THE INFLUENCE OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

INDUCED ATTRIBUTIONS ON EMPLOYEES’ ATTITUDES AND

BEHAVIORS

By

Ifzal Ahmad

(Reg. No. 131274)

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN MANAGEMENT SCIENCES

(HRM)

AIR UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, ISLAMABAD

MAY 2017

THE INFLUENCE OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

INDUCED ATTRIBUTIONS ON EMPLOYEES’ ATTITUDES AND

BEHAVIORS

By

Ifzal Ahmad

(Reg. No. 131274)

A research thesis submitted to the Air University School of Management (AUSOM), Islamabad

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN MANAGEMENT SCIENCES

(HRM)

AIR UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, ISLAMABAD

MAY 2017

ii

DEDICATIONS

To My Mother

„I remember all your prayers and they have followed me. I owe my very existence to you‟

To My Father (My hero)

„You are my source of inspiration. May Allah give you long and healthy life‟

To My Wife

„Your unconditional support throughout our journey together has enabled me to witness this

memorable day of my life‟

To My Children

„You are the key to my heart‟

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The research described in this study is performed at Air University, School of Management

(AUSOM). During this study, I acknowledge the support from many people. It is my bliss to take

this opportunity to thank all of them for their support and encouragement in successful

completion of this research.

First, I would like to genuinely thank my supervisor Dr. Mueen Aizaz Zafar and my co-

supervisor Dr. Khurram Shahzad, who provided me with the freedom to explore research

directions, being a vital source of inspiration, guidance and discipline and allowed me to explore

that I wanted to investigate. Their encouragement, excellent guidance, creative suggestions, and

critical comments have greatly contributed to this research. Dear Sirs, I would like to thank you

very much for your supervision. I enjoyed our discussions and have learned a great deal from

them.

I would like to express my deep appreciation to Mr. Hammad Khan from Telenor Pakistan, who

helped a great deal in my data collection and was very supportive in this regard. I am most

thankful to all of the respondents for helping me and spending their spare time to fill out the

questionnaires. Finally, I would like to deeply thank my family for their deep concern, profound

encouragement, and unlimited support. They always helped alleviate my pressures when I faced

various difficulties during my PhD. And above all, I am grateful to Allah for giving me the

wisdom and courage to accomplish this course in a dignified manner.

Ifzal Ahmad

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………ix

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………..x

List of Acronyms…………………………………………………………………………………xi

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………….xii

CHAPTER 1……………………………………………………………………………………..01

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………….01

1.1 Background……………………………………………………………………………....01

1.2 Research Gap………………………………………………………………………….....03

1.3 CSR and Attribution theory……………………………………………………………...07

1.4 Problem Statement……………………………………………………………………….09

1.5 Objectives of the study……………………………………………………………….......10

1.6 Research Questions……………………………………………………………………....11

1.7 Significance of the study..………………………………………………………………..12

1.7.1 Theoretical significance………………………………………………………….12

1.7.2 Practical significance…………………………………………………………….15

1.8 CSR research in Pakistani context…………………………………………………….....16

1.9 Definitions of study variables……………………………………………………………21

1.9.1 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)………………………………………….21

1.9.2 Trust……………………………………………………………………………...22

1.9.3 Psychological Contract Fulfillment (PCF)……………………………………….22

1.9.4 Psychological Safety (PS)………………………………………………………..22

1.9.5 Creative Performance (CP)……………………………………………………....23

1.9.6 Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)…………………………………….23

v

1.9.7 Workplace Deviance Behaviors (WDBs)………………………………………..23

1.10 Structure of thesis………………………………………………………………..24

CHAPTER 2……………………………………………………………………………………..25

LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………………………………..25

2.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..25

2.1.1 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)……………………………………………25

2.1.2 Critical overview of CSR scholarship……………………………………………...27

2.1.3 CSR and other competing/complementary terms………………………………….34

2.1.4 Micro level studies on CSR………………………………………………………..37

2.2 CSR, attribution theory and employees‟ attitudes and behaviors……………………………40

2.3 The concept of doing good in Islam...……………………………………………………….48

2.4 Combining CSR, attribution theory and Islamic perspective of doing good………………..52

2.5 Hypotheses Development - CSR and Outcome variables...…………………………………54

2.5.1 Creative Performance (CP)………………………………………………………...54

2.5.2 Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)………………………………………57

2.5.3 Workplace Deviance Behaviors (WDBs)………………………………………….60

2.6 Mediating role of Psychological Safety (PS)……………………...…………………………63

2.6.1 PS as mediator between CSR and CP………………………………………...........63

2.6.2 PS as mediator between CSR and OCB……………………………………………66

2.6.3 PS as mediator between CSR and WDBs…………………………………….........67

2.7 Mediating role of Psychological Contract Fulfillment (PCF)………………………….........69

2.7.1 PCF as mediator between CSR and CP……………………………………………69

2.7.2 PCF as mediator between CSR and OCB…………………………………….........71

2.7.3 PCF as mediator between CSR and WDBs………………………………………..72

vi

2.8 Mediating role of Trust..……………………………………………………………………..74

2.8.1 Trust as mediator between CSR and PS…………..…………………………….....74

2.8.2 Trust as mediator between CSR and PCF…….……………………………………77

2.9 Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………………………79

2.10 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….81

CHAPTER 3……………………………………………………………………………………..83

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………...83

3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..83

3.2 Research Design…..…………………………………………………………………............83

3.2.1 Study Setting……………………………………………………………………….84

3.2.2 Time Horizon………………………………………………………........................84

3.2.3 Unit of Analysis…………………………………………………………………....85

3.3 Population & Sample...……………………………………………………………………....85

3.3.1 Population..………………………………………………………………...............85

3.3.2 Sampling procedure...……………………………………………………...............87

3.3.3 Demographic Characteristics of the respondents......................................................91

3.4 Measures used……..…………………………………………………………………............92

3.4.1 CSR attributions (intrinsic/extrinsic)……………………………………................93

3.4.2 Trust………………...……………………………………………………...............93

3.4.3 Psychological Contract Fulfillment (PCF)…………………………………………93

3.4.4 Psychological Safety (PS)………………………………………………………….94

3.4.5 Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)………………………………………94

3.4.6 Creative Performance (CP)….…………………………………………………......94

3.4.7 Workplace Deviance Behaviors (WDBs)………………………………………….94

3.5 Data Sources and collection method…………………………………………………............95

vii

3.5.1 Primary Data……………………………………………………………………….96

3.5.2 Secondary Data…………………………………………………………………….96

3.5.3 Administration of Questionnaire…………………………………………………..97

3.5.4 Handling of Questionnaire…………………………………………………………98

3.6 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….100

CHAPTER 4…………………………………………………………………………………....101

RESULTS……………………………………………………………………………………....101

4.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………....101

4.2 Data Analysis Method……………………………………………………………………....101

4.2.1 Reliability & Validity Measures………………………………………………….102

4.2.2 Common Method Variance Assessment………………………………………….108

4.2.3 Common Method Bias Assessment………………………………………………109

4.3 Results of Correlations….…………………………………………………………………..111

4.3.1 Intrinsic CSR……………………………………………………………………...111

4.3.2 Extrinsic CSR…………………………………………………………………….111

4.3.3 Trust………………………………………………………………………………112

4.3.4 Psychological Safety (PS)………………………………………………………...112

4.3.5 Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)……………………………………..113

4.3.6 Creative Performance (CP)……………………………………………………….113

4.3.7 Psychological Contract Fulfillment (PCF)………………………………………..113

4.3.8 Workplace Deviance Behaviors (WDBs)………………………………………...114

4.4 Results for hypotheses……………………………………………………………………...115

4.4.1 Results of hypotheses with direct relationships…………………………………..115

4.4.2 Results for hypotheses of mediations…………………………………………….116

4.5 Testing of specific relationship and overall model………………………………………....124

viii

4.6 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….131

CHAPTER 5……………………………………………………………………………………132

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS……………………………………………...................132

5.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………....................132

5.2 Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………..132

5.3 Confirmation of the proposed Model……………………………………………………….141

5.4 Theoretical Implications……………………………………………………………………142

5.5 Implications for Managers in Pakistan……………………………………………………..148

5.6 Limitations of research……………………………………………………………………..151

5.7 Future research areas…………………………………………………………………..........154

5.8 Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………..158

5.9 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….........160

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………162

APPENDICES...………………………………………………………………………………..192

QUESTIONNAIRE…………………………………………………………………………….210

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Research Model of the Study………………………………………………………..79

Figure 2.1.1………………………………………………………………………………79

Figure 2.1.2………………………………………………………………………………80

Figure 2.1.3………………………………………………………………………………80

Figure 2.1.4………………………………………………………………………………81

Figure 2.1.5………………………………………………………………………………81

Figure 3.1: Step by step data collection………………………………………………………….90

Figure 4.1: Common Method Bias (CMB) via single latent factor…………………………….110

Figure 4.2: Creative Performance (CP) as Outcome…………………………………………...128

Figure 4.3: Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) as Outcome…………………………129

Figure 4.4: Workplace Deviance Behaviors as Outcome………………………………………130

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: CSR attributions and impact on dispositions…………………………………………45

Table 3.1: CSR contributions of Telecom Sector………………………………………………..87

Table 3.2: Gender of respondents………………………………………………………………..91

Table 3.3: Qualification of the respondents……………………………………………………...91

Table 3.4: Experience of the respondents………………………………………………………..92

Table 3.5: Position of the respondents…………………………………………………………...92

Table 3.6: Measures used………………………………………………………………………..95

Table 4.1: Scales used, reliability, validity and measurement model (CFA) test results………103

Table 4.2: Correlation and Inter-construct correlations results....……………………………...106

Table 4.3: Results for CMV and Model fit………….……………………………………….....108

Table 4.4: Descriptive statistics (Mean, SD) and correlations………………………………….114

Table 4.5: Results of proposed hypotheses……………………………………………………..119

Table 4.6: Summary of the results……………………………………………………………...121

Table 4.7: Phantom Model Tests Results………………………………………………………127

xi

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

PS Psychological Safety

PCF Psychological Contract Fulfillment

CP Creative Performance

EOT Employees‟ Organizational Trust

OCB Organizational Citizenship Behavior

WDBs Workplace Deviance Behaviors

CMV Common Method Variance

CMB Common Method Bias

SEM Structural Equation Modeling

CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis

xii

ABSTRACT

Attention towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is increasing from researchers and

practitioners alike. However, prior studies had little focus on individual level studies;

particularly, how employees are influenced (both positively & negatively) by these activities. To

this end, this study investigates the impact of CSR activities on employees‟ Creative

Performance (CP), Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and Workplace Deviance

Behaviors (WDBs). I also tested the sequential mediating role of employees‟ organizational trust

(EOT) followed by psychological safety (PS) and psychological contract fulfillment (PCF)

between CSR and outcome variables. Data were collected from 363 employee-supervisor dyads

through quantitative methodology to achieve the aim of this study. Hypotheses were tested

through Preacher and Hayes (2008) macro of mediation and the Phantom Model approach. The

Findings indicate no direct relationship between intrinsic CSR attribution and CP, OCB and

WDBs, whereas; a significant negative effect of extrinsic CSR attributions was recorded on CP.

Furthermore, no impact of extrinsic CSR was recorded on OCBs, however, a positive impact on

WDBs was found. Similarly, we found that PS and PCF mediate the relationship between

intrinsic CSR and CP, OCB and WDBs and between extrinsic CSR and CP, OCB and WDBs.

Likewise, EOT mediates between intrinsic CSR and PS and between extrinsic CSR and PS.

Finally, EOT also mediates between intrinsic CSR and PCF and between extrinsic CSR and PCF.

The findings of our study suggest that CSR attributions (intrinsic and extrinsic) affect EOT

which in turn influences their PS and the feeling of PCF. Consequently, PS and PCF will

influence employees‟ CP, OCB and WDBs. In so doing, we differentiated the CSR practices

which may evoke positive dispositions among employees than those practices which may evoke

xiii

negative dispositions. A limitation of the study is that data were collected from one country only

and a single sector i.e. telecom sector which may have issues of generalization.

Key Words: CSR attributions, Trust, Psychological Contract Fulfillment, Psychological Safety,

Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Creative Performance, Workplace Deviance Behaviors

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Professionals from the field of people management and human resource had very little focus in

the past on the notion of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) despite its relevance to this field

(Brammer, Millington & Rayton, 2007; Glavas, 2016; Gond, El-Akremi, Igalens & Swaen 2010;

Lockett, Moon & Visser, 2006). CSR is defined as „context-specific organizational actions and

policies that take into account stakeholders‟ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic,

social, and environmental performance‟ (Aguinis 2011, p. 855). However, ever since this notion

has become prominent in academia, it is believed that CSR is more strategic in nature and can be

a source of competitive advantage (Economist, 2008; Porter and Kramer, 2006).

Scholars from Marketing, Finance, Leadership, HR and Strategic Management etc. have

studied CSR from different perspectives. Some scholars, for example Greening & Turban (2000)

and Angus-Leppan, Metcalf & Benn (2009) etc. have worked on the notion of CSR with their

main focus on the prospective employees and organizational attractiveness, while others have

studied this concept from the financial performance point of view with their main focus on the

consumers such as Albinger & Freeman (2000), Luo & Bhattacharya (2006) and Wood & Jones

(1995) etc. Recently, the impact of CSR on employees‟ attitudes and behaviors also attracted

attention where a number of authors conducted different studies and suggested that it is now time

to extend the CSR boundaries further (Hur et al. 2016; Morgeson, Aguinis, Waldman, & Siegel,

2013; Rupp & Mallory, 2015).

2

Despite these multi-dimensional studies and recommendations on CSR, it is important to

underline that these studies mainly focus on the organizational level, whereas studies from the

individual level i.e. internal employees‟ attitudes and behaviors have received relatively less

attention. So much so, that until 2012 the number of studies concentrating on the individual level

were only 4% (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). Leading authors (e.g. Carroll, 2015) suggest that CSR

is organization‟s obligation towards its internal as well as external stakeholders. However, equal

attention towards all the stakeholders had not been previously given (Morgeson et al. 2013).

Surprisingly, the perspective of internal stakeholders i.e. employees‟ perspective received

relatively little attention in the extant literature despite being the most important stakeholder

(Glavas, 2016). They are important because they remain involved in and witness every stage of

CSR i.e. from formulating CSR strategies to its implementation, evaluation and reporting (Rupp

& Mallory, 2015).

Ever since this gap has been highlighted, the individual level studies have attracted a growing

attention (Rupp, Skarlicki, & Shao, 2014). As a result, researchers are reaching consensus that

investment in CSR related policies and practices pay off (Rupp & Mallory, 2015; Vlachos,

Panagopoulos, & Rapp, 2013a). For example, scholars have found the impact of CSR perception

on employees‟ organizational commitment (Brammer et al. 2007; Choi & Yu, 2014; Turker,

2009), organizational citizenship behavior (e.g. Hansen, Dunford, Boss, Boss & Angermeier,

2011; Shen & Benson, 2014; Swanson & Niehoff, 2001 etc) and job satisfaction (see De Roeck

et al. 2014; Vlachos et al. 2013a) etc. In addition to the most common outcomes e.g.

organizational citizenship behavior, recent studies stressed on the need to explore the

relationship of CSR with additional outcomes too (Aguinis, 2016) such as creative performance

of employees and workplace deviance behaviors.

3

Similarly, researchers emphasized the importance of mediating mechanism in order to

understand the underlying process through which CSR leads to various outcomes (Aguinis &

Glavas, 2012; Glavas, 2016). To this end, studies have mainly focused on trust (e.g. DeRoeck &

Delobbe, 2012; Hansen et al. 2011), organizational identity (e.g. Farooq et al. 2014; Jones,

2010), meaningfulness & perceived organization support (Glavas & Kelley, 2014) and justice

perception (Rupp et al. 2013) as mediating mechanisms. However, other mediating mechanisms,

as recommended by Aguinis (2016), such as psychological safety (PS) and psychological

contract fulfillment (PCF) may also influence CSR outcomes. Bauman & Skitka (2012) argued

that a socially responsible organization is a key for enhancing employees‟ security and safety

including the psychological safety. Similarly, Rayton et al. (2014) argued that PCF is a key

predictor between corporate social performance and various behavioral outcomes such as CP.

Keeping in view these assertions, I believe that both PS and PCF are two potential and strong

contenders which can play mediating role between CSR and outcomes and hence need further

exploration.

This study is approached by adopting the positivist approach of research philosophy which

suggest that whenever possible, quantify (Benoit, 2005). Furthermore, this approach suggest that

logical reasoning for establishing link between two variables is required if quantification is not

possible (Kaplan, 1964). Hence, a quantitative approach will be adopted for testing the

hypotheses of this study adopting the positivist approach.

1.2 Research Gap

Apart from the positive outcomes cited earlier, Rupp & Mallory (2015, p. 6.2) in their recent

paper pointed towards the “dark side” of CSR i.e. negative employee reactions, which points to

4

the possibility that CSR practices may not always prompt positive reactions. This view is

contrary to the most of the mainstream findings; however, little attention has been given to

explore this side of CSR (Rupp & Mallory, 2015). In similar lines, while utilizing attribution

theory, Lange and Washburn (2012) and Vlachos et al. (2013a, 2013b), also argued that

employees look skeptically towards the CSR practices of their respective organizations. When

they attribute such practices to “cause exploitation and green-washing” (p. 578)‟ their responses

may be negative under such circumstances (Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera & Williams, 2006).

Similarly, Aguinis & Glavas (2013) also indicated toward such possibility in their paper.

Nevertheless, empirical evidence for questions like, what specific CSR activities will prompt

positive/negative reactions, and the type of negative reactions which evoke in response, are still

at large in the extant literature and therefore need immediate attention.

Furthermore, researchers working on CSR have also highlighted another important gap in the

extant literature, suggesting that the actual psychological mechanism i.e. theoretical

underpinning, through which employees‟ behaviors are affected is also unknown (Bauman &

Skitka, 2012; Glavas, 2016) and therefore, needs further exploration (Rupp & Mallory, 2015).

The most common mechanism adopted for establishing the link between CSR and behavioral

outcomes was the justice perception (Rupp et al. 2014), and the theories employed in most of

these studies were stakeholders‟ theory (e.g. Porter & Kramer, 2006), signaling theory (e.g.

Jones, Hillier & Comfort, 2014), justice theory (e.g. Rupp et al. 2014), social exchange theory

(e.g. Farooq, Payaud, Merunka, & Vallete-Florence, 2013) and social identity theory (e.g.

Aguinis & Glavas, 2013; De Roeck & Delobbe, 2012). However, Morgeson et al. (2013) &

Glavas (2016) suggested that there may be other mechanisms too through which CSR may

5

influence employees‟ behavioral outcomes and that CSR discussion in this direction needs

extension too.

Likewise, as mentioned earlier that CSR impacts different behaviors of employees, yet, there

are other behaviors which can also be affected through this notion e.g. Creative Performance

(CP) and Workplace Deviance Behaviors (WDBs) however, little attention to these notions has

been paid in the past CSR related studies. Recent studies underlined the importance of moving

beyond the already explored outcomes of CSR activities (Glavas, 2016). In line with this

argument, other authors suggested that CSR may have an impact on employees‟ creative

performance (Hur, Moon & Ko, 2016) and workplace deviance behaviors (Morgeson et al.

2013). However, very limited studies are available to the best of author‟s knowledge which has

established the link between CSR and WDBs thus far. For CSR and CP, there are a couple of

notable exceptions i.e. Brammer, He, & Mellahi, (2015) and Hur et al. (2016) who studied the

impact of CSR perception on employees‟ creativity, however, further studies are being

recommended by these authors to validate their findings in other settings. Besides, their studies

are only limited to the positive employee outcomes where the negative effects of the same have

been totally ignored. Similarly, the importance of knowledge-based workplace have further

intensified the need for studying the role of CSR in relation to employees CP and WDBs and

other extra role behaviors such as organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) (Hur et al. 2016).

Therefore, this study attempts to explore the impact of CSR attributions on three outcome

variables i.e. CP, OCB and WDBs. Though OCB has been previously studied in relation to CSR;

however, the reason for inclusion of the same is that I am proposing an alternative framework

which suggests the differential effects of CSR. For this purpose, one existing outcome i.e. OCB

is also being included in this study. However, thus far, we see little effort in this direction

6

particularly on the negative relationship between CSR and these outcome variables hence, a key

grey area worth addressing.

Finally, different mediating paths have been explored in the past between CSR perception

and behavioral outcomes (e.g. De Roeck et al. 2013; Hansen et al. 2011; Hur et al. 2016 etc.).

Like many other authors (e.g. Glavas, 2016; Rupp et al. 2014), we also contend that there are

other important mediating paths too such as psychological safety (PS) and psychological contract

fulfillment (PCF), which may also shape employees‟ behaviors prompted by CSR. Specifically,

we are offering to test the sequential mediating paths i.e. employees‟ trust (first mediator)

followed by PS & PCF (as sequential mediators) between CSR attributions and outcomes i.e. CP,

OCB and WDBs. While emphasizing on the exploration of other mediating paths to address the

unanswered question of cause and effect relationship between CSR and outcomes, many authors

(e.g. Brammer et al. 2015; Morgeson et al. 2013; Rupp & Mallory, 2015 etc.) also emphasized

on alternative mechanisms. Underlying the importance of exploring mediating mechanisms,

Glavas (2016) argued that “we know that CSR has an effect on employees but we know less

about why, how, and when” (p. 2) will it impact on.

Employees‟ trust is among the most common mediators studied in the past CSR related

studies (e.g. Hansen et al. 2011), however, the rest of the two mediators, i.e. PS and PCF have

never been tested in such relationship and that too as sequential variables. Past studies suggest

that employees decide whether to trust their organization or not, based on their values, ethical,

and moral practices comprising its character (Mayer et al. 1995; Morgan & Hunt, 1994) which in

turn has been identified as a key determinant of individual and organizational productivity (Dirks

& Ferrin, 2001, 2002; Kramer & Tyler, 1996; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998) and

other key outcomes. Researchers argue that among the most immediate mediators of CSR is

7

trust, hence, it was selected as a first stage mediator in this study. PS is a feeling in which

employees can share their inner self openly with the confidence that their careers, image, or

status will not be affected negatively (Kahn, 1990). Theorists suggest that those CSR activities

which are attributed as moral, may enhance employees‟ PS (Bauman & Skitka, 2012) as they

will feel that moral organizations rarely cheat (Lind & Van den Bos, 2002; Wojciszke, 2005).

Likewise, PCF is defined as the understandings, belief or expectations an employee has over the

chances of fulfillment of pledges his/her organization makes (Rousseau, 1995). Evidence

suggests that fulfillment of PC is a key mediating variable between organizations social

contributions and positive behavioral outcomes (Rayton et al. 2014). Hence, PS and PCF are also

important notions to be studied in relation to CSR as these are considered as key antecedents

through which employees make fine judgments about their organizations (Lee et al. 2000).

As mentioned earlier, Brammer et al. (2015) & Hur et al. (2016) have explored the impact of

CSR perception on employees‟ creativity. However, the former‟s effort involved only one

variable as mediator i.e. organizational identification, between CSR perception and employees‟

creative effort whereas, the later studied two variables as mediators i.e. compassion at work and

intrinsic motivation between CSR perception and creativity with mediating mechanism of

compassion at work and intrinsic motivation. They also highlighted the importance and

possibilities of other mediating paths between CSR and employees behavioral outcomes. Hence,

it is also a key gap worth exploring.

1.3 CSR and attribution theory

As discussed earlier, most of the research on CSR revolves around Stakeholders‟ theory

(Freeman, 1984) and signaling theory (Spence, 1973) because their main focus is the interest of

8

stakeholders (Freeman, 1984) including employees, whom are considered to be the most

important stakeholders (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984). Some studies have also

incorporated social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1985) and social exchange theory (Blau,

1964) in their studies on CSR (e.g. Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Farooq et al. 2013; Gond et al.,

2010 etc.). However, employees‟ interpretation of their intrinsic and extrinsic motives ascribed

toward CSR programs may also shape their behaviors (Vlachos et al. 2013a). Since organizations

are often considered as social actors, therefore; they will also be judged by their potential and

moral character (Eply, Waytz & Cacioppo, 2007).

Likewise, recent corporate scandals such as the Oil spill of BP in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010

and the scandal of Barclays Bank etc. have raised questions on the intentions of these

corporations‟ CSR initiatives (Vlachos et al. 2013a). People feel that on one hand, these

organizations claim to be responsible but on the other hand, such environmental and moral

disasters signal the contrary. Consequently, employees‟ skepticism also increases and some

perceive the CSR policies as a show off and exploitation of a sacred cause (Lange & Washburn,

2012). In such a scenario, attribution theory may better explain employees‟ interpretations about

the CSR programs in their organizations. Keeping in mind these possibilities, Du, Bhattacharya

& Sen (2007) initially proposed a new model of intrinsic and extrinsic CSR using attribution

theory which was further developed and used by Vlachos et al. (2013a) for internal employees.

Their proposed conceptualization of CSR will be adopted in our study too because it is a

relatively less explored dimension of CSR scholarship with a promising future potential (Lange

& Washburn, 2012; Vlachos et al. 2013b).

The attribution theory argues that employees make their own inferences about the causes

(causal judgment) of other people‟s behaviors and respond accordingly (Kelly, 1973; Martinko,

9

Harvey & Dasborough, 2011). Previous researches described people as „intuitive psychologists‟

as they not only observe people‟s behaviors but also try to understand the causes of those

particular behaviors (Heider, 1958; Ross, 1977). Employees will also make social inferences

where they will decide whether a particular behavior of the second party (i.e. organization in this

case) is due to its self-control/internal causes or some external pressure/situations (Ross, 1977).

Theorists suggest that positive dispositional inferences may be eliminated in case an individual

attributes other‟s actions triggered due to situational factors and/or external pressures (Kelly,

1967). Similar psychological mechanism will come into play in case of employees‟ judgment

about their organizations‟ CSR activities (Vlachos et al. 2013a).

1.4 Problem Statement

Keeping in view the above discussion, it is now time to focus on the problem statement for this

study.

Main problem:

There is a lack of empirical studies, and theoretical underpinnings, distinguishing CSR

practices which may evoke positive reactions among employees than those which evoke

negative reactions.

Sub-problem – 1:

There is a paucity of individual level studies on the influence of Corporate Social

Responsibility (CSR) attributions of employees on their attitudes and behaviors.

Sub-problem – 2:

10

Lack of alternative psychological mechanisms in CSR studies which can help explain the

underlying mechanism through which employees‟ attitudes and behaviors may be

differentially affected.

Sub-problem – 3:

Fewer mediating paths have been tested between CSR and employees‟ attitudes and

behaviors.

Sub-problem – 4:

There is a need of studying the impact of CSR attributions on additional behaviors of

employees such as CP and WDBs apart from OCB in order to further validate its business

case.

Sub-problem – 5:

Lack of enough evidence on CSR from the developing countries‟ perspective particularly,

from Pakistan where majority of the population are Muslims.

1.5 Objectives of the study

The objectives of this study are

Objective No. 1: To identify the impact of CSR attribution (i.e. intrinsic and extrinsic) on CP of

employees.

Objective No. 2: To identify the impact of CSR attributions (i.e. intrinsic and extrinsic) on OCB

of employees.

11

Objective No. 3: To identify the impact of CSR attributions (i.e. intrinsic and extrinsic) on

WDBs of employees.

Objective No. 4: To test the mediating role of PS between CSR attributions (i.e. intrinsic and

extrinsic) and CP of employees.

Objective No. 5: To test the mediating role of PS between CSR attributions (i.e. intrinsic and

extrinsic) and OCB of employees.

Objective No. 6: To test the mediating role of PS between CSR attributions (i.e. intrinsic and

extrinsic) and WDBS of employees.

Objective No. 7: To test the mediating role of PCF between CSR attributions (i.e. intrinsic and

extrinsic) and CP of employees.

Objective No. 8: To test the mediating role of PCF between CSR attributions (i.e. intrinsic and

extrinsic) and OCB of employees.

Objective No. 9: To test the mediating role of PCF between CSR attributions (i.e. intrinsic and

extrinsic) and WDBs of employees.

Objective No. 10: To test the mediating role of Trust between CSR attributions (i.e. intrinsic and

extrinsic) and PS of employees.

Objective No. 11: To test the mediating role of Trust between CSR attributions (i.e. intrinsic and

extrinsic) and PCF of employees.

1.6 Research Questions

The research was carried out to find answers to the following questions.

12

Questions 1: Do all CSR practices evoke positive behavioral outcomes among employees?

Question 2: Are there any negative impacts of CSR on employees‟ attitudes and behaviors?

Questions 3: In case of existence of negative impacts, can we then differentiate CSR practices

which have positive effects than those which have negative effects on employees‟ attitudes and

behaviors?

Question 4: Do CSR practices have any role in enhancing or reducing the Creative Performance

(CP) of employees?

Question 5: Do CSR practices have any role in enhancing or reducing the Organizational

Citizenship Behaviors (OCB) of employees?

Question 6: Do CSR practices help in reducing or increasing the workplace deviance behaviors

(WDBs) of employees?

Question 7: Can the impact of CSR on employees‟ attitudes and behaviors be explained through

an alternative psychological mechanism with new mediating paths of Trust, PS and PCF?

1.7 Significance of the study

In an attempt to address the research gaps identified above, several theoretical and practical

contributions can be noted from this study.

1.7.1 Theoretical significance

First: The focus of this study is on individual level and internal stakeholders (see Aguinis &

Glavas, 2012). Many authors have stressed on the need for further exploration of CSR and its

relation with employees‟ attitudes and behaviors (Hur et al. 2016; Glavas, 2016). Being an

13

internal customer, employees have the first hand information of different organizational policies

and practices including CSR. However, surprisingly, this important stakeholder group has been

largely ignored in the extant studies on CSR (Carroll, 2015). The first significance of this study

is to focus on the intra-organizational level in particular focus on employees.

Second: This study offers an alternative approach which will distinguish those CSR practices

that evoke positive reactions (intrinsic CSR) from the ones that evoke negative reactions (i.e.

extrinsic CSR). While utilizing the attribution theory (Kelley, 1967) combined with corporate

morality literature (Bauman & Skitka, 2012; Rupp et al. 2015; van Prooijen & Ellemers, 2015)

and the Islamic perspective of doing good; we argue that a distinction can be drawn between

CSR practices which are attributed by employees to moral perspective with positive impacts and

which are attributed towards more instrumental and selfish perspective such as showoff, green-

washing and tax rebates etc. with negative impact. However, this assertion needs to be validated

with empirical evidence since it is a promising area for further advancement and understanding

of the CSR literature and its implications for the organizations (Vlachos et al. 2013a, 2013b,

2014). It is important because organizations need to know whether their huge investments in

CSR actually bear the desired fruit or not?

Third: Employing attribution theory in management and business related studies will fulfill

another key gap i.e. the actual psychological mechanism between CSR and behavioral outcomes.

Authors like Harvey, Madison, Martinko, Crook, & Crook (2014) argued about the attribution

theory that despite its potential implications for business and management related studies, only

9% of the total citations of this theory until 2014 were from these fields. Therefore, I believe that

attribution theory along with morality literature and the concept of doing good in Islam may

offer one possible alternative psychological mechanism for CSR (Bauman & Skitka, 2010)

14

through which it will lead to differential behavioral outcomes in the organizations. The

attribution theory is useful in explaining this phenomenon because Weiner (1995, p. 6) argued

that “putting attribution theory in the context of organizational behavior should be of great

benefit.” Particularly, the author‟s focus will be on the locus of causality – the most commonly

used dimension in business studies (Harvey et al. 2014) – of attribution theory to explain the

intrinsic/extrinsic CSR.

Fourth: In addition to the most commonly tested outcome of CSR i.e. OCB, we have selected

CP and WDBs to explore further outcome variables and strengthen the business case for CSR.

Morgeson et al. (2013) & Rupp et al. (2014; 2015) have also underlined the importance of testing

the impact of CSR on other behavioral outcomes. OCB is an important extra role behavior.

Researchers argued that without OCB, organization may not be able to maintain sustainability

(Brammer et al. 2007). Likewise, CP is also an important extra role behavior of employees which

needs to be encouraged in the organizations for sustainable growth (Ahmad, Aizaz & Shahzad,

2015). Studying these extra-role behaviors in relation to CSR will have important implications

particularly in the current knowledge-based economies and technological influence on the

workplace (Hur et al. 2016). Likewise, regarding WDBs, a study reported that the misuse of

internet alone is costing organizations more than $85 billion per year (Latto, 2007), whereas,

violence at work is costing the US alone a staggering amount of $120 billion dollars a year

(Matchulat, 2007). Due to these enormous costs, we believe that it is imperative to look for some

solutions which morally forces employees to avoid WDBs. Our contention is that CSR may have

that potential to affect such behaviors; hence, we have chosen this variable as another behavioral

outcome in addition to CP and OCB.

15

Fifth: For exploring additional mediating paths between CSR and outcomes, we are proposing a

sequential mediating mechanism of employees‟ Trust, Psychological Safety (PS) and

Psychological Contract Fulfillment (PCF). I offer my contention such that PS and PCF will

mediate the relationship between CSR attributions and behavioral outcomes (i.e. CP, OCB and

WDBs), whereas, trust will mediate the relationship between CSR attributions and PS & between

CSR attribution and PCF. Trust has already been studied as key mediator in the past CSR related

studies (e.g. Hansen et al. 2011); however, I believe that the other two key variables i.e. PS and

PCF will also play their role in shaping employees‟ behaviors in reaction to CSR.

Sixth: Finally, I argue that the study settings i.e. Pakistan as a country offers an added advantage

for testing our assertions mainly due to its population which is 95% Muslims (CIA, 2001). The

concept of charity and social welfare (Zakat and Ushar) in Islam is obligatory on those who earn

a decent living. It is important to note that such contributions towards the society are either kept

anonymous or on a low profile (Farooq et al. 2013). Marketing and showing-off of the same is

considered as selfish or morally weak attitude (Loannou & Serafeim, 2012), capable of evoking

negative responses. Similar psychological mechanism may be implied in case of CSR

contributions by corporations in Pakistan and hence, varying responses to the CSR activities as

compared to the western world. Therefore, combining this concept of charity with the attribution

theory and morality literature will help address the gaps identified above too.

1.7.2 Practical significance

Some of the practical contributions of this study are given below.

First, the study is expected to differentiate between the genuine/normative CSR practices

and instrumental ones. This is an important contribution as organizations invest large sums of

16

money in CSR; therefore, they must know which practices will have positive returns and which

will have negative. In so doing, they will be in a better position to make effective decisions at the

time of spending money on CSR.

Second contribution of this study is linked with the first one such that the differentiation of

CSR practices will also highlight the importance of CSR communication strategies. A more

strategic approach to communicate such contributions may be required because of the

sensitivities involved in employees‟ attributions. Third, this study is expected to bring into light

additional strategies of improving employees‟ creative performance and extra role behaviors. For

example, the importance of PCF and PS will be tested which will bring evidence for managers

and thus additional benefits. Fourth, this study will also contribute towards identifying

techniques to reduce negative workplace behaviors in order to save precious organizational

resources and reduce costs. Fifth, this study will also highlight the importance of differences in

behaviors of people in Pakistan from the western world where most of the past CSR related

studies were focused. Though I believe that the generalizability of this contribution extends

beyond boundaries, however, keeping in view the religious beliefs of people in Pakistan, copying

the exact model of CSR from the West may not work. I expect to offer some additional insight

into how managers can rework on the existing CSR practices and differentiate the normative

ones from the instrumental.

1.8 CSR research in Pakistani Context

Over the past couple of decades, research on CSR around the globe has attracted significant

attention among academia and practitioners alike. The focus of most of these studies are US and

EU, whereas, other countries‟ perspective such as Pakistan, has received very little attention

17

(Ehsan & Kaleem, 2012). At the moment, Pakistan is facing severe challenges such as weak

economy, energy crises, corruption, terrorism, governance issues and political unrest etc. (Sajjad

& Ewejje, 2014) therefore, the need for adopting CSR policies and practices are now more than

ever for better management of both public and private sector organizations. In particular,

research on this notion and its positive effects on various organizational outcomes are much

needed to highlight its importance. Nonetheless, at the moment, limited authors have

concentrated its focus from Pakistani perspective.

However, in the past few years, CSR related activities in Pakistan are gaining momentum

despite its late recognition. Though, Individuals and organizations are engaged in philanthropic

and charity work since long, they quite often misinterpret CSR as mere philanthropic activities.

Most practitioners are unaccustomed with the concept, responsibilities and requirements of CSR

and its effects onto their businesses (Khan, 2012). Similarly, the lack of awareness among the

mass public regarding the responsibilities of organizations towards different stakeholders also

eases the pressure on organizations to be more responsive to the stakeholders‟ needs (Ehsan &

Kaleem, 2012). As highlighted earlier, CSR in Pakistan is noted mostly for philanthropic

activities and charity giving only, rather than its broader responsibilities towards “social,

economic and environmental outcomes to deliver shared value to corporate stakeholders” (Sajjad

& Ewejje, 2014, p. 174). Other studies such as Naeem & Welford (2009) compared CSR

practices of Pakistani and Bangladeshi companies; Baughn, Bodie & McIntosh (2007) examined

CSR practices of 15 Asian countries including Pakistan, and Jeswani, Wehrmeyer & Mulugetta

(2008) compared Pakistani and UK firms; concluded that firms operating in Pakistan

demonstrate low level of CSR (Sajjad & Ewejje, 2014).

18

Due to technological advancements, communication across the world has become very easy.

Access to the latest knowledge and practices of CSR has also become easier than before.

Likewise, the recent corporate scandals such as the Oil spill of BP in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010

and the scandal of Barclays Bank and financial crises of 2008 in the US and EU (Vlachos et al.

2013a) etc. have attracted huge media attention. Similarly, in the recent times, the Government

of Pakistan, particularly, the health & safety departments of the provinces of Khyber Pakhtoon

Khwa (KPK) and Punjab have exposed many organizations‟ poor health and safety conditions.

Among different organizations, Coca Cola factory was sealed temporarily and fines were

imposed on Peal Continental (PC) hotels in Lahore and Peshawar along with other food chains

etc. for their low quality food hygiene and inadequate health & safety measures for their

employees (Dawn News, Sep 15, 2015). By highlighting such issues, media and the mass public

are also raising concerns about the intentions of these corporations and are calling for strict

oversight and monitoring of the government agencies. Likewise, organizations like Responsible

Business Initiatives (RBI), Corporate Social Responsibility Center Pakistan (CSRCP), CSR

Association of Pakistan and National Forum for Environment and Health (NFEH) etc. are also

advocating and promoting the case for a holistic approach towards CSR in Pakistan (Sajjad &

Eweje, 2014). As a result of these efforts, the awareness level among different stakeholders has

also increased regarding the importance of CSR which is putting due pressure on the respective

companies to come clean. Such concentrated and holistic approach to this end is a new

phenomenon observed in the country. Additionally, due to the prevailing pressure from various

national and international regulatory authorities and stakeholders, companies in Pakistan are

expected to respond positively and catch up with the global trends if they want to stay

competitive.

19

Due to these societal pressures and the numerous benefits of CSR, companies in Pakistan

cannot afford to ignore a comprehensive and focused approach towards this concept. Somewhat

limited evidence suggests that few companies (mostly multinational) in Pakistan realize this

trend and are now jumping on this bandwagon where their focus is now moving towards more

innovation and sustainability (Ehsan & Kaleem, 2012; Khan, 2012; Naeem & Welford, 2009).

However, reliable data on the state of CSR is relatively small. We believe that the availability of

evidence based data is imperative in Pakistan for policy makers to make informed decisions.

Therefore, due to these multidimensional pressures from different stakeholders, companies in

Pakistan are expected to take necessary measures for fostering a responsible business image. To

achieve this aim, they are adopting CSR practices. However, the important question still remains

unanswered as to whether mere philanthropic contributions or adopting an orphan‟s school etc.

will help them in achieving this aim? My contention is that there must be no contradiction

between the walk and the talk of these businesses. If stakeholders witness such contradictions,

then employees‟ positive dispositions may diminish. Likewise, it is also contended that being a

Muslim majority country, the response of employees in Pakistan may be different.

Among the limited group of researchers from Pakistani perspective, Ehsan & Kaleem (2012)

worked on the effect of CSR on financial performance with particular focus on the

manufacturing sector of Pakistan. The findings suggest that there is a positive correlation

between CSR and financial performance. Naeem & Welford (2009) compared CSR practices of

Pakistani and Bangladeshi companies in their study. Their findings suggest that CSR in both

countries is in its initial stages of development and further work is needed in this regard. Among

the areas for potential improvement highlighted in this study were gender equality at work, child

labour, fairness and meritocracy, philanthropic giving‟s. Baughn et al. (2007) compared the CSR

20

practices of 15 developing countries‟ companies with the other regions such as EU, US and

Australia etc. The findings of this study also suggest that CSR practices in Pakistani companies

are not catching up with the other companies and are far behind in this race.

Other studies like Jeswani et al. (2008) worked on the environmental performance of

companies operating in Pakistan and UK. This comparative study also highlighted certain serious

challenges and concludes that the Pakistani companies need more effort towards this dimension

of CSR. Farooq et al. (2013) studied the impact of CSR on employees‟ organization commitment

from Pakistani perspective suggesting a positive relation between the two. Another study of

Farooq et al. (2014) on the impact of CSR on the employees‟ knowledge sharing behaviors

(KSBs) with mediating role of organizational identity and moderating role of collectivist

orientation are suggesting a positive relationship between CSR and KSBs.

Likewise, Sajjad & Ewejje (2014) published a review paper on the emerging trends of CSR

in Pakistan. The study is mainly based on the secondary data and is good summary of the CSR

status in Pakistan and researches conducted around the notion from Pakistani perspective. Their

findings suggest that awareness among different stakeholders is increasing about the importance

of CSR and companies (particularly multinationals and some large national organizations) are

adopting an integrated and holistic approach of this notion which is recognized around the world.

Similarly, Ahmad et al. (2014) worked on the impact of CSR on the dimensions of Job

Performance from Pakistani telecom industry concluding a positive relation between the two.

Furthermore, Kiran, Kakakhel & Shaheen (2015) studied the impact of CSR on the firm

performance with particular focus on the oil and gas industry of Pakistan and conclude a positive

relation between the two. All these studies are demonstrating the importance of CSR and its

diversified benefits for the organizations. However, further studies still needed to highlight

21

different other important dimensions such as the negative impacts of CSR on its stakeholders

(Rupp & Mallory, 2015).

1.9 Definitions of Study Variables

1.9.1 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Different authors have defined CSR from different perspectives but due to its diverse nature,

an agreement on a single and concrete definition could not be achieved (Aguinis & Glavas,

2012). Due to this lack of consensus, there are variations in its conceptualization and

operationalization (El-Akremi, Gond, Swaen, De Roeck, & Igalens 2015). Researchers have also

proposed different models however, other authors (e.g. El-Akremi et al. 2015; Peloza, 2009 etc.)

have criticized such models for having methodological and procedural weaknesses in the

operationalization of its main “constructs”; hence, they urged for exercising greater caution

before using any model. It is defined as “context-specific organizational actions and policies that

take into account stakeholders‟ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and

environmental performance” (Aguinis 2011, p. 855). This definition in its nature is in line with

this study since its focus is on the individual level of CSR. Therefore, this definition will be

considered throughout the rest of the paper.

Since the focus of this study is from a relatively new perspective i.e. the attributions

styles of the employees, therefore, the model which matches with our proposed study is the

one developed and used by Du et al. (2007). Utilizing the attribution theory, Du and his

colleagues presented a two dimensional scale (i.e. intrinsic CSR and extrinsic CSR). Du et

al. (2007, p. 226) explained that “…extrinsic motives have the ultimate goal of increasing

the brand‟s own welfare; whereas, intrinsic motives have the ultimate goal of doing good

22

and/or fulfilling one‟s obligation to society.” Intrinsic motivation is referred to fulfilling its

social responsibilities towards the community and being a good citizen thus, more moral.

Whereas, extrinsic motivation is referred to materialistic gains such as improving

profitability, brand image and tax rebate etc. (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2011) thus, more

instrumental. This model will be adopted for this study the detailed explanation of which be

provided in the later part of this report.

1.9.2 Trust

A widely cited definition of trust is “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of

another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to

the trust or, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer, Davis, &

Schoorman, 1995, p. 712) which will be retained for this study.

1.9.3 Psychological Contract Fulfillment (PCF)

PCF is defined as the understandings, belief or expectations an employee has about the chances

of fulfillment of pledges his/her organization makes (Rousseau, 1995). It is an individual level

construct and therefore, in line with our study.

1.9.4 Psychological Safety (PS)

PS is defined by Kahn (1990) as “feeling able to show and employ one‟s self without fear of

negative consequences to self-image, status or career” (p. 708). This construct is based on the

individual level and that is why this fulfills the requirement of our study.

23

1.9.5 Creative Performance (CP)

Creative performance is defined by Oldham & Cummings (1990) as “products, ideas, or

procedures that satisfy two conditions: (1) they are novel or original and (2) they are potentially

relevant for, or useful to, an organization. Further, we consider a product, idea, or procedure

novel if it involves either a significant recombination of existing materials or an introduction of

completely new materials” (p. 608). This construct is also measured on the individual level.

1.9.6 Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

OCB is defined by Organ (1988) as extra role volunteer behaviors of employees which are not

explicit and are not recognized by the formal reward system.

1.9.7 Workplace Deviance Behavior (WDBs)

Robinson and Bennett (1995) defined workplace deviance as “voluntary behavior that

violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of the

organization, its members, or both” (p. 556). Previous studies suggested two dimensions of

WDBs i.e. interpersonal deviance and organizational deviance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995).

Bennett & Robinson (1995) developed the model by crossing these dimensions and produced “a

four-cell typology of production deviance (minor– organizational), property deviance (serious–

organizational), personal aggression (serious–interpersonal), and political deviance (minor–

interpersonal)” (Stewart, Bing, Davidson, Woehr & McIntyre, 2009, pp. 207).

However, Stewart et al. (2009) further argued that these dimensions of WDBs and the scale

developed for measuring the same is limited to self-rate only. A problem associated with such

scale is that individuals often underrate their negative work behaviors and therefore, one may not

24

be able to measure the exact status of these activities. They offered an alternative scale and

model of WDBs while utilizing the existing items of the scale developed by Robinson & Bennett

(1995). This alternative is a three dimensional, others rated model (colleagues/supervisors)

consists of production deviance, property deviance and personal deviance (Stewart et al. 2009).

1.10 Structure of Thesis

A quantitative approach has been adopted to achieve the aims of this study. The target population

was employees in the telecom sector of Pakistan. Among the telecom sector, the companies

which were approached initially to take approval for the data collection comprised Mobilink,

Telenor, PTCL, Ufone, Warid and Zong. This approval was sought from HR through personal

and professional connections. Among them, Telenor and PTCL gave a positive response. The

author then visited these companies‟ offices and collected the data himself via convenient

sampling technique. A total of 800 questionnaires were distributed by the author, of which, 369

were completely filled and received. The data collected was later entered into SPSS where the

necessary tests were performed with the use of various tools in SPSS and AMOS.

This research report is divided into five chapters. This (first) chapter provides the

background, rationale, objectives and significance of the study. Chapter 2 will cover the

literature around the topic in detail followed by hypotheses development. Later in chapter 3, the

research report will cover the methodology for data collection in detail. The results will be

provided and discussed in chapter 4, followed by detailed implications (i.e. theoretical and

practical) and conclusion making chapter 5, the last chapter of this research.

25

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter will cover detailed literature around the proposed model along with theory to be

used in this study. Specifically, this chapter will include

- A brief history and literature around CSR

- Earlier models and definitions of CSR

- Different competing and complementary terms relating to CSR

- An overview of earlier micro level studies on CSR

- A detailed literature review on the Attribution theory and its relation with CSR

- An overview of different employees‟ attitudes and behaviors to be studied in this

research.

- And finally, the proposed hypotheses of this study will be presented.

2.1.1 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Over the past few decades, the concept of CSR has significantly evolved and become very

prominent in the academic as well as professional arena. Generally, a socially responsible

organization is one which achieves their business objectives in such a manner that contribute

towards community well-being as well as eliminate environmental impacts (Sajjad & Eweje,

2014). Among the many activities, CSR includes engagement in community development

programs, taking measures for reducing the negative environmental impacts due to its operations

such as reducing carbon omissions and saving energy etc., employees‟ well-being, maximizing

26

shareholders‟ values (not on the cost of other stakeholders), fair trade, encouraging diversity and

fair treatment of its employees and customers etc. (Aguilera et al. 2007). Maintenance of highly

ethical and moral standards for the operations of businesses is the foundation for a socially

responsible organization.

Defined as “context-specific organizational actions and policies that take into account

stakeholders‟ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental

performance” (Aguinis 2011, p. 855), the concept of CSR is not a new phenomenon with a long

history. However, it had not attracted this widespread attention as it has in recent times (Sajjad &

Eweje, 2014). This sudden attention is mainly triggered due to two reasons. First, the

technological advancement and globalization have quickened the communication between

different organizations and countries which therefore, eliminated or reduced the boundaries and

obstacles for investments. Resultantly, increase in multinational companies‟ investments in

different countries which consequently increased competition among them for customers and to

meet the stakeholders‟ growing needs (Matton & Moon, 2005). These developments have also a

dramatic impact on the awareness level of different stakeholders about their rights and

responsibilities.

Secondly, the various corporate scandals around the world which led to many economic

recessions in different countries have also triggered the call for more responsible business

conduct, improvement in transparency and accountability and strict oversight on the operations

of firms from among various stakeholder groups. These groups pressurized their governments by

going on strikes, lobbying and boycotting various companies‟ products etc. These events due to

their large scale societal impacts could not go unnoticed and thus attracted huge media coverage.

Consequently, it further enhanced the awareness level of consumers on one hand whereas, a

27

round the clock coverage on mass media (TV, internet etc.) served as a catalyst in mounting the

pressure on these firms to adhere to more responsible business initiatives. However, many

authors argue about the benefits of the engagement in CSR activities as well (e.g. Albinger &

Freeman, 2000; Turban & Greening, 1997 etc.), which will be discussed in detail in the later part

of this chapter.

However, before going forward, it is important to understand the history of CSR first, in

order to enlighten the readers about the previous researches and their findings and to identify

gaps in the extant literature and highlight the future directions.

2.1.2 Critical overview of CSR scholarship

Researchers who worked on CSR agree that its history can be traced back to centuries to trace its

origins (Carroll, 2015; Shaoling, 2011). However, for practical purposes, a brief critical

overview of the last seven or eight decades would shed enough light to enlighten the readers‟

understanding about CSR and its evolution to its current stage. Hopkins (2003) mentioned in his

paper on CSR about a debate between two American scholars in 1930s, one from the Harvard

Law School named Merrick Dodd and the other from Columbia Law School known as Adolf

Berle. Two contrasting views emerged from this debate. Berle vouched that managers must use

their powers to maximize the shareholders profits whereas, Dodd argued that managers must also

have a sense of social responsibility and that they should also take care of the interests of other

stakeholders such as employees, customers and society (Gamble & Kelly, 2001).

This debate put the foundation of the two contrasting views on CSR; however, history tells us

that its modern era started with the publication of Howard Bowen titled “Social Responsibility of

the Businessman” in 1953 (Carroll, 2015, pp. 87). Bowen argued that the organizations

28

processes, decisions and practices must be in line with the societal desires. During this period,

the idea of social responsibility got partial attention and the emergence of CSR was somewhat

moderate because the managers did not pay due attention and continued to follow their old

practices of corporate giving and donations to educational institutions. However, as societal

pressures started mounting and expectation grew higher about the corporations‟ obligations

towards the society, practitioners realized that the old philanthropic activities may not work

anymore and that they need to be more responsive to the societal and environmental needs. They

realized that under these circumstances, adhering to CSR may be the best option for the success

of their businesses.

The pressure was further intensified in the 60s as different societal groups started

campaigning for their rights e.g. The civil rights‟ movements, the women rights movement and

the movement for environmental protection and consumers‟ rights etc. Carroll (2015) argued that

during this era, people‟s expectations from the corporations grew about their contributions

towards other stakeholders as well along with the shareholders. The most significant

achievement of these movements was the passing of the legislation called the civil rights act of

1964.

However, despite this legislation, different corporate scandals surfaced during this era such

as the price-fixing scandal among the electrical manufacturing companies including General

Electric and certain number of individuals where they had to pay a combined fine of $1,924,500

dollars (CQ Almanac, 1961). This large scale scandal was not the only one during that era. The

scandal of General Motors with its defects in the auto parts which led to bloody accident in the

60s was another example worth noting. Events like these attracted mass media coverage which

according to Carroll (2015) is truly the foundation of the modern CSR. These and other similar

29

type of scandals resulted in the amendments of the Federal Property and Administrative Services

act of 1949 (CQ Almanac, 1961).

Despite these setbacks, some organization did adhere to their philanthropic efforts to

neutralize the effects of these events. Among them was the most famous „Five percent club‟ of

the two companies known as David Hudson and Cummins Engine Company in which a five

percent of their total profits before taxes were donated to various charities involved in improving

the livelihood of the people. Later, other big corporations like IBM and Xerox followed similar

strategies and were involved in various community related innovative projects. Following the

societal pressures and campaigns, the US government formed different dedicated departments

i.e. the “Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Consumer Product Safety Commission

(CPSC), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Occupational Health and

Safety Administration (OSHA)” (Carroll, 2015, pp. 88).

In the era of 70s, the debate which occurred in between Dodd & Berle in 1930s surfaced

again. Two distinct school of thoughts emerged, one of which was led by Milton Friedman. He

argued that the social responsibility of the managers in to maximize the profitability of the

shareholders only (Friedman, 1970). Other supports to this opinion e.g. the agency theorists

argued that managers of a firm are the agents of the shareholders and therefore, they must act in

a certain way to maximize the value creation for the shareholders. Their argument revolved

around the assumption that shareholders are the most important stakeholders of the firm because

they take a high risk of investing their capital. They further argued that compared to other

stakeholders, for example employees, shareholders cannot en-cash their money out of the

business. Similarly, the famous Nobel laureate Hayek saw CSR and a form of coercion (Gamble

30

& Kelly, 2001). He censured the governments of transferring their obligations and

responsibilities to the private firms, the sole purpose of which is to earn profits.

Other criticisms can also be found in the extant literature on CSR where authors argued that

these societal contributions imposed on the profit making firms will severely affect their

efficiency and costs will go higher which ultimately will reduce their profitability. They believed

that this model of CSR is contradictory to the model of a profit earning firms (Shaoling, 2011).

Therefore, in line with this argument, neither the traditional nor the new econometric school of

thought talked about the organization-society problems (Preston, 2001). They equated social and

individual welfare and believed that social welfare is an extended form of individual welfare. In

similar vein, authors like Adam Smith‟s theorization where he argued that the “invisible hand” of

market will transform individual interest into the societal interest. Therefore, an efficient market

is important for creating a win-win situation rather than CSR (Shaoling, 2011).

Opposing this line of argument, other authors (e.g. Quinn & Jones, 1995) argued against the

claim that shareholders carry higher risks. They stated that it is exactly the opposite case of what

researchers and the Agency theorists are telling us i.e. employees carries higher risks as

compared to shareholders. Criticizing this argument, Quinn and other like-minded researchers

(e.g. Goshal, 2005 etc.) argued that organizations are combinations of different resources

contributed by various stakeholders. Shareholders, for example, invest their money; whereas,

employees invest their intellectual skills and abilities. Combining these various resources

together is needed to maximize the value creation – hence equal importance of various

stakeholders is underlined. Under such circumstances, they questioned that why then is the focus

tilted towards only one stakeholder i.e. shareholder? Furthermore, agency theorists were further

criticized upon the failure of providing empirical evidence in support of their argument about the

31

win-win situation (Cooper, 2004). In reality, government interventions exist even in the

developed countries e.g. UK and US, particularly, at the times of turbulence in the economy

(Shaoling, 2011).

Similarly, the debate which started in early 1970s, the pro CSR lobbyist gained further

strength when the President of US Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980s. Reagan called upon the

private firms to contribute more towards societal projects. He furthered this cause by cutting on

public sector expenditures and gave a leading role to the private firms for this purpose (Carroll,

2015). However, such contributions towards societal projects were totally voluntary. As expected

more and more business started adopting these practices whereas, the society also started

noticing evident differences in contributions. Gradually, the business case for CSR started to

build up and firms started to believe that the growth of their businesses is now linked with their

extent in engagement of CSR related activities.

In the early 1990s, the business case for CSR was successfully established and it was largely

believed that engaging in CSR related activities is beneficial for firms itself. It was also the time

that other countries also started to adopt various CSR related practices. Two reasons were noted

behind such adaptations. One, due to the globalizations, many of the multinational companies

which have origins in the US started investing in other countries. Their home grown model of

CSR was also exported with the increase in the globalization. Managers faced many challenges

in achieving their aim of adopting CSR because they had to understand different cultures and

their needs as well. Secondly, developing countries such as China, India and Pakistan etc. were

also adopting CSR related practices to increase the acceptability of their products in the western

countries.

32

During this era, researchers on the pro-CSR side provided evidence based argument and the

case for CSR got stronger and stronger (e.g. Blair, 1995; Freeman, 1984 etc.). The stakeholder

theory (Freeman, 1984) and people in support of this approach identified six different

stakeholder groups and argued that the organizations must fulfill its responsibilities towards all

these groups equally. These six groups comprised of customers, employees, suppliers,

communities, investors, and the environment (Clarkson, 1995). The disagreement between the

Agency theory and the stakeholder theory were on the means of achieving the goals of the

organizations. Contrary to the agency theory, the stakeholder theorists argued that it is the

responsibility of the corporations to take care of their stakeholders‟ needs and create social

benefit.

Post 1990s, CSR developed further and the era of institutionalization started. CSR emerged

as an alternative strategy for gaining competitive advantage. This debate still continues,

however, major companies around the world have already adopted, developed and

institutionalized CSR. Many models of CSR were developed where CSR practices were

integrated with the business strategy to gain competitive advantage (Porter & Kramer, 2006). All

these were also further strengthened by the technological advancements, increase in

communication efficiency because of the internet and E-commerce boom, the availability of

cheap labor etc. Among the areas, where CSR made significant advances – other than

philanthropic activities – are the consumers‟ rights, environmental protection, diversity at work

and employees well-being etc.

This debate continued when unfortunate corporate scandals emerged such as the sudden

collapse of Enron etc. which drew huge media attention. As a result it enhanced further

awareness about the importance of CSR for firms. Consequently, an environment of distrust

33

developed and people started protesting for pro CSR legislation and strict government oversight

on the large corporations. The effects of these events were so widespread that theorists who were

against this notion, such as Berle, changed their stance and began to accept CSR (Shaoling,

2011). Enron was not the only scandal during those times. Other firms such as Tyco, WorldCom

and Global Crossing also suffered due to similar malpractices.

Similarly in UK, the scandal of Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) emerged

which led to its ultimate closure, also further rolling the red carpet for strict governmental

control. Other example from UK was the unhealthy trade transactions of Britain‟s oldest bank

i.e. Barings Bank which lost £1.4 billion, and had to shut down (Fernando, 2011). To address

these challenges, a number of committees were formed in the UK and US and were asked to

recommend policy reforms in the governance of corporations. The Cadbury committee (1992)

was one such example which after a thorough investigation recommended 19 guidelines for the

board of directors to help raise the standards of responsible business practices. Similarly, other

organizations e.g. World Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD) provided standardized guidelines for effective governance (Fernando,

2011).

Scholars working on CSR are currently working on this concept from two different

perspectives. First, the normative approach (i.e. it‟s the responsibility of organizations to engage

in CSR) which means that it is the moral duty of organizations (Donaldson & Preston, 1995).

Second, the instrumental approach (i.e. engaging in CSR is in the favor of organizations) which

means that firms can gain competitive advantage through this strategy (Porter & Kramer, 2006).

Others suggest for integration of both these perspectives (e.g. Swanson, 2008).

34

Given these widespread implication for CSR, other authors studied this topic from the

perspective of employees and its impacts on their attitudes and behaviors (e.g. Aguilera et al.

2007; Carroll, 1991; Maignan & Ferrell, 2001; Rupp et al. 2006 to cite a few.). However, in their

meta-analysis, Aguinis & Glavas (2012) noted that previous literature on CSR is largely focused

on the organizational level, whereas, studies from the individual level in particular from the

employees‟ perspective are relatively fewer in number. So much so that until 2012, the number

of studies focused on the individual level were only 4% of the total studies on CSR. Another

review paper by Glavas (2016) argued that over half of the micro level studies on CSR have been

published in the last 5 years.

After a thorough review of CSR and its current position around the world, it is clear that

majority of the organizations no matter how large or small, have adopted these practices. For

example in a recent review of Glavas (2016) mentioned that 69% of Indian organizations are

now reporting on CSR, 64% in Vietnam are engaged in CSR reporting, 60% in Philippines and

in Mexico, the percentage is 52% (Grant Thorton, 2013). Therefore, it can be easily concluded

that due to the numerous benefits associated, the business case for CSR has been proved. Carroll

(2015) also agrees with this assertion and suggests that CSR is now going beyond the

philanthropic and altruistic practices. Many researchers and practitioners have now started

working on formulating such workable frameworks through which CSR can be integrated into

corporate strategies and institutionalized at best.

2.1.3 CSR and other competing/complementary terms

Over the past few decades, several competing and complementary term of CSR have come to

surface with a sizeable support from different corporations. Among the most common of these

35

terms are the Corporate Social responsiveness, Corporate Social Performance (CSP), Business

Ethic (BE) and Corporate Citizenship (CC).

The focus of Corporate Social responsiveness emerged in the 1970s when Milton Friedman

suggested that the responsibility of a firm is to increase profitability and shareholders‟ value.

Therefore, the term is more focused on the process and motivation side of CSR (Carroll, 2015).

The responsiveness suggested that the firms are responding to the societal challenges by

providing solution in the form of producing goods and services, whereas, the term CSP implies

that it was focused more on the results side of CSR and avoided the motivation and processes

part. However, this model in itself did not change the underlying meaning of CSR which got

more attention in the academic and corporate arena than CSP or social responsiveness for that

matter.

Despite being the topic of discussion for centuries, the term Business Ethics (BE) appeared

and became popular in the 1980s. The origins of this notion can be traced back to the moral

perspective. Scholars and academics argue that it is the moral responsibility of firms and

managers to treat all their stakeholders fairly (Carroll, 2015). The technological advancement

and media revolution created more awareness among public by bringing into light different

illegitimate activities of firms and managers. As a result the BE framework became more visible

and a hot topic for academics and professional alike.

This framework is based on the moral judgment and ethical responsibilities of the firms and

managers. It is concerned with the managers‟ and firms‟ decisions to be fair with all the

stakeholders by maintaining the highest standards of morality in business context. The

framework became more popular alongside CSR with a strong backing of well recognized

36

academics and practitioners. Comparing this framework with the earlier model of CSR such as

the model of Carroll (1979) (i.e. legal, economic, ethical and philanthropic), it can be concluded

that the focus of BE framework is limited to ethical and philanthropic dimensions of CSR only.

In other words, its main focus is on the practices of firms e.g. what good practices are, and what

firms should or should not practice. Therefore, it covers some part of CSR but not all. For

example, this framework ignores the legal and economic perspective of CSR. Therefore, in a

way BE compliments CSR, but does not replace it, or both are not same constructs (Carroll,

2015).

Corporate Citizenship was another term introduced in the 1990s which also attracted

widespread attention and continues to do so to date. The term implies that firms are just like

individuals and the way individuals work for the societal wellbeing, firms should also do the

same. Since, firms are considered as separate entities, they are expected to be a healthy part of

the society by giving back and contributing in its wellbeing. They are also expected to operate in

such a manner which does not hurt the society and environment by acts, such as, reducing carbon

omissions, maintain high standards of morality, and fair treatment towards all the stakeholders.

However, another perspective of the term corporate citizenship is about the relationship of the

firm with the community; in particular, focus on the corporate giving or philanthropic activities.

This perspective is rather a narrow one (Carroll, 2015). However, he further argued that the term

is also known as Global Corporate Citizenship which means that firms, particularly the

multinational firms, need to understand the cultural requirements of different countries where

they operate and fit according to those needs.

37

2.1.4 Micro level studies on CSR:

Previously, research on the notion of CSR was mainly focused on the macro level perspective,

whereas micro level studies had drawn little attention. Ever since, this gap in the micro-level

studies on CSR has been highlighted by Aguinis & Glavas (2012) i.e. a total of 4% studies, a

burgeoning attention has been observed on this level with the particular focus on the employees‟

perspective. Consequently, researchers have found that CSR is here for a long haul and that it has

its perks and benefits (Vlachos et al. 2013a). Latest review papers on CSR suggest that over 70%

of the micro level research have been conducted in the last 5 years alone (Glavas, 2016) which

suggest that this dimension of studies are gaining momentum.

Among the major findings of the micro level research on CSR with particular focus from the

employees‟ perspective suggest that employees‟ perception of CSR will enhance their

identification with the organizations (e.g. Carmeli et al. 2007; Glavas & Godwin, 2013 etc.),

employees‟ organizational commitment (Brammer et al. 2007; Choi & Yu, 2014; Turker et al.

2009); organizational citizenship behavior (e.g. Hansen et al. 2011; Jones, 2010; Shen & Benson,

2014 etc.); turnover intention (see Roirdan et al. 1997; Hansen et al. 2011 etc.); firm‟s attraction

to prospective employees (Greening & Turban, 2009), retention (Jones, 2010), Employee

engagement (Glavas & Piderit, 2009), job performance (Aguilera et al. 2007; Carmeli et al.

2007; Ahmad et al. 2014 etc.) and job satisfaction (Vlachos et al. 2013a; De Roeck et al. 2014)

etc.

Due to these numerous advantages of CSR, Morgeson et al. (2013) argued that it is now time

to take this discussion forward and highlighted some key areas for future research on CSR.

Similarly, Glavas (2016) also highlighted important gaps in the extant literature. After careful

38

review of the extant literature on the concept, some key areas which are somehow overlooked or

remain unattended by the researchers can be highlighted, the discussion of which can be found in

the next part of this chapter.

Among these areas is a key dimension of CSR about which Lange & Washburn (2012)

pointed in their research on corporate social irresponsibility. They argued that employees look

skeptically towards CSR practices and form various judgments based on their own

understanding. Some of them see CSR practices in the firms as the „exploitation of a sacred

cause‟ and therefore, may have negative reactions. Similarly, while working on CSR from

consumers‟ perspective, Yoon et al. (2006) also argued that consumer may respond negatively to

some CSR practices. Rupp & Mallory (2015) also called this aspect of CSR as the „dark side‟ of

CSR (p.6.2). Furthermore, using the moral perspective, Ormiston & Wong (2013) also argued

about the dark side of CSR and suggested that moral identity of the firms‟ CEOs will moderate

the relationship between CSR and corporate social irresponsibility. However, only few studies

have focused their attention towards this dimension of CSR and their potential negative impacts

as a consequence.

Additionally, past studies on CSR (e.g. Bauman & Skitka, 2012; Jones, 2010) argued that the

actual psychological mechanism through which CSR impacts different behavioral outcomes is

still not clear. Glavas (2016) also underlined a dearth of research in this dimension too. As stated

earlier that past studies have worked on the notion from the shareholders‟ perspective where

authors argued that firm‟s primary responsibility is to enhance shareholders‟ profitability. To this

backdrop, McWilliams & Seigal (2001) argued about a clear link between CSR practices and

improvement in firm‟s financial performance. The underlying theory used in studies from this

perspective is the agency theory. Later studies argued that the firm‟s responsibility is not limited

39

to just shareholders. They argued (while utilizing the stakeholders‟ theory) about the six different

stakeholders and call for a balance between the needs of all these stakeholders (Morgeson et al.

2013).

Other perspectives after this line of argument worked from the justice perception. Rupp et al.

(2013) is among the leading ambassador of this theorizing where she asserts that this theorizing

can be further expanded both outwards and inwards. However, Bauman & Skitka, (2012), Glavas

(2016) and Morgeson et al. (2013) etc. have called for further development of CSR theory and to

studies from other theoretical perspective from Organizational Behavior (OB) and HR field.

Among them, Glavas (2016) and Morgeson et al. (2013) have provided of a list of the possible

studies on the concept of CSR which can be referred for further details.

More current trends and analysis on micro level CSR underline some key areas for further

extension of this literature. For example, Below (2014) argued that CSR is among the top trends

for industrial and organizational practitioners and researchers alike. Glavas (2016) noted that

more than half of micro level studies on CSR have been published in the last half decade. He

further highlighted some key areas in the same paper for further extension of CSR literature.

Among them are the explorations of alternative psychological mechanisms (a key contribution of

this study) through which CSR impact employees‟ attitudes and behaviors. Similarly, he also

vouched for exploring the mediating and moderating mechanism between CSR and outcomes

(another key contribution of this study). Furthermore, Glavas (2016) also suggest for

investigation on other models and antecedents of CSR. Given the focus of this study, it can be

concluded that research in this direction is a valuable contribution to extend the CSR literature

and open up new avenues for the researchers to focus on.

40

2.2 CSR, Attribution Theory and Employees’ Attitudes & Behaviors

In the previous sections of this chapter, it was discussed in detail that many authors have worked

on CSR (e.g. Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Ahmad et al. 2014; Carroll, 1991; Farooq et al. 2013,

2014; Glavas, 2016; Hillenbrand et al. 2013; Hur et al. 2016; Morgeson et al. 2013; Rupp et al.

2015; Rupp & Mallory, 2015 etc.) and studied its effects on various business outcomes. Many of

them have also defined CSR from different perspectives, but due to its diverse nature, an

agreement on a single and concrete definition could not be achieved (Aguinis &Glavas, 2012).

Due to this lack of consensus, there are variations in its conceptualization and operationalization

from each other (El-Akremi et al. 2015) which needs further exploration (Glavas, 2016).

Researchers have also proposed different models of CSR from time to time with having

different antecedents (e.g. Carroll, 1991; Maignan & Ferrell, 2001; Rupp et al. 2006 etc.);

however, many of them (e.g. El-Akremi et al. 2015; Peloza, 2009 etc.) have criticized such

models for having methodological and procedural weaknesses in the operationalization of its

main “constructs”; hence, they urged for exercising greater caution (Bauman & Skitka, 2012;

Gond et al. 2010).

Most of these past studies on CSR have a common theoretical underpinning of stakeholders‟

theory (Freeman, 1984) and justice perception (Rupp et al. 2013). Whereas, authors like Aguinis

& Glavas (2012) and Rupp & Mallory (2015) argued that among the different stakeholders, the

focus on the internal stakeholders i.e. employees, were limited in the past. The most common

mechanism adopted for establishing the link between CSR and behavioral outcomes was the

justice perception (Rupp et al. 2014). Whereas, the theories employed in most of these studies

were stakeholders‟ theory (e.g. Porter & Kramer, 2006), signaling theory (e.g. Jones et al. 2014),

41

justice theory (e.g. Rupp et al. 2014), social exchange theory (e.g. Farooq et al. 2013) and social

identity theory (e.g. Aguinis & Glavas, 2013; De Roeck & Delobbe, 2012).

While recommending further research on CSR and employees‟ attitudes and behaviors,

Glavas (2016) and Morgeson et al. (2013) etc. argued that it is now time to take the CSR

discussion forward and suggested that there may be other mechanisms too through which the

influence of CSR on employees‟ attitudes and behaviors can be explained. In line with this

argument and my contention made in the previous section about the possible negative outcomes

of CSR activities, it is believed that combining Islamic perspective on doing good and the

literature from morality perspective along with the attribution theory (Kelley, 1967) as the

overarching theoretical underpinning for this research is a good idea to move forward. Therefore,

I am taking a more integrated approach while highlighting the perks and risks associated with

both normative and instrumental approaches. While recommending the attribution theory

(Kelley, 1967) for CSR and its impacts on the employees‟ attitudes and behaviors; Vlachos et al.

(2013a) argued that employees‟ interpretation of their intrinsic and extrinsic motives ascribed

toward CSR programs may also shape their behaviors. Weiner (1995) also showed confidence on

this theory for its contribution in business studies which till this date are limited in number

(Harvey et al. 2014).

Similarly, Martinko et al. (2006) suggested in their review of attribution theory in business

studies and organizational behaviors that the research “unequivocally documents that attributions

play a significant role in behaviors associated with the topics that are central to

[industrial/organizational psychology] such as individual differences, counterproductive

behavior, leader/member interactions, impression management, conflict resolution, training,

selection interviewing, and performance appraisal” (p. 174). Furthermore, Harvey et al. (2014)

42

argued that despite its relevance and importance of this theory for industrial/organizational

psychology, only 9% of total 7000 citations of attribution theory till 2014 were found to be

related to business studies. It is also worth noting that the concept of attribution is different from

that of the perception (which was widely used for CSR studies) in a sense that perception is the

processing of information about self or other people whereas, attribution goes a step forward and

attempts to find out the cause of a particular behavior (Kelley, 1973) which will have different

consequences.

Likewise, due to the large scale corporate scandals discussed earlier, people feel that on one

hand, these organizations claim to be responsible but on the other hand, such environmental and

moral disasters signal the contrary. Consequently, employees‟ skepticism also increases and in

return some of them will start attributing the CSR policies as show off and exploitation of a

sacred cause (Lange & Washburn, 2012). In such a scenario, attribution theory may better

explain employees‟ interpretations about the CSR programs in the organizations. To this

backdrop, this study is adopting attribution theory for explaining the proposed model due to 1) its

paucity of usage in business studies despite its potential and 2) its relevance to our proposed

model of CSR and explaining its underlying mechanism.

Attribution theory argues that employees make their own inferences about the causes (causal

judgment) of other people‟s behaviors and respond accordingly (Kelly, 1973; Martinko et al.

2011). Several dimensions of attribution theory can be found in the extant literature, however,

three of them are the most common i.e. locus of causality, stability, and controllability (Weiner,

1985). Locus of causality explains the intrinsic or extrinsic causes of particular events, where

intrinsic means dispositional or behavioral characteristics such as effort or ability of a person

being observed, and extrinsic means situational factors and pressures behind a person‟s behavior

43

(Harvey et al. 2014). For example, a student fails in the examination, believes that he got failed

due to his lack of effort or ability to prepare for the exam will be attributed towards intrinsic

locus of causality. Whereas, extrinsic locus of causality for the same cause will be due to other

situational factors such as teacher did not teach him well, evaluator had a personal grudge against

him etc.

Weiner (1985) argued that the locus of causality is more an emotional dimension which

usually triggers after a sudden event such as the failure in the exam. If the individual‟s locus of

causality is intrinsic i.e. lack of effort or ability, he/she will more likely feel guilty and

humiliation, whereas, in case of extrinsic locus of causality, anger and frustration will arise

(Harvey et al. 2014). Weiner (1986) also covered the positive outcomes and its effects on the

attributions. Therefore, positive outcomes attributed towards intrinsic dimension will enhance his

pride and other internally linked positive dispositions, whereas extrinsic dimension will enhance

his appreciation and gratefulness. Martinko et al. (2007) argued that due to the locus of causality,

the leader-member relationship can be affected.

Similarly, the stability dimension is associated with the variation or stability of the causal

factors (Harvey et al. 2014). Theorists argued that the stability or variation in other‟s behavior

may affect individual responses to the causal factors (Kelley, 1967). Weiner et al. (1971) argued

that the ability of a person is more stable factor, whereas, the effort of individual is more

variable. The stability or variance in events may soften or exacerbate individual‟s emotional

response. For example, if a student attribute its failure in exam to intrinsic and stable dimensions

i.e. lack of ability (a relatively stable dimension), then he is more likely to feel shame which will

lead to withdrawal behavior. However, if he/she attribute his failure to intrinsic and variant

44

dimensions i.e. lack of effort (a more variant or unstable dimension) then he/she is more likely to

feel guilty and may enhance motivation to exert more effort next time.

The third dimension is the controllability which suggest about the extent of choice or volition

one may perceive about an event (Weiner, 1985). For example, luck is more associated with

uncontrollable side and effort is perceived to be more controllable (Harvey et al. 2014). Among

these three dimensions of attribution theory explained earlier, this study will use the locus of

causality dimension only. The reasons of so doing are: 1) this is the most commonly used

dimension in the extant literature, 2) its relevance to our proposed model of CSR, and 3) Harvey

et al. (2014) argued that there is a potential overlap among the three dimensions which will be a

mere repetition if all are included (Harvey et al. 2014).

The concept of „intuitive psychologists‟ was used for people by earlier researchers who

worked on attribution theory because they believed that people not only observe other‟s

behaviors but they also try to understand the causes of those particular behaviors (Heider, 1958;

Ross, 1977). We posit that employees will also make social inferences where they will decide

whether a particular behavior of the second party (i.e. organization in this case) is due to its self-

control/intrinsic causes or some extrinsic pressure/situations (Harvey et al. 2014; Ross, 1977) is

pushing it for this behavior. Theorists suggest that positive dispositional inferences may

eliminate in case, individual perceive actions as driven by situational factors or extrinsic pressure

(Kelly, 1973).

Kelley (1967) further explained different indicators i.e. consensus, consistency and

distinctiveness which affect employees‟ attributions i.e. intrinsic and extrinsic. Consensus is the

common belief held of a certain outcome. Consensus is high if the outcome experienced is the

45

same and will be low if outcome is different. Consistency is the degree of occurrence of certain

outcome over time where high consistency suggests regular occurrence of similar outcomes and

low consistency means variations in outcomes over time. Likewise, distinctiveness is the

difference of outcomes across a broader range of practices. High distinctiveness denotes

exclusivity of outcomes in diverse situations and low distinctiveness denotes inclusivity of

outcomes in diverse situations (Burton et al. 2014; Vlachos et al. 2013b).

Attribution theory further suggests (see Table 2.1) that there are more chances of forming

intrinsic attributions if CSR is performed under the conditions where few organizations follow

such practices (low consensus), consistently over a longer period (high consistency) and

similarity of responses (low distinctiveness) (see Kelley, 1967; Vlachos et al. 2013b). Likewise,

there are more chances that employees will form extrinsic attributions if CSR is performed under

the conditions where employees experience different types of outcomes (low consensus),

variation in responses to various circumstances (low consistency) and variation in responses

across various domains of CSR such as environment, HR etc. (high distinctiveness).

Table 2.1: CSR attributions and impact on dispositions

CSR Attributions Consensus Consistency Distinctiveness Positive

Dispositions

Internal Low High Low Enhances

External Low Low High Reduces

Employees in the organizations will also interpret the CSR driven initiatives as either

intrinsically or extrinsically motivated (Du et al. 2007). Du et al. (2007, p. 226) explains,

46

“…extrinsic motives have the ultimate goal of increasing the brand‟s own welfare; whereas,

intrinsic motives have the ultimate goal of doing good and/or fulfilling one‟s obligation to

society.” Intrinsic motivation is referred to fulfilling its social responsibilities towards the

community and being a good citizen thus, more moral. Whereas, extrinsic motivation is referred

to materialistic gains such as improving profitability, brand image and tax rebate etc. (Du et al.

2011), thus, more instrumental. Recent researches suggest that morality judgment about an

organization is important for enduring relationship with their stakeholders (van Prooijen &

Ellemers, 2015). Furthermore, prospective employees also prefer moral organizations on others

(Godwin et al. 2014; van Prooijen & Ellemers, 2015).

CSR and Employees‟ Attitudes & Behaviors

The most widely studied outcomes of CSR policies and practices are employees‟ commitment

(see Farooq et al. 2013 etc.), job satisfaction (see De Roeck et al. 2014; Vlachos et al. 2013a

etc.), turnover intentions (see Hansen et al. 2011 etc.), and corporate attractiveness (e.g. van

Prooijen & Ellemers, 2015 etc.), with only Vlachos and colleagues‟ work (2013a) considering

attitudinal outcomes of attributions (rather than perceptions) of CSR. I aim to contribute to this

literature by exploring the importance of employees‟ attributions of their organization‟s CSR

includes the more discretionary behaviors they in turn perform in the workplace.

A guiding principle of attribution theory is that the attributions individuals make about

observed behaviors are important determinants of their behavioral responses (Gilbert & Malone,

1995). Prior research on CSR perceptions has determined their impact on job performance

(Aguilera et al. 2007; Carmeli et al. 2007 etc.), creativity (Brammer et al. 2015; Hur et al. 2016)

and organizational citizenship behavior (e.g. Choi & Yu, 2014; Hansen et al. 2011) etc. I aim to

47

extend this area of research and Vlachos and colleagues‟ (2013a) work to consider whether

employee CSR attributions (intrinsic vs. extrinsic) have a differential effect on their ensuing

performance outcomes. My goal is to focus on employees‟ discretionary job behaviors such CP,

OCB and WDBs. My contention is that employees‟ intrinsic attributions about their

organizations‟ CSR practices will have a positive impact on their CP and OCB and a negative

impact on their WDBs.

The author chose to focus on employees‟ extra role performance with the belief that these

will be more immediately impacted by favorable intrinsic vs. unfavorable extrinsic attributions

given their discretionary nature. Firstly, I focused on OCBs, given that these are among the

more commonly studied positive behavioral outcomes of CSR (e.g. Hanssen et al. 2011; Shen

&Benson, 2014). More recently, researchers (e.g. Aguinis & Glavas, 2013; Morgeson et al.

2013; Rupp & Mallory, 2015 etc.) suggested the importance of other extra role behavioral

outcomes of CSR. As such, in addition to OCBs, the author is also focusing on employees‟

creative performance as an important extra role contribution to the organization (Zhou &

Shalley, 2003). It was felt that in addition to the most commonly tested outcome of CSR i.e.

OCB, the author has also selected CP and WDBs to further extend understand and extend its

implication as Morgeson et al. (2013) & Rupp et al. (2014; 2015) also suggested to test the

impact of CSR on other behavioral outcomes. However, little empirical evidence is available to

warrant relationship between CSR and WDBs and between CSR and CP (with an exception of a

couple of notable studies i.e. Brammer et al. 2015 and Hur et al. 2016). Since corporations invest

huge sums of money on the different CSR related activities, therefore, they must also understand

its impacts and outcomes.

48

In addition to the above three outcome variables i.e. OCB, CP and WDBs, there are

numerous other key mediating variables which may play its role in impacting CSR outcomes,

however, little attention has been given (if any) in the past CSR related studies. Among the most

common mediating variables used in the past researches on CSR are the organizational

identification (Carmeli et al. 2007; De Roeck et al. 2014; Farooq et al. 2013 etc.), organizational

pride (Jones, 2010), trust (De Roeck & Delobbe, 2012; Farooq et al. 2013; Hansen et al. 2011),

overall justice perception (De Roeck et al. 2014; Rupp et al. 2013) etc. Similarly, among the

most common moderating variables used in the past CSR related studies are social exchange

relationships (Aguilera et al. 2006), organizational identification (Carmeli et al. 2007), and CSR

attributions (De Roeck & Delobbe, 2012; Vlachos et al. 2013a) etc.

However, given the widespread implications of this notion and while keeping in mind the

past studies on CSR (such as Bauman & Skitka, 2012; Jones, 2010; Rupp & Mallory, 2015 and

Yoon et al. 2006 etc), the author has selected 3 important mediating variables with a sequential

relationship between them. Among them, the author‟s contention is that employees‟ trust over

the organization is the first attitude to be affected by CSR attributions. A positive or negative

impact on trust will affect employees‟ PS and PCF which will lead to other behavioral outcomes

i.e. CP, OCB and WDBs.

2.3 The concept of doing good in Islam:

The concept of doing good in Islam revolves around the sovereignty of Allah (God) and that the

entire universe belongs to Him including all living and non-living things. People will be

resurrected on the Day of Judgment where they will be answerable to Allah for their deeds (good

or bad) in this world. Those with the good deeds will be rewarded by sending them to heaven

49

and the ones with the bad deeds will be punished by sending them to hell. This difference

between the good and the bad has been revealed to the people through the Messengers of Allah

(Prophets) and that Muhammad, Peace Be Upon Him (PBUH), is the last Prophet among them

who was given the divine book of Quran which is a code of conduct for the believers.

Furthermore, that the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (called Ahadiths/Hadiths) are the

interpretations of the Quran and will also be given due importance at time of guidance. Though,

we can provide a detailed explanation of the concept of doing good in Islam for which one paper

or article may not be enough. However, in order to avoid engaging in lengthy discussions, I

would like to directly highlight those areas which are in line with this topic.

In Muslim majority countries, the concept of charitable giving is very common as Muslims

pay obligatory charity in form of Zakat and Usher. However, in most instances, such

contributions are kept anonymous and the marketing of the same may evoke negative reactions

(Farooq et al. 2013; Loannou & Serafeim, 2012). The reason being that Muslims believe that the

essence of these charitable giving along with other good deeds are to please Allah (God) Who

will reward them for such acts in the life hereafter in the form of sending them to Jannah

(heaven) as well as earn them respect in this world (similar to the concept of Karma). Among the

other good deeds are praying five times a day; respecting elders; helping neighbors; not

indulging in immoral activities, be honest, truthful and avoid cheating, stealing, corruption,

lying, discrimination, unfair treatment, killing innocent people and breaking promises etc.

Therefore, If someone makes a show off of such activities, this natural essence gets damaged and

people start to believe that the person is involved in such activities solely for worldly fame and

have some underlying instrumental interest. This interpretation has been drawn by Muslims from

the following famous Hadiths:

50

Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (PBUH)

saying,

"The first to be judged on the Day of Resurrection will be a man who had died as

a martyr. He will be brought forward. Allah will remind him of the favors He had

bestowed upon him and the man will acknowledge them. Then He will ask him:

`What did you do to express gratitude for it?' The man will reply: `I fought for

Your Cause till I was martyred.' Allah will say: `You have lied. You fought so that

people might call you courageous; and they have done so.' Command will then be

issued about him and he will be dragged on his face and thrown into Hell. Next a

man who had acquired and imparted knowledge and read the Qur'an will be

brought forward, Allah will remind him of the favors He had bestowed upon him

and the man will acknowledge them. Then He will ask him: `What did you do to

express gratitude for it?' The man will reply: `I acquired knowledge and taught it,

and read the Qur'an for Your sake.' Allah will say to him: `You have lied. You

acquired knowledge so that people might call you a learned (man), and you read

the Qur'an so that they might call you a reciter, and they have done so.'

Command will then be issued about him, and he will be dragged on his face and

thrown into Hell. Next a man whom Allah had made affluent and to whom Allah

had given plenty of wealth, will be brought forward, Allah will remind him of the

favors He had bestowed upon him and the man will acknowledge them. He will

ask him: `What did you do to express gratitude for it?' The man will reply: `I did

not neglect any of the ways You liked wealth to be spent liberally for Your sake'.

Allah will say to him: `You have lied. You did it so that people might call you

generous, and they have done so.' Command will then be issued about him and he

will be dragged on his face and thrown into Hell'' (Zakariya, Riyad us Saliheen,

Hadith. 1617, pp. 693).

The above mentioned hadith (sayings of Prophet Muhammad SAW), can be easily

interpreted that contributions towards the society, helping or supporting the needy ones and

charitable giving etc. are recommended to be only for pleasing Allah (God) and not for worldly

fame or claiming tax rebates against them etc. Therefore, those people or organizations in this

case, which make noise about their CSR contributions will be attributed towards more extrinsic

and instrumental purposes and not as intrinsic or moral purposes.

The term used for the show off in Islam is called „Riyaa‟ which is considered a sin. Allah

says in Quran: So woe unto those performers of Salat (hypocrites), those who delay their Salat

51

(from their stated fixed times). Those who do good deeds only to be seen (of men). And prevent

Al-Ma‟un (small kindnesses) (Quran 107: 4 – 7). Numerous other sayings of the Prophet

Muhammad (PBUH) have warned against such acts. For example in one instance, He said “He

who lets the people hear of his good deeds intentionally, to win their praise, Allah will let people

know his real intention (on the Day of Resurrection), and he who does good things in public to

show off and win the praise of the people, Allah will disclose his real intention (and humiliate

him).” (Bukhari, Hadith, 506). Similarly, he also said: “If anyone wants to have his deeds widely

publicized, Allah will publicize (his humiliation). And if anyone makes a hypocritical display (of

his deeds) Allah will make a display of him.” (Muslim, Hadith, 7115). In another instance, the

prophet said: "Verily, deeds are rewarded by intention. And everyone will have the reward for

that which he has intended" (Bukhari, Hadith, 1).

Finally, another hadiths says: “Verily, what I fear most for you is the lesser idolatry.” And he

elaborated, “It is showing off. Allah the Exalted will say to them (who show off), on the Day of

Resurrection when the people are being rewarded for their deeds: Go to those whom you wished

to show off in the world and look for your reward with them.” (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith, 23119).

All these quotes (from Quran and hadiths) which are the guiding principles for Muslims,

suggest that show off (Riyaa) is a serious sin. Therefore, Muslims expect each other to hide their

good deeds to please Allah only, thereby, fulfilling their moral and religious responsibility. A

person who does this is considered as noble, genuine, credible and selfless. He/she is regarded

and treated with respect in society for such behaviors. Other people come to know about their

good deeds through word of mouth from the beneficiaries themselves. For example, if A gives

charity to a needy person B. The needy i.e. B himself will not only start regarding A for his

generosity and good deed, nevertheless, he voluntarily tells other people about the A‟s act.

52

Though B is not obligated to do so, however, it is a norm of a Muslim society or any other

society for that matter that people does praise such people. Likewise, fulfilling their religious

responsibility of helping others will please Allah too. On the contrary, a person who does

marketing about such acts is considered as immoral and for attracting worldly fame. People

believe that these acts are evoked due to mere external stimuli of enhancing their public image or

any other instrumental purpose.

2.4 Combining CSR, attribution theory and Islamic perspective of doing good:

By combining the argument of CSR from attribution theory‟s perspective with the Islamic

perspective of doing good, I would like now to draw distinction between the CSR practices that

may evoke positive reactions than the negative ones. As explained earlier that people judge

others‟ behaviors and the causes behind such acts i.e. causal judgments. If they attribute these

acts to other person‟s ability and effort with no situational pressure then it will be considered as

moral and intrinsically induced behavior.

The commonality between the Islamic perspective of doing good and the attribution theory‟s

perspective (Kelley, 1967) is that acts are being performed with having two types of intentions

i.e. a moral intention and an instrumental intention. A moral intention from Islamic perspective is

considered as genuine act for doing good which will also please Allah. Therefore, it works like a

double edge sword for them i.e. fulfilling their moral responsibility of helping the needy (giving

charity or any other good deeds), which brings a good name to him in this world (as explained

earlier) as well as pleasing Allah Who will reward them for these good deeds in the hereafter too.

Similar psychological mechanism will be employed by the people (i.e. stakeholders - employees,

customers, investors etc.) while judging the locus of causality of CSR practices of an

53

organization (organization is considered as another party/person). Therefore, CSR practices that

are attributed to genuine efforts and abilities of the organizations to do good will be considered

as moral and intrinsically induced motives (Du et al. 2011). For example, an organization that

claims to be responsible and treats their employees‟ fairly, offers a return policy on products,

takes credible steps towards carbon omission and values all the stakeholders equally etc. will be

considered as moral and such practices will be considered as intrinsically induced motives.

Subsequently, it will enhance positive dispositions of people (stakeholders) which will evoke

positive reactions in return. Hence, we contend that intrinsic CSR practices will evoke positive

dispositions and therefore positive returns in the form of enhanced brand reputation (Cravens &

Plercy, 2015), customer satisfaction (Yoon et al. 2006) and employees‟ job satisfaction (Vlachos

et al. 2013a) etc.

On the other hand, if an organization is involved in CSR practices which contradicts its

claims, for example, if it does not offers proper growth/development opportunities and maintains

poor health & safety and unhygienic conditions for employees or a strict no return policy for

customers (Bauman & Skitka, 2012) etc., whereas, contribute in those charitable giving only

which draw media attention, will be considered as immoral. The locus of causality of such CSR

practices will be attributed towards situational or instrumental factors (Martinko et al. 2011) e.g.

the pressure from competition, media attention or claiming tax rebates against such acts etc.

From the Islamic perspective, such acts will be considered as show off (Riyaa) which is a serious

sin. People will think that this organization is not moral. Similarly, the attribution theory

suggests that such CSR practices will be attributed toward extrinsic causes and green-washing

i.e. „an exploitation of a sacred cause‟ (Lange & Washburn, 2012) which will eliminate positive

dispositions. Therefore, we contend that CSR practices which are attributed to extrinsic causes

54

i.e. extrinsic CSR will eliminate positive dispositions and draw frustration and anger among

people. This frustration may affect people‟s confidence over the organization such as it may

negatively affect organizational‟ reputation (Cravens & Plercy, 2015), customer satisfaction

(Yoon et al. 2006) and employees‟ job performance etc.

2.5 Hypotheses Development – CSR and Outcome Variables

After a thorough discussion on the literature around the proposed model for this study, this part

of the chapter comprises of detailed discussion on the proposed hypotheses. I begin with

explaining the direct relationships between CSR attributions (Independent variables) and various

outcome variables (dependent variables) i.e. Creative Performance (CP), Organizational

Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and Workplace Deviance Behaviors (WDBs). Following this, I am

explaining the mediating mechanisms of Psychological Safety and Psychological Contract

Fulfillment between independent and dependent variables. Finally, hypotheses of trust as a

mediator between Psychological Safety and Psychological Contract Fulfillment have been

illustrated in detail which will conclude this chapter.

2.5.1 Creative Performance (CP)

In today‟s competitive environment, CP is critical for organizational success. CP has been

positively associated with products, ideas, and processes that are novel and unique, and useful

for the organization (Oldham & Cummigs, 1996). A number of authors have stressed on the

importance of enhanced CP for organizations to achieve competitive advantage (e.g. Amabile,

1988; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Past studies suggest that companies in which employees do

not engage in extra role behaviors such as creative performance, are at risk of not surviving in

the longer term (Robinson & Morison, 1995).

55

We argue that when employees observe their organization engaging in CSR activities they

may be inspired to also engage in discretionary behaviors such as CP. Specifically, we argue

that when CSR activities are attributed as intrinsic, which are therefore viewed as engaged in for

moral and selfless reasons, that employees‟ positive disposition toward their organization will be

reflected in the form of CP. Moral and ethical organizations often operate in an open and

transparent manner in their dealings with all stakeholders, including employees (van Proijen &

Ellemers, 2015). Therefore, these organizations will deliberately create such an environment in

where open communication and new and novel ideas are encouraged. They are also unlikely to

not follow through on promises to their employees and meet all commitments to stakeholders in

a fair manner. Under these circumstances, employees will feel confident that they are part of a

truly responsible organization, rather than the one that simply pays lip service to the notion. As a

result, employees‟ self-esteem and self-worth will also be enhanced (Carmeli et al. 2013; De

Roeck et al. 2014).

When employees attribute their organizations‟ CSR as intrinsic, they project these positive

views to reflect a positive external image and reputation hence, experience a sense of pride in it

(De Roeck & Delobbe, 2012). Keeping in view the causal judgment dimension of attribution

theory, employees will attribute that these acts of CSR are prompted due to the fact that

organizations feel and recognize its sense of responsibility and there is no external pressure on

them to behave accordingly. People are usually inclined towards these types of organizations as

this further enhances their self-worth (Gond et al. 2010). Furthermore, intrinsic attributions are

associated with evaluations that the organization treats its external stakeholders fairly, and in so

doing, leads employees to expect the same fair treatment for them (Rupp et al. 2015). A fair and

supportive workplace through which everyone benefits will develop “spiritual conscience”

56

resulting in production of creative and innovative ideas and solutions for the common good of all

(Hur et al. 2016). Employees will feel safe to take risks and share novel and unique ideas as a

reflection of their enhanced positive disposition (Vlachos et al. 2013) and spiritual conscience

(Panday & Gupta, 2008). Employees are more likely to invest their time and energy for their

organizations‟ benefit (Bauman & Skitka, 2012). This argument is in line with previous research

identifying a positive relationship between CSR and employee creativity (e.g. Hur et al. 2016;

Kessel, Kratzer & Shultz, 2012) based on the connection of social responsibility and creativity.

In contrast, when organizations are viewed as engaging in CSR to counter competitions‟

campaigns, claim tax rebates or use it as mere marketing tool, the more instrumental nature of

this choice is likely to signal to employees the importance of efficiency (Vlachos et al. 2013).

While making their causal judgment, employees would feel that these efforts are only due to the

external pressures that is, more extrinsic CSR. Similarly, given that such an attribution is

associated with the belief that the organization cares more about benefiting itself than the target

of CSR, employees in these contexts are less likely to engage in risk taking behavior associated

with CP as their meaningfulness at work and their spiritual conscience will be diminished

(Aguinis & Glavas, 2013). This behavior is particularly more likely to occur in countries like

Pakistan as employees will attribute it to a mere show off i.e. Riyaa with no substantiation of

being responsible organization. This is because employees will think that their organizations are

engaged in such behaviors due to external pressures, that is, competition etc. or situational

factors that are, enhancing their brand image with no substance in the societal contributions. As

explained earlier that Riyaa is considered a serious sin in this world and in the hereafter in the

religion of Islam (Farooq et al. 2013; Loannou & Serafeim, 2012). Therefore, as a result we

predict that the positive employee level benefits of engaging in CSR in the form of CP only

57

accrue when employees attribute these initiatives to be intrinsic, and are eliminated or even

negative when attributed as extrinsic. I therefore expect that:

H1a: There will be a positive relationship between intrinsic CSR attributions and employees‟ CP.

H1b: There will be a negative relationship between extrinsic CSR attributions and employees‟

CP.

2.5.2 Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB)

OCB is defined by Organ (1988) as extra role volunteer behaviors of employees which are not

explicit and are not recognized by the formal reward system. Being another important extra role

behavior, the role of OCB at the time of downsizing, economic pressures and other change

management processes are believed to be crucial (Chun, Shin, Choi & Kim, 2013), hence,

understanding of this notion is imperative. OCB has been divided into five dimensions by

Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman & Fetter (1990): altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship,

courtesy, and civic virtue. Where, altruism means that employees will extend their support to

other colleagues and groups in the workplace; conscientiousness means that employees will work

more than what is assigned to them; sportsmanship means that employees will ignore minor

pressures and workloads; courtesy means that employees will take necessary actions to prevent

work related problems and finally civic virtue means that employees will take ownership and be

proactive in involvement in various organization related challenges (Lee, Wu & Hong, 2007).

OCBs intend to capture employees‟ extra role and discretionary behaviors that are not mandated

by the organization nor recognized by its formal reward system (Organ, 1988). Previous research

exploring the impact of perceptions of CSR on employees‟ OCBs considered mechanism such as

trust and justice perceptions (see Hansen et al. 2011; Rupp et al. 2006; Rupp et al. 2013 etc.).

58

While prior work has linked the perception of CSR to employee OCBs (Shen & Benson, 2014),

the differential effect of CSR attributions as intrinsic/extrinsic on employees‟ performance of

OCBs poses an important empirical question. This is also in line with research suggesting that

not all CSR activities will lead to enhanced OCBs and that there may be some practices which

may negatively affect OCB in the work environment (i.e. “the dark” side of CSR; Rupp &

Mallory, 2015, p. 62).

As such, I suggest that employees‟ CSR attributions (i.e. intrinsic vs. extrinsic) play a central

role in shaping their ensuing performance of OCBs. Intrinsic CSR attributions suggest that

employees view their organization as more moral, normative and conscience than instrumental

(Du et al. 2011). We argue that the ensuing evaluations of morality will affect employees‟

performance of OCBs. When employees attribute their organizations‟ CSR as intrinsic and view

them as behaving in a responsible manner by taking care of the environment, their stakeholders‟

needs including employees, as well as the society, they take this as a signal of the organizations‟

character as being caring and benevolent (Bauman & Skitka, 2012; Hansen et al. 2011). They

will believe that these activities are dispositional or behavioral characteristics of the organization

(the causal judgment dimension of the attribution theory) where putting their effort to fulfill its

social responsibility are genuine (Lange & Washburn, 2012). Such good citizenship on the part

of the organization will also lead it to be viewed as fair and moral, leading employees to

experience positive dispositions toward the organization and thus be more motivated to engage

in the performance of OCBs. This is in line with past research identifying a positive relationship

between the extent organizations are viewed as moral and their team attractiveness (van Prooijen

& Ellemers, 2015).

59

In contrast, extrinsic CSR attributions of CSR by employees are expected to have a negative

effect on their positive dispositions and thus reduce their performance of OCBs. This is because

extrinsic CSR attributions are formed when the organization is believed to be performing CSR

for its own instrumental gains, rather than with the main focus of benefiting the target of the CSR

initiative (Yoon et al. 2007). Causal judgment of attribution theory suggest that employee will

attribute that organizations are engaging in such behaviors due to external or situational factors

i.e. beating competition, claiming tax rebates or mere show off etc. As a result, employee

impressions of their organizations‟ character are more likely to be based on notions of self-

interest and self-serving goal pursuit (Vlachos et al. 2013). Donia, Tetrault Sirsly & Ronen

(2017) found that substantive (the more selfless i.e. intrinsic CSR) but not symbolic attributions

(i.e. extrinsic CSR) to be positively related key employees‟ behavioral outcomes and the

organization being perceived as a giver (rather than a taker). For example, if the organization is

viewed as placing a lot more effort on publicizing its CSR initiatives with the goals of reputation

and profit enhancement, while spending less effort on identifying and investing in truly worthy

causes, employees are more likely to view it as unfair in its role as a corporate citizen. They in

turn are expected to be less likely to extend themselves at work beyond what is formally

required, in their performance of OCBs. In other words, when employees make external

attributions about their organizations‟ CSR practices they may also stop participating in extra

role behaviors as they will be less favorably disposed toward their organization (Donia et al.

2007).

This argument will particularly stand valid in Pakistan because of its large proportion of

Muslim population (i.e. 95% according to CIA, 2001). The numerous quotes from the holy book

of Muslims, that is, Quran and the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) also draws a line

60

between the good deeds which are intended only for pleasing the Allah (God) and the Riyaa

which are intended to gain worldly fame. In this context, CSR practices which are intended for

pleasing Allah only by fulfilling its responsibility will not be marketed more often. Muslims

believe that Allah is aware of all the deeds of the people and their intentions, no matter they are

done in the dark (without showoff) or in the light (with showoff). However, more showoff and

marketing of such practices will be attributed by the people that the person or organization is

after worldly interests (Farooq et al. 2013). Good deeds such as CSR must be done in a manner

that your left hand does not become aware if it was done with your right hand. Therefore,

H2a: There will be a positive relationship between intrinsic CSR attributions and employees‟

performance of OCBs.

H2b: There will be a negative relationship between extrinsic CSR attributions and employees‟

performance of OCBs.

2.5.3 Workplace Deviance Behaviors (WDBs)

During the last couple of decades, large scale evidence demonstrates that workplace deviant

behaviors (WDBs) i.e. harmful and unethical practices such as production deviance, property

deviance, stealing, harassment etc. are costing organizations hundreds of billions of dollars

(Shoss, Jundt, Koblet & Reynolds, 2015). Studies found that only misuse of internet in the

workplace costs America $85 billion per year (Latto, 2007) and violence at the workplace cost

another $120 billion (Marchulat, 2007). Due to this increase in WDBs and the cost incurred as a

consequence, scholars and practitioners are currently giving more attention to this notion. WDBs

are those voluntary behaviors which intentionally violate the rules and regulations of the

organization and hurt the well-being of other employees (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Stewart et

61

al. (2009) used the two dimensional model of workplace deviance (Interpersonal &

Organizational) of Robinson & Bennett (1995) – a self-rater‟s scale – to convert it into others

rated measures for minimizing the personal biases including „ego protecting and ego-enhancing

biases‟ (Stewart et al. 2008, p. 207) that associated with such techniques, thereby, offering a

three dimensional model of WDBs i.e. Property Deviance (Prp. Deviance), Production Deviance

(Prd. Deviance) and Personal Aggression (P. Aggression). This three dimensional typology will

be used for measuring WDBs in this study.

Recent studies on CSR (e.g. Rupp & Mallory, 2015 etc) suggest that there may be negative

consequences of CSR activities too, just like it has positive consequences. However, this

dimension has not been explored in detail to date. Other authors also posit that employees make

judgments about the efforts and activities of their organizations (Lange &Washburn, 2012).

Similar cognition also applies to CSR activities. If CSR activities are attributed to moral causes

such as fulfilling its due responsibility without the expectations of any instrumental gains, they

will then prompt positive dispositions. The locus of causality of such activities will be attributed

to intrinsic causes (i.e. intrinsic CSR) as asserted by Harvey et al. (2014). As a result, their

chances of engaging in WDBs will be reduced. For example, organizations supporting their

employees beyond their legal obligations and taking care of their health and safety at all times

will be attributed towards more intrinsic motives. Employees will attribute this to organizational

dispositional and behavioral efforts which are not prompted due to some external pressures etc.

On the contrary, organizations which claim to be responsible entities on one hand, whereas,

use these efforts for mere instrumental gains will be attributed to the exploitation of a sacred

cause (Lange & Washburn, 2012). Their locus of causality will be attributed to situational factors

and external pressures e.g. the pressure of competition or claiming a tax rebate etc. i.e. extrinsic

62

CSR. As a result, their positive dispositions about morality of the organization will be

diminished which will increase the chances of employees to engage in WDBs, because,

employees will feel angry on the selfish behaviors of their employers and therefore, as a reaction,

they would want them to suffer from their selfish attitude (Joe et al. 2011). For example,

organizations engaging in socially responsible behaviors for some particular events only which

attract large media attention while ignoring other genuine concerns of other stakeholders will be

attributed towards more extrinsic motives.

Past studies suggest that employees‟ positive perception of CSR enhance their

meaningfulness at work (Aguiness & Glavas, 2013) whereas, a negative perception of the same

will make them upset and angry (Stewart et al. 2009) which will lead to the belief that employers

are selfish and have instrumental causes for doing the same (Joe et al. 2011). This will prompt

employees to return the same behaviors by behaving selfishly and will try to make the

organizations suffer for their actions (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Researchers argue that

employees often involve in such behaviors to reciprocate the unfair treatment they receive at

work (Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Rupp et al. 2013). Engaging in such negative behaviors satisfy

them because they think that organizations have reneged on their promises and that they need to

take revenge as a consequence (Bushman et al. 2001).

From Pakistani perspective in particular, employees‟ attribution of CSR to intrinsic or

extrinsic causes will also play a key role in shaping their WDBs. Being a developing country,

accountability and transparency in the operations of the business has always been a question

mark in Pakistan (Business Recorder, 2016). People often try to take things in their own hands

instead of relying on governmental institutions against any grievances. Therefore, while

attributing an organization‟s CSR activities towards more extrinsic causes would prompt a more

63

intense negative reaction thereby enhancing WDBs. Employees would feel that the organization

is committing a crime by fooling the people on one hand and doing Riyaa on the other, which is

a sin. The WDBs may be of various forms such as stealing, corruption, misuse of organizational

resources, damaging organizational property etc. (Joe et al. 2011). Whereas, intrinsic attributions

of CSR will prompt positive dispositions as employees would feel that the organization is

behaving responsibly and according to the ethical and moral standards of their religion Islam.

Hence, they will feel that it is their moral responsibility as well as religious responsibility to

support such organizations by not engaging in WDBs. Therefore,

H3a: There will be a negative relationship between intrinsic CSR attributions and employees‟

WDBs.

H3b: There will be a positive relationship between extrinsic CSR attributions and employees‟

WDBs.

2.6 Mediating role of psychological safety (PS)

2.6.1 PS as mediator between CSR and CP

Kahn (1990) defined PS as employees‟ feelings that they can share their inner self openly with

the confidence that their careers, image, or status will not be jeopardized. Employees often prefer

to work in an environment that makes them feel safe, and allows them to express their feelings.

The concept of trust is at the heart of PS such that trust toward ones‟ organization is a necessary

precondition for feeling it as supportive and open to new ideas. According to Bauman and Skitka

(2012), the belief in the other party (i.e. organization) as moral is important to employees‟ sense

of security and safety. Whether real or attributed, views of the choices of CSR practices as

intrinsic lead to a view of the organization as moral, leading to a greater sense of psychological

64

safety, associated with not feeling any threats to their jobs or status for sharing creative ideas

(Jones, 2010; Rupp et al. 2013).

Edmondson (2004) differentiated PS from trust based on the element of focus. Focus means

that in trust, the focus is on others‟ behavior and giving them the benefit of doubt, whereas in PS,

the focus is on whether the other party will give you the benefit of the doubt (Edmondson, 2004).

Therefore, we posit that an employee‟s PS will result from enhanced trust in the organization and

that the two notions are different from each other. Furthermore, Psychological climate and

psychological empowerment have been identified among the more important predictors of

creativity (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Given that they are both states of mind related to a sense of

security and trust in the organization suggests that they are strongly related to PS.

Utilizing the attribution theory (Kelley, 1967), it is posited that intrinsic CSR will evoke

positive dispositions in the form of enhanced PS, while extrinsic CSR will mitigate or even

reverse this effect by evoking negative dispositions. I expect a trickledown effect of enhanced PS

on CP given prior research linking CSR with increased employee confidence, self-esteem, and

self-worth (Carmeli et al. 2013). It is argued that when employees‟ attribute CSR as intrinsic,

they view their organization as acting fairly toward the target of CSR and in turn experience

positive dispositions toward their organization. This enhanced felt employee safety encourages

employees to engage in the risk taking necessary to pursue and come up with new ideas without

the fear of being punished (Hur et al. 2016). Attributions of intrinsic CSR are thus linked to the

belief that expressing one‟s feelings are legitimate without the fear of negative consequences

(Carmeli et al., 2013; Kahn, 1990). Therefore, whether real or attributed, views of the choices of

CSR practices as intrinsic lead to a view of the organization as moral, leading to a greater sense

of psychological safety, associated with not feeling any threats to their jobs or status for sharing

65

creative ideas (Jones, 2010; Rupp et al. 2013). Past studies have also linked workplace PS with

creative performance. For example, Edmondson (1999) demonstrated that PS enhances

organizational learning behavior. Other studies also found that an environment perceived as safe

will reduce anxiety which in turn will likely facilitate and encourage creative behavior and

innovation (Kark & Crameli, 2009; West & Anderson, 1996).

In contrast, attributions of extrinsic CSR are expected to be associated with reduced PS as the

organization is seen to be more instrumental in its choice of CSR practices. In other words, the

view of the organization as being singularly focused on its own profit and reputation

enhancement gains when engaging in CSR is likely to transmit the message to employees that

they should be focused on their own task performance and profit maximization, while

discouraging risk taking and through self-expression and development of creative potential

(Donia et al. 2007). Because individuals‟ interpret an actor‟s behavior in one situation as

indicative of its behavior in another situation (Bauman & Skitka, 2012), organizations viewed as

acting instrumentally may be interpreted as also favoring employee instrumental behavior. Their

more opportunistic approach will be attributed as less moral and more instrumental which is

driven by some extrinsic force, thus, will reduce or eliminate the positive dispositions of PS. This

will also reduce the positive sense making about the organizations (Hu et al. 2016). The reason

behind such reaction is that employees would form judgments about the motives of organizations

behind such moves. They will feel that organization‟s motives are driven by external pressures

without the intention of doing genuine good. Consequently, a sense of insecurity (reduction in

PS) will arise among them as they will feel that organizations can also behave instrumentally

with their employees too if need be. They would feel that organizations are engaged in CSR

activities due to their extrinsic motivation (i.e. increasing their monetary gains only without

66

caring for society) rather than intrinsic i.e. engaging in such activities because it‟s their moral

obligation (Aguilera et al. 2007). A reduction in PS is expected to lead employees to hold back

from questioning existing practices, sharing novel ideas, and thus reduce the potential for CP

(Kessel et al. 2012). I therefore expect that:

H4a: PS will mediate the positive relationship between intrinsic CSR and CP.

H4b: PS will mediate the negative relationship between extrinsic CSR and CP.

2.6.2 PS as mediator between CSR and OCB

As argued earlier, intrinsic CSR will enhance employees‟ PS. I also contend that the experience

of PS is a key mental state for promoting employees‟ engagement in OCB because in such

context, employees feel that they can take some time from regular tasks to help each other and

engage in other pro-organizational behaviors (i.e. even those not specified in their formal job

descriptions; Edmondson, 2004). Similarly, theorists from the corporate morality perspective

stress on the importance of morality in organizations (van Prooijen & Ellemers, 2015). They

regard morality as an important element for establishing interpersonal relationships between

employee and employers (Brambilla et al. 2013). Based on this literature, moral attributions are

associated with pro-social, rather than instrumental, behavior (Bauman &Skitka, 2012). Similar

to the positive association between PS and CP, I expect that employees will be more willing to

do extra work by investing their time and energy for the benefit of the organization when they

attribute it as engaging in intrinsic CSR. In contrast, a reduction in PS is expected to lead to a

reduction in employees‟ performance of OCBs. This is in line with Rupp and colleagues‟ (2006)

admonition of instances when employees may respond negatively to their organizations‟ CSR

practices.

67

H5a: PS will mediate the positive relationship between intrinsic CSR and OCB.

H5b: PS will mediate the negative relationship between extrinsic CSR and OCB.

2.6.3 PS as mediator between CSR and WDBs

Earlier, we explained that such behaviors where employees purposefully involve themselves in

such activities that are harmful, risky and expansive for other individuals/colleagues or

organization are called workplace deviance behaviors (WDBs). Theorists argue that employees

involve in such activities mainly because they think that their employers have reneged on their

promises (Joe et al. 2011) and therefore, they get satisfaction by doing so. In similar backdrop,

the same study revealed that when employees face injustice, their desire for taking revenge and

the belief that revenge will help match the response are more likely to involve in WDBs (Joe et

al. 2011). Theorists also argue that employees make judgments (i.e. attributions) of the different

policies of their organizations based on their morality and therefore, form their responses

accordingly (Bauman & Skitka, 2012; van Prooijen & Ellemers, 2015).

Past individual level studies on PS found that it enhances creativity because employees feel

active, alive and energized in organizations where they feel psychologically safe (Kark &

Carmeli, 2009). Similarly, PS is also considered an important predictor of knowledge sharing

(Siemsen, Roth, Balasubramanian & Anand, 2009). Other studies suggest that PS will enhance

organizational commitment (Edmondson & Lei, 2014) and other extra-role behaviors as

explained earlier. Therefore, as contended earlier that intrinsic CSR which will be attributed to

more moral dimension of organizational image will enhance PS. Enhanced PS will in turn give

employees a feeling of ownership as they will speak up openly without the fear of any negative

reactions. Their self-esteem and self-identity will be enhanced by being part of a responsible

68

organization (Brammer et al. 2015; Gond et al. 2010). Consequently, as argued by attribution

theory, their positive dispositions will be enhanced and they will feel obliged to behave

responsibly in return by not involving in deliberate negative work behaviors i.e. WDBs with

colleagues as well as with their organizations.

On the contrary, a reduction in PS while attributing CSR to more extrinsic dimension will

have exactly the opposite effects. A reduction in PS will enhance employees‟ anxiety and stress

(Pacheco, Moniz & Caldera, 2015) which in turn will eliminate their positive dispositions as

asserted by attribution theory (Harvey et al. 2014). For example, a contradiction between the

claims and practices of organization on the promises of promoting employees will be attributed

as irresponsible behavior. Consequently, employees will start engaging in WDBs in the form of

stealing or cheating with their organization and colleagues, behaving selfishly and wasting

resources etc. Engagement in WDBs will give them a better feeling and they will think that they

are taking revenge from the organization (Edmondson & Lei, 2014; Pacheco et al. 2015).

Similarly, from Pakistani perspective, employees may not directly challenge their organization

due to the fear of losing their jobs but they will also start adopting WDBs in order to satisfy and

equate the responses with the organizations. Therefore,

H6a: PS will mediate the negative relationship between intrinsic CSR and WDBs.

H6b: PS will mediate the positive relationship between extrinsic CSR and WDBs.

69

2.7 Mediating role of Psychological Contract Fulfillment (PCF)

2.7.1 PCF as mediator between CSR and CP

Researchers argue that a written contract clarifies only limited expectations between an

employee and employer because of complexities involved in the relationships (Rousseau, 1995).

Therefore, on the basis of trust - an important component of a contract (Blau, 1964) – employees

will form psychological relationships with their employers. This also suggests that PCF is

dependent on the trust and therefore, a second stage mediator just like PS. The psychological

contract captures these important psychological agreements comprising important elements such

as employees‟ expectations that their organizations will be supportive, will provide fair

compensation, good working conditions, and career advancement opportunities in exchange for

their good job performance (Rousseau, 1995). The psychological contract is therefore grounded

on social exchange theory (Aselage & Eisenberger, 2003) with reciprocity based on fair social

exchange at its core (Blau, 1964). While the vast majority of studies in this area have focused on

psychological contract breach (e.g. Raja et al. 2004; Robinson, 1996), more recently researchers

have focused on the more positive notion of PCF and employees‟ ensuing attitudinal and

behavioral responses (Conway & Coyle-Shaprio, 2012; Rayton et al. 2014). It is important to

study this notion as employee PCF is considered a key antecedent through which employees

make fine judgments about their organizations (Lee et al. 2000) and respond in the form of

commitment, turnover and perceived organizational support (Chaudhry & Teklead, 2013).

Capturing the understandings, beliefs or expectations an employee has about the chances of

fulfillment of pledges made by the organization (Rousseau, 1995), PCF is therefore expected to

be influenced by attributions of CSR while having an important impact on employee

performance outcomes.

70

While much research has been conducted on psychological contracts, not much is known

about potential mechanisms leading to employee outcomes (Conway & Coyle-Shapiro, 2012),

providing important unexplored opportunities in research. Given that employees‟ attributions of

their organizations‟ CSR practices affect their characterization of the organization, this in turn is

expected to affect the expectations they will form of their relationship with the organization. I

argue that the extent to which the organization is perceived as fulfilling its obligations to society

impacts how employees evaluate it as fulfilling (presently or in the future) its obligations to

themselves (Skudiene & Auruskeviciene, 2012), in the form of their PCF. Given the important

role of perceptions in the PCF, when employees make intrinsic attributions of CSR they are more

likely to interpret instances when the organization entirely fulfills their expectations in a more

forgiving way (dispositional, rather than situational). As an example, when employees view the

organization as engaging in environmentally friendly practices in order to safeguard the

immediate environment and community where it is located, employees are likely to attribute

these practices as intrinsic, and perceive it as likely to also treat them with the same respect and

regard for their needs, enhancing their felt PCF (Dabos & Rousseau, 2004). As a result, they will

feel encouraged to undertake creative self-expression and develop novel ideas, without any fear

that their superiors or the organization itself may attempt to take ownership and thus deny them

credit for their positive results (Bauman & Skitka, 2012). Prior studies also suggest that

employees emotional attachment will be enhanced if their expectations are met (Kickul & Lester,

2001). Hence, they will more openly share their new ideas and suggestions by bringing

distinctive solutions to problems, thereby, further enhancing their CP. This is in line with recent

research arguing that the psychological contract is affected by the social practices of the

71

organization and can play a mediating role in enhancing behavioral outcomes (Rayton et al.

2014) such as CP.

On the other hand, extrinsic CSR attributions are expected to mitigate or even eliminate the

positive sense of PCF. Following up on the previous example, if an organization does not engage

in responsible practices toward the community or environment in which it operates, but

contributes to costly CSR initiatives that are widely visible and publicized, employees are likely

to make extrinsic attributions of its CSR. Such characterization is expected to lead to a view of

their organization as instrumental and self-serving which is driven by situational factors, and in

turn to beliefs that it may not fulfill their PC as expected (Rayton et al. 2014). Past studies have

proved that employees retaliate to unethical and unfair acts (Skarlicki & Rupp, 2010). As a

result, low evaluations of PCF are expected to discourage employees from exploring new and

novel ideas in their daily work.

H7a: PCF will mediate the positive relationship between intrinsic CSR attributions and CP.

H7b: PCF will mediate the negative relationship between extrinsic CSR attributions and CP.

2.7.2 PCF as mediator between CSR and OCB

The notion of psychological contract underscores the character of the employee/employer

relationship. As OCBs were originally conceived as extra-role to the formal job contract, and

discretionary, they represent ideal behaviors with which to assess employee belief that the

psychological contract has been fulfilled. This is in line with Organ‟s (1988) view of the nature

of the employee/employer relationship involving some degree of reciprocity. In much the same

way that OCBs are discretionary and involve activities exceeding formal responsibilities,

employers generosity and goodwill toward its stakeholders, such as providing a healthy work

72

environment, fair compensation and career advancement opportunities, enhance evaluations of

PCF. As such, we expect that PCF plays an important mediating variable between CSR

attributions and OCB. Given that intrinsic attributions of CSR are associated with organizations

being considered moral (i.e. such organization that meet or even exceed their promises) we

expect these to also lead to enhanced evaluations of PCF. Employees who view their

organizations as meeting their PCF are in turn more likely to experience positive dispositions and

desire to reciprocate that encourage the performance of OCBs (Rousseau, 1989). Studies suggest

that if the fulfillment of employees‟ wants will trigger a potential positive reaction (Kickul &

Lester, 2001). Similarly, extrinsic CSR is expected to reduce the feeling of PCF as the feeling of

unmet expectation is expected to reduce the positive dispositions (Conway & Coyle-Shaprio,

2012; Harvey et al. 2014) that encourage the performance of OCBs. Past studies have also

reported a positive relation between PCF and employees‟ behavioral outcomes (Coyle-Shapiro &

Kessler, 2002). I therefore expect that:

H8a: PCF will mediate the positive relationship between intrinsic CSR attributions and

employees‟ OCBs.

H8b: PCF will mediate the negative relationship between extrinsic CSR attributions and

employees‟ OCBs.

2.7.3 PCF as mediator between CSR and WDBs

Psychological contract – unwritten expectations from each other in an employment relationship

(Rousseau, 1995) – is considered as a key notion between an employee/employer relationships

(Bauman & Skitka, 2012). Researchers argue that a written contract covers only limited

expectations, therefore, employees and employer form psychological contracts based on fair

73

social exchange (Blau, 1964; Rousseau, 1995), which covers widespread areas such as healthy

work environment, opportunities for growth and fair compensation etc. Most of the previous

studies are limited to the breach of psychological contract and its consequences only (see Joe et

al. 2011; Robinson, 1996; Rousseau, 1995 etc.), whereas, very few have studied psychological

contract of fulfillment (PCF) and its consequences (Lee et al. 2000). PCF is the belief and

understanding of employees towards their employers about the possibilities of fulfilling their

commitments (Rousseau, 1995). It is a key indicator for an organization to exhibit its support and

dedication towards the well-being of employees (Lester et al. 2002). Therefore, researchers are

now focusing on this aspect (Lee et al. 2000; Lester et al. 2002), to further their understanding

about its consequences.

Most of past studies on negative work behaviors have focused on the psychological contract

breach and its relation to WDBs (see Fox & Spector, 1999; Hershcovis et al. 2007; Joe et al.

2011 etc.). Thus empirical findings maintain that psychological contract breach prompt negative

reactions towards the employer. Similarly, I maintain that psychological contract fulfillment

(PCF) will lessen the WDBs just like it increases in cases of breach. I posit that if the important

aspects of psychological contracts are fulfilled such as fair compensation, career advancement

opportunities, and healthy working conditions etc., employees will feel that the employer is not

reneging on its promises and perceive them as more moral than opportunistic (Bauman & Skitka,

2012). This attribution of morality will compel employees to behave morally by avoiding

negative work behaviors in return to equate the imbalance, i.e. fewer WDBs. Besides, this sense

of morality will also enhance ownership and responsibility among employees towards their

employers. Employees will speak for the good of the organization as previously identified by

Edmondson et al. (2001) while conducting research on a hospital. She argued that nurses and

74

even junior staff spoke up to correct their seniors‟ mistakes while working on new equipment.

These positive behaviors hint towards less WDB as employees not only avoid deviant acts

themselves, but also correct others to avoid the loss of time and resources of the organizations

thereby matching the employers‟ response in the form of less WDBs (i.e. less misuse of time and

resources, less absentees from work and no stealing etc.). On the other hand, past studies also

suggest that if employees perceive that their employers are not fulfilling their obligations, they

may react by engaging in negative work behaviors (Conway & Coyle-Shapiro, 2012; Rayton et

al. 2014). Therefore, those CSR activities, the locus of causality of which is attributed to

dispositional motives (i.e. intrinsic CSR) will affect PCF positively. Consequently, employees

will feel compelled not to engage in negative work behaviors as positive dispositions. Whereas,

CSR activities, the locus of causality of which is attributed to situational motives such as

instrumental gains or tax rebates etc. (i.e. extrinsic CSR), will reduce the PCF. This in turn will

increase the negative work behaviors because positive dispositions will be eliminated in case

where organizations do not fulfill its obligations. Previous studies argued that employees react to

their reduction in expectations from their organization to equate the balance (Rupp et al. 2013;

Skarlicki & Rupp, 2010). Therefore,

H9a: PCF will mediate the negative relationship between intrinsic CSR attributions and WDBs.

H9b: PCF will mediate the positive relationship between extrinsic CSR attributions and WDBs.

2.8 Mediating role of Trust

2.8.1 Trust as mediator between CSR and PS

A widely cited definition of trust is “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of

another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to

75

the trust or, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer, Davis, &

Schoorman, 1995). Based on this definition, theorists identified the most common attributes of

trust as integrity, benevolence (Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006; Mayer et al. 1995) and morality

(Bauman & Skitka, 2012). Integrity is the belief in another party‟s honesty, fairness and

openness. Benevolence is the belief that the trustor‟s motives for certain actions are not

egocentric, instrumental and opportunistic (De Roeck & Delobbe, 2012). Finally, morality is the

belief that an actor will adhere to the highest standards of ethical values and uphold their

promises (Bauman & Skitka, 2012). These attributes are often used to characterize other

individuals, but can also be used to describe the characterization of an organization in the eyes of

their employees. Past studies suggest that employees decide whether to trust their organization or

not, based on their values, ethical, and moral practices comprising its character (Mayer et al.

1995; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). The higher the evaluations of these attributes, the higher will be

the trust. Trust in turn has been identified as a key determinant of individual and organizational

productivity (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001, 2002; Kramer & Tyler, 1996; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, &

Camerer, 1998).

In line with my focus on employees‟ attribution of CSR as intrinsic or extrinsic, I argue that

not all CSR activities will positively influence employees‟ trust in the organization. I propose

that employees will make their inferences from different CSR practices and based on those

inferences, they will form their own judgments which will impact their trust level. Employees

working for a company that strives to reduce its carbon emissions by using clean and green

energy are likely to attribute its CSR practices as intrinsic, and in turn will be more likely to trust

their organization (Hansen et al. 2011). Bauman & Skitka (2012) argued that all discretionary

efforts of a company that indicate a more social behavior rather than instrumental are a precursor

76

of moral organization. Thus, trust will be enhanced as an enhanced positive disposition. In

contrast, if they believe that they engage in such practices only to get tax rebate to increase

profitability, they are more likely to make extrinsic attributions which are triggered by situational

factors, and see the organization as opportunistic, instrumentally guided, self-serving and green-

washing (Lange & Washburn, 2012), and in turn will likely not experience greater trust toward

it. Consequently, employees‟ positive dispositions and trust will be enhanced only if CSR

practices are attributed to intrinsic motives, whereas, it will be eliminated if CSR practices are

attributed to extrinsic motives (Bauman & Skitka, 2012; Du et al. 2007).

Prior work (e.g. May & Gilson, 1999) has identified a positive relationship between

coworkers‟ trust and PS. Similarly, Kahn (1990) argued that people feel safe in those situations

which they trust the other party, and thus an important correlate is trusting that an environment is

safe to propose novel ideas or try something new.

I therefore expect that CSR induced intrinsic attributions will enhance employees‟ trust.

Given that these attributions involve the belief that the organization is behaving morally and with

the goal of contributing to society, rather than engaging in CSR in an opportunistic and

instrumental manner (Bauman & Skitka, 2012), I expect that they would in turn lead to enhanced

employee trust. Given that trust is an important element of PS (Edmondson, 2004); the

attribution of intrinsic CSR is expected to influence employees‟ cognitions such that they will

attribute their organization as safe and trustworthy, leading them to devote time and energy for

its benefit (Brammer et al. 2015) hence, enhancing their PS. In contrast, employees who attribute

their organizations‟ CSR activities as extrinsic characterize the organization as engaging

instrumentally and self-servingly, are in turn likely to experience reduced levels of

organizational trust as they view their organizations as opportunistic, selfish, potentially less

77

moral and a form of Riyaa i.e. showoff (Du et al. 2011; Martinko et al. 2011). This is in line with

research suggesting that employees‟ positive dispositions toward the organization are most

strongly influenced by moral than competence judgments about the organization (Brambilla &

Leach, in press; van Prooijen & Ellemers, 2015). In light of this, it is not surprising that many

organizations have begun to promote their CSR related activities to enhance their moral image

(Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Therefore, I expect that:

H10a: Trust will mediate the positive relationship between intrinsic CSR attributions and

employees‟ PS.

H10b: Trust will mediate the negative relationship between extrinsic CSR attributions and

employees‟ PS.

2.8.2 Trust as mediator between CSR and PCF

Similar to the posited mediating role between CSR and PS, we predict that trust will also mediate

the relationship between CSR and PCF. Specifically, CSR induced intrinsic attributions – the

locus of causality of which will be attributed as moral – are formed when the organization is

viewed as truly caring about making a positive difference, such as taking care of environment,

contributing towards the society through charity, avoid deceiving practices such as hiding

important information from stakeholders, and invest in responsible and greener projects.

Employees will form judgment that since the organization is taking care of all other stakeholders,

therefore, they will expect that their expectations will also be fulfilled (Hur et al. 2016). This in

turn will affect employees‟ current perceptions of how the organization fulfills their

psychological contract, as well as positive future perceptions of PCF. Consequently, employees

are more likely to feel secure that their expectations are, or will be, met. They will feel privileged

78

to be associated with the responsible organization (De Roeck & Delobbe, 2012; Gond et al.

2010). In contrast, CSR induced extrinsic attributions will reduce trust as these are likely to lead

to evaluations of the employer as being opportunistic and selfish. In turn, this is expected to

negatively impact employees‟ PCF as employees‟ disposition become more negative and any

unmet expectations by their organization becomes more salient. This is in line with the view that

individuals are concerned about and react to (un)fair treatment directed towards themselves as

well as other stakeholders, when these counter moral and socially responsible norms (Rupp et al.

2013; Skarlicki & Rupp, 2010). This argument is also in line with the Islamic perspective of

doing good. Organizations engaging in CSR activities for a mere showoff i.e. Riyaa will result in

reduction of trust as people will think that their activities are not genuine therefore, less moral. I

therefore expect that:

H11a: Trust will mediate the positive relationship between intrinsic CSR attributions and

employees‟ PCF.

H11b: Trust will mediate the negative relationship between extrinsic CSR attributions and

employees‟ PCF.

79

2.9 Theoretical Framework

Figure 2.1: Research Model of the Study

* CSR (Int) = CSR Intrinsic, CSR (Ext) = CSR extrinsic, OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behavior, WDBs = Workplace

Deviance Behaviors

Breakdown of Research Model

Figure 2.1.1: Direct Effects of Intrinsic CSR on Outcomes

* CSR (Int) = CSR Intrinsic, CP = Creative Performance, OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behavior, WDBs = Workplace

Deviance Behaviors

Trust

CSR (Int)*

CSR (Ext)*

Psyc. Contract

Fulfillment

Psyc. Safety

WDBs

Creative

Performance

OCB

CSR (Int)

WDBs

OCB

CP

80

Figure 2.1.2: Direct effects of Extrinsic CSR on Outcomes

* CSR (Ext) = CSR extrinsic, CP = Creative Performance, OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behavior, WDBs = Workplace

Deviance Behaviors

Figure 2.1.3: Mediating role of PS and PCF between Intrinsic CSR and Outcomes

* CSR (Int) = CSR Intrinsic, PS = Psychological Safety, PCF = Psychological Contract Fulfillment, OCB = Organizational

Citizenship Behavior, WDBs = Workplace Deviance Behaviors

CSR (Ext)

WDBs

OCB

CP

CSR (Int)

WDBs

OCB

CP

PCF

PS

81

Figure 2.1.4: Mediating role of PS and PCF between Extrinsic CSR and Outcomes

* CSR (Ext) = CSR extrinsic, PS = Psychological Safety, PCF = Psychological Contract Fulfillment, OCB = Organizational

Citizenship Behavior, WDBs = Workplace Deviance Behaviors

Figure 2.1.5: Mediating role of Trust between Intrinsic/Extrinsic CSR and Outcomes

* CSR (Int) = CSR Intrinsic, CSR (Ext) = CSR extrinsic, PS = Psychological Safety, PCF = Psychological Contract Fulfillment

2.10 Conclusion

In this chapter, a brief literature review was carried out around the proposed topic i.e. Corporate

Social Responsibility. First, the concept of CSR was explained in detail followed by detailed

historical perspective and earlier models of this notion. Later, the chapter briefly covered an

CSR (Int)

PCF

Trust

PS

CSR (Ext)

CSR (Ext)

WDBs

OCB

CP

PCF

PS

82

overview of the micro level studies. Following this discussion, I discussed the concept of CSR

with the help of attribution theory to form a base for theoretical underpinning of this study. This

section was followed by literature review around all the variables under study in this thesis i.e.

Trust, PS, PCF, CP, OCB and WDBs. Finally, a detailed literature review of the studies on the

topic of CSR from Pakistani perspective was given. This section also discussed the implications

of CSR related activities from Islamic perspective due to its expected important implications for

this notion.

83

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

Following the detailed discussion and building arguments for the illustrative hypotheses, this

chapter explains in detail the methodology undertaken for data collection and the techniques

utilized for measuring the results.

The chapter begins with explaining the research design which comprises of the details about

different types of methodologies, followed by a discussion on the target population, sampling

methods, data sources and measures used for data collection. The later part provides a detailed

discussion on the data collection method used for this study. The data analysis is the concluding

part of this chapter which gives a brief detail of how the data was analyzed and tools employed

for this purpose.

3.2 Research Design

According to Remenyi et al. (1998), research methodology refers to the procedural frame work

within which the research is conducted. There has been a long debate in trying to identify the

best approach in research methodology but as asserted by Amaratunga et al. (2002) there is no

uniquely best approach to research methodology.

There are two different schools of thought on research methodologies, a quantitative and

qualitative approach. A quantitative approach involves collecting, analyzing numerical data and

concentrates on issues of operational definitions, objectivity, causality and applying statistical

tests whereas, a qualitative approach is more subjective in nature and involves examining and

84

reflecting on perceptions in order to gain an understanding of social and human activities in the

context of specific settings (Sekaran & Bougie, 2010). A quantitative methodology was adopted

for achieving the aim of this study. This method helped the researcher in collecting data more

quickly and the sample size was also large as compared to other methodologies. The research is

mostly cross-sectional where data was collected at one point of time. However, keeping in mind

the inherited problem of personal bias with this method, the author has adopted respondent-

colleague/supervisor dyads methodology for data collection to avoid the same. The details of this

method will be discussed in the later part of this chapter. Since the study is measuring the

attributions of employees towards the CSR practices and its impact on their attitudes and

behaviors, therefore, quantitative method is more appropriate to testify the relationships between

the variables proposed.

3.2.1 Study Settings

The study was conducted by getting responses from the respondents i.e. employees working in

telecom sector of Pakistan, on the questionnaire form using their original work settings without

any manipulations or changes in their work settings.

3.2.2 Time Horizon

The data for this study were collected in 2015 from May to December from Telecom sector of

Pakistan. The data collection process was initiated such that employees‟ responses were recorded

at time T1 in May, June and July. A gap of two months was given before starting collecting data

from supervisors/colleagues. After this time, employees‟ supervisors/colleagues whom were

identified by the employees were approached at time T2 (see sampling procedure for further

details) initially to rate their CP, OCB and WDBs. Therefore, in the months from October to

85

December, this data collection was completed. The targeted city for this purpose was Islamabad

only, because of several reasons. One, all the corporate offices of Telecom operators are based in

Islamabad therefore, approaching them was not a difficult task. Second, employees in the

corporate offices are more closely involved in policy making and designing etc. therefore; they

have first-hand information about their latest contributions towards societal well-being etc.

Third, because of the large number of employees working in the corporate offices, therefore, it

was expected that a representative sample will be achieved from Islamabad alone.

3.2.3 Unit of Analysis

As stated in the first chapter, micro level studies on the notion of CSR are limited in number;

therefore, the unit of analysis for this study was the micro level i.e. individual level. Furthermore,

since the attitude and behaviors of individuals were being measured therefore, this level of

analysis was more appropriate.

3.3 Population & Sample

3.3.1 Population

The target population comprised the employees working in the Telecom sector of Pakistan.

Employees working on various levels in this sector were targeted except for the lower grades

such as security, office boys, and people with qualification of less than intermediate. This sector

was selected because it is among the fastest growing sectors of Pakistan with 21% growth in

foreign direct investment (SBP, 2015). The sector comprises many national and multinational

companies such as Mobilink, Pakistan Telecommunication Limited (PTCL), Telenor, Ufone,

Warid, and Zong etc. The total estimated revenue for this sector is PKR 449,546 Millions in

2014-15 (PTA, 2015). Companies in this sector are associated with CSR initiatives more

86

frequently over the past many years. However, little attention has been given to it in the past

CSR related studies.

Among some of the prominent CSR initiatives of the telecom sector are the Mobilink‟s

Torchbearers program for employees to volunteer some hours to hospitals, schools and disaster

hit areas. Likewise, the Mobilink literacy program provides education to females of Pakistan

residing in rural areas is another effort which was also recognized globally to the extent that this

program won the GSMA Award in Barcelona in 2013 and the 8th

annual CSR excellence award

2014 in Pakistan. Similarly, Telenor is also running many CSR programs including disability

programs, education, emergency response, and employee volunteers etc. To put forth a couple of

them under these thematic areas as an example, they have specific program for women

integration into workforce called Naya Aghaaz. This program specifically targets two groups of

women, 1) those that took a career break and would like to join back and 2) those that never

worked till their mature age. Similarly, their Humqadam program for employee volunteers to

encourage them to spend 16 paid working hours towards community service.

Similarly, PTCL another telecom operator is engaged in CSR activities too. Among the different

thematic areas are education, health, employees‟ well-being, and eradicating poverty etc. As an

example from eradicating poverty program, PTCL offers 1 year paid internship program for

Pakistani youth to enhance their skills and experience required from a candidate in the job

market. Their HR practices also won the 4th

Global HR Excellence Award in 2013. Previously,

they had also won CSR business excellence award in 2012. Similarly, Ufone is another telecom

operator in Pakistan. Their CSR activities lay in the thematic areas of environmental initiatives,

social development and health initiatives. Additional examples of the CSR practices are given in

table 3.1.

87

Table 3.1: CSR contributions of Telecom sector

Company Name Contributions in Rupees/Percentage.

Telenor Pakistan Social Contributions: PKR 35 Million

School Rehabilitation: PKR 142 Million

Energy conservation: 170 sites on solar energy (2014), 24%

reduction in Carbon emissions, Energy consumption reduced by

25%, Reduction in Municipal waste by 24%, Electric & Electronic

Equipment waste reduced by 60% etc.

PTCL Donated PKR 10 Million to earth quake victims in Baluchistan

Donated PKR 10 Million to BISP

Donated PKR 10 Million to National Press Club

Establishment of Center of Excellence for Internet Technologies at

NUST with CISCO

PKR 1.5 Million in Educational Scholarships

2.5 Million donation to SOS Village

PKR 20 Million for IDPs etc.

Mobilink Mobilink volunteerism program for employees (Torchbearers)

35% reduction in carbon omission

50% reduction in waste solid waste production

Recognized by UNGC

Entrepreneurship support initiative

SMS based literacy program (4,050 women)

Ufone „Lightning a million lives‟ campaign

Friends of environment competition for children of SOS village

Plantation drives

Ufone Volunteer Group (UVG)

Air space in Ramzan for people who do good

Zong Employee Volunteerism (2000 hours)

4G research lab at LUMS

GSM Lab at NUST etc.

3.3.2 Sampling Procedure

The total population of employees working in the telecom sector is quite high and dispersed

throughout Pakistan. It was impossible for the author to collect the data from all these people.

Hence, the best alternative under such circumstances was sampling. For this study, data were

collected via random sampling technique for employees from the capital city (Islamabad),

88

Pakistan. Likewise, organizations were selected via convenience sampling technique. MacMillan

(2002 p. 102) argue that “the purpose of sampling is to obtain a group of subjects who will be

representative of a larger group of individuals, in the case of quantitative research, or will

provide specific information needed”. The reason for selecting Islamabad is that all the corporate

head offices of the Telecom sector are based in this city. Therefore, a large number of employees

are available to form a representative sample. Besides, the geographic spread of other offices

across the country is a daunting and time consuming task which was not possible to reach to,

both physically and monetarily for the author. A minimum sample size was targeted to be more

than 350. Several steps were performed for data collection the details of which are as follows:

Step 1: The target population was identified and defined as all the employees working in

telecom sector in Islamabad, Pakistan.

Step 2: The author contacted the heads of the HR departments of all six companies (through

personal and professional contacts) to invite the participation of their employees in our study.

This method is in line with the previous studies e.g. Naseer et al. (2016) and therefore, it is

acceptable to be used for data collection. They were sent an electronic copy of the questionnaire

with the request to circulate it among the employees. The response rate for this activity was very

low (almost negligible).

Step 3: Therefore, the author used personal contacts to distribute hard copies of the

questionnaire among the employees by himself. Those companies who agreed to participate

(although not in writing because they were worried about legal issues) were then visited by the

author to distribute the questionnaires among interested employees.

89

Step 4: To avoid the common method bias, employees were asked to respond to all statements

other than CP, OCB and WDBs. Participants were asked to fill the questionnaires on their

convenient time and they were given two weeks‟ time. For completing a representative sample,

the author had to distribute questionnaires in different departments at different times; hence, it

took 3 months to complete this stage of data collection i.e. time 1. Participants were also asked to

identify a colleague or supervisor whom they thought would be appropriate to rate on his OCB,

CP and WDBs. This approach is also in line with previous data collection techniques (see Naseer

et al. 2016; Stewart et al. 2009 etc.).

Step 5: Following the approach of Naseer et al. (2016), participants were ensured of

confidentiality, the surveys were not anonymous to the extent as we asked participants to self-

identify for the purpose of matching their responses with those of their supervisors/peers.

Employees were provided envelopes with their names on top and a piece of paper to write down

the name(s) of the possible raters (i.e. supervisors or peers). A total of 800 questionnaires were

distributed out of which 406 were received back.

Step 6: After a gap of two months i.e. August and September, those raters were also approached

and requested to rate the respondents within two weeks‟ time. The author waited for two weeks

and then visited again to collect the filled questionnaires. This process also took about 3 months

i.e. from October to December to complete as the author had to set appointments with the

identified supervisors/colleagues at different times.

Step 7: Later, these responses were stapled with the respondent‟s own responses on other

variables without sharing the raters‟ responses with the employees and vice versa. Since we had

coded each questionnaire (both parts i.e. filled by the employees and by the

90

supervisor/colleague) therefore, it was easy to identify and match them together. This method is

consistent with prior research to enhance rigor and avoid common method bias effects, while

minimizing problems associated with self-rated surveys (Naseer et al. 2016; Stewart et al. 2009).

Step 8: After initial screening, 363 paired responses were selected for final analysis as the

remaining 43 were incomplete or could not be matched successfully, resulting in a 45.3% final

response rate against the total of 800 distributed initially.

Figure No. 3.1: Step by step data collection

Step 1

Identification of Target Population

Step 5 Other peers or colleagues were

identified to rate the dependent

variables i.e. CP, OCB and WDBs.

Step 2 First contact was made with HR heads

of telecom sector and sent an electronic

copy of the questionnaire.

Step 6 Questionnaires were distributed among

the raters and they were given two

weeks‟ time for completion.

Step 3

Permission was asked through personal

contacts for distribution of hard copies

by the author himself.

Step 7 Filled questionnaires were collected

from employees and raters after two

weeks.

Step 4

Questionnaires were distributed among

participants.

Step 8 After initial screening, 363 complete

paired responses were selected for final

analysis.

91

3.3.3 Demographic Characteristics of the respondents

As explained earlier, a multi – rater methodology was adopted for data collection whereby,

employees were surveyed on all measures with the exception of CP, OCB and WDBs. These two

variables were assessed by either their immediate supervisors or close peers which the focal

employees identified.

Gender of the respondents

The first demographic question was asked about the nature of their gender. Among the

respondents, 63.1% were male whereas, 36.9% were female. The table 3.2 provides detailed

information.

Table 3.2: Gender of respondents

Frequency Percent Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Male 229 63.1 63.1 63.1

Female 134 36.9 36.9 100.0

Total 363 100.0 100.0

Qualification of the respondents

Qualification of the respondents was also measured in this study. The findings suggest that

13.2% of them had a minimum qualification of higher secondary school certificate (HSSC),

21.5% had a bachelors (BA), and 65.3% had a master‟s (MA) degree and above (see Table 3.3).

Table 3.3: Qualification of the respondents

Categories Frequency Percent Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Intermediate 48 13.2 13.2 13.2

Bachelor 78 21.5 21.5 34.7

Masters & Above 237 65.3 65.3 100.0

Total 363 100.0 100.0

92

Experience of the respondents

As far as the experience of the respondents are concerned, it was found that the majority of

respondents (44.9%) had 5 years or less of work experience, 22.6% had between of 6 to 10 years,

and 32.5% respondents had more than 10 years of experience. Table 3.4 provides further details.

Table 3.4: Experience of the respondents

Categories Frequency Percent Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

0 to 5 163 44.9 44.9 44.9

6 to 10 82 22.6 22.6 67.5

11 and above 118 32.5 32.5 100.0

Total 363 100.0 100.0

Positions of the respondents

Among the four position categories, 35.5% respondents were from non-managerial positions,

28.7% from lower management, 22.9 from middle management, and 12.9% were in from senior

management in telecom sector.

Table 3. 5: Position of the respondents

Categories Frequency Percent Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Non manager 129 35.5 35.5 35.5

Lower Manager 104 28.7 28.7 64.2

Middle manager 83 22.9 22.9 87.1

Senior manager 47 12.9 12.9 100.0

Total 363 100.0 100.0

3.4 Measures used

For operationalization of the constructs, relevant scales were adopted from past studies. All the

constructs were measured on Likert scale from 5 being strongly agree to 1 being strongly

93

disagree except for WDBs, CP and demographic variables. The response scale for WDBs was 5

= Daily, 4 = weekly, 3 = monthly, 2 = several times a year and 1 = never. Whereas, a separate

Likert scale for measuring CP was adopted for all the three items each. Likewise, for measuring

demographic variables, various categories were designed; this can be seen from table 3.2 through

3.5.

3.4.1 CSR attributions (intrinsic/extrinsic)

The scale for CSR attributions (i.e. intrinsic/extrinsic) was adopted from the work of Du et al.

(2007) based on the work of Ellen et al. (2006). There are three items each for intrinsic and

extrinsic CSR and a sample item from intrinsic CSR is “My organization is genuinely concerned

about being socially responsible”. Whereas a sample item from extrinsic CSR “My organization

engages in socially responsible initiatives in order to get more customers”. Reliability and

validity measures are given in the next chapter.

3.4.2 Trust

For measuring the Trust of employees, the scale of Pivato et al. (2008) was used. It is a three

item scale and a sample item is “I trust my organization”. Reliability and validity measures are

given in the next chapter.

3.4.3 Psychological Contract Fulfillment (PCF)

Psychological Contract Fulfillment (PCF) was measured by the scale proposed by Rousseau

(1996). It is also a three items‟ scale and a sample item is “this organization has carried out what

it said to me”. Reliability and validity measures are given in the next chapter.

94

3.4.4 Psychological Safety (PS)

Similarly, psychological safety (PS) was measured by the scale used by Carmeli et al. (2010)

adopted from Edmondson (1999). A sample from this five items‟ scale is “I am able to bring up

problems and thought issues”. Reliability and validity measures are given in the next chapter.

3.4.5 Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

For measuring Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), the five items‟ scale of Organ et al.

(2006) was adopted. A sample from this scale is “[Employee name] show respect to colleague”.

Reliability and validity measures are given in the next chapter.

3.4.6 Creative Performance (CP)

Accordingly, Creative Performance (CP) was measured by the three items‟ scale of Oldham &

Cummings, (1996), the sample of which is “How original and practical is [employees‟ name]

work”? Reliability and validity measures are given in the next chapter.

3.4.7 Workplace Deviance Behaviors (WDBs)

Finally, for measuring WDBS, the scale of Stewart et al. (2009) was used which was adopted

from the work of Bennett & Robinson (2000). It is a three dimensional scale – production

deviance, personal aggression and property deviance – with seven, four and three items for each

dimension. A sample item from production deviance is “[Employee name] put little effort into

their work”. Reliability and validity measures are given in the next chapter.

95

Table 3.6: Measures used

S.No. Scale Items Author

1. Intrinsic/Extrinsic CSR 3 items each Du et al. 2007

2. Trust 3 items Pivato et al. (2008)

3. Psychological Contract Fulfillment (PCF) 3 items Rousseau (1996).

4. Psychological Safety (PS) 5 items Carmeli et al. (2010)

adopted from

Edmondson (1999).

5. Creative Performance (CP) 3 items Oldham &

Cummings, (1996)

6. Organizational Citizenship Behavior

(OCB)

5 items Organ et al. (2006)

7. Workplace Deviance Behavior (WDBs) 14 items Stewart et al. (2009)

adopted from Bennett

& Robinson (2000)

3.5 Data Sources & Collection Method:

Data sources can be largely divided into two different categories i.e. primary and secondary. For

achieving the aim of this study, the author has used both the primary as well as the secondary

sources for data collection as both sources are considered as useful.

96

3.5.1 Primary Data:

The data which is collected in person by the author i.e. first-hand information is primary data,

sometimes also called original data. Many techniques can be employed to collect primary data

such as using a questionnaire, through interviews, focus group interviews or observations.

Among these many techniques, the author has adopted the self-administered questionnaire for

data collection. Among the many advantages of the primary data is that the author can collect

data specific, relevant and to the point to the aim the study. Furthermore, data can be collected

from a large sample size with less time consumption relatively to other techniques. Since

questionnaires are anonymous and information collected is confidential therefore, respondents

are expected to respond more honestly to the statements on the questionnaire, thus; enhancing

the reliability of the data. Likewise, different statistical tools can be applied to measure and

compare complex relationships between different variables through this technique. Self-

administered questionnaire also gives the opportunity to build repute with the respondents and

ambiguities related to the questionnaire items can be resolved on the spot to save further time.

Finally, since this study is empirical in nature therefore, this technique is more appropriate.

3.5.2 Secondary data:

This type of data can be collected from different secondary sources of information such as books,

journals, magazines, company records, government data, stock exchange etc. (Sekaran &

Bougie, 2010). For this particular study, the author consulted different books, journals,

magazines and different website sources. The data collected through these secondary sources

have mostly used to build the literature review around the topic and propose different

hypotheses.

97

3.5.3 Administration of Questionnaire

The questionnaire was in English language because English is taught as a major subject starting

from grade 1 right up to the university level in Pakistan. Besides, the official language in

Pakistan is also English; therefore, employees were expected to have a working knowledge of

the English language i.e. to read and understand for all organizational positions except for the

very low cadre entry level jobs, which were not part of our sample. This method is consistent

with the previous studies conducted in Pakistan where the authors did not translated the

questionnaire into Urdu or any other local language of the country (see Raja et al. 2004; Naseer

et al. 2016 etc.).

Cover letter was annexed with the questionnaire which helped in explaining the objective of

the study. The cover letter also assured the respondents of complete confidentiality and

anonymity. Though, the method adopted for data collection required the respondents to provide

their names and identify a colleague or supervisor whom can rate their CP, OCB and WDBs,

however, anonymity was insured by asking them to do the same in sealed envelopes. Similarly,

the identified colleagues/or supervisors were asked to rate the respondents CP, OCB and WDBs

and put back the questionnaires in the provided envelopes, seal and return it. The names taken

from the respondents were only used for matching their own responses on the variables i.e. CSR

attributions (intrinsic and extrinsic), Trust, PCF and PS with the raters‟ ratings on the variables

CP, OCB and WDBs.

For avoiding ambiguity, the questionnaire was divided into three different sections. Section 1

comprised of questions regarding the demographics of the respondents; section 2 comprised of

the items for scales to be rated by the respondents themselves and section 3 comprised of the

98

items for scales to be rated by the raters i.e. colleagues or supervisors. Unique codes were also

assigned to each questionnaire on both the respondents‟ part (i.e. section 1 & 2) and the rater‟s

part (i.e. section 3) in order to identify and match them at the later stage. A criterion was set in

line with the previous studies that the colleague or supervisor must have worked with the

respondents for at least six months, every colleague/supervisor should not report on more than

two respondents in order to avoid data nesting and that the respondents‟ and raters‟ (i.e.

colleague/supervisor) information must not be disclosed to each other (Naseer et al. 2016;

Stewart et al. 2009). The colleague/supervisor are believed to be in a good position to rate

employees behaviors that is why many researchers have adopted similar methodology in the past

(e.g. Naseer et al. 2016; Raja & Johns, 2010; Scullen, Mount & Goff, 2000). A note of thanks

was given as concluding remark and appreciating the respondents for their time and effort in

filling the questionnaire.

One of the major challenges that the researcher faced in data collection was to seek approval

from companies through communication via official channel. Initially, the heads of HR

departments were reluctant to give permission citing the organizational policies of

confidentiality. Hence, the author adopted another approach which is also consistent with the

previous researches i.e. using personal as well as professional connections in the organizations to

collect the data (Naseer et al. 2016). This method was very fruitful which helped in convincing

the HR heads of two telecom sector organizations i.e. Telenor and PTCL.

3.5.4 Handling of Questionnaire

A total of 500 questionnaires were distributed among employees and were asked to fill the same

within two weeks‟ time. A reminder visit was paid by the researcher after a week time. After two

99

weeks, the researcher went for collecting the filled questionnaires. The author successfully

collected 113 questionnaires from the respondents. The rest of the employees had asked for more

time (to which the author agreed) or they were not found to be on their seats. This process took

around 2 months to collect about 178 more questionnaires, thus making it a total of 291. Though

the response rate was reasonable, however, the researcher felt the need for a larger sample size in

order to provide a representative number of the population. Therefore, it was decided to repeat

the same process in other offices (in Islamabad vicinity) of the same organizations to achieve the

aim of a larger sample size. This time, the researcher distributed 300 more questionnaires to new

participants and was able to receive 115 more questionnaires from respondents which make a

total of 406 (i.e. 291+115). This process took one more month thereby a total of 3 months were

spent to collect the data from the employees alone (i.e. Time 1).

After this stage, the researcher waited for two months after which he asked peers/supervisors –

identified by the respondents from the first stage (i.e. time 1) to fill section 3 of the

questionnaire. They were also given two additional weeks' time for filling the questionnaire.

Since the sample size was dispersed in different offices of Islamabad and the availability of

supervisors/colleagues were varying, therefore, this whole process took another 3 months i.e.

from October till December. Similar procedures for reminder were adopted followed by a visit to

collect the filled questionnaires. The researcher successfully received 401 questionnaires from

peers/supervisors in this stage. Questionnaires were matched through codes and names written

on both respondents‟ and the rater‟s responses. After this time, their names and codes were

completely discarded in order to ensure their anonymity.

Further screening was done in order to find incomplete questionnaires in terms of missing values

(i.e. items left unattended by the respondents or raters). Different techniques are available in the

100

extant literature for handling the missing data e.g. the techniques given by Roth & Switzer

(1995) i.e. list wise deletion of items if there are missing items in the questionnaires, substituting

with its means in the missing items or regression imputation where estimation of missing values

are done by developing regression equations of related items. At this stage, the researcher

adopted the first methodology of list wise deletion where missing items were found to be more

than three in each respondent‟s or rater‟s questionnaire. A complete successful matching of 363

questionnaires were achieved recording a response rate of 45.3% (i.e. 363/800*100). Each item

on the questionnaire was coded after which it was entered into SPSS.

3.6 Conclusion

This chapter covered in detail the methodology adopted for this study. In the first part, a detailed

discussion on research design, study setting, time horizon and unit of analysis were discussed.

The discussion on population and sample was given in the later part of the chapter followed by a

detailed discussion on the demographic characteristics of the respondents. The type of measures

used; data sources and collection methods made the proceeding part.

101

CHAPTER4

RESULTS

4.1 Introduction:

Following the detailed discussion on the methodology adopted for the data collection, this

chapter provides the results in detail. In the first part of this chapter, discussion on data method

analysis which covered various reliability and validity tests and correlation analysis are provided.

Later, the results of the regression analyses using Preacher & Hayes (2008) macro of mediation

are discussed in relation to the proposed hypotheses. Finally, the results of specific effects and

proposed model are tested using Phantom Model approach which makes the concluding part of

this chapter.

4.2 Data Analysis Method

Following detailed discussion on the methodology adopted for this study and data collection, this

part discusses the methods adopted for data analysis. A three step approach was adopted by

analyzing the data. In the first step, the researchers treated with the missing values and got the

feel of the data. The second stage was comprised of measuring the reliability and validity of the

scales used for the research to assess the goodness of data. In this step, the researcher performed

different tests to achieve this aim e.g. confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), average variance

extracted (AVE), Inter-construct correlations for Discriminant validity, Cronbach alphas,

Convergent Validity and Composite Reliability (CRs). Similarly, for controlling the effects of

common method variance (CMVs) Herman‟s one factor approach was adopted from the work of

Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Lee (2003). Finally, the common method bias (CMB) was

102

also tested to control its effects using the technique adopted from the work of Podsakoff et al.

(2003) using AMOS.

Before proceeding to step 3, the researchers made sure to check the goodness of data by

performing the above mentioned tests as well as to achieve the overall fit of the structural model.

After achieving satisfactory results for all these tests, the researcher finally performed step 3 for

data analysis to tests the proposed hypotheses. The tests performed in this step were correlations,

regression analysis using Preacher & Hayes (2008) macro of mediation and the Phantom Model

test using AMOS (18) to measure specific effects and overall model of the study. The details of

the reliability and validity tests make the next part of this chapter.

4.2.1 Reliability and validity of measures

The researcher used confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) using Amos 18 to assess the adequacy

of all the latent measures employed in this study. CFA is a quantitative measure to assess the

reliability and validity of the constructs. Specifically, CFA was performed on an eight-factor

model comprised of intrinsic CSR, extrinsic CSR, Trust, PS, PCF, CP and OCB and WDBs. The

results indicate that the data fits our model well: Chi Square recorded as χ2 = 622.181; χ2/df =

1.9 (< 2); GFI = 0.89 (< .90); NFI = 0.93 (> .90); TLI = 0.96 (> .90); CFI = 0.97 (> .90); RMR =

0.05 (< 0.1); RMSEA = 0.05 (< 0.08). WDBs were tested via a single overall dimension –

combining all the three dimensions which load on a single high order factor. This is approach is

in line with the previous studies e.g. Spreitzer et al. (1997) used the same approach measuring

psychological empowerment whereas, Shaoling (2011) used this approach for measuring CSR.

The Cronbach alphas (α) for all the three dimensions of WDBs were well above the threshold

value of 0.70 (see Table 4.1).

103

Likewise, all indicators on each variable loaded considerably well. The average variance

extracted (AVE) was well above the minimum threshold value of .50 for all the items and was

also greater than the square root of the inter construct correlations which is a requirement for

demonstrating discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Cronbach‟s alphas for all the

other measures were also well above the minimum value of .70 (see Table 4.1). Therefore, all of

our latent variables satisfy the requirements for both convergent and discriminant validity. The

composite reliabilities (CRs) for each latent variable also exceeded the minimum required value

of .70 (see Tables 4.1 & 4.2).

Table 4.1: Scales used, reliability, validity and measurement model (CFA) test results

Variable SFL* Alpha (α)* CR* AVE*

CSR-induced Intrinsic/Extrinsic

attributions (Du et al. 2007; Ellen et al.

2006)

0.934 0.92 0.827

My Organization…

1: is genuinely concerned about being

socially responsible. 0.924

2: engages in socially responsible

initiatives because it feels morally

obligated to help.

0.884

3: engages in socially responsible

initiatives in order to give back something

to the community.

0.919

CSR induced Extrinsic attributions 0.889 0.89 0.731

1: engages in socially responsible

initiatives in order to get more customers. 0.885

2: engages in socially responsible

initiatives because it feels competitive

pressures to engage in such activities.

0.871

3: hopes to increase its profits by

engaging in socially responsible

initiatives.

0.806

Trust (Pivato et al. 2008) 0.881 0.85 0.724

104

1: I trust my organization 0.914

2: I can always count on my organization 0.901

3: My organization is reliable

0.725

Psychological Contract Fulfillment

(Rousseau, 1996) 0.959 0.95 0.885

1: Overall, this organization has fulfilled

its commitments to me 0.943

2: In general, this organization has lived

up to its promise to me 0.943

3: This organization has carried out what

it said to me. 0.937

Psychological Safety (Carmeli et al.,

2010 from Edmondson, 1999). 0.950 0.94 0.793

1: I am able to bring up problems and

tough issues 0.915

2: People in this organization do not reject

others for being different 0.900

3: It is safe to take a risk in this

organization 0.909

4: It is easy for me to ask other members

of the organization for help. 0.867

5: No one in this organization would

deliberately act in a way that undermines

my efforts.

0.862

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

(OCB) by (Organ et al. 2006) 0.947 0.93 0.783

1: [Emp. Name] do extra work than the

organization‟s required 0.842

2: [Emp. Name] usually help other college

with their work 0.858

3: [Emp. Name] do not complain even the

environment is not good 0.841

4: [Emp. Name] show respect to colleague 0.925

5: [Emp. Name] participate in

organizational activities positively 0.953

Creative Performance (Oldham

&Cummings, 1996) 0.948 0.94 0.856

1: How ORIGINAL** and PRACTICAL

is [Emp. Name] work? 0.932

2: How ADAPTIVE** and PRACTICAL

is [Emp. Name] work? 0.922

3: How CREATIVE** is [Emp. Name] 0.922

105

work?

Workplace Deviance Behaviors (WDBs) by Stewart et al. (2009) adopted from Bennett

and Robinson, (2000)

Production Deviance 0.940 0.94 0.692

1. Put little effort into their work 0.855

2. Intentionally worked slower than they

could have worked

0.804

3. Spent too much time fantasizing or

daydreaming instead of working

0.845

4. Taken an additional or a longer break

than is acceptable at their workplace

0.829

5. Left their work for someone else to

finish

0.834

6. Worked on a personal matter instead of

work for my company

0.834

7. Came in late to work without

permission

0.824

Personal Aggression 0.916 0.92 0.736

1. Said something hurtful to someone at

work

0.860

2. Acted rudely toward someone at work 0.898

3. Lost their temper while at work 0.901

4. Made fun of someone at work 0.766

Property Deviance 0.938 0.93 0.836

1. Took property from work without

permission

0.918

2. Used an illegal drug or consumed

alcohol on the job

0.937

3. Falsified a receipt to get reimbursed for 0.888

106

more money than they spent on business

expenses

Model’s goodness-of-fit and recommended cut-off points

χ2 = 622.181; χ2/df = 1.9 (< 2); GFI = 0.89 (< .90); NFI = 0.93 (> .90); TLI = 0.96 (> .90);

CFI = 0.97 (> .90); RMR = 0.05 (< 0.1); RMSEA = 0.05 (< 0.08).

*SFL = Standard Factor Loadings, CR = Composite reliability, AVE = Average Variance Extracted, (α) =

Cronbach Alpha

**(Original and practical work refers to developing ideas, methods, or products that are both totally unique and

especially useful to the organization); (Adaptive and practical work refers to using existing information or materials

to develop ideas, methods, or products that are useful to the organization) and (Creativity refers to the extent to

which the employee develops ideas, methods, or products that are both original and useful to the organization).

Table 4.2: Correlation and Inter-construct correlations results:

Variables

IC SIC

Intrinsic CSR <--> Extrinsic CSR -.391 0.153

Intrinsic CSR <--> Trust .435 0.189

Intrinsic CSR <--> Creative Performance .131 0.017

Intrinsic CSR <--> Psychological Safety .331 0.109

Intrinsic CSR <--> Org. Citizenship Behavior .196 0.038

Extrinsic CSR <--> Psychological Safety -.448 0.200

Extrinsic CSR <--> Org. Citizenship Behavior -.303 0.091

Extrinsic CSR <--> Trust -.443 0.196

Extrinsic CSR <--> Creative Performance -.262 0.068

Trust <--> Psychological Safety .332 0.110

Trust <--> Org. Citizenship Behavior .296 0.087

Trust <--> Creative Performance .109 0.011

Psychological Safety <--> Org. Citizenship Behavior .523 0.273

Psychological Safety <--> Creative Performance .265 0.070

Org. Citizenship

Behavior <--> Creative Performance .203

0.041

Intrinsic CSR <--> Psychological Contract

Fulfillment .182

0.033

Creative Performance <--> Psychological Contract

Fulfillment .461

0.212

Trust <--> Psychological Contract

Fulfillment .227

0.051

Extrinsic CSR <--> Psychological Contract

Fulfillment -.153

0.023

107

Variables

IC SIC

Psychological Safety <--> Psychological Contract

Fulfillment .220

0.048

Org. Citizenship

Behavior <-->

Psychological Contract

Fulfillment .222

0.049

Personal Aggression <--> Property Deviance .228 0.051

Production Deviance <--> Personal Aggression .491 0.241

Production Deviance <--> Property Deviance .204 0.041

Creative Performance <--> Property Deviance -.268 0.071

Psychological Contract

Fulfillment <--> Property Deviance -.207

0.042

Intrinsic CSR <--> Property Deviance -.239 0.057

Trust <--> Property Deviance -.291 0.084

Extrinsic CSR <--> Property Deviance .323 0.104

Psychological Safety <--> Property Deviance -.483 0.233

Org. Citizenship

Behavior <--> Property Deviance -.540

0.291

Creative Performance <--> Personal Aggression -.500 0.250

Psychological Contract

Fulfillment <--> Personal Aggression -.525

0.275

Intrinsic CSR <--> Personal Aggression -.126 0.015

Trust <--> Personal Aggression -.165 0.027

Extrinsic CSR <--> Personal Aggression .263 0.069

Psychological Safety <--> Personal Aggression -.308 0.094

Org. Citizenship

Behavior <--> Personal Aggression -.218

0.047

Creative Performance <--> Production Deviance -.376 0.141

Psychological Contract

Fulfillment <--> Production Deviance -.672

0.451

Trust <--> Production Deviance -.156 0.024

Intrinsic CSR <--> Production Deviance -.205 0.042

Extrinsic CSR <--> Production Deviance .158 0.024

Psychological Safety <--> Production Deviance -.267 0.071

Org. Citizenship

Behavior <--> Production Deviance -.272

0.073

IC = Inter-construct Correlation, SIC = Squared Inter-construct Correlation

108

4.2.2 Common Method Variance Assessment

To control for the effects of common method variance (CMV), Herman‟s one factor approach

was employed using CFAs to determine if all the variables were explained via a single latent

factor or not (see Table 4.3 for all the results; Podsakoff et al. 2003; Vlachos et al. 2013a). A Chi

Square (χ2

350= 6405.293) was recorded for a single factor model as compared to that for an eight

factor model (χ2

322 = 622.181). Since the fit for a single factor model is significantly worse than

the eight factor measurement model (∆χ2

28 = 5783.112; p < 0.001), it suggests that there is no

serious problem of CMV in this study. We also tested the single factor model comprised of items

from those five variables which were self-rated by the respondents at the same time. A Chi

Square for the single factor comprised of all items from the five variables (χ2

119 = 3384.254) was

recorded against that for a five factor model (χ2

109 = 217.236). The fit for a single factor model is

significantly worse than the five factor measurement model (∆χ2

10 = 3167.018; p < 0.001) which

further suggests that there is no serious problem of CMV in this study. Similarly, the results of a

single factor model comprised of items from CP, OCB and WDBs are also provided in Table 4.3,

indicating no serious problem of CMV in this study.

Table 4.3: Results for CMV and Model fit:

Chi

Square

χ2/df GFI NFI CFI RMSEA

One factor (8 latent variables) 6405.293 18.301 .385 .330 .340 .219

One factor

(5 latent variables)

3384.254

28.439

.478

.404

.411

.275

Five factor

Model

217.236

1.993

.935

.962

.980

.052

109

One factor (3 latent variables i.e. CP,

OCB & WDBs)

1275.823 28.996 .614 .610 .617 .278

Three factor Model of CP, OCB &

WDBs

153.810 3.75 .927 .953 .965 .08

Eight factor Model 622.181 1.9 0.89 0.93 0.97 0.05

CP = Creative Performance, OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, WDBs = Workplace Deviance

Behaviours

4.2.3 Common Method Bias Assessment

Researchers like Meade, Watson and Kroustalis (2007) while acknowledging the effects of

CMV, argue that the upward bias in correlations among different variables may not necessarily

be implied through CMV. This means that CMV is different from Common Method Bias (CMB;

Spector, 2006). In Meade et al. (2007) words, “CMV implies that variance in observed scores is

partially attributable to a methods effect, CMB refers to the degree to which correlations are

altered (inflated) due to a methods effect” (p. 1).

Therefore, keeping this difference in mind, the researcher also tested the CMB on the

variables used for this particular study. For this purpose, the procedure of Podsakoff et al. (2003)

was followed where I introduced another latent factor in our measurement model which was

directly affecting all the other items under study. I then compared the standardized regression

weights of this model (i.e. having latent factor) with the original model (i.e. without latent factor)

and calculated the difference between the two factor scores. A value of 0.2 was set as a condition

to identify the values for difference between the factor scores (i.e. with and without latent

factors) above this threshold as suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003). A difference above this

threshold would suggest that there are some problematic factors.

110

However, my model suggests that there is no such issue of CMB as the difference between

the two data sets was equal to zero. The values of all the latent variables can be seen in Figure

4.1. Please not that Intrinsic CSR is denoted by ICSR, Extrinsic CSR by ECSR, Psychological

Contract Fulfillment by PCF, Psychological Safety by PS, Organizational Citizenship Behavior

by OCB, Creative Performance by CP and Workplace Deviance Behaviors by WDBs.

Figure 4.1: Common Method Bias (CMB) via single latent factor.

111

4.3 Results of Correlations

Before testing the proposed hypotheses of this study, the researcher tested the descriptive

statistics and correlation between the different variables under study. Table 4.4 shows the

descriptive statistics (Mean, Standard Deviation) and correlations of all the variables. In this part,

a detailed analysis of the correlations has been provided.

4.3.1 Intrinsic CSR

From the table it can be seen that intrinsic CSR has a negative moderate correlation with

extrinsic CSR (i.e. r = 0.36, p < 0.01). A moderate positive correlation was found between

intrinsic CSR and Trust (i.e. r = 0.42, p < 0.01). A positive correlation between intrinsic CSR

and psychological safety (PS) was also found from the findings (i.e. r = 0.31, p < 0.01).

Furthermore, correlation between intrinsic CSR and Organizational Citizenship behavior (OCB)

was also found to be significant (i.e. r = 0.19, p < 0.01). A positive correlation between intrinsic

CSR and creative performance (CP) was also noted from the results (i.e. r = 0.12, p < 0.01).

Psychological contract fulfillment (PCF) was also found to be positively correlated with intrinsic

CSR (i.e. r = .18, p < 0.01). As far as correlations with the WDBs are concerned, a negative

correlation of intrinsic CSR was found with production deviance (i.e. r = -.20, p < 0.01),

property deviance (r = -.23, p < 0.01), personal aggression (r = -.12, p < 0.01) and overall

WDBs (r = -.23, p < 0.01).

4.3.2 Extrinsic CSR

The correlation results of extrinsic CSR can also be found in Table 4.4 row 6. A significant

negative correlation of extrinsic CSR was found with the Trust (i.e. r = -.41, p < 0.01). A

significant negative correlation between extrinsic CSR and PS was also recorded (i.e. r = -.42, p

112

< 0.01). It was also found that extrinsic CSR has a significant negative correlation with OCB

(i.e. r = -.28, p < 0.01). Furthermore, a negative but significant correlation was found between

extrinsic CSR and CP (i.e. r = -.25, p < 0.01). Whereas, correlation between extrinsic CSR and

PCF was also recorded to negative but significant (i.e. r = -.14, p < 0.01). As far as the

correlation with workplace deviance behaviors is concerned, a significant positive correlation

was found between extrinsic CSR and production deviance (i.e. r = .15, p < 0.01), between

extrinsic CSR and property deviance (i.e. r = .30, p < 0.01), between extrinsic CSR and personal

aggression (i.e. r = .24, p < 0.01) and with overall WDBs (i.e. r = .28, p < 0.01).

4.3.3 Trust

The correlation results for Trust can be found in Table 4.4 row 7. A significant positive

correlation of Trust was recorded with PS (i.e. r = .33, p < 0.01), between Trust and OCB (i.e. r

= .28, p < 0.01), between Trust and CP (i.e. r = .11, p < 0.01) and between Trust and PCF (i.e. r

= .23, p < 0.01). As far as the correlation with workplace deviance behaviors is concerned, a

significant negative correlation was found between Trust and production deviance (i.e. r = -.15,

p < 0.01), between Trust and property deviance (i.e. r = -.27, p < 0.01), between Trust and

personal aggression (i.e. r = -.16, p < 0.01) and between trust and overall WDBs (i.e. r = -.23, p

< 0.01).

4.3.4 Psychological Safety (PS)

The correlation results for psychological safety (PS) are given in Table 4.4, row 8. The results

indicate a positive and significant correlation between PS and OCB (i.e. r = 0.50, p < 0.01),

between PS and CP (i.e. r = .25, p < 0.01) and between PS and PCF (r = .21, p < 0.01).

Whereas, the correlation results for the different dimensions of WDBs in relation to PS indicate

113

that there is a negative correlation between PS and production deviance (i.e. r = -.25, p < 0.01),

property deviance (i.e. r = -.45, p < 0.01), personal aggression (r = .28, p < 0.01) and with

overall WDBs (i.e. r = -.40, p < 0.01).

4.3.5 Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

The correlation results for OCB are given in row 9 of table 4.4. The results indicate a positive

correlation of OCB with CP (i.e. r = .20, p < 0.01) and PCF (i.e. r = .23, p < 0.01). On the hand,

a significant (negative) correlation was reported with all the three dimensions of WDBs i.e.

production deviance (i.e. r = -.27, p < 0.01), property deviance (i.e. r = -.52, p < 0.01) and

personal aggression (i.e. r = -.21, p < 0.01) and with overall WDBs (i.e. r = -.39, p < 0.01).

4.3.6 Creative Performance (CP)

The correlations of creative performance can be found in the same table row and column 11. A

positive correlation was reported from the correlation tests performed between CP and PCF (i.e.

r = 0.44, p < 0.01). On the hand, a negative correlation was found with all the three dimensions

of WDBs and CP i.e. with production deviance (r = -.36, p < 0.01), with property deviance (r =

-.25, p < 0.01), with personal aggression (r = -.47, p < 0.01) and with overall WDBs (r = -.50, p

< 0.01).

4.3.7 Psychological Contract Fulfillment (PCF)

The results of correlation tests of PCF are discussed with the rest of the variables, however, the

results of the three dimensional WDBs are given here in this section. It was found that there is a

negative (significant) correlation between PCF and all the three dimensions i.e. with production

114

deviance (r = -.64, p < 0.01), with property deviance (r = -.19, p < 0.01), with personal

aggression (r = -.50, p < 0.01) and with overall WDBs (r = -.65, p < 0.01).

4.3.8 Workplace Deviance Behaviors (WDBs)

The correlation between the three dimensions of WDBs is already discussed above. In this

section, the inter-dimensional correlations are being given. The results of are given in table 4.4

row 13 and 14. It was found that there is a positive correlation between production deviance and

property deviance (i.e. r = .20, p < 0.01), between production deviance and personal aggression

(i.e. r = .46, p < 0.01) and between property deviance and personal aggression (i.e. r = .22, p <

0.01).

115

4.4 Results for Hypotheses

After performing the CFAs the second step was to assess the overall fit for the structural model.

The results indicate that the data fits our hypothesized structural model well: χ2

329 = 663.63 (p<

0.01); χ2/df = 2.0 (= 2); GFI = 0.90 ( = .90); NFI = 0.93 (> .90); TLI = 0.96 (> .90); CFI = 0.96

(> .90); RMR = 0.06 (< 0.1); RMSEA = 0.05 (< 0.08). The researcher‟s approach to testing the

proposed hypotheses is similar to the previous studies such as De Roeck et al. (2014), who tested

their mediating hypotheses through Sobel test. However, this study employed the bootstrap

technique using Preacher & Hayes‟ (2008) macro of mediation – a latest and more powerful test.

This technique is particularly effective for measuring the hypotheses of mediation whereas;

Sobel test is comparatively more conservative with low power (MacKinnon, Warsi and Doyer,

1995). Another challenge with of Sobel test is its assumption of normality. Sobel (1982)

proposed the delta method with a large samples size in his mind. Preacher & Hayes (2008) argue

that the sample size in social science studies are usually finite and normality in finite samples is

seldom achieved. Therefore, Shrout & Bolger (2002) argued for extension of bootstrapping

technique in case of multiple mediations. Since I tested the sequential mediation where two

mediating variables were tested at one level; therefore, Preacher & Hayes‟ (2008) macro for

testing the mediating effects of more than one variable is appropriate. This macro is also an

effective and powerful method for controlling for Type 1 error (MacKinnon et al. 2002). For

testing hypotheses, a recommended 5000 bootstrap sample was selected to run the test. The

results for the tests of hypotheses can be found in Table No. 4.5.

4.4.1 Results of hypotheses with direct relationships

The results for the direct relationships hypothesized in H1a, H1b, H2a, H2b, H3a and H3b can be

found in Model 1, Model 2, Model 3, Model 4, Model 5 and Model 6 respectively in Table No.

116

4.5. We hypothesized a positive relationship between intrinsic CSR attributions and CP in H1a.

The results do not support this hypothesis i.e. β= -.001, p > 0.05. In hypothesis H1b a negative

relationship between extrinsic CSR attribution and CP was proposed. The author found support

for this hypothesis (β = -.195, p < 0.05). Similarly, the author proposed a positive relationship

between intrinsic CSR attributions and OCB in H2a and a negative relationship between

extrinsic CSR attributions and OCB in H2b. The author did not find support for H2a and H2b (β

= -.043, p > 0.05, and β = -.20, p > 0.05, respectively). Likewise, a negative relationship

between intrinsic CSR and WDBs was hypothesized in H3a, whereas, a positive relationship

between extrinsic CSR and WDBs was hypothesized in H3b. The results in Table No. 4.5, Model

5 indicate a non-significant relationship between intrinsic CSR and WDBs (β = -0 .057 p> 0.05),

Therefore, H3a was not supported. Whereas, the author found support for H3b (see Table No.

4.5, Model 6) i.e. a significant relationship between extrinsic CSR and WDBs (β = 0 .24. p<

0.05).

4.4.2 Results for Hypotheses of Mediations

The hypotheses of mediation start from H4a onward which are being discussed in this part.

Hypotheses H4a & H4b

For hypothesis H4a (see Model 1), I found that PS mediated the relationship between intrinsic

CSR and CP (β = 0 .06. p< 0.05). Furthermore, the confidence Interval (CI) for PS was recorded

as 0.0180 (Lower) and 0.1153 (Upper), that is, a non-zero value (Preacher & Hayes, 2008),

which confirms the role of full mediation between intrinsic CSR and CP because the direct

relationship is not significant. Similarly, the result for hypothesis H4b can be found in Model 2

(β = -0.09, p < 0.05). The CI for PS in this model was recorded as -0.2152 (Lower) and -0.0103

117

(Upper), which also does not spans zero and therefore indicates a partial mediation effect by PS

between extrinsic CSR and CP.

Hypotheses H5a & H5b

For H5a (see Model 3), the results indicate a mediating role of PS between intrinsic CSR and

OCB (β = 0.15, p < 0.05) and CI as 0.0811 (Lower) and 0.2391 (Upper), that is, a non-zero

value. Likewise, the results for H5b (Model 4) supports our proposition (β = -0.35, p < 0.05)

with a non-zero CI value of -0.4849 (Lower) and -0.2441 (Upper). Therefore, mediating role of

PS exists between intrinsic CSR and OCB.

Hypotheses H6a & H6b

Likewise, For H6a (see Model 5), the results indicate a mediating role of PS between intrinsic

CSR and WDBs (β = 0.11, p < 0.05) and CI as -0.1880 (Lower) and -0.0600 (Upper), that is, a

non-zero value. Therefore, PS fully mediates the negative relationship between intrinsic CSR and

WDBs as the direct effect of intrinsic CSR on WDBs is not significant. The results for H6b

(Model 6) supports our proposition (β = 0.25, p < 0.05) with a non-zero CI value of 0.1403

(Lower) and 0.3878 (Upper). Therefore, PS partially mediates the relationship between extrinsic

CSR and WDBs because the direct relationship between extrinsic CSR and WDBs is also

significant.

Hypotheses H7a & H7b

The results for H7a (Model 1) lend support for a mediating role of PCF between intrinsic CSR

and CP (β = 0.11, p < 0.05) with non-zero CI value of .0436 (Lower) and .01983 (Upper). The

118

results for H7b (Model 2) also indicate a mediating role of PCF between extrinsic CSR and CP

(β = -0.11, p < 0.05) and a non-zero CI value of -0.2462 (Lower) and -0.0207 (Upper).

Hypotheses H8a & H8b

The results for H8a (Model 3) support the mediating role of PCF between intrinsic CSR and

OCB (β = 0.02, p <0.05) with a non-zero CI value of 0.0053 (Lower) and 0.0553 (Upper).

Support for H8b i.e. mediating role of PCF between extrinsic CSR and OCB was also found (see

Model 4; β = -0.03, p < 0.05) with a non-zero CI value of -0.0911 (Lower) and -0.0052 (Upper).

Hypotheses H9a & H9b

Likewise, the results for H9a (Model 5) support the full mediating role of PCF between intrinsic

CSR and WDBs (β = 0.14, p <0.05) with a non-zero CI value of -0.2491 (Lower) and -0.0518

(Upper). Furthermore, support for H9b (see Model 6) was also found (β = 0.21, p < 0.05) with a

non-zero CI value of 0.0324 (Lower) and 0.4206 (Upper). Therefore, PCF partially mediates the

relationship between extrinsic CSR and PCF.

Hypotheses H10a & H10b

The results for H10a (Model 7) indicate a mediating role of Trust between intrinsic CSR and PS

(β = 0.09, p < 0.05) with a non-zero CI value of 0.0463 (Lower) and 0.1696 (Upper).

Furthermore, the results for H10b (Model 8) also indicate support for the mediating role of Trust

between extrinsic CSR and PS (β= -0.13, p < 0.05) with a non-zero CI value of -0.2561 (Lower)

and -0.0349 (Upper).

119

Hypotheses H11a & H11b

The results for H11a (Model 9) also support our hypothesis of TRUST as mediator between

intrinsic CSR and PCF (β = 0.07, p < 0.05) with a non-zero CI value of 0.0229 (Lower) and

0.1444 (Upper). Finally, we also found support for H11b (Model 10; β = -0.14, p < 0.05) with a

non-zero CI value of -0.2737 (Lower) and -0.0458 (Upper).

Table 4.5: Results of proposed hypotheses

Bias corrected

Conf. Interval (CI)

Models IV and DV Mediator(s) DATA

(Point

estimates)

BOOT SE Lower Upper

Model 1 IntCSR CP PS .07* .0706 .0291 .0244 .1415

PCF .11* .1102 .0393 .0436 .1983

Total indirect effect .18* .1808 .0450 .1012 .2799

Direct effect on CP -.00 - .0548 - -

R2

.22*

Adj R2

.21*

Model 2 ExtCSR CP PS -.09* -.0904 .0565 -.2161 -.0103

PCF -.11* -.1164 .0572 -.2462 -.0207

Total indirect effect -.20* -.2068 .0572 -.3668 -.0652

Direct effect on CP -.29* - .1015 - -

R2

.24*

120

Adj R2

.23*

Model 3 IntCSROCB PS .16* .1554 .0385 .0811 .2391

PCF .02* .0234 .0122 .0053 .0553

Total indirect effect .18* .1787 .0399 .1087 .2678

Direct effect on OCB .03 - .0505 - -

R2

.27*

Adj R2

.26*

Model 4 ExtCSROCB PS -.35* -.3522 .0612 -.4849 -.2441

PCF -.04* -.0345 .0211 -.0911 -.0052

Total indirect effect -.39* -.3867 .0619 -.5212 -.2741

Direct effect on OCB -.14 - .0943 - -

R2

.27*

Adj R2

.27*

Model 5 IntCSRWDBs PS -.12* -.1145 .0320 -.1880 -.0600

PCF -.14* -.1423 .0499 -.2491 -.0518

Total indirect effect -.26* -.2568 .0579 -.3728 -.1463

Direct effect on WDBs -.06 - .0540 - -

R2

.50*

Adj R2

.49*

Model 6 ExtCSRWDBs PS .25* .2454 .0614 .1403 .3878

PCF .21* .2122 .0990 .0324 .4206

Total indirect effect .46* .4576 .1085 .2582 .6843

121

Direct effect on WDBs .24* - .1005 - -

R2

.51*

Adj R2

.50*

Model 7 IntCSR PS Trust .10* .0974 .0306 .0463 .1696

R2

.15*

Adj R2

.14*

Model 8 ExtCSR PS Trust -.14* -.1363 .0562 -.2561 -.0349

R2

.21*

Adj R2

.20*

Model 9 IntCSR PCF Trust .08* .0751 .0307 .0211 .1426

R2

.06*

Adj R2

.05*

Model 10 ExtCSR PCF Trust -.15* -.1444 .0568 -.2737 -.0458

R2

.05*

Adj R2

.05*

Note: Bias corrected, 5000 bootstrap samples, * < 0.05.IntCSR = Intrinsic CSR, ExtCSR = Extrinsic CSR, PS = Psychological

Safety, PCF = Psychological Contract Fulfillment, CP = Creative Performance, OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

The following table summarizes the results of this study.

Table 4.6: Summary of the results

No. Hypothesis Result

H1a There will be a positive relationship between intrinsic CSR Not

Supported

122

attributions and employees‟ CP.

H1b There will be a negative relationship between extrinsic CSR

attributions and employees‟ CP.

Supported

H2a There will be a positive relationship between intrinsic CSR

attributions and employees‟ performance of OCBs.

Not

Supported

H2b There will be a negative relationship between extrinsic CSR

attributions and employees‟ performance of OCBs.

Not

Supported

H3a There will be a negative relationship between intrinsic CSR

attributions and employees‟ WDBs.

Not

Supported

H3b There will be a negative relationship between intrinsic CSR

attributions and employees‟ WDBs.

Supported

H4a PS will mediate the positive relationship between intrinsic CSR

and CP.

Supported

H4b PS will mediate the negative relationship between extrinsic CSR

and CP.

Supported

H5a PS will mediate the positive relationship between intrinsic CSR

and OCB.

Supported

H5b PS will mediate the negative relationship between extrinsic CSR Supported

123

and OCB.

H6a PS will mediate the negative relationship between intrinsic CSR

and WDBs.

Supported

H6b PS will mediate the positive relationship between extrinsic CSR

and WDBs.

Supported

H7a PCF will mediate the positive relationship between intrinsic CSR

attributions and CP.

Supported

H7b PCF will mediate the negative relationship between extrinsic CSR

attributions and CP.

Supported

H8a PCF will mediate the positive relationship between intrinsic CSR

attributions and employees‟ OCBs.

Supported

H8b PCF will mediate the negative relationship between extrinsic CSR

attributions and employees‟ OCBs.

Supported

H9a PCF will mediate the negative relationship between intrinsic CSR

attributions and WDBs.

Supported

H9b PCF will mediate the positive relationship between extrinsic CSR

attributions and WDBs.

Supported

H10a Trust will mediate the positive relationship between intrinsic CSR Supported

124

attributions and employees‟ PS.

H10b Trust will mediate the negative relationship between extrinsic

CSR attributions and employees‟ PS.

Supported

H11a Trust will mediate the positive relationship between intrinsic CSR

attributions and employees‟ PCF.

Supported

H11b Trust will mediate the negative relationship between extrinsic

CSR attributions and employees‟ PCF.

Supported

4.5 Testing of specific relationships and overall model

Since the model for this study comprised of sequential mediating variables i.e. Trust is the

immediate mediating variable which will lead to other two mediating variables i.e. PS and PCF,

consequently affecting the outcome variables i.e. OCB, CP and WDBs. However, using simple

SEM in many practical applications are problematic. For example, Macho & Ledermann (2011)

argue that some specific effects cannot be classified in the categories of total, direct and indirect

effects. Specifically, let us assume that a researcher wants to measure the specific effect of

variable X on variable Y through a two groups of mediating variables (such as in this study)

involved. Unfortunately, there is no simple technique for measuring such model in SEM

application, because the measurement of specific effects which involve many paths, the

calculation of the standard error for specific effects becomes very complex and high chances of

error (Macho & Ledermann, 2011). Likewise, the bootstrap confidence interval in general SEM

is not permitted.

125

Therefore, keeping in view the complexity of the proposed model, the latest and effective

approach in Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) called Phantom Model (Macho & Ledermann,

2011) was adopted for testing our hypotheses which is well suited for testing complex models

such as mine. The name of this model was inspired from the work of Rindskopf‟s (1984)

phantom variable which was also used for functional significance (Macho & Ledermann, 2011).

This model is based on the latent variables with its parameters constrained. This approach does

not need the amplification of the complex formula which is a hard task and have high chances of

error. Furthermore, it is a flexible model which is not limited to SEM program only, for

restricting functions or parameters. The bootstrapping confidence of interval is also enabled via

this technique. Finally, this technique is more flexible and allows estimation, testing and

comparison of specific effects in all type of models (Macho & Ledermann, 2011).

The tests are usually run by adding an additional model with the proposed model with its

parameters controlled by having a specific function or fixed to a number so that it does not affect

the main model. The authors (i.e. Macho & Ledermann, 2011) of this technique (i.e. the addition

of the phantom model to the main model) further argued that it does not affect the inference of

the main model because of the constraints being put on its parameters. Therefore, phantom

model contain all latent variables on the same page with the main model but with restrictions on

its parameters. The purpose is to test the specific effects in our complex model.

For this study, I particularly tested the direct and indirect effects of intrinsic and extrinsic

CSR using the bootstrapping technique to further assess the accuracy of our results. This

technique is an effective and powerful method for controlling for the Type 1 error (MacKinnon

et al. 2002). Since I explained all the results for the proposed hypotheses of this study, therefore,

in this part, the indirect results of the overall complex model will be discussed here only.

126

Table No. 4.7 contains all the direct and indirect results of the Phantom Model. Keeping in

view our focus on the overall indirect results, interpretation of only this part of the table is done.

As shown in figure 4.2, CP was first tested as outcome variable in the Phantom Model. The

result in the standardized indirect effect indicates that the Trust, PS, and PCF fully mediate the

relationship between Intrinsic CSR and CP (β= 0.05, p < 0.05) because the standardized direct

effect is not significant. Similarly, the standardized indirect effect of extrinsic CSR on CP via

TRUST, PS and PCF is not significant (β= -0.055, p > 0.05); however, the standardized direct

and total effects are significant i.e. (β= -0.179, p < 0.01 and β=- 0.234, p < 0.01 respectively).

Following this, OCB was tested as outcome variable in Phantom Model as shown in figure

4.3. The results suggest a significant standardized indirect effect of intrinsic CSR on OCB (i.e.

β= 0.128, p < 0.01). Likewise, the results further indicate that indirect effect of extrinsic CSR on

OCB also exist (i.e. β= -0.193, p < 0.01). Furthermore, WDBs were tested as outcome variable

in Phantom Model as shown in figure 4.4. It was found that intrinsic CSR indirectly effects

WDBs (i.e. β= -0.121, p < 0.01), however, as this relationship is negative i.e. intrinsic CSR

reduces WDBs, whereas, extrinsic CSR also effects WDBs indirectly (i.e. β= 0.132, p < 0.01)

which suggest that extrinsic CSR increases WDBs.

127

Table 4.7: Phantom Model Tests Results Independent Variables

Variables Intrinsic CSR

Extrinsic CSR

MEDIATORS Standardized

Total Effect

Standardized

Direct Effects

Standardized

Indirect

Effects

Standardized

Total Effect

Standardized

Direct Effects

Standardized

Indirect

Effects

Trust 0.312*** 0.312*** - -0.301*** -0.301*** -

Psychological

Safety

0.186***

0.141**

0.045**

-0.351***

-0.307***

-0.043**

Psychological

Contract

Fulfillment

0.142**

0.090

0.052**

-0.092

-0.042

-0.050**

OUTCOMES

Creative

Performance

0.038 -0.016 0.054* -0.234*** -0.179*** -0.055**

Organizational

Citizenship

Behavior

0.108*

-0.020

0.128***

-0.239**

-0.046

-0.193***

Workplace

Deviance

Behaviors

-.148***

-0.027

-0.121***

0.233***

0.101**

0.132***

Note: Bias corrected, 5000 bootstrap samples: *** < 0.01, ** < 0.05, * < 0.10

128

Figure 4.2: Creative Performance (CP) as Outcome.

129

Figure 4.3: Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) as Outcome

130

Figure 4.4: Workplace Deviance Behaviours as Outcome

131

4.6 Conclusion

This chapter covered the results of the data collected. First, different descriptive statistics were

calculated where the means, standard deviations and correlations were measured. The results of

the proposed hypotheses were also calculated and the results were provided in the later part

followed by specific tests results using the Phantom Model approach. The next chapter will now

focus on the findings and discussions, implications, future research areas, conclusion and

recommendation which will make the last part of the next chapter.

132

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION & IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Introduction

Following the detail of all the results and findings in chapter 4, this chapter provides a detailed

discussion on each finding and its implications for the theory as well as managers. The structure

of this chapter is as follows: In the first part, a brief discussion on overall findings will be put

forward. Later, the theoretical implications of the findings will be discussed in detail followed by

the managerial implications. Finally, conclusion and recommendations, research limitations and

future research areas will be highlighted which will conclude this chapter.

5.2 Discussion

This study contributes to the growing interest in employee level outcomes of CSR (Aguinis &

Glavas, 2012). Specifically, I attempted to extend the work in line with the contention of Aguinis

& Glavas (2013), Lange & Washburn (2012), Rupp & Mallory (2015) and Yoon et al. (2006)

etc. on the possibilities of having negative impacts of CSR. My work considers the important

role of employees‟ attributions of their organizations‟ CSR initiatives to explore situations when

organizational CSR initiatives may lead to positive or negative employee level outcomes. While

using attribution theory, we differentiated intrinsic CSR practices from extrinsic CSR. My

contention was that only intrinsic CSR practices which will be attributed towards more moral

and genuine behavior of the firms by the employees will yield positive results whereas, extrinsic

CSR which will be attributed towards more instrumental and selfish behavior will prompt

negative reactions.

133

In particular, this study aimed to investigate the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic induced

CSR attribution on employees‟ creative performance (CP); organizational citizenship behavior

(OCB) and workplace deviance behaviors (WDBs). While focusing on the individual level i.e.

employees‟ CP, OCB and WDBs, I offered an alternative framework for understanding the

impact of employees‟ attributions of CSR thereby, responding to call of Jones (2010), Bauman &

Skitka (2012) and Glavas (2016) for understanding the underlying mechanism through which

CSR impacts employees‟ attitudes and behaviors. I have also presented an alternative model

outlining and employing a sequential mediating mechanism to explain the impact of employees‟

attributions of their organizations‟ performance of CSR on their ensuing attitudes and

performance behaviors.

The data for this study was collected via questionnaire by adopting a quantitative

(respondent-colleague/supervisor dyads) methodology. Employees responded to all the variables

except for CP, OCB and WDBs, which were rated by other raters (i.e. supervisors or colleagues)

whom were identified by the employees themselves. By employing a technique similar to the

previous studies (i.e. De Roeck et al. 2014; Hur et al. 2016) for testing the proposed model and

hypotheses; the researcher found support for most of the proposed hypotheses and research

questions which are discussed here.

The following research questions were answered in this study.

Questions 1: Does all CSR practices evoke positive behavioral outcomes among employees?

The answer to this question in one word is “No”, because, the author found that some CSR

practices evoke positive behavioral outcomes whereas, others do not. For example, the findings

from hypothesis H1a suggest no direct positive behavioral outcome of CSR. Whereas, H1b

134

proves a direct negative relationship between intrinsic CSR and CP. Overall, the findings suggest

that intrinsic CSR attributions have no direct relationship with CP, OCB and WDBs, whereas, an

indirect relationship via PS and PCF was found between the same. Therefore, intrinsic CSR can

evoke positive behavioral outcomes through indirect paths. Similarly, extrinsic CSR attributions

directly affect the CP and WDBs of employees, however, the relationship is negative. This

shows that all CSR practices may not evoke positive dispositions. The findings confirm the

previous studies‟ (e.g. Rupp & Mallory, 2015; Lange & Washburn, 2012) assertions of possible

negative impacts of CSR activities on employees‟ attitudes and behaviors. The answer to

question 1 also helps in achieving my proposed objectives 1 to 3.

Question 2: Are there any negative impacts of CSR on employees‟ attitudes and behaviors too?

Yes, there are negative impacts of CSR on employees‟ attitudes and behaviors. As explained in

questions 1(also see result of hypothesis H1b in table 4.6) that extrinsic CSR will negatively

affect the behavioral outcomes. The reason behind such findings can be better explained keeping

in view the underlying attributions associated with different CSR practices. For example, my

contention was that intrinsic CSR are usually considered good practices and attributed to morally

strong behavior, whereas, extrinsic CSR are considered bad and morally weak behaviors. These

findings are in line with the study conducted by Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer & Vohs

(2001) where they presented numerous evidences from different fields of psychology

(clinical/non-clinical) explaining that bad events have more profound impact on individuals and

are long lasting than good ones. Therefore, this can be one of the reasons that good behaviors i.e.

intrinsic CSR are usually forgotten early and thus may not have direct impact on employees‟

behaviors such as CP, OCB and WDBs as I hypothesized in H1a, H2a and H3a. While bad

behaviors i.e. extrinsic CSR may not be forgotten easily and thus its outcomes can be sensed in

135

reduction in CP, and enhancing the WDBs among employees as we found in H1b and H3b. On

the other hand, this finding is in line with the most recent study conducted by Hur et al. (2016)

where they found no support for a direct relationship between CSR perception and creativity.

Unlike other hypothesis, I found no support for H2b (Table 4.6). Given the above explanation of

the effect of bad which is stronger than good, unlike our expectation, this hypothesis was not

supported. There can be at least a couple of possible explanations for this. First, OCBs may have

not been affected because there may be other motivations for employees in the organizations

which may have enhanced their OCBs such as the competition with other colleagues, overtime

pay, or a strong interpersonal relationship with their supervisor etc. Secondly, the result may

have occurred by chance as numerous other studies in past have confirmed that CSR impacts

OCBs (see Swanson & Niehoff, 2001; Hansen et al. 2011; Shen & Benson, 2014 etc.). This

question also put additional insight on the achievement of objectives 1 to 3 of this study.

Questions 3: Can we differentiate CSR practices which have positive effects than those which

have negative effects on employees‟ attitudes and behaviors?

Yes, we can differentiate good CSR practices which have positive impacts than the ones which

have negative impacts. I explained this conceptualization throughout my hypotheses

development from H1a till H11b with the help of attribution theory (Kelley, 1967). This

conceptualization was first used by Du et al. (2007) i.e. intrinsic and extrinsic CSR. Through

empirical evidence, it was found that intrinsic CSR will be considered as moral and socially good

practices therefore; it will be attributed differently than the extrinsic CSR which will be

considered more instrumental and selfish practices. This conceptualization helps in

differentiating CSR practices which have good impacts on employees‟ attitudes and behaviors

i.e. intrinsic CSR than the ones which have negative reactions i.e. extrinsic CSR.

136

The findings are specifically interesting in relation to its negative effects. Previous studies

on CSR have mainly focused on the positive outcomes only, whereas, only some theoretical

papers have highlighted the importance of negative reactions (Rupp & Mallory, 2015; Lange

&Washburn, 2012 etc.). Since, empirical evidence have been found in this study to warrant the

claims of the above mentioned leading authors, therefore, highlighting the differentiation of CSR

from bad to good have become more important now than ever.

Another possible explanation of such findings can be the cultural context of the study. As

discussed earlier in detail that Pakistan is a Muslim majority country (CIA, 2001) and Muslims

engage in good behaviors without making much noise or marketing. The reason of such behavior

is to avoid the „Riyaa‟ i.e. show off of things. Muslim engages in good and moral behaviors to

please Allah (God) so that they can go to heaven. It is an obligation over all Muslims. They

believe that all the deeds whether performed hidden or in front of people are known to Allah. No

one can hide anything from the Almighty Allah – The Creator of the universe. Therefore, good

deeds which are done in silence are termed as purely with the intention to please Allah and no

other person because He can see and sense everyone‟s intention. Such deeds are considered good

in its true sense and people often admire if they come to know about it through other sources and

not from the individual itself.

Prophet Muhammad (SAW) said, "Verily, deeds are rewarded by intention. And everyone will

have the reward for that which he has intended" (Bukhari Vol. 1 #1). Therefore, if someone

makes marketing of their good deeds, they are considered to be showing off (Riyaa) their selves

for the mere purpose that people call him a good person with no intention of pleasing Allah but

to cash on these acts for the worldly affairs. Acts that are intended to gain people‟s admiration

and praise are considered as Riyaa which is a form of a sin. The differentiation between intrinsic

137

CSR as good practices and extrinsic CSR as bad is the classic example of doing good for

pleasing Allah only such as engaging in intrinsic CSR, whereas doing good for showing off i.e.

Riyaa such as extrinsic CSR.

Allah says in the Quran “So woe unto those performers of Salat (hypocrites), those who

delay their Salat (from their stated fixed times). Those who do good deeds only to be seen (of

men). And prevent Al-Ma‟un (small kindnesses) (Surah Al-Maauun 107: 4 – 7)”.

Similarly, The Messenger of Allah, (SAW) said, “Verily, what I fear most for you is the

lesser idolatry.” And he elaborated, “It is showing off. Allah the Exalted will say to them (who

show off), on the Day of Resurrection when the people are being rewarded for their deeds: Go to

those whom you wished to show off in the world and look for your reward with them.” (Musnad

Ahmad, Hadith No. 23119).

These two important narrations i.e. one from Quran and the other from the sayings of

Prophet Muhammad (SAW) suggest that Riyaa i.e. show off is a serious sin and Allah will not

reward on such deeds on the Day of Judgment. Therefore, Muslims usually do good deeds

without any marketing about it since it is strictly forbidden. Those who do practice these acts are

largely considered to be intending for selfish vested interests and therefore, such acts lose their

impact on people, no matter how good are they.

Question 4: Does CSR practices have any role in enhancing or reducing the Creative

Performance (CP) of employees?

Our findings from hypotheses H4a and H7a suggest the intrinsic CSR practices will enhance CP

of employees through PS and PCF. It was also found that extrinsic CSR have a direct negative

relationship with CP as well as an indirect negative relationship through Trust, PCF and PS

138

thereby supporting hypotheses H1b, H4b, H7b and H10b. This differentiation of positive and

negative impacts is in line with previous researches such as Rupp & Mallory (2015), Lange &

Washburn (2012) and Yoon et al. (2006), where they put forth their contentions about the

possible positive and negative outcomes both. Additionally, the alternative mediating mechanism

as stressed by Aguinis (2016) have also been proved. Therefore, it is now a reported proof that

PS and PCF also mediate the relation between CSR attributions and their outcomes such as CP.

My findings are also in line with the previous studies where findings suggest that CSR

perception leads to enhancing creativity among employees through indirect paths of compassion

at work and intrinsic motivation (Hur et al. 2016). By answering this question, objectives 4 & 7

of this study were also achieved by studying the mediating role of PS & PCF between CSR

attributions and CP.

Question 5: Does CSR practices have any role in enhancing or reducing the Organizational

Citizenship Behaviors (OCB) of employees?

Our findings from hypothesis H2a suggest that there is no direct effect of extrinsic CSR on OCB,

whereas, indirect effect on the same was found via PS & PCF as hypothesized in H5a & H8a,

allowing for a better understanding of this outcome. A possible explanation may be that

employees‟ engagement in OCB may be motivated through other stimulus such as competition

among peers and large scale unemployment in the country which compels employees to work

more than what is required to impress their seniors. Furthermore, employees usually try to build

up strong interpersonal relationships with their seniors in collectivist societies (Farooq et al.

2013) such as Pakistan. For this purpose, they adopt several strategies, one of which can be

involvement in extra role responsibilities. Therefore, despite the organizations‟ selfish attitude,

employees‟ OCB may not be affected. Likewise, extrinsic CSR attributions were also found to be

139

indirectly affecting (negatively) OCB of employees. We found support for this contention

through hypotheses H5band H8b. In other words, employees OCB are mediated by employees‟

PS and PCF as a result of employees‟ resulting experience of fulfillment of expectations and

sense of security & safety in their organizations. Our finding is also in line with the previous

studies where the results suggest a positive impact of CSR on OCB through different mediating

paths (e.g. Hansen et al. 2011). Objectives 5 & 8 of the study have also been achieved from

answering this question and the hypotheses provided above.

Question 6: Does CSR practices help in reducing or increasing the workplace deviance

behaviors (WDBs) of employees?

The answer to this question was tested through hypotheses H3a, H3b, H6a, H6b, H9a and

H9b.This is another interesting finding in relation to CSR practices because previous studies

have largely ignored to study the relationship between CSR and WDBs. It was found that

intrinsic CSR which are attributed towards more moral and selfless behavior will evoke positive

dispositions. Consequently, employees‟ trust over the organization will be enhanced which in

turn will enhance their PS and PCF. As a result, employees will feel pressured not to get

involved in WDBs because they will think that if their organizations are moral then they should

also behave the same way. Furthermore, extrinsic CSR are attributed towards more selfish and

instrumental behavior, therefore, employees positive dispositions will eliminate in reaction and

they will engage in more WDBs. Hence, CSR practices (intrinsic CSR) will reduce WDBs

whereas, extrinsic CSR will increase them. This question is also in line with the research

objectives 6 & 9 which have also been achieved. Additionally, the mediating role of trust

between CSR attributions and PS and PCF suggest that trust is the first variable influenced by the

CSR (Hansen et al. 2011).

140

Question 7: Can the impact of CSR on employees‟ attitudes and behaviors be explained through

an alternative psychological mechanism?

Previous authors such as Jones (2010) and Bauman & Skitka (2012) etc. have underscored the

importance of an alternative psychological mechanism through which employees‟ attitudes and

behaviors can be effected. Therefore, this study attempted to explain the alternative

psychological mechanism. Two main contributions can be noted towards this dimension. One,

the attribution theory‟s and the Islamic teachings‟ perspectives with the help of which we drew

distinction between good and bad CSR practices and its distinct implications and second, the

multiple layer of mediating mechanism with two new sequential mediators i.e. PS and PCF.

These two variables have attracted limited attention in the past CSR related studies despite its

importance as our findings suggest. Therefore, it can be concluded that the impact of CSR on

employees‟ attitudes and behaviors can be explained through other psychological mechanisms

too.

Similarly, by testing the mediating mechanism of trust between CSR attributions & PS and CSR

attributions and PCF, I have also achieved the final two objectives of this study i.e. objective 10

and 11. It is worth noting that the all the mediating paths have been supported from the results

which suggest that trust, PS and PCF are key mediating variables in relation between CSR

attributions and outcomes. Previous studies also found support for these variables in similar as

well as other contexts e.g. trust was studied as mediator by Hansen et al. (2011) and found

support for the same. Similarly, PS was studied as mediator by Lind et al. (2002) and Wojciszke

(2005) etc. and found support whereas, PCF was studied as mediator by Rayton et al. (2014) etc.

in other business researches and found support for the same. After a thorough discussion on the

141

research questions and proposed hypotheses, it is concluded that all the objectives set at the start

of this study have been achieved and discussed.

5.3 Confirmation of the Proposed Model

Following a thorough literature review around the proposed topic, we offered an alternative

model to test the proposed hypotheses. The results indicate support for this model as CSR

attributions do impact employees‟ behaviors i.e. CP, OCB and WDBs through the paths

explained above. Specifically, it can be stated that CSR attributions (intrinsic/extrinsic)

enhance/reduce employees‟ organizations trust. The enhanced/reduced trust enhances/reduces PS

and PCF of employees which consequently impacts their behaviors i.e. CP, OCB and WDBs.

The methodology adopted for testing the model is in line with the previous studies e.g.

DeRoeck et al. (2014) where the authors tested the two staged (sequential) mediating role of

overall justice perception and organizational identification between CSR and job satisfaction.

Similar methodology was also adopted by a more recent study i.e. Hur et al. (2016) where the

author studied the impact of CSR perceptions on employees‟ creativity with sequential mediating

role of compassion at work and intrinsic motivation. However, for further confirmation of the

proposed model, we also employed the Phantom Model within Structural Equation Modeling

(SEM) using AMOS which is a relatively new technique to test complex models (see figures 4.2,

4.3, 4.4). The model is considered more effective in estimations; testing and comparison of

specific effects (see Macho & Ledermann, 2011 for further details).The results for the tests can

be found in the table 4.7 which also indicate confirmation of the proposed model.

142

Overall, my findings are in line with the arguments provided earlier and therefore, I build a

case backed up by evidence that CSR attributions have a key role in shaping employees‟

behaviors. Several theoretical and practical implications are discussed hereafter.

5.4 Theoretical Implications

Past CSR related studies had little focus on the individual level studies (DeRoeck et al. 2014;

Morgeson et al. 2013). Therefore, by focusing on the micro level, this study attempted to fill an

important void and contributed to the CSR scholarship in several ways. First: unlike previous

studies (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Bauman & Skitka, 2012; De Roeck et al. 2014; Fu et al. 2014;

Hansen et al. 2011; Rupp et al. 2014 etc.), the findings of this study suggest that not all CSR

related activities and practices are attributed as positive. This is a relatively new finding with

empirical evidence regarding the negative reactions of CSR. Secondly, past micro level CSR

related studies were mostly conducted from the justice perception framework (see Gond et al.

2010; De Roeck et al. 2014 etc.) and therefore, many leading scholars (e.g. Jones, 2010;

Morgeson et al. 2013 etc.) suggested to study this notion from different other perspective too. By

focusing on the attribution theory, employee CSR attributions (i.e. intrinsic and extrinsic;

Vlachos et al. 2013b), this study sheds light on how employees‟ attributions of their

organizations‟ CSR practices affect various important behavioral outcomes such as CP, OCB and

WDBs. Importantly, the results support the theorizing of this study that only CSR initiatives

attributed as intrinsic result in positive employee attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. This is

important because while prior research has demonstrated positive employee outcomes resulting

from perceptions of CSR (e.g. Brammer et al. 2007; Choi and Yu, 2014; Hansen et al. 2011;

Shen and Benson, 2014), and positive employee outcomes from and intrinsic and extrinsic

attributions of CSR (e.g. Vlachos et al. 2013a), this is the first study to demonstrate negative

143

employee outcomes resulting from extrinsic attributions of CSR. Researchers may now need to

observe caution in terms of talking about the positive impacts of CSR. Painting everything with a

broad brush of positive outcomes may be problematic.

Specifically, we maintain that only intrinsic induced CSR practices will be attributed as

positive, moral and selfless which will evoke positive (but indirect) reactions from individuals at

work. These findings are also in line with the assertions of Aguinis & Glavas (2013) who

suggested that embedded CSR (intrinsically prompted) will have positive effects on the

individuals at work. Therefore, the results of this study lend strong support to the view that only

intrinsic CSR attributions will evoke positive employee reactions and that extrinsic CSR will

evoke negative reactions. This finding is also in line with the previous call for research to

consider when CSR may lead to negative outcomes (e.g. Aguinis & Glavas, 2013; De Roeck &

Delobbe, 2012; Lange &Washburn, 2012; Martinko et al. 2011; Rupp & Mallory, 2015 etc.).

Hence, CSR studies need to focus on investigating the negative dimensions as well. Studies on

this dimension are negligible in number and therefore, it is now time to explore this grey area for

further clarity and identification of the right practices for more effective decision making and

results.

Third: Studies from the attribution perspective are also very limited with few notable

exceptions (e.g. Du et al. 2007; Martinko et al. 2011; Vlachos et al. 2013) and a huge potential

and implications for the business studies (Harvey et al. 2014). Our study is different from that of

Vlachos et al. (2013a) in a sense that they used CSR induced attributions (intrinsic/extrinsic) as

mediator between transformational leadership and job satisfaction, whereas, we used these

attributions as independent variables and tested it with different other behavioral outcomes i.e.

CP, OCB and WDBs and also by following an alternative framework. This finding also suggest

144

that attributions play an important role in shaping employees‟ attitudes and behaviors and hence

poses huge future potential in clarifying the underlying mechanisms and relationships of

different policies and practices with employees‟ attitudes and behaviors (Harvey et al. 2014). We

maintain that attributions unlike perception may have different implications because they go

beyond just observing individual behaviors to understanding their underlying intentions. Hence

its reactions will also be different than perceptions. Therefore, researchers need to use the

attributions theory more in business related studies.

Fourth: This study offers a unique sequential mediating mechanism through which CSR

impacts employees‟ attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, my contention was testing trust (EOT)

as first stage mediator which will impact psychological safety (PS) and psychological contract

fulfillment (PCF) as sequential/second stage mediators between CSR attributions and outcomes

i.e. CP, OCB and WDBs. This alternative mediating framework extends the CSR literature

which was highlighted by Glavas (2016) i.e. testing of other mediating paths between CSR and

outcomes.

Fifth: this study directly addresses the need for more research focusing on the individual

level outcomes of CSR (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Choi & Yu, 2014; Gond et al. 2010; Morgeson

et al., 2013). I also focused on employees as key internal organizational stakeholders which until

recently have also been understudied in relation to CSR (Carroll, 2015; Rupp & Mallory, 2015).

Likewise, by focusing on employee attributions of CSR as the key predictor of employees‟

attitudes and behaviors, the author proposed and identified when CSR will lead to a competitive

advantage to the organization through positive employees‟ attitudes and behaviors. Sixth: In

addition, I identified a mechanism when these positive effects are mitigated or even reversed.

145

Seventh: This study sheds light on CSR attributions and creativity literature. With the help of

attribution theory, I explained the sequential mediating mechanism which is a novel contribution

in the extant literature. Unlike Brammer et al. (2015), I found that CSR attributions only

indirectly affect creativity through trust followed by PS & PCF. This finding is also in line with

the past study conducted by Hur et al. (2016) who also found no support for direct relationship of

CSR and creativity. Hence an important implication worth noting is that the attributing CSR

alone may not be enough for enhancing employees‟ creativity, instead, it is imperative to have

trusting relationship, fulfill the promises and walk the talk as a support for triggering creativity

among employees.

Eight: This study also sheds light on CSR attribution and OCB literature. With the help of

sequential mediating mechanism as explained above, I also offered additional antecedents of

OCB which are important to be in place before CSR attributions impact this extra role behavior.

This finding offers alternative thinking approach because past CSR studies suggest a direct

relationship with OCBs (Hansen et al. 2011). A major difference between the past CSR studies

from this one is that they studied CSR perceptions whereas I have studied CSR attribution which

goes beyond mere understanding. In attributions, employees try to understand the actual motives

behind an organization‟s activities which may have differential impacts. Hence, one may

implicate the employees do not limit their selves to forming perceptions only. They also make

fine judgments (Kelley, 1967) which suggest that their responses may change in so doing.

Ninth: Extant literature on WDBs tried to investigate various mechanisms in order to reduce

it and save the precious resources of the organizations. Through this study, I also explained the

sequential mechanism through which CSR attribution may help in achieving this aim. Hence, the

146

sequential relationship of trust followed by PS & PCF serves additional key antecedents in

affecting WDBs triggered by CSR attributions.

Tenth: The novel national context contributes to this work in two important ways. First, by

focusing on a developing and primarily Muslim country (CIA, 2001), this study benefitted from

a context where norms of giving exemplified by Zakat and Usher make individuals well attuned

to selfless (akin to intrinsic CSR) and self-serving (akin to extrinsic CSR) giving. As there is

strong positive sentiment toward those who keep their giving anonymous (these are more well-

liked and respected as they follow societal and religious norms), those who are more open in

their giving are viewed with suspicion. Same cerebral mechanism will also be applied for

companies where they will be attributed as individuals having certain responsibilities towards the

society. Mere Marketing of CSR activities where the tall claims of being responsible

organizations contradicts the actual practices, may be judged as meager show off (i.e. Riyaa)

with no intention of doing good. Rather, the intention of such organizations will be attributed

towards more selfish and instrumental gains. Such “show off” will draw criticism and sometimes

can even be attributed to hypocrisy. Allah in The Quran (Holy book of Muslim) narrates that

hypocrites will be thrown in the deepest part of the hell. “Surely, the hypocrites will be in the

lowest depths (grades) of the Fire” (Quran, 4: 145). Keeping in view these assertions, the

intrinsic and extrinsic attributions of CSR are the appropriate dimensions from Islamic

perspective where, intrinsic CSR is more moral, selfless and with the intention for doing good,

and extrinsic CSR is more selfish, instrumental and is just a whitewash. In this context we

expected (and found) variance in responses to differential CSR attributions. As most of the

research on CSR has focused on the West, our study contributes research on a novel cultural and

religious context. These findings also suggest that countries cultural and religious beliefs also

147

have a role in shaping employees‟ behaviors and that standards of morality may be different in

different cultural and religious contexts.

Finally, the proposed framework in this study which leads to different behavioral outcomes

has seldom being tested or used in the past CSR related studies. By providing empirical evidence

in support to this framework, we attempted to extend the CSR scholarship further. This is also a

valuable contribution as Glavas (2016) and Hur et al. (2016) argued that other outcome variables

may also be tested to further understand its width of implications. Therefore, this is a definite

contribution towards this dimension too. Specifically, empirical demonstration of the important

mediating role of trust, PS, and PCF on the relationship between employees‟ attributions of CSR

and their ensuing creative, extra-role performance and negative work behaviors. As this study

learns more about the important role of attributions of CSR on employee outcomes, the findings

will provide an initial mechanism toward better understanding these effects. Eight, the utilization

of attribution theory in business studies itself a novel contribution. Weiner (1995) have shown

surprise over the fact that this theory has several implications yet largely been ignored by the

researchers in business & management studies. Harvey et al. (2014) also highlighted the

importance of this theory for business studies therefore; this study is also filling the research gap

in this dimension too. Finally, the notions of CP and WDBs have never been used as a possible

behavioral outcome in the past CSR related studies which is an additional novel contribution of

this study. Therefore, researchers who are searching for the possible solutions of reducing WDBs

and enhancing CP, they may think of CSR policies and practices too. Overall, our findings

underline the importance of CSR attributions for employees‟ attitudes and behaviors. This study

contributes in literature in several facets as discussed and underlines many implications for

future research. In concluding this section, it is suggested that application of attribution theory in

148

CSR related studies is important in order to differentiate good CSR practices with positive

outcomes from bad CSR practices with negative outcomes.

5.5 Implications for Managers in Pakistan:

Several managerial implications can be underscored from this study. First of all, similar to

previous CSR related studies, the findings of this study also suggests that the notion of CSR is

“here to stay” (Vlachos et al. 2013a. P. 584). Among the most important practical implication is

the intention of the organizations behind the CSR related strategies. Managers must understand

that all their actions are being judged by the employees through which they make their image of

good or bad organizations. For instance, if employees attribute that the CSR related activities of

their organizations are mere a lip service, only show off or any other instrumental gains (such as

tax rebates etc.), then there are more chances that employees attribute such organization to bad

ones. Keeping in view this important implication, top leadership in Pakistan and around the

world must avoid deceptive, show off and whitewash type of CSR activities. They must engage

in such activities which really makes a difference in someone‟s lives, be it employees,

customers, investors, environment or overall society. Such activities must be candid, measurable

and observable which speaks for itself.

The study further highlights the importance of CSR communication in shaping the behaviors

of employees at work. Therefore, managers must focus on this area to create a good image about

the CSR activities. This is important because organizations invest their precious time and

resources in such activities which must pay off. Whereas, employees look skeptically towards

organizations‟ CSR practices, therefore, it is imperative for the managers to demonstrate exactly

what they claim i.e. walk the talk. If employees observe any contradictions, then their attribution

149

of morality will diminish, correspondingly, decrease their level of trust. Consequently,

employees‟ other behavioral outcomes such as PS, PCF, CP, OCB and WDBs will also be

affected.

Likewise, CSR can be an important tool for fulfilling the psychological contract of

employees (PCF). PCF is an important notion as far as employees‟ motivation at work is

concerned. Past studies suggest that PCF leads to other important behavioral outcomes (Lee et al.

2000) too, such as it enhances employees‟ commitment, reduces turnover, and enhances

perceived organizational support (Chaudhry & Teklead, 2013) and ultimately their job

performance and job satisfaction (Conway & Briner, 2002; Turnley et al. 2003). Therefore, CSR

can serve as an effective tool in achieving this aim. However, caution must be observed to focus

on such activities which are attributed towards more intrinsic and moral purposes. This study

provides evidence that PCF leads to improved OCB as well as CP. Therefore, adopting CSR

practices and communicating it effectively to employees can serve these key objectives for the

managers too, in addition to improving their CP and OCB. Thus, managers must need to invest

their time and energy to properly design and communicate CSR related strategies to achieve the

aim of extra-role behaviors (OCB) and CP along with other key outcomes discussed above.

This study also provides evidence that through CSR organizations can reduce the negative

work behaviors of employees too i.e. reduction in WDBs. Therefore, engaging in intrinsically

induced CSR strategies will help organizations save billions of dollars in the form of reduction in

workplace deviant behaviors (WDBs). Employees will feel that if their organizations can behave

responsibly then they should also play its positive role in furthering this sacred cause. Therefore,

there will less aggression, less conflicts, less damage to organizational property, less physical

150

abuse etc. at the workplace. Hence, managers should understand these important implications

and take CSR as serious corporate strategy.

On the other hand, if CSR activities are not designed properly and due attention is not given

to devise such tactical communication strategies which signal intrinsic motives behind CSR

activities, then, employees will think that such practices are only devised to increase profitability

just like every other business strategy. As a result, extrinsic attributions will be formed which

will certainly have negative effects on their behavioral outcomes such as reduction in OCB and

creative performance. Widespread evidence suggests that for organizations to sustain success in

the long run (e.g. Chun et al. 2013; Organ, 1988 etc.), their employees‟ must engage in extra-role

behaviors such as OCB and CP. For achieving this aim, managers must be trained enough to

know the sensitivity associated with this notion because a slight suspicion may cause a huge dent

in organizations efforts in establishing its image of being a socially responsible organization.

CSR can also be an important tool for contributing toward perceptions of employee trust

over their organizations and psychological safety at work. This is not surprising given that

younger generations increasingly value CSR and want to work in organizations they consider to

be good citizens and can feel proud of. This is an important practical implication given that

important role of PS on employees‟ motivation at work (Turnley et al. 2003). Previous studies

also suggest that PS is a key predictor of creativity at work (Zhang & Bartol, 2010); therefore, if

managers want to encourage such an environment which enhances creative performance then

they must understand the important difference of intrinsic and extrinsic CSR.

Finally, despite the fact that there is a tough competition in the telecom sector of Pakistan

due to which employers often offer good pay and benefits to its employees to keep them retained

151

and attract the talented people from the competition, nevertheless, they must need to understand

that these people are relatively highly educated (because of the technology that they are working

on), therefore, they do have a knowledge of the CSR practices. They judge such activities and

therefore, managers should involve them more in CSR campaigns and let them lead and

participate in it. This way they will not only form positive judgments of their organizations‟

efforts towards CSR but they will also own the process. Thereby more positive outcomes are

expected.

This study has also important implications for the investors. The traditional approach

towards employees‟ management argued that a penny spent on the employees is a penny out of

investors‟ pockets. However, this study suggests that this type of thinking may not be true.

Money spent on the genuine CSR practices particularly, on employees‟ real well being ultimately

pays off. Therefore, they should keep in mind that employee‟s attributions which can affect the

organizational policies and practices. Investors must invest in such organizations which are more

focused towards genuine CSR practices i.e. more intrinsically evoked rather than the one focused

on the instrumental side.

5.6 Limitations of the research

Certain limitations must be taken into consideration while reading these findings. First, our

research is cross sectional in nature. We did observe caution in data collection stages as is

evident in the methodology and the common method variance (CMV) and common method bias

(CMB) tests also show that our data have no issues of CMV or CMB. However, ruling out bias

completely may be difficult. Therefore, future research may observe more caution in data

152

collection to further avoid such potential problems. For this purpose, a more longitudinal study

may be needed to assess whether the existing findings will still be valid or not.

Second, data was collected from Pakistan only which is a developing country. Despite being

the right place for our study model, we think that similar studies may be replicated in other

countries for generalizing these findings. People around the world believe on the morality and

every religion preachers to maintain high standards of morality and ethicality. However,

evidence based judgment of these assertions will have more substance. Therefore, replication of

the same model for further confirmation of the findings in different other countries particularly in

developed countries is needed.

Third, since our study was focused on Pakistan only, therefore, the results can speak for this

country alone. Since, I contended that such behavior of this community is because of the religion

Islam, therefore, these contentions need to be tested in other Muslim majority countries such as

Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Malaysia, Indonesia etc. Fourth, I ignored the

effects of culture in this study mainly to limit the focus on my proposed model. Nevertheless,

cultural perspective can be taken into consideration in the future studies on CSR such as power

distance which according to Hofstede (1980), is relatively high for Pakistan as compared to the

developed countries in the west (Farooq et al. 2013). However, given the results of this study; it

will be interesting to see the effects of culture in CSR related studies. Fifth limitation of the study

is the industry that I focused on for data collection. Only one industry i.e. Telecom sector was

focused. Therefore, a question mark on the generalizability of the findings for other sectors

arises.

153

Similarly, as the focus was only on the telecom sector where relatively tough competition

exists in Pakistani market, therefore, companies usually offer good pay and benefits to compete

to attract talented people. This may also effect employees‟ positive extra role behaviors and

avoiding negative work behaviors. Nonetheless, this study should give a strong message to these

telecom companies that engaging in real and genuine CSR practices is imperative.

Despite the tough competition among the telecom sector to capture each other‟s market

share, unemployment in the country is very high. Therefore, these companies may still misuse

this fact such as giving no job security, or less benefits etc. However, talented people in the

market are still high in demand and the war for talent is on. Though, it is unclear that these

telecom sector organizations are engaged in CSR because they feel that it is their moral

responsibility or is it driven for drawing certain instrumental benefits out of it. However, this

study gives a clear message about the benefits associated with the genuine CSR and strongly

advise these organizations to focus on more volunteer based, genuine CSR activities rather than

with the intention of show off or selfish interests. These interests will also be fulfilled but if the

intentions are pure and clean. Another limitation is the relatively medium sized sample for this

study i.e. 363. Though researchers believe that more than 300 participants is a decent number for

social science studies because of the intricacies involved in the data collection process, even

then, a large sample size would further be helpful in authenticating the findings.

Another limitation of this study is that there are people in Pakistan who are not practicing

Islam in letter and spirit. Under such condition, their attributions towards CSR may be different

because the concept of Riyaa may not be fully understood by them. This study did not

differentiated people on this basis which may vary their opinions on CSR accordingly.

154

One final limitation of this study is the overall understanding of CSR among the respondents.

It is unclear how respondents interpret CSR as majority of the studies on this notion from

Pakistani perspective suggest that people mostly interpret its philanthropic contributions only

(Sajjad & Eweje, 2014). Therefore, understanding of the overall strategic approach towards CSR

is an unclear area which may have affected participant responses in the survey. For example, in

their opinion, CSR may be just philanthropic activity i.e. charity giving, whereas, the concept is a

more holistic approach such as reducing carbon omission or adopting renewable sources of

energy is also CSR. Has this been the case, employees may have rated only considering the

philanthropic contributions in which some organizations does not engage in. Respondents may or

may not have considered this fact.

5.7 Future Research Areas:

Keeping in view the limitations of this study, a good idea for future research on this notion is to

focus on those limitations. For example, the study context can be changed where similar study

may be conducted in different other countries and cultures to generalize the findings.

Furthermore, studies like are particularly important to be conducted in other Muslim countries to

see whether people living in those areas also interpret CSR the same way?

Besides, intrinsic CSR being good practices whereas, extrinsic CSR being bad practices were

not known before this study. Therefore, it is necessary to understand whether people across the

world interpret CSR the same way? For example, someone from the EU countries or US may

suggest that all CSR activities are good no matter for volunteer or any other purpose. However,

this is a general supposition which may not hold true. As we can see around the globe and in

particular EU countries and in the US, the 2008 economic crises devastated the economies. One

155

particular reason behind this, which was largely quoted in the mainstream media and newspapers

etc., was the lust and greed for more money of the top executives of the organizations working

on the Wall Street. Those same organizations were considered as the champions of CSR before

2008. Therefore, a question mark arises on the tall claims of such organizations that on one hand

you claim to a socially responsible organization and take care of the community and

environment, whereas, on the other hand, you are doing riskier investments as a result of which

investors lost billions of dollars. Employees lose their jobs, their homes, their statuses.

Governments had to come and rescue these organizations by giving them the tax payers‟ money.

All these events must have affected the human perception about the good and the bad

everywhere in the world. Therefore, it is very important to adopt similar model of CSR and study

it in the US and EU countries to see if any change occurred due to events occurred in the last

decade or so. As Morgeson et al. (2013) suggest that it is time to take this discussion forward

therefore, I would like to suggest drawing a line between the good and bad CSR. Organizations

must also need to focus on more genuine CSR activities rather than just a lip service and

whitewash.

Furthermore, past CSR studies were mainly focused on the developed countries and studies

like these were limited in number from the developing countries‟ perspective. An interesting area

worth exploring is to conduct comparative studies on the notion of CSR between the developed

and developing countries. This will help identify the differences in interpretation of this notion

and understanding of each other perspective in a much better way.

Similarly, in December 2015, more than 190 countries gathered in Paris, France and set

certain goals for the next 15 years called the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Among

156

them are No Poverty; Zero Hunger; Good Health; Quality Education; Gender Equality; Clean

Water and Sanitation; Affordable and Clean Energy; Decent Work and Economic Growth;

Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure; Reduced Inequalities; Sustainable Cities and

Communities; Responsible Consumption; Climate Action; Life Below Water; Life On Land;

Peace and Justice; and Partnership for Goals (UN website). All these goals are related to CSR.

Therefore, one can assume that since governmental resources are limited therefore, the next

responsibility lies on big corporations to collaborate with the government and contribute their

due share. A study in this regard will be helpful to assess the willingness of big corporations to

contribute towards these SDGs in different countries.

Additionally, though I provided empirical support to the newly proposed mediating

mechanism i.e. through PS & PCF as second order mediators, as such no other study has tested

this mediating framework. Likewise, the impact of demographic variables was ignored in this

study because the correlation results suggest that there is no strong correlation between the

demographic variables and the latent variable, particularly with the outcome variables. Further

studies may be needed to further validate the findings of this study and consider controlling the

effect of demographic variables. Particularly, testing the mediating mechanism of PS and PCF in

relation to CSR is one particular area where future research is needed. Similarly, the impact of

CSR attributions may be studied with other key outcome variables to further expand the

understanding of this notion. For example, since I suggested that different attributions will lead

different outcomes. Therefore, it is important to test whether similar propositions will hold for

other outcome variables too e.g. turnover intentions, employee commitment, job performance

and job satisfaction etc.

157

Previous studies have mostly used the justice perception as theoretical underpinning for CSR

related studies (Rupp et al. 2013; Rupp et al. 2014). Therefore, other psychological mechanisms

are also needed to be tested through which employees‟ judgment about their organizations‟ CSR

activities may be affected. Additional theoretical underpinning is also needed to study this notion

and its implication from different perspectives. Likewise, past CSR related studies have mainly

focused on the CSR perception which enhances positive organizational outcomes. As noted

earlier that perceptions are different from attributions which can evoke negative reactions too.

Therefore, a potential usage of the CSR attributions is to test it as moderator. No studies thus far

have focused on CSR attributions from this dimension therefore; future research can focus on

this dimension too.

Furthermore, as highlighted earlier, the role of managers in shaping employees‟ attributions

about the CSR related activities, therefore, it will also be interesting to see whether the

leaders/managers influence CSR attributions or not? For example, the effect of different

leadership styles on CSR attributions can be a potential area for future research.

All of the above future research areas are focused on the individual level analysis of CSR.

Future research areas may also include the multi-level research i.e. taking organizational level

variable and study its impacts on the team/group level or individual level. Such types of studies

are relatively less in number with a huge potential for future research. For example, the impact of

CSR strategies which is measured on the organizational level on team performance is an

interesting topic which is needed to be studied.

Furthermore, different comparative studies where various industries can be compared to see

the difference between the adoptions of CSR among them. Cross-countries comparative studies

158

can also be conducted on this notion. Similarly, CSR in some countries have become a law rather

than volunteer effort of the companies e.g. India. Therefore, future studies may also be needed to

assess the effectiveness of CSR practices before and after it became the law. A difference of

contribution can also be studied between different countries such as Pakistan and India. In

Pakistan, CSR are volunteer activities whereas, in India it has become a legal obligation on the

firms.

Finally, the CSR reporting is another important potential areas needed to be studied. A

consistency in the reporting of these activities does not exist which makes it difficult to

standardize and make it more transparent. For example, some companies in Pakistan have

adopted the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards; others have adopted the International

Standards for Organization (ISO, 26000) reporting style; whereas, other have adopted their own

style of reporting. Therefore, future studies can highlight these differences and the problems

associated with it. Certain standardized reporting initiatives can be identified and

recommendations can be done after the findings.

5.8 Recommendations

Several recommendations have been drawn from the findings of this study. It is worth noting that

although the data was collected from telecom sector, the nature of these recommendations are

more general and is applicable for the all the sectors and organizations which are engaged in

CSR.

1. The deceptive, show off and whitewash type of CSR activities have negative implications

therefore, top management of organizations must realize this reality. They must engage in

such activities which are genuine in order to have a positive impact on employees‟

159

attitudes and behaviors. Such activities must be candid, measurable and observable,

which speaks for its own self.

2. CSR activities that are meant only for instrumental purposes will lead to reduction in

creative performance, civic virtue, sportsmanship and the ability of employees to work in

teams. A more selfish attitude will prevail. Hence, managers are advised to engage in

more selfless and moral CSR activities.

3. Communication strategies for CSR must be made keeping in view the sensitivities

associated with its attributions. Employees‟ attributions may be affected by the

organizations‟ communication strategies of CSR. They may engage employees in such

process in order to avoid their skepticism and which can enhance their trust level.

4. Since CSR can help in reducing WDBs, therefore, organization must adopt more

intrinsically induced CSR strategies through which they can save precious organizational

resources from being wasted or misused.

5. Managers must be trained on the concept of CSR and its associated sensitivities and

implications. Without awareness and understanding about the notion, they may face

challenges in fully engaging in genuine CSR practices.

6. The importance of creativity is a key to sustainable organizations; therefore, CSR can

also work as an important enabler for this purpose. However, the sensitivities and a thin

line between the good and bad CSR practices (i.e. intrinsic and extrinsic) must be kept in

mind before formulating these.

7. For achieving positive synergy in the organization, employees‟ involvement in CSR

related policies and practices are of key importance. This will help them in achieving

enhanced CP, OCB and reduction in WDBs.

160

8. Employees must provide constructive feedback to their organizations about their CSR

efforts, its impacts and the associated attributions. This will enable organizations to make

informed decisions.

9. Similarly, management may also need to gauge the impact of their CSR practices on

employees from time to time. It can be an important predictor in diagnosing the feelings

of PS and PCF which lead to key behavioral outcomes such as CP, OCB and WDBs. This

way, they will be able to make informed decisions and necessary adjustments in their

strategic decisions regarding CSR practices.

5.9 Conclusion

This study focused on investigating the impact of CSR attributions on employees‟ attitudes and

behaviors. Particularly, the study addressed an important research gap in CSR related studies by

focusing on the possible negative effects of the notion along with the positive ones. An

alternative novel framework was adopted to achieve the aim of this study. In so doing, the author

also attempted to address other key voids in CSR literature such as the psychological mechanism

through which employees‟ attitudes and behaviors can be influenced. Particularly, CSR

attribution (i.e. intrinsic and extrinsic) were chosen as independent variables, trust was chosen as

an immediate mediating variable, PS and PCF were chosen as second stage mediators and finally

CP, OCB and WDBs were selected as dependent variables in this study.

The attribution theory was used to help build the hypotheses, while data were collected via

questionnaire by adopting a quantitative methodology. A total sample size was recorded as 363.

Different tests were performed to measure the reliability and validity of the scales utilized.

Similarly, CMV and CMB were also tested via AMOS 18 software. After achieving complete

161

confidence over the data, regression analyses were done by using the Preacher & Hayes‟ (2008)

macro of mediation.

The results indicate support for most of the hypotheses. However, no direct relationship was

supported between intrinsic CSR and the dependent variables. The results were discussed in

detail in the later part of the thesis followed by detail discussion about its theoretical and

managerial implications. It was concluded that CSR attributions do have impact over the creative

performance (CP) of employees; their organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and their

workplace deviance behaviors (WDBs) through the proposed mediating mechanism. It was

found that not all CSR attributions will yield positive results. For example, it was noted that

intrinsic CSR attributions will evoke positive reactions whereas; extrinsic CSR attributions will

evoke negative reactions. In the last part of this report, several limitations of the study were

highlighted, followed by a detailed discussion on the future research and practical implications.

162

REFERENCES

Abbasi, Z. (October 26, 2016). Corruption challenge: IMF chief for transparency, accountability,

Retrieved from http://www.brecorder.com/money-a-banking/198/96608/, Accessed on:

October 30, 2016.

Aguinis H. (2011). Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing well. In Zedeck S (Ed.),

APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 3, 855–879. Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don‟t know about corporate social

responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38, 932–968.

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2013). Embedded versus Peripheral Corporate Social Responsibility:

Psychological Foundation. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on

Science and Practice, 6, 314-332.

Aguilera, R., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007).Putting the s back in

corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations.

Academy of Management Review, 32, 836–863.

Ahmad, I., Shehzad, K., & Zafar, A. M. (2014). Impact of CSR perceptions on Dimensions of

Job Performance with Mediating Effect of Overall Justice Perception. European Journal of

Business & Management, 6(20), 94-108.

Ahmad, I., Zafar, A. M., & Shehzad, K. (2015). Authentic leadership style and academia‟s

creativity in higher education institutions: intrinsic motivation and mood as mediators.

Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 46 E/2015, 5-19.

163

Albinger, H. S., & Freeman, S. J. (2000).Corporate social performance and attractiveness as an

employer to different job seeking populations. Journal of Business Ethics, 28, 243–253.

Amabile, T.M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research &

Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167

Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Sarshar, M., & Newton, R. (2002). Quantitative and qualitative

research in the built environment: Application of “mixed‟‟ research approach. Work Study,

51(1), 117-131

Angus-Leppan, T., Metcalf, L., Benn, S. (2009). Leadership style and CSR practice: An

examination of sense making, institutional drivers and CSR leadership. Journal of Business

Ethics, 93, 189-213.

Appelbaum, S. H., Deguire, K. J., & Lay, M. (2005). The relationship of ethical climate to

deviant workplace behaviour. Corporate Governance, 5(4), 43-55.

Argyris, C. (1960). Understanding Organizational Behavior, Homewood: Dorsey Press.

Aselage, J., & Eisenberger, R. (2003). Perceived organizational support and psychological

contracts: A theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 491–509.

Atkinson, S., & Butcher, D. (2003). Trust in Managerial Relationships. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 18(4), 282-304.

Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholders influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to

corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, 794-816.

164

Baughn, C. C., Bodie, N. L. D., McIntosh, J. C. (2007). Corporate social and environmental

responsibility in Asian countries and other geographical regions. Corporate Social

Responsibility and Environmental Management, 14(4), 189–205.

Bauman, C.W., & Skitka, L.J. (2012). Corporate Social Responsibility as a source of employee

satisfaction. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 63-86.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, D, K. (2001). Bad is stronger than

good. Review of general psychology, 5(4), 323-370.

Below, S. (2014). New Year, New Workplace! SIOP Announces Top 10 Workplace Trends for

2015. Retrieved from: http://www.siop.org/article_view.aspx?articleD1343

Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349 –360.

Benoit, K. (2005). How Qualitative Research Really Counts. Qualitative Methods: Newsletter of

the American Political Science Association Organized Section on Qualitative Methods, 3:1

(Spring) 9-12

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley publishers.

Blair, M. M. (1995). Whose interests should be served?, in Clarkson, M. B. E. (ed.), (1998). The

Corporations and its Stakeholders – Classic and Contemporary Readings, Toronto: Toronto

University Press

Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H., & Niehoff, B.P. (2004). The other side of the story: Re-examining

prevailing assumptions about organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource

Management Review, 14, 229-246.

165

Brambilla, M. & Leach, C. W. (in press). On the importance of being moral: the distinctive role

of morality in social judgment, Social Cognition.

Brambilla, M., Sacchi, S., Pagliaro, S., & Ellemers, N. (2013). Morality and intergroup relations:

threats to safety and group image predict the desire to interact with out-group and in-group

members, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 811–821.

Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Rayton, B. (2007).The contribution of corporate social

responsibility to organizational commitment. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 18(10), 1701-1719.

Brammer, S., He, H., & Mellahi, K. (2015). Corporate social responsibility, employee

organizational identification, and creative effort: The moderating impact of corporate ability.

Group and Organization Management, 40, 323–352.

Brown, T. J. & Dacin, P.A. (1997). The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and

Consumer Product Responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68-84.

Bukhari, I. (194 A.H – 256 A.H). Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 8, Book 76, Hadith 506.

Bukhari, I. (194 A.H – 256 A.H). Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 1, Hadith 1.

Burton, J. P., Taylor, S. G., & Barber, L. K. (2014). Understanding internal, external and

relational attributions for abusive supervision. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 871-

891.

Burtz, R.S., & Knez, M. (1995). Kinds of Third-Party Effects on Trust. Rationality and Society,

7, 255-92

166

Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., & Phillips, C. M. (2001). Do people aggress to improve their

mood? Catharsis beliefs, affect regulation opportunity, and aggressive responding. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 17-32.

Carmeli, A., Gillat, G., & Waldman D. A. (2007). The role of perceived organizational

performance in organizational identification, adjustment and job performance. Journal of

Management Studies, 44(6), 972-992.

Carmeli, A., Roni Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee

involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety,

Creativity Research Journal, 22, 250-260

Carmeli, A., Scheaffer, Z., Binyamin, G., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Shimoni, T. (2013).

Transformational Leadership & Creative Problem Solving: The Mediating Role of

Psychological Safety and Reflexivity, The Journal of Creative Behavior, DOI:

10.1002/jocb.43

Carroll, A.B. (1979). A three dimensional conceptual model of Corporate Performance, Academy

of Management Review, 4, 497-505

Carroll, A.B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral

management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, Jul-Aug, 42.

Carroll, A. B. & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for Corporate Social Responsibility: a

review of concepts, research and practice, International Journal of Management Reviews, 12,

85–105.

167

Carroll, A. B. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility: The centerpiece of competing and

complementary frameworks, Organizational Dynamics, 44, 87-96.

Cerne, M., Jaklic, M. and Skerlavaj, M. (2013). Authentic Leadership, Creativity, and

Innovation: A Multilevel Perspective, Leadership, 9(1), 63-85.

Chaudhry, A., & Tekleab, A.G. (2013). A Social Exchange Model of Psychological Contract

Fulfillment: Where Do Promises, Expectations, LMX, and POS Fit In? Organization

Management Journal, 10(3), 158-171

Choi, Y., & Yu, Y. (2014). The Influence of Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility Practices

on Employees and Organizational Performance. Sustainability, 348-364. issn: 2071-1050.

Chun, J.S, Shin, Y, Choi. J.N and Kim, M.S. (2013). How does corporate ethics contribute to

firm financial performance? The mediating role of collective organizational commitment and

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 39, 853-877

CIA 2011. CIA Fact Book: Pakistan-Population. Retrieved from:

http://www.theodora.com/wfb2011/pakistan/pakistan_people.html.

Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A Stakeholder framework from analyzing and evaluating corporate

social performance. Academy of Management Review. 20(1), 92-117

Conway, N & Briner, R.B (2005).Understanding psychological contracts at work: A critical

evaluation of theory and research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Conway, N. & Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M. (2012). The reciprocal relationship between

psychological contract fulfillment and employee performance and the moderating role of

168

perceived organizational support and tenure. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 85, 277-299.

Cooper, D. (2004). Organizational Change: From Public to Private Sector. A UK-based

reflective study. Journal of American Academy of Business, 5, 474-481.

Coyle-Shapiro, J., & Kessler, I. (2002). Reciprocity through the lens of the psychological

contract: Employee and employer perspectives. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 11(1), 1–18.

CQ Almanac, (1961). Electirical Price Fixing Stirs Inquiry, Retrieved from:

https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal61-879-29203-1371699.

Cravens, D.W., & Plercy N. G. (2015). Strategic Marketing, Pearson Education Inc.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.

Journal of Management, 31(6), 874

Dabos, G. & Rousseau, D.M. (2004). Mutuality and reciprocity: Psychological contracts in

research teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 52-72.

Dawn News correspondent (2015, September 14). Soft drink plant sealed over „unhygienic

conditions‟, Retrieved from: http://www.dawn.com/news/1206898.

DeRoeck K, & Delobbe N. (2012). Do environmental CSR initiatives serve organizations‟

legitimacy in the oil industry? Exploring employees‟ reactions through organizational

identification theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 397–412

169

DeRoeck, K., Marique, G., Stinglhamber, F., & Swaen, V. (2014). Understanding employees'

responses to corporate social responsibility: mediating roles of overall justice and

organizational identification. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(1),

91-112.

Dietz, G., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2006). Measuring trust inside organizations. Personnel Review,

35(5), 557-588.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization

Science, 12, 450-467.

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation : Concepts,

evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91.

Donia, M.B.L, Tetrault Sirsly, C.A., & Ronen, S. (in press). Employee attributions of corporate

social responsibility as substantive or symbolic: Validation of a Measure. Applied

Psychology: An International Review.

Dorenbosch, l., Van Engen, M.L., & Verhagen, M. (2005). On-the-Job Innovation: The Impact

of Job Design and Human Resource Management through Production Ownership, Creativity

and Innovation Management, 14(2), 129-141

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social

responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in

Marketing, 24(3), 224–241.

Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2011). Corporate social responsibility and competitive

advantage: Overcoming the trust barrier. Management Science, 57(9), 1528–1545.

170

Economist, (2008). Just good business. Special report on CSR. January, 19th.

Edmondson, A. C. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-

level lens. In R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations:

Dilemmas and approaches (pp. 239-272). New York: Ruesell Sage Foundation.

Edmondson, A.C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.

Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Team Learning and New

Technology Adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 685-716.

Edmondson, A., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance and Future of

an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational

Behaviour, 1, 23-43.

Ehsan, S., & Kaleem, A. (2012). An empirical investigation of the relationship between

corporate social responsibility and financial performance (Evidence from manufacturing

sector of Pakistan). Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2(3), 2909–2922.

El-Akremi E. A., Gond, J. P., Swaen, V., De Roeck, K., & Igalens, J. (2015). How do employees

perceive corporate social responsibility? Development and validation of multidimensional

corporate stakeholder responsibility scale. Journal of Management, doi:

10.1177/0149206315569311

Ellen, S. P., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer

attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 34(2). 147–157.

171

Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three factor theory of

anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114, 864–886.

EUA, (2007). Creativity in Higher Education: Report on the EUA creativity project. Brussels:

European University Association, ISBN: 9789081069892

Fang, T., Worm, V., & Tung, R. L. (2008). Changing success and failure factors in business

negotiations with the PRC. International Business Review, 17, 159-169

Farooq, M., Farooq, O., & Jasimuddin, S.M. (2014). Employees response to corporate social

responsibility: Exploring the role of employees‟ collectivist orientation. European

Management Journal, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.03.002

Farooq, O., Payaud, M., Merunka, D., & Vallete-Florence, P. (2013). The Impact of Corporate

Social Responsibility on Organizational Commitment: Exploring Multiple Mediation

Mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-013-1928-3.

Fernando, A.C. (2011). Corporate Governance: Principles, Policies and Practices, Chennai:

Pearson Education.

Fisscher, O., Nijhof, A. & Steensma, H. (2003). Dynamics in Responsible Behaviour in Search

of Mechanisms for Coping with Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 209–24.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable

variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

Fox, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 20, 915–931

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman

172

Freeman, E., Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival,

reputation, and success. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press

Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its

profits. New York Times Magazine.

Fu, H., Ye, B. H., & Law, R. (2014). You do well and I do well? The behavioral consequences of

corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 40, 62-70.

Gamble, A. & Kelly, G. (2001). Shareholder Value and Shareholder Debate in the UK.

Corporate Governance, 9, 110-117.

Giacalone, R.A. & Greenberg, J. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Gilbert, D.T., & Malone, P.S. (1995).The correspondence bias, Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21-

38.

Glavas, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and organizational psychology: An integrative

review. Frontiers in psychology, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00144

Glavas, A., & Godwin, L. (2013). Is the perception of “goodness” good enough? Exploring the

relationship between perceived corporate social responsibility and employee organizational

identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 15-27.

Glavas, A., & Kelley, K. (2014). The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on

employees. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24, 165–202. doi: 10.5840/beq20143206

173

Glavas, A., & Piderit, S. K. (2009). How does doing good matter? Effects of corporate

citizenship on employees. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 36, 51–70.

Gond, J-P., El-Akremi, A., Igalens, J., & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility

Influence on Employees. International Center for Corporate Social Responsibility, 54- 2010,

ISSN 1479-5124.

Goodwin, G. P., Piazza, J., & Rozin, P. (2014). Moral character predominates in person

perception and evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 148–168.

Goshal, S. (2005). Bad Management Theories are Destroying Good Management Practices.

Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(1), 75-91

Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior, Employee

Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, 249–270.

Grant Thornton (2013). Global survey finds nearly one-third of businesses now issue csr and

sustainability reports. Retrieved from: https://www.internationalbusinessreport.com/Press-

room/2013/Sustainability.asp

Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive

advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & Society, 39(3), 254–280.

Hansen, S. D., Dunford, B. B., Boss, A. D., Boss, R. W., & Angermeier, I. (2011). Corporate

social responsibility and the benefits of employee trust: A cross-disciplinary perspective.

Journal of Business Ethics, 102(1), 29-45.

174

Harvey, P., Madison, K., Martinko, M., Crook, R. T., & Crook, A. T. (2014). Attribution theory

in the organizational sciences: The road traveled and the path ahead. Academy of

Management Perspectives, 28 (2), 128-146.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates

Hemdi, M. A., Nasurdin, A. M, & Ramayah, T. (2003). Motivational preferences of hotel

employees: implications for managers. Proceeding of the National Human Resources

Development Conference (HRDC2003), 217-226, Sarawak: Malaysia.

Henle, C.A., Giacalone, R.A. & Jurkiewicz, C.L. (2005). The role of ethical ideology in

workplace deviance. Journal of Business Ethics, 56(3), 219.

Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K. E., Inness, M. (2007).

Predicting workplace aggression: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 228-

238.

Hess, N., & Jepsen, D. (2009). Career state and generational differences in psychological

contracts. Career Development International, 261-283.

Hillenbrand, C., Money, K., & Ghobadian, A. (2013). Unpacking the mechanism by which

corporate responsibility impacts stakeholder relationships. British Journal of Management,

24(1), 127-146.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture‟s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related

Values, Beverly Hills, CA: Sega.

175

Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the criterion

domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2),

555-566.

Hopkins, M. (2003). The Planetary Bargain: Corporate Social Responsibility Matters, Earth

scan Publications.

Hur, W. M., Moon, T.W. & Ko, S. H. (2006). How employees‟ perception of CSR increase

employee creativity: Mediating mechanism of compassion at work intrinsic motivation.

Journal of Business Ethics, doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3321-5

Isaksen, S. G. & Akkermans, R. J. (2011). Creative Climate: A Leadership Lever for Innovation.

Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(3).

Jeswani, H. K., Wehrmeyer, W., & Mulugetta, Y. (2008). How warm is the corporate response to

climate change? Evidence from Pakistan and the UK. Business Strategy and the

Environment, 17(1), 46-60.

Joe M.C. Chao, Francis Y.L. Cheung & Anise, Wu, M.S. (2011). Psychological contract breach

and counterproductive workplace behaviors: testing moderating effect of attribution style and

power distance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(4), 763-777

Jones T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics.

Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404-437

Jones, D. A. (2010). Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational

identification and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a

176

volunteerism program. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 857-

878.

Jones, P. Hillier, D. & Comfort, D. (2014). Assurance of the leading UK food retailers‟ corporate

social responsibility/sustainability reports. Corporate Governance, 14, 130–38

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at

work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.

Kaplan, A. (1964). The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. San Francisco:

Chandler Publishing.

Kark, R. and Carmeli, A. (2009). Alive and Creating: The Mediating Role of Vitality and

Aliveness in the Relationship between Psychological Safety and Creative Work Involvement.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 785–804.

Katuo, A. A., & Bhudwar, P. S. (2012). The link between HR practices, psychological contract

fulfillment and organizational performance: The case of the Greek service sector.

Thunderbird International Business Review, 54(6): 793-809.

Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska

symposium on motivation: Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107–128.

Kessel, M., Kratzer, J., & Shultz, C. (2012). Psychological Safety, Knowledge Sharing, and

Creative Performance in Healthcare Teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(2),

147-157.

177

Khan, A. A. (2012). Corporate social responsibility: Studying the sugar production process in

Pakistan (Report). Oxfam Novib, Bangalore. Retrieved from: http://www.sdpi.org/

research_programme/researchproject-53-30-56.html

Kickul, J., & Lester, S. (2001). Broken Promises: Equity Sensitivity as a Moderator Between

Psychological Contract Breach and Employee Attitude and Behavior. Journal of Business

and Psychology, 191-218.

Kiran, S., Kakakhel, S. Jo., & Shaheen, F. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm

Profitability: A Case of Oil and Gas Sector of Pakistan. City University Research Journal,

5(1), 110-119.

Konovsky, M.A. & Pugh, S.D. (1994). Citizenship behaviour and social exchange. Academy of

Management Journal, 37(3), 656- 669

Kotter, J. P. (1973). The Psychological Contract: Managing the Joining-Up Process, California

Management Review, 91-99.

Kramer, R., & Tyler, T. (1996). Trust in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lambert, L.S., Edwards, J.B., & Cable, D.M. (2003). Breach and Fulfillment of the

Psychological Contract: A Comparison of Traditional and Expanded Views. Personnel

Psychology, 56, 895–934

Lange, D., & Washburn, N. T. (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate social

irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37, 300–326.

Latto, A. (2007). Managing Risk From Within: Monitoring Employees the Right Way, Risk

Management, 54, 30–34.

178

Lee, C., Pillutla, M., & Law, K.S. (2000). Power-Distance, Gender and Organizational Justice.

Journal of Management, 26, 685–704.

Lee, C.-K., Song, H-J., Lee, H-M., Lee, S., & Bernhard, B. J. (2013). The impact of CSR on

casino employees‟ organizational trust, job satisfaction, and customer orientation: An

empirical examination of responsible gambling. International Journal of Hospitality

Management, 33, 406-415.

Lester, S.W., Turnley, W.H., Bloodgood, J.M., & Bolino, M.C. (2002). Not Seeing Eye to Eye:

Differences in Supervisor and Subordinate Perceptions of and Attributions for Psychological

Contract Breach. Journal of Organization Behaviour, 23, 39–56.

Levinson, H., Price, C., Munden, K., Mandl, H., & Solley, C. (1962). Men, Management and

Mental Health. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Lind, E. A., & Van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of

uncertainty management. In Staw, B. M., & Kramer, R. M. Eds. Research in organizational

behavior, 24, 181–223. Boston, MA: Elsevier.

LING Bin, DUAN Jin-Yun, ZHU Yue-Long. (2010). Psychological Safety in Workplace:

Conceptualization, Antecedents and Consequences. Advances in psychological sciences,

18(10), 1580-1589.

Loannou, L., & Serafeim, G. (2012). What drives corporate social performance? The role of

nation-level institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(9), 834–864.

179

Lockett, A., Moon, J., & Visser, W. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in management

research: Focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. Journal of Management Studies,

43(1), 115-136.

Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction,

and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1-18.

Macho, S., Ledermann, T. (2011). Estimating, testing and comparing specific effects in structural

equation models: The Phantom Model approach. Psychological Methods, 16(1), 34-43.

MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A simulation study of mediated effect

measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 41-62.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A

comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.

Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.

Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2001). Antecedents and benefits of corporate citizenship: an

investigation of French businesses. Journal of Business Research, 51(1), 37-51.

Mangione, T. W., & Quinn, R. P. (1975). Job satisfaction, counterproductive behavior, and drug

use at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 114-116.

Martinko, M. J., Douglas, S. C., & Harvey, P. (2006). Attribution theory in industrial and

organizational psychology: A review. In Hodgkinson, G. P. & Ford, J. K. (Eds.).

International review of industrial and organizational psychology, 21, 127–187. Chichester,

UK: Wiley.

180

Martinko, M., Moss, S., Douglas, S., & Borkowski, N. (2007). Anticipating the inevitable: When

leader and member attribution styles clash. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 104, 158–174.

Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Dasborough, M. T. (2011). Attribution theory in the

organizational sciences: A case of unrealized potential. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

32(1), 144–149.

Matchulat, J.J. (2007). Separating Fact From Fiction About Workplace Violence, Employee

Relations Law Journal, 33, 14–22.

Masnad Ahmad, Hadith, 23119. Retrieved from:

https://islaahh.wordpress.com/2012/12/05/Riyaakari-showing-off-in-worship/

Matton, D., & Moon, J. (2005). United Kingdom: An Explicit Model of Business-Society

Relations, in A. Habisch, J. Jonker, M. Wagner and R. Schmidpeter (eds.), Corporate Social

Responsibility Across Europe (Springer, Berlin), pp. 51–66.

May, D. R., & Gilson, R. L. (1999). Engaging the Human Spirit at work: Exploring the

psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability. Chicago, IL., National

Meeting of the Academy of Management.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995).An integrative model of organizational

trust. Academy of Management Review, 32, 709–734.

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility: A theory of the firm

perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117-127

181

Meade, A. W., Watson, A. M., & Kroustalis, C. M. (2007, April). Assessing Common Methods

Bias in Organizational Research. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society

for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York.

Menniger, K. (1958). Theory of psychoanalytic technique. New York: Basic Books.

Moore, T. (2014). The Impact of Psychological Contract Fulfillment on Employee Engagement

in the Millennial Generation: The Moderating Effects of Generational Affiliation.

Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2014. http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/bus_admin_diss/42

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994).The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.

Journal of Marketing, 58, 20–38.

Morgeson, F. P., Aguinis, H., Waldman, D. A., & Siegel, D. S. (2013). Extending corporate

social responsibility research to the human resource management and organizational behavior

domains: a look to the future. Personnel Psychology, 66(4), 805-824.

Mulki, j., Jaramillo, J., & Locander, W. (2006). Effects of ethical climate on turnover intention:

Linking attitudinal and stress theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 559-574.

Muslim, I. (Unknown). Sahih Muslim. Book 42, Hadith 7115.

Naeem, M. A., & Welford, R. (2009). A comparative study of corporate social responsibility in

Bangladesh and Pakistan. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,

16(2), 108-122.

Naseer, S., Raja, U., Syed, F., Donai, B. L. M., & Darr, W. (2016). Perils of being close to a bad

leader in a bad environment: Exploring the combined effects of despotic leadership, leader

182

member exchange, and perceived organizational politics on behaviors. The Leadership

Quarterly, 27, 14-33.

Oldham, G. R. & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at

work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W. & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional

predictors of organizational citizenship behaviors. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802.

Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior:

Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Ormiston, M. E., & Wong, E. M. (2013). License to Ill: The Effects of Corporate Social

Responsibility and CEO Moral Identity on Corporate Social Irresponsibility. Personnel

Psychology, 66, 861–893

Pacheco, D. C., Moniz, A. I., & Caldera, S. N. (2015). Silence in organizations and

psychological safety: A literature review. Working paper series, Universidade dos Açores,

CEEAplA WP No. 03/2015.

Pandey, A., & Gupta, R. K. (2008). A perspective of collective consciousness of business

organizations, Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 889–898.

Peloza, J. (2009). The challenge of measuring financial impacts from investments in corporate

social performance. Journal of Management, 35, 1518–1541.

183

Pivato, S., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2008). The impact of corporate social responsibility on

consumer trust: The case of organic food. Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(1), 3–12.

Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader

behaviors and they affects on followers‟ trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational

citizenship behaviors, Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142.

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, 26, 513–63.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lee, J.-Y. (2003). Common method

biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society. The link between competitive

advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 12, 78-92.

Preacher, K. J. & Hayes, A.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and

comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods,40(3),

879-891.

Preston, N. (2001). Online Opinion, June 2001.

PTA, (2014-15). Annual Report, Retrieved from: http://www.pta.gov.pk/annual-

reports/ptaannrep2014-15.pdf, Date visited: February 25, 2016.

184

Qadeer.F. & Jaffery, H. (2014). Mediation of psychological capital between organizational

climate and organizational citizenship behavior. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social

Sciences, 8(2), 453-470.

Quinn, D. P. & Jones, T. M. (1995). An agent morality view of business policy. Academy of

Management Review, 20(1), 22-42.

Quran, Surah e Almaoon, Chapter 107: Verse 4 – 7.

Raja, U., & Johns, G. (2010). The joint effects of personality and job scope on in-role

performance, citizenship behaviors, and creativity. Human Relations, 63, 985–1007

Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalians, F. (2004).The impact of personality on psychological contracts.

Academy of Management Journal, 47 (3), 350-367.

Rayton, A.B., Yalabik, Y, Z. (2014). Work engagement, psychological contract breach and job

satisfaction. International Journal of Human Resource Management, DOI:

10.1080/09585192.2013.876440.

Rayton, B. A., Brammer, S. J., & Millington, A. I. (2014). Corporate Social Performance and

Psychological Contract. Group & Organization Management, DOI:

10.1177/1059601114561476.

Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A. & Swartz, E. (1998). Doing Research in Business and

Management. An Introduction to Process and Method, London: Sage.

Rindskopf, D. (1984). Using phantom and imaginary latent variables to parameterize constraints

in linear structural models. Psychometrika, 49, 37–47. doi:10.1007/BF02294204

185

Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 41, 574–599.

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A

multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.

Robinson, S. L. & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: the effect of

unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 289-298.

Roirdan, C. M. & Robert, D. G. (1997). Corporate Image: Employee reactions and implications

for managing corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 401-412

Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution

process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology, 10, 174-221,

New York: Academic Press.

Roth, P. L., & Switzer, F. S. III. (1995). A Monte Carlo analysis of missing data techniques in a

HRM setting. Journal of Management, 5, 1003-1023

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A

cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393-404.

Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and

unwritten agreements. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rupp, D.E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R.V., Williams, C.A. (2006). Employee reactions to

corporate social responsibility: an organizational justice framework. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 27, 537–43

186

Rupp, D. E. (2011). An employee-centered model of organizational justice and social

responsibility. Organizational Psychology Review, 1: 72-94.

Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Thorton, M. A. and Skarlicki, D. P. (2013). Applicants‟ and employees‟

reaction to corporate social responsibility: The moderating effects of first-party justice

perceptions and moral identity. Personnel Psychology, 66, 895-933.

Rupp, D.E., Skarlicki, D., & Shao R. (2014). The psychology of corporate social responsibility

and humanitarian work: a person centric perspective. Industrial Organizational Psychology,

7, 361–68.

Rupp, D.E., & Mallory, B.D. (2015). Corporate Social Responsibility: Psychological, Personal-

Centric and Progressing. The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Organizational Behavior, 2, 6.1–6.26.

Rupp, D. E., Wright, M. P., Aryee, S., Luo, Y. (2015). Organizational justice, behavioral ethics,

and corporate social responsibility: Finally the three shall merge. Management and

Organization Review, 11(1), 15-24.

Sajjad, A. & Eweje, G. (2014). Corporate Social Responsibility in Pakistan: Current Trends and

Future Directions, in Gabriel Eweje (ed.) Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability:

Emerging Trends in Developing Economies (Critical Studies on Corporate Responsibility,

Governance and Sustainability, Volume 8) Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 163 – 187.

Scullen, S.E., Mount, M.K., & Goff, M. (2000). Understanding the latent structure of job

performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 956–970.

187

SECP (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility Guidelines 2013, Retrieved from:

http://www.secp.gov.pk/notification/pdf/2013/VoluntaryGuidelinesforCSR_2013.pdf,

Accessed date: 15/02/2016

Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2010). Research methods for business: A skill building approach (5th

ed.). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Shalley, E. C. Zhou, J. & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual

characteristics on Creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6),

933–958

Shaoling, L. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in China: Evidence from

Manufacturing in Guangdong Province, PhD dissertation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic

University.

Shen, J. & Benson, J. (2014). When CSR is a social norm: How socially responsible human

resource management affects employee work behavior. Journal of Management. A

Shin, S. & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence

from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703–714.

Shoss, M. K., Jundt D. K., Kobler, A., & Reynolds, C. (2015). Doing Bad to Feel Better? An

Investigation of Withinand Between-Person Perceptions of Counterproductive Work

Behavior as a Coping Tactic. Journal of Business Ethics, DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2573-9

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-experimental studies:

New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445.

188

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equations

models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290-312). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Siemsen, E., Roth, A., Balasubramanian, S., & Anand, G. (2009). The Influence of

Psychological Safety and Confidence on Employee Knowledge Sharing. Manufacturing and

Service Operations Management, 11(3), 429-447.

Skarlicki, D., & Rupp, D. (2010). Dual processing and organizational justice: The role of rational

versus experiential processing in third-party reactions to workplace mistreatment. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 95, 944-952.

Spector, P. E. (2006). Method Variance in Organizational Research: Truth or Urban Legend?

Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221-232.

Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The quarterly journal of economics, 87(3), 355-374.

Spreitzer, G.M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason. S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the

relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness, satisfaction and strain.

Journal of Management, 23(5), 679-704.

Snape, E., & Redman, T. (2010). HRM Practices, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, and

Performance: A Multi-Level Analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1219-1247

Stewart, S.M., Bing, M.N., Davinson, H. K., Woehr, D.J. & McIntyre, M.D. (2009). In the eyes

of the beholder: A non-self-report measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 94(1), 207-215.

189

Swanson, D. L. (2008). Top managers as drivers for corporate social responsibility. In: A. Crane,

D. Matten, A. McWilliams, J. Moon & D. Siegel (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Corporate

Social Responsibility: 227-248. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Swanson, D. L., & Niehoff, P. (2001). Business citizenship outside and inside organizations. In:

J. Andriof & M. McIntosh, eds. Perspective on Corporate Citizenship, 104-116. Sheffield,

UK: Greenleaf Publishing.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.-C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S.

Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.) Psychology of Intergroup Relations: 7-24. Chicago: Nelson

Hall.

Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational

attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 658–672.

Turker, D. (2009). How corporate social responsibility influences organizational commitment.

Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 189–204.

Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). The impact of

psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational

citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29(2), 187–206.

Tzai-Zang Lee, Chien-Hsing Wu & Chih-Wei Hong (2007). An Empirical Investigation of the

Influence of Safety Climate on Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Taiwan‟s Facilities.

International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 13(3), 255-269.

190

UN website. (2015). Sustainable Development Goals, Retrieved from:

http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ Visited date:

June 25, 2016.

vanProoijen, A. M., & Ellemers, N. (2015). Does It Pay to Be Moral? How Indicators of

Morality and Competence Enhance Organizational and Work Team Attractiveness. British

Journal of Management, 26, 225-236.

Vlachos, P.A., Panagopoulos, N.G. & Rapp, A.A. (2013a). Feeling Good by Doing Good:

Employee CSR-Induced Attributions, Job Satisfaction and the Role of Charismatic

Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, DOI: 10.1007/s10551-012-1590-1

Vlachos, P.A., Epitropaki, O., Panagopoulos, N.G., & Rapp, A.A. (2013b). Causal Attributions

and Employees Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Industrial and Organizational

psychology: Perspective on Science and Practices, DOI: 10.1111/iops.12061

Vlachos, P. A., Panagopoulos, N. G., & Rapp, A. A. (2014). Employee judgments of and

behaviors toward corporate social responsibility: A multi-study investigation of direct,

cascading, and moderating effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 990–1017.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as

predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3),

601-617.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.

Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573.

191

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-

Verlag.

Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New

York: Guilford Press.

Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. M. (1971). Perceiving the

causes of success and failure. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

West, M.A. & Anderson, N. (1996). Innovation in Top Management Teams. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 81, 680–93.

Wood, D. J., & Jones, R. E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in

empirical research in corporate social performance. International Journal of Organizational

Analysis, 3, 229-267.

Wojciszke, B. (2005). Morality and competence in person and self perception, European Review

of Social Psychology, 16, 155–188.

Yoon, Y., Gu¨rhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility

(CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4),

377–390.

ZakaRiyaa, A. M. (Unknown). Riyaad Us Saliheen, Prohibition of Show-off, Chapter 288.Hadith

No. 1617. Pp. 693-694.

Zhang, X. & Bartol, K.M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: the

influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process

management. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (1), 107-128.

192

Zhou, J. & Shalley, C.E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: A critical review and

directions for future research. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management,

22, 165-217.

Zhou, J. and Ren, R., (2011). Striving for Creativity: Building Positive Contexts in the

Workplace, in Cameron, K.S. and Spreitz er, G.M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Positive

Organizational Scholarship, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 97-109.

2Economic growth, State Bank of Pakistan, Available [Online] at:

http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/annual/arFY14/Real.pdf. Date visited: January 25, 2015

193

APPENDICES:

1. Tests of Mediations (Intrinsic CSR as Independent Variable):

CP as Outcome Variable: Run MATRIX procedure:

*****************************************************************

Preacher and Hayes (2008) SPSS Macro for Multiple Mediation

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, The Ohio State University

www.afhayes.com

For details, see Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic

and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects

in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

Also see Chapter 5 of Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional

Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press. http://www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

*****************************************************************

Dependent, Independent, and Proposed Mediator Variables:

DV = CP_Mean

IV = IntCSR_M

MEDS = PSafty_M

PCF_Mean

Sample size

363

IV to Mediators (a paths)

Coeff se t p

PSafty_M .3021 .0482 6.2709 .0000

PCF_Mean .1735 .0513 3.3825 .0008

Direct Effects of Mediators on DV (b paths)

Coeff se t p

PSafty_M .1927 .0572 3.3671 .0008

PCF_Mean .4523 .0537 8.4157 .0000

Total Effect of IV on DV (c path)

Coeff se t p

IntCSR_M .1357 .0579 2.3431 .0197

Direct Effect of IV on DV (c' path)

Coeff se t p

IntCSR_M -.0011 .0548 -.0192 .9847

Model Summary for DV Model

R-sq Adj R-sq F df1 df2 p

.2191 .2125 33.5675 3.0000 359.0000 .0000

*****************************************************************

BOOTSTRAP RESULTS FOR INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indirect Effects of IV on DV through Proposed Mediators (ab paths)

Data Boot Bias SE

TOTAL .1367 .1362 -.0006 .0346

194

PSafty_M .0582 .0579 -.0004 .0247

PCF_Mean .0785 .0783 -.0002 .0293

Bias Corrected Confidence Intervals

Lower Upper

TOTAL .0774 .2147

PSafty_M .0180 .1153

PCF_Mean .0293 .1469

*****************************************************************

Level of Confidence for Confidence Intervals:

95

Number of Bootstrap Resamples:

5000

********************************* NOTES **********************************

------ END MATRIX -----

OCB as Outcome Variable: Run MATRIX procedure:

*****************************************************************

Preacher and Hayes (2008) SPSS Macro for Multiple Mediation

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, The Ohio State University

www.afhayes.com

For details, see Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic

and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects

in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

Also see Chapter 5 of Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional

Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press. http://www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

*****************************************************************

Dependent, Independent, and Proposed Mediator Variables:

DV = OCB_Mean

IV = IntCSR_M

MEDS = PSafty_M

PCF_Mean

Sample size

363

IV to Mediators (a paths)

Coeff se t p

PSafty_M .3021 .0482 6.2709 .0000

PCF_Mean .1735 .0513 3.3825 .0008

Direct Effects of Mediators on DV (b paths)

Coeff se t p

PSafty_M .5119 .0527 9.7162 .0000

PCF_Mean .1335 .0495 2.6980 .0073

195

Total Effect of IV on DV (c path)

Coeff se t p

IntCSR_M .2047 .0544 3.7600 .0002

Direct Effect of IV on DV (c' path)

Coeff se t p

IntCSR_M .0268 .0505 .5313 .5955

Model Summary for DV Model

R-sq Adj R-sq F df1 df2 p

.2683 .2622 43.8832 3.0000 359.0000 .0000

*****************************************************************

BOOTSTRAP RESULTS FOR INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indirect Effects of IV on DV through Proposed Mediators (ab paths)

Data Boot Bias SE

TOTAL .1778 .1783 .0004 .0401

PSafty_M .1547 .1548 .0001 .0385

PCF_Mean .0232 .0235 .0003 .0121

Bias Corrected Confidence Intervals

Lower Upper

TOTAL .1083 .2650

PSafty_M .0891 .2394

PCF_Mean .0056 .0540

*****************************************************************

Level of Confidence for Confidence Intervals:

95

Number of Bootstrap Resamples:

5000

********************************* NOTES **********************************

------ END MATRIX -----

WDBs as Outcome Variable:

Run MATRIX procedure:

*****************************************************************

Preacher and Hayes (2008) SPSS Macro for Multiple Mediation

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, The Ohio State University

www.afhayes.com

For details, see Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic

and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects

in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

Also see Chapter 5 of Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional

Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press. http://www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

*****************************************************************

196

Dependent, Independent, and Proposed Mediator Variables:

DV = WDBs_Mea

IV = IntCSR_M

MEDS = PSafty_M

PCF_Mean

Sample size

363

IV to Mediators (a paths)

Coeff se t p

PSafty_M .3021 .0482 6.2709 .0000

PCF_Mean .1735 .0513 3.3825 .0008

Direct Effects of Mediators on DV (b paths)

Coeff se t p

PSafty_M -.3795 .0564 -6.7314 .0000

PCF_Mean -.8147 .0529 -15.3870 .0000

Total Effect of IV on DV (c path)

Coeff se t p

IntCSR_M -.3134 .0701 -4.4722 .0000

Direct Effect of IV on DV (c' path)

Coeff se t p

IntCSR_M -.0573 .0540 -1.0605 .2896

Model Summary for DV Model

R-sq Adj R-sq F df1 df2 p

.5021 .4979 120.6767 3.0000 359.0000 .0000

*****************************************************************

BOOTSTRAP RESULTS FOR INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indirect Effects of IV on DV through Proposed Mediators (ab paths)

Data Boot Bias SE

TOTAL -.2561 -.2556 .0005 .0562

PSafty_M -.1147 -.1155 -.0009 .0327

PCF_Mean -.1414 -.1401 .0013 .0488

Bias Corrected Confidence Intervals

Lower Upper

TOTAL -.3763 -.1526

PSafty_M -.1906 -.0614

PCF_Mean -.2457 -.0545

*****************************************************************

Level of Confidence for Confidence Intervals:

95

Number of Bootstrap Resamples:

5000

********************************* NOTES **********************************

197

2. Tests of Mediations (Extrinsic CSR as Independent Variable):

CP as Outcome Variable:

Run MATRIX procedure:

*****************************************************************

Preacher and Hayes (2008) SPSS Macro for Multiple Mediation

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, The Ohio State University

www.afhayes.com

For details, see Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic

and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects

in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

Also see Chapter 5 of Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional

Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press. http://www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

*****************************************************************

Dependent, Independent, and Proposed Mediator Variables:

DV = CP_Mean

IV = ExtCSR_M

MEDS = PSafty_M

PCF_Mean

Sample size

363

IV to Mediators (a paths)

Coeff se t p

PSafty_M -.7257 .0830 -8.7460 .0000

PCF_Mean -.2563 .0928 -2.7601 .0061

Direct Effects of Mediators on DV (b paths)

Coeff se t p

PSafty_M .1250 .0592 2.1131 .0353

PCF_Mean .4425 .0529 8.3670 .0000

Total Effect of IV on DV (c path)

Coeff se t p

ExtCSR_M -.4921 .1018 -4.8354 .0000

Direct Effect of IV on DV (c' path)

Coeff se t p

ExtCSR_M -.2880 .1015 -2.8365 .0048

Model Summary for DV Model

R-sq Adj R-sq F df1 df2 p

.2362 .2298 37.0016 3.0000 359.0000 .0000

*****************************************************************

BOOTSTRAP RESULTS FOR INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indirect Effects of IV on DV through Proposed Mediators (ab paths)

198

Data Boot Bias SE

TOTAL -.2041 -.2056 -.0015 .0757

PSafty_M -.0907 -.0914 -.0007 .0562

PCF_Mean -.1134 -.1142 -.0008 .0567

Bias Corrected Confidence Intervals

Lower Upper

TOTAL -.3651 -.0624

PSafty_M -.2152 -.0103

PCF_Mean -.2450 -.0206

*****************************************************************

Level of Confidence for Confidence Intervals:

95

Number of Bootstrap Resamples:

5000

********************************* NOTES **********************************

------ END MATRIX -----

OCB as Outcome Variable:

Run MATRIX procedure:

*****************************************************************

Preacher and Hayes (2008) SPSS Macro for Multiple Mediation

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, The Ohio State University

www.afhayes.com

For details, see Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic

and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects

in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

Also see Chapter 5 of Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional

Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press. http://www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

*****************************************************************

Dependent, Independent, and Proposed Mediator Variables:

DV = OCB_Mean

IV = ExtCSR_M

MEDS = PSafty_M

PCF_Mean

Sample size

363

IV to Mediators (a paths)

Coeff se t p

PSafty_M -.7257 .0830 -8.7460 .0000

PCF_Mean -.2563 .0928 -2.7601 .0061

Direct Effects of Mediators on DV (b paths)

Coeff se t p

199

PSafty_M .4878 .0549 8.8781 .0000

PCF_Mean .1320 .0491 2.6880 .0075

Total Effect of IV on DV (c path)

Coeff se t p

ExtCSR_M -.5254 .0960 -5.4742 .0000

Direct Effect of IV on DV (c' path)

Coeff se t p

ExtCSR_M -.1376 .0943 -1.4598 .1452

Model Summary for DV Model

R-sq Adj R-sq F df1 df2 p

.2721 .2660 44.7248 3.0000 359.0000 .0000

*****************************************************************

BOOTSTRAP RESULTS FOR INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indirect Effects of IV on DV through Proposed Mediators (ab paths)

Data Boot Bias SE

TOTAL -.3878 -.3861 .0017 .0626

PSafty_M -.3540 -.3517 .0023 .0621

PCF_Mean -.0338 -.0345 -.0006 .0213

Bias Corrected Confidence Intervals

Lower Upper

TOTAL -.5158 -.2722

PSafty_M -.4847 -.2404

PCF_Mean -.0922 -.0045

*****************************************************************

Level of Confidence for Confidence Intervals:

95

Number of Bootstrap Resamples:

5000

********************************* NOTES **********************************

------ END MATRIX -----

WDBs as Outcome Variable:

Run MATRIX procedure:

*****************************************************************

Preacher and Hayes (2008) SPSS Macro for Multiple Mediation

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, The Ohio State University

www.afhayes.com

For details, see Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic

and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects

in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

200

Also see Chapter 5 of Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional

Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press. http://www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

*****************************************************************

Dependent, Independent, and Proposed Mediator Variables:

DV = WDBs_Mea

IV = ExtCSR_M

MEDS = PSafty_M

PCF_Mean

Sample size

363

IV to Mediators (a paths)

Coeff se t p

PSafty_M -.7257 .0830 -8.7460 .0000

PCF_Mean -.2563 .0928 -2.7601 .0061

Direct Effects of Mediators on DV (b paths)

Coeff se t p

PSafty_M -.3406 .0586 -5.8152 .0000

PCF_Mean -.8133 .0523 -15.5361 .0000

Total Effect of IV on DV (c path)

Coeff se t p

ExtCSR_M .6956 .1243 5.5957 .0000

Direct Effect of IV on DV (c' path)

Coeff se t p

ExtCSR_M .2400 .1005 2.3872 .0175

Model Summary for DV Model

R-sq Adj R-sq F df1 df2 p

.5083 .5042 123.7295 3.0000 359.0000 .0000

*****************************************************************

BOOTSTRAP RESULTS FOR INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indirect Effects of IV on DV through Proposed Mediators (ab paths)

Data Boot Bias SE

TOTAL .4556 .4574 .0017 .1081

PSafty_M .2472 .2464 -.0008 .0625

PCF_Mean .2084 .2109 .0025 .0998

Bias Corrected Confidence Intervals

Lower Upper

TOTAL .2547 .6764

PSafty_M .1392 .3842

PCF_Mean .0338 .4270

*****************************************************************

Level of Confidence for Confidence Intervals:

95

Number of Bootstrap Resamples:

201

5000

********************************* NOTES **********************************

------ END MATRIX -----

3. Tests of Mediation (Intrinsic CSR as Independent, TRUST as Mediator and PS as

Outcome Variable)

Run MATRIX procedure:

*****************************************************************

Preacher and Hayes (2008) SPSS Macro for Multiple Mediation

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, The Ohio State University

www.afhayes.com

For details, see Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic

and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects

in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

Also see Chapter 5 of Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional

Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press. http://www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

*****************************************************************

Dependent, Independent, and Proposed Mediator Variables:

DV = PSafty_M

IV = IntCSR_M

MEDS = TRUST_Mean

Sample size

363

IV to Mediators (a paths)

Coeff se t p

TRUST_Mean .3876 .0439 8.8266 .0000

Direct Effects of Mediators on DV (b paths)

Coeff se t p

TRUST_Mean .2524 .0563 4.4853 .0000

Total Effect of IV on DV (c path)

Coeff se t p

IntCSR_M .3021 .0482 6.2709 .0000

Direct Effect of IV on DV (c' path)

Coeff se t p

IntCSR_M .2043 .0518 3.9461 .0001

Model Summary for DV Model

R-sq Adj R-sq F df1 df2 p

.1460 .1412 30.7623 2.0000 360.0000 .0000

*****************************************************************

BOOTSTRAP RESULTS FOR INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indirect Effects of IV on DV through Proposed Mediators (ab paths)

202

Data Boot Bias SE

TOTAL .0978 .0973 -.0005 .0300

TRUST_Mean .0978 .0973 -.0005 .0300

Bias Corrected Confidence Intervals

Lower Upper

TOTAL .0461 .1668

TRUST_Mean .0461 .1668

*****************************************************************

Level of Confidence for Confidence Intervals:

95

Number of Bootstrap Resamples:

5000

********************************* NOTES **********************************

------ END MATRIX -----

4. Tests of Mediation (Intrinsic CSR as Independent, TRUST as Mediator and PCF as

Outcome Variable)

Run MATRIX procedure:

*****************************************************************

Preacher and Hayes (2008) SPSS Macro for Multiple Mediation

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, The Ohio State University

www.afhayes.com

For details, see Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic

and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects

in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

Also see Chapter 5 of Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional

Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press. http://www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

*****************************************************************

Dependent, Independent, and Proposed Mediator Variables:

DV = PCF_Mean

IV = IntCSR_M

MEDS = TRUST_Mean

Sample size

363

IV to Mediators (a paths)

Coeff se t p

TRUST_Mean .3876 .0439 8.8266 .0000

Direct Effects of Mediators on DV (b paths)

Coeff se t p

TRUST_Mean .1944 .0607 3.2021 .0015

203

Total Effect of IV on DV (c path)

Coeff se t p

IntCSR_M .1735 .0513 3.3825 .0008

Direct Effect of IV on DV (c' path)

Coeff se t p

IntCSR_M .0982 .0559 1.7576 .0797

Model Summary for DV Model

R-sq Adj R-sq F df1 df2 p

.0576 .0523 10.9940 2.0000 360.0000 .0000

*****************************************************************

BOOTSTRAP RESULTS FOR INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indirect Effects of IV on DV through Proposed Mediators (ab paths)

Data Boot Bias SE

TOTAL .0754 .0754 .0000 .0307

TRUST_Mean .0754 .0754 .0000 .0307

Bias Corrected Confidence Intervals

Lower Upper

TOTAL .0207 .1413

TRUST_Mean .0207 .1413

*****************************************************************

Level of Confidence for Confidence Intervals:

95

Number of Bootstrap Resamples:

5000

********************************* NOTES **********************************

------ END MATRIX -----

5. Tests of Mediation (Extrinsic CSR as Independent, TRUST as Mediator and PS as

Outcome Variable)

Run MATRIX procedure:

*****************************************************************

Preacher and Hayes (2008) SPSS Macro for Multiple Mediation

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, The Ohio State University

www.afhayes.com

For details, see Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic

and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects

in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

204

Also see Chapter 5 of Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional

Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press. http://www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

*****************************************************************

Dependent, Independent, and Proposed Mediator Variables:

DV = PSafty_M

IV = ExtCSR_M

MEDS = TRUST_Mean

Sample size

363

IV to Mediators (a paths)

Coeff se t p

TRUST_Mean -.6855 .0794 -8.6386 .0000

Direct Effects of Mediators on DV (b paths)

Coeff se t p

TRUST_Mean .1987 .0541 3.6717 .0003

Total Effect of IV on DV (c path)

Coeff se t p

ExtCSR_M -.7257 .0830 -8.7460 .0000

Direct Effect of IV on DV (c' path)

Coeff se t p

ExtCSR_M -.5895 .0896 -6.5785 .0000

Model Summary for DV Model

R-sq Adj R-sq F df1 df2 p

.2046 .2002 46.3095 2.0000 360.0000 .0000

*****************************************************************

BOOTSTRAP RESULTS FOR INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indirect Effects of IV on DV through Proposed Mediators (ab paths)

Data Boot Bias SE

TOTAL -.1362 -.1367 -.0005 .0549

TRUST_Mean -.1362 -.1367 -.0005 .0549

Bias Corrected Confidence Intervals

Lower Upper

TOTAL -.2593 -.0419

TRUST_Mean -.2593 -.0419

*****************************************************************

Level of Confidence for Confidence Intervals:

95

Number of Bootstrap Resamples:

5000

********************************* NOTES **********************************

------ END MATRIX -----

205

6. Tests of Mediation (Extrinsic CSR as Independent, TRUST as Mediator and PS as

Outcome Variable)

Run MATRIX procedure:

*****************************************************************

Preacher and Hayes (2008) SPSS Macro for Multiple Mediation

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, The Ohio State University

www.afhayes.com

For details, see Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic

and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects

in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

Also see Chapter 5 of Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional

Analysis. New York: The Guilford Press. http://www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

*****************************************************************

Dependent, Independent, and Proposed Mediator Variables:

DV = PCF_Mean

IV = ExtCSR_M

MEDS = TRUST_Mean

Sample size

363

IV to Mediators (a paths)

Coeff se t p

TRUST_Mean -.6855 .0794 -8.6386 .0000

Direct Effects of Mediators on DV (b paths)

Coeff se t p

TRUST_Mean .2116 .0607 3.4891 .0005

Total Effect of IV on DV (c path)

Coeff se t p

ExtCSR_M -.2563 .0928 -2.7601 .0061

Direct Effect of IV on DV (c' path)

Coeff se t p

ExtCSR_M -.1112 .1005 -1.1071 .2690

Model Summary for DV Model

R-sq Adj R-sq F df1 df2 p

.0527 .0474 10.0139 2.0000 360.0000 .0001

*****************************************************************

BOOTSTRAP RESULTS FOR INDIRECT EFFECTS

Indirect Effects of IV on DV through Proposed Mediators (ab paths)

Data Boot Bias SE

TOTAL -.1451 -.1443 .0007 .0568

TRUST_Mean -.1451 -.1443 .0007 .0568

Bias Corrected Confidence Intervals

206

Lower Upper

TOTAL -.2710 -.0433

TRUST_Mean -.2710 -.0433

*****************************************************************

Level of Confidence for Confidence Intervals:

95

Number of Bootstrap Resamples:

5000

********************************* NOTES **********************************

------ END MATRIX -----

207

Telecom sector statistics

Annual Subscribers in Telecom Sector of Pakistan

Annual Cellular Subscribers

Mobilink Ufone CMPak Instaph

one

Telenor Warid Total

2003-04 3,215,989 801,160 470,021 535,738 5,022,908

2004-05 7,469,085 2,579,103 924,486 454,147 835,727 508,655 12,771,203

2005-06 17,205,555 7,487,005 1,040,503 336,696 3,573,660 4,863,138 34,506,557

2006-07 26,466,451 14,014,044 1,024,563 333,081 10,701,332 10,620,386 63,159,857

2007-08 32,032,363 18,100,440 3,950,758 351,135 18,125,189 15,489,858 88,019,812

2008-09 29,136,839 20,004,707 6,386,571 34,048 20,893,129 17,886,736 94,342,030

2009-10 32,202,548 19,549,100 6,704,288 0 23,798,221 16,931,687 99,185,844

2010-11 33,378,161 20,533,787 10,927,693 0 26,667,079 17,387,798 108,894,518

2011-12 35,953,434 23,897,261 16,836,983 0 29,963,722 13,499,835 120,151,235

2012-13 37,121,871 24,547,986 21,177,156 0 32,183,920 12,706,353 127,737,286

2013-14 38,768,346 24,352,717 27,197048 0 36,571820 13,084,823 139,974,754

2014-15 33,424,268 17,809,315 22,102,968 0 31,491,263 9,830,620 114,658,434

Jul-15 33,993,778 17,893,156 22,432,785 0 32,155,599 9,956,205 116,431,523

Aug-15 34,637,527 18,296,277 23,100,847 0 32,747,666 10,161,283 118,943,600

Sep-15 35,156,550 18,750,250 23,518,919 0 33,191,103 10,323,691 120,940,513

Oct-15 35,431,799 19,214,908 23,800,643 0 33,677,266 10,471,320 122,595,936

Note: Cellular Mobile Subscribers Base for the Year 2014-15 after BVS Verification

Source: Pakistan Telecom Authority, official website (http://www.pta.gov.pk/index.php?Itemid=599)

208

Annual fixed line subscribers in Telecom Sector of Pakistan

Annual Fixed Local Line Subscribers

PTCL NTC Brain

Limited

World

Call

Union Naya

Tel

Total

2003-04 4,428,900 73,330 - 4,501,171

2004-05 5,190,899 81,027 1,520 4,100 - 5,277,531

2005-06 5,128,442 92,163 5,880 13,327 200 5,240,012

2006-07 4,676,204 99,665 6,089 10,748 2,500 11,000 4,806,206

2007-08 4,273,548 103,991 7,376 11,502 3,500 16,500 4,416,417

2008-09 3,375,103 104,538 12,234 18,850 3,700 18,850 3,533,275

2009-10 3,268,642 104,819 11,267 9,874 3,700 19,500 3,417,802

2010-11 2,881,684 105,954 13,280 10,085 4,200 1,649 3,016,852

2011-12 2,847,597 107,095 14,076 9,830 4,175 2,860 2,985,633

2012-13 2,885,144 107,631 14,662 8,977 4,175 3,699 3,024,288

2013-14 3,034,361 106,738 14,410 8,887 4,175 3,773 3,172,344

2014-15 3,007,807 110,957 14,410 1,977 2,150 3,699 3,141,000

Source: Pakistan Telecom Authority, official website (http://www.pta.gov.pk/index.php?Itemid=599)

Total Contribution of Telecom Sector

Telecom Contribution to Exchequer

(Rs. in billion)

Period GST Activation Tax PTA Deposits Others Total

2003-04 12.1 4.02 0.69 21.59 38.40

2004-05 20.5 7.53 17.71 21.38 67.12

2005-06 26.8 11.4 17.38 21.55 77.13

2006-07 36.28 17.6 9.72 36.95 100.55

2007-08 44.61 19.2 10.86 36.96 111.63

2008-09 49.35 14.2 9.15 39.3 112.00

209

2009-10 44.0 6.6 13.6 44.9 109.0

2010-11 52.6 7.2 12.0 45.2 117.0

2011-12 57.8 7.5 14.6 53.5 133.4

2012-13 58.17 6.10 5.3 55.15 124.73

2013-14 60.1 - 104.6 78.6 243.3

2014-15 45.8 - 7.0 73.5 126.3

Note: 2013-14 figures are updated and 2014-15 are estimated.

Source: Central Board of Revenue and Pakistan Telecommunication Authority.

Note: PTA's contributions comprise of all its receipts including Initial and Annual License Fee, Annual Spectrum

Administrative Fee, USF and R&D Fund Contributions, Numbering Charges, License Application Fee, etc.

Others include custom duties, WH Tax and other taxes.

210

QUESTIONNAIRE

Code No. _________________

Employee Name.___________

“The influence of Corporate Social Responsibility attributions on employees’ attitudes and

behaviors”

Survey questionnaire

Dear Respondent,

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey. I am student of PhD at Air University,

Islamabad, conducting a research on the “The influence of Corporate Social Responsibility

attributions on employees attitudes and behaviours.”

Your feedback is highly valuable for me. The information provided by you will be kept

confidential and only be used for research purposes.

Best,

Ifzal Ahmad

(PhD scholar)

Air University, Islamabad

E.mail: a_ifzal@yahoo.com

Cell no. 0331-8551070

Section A: Personal information

1.1Gender Male Female

1.3 Position Non managerial Lower Managerial Middle Managerial Senior Managerial

1.4 Qualification Intermediate Bachelors Masters and above

1.5 Work experience (years) 0 to 5 6 - 10 10 and above

Section B: Employees’ Ratings

Please encircle the appropriate statement given on the next page from 5 = strongly agree = SA, 4

= Agree = A, 3 = Neutral = N, 2 = Disagree = DA, 1 = strongly disagree = SD

211

CSR induced intrinsic attributions (Du et al. 2007; Ellen et al. 2006)

S.No Items SA A N DA SD

1 My organization is genuinely

concerned about being socially

responsible.

5 4 3 2 1

2 My organization engages in socially

responsible initiatives because it feels

morally obligated to help.

5 4 3 2 1

3 My organization engages in socially

responsible initiatives in order to give

back something to the community.

5 4 3 2 1

CSR induced extrinsic attributions (Du et al. 2007; Ellen et al. 2006)

1 My organization engages in socially

responsible initiatives in order to get

more customers.

5 4 3 2 1

2 My organization engages in socially

responsible initiatives because it feels

competitive pressures to engage in

such activities.

5 4 3 2 1

3 My organization hopes to increase its

profits by engaging in socially

responsible initiatives.

5 4 3 2 1

Psychological Safety by Carmeli et al. 2010 from Edmondson, A.C. (1999)

1 I am able to bring up problems and

tough issues

5 4 3 2 1

2 People in this organization do not

reject others for being different

5 4 3 2 1

3 It is safe to take a risk in this

organization

5 4 3 2 1

4 It is easy for me to ask other members

of the organization for help.

5 4 3 2 1

5 No one in this organization would

deliberately act in a way that

undermines my efforts.

5 4 3 2 1

Organizational Trust by Pivato et al. (2008)

1 I trust my organization 5 4 3 2 1

2 I can always count on my organization 5 4 3 2 1

3 My organization is reliable 5 4 3 2 1

Psychological Contract Fulfillment by Rousseau (1996)

1 Overall, this organization has fulfilled

its commitments to me

5 4 3 2 1

2 In general, this organization has lived 5 4 3 2 1

212

up to its promise to me

3 This organization has carried out what

it said to me.

5 4 3 2 1

Section C: Supervisor/Colleague’s Ratings.

Employee Code._____________

Employee Name._____________

Dear Supervisor/Colleague,

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey. I am student of PhD at Air University,

Islamabad, conducting a research on the “The influence of Corporate Social Responsibility

attributions on employees attitudes and behaviours.”

You have been chosen by the [Employee Name] to rate his creative performance, workplace

deviance behaviours and organizational citizenship behaviours at work. Your feedback is highly

valuable for me. The information provided by you will be kept confidential and only be used for

research purposes.

Best,

Ifzal Ahmad

(PhD scholar)

Air University, Islamabad

E.mail: a_ifzal@yahoo.com

Cell no. 0331-8551070

Instructions

Please encircle the appropriate statement given on the next page from 5 = Very Original = VO, 4

= Original = O, 3 = Somewhat Original = SO, 2 = Little Original = LO, 1 = Not Original = NO.

Similarly, question 2 ranges from Very adaptive being 5 to Not very adaptive being 1 and

question 3 from very creative being 5 to not very creative being 1.

Creative Performance by Oldham and Cummings (1996)

S.No Items VO O SO LO NO

1 How ORIGINAL and PRACTICAL is

[Employee name] work?

(Original and practical work refers to

developing ideas, methods, or

products that are both totally unique

5 4 3 2 1

213

and especially useful to the

organization)

2 How ADAPTIVE and PRACTICAL

is [Employee name] work?

(Adaptive and practical work refers to

using existing information or

materials to develop ideas, methods,

or products that are useful to the

organization)

5 4 3 2 1

3 How CREATIVE is [Employee name]

work?

(Creativity refers to the extent to

which the employee develops ideas,

methods, or products that are both

original and useful to the

organization)

5 4 3 2 1

Workplace Deviance Behaviors (Stewart el al. 2009)

Please encircle the appropriate statement given on the next page from 5 = Daily = D, 4 = Weekly

= W, 3 = Monthly = M, 2 = Several Times a year = ST, 1 = Never = N

Production Deviance

S.No Items D W M ST N

1 [Employee name] puts little effort into

their work

5 4 3 2 1

2 [Employee name] intentionally

worked slower than they could have

worked

5 4 3 2 1

3 [Employee name] spends too much

time fantasizing or daydreaming

instead of working

5 4 3 2 1

4 [Employee name] has taken an

additional or a longer break than is

acceptable at their workplace

5 4 3 2 1

5 [Employee name] left their work for

someone else to finish

5 4 3 2 1

6 [Employee name] worked on a

personal matter instead of work for

my company

5 4 3 2 1

7 [Employee name] came in late to work

without permission

5 4 3 2 1

Personal Aggression

1 [Employee name] said something

hurtful to someone at work

5 4 3 2 1

214

2 [Employee name] acted rudely toward

someone at work

5 4 3 2 1

3 [Employee name] loses their temper

while at work

5 4 3 2 1

4 [Employee name] made fun of

someone at work

5 4 3 2 1

Property Deviance

1 [Employee name] look property from

work without permission

5 4 3 2 1

2 [Employee name] used an illegal drug

or [Employee name] consumed

alcohol on the job

5 4 3 2 1

3 Falsified a receipt to get reimbursed

for more money than they spent on

business expenses

5 4 3 2 1

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) by Organ et al. (2006)

Please check the appropriate statement given on the next page from 5 = strongly agree = SA, 4 =

Agree = A, 3 = Neutral = N, 2 = Disagree = DA, 1 = strongly disagree = SD

S.No Items SA A N DA SD

1 [Employee name] do extra work than

the organization‟s required

5 4 3 2 1

2 [Employee name] usually help other

college with their work

5 4 3 2 1

3 [Employee name] do not complain

even the environment is not good

5 4 3 2 1

4 [Employee name] show respect to

college

5 4 3 2 1

5 [Employee name] participate in

organizational activities positively

5 4 3 2 1