presentation

annyzyl123

601.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >presentation

THE INFLUENCE OF COLLECTIVISM AND RATER ERROR ON ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP AND IMPRESSION

MANAGEMENT BEHAVIORS

PHILSUNG KIM Korea Institute of Industrial Technology

JI-HWAN LEE Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology

Although the employer may not necessarily recognize this, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) enhances organizational performance. However, most contemporary appraisal measures fail to distinguish between OCB and other types of employee behaviors such as impression management behavior (IMB) and in-role behavior (IRB), all of which employees could display in order to gain higher performance ratings. In this paper we distinguished empirically between OCB, IMB, and IRB, and examined their selection factors. Our regression results showed that an employee’s collectivism was positively associated with his/her OCBs. Contrary to our prediction, however, collectivism was also positively related to IMBs. In the context of human resource management, an employee’s perception of rater error had a negative effect on OCBs and IRBs. Implications for management and future research are discussed.

Keywords: collectivism, rater error, organizational citizenship behavior, impression management behavior.

Since Bateman and Organ (1983) developed the concept, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has emerged as a popular area for organizational behavior study. With the rapid growth of OCB theory and research, there has been a proliferation of similar concepts, such as prosocial organizational

SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2012, 40(4), 545-556 © Society for Personality Research http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2012.40.4.545

545

Philsung Kim, Korea Institute of Industrial Technology; Ji-Hwan Lee, Graduate School of Management, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. The authors wish to acknowledge the comments of the late Professor Jinjoo Lee on this manuscript. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Ji-Hwan Lee, Graduate School of Management, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, 85 Hoegiro, Dongdaemoon-gu, Seoul 130-722, Republic of Korea. Email: [email protected]

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR546

behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), civic organizational behavior (Graham, 1991), organizational spontaneity (George & Brief, 1992), intraorganizational volunteerism (Peloza & Hassay, 2006), and contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993).

However, research on OCB and other forms of extrarole behaviors has resulted in a lack of accurate assessment of the similarities and differences between these constructs (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). Along with the abovementioned constructs, impression management behavior (IMB) has received considerable attention in the organizational behavior literature (Bolino, 1999; Bolino, Varela, Bande, & Turnley, 2006; Chen, Lin, Tung, & Ko, 2008; Rosenfeld, Giacalone, & Riordan, 1995). IMB researchers have identified the tactics used by individuals to enhance their image as perceived by others (Jones & Pittman, 1982; Schlenker, 1980). Some researchers have commented that IMB may often mistakenly be coded as OCB, and likewise, OCB may often be categorized as IMB (Bolino, 1999; Schnake, 1991). This potential confusion of OCB and IMB becomes more problematic in the context of human resource management (HRM).

In this study our aim was to distinguish empirically between OCB and IMB, and to examine the relative contributions of collectivism and rater error to those behaviors.

Theory and Hypotheses

Individualism-Collectivism and Organizational Behaviors Emerging from classical origins (e.g., Durkheim, 1933; Weber, 1947), the

concept of individualism-collectivism was proposed as a predictor of individual differences by Parsons and Shills (1951), who considered it to be a bipolar construct. Whereas individualism refers to a self-orientation, an emphasis on self-sufficiency and control, and the pursuit of individual goals that may, or may not, be consistent with group goals, collectivism involves subordination of personal goals to those of a larger group and emphasizes sharing, cooperation, group harmony, and concern for group welfare (Wagner, 1995).

Organizational researchers who have studied the relationship between individualism and collectivism and OCB have gained similar results. Paine and Organ (2000) took a cross-cultural view, offering a heuristic model in which the relationship between individualism, collectivism, and OCB is shown and it is suggested that collectivistic cultures could promote OCB. Moorman and Blakely (1995) studied individualism and collectivism within an organization and suggested that collectivistic individuals are more likely than are those who are individualistic to perform OCBs. Because OCB usually requires subordination of self-interest (Organ, 1988) and because the intensity of willingness to cooperate

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR 547

(Barnard, 1938) varies widely among individuals, it could be expected that, in a business setting, more collectivistic employees would be more likely to perform OCBs.

Relationships can also be identified between individualism-collectivism and other types of work behaviors. Impression management is a behavior that individuals employ to protect their self-image or influence the way they are perceived by others (Schlenker, 1980). Because IMB arises from, and is primarily motivated by, self-interest (Lester & Brower, 2003), it is instinctively appealing to believe that individuals who have greater individualistic tendencies would be more likely to perform IMBs. In-role behavior (IRB) at work is another important type. IRB involves fulfilling the responsibilities specified in the employee’s job description within the organization. However, in our research we have not yet found any evidence to support a prediction of differences between individualists and collectivists in their tendency to perform in-role behaviors. Thus, we have only two hypotheses in our first set, as follows: Hypothesis 1: An individual’s collectivism will be positively associated, and individualism will be negatively associated, with organizational citizenship behavior. Hypothesis 2: An individual’s collectivism will be negatively associated, and individualism will be positively associated, with impression management behavior.

Perceived Rater Errors and Organizational Behaviors HRM practices that promote OCB have also been of interest in organization

studies (Werner, 2000). In the performance evaluation context, a rater is supposed to base decisions on information regarding a subordinate’s IRB and OCB (Werner, 1994). However, as an employee’s IMB can also affect a rater’s judgment (Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988; Wayne & Ferris, 1990), individuals may use IRB, OCB, and IMB strategically to achieve a higher performance rating. Given the limited amount of resources and capabilities available, an individual must divide and allocate them into these three types of behaviors (Bolino et al., 2006). When a performance appraisal is biased, distorted, or inaccurate, the chances of increasing the productivity of an employee are largely limited. As the cognitive components of satisfaction stem from one’s perception of fairness, people who perceive unfairness are likely to withhold or reduce their contribution to the organization, and, thus, have lower OCB (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Organ, 1988, 1990).

Rater error might also affect IMB. Given that IMB is intended to influence the perception of others about an individual’s perception of his or her own image (Goffman, 1959), that individual may attempt to affect the rater’s judgment when there is rater error during the appraisal process. If the rater makes errors

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR548

while observing and evaluating an employee, IMB can also have an effect on the evaluation results (Wayne & Ferris, 1990). In such a situation, employees may well attempt to manage the rater’s evaluation by using IMB. IRB may also be influenced by rater error. The primary purpose of appraisal is to evaluate IRB among various types of organizational behaviors. If employees perceive that the performance appraisal process is impaired by the rater’s cognitive distortion, they would decrease IRB and find another way to enhance their performance ratings. Thus, we proposed the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 3: Perceived rater error will be negatively associated with organizational citizenship behavior. Hypothesis 4: Perceived rater error will be positively associated with impression management behavior. Hypothesis 5: Perceived rater error will be negatively associated with in-role behavior.

Method

Sample We collected data using a questionnaire survey conducted as part of a research

project at LG Information and Communication’s Research and Development Center. This organization is one of the largest and most advanced information technology research centers in Korea. Self-administered questionnaires were sent to all the qualified researchers in the center (N = 452) of which 353 complete and usable questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 78.1%. The sample comprised 93.4% male (n = 330) and 6.6% female (n = 23) respondents. The ages of the respondents ranged between 19 and 41 years, with an average of 29.4 (SD = 3.47) years.

Measures Organizational citizenship behavior and in-role behavior. We assessed the

respondents’ OCB and IRB using a 21-item scale developed by Williams and Anderson (1991). The OCB items included OCBs targeting individuals (OCBI) and those benefiting the organization as a whole (OCBO). The IRB items were focused on behaviors that are recognized not only by formal reward systems but are also part of the requirements of the job descriptions. The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they engaged in each behavior on a 7-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = never to 7 = always).

Impression management behavior. Seven items from Wayne and Ferris’s (1990) scale were used to measure IMB. Results of the principal components analysis indicated there were three types of impression management: job-focused, supervisor-focused, and self-focused. As some researchers (e.g., Ferris, Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons, 1994) have reported that job-focused and self-focused

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR 549

IMBs give rise to methodological problems, we used a shortened version of the Wayne and Ferris scale to assess IMB, considering only 1 of the 3 types of behaviors: supervisor-focused impression management. Respondents were asked to rate how often they engaged in seven impression management behaviors on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = never to 7 = always.

Individualism-Collectivism. Eight items from Wagner and Moch’s (1986) scale were used to measure two components of individualism-collectivism. Individualism-collectivism values (I-C values) pertain to the respondent’s general preferences about working in a more collectivistic environment as compared to a more individualistic environment. Individualism-collectivism norms (I-C norms) are focused on the respondent’s prescriptions for the other members’ behaviors. Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed with each item on a 7-point scale (1 = disagree to 7 = agree), where higher scores reflected the respondent’s orientation towards collectivistic tendencies.

Rater error. We developed subjective measures to assess an employee’s perception of rater error. The items representing perceived rater error were adopted from the literature on evaluation errors (e.g., Murphy & Balzer, 1989). Through semistructured interviews with a number of managers, we counted the frequency with which they had engaged in the various types of rater error. Using the data, we developed items describing situations for five types of rater error: first-impression error, halo error, personal-bias error, central-tendency error, and leniency error. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with each item on a 7-point scale (1 = disagree to 7 = agree).

Results

The means, standard deviations, and reliabilities of the scales, along with the correlations among the variables, are reported in Table 1. The reliability of every variable exceeds the minimum level of .70 recommended by Nunnally (1978).

A drawback of the methodology employed in this study is that the participating employees assessed both dependent and independent variables using self- administered questionnaires, which can potentially cause distortion because of self-serving bias and common method variance (CMV). In an attempt to control for possible CMV, ex ante, we used a questionnaire in which items for independent and dependent variables were randomly mixed. Ex post, as every correlation coefficient in Table 1 indicated a small to medium degree of correlation, our concerns about CMV could be alleviated to some extent. Furthermore, we ran Harman’s single-factor test and found that no single factor showed absolutely conspicuous explanatory power judging by the criteria suggested in the literature (see e.g., Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR550

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. IMB 3.68 .88 .85 2. OCBO 5.21 .72 .09 .70 3. OCBI 4.50 .65 .35*** .28*** .73 4. IRB 5.14 .76 .08 .52*** .29*** .88 5. I-C values 4.48 .95 .12* .27*** .20*** .21*** .74 6. I-C norms 4.71 .81 .22*** .29*** .29*** .20*** .11* .77 7. Rater error 4.02 .69 -.04 -.16** .01 -.15** -.21*** .00 .73

Notes: n = 353; * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. IMB = impression management behavior; OCBO = organizational citizenship behaviors targeting organization; OCBI = organizational citizenship behaviors targeting individual; IRB = in-role behavior; I-C values = value dimension of individualism-collectivism; I-C norms = norm dimension of individualism-collectivism. The main diagonal figures in bold contain Cronbach’s internal consistency reliability estimates.

Factor analyses were conducted for all the items measuring the independent variables. Three varimax-rotated factors emerged, and the three-factor solution explained 55.4% of the total variance. Every item loaded predominantly on the predicted factor, with factor loadings ranging from .59 to .87. Thus, all 13 items were used to measure I-C values, I-C norms, and rater error, which showed reliabilities of .74, .77, and .73, respectively. We performed another factor analysis with all the items measuring organizational behaviors at work (OCB, IMB, and IRB). Four varimax-rotated factors emerged, and the four-factor solution explained 51.3% of the total variance. All except two items loaded predominantly on the predicted factor, with factor loadings ranging between .41 and .82. One of the OCBI items, despite loading on the predicted factor (.48), also loaded on the OCBO factor (.54). One of the OCBO items, despite primarily loading on the predicted factor (.47), also loaded on the OCBI factor (.47). Finally, a total of 26 items (two items excluded) were used to determine the OCBI, OCBO, IRB, and IMB scores, which had reliabilities of .73, .70, .88, and .85, respectively. Overall, the results suggest that all the scales used in the study were suitable to measure the proposed constructs distinctly.

Next, hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to test the main research hypotheses relating individualism-collectivism and rater error to the different types of organizational behaviors. Two control variables, age (in years) and gender (dummy coded), were included in the first regression analyses (Step 1). The impact of individualism-collectivism on organizational behaviors was then tested (Step 2). Finally, rater error was added to the regression equations (Step 3). The results from the hierarchical regression analyses are shown in Table 2.

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR 551

Ta b le

2 . H

ie ra

rc h ic

a l R

e g re

ss io

n E

st im

a te

s fo

r W

o rk

B e h a vi

o rs

C B

IR B

V ar

ia bl

e S

te p

1 S

te p

2 S

te p

S te

p 1

S te

p 2

S te

p 3

te p

1 S

te p

2 S

te p

S te

p 1

S te

p 2

S te

p 3

S te

p 1:

c on

tr ol

A ge

2 -.

-. 02

.0 1

.0 2

.0 3

.0 9+

.1 6*

* .1

.1 4*

.0 5

.0 6

-. 02

-. 06

-. 05

S te

p 2

I-

C v

al ue

.1 0+

.2 4*

.2 2*

.1 7*

* .1

8* **

9* **

6* *

I-

C n

or m

.2 1*

.2 6*

.1 6*

* .1

7* *

S te

p 3

at er

e rr

-. 02

-. 12

.0 4

12 *

 R

2 .0

0 .0

6* **

.0 0

.1 4*

.0 2*

0* **

.0 2*

7* **

R 2

.0 0

.0 6*

0 .1

4* **

6* **

.0 2*

2* **

.0 2*

9* **

0* **

A dj

us te

d R

2 .0

0 .0

5* **

.0 0

.1 3*

.1 4*

.1 1*

.0 8*

.0 9*

N o te

s: n

= 3

53 ;

+ p

< .

1, *

p <

. 05

, **

p <

. 01

, **

* p <

. 00

1. F

ig ur

es a

re s

ta nd

ar di

ze d

be ta

c oe

ff ic

ie nt

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR552

Hypothesis 1, in which we posited a positive relationship between collectivism and OCB, was supported. Collectivistic values had a strong and significant effect on both OCBO ( = .22, p < .001) and OCBI ( = .18, p < .001). Collectivistic norms also had a strong and significant effect on both OCBO ( =.26, p < .001) and OCBI ( =.26, p < .001). However, Hypothesis 2, in which we predicted a negative relationship between collectivism and IMB, was not supported. Collectivistic values had a marginally significant and positive impact on IMB ( = .09, p < .1), as did collectivistic norms ( = .21, p < .001).

Hypothesis 3, in which we posited a negative relationship between rater error and OCB, was partially supported. Rater error had a significant and negative impact on OCBO ( = -.12, p < .05). However, for OCBI, rater error was not significant. Contrary to our prediction in Hypothesis 4, rater error had no significant effect on IMB. Hypothesis 5, in which we hypothesized that there would be a negative relationship between rater error and IRB, was supported ( = -.12, p < .05).

Discussion

In this study our aim was to distinguish OCB from other types of work behaviors, and then to examine the determinants of these behaviors. The results of our factor analyses supported our initial assumption that OCB, IMB, and IRB are relatively distinct types of employee work behaviors. We predicted that collectivism would have a positive relationship with OCB only, but found that there was a positive relationship between collectivism and IMB as well. There were two possible explanations for this. First, given the importance of cooperation among professionals who work in teams and perform research and development tasks that are uncertain in their outcomes, collectivistic researchers are more likely than are other employees to perform in-role and extrarole behaviors at the same time and also to believe that even IMB helps create a more benign organizational atmosphere (Bolino & Turnley, 2003). Secondly, because this research was conducted in a relatively collectivistic society (Korea), where modesty and humility are highly valued, cooperative employees might consider IMBs – for example, showing respect and treating superiors with warm hospitality – a virtue.

In this study we incorporated the employee’s perception of rater error as an antecedent of organizational behavior and found that rater error, which previously has, typically, been examined as an important determinant of traditional job performance, also played an important role in determining OCB. Perceived rater error tends to make employees decrease their OCBOs and IRBs. Further, we found that perceived rater error neither decreases nor increases IMB. Compared

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR 553

to OCBO and IRB, which are relatively job-related, organizational citizenship and impression management are behaviors based on personal relationships and social network ties (Bowler & Brass, 2006). Therefore, these behaviors may be performed consistently, in spite of unfair evaluation. Again, another possibility can be considered in relation to the Korean context. As personnel promotion in Korea traditionally tends to be determined by personal relationships rather than by objective evaluations, rater error could have very limited effects on OCBI and IMB in a Korean organization.

At the theoretical level, the findings in this study contribute to the growing literature on OCB and its antecedents by extending the analysis to an important area of inquiry, that is, the context of collectivistic culture and evaluation. In practical terms, our empirical results confirm that HRM systems can significantly affect employees’ behaviors. Such implications should be considered during selection and compensation processes. Several strategies for minimizing rater error can be found in the extant literature, such as rater training, redesign of rating process, and inculcation of a climate of fair treatment for employees (Folger & Greenberg, 1985; Werner, 2000).

Because our sample is representative of only one research and development institute and its employees in Korea, caution must be exercised in interpreting our findings or generalizing them to other contexts. Studies with larger samples in more diverse cultural and organizational settings would make a significant contribution to increasing knowledge in this area. Future researchers should also explore the impact, both direct and indirect, of a variety of HRM practices on organizational behaviors. Investigation of the impact of HRM practices on aspects other than performance evaluation would add significantly to understanding of the antecedents and consequences of organizational behaviors.

To conclude, in the present study we have provided a framework linking an individual’s traits and perceptions to various types of organizational behaviors. As corporate managers continue to invest in developing more effective HRM systems, the results gained in this study could serve as a stepping stone to a better understanding of organizational behaviors.

References

Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship

between affect and employee “citizenship”. The Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595. Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? The

Academy of Management Review, 24, 82-98. Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2003). Counternormative impression management, likeability,

and performance ratings: The use of intimidation in an organizational setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 237-257. http://doi.org/gvd

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR554

Bolino, M. C., Varela, J. A., Bande, B., & Turnley, W. H. (2006). The impact of impression- management tactics on supervisor ratings of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 281-297. http://doi.org/gvf

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bowler, W. M., & Brass, D. J. (2006). Relational correlates of interpersonal citizenship behavior: A social network perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 70-82. http://doi.org/gvg

Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. The Academy of Management Review, 11, 710-725.

Chen, Y.-J., Lin, C.-C., Tung, Y.-C., & Ko, Y.-T. (2008). Associations of organizational justice and ingratiation with organizational citizenship behavior: The beneficiary perspective. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 36, 289-302. http://doi.org/gvh

Durkheim, E. (1933). The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press. Ferris, G. R., Judge, T. A., Rowland, K. M., & Fitzgibbons, D. E. (1994). Subordinate influence

and the performance evaluation process: Test of a model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 101-135.

Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretative analysis of personnel systems. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 3, pp. 141-183). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good – doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310-329. http:// doi.org/gvn

Goffman, E. (1959). The representation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday. Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities

and Rights Journal, 4, 249-270. http://doi.org/gvp Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls

(Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 231-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1988). Upward–influence styles: Relationship with performance

evaluations, salary, and stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 528-542. Lester, S. W., & Brower, H. H. (2003). In the eyes of the beholder: The relationship between

subordinates’ felt trustworthiness and their work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10, 17-33. http://doi.org/gvq

Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127-142. http://doi.org/gvr

Murphy, K. R., & Balzer, W. K. (1989). Rater errors and rating accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 619-625. http://doi.org/gvs

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington,

MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw

& L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43-72). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Paine, J. B., & Organ, D. W. (2000). The cultural matrix of organizational citizenship behavior: Some preliminary conceptual and empirical observations. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 45-59. http://doi.org/gvt

Parsons, T., & Shills, E. A. (1951). Toward a general theory of action: Theoretical foundation for the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR 555

Peloza, J., & Hassay, D. N. (2006). Intra-organizational volunteerism: Good soldiers, good deeds and good politics. Journal of Business Ethics, 64, 357-379. http://doi.org/gvv

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563. http://doi.org/gvw

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531-544. http://doi.org/czv

Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R. A., & Riordan, C. A. (1995). Impression management in organisations: Theory, measurement, practice. London: Routledge.

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schnake, M. (1991). Organizational citizenship: A review, proposed model, and research agenda. Human Relations, 44, 735-759. http://doi.org/gvx

Wagner, J. A., III. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. The Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152-172.

Wagner, J. A., & Moch, M. K. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: Concept and measure. Group Organization Management, 11, 280-304. http://doi.org/gvz

Wayne, S. J., & Ferris, G. R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor- subordinate interactions: A laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487-499. http://doi.org/gv2

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Free Press. Werner, J. M. (1994). Dimensions that make a difference: Examining the impact of in-role and

extrarole behaviors on supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 98-107. http:// doi.org/gv3

Werner, J. M. (2000). Implications of OCB and contextual performance for human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 3-24. http://doi.org/gv4

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617. http://doi.org/gv5

Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the

individual use.