© 2013 Research Academy of Social Sciences
http://www.rassweb.com 178
The Factors Affecting Organizational Citizenship Behavior in
Banking Industry
Teoh Wee Jim
1, Bernard Hi
1, Lee Kah Shing
1, Ong Siew Lin
1, Siti Yasmin
1, Sofiah Kadar
Khan
1Abstract
Organ (1988) defined organization citizenship behavior (OCB) as the individual’s behavior that is
discretionary not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization. There has been numerous studies performed on organization citizenship behavior and antecedents of this behavior were explored since this behavior contributes to the effective functioning of an organization. The positive contribution of OCB to organizational performance is widely accepted by literature(Podsakoff and MacKenzie,1994,1997;Podsakoff et al.,2000). This behavior have been described by the service literature as being essential; for achieving superior returns.The service industry has been a major contributor to the growth and development of the Malaysian economy (Central Bank of Malaysia, 2007;Deparment of Statistics Malaysia,2010; Malaysian Industrial Development Authority,2010). According to Warrier(2010), the services sector is estimated to contribute 70 percent of GDP to Malaysia’s economy by 2020.There has been a significant correlation in literature between the relationships of competency, quality of work life, leader member exchange(LMX) and organization citizenship behavior. The research intends to explore on how this variables encourage the exhibition of OCB among the service personnel in the banking industry. The relevant hypotheses have been developed and further testing on its relationship will be conducted in order to investigate its impact on organizational citizenship behavior.
Keywords: Organization Citizenship Behaviour, Competency, Quality of Work Life, Leader Member
Exchange
1. Introduction
Organizational behavior provides knowledge to managers on the understanding or employees behavior
for the purpose of eliciting cooperation from them in order to achieve organization’s objective. One of the
contributing behavior which is rather discretionary but proven empirically to increase organizational functioning is organization citizenship behavior (OCB). It refers to various forms of cooperation and
helpfulness to others that support the organization’s social and psychological context.OCB’s importance is getting widespread attention from organizations in various industries. The services sector has been a major contributor to the growth and development of the Malaysian economy (Central Bank of Malaysia, 2007; Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2010; Malaysian Industrial Development Authority, 2010). According to
Warrier (2010), the services sector is estimated to contribute 70 percent of GDP to Malaysia’s economy by
2020. The development of the services sector had contributed greatly to the diversification of the economy of
Malaysia (Public Bank Berhad, 2005).Malaysia’s banking sector is expected to remain robust with a
competitive and challenging environment. Hence, they need to compete among the local and international banks in Malaysia. According to Mavridis (2004), the banking industry sector which is often being characterized as a highly knowledge based industry has been given less attention by researchers and this is the gap this research would like to address.The banking industry is a service industry where the performance
179
is evaluated based on the number of customers it’s able to retain. This can be achieved by providing superior
customer service. Hence, the front service employees play a major role in achieving this. Begum (2005) highlighted that people are employees who represent a key facilitator in implementation of relationship banking strategy.According to Organ (1988), organization citizenship behavior (OCB) has a variety of forms including altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, civic virtue and conscientiousness. Since organization citizenship behaviors are less likely to be formally rewarded than are required job behaviors, they are presumably performed by intrinsic motivation mechanism according to Chompokum (2004). The purpose of this study is to provide a better understanding of the importance of OCB and the factors that affect OCB in the organization. This study intends to explore what could elicit OCB among the banking employees in order to improve organization functioning. There are three variables in this study which has been identified and explored further to investigate its effect on organization citizenship behavior. The variables identified are leader-member exchange (LMX), empowerment and competency. There will be further empirical test conducted in future to find the correlation between this variables and organization citizenship behavior.
2. Literature Review
Organization Citizenship Behavior
Organ (1988) defined organization citizenship behavior (OCB) as non-mandatory behavior of an individual, which the formal reward systems do not directly or clearly recognize and that in sum contributes
to the organization’s effective functioning. Organ explained what he meant by non-mandatory, as the behavior that is not the written requirement of the role or the job description, that is, the specified terms of
the individual’s employment contract with the individual. Organ (1998) further elaborated that OCBs exist in
various forms, including altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, civic virtue and conscientiousness. The positive contribution of OCB to organizational performance is widely accepted by literature (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Indeed these behaviors have been described by the service literature as being essential to obtain superior returns. MacKensie, Podsakoff, and Praine (1999) stated
several dimensions of OCB such as, ‘helping’ behaviors by employees (e.g. supportive actions to assist others and going beyond the requirements of the job); ‘sportsmanship’ (tolerating the work environment
without excessive complaining); and ‘civic duty’ (constructive involvement in the processes of the
organization beyond the requirement of the job). 6The vast majority of OCB research has focused on the effects of OCB on individual and organizational performance. Many researchers focused on the effects of OCB on individual and organizational performance and found that OCB leads an organization to positive consequences (Waltz & Niehoff, 1996; Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 1997; Barbuto, Brown, Wilhite, & Wheeler, 2001; Hodson, 2002; Cardona, Lawrence, & Bentler, 2004; Appelbaum, Asmar, Chehayeb, Konidas,
Duszara, &Duminica, 2003). Brief has supported Organ’s position regarding the importance for effectiveness
of those behaviors, which he labeled as organizational citizenship behavior (George & Brief, 1992).9OCB is desirable from the organizational point of view because such behavior is thought to increase the available resources and decrease the need for costly mechanism of control (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff& Mackenzie, 1997).
Leader- Member Exchange (LMX)
Leader-member exchange (LMX) theory made significant contributions to leadership theory because of its unique characteristic of exploring different levels of relationships between a leader and his or her immediate subordinates (Yukl& Van Fleet, 1992). LMX represents the quality of the relationship between leader and subordinate (Schriesheim, Castro, &Cogliser, 1999), as operationalized by a supervisor- subordinate working relationship scale that assessed the overall working relationship between employees and their immediate supervisor (Graen&Uhl- Bien, 1995); recently, social exchange theory has been explored to investigate the role of LMX in organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). This involves extra-role
behaviours that are not typically described by employees’ job descriptions or are not formally rewarded
180
such findings are overstated (House &Aditya, 1997). Researchers have tried to examine a theoretical linkage between LMX and OCB, because LMX has been considered as one of the relational motives of OCB (Hui et al., 1999).
Employees select and then engage in different organizational citizenship behaviours (Van Dyne et al., 1995). Social exchange theory suggests that employees are motivated to engage in extra-role behaviours when they perceive that their employment relationship is based upon a fair social exchange (Tumley et al.,
2003).The influence of LMX on employees’ emotions such as envy although several researchers have argued
that there might be possible negative emotions such as workplace envy resulting from differentiated treatment in LMX (Deluga, 1994; McClane, 1991; Vecchio, 1995; Yukl& Van Fleet, 1992). Whereas interest in negative discrete emotions such as anger, anxiety, depression or shame has been growing, the study of such emotions is still in the premature stage in organizational behavior (Ashforth& Lee, 1990; Barsade, Brief, &Spataro, 2003; George, 1990). This begins to satisfy this void. Research has found an approximately 20% increase in performance and a 50% increase in satisfaction for high LMX subordinates over their low LMX counterparts (Mayfield & Mayfield, 1998
Empowerment
David Clutterbuck (1995) defines empowerment in terms of encouraging and allowing individuals to take personal responsibility to improve the way they do their jobs and contribute to the organizational goals. The creation of a culture encourages people at all levels to help them gain confidence and skills so that they can make a difference. John Newstrom & Keith Davis (2002) defined empowerment as any process that provides greater autonomy to the employees by sharing of relevant information and the provision of control over factors affecting job. Organization empowerment creates structures and opportunities for people to take more control over their tasks in the employing institution. While, the individual empowerment forms to relates to an increased sense of self-efficacy (Conger &Kanugo, 1988 as cited in Kiberu, 2009).Many studies (Morrison, 1996; Nihoff& Moorman, 1993; Bearn, 2000) have concluded different outcomes to relate empowerment with organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). Leadership empowerment has showed positive relationship between organizational citizenship behaviour and team performance based on study in India (Bearn, 2000). The research studies on the impacts of leadership empowerment behaviours and organizational citizenship behaviour on sale team performance in India. Cardona, Lawrence and Bentler (2004), found that, social exchange relationship influence OCB. It based on the criteria that involve them in the organizational decision making process and empowering the staff. According to Somech and Bogler, employees are likely to feel like part of the organization and show greater responsibilities on their roles at work (OCBs) when they have empowered and participate in the process of decision making or setting ideas in the organization. The study found a positive relationship between employee OCB and participation (empowering and involving employees in decision making). According to Greasley et al, (2004), it is inevitable for employees to exhibit extra role behaviour once the organization goes out of its way and involves employees in decision making and increases on their participation.
Competency
Competency refer to the skills and knowledge that needed by the employees to perform a job (Beardwell & Holden, 2001). Competency consists of customer awareness, team work, commitment and contribution, productivity and so on. According to Boyatzis in 1982 (as cited in Kagaari & Munene, 2007) defines that competency as a characteristic of a person which results in their effective or superior performance. In a study conducted by McClelland (1973) it highlighted that competency as an element of performance which is linked with life outcomes. Competencies can be used as different approaches to forecasting human performance compared to traditional trait and intelligence techniques. Competencies through this may associate to broad psychological or behavioral attributes which are linked to extraordinary job and life success.In Podasoff (2000) (as cited in Katarangi, 2010) claimed that the failure for the managers to reward
employees’ behaviors by showing their satisfaction or appreciation to their employee who has perform well
181
employees to complete the tasks that are assigned by managerThe concept of competency is defined as utilized knowledge and skills, performance and Another study by Tremblay (2000) indicated that there are a strong positive impact on the mobilization of discretionary behaviors which is influenced by the perception of a high level of autonomy, influence on the work and the possibility of using competencies.
3. Methodology
Conceptual Model and Propositions
The focus of the present paper is to build a proposition to investigate the impact of leader member exchange (LMX), empowerment, competency towards organization citizenship behavior (OCB). According to Livingstone (2007), there is a relationship between competence, commitment, empowerment and organization citizenship behavior (OCB). The available findings suggest that there could be a relationship between leader member exchange (LMX), empowerment, competency towards organization citizenship behavior so the following proposition is made.
Propositions Development
(The propositions developed below are summarized and illustrated in Figure 1)
Figure 1: Factors affecting the exhibition of organization citizenship behavior
The focus of this paper is to build a researchable proposition investigating the effect of leader-member exchange, empowerment and competency on organization citizenship behavior. According to Schriesheim, Castro and Cogliser (1999), leader-member exchange represents the quality of the relationship between leader and subordinate. A study conducted by House & Aditya (1997) reported that leader-member exchange is positively related to organization citizenship behavior from the social exchange perspective.Lord and Brown( 2001) revealed that leadership works best when there is a match between the identity level of followers and the focus of leaders, as people of similar behavior tend to be attracted to each other A study conducted by Lo,Ramayah & Jerome ( 2006) reported that more conscientiousness employees are more likely to display OCB as a output from job satisfaction that they gained. Since employees are motivated as a result of high quality LMX they gain more job satisfaction. This study further explored due to the high quality of social exchange developed between superiors and subordinates it has motivated employees to exhibit OCB.
Leader Member Exchange
Empowerment
Competency
182
H1o : There is no significant relationship between Leader-Member exchange and
Organization Citizenship Behavior
H1a : There is a significant relationship between Leader-Member exchange and
Organization Citizenship Behavior
Tremblay (2000) reported that perception of a high level of autonomy and influence on the work and the possibility of using competencies has a strong significant positive influence on organization citizenship behavior. Garavan and McGuire (2001) stated that competencies can be liberating and empowering, arguing that if employees are provided with a broad degree of self-control and self-regulation, they will work towards higher organizational behavior.
H2o : There is no significant relationship between competency and
Organization Citizenship Behavior
H2a : There is a significant relationship between competency and
Organization Citizenship Behavior
David Clutterbuck(1995) defines empowerment in terms of encouraging and allowing individuals to take personal responsibility to improve the way they do their jobs and contribute to the organizational goals. According to Somech and Bogler (2004), there is a positive relationship between employee OCB and participation. Another study conducted by Thayer (2008) reported that a positive psychological climate is able to cultivate a positive emotional response from employees and further elaborated that when a positive
psychological climate is present it is able to increase employee’s engagement and also citizenship behavior among its employees.
H3o : There is no significant relationship between empowerment and
Organization Citizenship Behavior
H3a : There is a significant relationship between empowerment and
Organization Citizenship Behavior
Proposed Framework
Figure 1
Leader Member Exchange
Empowerment
Competency
183 Sampling and Data Collection
The study was done only in Ipoh, Malaysia There were 170 questionnaires which were distributed and 150 questionnaires were returned, for a response rate of 88.2%.
Measures
In Section A of the questionnaire is about respondent’s demographic information (gender, age, education level, length of service and position) whereby, Section B the independent variables leader-member exchange, empowerment , competency and the dependent variable organization citizenship behavior were tested respectively. In Table 3.3, it summarizes the origin source of measurement for this study, where it was adopted from and the number of items constructed for the purpose of this research.
Table 3.3: The Origin Source of Measurement
Constructs Adopted From No. of Items
Leader-Member Exchange Soldner, 2009 10
Empowerment Katarangi,2008 22
Competency Abdel Khalek, 2007 35
Organization Citizenship Behavior Soldner,2009 16
4. Results and Discussion
In this research, the data are to be coded and analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science). The result of this data analysis will then be interpreted. There are three types of analysis in this study which is descriptive, reliability and inferential analysis
Demographic Analysis
Table 4:1Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
Gender Frequency Percentage
Male 64 42.7
Female 86 57.3
Total 150
Age
21 - 30 41 27.3
31- 40 58 38.7
41-50 45 30
Above 50 6 4
Total 150
Education Level
SPM 49 32.7
Diploma 52 34.7
Degree 23 15.3
Masters 11 7.3
Others 15 10
Total 150
184
Length of Service
Less than 1 year 20 13.3
1 - 3 years 38 25.3
4-5
years 7 4.7
6- 10 years 28 18.7
10 years and above 57 38
Total 150
Position
Management Level 34 22.7
Supervisory Level 43 28.7
Staff 73 48.7
Total 150
Table 4.1 above provides the demographic summary of the respondents. In terms of gender the respondents were mainly female which consists of 86(57.3%) females and 64(42.7%) males. The age between 31 – 40 is the highest which is 58(38.7%) followed by 41-50 which is 45(30.0%) then 21-30 which is 41(27.3%) and above 50 is 6(4.0%). The education level among the respondents indicate that there are 49(32.7%) SPM holders, Diploma is 52( 34.7%), Degree is 23 (15.3%), Masters is 11 (7.3%) and others 15( 10.0%). The length of service among the respondents highlighted that most of them have worked 10 years and above which is 57(38.0%), less than one year is 20( 13.3%),1 to 3 years is 38 (25.3%), between 4 to 5 years 7(4.7%), 6 to 10 years is 28(18.7%). Finally the position of the respondents indicated that most of them were staff level which 73(48.7%), supervisory level is 43(28.7%) and management level is 34(22.7%).
Reliability Analysis
Table 4.2 Internal Reliability Test
Constructs Cronbach’s Alpha
Coefficient
Number of Items
Leader Member Exchange 0.931 10
Empowerment 0.875 22
Competency 0.951 35
Organization Citizenship Behavior 0.937 16
In Table 4.2 ten items were chosen to test the reliability of Leader-Member Exchange and the
Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.931 and respectively for empowerment 22 items were chosen and the Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.875 , Competency has 35 items and Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.951 and finally Cronbach’s Alpha for
185 Inferential Analysis
Pearson Correlation Analysis
Table 4.3: Pearson Correlation Analysis
LMX EMP COMP OCB
LMX Pearson Correlation 1 .746** .809** .713**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 150 150 150 150
EMP Pearson Correlation .746** 1 .769** .782**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 150 150 150 150
COMP Pearson Correlation .809** .769** 1 .819**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 150 150 150 150
OCB Pearson Correlation .713** .782** .819** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000
N 150 150 150 150
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 4.3 shows the correlations between the variables are significant at p<0.01. According to the table above, leader-member exchange (LMX), empowerment (EMP) and competency (COM) are significant and positively correlated with organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Meanwhile, competency (r= 0.819) is more significantly correlated with organizational citizenship behavior than leader-member exchange (r= 0.713) and empowerment (r= 0.782).
Multiple Regression Analysis
Table 4.4: R Square and ANOVA Results
R .853
R Square .728
Adjusted R Square .722
Std Error of Estimate .29632
F 130.0632
Sig .000
186 Table 4.5 Coefficient of Multiple Regressions
Model Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 2.784 3.077 .905 .367
LMX .021 .132 .012 .159 .874
COMP .240 .037 .525 6.476 .000
EMP .282 .055 .370 5.170 .000
Dependent Variable: OCB
Table 4. ANOVAbshows that p-value is 0.000, which is less than alpha value 0.05. In other words, the F
–statistic is significant and the overall model for this study is good model to explain the relation between the dependent and the predictor variables. Therefore, the independent variables (leader-member exchange, competency and empowerment) are significant in explaining the variance in organizational citizenship behavior. Coefficient of multiple regressions is another important analysis to explain the relationship between three independent variables (leader-member exchange, competency and empowerment). Based on the significance level (Sig) column in table 4.5, the p-value for each independent variable are less than 0.05 except leader-member exchange. This indicates that competency and empowerment are significant in explaining the variation in organizational citizenship behavior. However, the leader-member exchange is not significant in explaining the variation in organizational citizenship behavior, as p-value 0.874 is greater than alpha value 0.05. The figures from unstandardized coefficients are also used to formulate the multiple regressions equations in the form of = α+βX1+βX2+ βX3+β X4.. Thus, the multiple regressions equation of
this study is Organizational Citizenship Behavior= 2.784+ 0.021(leader-member exchange)
+0.240(competency) + 0.282(empowerment).Since Beta (β) of unstandardized coefficient represent the amount of dependent variable changes when the corresponding independent variable changes by one unit, it indicates that when three independent variables (leader-member exchange, competency, and empowerment) increase by 1% organizational citizenship behavior will increase by 2.1%, increase 24% and increase 28.2% respectively while other variables remain constant.
In addition, this model also examines which of the independent variables will influence most towards the dependent variable (organizational citizenship behavior). Theory explained that the higher the beta value, the greater the impact of the independent variable to the dependent variable. Based on the result obtained, empowerment (β=0.282) has the greatest impact to organizational citizenship behavior, followed by competency (β=0.24) and leader-member exchange (β=0.021). In other words, empowerment makes the strongest unique contribution to explain the variation in dependent variable (organizational citizenship behavior).Based on Table 4.5, p value for for leader-member exchange is 0.874 which is greater than the alpha value 0.05 therefore H1 is not supported. The p value for empowerment and competency is significant so H2 and H3 is accepted.
5. Conclusion
187
when they have empowerment and involved in the process of decision making.Competency has found to be significant towards OCB for Pearson Correlation Analysis and Multiple Regression Analysis. A study conducted by Beardwell and Holden (2001) explained that when employees have higher competencies they tend to exhibit OCB among their colleagues and further supported in a study conducted by Munene,bbosa and Eboyu ( 2004).It is recommended that the research to be conducted in different states in Malaysia and even in different countries.
References
Abdul Khalek, N. A. (2007). An investigation of differences in the competency profiles of HRD practitioners in local and multinational banks.
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J. & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower your sales force? An empirical examination
of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and
performance. Journal of Applied psychology, 90, 945-955.
Ali, N. (2009). Effects of perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange on organizational citizenship behaviour. Abasyn University Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), 53-56.
Al Swidi, A.K. & Mahmood, R. (2011). How does organizational culture shape the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and the organizational performance of banks. European Journal of Social Sciences, 20(1), 28-46.
Appelbaum, S., Asmar, J. A., Chehayeb, R., Konidas, N., Duszara, V. M., & Duminica, I. (2003). Organizational citizenship: a case study of MedLink Ltd. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 9 (5/6), 136-154.
Appelbaum, S. H., & Honneagar, K. (1998). Empowerment: A Constricting overview of Organizational in General and Nursing in particular -An examination of Organizational Behavior, Job design and Structural Power; Empowerment in Organizations.
Armstrong, M. & Baron, A. (1995). The Job Evaluation Handbook. Institute of Personnel Development, London.
Armstrong, M. (2000), Performance Management: Key Strategies and Practical Guidelines, Kogan Page, London.
Ariani, D. W. (2012). The relationship between social capital, organizational citizenship behaviours, and individual performance: An empirical study from Banking Industry in Indonesia. Journal of Management Research, 4 (2).
Bagheri, G., Matin, H. Z., & Amighi, F. (2011). The relationship between empowerment and organizational citizenship behavior of the pedagogical organization employees. Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 4(2), 53-62.
Barbuto, J., Brown, L., Wilhite, M., & Wheeler, D. (2001). Justify the underlying motives of organizational citizenship behaviour: A brief study of agricultural co-op workers.
Barnett, M. R. (2011). The Relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the Jamaican Workplace, Journal of Applied Psychology, 146.
Barsade, S. G., Brief, A. P., & Spataro, S. E. (2003). The affective revolution in organizational behavior: The emergence of a paradigm. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science (pp. 3-52). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
188
Begum, N. (2005). The relationships between social power and organizational citizenship behaviour: The meditational role of procedural justice, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction in context of a private commercial bank in Bangladesh. A Senior Project Report Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Business Administration.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bogler, R. & Somech, A. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior in schools. How does it relate to participation in decision making? Journal of Educational Administration, 43, 420-438.
Bowen, D.E., & Lawler, E.E. (1992). The empowerment of service workers: What, why, how and when. Sloan Management Review, 33(3), 31-39.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1982). The Competent Manager, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Cardona, P., Lawrence, B., & Bentler, P. (2004). The influence of social and work exchange
relationships on organizational citizenship behavior. Group and Organizational Management, 29(2), 219-247.
Carlson, R. J., Carlson, D. S., & Wadsworth, L. L. (2000). The relationship between individual power moves and group agreement type: An examination and model. Advanced Management.
Cheng, M., Dainty, A., & Moore, D. (2003). The differing faces of managerial competency in Britain and America. Journal of Management Development, 22(6), 527-37.
Chompookum, D., & Derr, C. B. (2004). The effects of internal career orientations on organizational citizenship behavior in Thailand. Career Development International. 9 (4), 406-423.
Clutterbuck, D., & Kernaghan, S. (1995). The power of empowerment. Release the hidden talent s of your employees. Kogan page Ltd. London.
Cohen-Charash, Y., Mueller, J. S., & Goldman, M. (2004). When do we help and when do we harm? Effects of outcome favorability and procedural fairness on envy and behavior. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, New Orleans.
Colella, A., & Varma, A. (2001). The impact of subordinate disability on leader-member exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 304-315.
Conger, J. & Kanungo, R. (1988). The empowerment process: Integration theory and practice. Academy management Journal, 13(3), 471-482.
Coyle-Shapiro, J., & Conway, N. (2004). Exchange relationships: examining psychological contracts and perceived organisational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 774-81.
Cushman, J. W. (2000). Empowerment and the Moderating Effect on Organizational Citizenship
Behaviours on Personal Hygiene Practices in the Food Service Industry. A Dissertation for Kansas University.
Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 315-326.
Dio (1979). Participative decision making: a comparative study. Industrial Relations, 18, 295-309.
Farahbod, F., Azadehdel. , M., Rezaei-Dizgah, M. ,& Nezhadi-Jirdehi, M. (2012). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The role of organizational justice and leader-member exchange. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business 3.9, 3(9), 893-903.
Garavan, T., & McGuire, D. (2001). Competencies and workplace learning: some reflections on the rhetoric and the reality. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(4), 144-63.
189
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310- 329.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development of LMX (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247.
Graham, J. W. (1989). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, operationalization, and validation , Unpublished working paper, Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Greasley, K., Bryaman, A., Dainty, A., & Prince, A., et al,. (2005). Employee perceptions on empowerment. 27(4), 354-368.
Hair, J. F., Money, A. H., Samouel, P., & Page, M. (2007). Research Methods for Business. The UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Hodson R. (2002). Management citizenship behavior and its consequences. Work and Occupations, 29 (1), 64-96.
Hui, C., Law, K. S., & Chen, Z. X. (1999). A structural equation model of the effects of negative affectivity, leader-member exchange, and perceived job mobility on in-role and extra-role performance: A Chinese case. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 3-21.
John W. Newstrome & Keith Davis, (2002). Organisational Behaviour. Human behaviour at work. TAT A McGraw - Hill.
Kagaari, J. R.K. & Munene, J.C. (2007). Engineering lecturers' competencies and organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) at Kyambogo University, Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(9), 706 – 726.
Katarangi, A. K. (2008). Competencies, empowerment and organisational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) among public sector accountants in Uganda.
Katarangi, A. K. (2010). Competencies, empowerment and organisational citizenship behaviours (OCBs)
among public sector accountants in Uganda. Master’s thesis, Makerere University.
Kelley, S., & Hoffman, K.D. (1997). An investigation of positive affect, pro social behaviours and service quality. Journal of Retailing, 73, 407- 427.
Kiberu, R. (2009). Operant competences, professional training and performance of public sector accountants. Makerere University dissertation. Unpublished.
Kim, S. K. (2006). The role of envy in hospitality employees’ organizational citizenship behavior: A leader -member exchange perspective. Journals of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management, 96.
Larson, J. E., & Gouwens, J. A. (2008). The relationship between leader member exchange and burnout in psychiatric rehabilitation workers. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 32(1), 5-14.
Lashley C. (1999). Employee Empowerment in Services: A Framework for Analysis Personnel Review 28, 1-9.
Lee, K. L. & Salleh, A. L. (2011). Mediating effects of subordinates’ competence on leadership styles and
organisational citizenship behaviour. African Journal of Business Management. 5(19), 7790-7801.
Lee, K. L. & Low, G. T. (2012). Leadership Styles and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The
Mediating Effect of Subordinates’ Competence and Downward Influence Tactics. Journal of
Applied Business and Economics. 13(2).
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43-72.
190
Low, S. F. (2010), The effects of human resource management practices on service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors: The role of organizational commitment as a mediator.
Mahmood, R. & Abdul Wahid, R. (2012). Investigating the Effect of Intellectual Capital on Bank
Performance in Malaysia. Knowledge Management International Conference (KMICe) 2012.
Majid, M. Z. A., Sufian, F., & Alifiah, M. N. (2007). Consolidation, Market Structure and Competition in the Malaysian Banking Industry: Empirical Evidence from Malaysia. In Unpublished paper presented in the 15 th Annual Conference PBFEAM, Vietnam.
Malaysia's Banking. (2013, May 31). Malaysia's banking sector to stay strong IBBM. Malaysia Chronicle.
Retrieved August 12, 2013, from
http://www.malaysiachronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=107381%3Amalaysi as-banking-sector-to-staystrongibbm&Itemid= 3#ixzz2ayrD9s3a
Malhotra, N. K. & Peterson, M. (2006). Basic Marketing Research, (2nd ed). International Edition, Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K. , Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738-748.
Mathieu, J. & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and Meta analysis of the antecedents, correlates and consequences of organisational commitments, Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194.
Mavridis, D.G. (2004). The intellectual capital performance of the Japanese banking sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(1), 92-115.
Mayfield, M., & Mayfield, J. (1998). Increasing worker outcomes by improving leader follower relations. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 5, 72-81.
McClane, W. E. (1991). The interaction of leader and member characteristics in theleader-member exchange model of leadership. Small Group Research, 22, 283- 300.
McClelland, D.C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for intelligence. American Psychologist, 28(1), 1-14.
McLagan, P. (1996). Competency models: Great ideas revisited. Training & Development, 50(1), 60. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/227007290?accountid=50207
McLagan, P.A. (1997), Competencies: the next generation, Training and Development, 55(5), 40
Mohammad, J.; Habib, F. Q., & Alias, M. A. (2011). Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: An empirical study at higher learning institutions. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 16(2), 149-165.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L., (1995). Individualism-Collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(2), 127-142.
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the
employee’s perspective. The Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543-1567.
Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N., Kemery, E. R., & Wesolowski, M. A. (1998). Relationships between bases of power and work reactions: The mediational role of procedural justice. Journal of Management, 24(4), 533-552.
Moye, M. & Henkin, A. (2005). Equity association between employee empowerment; and trust in
191
Munene, J. C., Bbosa, R., & Eboyu, F. (2004). Operant competence management framework for enhancing competence management and development in organizations in Africa. Paper presented in American Management Conference, OH.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. The Academy of Management Review, 36,
527- 556.
Ninth Malaysia Plan. (2006-2010). The National Mission, Malaysia Communications and Multimedia
Commission Planning Unit. Retrieved May 1, 2013, from
http://www.epu.jpm.my/RM9/english/Mission.pdf
Organ, D. W. (1990). The Motivational basis of Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Staw, B.M and Cummings, L. L (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43-72.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1988). A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis. Journal of Management, 14(4), 547-557.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behaviour. Research in organizational citizenship, 12(1), 43-72.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behaviour: It's construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97.
Organ, D. W., & Konov sky, M. A. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157-164.
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: It nature, antecedents, and consequences. USA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Piwang, P. (2009). Managerial competencies.team work, employee empowerment and organizational citizenship behaviours; A case of Uganda electoral commission. Unpublished master’s thesis, Makerere University.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Mackenzie, S.B. (1997). The impact of organizational citizenship behaviour in organizational performance: review and suggestion for future research, Human Performance, 10, 133-51.
Posdakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, B., & Bachrach, D. (2000). Organizational citizenship
behavior: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.
Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1996). Confirmatory factor analysis of the bases of leader power: First - order factor model and its invariance across groups. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 31(4), 495-516.
Roscoe, J. T. (1975). Fundamental research statistics for the behavioural sciences. (2nd ed.) New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students, Pearson Education, London.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). LMX (LMX): A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 63-113.
192
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, LMX and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 219-227.
Soldner, J. L. (2009). Relationship among Leader-Mmber Exchange, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Organizational Commitment, Gender, and Dyadic Duration in a rehabilitation organization, 141.
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2004). Exploring organizational citizenship behaviour from an organizational perspective: The relationship between organizational learning and organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(3), 281-298.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: dimensions, measurement, and validation, Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442- 1465.
Thacker, C. & Handscombe, B. (2003). Innovation, competitive position and industry attractiveness: a tool to assist SMEs. Creativity and Innovation Management, 12(4), 230-239.
Tremblay, M. (2000). Organisational and individual determinants of a typical employment: The case of multiple jobholding and self-employment, IQRC, Montreal.
Tumley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors, Journal of Management, 29, 187-206.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behavior: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (A bridge over muddied waters). Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215-285.
Vecchio, R. P. (1995). It’s not easy being green: Jealousy and envy in the workplace. Research in Personnel
and Human Resources Management, 13, 201-244.
Waltz, S. M., & Niehoff (1996). Organizational citizenship behaviors and their effect on
organizational effectiveness in limited-menu restaurants, in Keys, J.B. and Dosier, L.N. (Ed.), Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, George Southern University, Statesboro, GA, 307-11.
Wan, H. L. (2011). The Role of Leader-Member Exchange in Organizational Justice Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Relationship, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 19(2), 71-91.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and LMX: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82-111.
Woodruffe, C. (1991). Competent by any other name", Personnel Management, 23(9), 30-3.
Wu, Y.-J. (2009). A multidimensional analysis of the relationship between Leader-Member Exchange and organizational citizenship behaviour with an alternative measure of Leader-Member Exchange, 113.
Ye, J. (2012). The Impact of Organizational Values on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Public Personnel Management, 41(5), 35-46.
Yukl, G. A., & Van Fleet, D.D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership inorganizations.In M.D. Dunnette and L.M. Hough (Eds), Handbook o f industrialand organizational psychology (Vol. 3). Mountain Veiw, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C., & Griffin, M. (2010). Business Research Methods (8th ed.). New York: South-Western/Cengage Learning.
