (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, & Podsakoff, 2016a).

Recent research has found support for a three-factor model of OCB: “conscientiousness” is

removed, and “altruism” and “courtesy” are combined to form a single “helping” dimension

(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2016b), resulting in three factors: helping behavior, civic

virtue, and sportsmanship. In addition, a different view on the dimensionality of OCB came from

Biswas and Mazumder (2017), who divided OCB into two types: behaviors directed at specific

individuals in the organization, such as courtesy and altruism; and behaviors concerned with

benefiting the organization as a whole, such as conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic

virtue. The present study employs a measure of OCB for empirical research based on the original

five dimensions of OCB: altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and voice

(Organ, 2018).

The first factor was referred to as “altruism” because the statements loaded on this factor

pertained to help provided to a colleague or coworker, whether that help was unsolicited or

responded to a request for help. The help could take the form of aiding the colleague with a task

by some means, such as coaching, working together to handle a big job or catch up with the flow

of work, and offering encouragement and reassurance.

18

Nguyen N. D. Phuong, Le N. T. Dong. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 11(1), 15-24

A different factor in the analysis, which was initially referred to as “conscientiousness”,

seemed to have in common a more organizationally relevant focus rather than targeting a

particular individual. Some examples of items loading on this dimension or factor were

exemplary records of attendance and punctuality, maintaining a clean and orderly environment,

and involvement - when appropriate - in off-hours organizational programs and projects that

sustain and enhance the organizations’’ reputation in the community. Some of the items, such as

attendance and punctuality, are more likely to be captured in the formal information system of

the firm; others, if not recorded, are more apt to catch the supervisor’s attention and

informational expressions of gratitude.

Another dimension that could be discerned in factor analyses of the early studies seemed

to have several common items describing what members do not exhibit. For example: don’t rail

against real or imagined slights; don’t fuss about the temporary loss of privileges and

conveniences; don’t overload the systems with grievances, formal or otherwise; don’t foul the

atmosphere with negative comments about coworkers. The motion of ‘sportsmanship” - the idea

of “rolling with the punches”, accepting the fact that “in each life, some rain must fall”,

“accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative” - seemed to qualify as a form of OCB.

“Courtesy” came out of the analysis as a factor that had to do more with organization

members’ actions to prevent problems. This factor includes such gestures as giving colleagues

advance notice about some development that they might need to prepare for, using ordinary

resources in a fashion that leaves them problem-free for those who use them later, for example,

reloading paper into the copier.

The fifth and final dimension to be added to most of the measures intended to capture

OCB was “civic virtue”. This factor did not emerge from some early studies because it was not

proffered as a separate form of OCB distinguishable from the others and thus did not include

items that might capture it. This seems surprising, given that Katz and Kahn (1966) had

explicitly recognized it as a form of “spontaneous cooperation.”

3. Research methodology

3.1. Research methodology and sampling

This study has used qualitative and quantitative methods to utilize the advantages of both

research methods for the comprehensive valuation of the nexus of variables of the research

model. The qualitative research method enables us to approach in-depth and detailed information

about the views, visions, and measurements of OCB. Moreover, qualitative research with in-

depth expert semi-structured interviews at a face-to-face model enables authors to collect

different attitudes and behaviors that potentially lead to the same action or a decision. The

selected respondent types for interviews are the board of rectors, HR managers, and deans in

universities. Six respondents participated in this interview, in which there were one vice-rectors,

two HR managers, and three deans. The result of this phase is the final questionnaire which is

suitable with research context and ready for quantitative research performing. The questionnaire

was built using 7 Likert scale points, which indicates that the point ranges from 1 (strongly

disagree) being ascending to 7 (strongly agree).

The participants from managers and staff of universities in Ho Chi Minh City. Survey

subjects include leaders and managers – without teaching (about 06%), leaders and managers

cum lecturers (about 14%), lecturers (about 35%), and academic staff (about 45%), with no age

limit for respondents. The collected questionnaires were screened, and satisfied questionnaires

were selected. Over 400 questionnaires were sent, but only 317 respondents are acceptable for

further analysis (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2016).

Nguyen N. D. Phuong, Le N. T. Dong. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 11(1), 15-24

19

3.2. Measurement

All research concepts are based on previous studies, qualitative research results, adjusted

through preliminary research, and presented in statement form. Likert scale, with seven levels

from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree, is used as follows:

Table 1

Organizational citizenship behavior measurement scale

No.

Dimensions

Resources

I Altruism (ALT): 04 items

1 Helps others who have been absent

Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997)

2 Helps others who have heavy workloads

3 Helps orient new people even though it is not required Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997)

Willingly give your time to help others who have Lee and Allen (2002)

work-related problems

4

II Conscientiousness (CON): 04 items

Obeys organization’s rules and regulations even when Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997)

no one is watching

1

2 Fulfills the responsibilities described in the job description Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997)

3 Accomplish tasks assigned by supervisors

4 Meet the KPIs in charged

Qualitative research

III Sportsmanship (SPT): 04 items

Defend the organization when other employees Lee and Allen (2002)

criticize it

1

2 Show pride when representing the organization in public Lee and Allen (2002)

3 Demonstrate concern about the image of the organization Lee and Allen (2002)

Offer ideas to improve the functioning of the Lee and Allen (2002)

organization

4

IV Courtesy (COT): 03 items

1 Is mindful ofhowhis/herbehavioraffects otherpeople’s job Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997)

2 Tries to avoid creating problems for coworkers

Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997)

Take action to protect the organization from potential Lee and Allen (2002)

problems

3

V Civic virtue (CIV): 04 items

Attends functions that are not required but help the Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997)

organization’s image

1

2 Keeps abreast of changes in the organization

Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997)

3 Share personal property with others to help their work Lee and Allen (2002)

4 Maintain and implement organizational cultures

Total: 19 items

Qualitative research

Source: The authors’ data analysis

20

Nguyen N. D. Phuong, Le N. T. Dong. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 11(1), 15-24

4. Data analysis

4.1. Cronbach’s Alpha

The Cronbach’s Alpha Test is used to check scale reliability. All scales meet the

reliability requirements: Cronbach’s Alpha of the scales is greater than 0.7. Only one item of

courtesy, if deleted, will increase the alpha from 0.74 to 0.82. After an in-depth review, the

decision to maintain all items is given.

Table 2

Cronbach’s Alpha results

Factor

Cronbach’s Alpha

No. of items

Altruism (ALT)

α = 0.957

α = 0.931

α = 0.950

α = 0.740

α = 0.903

04

03

04

Conscientiousness (CON)

Sportsmanship (SPT)

Courtesy (COT)

Civic virtue (CIV)

Source: Data analysis result of the research

4.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Table 3 showed that all factor loadings are greater than 0.5, and the KMO index is 0.883,

which indicates that the scale is suitable. Furthermore, the significance in Bartlett’s test has a

value of 0.000 (< 0.05), a standard fit (Hair, Wolfinbarger, Money, Samouel, & Page, 2015),

proves that this scale is by the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) criteria.

Table 3

KMO and Bartlett’s test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.

.883

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square

5,210.868

171

df

Sig.

.000

Source: Data analysis result of the research

The eigenvalue of the OCB factor shows that the number of factors including Altruism

(ALT), Conscientiousness (CON), Sportsmanship (SPT), Courtesy (COT), and Civic virtue

(CIV). Moreover, that the Total Variance Explained index reaches 81.768% (> 50%) meets the

required standard. Finally, Factor loading shows the correlation level between observed variables

and factors.

Nguyen N. D. Phuong, Le N. T. Dong. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 11(1), 15-24

21

Table 4

Total variance explained

Source: Data analysis result of the research

The Exploratory Factor Analysis showed in Table 5 indicated that 19 items of OCB had

been classified into intended categories, named as altruism, sportsmanship, conscientiousness,

civic virtue, and courtesy.

Table 5

Rotated Component matrix^a

Component

1

2

3

4

5

ALT3

ALT2

ALT1

ALT4

SPT3

SPT2

SPT4

SPT1

CON2

CON3

CON4

CON1

CIV4

CIV1

CIV3

CVI2

COT2

COT3

COT1

.899

.891

.889

.871

.877

.861

.850

.833

.923

.896

.881

.868

.870

.866

.821

.806

.878

.833

.698

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 05 iterations.

Source: Data analysis result of the research

22

Nguyen N. D. Phuong, Le N. T. Dong. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 11(1), 15-24

5. Discussion & conclusion

The Organizational Citizenship Behavior scale is based on the definition by Organ (1988)

with five dimensions and developed by the contribution of other scholars. From this definition,

the study, based on Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997), Lee and Allen (2002), and qualitative

research, has developed an OCB scale.

In original, the Organ’s OCB scale has 24 items. These items included five items in

conscientiousness, five items in sportsmanship, four items in civic virtue, five items in courtesy,

and five items in altruism. Lee and Allen (2002) classified OCB into OCBI and OCBO with 16

items. OCBI means behaviors directed to individuals, and OCBO means behaviors directed to

the organization. However, these scale contents are not appropriate in Asia, particularly in the

Vietnamese context. Therefore, qualitative research is mandatory to fulfill these gaps. Because

of the rapid change of working environment and the technology and business context, the

proposal OCB scale has been combined with the Organ’s scale, Lee’s scale, and qualitative

research’s results. As a result, the scale has 19 items divided into five factors (altruism,

conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue) as Organ’s model.

In the conscientiousness factor, qualitative research contributes to items: accomplish

tasks assigned from supervisors and meet the KPIs in charge are valuable. Because of the

industrial evolution 4.0, organizations are it difficult to mention all functions in job descriptions.

The change of technology has created more and more “un-named tasks.” Furthermore, almost

every organization change their management into MBO (Management By Objective), which

assigned every position in specific KPI (Key Performance Index). Therefore, the contribution of

two new items is suitable for the new business context. The factor of civic virtue has been

renewed with the item “maintain and implement organizational cultures” bring the term

“organizational cultures” into OCB. Organizational cultures are central in governing the

understanding of behavior, social events, institutions, and processes in organizations (Alvesson,

2012). Both scales from Organ and Lee have been combined for creating a new scale in other

factors. This combination has the advantages of keeping the original model but add-in new items

suitable to the modern context.

The purpose of this research was to point out some light on the OCB research. However,

many studies of OCB, but the research of OCB in Vietnam context are under adequate.

Moreover, almost OCB studies were used original scales from western scholars, which may not

be fitted in the Vietnamese context. Therefore, this study could be used as the OCB scale in

Vietnam for further research. The present findings also suggest that organization managers have

to pay more attention to organizational citizenship behaviors; they may provide a richer

understanding of employees’ feelings and behaviors at work. This study, once again, showed that

all five factors of OCB have a vital contribution to employees’ behaviors as good citizens in an

organization. Many studies have proved the relationship between OCB and organizational

outcomes. Thus, increase OCB will lead to improving organizational performance. The low

overall response rate and the non-probabilistic use in this study may raise concerns that our

sample differed from its population on various characteristics. However, the response rate is not

likely to adversely affect the validity of findings (Schalm & Kelloway, 2001). Moreover, all

respondents are from universities, which could lead to some modifications when implicating

organizations beyond the higher education field. Finally, we reiterate our concern that

investigates the scale in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors is a challenging and

complex endeavor. Nonetheless, we believe this to be important as OCB in the Vietnamese

context is emerging. We look forward to future research that attempts to contribute both in

theoretical and empirical on OCB.

Nguyen N. D. Phuong, Le N. T. Dong. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 11(1), 15-24

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

23

This research is funded by Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City (VNU-HCM)

under grant number C2020-28-05.

References

Alvesson, M. (2012). Understanding organizational culture. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Bateman, T. S., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of

organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 95-112.

Batman, T. (1983). Job satisfaction and the soldier: The relationship between affect and

employee Citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587-595.

Becker, G. S. (1962). Investment in human capital: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Political

Economy, 70(5), 9-49.

Bidarian, S., & Jafari, P. (2012). The relationship between organizational justice and

organizational trust. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47(2012), 1622-1626.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.905

Biswas, N., & Mazumder, Z. (2017). Exploring organizational citizenship behavior as an outcome

of job satisfaction: A critical review. IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(2), 7-16.

Foote, D. A., & Li-Ping Tang, T. (2008). Job satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

(OCB) does team commitment make a difference in self-directed teams? Management

Decision, 46(6), 933-947.

Hair, J. F., Jr Wolfinbarger, M., Money, A. H., Samouel, P., & Page, M. J. (2015). Essentials of

business research methods. London, UK: Routledge.

Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on Partial Least

Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). London, UK: Sage publications.

Intaraprasong, B., Dityen, W., Krugkrunjit, P., & Subhadrabandhu, T. (2012). Job satisfaction and

organizational citizenship behavior of personnel at one university hospital in Thailand.

Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 95(6), S102-S108.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The

role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131-142.

Mohammad, J., Quoquab, F., & Alias, M. (2011). Job satisfaction and organisational citizenship

behaviour: An empirical study at higher learning institutions. Asian Academy of

Management Journal, 16(2), 149-165.

Motowidlo, S. J. (2000). Some basic issues related to contextual performance and organizational

citizenship behavior in human resource management. Human Resource Management

Review, 10(1), 115-126.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:

The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492-499.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington,

MA: Books/DC Heath and Com.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human

Performance, 10(2), 85-97.

24

Nguyen N. D. Phuong, Le N. T. Dong. HCMCOUJS-Social Sciences, 11(1), 15-24

Organ, D. W. (2018). The roots of organizational citizenship. In P. M. Podsakoff, S. B. Mackenzie

& N. P. Podsakoff (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational citizenship behavior

(pp.169-184). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta‐analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional

predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775-802.

Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior:

Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on

organizational performance: A review and suggestion for future research. Human

Performance, 10(2), 133-151.

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2016a). Organizational citizenship

behavior: Introduction and overview of the handbook. In P. M. Podsakoff, S. B. Mackenzie

& N. P. Podsakoff (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational citizenship behavior (pp.

1-5). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2016b). Recommendations for creating

better concept definitions in the organizational, behavioral, and social sciences.

Organizational Research Methods, 19(2), 159-203.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader

behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational

citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational

citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and

suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.

Prasetio, A. P., Yuniarsih, T., & Ahman, E. (2017). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment,

and organizational citizenship behaviour in state-owned banking. Universal Journal of

Management, 5(1), 32-38.

Rana, M. S., Iftikhar, U., Abbasi, S. G., & Abbas, M. (2018). The role of organizational justice to

develop organizational citizenship behavior: Moderating effect of Islamic work ethics.

Revista Amazonia Investiga, 7(16), 46-60.

Schalm, R. L., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). The relationship between response rate and effect size in

occupational health psychology research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(2),

160-163.

Schappe, S. P. (1998). The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and fairness

perceptions on organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Psychology, 132(3),

277-290.

Talachi, R. K., Gorji, M. B., & Boerhannoeddin, A. B. (2014). An investigation of the role of job

satisfaction in employees’ organizational citizenship behavior. Collegium Antropologicum,

38(2), 429-436.

Wagner, J., & Hollenbeck, J. (2010). Organizational behavior: Securing competitive advantage.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.