The Factors Affecting Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Banking Industry

© 2013 Research Academy of Social Sciences

http://www.rassweb.com 178

International Journal of Management Sciences

Vol. 1, No. 5, 2013, 178-192

The Factors Affecting Organizational Citizenship Behavior in

Banking Industry

Teoh Wee Jim1, Bernard Hi

1, Lee Kah Shing

1, Ong Siew Lin

1, Siti Yasmin

1, Sofiah Kadar

Khan1

Abstract

Organ (1988) defined organization citizenship behavior (OCB) as the individual’s behavior that is

discretionary not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and that in the aggregate

promotes the effective functioning of the organization. There has been numerous studies performed on

organization citizenship behavior and antecedents of this behavior were explored since this behavior

contributes to the effective functioning of an organization. The positive contribution of OCB to

organizational performance is widely accepted by literature(Podsakoff and MacKenzie,1994,1997;Podsakoff

et al.,2000). This behavior have been described by the service literature as being essential; for achieving

superior returns.The service industry has been a major contributor to the growth and development of the

Malaysian economy (Central Bank of Malaysia, 2007;Deparment of Statistics Malaysia,2010; Malaysian

Industrial Development Authority,2010). According to Warrier(2010), the services sector is estimated to

contribute 70 percent of GDP to Malaysia’s economy by 2020.There has been a significant correlation in

literature between the relationships of competency, quality of work life, leader member exchange(LMX) and

organization citizenship behavior. The research intends to explore on how this variables encourage the

exhibition of OCB among the service personnel in the banking industry. The relevant hypotheses have been

developed and further testing on its relationship will be conducted in order to investigate its impact on

organizational citizenship behavior.

Keywords: Organization Citizenship Behaviour, Competency, Quality of Work Life, Leader Member

Exchange

1. Introduction

Organizational behavior provides knowledge to managers on the understanding or employees behavior

for the purpose of eliciting cooperation from them in order to achieve organization’s objective. One of the

contributing behavior which is rather discretionary but proven empirically to increase organizational

functioning is organization citizenship behavior (OCB). It refers to various forms of cooperation and

helpfulness to others that support the organization’s social and psychological context.OCB’s importance is

getting widespread attention from organizations in various industries. The services sector has been a major

contributor to the growth and development of the Malaysian economy (Central Bank of Malaysia, 2007;

Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2010; Malaysian Industrial Development Authority, 2010). According to

Warrier (2010), the services sector is estimated to contribute 70 percent of GDP to Malaysia’s economy by

2020. The development of the services sector had contributed greatly to the diversification of the economy of

Malaysia (Public Bank Berhad, 2005).Malaysia’s banking sector is expected to remain robust with a

competitive and challenging environment. Hence, they need to compete among the local and international

banks in Malaysia. According to Mavridis (2004), the banking industry sector which is often being

characterized as a highly knowledge based industry has been given less attention by researchers and this is

the gap this research would like to address.The banking industry is a service industry where the performance

1 Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman, Malaysia


179

is evaluated based on the number of customers it’s able to retain. This can be achieved by providing superior

customer service. Hence, the front service employees play a major role in achieving this. Begum (2005)

highlighted that people are employees who represent a key facilitator in implementation of relationship

banking strategy.According to Organ (1988), organization citizenship behavior (OCB) has a variety of forms

including altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, civic virtue and conscientiousness. Since organization

citizenship behaviors are less likely to be formally rewarded than are required job behaviors, they are

presumably performed by intrinsic motivation mechanism according to Chompokum (2004). The purpose of

this study is to provide a better understanding of the importance of OCB and the factors that affect OCB in

the organization. This study intends to explore what could elicit OCB among the banking employees in

order to improve organization functioning. There are three variables in this study which has been identified

and explored further to investigate its effect on organization citizenship behavior. The variables identified are

leader-member exchange (LMX), empowerment and competency. There will be further empirical test

conducted in future to find the correlation between this variables and organization citizenship behavior.

2. Literature Review

Organization Citizenship Behavior

Organ (1988) defined organization citizenship behavior (OCB) as non-mandatory behavior of an

individual, which the formal reward systems do not directly or clearly recognize and that in sum contributes

to the organization’s effective functioning. Organ explained what he meant by non-mandatory, as the

behavior that is not the written requirement of the role or the job description, that is, the specified terms of

the individual’s employment contract with the individual. Organ (1998) further elaborated that OCBs exist in

various forms, including altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, civic virtue and conscientiousness. The positive

contribution of OCB to organizational performance is widely accepted by literature (Podsakoff and

MacKenzie, 1994, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Indeed these behaviors have been described by the service

literature as being essential to obtain superior returns. MacKensie, Podsakoff, and Praine (1999) stated

several dimensions of OCB such as, ‘helping’ behaviors by employees (e.g. supportive actions to assist

others and going beyond the requirements of the job); ‘sportsmanship’ (tolerating the work environment

without excessive complaining); and ‘civic duty’ (constructive involvement in the processes of the

organization beyond the requirement of the job). 6The vast majority of OCB research has focused on the

effects of OCB on individual and organizational performance. Many researchers focused on the effects of

OCB on individual and organizational performance and found that OCB leads an organization to positive

consequences (Waltz & Niehoff, 1996; Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 1997; Barbuto, Brown, Wilhite, & Wheeler,

2001; Hodson, 2002; Cardona, Lawrence, & Bentler, 2004; Appelbaum, Asmar, Chehayeb, Konidas,

Duszara, &Duminica, 2003). Brief has supported Organ’s position regarding the importance for effectiveness

of those behaviors, which he labeled as organizational citizenship behavior (George & Brief, 1992).9OCB is

desirable from the organizational point of view because such behavior is thought to increase the available

resources and decrease the need for costly mechanism of control (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff& Mackenzie,

1997).

Leader- Member Exchange (LMX)

Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory made significant contributions to leadership theory because of

its unique characteristic of exploring different levels of relationships between a leader and his or her

immediate subordinates (Yukl& Van Fleet, 1992). LMX represents the quality of the relationship between

leader and subordinate (Schriesheim, Castro, &Cogliser, 1999), as operationalized by a supervisor-

subordinate working relationship scale that assessed the overall working relationship between employees and

their immediate supervisor (Graen&Uhl- Bien, 1995); recently, social exchange theory has been explored to

investigate the role of LMX in organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). This involves extra-role

behaviours that are not typically described by employees’ job descriptions or are not formally rewarded

(Liden&Maslyn, 1998; Setton, Bennett, &Liden, 1996; Wayne, Shore, &Liden, 1997).Despite some findings

that LMX is positively related to OCB from the social exchange perspective, there is still the argument that

T. W. Jim et al.

180

such findings are overstated (House &Aditya, 1997). Researchers have tried to examine a theoretical linkage

between LMX and OCB, because LMX has been considered as one of the relational motives of OCB (Hui et

al., 1999).

Employees select and then engage in different organizational citizenship behaviours (Van Dyne et al.,

1995). Social exchange theory suggests that employees are motivated to engage in extra-role behaviours

when they perceive that their employment relationship is based upon a fair social exchange (Tumley et al.,

2003).The influence of LMX on employees’ emotions such as envy although several researchers have argued

that there might be possible negative emotions such as workplace envy resulting from differentiated

treatment in LMX (Deluga, 1994; McClane, 1991; Vecchio, 1995; Yukl& Van Fleet, 1992). Whereas interest

in negative discrete emotions such as anger, anxiety, depression or shame has been growing, the study of

such emotions is still in the premature stage in organizational behavior (Ashforth& Lee, 1990; Barsade,

Brief, &Spataro, 2003; George, 1990). This begins to satisfy this void. Research has found an approximately

20% increase in performance and a 50% increase in satisfaction for high LMX subordinates over their low

LMX counterparts (Mayfield & Mayfield, 1998

Empowerment

David Clutterbuck (1995) defines empowerment in terms of encouraging and allowing individuals to

take personal responsibility to improve the way they do their jobs and contribute to the organizational goals.

The creation of a culture encourages people at all levels to help them gain confidence and skills so that they

can make a difference. John Newstrom & Keith Davis (2002) defined empowerment as any process that

provides greater autonomy to the employees by sharing of relevant information and the provision of control

over factors affecting job. Organization empowerment creates structures and opportunities for people to take

more control over their tasks in the employing institution. While, the individual empowerment forms to

relates to an increased sense of self-efficacy (Conger &Kanugo, 1988 as cited in Kiberu, 2009).Many studies

(Morrison, 1996; Nihoff& Moorman, 1993; Bearn, 2000) have concluded different outcomes to relate

empowerment with organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). Leadership empowerment has showed

positive relationship between organizational citizenship behaviour and team performance based on study in

India (Bearn, 2000). The research studies on the impacts of leadership empowerment behaviours and

organizational citizenship behaviour on sale team performance in India. Cardona, Lawrence and Bentler

(2004), found that, social exchange relationship influence OCB. It based on the criteria that involve them in

the organizational decision making process and empowering the staff. According to Somech and Bogler,

employees are likely to feel like part of the organization and show greater responsibilities on their roles at

work (OCBs) when they have empowered and participate in the process of decision making or setting ideas

in the organization. The study found a positive relationship between employee OCB and participation

(empowering and involving employees in decision making). According to Greasley et al, (2004), it is

inevitable for employees to exhibit extra role behaviour once the organization goes out of its way and

involves employees in decision making and increases on their participation.

Competency

Competency refer to the skills and knowledge that needed by the employees to perform a job (Beardwell

& Holden, 2001). Competency consists of customer awareness, team work, commitment and contribution,

productivity and so on. According to Boyatzis in 1982 (as cited in Kagaari & Munene, 2007) defines that

competency as a characteristic of a person which results in their effective or superior performance. In a study

conducted by McClelland (1973) it highlighted that competency as an element of performance which is

linked with life outcomes. Competencies can be used as different approaches to forecasting human

performance compared to traditional trait and intelligence techniques. Competencies through this may

associate to broad psychological or behavioral attributes which are linked to extraordinary job and life

success.In Podasoff (2000) (as cited in Katarangi, 2010) claimed that the failure for the managers to reward

employees’ behaviors by showing their satisfaction or appreciation to their employee who has perform well

will affect the decreasing of effectiveness of organization performance and OCBs in the workplace.Besides

that, Lock wood et al in 2000 (as cited in Katarangi, 2010) claimed that competencies help to facilitate


181

employees to complete the tasks that are assigned by managerThe concept of competency is defined as

utilized knowledge and skills, performance and Another study by Tremblay (2000) indicated that there are a

strong positive impact on the mobilization of discretionary behaviors which is influenced by the perception

of a high level of autonomy, influence on the work and the possibility of using competencies.

3. Methodology

Conceptual Model and Propositions

The focus of the present paper is to build a proposition to investigate the impact of leader member

exchange (LMX), empowerment, competency towards organization citizenship behavior (OCB). According

to Livingstone (2007), there is a relationship between competence, commitment, empowerment and

organization citizenship behavior (OCB). The available findings suggest that there could be a relationship

between leader member exchange (LMX), empowerment, competency towards organization citizenship

behavior so the following proposition is made.

Propositions Development

(The propositions developed below are summarized and illustrated in Figure 1)

Figure 1: Factors affecting the exhibition of organization citizenship behavior

The focus of this paper is to build a researchable proposition investigating the effect of leader-member

exchange, empowerment and competency on organization citizenship behavior. According to Schriesheim,

Castro and Cogliser (1999), leader-member exchange represents the quality of the relationship between

leader and subordinate. A study conducted by House & Aditya (1997) reported that leader-member exchange

is positively related to organization citizenship behavior from the social exchange perspective.Lord and

Brown( 2001) revealed that leadership works best when there is a match between the identity level of

followers and the focus of leaders, as people of similar behavior tend to be attracted to each other A study

conducted by Lo,Ramayah & Jerome ( 2006) reported that more conscientiousness employees are more

likely to display OCB as a output from job satisfaction that they gained. Since employees are motivated as a

result of high quality LMX they gain more job satisfaction. This study further explored due to the high

quality of social exchange developed between superiors and subordinates it has motivated employees to

exhibit OCB.

Leader

Member

Exchange

Empowerment

Competency

OCB

T. W. Jim et al.

182

H1o : There is no significant relationship between Leader-Member exchange and


H1a : There is a significant relationship between Leader-Member exchange and


Tremblay (2000) reported that perception of a high level of autonomy and influence on the work and the

possibility of using competencies has a strong significant positive influence on organization citizenship

behavior. Garavan and McGuire (2001) stated that competencies can be liberating and empowering, arguing

that if employees are provided with a broad degree of self-control and self-regulation, they will work towards

higher organizational behavior.

H2o : There is no significant relationship between competency and


H2a : There is a significant relationship between competency and


David Clutterbuck(1995) defines empowerment in terms of encouraging and allowing individuals to

take personal responsibility to improve the way they do their jobs and contribute to the organizational goals.

According to Somech and Bogler (2004), there is a positive relationship between employee OCB and

participation. Another study conducted by Thayer (2008) reported that a positive psychological climate is

able to cultivate a positive emotional response from employees and further elaborated that when a positive

psychological climate is present it is able to increase employee’s engagement and also citizenship behavior

among its employees.

H3o : There is no significant relationship between empowerment and


H3a : There is a significant relationship between empowerment and


Proposed Framework

Figure 1

Leader

Member

Exchange

Empowerment

Competency

OCB


183

Sampling and Data Collection

The study was done only in Ipoh, Malaysia There were 170 questionnaires which were distributed and

150 questionnaires were returned, for a response rate of 88.2%.

Measures

In Section A of the questionnaire is about respondent’s demographic information (gender, age,

education level, length of service and position) whereby, Section B the independent variables leader-member

exchange, empowerment , competency and the dependent variable organization citizenship behavior were

tested respectively. In Table 3.3, it summarizes the origin source of measurement for this study, where it was

adopted from and the number of items constructed for the purpose of this research.

Table 3.3: The Origin Source of Measurement

Constructs Adopted From No. of Items

Leader-Member Exchange Soldner, 2009 10

Empowerment Katarangi,2008 22

Competency Abdel Khalek, 2007 35

Organization Citizenship Behavior Soldner,2009 16

4. Results and Discussion

In this research, the data are to be coded and analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social

Science). The result of this data analysis will then be interpreted. There are three types of analysis in this

study which is descriptive, reliability and inferential analysis

Demographic Analysis

Table 4:1Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Gender

Frequency Percentage

Male

64

42.7

Female

86

57.3

Total

150

Age

21 - 30

41

27.3

31- 40

58

38.7

41-50

45

30

Above 50

6

4

Total

150

Education Level

SPM

49

32.7

Diploma

52

34.7

Degree

23

15.3

Masters

11

7.3

Others

15

10

Total

150

T. W. Jim et al.

184

Length of Service

Less than 1 year 20

13.3

1 - 3 years 38

25.3

4-5

years

7

4.7

6- 10 years 28

18.7

10 years and above 57

38

Total

150

Position

Management Level 34

22.7

Supervisory Level 43

28.7

Staff

73

48.7

Total

150

Table 4.1 above provides the demographic summary of the respondents. In terms of gender the

respondents were mainly female which consists of 86(57.3%) females and 64(42.7%) males. The age

between 31 – 40 is the highest which is 58(38.7%) followed by 41-50 which is 45(30.0%) then 21-30 which

is 41(27.3%) and above 50 is 6(4.0%). The education level among the respondents indicate that there are

49(32.7%) SPM holders, Diploma is 52( 34.7%), Degree is 23 (15.3%), Masters is 11 (7.3%) and others 15(

10.0%). The length of service among the respondents highlighted that most of them have worked 10 years

and above which is 57(38.0%), less than one year is 20( 13.3%),1 to 3 years is 38 (25.3%), between 4 to 5

years 7(4.7%), 6 to 10 years is 28(18.7%). Finally the position of the respondents indicated that most of them

were staff level which 73(48.7%), supervisory level is 43(28.7%) and management level is 34(22.7%).

Reliability Analysis

Table 4.2 Internal Reliability Test

Constructs Cronbach’s Alpha

Coefficient

Number of

Items

Leader Member Exchange 0.931 10

Empowerment 0.875 22

Competency 0.951 35

Organization Citizenship Behavior 0.937 16

In Table 4.2 ten items were chosen to test the reliability of Leader-Member Exchange and the

Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.931 and respectively for empowerment 22 items were chosen and the Cronbach’s

Alpha is 0.875 , Competency has 35 items and Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.951 and finally Cronbach’s Alpha for

Organization Citizenship Behavior with 16 items is 0.937. As a conclusion, the internal reliabilities of all the

three measures were above 0.8, meeting the minimum threshold recommended by Nunally et al.,(1978)

which indicated that all the items in each measure were internally consistent and are considered acceptable

and reliable. As a results, we conclude that all if the constructs are reliable for further analysis.


185

Inferential Analysis

Pearson Correlation Analysis

Table 4.3: Pearson Correlation Analysis

LMX EMP COMP OCB

LMX Pearson Correlation 1 .746**

.809**

.713**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 150 150 150 150

EMP Pearson Correlation .746**

1 .769**

.782**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 150 150 150 150

COMP Pearson Correlation .809**

.769**

1 .819**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 150 150 150 150

OCB Pearson Correlation .713**

.782**

.819**

1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 150 150 150 150

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 4.3 shows the correlations between the variables are significant at p<0.01. According to the table

above, leader-member exchange (LMX), empowerment (EMP) and competency (COM) are significant and

positively correlated with organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Meanwhile, competency (r= 0.819) is

more significantly correlated with organizational citizenship behavior than leader-member exchange (r=

0.713) and empowerment (r= 0.782).

Multiple Regression Analysis

Table 4.4: R Square and ANOVA Results

R .853

R Square .728

Adjusted R Square .722

Std Error of Estimate .29632

F 130.0632

Sig .000

Table 4.4 and 4.5 . is the model summary of multiple regression. According to the model, the R value

(correlation coefficient) between organizational citizenship behavior and three independent variable is 0.853.

Since the R value is a positive value, it shows that there is a positive and high correlation between dependent

variable (organizational citizenship behavior) and three independent variable (leader-member exchange,

empowerment, competency). Meanwhile R square (coefficient of determination) is equal to 0.728, which is

less than one. Since R square indicates the extent to which the independent variables can explain the

variation in the dependent variable, it indicates that approximately 72.8% of the variation in organizational

citizenship behavior (DV) could be explained by three independent variables. Analyzing of variance

(ANOVA) is used to test whether there is a significant linear relationship between organizational citizenship

behavior (DV) and all the independent variables (leader-member exchange, competency, and empowerment).

T. W. Jim et al.

186

Table 4.5 Coefficient of Multiple Regressions

Model Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 2.784 3.077 .905 .367

LMX .021 .132 .012 .159 .874

COMP .240 .037 .525 6.476 .000

EMP .282 .055 .370 5.170 .000

Dependent Variable: OCB

Table 4. ANOVAbshows that p-value is 0.000, which is less than alpha value 0.05. In other words, the F

–statistic is significant and the overall model for this study is good model to explain the relation between the

dependent and the predictor variables. Therefore, the independent variables (leader-member exchange,

competency and empowerment) are significant in explaining the variance in organizational citizenship

behavior. Coefficient of multiple regressions is another important analysis to explain the relationship

between three independent variables (leader-member exchange, competency and empowerment). Based on

the significance level (Sig) column in table 4.5, the p-value for each independent variable are less than 0.05

except leader-member exchange. This indicates that competency and empowerment are significant in

explaining the variation in organizational citizenship behavior. However, the leader-member exchange is not

significant in explaining the variation in organizational citizenship behavior, as p-value 0.874 is greater than

alpha value 0.05. The figures from unstandardized coefficients are also used to formulate the multiple

regressions equations in the form of = α+βX1+βX2+ βX3+β X4.. Thus, the multiple regressions equation of

this study is Organizational Citizenship Behavior= 2.784+ 0.021(leader-member exchange)

+0.240(competency) + 0.282(empowerment).Since Beta (β) of unstandardized coefficient represent the

amount of dependent variable changes when the corresponding independent variable changes by one unit, it

indicates that when three independent variables (leader-member exchange, competency, and empowerment)

increase by 1% organizational citizenship behavior will increase by 2.1%, increase 24% and increase 28.2%

respectively while other variables remain constant.

In addition, this model also examines which of the independent variables will influence most towards

the dependent variable (organizational citizenship behavior). Theory explained that the higher the beta value,

the greater the impact of the independent variable to the dependent variable. Based on the result obtained,

empowerment (β=0.282) has the greatest impact to organizational citizenship behavior, followed by

competency (β=0.24) and leader-member exchange (β=0.021). In other words, empowerment makes the

strongest unique contribution to explain the variation in dependent variable (organizational citizenship

behavior).Based on Table 4.5, p value for for leader-member exchange is 0.874 which is greater than the

alpha value 0.05 therefore H1 is not supported. The p value for empowerment and competency is significant

so H2 and H3 is accepted.

5. Conclusion

The result of Pearson Correlation Analysis indicates that LMX has a positive effect on OCB and it is

also significant and based on multiple regression analysis LMX has no significance at 0.05. According to

House and Aditya (1997) LMX is positively related to OCB from the social exchange perspective and there

are still arguments that such findings are overstated and a study conducted by Oregon and Hoff( 2007)

highlighted that there is no statistical significant relationship between LMX and OCB. Empowerment has

significant influence towards OCB for Pearson Correlation Analysis and Multiple Regression Analysis .

According to Cushman(2000) his study indicated a positive relationship between empowerment and OCB .

Niehoff and Moorman(1993) highlighted a positive impact in relationship between empowerment and OCB.

According to Somech and Drach-Zahavy(2004), employees are likely to feel like a part of the organization


187

when they have empowerment and involved in the process of decision making.Competency has found to be

significant towards OCB for Pearson Correlation Analysis and Multiple Regression Analysis. A study

conducted by Beardwell and Holden (2001) explained that when employees have higher competencies they

tend to exhibit OCB among their colleagues and further supported in a study conducted by Munene,bbosa

and Eboyu ( 2004).It is recommended that the research to be conducted in different states in Malaysia and

even in different countries.

References

Abdul Khalek, N. A. (2007). An investigation of differences in the competency profiles of HRD

practitioners in local and multinational banks.

Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J. & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower your sales force? An empirical examination

of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and

performance. Journal of Applied psychology, 90, 945-955.

Ali, N. (2009). Effects of perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange on organizational

citizenship behaviour. Abasyn University Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), 53-56.

Al Swidi, A.K. & Mahmood, R. (2011). How does organizational culture shape the relationship

between entrepreneurial orientation and the organizational performance of banks. European Journal

of Social Sciences, 20(1), 28-46.

Appelbaum, S., Asmar, J. A., Chehayeb, R., Konidas, N., Duszara, V. M., & Duminica, I. (2003).

Organizational citizenship: a case study of MedLink Ltd. Team Performance Management: An

International Journal, 9 (5/6), 136-154.

Appelbaum, S. H., & Honneagar, K. (1998). Empowerment: A Constricting overview of Organizational

in General and Nursing in particular -An examination of Organizational Behavior, Job design and

Structural Power; Empowerment in Organizations.

Armstrong, M. & Baron, A. (1995). The Job Evaluation Handbook. Institute of Personnel Development,

London.

Armstrong, M. (2000), Performance Management: Key Strategies and Practical Guidelines, Kogan Page,

London.

Ariani, D. W. (2012). The relationship between social capital, organizational citizenship behaviours, and

individual performance: An empirical study from Banking Industry in Indonesia. Journal of

Management Research, 4 (2).

Bagheri, G., Matin, H. Z., & Amighi, F. (2011). The relationship between empowerment and organizational

citizenship behavior of the pedagogical organization employees. Iranian Journal of Management

Studies, 4(2), 53-62.

Barbuto, J., Brown, L., Wilhite, M., & Wheeler, D. (2001). Justify the underlying motives of

organizational citizenship behaviour: A brief study of agricultural co-op workers.

Barnett, M. R. (2011). The Relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and Organizational

Citizenship Behavior in the Jamaican Workplace, Journal of Applied Psychology, 146.

Barsade, S. G., Brief, A. P., & Spataro, S. E. (2003). The affective revolution in organizational behavior: The

emergence of a paradigm. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science

(pp. 3-52). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Beardwell., & Holden. (2001). Human Resource Management a contemporary approach Pearson Education

limited.

T. W. Jim et al.

188

Begum, N. (2005). The relationships between social power and organizational citizenship behaviour:

The meditational role of procedural justice, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction

in context of a private commercial bank in Bangladesh. A Senior Project Report Presented in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Business Administration.

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

Bogler, R. & Somech, A. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior in schools. How does it relate to

participation in decision making? Journal of Educational Administration, 43, 420-438.

Bowen, D.E., & Lawler, E.E. (1992). The empowerment of service workers: What, why, how and

when. Sloan Management Review, 33(3), 31-39.

Boyatzis, R.E. (1982). The Competent Manager, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Cardona, P., Lawrence, B., & Bentler, P. (2004). The influence of social and work exchange

relationships on organizational citizenship behavior. Group and Organizational Management, 29(2),

219-247.

Carlson, R. J., Carlson, D. S., & Wadsworth, L. L. (2000). The relationship between individual power moves

and group agreement type: An examination and model. Advanced Management.

Cheng, M., Dainty, A., & Moore, D. (2003). The differing faces of managerial competency in Britain and

America. Journal of Management Development, 22(6), 527-37.

Chompookum, D., & Derr, C. B. (2004). The effects of internal career orientations on organizational

citizenship behavior in Thailand. Career Development International. 9 (4), 406-423.

Clutterbuck, D., & Kernaghan, S. (1995). The power of empowerment. Release the hidden talent s of your

employees. Kogan page Ltd. London.

Cohen-Charash, Y., Mueller, J. S., & Goldman, M. (2004). When do we help and when do we harm? Effects

of outcome favorability and procedural fairness on envy and behavior. Paper presented at the

Academy of Management Annual Meeting, New Orleans.

Colella, A., & Varma, A. (2001). The impact of subordinate disability on leader-member exchange

relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 304-315.

Conger, J. & Kanungo, R. (1988). The empowerment process: Integration theory and practice. Academy

management Journal, 13(3), 471-482.

Coyle-Shapiro, J., & Conway, N. (2004). Exchange relationships: examining psychological contracts and

perceived organisational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 774-81.

Cushman, J. W. (2000). Empowerment and the Moderating Effect on Organizational Citizenship

Behaviours on Personal Hygiene Practices in the Food Service Industry. A Dissertation for Kansas

University.

Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship

behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 315-326.

Dio (1979). Participative decision making: a comparative study. Industrial Relations, 18, 295-309.

Farahbod, F., Azadehdel. , M., Rezaei-Dizgah, M. ,& Nezhadi-Jirdehi, M. (2012). Organizational Citizenship

Behavior: The role of organizational justice and leader-member exchange. Interdisciplinary Journal

of Contemporary Research in Business 3.9, 3(9), 893-903.

Garavan, T., & McGuire, D. (2001). Competencies and workplace learning: some reflections on the

rhetoric and the reality. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(4), 144-63.

George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 107-

116.


189

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at

work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310- 329.

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development of LMX (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years:

Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.

Graham, J. W. (1989). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, operationalization,

and validation , Unpublished working paper, Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

Greasley, K., Bryaman, A., Dainty, A., & Prince, A., et al,. (2005). Employee perceptions on

empowerment. 27(4), 354-368.

Hair, J. F., Money, A. H., Samouel, P., & Page, M. (2007). Research Methods for Business. The UK: John

Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Hodson R. (2002). Management citizenship behavior and its consequences. Work and Occupations, 29

(1), 64-96.

Hui, C., Law, K. S., & Chen, Z. X. (1999). A structural equation model of the effects of negative affectivity,

leader-member exchange, and perceived job mobility on inrole and extra-role performance: A

Chinese case. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 3-21.

John W. Newstrome & Keith Davis, (2002). Organisational Behaviour. Human behaviour at work. TAT A

McGraw - Hill.

Kagaari, J. R.K. & Munene, J.C. (2007). Engineering lecturers' competencies and organisational citizenship

behaviour (OCB) at Kyambogo University, Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(9), 706 –

726.

Katarangi, A. K. (2008). Competencies, empowerment and organisational citizenship behaviors (OCBs)

among public sector accountants in Uganda.

Katarangi, A. K. (2010). Competencies, empowerment and organisational citizenship behaviours (OCBs)

among public sector accountants in Uganda. Master’s thesis, Makerere University.

Kelley, S., & Hoffman, K.D. (1997). An investigation of positive affect, pro social behaviours and

service quality. Journal of Retailing, 73, 407- 427.

Kiberu, R. (2009). Operant competences, professional training and performance of public sector accountants.

Makerere University dissertation. Unpublished.

Kim, S. K. (2006). The role of envy in hospitality employees’ organizational citizenship behavior: A leader-

member exchange perspective. Journals of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management, 96.

Larson, J. E., & Gouwens, J. A. (2008). The relationship between leader member exchange and burnout in

psychiatric rehabilitation workers. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 32(1), 5-14.

Lashley C. (1999). Employee Empowerment in Services: A Framework for Analysis Personnel Review 28,

1-9.

Lee, K. L. & Salleh, A. L. (2011). Mediating effects of subordinates’ competence on leadership styles and

organisational citizenship behaviour. African Journal of Business Management. 5(19), 7790-7801.

Lee, K. L. & Low, G. T. (2012). Leadership Styles and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The

Mediating Effect of Subordinates’ Competence and Downward Influence Tactics. Journal of

Applied Business and Economics. 13(2).

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical

assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43-72.

Livingstone, K. (2007). Passenger, handling competences, empowerment, commitment and organizational

citizenship behaviour (OCB). Master’s thesis, Makerere University.

T. W. Jim et al.

190

Low, S. F. (2010), The effects of human resource management practices on service-oriented organizational

citizenship behaviors: The role of organizational commitment as a mediator.

Mahmood, R. & Abdul Wahid, R. (2012). Investigating the Effect of Intellectual Capital on Bank

Performance in Malaysia. Knowledge Management International Conference (KMICe) 2012.

Majid, M. Z. A., Sufian, F., & Alifiah, M. N. (2007). Consolidation, Market Structure and Competition in the

Malaysian Banking Industry: Empirical Evidence from Malaysia. In Unpublished paper presented in

the 15 th Annual Conference PBFEAM, Vietnam.

Malaysia's Banking. (2013, May 31). Malaysia's banking sector to stay strong IBBM. Malaysia Chronicle.

Retrieved August 12, 2013, from

http://www.malaysiachronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=107381%3Amalaysi

as-banking-sector-to-staystrongibbm&Itemid= 3#ixzz2ayrD9s3a

Malhotra, N. K. & Peterson, M. (2006). Basic Marketing Research, (2nd ed). International Edition, Pearson

Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K. , Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social

exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of

Management Journal, 43, 738-748.

Mathieu, J. & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and Meta analysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences

of organisational commitments, Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.

Mavridis, D.G. (2004). The intellectual capital performance of the Japanese banking sector. Journal of

Intellectual Capital, 5(1), 92-115.

Mayfield, M., & Mayfield, J. (1998). Increasing worker outcomes by improving leader follower relations.

The Journal of Leadership Studies, 5, 72-81.

McClane, W. E. (1991). The interaction of leader and member characteristics in theleader-member exchange

model of leadership. Small Group Research, 22, 283- 300.

McClelland, D.C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for intelligence. American Psychologist, 28(1),

1-14.

McLagan, P. (1996). Competency models: Great ideas revisited. Training & Development, 50(1), 60.

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/227007290?accountid=50207

McLagan, P.A. (1997), Competencies: the next generation, Training and Development, 55(5), 40

Mohammad, J.; Habib, F. Q., & Alias, M. A. (2011). Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior:

An empirical study at higher learning institutions. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 16(2),

149-165.

Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L., (1995). Individualism-Collectivism as an individual difference

predictor of organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(2),

127-142.

Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the

employee’s perspective. The Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543-1567.

Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N., Kemery, E. R., & Wesolowski, M. A. (1998). Relationships between

bases of power and work reactions: The mediational role of procedural justice. Journal of

Management, 24(4), 533-552.

Moye, M. & Henkin, A. (2005). Equity association between employee empowerment; and trust in

managers. Journal of management development, 25, 101-117.


191

Munene, J. C., Bbosa, R., & Eboyu, F. (2004). Operant competence management framework for enhancing

competence management and development in organizations in Africa. Paper presented in American

Management Conference, OH.

Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of

monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. The Academy of Management Review, 36,

527- 556.

Ninth Malaysia Plan. (2006-2010). The National Mission, Malaysia Communications and Multimedia

Commission Planning Unit. Retrieved May 1, 2013, from

http://www.epu.jpm.my/RM9/english/Mission.pdf

Organ, D. W. (1990). The Motivational basis of Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Staw, B.M

and Cummings, L. L (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43-72.

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

Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. Journal of Management,

14(4), 547-557.

Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behaviour. Research in

organizational citizenship, 12(1), 43-72.

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

Performance, 10(2), 85-97.

Organ, D. W., & Konov sky, M. A. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational

citizenship behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157-164.

Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: It nature,

antecedents, and consequences. USA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Piwang, P. (2009). Managerial competencies.team work, employee empowerment and organizational

citizenship behaviours; A case of Uganda electoral commission. Unpublished master’s thesis,

Makerere University.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Mackenzie, S.B. (1997). The impact of organizational citizenship behaviour in

organizational performance: review and suggestion for future research, Human Performance, 10,

133-51.

Posdakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, B., & Bachrach, D. (2000). Organizational citizenship

behavior: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for

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

Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1996). Confirmatory factor analysis of the bases of leader power:

First - order factor model and its invariance across groups. Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 31(4), 495-516.

Roscoe, J. T. (1975). Fundamental research statistics for the behavioural sciences. (2nd ed.) New York: Holt

Rinehart & Winston.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students, Pearson

Education, London.

Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). LMX (LMX): A comprehensive review

of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 63-113.

Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2010). Research methods for business: A skill building approach (5th ed.).

Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

T. W. Jim et al.

192

Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational

support, LMX and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 219-227.

Soldner, J. L. (2009). Relationship among Leader-Mmber Exchange, Organizational Citizenship

Behavior, Organizational Commitment, Gender, and Dyadic Duration in a rehabilitation

organization, 141.

Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2004). Exploring organizational citizenship behaviour from an

organizational perspective: The relationship between organizational learning and organizational

citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(3), 281-

298.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and

validation, Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442- 1465.

Thacker, C. & Handscombe, B. (2003). Innovation, competitive position and industry attractiveness: a

tool to assist SMEs. Creativity and Innovation Management, 12(4), 230-239.

Tremblay, M. (2000). Organisational and individual determinants of a typical employment: The case of

multiple jobholding and self-employment, IQRC, Montreal.

Tumley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). The impact of psychological

contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors, Journal

of Management, 29, 187-206.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behavior: In pursuit of construct and

definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters). Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215-

285.

Vecchio, R. P. (1995). It’s not easy being green: Jealousy and envy in the workplace. Research in Personnel

and Human Resources Management, 13, 201-244.

Waltz, S. M., & Niehoff (1996). Organizational citizenship behaviors and their effect on

organizational effectiveness in limited-menu restaurants, in Keys, J.B. and Dosier, L.N.

(Ed.), Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, George Southern University, Statesboro,

GA, 307-11.

Wan, H. L. (2011). The Role of Leader-Member Exchange in Organizational Justice Organizational

Citizenship Behaviour Relationship, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management,

19(2), 71-91.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and LMX: A social

exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82-111.

Woodruffe, C. (1991). Competent by any other name", Personnel Management, 23(9), 30-3.

Wu, Y.-J. (2009). A multidimensional analysis of the relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and

organizational citizenship behaviour with an alternative measure of Leader-Member Exchange, 113.

Ye, J. (2012). The Impact of Organizational Values on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Public

Personnel Management, 41(5), 35-46.

Yukl, G. A., & Van Fleet, D.D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership inorganizations.In M.D. Dunnette

and L.M. Hough (Eds), Handbook o f industrialand organizational psychology (Vol. 3). Mountain

Veiw, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C., & Griffin, M. (2010). Business Research Methods (8th ed.). New

York: South-Western/Cengage Learning.

Zikmund, W.G. (2003). Business Research Methods. (7th ed.) South-Western Publishing.

The Factors Affecting Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Banking Industry

Documents

Transcript of The Factors Affecting Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Banking Industry