International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management

Impact of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Job Performance in Indian Healthcare Industries: The
Mediating Role of Social Capital
Eeman Basu, Rabindra Kumar Pradhan, Hare Ram Tewari,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Eeman Basu, Rabindra Kumar Pradhan, Hare Ram Tewari, (2017) "Impact of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Job
Performance in Indian Healthcare Industries: The Mediating Role of Social Capital", International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management , Vol. 66 Issue: 6, doi: 10.1108/IJPPM-02-2016-0048
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-02-2016-0048
Downloaded on: 28 May 2017, At: 13:33 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1 times since 2017*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:235211 []
For Authors
Downloaded by University of Windsor At 13:33 28 May 2017 (PT)

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 1. Introduction

There has been a paradigm shift in organizational structures and relationships. Present day organizations
are moving away from traditional hierarchical and authoritative structures to autonomous team-based
environments and job roles. This shift has led organizations to acknowledge the relevance of discretionary
and individual initiative and cooperation. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), or behavior
characterized by voluntary initiatives making prosocial contribution towards organization and coworkers,
above and beyond their formal job roles is gaining increasing importance in such an organizational
context. Although organizational citizenship behavior is not a part of the formal organizational structure
or reward system, it has far-reaching implications on organizational and individual, performance and
effectiveness. These behaviours go a long way in maintaining positive organizational culture that
reinforces employee engagement, employee commitment, employee motivation and job performance. The
emphasis on inimitable or unique factors like culture, knowledge, human resources in organizations has
also led scholars and practitioners to give considerable importance to the concept of social capital. Social
capital is considered as a resource or capital that allows an individual or organization to gain competitive
Downloaded by University of Windsor At 13:33 28 May 2017 (PT)

advantage over others by virtue of the strategic position held in the network of relationships in which they
are embedded. Social capital is also instrumental in influencing performance of individuals and
organizations through cooperation, knowledge sharing and building relationships and networks. These
relationships and networks serve as resources to gain competitive edge for individuals and organizations
at large. The present study attempts to examine the relationship between organizational citizenship
behavior and job performance. It further tries to explore whether social capital acts as a mediator in the
relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and job performance. The present study explores
the extant literature on organizational citizenship behavior, social capital and job performance and further
explains the relevance of such phenomena in the healthcare industry where the study has been conducted.
The study was conducted in the healthcare industry since the nature of the industry, operations and
organizational environment makes the performance of discretionary behaviors important to organizational
functioning as well as to the formation of network structures, and to building social capital which are
considered important to task performance. The researchers work as a healthcare professional have led
them to place the study in this context to explore the relationship between organizational citizenship
behavior, social capital and job performance in depth. The study proposes four hypotheses which are
tested using structural equation modelling. The next section is the literature review which is followed by
the methodology and then the results. These are discussed and then implications and scope for future
research are highlighted.

2. Review of literature

The literature review section explores the extant literature on organizational citizenship behavior, social
capital and job performance, highlighting various theoretical and relational perspectives on the concepts.

2.1. OCB and its relevance in the healthcare industry

The concept of OCB first emerged in the organizational behavior and management literature in the
pioneering works of Bateman and Organ (1983), and since then it has been an area of considerable
research. Organ (1988, p.4) originally described OCB as individual behavior that is discretionary, not
directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in aggregate promotes the effective
functioning of the organization. Organ further described OCB as behavior that contributes indirectly to
the organization through the maintenance of the organizations social system. Research on OCB has
focused on its antecedents such as job satisfaction, interpersonal trust, organizational commitment and
employee mood (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Podsakoff et al., 1990) and on the consequences of OCB such
as performance, customer service and satisfaction, sales revenue, financial efficiency (Podsakoff et al.,

1
 2000). OCBs relation with such critical outcomes has led researchers and practitioners to opine that OCB
is beneficial to organizations (Bolino & Turnley, 2003) and is critical to organizational functioning
(Bateman & Organ, 1983). OCB is also considered as desirable because such behaviors are thought to
enhance available resources and minimize the need for more formal and costly mechanisms of control
(Organ, 1988).

The OCB construct as conceptualized by Organ (1988) comes very close to the concept of
contextual performance introduced approximately at the same time (Borman & Motowildo, 1997). The
concept of contextual performance comprises almost the same factors as organizational citizenship
behavior but does not specify that the behavior needs to be discretionary and non-rewarded as was found
in the classic conceptualization of OCB. However, Organ later redefined OCB to include behavior that
contributes to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports
task performance (Organ, 1997, p.85). Although this revised definition recognizes OCBs relevance to
task performance, OCBs are still primarily viewed as behaviors that are generally discretionary and less
likely to be formally or explicitly rewarded in an organization (Podsakoff et al., 2000).
Downloaded by University of Windsor At 13:33 28 May 2017 (PT)

The conceptualization of OCB that has been widely used in the research literature views it as
comprised of five dimensions: altruism, generalized compliance, sportsmanship, courtesy and civic virtue
(Podsakoff et al., 2000). Altruism is helping behavior (e.g. coworker or supervisor). For example,
altruism involves activities such as volunteering to assist a coworker with a project in which you are not
directly involved, or, without being asked, assisting new employees in assimilating into the organization.
Generalized compliance is employee conscientiousness that surpasses enforceable work standards. For
example, generalized compliance involves activities such as doing more than what is required to meet
minimum task requirements or offering specific ideas to solve organizational problems without being
asked. Sportsmanship is the tolerance of nuisances on the job (e.g. when employees endure impositions or
inconveniences without complaint). Sportsmanship involves activities such as not complaining or making
huge issues out of minor problems or inconveniences. Courtesy is the act of touching base with others
before taking actions or making decisions that would affect their work (e.g. issuing reminders to
coworkers, giving coworkers advance notice and passing along information). Civic virtue is the active
participation and involvement of employees in company affairs and includes activities such as attending
meetings, responding to messages and keeping up with organizational issues.

The interest in OCB has extended from organizational behavior to a wide range of domains such
as human resource management (Borman & Motowildo, 1993; Podsakoff et al., 1993), marketing
(Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994), hospital and health administration and many others. Since hospitals
continue to face intense challenges to controlling operating costs and employee attrition, it becomes
increasingly important for healthcare organizations to nurture and retain talent. Healthcare organizations
are manpower intensive where the need for manpower or human resources cannot be replaced with
technology. Moreover they are faced with high level of attrition due to work stress, a mismatch of
demand and supply of talented professionals. Hence, they have to constantly face a challenge of shortage
in working manpower in running day to day operations. In such a context , it is important that hospital
administrators acknowledge the concept of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and attempt to
identify, attract and retain those employees capable of exhibiting such behaviors for organizational
functioning and effectiveness (Organ, 1990).

2.2. Social Capital and its importance in the healthcare profession

Researchers have envisioned the concept of social capital from diverse perspectives, but at the same time
they do converge on the premise that social capital is a metaphor about advantage. If societies are viewed
as markets where individuals exchange their ideas and knowledge in pursuit of their interests, we find that
not all individuals interests are accomplished. The interest of some is better served than the interests of

2
 others (some get higher incomes, better projects, and so on). The social capital perspective explains this
difference by pointing out that people who do better are somehow better connected. Thus, the way
individuals are positioned in social structure can be an asset in itself, and social capital is conceptualized
as that asset. Social capital, thus, refers to a kind of capital that can create for certain individuals or groups
a competitive advantage in pursuing their ends (Burt et al. 2001). This concept about social capital can be
furthered to organizations as well, thus, saying that organizations that possess more social capital gain
more competitive advantage than their competitors through higher productivity and performance of its
employees.

Social capital has been defined in many ways by social scientists. In the organizational contexts
social capital as a concept is referred to as the character of social relations within the firm (Leana and
Van Buren, 1999, p.538; Refferty & Restubog, 2010). Although they are broadly in consonance with each
other, these different ways express some significant nuances. Firstly, the definitions vary depending on
whether they focus on the sources of social capital or the effects of social capital. Secondly, they vary in
terms of their focus on the structure of relationships among individuals or the relations in themselves or
Downloaded by University of Windsor At 13:33 28 May 2017 (PT)

both kinds of links. A focus on internal ties within collectivities foregrounds bonding forms of social
capital, whereas a focus on external relations focuses bridging forms of social capital. Bonding
perspective focuses on collective actors internal characteristics and bridging perspective sees social
capital as a resource that is inherited in the social network for tying an actor with other actors.

The concept of social capital is gaining importance in healthcare for its significant influence on
job satisfaction, reducing work stress, increasing employee retention leading to performance of healthcare
professionals like physicians, nurses, administrators and helping in smooth functioning of organizations.
The presence of social capital in organizations has been found to be a significant predictor of job
satisfaction of healthcare professionals working in the field of patient care. Trust, mutual understanding,
shared goals and values are important attributes of social capital that unite or bond members of a network
and enhance cooperation and cohesion among team members. Social capital may be considered as a
resource that helps individuals and organizations to cope with stress and helps in fostering altruistic
potential. Social capital has two forms: individual social capital and collective social capital. An
individualistic version of social capital has been defined by Bourdieu (1985, pp. 248-249) as the
"aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of
more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition or in other words, to
membership in a group which provides each of its members with the backing of the collectively owned
capital, a credential which entitles them to credit, in the various senses of the word". Research during the
last 20 years shows that social relationships that are experienced as being helpful and positive promote
general well-being and protect against physical harm. Coleman (1994, p.302) described the term "social
capital" as follows: "unlike other forms of capital, social capital inheres in the structure of relations
between persons and among persons. It is lodged neither in individuals nor in physical implements of
production." In accordance with this definition, it can be assumed that not only individuals, but also
complex organizations, such as hospitals, possess social capital. Trust, mutual understanding, and shared
aims are qualities of social capital, which unify members of social networks and communities and enable
them to act cooperatively. Investment in the social capital of an organization, e.g., a hospital, is a valuable
investment in the social system, since the social capital has a significant impact on job performance and
other critical organizational outcomes.

2.3. OCB and Job Performance

OCB as mentioned earlier refers to individual behavior that is discretionary not directly or explicitly
recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective
functioning of an organization (Organ et al., 2006). As OCB is important to organizational functioning,
research in OCB has focused on both the antecedents and consequences both at the employee and

3
 organizational levels (Podsakoff et al., 2000). The antecedents of OCB comprise employee attitudes, role
perceptions, demographics, stress, job satisfaction, interpersonal trust, organizational commitment and
employee mood (Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Williams & Wong, 1999). In addition to the antecedents of
OCB, researchers have examined the consequences of OCB extensively. Ehrhart and colleagues (2006)
found that unit-level OCB was related to unit effectiveness. Whiting et al. (2008) reported that OCB had a
significant effect on performance evaluation decisions. Sportsmanship, civic virtue, and helping others are
important predictors of employee retention in an organization. The concept of organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB) has been persistently in focus in empirical research since researchers and practitioners
acknowledge its practical implications for job performance and organizational success like productivity
and competitive advantage (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994). Thus it is hypothesized that OCB would
positively influence job performance.

H1: OCB positively influences job performance.

2.4. OCB and Social capital

Downloaded by University of Windsor At 13:33 28 May 2017 (PT)

Earlier research on organizational citizenship behavior point out that such behavior is critical for
organizational effectiveness and functioning. Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) argue that a firm's social
capital comprises a critical source of sustainable organizational advantage. Based on their work, it has
been suggested that citizenship behaviors enhance firm functioning by contributing to the development of
social capital (structural, relational, cognitive) in organizations. In particular, Coleman (1990) and Putnam
(1995) both describe how individual behavior is critical for the creation of social capital. Putnam (1995)
argues that communities or organizations with high levels of social capital are typically characterized by
high levels of civic participation among their citizens. That is, individuals in such places are engaged in
the affairs of their communities and have a sense of obligation toward one another. Moreover, it is the
cooperation, involvement, and selflessness displayed by these people that contributes to the development
of trust, affect, and shared understanding among them all important aspects of social capital (Putnam,
2000). Hence such community-centered behaviors seem quite analogous to citizenship behaviors in
organizations. In other words, just as the "good citizens" within a community contribute to the
development of social capital within that community; "good organizational citizens" are likely to be
important for the creation of social capital within their organizations (Bolino et al., 2002). Hence it is
reasonable to believe that social capital may result from the willingness of employees to exceed their
formal job requirements in order to help each other, to subordinate their individual interests for the good
of the organization, and to take a genuine interest in the organization's activities and overall mission. In
short, when a firm is composed of good organizational citizens, it is likely to accumulate higher levels of
social capital. Thus it is hypothesized that OCB would positively influence social capital.

H2: OCB positively influences social capital.

2.5. Social capital and Job performance

A few consider social capital as an organizational resource with only positive outcomes, while others
increasingly consider both positive and negative outcomes. Social capital includes risks that may
outweigh its positive outcomes (Hansen, 1999). Social capital can have different benefits. It makes the
access to broader sources of information easy which aids in performance outcomes of individuals and
organizations at large. It provides control and influence producing benefits of solidarity and trust (Leana
& Van Buren, 1999). As proposed by Nahapiet and Ghosal (1998), it also helps in creation and renewal of
intellectual capital which is a major determinant of organizational and individual performance. Social
capital has been found to benefit organizations in several ways (Cohen & Prusak, 2001), i.e. by better
knowledge-sharing, due to established trust relationships, common frames of reference, and shared goals;
lower transaction costs, due to a high level of trust and a cooperative spirit (both within the organization
and between the organization and its customers and partners); lower turnover rates, reducing severance

4
 costs, hiring and training expenses. Social capital may further avoid discontinuities on account of
infrequent personnel changes, and thus maintain valuable organizational knowledge. The present study
has considered the positive outcomes of social capital for individuals and organizations. Thus it is
hypothesized that social capital would positively influence job performance.

H3: Social capital positively influences job performance.

2.6. OCB, Social capital and Job performance

As described earlier, previous researches have indicated that OCB enhances job performance and
organizational functioning (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Similarly social capital has also been found to
facilitate organizational effectiveness through increased job performance and smooth organizational
functioning (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Adler & Kwon, 2002). Thus, the relationship between OCB and
job performance may be conceptualized as indirect. As has been specifically indicated in the studies
mentioned earlier that citizenship behavior is likely to play a critical role in the creation of structural,
relational and cognitive aspects of social capital and social capital in turn influences job performance and
Downloaded by University of Windsor At 13:33 28 May 2017 (PT)

organizational effectiveness. Thus the relationship between OCB and job performance is mediated by
social capital. Thus it is hypothesized that social capital mediates the relationship between OCB and job
performance.

H4: Social capital mediates the relationship between OCB and job performance.

<Insert Figure 1>

A conceptual model has been proposed for its empirical validation (figure 1)

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample and Data collection

The sample for the study consists of professionals employed in healthcare organizations located in and
around Kolkata, India. The total sample size considered for the research work is 501. The sample
consisted of professionals drawn from different levels. One hundred and sixty five employees belonged
to the middle level profile of all administrative departments like patient service, finance, human resources
and operations. The respondents from senior category numbered 53 and consisted of mainly managers
and above. There were 283 junior level employees who were also considered as respondents for the study.
The average age of the respondents was 33.73 yrs. and the minimum educational qualification for all
respondents was graduation. The bulk of the respondents in the middle level category had a professional
qualification (degree) and the majority of the respondents in the junior level category had a technical
diploma or a degree. The respondents were selected to meet the sampling criteria of simple random
sampling with no deliberate bias involved in the sampling. Personal consent was obtained from each
respondent both verbally and written for their voluntary participation in the survey. We received consent
from 501 respondents and distributed questionnaire to all of them. However we received 430
questionnaires out of the 501 potetial respondents. Twenty nine questionnaires were rejected due to
incomplete information filled-in on the questionnaires by the respondents. This meant 401questionnaires
were found to be complete in all respects and were used in the data analysis of the study.

3.2. Measures

5
 A set of standardized measures was used for data collection of OCB, social capital, and job performance.
Each question consisted of statements or questions and were answered on a five-point Likert-type rating
scale comprising - Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neither Agree nor Disagree (3), Agree (4),
Strongly Agree (5).

1. Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

The OCB scale developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990) was used for data collection in the study. This scale
consists of 24 items measuring the different dimensions of OCB such as altruism, conscientiousness,
courtesy, sportsmanship and civic virtue. Items 1 to 5 measure the altruism dimension of OCB which
implies how much of this dimension is exhibited by team members in the organization. Similarly items 6
to 10 measure the conscientiousness dimension of OCB. The courtesy dimension is measured by items 11
to 15. Items 16 to 20 measure the sportsmanship dimension of OCB and civic virtue is measured by items
21 to 24.

2. Social Capital
Downloaded by University of Windsor At 13:33 28 May 2017 (PT)

The scale for social capital was modified from Pinho (2013) The e- SOCAPIT Scale: A multi-item
instrument for measuring social capital. This scale consists of 24 items measuring different dimensions
of social capital like cognitive, affective, bridging or structural and bonding or relational. Items 1, 2 and 3
measure the cognitive dimension of social capital while items 4, 5 and 6 measure the affective dimension
of social capital or sense of value or potential. Items 7 to 14 measure the structural or bridging dimension
of social capital which is the network aspect and items 15 to 24 measure the relational or bonding
dimension of social factor which is the level of trust and cooperation among members in the organization.

3. Job Performance

The job performance scale developed by Sarmiento and colleagues (2007) was used for the present study.
This consists of 16 items. It measures quality of work, dependability, knowledge of work, leadership
qualities, managing ability, discipline, integrity, proactive, innovative, teamwork, relationship, and
initiative.

4. Data Analysis and Findings

4.1. Preliminary Analysis

The data were analyzed by using SPSS 20 and AMOS 20. Structural equation modeling and multiple
regression analysis were used for testing the hypotheses. Preliminary analysis of data was carried out
before testing the proposed hypothesis. The data were checked for normality (Hair et al., 2006). The
normality of the data was tested by skewness and kurtosis. If the skewness is between -1/2 and +1/2, the
distribution is approximately symmetric. The Kurtosis value of the data, when equal to 3 is considered as
indicating a normal distribution. But such a value is rare in social science researches. Thus values around
three indicate the normality of distribution. Prior to statistical modeling, data were examined for outliers
and possible errors. The results of descriptive statistics and indicators of normality of data are shown in
table 1.

<Insert Table 1>

4.2. Results of Pearsons Correlation Coefficient

6
 The results of Pearsons correlation analysis are presented in table 2. Results show significant correlations
between OCB and job performance (r = .71, p = .01); OCB and social capital (r = .77, p = .01); and social
capital and job performance (r = .69, p =.01).

<Insert Table 2>

4.3. Exploratory factor analysis

In order to determine to what extent the observed indicators are linked to the construct, both exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to ascertain the factorial and
construct validity of each scale. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted with principal
component analysis used to examine whether the factor structure of the empirical data were in line with
Downloaded by University of Windsor At 13:33 28 May 2017 (PT)

the factors proposed from theoretical assumptions or considerations. The appropriateness of factor
analysis is determined by examining the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy and
Bartletts Test of sphericity. The Bartletts test of sphericity should be significant (p<.05), and the Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy should range from 0 to 1, with .60 suggesting the
minimum value for a good factor analysis (Hair et al. 1998). In order to ensure that each factor identified
by EFA has only one dimension and each attribute loaded only on one factor, attributes with factor
loadings of lower than .32 and attributes loading on more than one factor with a loading score of equal to
or greater than .32 on each factor are eliminated from the analysis. Indicators with communality <.50 are
removed from the analysis. The EFA key statistics on the final solutions of retained indicators for each
proposed construct is presented in Table 3.

<Insert Table 3>

The results of the KMO-MSA (>.71) revealed that the data are appropriate to be factor analyzed.
The significance of the overall correlation matrix evaluated by the Bartlett test of sphericity is significant
at .05 levels, indicating the sustainability of the data for factor analysis. Based on the Eigen values, all the
three constructs are identified to be single factors. All the items that have factor loadings greater than the
.32 accepted levels are retained for the analysis.

4.4. Assessment of internal consistency

Reliability or internal consistency (inter-item correlation) indicates the homogeneity of items comprising
a measurement scale (De Vellis, 1991). High inter-item correlation explains that the items of a scale have
a strong relationship with the latent construct and possibly measure the same thing. Cronbach Alpha is a
commonly-used method to assess reliability of a scale. Items with item-total correlation less than .30
should be eliminated from the scale to improve the corresponding alpha values (Field, 2005). Construct
reliability should be greater than .70 (Nunnally, 1978). All the constructs included in the present study
have obtained an acceptable coefficient alpha of above .70, indicating that the measurement scale is
reliable and appropriate for further data analysis. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 4. The
items with high reliability index were considered for confirmatory factor analysis using standardized
residuals, modification indices and the standardized loadings estimates-path estimates linking constructs
to indicators (Hair et al., 2006). The standardized residuals represent the differences between the observed
co-variance and the estimated co-variance with smaller fitted residuals indicating good fit (Lu et al.,
2007). The results of the reliability analysis are presented in table 4.

7
 <Insert Table 4>

4.5. Structural equation modeling

Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a statistical technique which combines a measurement model
(confirmatory factor analysis) and a structural model (regression or path analysis) into a single statistical
test, to examine the causal linkages among multiple predictor and criterion variables (Byrne, 2010).
Traditional multivariate procedures are not able to assess or correct measurement error, SEM provides
explicit estimates of these error variance parameters. The two-step approach suggested by Anderson and
Gerbing (1988) is followed in this study. Analysis of the structural model is at high risk of unreliability, if
the measurement model is of low reliability and validity (Hair et.al, 2006). Therefore the first step is
validation of the measurement model followed by estimation of the structural model.

4.6. Measurement Model

Downloaded by University of Windsor At 13:33 28 May 2017 (PT)

CFA was conducted on all the constructs of the study (Table 5). All the constructs achieved acceptable
level of fit with some model re-specification. The model re-specification was done on the basis of large
modification indices. Modification indices greater than 4 were taken into consideration to improve model
fit. Items with a standardized factor loading below .35 were removed (Hatcher, 1994).All hypothesized
structural relationships among variables have been presented in Figure 1. The fit measures of the
hypothesized model are presented in Table 6 with goodness-of-fit index (GFI), Tucker-Lewis index
(TLI), comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)values and they
were found acceptable. The graphical presentation of the results is given in Figure 2. The examination of
estimation of fit estimates was supplemented by standardized path coefficients as presented in Table 7.

<Insert Table 5>

<Insert Figure 1>

<Insert Table 6>

<Insert Table 7>

4.7. Hypotheses testing

Hypothesis testing was conducted based on the model. First the significance of each hypothesized path in
the research model was determined; thereupon the nature and magnitudes of the relationships among the
variables were examined on the basis of the theoretical expectations. AMOS output reported standardized
parameter estimates for all specified paths along with standard errors and test statistics for each path. The
proposed hypotheses were examined with the help of the level of significance, signs and the magnitude of
estimated coefficient. The hypothesized paths with non-significant statistics and/or significantly opposite

8
 expected directions would not be supported as such findings have no substantive meaningful
interpretations (Malhotra, 2004). The size of effect of a particular independent variable on its outcome
variable could be determined by examining the respective absolute magnitude of the standard path
coefficient (Hair et al., 2006). The interpretations concerning the size of the effect of the standardized
path co-efficient with an absolute value less than .10 indicates a small effect, a value of .30 indicates a
medium effect; and values greater than .50 indicate a large effect (Kline, 2005). The relationships
between constructs were examined based on t- values or critical ratio values associated with path
coefficients among variables. Each of the hypotheses listed below (Tables 8) was examined based on the
findings.

<Insert Table 8>

H1: OCB positively influences job performance.

Downloaded by University of Windsor At 13:33 28 May 2017 (PT)

The findings of the present study showed that OCB positively influences job performance. Hence the
hypothesis is accepted.

H2: OCB positively influences social capital.

The findings of the present study showed that OCB positively influences or predicts social capital. Hence
the hypothesis is accepted.

H3: Social capital positively influences job performance.

The findings of the present study showed that OCB positively influences or predicts social capital. Hence
the hypothesis is accepted.

4.8. The Mediation Analysis

The present study has considered social capital as the mediating variable to understand the influence of
organizational citizenship behavior on job performance. The study hypothesizes that social capital will
mediate the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and job performance. The model fit
for mediation effect is presented in Table 11.

<Insert Table 9>

H4: Social capital mediates the relationship between OCB and job performance.

<Insert Table 10>

As shown in the results, social capital mediates the relationship between organizational
citizenship behavior and job performance. However the results suggest a partial mediation effect since the
relationship is significant (p value is <0.05.)In the analysis when social capital was put in the model after
the mediator variable, we observed that the beta value is reduced from 0.71 to 0.48. This indicates that
although the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and job performance is significant
in the presence of social capital, its effect is substantially reduced.

9
 5. Findings and Discussion

The findings of the present study indicate that organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) significantly
predicts job performance. The findings confirm the assertion of earlier studies which has found OCB to
improve the ability of coworkers and managers to perform their jobs through more efficient planning,
scheduling, and problem solving (MacKenzie et al., 1991); and, they contribute towards service quality
(Hui et al., 2004). Organizations that foster good citizenship behaviors are more attractive places to work
and are able to hire and retain the best people (George & Bettenhausen, 1990). Yadav and Punia (2013) in
documenting the empirical research on OCB have examined the effect of OCB on job satisfaction,
reward, emotional intelligence, spiritual intelligence, personality, organizational justice and extra role
behavior and performance. Although it is not formally a part of the employee job description, it is seen to
influence managerial perceptions of employees evaluations (Whiting et al., 2008). This has also been
corroborated by respondents who held managerial positions. They stated that evaluation of their
subordinates is not just a function of fulfillment of their roles specified in job description but how far they
extend themselves in being proactive towards accomplishing organizational requirements and sensitive
towards co-workers. This was specifically mentioned in the context of older employees handholding new
Downloaded by University of Windsor At 13:33 28 May 2017 (PT)

recruits, helping in their organizational socializing process and on job training. OCBs influence employee
evaluations because it includes a belief that OCBs are essential to the success of the organization.
Voluntary participation in OCBs has been perceived as a sign of organizational dedication, and general
expectation that OCBs should be performed and therefore OCBs are aggregated into overall job
performance (Organ et al., 2006).

The results of the present study revealed that organizational citizenship behavior significantly
predicts the formation of social capital in the healthcare organizations under study. Social participation of
employees and performance of good citizenship behavior has helped them form networks and build social
capital. The previous studies by Van Dyne and colleagues (1994) asserts that interpersonal social
participation involving social contact such as attending non mandatory meetings and being involved in
social activities within the organization is likely to facilitate the formation of relationships between
organizational members who are not acquainted to each other and would possibly never have met in
course of the formal role requirements. This leads to formation of network ties among employees.
Previous studies by Bolino and colleagues (2002) propose that social participation which is an aspect of
OCB and good citizenship behavior will enhance structural social capital through formation of network
ties. Loyalty, obedience, functional participation and social participation will enhance relational social
capital by increasing liking, trust and identification among employees.

Social capital is found to significantly predict job performance. The findings are supported by
previous studies (Burt, 1992; Seibert et al., 2001) which have elaborated that individuals who gain social
capital i.e. they occupy more advantageous network positions, gain access to a variety of people with the
necessary information and the chance to contribute to organizational functioning, thereby gaining more
positive career outcomes, such as faster promotions and career outcomes. Moreover, several researchers
have indicated that an individual who is central in the social network is, over time, able to accumulate
knowledge about task-related problems and workable solutions. This expertise not only enables the
central individual to solve problems readily, but also serves as a valued resource for future exchanges
with coworkers. As others become dependent on a central individual for important advice, he or she gains
an advantage that can be used in future exchanges for valued resources (Cook & Emerson, 1978) aiding
their performance, and thereby is more possible to obtain promotions. The social capital formed by
employees in the organizations under study has helped them in utilizing the networks to their benefit.
Many of them have capitalized on their contacts with influential members in the networks to gain a
position of prominence in the organization. Although this was not directly reported by the employees, it
has been inferred from cross-referencing and interaction with employees during the data collection. These
findings are also supported by some of the previous studies (Burt et al., 2001). Moreover, networking

10
 activities of employees within and outside the organization has helped them in crisis management which
is a routine phenomenon in healthcare organizations. They have been able to deal efficiently with
emergencies relating to patients by collaborating with their counterparts in other hospitals as well as
colleagues within the same organizations.

The findings of the study show that social capital significantly mediates the relationship between
organizational citizenship behavior and job performance. Voluntary social participation and citizenship
behavior of employees in the healthcare organizations help employees to form social networks; enhance
their social relationship. This in turn positively influences their performance at work. Employees gather
information, get support and cooperation from their networks which help them to cope with emergency
situations and manage crises. This has made them more effective professionals and improved their
performance. The knowledge and advice they gathered from their friends and colleagues have helped to
solve problems and come out with innovative and effective solutions to face challenges. The findings of
the study have been supported by earlier research findings where social capital has been found to facilitate
effective organizational and individual functioning (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Adler & Kwon, 2002).
Downloaded by University of Windsor At 13:33 28 May 2017 (PT)

6. Implications and Scope for future research

The study has implications for organizations since it has highlighted the importance of organizational
citizenship behavior (OCB) in predicting job performance through the mediating role of social capital.
Organizational citizenship behavior creates social capital by building network structures which leads to
superior performance in employees. Thus the study has both theoretical and practical implications for
practitioners in encouraging OCB and rewarding them so that it may lead to positive performance
outcomes. Employee-friendly management practices should be adopted in organizations that facilitate the
formation of network-building social capital which serves as an asset to organizations and creates
competitive advantage. The findings of the present study cannot be generalized across organizations as
the study was restricted to a few healthcare organizations only. Moreover, the study is silent about gender
differences and does not report anything about the role of demographic variables in influencing outcome
factors. Further, research on these aspects may reveal more interesting results with regard to the effect of
OCB and social capital across gender and different levels within organizations.

References

Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management
Review, 27(2), 17-40.
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D.W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: the relationship between
affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587-95.

Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H., & Bloodgood J.M. (2002).Citizenship Behavior and the creation of Social
Capital in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27(4), 505-522.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W.H. (2003). Going the extra mile: cultivating and managing employee
citizenship behaviour. Academy of Management Executive, 17(3), 60-71.
Bollen, K.A. (1990). Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 256-259.
Borman, W.C., & Motowildo, S.J. (1993).Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W.C.Borman (Eds), Personal selection in organization. San
Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

11
 Borman, W.C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Introduction: organizational citizenship behaviour and
contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 67-69.
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The Social Space and the Genesis of Groups. Theory and Society, 14(6), 723-744.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Burt, R.S., Hogarth, R.M., & Michaud, C. (2001). The Social Capital of French and American Managers.
Organization Science, 11(2), 12347.
Byrne, B.M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and
programming. New York, London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001).In good company: How social capital makes organizations work. Harvard
Business School Press.
Coleman, J.S. (1994). Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard University Press
Cook K.S., & Emerson, R.M., (1978). Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks. American
Sociological Review, 43, 712-739.
De Vellis, R.F. (1991). Scale development: theory and applications.Vol.26. London: Sage Publications.
Downloaded by University of Windsor At 13:33 28 May 2017 (PT)

Ehrhart, M.G., Bliese, P.D., & Thomas, L.J. (2006). Unit-level OCB and unit effectiveness: examining
the incremental effect of helping behaviour. Human Performance, 19(2), 159-173.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS.2nd ed. London: Sage.
George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and
turnover: A group level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 698-709.
Hair, J.F. Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998).Multivariate Data Analysis, (5th
Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hair, J.F., Jr., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006).Multivariate Data
Analysis (6th edition). NJ: Pearson.
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across
organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82-111.
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural
equation modeling. Cary, NC: The SAS Institute.
Hui, C., Lee, C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Psychological contract and organizational citizenship
behavior in China: investigating generalizability and instrumentality. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(2), 311.
Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: A Guide to the Program and Applications. Homewood,
IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Keith, T.Z. (2006). Multiple Regression and Beyond. Boston: Pearson.
Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd Edition). New York:
The Guildford Press.
Lu, C.S., Lai, K.H., & Cheng, T.C.E. (2007). Application of structural equation modeling to evaluate the
intention of shippers to use internet services in liner shipping. European Journal of Operations
Research, 18, 845 - 867.
Leana C.R., & Van Buren, B.H. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices.
Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538-555.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M., & Fetter, R. (1991).Organizational citizenship behavior and objective
productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons' performance. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(1), 123-150.
Malhotra, N. K. (2004). Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation (4thed.). Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakeley, G. L. (1995).Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference
predictor of organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 16, 127-42.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage.
Academy of Management Review, 23, 242- 66.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nded.). New York: McGraw Hill.

12
 Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
Organ, D.W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior.In B.M. Staw& L.L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 12, 43-72. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Organ, D.W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behaviour: its construct clean-up time. Human
Performance, 10, 85-97.
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (2006). Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Its
Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Pinho, J. C. (2013). The e- SOCAPIT scale: a multi-item instrument for measuring online social capital.
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 7(3), 216-235.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transforming leader behaviour
and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviour.
Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-42.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Hui, C. (1993). Organizational citizenship behaviors and
managerial evaluations of employee performance: A review and suggestions for future research. In G.
Downloaded by University of Windsor At 13:33 28 May 2017 (PT)

R. Ferris, & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in Personnel Human Resources Management, 11, 1-40.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (1994).Organizational citizenship behaviour and sales unit
effectiveness.Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 351-63.
Podsakoff, P.M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the
quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262-270.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G., (2000). Organizational citizenship
behaviour: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestion for future
research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-63.
Putnam, R.D. (1995). Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy, 65-78.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon and
Schuster, New York, NY.
Refferty, A.E., & Restubog, S.L.(2010). The impact of change process and context on change reactions
and turnover during a merger. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1309-1338.
Sarmiento, R., Beale, J., & Knowles, G. (2007). Determinants of performance amongst shop floor
employees: A preliminary investigation. Management Research News, 30(12), 915-927.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R.C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy
of Management Journal, 44(2), 219237.
Steiger, J.H. (1990). Structural Model Evaluation and Modification: An Interval Estimation Approach.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173-180.
Walz, S.M., & Niehoff, B.P. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Their relationship to
organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 24, 301 319.
Williams, L.J., & Wong, T.S. (1999). Mood and organizational citizenship behaviour: the effects of
positive affect on employee organizational citizenship behaviour intentions. Journal of Psychology:
Interdisciplinary and Applied, 133, 656-68.
Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M., & Pierce, J.R. (2008). Effects of task performance, helping voice, and
organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,125-139.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W., & Dienesch, R.M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct
redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765-802.
Yadav, P., & Punia, B.K. (2013). Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: A Review of Antecedent,
Correlates, Outcomes and Future Research Directions. International Journal of Human Potential
Development, 2(2), 1-19.

13
 Authors Biographical Note:

Dr. Eeman Basu received her Ph. D from Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian
Institute of Technology Kharagpur, India in the year 2015. She worked at Colombia Asia
Hospital as Assistant HR Manager for more than five years. Currently she is working as
Downloaded by University of Windsor At 13:33 28 May 2017 (PT)

Assistant Professor, OB &HR at the International Management Institute, Kolkata, India. She has
published papers in the scientific journals of international repute in field of organizational
behaviour and human resource management. She has also presented papers in many national and
international seminar and conferences. Some of her research papers have been published in the
journal and books of Sage and Emerald publications.

Dr. Rabindra Kumar Pradhan is currently working as Associate Professor in the Department of
Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, India. He completed
his PhD in the area of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Prior to joining Indian Institute
of Technology Kharagpur, he worked as a Scientist at Defence Institute of Psychological
Research, DRDO, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India. He has 18years of teaching research and
training experience in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, organizational behaviour and
Human Resource Development and Effectiveness. He has published 04 books, more than 50
journal articles and 10 book chapters. Some of his articles have appeared in International
Journal of Work Organization and Emotions (Inderscience Publishers), Journal of Health
Management (Sage), Psychological Studies (Springer), Global Business Review (Sage), Vision:
The Journal of Business Perspective, European Journal of Business Management, International
Journal of development and Sustainability, Japan, and Management and Labour Studies (Sage),
etc.

Dr. Hare Ram Tewari is former Professor and Head of the Department of Humanities and Social
Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, India. He has more than 40 years of
teaching and research experience in Social Sciences and Human Resource Management. He has
several research paper publications in national and international journals. Currently, he is a
visiting faculty on academic assignments to several institutes and universities. His areas of
specialization are Sociology of Organization, Leadership, Science, Society and Technology, and
Human Resource Management, etc

14
 Table 1: Descriptive statistics and indicators of normality

No of
Variables N Mean S.D S.E Skewness Kurtosis
Items

Social Capital 401 94.25 3.88 .02 -.62 -.05 24

Downloaded by University of Windsor At 13:33 28 May 2017 (PT)

OCB 401 91.27 3.76 .02 -.60 .06 24

Job Performance 401 62.92 3.90 .02 -.45 -.13 16

Based on data prior to factor analysis

Source: Primary Data

Table 2: Correlation matrix among the variables

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3

1.Social Capital 94.25 3.88 1

2. OCB 91.27 3.76 .77** 1
**
3. Job Performance 62.92 3.90 .69 .71** 1

Based on data prior to factor analysis

**. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). Source: Primary Data

Table 3: Summary of Key Statistical Results for EFA

15
 Factor
Original EFA Eigen KMO-
Variables Variance (%) loading
Items Items Values MSA
range
OCB 24 19 1 and above 49 0.78 0.35-0.67
Social Capital 24 20 1 and above 66 0.81 0.42-0.72
Job
16 15 1 and above 50 0.79 0.39-0.66
Performance
*Bartlett test of sphericity significant at p<.05 Source: Primary Data

Table 4: Summary of Measurement Reliability

Criteria for
Downloaded by University of Windsor At 13:33 28 May 2017 (PT)

Items Cronbach
Variables Originals Items deleting of
retained alpha
items
OCB 24 20 .90 LMI
Altuism 5 3 .93
Conscientiousness 5 5 .93
Courtesy 5 4 .93
Sportsmanship 5 4 .94
Civic Virtue 4 4 .93
Social Capital 24 20 .90
Cognitive 3 3 .93
Affective 3 3 .93
Bridging 8 6 .93
Bonding 10 8 .93
Job Performance 16 15 .94 LMI
LMI- Large modification index
Source: Primary Data

Table 5: Fit Measures of Study Variables

Variables 2/DF p GFI CFI RMSEA TLI

OCB 1.67 .01 0.95 0.93 0.04 0.91

Social Capital 1.68 .01 0.94 0.93 0.04 0.90

Job Performance 1.86 .01 0.95 0.93 0.05 0.91

Source: Primary Data

Table 6: The Fit Measures of the Hypothesized Model

16
 Model CMIN/DF p GFI CFI RMSEA

Hypothesized model .000 .00 1.00 1.00 .05

Source: Primary Data

Table 7: Hypothesis Testing

CR/t-
Hypothesized Path Estimates S.E p Decision
value
JP OCB .48 .051 9.51 .01 Supported
SC OCB .75 .033 23.18 .01 Supported
JP SC .30 .051 5.87 .01 Supported
Source: Primary Data
Downloaded by University of Windsor At 13:33 28 May 2017 (PT)

Table 8: Effects of OCB, Social Capital and Job Performance

CR/
Hypothesized Path Direction Estimate S.E p
t- value

OCB JP + .48 .051 9.51 .01

OCB SC + .75 .033 23.18 .01

SC JP + .302 .051 5.87 .01

Source: Primary Data

Table 9: Model Fit for Mediation of Social Capital

IV DV Mediator CMIN p GFI CFI RMSEA TLI

Job Social
OCB 0.01 0.01 1 1 0.05 1
Performance Capital
Source: Primary Data

Table 10: Mediator Effects

17
 Estimate S.E C.R p
Direct OCB - JP 0.71 0.03 20.52 0.005
OCB - JP 0.48 0.05 9.51 0.024
Indirect OCB - SC 0.75 0.03 23.18 0.001
SC-JP 0.30 0.05 5.87 0.001
Source: Primary Data
Downloaded by University of Windsor At 13:33 28 May 2017 (PT)

18
 Social Capital

Organizational Job Performance

Citizenship Behavior

Figure 1: Proposed Conceptual Model (Source: Authors)

Downloaded by University of Windsor At 13:33 28 May 2017 (PT)

Figure2: Results of the Hypothesized Model (Source: Authors)

19