Ocb Government

This article was downloaded by: [New York University]
On: 15 July 2015, At: 23:30

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place,
London, SW1P 1WG
International Public Management Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upmj20
Government Employee's Organizational Citizenship

Behavior: The Impacts of Public Service Motivation,
Organizational Identification, and Subjective OCB
Norms
a b
Dong Chul Shim & Sue Faerman
a
SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY
b
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY, SUNY
Accepted author version posted online: 13 Jul 2015.
Click for updates
To cite this article: Dong Chul Shim & Sue Faerman (2015): Government Employee's Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
The Impacts of Public Service Motivation, Organizational Identification, and Subjective OCB Norms, International Public
Management Journal, DOI: 10.1080/10967494.2015.1037943
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2015.1037943
Disclaimer: This is a version of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to authors and researchers we are providing this version of the accepted manuscript (AM). Copyediting,
typesetting, and review of the resulting proof will be undertaken on this manuscript before final publication of
the Version of Record (VoR). During production and pre-press, errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal relate to this version also.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Government Employee’s Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Impacts of Pub-
lic Service Motivation, Organizational Identification, and Subjective OCB Norms
Dong Chul Shim1, Sue Faerman2

1
SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY, 2UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY, SUNY
Dong Chul Shim ([email protected]) earned his a Ph.D. at the Rockefeller College of
Public Affairs and Policy at the University at Albany (SUNY). He is a currently assistant
professor at Department of Political Science at San Jose State University. His research
interests include government employees’ career motivation, leadership and citizenship
behaviors.
Sue Faerman is a Distinguished Teaching Professor at the University at Albany, SUNY.

Her research and teaching focus on the paradoxical nature of organizational and manage-
rial leadership performance, and on women and leadership. She currently serves as Dean
Downloaded by [New York University] at 23:30 15 July 2015
of the University’s College of Computing and Information and as Academic Chair of the
Women’s Leadership Academy at the University’s Center for Women in Government &
Civil Society.
Abstract
This study attempts to provide an increased understanding of the antecedents of public
employees’ organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Using a field survey involving
public employees working for Korean local government organizations, the data analyses
reveal that public service motivation (PSM), organizational identification, subjective
OCB norms, task interpendence and procedural justice are important antecedents of gov-
ernment employees’ OCB, even after partialling out the common method variance,
whereas job satisfaction and distributive justice are not.
INTRODUCTTION
Over the past two decades, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has been
studied as a type of prosocial or voluntary behavior that organizational members engage
in to maintain the social context that supports task performance (Organ, 1997; Organ,
1
Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). Examples of public sector employees’ citizenship be-
haviors include helping coworkers with their job tasks; proactively being involved in
solving citizens’ problems; being actively engaged in identifying problems related to cur-
rent public service provision and suggesting appropriate solutions; and helping one’s
agency to maintain a favorable image in the community.
Katz (1964) argued that an organization should encourage organizational members to
engage in innovative and prosocial activities to improve organizational performance, and

numerous empirical studies have reported a positive relationship between OCB and or-
ganizational performance in the context of private sector organizations (e.g., Nielsen,
Hrivnak, & Shaw, 2009; Whitman, Van Rooy, & Viswesvaran, 2010). These citizenship
behaviors could be also critical in enhancing government organizations’ productivity,
since they can help fill gaps that formal bureaucratic processes cannot cover completely
due to limited resources and administrative procedures (Odom, Boxx, & Dunn, 1990).
Thus, when government employees engage in OCBs and interact with citizens in ways
that exhibit high levels of prosocial behavior, public services can be delivered at a higher
quality and with greater economic efficiency. In addition, government employees’ OCBs
could play an even more important role in maintaining the quality of public service, since
public employees exhibiting a high level of OCB are more likely to protect citizens and
ensure democratic values in their organizations (Vigoda & Golembiewski, 2001).
The question is: What factors influence government employees to engage in
OCBs? Based on the theoretical implications of social exchange theory, early OCB stud-
2
ies, conducted primarily in the context of private sector organizations, suggested that em-
ployees tend to develop general beliefs about the extent to which their organizations sup-
port them favorably, and decide whether to engage in citizenship behaviors based on the
quality of their relationship with their employer (e.g., Dalal, 2005; LePine, Erez, &
Johnson, 2002; Organ & Lingl, 1995; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000).
Some studies have shown that employees’ perception of organizational support is influ-
enced by their evaluation of the degree to which they see their organization as providing
opportunities for promotions, favorable job conditions, positive organizational policies

and appropriate compensation (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986;
Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). OCB studies conducted in the context of public-sector
organizations have also identified variables such as job satisfaction (Alotaibi, 2001;
Hassan & Rohrbaugh, 2012; Kim, 2006; Noblet, McWilliams, Teo, & Rodwell, 2006;
Tang & Ibrahim, 1998), organizational justice (Alotaibi, 2001; Andrews, Kacmar, &
Harris, 2009), and leader-member-exchange (Hassan & Rohrbaugh, 2012; Kandan & Ali,
2010).
The results of prior empirical studies have, however, been inconsistent. For ex-
ample, while Tang and Ibrahim (1998) and Yeo et al. (2013) reported a statistically sig-
nificant relationship between job satisfaction and OCB, Kim (2006) did not find such a
relationship in a sample of Korean civil servants. Moreover, results of other studies that
have presented a statistically positive association between job satisfaction and OCB vari-
ables are inconclusive in that these findings were based primarily on bivariate correlation
coefficients (Alotaibi, 2001; Noblet et al., 2006). While consistent significant associa-
3
tions between organizational justice and OCB have been reported (Alotaibi, 2001; Coyle-
Shapiro & Kessler, 2003), the amount of variance explained in the hypothesized models
has been relatively moderate.
More importantly, basing OCB studies on social exchange theory implies that
employees’ citizenship behaviors are likely to diminish or even completely fade away if
employees do not perceive that there is reciprocity from their employers. If, however,
public workers continue to take initiative in the face of less than satisfactory working en-
vironments, and citizenship behaviors are not solely a function of employees’ satisfaction
and their calculation of future benefits, theories other than social exchange must be iden-
tified to explain employees’ citizenship behaviors. Arguably, public employees might
engage in citizenship behaviors not because they are satisfied but simply because they
believe that the citizenship behaviors are important to enhance the public value.
In line with this argument, Perry (2000) pointed out that motivational theories
based on individuals’ self-interest are limited in explaining public workers’ prosocial be-
haviors, noting that traditional motivation studies have been silent on public employees’
intrinsic motivation to help others, as well as on their sense of moral obligation to engage
in prosocial behaviors. Several empirical studies have examined the utility of public ser-
vice motivation and found that public employees place a high value on providing better
service to citizens and are involved in more altruistic behaviors based on their values
(Perry, 1996, 1997; Perry & Wise, 1990).
4
In line with previous public management studies arguing that public employees
engage in altruistic behaviors based on their values, this study will test whether public
service motivation (PSM) provides a primary behavioral guideline for public employees
with respect to OCB. However, this study does not just limit its focus to examining indi-
viduals’ prosocial orientation as the source of public employees’ citizenship behaviors.
Rather, this study uses self-concept theory as an overarching framework and examines
the impact of different self-concept related variables (organizational identification and
subjective OCB norms) on OCB. That is, since self-concept might originate from one’s
personal prosocial values (Perry, 2000), or it might develop as a result of interactions
among coworkers (Lee & Olshfski, 2002; Morrison, 1994), PSM, organizational identifi-
cation and OCB norms are all proposed as potential antecedents that influence govern-
ment employees’ citizenship behaviors.
This paper will be organized as follows. The next section presents a brief review
of the literature addressing OCB and develops research hypotheses based on the findings
of this literature. In the third section, the study’s research methods including sampling
procedures, measurement and data collection procedures are described. The empirical
results of the data analyses are presented in the following section. Finally, the implica-
tions of findings and the theoretical and practical contributions of this study are dis-
cussed.
LITERATURE REVIEW: ANTECEDENTS OF OCB
Self-Concept and OCB
5
Self-concept is a question of “who am I?,” which is a profound and consequential
question in that individual behaviors are influenced by one’s response to this question.
Moreover, individuals’ self-concepts are influenced by different elements of their life ex-
periences. First, self-concepts are influenced by individuals’ beliefs and values developed
through one’s early life experiences. Public service motivation could be understood as
part of the personal identity that a government worker has developed through various life
experiences.
Second, employees’ self-concepts develop through their organizational experienc-
es as they identify with the values of their organizations. In other words, through an iden-
tification or self-conception process (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994), individuals
identify both with distinctive images of social foci (family, school, work organization)
and with individual roles (policeman, firefighter, bureaucrat, doctor), and then make a
cognitive connection with these entities to define themselves. From this perspective, a
question of “who am I?” can be answered by “where do I belong (or where do I want to
belong)?”
Arguably, by performing in certain roles in an organization and interacting with
coworkers and supervisors, public employees learn certain values from their organiza-
tional experiences and internalize these values. In this context, their self-concept will be
also formed by asking, “what am I doing (or what should I be doing)?” Organizational
norms would thus also influence employees’ self-concepts in that employees would in-
ternalize aspects of their roles based on their beliefs about coworkers’ or citizens’ expec-
6
tations. Based on this notion, this study posits that OCB values can be both an expression
of individuals’ value and a reflection of employees’ perceived norms and organizational
values (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004).
PSM and OCB
Adlerian psychologists (e.g., Ansbacher, 1991; Bass, Curlette, Kern, &
McWilliams Jr, 2002; Crandall, 1981; Curlett & Kern, 2002; Leak & Leak, 2006) posit
that individuals are more likely to cooperate with others when they have developed social
interest. According to this school of thought, individuals are not always driven by their
self-interest and will overcome self-centeredness for pursuit of social goals, develop em-
pathy toward others, and, ultimately, will contribute to their community and society by
developing social interest. Thus, the core concept of social interest involves concern for
others (Crandall, 1981; Leak & Leak, 2006) as an inherent orientation of individuals who
strive to be a part of society (Ansbacher, 1991; Bass et al., 2002; Curlett & Kern, 2002;
Leak & Leak, 2006). Adlerian psychologists’ assertions imply that individuals with a
high level of empathy are more likely to understand and identify others’ difficulties, and
to cooperate with others to be good members of their team. Accordingly, from this per-
spective, individuals’ helping behavior can be influenced by this individual orientation.
Previous studies have found an association between individuals’ prosocial orien-
tation and cooperative behaviors. Penner (2002) examined the relationship between two
prosocial personality factors (other-oriented empathy and helpfulness) and volunteerism,
and found that these prosocial personality factors have significant associations with en-
7
gagement in volunteer activities. Finkelstein and Penner (2004) found that prosocial mo-
tives (organization concern, personal values and impression management) have signifi-
cant influences on county government employees’ citizenship behaviors. Rioux and Pen-
ner (2001) also found that prosocial value has a significant influence on several OCB
components (altruism and civic virtue) in a sample of Florida city employees.
Public service motivation has been defined as “a predisposition to respond to mo-
tives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations” (Perry,

2000: 368). Thus, PSM has been developed into an overarching construct that explains
public sector workers’ distinct motivation and orientation. Although PSM is also influ-
enced by public employees’ organizational experiences (Chen, Hsieh, & Chen, 2013;
Davis & Stazyk, 2013; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007), it is frequently described more as an
individual orientation influenced by factors such as parental socialization, religious orien-
tation, professional identification and political ideologies (Perry, 1997). Moreover, PSM
is expected to be closely related to prosocial orientation since altruism is one of the core
components of PSM, leading PSM scholars to speculate that public employees with a
high level of PSM will have more compassion and demonstrate more initiative in engag-
ing in prosocial behaviors.
Indeed, Houston (2006) found that government employees are more likely to en-
gage in volunteering activities such as giving time, donating blood and making financial
donations to charitable organizations than are private sector employees. Crewson (1997)
also found that public employees with a high level of PSM are more likely to have a
8
higher level of organizational commitment and to possess higher intrinsic motivation to
help others. Several studies examined the association between PSM and OCB more di-
rectly. For example, Kim (2006), Pandey et al. (2008), Gould-Williams, Mostafa and
Bottomley (2013) examined the impact of PSM on OCB and found that PSM is an im-
portant antecedent of OCB. Similarly, Rayner, Lawton and Williams (2012) found that
public service ethos has a significant association with OCB toward individuals (OCBI).
Based on this notion, the first hypothesis was developed:
Hypothesis 1: PSM will be positively related to public employees’ engagement in OCB

Organizational Identification and OCB
Social identity theory posits that members of a society tend to construct part of their self-
concept by identifying with certain social groups in their society (Tajfel, 1974). Organi-
zational identity can be understood as one type of social identity that individuals can de-
velop to define themselves in an organization. Individuals who develop a strong “percep-
tion of oneness with or belongingness to” their focal organization (Ashforth & Mael,
1989, p. 34) are more likely to depend on their organizational identity to define them-
selves. For example, a local government employee who has developed a strong identifica-
tion with his or her organization is more likely to build a positive self-concept as a gov-
ernment worker. Thus, organizational behaviors result partially from individuals’ efforts
to maintain their membership in an organization, and organizational identity that emerges
from their behaviors can be an important source of self-concept.
9
Although the concept of organizational identification was developed from social identity
theory, organizational identification has some definitional similarity with the concept of
organizational commitment as developed by Allen and Meyer and colleagues (Allen &
Meyer, 1990, 1996; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993), whose studies have identified three
forms of organizational commitment—affective commitment, continuance commitment
and normative commitment—based on previous sociological studies. In particular, affec-
tive organizational commitment is similar to organizational identification in that affective
organizational commitment has been defined as an “employee’s emotional attachment to,

identification with, and involvement in, the organization” (Mowday, Steers, & Porter,
1979, p. 226).
Ashforth and Mael (1989) pointed out, however, that organizational identification does
not necessarily presume strong affective attachment to the organization since organiza-
tional identification is more of a cognitive process that enhances individuals’ self-esteem,
rather than an affective attachment to an organization. These conceptual differences are
also reflected in Ashforth and Mael’s organizational identification measure, which they
intentionally designed to not overlap with organizational commitment and so does not
contain statements that measure affective status. However, the distinction between organ-
izational identification and affective commitment is still under debate. For example,
Riketta (2005) conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis and concluded that organiza-
tional identification is highly correlated (r=0.79) but distinct from affective organization-
al commitment, but the conclusion is questionable in that the corrected correlation be-
tween the variables included the value of 1.0 in the 95% confidence interval. In addition,
10
many scholars use organizational commitment and organizational identification inter-
changeably (e.g.,Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Chattopadhyay, 1999; Cremer &
Knippenberg, 2002). The current study uses organizational identification rather than or-
ganizational commitment since this study is interested in public employees’ self-concept
rather than their affective attachment to their focal organizations to explain public em-
ployees’ OCB.
Based on the underlying assumptions of social identity theory, this study examines
whether organizational identification will lead public employees to engage in citizenship
behaviors. Social identity theory implies that employees who identify with their organiza-
tions are more likely to engage in OCBs, since citizenship behaviors can enhance their
self-worth in their organizations. Since individuals view their status as related to the sta-
tus of the groups to which they belong, they engage in cooperative behaviors to enhance
the status of their groups, which ultimately enhances their own self-esteem (Tyler &
Blader, 2000). Empirical studies have shown a positive relationship between organiza-
tional identification and OCB in the context of private sector organizations (Carmeli,
2005; Dick, Grojean, Christ, & Wieseke, 2006; Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002; Jiao
& Hackett, 2007; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Although few studies have examined this rela-
tionship in the context of government organizations, several studies have found a statisti-
cally significant association between organizational commitment and OCB (Kim, 2006;
Pandey et al., 2008). Based on findings from previous studies, it is expected that govern-
ment employees who have a high level of collective identity will see their government
11
agencies’ success as their own personal success, and engage in OCBs to enhance their
agencies’ productivity. Thus, Hypothesis 2 is proposed:
Hypothesis 2: Public employees’ organizational identification will be positively related
to their engagement in OCB
Subjective OCB Norms and OCB
Ehrhart and Naumann (2004) provided a theoretical foundation to explain the relationship
between OCB norms and employees’ OCB. According to these researchers, group norms
are more likely to form when such norms are critical for group survival and performance.
They argued that, since OCB is critical for group performance, the formation of OCB
norms can be critical for an organization’s survival, and employees can be regulated by
OCB norms in their organization. For example, since information about others’ work be-
haviors (e.g., who will help fellow-employees when they are in trouble and how employ-
ees fill the gaps that bureaucratic procedures cannot provide in their formal procedures) is
important information for enhancing their groups’ performance, employees might seek
information about the general OCB norms in their organizations, interpret whether there
are strong informal rules about engaging in OCB or not, and use this information as their
behavioral guideline regarding the importance of cooperating with other workers in their
organizations.
Ehrhart and Nauman (2004) differentiated different types of OCB norms and suggested
four different types of norms: 1) descriptive OCB norms, 2) group-prescribed OCB
norms, 3) subjective OCB norms and 4) personal OCB norms. Descriptive OCB norms
12
are formed by observing other group members’ OCB in one’s work context. According to
Ehrhart and Nauman, descriptive OCB norms will be formed when more group members
consistently engage in OCB.
Group members learn their group’s OCB values by observing their group mem-
bers’ citizenship behaviors; when they find that other group members also expect those
behaviors from them, they recognize that these behaviors reflect a behavioral guideline.
From this perspective, engaging in OCB in their groups is learned behavior. Group-
prescribed OCB norms are stronger OCB guidelines since they develop through norma-
tive pressures, as well as actual rewards and sanctions for engaging or not engaging in
OCB. According to Ehrhart and Nauman, group members engage in OCB in this context
to be a part of their group, and sometimes to avoid sanctions from other group members.
Subjective OCB norms are individuals’ perceptions of whether persons who are im-
portant to them engage in OCB. Finally, personal OCB norms are different from other
OCB norms in that they are not related to external norms but are more like internal con-
victions and behavioral guidelines.
Ehrhart and Naumann’s (2004) OCB norm theory is based on a multi-level perspective,
in that descriptive OCB norms and group-prescribed OCB norms are group-level varia-
bles, while subjective OCB norms and personal OCB norms are individual-level varia-
bles. According to Ehrhart and Nauman, group-level OCB norms will influence individu-
als’ subjective and personal OCB norms and individuals’ OCB norms will also strengthen
or weaken group-level OCB norms as individuals engage in OCB in their groups. Thus,
13
OCB norms serve as important behavioral guidelines as external regulators, and employ-
ees tend to seek the information especially when they do not have clear idea about how to
behave in their organizations. Although all four components of OCB norms have theoret-
ical implications, this study will focus on subjective OCB norms since the study is con-
ducted at the individual level. Although personal OCB norms might conceivably have
important implications, it might also overlap with individual prosocial orientation (PSM),
and so is excluded from this study. Based on this notion, Hypothesis 3 is proposed:
Hypothesis 3: Public employees’ subjective OCB norms will be positively related to

their engagement in OCB
Job Satisfaction, Organizational Justice, Task Interdependence and OCB
The current study also examines traditional OCB antecedents based on a social
exchange theory perspective. Early OCB studies focused on the relationship between job
satisfaction and OCB based on the assumption that satisfied employees would be more
grateful toward their employers and thus show more OCB (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983),
and previous OCB studies conducted in the public sector organizations have also exam-
ined the potential impact of job satisfaction on OCB (Alotaibi, 2001; Kim, 2006; Noblet
et al., 2006; Tang & Ibrahim, 1998; Yeo, Ananthram, Teo, & Pearson, 2013). Although
meta-analyses conducted by Organ and Ryan (1995) and Fassina, Jones, and Uggerslev
(2008) showed a positive relationship between job satisfaction and OCB, and other stud-
ies (Bateman & Organ, 1983; 1994; LePine et al., 2002; Morrison, 1994; Yoon & Suh,
2003) also confirmed job satisfaction as an independent predictor of OCB, the results of
studies conducted in the public sector have not been so consistent. For example, while a
14
positive association between job satisfaction and OCB was found in the studies conduct-
ed by Yeo et al. (2013) and by Tang and Ibrahim (1998), the associations reported in
studies conducted by Alotaibi (2001) and Kim (2006) were nonsignificant.
This study points out that the inconsistent relationship between job satisfaction and OCB
might have occurred because previous studies did not consider different aspects of job
satisfaction. Based on this notion, the current study attempts to review the relationship by
considering two aspects of job satisfaction: 1) intrinsic job satisfaction and 2) extrinsic
job satisfaction. Intrinsic job satisfaction refers to the extent to which employees feel pos-
itively about their job tasks themselves (e.g., satisfaction with feelings of accomplishment
from the job) while extrinsic job satisfaction refers to the extent to which employees feel
positively about the work environment (e.g., satisfaction with pay and supervision)
(Spector, 1997). While several studies have defined job satisfaction as a latent variable
with two indicators—intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction (Schmitt & Bedeian, 1982;
Vandenberg & Scarpello, 1990)—other studies have defined job satisfaction as compris-
ing two components and found discriminant validity between the components (Arvey,
Bouchard, Segal, & Abraham, 1989; Brown, 1996; Hirschfeld, 2000; Moorman, 1993).
By examining two facets of job satisfaction, this study will examine whether different
types of satisfaction will have different relationships with OCB.
Researchers also have recognized organizational justice variables as important
predictors of OCB (Greenberg, 1990; Moorman, Niehoff, & Organ, 1993; Organ, 1990;
Organ & Moorman, 1993; Tyler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996). Since employees tend to
15
judge the possibility of receiving reciprocity and the other parties’ engagement in cooper-
ative behaviors based on their perception of how fairly they are treated (Coyle-Shapiro,
2002; Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003), organizational justice provides an important barome-
ter for employees to decide to subordinate their short-term benefits and engage in OCB
for the betterment of their coworkers or their employing organization in the long run
(Organ & Moorman, 1993). The current study will examine two components of organi-
zational justice—distributive justice and procedural justice. While distributive justice fo-
cuses on an employee’s perception of whether there exists an equal balance across em-
ployees with respect to the ratio of each person’s contribution to the organization to the
compensation each person receives from the organization (Levinthal, 1980), procedural
justice refers to the perceived fairness of organizational processes (Tyler et al., 1996).
Several public sector OCB studies also have recognized organizational justice variables
as important antecedents of OCB (Alotaibi, 2001; Andrews et al., 2009).
Given that OCB potentially involves employees helping each other, task interdependence
is also examined in this study, since job tasks that are interdependent provide organiza-
tional members with a job setting where they are more likely to experience opportunities
to engage in OCB. Grant (2007) suggested that task interdependence, which he referred
to as relational job architecture, can provide employees opportunities to connect to other
employees or to their clients and thus promote employees’ prosocial motivation. As em-
ployees’ jobs have a greater impact on other organizational members or clients, employ-
ees tend to develop a higher level of responsibility and find the importance of their jobs
in relationship to other members’ outcomes, which can increase employees’ prosocial
16
motivation (Kiggundu, 1983; Pearce & Gregersen, 1991). Employees may also develop
prosocial motivation when they have more opportunity to interact with other organiza-
tional members, and thus develop an extended definition of their role as they come to un-
derstand what is expected from others and are concerned about others’ work outcomes
(Anderson & Williams, 1996). Based on this notion, the current study includes intrinsic
job satisfaction, extrinsic job satisfaction, procedural justice, distributive justice and task
interdependence as control variables in examining the associations between the self-
concept related variables (PSM, organizational identification and subjective OCB norms)
and OCB.
METHODS
Sample and Data Collection Procedure
The present study was conducted using a survey of employees from Korean local gov-
ernment organizations who were participants in programs conducted by one of the Kore-
an local government employee training institutes (hereafter KTI). The KTI provides spe-
cialized training and educational programs such as expert training, basic capacity build-
ing and long-term education programs. At the beginning of their programs, the survey
was distributed with the explanation that it would only be used for academic purposes.
Individuals were also told that their participation in the survey was completely voluntary,
that their responses would be anonymous and that those who wanted to participate in the
survey could leave their responses in the designated mail box in KTI any time before the
completion of their program. A total of 610 individuals who participated in a KTI pro-
gram at the time of the data collection were included as the sample of the study. Out of
17
610 surveys distributed, 471 surveys were returned. Of the 471 responses, 19 responses
(4.03%) were dropped1, and 452 responses were identified as usable surveys, resulting in
a total response rate of 74.10%. An overview of the demographic characteristics of re-
spondents is presented in Table 1.
Pretest of Survey Items
Most survey items were adopted from previous studies, and translated into Korean by the
researchers. They were then reviewed and modified by two other Korean social scientists
for use in this study. In the translation process, whenever disagreement existed, the re-
searchers discussed and resolved the differences. After the researchers agreed on the Ko-
rean version of the survey, a pretest was conducted using a web-based survey that was
initially distributed to ten Korean central government employees. After these individuals
answered the survey, they were also asked to distribute the survey to their work col-
leagues. Using this snowball sampling method, the researcher collected 87 additional re-
sponses from employees working in a Korean central government organization. All indi-
viduals participating in the pretest were asked for feedback, and some items were modi-
fied based on this feedback.
Measures
Although the current study focuses on self-concept related variables (PSM, organization-
al identification and subjective OCB norms) as major antecedents of OCB, traditional
OCB antecedents such as job satisfaction, organizational justice, and task interdepend-
ence were also included to compare the relative impact of self-concept related variables
18
compared to traditional OCB antecedents. Most of the items were adopted from previous
studies, and at least three items were used to measure each variable.
For example, OCB was measured by adopting Morman and Blakely’s (1995) interper-
sonal helping items. To measure subjective OCB norms, the existing OCB scales were
modified to focus on other individuals in the participants’ work groups. That is, the OCB
measures were modified to read “Members of my work unit…” instead of “I…”, so that
respondents described behaviors of their coworkers within their work groups. This ap-
proach is in line with Erhart and Naumann’s (2004) theoretical guidelines. Organizational
identification was initially measured using items from Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) study.
Shortened seven items from Perry (1997)’s measures were used, but three items (“I con-
sider public service my civic duty”; “Meaningful public service is very important to me”;
and “I unselfishly contribute to my community”) remained after confirmatory factor
analysis.2.
In this study, two facets of job satisfaction (intrinsic job satisfaction and extrinsic job sat-
isfaction) were initially identified using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ).
The confirmatory factor analysis for satisfaction measures revealed that a two factor
2
model has slightly better model fit [ = 38.07 (df= 13, p<0.01); CFI=0.975; GFI=0.974;
2
RMR=0.022; TLI=0.958; RMSEA=0.070] than a one factor model [ = 65.52 (df= 14,
p<0.01); CFI=0.947; GFI=0.952; RMR=0.027; TLI=0.922; RMSEA=0.097, ∆χ2(1)=
13.45, p<0.00]. However, as the two factors were found to be highly correlated (r=0.93),
a second-order factor score for job satisfaction was generated based on the first-order fac-
19
tor scores (intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction). Two different approaches were adopt-
ed in the data analyses. First, intrinsic job satisfaction and extrinsic job satisfaction were
included in different models in the regression analyses to address the issue of
multicollinearity. Second, the results for second-order job satisfaction were also present-
ed to compare the results. Two components of organizational justice (procedural justice,
distributive justice) were adopted from the scale developed by Parker, Baltes and
Christianen (1997) and Joy and Witt (1992). . Initially eight items were adopted but six
items were retained and two dropped due to cross-loading. Three items each were re-
tained for procedural justice and distributive justice.
The measure of task interdependence was adopted from Pearce and Gregersen’s (1991)
scale. To shorten the length of the survey, several measures were shortened by eliminat-
ing some items. The remaining items used in the analyses are presented in Table 2.
ANALYSES
CFA. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine the factor structure
of the study measures including latent variables of OCB, subjective OCB norms, organi-
zational identification, PSM, job satisfaction, procedural justice, distributive justice and
task interdependence. Several items were dropped because of low factor loadings and/or
highly correlated error terms. In particular, error terms between the items of subjective
OCB norms and OCB were examined closely due to their similarities, and the items with
highly correlated error terms were dropped from further analyses. A nine factor model
2
fits the data well with the remaining items [ = 661.03 (df= 395, p<0.01); CFI=0.95;
20
GFI=0.90; RMR=0.05; TLI=0.94; RMSEA=0.04)]. Factor loading scores of the retained
items were statistically significant, and the result of the CFA is summarized in Table 2.
Common Method Variance Diagnostic and a Single-Common-Method-Factor Ap-
proach
Since the data for employees’ attitudes and their citizenship behaviors in the current
study were collected using a single survey, common method bias could be a concern. To
reduce this threat, several different approaches were adopted. First, the researchers devel-
oped the survey so that the criterion variable (OCB) and predictor variables (e.g., intrinsic
job satisfaction, extrinsic job satisfaction, perceived organizational justice, organizational
identification, and subjective OCB norms) were on separate pages with separate instruc-
tions. This methodological approach is expected to reduce the impact of general affective
status by eliminating the use of recalled information and common retrieval cues
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). However, the current study also used
the single-common-method-factor approach suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003). In oth-
er words, the researchers included a common latent factor by including a first-order
common variance factor with all of the measures. In this approach, a specific source of
common method bias is not required to be identified, and the paths from the retained
common method factor to the measurements are not restricted to be equal. The factor
scores were imputed and used in the multiple regression analyses. The results of regres-
sion analyses with and without the common variance factor were compared to check for
consistency with respect to the impacts of the self-concept related variables on OCB.
21
RESULTS
Table 3 presents the correlations among variables as well as descriptive statistics
for each variable. The correlation coefficients between independent and dependent vari-
ables ranged from 0.31 to 0.73, and the directions of correlation between the OCB and
the independent variables were in line with general expectations. For example, second-
order job satisfaction, procedural justice, PSM, organizational identification and subjec-
tive OCB norms were all found to be positively correlated with the OCB.
Table 4 provides the results of the multiple regression analyses3. Although the
hypothesis tests are examined based on the model that partials out single common meth-
od variance (Model 6, Model 7 and Model 8), the other models (Model 1, Model 2, Mod-
el 3, Model 4 and Model 5) are presented in the Table 4 for the purpose of comparison.
The associations between variables based on social exchange theory (intrinsic satisfac-
tion, extrinsic job satisfaction, procedural justice, distributive justice and task interde-
pendence) and OCB are presented in Model 1 and Model 3, while the self-concept related
variables (PSM, organizational identification, and subjective OCB norms) are seen in the
other models (Model 2, Model 4, Model 5, Model 6, Model 7, Model 8). The effects of
common method variance were examined by comparing the models with the same varia-
ble specifications (Model 2 and Model 6; Model 4 and Model 7; Model 5 and Model 8).
In the comparison, the multiple coefficients of determination (R2) were consistently
found to be reduced moderately. That is, in the comparison of Model 2 with Model 5, R2
was reduced by 7.6% (from 0.654 to 0.578); in the comparison of Model 4 with Model 6,
22
R2 was reduced by 8.5% (from 0.653 to 0.568); in the comparison of Model 5 with Model
7, R2 was reduced by 5.9% (from 0.643 to 0.584).
In line with previous OCB studies, most traditional antecedents were found to be
statistically significant in Model 1 and Model 3. For example, statistically significant
positive associations were found both for intrinsic job satisfaction (Model 1: β= 0.165,
p<0.01; Model 6: β= 0.134, p<0.01) and extrinsic job satisfaction (Model 3: β= 0.166,
p<0.01); procedural justice (Model 1: β= 0.497, p<0.01; Model 3: β= 0.498, p<0.01); and
task interdependence (Model 1: β= 0.180, p<0.01; Model 3: β= 0.186, p<0.01). Even af-
ter self-concept related variables were inserted, procedural justice and task interdepend-
ence were found to have consistent positive associations4 with OCB although the stand-
ardized coefficients were significantly reduced. However, inconsistent associations re-
sulted from the different job satisfaction measures. The positive impact of second-order
job satisfaction was not found in Model 8 (β= 0.002, n.s.), and the impact of extrinsic job
satisfaction disappeared in Model 7 (β= 0.019, n.s). Marginal but unexpected negative
associations were also found in Model 2 (β= -0.104, p<0.05) and Model 4 (β= -0.090,
p<0.05) when common method variance was not controlled5.
Although the negative associations were reported between distributive justice and
OCB (Model 1: β = - 0.093, p< 0.1; Model 2: β= - 0.072, p<0.1; Model 3: β= -0.074, n.s;
Model 4: β = -0.087, p<0.05; Model 5: β = -0.073, p<0.1 ), it should be noted that the as-
sociations were marginal and unstable in that most p-values were above 0.05, and stand-
ardized regression coefficients were close to zero. After adding the common method fac-
23
tor, those associations became insignificant. (Model 6: β= 0.043, n.s.; Model 7:β= -
0.001, n.s; Model 8:β= -0.033, n.s).
Turning to the three major hypotheses of this study, PSM, organizational identifi-
cation and subjective OCB norms were all found to have statistically significant relation-
ships with OCB. All relationships among the three self-concept related variables and
OCB were also found to be robust to impacts of common method variance. Hypothesis 1
posited that PSM would be positively associated with employees’ engagement in OCB.
This hypothesis was supported, since statistically significant associations were found
consistently (Model 6: β= 0.253, p<0.01; Model 7: β= 0.273, p<0.01; Model 8: β= 0.258,
p<0.01). Hypothesis 2 posited that organizational identification would be positively asso-
ciated with employees’ engagement in OCB. This hypothesis was also fully supported,
and statistically significant associations were found in Model 6 (β= 0.183, p<0.01), Mod-
el 7 (β= 0.183, p<0.01) and Model 8 (β= 0.183, p<0.01). Hypothesis 3 posited that sub-
jective OCB norms would be positively related to employees’ OCB. This hypothesis was
also supported since significant positive relationships were found in Model 6 (β= 0.462,
p<0.01), Model 7 (β= 0.427, p<0.01) and Model 8 (β= 0.420, p<0.01). It should also be
noted that insertion of the self-concept related variables into the models improved R2 sig-
nificantly (ΔR 2 from Model 1 to Model 2 was 25.4%; ΔR 2 from Model 3 to Model 4
was 24.9%).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
24
This study tested several hypotheses to examine the antecedents of OCB and, after con-
trolling for common method variance, it found consistent significant relationships be-
tween the self-concept related variables (PSM, subjective OCB norms and organizational
identification) and OCB. On the other hand, the effects of traditional OCB antecedents
were found to be mixed. Intrinsic job satisfaction, extrinsic job satisfaction and distribu-
tive justice were found to have inconsistent associations with OCB, while procedural jus-
tice and task interdependence were found to have consistent significant associations with
OCB. In the remainder of this section, we will discuss our study’s implications for theory,
research, and practice as well as the study’s limitations, and present suggestions for fu-
ture research.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY, RESEARCH, AND PRACTICE
The current study makes several important contributions to our understanding of
OCB antecedents in the context of government organizations. Although the importance of
OCB has been recognized by several public management scholars, the antecedents of
OCB have not yet been fully examined. Although several studies have adopted a social
exchange perspective and examined the influence of such variables as job satisfaction,
justice perception and perceived supervisory support as important predictors (e.g.,
Alotaibi, 2001; Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2002; Coyle-Shapiro, Morrow, & Kessler,
2006), the impacts of those variables have been moderate at best. Alternatively, public
service motivation scholars have argued that public employees have distinct motivational
bases that could lead public employees to engage in citizenship behaviors (Crewson,
1997; Houston, 2000; Kim, 2005; Pandey et al., 2008), but previous studies have not
25
compared different sets of variables originating from different theoretical foundations.
Using self-concept theory as an overarching theoretical framework, the current study
suggests that the motivational bases for government employees to be engaged in
prosocial behavior might be different from those of private sector employees.
The current study also contributes to the contemporary PSM literature. Recent
PSM studies have linked PSM with various attitudinal and behavioral variables such as
organizational commitment (Crewson, 1997; Leisink & Steijn, 2009; Taylor, 2007), job
satisfaction (Steijn, 2008; Taylor, 2007), job performance (Bellé, 2013; Leisink & Steijn,
2009; Vandenabeele, 2009), and job choice decisions (Christensen & Wright, 2011). The
current study added the linkage between PSM and OCB, which, ultimately, can enhance
organizational productivity. While it is important to acknowledge that the relationship
between PSM and OCB has been examined in previous studies (Kim, 2006; Pandey et al.,
2008), it should also be noted that there remained the methodological question of whether
self-reported measures from same respondent could inflate the association. The current
study, however, controlled common method variance statistically, following Podsakoff et
al.’s (2003) suggestion. To our knowledge, the current study is the first study that at-
tempted to control the common method variance statistically in examining the anteced-
ents of OCB in the context of government organizations.
The current study also has implications for the organizational justice literature. Tradition-
al management studies have found that employees tend to judge the possibility of receiv-
ing reciprocity and the likelihood that other parties will engage in cooperative behaviors
26
based on their perception of how fairly they have been treated (Greenberg, 1990;
Moorman et al., 1993; Organ, 1990; Organ & Moorman, 1993; Tyler et al., 1996), and
several public management studies have similarly examined the association between or-
ganizational justice and OCB (Alotaibi, 2001; Andrews et al., 2009), However, the ques-
tion remained whether one dimension of organizational justice has a stronger relationship
with OCB than the others. Several researchers (Greenberg, 1993; Organ & Moorman,
1993) have, in fact, suggested that it might be harder for employees to make judgments
about engaging in OCB based on distributive justice, which focuses more on the specific
allocations of benefits, since employees might not be cognitively capable of evaluating
distributive justice by making complex comparisons of their input/output ratios with oth-
ers. Thus, it would be expected that OCB would be more heavily influenced by procedur-
al justice, which is more directly related to their overall evaluation of organizational poli-
cies, than by distributive justice. The results of the current study support those research-
ers’ arguments. Since public employees value having an opportunity to develop a long-
term career path within an organization over short-term monetary exchanges with little
likelihood of a long-term commitment (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2002; Coyle-Shapiro &
Kessler, 2003), public employees might show more OCBs when they perceive that they
can trust that their organizations are operating in a fair manner.
From a managerial perspective, one dilemma associated with trying to develop OCB in a
workplace is that managers generally are not in a position to require employees to engage
in OCBs, since OCBs are understood to be employees’ discretionary behaviors. However,
the findings from this study suggest that public managers can enhance employees’ OCBs
27
in their organizations by developing group norms or providing appropriate work envi-
ronments that encourage such behaviors. In addition, the current study suggests that task
structure (task interdependence) matters in developing employees’ decisions to engage in
OCB. By developing more interdependent or relational job designs, managers can pro-
vide more chances for employees to be engaged in OCBs.
The current study also suggests that public managers need to find ways to provide em-
ployees with more chances to identify with their organizations. Since employees’ value
inculcation is important in forming employees’ organizational identification, public man-
agers need to pay attention to employees’ socialization in order to ensure that their em-
ployees find meanings in their jobs and accept public organizational values.
LIMITATIONS, FUTURE RESEARCH AND CONCLUSION
The current study, of course, has some limitations that need to be taken into con-
sideration when examining the findings and also should be addressed in future studies.
First, there are limitations associated with the job satisfaction measure used in the current
study. Although the current study followed previous public sector studies (Alotaibi, 2001;
Kim, 2006; Noblet et al., 2006; Tang & Ibrahim, 1998, Odom et al., 1990) that measured
job satisfaction based on various aspects of job (i.e., intrinsic job satisfaction and extrin-
sic job satisfaction), the limited items adopted in the current study might only capture a
limited aspect of job satisfaction. For example, Arvey et al. (1989) found that approxi-
mately 30 percent of the variance in job satisfaction would be explained by a general
component of job satisfaction factor when they considered intrinsic job satisfaction, ex-
28
trinsic job satisfaction and general job satisfaction components. Because the current study
only adopted components of intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction, and not a general job
satisfaction component, the current study is limited in its ability to fully control for the
relationship between self-concept related variables and OCB. Future studies need to reex-
amine the findings of the current study by using general job satisfaction measures.
In addition, although the current study controlled common method bias using a
common latent factor, this particular approach still has a limitation in that it not only par-
tials out variance due to the common method but also variance that might exist due to the
expected theoretical relationships between the measures. Although the similar results
were found between the models with and without partialing out a common method factor,
an alternative approach that future studies could adopt would be to collect data on the an-
tecedents of OCB and employees’ OCBs from different sources (e.g., satisfaction of job
and work experience from employees and the OCB evaluation from supervisors or
coworkers). While this approach might reduce concerns regarding common method bias,
it was not used in the current study because doing so would have precluded the research-
ers from guaranteeing anonymity, which was necessary to avoid respondents believing
that they needed to answer in a socially desirable manner. Future studies might need to
address this issue by adopting different methodological approaches.
Third, since the data were collected cross-sectionally, the possibility of longitudinal de-
velopment of OCB or reverse causality could not be ruled out in the current study. For
example, positive experiences that result from engaging in OCBs might enhance employ-
29
ees’ PSM, which can then lead employees to develop more persistent OCBs. Such a de-
velopmental aspect of OCBs could not be tested in this study, but would be an interesting
avenue to pursue in future studies.
Finally, it should be noted that the data for the current study were collected in one
educational institute focusing on public employees at one level of government in a single
country While this type of non-probability sample is acceptable for a single study, future
studies should examine whether consistent findings are reported for employees at other
levels of government and in other countries’ settings. In particular, since the study only
includes government employees who have been chosen to attend a training institute, the
results might be biased toward employees who have higher organizational identification
and are especially predisposed to performing OCBs if supervisors specifically chose in-
dividuals with these characteristics to attend these training sessions. In addition, the
strong association between subjective OCB norms and OCB might result from aspects of
Korean culture, which has been characterized as highly collectivistic (Hofstede, 1980).
Accordingly, it is important to examine whether such norms exist in other research set-
tings and, if so, how strongly they influence public employees to engage in OCBs.
Future research should also examine issues related to OCB that emerged from the
implications of the current study. First, given that OCB norms appear to be important in
encouraging employees’ OCBs, future studies should investigate how OCB norms could
be developed in a government work unit. Although Ehrhart and Naumann (2004) provid-
ed a theoretical framework for OCB norms, only a few studies have investigated the de-
30
velopment of OCB at the work unit level (Ehrhart, 2004; Odom et al., 1990; Richardson
& Vandenberg, 2005) For example, the roles of leadership, work climate and work de-
sign need to be investigated in the context of government organizations. In addition, fu-
ture studies need to investigate the possibility of a more sophisticated relationship be-
tween job satisfaction and OCB. Although the association between job satisfaction and
OCB was not consistent in the current study, job satisfaction still might play a pivotal
role in conjunction with other variables. The consistent significant association between
PSM and job satisfaction in the current study might support the possibility of more so-
phisticated association between the variables. Shim and Rohrbaugh (2014)) have also
suggested that employees’ job satisfaction could be shared in their work groups (i.e., not
an individual-level attitude) and the shared job satisfaction could be an important factor
in forming group level OCBs (OCB norms).
Finally, while the current study focused on examining the independent influence
of self-concept concept-related variables, a future study might be also interested in inter-
action effects of the those variables. Previous intrinsic motivation studies (Deci, et al.,
1999; Deci & Ryan, 1980, 1985, 2000) asserted that individuals’ intrinsic motivation is
the strongest and most consistent motivational factor in determining individuals’ behav-
iors. If PSM is an individual’s intrinsic motivation to work and contribute to the public
sector, the individual’s OCB based on PSM will persist and not diminish easily. On the
other hand, individuals with a high level of organizational identification are closer on the
continuum to integrated or identified regulation in that individuals with a high level of
organizational identification tend to internalize organizational rules and values. Previous
31
intrinsic motivation studies have found that intrinsic motivation will be the most im-
portant behavioral guideline and integrated or identified motivation will be a secondary
behavioral guideline when individuals lack intrinsic motivation. In other words, when
government employees do not have a high level of intrinsic motivation (i.e., high level of
PSM), their organizational identification toward government organizations will serve as a
behavioral guideline. In the same vein, subjective OCB norms could be understood as
external regulation in that subjective OCB norms are simply the recognition of others’
behavioral patterns. Thus, their perceptions of organizational norms will play a role as an
external regulator to guide their OCB in the organization when public employees have
not developed a PSM and organizational identification. Thus, OCB norm-seeking behav-
iors might be more visible among low PSM groups than high PSM groups. In the same
vein, employees with a high level of organizational identification might be less influ-
enced by OCB norms. The current study conducted a preliminary investigation about the
potential interaction effects, but did not find any consistent significant result in the given
data. However, future studies might be able to investigate these possibilities by examin-
ing various interaction effects of self-concept-related variables on OCB.
It is clear that roles of public administrators are evolving as government organiza-
tions go through various waves of reforms. During these periods of reform, as elected and
appointed officials, as well as public administrators themselves, attempt to find new pub-
lic service delivery models, contemporary governmental organizations have increasingly
started to recognize government employees’ OCB—usually termed as employees’ initia-
tives, cooperation, collaboration, and responsiveness—as important contributors to gov-
32
ernment effectiveness. Given this trend, this study is timely and adds to our understand-
ing of an important issue in public management—how government employees develop
their understanding of the value of OCB in their workplaces.
REFERENCES
Allen, N. J., and Meyer, J. P. 1990. "The Measurement and Antecedents of Affective,
Continuance and Normative Commitment to the Organization." Journal of Occupational
Psychology 63(1): 1-18.

Allen, N. J., and Meyer, J. P. 1996. "Affective, Continuance, and Normative
Commitment to the Organization: An Examination of Construct Validity." Journal of
Vocational Behavior 49(3): 252-276.
Alonso, P., and Lewis, G. B. 2001. "Public Service Motivation and Job Performance."
The American Review of Public Administration 31(4): 363-380.
Alotaibi, A. G. 2001. "Antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Study of
Public Personnel in Kuwait." Public Personnel Management 30(3): 363-376.
Anderson, S. E., & Williams, L. J. 1996. "Interpersonal, Job, and Individual Factors
Related to Helping Processes at Work." Journal of Applied Psychology 81(3): 282-296.
Andrews, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., and Harris, K. J. 2009. "Got Political Skill? The Impact
of Justice on the Importance of Political Skill for Job Performance." Journal of Applied
Psychology 94(6): 1427-1437.
Ansbacher, H. L. 1991. "The Concept of Social Interest." Individual Psychology: The
Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research & Practice 47(1): 28-46.
33
Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J. J., Segal, N. L., and Abraham, L. M. 1989. "Job
Satisfaction: Environmental and Genetic Components." Journal of Applied Psychology
74(2): 187–192.
Ashforth, B. E., and Mael, F. 1989. "Social Identity Theory and the Organization."
Academy of Management Review 14(1): 20-39.
Bass, M. L., Curlette, W. L., Kern, R. M., and McWilliams Jr, A. E. 2002. "Social
Interest: A Meta-analysis of a Multidimensional Construct." Journal of Individual
Psychology 58(1): 4-34.

Bateman, T. S., and Organ, D. W. 1983. "Job Satisfaction and the Good Soldier. The
Relationship between Affect and Employee Citizenship." Academy of Management
Journal 26(4): 587-595.
Bellé, N. 2013. "Experimental Evidence on the Relationship between Public Service
Motivation and Job Performance." Public Administration Review 73(1): 143-153.
Bergami, M., and Bagozzi, R. P. 2000. "Self-categorization, Affective commitment, and
Group Self-esteem as Distinct Aspects of Social Identity in the Organization." British
Journal of Social Psychology 39(4): 555-577.
Brown, S. P. 1996. "A Meta-analysis and Review of Organizational Research on Job
Involvement." Psychological Bulletin 120(2): 235-255.
Carmeli, A. 2005. "Perceived External Prestige, Affective Commitment, and Citizenship
Behaviors." Organization Studies 26(3): 443-464.
Chattopadhyay, P. 1999. "Beyond Direct and Symmetrical Effects: The Influence of
Demographic Dissimilarity on Organizational Citizenship Behavior." Academy of
Management Journal 42(3): 273-287.
34
Chen, C.-A., Hsieh, C.-W., and Chen, D.-Y. 2013. "Fostering Public Service Motivation
through Workplace Trust: Evidence from Public Managers in Taiwan." Public
Administration, published online: DOI: 10.1111/padm.12042.
Christensen, R. K., and Wright, B. E. 2011. "The Effects of Public Service Motivation on
Job Choice Decisions: Disentangling the Contributions of Person-Organization Fit and
Person-Job Fit." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(4): 723-743.
Coursey, D., Yang, K., & Pandey, S. K. 2012. "Public Service Motivation (PSM) and
Support for Citizen Participation: A Test of Perry and Vandenabeele’s Reformulation of

PSM Theory." Public Administration Review 72(4): 572-582.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. 2002. "A Psychological Contract Perspective on Organizational
Citizenship Behavior." Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(8): 927-946.
Coyle-Shapiro, J., and Kessler, I. 2002. "Contingent and Non-contingent Working in
Local Government: Contrasting Psychological Contracts." Public Administration 80(1):
77-101.
Coyle-Shapiro, J., and Kessler, I. 2003. "The Employment Relationship in the U.K.
Public Sector: A Psychological Contract Perspective." Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 13(2): 213-230.
Coyle-Shapiro, J., Morrow, P. C., and Kessler, I. 2006. "Serving Two Organizations:
Exploring the Employment Relationship of Contracted Employees." Human Resource
Management 45(4): 561-583.
Crandall, J. E. 1981. Theory and Measurement of Social Interest :Empirical Tests of
Alfred Adler's Concept. New York: Columbia University Press.
Cremer, D. D., and Knippenberg, D. V. 2002. "How Do Leaders Promote Cooperation?
35
The Effect of Charisma and Procedural Fairness." Journal of Applied Psychology 87(5):
858-866.
Crewson, P. E. 1997. "Public Service Motivation: Building Empirical Evidence of
Incidence and Effect." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7(4): 499-
518
Curlett, W. L., and Kern, R. M. 2002. "Measuring Gemeinschaftsgefohl." Journal of
Individual Psychology 58(1): Editor's Notes 1-3.
Dalal, R. S. 2005. "A Meta-analysis of the Relationship between Organizational

Citizenship Behavior and Counterproductive Work Behavior." Journal of Applied
Psychology 90(6): 1241-1255.
Davis, R. S., and Stazyk, E. C. 2013. "Making Ends Meet: How Reiventing Reforms
Complement Public Service Motivation." Public Administration, published online. DOI:
10.1111/j.1467-9299.2012.02112.x
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., and Ryan, R. M. 1999. "A Meta-analytic Review of
Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation."
Psychological Bulletin 125(6): 627-668.
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. 1980. "The Empirical Exploration of Intrinsic Motivational
Process." Pp. 39-80 in L. Berkowitz, ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
Vol. 13. New York: Academic Press.
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in
Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., and 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.
36
Dick, R. v., Grojean, M. W., Christ, O., and Wieseke, J. 2006. "Identity and the Extra
Mile: Relationships between Organizational Identification and Organizational Citizenship
Behavior." British Journal of Management 17(4): 283-301.
Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., and Shortell, S. M. 2002. "Beauty is in the Eye of the
Beholder: The Impact of Organizational Identification, Identity, and Image on the
Cooperative Behaviors of Physicians." Administrative Science Quarterly 47(3): 507-533.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., and Harquail, C. V. 1994. "Organizational Images and
Member Identification." Administrative Science Quarterly 39(2): 239-263.

Dyne, L. V., Graham, J. W., and Dienesch, R. M. 1994. "Organizational Citizenship
Behavior: Construct Redefinition, Measurement, and Validation." Academy of
Management Journal 37(4): 765-802.
Ehrhart, M. G. 2004. "Leadership and Procedural Justice Climate as Antecedents of Unit-
level Organizational Citizenship Behavior." Personnel Psychology 57(1): 61-94.
Ehrhart, M. G., and Naumann, S. E. 2004. "Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Work
Groups: A Group Norms Approach." Journal of Applied Psychology 89(6): 960-974.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., and Sowa, D. 1986. "Perceived
Organizational Support." Journal of Applied Psychology 71(3): 500-507.
Fassina, N. E., Jones, D. A., and Uggerslev, K. L. 2008. "Relationship Clean-up Time:
Using Meta-analysis and Path Analysis to Clarify Relationships among Job Satisfaction,
Perceived Fairness, and Citizenship Behaviors." Journal of Management 34(2): 161-188.
Finkelstein, M. A., and Penner, L. A. 2004. "Predicting Organizational Citizenship
Behavior: Integrating the Functional and Role Identity Approaches." Social Behavior and
Personality 32(4): 383-398.
37
Gould-Williams, J. S., Mostafa, A. M. S., and Bottomley, P. 2013. "Public Service
Motivation and Employee Outcomes in the Egyptian Public Sector: Testing the
Mediating Effect of Person-Organization Fit." Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, published online: doi: 10.1093/jopart/mut053.
Grant, A. M. 2007. "Relational Job Design and the Motivation to Make a Prosocial
Difference." Academy of Management Review 32(2): 393-417.
Greenberg, J. 1990. "Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow." Journal
of Management 16(2): 399-432.

Greenberg, J. 1993. "Justice and Organizational Citizenship: A Commentary on the State
of the Science." Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 6(3): 249-256.
Hassan, S., and Rohrbaugh, J. 2012. "Variability in the Organizational Climate of
Government Offices and Affective Organizational Commitment." Public Management
Review 14(5): 563-584.
Hirschfeld, R. R. 2000. "Does Revising the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Subscales of the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form Make a Difference?" Educational and
Psychological Measurement 60(2): 255-270.
Hofstede, G. 1980. "Motivation, Leadership, and Organization: Do American Theories
Apply Abroad?" Organizational Dynamics 9(1): 42-63.
Houston, D. J. 2000. "Public Service Motivation: A Multivariate Test." Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 10(4): 713-728.
Houston, D. J. 2006. "Walking the Walk" of Public Service Motivation: Public
Employees and Charitable Gifts of Time, Blood, and Money." Journal of Public
38
Jiao, C., and Hackett, R. D. 2007. "The Effect of LMX on Employee Conceptualization
and Display of OCB." Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings,
Philadelphia.
Joy, V. L., and Witt, L. A. 1992. "Delay of Gratification as a Moderator of the Procedural
Justice Distributive Justice Relationship." Group Organization Management 17(3): 297-
308.
Kandan, P., and Ali, I. B. 2010. "A Correlation Study of Leader-member Exchange and
Organizational Citizenship Behavior in a Public Sector Organization." Journal of Global

Business and Economics 1(1): 62-78.
Katz, D. 1964. "The Motivational Basis of Organizational Behavior." Behavioral Science
9(2): 131-146.
Kiggundu, M. N. 1983. "Task Interdependence and Job Design: Test of a Theory."
Organizational behavior and Human Performance 31(2): 145-172.
Kim, S. 2005. "Individual-level Factors and Organizational Performance in Government
Organizations." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15(2): 245-261.
Kim, S. 2006. "Public Service Motivation and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in
Korea." International Journal of Manpower 27(8): 722-740.
Leak, G. K., and Leak, K. C. 2006. "Adlerian Social Interest and Positive Psychology: A
Conceptual and Empirical Integration." Journal of Individual Psychology 62(3): 207-223.
Lee, S. H., and Olshfski, D. 2002. "Employee Commitment and Firefighters: It's My
Job." Public Administration Review 62(1): 108-114.
39
Leisink, P., and Steijn, B. 2009. "Public Service Motivation and Job Performance of
Public Sector Employees in the Netherlands." International Review of Administrative
Sciences 75(1): 35-52.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., and Johnson, D. E. 2002. "The Nature and Dimensionality of
Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Critical Review and Meta-analysis." Journal of
Applied Psychology 87(1): 52-65.
Levinthal, G. S. 1980. "What Should be Done with Equity Theory? New Approaches to
the Study of Fairness in Social Relationships." Pp. 91-131 in L. Berkowitz and W.

Walster, ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology ,Vol. 9. New York: Academic
Press.
Mael, F., and Ashforth, B. E. 1992. "Alumni and Their Alma Mater: A Partial Test of the
Reformulated Model of Organizational Identification." Journal of Organizational
Behavior 13(2): 103-123.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., and Smith, C. A. 1993. "Commitment to Organizations and
Occupations: Extension and Test of a Three-component Conceptualization." Journal of
Applied Psychology 78(4): 538-551.
Moorman, R. H. 1993. "The Influence of Cognitive and Affective Based Job Satisfaction
Measures on the Relationship between Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship
Behavior." Human Relations 46(6): 759-776.
Moorman, R. H., and Blakely, G. L. 1995. "Individualism-collectivism as an Individual
Difference Predictor of Organizational Citizenship Behavior." Journal of Organizational
Behavior 16(2): 127-142.
40
Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., and Organ, D. W. 1993. "Treating Employees Fairly and
Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Sorting the Effects of Job Satisfaction,
Organizational Commitment, and Procedural Justice." Employee Responsibilities &
Rights Journal 6(3): 209-225.
Morrison, E. W. 1994. "Role Definitions and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The
Importance of the Employee's Perspective." Academy of Management Journal 37(6):
1543-1567.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., and Porter, L. W. 1979. "The Measurement of

Organizational Commitment." Journal of Vocational Behavior 14(2): 224-247.
Moynihan, D. P., and Pandey, S. K. 2007. "The Role of Organizations in Fostering Public
Service Motivation." Public Administration Review 67(1): 40-53.
Nielsen, T. M., Hrivnak, G. A., and Shaw, M. 2009. "Organizational Citizenship
Behavior and Performance: A Meta-analysis of Group-level Research." Small Group
Research 40(5): 555-577.
Noblet, A., McWilliams, J., Teo, S. T. T., and Rodwell, J. 2006. "Work Characteristics
and Employee Outcomes in Local Government." International Journal of Human
Resource Management 17(10): 1804-1818.
Odom, R. Y., Boxx, W. R., and Dunn, M. G. 1990. "Organizational Cultures,
Commitment, Satisfaction, and Cohesion." Public Productivity & Management Review
14(2): 157-169.
Organ, D. W. 1990. "The Motivational Basis of Organizational Citizenship Behavior."
Pp. 43-72 in L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw eds., The Motivational Basis of
Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Vol. 12. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
41
Organ, D. W. 1997. "Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It's Construct Clean-up
Time." Human Performance 10(2): 85-97.
Organ, D. W., and Lingl, A. 1995. "Personality, Satisfaction, and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior." Journal of Social Psychology 135(3): 339-350.
Organ, D. W., and Moorman, R. H. 1993. "Fairness and Organizational Citizenship
Behavior: What are the Connections?" Social Justice Research 6(1): 5-18.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., and MacKenzie, S. B. 2006. Organizational Citizenship
Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications, Inc.
Organ, D. W., and Ryan, K. 1995. "A Meta-analytic Review of Attitudinal and
Dispositional Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior." Personnel Psychology
48(4): 775-802.
Pandey, S. K., Wright, B. E., and Moynihan, D. P. 2008. "Public Service Motivation and
Interpersonal Citizenship Behavior in Public Organizations: Testing a Preliminary
Model." International Public Management Journal 11(1): 89-108.
Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., and Christiansen, N. D. 1997. "Support for Affirmative
Action, Justice Perceptions, and Work Attitudes: A Study of Gender and Racial–ethnic
Group Differences." Journal of Applied Psychology 82(3): 376-389.
Pearce, J. L., and Gregersen, H. B. 1991. "Task Interdependence and Extrarole Behavior:
A Test of the Mediating Effects of Felt Responsibility." Journal of Applied Psychology
76(6): 838-844.
Penner, L. A. 2002. "Dispositional and Organizational Influences on Sustained
Volunteerism: An Interactionist Perspective." Journal of Social Issues 58(3): 447-467.
42
Perry, J. L. 1996. "Measuring Public Service Motivation: An Assessment of Construct
Reliability and Validity." Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 6(1): 5-
22.
Perry, J. L. 1997. "Antecedents of Public Service Motivation." Journal of Public
Perry, J. L. 2000. "Bringing Society In: Toward a Theory of Public Service Motivation."
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(2): 471-488.
Perry, J. L., and Wise, L. R. 1990. "The Motivational Bases of Public Service." Public
Administration Review 50(3): 367-373.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., and 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., Paine, J. B., and 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(3): 513-563.
Rayner, J., Lawton, A., and Williams, H. 2012. "Organizational Citizenship Behavior and
the Public Service Ethos: Whither the Organization?" Journal of Business Ethics 106(2):
117-130.
Rhoades, L., and Eisenberger, R. 2002. "Perceived Organizational Support: A Review of
the Literature." Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4): 698-714.
43
Richardson, H. A., and Vandenberg, R. J. 2005. "Integrating Managerial Perceptions and
Transformational Leadership into a Work-unit Level Model of Employee Involvement."
Journal of Organizational Behavior 26(5): 561-589.
Riketta, M. 2005. "Organizational Identification: A Meta-analysis." Journal of
Vocational Behavior 66 (2): 358-384.
Rioux, S. M., and Penner, L. A. 2001. "The Causes of Organizational Citizenship
Behavior: A Motivational Analysis." Journal of Applied Psychology 86(6): 1306-1314.
Schmitt, N., and Bedeian, A. G. 1982. "A Comparison of LISREL and Two-stage Least
Squares Analysis of a Hypothesized Life-job Satisfaction Reciprocal Relationship."
Journal of Applied Psychology 67(6): 806-817.
Shim, D.C. and Rohrbaugh, J. 2014. "An Explanation of Differences between Govern-
ment Offices in Employees’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior." Public Management
Review 16(6): 807-829.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., and Near, J. P. 1983. "Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
Its Nature and Antecedents." Journal of Applied Psychology 68(4): 653-663.
Spector, P. E. 1997. Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and
Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Steijn, B. 2008. "Person-Environment Fit and Public Service Motivation." International
Public Management Journal 11(1): 13-27.
Shim, D. C. and Rohrbaugh, J. 2014. "An Explanation of Differences between
Government Offices in Employees’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior." Public
Management Review 16(6): 807-829.
44
Tajfel, H. 1974. "Social Identity and Intergroup Behaviour." Social Science Information
13(2): 65-93.
Tang, T. L., and Ibrahim, A. H. 1998. "Antecedents of Organizational Citizenship
Behavior Revisited: Public Personnel in the United States and the Middle East." Public
Personnel Management 27(4): 529-529.
Taylor, J. 2007. "The Impact of Public Service Motives on Work Outcomes in Australia:
A Comparative Multi-dimensional Analysis." Public Administration 85(4): 931-959.
Tyler, T. R., and Blader, S. L. 2000. Cooperation in Group: Procedural Justice, Social
Identity, and Behavioral Engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Tyler, T. R., and Blader, S. L. 2003. "The Group Engagement Model: Procedural Justice,
Social Identity, and Cooperative Behavior." Personality and Social Psychology Review
7(4): 349-361.
Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P., and Smith, H. 1996. "Understanding Why the Justice of Group
Procedures Matters: A Test of the Psychological Dynamics of the Group-value Model."
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70(5): 913-930.
Vandenabeele, W. 2009. "The Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction and Organizational
Commitment on Self-reported Performance: More Robust Evidence of the PSM—
Performance Relationship." International Review of Administrative Sciences 75(1): 11-
34.
Vandenberg, R. J., and Scarpello, V. 1990. "The Matching Model: An Examination of the
Processes Underlying Realistic Job Previews." Journal of Applied Psychology 75(1): 60-
67.
45
Vigoda, E., and Golembiewski, R. T. 2001. "Citizenship Behavior and the Spirit of New
Managerialism. "The American Review of Public Administration 31(3): 273-295.
Whitman, D. S., Van Rooy, D. L., and Viswesvaran, C. 2010. "Satisfaction, Citizenship
Behavior, and Performance in Work Units: A Meta-analysis of Collective Construct
Relations." Personnel Psychology 63(1): 41-81.
Yeo, M., Ananthram, S., Teo, S. T. T., and Pearson, C. A. 2013. "Leader–Member
Exchange and Relational Quality in a Singapore Public Sector Organization." Public
Management Review 1-24.

Yoon, M. H., and Suh, J. 2003. "Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Service
Quality as External Effectiveness of Contact Employees." Journal of Business Research
56(8): 597-611.
46
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents (n=452)
Frequency Percent (%)
SEX
Male 371 82.08
Female 81 17.92
EDUCATION
High school diploma 89 19.69
Associate degree, some college, or technical 301 66.59

school, B.S.W., B.A., B.S., or other college de-
gree
Master’s degree and some graduate study beyond 54 11.95
college degree
Doctoral degree or beyond Master’s degree 8 1.77
POSITION
Manager 173 38.27
Non-manager 279 61.73
RANK
4th 3 0.66
5th 116 25.66
6th 272 60.18
7th 33 7.3
8th 5 1.11
9th 4 0.88
47
Missing 19 4.2
Mean Standard De-
viation
TENURE
Years in Current Organization 10.04 11.04
Years in the Public Sector Job 26.21 6.77
AGE
Years in 2011 49.81 5.18

48
Table 2. Measurement properties of variables
Construct Items ML Es- Standard T-value
timates Error
OCB I go out of my way to help new 1.000
employees
I assist my supervisor with 0.903 0.049 18.468***
his/her work when not asked
I help others who have heavy 0.795 0.048 16.502***

work loads
Subjective OCB Members of my work unit go out 1.000
Norm of their way to help new em-
ployees
Members of my work unit help 0.929 0.040 22.963***
others who have heavy work
loads
Members of my work unit assist 0.850 0.039 22.071***
their supervisor with his/her
work when not asked
Second Order Intrinsic job satisfaction 1.000
Job Satisfaction Extrinsic job satisfaction 0.808 0.079 10.163***
Extrinsic Job Sat- The chance to be “somebody” in 1.000
isfaction the organization
The chance for advancement on 0.858 0.085 10.053***
49
this job
The way my job provides for 0.783 0.068 11.437***
steady employment
The way my co-workers get 0.676 0.062 10.815***
along with each other
Intrinsic Job Sat- The feeling of accomplishment I 1.000
isfaction get from the job
Being able to do things that 0.969 0.063 15.401***

don’t go against my conscience
The chance to do something that 0.855 0.058 14.750***
makes use of my ability
Organizational This organization’s successes 1.000
Identification are my successes
When someone praises my or- 0.890 0.071 12.586***
ganization, it feels like a person-
al compliment
When I talk about my organiza- 0.635 0.078 8.096***
tion, I usually say "we" rather
than "they"
Procedural Justice Members of my work unit are 1.000
involved in making decisions
that directly affect their work
People involved in implement- 0.939 0.056 16.700***
50
ing decisions have a say in mak-
ing the decisions
Decisions are made on the basis 0.853 0.060 14.139***
of research, data and profession-
al criteria, as opposed to political
concerns
Distributive Jus- If one performs well, there is 1.000
tice appropriate recognition and re-

ward
If a work unit performs well, 0.988 0.065 15.132***
there is appropriate recognition
and rewards for all
I have received a fair perfor- 0.683 0.064 10.698***
mance evaluation
Public Service I consider public service my civ- 1.000
Motivation ic duty
Meaningful public service is 0.922 0.076 12.102***
very important to me.
I unselfishly contribute to my 0.812 0.072 11.237***
community
Task interdepend- In my job, I am frequently called 1.000
ence on to provide information and
advice to others.
51
My own performance is depend- 0.976 0.129 7.586***
ent on receiving accurate infor-
mation from others.
I work closely with others in do- 0.937 0.120 7.836***
ing my work.
In order to do my job, I need to 0.924 0.111 8.313***
spend most of my time talking to
other people.
I have to obtain information 0.897 0.114 7.846***
from others to complete my
work.
2
The fit indicators of the confirmatory factor analysis are as follows: =630.75 (df= 372,
***
p<0.01); CFI=0.95; GFI=0.90; RMR=0.05; TLI=0.94; RMSEA=0.04). p < 0.01
52
Table 3. Pearson Correlation and Reliabilities of Measuresab
Mea S.D (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
n .
(1) OCB 5.79 0.8 0.8
1 6
(2) Second order job satis- 4.03 0.5 0.4 0.9
faction 8 0 7
(3) Procedural justice 3.76 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.8

7 9 4 2
(4) Distributive justice 3.52 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8
3 1 5 2 0
(5) PSM 4.15 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.7
9 5 5 9 2 7
(6) Organizational identifi- 3.97 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.7
cation 5 4 0 6 7 8 1
(7) Subjective OCB norms 5.37 0.9 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.9
2 3 3 9 3 5 0 0
(8) Task interdependence 4.61 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7
2 9 5 0 0 1 6 6 1
a
Cronbach alpha coefficients for multiple-item scales are presented along the diagonal in
parentheses
b
All the correlation coefficients are statistically significant (p<0.01)
53
Table 4. Regression Results
Variables Initial Results Results after Controlling for Common
Method Variance across Measures
Mo M M Mod Mod Model 6 Model 7 Model 8
del od od el 4 el 5
1 el el
2 3
Intrinsic job sat- 0.1 - 0.134***
isfaction 65* 0.1 (0.003) **

**
04
***
(0.
000 (0.
) ** 01
2)
**
Extrinsic job 0.1 - 0.019***
satisfaction 66 0.090 (0.630) **

*** ***
(0. (0.02
00 3) **
0)
**
54
Second-order - 0.002***
job satisfaction 0.011 (0.959) **

***
(0.01
1) **
Procedural jus- 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.086 0.089 0.122*** 0.105*** 0.097***
tice 97* 90 98 *** ***

(0.002) ** (0.007) ** (0.017) **
** *** ***
(0.06 (0.05
(0. (0. (0. 2) ** 3) **
000 05 00
) ** 2) 0)
** **
Distributive jus- - - - - - 0.043*** -0.001*** -0.033***
tice 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.087 0.073 (0.256) ** (0.979) ** (0.349) **
93* 72 74 *** ***
** *** ***
(0.01 (0.05
(0. (0. (0. 9) ** 4) **
062 06 12
) ** 1) 6)
** **
55
Task interde- 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.089 0.091 0.183*** 0.145*** 0.121***
pendence 80* 92 86 *** ***

(0.000) ** (0.000) ** (0.000) **
** *** ***
(0.01 (0.00
(0. (0. (0. 0) ** 8) **
000 00 00
) ** 7) 0)
** **
Public service 0.2 0.302 0.304 0.253*** 0.273*** 0.258***

*** ***
motivation 98 (0.000) ** (0.000) ** (0.000) **
***
(0.00 (0.00
(0. 0) ** 0) **
00
0)
**
Organizational 0.1 0.157 0.167 0.183*** 0.183*** 0.183***

*** ***
identification 70 (0.000) ** (0.000) ** (0.000) **
***
(0.00 (0.00
(0. 1) ** 1) **
00
0)
**
56
Subjective OCB 0.4 0.451 0.447 0.462*** 0.427*** 0.420***
*** ***
norms 46 (0.000) ** (0.000) ** (0.000) **
***
(0.00 (0.00
(0. 0) ** 0) **
00
0)
**
N 393 39 39 393 393 393 393 393

3 3
F value 64. 10 65. 103.4 103.9 75.264 72.292 77.120
715 3.8 12 04 74
45 9
R2 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.653 0.643 0.578 0.568 0.584
00 54 04
Adjusted R2 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.646 0.648 0.570 0.560 0.576
94 47 98
1) Standardized regression weights are reported, and values in parentheses are p-values
2) *** p<0.01; ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
57
NOTES
1
The responses that had unreasonable answers were deleted from further analysis. For
example, when a respondent answered all the OCB items with all the highest or lowest
values, it was judged that the individual was not carefully responding to the items.
2
Although using the shortened versions of Perry’s scale have been widely used in
previous studies (e.g., Alonso & Lewis, 2001; Coursey, Yang, & Pandey, 2012; Pandey,
Wright, & Moynihan, 2008), it should be noted that the remaining items in this study
originated from one component (commitment to the public good). Items of attraction to
public policy were not included, since they did not have much theoretical implication
with OCB, and items from compassion and self-sacrifice were opted out, due to their
cross-loadings with OCB items in the initial confirmatory factor analyses.

3
In the preliminary data analyses, several demographic variables [sex, tenure in current
organization, tenure in public sector jobs and position (manager or non-managerial
employee)] were also considered. However, these variables were excluded in the final
data analyses since they were not jointly significant in the preliminary multiple regression
analysis [F( 3, 425) =1.73 (n.s.) ].

4
Readers should note that some of these effects were only a p< 0.10 in the models that
did not partial out common method variance.

5
The unexpected results might occur due to multicollinearity problems. For example, the
association between OCB and secondary job satisfaction and other traditional variables
was found to have positive associations in the initial model. However, after PSM, whose
association of secondary job satisfaction was high (r=0.65), was inserted, and the unex-
pected negative association between secondary job satisfaction and OCB was found in
58
Model 5. After common variance factor was controlled, the association between second-
ary job satisfaction and OCB (r=0.10) and the associations of the secondary job satisfac-
tion with PSM (r=0.38) became moderate. As a result, no significant association was
found in in Model 8. The associations of extrinsic job satisfaction with OCB could be un-
derstood in the same vein.

59

Ocb Government

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ocb Government

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ocb Government

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 15 July 2015, At: 23:30

International Public Management Journal

Government Employee's Organizational Citizenship

Click for updates

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2015.1037943

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Dong Chul Shim1, Sue Faerman2

Sue Faerman is a Distinguished Teaching Professor at the University at Albany, SUNY.

This study attempts to provide an increased understanding of the antecedents of public

employees’ organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Using a field survey involving

reveal that public service motivation (PSM), organizational identification, subjective

whereas job satisfaction and distributive justice are not.

studied as a type of prosocial or voluntary behavior that organizational members engage

agency to maintain a favorable image in the community.

Katz (1964) argued that an organization should encourage organizational members to

engage in innovative and prosocial activities to improve organizational performance, and

ganizational performance in the context of private sector organizations (e.g., Nielsen,

behaviors could be also critical in enhancing government organizations’ productivity,

ensure democratic values in their organizations (Vigoda & Golembiewski, 2001).

The question is: What factors influence government employees to engage in

opportunities for promotions, favorable job conditions, positive organizational policies

and appropriate compensation (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986;

has been relatively moderate.

tified to explain employees’ citizenship behaviors. Arguably, public employees might

(Perry, 1996, 1997; Perry & Wise, 1990).

viduals’ prosocial orientation as the source of public employees’ citizenship behaviors.

the impact of different self-concept related variables (organizational identification and

personal prosocial values (Perry, 2000), or it might develop as a result of interactions

ment employees’ citizenship behaviors.

LITERATURE REVIEW: ANTECEDENTS OF OCB

Self-Concept and OCB

Second, employees’ self-concepts develop through their organizational experienc-

tification or self-conception process (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994), individuals

Arguably, by performing in certain roles in an organization and interacting with

of individuals’ value and a reflection of employees’ perceived norms and organizational

values (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004).

PSM and OCB

Adlerian psychologists (e.g., Ansbacher, 1991; Bass, Curlette, Kern, &

spective, individuals’ helping behavior can be influenced by this individual orientation.

Previous studies have found an association between individuals’ prosocial orien-

prosocial personality factors (other-oriented empathy and helpfulness) and volunteerism,

components (altruism and civic virtue) in a sample of Florida city employees.

Public service motivation has been defined as “a predisposition to respond to mo-

tives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions and organizations” (Perry,

individual orientation influenced by factors such as parental socialization, religious orien-

ing in prosocial behaviors.

Based on this notion, the first hypothesis was developed:

Hypothesis 1: PSM will be positively related to public employees’ engagement in OCB

Organizational Identification and OCB

velop to define themselves in an organization. Individuals who develop a strong “percep-

to maintain their membership in an organization, and organizational identity that emerges

from their behaviors can be an important source of self-concept.

forms of organizational commitment—affective commitment, continuance commitment

and normative commitment—based on previous sociological studies. In particular, affec-

tive organizational commitment is similar to organizational identification in that affective

organizational commitment has been defined as an “employee’s emotional attachment to,

tional identification is more of a cognitive process that enhances individuals’ self-esteem,

rather than an affective attachment to an organization. These conceptual differences are