ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR IN A NON-U.S. CONTEXT:

ITS DIMENSIONS, ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES

Chi-Wei Liu 1, Pei-Wen Huang 2 and Chien-Li Chen3

1 Lecturer, Management School, HungKuang Technology University, Taichung,

Taiwan

Doctoral student, Graduate School of Management, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung,

Taiwan 2 Lecturer, Department of International Trade, Cheng-Shiu University, Kaohsiung,

Taiwan

Doctoral student, Graduate School of Management, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung,

Taiwan 3Doctoral student, Graduate School of Management, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung,

Taiwan

Correspondence:

Lecturer, Management School, HungKuang Technology University, Taichung,

Taiwan

Doctoral student, Graduate School of Management, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung,

Taiwan

Tel: 886 7 4 2623 3427

E-mail: wliu01@ms15.hinet.net

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR IN A NON-U.S. CONTEXT:

ITS DIMENSIONS, ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES

ABSTRACT

The empirical research on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is based on

American value and these U.S.-based behavioral theories have been treated as

applicable to a universal population. Yet, OCBs are organization-specific, and have a

cultural component. This implies that without taking the factor of culture into

consideration while investigating the socially-based citizenship behavior, our

knowledge on OCBs will be parochial. An increasing growth of OCB in a non-U.S.

context corresponds to the call that more attention needs to be focused on

cross-cultural issues and their implications for theories of behavior. Nevertheless, it is

remarkable that what our understanding of OCB beyond a non-U.S. context seems so

fragmental. What appears to be missing is an integrated and comprehensive

understanding of OCB research in a non-U.S. context. By an extensive review on

OCB research in non-U.S. contexts involving a total of 126 papers, we present the

results of our findings and generate the relevant propositions. The purpose of this

study aims to be at the inception of increasing the understanding about OCB research

in a non-U.S. context. Specifically, it: (a) explores the conceptual comparison

between the various dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior in U.S.-based

dimensions and non-U.S. dimensions; (b) generalizes the variables that have been

identified as antecedents of OCB in a non-U.S. context; (c) summarizes the

consequences of organizational citizenship behavior in a non-U.S. context; and ends

up with a conclusion.

Keywords: organizational citizenship behavior, non-U.S. context, antecedent, _______________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has been the focus of attention from

organizational behavior researchers (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000;

Organ & Ryan, 1995; Organ, 1997; George & Battenhausen, 1990) since Organ (1988)

proposed that organizational citizenship behavior could influence individual and

organization performance. The available empirical findings also support that these

citizenship behaviors have a positive impact on enhancing organization performance

(Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Krllowicz & Lowery, 1996; Podsakoff, Ahearne &

MacKenzie 1997).

OCBs initially did not have a very substantial impact on the field (Podsakoff, et al.,

2000). According to Podsakoff’s survey (2000), only 13 papers were published on

OCBs topics from 1983 to 1988. The interest has been on the increase, so during the

period from 1993 to 1998 more than 122 papers have been published on OCBs and

related constructs. Furthermore, these papers show that the interest in OCB research

has expanded from the field of organizational behavior to a variety of different

domains and disciplines, including human resource management, marketing, hospital

and health administration, community psychology, industrial and labor law, strategic

management military psychology, economics, leadership and international

management (Podsakoff, et al., 2000).

Although interest in the theory and research on OCB is on the increase, the rapid

growth on the OCB research has produced some unfortunate consequences (Podsakoff,

et al., 2000). For example, people from different cultures will not necessarily conform

to similar sets of beliefs and values, and will have different views or interpretation

with the situations or preferences for outcomes (Adler, 1989; Hofstede, 1980).

Accordingly, these citizenship dimensions with a cultural component are

organization-specific (Podsakoff, Niehoff, Mackenzie, & Williams, 1993; Turnipseed

& Mrukison, 2000). Thus, while investigating the socially-based citizenship behavior,

researchers should examine the contextual dimensions of OCB under certain societal

culture and economic institutional framework (Farh, Zhong, & Organ, 2004).

Hofstede also emphasized the assertion that when making any comparisons across

cultural lines, cultural differences must be taken into consideration (Hofstede, 1980,

1984). In accordance with the assertion, Podoskaff et al. (2000) suggested that

research was needed on the potential impact that cultural context might have on

citizenship behavior. But it is surprising that most of the studies on OCB before 1998

in Podsakoff et al’s. (2000) study either generalized U.S. samples to a global

phenomenon, or examined non-U.S. samples with U.S.-based OCB questionnaire.

Only few studies took the factor of culture into consideration (cf. Farh, Podsakoff, &

Organ, 1990; Farh, Earley, & Lin, 1997; Chen, Hui, & Sego, 1998). As a result,

because of the limited perspective of the research generated in the United States and

the lack of contrary information, many U.S.-based behavioral theories have been

treated as applicable to a universal population (Boyacigillar & Adler, 1991), and this

phenomenon is termed as parochial perspective by Boyacigillar & Adler (1991),

which has begun to fall under increasing criticism (Fok, Hartman, Villere & Freibert,

1996). It implies that cultural differences were not considered large enough to

override the predictive and explanatory nature of behavioral theories developed in the

United States (Fok, et al, 1996 ).

As the related discussion, it is noticeable that what our understanding of OCB

beyond a non-U.S. context seems so fragmental that it needs further investigating

especially in an era of globalization, in which managers are caused to attend to issues

of culture and diversity. What appears to be missing is an integrated and

comprehensive understanding of OCB research in a non-U.S. context. Thus, a detailed

understanding of OCB research in a non-U.S. context is another important lacuna in

current research. This exploratory research, being at the inception of increasing our

understanding about OCB research in a non-U.S. context, aims to make itself valuable

by investigating studies on organizational citizenship behavior in a non-U.S. context.

To be specific, the purpose of this study is to appeal for readers’ attention to the OCB

phenomena in a non-U.S. context and to broaden our knowledge on OCB in these

contexts.

DATA COLLECTION

Given our focus on OCB in a non-U.S. context, this research applies a

citation-based analysis, one method of Meta Research to search for studies on OCB.

In order to make a linkage with Podsakoff’s data base (1983-1998) and have a better

understanding about the prevailing development on OCB research (that is, post-1998),

we focus our search on studies published between January 1999 and January 2003 in

those journals that listed in SSCI (Social Science Citation Index). 101 papers with the

key word OCB are presented, as indicated in Table 1. Among the 101 papers, data in

37 papers are collected from non-U.S. contexts but only 9 papers take a culture

orientation to examine their studies (cf., Goodman, & Svyantek, 1999; Cohen, 1999;

Brockner, Chen, Mannix, Leung, & Skarlicki, 2000; Lee, Pillutla, & Law, 2000;

Bierhoff, Muller, & Kupper, 2000; Wong, Wong, & Ngo, 2002; Smith, et al., 2002;

Rob & Zemsky, 2002; Tierney, Bauer, & Potter, 2003).

Year

Searching 1999 2000 2001 2002 *2003 Total

Key word

with OCB 16 34 21 29 1

101

Title

with OCB 11 6 9 9 0

35

Abstract

with OCB 10 6 18 22 0

56

Citation and

Abstract with

OCB

21 30 37 49 1

138

Table 1. Yearly Publications on Organizational Citizenship Behavior in SSCI

Literatures up to January 2003 a The details of the reference are recorded in an additional file. It is at the convenience for your referral.

In order to get the data more comprehensive, we also search OCB research

through ProQuest database and get 25 papers interpreting issues of OCB from culture

perspective or taking the culture factor into consideration in their studies ( Please refer

to Table 2). Specifically, researchers are beginning to ask about the extent to which

culturally conditioned differences will affect an individual’s behavior (cf. Paine &

Organ, 2000; Chhokar, Zhuplev, Fok, & Hartman, 2001; Kuehn & Al-Busaidi, 2002).

Simply put, these studies respond to Hofstede’s and Padoskaff’s calls and provide a

further understanding about OCB in a non-U.S. country. These findings support our

contention that an increasing attention has been focused on cross cultural issues and

their implications for theories of behavior (cf. Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Fok, et

al.,1996; Farh, et al,, 1997; Turnipseed & Murkison, 2000; Chhokar et al., 2001; Paine

& Organ, 2000; Matthew S O’Connell, Dennis Doverspike, Watts, & Hattrup, 2001;

Alotaibi, 2001; Kuehn & Al-Busaidi, 2002).

Searching

Method

Citation&

Abstract(OCB) Article Tile(OCB)

Article Text(OCB)/

Publication

Title(Journal of

International..

Citation &

Abstract

( OCB +

culture)

Cumulative

Publish 280 129 103 25

Searching

Method

Citation &

Abstract

( OCB+ Journal

of

International…)

Article Title

(OCB)/ Citation &

Abstract(Culture)

Article

Title(OCB)/Publication

Title(Journal of

International…)

Cumulative

Publish 11 7 4

Table 2. Cumulative Publications on Organizational Citizenship Behavior with

cultural perspective in ProQuest database up to Dec. 15, 2003

The findings on Table 1 and Table 2 show that extensive research on OCB has

been conducted in recent years and it is exciting to notice that there is an increasing

interest in OCB research from a non-U.S. cultural perspective. With an aim to

increase our understanding about OCB research in non-U.S. contexts, this study focus

on examining dimensions of OCB generating in non-U.S. contexts, the antecedents

and the consequences of OCB in non-U.S. contexts. To begin with, we present the

conceptual comparison between organizational citizenship behavior in a U.S.-based

and a non-U.S. base. In the second section, we summarize the variables that have been

identified as antecedents of OCB in a non-U.S. context. In the section that follows, the

consequences of organizational citizenship behavior in a non-U.S. context is

discussed. The study ends with some discussion for future study.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Organ (1988) described OCB as a discretionary behavior, not directly or explicitly

recognized by the formal reward system but in the aggregate promotes the

performance of the organization. Based on our data-base, this is the definition of most

OCB research adopts. The recognition of the definition of OCB is to great extent

consistent. On the other hand, the literature has focused more on understanding the

relationships between organizational citizenship and other constructs, rather than

carefully defining the nature of citizenship behavior itself (Podsakoff, et al.,2000).

Types of these extra-role behaviors lack of consistency. There are almost 30

conceptual definitions on the dimensionality of OCB and much conceptual overlap

occurs between these constructs (Podsakoff, et al., 2000). Though variant perspectives

to examine OCB research have broadening our knowledge on OCB (Podsakoff, et

al.,2000), a review of the literature in this area reveals a lack of consensus about the

dimensionality of these spontaneous citizenship behaviors. Accordingly, it is essential

that we have a further understanding about types of OCB in non-U.S. contexts

because OCB is a behavior with culture component. It implies that people from

different culture will have different perception and recognition about these citizenship

behaviors. Thus, in the following section, we investigate if there is any global OCB

dimension, and if local OCB dimensions do exist, what are the factors causing

people’s variant recognition about OCB.

Global OCB dimension. Seven common themes or dimensions on OCB are

presented by Podsakoff, et al. (2000): Helping Behavior, Sportsmanship,

Organizational Loyalty, Organizational Compliance, Individual Initiative, Civic Virtue,

and Self Development. Based on three sources of the partitioning and measurement of

OCB (i.e., the original article by Katz (1964), interviews with lower level managers,

classic Greek philosophy perspective), Farh, et al. (2004) categorized nine major

dimensions of OCB: Altruism, Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship, Courtesy, Civic

Virtue, Functional Participation, Advocacy Participation, Loyalty and Voice.

Nevertheless, these two categorizations of OCB dimensions originate in a Western

social cultural context. This consequently arises some wonderings to be clarified:

Whether these concepts of OCB would reflect the same dimensionality in a non-U.S.

context? Is there an identical interpretation, perception or meaning on OCB across

variant cultures?

In order to have a better understanding about OCB in a non-U.S. context, Farh et

al. (1997) examined different forms of citizenship behavior observed in Taiwan and

the potential moderating effect that traditionality and modernity had on the

relationship between organizational justice and citizenship behavior. They argued that

they got three etic dimensions in Taiwan similar to those found in the U.S. (cf.,

Identification with Company (similar to Civic Virtue), Altruism toward Colleagues

(identical to Western altruism in definition, very similar item contents),

Conscientiousness (identical to Western conscientiousness in definition, very similar

item contents). In a related study, Farh et al. (2004) used an inductive approach to

examine forms of OCB in the People’s Republic of China and had a comparison with

the Western society. The analysis revealed 10 dimensions of OCB and found that five

out of the ten common dimensions (cf. Taking Initiative (similar to

Conscientiousness), Helping Coworker (similar to Altruism or Helping), Voice

(similar to Voice in western research but broader), Participation in Group Activities

(similar to Civic Virtue) and Promoting Company Image (similar to Loyalty, or Loyal

Boosterism) are similar to those in the U. S. context. To examine Germans’ perception

about the organizational citizenship behavior, Bierhoff et al.,(2000) proposed a

German version of the Organizational Citizenship Behavior Questionnaire (GOCBQ).

Bierhoff et al. (2000) argued that the GOCBQ measures a general altruism orientation,

which can be interpreted as a stable trait. His finding is consistent with what is

proposed in Farh et al. (1997, 2004). Accordingly, with the limited studies on the

OCB dimension in a non-U.S. context, we propose the first proposition:

Proposition 1a: Altruism is a universal dimension of OCB across variant

cultures.

Farh et al. (2004) argued that the five common dimensions (Taking Initiative,

Helping Coworker, Voice, Participation in Group Activities and Promoting Company

Image) are similar to those that have been empirically investigated in the Western

OCB literature (Conscientiousness, Altruism or Helping, Voice, Civic virtue, Loyalty).

They proposed that these dimensions are supposed to have broad utility across

cultures in spite that the specific behaviors that constitute the construct domain of

these dimensions are far from identical. Nevertheless, the empirical findings in a

non-U.S. context, besides Altruism, only Consciousness and Civic Virtue were found

(Farh et al., 1997; Hui, Law & Chen, 1999; Menguc, 2000; Doverspike, Norris-Watts

& Hattrup, 2001; Chen & Francesco, 2003; Farh et al., 2004; Yoon & Suh, 2003). One

interesting phenomenon among these studies is the contexts of the studies took place.

The samples were all in Asia with the exception of Doverspike et al. (2001) (cf. Farh

et al., 1997: Taiwan, Hui, Law & Chen, 1999: China ; Menguc, 2000: Turkish;

O’Connell, Doverspike & Hattrup, 2001: Mexican; Chen & Francesco, 2003: China;

Farh et al., 2004: China; Yoon & Suh, 2003: Korea ). Does this finding convey any

information? Does it mean that Consciousness, and Civic Virtue are the etic

dimensions of OCB in Asia? Restricted by the limited studies, our wonderings needs

further exploring. Whereas, to our knowledge, we propose the following propositions:

Proposition 1b: Consciousness and Civic virtue are OCB dimensions more

pronounced for employees in Asia than in other areas.

Local OCB dimension. Farh et al. (1997) found that there were two other emic

dimensions that appeared to be specific to the Taiwanese culture (cf. Interpersonal

Harmony and Protecting Company Resources). In his another study with China as the

context, Farh et al. (2004) found that one dimension (cf. Social Welfare Participation)

was found in his study but not evident at all in western literature and four dimensions

(cf. Self-learning, Protecting and Saving Company Resources, Keeping Workplace

Clean, and Interpersonal Harmony) had been discussed in prior Western OCB

literature but did not figure importantly in established measures of OCB. With the

restriction of language, it is a pity that we are unable to get further findings in

Bierhoff et al.’s (2000) GOCBQ. Hence, besides the local-based OCB dimension we

discuss in this study, it is highly possible there might be other distinctive dimension

found in studies written in their native languages. Though, with the limited findings, it

is conceivable that local-based dimension of OCB will emerge with respect to variant

national culture. Thus, in the following section, we will turn our focus on studies in a

non-U.S. context and examine the different findings. Specifically, we will investigate

the factors influencing non-Americans’ perception about the construct of U.S.-based

OCB.

Factors Influencing Perception of the Construct of U.S.-valued OCB in a non-U.S.

Context. Farh et al.(2004) found that five extended dimensions of OCB (Self-learning,

Protecting and Saving Company Resources, and Keeping Workplace Clean) have

been mentioned by Western researchers, but without empirical investigation. Why

these dimensions emerge in PRC sample but do not figure prominently in the Western

OCB literature? Is it one of the cultural or national consequences? To be precise, what

national characteristic result in the difference? Farh et al. (2004) suspected it might be

related to different stages of economic development because PRC is at the

comparatively earlier stage of economic development to Western society. In

Turnipseed & Murkison’s study (2000), they also focused on the relationship between

the level of economic environment and the occurrence of variant OCB by comparing

the United States and Romania and found that economic situation had an effect on

triggering different dimension of citizenship behaviors. In their study, Romanian score

for Participation were the highest, although lower than those of the U.S. Turnipseed &

Murkison (2000) attributed it to that the Romanian’s perceived need to fully take part

in the organization to achieve job security in this period of rising unemployment.

Similarly, the increase in downsizing and cost cutting may influence U.S. workers to

engage in organization directed OCB. Simply put, status of economic in a country

may influence the happenings of variant OCBs. Thus,

Proposition 2a: Different status of economic in a country will exist with

respect to facilitating occurrence of different OCB.

Moreover, both PRC and Romania are not only at the early stage of economic

development, but they were communist bureaucracy before both began their

economic reformation. Owing to the great difference from the U.S. in political

development, it is highly possible different political development is one of the reasons

for Romanians to have different interpretation and recognition about the concept of

OCB. In Turnipseed & Murkison’s study (2000), the sample data produced difference

between Rumanians and Americans. The greatest difference was in Loyalty, which

may reflect rebellion against the inefficient economic system and a lack of clear,

goal-directed rules and regulations. Turnipseed & Murkison argued the low Romanian

Loyalty scores suggest that the workers do not identify with their managers and the

organization, which was intuitively acceptable given the history of the country and its

economy under the Communists. The influence of legacy of communist system is also

examined in Farh et al.’s (2004) study. They found the emergence of social welfare

participation, the emic dimension of OCB in PRC, as the manifestation of its

association with the legacy of communist system. Hence,

Proposition 3a: Different political development in a country will exist with

respect to interpretation about the concept of different OCBs.

. Proposition 3b: Different political development in a country will exist with

respect to facilitating occurrence of different OCBs.

In this section, the focus is on the dimensions of American-valued OCB which do

not appear in a non-U.S. context. Three major dimensions of OCB (Sportsmanship,

Courtesy, and Advocacy Participation) in the Western literature did not emerge in

PRC sample (Farh et al., 2004). Consistent with this finding, the three dimensions

were present neither in Farh et al. (1997) with Taiwanness as sample nor in Lam, et al.

(1999) with Chinese as sample. Lam et al. (1999) found that in comparison with

employees from Australia and the U.S., employees from Hong Kong and Japan were

more likely to consider sportsmanship and courtesy as in role behaviors. Farh et al.

(2004) referred the findings to an issue of uncertainty avoidance as well as power

distance. Uncertainty avoidance defined by Hofstede (1984) is to identify a culture’s

comfort with uncertainty as a part of their existence. And power distance dimension is

the degree to which a culture accepts that there are inequalities between various

groups within a culture, social classes and organizational hierarchy (Hofstede, 1984).

Thus, it is possible that sportsmanship matters more in a low uncertainty-avoidance,

low power distance culture, in which individuals might reasonably challenge

decisions and actions by managers. On the other hand, in a cultural context of higher

power distance and risk aversion, such challenges might be expected to be rare in any

case.

In a similar vein, Jagdeep et al. (2001) also adopted the perspectives of

uncertainty avoidance and power distance to investigate the relationship between

culture and equity sensitivity with five countries as sample: America, England, France,

India and Russia. With the assumption that more benevolent orientation will lead to

more OCB, they proposed that in low uncertainty avoidance cultures, socialization

may lead individuals toward staying with and being more committed to an employer,

accordingly, toward higher levels of benevolence. On the other hand, in high power

distance culture, employees may accept the organization’s “right” with ease to expect

obedience and then will be oriented toward benevolence. In terms of differences

across cultures upon individuals’ perceptions of the benevolent, the results showed

that Indian, American and Russian samples scored the highest respectively, where the

higher the score, the more benevolent the group, and the British as well as the French

samples scored the lowest. Taken together, among the five peoples, Indians (low

uncertainty avoidance, high power distance) are most oriented toward benevolence.

Thus, the finding supports that different power distance and degree of uncertainty

avoidance will cause variant interpretation or occurrence of OCBs. Hence,

Proposition 4a: Different degree of power distance in a country will exist

with respect to variant interpretation about the concept of OCB

Proposition 4b: Different degree of power distance in a country will exist

with respect to facilitating occurrence of different OCB

Proposition 5a: Different degree of uncertainty avoidance in a country

will exist with respect to variant interpretation about

the concept of OCB

Proposition 5b: Different degree of uncertainty avoidance in a country

will exist with respect to facilitating occurrence of

different OCB

Two other emic dimensions appeared to be specific to the Taiwanese culture (cf.

Interpersonal Harmony and Protecting Company Resources) (Farh et al., 1997). The

researchers asserted that the presence of Interpersonal Harmony and Protecting

Company Resources in the Chinese citizenship behavior scale can be attributed to

their cultural roots (Farh et al., 1997). The cultural root of interpersonal harmony in

the Chinese citizenship behavior scale is a cherished cultural value found in Chinese

societies (Yang, 1993) and this may explain their apparent emic nature in China. The

Chinese have long been known for their concern about harmony and unity in social

relationships (Yang, 1993). Thus, following Farh et al. (1997), Farh et al. (2004) also

found these two extended dimensions in PRC. Farh et al. (2004) attributed the

presence of interpersonal harmony by using specificity or diffuseness in different

national cultures, the term introduced by Trompenaars (1996). The notion of

specificity or diffuseness in cultures is akin to the concept of

individualism/collectivism identified by Hofstede (1984) to great extent. Farh et al.

(2004) pointed out the individualism dimension identifies cultures where members are

self oriented and place an emphasis on individual initiative and achievement. This

concept is consistent with the concept of specificity by Trompenaars (1996) to some

extent. On the other hand, cultures identified as displaying opposite behaviors are

labeled collectivist, which may correspond to the term of diffuseness by Trompenaars

(1996). Thus, it supports us to explain the findings in China or in Taiwan from the

perspectives of individualism-collectivism. In terms of the impact of

individualism-collectivism on OCB, similar findings are found in Moorman et al’s

research (1995). The result suggests that if an individual holds collectivistic values or

norms, he would be more likely to perform citizenship behaviors. Accordingly,

Proposition 6a: Different individualism/collectivism dimension in a

country will exist with respect to different interpretation

about the dimension of OCB.

Proposition 6b: Different individualism/collectivism dimension in a

country will exist with respect to facilitating

occurrence of different OCB.

ANTECEDENTS OF OCB IN A NON-U.S. CONTEXT

According to Organ and Rayan’s meta-analytic review of 55 studies (1955), job

attitude is a robust predictor of OCB and satisfaction, fairness and organizational

commitment are the only correlates of OCB in a considerable number of cases.

Podsakoff et al., (2000) concluded that empirical research has focused on four major

categories of antecedents of OCB: individual (or employee) characteristics, task

characteristics, organizational characteristics and leadership behaviors. They further

pointed out that among these antecedents, job attitudes, job satisfaction, perceptions

of fairness, organizational commitment, task variables and various types of leader

behaviors appear to be more strongly related to OCBs than the other antecedents.

These findings correspond to what is found in Staufenbiel’s (2000) literature review

on the antecedents and consequences of OCB. Staufenbiel (2000) found positive

relationships between OCB and job satisfaction, fairness perceptions, organizational

commitment and leadership behavior. By using meta-analysis, LePine, Erez and

Johnson (2002) concluded that job satisfaction, organizational commitment, fairness,

trait conscientiousness and leader support are the highly-examined predictors of OCB

in most empirical studies.

Based on the data of our study, antecedents of OCB could be categorized as job

satisfaction (cf. Mason & Griffin, 2002; Spiess,2000), perception of fairness (cf.

Folger & Skarlicki, 1999; Hendrix, Robbins, Miller & Summers, 1999; Brockner, et

al.,2000; Charness & Levine, 2000; Pillai, Schriesheim & Williams, 2000; Staufenbiel,

2000; Naumann & Bennett, 2002), trust, organization commitment and leadership(cf.

Bruins, Ellemers & Degilder, 1999; Cunningham & Macgregor, 2000; Campbell,

2000; Tan & Tan, 2000; Rogelberg, Luong, Sederburg & Cristol, 2000; Pillai,

Schriesheim & Williams, 2000; Staufenbiel, 2000; Mackenzie, Podsakoff & Rich,

2001; Goodwin, Wofford & Whittington, 2001; Barbuto, Scholl, Hickox & Boulmetis,

2001; Bierhoff & Spanke, 2002; Maurer, Pierce & Shore, 2002; Wong, Wong & Ngo,

2002; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Tierney, Bauer & Potter, 2003) and task variables (cf.

Hui, Law & Chen, 1999; Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Somech & Drachzahavy, 2000;

Chattopadhyay & George, 2001; Ryan, 2002). These antecedents are to great extent

consistent with what is found in the related studies. If we put the focus on the

antecedents of OCB in non-U.S. contexts, could the similar findings be generated? Is

it possible that the cultural context itself may encourage or dissuade OCB-type

performance, thus attenuating the effect of established antecedents of OCB as found

in North American studies (Paine & Organ, 2000).

Turning our attention now to the antecedents of OCB in non-U.S. contexts, research

reveals that job satisfaction, perception of equity, organization commitment, trust, and

procedural justice or distributive justice all have positive relationships with

citizenship behaviors (Fork et al.,1996; Farh et al. 1997; Dyne & Ang, 1998; Hui, et

al., 1999; Menguc, 2000; Paine & Organ, 2000; O’Connell M.S., Doverspike D.,

Norris-Watta C. & Hattrup K., 2001; Alotaibi, 2001; Chhokar et al., 2001; Kuehn &

Al-Busaidi, 2002; Mahn Hee Yoon & Jaebeom Suh, 2003; Chen & Francesco,

2003).

Job satisfaction. The relationship between job satisfaction and OCB in a non-U.S.

context can be depicted in several ways. Kuehn and Al-Busaidi (2002) conducted a

study of public and private-sector organizations in the Sultanate of Oman. OCB were

measured with the revised and validated version of OCB from Podsakoff, Mackenzie,

Moorman and Fetter (1990). Results indicated that job satisfaction and normative

commitment were significant predictors of OCB, while job characteristics were not.

In a similar vein, Yoon and Suh (2003) examined the relationships between

employees’ OCBs with job satisfaction, trust in manager, and customer’s perceived

service quality in travel agencies in Korea. Three western-dimensions of OCBs

(altruism, civic virtue and sportsmanship) were used for explaining the hypothetical

relationships of OCBs with service quality. They also detected a substantive

relationship between job satisfaction and trust in manager was significantly related to

OCB (Yoon and Suh, 2003).

Furthermore, Alotaibi (2001) examined the effects of job satisfaction, procedural

and distributive justice, and organizational commitment upon OCB with samples

drawn from six government organizations in Kuwait. Alotaibi (2001) observed that

only procedural and distributive justice account for unique variances in Kuwaiti

worker’s OCB. This result was similar to what Moorman found in 1991. Moorman

(1991) argued that job satisfaction was not related to OCB but procedural justice. In

his further study, Moorman (1993) claimed that when the relationship between justice

and OCB was controlled, job satisfaction no longer related to OCB. His interpretation

echoed what was found in Alotaibi’s study. Hence,

Proposition 7a: Job satisfaction will be a significant correlate of OCB

in a non-U.S. context.

Proposition 7b: Job satisfaction will be neutralized to predict OCB in

a non-U.S. context when the relationship between

justice and OCB is controlled.

Commitment. Meyer and Allen (1984) proposed a three component conceptualization

of organizational commitment: affective commitment (AC), continuance commitment

(CC) and normative commitment (NC). Empirical research supports the profound

relationship between commitment and OCB. In recent years, in order to investigate

the cross-cultural applicability of Meyer and Allen’s (1984) commitment model, more

and more researchers have considered the model’s dynamics in other cultures (Wiener,

1982; Allen & Meyer, 1996; Dyne & Ang, 1998; Kuehn & Al-Busaidi, 2002; Chen &

Francesco, 2003). Researchers have concluded that AC has been regarded as an

important factor in predicting in-role performance as well as extra-role behaviors

(Dyne & Ang, 1998; Allen & Meyer, 1996; Wiener, 1982). In terms of affective

commitment, Dyne and Ang (1998) conducted their study in Singapore with sample

of 155 professional workers from a bank and a hospital. By investigating the impact

of commitment and psychological contract on contingent workers’ OCBs, they found

that the relationship was stronger for contingent workers than for regular employees,

indicating that when contingent workers have positive attitudes about their

relationship with an organization, they engage in OCB. Kuehn and Al-Busaidi (2002)

examined the predictors of OCB in Sultanate of Oman, and found that besides job

satisfaction, normative commitment was a significant predictor of OCB. Chen and

Francesco (2003) also examined the relationship between the three components of

organizational commitment and in-role as well as extra-role performance. Data of 253

supervisor-subordinate dyads from the People’s Republic of China were analyzed.

Results showed that AC related positively to in–role performance but negatively

correlated with OCB; moreover, NC moderated the relationship between AC and

in-role performance and OCB. We might attribute what was found in Chen and

Francesco’s study (2003) and Dyne and Ang’s study (1998) to the impact of

collectivism. We often assume that commitment may be higher in more collectivist

societies. Nevertheless, Redding, Norman and Schlander (1994) examined a study of

Korean society and found that commitment was strongest to one’s blood relations and

all other relationships or member-ships were secondary. Korean employees’

organizational commitment was lower than that of either Japanese or American

employees. Thus, in a sense, collectivist cultures do not invariably manifest higher

organizational commitment; the commitment might lie elsewhere (Paine and Organ,

2000). Nonetheless, on the other hand, the family and the organization often coincide

among Koreans and Chinese (Paine and Organ, 2000). So, in line with this, we

propose that collectivist cultures score higher in organizational commitment, which in

turn would be associated with higher OCB. Thus, to our knowledge,

Proposition 8a: Affective commitment and normative commitment, but

not continuance commitment, will be significant predictor of

OCB in a non-U.S. context.

Proposition 8b: Affective commitment and normative commitment will be

significant antecedents of OCB in a non-U.S. context with a

collectivism-orientation culture, relatively to an

individualism-orientation culture.

Perception of equity, justice & trust. Organ and Konovsky (1989) claimed 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. Fok et al. (1996) examined

the relationship among equity theory, equity sensitivity, and organizational citizenship

behavior. The samples of this study were118 working professionals from the United

Kingdom, mainland China, France and the United States. Preliminary support was

found that individuals from different cultures have different equity sensitivity

orientations and different approaches to organizational citizenship. In a related

research, Chhokar et al. (2001) examined the relationships between equity theory,

equity sensitivity and OCB, getting 338 working professionals from Great Britain,

France, India, Russia and the United States. Similar findings were obtained from their

study: individuals from different cultures differ in their equity sensitivity orientations,

and also differ in their preference for benevolence. This conclusion supports the

contention that cultural differences will impact individuals’ perception of fairness.

Accordingly,

Proposition 9a: Differences across cultures will exist with respect to level

of equity sensitivity.

In terms of fairness, Greenberg (1990) further posed two forms of fairness:

procedural justice and distributive justice. 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. Empirical findings in non-U.S.

contexts also support the relationship between overall fairness and OCB (cf. Fok et

al.,1996; Farh et al., 1997; Menguc, 2000; Alotaibi, 2001; Chhokar et al., 2001). With

the aim to understand variations in citizenship behavior within a culture, Farh et

al.(1997) examined the relationship between OCB and organizational justice in two

studies under a Chinese context. Two cultural characteristics (traditionality and

modernity) and one individual (gender) characteristic were used to examine their

effect on OCBs. The result demonstrated that organizational justice (both distributive

and procedural) was most strongly related to citizenship behavior for individuals who

endorsed less traditional or high modernity, values. Alotaibi (2001) empirically

examined the impact of distributive justice, procedural justice, job satisfaction and

organizational commitment upon OCB with samples drawn from six government

organizations in Kuwait. Similarly, only procedural and distributive justice accounted

for unique variances in Kuwaiti worker’s OCB in Alotaibi ‘s study. Menguc (2000)

tested a social exchange model of OCB, examining the two potential antecedents of

OCB (procedural justice and trust toward sales managers) across two sale situations in

Turkey, and found that procedural justice and trust toward sales managers are the

antecedents of OCBs. In terms of the impact of trust toward the manager on OCB in

Menguc (2000)’s study, similar findings also found in other non-U.S. contexts (cf.

Yoon and Suh, 2003; Hui et al., 1999). Thus,

Proposition 9b: Procedural justice and distributive justice are significant

antecedents of OCB in a non-U.S. context.

Proposition 9c: Trust to the manager is a significant correlate of OCB in

a non-U.S. context.

In this section, we investigate the antecedents of OCB in non-U.S. contexts and

our generation yields some interesting findings. There is a high consensus between

the antecedents of OCB in non-U.S. contexts and in the U.S. context. Though Paine

and Organ (2000) supposed that culture might moderate the effects of antecedents that

in the U.S. have been interpreted as having direct effects on OCB, to our knowledge,

it seems that we failed to support this contention. Some distinctive OCB dimensions

in non-U.S. contexts are presented earlier in this study. Conceptually, each form of

OCBs should have unique antecedents or they are essentially equivalent constructs.

However, based on what is generated in this study, we attribute the results partly to

the existence of similar OCB-enablers among people across over diverse cultures.

Besides, in this study, all the related research on examining the antecedents of OCB in

non-U.S. contexts, with one exceptions (cf. Farh et al.,1997), all applied the

U.S.-based OCB scales to analyze the phenomena in non-U.S. contexts. Accordingly,

we attribute why the antecedents of OCB in both U.S.-based context and non-U.S.

contexts are so consistent to the application of similar OCB questionnaires in both

contexts. This of these two interpretations could have better explanation power needs

more future research to investigate.

CONSEQUENCES OF OCB in a NON-U.S. Context

OCB has been regarded as an important concept in that it is thought to contribute

to effective functioning of the organization, and consequently, its competitiveness

(Krllowicz & Lowery, 1996; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Podsakoff, Ahearne &

MacKenzie 1997). Conceptually, there are several reasons why citizenship behaviors

could enhance organizational competitiveness (Organ, 1988, 1990; Podsakoff &

MacKenzie, 1994, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 1997). For example, as Podsakoff &

MacKenzie (1997) summarized OCBs may contribute to organizational performance

by enhancing productivity, utilizing resources more productively, helping to

coordinate activities, enabling the organization’s adaptation to changeable

environment or strengthening the organization’s ability by attracting best employees.

Whereas, to our knowledge, it is surprising that this conceptual plausibility, compared

with the interest in identifying the antecedents of OCBs, has received little empirical

attention (Podsakoff, et al., 2000). And generally speaking, the empirical research

supports Organ’s assertion that the “good soldier” syndrome is related to organization

performance (cf. Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Ahearne,

1996; Walz & Niehoff, 1996; Podsakoff et al., 1997). However, the findings are

inconsistent. For example, helping behavior was found to enhance performance in

some research (MacKenzie, et al.,1996; Walz & Niehoff, 1996; Podsakoff et al., 1997)

but also appeared to have a negative impact on performance (Podsakoff & MacKenzie,

1994). Besides the effects of OCBs on organizational performance, research also

examined the effect of OCBs on managerial evaluations of performance and

judgments regarding pay raises, promotions, etc (Podsakoff et al., 2000:533). It

showed that OCB has a positive impact on important personnel decisions made by

managers and there is evidence to suggest that in-role and extra-role performance may

interact when influencing managerial judgments and decisions (Podsakoff et al.,

2000:543). Could these findings also be generated from OCB in non-U.S. contexts?

Compared with what was found in the antecedents of OCB in a non-U.S. context,

our findings on the consequences of OCB in non-U.S. contexts is relatively fewer.

When examining the impact of OCB on the performance in a non-U.S. context, it

could be categorized into the effect on performance evaluation and on organizational

performance. To our knowledge, OCB/contextual performance has a positive impact

on performance appraisal process in a non-U.S. context. Krilowicz & Lowery (1996)

found that supervisory evaluations were found to be determined as much by

citizenship behavior as by object performance for Dominican workers, which parallels

finding for American workers. In terms of performance, in Turnipseed & Murkison’s

(2000) study, they found that good citizenship behaviors contribute positively

differently in the U.S. and in Romania, and they proposed that OCB contribute

positively in a greater magnitude to productivity in the U.S. than in Romania and their

assumption was supported in the study. Wener (2000) conceptually proposed that the

impact of OCB on the organizational performance should gain more attention and he

suggested that OCB and contextual performance should be integrated into HRM

practice and research.

Based on the fragment findings, there is lack of consistence on the consequences

of OCB in a non-U.S. context. This phenomenon corresponds to great extent to what

was generated from research in the U.S. context. The conceptual plausibility that

OCB will influence organization effectiveness is only examined by few studies.

Podsakoff & MacKenzie, (1997) claimed that in terms of the effect of OCB on

organizational success, citizenship behaviors have been hypothesized to influence

organizational success through a wide variety of different mechanisms. This opinion

makes us critically re-think about the existence of mediating mechanisms in the

relationship between OCB and organization performance, especially facing the few

findings on the impact of OCB on organizational performance. We wonder if it is with

high possibility that the impact of OCB on organization performance only exists at the

presence of some mediating effect. Or is it the different mediating mechanism that

results in different consequences? These wonderings on the knowledge on OCB need

clarifying in the future research.

CONCLUSION

As Podsakoff et al. (2000) claimed research was needed on the potential impact

that cultural context might have on organizational citizenship behavior, our study

serves as a response to this call and to increase our understanding of OCB in non-U.S.

contexts. In closing, this study contributes to our knowledge in several important

ways. First and foremost, this study shows that what is considered to be OCBs vary

markedly across cultural boundaries. By an extensive reviews and a comparison we

conducted involving types of OCB in the U.S. context and non-U.S. contexts, we

present the universal dimension of OCB and several extended dimensions of non- U.S.

OCB. Furthermore, in terms of the factors influencing peoples’ perception of OCBs,

several deceive factors are generated: status of economic, political development,

power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism/collectivism dimension.

Second, our study generates several antecedents of OCB in non-U.S. contexts: job

satisfaction, perception of equity, organization commitment, trust, and procedural

justice or distributive justice. We also investigate the underlying assumption about the

similarity between the antecedents of OCB in non-U.S. contexts and the U.S. context.

Third, our study summarizes the consequence of OCB in non-U.S. contexts. We

emphasize the contention that there should be a wide variety of different mechanisms,

through which the effect of OCB on organizational success could embodied

(Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997).

Based on the findings of this study, we attempt to identify some future research

directions. First, culture conditions our recognition about what spontaneous behaviors

will enhance the organization functioning. In order to have a more comprehensive

understanding about OCB across over diverse culture, there is a need of local version

of the organizational citizenship behavior questionnaire. Second, to our knowledge,

there is consensus about the antecedents of OCB across variant cultures. To

investigate the underlying reasons causing this interesting phenomenon, it would be

worthwhile to explore other possible antecedents; especially the indirect relationship

should be taken into account. Third, in the related research in this study, self-report

instruments to collect data from research subjects are highly applied. Most of the

research utilizes the questionnaire contains both the antecedents and outcome

variables. Under this condition, it is highly possible to have the occurrence of

common method variance (CMV). Thus, how to handle the CMV problem effectively

and how to avoid this kind of problem through a sound survey design are in need of

attention.

REFERENCES

Adler, N. J. 1989. Cross-cultural interaction: The international comparison fallacy?

Journal of International Business Studies, 515-537.

Alotaibi, G. A. 2001. Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior: A study of

public personnel in Kuwait. Public Personnel Management, 30: 363-376.

Bierhoff, H. W., Muller, G. F., & Kupper, B. 2000. Prosocial work

behavior-development and examination of a measurement for understanding

voluntary work engagement. Gruppendynamik-Zeitschrift fur Angewandte

Sozialpsychology, 31: 141-153.

Boyacigillar N.A., & Adler, N. J. 1991. The parochial dinosaur: organizational science

in a global context. Academy of Management Review, 16:262-290.

Brockner, J., Chen, Y. R., Mannix, E.A., Leung, K., Skarlicki, D. P. 2000. Culture and

procedural fairness- when the effects of what you do depend on how you do it.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 138-159. Charness G. & Levine D.I. 2000. When Are Layoffs Acceptable-Evidence from a

Quasi-Experiment. Industrial & Labor relations Review, 53(3):381-400

Chen Z. X., & Francesco A. M. 2003. The Relationship Between the Three

Components of Commitment and Employee Performance in China. Journal of

Vocatioanl Behavior, 62:490-510.

Chhokar J. S., Zhuplev A., Fok L.Y., & Hartman, S. J. 2001. The impact of culture on

equity sensitivity perceptions and organizational citizenship behavior: A

five-country study. International Journal of Value-based Management,

14:79-82.

Cohen, A. 1999. The relation between commitment forms and work outcomes in

Jewish and Arab culture. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54:371-391.

Dyne & Ang, 1998. Organizational Citizenship Behavior of Contingent Workers in

Singapore. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 692-703.

Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. 1997. Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of

justice and extra-role behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 42:421-444.

Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. 2004. Organizational citizenship behavior

in the People's Republic of China. Organization Science, 15: 241-253.

Fok, Lillian Y, Hartman, Sandra J, Villere, Maurice F, Freibert, & Ralph C III. 1996. A

study of the impact of cross cultural differences on perceptions of equity and

organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Management,

13:3-15. Folger R. & Skarlicki D.P.,1999. Unfairness and Resistance to Change-Hardship as

Mistreatment. Journal Of Organizational Change Management, 12(1):35-50.

George, J. M., & Battenhausen, K. 1990. Understanding prosocial behavior, sales

performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 75: 698-709.

Goodman, S. A., & Svyantek, D. J. 1999. Person-Organization Fit and Contextual

Performance-Do Shared Values Matter. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

55:254-275.

Greenberg, J. 1990. Organizational Justice: Yesterday Today and tomorrow. Journal

of Management, 16:399-432. Hendrix W.H., Robbins T., Miller J. & Summers T.P. 1999. Effects of Procedural and

Distributive Justice on Factors Predictive of Turnover. Journal Of Social Behavior And Personality, 13(4): 611-632.

Hofstede, G. 1980. Motivation, leadership and organization: Do American theories

apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics, 42-63.

Hofstede, G. 1984. Culture’s Consequences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Hui C., Law K. S., & Chen Z. X. 1999. A Structural Equation Model of the Effects

Negative Affectivity, Leader-Member Exchange, and Perceived Job Mobility on

In-role and Extra-role Performance: a Chinese Case. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Processes, 77: 3-21.

Katz, D.1964. Motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science,

9:131-146.

Krilowicz, T. J, & Lowery, C. M. 1996. The impact of organizational citizenship

behavior on the performance appraisal process: A cross-cultural study.

International Journal of Management, 13:94-101.

Kuehn, K. W., & Al-Busaidi, Y. 2002. Citizenship behavior in a non-western context:

An examination of the role of satisfaction, commitment and job characteristics

on self-reported OCB. International Journal of Commerce & Management,

12:107-125.

Lam, S. S. K., Hui, C., & Law, K. S. 1999. Organizational citizenship behavior:

comparing perspectives of supervisors and subordinates across four

international samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84:594-601.

Lee, C., Pillutla, M., & Law, K. S., 2000. Power-distance, gender and organizational

justice. Journal of Management, 26: 685-704.

LePine J. A., Erez A.and Johnson D. E. 2002. The nature of dimensionality of

organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1): 52- ? Mason C.M. & Griffin M.A., 2002. Group Task Satisfaction- Applying the Construct

of Job-Satisfaction to Groups. Small Group Research, 33 (3): 271-312

Matthew S O’Connell, Dennis Doverspike, Christina Norris-Watts, & Keith Hattrup,

2001. Predictors of organizational citizenship behavior among Mexican retail

salespeople. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9:272-281.

Menguc Bulent, 2000. An Empirical Investigation of a Social Exchange Model of

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Across Two Sales Situations: a Turkish

Case. The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 20: 205-214.

Meyer J.P. & Allen N.J., 1984. Testing the “Side Bet Theory” of Organizational

Commitment: Some Methodological Considerations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 67:372-278.

Moorman R. H., 1991. Relationship between Organizational Justice and

Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence

employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76:845-855.

Moorman R. H., Niehoff, B.P., & Organ C.W. 1993. Treating employees fairly and

organizational citizenship behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction,

organizaitonal commitment and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities

and rights Journal, 6:209-225.

Moorman, Robert H., Blakely, & Gerald L, 1995. Individualism-collectivism as an

individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 16: 127-143.

O’Connell M.S., Doverspike D., Norris-Watta C. & Hattrup K., 2001. Predictors of

Organizational Citizenship Behavior among Mexican Retail Salespeople.

International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9:272-280.

Organ, D. W., 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: the good soldier syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W. and Konovsky, M., 1989. Cognitive versus affective determinants of

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,

74:157-164.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan K., 1995. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and

dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel

Psychology, 48:775-802.

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

Human Performance, 10:85-97.

Paine, J. D., & Organ, D.W. 2000. The cultural matrix of organizational citizenship

behavior: some preliminary conceptual and empirical observations. Human

Resource Management Review, 10:45-59.

Podsakoff P.M., Niehoff, B.P., Mackenzie, S.B., & Williams, M.L., 1993. Do

substitute for leadership really substitute for leadership? An empirical

examination of Kerr and Jermier’s situational leadership model.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54:1-44.

Podsakoff P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 1994. Organizational statutes for leadership

really AnCitizenship behavior and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of

Marketing Research, 3:351-363.

Podsakoff P. M., Ahearne M., & MacKenzie, S. B. 1997. Organizational citizenship

behavior and the quantity and quality for work group performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 82:262-270.

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Paine, B. P., & Bachrach, D. G. 2000.

Organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review of the theoretical and

empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of

Management, 26:513-563.

Rob,R. & Zemsky, P. 2002. Social Capital, Corporate Culture, and Incentive Intensity.

Rand Journal of Economics, 33:243-257.

Smith, P.B. et al., 2002. Cultural-values, sources of guidance, and their relevance to

managerial behavior- a 47-nation study. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology,

33:188-208. Spiess E. 2000. Professional Values, Forms of Cooperation, and Work Satisfaction.

Gruppendynamik – Zeitschrift Fur Angewandte Sozialpsychologie, ,31(2):185-196

Staufenbiel T. 2000. Antecedents and Consequences of Voluntary Work Engagement. Gruppendynamik – Zeitschrift Fur Angewandte Sozialpsychologie,31(2):169-183

Tan, H. H., & Tan, C. S. F. 2000. Toward the Differentiation of Trust in Supervisor

and Trust in Organization. Genetic Social and General Psychology

Monographs, 126:241-260.

Tierney, P., Bauer, T. N. & Potter, R. E. 2003. Extra-role behavior among Mexican

Employees-the Impact of LMX, group acceptance and job-attitudes.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10:292-303.

Trompenaars, F.1996. Riding the waves of culture. London: Nicholas Brealey.

Turnipseed D. L., & Mrukison E. 2000. A bi-cultural comparison of organization

citizenship behavior: Does the OCB phenomenon transcend national culture?

The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 8 : 200-222.

Wiener, Y. 1982. Commitment it organizations: A normative View. Academy of

Management Review, 7: 418-428.

Wong, Y. T., Wong, C. S., & Ngo, H. Y. 2002. Loyalty to supervisor and trust in

supervisor of workers in Chinese Joint ventures- a test of 2 competing models.

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13: 883-900.

Yang, K. S., Yu, A. B., & Yeh, M. H. 1993. Chinese individual modernity and

traditionality: Construct definition and measurement (in Chinese). Proceedings

of the interdisciplinary Conference on Chinese Psychology and Behavior,

287-354.

Yoon M. H., & Suh J., 2003. Organizational Citizenship behaviors and service Quality

as External Effectiveness of Contact Employees. Journal of Business Research,

56:597-611.