Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 1
Theory of Justice, OCB, and Individualism: Kyrgyz Citizens
Mehmet Ferhat Özbek
Department of Human Resource Management, Faculty of Economics and Administrative
Sciences, Gümüşhane University, Gümüşhane, Turkey
E-Mail: [email protected]
Mohammad Asif Yoldash
Department of International Trade and Business Management, Faculty of Economics and
Administrative Sciences, Avrasya University, Trabzon, Turkey
E-Mail: [email protected]
Thomas Li-Ping Tang
Department of Management and Marketing, Jennings A. Jones College of Business,
Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 37132 USA
E-Mail: [email protected]
Paper Published in
Journal of Business Ethics DOI: 10.1007/s10551-015-2553-0
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-015-2553-0
Address all correspondence to Thomas Li-Ping Tang, Department of Management and Marketing,
Jennings A. Jones College of Business, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132
U.S.A. Tel: (615) 898-2005, Fax: (615) 898-5308, e-mail: [email protected] (JBE 2015 Justice
OCB Kyrgyzstan.doc: 2/12/2015).
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 2
Theory of Justice, OCB, and Individualism: Kyrgyz Citizens
Abstract
Research suggests that organizational justice (procedural, distributive, and interactional justice)
has important impacts on work-related attitudes and behaviors, such as organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB). In this article, we explore the extent to which individualism moderates the
relationship between organizational justice and OCB (organizational obedience, participation, and
loyalty) among citizens in Kyrgyzstan. We make additional contributions to the literature because
we know very little about these constructs in this former Soviet Union country, Kyrgyzstan, an
under-researched and under-represented region of the world. Results of our data collected from
402 managers and employees in Kyrgyzstan offer the following new discoveries. All three justice
constructs are related to OCB. Individualism moderates only the distributive and interactive justice
to OCB relationships. We develop an intricate theory with provocative implications: Procedural
justice produces obedience. For “individualists”, interactional justice inspires loyalty and,
interestingly, distributive justice “can only buy” participation, but “can’t buy” loyalty. Therefore,
for individualists, interactional justice outweighs distributive justice for organizational
loyalty. Based on Kyrgyz citizens’ justice, OCB, and individualism, our theory reveals novel
insights regarding culture, money attitude, and intrinsic motivation and provides critical and
practical implications to the field of business ethics.
Keywords: Organizational justice, Organizational citizenship behavior, Individualism, Social
exchange, Money, Intrinsic motivation, Ethics, Former Soviet Union Country, Contextualization
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 3
Theory of Justice, OCB, and Individualism: Kyrgyz Citizens
For the past several decades, management scholars have expressed great interests in
exploring organizational justice (Brown et al. 2005; Cohen-Charash and Spector 2001; Colquitt et
al. 2001; Colquitt and Rodell 2011; Greenberg 1990b, 1993, 2005) as related to numerous work-
related outcome variables, such as: trust (Colquitt and Rodell, 2011), organizational commitment
(McFarlin and Sweeney 1992), and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Moorman 1991).
Organizational justice is important to the management literature because injustice has many “dark”
consequences and provides critical and practical implications for researchers in business ethics.
Feelings of pay dissatisfaction (injustice), for example, may cause individuals to steal in the name
of justice (Greenberg, 1993; Skarlicki and Folger 1997; Tang and Chiu 2003; Tang et al. 2011). In
addition, organization researchers have investigated three components of organizational justice—
procedural, distributive, and interactional justice—and OCB relationship in many parts of the
world and found that interactional justice was the strongest predictor of OCB in the US (Moorman
1991) and in Portugal (Rego and Cunha 2010), for example. Distributive justice and interactional
justice were the first and the second strongest predictors of OCB in China, respectively (Farh et
al. 1997). It appears that there are significant cross-cultural differences among these variables.
Despite of these studies on the relationships between organizational justice and OCB across
cultures, management researchers have neglected the role of contextual and cultural effects on
these variables. Contextualization helps scholars build a robust and powerful theory (Rousseau
and Fried 2001) and provide meaning that can only be understood in a specific contextual
environment (Johns 2006; Whetten 1989). According to Tsui (2007), any single-country study
must focus on the national context in the theory, methods, and research. Scholars add the effects
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 4
of contextual characteristics on attitudes and behaviors within the country to theorization. Yet very
few theorists explicitly focus on the issue of culture in studying organizational justice.
This study makes the following contributions. First, we explore the moderating role of
individualism as an individual-level cultural value in the organizational justice to OCB
relationship. In the literature, researchers have investigated various mediators of the
organizational justice to OCB relationship, e.g., trust in their supervisors (Konovsky and Pugh
1994), organizational support (Moorman et al. 1998), employee trust in organization and trust in
supervisor (Aryee et al. 2002), perceived union support (Aryee and Chay 2001), organizational
trust and organizational commitment (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al. 2013). Interestingly, we know
very little about moderators in studies of organizational justice and OCB, with only several
exceptions, e.g., equity sensitivity (Blakely et al. 2005), and organizational level (employee vs.
manager) (Begley et al. 2006). The relationship between organizational justice and employee
outcomes may vary according to people’s cultural orientations (Erdogan and Liden 2006; Fischer
and Smith 2006; Lam et al. 2002) and the relationship between justice and OCB may be
“moderated by variables such as equity sensitivity, individualism–collectivism (as an individual
value), and negative affectivity” (Rego and Cunha 2010, p. 425). We answer Rego and Cunha’s
(2010) call and treat “individualism” (Oyserman et al. 2002; Triandis et al. 1988) as a moderator
of the organizational justice to OCB relationship (Figure 1).
Second, we make additional theoretical contributions to the literature by exploring the
decisive moderating role of cultural values, specifically, in Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyzstan is an
underdeveloped former Soviet Union socialist country (McCarthy and Puffer 2008). Practically,
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 5
there is little or no research on organizational justice and OCB in Kyrgyzstan.1 We suspect that
the lack of academic understanding of Western management literature, theories, and constructs;
standardized measurement instruments for empirical research; and data analysis strategies and
techniques may have contributed to the lack of academic research on justice and OCB in an under-
researched area of the world (Kirkman and Law 2005). In addition, due to these relatively new and
unfamiliar constructs such as organizational justice and OCB to the population, Kyrgyz people
may treated these topics as a taboo and evade these issues. Compared to the Western cultures,
citizens in Kyrgyzstan may also perceive relationships between these constructs quite differently
due to the distinct culture and economic context—with a former Soviet socialist legacy and the
newly reformed capitalist economy. This provides us with a very unique context to explore the
interesting relationships among these constructs.
------------Insert Figure 1 about here------------
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Organizational Justice
Organizational justice is employee’s fairness perceptions in organizations (Greenberg and
Cropanzano 2001). Most researchers have employed three sub-constructs of organizational
justice—procedural, distributive, and interactional justice—in empirical research (Colquitt 2001;
Cropanzano et al. 2001; Erdogan and Liden 2006; Konovsky 2000). Specifically, procedural justice
refers to the perceived fairness of “the means” used to achieve an end (Folger and Konovsky 1989;
Niehoff and Moorman 1993). When managers adhere to certain rules in their decision-making
processes, explain the reasons of their decisions logically (Niehoff and Moorman 1993), then,
1 We searched Web of Science, used the following two sets of terms—“Kyrgyzstan and
organizational justice” and “Kyrgyzstan and OCB”, and found no article published in the literature
regarding these variables, as of January 15, 2015.
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 6
procedural justice exists (Zapata-Phelan et al. 2009). Distributive justice refers to the perceived
fairness regarding the amounts of compensation employees receive (Alexander and Ruderman
1987) and the degree to which rewards are allocated in an equitable manner, i.e., “an end” (Ambrose
and Arnaud 2005). Interactional justice refers to the social exchange between employees and their
managers (Cropanzano et al. 2002) which can be further divided into interpersonal and
informational components (Colquitt et al. 2001). Interactional justice is related to employees’
feelings about how managers fairly treat their employees (Blakely et al. 2005). It represents an
interpersonal aspect of fairness during the enactment of decision-making procedures (Bies 2005)
and has two dimensions: explanations about decisions and sensitivity of relationships (Greenberg
1990a).
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)
Since its original work of Smith et al. (1983), scholars have developed many different
forms of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Ang et al. 2003; Moorman 1991; Organ 1997;
Organ and Ryan 1995; Tang et al. 2008). For instance, Podsakoff et al. (1990) and Moorman
(1991) used altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, conscientiousness and civic virtue as forms of
OCB. To avoid the difficulties of deciding whether behaviors are classified as either in-role or
extra-role, Graham (1991) and Van Dyne et al. (1994) redefined OCB using “active citizenship
syndrome” (Inkeles 1969). According to this definition, OCB includes three sub-constructs—
organizational obedience, organizational participation, and organizational loyalty.
First, organizational obedience entails the recognition and acceptance of necessary,
desirable, and rational structures of rules and regulations in organizations with the following
indicators: exhibiting respect for organizational rules, completing given tasks by managers, acting
responsibly with respect to organizational resources, being punctual in attendance and task
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 7
completion, and becoming stewards of organizational resources (Graham 1991; Van Dyne et al.
1994). Second, organizational participation reflects involvement in organizational governance
such as attending non-required meetings, sharing informed thoughts and new ideas with others,
and staying informed about organizational affairs (Graham 1991). Finally, organizational loyalty
is related to employee’s identification with the organization, talking positively about it with others,
and demonstrating active behaviors that show pride with the organization and defend it (Niehoff
et al. 2001). We examine these concepts in Kyrgyzstan. Since it is not yet well-known by people
and researchers around the world, relatively speaking, in the management and business ethics
literature, we offer our brief introduction, below.
Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan, officially the Kyrgyz Republic, formerly known as Kirghizia, is a country
located in Central Asia with its capital in Bishkek—the largest city. Kyrgyz derived from the
Turkic word for “forty”—literally means “We are forty”, in reference to the forty clans of Manas.
It is a landlocked and dry country bordered by Kazakhstan to the north, Uzbekistan to the west,
Tajikistan to the southwest, and China to the east. Historically, it has been located in a place of
great civilizations and culture routes from the Far East to Europe—a part of the “Silk Road”.
Kyrgyz is the official language, but Russian is still widely spoken. Less than 10% of the territory
is cultivated, and the rest is vast mountains. Its population in 2013 was estimated at 5.72 million,
Ethnic Kyrgyz make up the majority and 38% of country is living under poverty level (World
Bank 2013). The GDP per capita was USD$1,200 in 2013 (World Bank 2013). Kyrgyzstan’s
economy is based on agriculture products: cotton, tobacco, wool, and meat (Central Intelligence
Agency 2011). Regarding religion, the majority of them (64%) are nondenominational Muslims.
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 8
Kyrgyzstan gained her independence in 1991 after the breakdown of the former Soviet
Union. Kyrgyzstan embarked on a transitional path from a central, planned economy to a market
economy, has made a significant progress in carrying out market reforms, and faces many
transitional challenges—high and rapid inflation, high unemployment, difficult living conditions,
poverty, and corruption after the independence (Namazie and Sanfey 2001). Previous studies have
shown that there were cross-cultural differences between Kyrgyzstan and other countries with
regard to cultural values and leadership styles. For instance, Kyrgyzstan has a low level of long-
term orientation but a high level of consideration, compared to Russia (Ardichvili and Kuchinkev
2002) and have a high level of Protestant work ethic and a low level of hedonism, compared to
Australia (Bozkurt et al. 2010).
Social Exchange in the Relationship between Organizational Justice and OCB
Due to a fundamental human motivation—the need to belong (Baumeister and Leary
1995), people in all societies have created a desirable social exchange relationship between
individuals (Gouldner 1960). This exchange relationship is interdependent, depends on the actions
of another person (Blau 1964), and has the potential to generate obligations (Emerson 1976) and
high-quality relationships under certain circumstances. Among norms of exchange, reciprocity or
repayment in kind is probably the best known exchange rule (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005).
This bidirectional transaction implies that something has to be given and something returned, as a
consequence. Social exchange evolves in a slow process. Exchange partners need a little mutual
trust in the beginning of this process (Blau 1964). This trust turns to loyalty and commitment
between exchange partners over time (Gilbert and Tang 1998).
Social exchange requires a bidirectional transaction (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005). It
means that if someone treats you well, you have to respond well to this treatment. Similarly, in
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 9
organizations, if managers treat employees fairly, employees display high levels of OCB in return,
reflecting a positive social exchange that emerges from this relationship (Organ 1988). The
establishment of social exchange requires making investment by one social exchange partner
(manager), constituting commitment to another party (Blau 1964). After this initial investment, the
other exchange partner (employee) starts to think positively and wants to reciprocate this
investment. In our theoretical model, we argue that organizational justice is an investment of this
social exchange process and creates the employees’ feeling of reciprocity. Social exchange evolves
around both parties—managers taking care of employees and employees reciprocating this positive
treatment (Fehr and Gächter 2000). Although it is a universal principle, some societies have a high
exchange orientation; other have a low exchange orientation. Not all individuals value reciprocity
to the same degree. In this study, we investigate the extent to which individualism moderates the
relationships between organizational justice (procedural, distributive, and interactional justice) and
OCB (obedience, participation, and loyalty) in Kyrgyzstan. Due to the unique cultural, economic,
legal, political, and social infrastructures, its history, and citizens, we explore these issues in more
detail and show how and why some specific contextual issues are related to these constructs for
citizens in Kyrgyzstan in the sections that follow.
Procedural justice and OCB in Kyrgyzstan
Procedural justice represents employees’ feelings of their control over the decision-
making process (Korsgaard et al. 1995). When procedural justice is high, it enhances employees’
trust in their managers and organizations and their OCB (Konovsky and Pugh 1994). In Western
societies, the effect of procedural justice on OCB has been well documented (Ehrhart 2004; Farh
et al. 1990; Moorman et al. 1993, 1998). However, this relationship may not exist exactly the same
in Kyrgyzstan, as it was a former Soviet country. We offer our rationale below.
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 10
Procedural justice focuses on the fairness of the rules and procedures (Alexander and
Ruderman 1987). It includes the consistent decision-making process which must be accurate,
correct, ethical, and free from bias (Leventhal et al. 1980). If the decision-making system is rigid
and authoritarian, then, people just simply obey the rules and do not have the opportunity to
question the rules or decision-making processes. In a society with a highly bureaucratic,
centralized, authoritarian, and autocratic Soviet management style (Ardichvili and Gasparishvili
2001; Kubicek 1998), citizens had to accept rules without asking any questions (Puffer 1996).
Similarly, managers make decisions without asking subordinates’ opinions and subordinates must
support managers’ decisions (Mayer et al. 2009; Purcell 1973). Today, the same authoritarian
management style exists with a strict hierarchy and bureaucracy in Kyrgyzstan (Kolpakov 2001).
In such a social structure, Kyrgyz people will simply follow the rules and obey the rules. They do
not appreciate procedural justice and do not reciprocate it to other aspects of OCB. Although
procedural justice may be related to all three aspects of OCB in Kyrgyzstan, we challenge the
assumption and propose that procedural justice is probably only related to obedience, but weakly
associated with participation and loyalty, and is the weakest one among all three constructs of
organizational justice, relatively speaking. We tentatively propose Hypothesis 1 below.
Hypothesis 1: Procedural justice is related to OCB in Kyrgyzstan.
Distributive Justice and OCB in Kyrgyzstan
The relationship between distributive justice and OCB deals with economic exchange and
extrinsic rewards in organizations (Konovsky and Pugh 1994). In an economic exchange
relationship in organizations, employees expect fair distributive justice (Adams 1965). Employees’
perceive distributive injustice leads to high levels of dissatisfaction and negative feelings toward
the organization which may cause many negative consequences. Therefore, it stands to reason that
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 11
under-rewarded individuals are less cooperative and less likely to obey the rules voluntarily than
fairly-rewarded employees (Harder 1992). In addition, low levels of justice perceptions provoke
deviant behaviors—causing them to steal in the name of justice (Chen et al. 2014; Cohen-Charash
and Spector 2001; Colquitt et al. 2001; Gino and Pierce 2009; Greenberg 1993; Tang and Sutarso
2013; Tang et al. 2011). Conversely, perceive distributive justice may enhance feels of satisfaction
which provoke increased efforts and high levels of OCB (Niehoff and Moorman 1993).
In a socialist system, distribution of income was mostly equal (Kornai 1992), relatively
speaking, compared to a capitalist society. Kyrgyz people lived in an egalitarian society during the
Soviet era (Kuehnast and Dudwick 2004). The collapse of the Soviet Union has caused rapid
deterioration of income equality (Kuehnast and Dudwick 2004; Ortiz and Cummins 2011). Since
its independence in 1991, Kyrgyzstan has experienced a rapid economic and social transformation
and income disparity. Although a small minority of people live in a wealthy life style, the majority
of society suffer from the deterioration of living conditions, causing discomfort for most Kyrgyz
people. According to a recent survey, 64% of people in Kyrgyzstan believe that some are getting
rich quickly by taking unfair advantages of the new opportunities in the society (Junisbai 2010).
Further, 66% of them believe that there are many poor people living in the country because of the
unfair economic systems. In addition, 80% of them supported the notion of fair distribution of
wealth in the society (Junisbai 2010). Since people do care about the fair distribution of income
and wealth, we argue that people in Kyrgyzstan have recognized the importance of distributive
justice of income in the society and in organizations. Because distributive justice is related to
allocation of external rewards, such as money in organizations, we argue that distributive justice
will be significantly related to OCB in Kyrgyzstan.
Hypothesis 2: Distributive justice is related to OCB in Kyrgyzstan.
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 12
Interactional Justice and OCB in Kyrgyzstan
Interactional justice is associated with the positive interpersonal relationships between
employees and managers (Folger and Bies 1989). Employees who have high positive social
relationships with their supervisors tend to show more extra-role behaviors and take on tasks that
require additional responsibility for their organizations (Cropanzano et al. 2002). Furthermore,
employees who have high perceived interactional justice respond positively toward fairness
perceptions, show more obedience, participation, and loyalty behaviors in organizations (e.g.,
Sousa and Vala 2002).
Interactional justice requires high quality relationships between managers and employees.
Quality of interpersonal relationships in social life is crucial in the Kyrgyz culture. Most people
want to maintain and protect positive social relationships with others (Kolpakov 2001). For
instance, people often give gifts to each other in order to build, maintain, and enhance positive
social relationship in daily working life. There is a well-known expression which highlights the
importance of interpersonal relationship in Kyrgyzstan: “Better a Hundred Friends Than a
Hundred Rubles” (Kuehnast and Dudwick 2004). One possible reason of this phenomenon is that
the level of power distance is low in Kyrgyzstan (Ardichvili and Kuchinkev 2002). Power distance
refers to the level of desirable inequality between individuals with different status (for instance
managers and employees have higher and lower status, respectively) as a part of social order
(Hofstede 1980). Improving the quality of interpersonal relationship between managers and
employees is easier in low power distance situations than in high power distance environment. In
a high power distance situation, employees become fully aware the power of managers and keep
high social distance between managers and employees in organizational settings (Farh et al. 2007).
However, in a low power distance situation, employees can express themselves, ask questions
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 13
about their jobs, and communicate with their managers more comfortably and freely (Begley et al.
2002). Furthermore, the norm of reciprocity works better for those in a contextual environment
with a low level of power distance (Farh et al. 2007). In Kyrgyzstan, a country with a low power
distance, individuals may improve and maintain high quality relationships with their managers.
Since Kyrgyz employees give high importance to managers who provide high interactional justice,
we argue that interactional justice is significantly related to OCB.
Hypothesis 3: Interactional justice is related to OCB in Kyrgyzstan.
Individualism in Kyrgyzstan
Individualism is the degrees to which individuals base their identities on personal interests
rather than on interests of the groups (i.e., personal vs. group goals) (Earley 1989; Kirkman et al.
2006; Oyserman et al. 2002). The individualism construct may include notions of personal privacy,
freedom, pleasure, individual rights, and autonomy (Oyserman et al. 2002). Individualistic people
want to be successful in competition and to be unique (Morris and Leung 2000). Despite some
countries are very individualistic such as the USA, Great Britain, and the Netherlands (Hofstede
1983); people in an individualistic (collectivist) country may have high collectivistic
(individualistic) values (Moorman and Blakely 1995), or vice versa. Thus, we may explore
individualism at the individual level.
Regarding to individualism, Ardichvili and Gasparishvili (2001) compared the socio-
cultural values in four former Soviet Union countries: Russia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and the
Kyrgyz Republic and found that Kyrgyzstan had the highest individualistic values among these
four countries. Kuchinke and Ardichvili (2002) compared work-related values of managers and
non-managerial employees in six countries, including four former Soviet countries, Germany, and
the USA. Managers in Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and the USA have higher individualistic values than
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 14
Germany, Georgia, and Kazakhstan. Kyrgyz employees have the second highest individualist
values, just behind the US. These two studies disclose that the level of individualism in Kyrgyzstan
is higher than other former Soviet Countries, hinting the importance of studying this distinctive
construct further.
Individualism as a Moderator of the Organizational Justice to OCB Relationship
We pick individualism as a moderator of the relationship between organizational justice
and OCB for the following reasons. First, collectivists show greater tolerances to injustice; but
individualists do not (Erdogan and Liden 2006). Similarly, individualists’ perceptions of
organizational justice may lead to effort dedicated to their organizations, but collectivists don’t
(Wagner 1995). Therefore, we assert that the relationship between organizational justice and OCB
can be different for people with high or low individualistic values. Following Hypothesis 1 that
procedural justice is the weakest predictor of OCB in Kyrgyzstan, we further posit that
individualism is not a moderator in procedural justice to OCB relationship in this country.
Individualism as a Moderator of the Distributive Justice to OCB Relationship
Individualistic employees prefer equity in organization, whereas collectivistic ones prefer
equality (James 1993; Tang 1996). Arrangement of work schedules, allocation of workload, and
level of payment are more important to highly individualistic employees than to collectivistic ones.
There are two possible explanations of this phenomenon. First, individualists are highly calculative
in their relationships (Sullivan et al. 2003), built and maintained their relationships with others
based on their cost-benefit analysis, care about the allocation of rewards, and are sensitive to
manager’s treatments; but collectivists do not (Triandis 1995). Second, norm of reciprocity may
work better for individualistic employees than for collectivistic ones (Erdogan and Liden 2006).
Following the norm of reciprocity, people with high individualistic values and high distributive
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 15
justice display positive response, such as OCB in general (organizational obedience, participation,
and loyalty), than those without.
We “challenge” this general assumption and provide rationale as follows. Considering
organizational loyalty, evidence suggests that the opposite may be true. People in individualistic
societies do not stress loyalty (Shane 1992). Cultures with high affluence and wealth have high
individualistic values (Georgas et al. 2004). Individualism is negatively correlated with loyalty
(Straughan and Albers-Miller 2001). But, collectivism is positively related to loyalty (Moorman
and Blakely 1995). Interestingly, loyalty and work ethic are significantly correlated among
Canadian employees (Ali and Azim 1995).
Recent empirical laboratory experiments suggest that thinking about money activates
feelings of self-sufficiency, makes individuals keep larger physical distance from others, work
alone without asking for help from others, become less helpful to others, and donate less money
to charity (Vohs et al. 2006). When primed with different notions of money, people become more
individualistic, independent, and less loyal to others. Further, online shoppers are more
individualistic than those who have not shopped online (Frost et al. 2010). This implies that online
shoppers may avoid interpersonal interaction, make financial decisions alone, and purchase
product and services in private, at ones’ own convenience, at any time, and place.
Self-determination theory argues that intrinsic goals satisfy individuals’ innate
psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness and hence bring fulfillment and
pleasure; whereas extrinsic goals are related to rewards or approval from others, and therefore are
less likely to bring happiness (Ryan and Deci 2000). “Excessive concentration on external rewards
can distract people from intrinsic endeavors and interfere with personal integration and
actualization” (Kasser and Ryan 1993, p. 410). Extrinsic reward undermines intrinsic motivation
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 16
(Herzberg 1968). On the other hand, a good match between personal values (Protestant Work
Ethic) and the nature of the task (work vs. leisure) enhances intrinsic motivation (Tang and
Baumeister 1984). In addition, recent research reveals that high income improves life satisfaction,
but not happiness or emotional well-being (Kahneman and Deaton 2010).
In the literature of materialism (Belk 1988; Tang et al. 2014), young students with high
materialistic values have lower school performance (Goldberg et al. 2003), lower intrinsic mastery
goals, but higher extrinsic performance goals. Materialism predicts Hong Kong students’ decreases
in mastery goals, increases in performance goals, and deterioration of school performance, a year
later (Ku et al. 2012). Materialistic students have low learning motivation and learning outcome
because they only want to hear and memorize words to pass an exam. Tang’s (2014) Monetary
Intelligence Theory (MIT) suggests that university students with high Monetary Intelligence—low
love of money motive—tend to have low interests in making money, but high interests in not only
making ethical decisions but also achieving academic excellence (high objective course grade in a
business class). Thus, focusing on money has many negative consequences.
In summary, there are several theoretically interesting phenomena in this study. First,
citizens in Kyrgyzstan have a higher level of individualism than other former Soviet countries
(Ardichvili and Gasparishvili 2001). Second, citizens in Kyrgyzstan are not rich financially (GDP
per capita = USD$1,200 in 2013), compared to those in highly individualistic countries (e.g., the
USA and UK). Thus, scholars may expect them to behave like collectivists. Third, collectivists
(not individualists) have high organizational loyalty (Moorman and Blakely 1995). Fourth, with
high distributive justice, people in organizations are satisfied with their financial needs. High
financial rewards leads to a sense of self-sufficiency. Fifth, clearly, financial reward undermines
intrinsic motivation. With sufficient money, people become “independent” and focus on
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 17
themselves and consumption, rather than others, leading to the notion that they do not need others’
help and assistance to survive (Vohs et al. 2006), a harbinger for “low” loyalty. Finally, although
money can make your life easier, but money can’t buy you love, or “loyalty” (intrinsic value). We
strongly argue: Loyalty is different from the other two OCB sub-constructs. We offer the following
provocative arguments: Organizational obedience, participation, and loyalty are not created equal.
The distributive justice to organizational obedience and participation relationship will be stronger
for those with higher individualistic values. On the other hand, the distributive justice to
organizational loyalty relationship will be stronger for people with lower individualistic values.
Hypothesis 4a: Individualism moderates the positive relationship between distributive
justice and OCB (organizational obedience and organizational participation) such that
this relationship is stronger for individuals with higher individualism than those with lower
individualism.
Hypothesis 4b: Individualism moderates the positive relationship between distributive
justice and OCB (organizational loyalty) such that this relationship is stronger for
individuals with lower individualism than those with higher individualism.
Individualism as a Moderator of the Interactional Justice to OCB Relationship
Research shows that individualistic people are more sensitive to social justice than their
collectivist counterparts (Earley and Gibson 1998). Interactional justice, a social aspect of justice
in organizations (Folger and Bies 1989), is more important to individuals with high individualism
than to those with high collectivism. While collectivists try to maintain relationships at any cost,
individualists seek justice and don’t tolerate injustice in interpersonal conflict situations (Ohbuchi
et al. 1999). When collectivists perceive a low level of organizational justice, they tend to maintain
their relationship with the organizations, whereas individualists do not (Erdogan and Liden 2006).
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 18
We propose that the relationship between interactional justice and OCB (organizational obedience,
loyalty, and participation) will be stronger for individuals with higher individualistic values.
Hypothesis 5: Individualism moderates the positive relationship between interactional
justice and OCB, such that this relationship is stronger for individuals with higher
individualistic values than those with lower individualistic values.
METHODS
Sample and Procedure
We collected data from employees in two organizations in the food industry in Jalalabad
City, Kyrgyzstan. Jalalabad is the third largest city in Kyrgyzstan and is best known for its mineral
springs in the surrounding areas. It is the economic and political center of southwestern
Kyrgyzstan. These two companies produce alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverages and drinks,
baked goods, jam, and related products and have approximately 300 to 499 employees,
respectively. One author of this paper visited the key managers of these companies, obtained the
cooperation and permission to conduct this study, and randomly distributed a total of 600
questionnaires to participants (300/company). Participants completed questionnaires voluntarily
during work hours and/or during breaks and returned them in enclosed envelopes to the key contact
individuals in respective organizations. A week later, researchers collected the completed
questionnaires (N = 402, response rate = 67%). We included first line managers (12%) and non-
managerial employees (e.g., accountants, salespeople, and production employees, 88%).
Regarding gender, 222 of participants (55%) were men and 180 (45%) were women. Participants’
age varied between 16 and 61 (M = 27.7) with work experience ranging from 1 to 35 years (M =
4.2 years). Furthermore, 47 % of them had a high school education and the majority (53%) had a
college degree. Their annual income was between US$400 and US$4,200 (M = US$1,544.55).
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 19
Measures
The original English measures were translated into the Kyrgyz and Russian languages, the
most widely used languages in Kyrgyzstan. The translations were performed using the translation-
back-translation procedure (Brislin 1970). We used a small focus group with Kyrgyz and Russian
graduate students to check the meaning and clarity of items and revised these measures,
accordingly.
Organizational Justice. We used the procedural, distributive, and interactional justice
measures developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) using a five-point Likert scale with strongly
agree (1) and strongly disagree (5) as scale anchors. Cronbach’s alpha (α) for these three scales in
the present study was .66, .75, and .78 respectively (Table 1). We measured procedural justice
using six items. Examples are “To make job decisions, my general manager collects accurate and
complete information,” and “My general manager makes sure that all employee concerns are heard
before job decisions are made.” We measured distributive justice using five items. Example items
are as follows: “I think that my level of pay is fair” and “Overall, the rewards I receive here are
quite fair.” Interactional justice was measured using nine items: Here are some sample items:
“When decisions are made about my job, the general manager treats me with kindness and
consideration” and “When decisions are made about my job, the general manager shows concern
for my rights as an employee.”
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB). We used the measure originally developed
by Van Dyne et al. (1994) and adopted by Bienstock et al. (2003). It is a five-point Likert scale
with strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5) as scale anchors. OCB consist of three 5-item sub-
dimensions: organizational obedience (α = .71), organizational participation (α = .70), and
organizational loyalty (α = .74). Example items include—organizational obedience: “I come to
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 20
work on time” and “I follow the organization’s work rules and instructions”; organizational
participation: “I share ideas for improvements with coworkers at this organization” and “I help
other coworkers think for themselves”; and organizational loyalty: “I talk about our organization
favorably to other people” and “I defend this organization when other employees criticize it.”
Individualism. We used the Triandis and Gelfand’s (1998) individualism scale. This scale
consists of eight items (α = .74). Here are two sample items: “Competition is the law of nature”
and “I rely on myself most of the time; I rarely rely on others.”
Control Variables. Several variables may have an impact on OCB. We controlled these
variables in our data analyses: i.e., gender, age, tenure, education, position, and annual income.
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 presents the mean, standard deviation, correlation, and reliability (Cronbach’s
alpha) of our major variables. Procedural, distributive, and interactional justice were significantly
and positively correlated with three types of OCB—organizational obedience, participation, and
loyalty. Individualism was also positively correlated with three types of OCB. Participants’
average income (USD$1,544.55) was slightly higher than the GDP per capita (USD$1,200).
------------Insert Tables 1 and 2 about here------------
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Common Method Variance (CMV)
Following Vandenberg and Lance’s (2000) recommendation, we tested factor structure of
our measurement models. We used Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) to evaluate model fit. CFI value greater than 0.90 and RMSEA less than
0.05 are desirable indications of an excellent fit (Hu and Bentler 1999). Our confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) results of major variables: (1) organizational justice (χ2 = 264.9, df = 137, p = .01,
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 21
χ2/df = 1.93, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .04), (2) OCB (χ2 = 177.8, df = 77, p = .01, χ2/df = 2.30, CFI =
.94, RMSEA = .05), and (3) individualism (χ2 = 29.8, df = 14, p = .01, χ2/df = 2.12, CFI = .97,
RMSEA = .05) suggested excellent fit between our measurement model and data.
Common method variance (CMV) may be an issue when data are collected from a single
source at one point in time (Podsakoff et al. 2003). First, we conducted Harman’s one-factor test
(Podsakoff and Organ 1986) by entering all the variables into an exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
using the unrotated factor solution. If a single factor emerges, then a substantial amount of CMV
is present. Our EFA results produced twelve (12) factors; the total amount of variance explained
was 60%. All three types of OCB (organizational obedience, participation, and loyalty) accounted
for 27 % of the variance, followed by all types of organizational justice (18%) and individualism
(7%). A single factor did not emerge and a general factor did not explain a majority of the variance,
suggesting that CMV was not an issue in our study.
Second, the measurement model with the addition of an unmeasured latent CMV factor (χ2
= 1,185.3, df = 796, p = .01, χ2/df = 1.49, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .04) did not improve the fit over
our measurement model without a CMV factor (χ2 = 1231.2, df = 797, p = .01, χ2/df = 1.54, CFI
= .91, RMSEA = .04), i.e., ΔCFI = .01, ΔRMSEA =.00, respectively (Cheung and Rensvold 2002;
Tang et al. 2006). We concluded that common method bias is not a serious concern in our study.
These findings offer us great confidence in testing our hypotheses using these constructs in
subsequent steps.
Hierarchical Regression Analysis
To test our hypotheses, we conducted hierarchical regression analyses and considered three
types of OCB (organizational obedience, participation, and loyalty) as dependent variables. To
avoid multicollinearity concerns, we centered predictors around zero and multiplied them to form
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 22
the interaction terms (Aiken & West 1991). In step 1, we entered age, education, tenure, annual
income, position, and gender as our control variables. In step 2, we added procedural justice,
distributive justice, interactional justice, and individualism as independent variables. Finally, in
step 3, we included three interactions (procedural justice x individualism, distributive justice x
individualism, and interactional justice x individualism) in the model (Table 2). We also tested the
statistical significance of the simple slopes to examine the moderation effect.
Main Effect of Organizational Justice on OCB
Table 2 presents the results of the hierarchical regression analyses. Hypothesis 1 stated that
procedural justice is related to OCB. Results showed that procedural justice was positively related
to organizational obedience (β = .15, p < .05), but was not significantly related to organizational
participation (β = .10, p .05) and organizational loyalty (β = .07, p .05). Since we found only
one significant effect, our results partially supported Hypothesis 1. Distributive justice was
positively and significantly related to organizational obedience (β = .13, p < .05), organizational
participation (β = .19, p < .01), and organizational loyalty (β = .11, p < .05), supporting Hypothesis
2. Finally, interactional justice was positively and significantly related to organizational obedience
(β = .15, p < .05), organizational participation (β = .20, p < .01), and organizational loyalty (β =
.21, p < .01). Hypothesis 3 was supported. Comparing all the results above, the strongest
relationship was between interactional justice and OCB and the weakest was between distributive
justice and OCB.
Individualism Moderates the Distributive Justice to OCB Relationship
First, the interaction effect between distributive justice and individualism on organizational
participation was significant (β = .14, p < .05) (Table 2 and Figure 2). Following suggestions in
the literature (Aiken and West, 1991), results of simple slope analyses suggested that there was a
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 23
significant and positive relationship between distributive justice and organizational participation
(β = .355, t = 5.02, p < .01) for those higher in individualism, but a negative and non-significant
relationship for those lower in individualism (β = -.157, t = -.922, p > .05) partially supporting
Hypothesis 4a. Second, we found a significant interaction effect between distributive justice and
individualism on organizational loyalty (β = -.17, p < .01, see Table 2 and Figure 3). Simple slope
analyses suggested that there was a significant positive relationship between distributive justice
and organizational loyalty for those lower in individualism (β = .556, t = 2.06, p < .05), but a
negative and non-significant relationship for those higher in individualism (β = -.128, t = -.122, p
> .05), supporting Hypothesis 4b.
------------Insert Figures 2, 3, and 4 about here------------
Individualism Moderates the Interactional Justice to OCB Relationship
The interaction effect between interactional justice and individualism on organizational
loyalty was significant (β = .15, p < .05, see Figure 4). Simple slope analyses suggested that for
those higher in individualism, there was a significant positive relationship between interactional
justice and organizational loyalty (β = .442, t = 6.794, p < .01). This relationship was negative but
non-significant for those with lower individualism (β = -.054, t = -.375, p > .05). Hence, Hypothesis
5 was partially supported.
DISCUSSION
Theoretical Contributions
This study treats individualism as a moderator of the relationships between organizational
justice (procedural, distributive, and interactional justice) and organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB, organizational obedience, participation, and loyalty). We highlight the importance of using
contextualization to explain the social phenomena in Kyrgyzstan—a former Soviet country. First,
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 24
we focus on the organizational justice to OCB relationship. Among the three sub-constructs of
OCB, procedural justice is significantly related to only organizational obedience, but not related
to organizational participation and loyalty, showing the weakest relationship with OCB.
Procedural justice is closely related to employee’s evaluation of organizations or systems (Folger
and Konovsky 1989). Since few people question the procedural justice (“the means”)2 in decision
making during Soviet Union era, naturally, they follow the tradition (accepting the means) and
display organizational obedience in this context. Kyrgyz employees have not yet recognized the
importance of procedural justice in the newly established market economy and reciprocated
positively it regarding organizational participation and organizational loyalty.
Both distributive justice and interactional justice are significantly associated with OCB—
organizational obedience, participation, and loyalty. Distributive justice reflects perceived fairness
regarding the amounts of compensation employees receive, “an end” (Ambrose and Arnaud 2005).
Interactional justice refers to the social exchange between employees and their managers—the
human interaction aspect of fairness (Bies 2005). Among three justice sub-constructs, interactional
justice has the strongest relations related to OCB, relatively speaking. With a cultural pattern of a
pre-modern society, social interactions are prominent for the majority of people. With high
interactional justice, employees feel obligated to reciprocate it in organizations (Blau 1964). It
appears that these employees focus less on “the means” but more on “an end” and human
interaction aspects of justice.
Clearly, our results regarding the relationships between organizational justice and OCB are
quite different from that of Western societies. For instance, Moorman (1991) didn’t find a
significant relationship between distributive justice and OCB in the US. However, we do in
2 Considering from the means (procedural justice) to an end (distributive justice).
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 25
Kyrgyzstan. There are similarities between distributive justice and interactional justice and
OCB in Kyrgyzstan and in China (Farh et al. 1997). The relationship between procedural
justice and OCB was weak in Kyrgyzstan and China. It is plausible that Chinese people, like
Kyrgyz citizens, also accept authority without questioning, due to Confucianism (Ralston et al.
1993). Both our study in Kyrgyzstan and Rego and Cunha’s (2010) study in Portugal disclose
the importance of interactional justice to OCB relationships. The relationship between
distributive justice and OCB is weak for the US and Portugal, but strong for China and Kyrgyzstan,
relatively speaking. Further, the 2013 GDP per capita for the US, Portugal, China, and Kyrgyzstan
was USD$53.042, $21,733.1, $6,807.4, and $1,200, respectively (World Bank 2013). It is
conceivable that people in low GDP countries (China and Kyrgyzstan) strongly reciprocate
distributive justice, but those in high GDP countries (the US and Portugal) don’t. More research is
needed in this direction. Focusing on the interface between context and theory involves not only
contributions of theory and contributions to theory but also theories in context and theories of
context (Whetten 2009).
Second, our primary contribution highlights individualism, an individual level cultural
variable, as a moderator of the relationship between organizational justice and OCB. On the one
hand, distributive justice has a positive and significant relationship with organizational
participation for employees high in individualism, indirectly supporting Ramamoorthy and
Flood’s (2002) findings—individualism moderates the relationship between distributive justice
and extra effort.
On the other hand, we also find a positive and significant relationship between distributive
justice and organizational loyalty for employees with low individualism, but a non-significant
relationship for employees with high individualism. Our results indirectly support the literature:
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 26
Chang and Hahn (2006) found that in Korea, a collectivist country, commitment performance
appraisal practice moderates the pay‐for‐performance to employees’ perception of distributive
justice. Collectivistic people also tend to display more loyalty behavior than individualists. In
addition, collectivism was positively and significantly related to organizational loyalty (Moorman
and Blakely 1995). Furthermore, interactional justice has a positive and significant relationship
with organizational loyalty for employees with high individualism, but a negative and non-
significant findings for those with low individualism.
It should be noted that our cross-sectional data do not provide strong “cause-and-effect”
relationship among constructs in this study. We tentatively use the verbs to show potential
consequences, below. Taken together, we offer the following theoretical insights: Procedural
justice produces obedience only and has no impact on participation and loyalty. Interestingly,
collectivists with high distributive justice and individualists with high interactional justice exhibit
high loyalty. For individualists, distributive justice can only buy “participation”, but can’t buy
“loyalty”. However, interactional justice can inspire “loyalty”. For individualists, interactional
justice outweighs distributive justice for organizational loyalty. We greatly enrich the different
undermining power of extrinsic reward on people’s intrinsic motivation, self-determination (Ryan
and Deci 2000), or OCB—in our present study. All three justice sub-constructs create difference
consequences for OCB’s sub-constructs. It is clear that the three aspects of justice and OCB are
“not” created equal in Kyrgyzstan.
Empirical and Managerial Implications
This study contributes to the emerging literature of organizational behavior in Kyrgyzstan.
We test our theoretical model using managers and non-managerial employees in a new context
and explore the boundaries of these constructs. Our discoveries offer several important practical
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 27
implications. Even with a small population, Kyrgyzstan has a high out-migration rate of workers,
therefore, finding a loyal, obedient, and participatory workforce is extremely difficult in this
country (Abazov 1999). Leaders at the country level must establish financial, legal, political, and
social infrastructures, promote economic and financial development, and increase standard of
living and wealth for the population in the society to avoid brain drain. Executives and managers
in organizations must satisfy all stakeholders and treat them fairly in all three aspects of justice.
Even if they do, employees may react to three aspects of justice differently because individualism
is a moderator of the justice to OCB relationships. Managers must understand each individual
employee’s individualistic and collectivistic values and pay attention to their interactional and
distributive justice, in particular, in their daily interactions.
Procedural justice has the weakest but interactional justice has the strongest relationship
with OCB. These findings reflect not only the culture and the human interactions in organizations
and the society but also the importance and satisfaction of human needs in the geographic region
(Tang and West 1997; Tang and Ibrahim 1998). First, Kyrgyzstan became an independent country
in 1991. After the breakdown of the former Soviet Union, we suspect that authoritarian,
bureaucratic, centralized, and autocratic Soviet management style (Ardichvili and Gasparishvili
2001; Kubicek 1998; Puffer 1996) still exists today, almost a quarter of a century later. Economic,
legal, political, and social infrastructures help establish procedural justice perceptions. The long
arm of the culture, Soviet language, and the way people do business in the society shape citizens’
thinking and behavioral patterns. We illustrate empirically that with an extremely weak system of
procedural justice, the relationship between procedural justice and OCB also becomes fragile,
indeed.
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 28
Second, in Saudi Arabia, for example, when the physical environment is harsh and survival
in vast desert is difficult, most people value traditional, out-directed (tribalistic, conformist, socio-
centric) values that are more prevalent than modern, inner-directed (egocentric, manipulative, and
existential) values (Ali and Al-Shakhis 1985; Tang and Ibrahim 1998). The available resources,
geographical region, and physical environment have a lot of impact on its culture. In a mountainous
region with limited resources and less than 10% of the territory cultivated, people’s welfare, fate,
and survival still depend on the actions of that network as a whole and people in the immediate
environment, in particular. These aforementioned traditional values, in the Middle East, in general,
are very much applicable to citizens in Kyrgyzstan located in Central Asia. The expression—
“Better a Hundred Friends Than a Hundred Rubles” (Kuehnast and Dudwick 2004)—truly reflects
this society’s mentality and re-iterates the importance of interpersonal relations and interactional
justice in Kyrgyzstan.
Our discussions above are all related to the construct of “money”. As mentioned, when
people think about money, they experience the sensation of self-sufficiency, want to keep away
from others, work independently, and become less helpful to others. Exposure to clean money
evokes associations to reciprocity and fair exchange, whereas dirty money induces thoughts of
exploitation and illicit gain (Yang et al. 2013). Interestingly, giving money away enhances
happiness (Dunn et al. 2008) and provides meaning in life (Baumeister et al. 2013). Clearly, it
takes time for employees to perform various forms of OCB in organizations and helping others.
Given the fact that “time is money” in modern societies (Devoe and Pfeffer 2007), it is reasonable
to imply that helping others in organizations and performing OCB cost both time and money—
indirectly. Intrinsic and altruistic values greatly enhance meaning in lives and create the
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 29
endowment effect (Kahneman 2013). Dale Carnegie stated: “Remember happiness doesn’t depend
upon who you are or what you have; it depends solely on what you think”.
On the other hand, in a materialistic society, money and materialism become more and
more important, for the past several decades (Lemrová et al. 2014; Tang et al. 2014). With more
money, people think about money more often than before. Although we do not believe that this is
the case for people in Kyrgyzstan, currently, because the GDP per capita is low and materialism
is also low, relatively speaking, the notion of money exists in people’s minds, clearly. Further,
self-determination theory suggests that extrinsic reward undermines intrinsic motivation (Deci and
Ryan 2000; Tang and Baumeister 1984). Therefore, interactional justice and OCB may still exist
bountifully in the society. 3
In a cross-cultural study involving Egypt, Poland, Taiwan, and the US, Tang et al. (2008)
explored a model of helping behaviors involving both a direct path and an indirect path. The direct
path is significant, suggesting that the Good Samaritan Effect exists: Intrinsic helping motives are
strongly related actual helping behavior. On the other hand, the indirect path (love of money
extrinsic helping motives helping behaviors) shows some interesting discoveries. For the first
part of the indirect path, affective monetary motive, the love-of-money motive in lay persons’
terms (Tang and Chiu 2003), enhances extrinsic motives for helping others. This path is significant
for all countries, except Egypt. For the second part of the path, it is significant for people in Poland
only. Thus, the whole indirect path was significant and positive for Poles. These findings suggest
3 Our findings signify splendid wisdom across cultures and religions—love one another: Tell them to do good, to be
rich in good works, to be generous, ready to share (The Holy Bible: 1 Timothy 6: 18). The trustworthy man will be
richly blessed (Proverbs 28: 20). Heavenly practice enriches prudent diligence; glorious virtue sustains prosperous
affluence (Chinese Proverbs: 天道酬勤, 厚德载物). We shall give abundance to those who do good (The Holy Quran:
2: 58).
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 30
that the love of money may cause individuals “to help” in one culture (Poland), but “not to help”
in others, reflecting cultural differences.
Limitations and future research
Our cross-sectional data from two organizations located in Kyrgyzstan don’t provide strong
“cause-and-effect” relationship. Our sample size is reasonable (N = 402) but relatively small.
Researchers need to explore other samples to enhance the generalizability of the present findings
to other populations, countries, or cultures and incorporate additional constructs and variables in
future studies. It is also important to examine these relationships using longitudinal data and from
multiple sources. In addition, another limitation of our study is that we rely on self-reported
measure for all variables. Therefore, there are possible differences between actual OCB and self-
reported OCB. Researchers may enhance our understanding of the organizational justice to OCB
relationship using other individual-level moderators and mediators. For instance, scholars may
investigate power distance and traditionality (Farh et al. 2007) as moderators, or trust (Aryee et al.
2002) and leader member exchange (LMX) (Gu et al. 2015; Lee 2000) as mediators in Ex-Soviet
countries.
Research suggests that the meaning of money is in the eye of the beholder and serves as a
frame of reference in making financial decisions (Tang 1992). Moreover, poverty and corruption
co-exist. It is not money, but the love of money that causes people to fall into temptation and
engage in unethical behaviors, corruption, and dishonesty (Chen et al. 2014; Tang and Chiu 2003;
Tang et al. 2011). Specifically, Monetary Intelligence Theory (MIT) asserts that individuals
monitor their monetary motive, behavior, and cognition; evaluate risk and uncertainty; and
strategically select options to achieve their financial goals and ultimate prosperity—long-lasting
peace, love, and happiness. On the bright side, individuals with low love-of-money motive are
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 31
satisfied with their pay and life and have lower concerns for making money, but higher interests
in making ethical decisions. On the dark side, love-of-money motive predicts dishonesty in
multiple-panel studies. Recent literature on money, the love of money, and Monetary Intelligence
provides additional, critical, and practical implications to the business ethics and ethical decision
making literature (Chen et al. 2014; Gu et al. 2015; Lemrová et al. 2014; Liu and Tang 2011;
Sardžoska and Tang 2014; Tang 2007, 2014; Tang and Chen 2008; Tang and Sutarso 2013; Tang
et al. 2014; Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara and Suárez-Acosta 2014). OCB involves both time and
money. Since giving money away leads to happiness and finding meaning in lives, future
researchers may explore the relationships between OCB, happiness, meaningful lives, and ethical
decision making. This special, fertile, and prolific field not only deserves researchers’ attention
but also provides rich and practical implications for scholars in business ethics.
Conclusion
In this study, we investigate the relationships between three types of organizational justice
perceptions (procedural, distributive, and interactional justice) and three categories of OCB
(organizational obedience, participation, and loyalty) in Kyrgyzstan and treat individualism as a
moderator. Interactional justice and distributive justice are significantly related to organizational
obedience, participation, and loyalty. However, procedural justice is the only significant associated
with organizational obedience. In addition, individualism moderates not only the relationship
between distributive justice and organizational participation and loyalty but also the relationship
between interactional justice and organizational loyalty. Based on citizens in a unique culture
located in Central Asia, we demonstrate the intricate relationships among constructs which provide
novel theoretical and practical implications: Procedural justice “produces” obedience. For
individualists, distributive justice “can only buy” participation, but “can’t buy” loyalty. However,
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 32
interactional justice can “inspire” individualists’ loyalty. We challenge the assumptions, make our
theory of justice, OCB, and individualism in Kyrgyzstan interesting, offer original insights
regarding culture, money, motivation, and provide important, practical implications to business
ethics.
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 33
References
Abazov R. (1999). Economic migration in Post-Soviet Central Asia: The case of Kyrgyzstan. Post-
Communist Economies, 11(2), 237-252.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
2, 267-299.
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Sage Publications.
Alexander, S., Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in
organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177–198.
Ali, A., & Al-Shakhis, M. (1985). Managerial value systems for working in Saudi Arabia: An
empirical investigation. Group & Organization Studies, 10, 135-151.
Ali, A. J., & Azim, A. (1995). Work-ethic and loyalty in Canada. Journal of Social Psychology,
135(1), 31-37.
Ambrose, M. L., Arnaud, A. (2005). Are procedural justice and distributive justice conceptually
distinct? In J. Greenberg J. A. Colquitt, (Eds.) Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp.
59-84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Begley, T. M. (2003). The employment relationships of foreign workers
versus local employees: A field study of organizational justice, job satisfaction,
performance, and OCB. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 561-583.
Ardichvili, A., Gasparishvili, A. (2001). Socio-cultural values, internal work culture and
leadership styles in four Post-Communist Countries Russia, Georgia, Kazakhstan and the
Kyrgyz Republic. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1(2), 227-242.
Ardichvili, A., Kuchinke K. P. (2002). Leadership styles and cultural values among managers
and subordinates: A comparative study of four countries of the former Soviet Union,
Germany, and the US. Human Resource Development International, 5(1), 99–117.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between
organizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 267-285.
Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W. (2001). Workplace justice, citizenship behavior and turnover intentions
in a union context: examining the mediating role of perceived union support and union
instrumentality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 154-160.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments
as a fundamental human-motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., Aaker, J. L., & Garbinsky, E. N. (2013). Some key differences
between a happy life and a meaningful life. Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(6), 505-516.
Begley, T. M., Lee, C., Fang, Y., Li, J. (2002). Power distance as a moderator of the relationship
between justice and employee outcomes in a sample of Chinese employees. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 17(8), 692-711.
Begley, T. M., Lee, C., Hui, C. (2006). Organizational level as a moderator of the relationship
between justice perceptions and work-related reactions. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 27(6), 705-721.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139-
168.
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 34
Bienstock, C. C., DeMoranville, C. W., Smith, R. K. (2003). Organizational citizenship behavior
and service quality. Journal of Services Marketing, 17(4), 357-78.
Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J.
Greenberg J. A. Colquitt, (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice, 85-112. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., Moorman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of equity
sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 259-273.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.
Bozkurt, V, Bayram, N., Furnham, A., Dawes, G. (2010). The Protestant work ethic and
hedonism among Kyrgyz, Turkish and Australian college students. Drustvena Istrazivanja:
Journal for General Social Issues, 19(4-5), 749-769.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 1(3), 185–216.
Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning
perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 97(2), 117-134.
Central Intelligence Agency (2011). The World Factbook,
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/kg.html
Chang, E., & Hahn, J. (2006). Does pay-for-performance enhance perceived distributive justice
for collectivistic employees? Personnel Review, 35(4), 397-412.
Chen, J. Q., Tang, T. L. P., & Tang, N. Y. (2014). Temptation, monetary intelligence (love of
money), and environmental context on unethical intentions and cheating. Journal of
Business Ethics, 123(2), 197-219.
Cheung, G. W., Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
Cohen-Charash, Y., Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a
measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E. Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at
the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445.
Colquitt, J. A., Rodell, J. B. (2011). Justice, trust, and trustworthiness: A longitudinal analysis
integrating three theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1183-
1206.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., Rupp, D. R. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness
heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 58, 164–209.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.
Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to distinguish
procedural from interactional justice. Group and Organization Management, 27(3), 324-
351.
Deci. E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 35
Devoe, S. E., & Pfeffer, J. (2007). When time is money: The effect of hourly payment on
evaluation of time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(1), 1-
13.
Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L. B., & Norton, M. L. (2008). Spending money on others promotes
happiness. Science, 319(5870), 1687-1688.
Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the
People's Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(4), 565-581.
Earley, P. C., Gibson, C. B. (1998). Taking stock in our progress on individualism-collectivism:
100 years of solidarity and community. Journal of Management, 24(3), 265-304.
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit‐level
organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61-94.
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335-362.
Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C. (2006). Collectivism as a moderator of responses to organizational
justice: Implications for leader-member exchange and ingratiation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 27(1), 1-17.
Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and
organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly,
42(3), 421-444.
Farh, J. L., Hackett R. D., Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of
perceived organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing
the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3),
715-729.
Farh, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship
behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of
Management, 16(4), 705-721.
Fehr, E., Gächter, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. The Journal
of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 159-181.
Fischer, R., Smith, P. B. (2006). Who cares about justice? The moderating effect of values on
the link between organizational justice and work behaviour. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 55(4), 541-562.
Folger, R. Bies, R. J. (1989). Managerial responsibilities and procedural justice. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 79-90.
Folger, R., Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions
to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115-130.
Frost, D., Goode, S., & Hart, D. (2010). Individualist and collectivist factors affecting online
repurchase intentions. Internet Research, 20(1), 6-28.
Georgas, J., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Berry, J. W. (2004). The ecocultural framework, ecosocial
indices, and psychological variables in cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 35(1), 74-96.
Gilbert, J. A., & Tang, T. L. P. (1998). An examination of organizational trust antecedents. Public
Personnel Management, 27(3), 321-338.
Gino, F., Pierce, L. (2009). Dishonesty in the name of equity. Psychological Science, 20(9),
1153-1160.
Goldberg, M. E., Gorn, G. J., Peracchio, L. A., & Bamossy, G. (2003). Understanding materialism
among youth. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 278–288.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 36
Review, 25(2), 161-178.
Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities
and Rights Journal, 4(4), 249-270.
Greenberg, J. (1990a). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity. The hidden cost of
pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 561-568.
Greenberg, J. (1990b). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of
Management, 16(2), 399-432.
Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators
of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 54(1), 81-103.
Greenberg, J. (2005). Organizational justice, ethics, and corporate social responsibility. In
Greenberg, J. (Ed.), Managing behavior in organizations (pp. 34-71). Pearson Education,
Prentice Hall.
Greenberg, J. S., Cropanzano, R. (Eds.). (2001). Advances in organizational justice. Stanford
University Press.
Gu, Q. X., Tang, T. L. P., & Jiang, W. (2015). Does moral leadership enhance employee creativity?
Employee identification with leader and leader-member exchange (LMX) in the Chinese
context. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 513-529.
Harder J. W. (1992). Play for pay: Effects of inequity in a pay-for-performance context.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(2), 321-335.
Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motive employees: Harvard Business Review,
46(1), 53-62.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values.
London: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of
International Business Studies, 14(2), 75-89.
Hu, L. T., Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
Inkeles, A. (1969). Participant citizenship in six developing countries. American Political Science
Review, 63(4), 1120-1141.
James, K. (1993). The social context of organizational justice: Cultural, intergroup, and structural
effects on justice behaviors and perceptions. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the
workplace: Approaching fairness in HRM (pp. 21-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of
Management Review, 31(2), 386-408.
Junisbai, A. K. (2010). Understanding Economic Justice Attitudes in Two Countries: Kazakhstan
and Kyrgyzstan. Social Forces, 88(4), 1677-1702.
Kahneman, D (2013). Think, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional
well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 107(38), 16489-16493.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American-dream: Correlates of financial
success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2),
410-422.
Kirkman, B., Law, K. (2005). International management research in AMJ: Our past, present,
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 37
and future. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 377–386.
Kirkman, B. L., Lowe, K. B., & Gibson, C. B. (2006). A quarter century of Culture’s
Consequences: A review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede’s cultural values
framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(3), 285-320.
Kolpakov, A. (2001). Managing diversity in Kyrgyzstan. Indiana University, Published by School
of Public and Environmental Affairs, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.
Konovsky, M. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations.
Journal of Management, 26(3), 489–511.
Konovsky, M. A., Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of
Management Journal, 37(3), 656-669.
Kornai, J. (1992). The socialist system: The political economy of communism. Oxford University
Press, New York.
Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment,
and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy of
Management Journal, 38(1), 60-84.
Ku, L., Dittmar, H., & Banerjee, R. (2012). Are materialistic teenagers less motivated to learn?
Cross-sectional and longitudinal evidence from the United Kingdom and Hong Kong.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 74-86.
Kubicek, P. (1998). Authoritarianism in Central Asia: Curse or cure? Third World Quarterly,
19(1), 29-43.
Kuchinke, K. P., Ardichvili, A. (2002). Work-related values of managers and subordinates in
manufacturing companies in Germany, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Russia,
and the US. Journal of Transnational Management Development, 7(1), 3-25.
Kuehnast, K. R., Dudwick, N. (2004). Better a Hundred Friends Than a Hundred Rubles?
Social Networks in Transition-the Kyrgyz Republic (39). World Bank Publications.
Lam, S. S., Schaubroeck, J., Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between organizational justice and
employee work outcomes: A cross-national study. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
23(1), 1-18.
Lee, H. R. (2000). An empirical study of organizational justice as a mediator of the relationships
among leader-member exchange and job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
turnover intentions in the lodging industry (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University).
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Grohmann, A., Kauffeld, S. (2013). Promoting multifoci citizenship
behavior: Time-lagged effects of procedural justice, trust, and commitment. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 62(3), 454–485.
Lemrová, S., Reiterová, E., Fatěnová, R., Lemr, K., & Tang, T. L. P. (2014). Money is power:
Monetary intelligence—love of money and temptation of materialism among Czech
university students. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(2), 329-348.
Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation
preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167-218). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Liu, B. C., & Tang, T. L. P. (2011). Does the Love of Money Moderate the Relationship between
Public Service Motivation and Job Satisfaction? The Case of Chinese Professionals in the
Public Sector. Public Administration Review, 71(5), 718-727.
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 38
Mayer, D. M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M., & Salvaor, R. (2009). How low does
ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 1-13.
McCarthy, D. J., Puffer, S. M. (2008). Interpreting the ethicality of corporate governance
decisions in Russia: Utilizing integrative social contracts theory to evaluate the relevance
of agency theory norms. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 11-31.
McFarlin, D. B., Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Research notes. Distributive and procedural justice as
predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of
management Journal, 35(3), 626-637.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845-855.
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism‐collectivism as an individual difference
predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
16(2), 127-142.
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational support
mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship
behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 351-357.
Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P. Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and
organizational citizenship behaviors: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6(3),
209-225.
Morris, M., Leung, K. (2000). Justice for all? Progress in research on cultural variation in the
psychology of distributive and procedural justice. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 49(1), 100-132.
Namazie, C., Sanfey, P. (2001). Happiness in transition: the case of Kyrgyzstan. Review of
Development Economics, 5(3), 392-405.
Niehoff, B. P., Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between
methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management
Journal, 36(3), 527-556.
Niehoff, B. P., Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G., Fuller, J. (2001). The influence of empowerment
and job enrichment on employee loyalty in a downsizing environment. Group and
Organization Management, 26(1), 93-113.
Ohbuchi, K. I., Fukushima, O., Tedeschi, J. T. (1999). Cultural values in conflict management
goal orientation, goal attainment, and tactical decision. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 30(1), 51-71.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: the good soldier syndrome. Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human
Performance, 10(2), 85–97.
Organ, D. W., Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775-802.
Ortiz, I., Cummins, M. (2011). Global inequality: Beyond the bottom billion–A rapid review of
income distribution in 141 countries. UNICEF, New York.
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 39
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and
collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological
Bulletin, 128(1), 3-72.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B, Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.
Podsakoff, P. M., Organ D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and
prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544.
Puffer, S. (1996). Leadership in a Russian context. In Business and Management in Russia, (pp.
38-56), Edward Elgar Publishing.
Purcell, S. K. (1973). Decision-making in an authoritarian regime: Theoretical implications from
a Mexican case study. World Politics, 26(1), 28-54.
Ralston, D. A., Gustafson, D. J., Terpstra, R. H., Holt, D. H., Cheung, F., & Ribbens, B. A.
(1993). The impact of managerial values on decision-making behaviour: A comparison of
the United States and Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 10(1), 21-37.
Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P. C. (2002). Employee attitudes and behavioral intentions: A test of
the main and moderating effects of individualism-collectivism orientations. Human
Relations, 55(9), 1071-1096.
Rego, A. Cunha, M. P. (2010). Organizational justice and citizenship behaviors: A study in the
Portuguese cultural context. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59(3), 404-430.
Rousseau, D. M., Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational
research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1), 1-13.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Sardžoska, E. G., & Tang, T. L. P. (2014). Monetary Intelligence: Money attitudes—unethical
intentions, intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction, and coping strategies across public and
private sectors in Macedonia. Journal of Business Ethics. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-014-2197-
5
Shane, S. A. (1992). Why do some societies invent more than others? Journal of Business
Venturing, 7(1), 29-46.
Straughan, R. D., & Albers-Miller, N. D. (2001). An international investigation of cultural and
demographic effects on domestic retail loyalty. International Marketing Review, 18(5),
521-541.
Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The role of distributive,
procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434-443.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature
and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 655–663.
Sousa, F. H., Vala, J. (2002). Relational justice in organizations: The group-value model and
support for change. Social Justice Research, 15(2), 99-121.
Sullivan, D. M., Mitchell, M. S., Uhl-Bien, M. (2003). The new conduct of business: How LMX
can help capitalize on cultural diversity. Dealing with Diversity, Information Age
Publishing: Greenwich, CT, 183-218.
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 40
Tang, T. L. P. (1992). The meaning of money revisited. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2),
197-202.
Tang, T. L. P. (1996). Pay differentials as a function of rater's sex, money ethic, and job
incumbent's sex: A test of the Matthew Effect. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17, 127-
144.
Tang, T. L. P. (2007). Income and quality of life: Does the love of money make a
difference? Journal of Business Ethics, 72(4), 375-393.
Tang, T. L. P. (2014). Theory of Monetary Intelligence: Money attitudes—religious values,
making money, making ethical decisions, and making the grade. Journal of Business
Ethics. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-014-2411-5.
Tang, T. L. P., & Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Effects of personal values, perceived surveillance, and
task labels on task preference: The ideology of turning play into work. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69: 99-105.
Tang, T. L. P., & Chen, Y. J. (2008). Intelligence vs. wisdom: The love of money,
Machiavellianism, and unethical behavior across college major and gender. Journal of
Business Ethics, 82(1), 1-26.
Tang, T. L. P., & Chiu, R. K. (2003). Income, money ethic, pay satisfaction, commitment, and
unethical behavior: Is the love of money the root of evil for Hong Kong
employees? Journal of Business Ethics, 46(1), 13-30.
Tang, T. L. P., & Ibrahim, A. H. S. (1998). Importance of human needs during retrospective
peacetime and the Persian Gulf War: Mideastern employees. International Journal of
Stress Management, 5(1), 25-37.
Tang, T. L. P., & Liu, H. (2012). Love of money and unethical behavior intention: Does an
authentic supervisor’s personal integrity and character (ASPIRE) make a difference?
Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 295-312.
Tang, T. L. P., Luna-Arocas, R., Quintanilla Pardo, I., & Tang, T. L. N. (2014). Materialism and
the bright and dark sides of the financial dream in Spain: The positive role of money
attitudes—The Matthew Effect. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 63(3), 480-
508.
Tang, T. L. P., & Sutarso, T. (2013). Falling or not falling into temptation? Multiple faces of
temptation, monetary intelligence, and unethical intentions across gender. Journal of
Business Ethics, 116(3), 529–552.
Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Akande, A., Allen, M. W., Alzubaidi, A. S., Ansari, M. A., … &
Vlerick, P. (2006). The love of money and pay level satisfaction: Measurement and
functional equivalence in 29 geographical entities around the world. Management and
Organization Review, 2(3), 423-452.
Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Ansari, M. A., Lim, V. K. G., Teo, T. S. H., Arias-Galicai, F., …
Manganelli, A. M. (2011). The love of money is the root of all evil: Pay satisfaction and
CPI as moderators. In Leslie A. Toombs (Ed.), Best Paper Proceedings of the 2011 Annual
Meeting of the Academy of Management. San Antonio, TX.
http://people.uleth.ca/~mahfooz.ansari/AoM%2011%20Best%20Paper-LOM.pdf
DOI: 10.5465/AMBPP.2011.65869480
Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Davis, G. M. T., Dolinski, D., Ibrahim, A. H. S., & Wagner, S. L.
(2008). To help or not to help? The Good Samaritan Effect and the love of money on
helping behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(4), 865-887.
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 41
Tang, T. L. P., & West, W. B. (1997). The importance of human needs during peacetime,
retrospective peacetime, and the Persian Gulf War. International Journal of Stress
Management, 4(1), 47-62.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism and
collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self ingroup relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 323-338.
Triandis, H. C. Gelfand, M. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical
individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118–
28.
Tsui, A. S. (2007). From homogenization to pluralism: International management research in the
academy and beyond. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1353-1364.
Vandenberg, R. J., Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance
literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational
research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior:
construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal,
37(4), 765-802.
Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. (2006). The psychological consequences of money.
Science, 314: 1154-1156.
Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups.
Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 152-172.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 490-495.
Whetten, D. A. (2009). An examination of the interface between context and theory applied to the
study of Chinese organizations. Management and Organization Review, 5(1), 29-55.
World Bank Data (2013). Kyrgyz Republic.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD/countries/KG-7E-
XN?display=graph
Yang, Q., Wu, X. C., Zhou, X. Y., Mead, N. L., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2013).
Diverging effects of clean versus dirty money on attitudes, values, and interpersonal
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(3), 473-489.
Zapata-Phelan, C. P., Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Livingston, B. (2009). Procedural justice,
interactional justice, and task performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 93-105.
Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, P., Suárez-Acosta, M. A. (2014). Employees’ reactions to peers’
unfair treatment by supervisors: The role of ethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics,
122(4), 537-549.
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 42
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach’s Alpha, and Correlations among Variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Age 27.70 8.30
2. Education 15.08 2.00 .09
3. Tenure 4.20 4.40 .60** .07
4. Annual Income
(US$) 11,544.55 656.39 .61** .04 .45**
5. Position .12 .33 .41** -.02 .33** .69**
6. Gender .55 .49 .08 .01 -.05 .12* .04
7. Procedural Justice 3.66 .74 .24** -.06 .24** .22** .12* .04 (.66)
8. Distributive Justice 3.61 .83 .23** -.04 .21** .22** .08 .05 .51** (.75)
9. Interactional justice 3.67 .70 .23** -.10* .23** .24** .14** .04 .52** .49** (.78)
10. Individualism 3.65 .69 .16** -.10 .15** .20** .06 .07 .37** .43** .47** (.74)
11. Organizational
Obedience 3.83 .74 .25** .06 .14** .21** .07 .05 .36** .39** .37** .33** (.71)
12. Organizational
Participation 3.72 .75 .19** -.00 .18** .20** .05 -.07 .35** .39** .38** .25** .41** (.70)
13. Organizational
Loyalty 3.76 .80 .27** -.11* .20** .27** .11* .01 .36** .42** .45** .43** .49** .39** (.74)
Note. N = 402. Cronbach’s alpha is presented in parentheses. Gender: Male = 1, Female = 0. Position: Manager = 1, Non-manager =
0. Education: Expressed in years.
*p < .05
**p < .01
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 43
TABLE 2
Regression Analyses Results
Organizational Obedience Organizational Participation Organizational Loyalty
Step and Variable 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
1. Age .16* .13 .13 .05 .01 .01 .11 .09 .08
Education .03 .08 .08 -.03 .02 .02 -.14** -.08 -.07
Tenure .00 -.07 -.07 .09 .02 .02 .08 .01 .01
Annual income .24** .13 .13 .27** .17* .17* .27** .15* .15*
Position -.14* -.09 -.09 -.19** -.14* -.14* -.16* -.09 -.08
Gender -.02 -.03 -.03 -.11* -.12* -.12* -.04 -.05 -.05
2. Procedural Justice .15* .15* .10 .10 .07 .07
Distributive Justice .13* .13* .19** .20** .11* .11
Interactional Justice .15* .16* .20** .19** .21** .23**
Individualism .09 .06 .01 .05 .18** .15**
3. Procedural Justice x Individualism -.05 .05 -.03
Distributive Justice x Individualism -.10 .14* -.17**
Interactional Justice x Individualism .09 -.09 .15*
R² .09** .22** .23** .07** .22** .23** .11** .29** .30**
Note: N = 402. Standardized regression coefficients.
*p < .05; **p < .01
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 44
FIGURE 1
Our Theoretical Model
FIGURE 2
Interaction Effect of Distributive Justice and Individualism on Organizational Participation
Organizational
Justice
Procedural Justice
Distributive Justice
Interactional Justice
Organizational Citizenship
Behavior (OCB)
Obedience
Participation
Loyalty
Individualism
Justice and OCB-Kyrgyzstan Journal of Business Ethics 45
FIGURE 3
Interaction Effect of Distributive Justice and Individualism on Organizational Loyalty
FIGURE 4
Interaction Effect of Interactional Justice and Individualism on Organizational Loyalty
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low Interactional
Justice
High Interactional
Justice
Org
an
iza
tio
na
l L
oy
alt
y
Low
IndividualismHigh
Individualism
Top Related