International Journal of Public Administration

ISSN: 0190-0692 (Print) 1532-4265 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpad20

Citizenship as Targeted Behavior: Responses to

Organizational Justice and the Role of Culture

Muhammad Mubbashar Hassan, Sundas Azim & Syed Moqaddas Abbas

To cite this article: Muhammad Mubbashar Hassan, Sundas Azim & Syed Moqaddas Abbas
(2016): Citizenship as Targeted Behavior: Responses to Organizational Justice and the Role of
Culture, International Journal of Public Administration, DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2015.1136943

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2015.1136943

Published online: 14 Apr 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 19

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lpad20

Download by: [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] Date: 17 April 2016, At: 23:01
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2015.1136943

Citizenship as Targeted Behavior: Responses to Organizational Justice and the

Role of Culture
Muhammad Mubbashar Hassan, Sundas Azim, and Syed Moqaddas Abbas
Management Sciences Department, Mohammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad, Pakistan

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The study aimed at reviewing citizenship as targeted behavior in response to justice perceptions Cross-cultural; equity;
and investigating the role of within-culture differences on citizenship responses to organizational organizational citizenship
behavior; Pakistan
fairness perceptions. Data were solicited from 150 employees and their supervisors representing
various public sector entities of Pakistan. Results showed that distributive and interactional fair-
ness predict interpersonal organizational citizenship behavior. Organizational fairness did not
predict citizenship behavior targeted at organizations. Organizational justice had negative values
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016

of citizenship behavior for higher values of collectivism. Findings and implications for human
resource management practitioners and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Introduction (equity theory) aspects of a wider social exchange per-

spective (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000).
Employee dependence on employing organizations for
However, responses to justice are not the same across
the fulfillment of economic needs creates an exchange
cultures and individual differences within cultures also
relationship between the two, resulting in reciprocity of
exist (Brockner et al., 2001; Elamin, 2012, Farh, Earley, &
the sort of treatment received (Adams, 1965; Gouldner,
Lin, 1997; Farh et al., 2004). Moreover, Cheung (2013)
1960). Accordingly, in exchange for equitable treatment,
voiced the concern that most of the OJ studies have been
employees exhibit behaviors that benefit the organization
conducted in the Western countries, especially North
and are beyond those formally required (Aryee, Budhwar,
America, and those applicability of those results in
& Chen, 2002; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Coyle-
other cultures may be questionable (p. 554). On the
Shapiro, Kessler, & Purcell, 2004; Poncheri, 2006).
other side, Hui, Lee, and Rousseau (2004) stated that a
However, responses to fairness information are not the
countrys prevalent culture can alter the impact of
same across cultures and within-culture individual differ-
known predictors on organizational citizenship beha-
ences also exist (Lam, Schaubroeck, & Aryee, 2002;
viors (OCBs). These differences of justice perceptions
Moorman & Blakely, 1995). The current study draws
and known fluctuations in OCBs due to the culture
theoretical support from the phenomenal work of
warrant the need to study this important relationship
Hofstede (1983) and supporting literature to investigate
in a collectivist culture. In the collectivistic culture of
the role of within-culture individual differences on
Pakistan, the role of individual differences in individu-
responses to organizational justice (OJ) perceptions in a
alism/collectivism on responses to justice perceptions
predominantly collectivistic society.
remains understudied.
According to the social exchange theory, negotiated
In the Pakistani context, Quratulain, Khan, and Peretti
exchanges form the basis of social relationships (Blau,
(2012) found OJ to be more strongly associated with
1964; Emerson, 1976; Homans, 1958). In line with the
OCBs for employees with individualistic orientations.
theory, behavioral responses to justice perceptions have
However, individualism did not influence responses to
been described as manifestations of social exchange at
justice in other researches (Lam et al., 2002).
the workplace (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).
Furthermore, studies have also shown that collectivistic
Employees also weigh outcomes received against inputs
values are more strongly related to favorable responses to
given to the organization (Adams, 1963, 1965). In other
justice (Moorman & Blakely, 1995). This disparity in
words, responses to justice perceptions at the workplace
literature and the dearth of researches on the topic in
converge social (social exchange) and organizational

CONTACT Muhammad Mubbashar Hassan mubbashar.hr@gmail.com Management Sciences Department, Mohammad Ali Jinnah University,
Islamabad Expressway, Kahuta Road, Zone-V, Islamabad, Pakistan. Tel: 00923008567080.
2016 Taylor & Francis
 2 M. M. HASSAN ET AL.
Pakistan calls for further studies. Additionally, Organs
(1989) dimensions of OCB used by Quratulain et al.
(2012) are not suitable for all business contexts as shown
by Gupta and Singh (2012). They proposed OCB be
studied as individually and organizationally directed
behavior in the collectivist Indian culture. Because
Pakistani and Indian cultures are alike in being collectivist
(Hofstede, 1983), this study assesses OCB in Pakistan as
directed behavior through William and Andersons
(1991) interpersonal and organizational dimensions of
OCB, answering calls for studies on workplace behavior
in a nonwestern culture. The said scales are comprehen-
sive and capture OCB most inclusively (Podsakoff,
Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009).
While a large number of studies on OCB have been
conducted in the past, the public sector remains rela-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016
tively understudied. The need to study these concepts
in the public sector is very much present because the
public organizations employment dynamics and
employees attitudes and behaviors are very different
from that of the corporate sector. For example, Rainey
(1991) stated that the wage structure of public sector
employees is lower than that of the private sector
employees but they have a more stable work environ-
ment and their jobs are more secure. Similarly, Shim
and Faerman (2015) stated that motivational bases for
government employees to be engaged in prosocial
behavior might be different from those of private sector
employees (p. 26). Moreover, most of the public orga-
nizations orientation is toward serving the society,
whereas the private sector is mostly concerned with
financial results. These significant differences necessi-
tate the need for more studies to be conducted on
public sector in order to establish a framework for
public organizations managers to enhance such pro-
organization behaviors.
This study investigated OCB responses to justice in
various public sector entities of Pakistan. An under-
standing of individual differences in employees justice
perceptions should help shape policies that are per-
ceived as fair, enabling employees to exhibit citizen-
ship behaviors in return. OCBs are known to improve
individual and organizational performance; hence, the
emphasis in literature on the construct (Ozer, 2011;
Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). Overall, the study
attempted to highlight the importance of justice to
enable organizations to form policies perceived as
fair and to make way for increased theoretical under-
standing of individual orientations of culture as a
moderator of justice perceptions in a predominantly
collectivistic culture.
Literature review
Organizational justice
In accordance with the basic economic theory, the idea
of unlimited wants and the distribution of limited
resources (Robbins, 2008) is likely to cause satisfaction
to few and dissatisfaction to many, triggering feelings of
inequity. At the workplace, justice perceptions are
formed after evaluations of decisions regarding various
aspects of work (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan,
2005). The construct of OJ has its roots in the equity
theory (Adams, 1963, 1965), whereby employees tend
to reduce inequity caused by a disparity in their out-
come/input ratio and by a comparison of the outcome/
input ratio with that of others (Greenberg, 1990a; Lam
et al., 2002). OJ refers to peoples perceptions of fair-
ness in their organizations (Colquitt et al., 2005). It has
assumed a multidimensional structure over time, with
the three-dimensional model finding most support.
Researchers focused on the distributive dimension of
justice during the distributive justice wave from the
1950s to the 1970s (Colquitt et al., 2005). Distributive
justice refers to employee perceptions of organizational
fairness regarding rewards allocation. However, later
studies began focusing on other justice dimensions.
Other dimensions of OJ tap justice as fairness of
procedures governing decisions (procedural justice)
and communication with employees and treatment
with dignity and respect (interactional justice). Work
on procedural justice in the organizational setting
began with the work of Leventhal (1980). Bies and
Moag (1986) introduced interactional justice as justice
perceptions related to the quality of interpersonal treat-
ment received when procedures are implemented.
Treatment with dignity and the communication dimen-
sion were later differentiated into informational justice
and interpersonal justice (Colquitt, 2001; Greenberg,
1990b). However, the three-dimensional model of OJ
remains most widely investigated and OJ as a construct
has implications for a wide range of individual and
organizational outcomes (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992;
Wooten & Cobb, 1999).
Researches in Western cultures show that distributive
justice does not influence citizenship behaviors
(Moorman, 1991). Individuals in those cultural and
organizational settings value fair procedures and com-
munication more than rewards. Americans, for example,
are likely to believe fair procedures will lead to fair
distribution of outcomes even if outcomes are currently
low (McFarlin & Sweeney, 2001). Interactional justice is
also of prime importance for perceptions of justice as

employees believe they are entitled to treatment with
dignity (Miller, 2001). Considerable amount of literature
from those countries assesses fairness as procedural and
interactional fairness (Skarlicki & Latham, 1997).
However, employees in some societies may value distri-
butive justice more than fair procedures and interaction.
Organizational citizenship behavior
First proposed by Bateman and Organ (1983), the concept
of OCBs became widely studied for their individual and
organizational-level consequences and implications for
organizational effectiveness (Podsakoff, Ahearne, &
MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 2009; Walz & Niehoff,
1996). Employees display OCBs whenever they defend
their employing organization in response to it being criti-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016
cized and urge their colleagues to invest in the organization
(Turnipseed & Rassuli, 2005). Such behaviors are discre-
tionary, not formally rewarded, benefit the organization,
and induce other forms of helping behaviors (Deckop,
Cirka, & Andersson, 2003; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994;
Organ, 1988; Skarlicki & Latham, 1997; VanDyne &
LePine, 1998). VanYpreen, Berg & Willering (1999) sug-
gested OCBs are behaviors and gestures that are not pre-
scribed and are distinguishable from enforceable in-role
behaviors. These include helping behaviors (George &
Brief, 1992; George & Jones, 1997), sportsmanship
(MacKenzie et al., 1999; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994),
organizational loyalty (Graham, 1991), and defending
organizational objectives (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993,
1997), among others (Podaskoff, Mackenzie, Paine, &
Bachrach, 2000).
The concept of OCB has its roots in social exchange
theory framework (Deckop, Mangel, & Cirka, 1999).
Accordingly, organizations that solicit feedback are fair
and provide a supportive environment such as fairness
and obligate employees to reciprocate (Blau, 1964;
Sommer & Kulkarni, 2012). Researchers have pointed out
various predictors of OCB such as personality traits,
employee perceptions of fairness, job satisfaction, leader
behaviors, task characteristics, motives, and role identity
(Finkelstein & Penner, 2004; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Pareke
& Susetyo, 2011). Regardless of the antecedents, employees
reciprocate favorable reward allocation decisions with posi-
tive behaviors such as OCBs(Podsakoff et al., 2009).
Furthermore, OCBs are influenced by culture. For instance,
people in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Japan view courtesy
and sportsmanship as in-role behavior unlike people in
Australia and the US (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007). In
the Pakistani context, Bukhari (2008) and Bukhari, Ali,
Shahzad, and Bashir (2009) found altruism, conscientious-
ness, and civic virtue as crucial determinants of discretion-
ary behaviors.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 3
In being influenced by motives (Rioux & Penner,
2001), OCBs may not be overlooked as passive behavior
without an aim. The beneficiary perspective assumes
that OCBs benefit selected entities of an employees
organization. A beneficiary of OCB may be the organi-
zation, peers, or supervisors that benefit from such
behaviors. Accordingly, two categories of OCB, that
is, interpersonal citizenship behavior (OCBI) and citi-
zenship behavior directed toward the organization
(OCBO) form the prime dimensions of OCB
(Williams & Anderson, 1991). OCBI includes behaviors
that benefit individuals and are indirectly beneficial for
the organization, whereas OCBO are behaviors that are
beneficial for the organization as a whole.
It is hard to find studies in the public sector where
OCB is operationalized using a beneficiary perspective,
that is, OCBI and OCBO. One such example is a study
by Pandey, Wright, and Moynihan (2008) where
Interpersonal Citizenship Behavior, that is, helping
behaviors directed at co-workers (p. 91) is found to be
an outcome of public service motivation. Another
recent example is Cheungs (2013) study where the
impact of interactional (interpersonal and informa-
tional) justice is explored on OCBI and OCBO sepa-
rately. While a recent study by Shahzad, Siddiqui, and
Zakaria (2014) explored a similar model in Pakistan,
OCB was not studied from the beneficiary perspective
leaving unclear conclusion on the target of that OCB.
While Lilly (2015) did segregate OCB by its target, she
only used OCBO and reported a positive impact of all
three justice dimensions on OCBO. The main advan-
tage of using such a framework is that the target of
OCB (individuals or the organization) stands out
clearly so that the recipient being ignored can be stu-
died in further detail for possible solutions for
improvement.
Organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behavior
As repeatedly demonstrated by empirical findings
including meta-analyses, fairness perceptions at the
workplace largely impact employee citizenship beha-
viors (Chen, Len, Tung, & Ko, 2008;
Goudarzvandchegini, Gilaninia, & Abdesonboli, 2011;
Kamdar, McAllister, & Turban, 2006; LePine, Erez, &
Johnson, 2002; Messer & White, 2006; Podsakoff et al.,
2000) by fostering feelings of support, trust, and emo-
tional well-being among employees (Aryee et al., 2002;
Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998; Moorman,
Niehoff, & Organ, 1993). Furthermore, in accordance
with the social exchange theory (Homans, 1958),
employees who experience discrimination (Ensher,
 4 M. M. HASSAN ET AL.
Grant-Vallone, & Donaldson, 2001) and injustice lim-
its contributions toward the organization to formal
enforceable behaviors and reserve OCBs. Unlike pre-
viously thought, it is fairness perceptions and not job
satisfaction that predicts OCBs (Moorman, 1991, 1993;
Organ, 1997). Even very recent studies, involving
diverse samples and industries, have reported a posi-
tive impact of OJ on OCBs, that is, zbek, Yoldash,
and Tang (2015); Al Afari and Abu Elanain (2014);
Choi, Moon, Ko, and Kim (2014).
Social exchange underlies differential responses to
justice dimensions (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, &
Taylor, 2000). In exchange for equitable treatment,
employees demonstrate citizenship behaviors
(Konovsky & Pugh, 1994) directing such behaviors
toward the source of justice perceptions. Furthermore,
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016
researchers have shown citizenship behaviors to vary as
being directed toward various beneficiaries (Coleman &
Borman, 2000; Williams & Anderson, 1991). These
beneficiaries may be broadly grouped as individuals
and organizations. Employees are said to exhibit inter-
personal OCBs (OCBI) and organizational OCBs
(OCBO) when the behaviors are directed toward indi-
viduals and organizations, respectively.
OJ dimensions are known to have differential
impact on OCBs (Williams, Pitre, & Zainuba, 2002).
Some researchers have posited that fairness in inter-
personal interactions like open communication and
treatment with dignity leads to citizenship behaviors
(Erkutlu, 2011; Moorman, 1991) while others have
reported that fairness of rewards also leads to OCBs
(Farh et al., 1997; Quratulain et al., 2012). Distributive
justice does not influence citizenship behaviors in the
Western cultures (Moorman, 1991). Despite the dif-
ferential impact, other studies also show that all justice
dimensions positively impact OCBs (Aslam & Haque;
2011; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). All OJ dimen-
sions are known to be positively associated with OCBs
in the collectivist Indian society (Gupta & Singh,
2013).
Furthermore, justice dimensions differentially
impact OCBI and OCBO (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson,
Porter, & Ng, 2001). Research on behaviors at the
workplace focuses on behavior as a targeted response.
This targeted response perspective is crucial toward
understanding the differential outcomes of justice
dimensions on behavior. OCBs are directed toward
the source of justice: the organization or peers,
hence, OCBI and OCBO. When injustice is believed
to originate from within the organization itself, it is
likely to impact OCBO. If it stems from unjust treat-
ment by supervisors, it is likely to impact OCBI
(Aryee et al., 2002; Ertrk, 2007).
In view of the literature cited above, hypotheses were
formulated to test the relationship between OJ and
OCB in Pakistan.
H1: Employees with higher perception of distributive
justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice
would have higher levels of OCBI.
H2: Employees with higher perception of distributive
justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice
would have higher levels of OCBO.
Individualism/collectivism
hofstedes (1980) work paved the way for studies on
cross-cultural differences in organizational behavior
with wide-ranging implications for researchers, organi-
zations, and human resource management experts alike
(Dong & Liu, 2010; Fadil, Segrest-Purkiss, Hurley-
Hanson, Knudstrup, & Stepina, 2004; Hansen &
Brooks, 1994). National culture may influence organi-
zations in a number of ways such as management
decisions, organizational culture, work teams, work-
place behavior, and the relevant effective human
resource practices (Francis, 1995; Gougeon & Hutton,
1993); hence, the importance for scholars and man-
agers. Along with individualism/collectivism (I/C),
Hofstedes cultural dimensions include power dis-
tance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity/fem-
ininity. I/C is the degree to which individuals are
integrated into groups and is considered to be one of
the most important cross-cultural differences (Triandis,
2001; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca,
1988). Individualism is an orientation towards self as
an autonomous individual while collectivism is
described as an orientation towards self as embedded
in a complex web of social relationship (Ramamoorthy
& Flood, 2002). Individualists prefer competitiveness,
solitary work environment, and self-reliance, whereas
collectivists prefer supremacy of group goals and
group-oriented behaviors (Kulkarni et al., 2010;
Ramamoorthy & Carroll, 1998; Triandis, 1995).
Individuals within a culture develop personalities
that conform to the overall national culture of indivi-
dualism or collectivism (Triandis, 2001). Thus, if a
culture fosters collectivism, most people within the
culture would hold interdependent communal values
and likewise for individualism. However, despite the
overall trend in culture, individual differences within
national cultures also exist (Moorman & Blakely, 1995).
The approach of measuring I/C directly from respon-
dents rather than as a collective national culture has

been adopted by several researchers like Earley (1989,
1993), Wagner (1995), and Lam et al. (2002). This
approach shows that individuals may also form cogni-
tive structures that differ from the predominant cul-
ture. Pakistan was described as a collectivist society by
Hofstede (1983); however, individual differences are
likely to influence behaviors in the work setting.
Impact of I/C on the relationship between OJ
and OCB
The role of culture in influencing perceptions of
justice and relevant outcomes is well established in
extant literature (Greenberg, 2001). An orientation
toward society as individualistic is likely to empha-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016
size individual achievement such as equity than
equality (Gelfand et al., 2007). According to the
study, individualistic cultures equate equity with
justice, whereas collectivists emphasize equality.
Collectivist employees are more likely than their
counterparts to form fairness perceptions (Earley &
Gibson, 1998). Similarly, I/C may also have differ-
ential effects on justice dimensions (Hang-yue,
Foley, & Loi, 2006).
Roe and Ester (1999) suggested that along with work
values general values also impact the work perfor-
mance. However, individual differences in the levels
of I/C within the predominantly collectivist and indivi-
dualistic cultures also contribute to justice perceptions
and behavioral outcomes (Fang & Lim, 2002). The
extent to which certain employee behaviors are related
to individual outcomes may depend on the degree of I/
C an individual holds (Erdogan & Liden, 2006).
Moorman and Blakely (1995) and Dyne, Garahm, and
Diensch (1994) found a significant relationship
between IC and OCB. Dyne, Vandewalle, Kostowa,
Latham, and Cummings (2000) found this relation to
hold true in a longitudinal study, providing even more
rigorously tested evidence.
Interdependent communal relationships as mani-
fested in a collectivistic orientation are likely to lead
to helping behaviors. OCB is related to collectivist
orientation because it requires that time and energy
be spent on helping others, rather than achieving
personal goals (Cohen & Avrahami, 2006).
Contextual influences such as interpersonal relation-
ships, interdependence, and culture influence OCBs
(George & Jones, 1997) because of differences in how
individualists and collectivists perceive experiences
and respond to fairness perceptions (Finkelstein,
2012).
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 5
H3: Employees who exhibit higher levels of collecti-
vism will exhibit higher level of OCBI in a rela-
tionship between OJ and OCBI.
H4: Employees who exhibit higher levels of collecti-
vism will exhibit higher level of OCBO in a rela-
tionship between OJ and OCBO.
Research methodology
Sample and procedure
Sample was drawn from various public sector organiza-
tions including telecom, banking, and oil & gas sectors.
Data were solicited from various industries to ensure
variations in justice perceptions and to avoid contextual
constraints associated with any particular organization
or industry (Rousseau & Fried, 2001). Matching ques-
tionnaires were distributed to subordinates (200) and
supervisors (40) in each organization and each super-
visor rated five subordinates. The time lag between
questionnaires distribution to subordinates and super-
visors was of 2 weeks. Matching questionnaires from
150 dyads were received, representing approximately
75% of respondents we surveyed. The relatively high
percentage of response was due to personal contacts of
the researchers. The data were collected from all man-
agement cadre employees representing the knowledge
workers, who could understand the research objectives
and questionnaires easily.
Participants were mostly males (80%), and more
than 50% of the population was less than 32 years of
age. Seventy percent of the respondents had a masters
degree and higher education.
Measures
OJ and I/C were measured through self-reporting of
employees, whereas citizenship behavior was measured
by obtaining supervisory responses. All the scales were
measured on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
disagree; 7 = strongly agree).
Organizational justice
OJ dimensions were assessed using the scales developed
by Niehoff and Moorman (1993). Distributive justice
scale consists of five items such as I think that my level
of pay is fair. Cronbachs alpha for distributive justice
for the selected sample was 0.777.
Procedural justice scale consists of six items such as
Managements decisions regarding my job are made in
 6 M. M. HASSAN ET AL.
an unbiased manner.. Cronbachs alpha for procedural
justice for the sample was 0.790.
Niehoff and Moormans (1993)s interactional justice
scale consists of nine items such as When decisions are
made about my job, the senior/s treat me with kindness
and consideration. Cronbachs alpha for interactional
justice for the sample was 0.894.
Individualism/collectivism
I/C construct was assessed using the six-item scale of
Dorfman and Howell (1988). The scale measured indi-
vidualistic/collectivistic orientations through items that
elicit responses to statements such as Group welfare is
more important than individual rewards. Cronbachs
alpha for the scale was 0.783.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016
OCBI and OCBO
OCBI and OCBO were assessed through William and
Andersons (1991) scales. The scales consist of items
such as Tries to help others who have been absent
and Attendance at work is above the norm..
Cronbachs alpha for OCBI and OCBO was 0.754 and
0.786, respectively.
Data analysis method
Regression analysis was conducted in SPSS to check the
impact of OJ dimensions on OCBI and OCBO. Two
econometric models were used to check the effect of
moderator on the relationship between OJ and OCBI
and OCBO. Baron and Kennys (1986) prescribed
method was used for moderation analysis.
Results
Table 1 shows reliabilities, means, standard deviations,
and correlations among the variables. Correlation
between distributive justice and procedural justice,
0.35; distributive justice and interactional justice, 0.38;
and procedural and interactional justice, 0.69; were
significant at p < .01. The correlation between OCBI
and OCBO was 0.70 (p < .01). Correlations of distribu-
tive and interactional justice with OCBI were 0.29
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities.
Variables Mean SD
1. Distributive justice 4.16 1.01
2. Procedural justice 4.16 0.94
3. Interactional justice 4.31 0.94
4. Individualism/collectivism 4.39 0.91
5. OCBI 4.47 0.82
6. OCBO 4.63 0.83
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).
(p < .01) and 0.23 (p < .05), respectively, providing
provisional support for hypothesis H1. Procedural jus-
tice and OCBI were not significantly correlated. OCBO
was not significantly correlated with any dimension of
OJ. Thus, no support was found for hypothesis H2.
Table 2 shows results of regression analysis for test-
ing hypotheses H1 and H2. The results show distribu-
tive justice ( = 0.20, p < .05) and interactional justice
( = 0.232, p < .05) significantly predicted OCBI.
Procedural justice did not significantly predict OCBI
( = 0.153, n.s.). The R2 for the model was 0.132, with
a change of 0.117 at a significance level of p < .01. For
H1, the relationship between distributive and interac-
tional justice and OCBI was accepted. OCBO is not
significantly predicted by OJ dimensions. H2 was
rejected.
Table 3 shows the results for moderated regression
analysis. Moderation was tested in two models.
Demographic variables of gender, age, and tenure were
controlled in step 1. In step 2, justice dimensions and I/C
variables were controlled. Previously significant relation-
ships between distributive and interactional justice with
OCBI (Table 2) became insignificant when I/C was entered
into the model in step 2 (Table 3). R2 for step 2 was 0.467.
In step 3, the three interaction terms were entered.
Interaction terms for procedural ( = 0.123, p < .01)
and interactional justice ( = 0.030, p < .01) gave signifi-
cant results. R2 for step 3 was 0.555 with a change of 0.088
(p < .000). Thus, hypothesis H3 was accepted.
In testing for moderation for OCBO, a previously
insignificant relationship between interactional justice
and OCBO (Table 2) became significant ( = 0.209,
p < .01), when I/C was included in step 2 (Table 3). R2 for
step 2 was 0.481. In step 3, only the interaction term for
distributive justice gave significant result ( =0.229,
p < .000). R2 for step 3 was 0.581 with a change of
0.100 (p < .000). Thus, hypothesis H4 was accepted.
Discussion
Results of H1 showed that employees respond by show-
ing extra-role behaviors toward supervisors and peers
when organizations are distributively and interactionally
fair. Procedural fairness did not lead to such behavior
1 2 3 4 5 6
(0.777)
0.35** (0.790)
0.38** 0.69** (0.894)
0.24** 0.09 0.28** (0.783)
0.29** 0.08 0.23* 0.66** (0.754)
0.14 0.02 0.05 0.65** 0.70** (0.786)
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 7

Table 2. Regression analysis results for OCBI and OCBO. contrast to literature cited in this study, for employees
OCBI OCBO in Pakistan, fairness of rewards possibly implies that
Predictors R2 R2 R2 R2 fair procedures are in place that decided on those fair
Step 1 outcomes. Whether employees take fair procedures as
Control variables 0.015 0.44
Step 2 an indication of fair rewards or fair reward distribution
Distributive justice 0.20* 0.114 as an indication of the organizations procedural fair-
Procedural justice 0.153 0.117
Interactional justice 0.232* 0.132 0.117** 0.032 0.066 0.022* ness has not received much attention of researchers.
* p < .05; ** p < .01. Results for H2 suggest that employees do not respond
with OCBO to justice. They possibly consider supervisors
as the source of justice and not the organization per se,
according to the findings. Yardan, Kse, and Kse not reducing behaviors such as taking undeserved breaks,
(2014) had somewhat similar results since they reported not making efforts to conserve and protect office prop-
an insignificant relationship between procedural justice erty and adhere to informal rules devised to maintain
and three OCB dimensions, namely sportsmanship, order. Furthermore, perhaps the fairnessOCBO rela-
altruism, and courtesy. Awang and Ahmed (2015) also tionship can be better explained through considering the
reported that while distributive and interactional justice role of commitment toward the organization that is fos-
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016

predicted OCB, procedural justice had no significant
relation with OCB. A possible explanation for these
results is that fairness of procedures is attributable to
the organization and not to supervisors and fellow work-
ers. In addition, perhaps employees associate fair
rewards to supervisors who provide feedback on their
performance, thus showing citizenship behavior that
benefits supervisors. Psychological processes determine
the beneficiary of citizenship behavior (McNeely &
Meglino, 1994) and employees target citizenship beha-
vior toward certain beneficiaries (Lavelle et al., 2009) in
line with social exchange theory. This explanation is
supported by other literature on directed behavior
(Dalal, 2005). Another possible explanation can be
drawn from Lee, Pillutla, and Laws (2000) study where
the authors stated that high-power distance made
employees less responsive to procedural justice. While
power distance was not in the scope of this study,
Hofstede (1983) has classified Pakistan as a country
that is high on power distance.
The relative importance of distributive justice over
procedural justice is in line with literature that suggests
economic factors may render reward outcomes more
valuable for employees (Quratulain et al., 2012). In
tered by organizational fairness (Lavelle et al., 2009).
Similar results were reported by Balfour and Wechsler
(1991), where the public employees were found to have
low willingness to go beyond the assigned duties and exert
extra effort on the job. In a study comparing the public
and private sector employees work motivations, Buelens
and Van den Broeck (2007) also found the public sector
employees motivation to expend extensive efforts lower
than that of private employees. Another possible line of
reasoning can be that because the supervisors in the
Pakistani public sector are given significant authority
and power to be exercised over their subordinates the
employees consider their supervisors to be a more prox-
imal target of perceived fairness. Likewise, Cheung (2013)
stated that employees attribute the interactive justice per-
ceptions to their supervisors due to the same propinquity
of relation.
H3 and H4 found moderated effects of I/C on citi-
zenship responses to justice, but contrary to expecta-
tions, perceived justice had negative values of
citizenship behavior for higher values of collectivism.
In other words, people with lower collective orienta-
tions were likely to respond with citizenship behaviors
to perceived justice. For highly collectivist individuals,

Table 3. Moderating regression analysis of individualism/collectivism with OJ and OCB.

OCBI OCBO
Predictors R2 R2 R2 R2
Step 1
Control variables 0.015 0.44
Step 2
Distributive justice 0.0116 0.018
Procedural justice 0.018 .037
Interactional justice 0.019 0.209*
I/C 0.556** 0.467 0.452*** 0.630*** 0.481 0.436***
Step 3
I/C distributive justice 0.093 0.229***
I/C procedural justice 0.123* .015
I/C interactional justice 0.030* 0.555 0.088*** 0.013 0.581 0.100***
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .000.
 8 M. M. HASSAN ET AL.
equity may not suffice for citizenship behavior.
Researchers of I/C repeatedly cite literature that sug-
gests collectivists value equality, whereas individualists
value equity (Fadil, Williams, Limpaphayom, & Smatt,
2005; Ramamoorthy & Flood, 2002). Also, collectivists
may show cooperative behaviors for collective reasons
(Wagner, 1995), regardless of fairness.
Another possible explanation is that because
employees are not formally required to show citizen-
ship behavior some form of free rider tendencies or
individual loafing may explain why collectivism attenu-
ated effects of justice on OCBs. Research suggests that
collectivists show individual loafing, that is, reduced
performance under low shared responsibility for per-
formance (Earley, 1989, p. 578). Collective orientation
may foster beliefs that other beneficiaries of fairness
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016
have a role to play in helping others around the work-
place and in conserving office property, etc. In the
absence of formal recognition for citizenship behaviors,
such loafing may help employees preserve individual
energies without violating their collectivistic group
orientations.
The study has implications for human resource
management personnel especially from the public sec-
tor. Though fairness is likely to lead to citizenship
responses toward others at work, managers may need
to look into practices that encourage citizenship toward
the organization. Perhaps organizations in Pakistan
should not dwell on the predominantly collectivist
orientation but work toward creating a team-collecti-
vistic culture as proposed by McAtavey and
Nikolovska (2010). Such a team collectivistic culture
may be instrumental in overriding individual differ-
ences in collectivism, as well as enabling employees to
attribute the culture to organizations, paving the way
for citizenship behaviors toward the organizations.
Bies and Moag (1986) postulated that interactional
justice leads to OCBI, whereas procedural justice
enhances the OCBO levels of employees. Although
interactional justice is predicting OCBI in this study,
perceptions of procedural justice are not having any
significant impact on both dimensions of OCB.
It is a point worth noting for the public sector
managers that their employees, even if they perceive
OJ to be present, do not display OCBs toward their
employing organizations. This is an indication that
employees are considering their supervisors to be the
originator of OJ organization and not the organization
as a whole. This situation needs attention and efforts
should be done by public sector employers to change
this perception and make it clear that the organization
is determined to ensure high levels of OJ. While OCBI
and OCBO are interrelated and presence of any one of
these has an indirect positive effect on the other, mak-
ing sure that OCBs are displayed directly toward both
beneficiaries may lead to a multiplied positive effect on
the organizational effectiveness.
To summarize, the study contributed to existing
literature on justice and collectivism. Findings show
that employees attribute fairness to supervisors who
distribute rewards and interact with them on behalf of
the organization. We draw attention to findings that
under certain conditions distributive fairness may
become more or equally important as procedural fair-
ness. Findings indicate that employees take reward dis-
tributions as an indication of fair procedures. This
study also substantiates the idea that cultural values
influence behaviors. However, for collectivists,
mediated paths to citizenship may better explain beha-
vioral responses to fairness. Collectivists probably also
carry free rider tendencies that may be overcome using
human resource practices that create a team-collectivis-
tic culture.
Future research suggestions
From findings on the role of collectivism, we suggest
future studies check for conditions under which collec-
tivists are likely to harbor free rider tendencies. Future
studies should explain whether employees perceive dis-
tributive fairness as an indication of the organizations
fairness in decision-making or whether fairness of pro-
cedures is taken to mean fair rewards will follow.
References
Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding inequity.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67 (5), 422
436. doi:10.1037/h0040968
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology., 2, 267297.
Al Afari, T. S., & Abu Elanain, H. M. (2014). Procedural and
distributive justice as mediators of the relationship
between interactional justice and work outcomes: An
empirical study of the UAE public health care sector.
Journal of Applied Business Research, 30 (4), 10911108.
doi:10.19030/jabr.v30i4.8657
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as
mediator of relationship between organizational Justice
and work outcomes: Test of social exchange model.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 267285.
doi:10.1002/job.138
Aslam, M. S., & Haque, A. (2011). The influence of distribu-
tive justice on organizational citizenship behavior:
Mediating role of emotional exhaustion and organizational
attachment. International Journal of Business and Social
Science, 2 (15), 155165.
Awang, R., & Ahmad, W. M. R. W. (2015). The impact of
organizational justice on organizational citizenship

behavior in Malaysian higher education. Mediterranean
Journal of Social Sciences, 6 (5 S2), 674678.
Balfour, D. L., & Wechsler, B. (1991). Commitment, perfor-
mance and productivity in public organizations. Public
Productivity & Management Review, 14 (4), 355367.
doi:10.2307/3380952
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormed-
iator variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and
the good soldier: The relationship between affect and
employee Citizenship. Academy of Management
Journal, 26 (4), 587595. doi:10.2307/255908
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice:
Communication criteria of fairness. Research on
Negotiations in Organizations, 1, 4355. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016
York, NY: Wiley.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the
criterion domain to include elements of contextual
performance. Personnel Selection in Organizations, 71
(98), 7198.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance
and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel
selection research. Human Performance, 10 (2), 99109.
doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1002_3
Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J.,
Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., & Shapiro, D. (2001).
Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power dis-
tance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 37 (4), 300315. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1451
Buelens, M., & Van den Broeck, H. (2007). An analysis of
differences in work motivation between public and private
sector organizations. Public Administration Review, 67 (1),
6574. doi:10.1111/puar.2007.67.issue-1
Bukhari, Z. (2008). Key antecedents of OCB in banking
sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Business and
Management, 3 (12), 106115.
Bukhari, Z., Ali, U., Shahzad, K., & Bashir, S. (2009).
Determinants of organizational citizenship behavior in
Pakistan. International Review of Business Research
Papers, 5 (2), 132150.
Chen, Y. J., Len, C. C., Tung, Y. C., & Ko, Y. T. (2008).
Associations of organizational justice and ingratiation with
organizational citizenship behavior. The beneficiary per-
spective. Social Behavior and Personality, 36 (3), 289302.
doi:10.2224/sbp.2008.36.3.289
Cheung, M. F. (2013). The mediating role of perceived orga-
nizational support in the effects of interpersonal and infor-
mational justice on organizational citizenship behaviors.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34 (6),
551572. doi:10.1108/LODJ-11-2011-0114
Choi, B. K., Moon, H. K., Ko, W., & Kim, K. M. (2014). A
cross-sectional study of the relationships between organi-
zational justices and OCB: Roles of organizational identi-
fication and psychological contracts. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 35 (6), 530554.
doi:10.1108/LODJ-08-2012-0103
Cohen, A., & Avrahami, A. (2006). The relationship between
individualism, collectivism, the perception of Justice,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 9
demographic characteristics and OCB. The Service
Industries Journal, 26 (8), 889901. doi:10.1080/
02642060601011707
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of
Justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86 (2), 278321.
doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2958
Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the
underlying structure of the citizenship performance
domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10 (1),
2544. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00037-6
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organiza-
tional justice: A construct validation of a measure.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3), 386400.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L.
H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-
analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3), 425445.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005).
What is organizational Justice? A historic overview. The
Handbook of Organizational Justice, 1, 358. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., Kessler, I., & Purcell, J. (2004).
Exploring organizationally directed citizenship behavior:
Reciprocity or Its my job? Journal of Management
Studies, 41, 85106. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00422.x
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange
theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management,
31 (6), 874900. doi:10.1177/0149206305279602
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship
between organizational citizenship behavior and counter-
productive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90 (6), 12411255. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241
Deckop, J. R., Cirka, C. C., & Andersson, L. M. (2003). Doing
unto others: The reciprocity of helping behavior in orga-
nizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 47 (2), 101113.
doi:10.1023/A:1026060419167
Deckop, J. R., Mangel, R., & Cirka, C. C. (1999). Getting
more than you pay for: Organizational citizenship beha-
vior and pay for performance plans. Academy of
Management Journal, 42 (4), 420428. doi:10.2307/257012
Dong, K., & Liu, Y. (2010). Cross-cultural management in
China. Cross Cultural Management: An International
Journal, 17 (3), 223243. doi:10.1108/13527601011068333
Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of
national culture and effective leadership patterns:
Hofstede revisited. Advances in International
Comparative Management, 3 (1), 127150.
Dyne, L. V., Garahm, G. W., & Diensch, R. M. (1994).
Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition
measurement and validation. Academy of Management
Journal, 37 (4), 765802. doi:10.2307/256600
Dyne, L. V., Vandewalle, D., Kostowa, T., Latham, M. E., &
Cummings, L. L. (2000). Collectivism, propensity to trust
and self-esteem as predictors OCB in non-work settings.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 323. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1099-1379(200002)21:1<3::AID-JOB47>3.0.CO;2-6
Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: The
comparison of USA and China. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 34 (4), 565581. doi:10.2307/2393567
 10 M. M. HASSAN ET AL.
Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets west meets Mideast: Further
explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work
group. Academy of Management Journal, 36 (2), 336348.
doi:10.2307/256525
Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. (1998). Taking stock in our
progress on individualism/ collectivism: 100 years of soli-
darity and community. Journal of Management, 24 (3),
265304. doi:10.1177/014920639802400302
Elamin, A. M. (2012). Perceived organizational justice and work-
related attitudes: A study of Saudi employees. World Journal of
Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development,
8 (1), 7188. doi:10.1108/20425961211221633
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual
Review of Sociology, 335362. doi:10.1146/annurev.
so.02.080176.002003
Ensher, E. A., Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Donaldson, S. I. (2001).
Effects of perceived discrimination on job satisfaction, organi-
zational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and
grievances. Human Resource Development Quarterly.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016
doi:10.1002/1532-1096(200101/02)12:1<53::AID-
HRDQ5>3.0.CO;2-G
Erdogan, B., & Liden, R. C. (2006). Collectivism as a mod-
erator of responses to organizational justice: Implications
for leader-member exchange and ingratiation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 27 (1), 117. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)
1099-1379
Erkutlu, H. (2011). The moderating role of organizational
culture in the relationship between organizational justice
and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 32 (6), 532554.
doi:10.1108/01437731111161058
Ertrk, A. (2007). Increasing organizational citizenship beha-
viors of Turkish academicians: Mediating role of trust in
supervisor on the relationship between organizational justice
and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
22 (3), 257270. doi:10.1108/02683940710733089
Fadil, P., Segrest-Purkiss, S. L., Hurley-Hanson, A. E.,
Knudstrup, M., & Stepina, L. (2004). Distributive justice
in Northern Mexico and the US: A cross-cultural compar-
ison. Cross Cultural Management: An International
Journal, 11 (3), 324. doi:10.1108/13527600410797819
Fadil, P. A., Williams, R. J., Limpaphayom, W., & Smatt, C.
(2005). Equity or equality? A conceptual examination of
the influence of individualism/collectivism on the cross-
cultural application of equity theory. Cross Cultural
Management: An International Journal, 12 (4), 1735.
doi:10.1108/13527600510798114
Fang, F., & Lim, V. K. (2002, December). Collectivism,
machiavellianism, perceived organizational justice and
organizational citizenship behavior: An empirical study of
chinese employees. In The Second International Conference
on Electronic Business, Taipei, Taiwan.
Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action:
A cultural analysis of organizational Justice and organiza-
tional citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 42 (3), 421444. doi:10.2307/2393733
Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. (2004).
Organizational citizenship behavior in the People's
Republic of China. Organization Science, 15(2), 241253.
Finkelstein, M. A. (2012). Individualism/collectivism and
organizational citizenship behavior: An integrative frame-
work. Social Behavior and Personality: an International
Journal, 40 (10), 16331643. doi:10.2224/
sbp.2012.40.10.1633
Finkelstein, M. A., & Penner, L. A. (2004). Predicting orga-
nizational citizenship behavior: Integrating the functional
and role identity approaches. Social Behavior and
Personality, 32 (4), 383398. doi:10.2224/sbp.2004.32.4.383
Francis, J. L. (1995). Training across cultures. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 6 (1), 101107.
doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1532-1096
Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural
organizational behavior. Annual Reviews Psychologist, 58,
479514. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085559
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 (2),
310329. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.310
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational sponta-
neity in context. Human Performance, 10 (2), 153170.
doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1002_6
Goudarzvandchegini, M., Gilaninia, S., & Abdesonboli, R.
(2011). Organizational justice and organizational citizen-
ship behavior case study: Rasht public hospitals.
International Journal of Business Administration, 2, 4.
doi:10.5430/ijba.v2n4p42
Gougeon, T. D., & Hutton, S. I. (1993). Effects of culture and
gender on principal-teacher communication in schools.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4 (3), 277290.
doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1532-1096
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preli-
minary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2),
161178.
Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship
behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4
(4), 249270. doi:10.1007/BF01385031
Greenberg, J. (1990a). Employee theft as a reaction to under-
payment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75 (5), 561568. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.75.5.561
Greenberg, J. (1990b). Organizational justice: Yesterday,
today and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16 (2),
399432. doi:10.1177/014920639001600208
Greenberg, J. (2001). Studying organizational Justice cross-
culturally: Fundamental challenges. International Journal
of Conflict Management, 12, 365375. doi:10.1108/
eb022864
Gupta, V., & Singh, S. (2012). Empirical evaluation of dimen-
sionality of organizational citizenship behavior for Indian
business context. Psychological Studies, 57 (4), 392403.
doi:10.1007/s12646-012-0154-x
Gupta, V., & Singh, S. (2013). An empirical study of the
dimensionality of organizational justice and its relation-
ship with organizational citizenship behaviour in the
Indian context. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 24 (6), 12771299. doi:10.1080/
09585192.2012.709188
Hang-yue, N., Foley, S., & Loi, R. (2006). The effects of
cultural types on perceptions of justice and gender
inequity in work place. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 17, 983998. doi:10.1080/
09585190600693264
Hansen, C. D., & Brooks, A. K. (1994). A review of cross-
cultural research on human resource development. Human

Resource Development Quarterly, 5 (1), 5574. doi:10.1002/
(ISSN)1532-1096
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International
Studies of Management & Organization, 10 (4), 1541.
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational
practices and theories. Journal of International Business
Studies, 14 (2), 7589.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American
Journal of Sociology, 597606. doi:10.1086/222355
Hui, C., Lee, C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Psychological
contract and organizational citizenship behavior in China:
Investigating generalizability and instrumentality. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 89, 311321. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.89.2.311
Kamdar, D., McAllister, D. J., & Turban, D. B. (2006). All in
a days work: How follower individual differences and
Justice perceptions predict OCB role definitions and beha-
vior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (4), 841855.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.841
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior
and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37
(3), 656669. doi:10.2307/256704
Kulkarni, S. P., Hudson, T., Ramamoorthy, N., Marchev, A.,
Georgieva-Kondakova, P., & Gorskov, V. (2010).
Dimensions of individualism-collectivism: A comparative
study of five cultures. Current Issues of Business and Law,
5, 1. doi:10.5200/1822-9530.2010.03
Lam, S. S. K., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. (2002).
Relationship between organizational Justice and work
related outcomes: A cross national study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23 (1), 118. doi:10.1002/job.131
Lavelle, J. J., Brockner, J., Konovsky, M. A., Price, K. H., Henley,
A. B., Taneja, A., & Vinekar, V. (2009). Commitment, pro-
cedural fairness, and organizational citizenship behavior: A
multifoci analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30 (3),
337357. doi:10.1002/job.v30:3
Lee, C., Pillutla, M., & Law, K. S. (2000). Power-distance,
gender and organizational justice. Journal of Management,
26 (4), 685704. doi:10.1177/014920630002600405
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & 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. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.52
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity
theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social
relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis
(Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research
(pp. 2755). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Lilly, J. (2015). The impact of justice type on organizational
citizenship behavior: Do outcome favorability and leader
behavior matter? Current Psychology, 34 (1), 2649.
doi:10.1007/s12144-014-9238-1
Mackenzie, S. B., & Posdakoff, P. M. (1994). Organizational
citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal
of marketing research, 31(3), 351363.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Paine, J. B. (1999). Do
citizenship behaviors matter more for managers than for
salespeople?. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
27 (4), 396410.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S.
(2000). Integrating Justice and social exchange: The differ-
ing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 11
relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (4),
738748. doi:10.2307/1556364
McAtavey, J., & Nikolovska, I. (2010). Team collectivist culture: A
remedy for creating team effectiveness. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 21 (3), 307316. doi:10.1002/hrdq.
v21:3
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and
Procedural Justice as predictors of satisfaction with perso-
nal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management
Journal, 35, 626637. doi:10.2307/256489
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (2001). Cross-cultural
applications of organizational Justice. Justice in the
Workplace: from Theory to Practice, 2, 6795.
McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of dis-
positional and situational antecedents in prosocial organi-
zational behavior: An examination of the intended
beneficiaries of prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79 (6), 836. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.836
Messer, B. A., & White, F. A. (2006). Employees mood,
perceptions of fairness, and organizational citizenship
behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21 (1), 65
82. doi:10.1007/s10869-005-9018-x
Miller, D. T. (2001). Disrespect and the experience of injus-
tice. Annual review of psychology, 52 (1), 527553.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational
justice and organizational citizenship behavior: Do fairness
perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76 (6), 845855. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.76.6.845
Moorman, R. H. (1993). The influence of cognitive and
affective based job satisfaction measures on the relation-
ship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship
behavior. Human Relations, 46 (6), 759776. doi:10.1177/
001872679304600604
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-
collectivism as an individual difference predictor of orga-
nizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 16, 127142. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-
1379
Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does
perceived organizational support mediates the relationship
between organizational Justice and organizational citizen-
ship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41 (3),
351357. doi:10.2307/256913
Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993).
Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship
behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfacction, organiza-
tional commitment and procedural justrice. Employees
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6 (3), 209225.
doi:10.1007/BF01419445
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a med-
iator of the relationship between methods of monitoring
and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of
Management journal, 36 (3), 527556.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The
good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1989). Organizational citizenship behavior:
The good solider syndrome. Academy of Management
Review, 14 (2), 294297.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its
construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10 (2), 85
97. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2
 12 M. M. HASSAN ET AL.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of
attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational
citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48 (4), 775
802. doi:10.1111/peps.1995.48.issue-4
zbek, M. F., Yoldash, M. A., & Tang, T. L. P. (2015). Theory
of justice, OCB, and individualism: Kyrgyz Citizens. Journal
of Business Ethics, 118. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2553-0
Ozer, M. (2011). A moderated mediation model of the rela-
tionship between organizational citizenship behaviors and
job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (6),
1328. doi:10.1037/a0023644
Pandey, S. K., Wright, B. E., & Moynihan, D. P. (2008).
Public service motivation and interpersonal citizenship
behavior in public organizations: Testing a preliminary
model. International Public Management Journal, 11 (1),
89108. doi:10.1080/10967490801887947
Pareke, F., & Susetyo, S. (2011). Modeling the causal relation-
ship of organizational justice, job satisfaction and organiza-
tional citizenship behavior. Cambridge Business &
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016
Economics Conference, Cambridge, University,
Cambridge, UK. June 2729, 2011. ISBN: 9780974211428.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of
organizational citizenship behavior on organizational per-
formance: A review and suggestion for future research.
Human Performance, 10 (2), 133151.
Podaskoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach,
D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A cri-
tical review of theoretical and empirical literature and
suggestions for future research. Journal of Management,
26 (3), 513563. doi:10.1177/014920630002600307
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume,
B. D. (2009). Individual and organizational level conse-
quences of OCB: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94 (1), 122141. doi:10.1037/a0013079
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997).
Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and
quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82 (2), 262. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.262
Poncheri, R. M. (2006). The impact of work context on the
prediction of job performance. (Masters dissertation) USA:
North Carolina State University Retrieved from http://
repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/248/1/etd.pdf
Quratulain, S., Khan, A. K., & Peretti, J. M. (2012). The moder-
ating impact of Hofstedes cultural dimensions on the rela-
tionship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: A study in Pakistani work context.
European J. Cross-cultural Competence and Management, 2
(2), 149171. doi:10.1504/EJCCM.2012.047089
Rainey, H. G. (1991). Understanding and managing public
organizations. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Ramamoorthy, N., & Carroll, S. J. (1998). Individualism/
collectivism orientations and reactions towards alternative
human resource management practices. Human Relations.,
51, 571. doi:10.1177/001872679805100501
Ramamoorthy, N., & Flood, P. C. (2002). Employee attitudes
and behavioral intentions: A test of the main and moder-
ating effects of individualism-collectivism orientations.
Human Relations, 55 (9), 10711096. doi:10.1177/
0018726702055009020
Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organiza-
tional citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (6), 1306. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.86.6.1306
Robbins, L. (2008). The nature and significance of economic
science. In Daniel M. Hausman (Ed.), The Philosophy of
Economics: An Anthology (pp. 7399). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Roe, R. A., & Ester, P. (1999). Values and work: Empirical
findings and theoretical perspective. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 48 (1), 121. doi:10.1111/
apps.1999.48.issue-1
Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location. Location,
Location: Contextualizing Organizational Research.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22 (1), 113.
Shahzad, A., Siddiqui, M. A., & Zakaria, M. (2014). Linking
organizational justice with organization citizenship beha-
viors: Collectivism as moderator. Pakistan Journal of
Commerce and Social Sciences, 8 (3), 900913.
Shim, D. C., & Faerman, S. (2015). Government employees
organizational citizenship behavior: The impacts of public
service motivation, organizational identification, and sub-
jective OCB norms. International Public Management
Journal, 129.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1997). Leadership training
in organizational Justice to increase citizenship behavior
within a labor union: A replication. Personnel Psychology,
50 (3), 617633. doi:10.1111/peps.1997.50.issue-3
Sommer, K. L., & Kulkarni, M. (2012). Does constructive
performance feedback improve citizenship intentions and
job satisfaction? The roles of perceived opportunities for
advancement, respect, and mood. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 23 (2), 177201. doi:10.1002/
hrdq.v23.2
Triandis, H. C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and per-
sonality. Journal of Personality, 69 (6), 907924.
doi:10.1111/1467-6494.696169
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder,
CO: Westview press.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., &
Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism-collectivism: Cross-cul-
tural perspective on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (2), 323338.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.323
Turnipseed, D. L., & Rassuli, A. (2005). Performance percep-
tions of organizational citizenship behaviors at work: A bi-
level studies among managers and employees. British
Journal of Management, 16, 231244. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8551.2005.00456.x
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice
extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive
validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (1), 108119.
doi:10.2307/256902
VanYpreen, N. W., Berg, A. E., & Willering, M. C. (1999).
Towards a better understanding of the link between
participation in decision making and organizational citi-
zenship behavior: A multilevel analysis. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 377
392. doi:10.1348/096317999166734

Wagner, J. A. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism:
Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management
Journal, 38 (1), 152173. doi:10.2307/256731
Walz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (1996). Organizational citizen-
ship behaviors and their effect on organizational effective-
ness in limited-menu restaurants. In Academy of
management proceedings (Vol. 1996, 1, pp. 307311).
Academy of Management.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and
organizational commitment as predictors of organizational
citizenship behavior and in-role behaviors. Journal of
Management, 17 (3), 601617. doi:10.1177/0149206391017
00305
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 23:01 17 April 2016
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 13
Williams, S., Pitre, R., & Zainuba, M. (2002). Justice and
organizational citizenship behavior intentions: Fair rewards
versus fair treatment. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142
(1), 3344. doi:10.1080/00224540209603883
Wooten, K. C., & Cobb, A. T. (1999). Career development
and organizational justice: Practice and research implica-
tions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10 (2),
173179. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1532-1096
Yardan, E. D., Kse, S. D., & Kse, T. (2014). The effect of
employees perceptions of organizational justice on orga-
nizational citizenship behavior: An application in Turkish
public hospital. Journal of Human Resources and Labor
Studies, 2 (2), 129148.