Organizational citizenship behavior: The role of organizational justice and leader member exchange

ijcrb.webs.com

I

J

O

C

R

I

B

^{J V}

^{3, N}

^{9 2012}

Organizational citizenship behavior: The role of organizational justice and leader–member exchange

Farzin Farahbod *

, Mohammadreza Azadehdel

, Morad Rezaei-Dizgah

,

Maryam Nezhadi-Jirdehi

1,2,3

Islamic Azad University, Rasht Branch, Iran

4

Master degree of human resource, Islamic Azad University, Rasht Branch, Iran

* Correspondig author

Abstract

The aim of the present research is the study of the effect of perceptions of organizational justice and leader–member exchange on the organizational citizenship behavior of public banks employees in Rasht. This study is practical and descriptive. Statistical population is employees of public banks in Rasht that they have 2007 employees that through simple random sampling, 320 employees were selected. For data analysis we are using Pearson correlation and multiple regression models . Hypothesis testing showes there is a positive relationship among employee's perceptions of organizational justice and leader–

member exchange in simultaneously with organizational citizenship behavior. About the effect of organizational justice dimensions on organizational citizenship behavior, results shows that only the interactive justice is positively related to organizational citizenship behavior. Also, there is a positive relationship between the employee's perceptions of leader–member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior.

Keywords: Distributive justice, Procedural justice, Interactional justice, Leader–member exchange, Organizational citizenship behavior.

Introduction

Banks cost substantial sums each year for advertising, human resources develop ment programs, improve productivity and service quality, that achieving to the mentioned objectives and attainment to organizational goals depends on the employee performance and the extent of the cooperation with other employees, managers and clients that means organizational citizenship behaviors. In today's competitive environment, the major effort of business institute is based on to create and use those benefits that made from reliance on internal resources especially human resource. It seems that a Bank that is ouster from his employee's organizational citizenship behaviors, in comparison the bank would benefit from this advantages maybe face with the gradual loss of share and market value that this situation can effect on employee's performance and will threat the organizational survival. Therefore, some invisible behaviors such as organizational citizenship behavior because of his effective role in the organizational operations has been the focus of attention of many researchers during the past decades .

Organizational citizenship behavior is defined as "discretionary behaviours on the part of

an employee that directly promote the effective functioning of an organization, independent

of an employee’s objective productivity" (Jung & et al., 2008: 794) . The dominant

theoretical basis for most organizational citizenship behavior investigations has been social

exchange theory. Social exchange theory is an economic model of human behavior.

ijcrb.webs.com

I

J

O

C

R

I

B

^{J V}

^{3, N}

^{9 2012}

Perceptions of organizational justice is just one element of social exchange. If employees perceive that they are being treated fairly by their supervisors, they will be more likely to reciprocate by holding positive attitudes about their work, their work outcomes, and their supervisors (Wat & Shaffer, 2005: 407). Organ (1988) suggested that organizational citizenship behavior might be "an input to one’s equity ratio" and that employees respond to inequity by increasing or decreasing their levels of organizational citizenship behavior.

Another social context characteristic, which we contend is also relevant to understanding organizational citizenship behavior, is that of interpersonal relationships. Higher-quality relationships involve exchanges of resources that go beyond those specified in the formal employment contract (Wat & Shaffer, 2005: 407-408) . Considering all the above, researchers in this study seek to answer the following question :

Is there relationship among employee perceptions of organizational justice and leader–

member exchange with organizational citizenship behavior ?

Literature Review

Perceptions of Organizational Justice

Organizational justice concept was first used by Greenberg (1990). Organizational justice is the term used to describe the role of fairness as it directly relates to the workplace.

Specifically, organizational justice is concerned with the ways in which employees determine if they have been treated fairly in their jobs (Moorman, 1991: 845) . According to Greenberg (1990), perceptions of organizational justice operationalized as a three-dimensional construct :

- Distributive justice: Colquitt & et al (2005) notice that distributive justice was initially conceptualized by Homans (1961) based on the notion of relative deprivation introduced by Stouffer & et al (1949). Further, they noted that many of Homans’ ideas about distributive justice were developed more fully by Adams (1965)’ equity theory (Sholihin & et al, 2007: 5-6) . According to Greenberg (1990), distributive justice involves employee assessments of fairness of rewards and inducements received in exchange for contributions at work .

- Procedural justice: Concerning procedural fairness, the term was first used by Thibaut

& et al (1974) and Thibaut and Walker (1975) to refer to the social psychological consequences of procedural variation, with particular emphasis on procedural effects on fairness judgments. Procedural justice involves employee assessments of the extent to which decisions are based on fair methods and guidelines. In other words, employees evaluate the extent to which they feel processes used to make decisions that influence them are just (Ang & et al., 2003: 563) .

- Interactional justice: Bies and Moag (1986) introduced still a third dimension of organizational justice. From a series of interviews, they discovered that people were also concerned about the quality of interpersonal treatment they received during the enactment of procedures and tied perceptions of justice to it (Lau, 2008: 15). Bies and Moag (1986) termed these fairness perceptions “interactional justice” . Interactional justice suggests that perceptions of procedural justice can originate from an organization’s procedures and how those procedures are implemented (Wat & Shaffer, 2005: 409) .

In his discussion of the motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior, Organ

(1988) maintained that justice perceptions play a key role in promoting organizational

citizenship behavior. Predicated upon the social exchange perspective, he also proposed an

ijcrb.webs.com

I

J

O

C

R

I

B

^{J V}

^{3, N}

^{9 2012}

explanation whereby employees perform organizational citizenship behavior to reciprocate the fair treatment offered by their organizations (Young, 2010: 638). Podsakoff & et al.

(2000) suggest that if treated fairly with employees in the organization, and the supervisors also have a good relations with them the amount of organizational citizenship behavior will increase.

Perceptions of Leader–Member exchange

Leader–member exchange theory describes the quality of relationships between leaders and their followers (Bowler & et al., 2010: 310) and first conceptualized as the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership, was initially proposed as an alternative to an average leadership style (Collins, 2007: 18-19) . Graen & et al (1975) have found that in nearly all units leaders differentiate among their subordinates in terms of leader behavior. According to this theory, certain subordinates chosen because of competence and skill, extent to which they can be trusted (especially when not being watched by the supervisor), and motivation to assume greater responsibility within the unit are given preferential treatment by the leader.

These selected subordinates (in-group members) make contributions that go beyond their formal job duties and take on responsibility for the completion of tasks that are most critical the success of the unit (Liden & et al., 1980: 451-452) . Dienesch and liden (1986, Liden & et al., 1998: 45) proposed that although work behaviors stressed by graen and colleagues are important, leader–member exchanges may develop and endure in a number of different ways. They suggested that Leader–member exchange can be differentiated into three types of relationship exchanges, termed contribution, loyalty and affect (Sin & et al., 2009: 1049).

- Contribution: Contribution is the perception of the amount of work and the guality of work that each member of the dyadic relationship brings into the dyadic relationship (Amah, 2010: 40).

- Loyalty: Loyalty was defined as the extent to which both leader and member publicly support each other’s actions and character (Liden & et al., 1998: 46).

- Affect: Dienesch and liden (1986, Liden & et al., 1998: 46) defined affect as "the mutual affection members of the dyad have for each other based primarily on interpersonal attraction rather than work or professional values" .

Liden and Maslyn (1998) helped to advance this idea further by developing an instrument of multidimensional leader–member exchange (MDM-LMX). In addition to affect, loyalty and contribution, they identified professional respect as the fourth dimension of leader–

member exchange.

- Professional respect: Professional respect refers to the mutual respect both parties have for each other’s professional capabilities (Sin & et al., 2009: 1049).

Research on leader–member exchange has shown the value of high-quality leader–member relationships in organizations. Leaders and followers in these high leader–member exchange relationships often report enhanced levels of satisfaction and effectiveness, as well as mutual influence, more open and honest communication, greater access to resources, and more extra-role behaviors (Maslyn & et al, 2001: 697).

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Over a decade and a half has passed since, Organ & et al. (1988) first coined the term

"Organizational citizenship behavior". Drawing on Chester Barnard

(1938)’s concept of the "willingness to cooperate" and Daniel Katz (1964)’s distinction

between dependable “role performance” and “innovative and spontaneous behaviors”,

ijcrb.webs.com

I

J

O

C

R

I

B

^{J V}

^{3, N}

^{9 2012}

Organ (1988) defined organizational citizenship behaviors as "individual 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. By discretionary, we mean that the behavior is not an enforceable requirement of the role or the job description, that is, the clearly specifiable terms of the person’s employment contract with the organization; the behavior is rather a matter of personal choice, such that its omission is not generally understood as punishable" (Podsakoff & et al., 2000: 513) . Smith & et al.

(1983) were interested in predicting organizationally beneficial behavior that was not formally rewarded and could not be enforced by the organization in terms of formal role expectations or job requirements. Supervisors were then asked to rate how characteristic each behavior was of the employee. Factor analyses of these ratings indicated two factors.

The first factor, labeled Altruism, captured behavior directly intended to help a specific person in face-to-face situations. The second factor, labeled Generalized Compliance, represented impersonal behaviors such as compliance with norms defining a good worker (Lepine & et al, 2002: 53). Five years later, Organ (1988) proposed an expanded taxonomy of organizational citizenship behavior that included :

- Altruism: Altruism is defined as discretionary behaviors that specifically aid another person in the organization with an organizationally relevant issue.

- Conscientiousness: Conscientiousness is defined as discretionary behaviors that aid the organization in general and go beyond the minimum role requirements of the organization.

- Sportsmanship: Sportsmanship is the willingness of the employee to tolerate less than ideal situations without complaining.

- Courtesy: Courtesy is defined as behaviors aimed at preventing work-related problems with others from occurring.

- Civic virtue: Civic virtue involves behaviors that indicate that the individual responsibly participates in or is involved in the life of the organization (De Nicolis Bragger et al., 2005: 305).

Theoretical framework and research hypotheses

Extent model of social exchange theory were used for the study of organizational

citizenship behavior shown in Fig. 1. In this model, taken from wat and shaffer (2005),

two important features of the social context has been considered: perceptions of

organizational justice and leader–member exchange. Perceptions of organizational justice

and leader–member exchange can provide the psychological capacity for actuate

organizational citizenship behaviors.

ijcrb.webs.com

I

J

O

C

R

I

B

^{J V}

^{3, N}

^{9 2012}

According to conceptual model of research, main hypothesis is that there is a positive relationship among employee's perception of organizational justice and leader–member exchange with organizational citizenship behavior.

In addition, sub-hypotheses are:

1) there is a positive relationship among employee's perceptions of organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior.

2) there is a positive relationship among employee's perceptions of leader–member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior.

Research Methods

Since the study sought to clarify the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior, perceptions of organizational justice and leader–member exchange, so it is applicable and from data gathering view is a field research. Statistical population is employees of public banks in Rasht that they have 2007 employees that through simple random sampling, 320 employees were selected. For data analysis we are using pearson correlation and multiple regression models.

Measures

Questionnaire in this study is the main tool for data collection. Organizational citizenship behavior questionnaire design by dimensions of Podsakoff & et al. (1990) research which also includes 24 questions. Distributive justice questionnaire design based on Price and Mueller (1986) research which also includes 5 questions, procedural justice questionnaire design based on Moorman (1991) research which also includes 7 questions and interactional justice questionnaire design based on Moorman (1991) research which also includes 6 questions. For measuring leader –member exchange, we used

questionnaire that includes 7 questions.

In the present study to determine the validity and reliability of the above questionnaires, 40 questionnaires were distributed to employees. Also, for measuring the content validity of questionnaire we used idea of some experts that were selected among the faculty of the

Figure. 1: Conceptual model of research

ijcrb.webs.com

I

J

O

C

R

I

B

^{J V}

^{3, N}

^{9 2012}

university and for measuring the validity of structure we used factor analysis method.

Fortheremore, to test the questionnaires reliability we used Cronbach's α scores for each variable as shown in Table1. Results shows that organizational citizenship behavior, organizational justice and leader –member exchange instrument are reasonably satisfactory to be used in this research.

Data analysis

- Descriptive statistics for demographic variables related to sex of interviewers shows that %59.7 of employees' are men and, %40.3 of employees' are females. In other words, 191 are men and 129 are female.

- Descriptive statistics related to education shows that %0.6 of sample are under diploma, %14.7 are diploma, %24.1 are college, %58.8 are B.A and %1.9 are M.A and upper. In other words, 2 persons are under diploma, 47 perons are diploma, 77 persons are college, 188 persons are B.A and 6 persons are M.A and upper that B.A persons are the most numbers.

- Descriptive statistics related to age of respondent's shows that the average of respondent's age is 36.26 that this distribution indicate a significant number of respondents faced with various public issues throughout his worklife and this issue have been able to them to judge about organizational issues.

- Descriptive statistics related to experience of respondent's shows that the average of respondent's work experience is 11.58 that indicate a significant number of respondents faced with various public issues throughout his worklife and this issue have been able to them to judge about organizational issues.

Table1. validity & Cronbach's α Scores

Variables Number of

items

K.M.O Cronbach α

Distributive Justice 5 0.734 0.893

Procedural Justice 7 0.733 0.809

Interactional Justice 6 0.811 0.837

Perceptions of Organizational

Justice

18 0.769 0.856

Perceptions of Leader–Member

exchange

7 0.842 0.876

Organizational

Citizenship Behavior 24 0.659 0.858

ijcrb.webs.com

I

J

O

C

R

I

B

^{J V}

^{3, N}

^{9 2012}

Also, table 2 shows the descriptive analysis of each variables from respondent's point of view.

Results and test of hypotheses

Main hypothesis: there is a positive relationship among employee's perception of organizational justice and leader–member exchange with organizational citizenship behavior.

To examine the relationship between employee's perceptions of organizational justice and leader–member exchange with organizational citizenship behavior, a multiple regression model was estimated. Due attention table 3, employee's perceptions of organizational justice and leader–member exchange simultaneously can explain %17.4 of organizational citizenship behavior in the 0.01 significant level.

Based on table 3, we can say that the intensity of relation between perception of organizational justice and leader–member exchange simultaneously with organizational citizenship behavior is 0.417 and this represents a direct link between them. Also, the intensity of relation between perception of organizational justice and leader–member exchange simultaneously with organizational citizenship behavior is high when compared with each variables will be measured separately.

First sub-hypothesis: there is a positive relationship among employee's perceptions of organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior.

We used correlation test to examine the relationship among employee's perceptions of organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Based on table 4, with considering the Pearson correlation coefficient between two variables and also the meaningful of test in 0.01 level, the hypothesis accepted.

Table 2. descriptive analysis of variables

Variables Minimum Maximum Mean Variance Std. Deviation perception of

Organizational Justice

1 4.61 2.82 0.16 0.41

perception of leader–member

exchange

1 5 2.7 0.48 0.69

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

3 5 3.95 0.11 0.34

Table 3. Test of main hypothesis

Variables R R

Adjusted

R

Std. E F

df2 Sig. Result Perception of

Organizational Justice Perception of Leader–Member

exchange

0.417 0.174 0.169 0.31014 33.367 2 317 0.000 Accepted

ijcrb.webs.com

I

J

O

C

R

I

B

^{J V}

^{3, N}

^{9 2012}

Also, we used the correlation test to examine the relationship among each dimensions of organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Based on table 5, with considering the Pearson correlation coefficient between variables and also the meaningful of test in 0.01 level, from the dimensions of organizational justice only interactional justice is positively relatation with organizational citizenship behavior.

Second sub-hypothesis: there is a positive relationship among employee's perceptions of leader–member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior.

We used correlation test to examine the relationship among employee's perceptions of leader–member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Based on table 6, with considering the Pearson correlation coefficient between two variables and also the meaningful of test in 0.01 level, the hypothesis accepted.

Discussion and Conclusion

Public banks despite a long history in comparison with private banks for preserve their customers must constantly improve their performance and expand their new banking services to more people. Meanwhile, one of the most important types of employee behavior, especially in service-oriented organizations such as banks that have a significant effect on services quality is organizational citizenship behaviors. With considering the importance of Table 4. Test of first sub hypotheses

Hypothesis Independent variable Dependent Variable

R

Sig. Result Sub H

perceptions of

organizational justice organizational citizenship

behavior 0.138 0.019 0.013 Accepted

Table 5. Test of first sub hypotheses (Based on dimensions of organizational justice)

Sub H

Independent variable Dependent Variable

R

Sig. Result 1 Distributive Justice organizational

citizenship behavior

-0.05 -0.0025 0.374

2 Procedural Justice organizational

citizenship behavior 0.041 0.0016 0.462

3 Interactional Justice organizational

citizenship behavior 0.296 0.087 0.000 Accepted

Table 6. Test of second sub hypothesis

Hypothesis Independent variable Dependent Variable

R

Sig. Result Sub H

perceptions of leader–

member exchange organizational

citizenship behavior 0.410 0.168 0.000 Accepted

ijcrb.webs.com

I

J

O

C

R

I

B

^{J V}

^{3, N}

^{9 2012}

organizational citizenship behaviors, the understanding of affecting factors in order to such behavior has always interested many researchers. Accordingly, the present research try to study the effects of perceptions of organizational justice and leader–member exchange on employees organizational citizenship behaviors of public banks in Rasht .

In summary, the results showed that the variables of employee perceptions of organizational justice and leader–member exchange simultaneously have a positive relationship with organizational citizenship behavior. The correlation test to examine the relationship among each dimensions of organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior showed that from the dimensions of organizational justice only interactional justice had positively relatation with organizational citizenship behavior. Also, there is a positive relationship among leader–member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. The results shows that the intensity of relation between perception of organizational justice and leader–

member exchange simultaneously with organizational citizenship behavior is high when compared with each variables will be measured separately. According to the results, for the creation and development of organizational citizenship behaviors in public banks, the following recommendations are offer :

¾ Bonus payments should be a function of environmental conditions such as stress and pressure .

¾ Managers must modify or replace the procedures that limited the employees participation.

They should provide required terms to respect and listen to the employees idea and attention to good idea in the decision making. The most important procedures that should be in this regard is design the procedures that facilitate employees participation in organizational decisions.

¾ Managers must take an honest practices, respectfulness and support their employees try to creating a stable emotional and moral obligation. For this purpose, the organizations can held a suitable training courses for upgrading the supervisors perception skills .

¾ Managers should used various transactions methods in connection and relation with

employees and try to knowing the weaknesses, strengths, abilities and needs of their

employees, then planning the distinctive relationships with each of them. Also,

managers beside the fair distribution of resources, they should use their powers to

reduce the employees problems.

ijcrb.webs.com

I

J

O

C

R

I

B

^{J V}

^{3, N}

^{9 2012}

References

Adams,J.S. (1965).“Inequity in social exchange”, In Berkowitz, L. (Ed)., Advances in experimental psychology,2, PP.267–299.

Amah,O.E. (2010). " Multi-dimensional leader member exchange and work relationship: The role of reciprocity " , Asian Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 3, No. 1, PP.39-50.

Ang, S.; Van Dyne, L.; Begley,T. M. (2003)."The employement relationships of foreign workers versus local employees: A field study of organizational justice, job satisfaction, performance and ocb " , Journal of organizational behavior, No. 24, PP.561-583.

Barnard, C. I. (1938). “The functions of the executive”,Cambridge, MA: Harvard university press.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986).“Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness”, In R.J.Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations, Vol. 1 (PP. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI press.

Bowler,W. M.; Halbesleben, J. R. B.; Paul, J. R. B. (2010). " If you're close with the leader, you must be a brownnose:the role of leader–member relationships in follower, leader and coworker attributions of organizational citizenship behavior motives " , Human resource management Review, No. 20, PP. 309-316.

Collins, M. D. (2007). "Understanding the relationships between leader-member exchange (LMX),psychological empowerment,job satisfaction and turnover intent in a limited-service restaurant environment", Doctor of philosophy, Ohio State University, Human nutrition and food management, PP. 1-169.

Colquitt, J.A., Greenberg, J., and Zapata-Phelan, C .P. (2005). “What is organizational justice? A historical review”. In Greenberg, J. and Colquitt, J.A. (eds). 2005. Handbook of organizational justice, London: Lawrence erlbaum associates.

DeNicolis-Bragger, J.; Rodriguez-Srednicki, O.; Kutcher, E. J.; Indovino, L.; Rosner, E.

(2005)." Work-familiy conflict, work-familiy culture and organizational citizenship behavior among teachers", Journal of Business and Psychology,Vol. 20, No. 2, PP. 303- 324.

Dienesch,R.M., & Liden,R.C,. (1986). “Leader-member exchange model of leadership:

A critique and further development”,Academy of management review,11,PP. 618-634.

Graen,G. & Cashman,J. (1975). “A role making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach”, In j. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds), Leadership frontiers.Kent,Ohio: Kent state university press,PP. 143-165.

Greenberg, J. (1990). “Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow”, Journal of management,16,PP. 399–432.

Homans, G. C. (1961). “Social behavior: Its elementary form”, London: Routledge & Kegan Pau.

Jung, J. Y.; Hong, S. (2008)."Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB),TQM and performance at the maquiladora", International journal of quality and reliability management, Vol. 25, No.8, PP.793-808.

Katz, D. (1964).“Motivational basis of organizational behavior”, Behavioral science, 9:

PP.131–146.

Lau, R. S. Y. (2008)."Integration and extension of leader-member exchange and organizational justice at individual and group-levels of analysis", The degree of doctor of philosophy in management, PP.1-168.

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,Vol. 87, No. 1, PP.52-65.

ijcrb.webs.com

I

J

O

C

R

I

B

^{J V}

^{3, N}

^{9 2012}

Liden, R. and Graen, G. (1980).“Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership”, Academy of management journal,Vol. 23, PP. 451-65.

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). “Multidimensionality of leader–member exchange:

An empirical assessment through scale development”,Journal of management, 24, PP.43–72.

Liden, R. C.; Maslyn, J. M. (1998)."Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: an empirical assessment through sacle development " , Journal of management, Vol. 24, No.1, PP.43-72.

Liden, R. C.; Graen, G. (1980)."Generalizability of the vertical dyad linkage model of leadership", Academy of management journal,Vol. 23, No. 3, PP.451-465.

Maslyn, J. M.; Uhl-bien, M. (2001)."Leader-member exchange and its dimensions: Effects of self-effort and others effort on relationship quality " , Journal of applied psychology,Vol.

86, No. 4, PP.697-708.

Moorman, R. H . (1991). " Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviore: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship " , Journal of applied psychology,Vol. 76, No. 6, PP.845-855.

Organ, D.W. (1988).“Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome”, Lexington,MA: Lexington Books.

Podsakoff, P. M.; MacKenzie, S. B.; Paine, J. B.; Bachrach, D. G (2000)."Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research”, Journal of management, No. 26, PP.513-563.

Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990).

“Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Leadership quarterly, Vol. 1, PP.

42-107.

Price, J.L. and Mueller, C.W. (1986). ”Handbook of organizational measurement, Pitman, Marshfield, MA.

Sholihin, M.; Pike, R.; Mangena, M. (2007)."The moderating effects of procedural fairness and distributive fairness on the relationaship between performance evaluation styles and job satisfaction",School of management bradford university,Working paper, No.07/28, PP.1-24.

Sin, H. P.; Nahrgang, J. D. ; Morgeson, F. P. (2009)."Understanding why they don’t see eye to eye: An examination of leader–member exchange (LMX) agreement”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 94,No. 4, PP.1048-1057.

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). “Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents”,Journal of applied psychology,68, PP.653–663.

Stouffer, S. A.; Suchman, E. A.; DeVinney, L. C.; Star, S. A. and Williams, R. M., Jr.

(1949). “The american soldier: Adjustment during army life”,Vol 1,Clinton, MA: Colonial press.

Thibaut, J. and Walker, J. (1975). “Procedural justice: A psychological analysis”, New York:

Wiley.

Thibaut, J.; Friedland, N. and Walker, L. (1974).”Compliance with rule: some social determinants”, Journal of personality and social psychology, 30,PP 782-801.

Wat, D.; Shaffer, M. A. (2005). " Equity and relationship quality influences on organizational citizenship behavior; the mediating role of trust in the supervisor and empowerment", Personnel review,Vol. 34, No. 4, PP.406-422.

Young, L. D. (2010)."Is organizational justice enough to promote citizenship behavior at

work? A retest in korea", European journal of scientific research,Vol. 45, No. 4, PP.637-

648.