(11) citizenship behavior and social exchange

8/8/2019 (11) Citizenship Behavior and Social Exchange

1/15

Citizenship Behavior and Social ExchangeAuthor(s): Mary A. Konovsky and S. Douglas Pugh

Source: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Jun., 1994), pp. 656-669Published by: Academy of ManagementStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/256704Accessed: 22/09/2009 02:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aom .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academyof Management Journal.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/256704?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aomhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aomhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/256704?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/15

? Academy of Management Journal1994, Vol. 37, No. 3, 656-669.

CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL EXCHANGE

MARY A. KONOVSKYS. DOUGLAS PUGHTulane University

This article develops and empirically examines a social exchangemodel of organizational citizenship behavior. An employee's trust in asupervisor is proposed to mediate the relationship between proceduralfairness in the supervisor's decision making and employee citizenship.Data from 475 hospital employees and their supervisors were consis-tent with our model. We discuss future research directions.

Katz (1964) identified three categories of employee behavior essentialfor organizational effectiveness. According to Katz, individuals must first beinduced to enter and remain with an organization; as employees, they mustcarry out specific role requirements in a dependable fashion; and they mustengage in innovative and spontaneous activity that goes beyond role pre-scriptions. Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) dubbed this last category of em-

ployeebehavior

"organizational citizenshipbehavior"

(OCB). Citizenshipbehavior is employee behavior that is above and beyond the call of duty andis therefore discretionary and not rewarded in the context of an organiza-tion's formal reward structure. As early as 1964, Katz recognized the impor-tance of organizational citizenship behavior for organizational effectiveness.

Although a good deal of research has been conducted on organizationalcitizenship behavior, the development of OCB theory has progressed ratherslowly. Organ's social exchange interpretation of organizational citizenshipbehavior (1988) was a promising step toward a theory, and a small numberof empirical studies have examined various aspects of Organ's interpreta-

tion. For example, Folger and Konovsky (1989) demonstrated that proce-dural, not distributive, justice predicted trust in supervisor, one of the keycomponents of social exchange (Blau, 1964). Yet the research on organiza-tional citizenship behavior has been conducted largely without a theoreticalframework, often referencing, but failing to systematically explore, Organ'ssocial exchange theory and failing to specify how issues such as fairness andtrust are crucial to the development of social exchange relationships.

The purpose of this study was to test a social exchange model of organ-izational citizenship behavior in which (1) procedural justice is central tothe development of employees' trust in their supervisors and (2) trust insupervisor mediates the relationship between justice and OCB. The super-visor-employee relationship was the focus of our study because social ex-change implies an informal contract between an employee and an organiza-

656


3/15

Konovsky and Pugh

tion. The employee's supervisor largely represents the organization to theemployee. Turning away from discussions of contracts between employeesand

depersonalized organizations,we focused on the often

personalizedrelationships between employees and their supervisors.Our study goes beyond the existing research in two ways. First, we

provide a compelling theoretical framework for our model. We attempted toclearly explicate and test a social exchange model of organizational citizen-ship behavior, which should aid understanding of its nature and determi-nants. We also measured the variables central to our model and simulta-neously examined their interrelationships.

We would like to add one caveat before we present our model. Althoughwe examined two important situational factors, fairness and trust, critical to

social exchange, we are not arguing that factors suggested by other theoriesdo not also account for organizational citizenship behavior. In fact, a grandtheory of organizational citizenship behavior would include dispositionalfactors as well as group- and organization-level situational factors. Themodel we are proposing focuses on variables critical to a social exchangeinterpretation of organizational citizenship behavior and is based on themodel of social exchange Blau (1964) presented. It is what Moore, Johns, andPinder (1980) termed a middle-range theory. Middle-range theories, whichare concerned not with all possible related phenomena, but with a fewphenomena, are abstract enough to transcend simple description but con-crete enough to provide for the generation, consolidation, and evaluation ofempirical evidence that is liable to modification and refutation (Merton,1968).

SOCIAL EXCHANGE AND CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR

Organ (1988) proposed that supervisor fairness leads to employee citi-zenship because a social exchange relationship develops between employ-ees and their supervisors. When supervisors treat employees fairly, social

exchange and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) dictate that employ-ees reciprocate, and Organ suggested that organizational citizenship behav-ior is one likely avenue for employee reciprocation.

Blau (1964) was among the first to differentiate social exchange fromeconomic exchange. According to Blau, social exchange refers to relation-ships that entail unspecified future obligations. Like economic exchange,social exchange generates an expectation of some future return for contri-butions; however, unlike economic exchange, the exact nature of that returnis unspecified. Furthermore, social exchange does not occur on a quid proquo or calculated basis. Economic exchange is based on transactions, but

social exchange relationships are based on individuals' trusting that theother parties to the exchanges will fairly discharge their obligations in thelong run (Holmes, 1981). This trust is necessary for maintaining social ex-change, especially in the short run, where some temporary or perceivedasymmetries may exist between an individual's inducements-that is, the

1994 657


4/15

Academy of Management Journal

benefits received from participation in the social exchange relationship-and contributions, the individual's inputs into the relationship. Finally, the

expectationof

long-termfairness in social

exchangecontrasts with the ex-

pectation of short-term fairness that typically characterizes economic ex-change.

Blau's contrast of social and economic exchange parallels a distinctionmade by Rousseau and Parks (1993) with regard to contracts. Rousseau andParks described contracts as agreements that create an obligation to do or notdo something. According to those authors, contracts vary along a continuumanchored on one end by transactional contracts, which are short-term agree-ments specifying the limited involvement of each party in the lives andactivities of the other, and at the other end by relational contracts, which

include the exchange of socioemotional elements, are open-ended, and areoften long-term. Relational and transactional contracts respectively corre-

spond to the underlying dynamics of social and economic exchange. Wetherefore suggest that one manifestation of social exchange is reliance onrelational contracts and that one manifestation of economic exchange isreliance on transactional contracts. This study focused on two importantissues emerging from the above discussion: (1) identifying determinants ofcontract and exchange type and (2) the effect of each contract and exchangetype on employee behavior, specifically, organizational citizenship behav-ior.

According to Blau (1964) and others (e.g., Clark & Mills, 1979; Rousseau& Parks, 1993), trust and other "macromotives," such as loyalty and com-mitment, provide the basis for relational contracts and social exchange. Mac-romotives are sets of attributions that characterize people's feelings andbeliefs about their exchange partners; an example is "My supervisor is trust-

worthy" (Holmes, 1981). Although trust is a key element in the emergenceand maintenance of social exchange relationships, theorists have largelyignored the central issue of how trust emerges in these relationships(Holmes, 1981). One source of trust in the employee-supervisor relationship

is procedural fairness (Lind & Tyler, 1988). The use of procedurally fairsupervisory practices affects higher-order issues such as employees' com-mitment to a system and trust in its authorities because the use of fair

procedures demonstrates an authority's respect for the rights and dignity ofindividual employees. This demonstrated respect indicates that an authorityis devoted to the principles of procedurally fair treatment, thus resulting inthe employees' trust in the long-run fairness of the relationship. Fair proce-dures may also have symbolic meaning insofar as individuals are treated asends rather than means (Folger & Konovsky, 1989).

In contrast to procedural justice, distributive justice, or the fairness of

decision outcomes, is the typical metric for judging the fairness of transac-tional contracts and economic exchange. A norm of distributive fairness

implies that the parties to an exchange give benefits with the expectation ofreceiving comparable benefits in the short run. When the conditionality ofan exchange is salient, as it is when distributive justice and economic ex-

658 June


5/15

Konovsky and Pugh

change characterize a situation, the expression of feelings like trust is un-dercut because sufficient extrinsic explanations for the parties' continued

participation in the relationship exist. The conditionality of economic ex-change also inhibits the development of trust because that developmentrequires evidence of one party's self-sacrifice and responsiveness to anotherperson's needs, which conditional exchanges do not provide (Holmes, 1981;MacNeil, 1985). Transactional contracts and distributive justice are thereforeless likely than relational contracts and procedural justice to produce attri-butions of trust. Thus,

Hypothesis 1: Procedural justice in a supervisor's deci-sion making will be more likely than distributive justiceto

predicta subordinate's

trustin

the supervisor.Our second hypothesis focuses on the relationship between trust and

organizational citizenship behavior. As we noted above, trust is the basis ofrelational contracts and social exchange. According to the vertical dyadmodel of leadership (Dansereau & Graen, 1975), relational exchange betweensupervisors and subordinates leads employees to expend much time andenergy on tasks, to be innovative in completing tasks, and to accept respon-sibilities in addition to those specified in their employment contracts. Re-lational contracts therefore encourage employees to behave in ways that arenot strictly mandated by their employers (Rousseau & Parks, 1993) and aredirected toward serving the collectivity (Graham, 1991). To the extent thattrust is a manifestation of social exchange and social exchange accounts fororganizational citizenship behavior, we predict the following:

Hypothesis 2: Trust will predict organizational citizen-ship behavior and mediate the relationship between pro-cedural justice and citizenship behavior.

METHODS

Data

Respondents for this study were the employees of a Department of Vet-erans' Affairs hospital located in the south central United States. This hos-pital employs approximately 1,700 individuals, 630 of whom (37%) volun-tarily participated in the survey. Supervisors provided the organizationalcitizenship behavior data for 1,169 (68.8%) employees. A complete em-ployee questionnaire and a supervisor's OCB rating form were obtained for475 (28%) of the hospital's employees. Of the 475 respondents, 56 percentwere men; the average age was 43 years, the average education, 15 years, andthe average organizational tenure, 10.5 years.1

1 Because we conducted our survey in a hospital, a setting that is often characterized by awork force composed mostly of women, the proportion of men (56%) in our respondent groupis noteworthy and may raise concerns about the generalizability of our results. The high pro-

(continued)

1994 659


6/15


Procedures

Hospital employeeswere informed of the

survey througha

jointmemo

from the employees' union and top management. Employees met with aresearcher (one of the authors) during work hours, listened to an explanationof the study procedures, and completed their surveys. Employees who wereunable to attend scheduled meetings received surveys from their supervi-sors. Employees completed the surveys on work time and returned them, insealed envelopes, to a hospital location from which we periodically col-lected them. We attended a hospital staff meeting to distribute the supervisorsurveys. Supervisors rated the level of organizational citizenship behaviorfor each of the employees who directly reported to them and returned their

forms to the same hospital location employees used.

Analytic Method

According to the study's theoretical model, trust in a supervisor medi-ates the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizen-ship behavior. Figure 1 presents the structural and measurement model pa-rameters used as the basis for evaluating this model. The boxes in Figure 1represent manifest or measured variables, and the circles represent latent orunobserved constructs. We used LISREL VII (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1988) to

compare the fit of four nested models.Model 1, the structural null model, which includes no relationships

among the latent variables or between the latent and manifest variables, wasused as the baseline model in this study. Model 2, the measurement model,includes the parameters relating the manifest indicators to their latent con-structs, the measurement errors associated with the indicators, and the cor-relation between the exogenous variables. This study also examined twotheoretical models: model 3, a fully mediated model, in which trust medi-ates all exogenous variable effects on organizational citizenship behavior,and model

4,a

partiallymediated

model,which

specifiesdirect effects of

fairness on organizational citizenship behavior in addition to mediated ef-fects.

portion of men had two causes: First, the services the Veterans' Administration hospital pro-vided drew on many departments having predominantly male employees. In fact, an overall 40percent of the employees at the hospital were men. Second, the response rate from nursingservices, the largest hospital service, and a predominantly female one, was low (13%). We havelittle reason, however, to believe that gender or sampling bias threatened the generalizability ofour results. First, there is no existing empirical evidence and no theoretical reason to believethat gender is a determinant of organizational citizenship behavior. The gender ratio among ourrespondents is similar to that in other studies of OCB, and post hoc analyses of our datacomparing nursing services to other hospital services indicated no differences in variable re-lationships among services or by gender. Second, any gender or volunteer bias would restrictthe range of our predictor and criterion variables and attenuate their relationships, not increasethem.

660 June


7/15

Konovsky and Pugh

FIGURE 1Representation of the Saturated Structural and Measurement Model

S6E~62"H =- [ I"\ E\ E3x

622_ 21 Justice 4X-4

,2 *5 42 5 -5

Trust I 21Citizenship

2 -63 ---- __ Behavior X _ 6_

72?-

Justicep102

The fit of the models was evaluated by comparing the difference in thechi-square values of the adjacent models in the series to the difference intheir degrees of freedom (Bentler & Bonett, 1980). If the difference betweenthe chi squares of the null and measurement models, for example, is signif-icant relative to the change in degrees of freedom, the parameters added inthe measurement model result in a better-fitting model and therefore remain

in the model for subsequent comparisons. The next model in the nestedseries is then likewise compared to the best-fitting model emerging from theprevious comparison until the relative fit of all the models is evaluated.Additional fit indexes provided by LISREL VII include the adjusted good-ness-of-fit index and the root-mean-square residual. Two incremental fitindexes, the Tucker-Lewis index (Tucker & Lewis, 1973) and the compara-tive fit index (Bentler, 1990), were also calculated. These indexes assess theimprovement in the fit of a model relative to the baseline model. The incre-mental fit indexes are independent of sample size and degrees of freedom, incontrast to the

adjusted goodnessof fit and

root-mean-squareresidual,

which perform poorly against the criteria of sample size and degrees offreedom (Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988). Bentler and Bonett (1980) sug-gested that a value of .90 or higher for the Tucker-Lewis or comparative fitindex indicates an adequate fit of model to data.

1994 661


8/15


Measures

Proceduraljustice. Konovsky

andFolger (1991) developed

and vali-dated the eight-item measure of procedural justice in supervisor decisionmaking used here. This measure reflects the six procedural justice rulesLeventhal (1990) identified; an example is "My supervisor allowed me tostate my views." Employees responded to the items using a scale rangingfrom strongly disagree, 1, to strongly agree, 5.

Employees responded twice to the procedural fairness items, first de-scribing their supervisors' overall decision making and second, the mostrecent decision their supervisors made that directly affected them. Two de-cision-making situations were used to seek preliminary evidence that this

study's results were stable over time; the alpha coefficient of reliability forthe fairness of supervisors' overall decision making and most recent deci-sions were both .95.

Distributive justice. Two items developed by Tyler (1990) composed thedistributive justice measure; one was "How fair was the outcome you re-ceived? (very unfair, 1, to very fair, 5). The interitem correlations for thisscale were .82 and .90 for supervisor's overall and most recent decisionmaking, respectively.

Trust in supervision. Employees' trust in their supervisors was assessedusing a three-item scale developed by Roberts and O'Reilly (1974); an ex-ample is "How free do you feel to discuss with your immediate supervisorthe problems and difficulties you have in your job, without jeopardizingyour position or having it held against you?" (low level of trust, 1, to high,7). Roberts and O'Reilly (1974) provided evidence for the convergent anddiscriminant validity of this measure; the alpha was .88.

For the measures of procedural fairness, distributive fairness, and trust,questionnaire items provided the indicators for the latent constructs. James,Mulaik, and Brett (1982) recommended having three or four indicators foreach latent construct to avoid model identification problems. Only the two-

item distributive justice measure failed to meet this criterion. To avoidthe problems associated with having only two distributive justice indicators,we constrained the measurement errors of the two distributive justiceitems to be equal. The raw data indicated that this was a reasonable con-straint.

Organizational citizenship behavior. A set of items largely similar tothe items in the Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale developed byPodsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) was used. This scaleincludes measures of Smith and colleagues' (1983) original altruism andgeneralized compliance factors and scales for three additional componentsof OCB identified by Organ (1988). Altruism refers to interpersonal helpingand includes discretionary behaviors that assist another person with an or-ganizationally relevant task or problem, conscientiousness to carrying outrole behaviors well beyond the minimum required levels, sportsmanship to

June62


9/15

Konovsky and Pugh

willingness to accept minor frustrations without complaint, courtesy to tak-ing action to prevent problems from occurring by respecting others' needs,

and civic virtue (Graham, 1991) to responsible workplace participation.Supervisors responded to 32 scale items using a seven-point responsescale ranging from strongly disagree, 1, to strongly agree, 7. A factor analysisof the OCB items with principal axis extraction and varimax rotation re-vealed a factor structure similar to that Podsakoff and colleagues (1990)identified. We eliminated items that double-loaded or loaded on a factordifferent from that proposed by those authors.

Conscientiousness was assessed with four items, including "maintainsa clean work place" (x = .84). Altruism was assessed by five items, includ-ing "helps others who have been absent" (ac = .90). Sportsmanship was

assessed by five items, including "always finds fault with what the organ-ization is doing" (reverse-coded; a = .88). Courtesy was measured by threeitems, including "consults with me or other people who might be affected byhis/her actions or decisions" (ca = .87). Civic virtue was assessed by twoitems, including "attends and participates in meetings regarding the com-pany." The interitem correlation for this scale was .68.

The OCB factors were used as the five manifest indicators of organiza-tional citizenship behavior for two reasons. The first was the sheer numberof items measuring citizenship behavior that were thus available. Models

having largenumbers of indicators often result in failure to find a model that

fits well. The second reason was the potential for composite indicators (fac-tors) of latent constructs to have high reliability (Bentler & Chou, 1987).

RESULTS

Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and zero-order correlation coefficients for the study's latent constructs.

Table 2 displays the values of the fit indexes for overall supervisory

decision making. The pattern of results was identical for the most recentsupervisory decisions. We tested the adequacy of the measurement model bycomparing the measurement model and the null baseline model, as Ander-son and Gerbing (1988) recommended. The difference in chi-square valuesfor the comparison was significant, indicating that the measurement modelprovided a significant improvement in fit. The values of the remaining in-cremental fit indexes, all of which were above .90, provided additional ev-idence for the adequacy of the measurement model. In addition, examina-tion of the factor loadings for the measurement model revealed values rang-ing from 0.98 to 1.438, all significant values. Finally, examination of themodification indexes revealed no exceedingly large values. The largest value(13.051) was for an item measuring distributive justice that also correlatedhighly with the procedural justice construct. This result was not surprising,given the high correlation between procedural and distributive justice. The

1994 663


10/15


TABLE 1Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Zero-Order Correlations

for Study VariablesaVariables Means s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Organizationalcitizenshipbehavior 5.55 1.00 (.83)

2. Proceduraljustice,overall 3.90 1.07 .29** (.95)

3. Distributivejustice,overall 3.90 1.14 .24** .80**

(.82)4. Proceduraljustice, mostrecent 3.81 1.12 .26** .89** .76** (.95)

5. Distributivejustice, mostrecent 3.65 1.35 .20** .72** .73** .81** (.90)

6. Trust insupervisor 5.12 2.17 .28** .77** .67** .76** .64** (.88)

a The alpha coefficients of reliability for scales with more than two items and the interitemcorrelations (for the two-variable distributive justice measures) are displayed in parentheses

and on the diagonal.* p < .05**

p < .01

weight of the evidence, however, suggests that our measurement model wasadequate and provided a firm basis for testing the theoretical models.2

We next compared the fits of the fully mediated and measurement mod-els. The significant difference in chi-squares [X2 (3, N = 475) = 50.91]indicated that the fully mediated model provided a better fit to the observeddata than the measurement model. Finally, comparing the fully mediatedand

partiallymediated models resulted in a

nonsignificant changein chi-

square values [X2 (2, N = 475) = .94], leading us to conclude that thepartially mediated model did not improve fit. All values of the incremental

2 In deciding to use a two-factor structure for procedural and distributive justice, we reliedon theory and on our evidence and judgment. Theory and the results of testing our measurementmodel indicated, for example, that a two-factor model of distributive and procedural justiceprovides an acceptable description of the data. However, this should not be taken to indicatethat there is no evidence for alternative models of our justice items. When an exploratory factor

analysis of the items measuring procedural and distributive justice was conducted, for example,all the items measuring procedural and distributive justice loaded on a single factor. Further-

more, when modeled as two factors, the measures of procedural and distributive justice arehighly correlated; for example, for overall supervisory decision making, the correlation is .80.These results raise some doubts about the two-factor model of distributive and proceduraljustice. We nevertheless concluded that theory and the confirmatory test of our measurementmodel provided adequate evidence for a two-factor model of procedural and distributive justice.

664 June


11/15

TABLE 2Nested Model Comparisons for Overall Supervisory Decision

Tucker-Lewis ComparatiModels x2 df Ax2b Adf Indexb Fit Inde

1. Null model 12,978.33*** 182. Measurement model 461.20*** 135 12,517.13*** 117 .995 .974

3. Completely mediatedmodel 410.29*** 132 50.91*** 3 .997 .979

4. Partially mediatedmodel 409.35*** 130 0.94 2 .997 .978

a The pattern of results for the most recent supervisor decision is identical to that of overall supervisorb To calculate the incremental fit indexes (the TLI and CFI), we compared the measurement model, the

mediated models to the null model. To calculate the change in chi-square, we compared adjacent pairs of mwith the null model.

*** p < .001


12/15


FIGURE 2Structural Path Estimates for the Best-Fitting, Fully Mediated Modela

DistributiveJustice

-.421 (-1.76)

9.47 Trust \ .145 (4.99)** tz19.47 (13.94)** in ) ehain ' V o/ \Behavior

Supervisor

.520 (2.32)*Procedural

Justice

a Structural path estimates are the unstandardized parameter estimates, and the associatedt-values are in parentheses. The measurement model (see Figure 1) and the residuals in thestructural equations have been omitted for simplicity of representation.

*p < .05**p < .01

fit index were above the recommended .90 for the fully and partially medi-ated models. The adjusted goodness-of-fit index approached the .90 cutoffvalue. Because the fully mediated model was the most parsimonious, weconcluded that it provided the best fit of the models we evaluated. Thismodel accounted for 9 percent of the variance in organizational citizenshipbehavior.

Figure 2 displays the structural coefficients and the correlations be-tween procedural and distributive justice for the fully mediated model. Thedata indicate that procedural justice is a significant predictor of trust insupervisor, which in turn is a significant predictor of organizational citizen-ship behavior. Distributive justice is not significantly related to trust insupervisor.

DISCUSSION

The study's results are consistent with our social exchange model oforganizational citizenship behavior. The role of trust in supervisor as a me-diator of the relationship between procedural justice and OCB suggests thatcitizenship behaviors occur in a context in which social exchange charac-terizes the quality of superior-subordinate relationships. Although alterna-tive theoretical frameworks may explain additional variance in organization-

666 June


13/15

Konovsky and Pugh

al citizenship behavior, our data indicate that social exchange is importantfor explaining and predicting that variance.

Additionally, our results provide evidence that procedural justice is animportant determinant of employee behavior. There is considerable evi-dence demonstrating that procedural justice is a predictor of employee atti-tudes (e.g., Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991). Theevidence that procedural justice also predicts employee behavior is slighter.Finally, our study indicated that distributive justice did not predict OCB ortrust. This latter finding stands in contrast to Organ's (1988) theoreticalargument that procedural justice would be subordinate to distributive justicein the employment context. The collective empirical evidence (e.g.,Konovsky & Folger, 1991; Moorman, 1991; Podsakoff et al., 1990) and our

data all converge and suggest that procedural justice is not subordinate todistributive justice in determining organizational citizenship behaviors inthe employment context.

Our study may also illuminate organizational research on contracts.Rousseau and Parks (1993), for example, noted that it is important to identifythe variables that influence employees to perceive their contracts with theiremployers as relational or transactional. Our study suggests that proceduraljustice may influence perceptions of contract type.

The fact that our model accounted for only 9 percent of the variance in

organizational citizenshipbehavior indicates that variables other than those

examined in this study are needed to account for additional variance. Re-searchers (e.g., Graham & Dienesch, 1991) have demonstrated that employeecommitment, for example, accounts for organizational citizenship behaviorvariance, and we suggest that commitment, like trust, is a macromotiveindicating the presence of social exchange. Thus, Graham's model of com-mitment and OCB, which is grounded in political philosophy, can be inter-preted as providing evidence that additional social exchange variables (orindeed, non-social exchange variables) need to be added to our model.

The interpretation of our study's results is subject to qualification. Cor-

relational studies do not provide irrefutable evidence of causation, and fur-ther laboratory or longitudinal studies are needed to firmly establish causaldirection. Correlational studies also do not eliminate the threat of alternativeexplanations for our variable relationships, such as common method vari-ance. Common method concerns in our study are partially alleviated be-cause employees' supervisors provided the ratings of organizational citizen-ship behavior, thus eliminating the presence of a common method amongthe predictor and criterion variables.

Concerns may also be raised about the measures of fairness. One couldargue that procedural justice predicted trust because we used more items tomeasure procedural justice than distributive justice (eight versus two), re-sulting in more measurement precision for procedural justice. Post hoc anal-yses were used to evaluate this argument. In three drawings, we randomlyselected two of the eight procedural justice items to be the manifest indica-tors of procedural justice and then evaluated the fully mediated model pre-

1994 667


14/15


sented in Figure 2. The significant structural paths always corresponded tothose displayed in Figure 2, indicating that the number of items measuring

procedural justicewas irrelevant to

determiningthose

paths.Finally, future research is needed to establish the external validity ofour model of organizational citizenship behavior. Our study indicated that asocial exchange model of citizenship behavior holds for overall and mostrecent supervisory decision making for hospital employees. Only additionalresearch can determine whether these results will be found in other popu-lations and contexts.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. C., &Gerbing,

D. W. 1988. Structuralequation modeling

inpractice:

A review andrecommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 49: 411-423.

Bentler, P. M. 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107:238-246.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis ofcovariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88: 588-606.

Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. 1987. Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Meth-ods & Research, 16: 78-117.

Blau, P. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. 1979. Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37: 12-24.

Dansereau, F., Jr., & Graen, G. 1975. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership withinformal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13: 46-78.

Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. 1989. Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactionsto pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 115-130.

Gouldner, A. W. 1960. The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25: 165-167.

Graham, J. 1991. An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilitiesand Rights Journal, 4: 249-270.

Graham, J., & Dienesch, R. M. 1991. Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct defini-

tion, operationalization, and validation. Unpublished manuscript, Loyola University ofChicago.

Holmes, J. G. 1981. The exchange process in close relationships: Microbehavior and macromo-tives. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior: 261-284.New York: Plenum.

James, L. R., Mulaik, S. S., & Brett, J. M. 1982. Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, anddata. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. 1988. LISREL VII: A guide to the program and applications (2ded.). Chicago: SPSS.

Katz, D. 1964. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9: 131-

133.

Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. 1991. Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as apredictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76:698-707.

Konovsky, M. A., & Folger, R. 1991. The effects of procedural and distributive justice on

668 June


15/15

Konovsky and Pugh

organizational citizenship behavior. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Acad-emy of Management, Miami.

Leventhal, G. S. 1990. What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Green-berg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research: 27-55.New York: Plenum.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York:Plenum.

MacNeil, I. R. 1985. Relational contracts: What we do and do not know. Wisconsin Law Re-view: 483-535.

Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. 1988. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatoryfactor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 391-410.

Merton, R. K. 1968. Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.

Moore, L. F., Johns, G., & Pinder, C. C. 1980. Toward middle range theory: An overview andperspective. In C. C. Pinder & L. F. Moore (Eds.), Middle range theory and the study oforganizations: 1-16. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.

Moorman, R. H. 1991. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizen-ship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 76: 845-855.

Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lex-ington, MA: Lexington Books.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. 1990. Transformational leaderbehaviors and their effects of followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizationalcitizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1: 107-142.

Roberts, K. H., & O'Reilly, C. A. 1974. Failures in upward communication in organizations:Three possible culprits. Academy of Management Journal, 17: 205-215.

Rousseau, D. M., & Parks, J. M. 1993. The contracts of individuals and organizations. In B. M.Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 15: 1-43. Green-wich, CT: JAI Press.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its natureand antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 653-663.

Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. 1973. The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor anal-ysis. Psychometrika, 38: 1-10.

Tyler, T. R. 1990. Using procedures to justify outcomes: Managing conflict and allocatingresources in work organizations. Unpublished manuscript, Northwestern University.

Mary A. Konovsky is an associate professor of organizational behavior at the A. B.Freeman School of Business of Tulane University. She received her master's degree inpsychology and her M.B.A. and Ph.D. degrees from Indiana University. Her researchinterests are fairness in management decision making and organizational citizenshipbehavior.

S. Douglas Pugh is a doctoral student at the A. B. Freeman School of Business, TulaneUniversity. His current research interests focus on organizational citizenship behaviorand compliance in organizations.

1994 669

(11) citizenship behavior and social exchange

Documents