View
217
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Universite Laval]On: 18 July 2012, At: 08:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The International Journal of HumanResource ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20
Organizational citizenship behaviourand employee retention: how importantare turnover cognitions?Pascal Paillé aa Departement Management, Université Laval, Québec, Canada
Version of record first published: 17 Jul 2012
To cite this article: Pascal Paillé (2012): Organizational citizenship behaviour and employeeretention: how important are turnover cognitions?, The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, DOI:10.1080/09585192.2012.697477
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.697477
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Organizational citizenship behaviour and employee retention:how important are turnover cognitions?
Pascal Paille*
Departement Management, Universite Laval, Quebec, Canada
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships between perceived jobalternatives, intention to search, intention to leave and organizational citizenshipbehaviour (OCB), with a view to determining the extent to which these variables arerelated. Two surveys using separate samples (Study 1, n ¼ 651, and Study 2, n ¼ 226)were used. First, in both studies, perceived job alternatives provided a better account ofOCB towards the organization (sportsmanship and civic virtue) than OCB towardsindividuals (helping and altruism). Second, the results of Studies 1 and 2 indicate thatthe relationships between OCB and intention to search and between OCB and intentionto quit are different. The findings suggest that one part of the research model appears tobe generalizable, while the other part appears to be explained by the context ofemployment. The implications of the findings are discussed.
Keywords: intention to leave; intention to search a job; organizational citizenshipbehaviors; perceived job alternatives
Introduction
Although there is evidence demonstrating the influence of organizational citizenship
behaviour (OCB) on employee retention (Chen, Hui and Sego 1998; MacKenzie, Podsakoff
and Ahearne 1998; Chen 2005; Harrison, Newman and Roth 2006; Coyne and Ong 2007;
Lam, Chen and Takeuchi 2009; Paille and Grima 2011), some studies have argued that
further research is needed to improve our understanding of the relationships between OCBs
and variables involved in the decision of employees to resign from their organizations
(Organ, Podsakoff and MacKenzie 2006, p. 239). The aim of this paper is to extend the chain
of relationships between OCB and employee retention by examining the influence of
variables typically involved in turnover cognitions, such as perceived job alternatives (i.e.
favourability of the external job environment), intention to search (i.e. looking for a job
outside the organization) and intention to leave (i.e. leaving the organization at some
unspecified point in the future). In so doing, the paper addresses two specific issues. First,
with the exception of a small number of studies (Coyne and Ong 2007; Paille and Grima
2011), the majority of studies linking OCB and employee retention (intention to leave and
actual turnover) use a global measure (Chen et al. 1998; Koys 2001; Chen 2005; Mossholder,
Settoon and Hanagan 2005; Krishnan and Singh 2010). The specific impact of forms of OCB
on the propensity to leave therefore remains largely under-researched. Second, with the
exception of a small number of studies (Hui, Law and Chen 1999; Thau, Bennett, Stahlberg
and Werner 2004), the relationships between OCB and dimensions of turnover cognitions
other than intention to leave the organization have been largely overlooked. The distinctions
ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online
q 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.697477
http://www.tandfonline.com
*Email: pascal.paille@fsa.ulaval.ca
The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
2012, 1–23, iFirst
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
between situations in which employees perceive job alternatives reflecting their potential
value in the labour market and situations in which employees actively search for a job in
order to leave their current employer are therefore difficult to establish.
The paper examines the relationships between OCB, perceived job alternatives,
intention to search and intention to leave the organization in order to determine the
relationship between OCB and turnover cognitions. The paper is organized as follows. It
begins by providing a literature review before presenting two field studies. The paper
concludes by discussing the implications of the results for future research on the
relationships between OCB and turnover cognitions.
Literature review
Organizational citizenship behaviour and employee retention
According to Organ (1988), OCB refers to:
individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formalreward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of theorganization. By discretionary, we mean that the behaviour is not an enforceable requirementof the role or the job description, that is, the clearly specifiable terms of the person’semployment contract with the organization; the behaviour is rather a matter of personalchoice, such that its omission is not generally understood as punishable. (p. 4)
The use of OCB for studying employee retention is a relatively recent research interest,
even though a substantial amount of empirical research has already been published on the
topic. According to Chen (2005), this research interest is connected at least in part to the
findings outlined in two meta-analyses (Hom and Griffeth 1995; Griffeth, Hom and Gaertner
2000), indicating that the variables commonly involved in the study of the withdrawal
process (organizational commitment and job satisfaction) only account for a very small
percentage of variance (approximately 5%). Chen argued that a concept commonly
overlooked in research (OCB) enters into the retention equation. In addition to the arguments
given by Chen, a conceptual explanation may also account for this interest. OCBs are
common and widespread forms of behaviour in the work environment. Providing support to
a colleague, helping a recently recruited employee to settle into the organization,
demonstrating a degree of flexibility by tolerating requests deemed to be excessive or
unreasonable, or defending the image of the organization in a discussion are not neutral
forms of behaviour, given the frame of mind they suggest and their positive impact on the
work environment. Social exchange theory describes the foundations of this frame of mind.
Employees demonstrate civic behaviour when they feel that they are supported and treated
fairly by their employer. Though agreeing with the conceptual framework of social exchange
theory, Lavelle (2010) argued that demonstrating OCB entails personal motivations that go
beyond the need to offer something in return for being treated fairly. Whatever the
underlying reason or motivation, voluntary cooperation through OCB reflects a propensity to
go beyond the expectations of the employer and the employee’s colleagues. Voluntary
efforts, particularly those made freely and that involve going beyond the tasks explicitly
required as part of the job description, appear to be incompatible with the intention to leave.
Furthermore, the literature on social exchange theory provides findings, which indicate
that employees exchange desirable outcomes in return for fair treatment, support or care.
Since OCB enhances organizational effectiveness, top management values OCBs as
desirable outcomes. Morrison (1994) theorized the link between OCB and employee
retention, arguing that if ‘an organization’s human resource philosophy is one that places
high value on retaining employees in a long-term relationship, employees will engage in
P. Paille2
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
more organizational citizenship behaviour’ (p. 503). The norm of reciprocity is the
underlying process providing a better account of the kind of exchange described by
Morrison. Reciprocity between two entities (e.g. an employee and an employer) requires
two basic premises: (1) people should help those who have helped them, and (2) people
should not injure those who have helped them (Gouldner 1960). On the basis of the norm
of reciprocity, Schaninger and Turnipssed (2005) argued that an employee gives
something to the donor (employer, supervisor or colleague) who provides something that
the employee finds valuable. Employees value supportive decision-making and fair
treatment, whereas employers value loyalty, in-role performance and OCB.
Organizational citizenship behaviour and the withdrawal process
Following Harrison et al. (2006), OCBs can be viewed as one of the early stages of the
withdrawal process. Before explaining the findings reported by Harrison et al. it is important
to define the nature of the withdrawal process. Following Gupta and Jenkins (1983), ‘only
those employee responses specifically designed by an individual to increase distance from
the organization can be labeled “withdrawal”’ (p. 63). On the basis of this definition, they
introduced a distinction between voluntary and involuntary behaviours to explain the kind
of individual responses linked to withdrawal. The examples given by the authors
(mandatory retirement, jury duty, an automobile accident on the way to work, tardiness to
accommodate children’s schedules or personal illness) reflect specific situations that are not
related to the employee’s willingness to increase the distance with the employer.
The withdrawal process encompasses a variety of behaviours, each reflecting a form of
voluntary response used by an employee to cope with an unpleasant work environment.
Lateness, absenteeism and turnover are typical behaviours related to the withdrawal
process (Rosse 1988; Johns 2002; Berry, Lelchook and Clark 2011). However, as
suggested by Lee, Mitchell, Sablynski, Burton and Holtom (2004), the withdrawal process
also includes behaviours such as poor citizenship and poor job performance. Chen (2005)
suggested recently that the lack of willingness to exhibit OCB (i.e. poor citizenship) may
be an indication of employee withdrawal from the organization. OCBs are discretionary in
nature and, as such, cannot be formally required by the employer or the superior (Organ
et al. 2006). Typically, if an employee demonstrates low OCB, s/he cannot be sanctioned.
Therefore, when employees experience lasting dissatisfaction with their job or become
less committed to their organization but are unable to leave because of the lack of external
job opportunities (low job alternatives), it is less risky for employees to reduce OCB than
to express discontent by reducing, for example, their efforts at work. Unlike employees
who reduce their OCB without fear of blame, employees may face sanctions if they
perform their work poorly (Tolich 1993), procrastinate (Ferrari 1992), are frequently late
(Sagie, Koslowsky and Amichai Hamburger 2002), or increase their absenteeism (Dalton
and Mesch 1991). Low OCB can be viewed as a signal that employees are beginning to
disengage from the workplace (Chen et al. 1998; Chen 2005). Harrison et al. (2006)
provided empirical support for Chen’s contention. They tested five models in order to
determine which model offers the best fit between overall job attitude and five behavioural
criteria: job performance, OCB examined as contextual performance, lateness, absence
and turnover (see their paper for further details, pp. 309–312). Although a slight
improvement was found in the data when OCB was taken into account in the withdrawal
sequence, Harrison et al. concluded that OCB can reflect ‘the first element in the
progression sequence among disturbance terms (i.e. contextual performance to lateness,
lateness to absence, and absence to turnover)’ (p. 318).
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
Forms of OCB and turnover cognitions
When OCBs are widespread, valued and sustained within an organization, the best
employees tend to be retained (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach 2000).
However, as noted above, most studies calculate a mean score for OCB, thus making it
impossible to identify which form of OCB is related to turnover (actual or intended). An
analysis of the relationships between OCB and employee retention based on a distinction
between OCB towards individuals and OCB towards the organization significantly
improves our understanding of this issue. OCB towards individuals implies face-to-face
actions, whereas OCB towards the organization appears to be more diffuse since its
boundaries are often difficult to perceive for individuals.
OCB towards individuals involves helping others (sometimes referred to as altruism).
Helping encompasses a set of behaviours such as courtesy, cheerleading and peacemaking.
Researchers have often conceptualized and operationalized helping as a second-order
latent factor. Helping others refers to cooperative and spontaneous behaviours that involve
providing assistance to others or preventing the occurrence of work-related problems and
contributing to interpersonal harmony (Cirka 2005). The OCB literature indicates that
employees can provide help to others in various ways, such as replacing an absent
colleague and helping another colleague to carry out a difficult task. Cheerleading can also
be viewed as a helping behaviour when an employee encourages a co-worker who is
discouraged about his accomplishment or professional development. Helping others or
receiving help from others fosters cohesiveness among employees and satisfactory
relationships with co-workers. Theoretical arguments have been developed (Podsakoff and
MacKenzie 1997; Podsakoff et al. 2000; Organ et al. 2006) to explain why and how
helping could be related to employee retention. Chen et al. (1998) point out that ‘groups
(or organizations) that have higher levels of OCB will have lower levels of turnover
because interactions among employees who exhibit high levels of OCB are likely to foster
group attractiveness and cohesiveness and subsequently to decrease voluntary turnover’
(p. 928). As argued by Organ et al. (2006), helping behaviours may enhance morale, group
cohesiveness and the sense of belonging to a team, all of which may help the organization
to retain better employees. While in theory it seems reasonable to assume that
experiencing help enhances employee retention, there is little evidence of this in the
empirical literature. Chen et al. (1998) reported findings showing first that the level of
altruism was higher in the no turnover than in the turnover condition and second that
altruism was negatively related to turnover intention (correlation matrix, r ¼ 20.15,
p , 0.05). Using regression, Coyne and Ong (2007) found no significant relationship,
while Paille and Grima (2011) found that helping explains the intention to leave the
current job better than the intention to leave the employer.
OCB towards the organization typically reflects civic virtue and sportsmanship. Civic
virtue refers to a sustained interest in the organization, expressed in a variety of ways,
including assiduous and voluntary involvement in representation activities (e.g.
conferences, trade fairs and workshops) and in the defence of the interests, property or
image of the organization. As such, civic virtue depends on active and voluntary
participation and requires individuals who want to be involved, for example, in decision-
making by formulating new ideas, suggesting improvements in seminars or meetings, or
protecting the organization (Organ et al. 2006). In so doing, employees demonstrate a deep
interest in the political life of the organization. To date, with the exception of Coyne and
Ong (2007) and Paille and Grima (2011), very little research has been conducted on the
effect of civic virtue on turnover intentions. While Coyne and Ong (2007) found no
P. Paille4
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
significant relationship between civic virtue and turnover intentions, they recognized that
features of the sample (size and participants) may minimize the statistical power of their
data. Paille and Grima (2011) found a negative relationship suggesting that civic virtue
affects intention to leave the organization.
Sportsmanship is typically defined as a form of citizenship directed towards the
organization. As reported by Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997), several studies have found
that sportsmanship is positively related to a number of organizational performance criteria.
Sportsmanship occurs when an employee is willing to avoid voicing complaints about
trivial matters and to set about being an example for others (Organ et al. 2006). In addition,
some studies have argued that sportsmanship reflects the willingness to ‘[stay] with the
organization despite hardships or difficult conditions’ (Coleman and Borman 2000, p. 34).
In so doing, an employee shows a sense of forbearance, enduring individual costs or
frustrations related to his or her work (Organ 1990). Sportsmanship can be used by
employers as an indicator of the degree of individual tolerance requirements to which an
employee is subjected in their work. Chen et al. (1998) reported two interesting findings.
First, the level of sportsmanship was found to be higher among non-quitters than among
quitters, and second sportsmanship was negatively associated with turnover intention
(correlation matrix, r ¼ 20.19, p , 0.01). However, in their subsequent calculations
(i.e. regression), Chen et al. (1998) opted to use a global measure of OCB rather than distinct
forms of OCB. To date, only Coyne and Ong (2007) and Paille and Grima (2011) have used
regression to examine the extent to which sportsmanship contributes to the variance of
intention to leave the organization. Both studies reported similar findings and demonstrated
that sportsmanship was the best predictor. These results are consistent with Chen et al.
(1998) and suggest that sportsmanship reflects a desire to remain in the organization.
As noted above, a significant amount of empirical research has been conducted on the
relationship between OCB and employee retention (actual turnover and turnover
intention). Studies in the area have shown the utility of OCB as a predictor of the decision
to quit. However, intention to leave the organization is only one dimension among others
of turnover cognitions. While researchers have sought to determine how OCB and
intention to leave the organization are related, other aspects of turnover cognitions, such as
intention to search and perceived job alternatives, have been largely overlooked. However,
two studies (Hui et al. 1999; Thau et al. 2004) have provided useful results on the
relationship between perceived job alternatives and OCB. Hui et al. (1999) were the first to
provide a direct assessment of the relationship between perceived job alternatives and
OCB. They suggested that the willingness to perform OCB is a function of perceived job
alternatives (referred to as ‘job mobility’). Employees continue to exhibit OCB when they
perceive that job mobility is reduced. Hui et al. (1999) reported a significant negative
relationship in a Chinese context, suggesting that ‘employees who perceived a vast variety
of outside job opportunities have a lower tendency to exhibit extra-role behaviors’ (p. 14).
More recently, Thau et al. (2004) noted that Hui et al. (1999) made no distinction
between ‘situations in which employees are restricted in their context (e.g. when perceived
ease of finding a new job is low) from situations in which employees face very few
restrictions (e.g. when perceived ease of alternative employment is high)’ (p. 609). To go
one step further, Thau et al. (2004) used attractiveness and social networking to explain the
decision of employees to engage (or not) in OCB. Attractiveness refers to the degree of
dependence of an employee on his or her organization associated with the existence (or not)
of alternative job opportunities outside the organization. Social networking refers to
aspects of the employee’s personal life or professional factors that reduce the desire of the
employee to move to another organization. The decision to engage in OCB is a function of
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
both attractiveness and social networking. In a German context, Thau et al. (2004) found
that when employees perceive that alternative employment opportunities are easy to find
(high attractiveness and low social networking), they are less likely to engage in OCB than
employees who perceive that opportunities cannot be easily found (low attractiveness and
high social networking).
The findings by Thau et al. (2004) are consistent with research on job embeddedness
(Lee et al. 2004). Following Yao, Lee, Mitchell, Burton and Sablynski (2004), job
embeddedness refers to ‘the forces that keep a person from leaving his or her job’ (p. 157).
Job embeddedness is a composite construct of on- and off-the-job embeddedness (Mitchell,
Holtom, Lee, Sablynski and Erez 2001). While on-the-job embeddedness refers to a
situation in which an employee remains in his or her organization because of forces related to
the job (i.e. company culture, professional growth and development, etc.), off-the-job
embeddedness refers to a situation in which an employee remains in the organization
because of forces related to the community (i.e. family roots, safe neighbourhood, etc.). Lee
et al. (2004) found that on-the-job embeddedness was significantly predictive of OCB,
whereas off-the-job embeddedness was not.
Research purposes
Although the findings outlined by Hui et al. (1999) and Thau et al. (2004) indicate a
significant shift by showing how perceived job alternatives affect OCB, progress can be
made by taking account of intention to search and intention to leave the organization.
However, as Thau et al. (2004) suggest, perceived stimulating job conditions outside the
organization may be inhibited by personal limitations. In others words, perceived
stimulating and interesting opportunities in the labour market do not mean that individuals
will actively seek for a job. Typically, perceived job alternatives, intention to search and
intention to leave are encompassed in turnover cognitions. According to Sager, Griffeth
and Hom (1998), turnover cognitions reflect ‘a mental decision intervening between an
individual’s attitudes regarding a job and the stay or leave decision’ (p. 255). Previous
research on turnover cognitions indicates that perceived job alternatives affect intention to
leave through intention to search (Mobley 1977). In a replication of the study by Mobley,
Horner and Hollingsworth (1978), Miller, Katerberg and Hulin (1979) found similar
patterns and established the generalizability of the model. However, further research on
different samples was recommended. Although Mobley’s model is an accepted reference
in the turnover literature, research has shown that both the type of employment and the
type of industry may affect relationships between perceived job alternatives, job search
and intention to leave (Mowday, Koberg and MacArthur 1984; Sager et al. 1998).
Jaros, Jermier, Koehler and Sincich (1993) argued that research ‘might theorize that
individuals typically exhibit vague, general orientations and tendencies toward a particular
behavior rather than distinct, sequentially ordered, focused cognitions’ (p. 986). This
implies that employees may decide to withdraw from their current organization without
having developed specific plans. In other words, while it has been shown that perceived
job alternatives increase the probability that an employee will search for a better job and in
turn leave their employer, this sequence needs to be viewed with caution in some settings.
For example, shortage within a particular industry may breach the sequence. Consistent
with Sager et al. (1998), job search may be superfluous in some cases (i.e. nurses, truck
drivers, IT workers, salespeople, social workers, etc.). Employees in these employment
settings may assume that it is easy to find a new job. Since previous research has been
conducted to explain how perceived job alternatives affect OCB and how it is linked to
P. Paille6
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
intention to leave the organization through intention to search, this study focuses primarily
on effort, following Hui et al. (1999) and Thau et al. (2004), by examining whether forms
of OCB increase or decrease intention to search and in turn affect intention to leave the
organization. The above discussion can be summarized by the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Perceived job alternatives are negatively related to (a) helping,
(b) altruism, (c) sportsmanship, and (d) civic virtue.
Hypothesis 2: (a) Helping, (b) altruism, (c) sportsmanship, and (d) civic virtue are
negatively related to intention to search.
Hypothesis 3: (a) Helping, (b) altruism, (c) sportsmanship, and (d) civic virtue are
negatively related to intention to leave the organization.
Hypothesis 4: Perceived job alternatives are positively related to intention to search.
Hypothesis 5: Intention to search is positively related to intention to leave the
organization.
The research model is consistent with previous findings showing first that perceived
job alternatives affect forms of OCB (Hui et al. 1999; Thau et al. 2004) and second that
forms of OCB affect intention to leave the organization (Coyne and Ong 2007; Paille and
Grima 2011). Intention to search was added to take account of research on turnover
cognitions showing that perceived job alternatives affect intention to leave through
intention to search (Miller et al. 1979; Bozeman and Perrewe 2001). In short, the research
model examined (1) the paths connecting perceived job alternatives and forms of OCB;
(2) the path connecting perceived job alternatives and intention to search; (3) the paths
connecting forms of OCB and intention to search; (4) the path connecting intention to
search and intention to leave the organization; and (5) the paths connecting forms of OCB
and intention to leave the organization.
Alternative models
Coyne and Ong (2007) suggested that ‘future research would need to employ more
longitudinal designs to examine in more detail whether OCB does predict turnover intention
or whether turnover intention actually predicts OCB behaviour’ (p. 1094). In both studies,
the design was cross-sectional (see below). Therefore, to provide findings indicating that
OCB predicts turnover cognitions rather than findings showing correlations, it was
important to assess the direction of causation. Consistent with Coyne and Ong (2007),
the research model (Model 1) was compared to four alternative models (see Figure 1,
Models 2–5).
Model 2
Model 2 is a variant of the research model (Model 1) and takes account of the results of the
study by Jaros et al. (1993) by dropping the path from intention to search and intention to
leave the organization. Therefore, Model 2 examined (1) the paths connecting perceived
job alternatives and forms of OCB, (2) the paths connecting forms of OCB and intention to
search, and (3) the paths connecting forms of OCB and intention to leave the organization.
Model 3
Model 3 considers forms of OCB as determinants of turnover cognitions. The main
difference with the research model is the causal relationship between perceived job
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
alternatives and intention to leave the organization. Previous research found a negative
relationship between forms of OCB and intention to leave the organization (Paille and
Grima 2011) and reported that perceived job alternatives affect the change of employer via
job search (Bozeman and Perrewe 2001). On the basis of these data, it seems plausible to
conceptualize forms of OCB as determinants of turnover cognitions. Therefore, Model 3
Perceived jobalternatives
OCBO(sportsmanshipand civic virtue)
Intent to search Intent to leave
OCBI (altruismand helping)
Model 1(Research model)
Perceived jobalternatives
OCBO(sportsmanshipand civic virtue)
Intent to search Intent to leave
OCBI (altruismand helping)
Model 2 - Dropping thepath from intent tosearch to intent toleave the organization.
Perceivedjob alternatives
OCBO(sportsmanshipand civic virtue)
Intent to search Intent to leave
OCBI(altruism and
helping)
Model 3 - OCBs asdeterminants to turnovercognitions.
Perceived jobalternatives
OCBO(sportsmanshipand civic virtue)
Intent to search Intent to leave
OCBI(altruism and
helping)
Model 5 - OCBs asoutcomes to turnovercognitions.
Perceived jobalternatives
OCBO(sportsmanshipand civic virtue)
Intent to search Intent to leave
OCBI(altruism and
helping)
Model 4 - OCBs asintermediate variablesbetween perceived jobalternatives and intentto search.
Figure 1. Competing models representing the relationships between turnover cognitions andOCBs.
P. Paille8
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
examined (1) the paths connecting forms of OCB and perceived job alternatives, (2) the
path connecting perceived job alternatives and intention to search, and (3) the path
connecting intention to search and intention to leave the organization.
Model 4
On the basis of previous research (Hui et al. 1999; Thau et al. 2004), the research model
(Model 1) proposes to consider forms of OCB as intermediate variables between perceived
job alternatives and intention to search. On the basis of assumption that perceived job
alternatives affect intention to leave the organization via intention to search (Bozeman and
Perrewe 2001), as a possible competing model, Model 4 examines forms of OCB as
intermediate variables between intention to search and intention to leave the organization.
The rationale is suggested by the following assumptions. Boswell, Zimmerman and
Swider (2012) argued that job search ‘can affect outcomes for the employer’ (p. 147).
Given that as important outcomes OCBs enhance organizational performance (Organ et al.
2006), that low OCBs reflect a propensity to withdraw from the organization (Chen 2005)
and that OCBs are related to intention to leave (Paille and Grima 2011), it seems
reasonable to examine (1) the path connecting perceived job alternatives and intention to
search, (2) the paths connecting intention to search and forms of OCB, and (3) the paths
connecting forms of OCB and intention to leave the organization.
Finally, Model 5 considers forms of OCB as outcomes of turnover cognitions. Griffeth
et al. (2000) showed that the withdrawal process (i.e. perceived job alternatives !
intention to search ! intention to leave) is the best predictor of turnover (not examined in
this paper). Chen et al. (1998) showed that turnover is better predicted by OCB than
turnover intention. These findings suggest that OCB can be a realistic output of the
withdrawal process. Thus, Model 5 examined (1) the path connecting perceived job
alternatives and intention to search, (2) the path connecting intention to search and
intention to leave the organization, and (3) the paths connecting intention to leave the
organization and forms of OCB.
Method
Though convenience samples were used in both Study 1 and Study 2, the samples were
different. Unlike Study 1, Study 2 was based on a sample in a specific industry affected by
shortage (social work).
Participants
Sample 1
For Study 1, a questionnaire was sent via e-mail to 2441 alumni of a Canadian university.
Of the 2441 individuals contacted as part of the survey, 731 responded, yielding a 29.9%
response rate. After reading the request for participation outlining the aims and objectives
of the research and reading the consent form outlining the ethical guidelines, 16
respondents withdrew from the study and opted not to take part in the online survey. Of the
715 completed questionnaires, 64 questionnaires were discarded because of too much
missing data. In total, 651 questionnaires were completed. 69.7% were women and 41.5%
were aged under 40. Of the respondents, 68% had over 15 years of professional experience
and 68% worked in an organization with more than 500 employees. Of the participants,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
92.5% stated that they had good career development prospects in their current
organization.
Sample 2
Study 2 was carried out in collaboration with the professional association of Quebecer
social workers. The decision to collect data using a sample of social workers was based on
the assumption that the retention of social workers is an issue of particular concern not only
for employers but also in view of the significant number of workers leaving the profession
(Wermeling 2009). In total, 230 individuals employed in social work responded to the
survey. After reading the request for participation outlining the aims and objectives of
the research and reading the consent form outlining the ethical guidelines, four respondents
withdrew from the study and opted not to take part in the online survey. The sample
included 226 participants. Of the participants, 88% were women and 53% were aged under
40. Of the respondents, 37.6% had over 15 years of professional experience and 65.6%
worked in an organization with more than 500 employees. Of the participants, 93% stated
that they had good career development prospects in their organization.
Measurement
The same measurements were used in both studies.
OCBs
Using self-report measures, three subscales developed by Podsakoff and MacKenzie
(1994), measuring helping behaviours (six items), civic virtue (three items) and
sportsmanship (four items), were used. The source of OCB measurement is a controversial
topic in the literature. The issue of common variance is the main argument given by the
advocates of other types of report (supervisor or peer). However, many researchers
(Conway and Lance 2010) have tended to minimize the effects of self-report results related
to the use of scales of OCB. Others (e.g. Turnipseed 2002) see the use of methods based on
self-reporting as justified when the investigation is focused on an examination of the links
between psychological variables. As Meierhans, Rietmann and Jonas (2008) argue,
‘the assumption underlying the use of self-reports is that OCB is generally not carried out
in front of the supervisor and is therefore better known to the actor himself’ (p. 139).
The purpose is to examine how OCB and turnover cognitions (psychological variables) are
related. Although the risks that may cause common variance are known, using self-report
is justified in the present study. Because previous empirical research conducted in the
francophone context (Paille 2009) found evidence of a four-factor model (altruism,
helping, sportsmanship and civic virtue), and because this study was also conducted in the
francophone context, similar patterns were logically predicted.
For Study 1, a confirmatory factor analysis found that a four-factor model provides a
better fit, x 2(61, n ¼ 651) ¼ 222.45, p , 0.000, comparative fit index (CFI) ¼ 0.93, non-
normed fit index (NNFI) ¼ 0.92 and root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) ¼ 0.06, than a three-factor model, x 2diff(1) ¼ 480.17, p , 0.001, and a
one-factor model, x 2diff(4) ¼ 932.21, p , 0.001. It was concluded that the participants
were able to distinguish the four OCB dimensions of altruism (a ¼ 0.87), helping
(a ¼ 0.79), civic virtue (a ¼ 0.70) and sportsmanship (a ¼ 0.72). Table 1 shows the
items of the four scales.
P. Paille10
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
Tab
le1
.M
easu
rem
ent
mo
del
for
Stu
dy
1an
dS
tud
y2
.
Stu
dy
1(n
¼6
51
)S
tud
y2
(n¼
22
6)
Lo
ad
ing
sr
CR
AV
EL
oa
din
gs
rC
RA
VE
Alt
ruis
m0
.98
0.9
30
.97
0.9
40
.78
0.8
8I
giv
em
yti
me
toh
elp
coll
eag
ues
wh
oh
ave
wo
rk-r
elat
edp
rob
lem
s0
.86
30
.89
7
Iw
illi
ng
tota
ke
tim
eo
ut
of
my
ow
nb
usy
sch
edu
leto
hel
pn
ewco
llea
gu
es0
.90
10
.64
6
Hel
pin
g0
.97
0.9
10
.92
0.9
20
.87
0.8
1I
tak
est
eps
totr
yto
pre
ven
tp
rob
lem
sw
ith
oth
erp
erso
nn
elin
the
com
pan
y0
.70
30
.91
0
Iac
tas
a‘p
eace
mak
er’
wh
eno
ther
sin
the
com
pan
yh
ave
dis
agre
emen
ts0
.85
70
.80
9
Iam
ast
abil
izin
gin
flu
ence
inth
eco
mp
any
wh
end
isse
nti
on
occ
urs
0.8
61
0.5
65
I‘t
ou
chb
ase’
wit
ho
ther
sb
efo
rein
itia
tin
gac
tio
ns
that
mig
ht
affe
ctth
em(r
emo
ved
inS
tud
y1
and
Stu
dy
2)
––
Civ
icvi
rtu
e0
.93
0.7
90
.83
0.8
90
.86
0.8
0I
atte
nd
fun
ctio
ns
that
are
no
tre
qu
ired
bu
th
elp
the
com
pan
yim
age
0.7
16
0.8
11
Iat
ten
din
form
atio
nse
ssio
ns
that
emp
loy
eear
een
cou
rag
edb
ut
no
tre
qu
ired
toat
ten
d0
.71
90
.77
8
Iac
tiv
ely
par
tici
pat
esin
com
pan
ym
eeti
ng
s0
.56
10
.50
1S
po
rtsm
an
ship
(all
sco
res
reve
rsed
)0
.88
0.7
10
.72
0.7
80
.78
0.7
0I
con
sum
ea
lot
of
tim
eco
mp
lain
ing
abo
ut
triv
ial
mat
ters
0.5
63
0.8
05
Ite
nd
tom
ake
‘mo
un
tain
so
ut
the
mo
leh
ills
’0
.51
10
.67
4I
alw
ays
focu
so
nw
hat
isw
ron
gw
ith
my
situ
atio
nra
ther
than
the
po
siti
ve
sid
eo
fit
0.6
80
0.5
89
Ial
way
sfi
nd
fau
ltw
ith
wh
atth
eco
mp
any
isd
oin
g(r
emo
ved
inS
tud
y1
and
Stu
dy
2)
––
(Co
nti
nu
ed)
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
Tab
le1
–co
nti
nu
ed
Stu
dy
1(n
¼6
51
)S
tud
y2
(n¼
22
6)
Lo
ad
ing
sr
CR
AV
EL
oa
din
gs
rC
RA
VE
Inte
nt
tole
ave
the
org
an
iza
tio
n0
.97
0.9
60
.93
0.9
60
.91
0.8
9T
her
eis
ag
oo
dch
ance
that
Iw
ill
leav
eth
iso
rgan
izat
ion
inth
en
ext
yea
r0
.91
60
.91
1
Ifr
equ
entl
yth
ink
of
leav
ing
this
org
aniz
atio
n0
.85
10
.84
3I
wil
lp
rob
ably
loo
kfo
ra
new
org
aniz
atio
nin
the
nex
ty
ear
0.9
67
0.8
88
Inte
nt
tose
arc
h0
.95
0.9
30
.88
0.9
30
.94
0.8
3I
oft
ense
ekin
form
atio
nab
ou
to
ther
job
po
ssib
ilit
ies
0.9
08
0.9
81
Io
ften
loo
kat
new
spap
erad
sfo
rn
ewjo
bs
0.8
33
0.8
21
Iso
met
imes
foll
ow
up
on
job
lead
sI’
ve
hea
rdab
ou
t0
.82
80
.82
9P
erce
ived
job
alt
ern
ati
ves
0.9
50
.89
0.8
80
.93
0.8
90
.83
Itis
po
ssib
lefo
rm
eto
fin
da
bet
ter
job
than
the
on
eI
hav
en
ow
0.6
85
0.6
25
Acc
epta
ble
job
sca
nal
way
sb
efo
un
d0
.87
00
.91
6N
od
ou
bt
inm
ym
ind
that
Ica
nfi
nd
ajo
bth
atis
atle
ast
asg
oo
das
the
on
eI
no
wh
ave
0.7
93
0.8
16
No
te:r,
Jore
sko
g’s
r;
CR
,co
mposi
tere
liab
ilit
y;
AV
E,
aver
age
var
iance
extr
acte
d.
P. Paille12
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
For Study 2, the confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the four-factor model
provides a better fit, x 2(61, n ¼ 226) ¼ 120.63, p , 0.000, CFI ¼ 0.92, GFI ¼ 0.92 and
RMSEA ¼ 0.06, than the three-factor model, x 2diff(1) ¼ 76.51, p , 0.001, and the
one-factor model, x 2diff(4) ¼ 303.87, p , 0.001. It was concluded that social workers were
able to distinguish the four OCB dimensions of altruism (a ¼ 0.72), helping (a ¼ 0.81),
civic virtue (a ¼ 0.70) and sportsmanship (a ¼ 0.69).
Turnover cognitions
The three-item scale developed by Lichtenstein, Alexander, McCarthy and Wells (2004) was
used to measure intention to quit (Study 1, a ¼ 0.93; Study 2, a ¼ 0.91). The three-item
scale drawn from Peters, Jackofsky and Salter (1981) was used to measure perceived job
alternatives (Study 1, a ¼ 0.82; Study 2, a ¼ 0.82). The three-item scale developed by
Peters et al. (1981) was used to measure intention to search (Study 1, a ¼ 0.89; Study 2,
a ¼ 0.90). Table 1 shows the items of the three scales. Bozeman and Perrewe (2001)
indicate that ‘a number of studies have shown that turnover intention measures are not well
differentiated from measures of other closely associated precursors to actual turnover,
specifically, from thoughts of quitting and intentions to search for another job with a different
organization’ (p. 162). To avoid spurious findings, a confirmatory factor analysis was
conducted to determine whether the items of each measure load on their appropriate factor.
For Study 1, the confirmatory factor analysis results indicate that the three-factor model
fits the data better, x 2(24, n ¼ 651) ¼ 97.65, p , 0.000, CFI ¼ 0.98, NNFI ¼ 0.97 and
RMSEA ¼ 0.06, than (1) a model that combines two factors into one factor, intention to
search and intention to leave, x 2diff(2) ¼ 663.37, p , 0.001, (2) a model that combines two
factors, intention to search and perceived job alternatives, x 2diff(2) ¼ 712.08, p , 0.001, (3)
a model that combines two factors, intention to quit and perceived job alternatives,
x 2diff(2) ¼ 656.95, p , 0.001, and (4) a model that combines in one factor intention to
search, perceived job alternatives and intention to leave, x 2diff(4) ¼ 1802.53, p , 0.001.
For Study 2, the confirmatory factor analysis results indicate that the three factors
provided an excellent fit, x 2(22, n ¼ 226) ¼ 47.29, p , 0.001, CFI ¼ 0.98, NNFI ¼ 0.97
and RMSEA ¼ 0.07. The three-factor model fitted the data better than (1) a model that
combined two factors into one factor, intention to search and intention to leave
x 2diff(4) ¼ 342.46, p , 0.001, (2) a model that combined two factors into one factor,
intention to search and perceived job alternatives, x 2diff(4) ¼ 456.81, p , 0.001, (3) a
model that combined two factors into one factor, intention to quit and perceived job
alternatives, x 2diff(2) ¼ 378.97, p , 0.001, and (4) a model that combined in one factor
intention to search, perceived job alternatives and intention to quit x 2diff(7) ¼ 675.21,
p , 0.001.
It was concluded that the discriminant validity of perceived job alternatives, intention
to search and intention to leave was supported in both studies.
For both studies, all items were measured using a seven-point Likert scale with
responses ranging from 1 (disagree) to 7 (agree).
Results
For both studies, the recommendations outlined by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) were
followed. A two-stage process was followed to analyse the data. First, the measurement
model was examined to evaluate the independence of the constructs. Second, structural
equation modelling (SEM) was used to analyse the data.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 13
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
Measurement model (Study 1 and Study 2)
A measurement model consisting of seven factors (helping, altruism, civic virtue,
sportsmanship, intention to search, perceived job alternatives and intention to quit) fitted
the data well [Study 1, x 2(193, n ¼ 651) ¼ 494.67, p , 0.000, CFI ¼ 0.96, NNFI ¼ 0.95
and RMSEA ¼ 0.05; Study 2, x 2(190, n ¼ 226) ¼ 284.42, p , 0.000, CFI ¼ 0.96,
NNFI ¼ 0.95 and RMSEA ¼ 0.04].
For both studies, Table 1 shows the composite reliability (CR), estimating the extent to
which a set of latent construct indicators shares in their measurement of a construct;
average variance extracted (AVE), representing the ratio of the total variance due to the
latent variable; and Joreskog’s r for all constructs of the sample. Hair, Anderson, Tatham
and Black (1998) recommend a CR above the 0.70 threshold and an AVE above the 0.50
threshold. Since the values respected the recommended cut-off in both studies, the
measurement model may be said to provide evidence of the reliability, convergent validity
and discriminant validity of the measures.
SEM results (Study 1 and Study 2)
Following Anderson and Gerbing (1988), the measurement model was used at this stage.
For both studies, Model 1 (the research model) fitted the data well [Study 1, x 2(198,
n ¼ 651) ¼ 633.16, p , 0.000, CFI ¼ 0.93, NNFI ¼ 0.92, and RMSEA ¼ 0.06; Study 2,
x 2(195, n ¼ 226) ¼ 373.69, p , 0.000, CFI ¼ 0.93, NNFI ¼ 0.91 and RMSEA ¼ 0.06].
Table 2 summarizes the results of the comparison of competing models. The x 2
difference test suggested that the research model (Model 1) improves the fit compared to
Model 2 in both studies [Study 1, x 2diff(5) ¼ 271.84, p , 0.001; Study 2, x 2
diff(0) ¼ 20.40,
p , 0.001], Model 3 [Study 1, x 2diff(4) ¼ 70.97, p , 0.001; Study 2, x 2
diff(4) ¼ 28.61,
p , 0.001], Model 4 [Study 1, x 2diff(3) ¼ 390.02, p , 0.001; Study 2, x 2
diff(1) ¼ 50.43,
p , 0.001], and Model 5 [Study 1, x 2diff(4) ¼ 127.54, p , 0.001; Study 2,
x 2diff(4) ¼ 41.61, p , 0.001]. Therefore, the more parsimonious research model
(Model 1) was used to test the hypotheses.
Research hypotheses (Study 1 and Study 2)
Table 3 provides an overview of the results of both studies.
Hypotheses 1(a)–(d) predicted negative relationships between perceived job
alternatives and forms of OCB. The factor perceived job alternatives was negatively
related to helping (Study 1, b ¼ 20.281, t-value ¼ 25.944, p ¼ 0.000; Study 2,
b ¼ 20.162, t-value ¼ 22.155, p ¼ 0.031), altruism (Study 1, b ¼ 20.294,
t-value ¼ 26.183, p ¼ 0.000; Study 2, b ¼ 20.220, t-value ¼ 22.992, p ¼ 0.003),
sportsmanship (Study 1, b ¼ 20.490, t-value ¼ 27.419, p ¼ 0.000; Study 2,
b ¼ 20.493, t-value ¼ 24.540, p ¼ 0.000) and civic virtue (Study 1, b ¼ 20.350,
t-value ¼ 26.482, p ¼ 0.000; Study 2, b ¼ 20.347, t-value ¼ 24.018, p ¼ 0.000).
Thus, for both studies, the results support Hypotheses 1(a)–(d).
Hypotheses 2(a)–(d) predicted negative relationships between forms of OCB and
intention to search. In both studies, helping was not related to intention to search (Study 1,
b ¼ 0.043, n.s.; Study 2, b ¼ 0.048, n.s.). Altruism was related to intention to search in
Study 1 but not in the predicted direction (b ¼ 0.112, t-value ¼ 2.403, p ¼ 0.026), but
was not related to intention to search in Study 2 (b ¼ 20.079, n.s.). In both studies,
sportsmanship (Study 1, b ¼ 20.210, t-value ¼ 23.607, p ¼ 0.000; Study 2,
b ¼ 20.383, t-value ¼ 23.779, p ¼ 0.000) was negatively related to intention to search.
P. Paille14
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
Tab
le2
.C
om
par
iso
no
fco
mp
etin
gm
od
els.
Stu
dy
1(n
¼6
51
)S
tud
y1
(n¼
22
6)
Co
mp
etin
gm
od
els
x2
df
RM
SE
AC
FI
NN
FI
x2
df
RM
SE
AC
FI
NN
FI
Mo
del
1–
Res
earc
hm
od
el6
33
.16
**
*1
98
0.0
60
.93
0.9
23
73
.69
**
*1
95
0.0
60
.93
0.9
1M
od
el2
–D
rop
pin
gth
ep
ath
fro
min
ten
tto
sear
chto
inte
nt
tole
ave
the
org
aniz
atio
n9
05
.00
**
20
30
.08
0.9
10
.90
39
4.0
9*
*1
95
0.0
80
.93
0.9
0
Mo
del
3–
OC
Bs
asd
eter
min
ants
totu
rno
ver
cog
nit
ion
s7
04
.13
**
20
20
.08
0.9
30
.92
40
2.3
0*
*1
99
0.0
60
.93
0.9
0M
od
el4
–O
CB
sas
inte
rmed
iate
var
iab
les
bet
wee
np
erce
ived
job
alte
rnat
ives
and
inte
nt
tose
arch
10
23
.18
**
20
10
.11
0.8
80
.87
42
4.1
2*
*1
96
0.1
10
.89
0.8
7
Mo
del
5–
OC
Bs
aso
utc
om
esto
turn
ov
erco
gn
itio
ns
76
0.7
0*
*2
02
0.1
10
.85
0.8
54
15
.30
**
19
90
.11
0.8
80
.85
No
te:
**
*p,
0.0
00
;*
*p,
0.0
01
.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 15
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
Tab
le3
.P
ath
anal
ysi
sre
sult
s.
Stu
dy
1(n
¼6
51
)S
tud
y2
(n¼
22
6)
Res
earc
hh
ypo
thes
esS
tan
da
rdiz
ed
pa
thco
effici
ent
( b)
t-va
lue
pS
tan
da
rdiz
ed
pa
thco
effici
ent
(b)
t-va
lue
p
H1
(a)
PJA
!H
elpin
g2
0.2
81
25
.944
0.0
00
Su
ppo
rted
20
.162
22
.15
50
.003
Su
pp
ort
edH
1(b
)P
JA!
Alt
ruis
m2
0.2
94
26
.183
0.0
00
Su
ppo
rted
20
.220
22
.99
20
.031
Su
pp
ort
edH
1(c
)P
JA!
Sp
ort
sman
ship
20
.49
02
7.4
19
0.0
00
Su
ppo
rted
20
.493
24
.54
00
.000
Su
pp
ort
edH
1(d
)P
JA!
Civ
icv
irtu
e2
0.3
50
26
.482
0.0
00
Su
ppo
rted
20
.347
24
.01
80
.000
Su
pp
ort
edH
2(a
)H
elpin
g!
Inte
nt
tose
arch
0.0
43
0.8
23
n.s
.N
on
-su
pp
ort
ed0
.048
0.8
88
n.s
.N
on
-su
pp
ort
edH
2(b
)A
ltru
ism
!In
ten
tto
sear
ch0
.11
22
.403
0.0
26
No
n-s
up
po
rted
20
.079
20
.93
2n
.s.
No
n-s
upp
ort
edH
2(c
)S
po
rtsm
ansh
ip!
Inte
nt
tose
arch
20
.21
02
3.6
07
0.0
00
Su
ppo
rted
20
.383
23
.77
90
.000
Su
pp
ort
edH
2(d
)C
ivic
vir
tue
!In
ten
tto
sear
ch2
0.2
33
23
.763
0.0
00
Su
ppo
rted
20
.010
20
.23
2n
.s.
No
n-s
upp
ort
edH
3(a
)H
elpin
g!
Inte
nt
tole
ave
0.0
75
2.0
89
0.0
37
No
n-s
up
po
rted
0.0
50
0.8
89
n.s
.N
on
-su
pp
ort
edH
3(b
)A
ltru
ism
!In
ten
tto
leav
e2
0.0
79
22
.044
0.0
47
Su
ppo
rted
20
.060
20
.90
4n
.s.
No
n-s
upp
ort
edH
3(c
)S
po
rtsm
ansh
ip!
Inte
nt
tole
ave
20
.19
42
4.6
36
0.0
00
Su
ppo
rted
20
.255
23
.02
10
.003
Su
pp
ort
edH
3(d
)C
ivic
vir
tue
!In
ten
tto
leav
e0
.01
80
.243
n.s
.N
on
-su
pp
ort
ed2
0.2
01
22
.93
20
.003
Su
pp
ort
edH
(4)
PJA
!In
ten
tto
sear
ch0
.14
62
.464
0.0
14
Su
ppo
rted
0.1
05
1.1
09
n.s
.N
on
-su
pp
ort
edH
(5)
Inte
nt
tose
arch
!In
ten
tto
leav
e0
.64
41
6.8
42
0.0
00
Su
ppo
rted
0.3
16
4.5
02
0.0
00
Su
pp
ort
ed
Note
:P
JA,
per
ceiv
edjo
bal
tern
ativ
es;
n.s
.,non-s
ignifi
cant.
P. Paille16
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
Finally, civic virtue was related to intention to search in Study 1 (b ¼ 20.233,
t-value ¼ 23.763, p ¼ 0.000), but not in Study 2 (b ¼ 20.010, n.s.). Therefore, while
Hypotheses 2(a) and (b) were not supported in Studies 1 and 2, Hypothesis 2(c) was
supported in both studies; finally, Hypothesis 2(d) was supported in Study 1 but not in
Study 2.
Hypotheses 3(a)–(d) predicted negative relationships between OCBs and intention to
leave the organization. Helping was found to be related to intention to leave in Study 1 but
not in the predicted direction (b ¼ 0.075, t-value ¼ 2.089, p ¼ 0.037), but was not related
to intention to leave in Study 2 (b ¼ 0.050, n.s.). Altruism was related to intention to leave
in Study 1 (b ¼ 20.079, t-value ¼ 22.044, p ¼ 0.047), but not in Study 2 (b ¼ 20.060,
n.s.). In both studies, sportsmanship was negatively related to intention to leave (Study 1,
b ¼ 20.194, t-value ¼ 24.636, p ¼ 0.000; Study 2, b ¼ 20.255, t-value ¼ 23.021,
p ¼ 0.003). Finally, civic virtue was not related to intention to leave in Study 1 (b ¼ 0.018,
n.s.), but was related to intention to leave in Study 2 (b ¼ 20.201, t-value ¼ 22.932,
p ¼ 0.003). Therefore, while Hypothesis 3(a) was not supported in Studies 1 and 2,
Hypothesis 2(b) was supported in Study 1 but not in Study 2; Hypothesis 3(c) was
supported in both studies; and Hypothesis 3(d) was not supported in Study 1, but was
supported in Study 2.
Hypothesis 4 predicted a positive relationship between perceived job alternatives and
intention to search. While perceived job alternatives was found to be positively related to
intention to search in Study 1 (b ¼ 0.146, t-value ¼ 2.464, p ¼ 0.014), no relationship
was found in Study 2 (b ¼ 0.105, n.s.). Therefore, the results only support Hypothesis 4 in
Study 1.
Hypothesis 5 predicted a positive relationship between intention to search and
intention to leave. In both studies, intention to search and intention to leave were found to
be positively related (Study 1, b ¼ 0.644, t-value ¼ 16.842, p ¼ 0.000; Study 2,
b ¼ 0.316, t-value ¼ 4.502, p ¼ 0.000). Therefore, the results of both studies support
Hypothesis 5.
Discussion
Findings
Consistent with previous research (Hui et al. 1999; Thau et al. 2004), both Study 1 and
Study 2 found negative relationships between perceived job alternatives and OCB.
However, the distinctions drawn between different forms of OCB extended the findings of
previous studies by providing additional data. Hui et al. (1999) and Thau et al. (2004)
computed a mean score for OCB. As a result, it was difficult to determine, for instance,
whether perceived job alternatives had a greater effect on OCB towards individuals than
on OCB towards the organization. The findings of both studies suggest the same pattern.
Perceived job alternatives explained OCB towards the organization (sportsmanship and
civic virtue) better than OCB towards individuals (helping and altruism). Hui et al. (1999)
indicate that ‘employees who perceive low job mobility may continue their OCB so as to
protect their investment in the organization’ (p. 16). Given that the variance explained for
sportsmanship (Study 1: 23.1%; Study 2: 24.4%) was higher than civic virtue (Study 1:
11.6%; Study 2: 11.4%), the results suggest that a favourable job market (high job
alternatives) increases the likelihood, first, that employees will be unwilling to tolerate
excessive demands in their workplace and, second, that employees will be unwilling to
protect the interests of their employer. In other words, the lack of sportsmanship or/and the
lack of interest in the political dimensions of the organization (relating to governance) may
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 17
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
be perceived as an indication that employees are engaged in a withdrawal process. In
addition, the perception of job alternatives has a lesser impact on OCB towards
individuals. The variance explained for helping (Study 1: 7.9%; Study 2: 2.6%) and
altruism (Study 1: 8.6%; Study 2: 5.4%) was low. The data suggest that job alternatives do
not have a significant effect on investment between individuals.
The positive relationships between helping and intention to leave and between altruism
and intention to search are unexpected. While no relationships were found in Study 2, in
Study 1 helping was found to be positively related to intention to leave the organization,
while altruism was positively related to intention to search. The findings suggest that the
greater the level of help and altruism among employees, the more likely they are to leave
their employer. Because this study focused solely on the relationship between OCB and
turnover cognitions and no other variable was used, these findings are difficult to interpret.
However, two conflicting explanations seem plausible. First, for reasons unknown, it is
possible that reciprocity is not a common standard for participants in Study 1. In this case,
the perception of a low degree of cohesiveness among employees can feed the propensity
to quit. Second, the evidence suggesting that helping and altruism were positively related
to, respectively, intention to quit and intention to search is consistent with Mossholder et al.
(2005), who argued that ‘individuals view their interpersonal citizenship behaviour as an
investment that increases their value to an organization and profession’ (p. 610). Helping
encourages knowledge sharing, sharing the tricks of the trade between employees, and the
improvement of technical skills (Organ et al. 2006). Therefore, it is conceivable that
the improvement of work practices or the acquisition of new skills will encourage an
employee to gauge his or her value on the labour market. The identification by the
employees of their own value on the labour market does not necessarily mean that they
will leave their employer. Employees may use this information to negotiate with their
employer in order to improve their work conditions.
Following Coyne and Ong (2007) and Paille and Grima (2011), the results of this study
(Studies 1 and 2) indicate that sportsmanship was the most important form of OCB for
explaining intention to leave the organization. Therefore, the study extends the findings of
previous studies. While the data in Study 1 indicated that sportsmanship only explains
intention to leave, in Study 2 the results showed that sportsmanship explains intention to
search better than intention to leave. Since a high level of sportsmanship indicates that the
employee is engaged in his or her work and accepts inconveniences linked to demands
such as occasional extra work, the findings of this study suggest that employees do not plan
to leave their organization in order to find a job with less hardship. The data suggest that in
cases of low levels of sportsmanship, and in the event of good employment prospects
outside their current organization (high job alternatives), employees plan to quit before
seeking a new job (Study 1) or seek a new job before planning to quit (Study 2).
Participants in both studies indicated that they had opportunities for further career
development in their current organization. Unfortunately, the items measuring intention to
search are not sufficiently precise to determine whether employees were seeking
employment in their current organization.
In previous research, the relationships between civic virtue and intention to quit were
controversial. Paille and Grima (2011) found negative relationships between civic virtue
and intention to quit, unlike Coyne and Ong (2007). Unfortunately, since the findings of
Study 1 were consistent with that of Coyne and Ong (2007) and the findings of Study 2
were consistent with that of Paille and Grima (2011), the issue surrounding the conflicting
empirical findings of previous studies will not be resolved by this study. However, the use
of perceived job alternatives and intention to search provide additional data that improve
P. Paille18
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
the interpretation of the findings. In Study 1, although civic virtue did not affect intention
to leave, it provided a better explanation of intention to search than perceived job
alternatives. This may depend on the extent to which an employee is involved in the
governance process. High levels of civic virtue mean that employees are involved or
interested in the political dimension of their organization, such as participating in
organizational governance and protecting the image and reputation of the organization.
Employees exhibiting high levels of civic virtue demonstrate a willingness to remain in the
organization. Furthermore, as suggested by Study 1, an employee displaying low levels of
civic virtue may consider employment alternatives without planning to leave his or her
current organization. Study 2 produced different results. Although civic virtue does not
affect intention to search, it explains perceived job alternatives better than intention to
leave. The findings suggest that high levels of civic virtue create a sense of responsibility
towards the organization that appears to be incompatible with the desire to leave the
employer in the near future.
Finally, perceived job alternatives negatively affect OCB among German (Thau et al.
2004), Chinese (Hui et al. 1999) and French–Canadian employees (the present study).
The results of Studies 1 and 2 highlight different relationships between OCB and intention
to search and OCB and intention to leave the organization. The findings suggest that one
part of the research model appears to be generalizable, while the other part appears to be
explained by the context of employment.
Practical implications
The results of this study have useful implications for organizations. Sportsmanship refers
to the willingness to remain in the organization despite hardships (Coleman and Borman
2000) and provides useful information about the propensity to leave the organization.
The findings of this study suggest that managers receiving growing complaints related to
difficult work conditions (low sportsmanship) may need to conclude that an individual
threshold has been reached. Therefore, to retain the best employees, managers need to take
appropriate measures to reduce difficult work conditions. The literature on support
provides useful findings. Overall, employees may receive support from many people both
outside (e.g. spouse and friends) and inside the organization (e.g. top management,
immediate superior and co-workers). Although employees may receive support from a
range of sources in the workplace, previous studies have highlighted the critical role of the
immediate superior. The feeling of being supported by the superior enhances employee
retention more than the feeling of being supported by the organization (Eisenberger,
Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski and Rhoades 2002) or by co-workers (Ng and
Sorensen 2008). Thus, managers demonstrate their concern for the health of their
employees, which, in turn, improves employee retention.
Limitations of the study and future research
Despite its contribution to the literature, this study has a number of limitations. First, the
results are based on a single sample and a cross-sectional research design. Therefore,
the data should be interpreted with caution. The results were obtained by collecting data
from two independent samples, following the recommendations given by Murphy (1983).
However, in the design chosen for this study, a specific limitation relating to the difficulty
of inferring causality needs to be acknowledged (Bobko and Stone-Romero 1998).
A duplication of the study using a longitudinal design should mitigate this limitation.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 19
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
Second, because Chen (2005) reported that OCB explains more variance of actual turnover
than turnover intentions, it might be objected that the findings should be viewed with
caution. However, research using objective measures of turnover provides guidance for
people who were no longer members of the organization at the time of the investigation.
In other words, this amounts to highlighting the measures that should have been taken by
managers to retain employees before employees definitively left the job. As suggested
by Holtom, Mitchell, Lee and Eberly (2008), preference was therefore given to an analysis
of the variables that incite individuals to remain in their current job or that reduce their
intention to leave. Therefore, a measure of intent appears to be more appropriate. Finally,
although the rating source of OCB remains an object of controversy (Vandenberg, Lance
and Taylor 2005) and appears to be a methodological issue that is difficult to resolve, some
readers may feel that the use of self-reporting measures of OCB entails a significant
limitation. Because the data were collected using self-reported measures, common method
variance bias could lead to an overestimation of the results, particularly as a result of the
phenomenon of social desirability bias (Spector 1987). However, as indicated by Schnake
(1991), ‘supervisor ratings may be biased as a result of halo, or deficient because
citizenship is so difficult to observe’ (p. 741). Van Dyne and Cummings (1990) noted that
both self-report and supervisor ratings of OCB have significant weaknesses (cited by
Schnake 1991). Finally, the measurement of OCB (self-reports vs. supervisor- or
colleague-ratings) entails a number of unresolved issues.
Future research will need to take account of the limitations outlined above. In addition,
future research might usefully focus specifically on sportsmanship. First, based on the
results of this study, it was impossible to determine under what circumstances or
conditions sportsmanship might represent the variable providing the best prediction of the
indicators used to study turnover cognitions (Study 2). Future research could test several
variables known for generating greater pressure at work in order to identify the impact on
sportsmanship. Second, the literature has tended to overlook the extent to which
sportsmanship impacts on the decision to leave. As noted above, many industries are
affected by shortages. In industries where organizations are affected by manpower
shortages, an understanding of variables affecting sportsmanship and in turn the decision
to quit would, in all likelihood, help to improve management practices.
To conclude, the primary objective of this study was to improve our knowledge of the
relationships between OCB and turnover cognitions. The findings indicate that
sportsmanship is the form of citizenship with the greatest predictive power. However,
despite the contributions of this study, further research is needed to broaden the
investigation of the relationship between OCB and retention in the workplace.
References
Anderson, J.C., and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), ‘Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review andRecommended Two-Step Approach,’ Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
Berry, C.M., Lelchook, A.M., and Clark, M.A. (2011), ‘A Meta-Analysis of the InterrelationshipsBetween Employee Lateness, Absenteeism, and Turnover: Implications for Models ofWithdrawal Behavior,’ Journal of Organizational Behavior, doi: 10.1002/job.778.
Bobko, P., and Stone-Romero, E.F. (1998), ‘Meta-Analysis may be Another Useful Research Tool,but It is not a Panacea,’ in Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, ed.G.R. Ferris, Stamford, CT: JAI Press, pp. 359–397.
Boswell, W.R., Zimmerman, R.D., and Swider, B.W. (2012), ‘Employee Job Search: Toward anUnderstanding of Search Context and Search Objectives,’ Journal of Management, 38, 1,129–163.
P. Paille20
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
Bozeman, D.P., and Perrewe, P.L. (2001), ‘The Effect of Item Content Overlap on OrganizationalCommitment Questionnaire-Turnover Cognitions Relationships,’ Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 86, 1, 161–173.
Chen, X.-P. (2005), ‘Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Predictor of Employee VoluntaryTurnover,’ in Handbook of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Review of ‘Good Solder’Activity in Organizations, ed. D.L. Turnipseed, New York: Nova Science, pp. 435–454.
Chen, X.-P., Hui, C., and Sego, D.J. (1998), ‘The Role of Organizational Citizenship Behavior inTurnover: Conceptualization and Preliminary Tests of Key Hypotheses,’ Journal of AppliedPsychology, 83, 6, 922–931.
Cirka, C.C. (2005), ‘When Actions Speak as Loudly as Words: Autonomy Support, PsychologicalEmpowerment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior,’ in Handbook of OrganizationalCitizenship Behavior: A Review of ‘Good Solder’ Activity in Organizations, ed. D.L. Turnipseed,New York: Nova Science, pp. 291–328.
Coleman, V.I., and Borman, W.C. (2000), ‘Investigating the Underlying Structure of the CitizenshipPerformance Domain,’ Human Resource Management Review, 10, 25–44.
Conway, J.M., and Lance, C.E. (2010), ‘What Reviewers Should Expect from Authors RegardingCommon Method Bias in Organizational Research,’ Journal of Business and Psychology,25, 325–334.
Coyne, I., and Ong, T. (2007), ‘Organizational Citizenship Behaviour and Turnover Intention:A Cross-Cultural Study,’ International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 6,1085–1097.
Dalton, D.R., and Mesch, D.J. (1991), ‘On the Extent and Reduction of Avoidable Absenteeism: AnAssessment of Absence Policy Provisions,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 6, 810–817.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I.L., and Rhoades, L. (2002),‘Perceived Supervisor Support: Contributions to Perceived Organizational Support andEmployee Retention,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 3, 565–573.
Ferrari, J.M. (1992), ‘Procrastination in the Workplace: Attributions for Failure among Individualswith Similar Behavioral Tendencies,’ Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 3, 315–319.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960), ‘The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement,’American Sociological Review, 25, 2, 161–169.
Griffeth, R., Hom, P., and Gaertner, S. (2000), ‘A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents and Correlates ofEmployee Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and Research Implications for the NextMillennium,’ Journal of Management, 26, 3, 463–488.
Gupta, N., and Jenkins, G.D. (1983), ‘Tardiness as a Manifestation of Employee Withdrawal,’Journal of Business Research, 11, 1, 61–75.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis(5th ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Harrison, D.A., Newman, D.A., and Roth, P.L. (2006), ‘How Important are Job Attitudes?Meta-Analytic Comparisons of Integrative Behavioral Outcomes and Time Sequences,’Academy of Management Journal, 49, 2, 305–325.
Holtom, B.C., Mitchell, T.R., Lee, T.W., and Eberly, M.B. (2008), ‘Turnover and RetentionResearch: A Glance at the Past, Review of the Present, and a Venture into the Future,’The Academy of Management Annals, 1, 231–274.
Hom, P., and Griffeth, R. (1995), Employee Turnover, Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.Hui, C., Law, K.S., and Chen, Z.X. (1999), ‘A Structural Equation Model of the Effects of Negative
Affectivity, Leader–Member Exchange, and Perceived Job Mobility on In-Role and Extra-RolePerformance: A Chinese Case,’ Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77, 1,3–21.
Jaros, S.J., Jermier, J.M., Koehler, J.W., and Sincich, T. (1993), ‘Effects of Continuance, Affective,and Moral Commitment on the Withdrawal Process: An Evaluation of Eight Structural EquationModels,’ The Academy of Management Journal, 36, 5, 951–995.
Johns, G. (2002), ‘The Psychology of Lateness, Absenteeism, and Turnover,’ in Handbook ofIndustrial, Work and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 2), eds. N. Anderson, D. Ones,H. Sinangil and C. Viswesvaran, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 232–252.
Koys, D. (2001), ‘The Effects of Employee Satisfaction, Organizational Citizenship Behavior,and Turnover on Organizational Effectiveness: A Unit-Level, Longitudinal Study,’Personnel Psychology, 54, 101–114.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 21
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
Krishnan, S.K., and Singh, M.S. (2010), ‘Outcomes of Intention to Quit of Indian IT Professionals,’Human Resource Management, 49, 3, 421–437.
Lam, W., Chen, Z., and Takeuchi, N. (2009), ‘Perceived Human Resource Management Practicesand Intention to Leave of Employees: The Mediating Role of Organizational CitizenshipBehaviour in a Sino-Japanese Joint Venture,’ The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 20, 11, 2250–2270.
Lavelle, J.J. (2010), ‘What Motivates OCB? Insights from the Volunteerism Literature,’ Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 31, 918–923.
Lee, T.W., Mitchell, T.R., Sablynski, C., Burton, J., and Holtom, B.C. (2004), ‘The Effects of JobEmbeddedness on Organizational Citizenship, Job Performance, Volitional Absences andVoluntary Turnover,’ Academy of Management Journal, 47, 711–722.
Lichtenstein, R., Alexander, J.A., McCarthy, J.F., and Wells, R. (2004), ‘Status Differences inCross-Functional Teams: Effects on Individual Member Participation, Job Satisfaction, andIntent to Quit,’ Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 3, 322–335.
MacKenzie, S., Podsakoff, P., and Ahearne, M. (1998), ‘Some Possible Antecedents andConsequences of In-Role and Extra-Role Salesperson Performance,’ Journal of Marketing,62, 87–98.
Meierhans, D., Rietmann, B., and Jonas, K. (2008), ‘Influence of Fair and Supportive LeadershipBehavior on Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour,’ Swiss Journal ofPsychology, 3, 131–141.
Miller, H., Katerberg, R., and Hulin, C. (1979), ‘Evaluation of the Mobley, Horner, andHollingsworth Model of Employee Turnover,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 509–517.
Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W., Sablynski, C.J., and Erez, M. (2001), ‘Why People Stay:Using Job Embeddedness to Predict Voluntary Turnover,’ The Academy of ManagementJournal, 44, 6, 1102–1121.
Mobley, W. (1977), ‘Intermediate Linkages in the Relationship Between Job Satisfaction andEmployee Turnover,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237–240.
Mobley, W., Horner, S., and Hollingsworth, A. (1978), ‘An Evaluation of Precursors of HospitalEmployee Turn-Over,’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 408–414.
Morrison, E.W. (1994), ‘Organizational Citizenship Behavior as a Critical Link Between HRMPractices and Service Quality,’ Human Resource Management, 35, 4, 493–512.
Mossholder, K.W., Settoon, R.P., and Hanagan, S.C. (2005), ‘A Relational Perspective On Turnover:Examining Structural, Attitudinal, and Behavioural Predictors,’ Academy of ManagementJournal, 48, 4, 607–618.
Mowday, R.T., Koberg, C.S., and McArthur, A.W. (1984), ‘The Psychology of the WithdrawalProcess: A Cross-Validational Test of Mobley’s Intermediate Linkages Model of Turnover inTwo Samples,’ The Academy of Management Journal, 27, 1, 79–94.
Murphy, K.R. (1983), ‘Fooling Yourself with Cross-Validation: Single Sample Designs,’Personnel Psychology, 36, 111–118.
Ng, T.W.H., and Sorensen, K.L. (2008), ‘Toward a Further Understanding of the RelationshipsBetween Perceptions of Support and Work Attitudes,’ Group & Organization Management,3, 243–268.
Organ, D. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome,Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. (1990), ‘The Motivational Basis of Organizational Citizenship Behavior,’ Research inOrganizational Behavior, 12, 43–72.
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M., and MacKenzie, S.B. (2006), Organizational Citizenship Behavior:Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences, Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Paille, P. (2009), ‘Assessing Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in the French Context: Evidencefor the Four Dimensional Model,’ Journal of Psychology, 143, 2, 133–146.
Paille, P., and Grima, F. (2011), ‘Citizenship and Withdrawal in the Workplace: RelationshipBetween Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, Intention to Leave Current Job and Intention toLeave the Organization,’ Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 4, 478–493.
Peters, L., Jackofsky, E., and Salter, J. (1981), ‘Predicting Turnover: A Comparison of Part-Timeand Full-Time Employees,’ Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 89–98.
Podsakoff, P.M., and MacKenzie, S.B. (1994), ‘Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Sales UnitEffectiveness,’ Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 351–363.
P. Paille22
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
Podsakoff, P.M., and MacKenzie, S.B. (1997), ‘Impact of Organizational Citizenship Behavioron Organizational Performance: A Review and Suggestion for Future Research,’Human Performance, 10, 2, 133–151.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Paine, J., and Bachrach, D. (2000), ‘Organizational CitizenshipBehaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions forFuture Research,’ Journal of Management, 26, 3, 513–563.
Rosse, J.G. (1988), ‘Relations Among Lateness, Absence, and Turnover: Is There a Progression ofWithdrawal?’ Human Relations, 41, 517–531.
Sager, J.K., Griffeth, R.W., and Hom, P.W. (1998), ‘A Comparison of Structural ModelsRepresenting Turnover Cognitions,’ Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 254–273.
Sagie, A., Koslowsky, M., and Hamburger, Y.A. (2002), ‘Antecedents of Employee Lateness: AMultiple-Level Model,’ in Voluntary Employee Withdrawal and Inattendance. A CurrentPerspective, eds. M. Koslowsky and M. Krausz, New York: Kluwer Academic, pp. 1–20.
Schnake, M.E. (1991), ‘Organizational Citizenship: A Review, Proposed Model, and ResearchAgenda,’ Human Relations, 44, 735–759.
Schaninger, W.S., and Turnipssed, D.L. (2005), ‘The Workplace Social Exchange Network: ItsEffect on Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Contextual Performance, Job satisfaction, andIntent to Leave,’ in Handbook of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Review of‘Good Solder’ Activity in Organizations, ed. D.L. Turnipseed, New York: Nova Science,pp. 209–242.
Spector, P.E. (1987), ‘Method Variance as an Artefact in Self-Reported Affect and Perceptions atWork: Myth or Significant Problem?’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1, 114–121.
Thau, S., Bennett, R.J., Stahlberg, D., and Werner, J.M. (2004), ‘Why Should I Be Generous When IHave Valued and Accessible Alternatives? Alternative Exchange Partners and OCB,’ Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 25, 607–626.
Tolich, M.B. (1993), ‘Alienating and Liberating Emotions at Work: Supermarket ClerksPerformance of Customer Service,’ Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22, 3, 361–381.
Turnipseed, D. (2002), ‘Are Good Soldiers Good? Exploring the Link Between OrganizationalCitizenship Behavior and Personal Ethics,’ Journal of Business Research, 1, 1–15.
Vandenberg, R., Lance, C., and Taylor, S. (2005), ‘A Latent Variable Approach to Rating Source ofEquivalence: Who Should Provide Ratings on Organizational Citizenship BehaviorDimensions?’ Handbook of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Review of ‘Good Solder’Activity in Organizations, ed. D.L. Turnipseed, New York: Nova Science, pp. 109–141.
Van Dyne, L., and Cummings, L. (1990), ‘Extra-Role Behaviors: The Need For Construct andDefinitional Clarity,’ Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting,San Franscisco, CA.
Wermeling, L. (2009), ‘Social Work Retention Research: Three Major Concerns,’ Journal ofSociology, Social Work and Social Welfare, 3, 1, 1–21.
Yao, X., Lee, T.W., Mitchell, T.R., Burton, J.P., and Sablynski, C.J. (2004), ‘Job Embeddedness:Current Research and Future Directions,’ in Innovative Theory and Empirical Research onEmployee Turnover, eds. R. Griffeth and P. Hom, Greenwich, CT: Information Age,pp. 153–187.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management 23
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite L
aval
] at
08:
55 1
8 Ju
ly 2
012
Recommended