Nankai Business Review International

Does organization citizenship behavior really benefit the organization?: Study on the
compulsory citizenship behavior in China
Zheng-long Peng Hong-dan Zhao
Article information:
To cite this document:
Zheng-long Peng Hong-dan Zhao, (2012),"Does organization citizenship behavior really benefit the
organization?", Nankai Business Review International, Vol. 3 Iss 1 pp. 75 - 92
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by National University of Singapore At 06:16 01 February 2016 (PT)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/20408741211201935
Downloaded on: 01 February 2016, At: 06:16 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 41 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 698 times since 2012*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Wei Zheng, Mian Zhang, Hai Li, (2012),"Performance appraisal process and organizational
citizenship behavior", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 27 Iss 7 pp. 732-752 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941211259548
Ajay K. Jain, (2015),"Volunteerism and organisational culture: Relationship to organizational commitment
and citizenship behaviors in India", Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 1 pp.
116-144 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CCM-11-2013-0167
David A. Foote, Thomas Li-Ping Tang, (2008),"Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB): Does team commitment make a difference in self-directed teams?", Management Decision, Vol. 46
Iss 6 pp. 933-947 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740810882680

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:397875 []
For Authors
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.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8749.htm

Organization
Does organization citizenship citizenship
behavior really benefit the behavior
organization?
75
Study on the compulsory citizenship
behavior in China Received 30 April 2011
Revised 28 August 2011,
Zheng-long Peng and Hong-dan Zhao 31 October 2011
Accepted 7 November 2011
School of Economics & Management, Tongji University,
Downloaded by National University of Singapore At 06:16 01 February 2016 (PT)

Shanghai, People’s Republic of China

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of compulsory citizenship behavior
(CCB) on employees’ attitudes and behaviors in the context of Chinese organizations, especially the
mediating role of psychological contract violation and the moderating role of Chinese traditionality.
Design/methodology/approach – The study sample comprised matched surveys from
450 supervisor-subordinate dyads in the People’s Republic of China. The subordinates completed
measures of CCB, psychological contract violation, organizational commitment and Chinese
traditionality. The supervisors were asked to rate subordinates’ task performance and contextual
performance.
Findings – Results reveal that: CCB measurement tool of Western is also suitable for the situation in
China; CCB has negative impact on contextual performance and organizational commitment, but it has
no significant relationship with task performance; psychological contract violation has an partial
mediation role between CCB and employees’ contextual performance; Chinese traditionality has
obvious function of adjusting the relationship between CCB and employees’ contextual performance.
For the employees with low level of Chinese traditionality, it was found that the relationship between
CCB and employees’ contextual performance was significantly related with each other, whilst for the
employees with high level of Chinese traditionality, the relationship was not significant.
Originality/value – This empirical study provides preliminary evidence of the mediation effect of
psychological contract violation and the moderating effect of Chinese traditionality in the relationship
between CCB and employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Additionally, the findings highlight the
necessity of study on CCB in the context of China to help advance our theoretical understanding of the
mechanisms that underlie the effect of CCB on employees’ attitudes and behaviors.
Keywords China, Employees behaviour, Job commitment, Psychological contracts, National cultures,
Compulsory citizenship behavior, Task performance, Contextual performance,
Psychological contract violation, Chinese traditionality
Paper type Research paper

Originally published in Chinese in the Nankai Business Review – Peng Zhenglong,

Zhao Hongdan, “Does Organization Citizenship Behavior Really Benefit to Organization:
Study on the Compulsory Citizenship Behavior in China”, Nankai Business Review, 2011, Vol. 14 Nankai Business Review
International
No. 1, pp. 17-27. Vol. 3 No. 1, 2012
The study was supported by a grant from the National Social Science Foundation of China pp. 75-92
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
(Project Code: 10BGL033) and the Education Ministry Doctoral Research Foundation of China 2040-8749
(Project Code: 20100072110010). DOI 10.1108/20408741211201935
 NBRI 1. Introduction
3,1 Since the 1980s, organization citizenship behavior (OCB) has attracted many scholars’
close attentions. Yet related studies mainly focus on the positive side of OCB, which
suggest that such behavior contributes to the effective operation of whole enterprise
(Organ, 1997; Farh et al., 1997). It implies three basic assumptions: OCB motives are
selfness or altruistic; OCB promotes the effectiveness of organizational operation;
76 OCB is ultimately beneficial to the staff (Wu et al., 2005). However, OCB not only refers
to selfless and voluntary behavior, but also contains a variety of self-interest behavior.
Researchers are also increasingly aware that not all employees are willing to be a “good
soldier”, there are many employees have the ability and motivation to be “good actors”,
thus demonstrating the falsity of organizational citizenship behavior. This kind
of OCB not only does not increase organizational performance, but brings a lot of
Downloaded by National University of Singapore At 06:16 01 February 2016 (PT)

adverse effects, or even reduces organizational effectiveness (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006).

Vigoda-Gadot (2006, 2007) defines this kind of OCB as compulsory citizenship behavior
(CCB), through the redefinition of OCB boundaries, that is, staff were forced to show a
kind of non-spontaneous citizenship behavior, because of the pressures from subject,
object or environment.
Currently, there are two attitudes to the impact of CCB in the academic field: one
view is that CCB is very harmful to organization and employees, which will not only
reduce the individual’s job satisfaction, extra-role behavior and job performance, but
also increase their job pressure and intention to leave (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007; Tepper et al.,
2004); another view is that, although CCB has the significant instrumental motivation,
it can motivate the individual’s initiative and improve the organization’s short-term
production efficiency (Bolino et al., 2004; Hui et al., 2000). Thus, whether OCB is always
beneficial to the organization remains to be further studied.
Moreover, existing CCB studies mainly appear in a Western cultural context, however,
due to the impact of cultural differences, the relevant conclusions may not be equally
applicable to other cultural contexts. Thus, the research questions of this paper are:
RQ1. Whether CCB exists in China context?
RQ2. Whether CCB also has negative impact on Chinese organizations?
RQ3. What is the mechanism of CCB to employees’ attitudes and behaviors in China
context?
If the relevant questions are understood and answered in-depth, this will help local
managers to make the human resource management decisions.

2. Theoretical background and hypotheses

2.1 Compulsory citizenship behavior
The concept of CCB is generated in the demarcation process of OCB boundary.
Compared with OCB, although both of them recognize the individual will perform
extra-role behaviors of beyond their job responsibilities in the organization, there are
big differences in their expression and content (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006), specifically.
First, OCB emphasizes that its behaviors must be voluntarily, which tend to believe
that employees are the “good soldiers”, while CCB emphasizes that its behaviors must
be compulsory because of members’ pressure perceptions, which tend to believe that
employees are the “good actors” (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007).
 Second, OCB emphasizes that its behaviors are informal, selfness and altruists and Organization
the assumption is that organization members’ extra-role behaviors are based on their citizenship
certain personality characteristics or the sense of responsibility. While CCB emphasizes
that its behaviors are not spontaneity but utilitarian and the assumption is that behavior
organization members’ extra-role behaviors are based on achieving some purpose, such
as flatter, promotion and impression management, etc. Rioux and Penner (2001) address
the role of motives in OCB. Three motives are identified through factor analyses: 77
prosocial values, organizational concern and impression management (Rioux and
Penner, 2001). Subsequently, Bolino et al. (2004) discuss the underlying assumptions of
research on OCB. They suggest that:
.
citizenship behaviors may result from self-serving motives;
Downloaded by National University of Singapore At 06:16 01 February 2016 (PT)

.
citizenship behaviors may be unrelated, or even negatively related, to
organizational functioning; and
.
citizenship behaviors may have negative consequences for employees.

Third, OCB emphasizes that its behaviors are not assessed by the formal reward and
punishment system. That is, whether employees engage in such behaviors or not will not
be rewarded or penalized by the organization. While CCB emphasizes that its behaviors
are not gratuitous. It not only brings spiritual reputation to employees, but also
brings substantial organizational rewards in management practice. Otherwise, if
employees cannot perform the expected behaviors of supervisor, their social position or
even their formal standing in the organization, in terms of tenure, will be jeopardized
(Vigoda-Gadot, 2007). Allen and Rush (1998) support this point, their study reflect that
employees with high degree OCB will trigger their supervisor’s positive emotions, which
enable these employees to obtain better performance evaluations. And OCB also affect
supervisor’s decision-making behavior on promotion, training and reward allocation.
Organ (1997) indirectly admits that the non-voluntary extra-role behavior perhaps is
a part of OCB by emphatically point out its voluntary characteristic. Zellars et al. (2002)
and Tepper et al. (2004) also suggest that OCB is not always the individual’s voluntary
choice, but also imposes repression, exploitation and slander on employees, because of
the existence of abusive supervison. Vigoda-Gadot (2006) posited that increasing market
pressures have forced managers to maximize employees’ effectiveness and efficiency by
all available means, such as OCB, extra-role behaviors, etc. Employees may also be made
to feel that unless they are willing to undertake these activities, their social position or
even their formal standing in the organization, in terms of tenure, will be jeopardized.
Although altruistic behavior, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy and civic
virtue may be fully displayed in the dominant level, they all lose their voluntary meaning
when external pressure is applied and thus promote the formation of CCB
(Vigoda-Gadot, 2006).
Generally, culture is inextricably linked to management (Gao, 2009). Therefore, does
CCB found in the context of Western culture also exist in China? This issue still needs
further study. Viewed from the content of CCB, it is closely associated with Chinese
culture. First, since ancient times, China has the proverbs referring to impatience, such
as “patience is a virtue” and “a little spark kindles a great fire” (see Duke of Weiling, the
Analects), which tell us to avoid head-to-head conflicts and endure humiliation to
preserve the overall situation. Moreover, Chinese society always pays attention
to hierarchy, focusing on the power and position difference between supervisor
 NBRI and subordinate. Therefore, the tolerance of Chinese employees may be much higher
3,1 than Western staff to their supervisors’ compulsory behaviors and thus it is inevitable
to strengthen the followers’ perceptions of CCB (Hofstede, 1980). Second, paternalistic
leadership is one of the important leadership styles in Chinese organizations
(Luthans et al., 1998; Gao, 2009), which emphasizes the power and position of unequal
status between leaders and their followers. Especially in the Chinese realistic context
78 that employment is far greater than jobs, the supervisor often dominates the followers’
working life. In order to keep their positions or avoid damage to superior-subordinate
guanxi, the subordinated are not only angry, but harbor silent resentment when
they suffer supervisors’ coercive activities. This reaction is bound to boost leaders’
compulsory behaviors and thus exacerbate those employees’ CCB perceptions. Third, in
today’s business world, the contemporary fast-developing Chinese economy and its
Downloaded by National University of Singapore At 06:16 01 February 2016 (PT)

capital market more likely to force leaders to maximize their subordinates’ effectiveness
and efficiency by all available means, even including stimulating employees’
extra-role performance and perhaps undermine their willingness. Even if these means
are not intend to be hostile, it may also increase the likelihood that contributes to the
subordinates’ perceptions of CCB. Based on the above analysis, we propose the following
hypothesis:
H1. CCB also exists in Chinese organizations.

2.2 The mechanisms of CCB on employees’ attitudes and behaviors

It involves a large number of variables to explain employees’ job attitudes and behaviors
performance in the existing studies of organizational behavior, such as job satisfaction,
organizational justice and organizational commitment to characterize the job attitude
and extra-role behavior, in-role behavior and job performance to characterize the
behavior performance. This article mainly focuses on the variables of organizational
commitment, task performance and contextual performance to study their relationships
to CCB.
2.2.1 The impact of CCB on job performance. Motowidlo and van Scotter (1994)
propose a performance model, which divides job performance into task performance and
contextual performance, both of them jointly contribute to the overall performance. Task
performance closely relates to job responsibilities, individual’s skills proficiency and
work capacity, while contextual performance is not clearly defined content in job
specification, yet it plays an important role in supporting task performance. According
to the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), to the employees who get more support, trust,
resources, opportunities and other tangible and intangible benefits form their
supervisors, they will have a sense of the obligation to return. In the meantime, in
order to feedback the trust and support from the leader, employees will make more
effort that beyond explicit role requirements to fulfill the reciprocity obligations
(Wang et al., 2010). On the contrary, when the employees get more pressure, threat and
abuse from their supervisors, they will have a sense of psychological imbalance. In the
meantime, in order to seek psychological balance, employees will reduce work effort and
the probability of pay an extra contribution to organization is lower (Gouldner, 1960).
We therefore deduce that CCB shall have a significant negative prediction for task
performance and contextual performance in Chinese organizations. Accordingly,
we hypothesize:
 H2. CCB is negatively related to task performance. Organization
H3. CCB is negatively related to contextual performance. citizenship
2.2.2 The impact of CCB on employee’s organizational commitment. Becker (1960) is one behavior
of the first scholars to study organizational commitment, he believed that the more
investment of employees in organization, the more reluctant to leave the organization.
Because once they left, they would lose all benefits. It was followed by Meyer and Allen 79
(1984) and they defined organizational commitment as a mental state of reflecting the
relationship between employees and the organization, which implies employees’
involvement, loyalty and identification to their organizations. Among this, involvement
refers to employees are willing to pay more and even extra efforts for the organization’s
benefit; loyalty refers to employee’s strong desire of remaining in the current
Downloaded by National University of Singapore At 06:16 01 February 2016 (PT)

organization; identification refers to employee’s faith and acceptance to organizational

goals and values.
In subsequent research, many researchers proved that OCB has a significantly
positive correlation with organizational commitment of the employees (Williams and
Anderson, 1991). This shows that employees’ behaviors reflect their involvement,
loyalty and identification to their organizations, whereas, the level of employees’
organizational commitment also influence their behaviors (Williams and Anderson,
1991; Meyer and Allen, 1984). When employees are voluntary to perform citizenship
behavior, it not only indicates that they have higher organizational commitment on
the dimensions of involvement, but also shows the promotion of their organizational
identifications, to some extent. On the contrary, when employees are compulsory to
perform citizenship behavior, although it indicates that they have higher involvement
on superficial layer, on connotative layer it may lead to the reduction of their perceived
organizational identifications, even increase their turnover intentions, namely the
lower organizational loyalty (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007). Thus, it is not hard to deduce that in
Chinese business, high level of CCB has a significantly negative correlation with
perceived organizational commitment of the employees. Accordingly, we hypothesize:
H4. CCB is negatively related to perceived organizational commitment.
2.2.3 The mediating role of psychological contract violation. Generally, people’s behavior
or attitude is dominated by their thoughts or mentalities. Thus, from the perspective of
employee’s psychological contract to explain the mechanism of CCB on employee’s work
attitudes and behaviors performance, is consistent with the tradition that understanding
human behaviors from the perspective of the psychological factors (Chen et al., 2006).
Psychological contract binds the employees and their organization together, reflecting
employee’s subjective expectation to organizational behavior. When the employees
realize that they are suffering unfair treatment, they will form a kind of emotional
experience with a feeling of pressure and even anger, that is, psychological
contract violation, because they believe that the organization failed to comply fully
with the psychological contract. According to Vigoda-Gadot (2006, 2007), the main
characteristics of CCB are involuntary and motivated, namely, employees had to pay
extra effort freely, in order to meet their superior’s expectations or the motivation
atmosphere within the organization. However, in this situation, employees easily
generate the perception of imbalance between effort and reward, especially when their
initial motivations have not been met, they may think that the organization intentionally
 NBRI or unintentionally cannot fulfill its promises and obligations, thus resulting in
3,1 psychological stress or disappointment and further form the cognitive of psychological
contract violation (Vigoda-Gadot, 2007; Robinson and Morrison, 2000). Hence, we
suggest that the more CCB performed by employees, the more likely the psychological
contract violation. Moreover, after the psychological contract violation occurs, the
employees’ emotional investment to their organization would be reduced and they
80 will turn more attentions to the economic interests, mainly in the demission, reducing the
in-role (extra-role) performance and present counterproductive workplace behavior, etc.
(Turnley and Feldman, 1999). Supporting these assertions, Robinson and Morrison’s
(2000) empirical study documented that employees’ perception of psychological contract
violation is significantly associated with more intense feelings of violation and
demission and thus reduce the degree of satisfaction and loyalty to their organization or
Downloaded by National University of Singapore At 06:16 01 February 2016 (PT)

supervisor. Hence, it is not hard to deduce that CCB will affect employees’ work attitudes
and behaviors performance through promoting their perception of psychological
contract violation. Accordingly, we hypothesize:
H5. Psychological contract violation mediates the relationship between CCB and
employees’ attitudes and behaviors.
2.2.4 The moderating role of Chinese traditionality. The cultural value orientation of
employees shall not be neglected when studying the organizational behaviors in the
Chinese context. In previous studies (Yang et al., 1989; Yang, 2003; Farh et al., 1997),
Chinese traditionality is considered one of the most accurate concepts to describe Chinese
people’s personality and value orientation and as observed by many researchers
(Farh et al., 1997, 2007), Chinese traditionality is also an important moderating variable
in the relationship between employees’ efficiency and their behaviors. Thus, building on
previous studies’ recommendations, it is also very necessary to explore the role of
Chinese traditionality in the relationship between CCB and employees’ work attitudes
and behaviors performance.
The construct of Chinese traditionality derives from the article of Yang et al. (1989)
and Yang (2003, p. 265) define it as the typical pattern of more or less
related motivational, evaluative, attitudinal and temperamental traits that is most
frequently observed in people in traditional Chinese society and can still be found in
people in contemporary Chinese societies. Specifically, in traditional Chinese culture,
the supervisor may require their subordinates to go beyond the call of duties regardless
of the role specification, whilst subordinates may follow the inferior’s role norms,
deference, respect and trust of authority (Law et al., 2000; Aryee and Chen, 2006).
However, with the opening up to Western culture, industrialization and modernization
in contemporary Chinese society, Cheng and Farh (2001) found that the cultural values,
such as human face, guanxi and family doctrine, have been more substantially retained
by employees in Taiwan and the Mainland, but respect for authority may have become
weak. This shows that we can no longer assume that obedience to authority is the
common value of all Chinese people, especially for the young and highly educated
generation. Later, Farh et al. (1997) introduced these dimensions into the field of
organizational management research and laid a broad framework and solid foundation
for the subsequent studies (Hui et al., 2004; Farh et al., 2007; Chen and Aryee, 2007;
Wang et al., 2010). However, past studies on the moderating role of Chinese traditionality
have mainly focused on the relationship between leadership and employees’
 performance, the moderating role of Chinese traditionality in the relationship between Organization
employees’ behaviors (perception) and their performance have not been extensively citizenship
examined in the empirical literature. This article focuses on this and we posited that
individual differences in traditionality will affect the magnitude of relationships behavior
between CCB and employees’ work attitudes and behaviors performance. More
specifically, for those with high Chinese traditionality, there should be no correlation
between CCB and employees’ work attitudes and behaviors performance. It is because 81
they are easier to accept the higher power distance, when they perform the CCB, they will
response positively to it and are more inclined to see CCB just as a way to release
pressure. While for those with low Chinese traditionality, there should be stronger
relationship between CCB and employees’ work attitudes and behaviors performance. It
is because their attitudes and behaviors are usually determined by the extent of equality
Downloaded by National University of Singapore At 06:16 01 February 2016 (PT)

and reciprocity in the process of exchange (Farh et al., 1997), when they perform the CCB,
they will response negatively to it and are more inclined to see CCB as a way to seek
reciprocal exchange (Hui et al., 2004). Hence, we propose:
H6. Chinese traditionality will moderate the relationship between CCB and
employee attitudes and behaviors such that the relationship is stronger for the
employees who with low traditionality than high.

3. Methods
3.1 Sample and procedures
Targeted respondents came from work teams of 29 companies, which are the corporate
clients of one Car Rental Company in Shanghai, China. A work team was defined as a
supervisor (i.e. senior-, middle-, or first-line manager) and four or more team members
(i.e. these supervisors’ direct subordinates). With the assistance of this Car Rental
Company, we obtained a list of supervisors and their direct subordinates from which
some sort of random number generator was used to select a random sample. We then
randomly selected four or more subordinates per supervisor based on the list.
All participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and confidential.
The data were collected using two questionnaires. The subordinates’ questionnaires
consisted of self-reported measures of CCB, psychological contract violation,
organizational commitment and Chinese traditionality. The supervisors were asked
to rate subordinates’ task performance and contextual performance.
The respondents received a questionnaire, a return envelope and a cover letter of
introduction to the survey that we prepared. Each questionnaire was coded with a
researcher-assigned identification number to match employees with their immediate
supervisor. To ensure confidentiality, the respondents were instructed to seal the
completed questionnaires in the return envelopes and return them directly to the on-site
researchers. Out of the 600 questionnaires distributed (80 to supervisors and 561 to
subordinates), a total of 483 completed questionnaires were received from subordinates
and 69 from supervisors representing a response rate of 86.3 percent and 86.1 percent,
respectively. After deleting records of unmatched supervisor-subordinate pairs, a total
of 450 supervisor-subordinate dyads remained and constituted the final sample for this
study.
In the supervisor sample, 59 percent were men, 51 percent had been educated at the
undergraduate level or above and 83 percent were between 26 and 45 years old.
 NBRI In the subordinate sample, 62 percent were men, 19 percent had been educated at the
3,1 undergraduate level or above and 72 percent were between 26 and 45 years old.

3.2 Measures
3.2.1 CCB. We used a five-item scale developed by Vigoda-Gadot (2007) to measure CCB.
Response options range from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Sample items include “There is
82 social pressure in this organization to work extra hours, beyond the formal workload
and without any formal rewards” and “I feel that I am expected to invest more effort in
this job than I want to and beyond my formal job requirements”. The scale’s alpha
reliability is 0.835.
3.2.2 Psychological contract violation. The four-item measure of psychological
contract violation developed by Robinson and Morrison (2000) was used in this study.
Downloaded by National University of Singapore At 06:16 01 February 2016 (PT)

Response options range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items
include “I feel betrayed by my organization” and “I feel that my organization has
violated the contract between us”. The scale’s alpha reliability is 0.904.
3.2.3 Task performance. Task performance was measured with the five-item short
form measure (Williams and Anderson, 1991). Response options range from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items include “adequately completes assigned
duties” and “fulfills responsibilities specified in job description”. The scale’s alpha
reliability is 0.773.
3.2.4 Contextual performance. We used a five-item scale developed by Williams and
Anderson (1991) to measure contextual performance. Response options range from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items include “helps others who have
been absent” and “goes out of way to help new employees”. The scale’s alpha reliability
is 0.908.
3.2.5 Organizational commitment. The eight-item measure of organizational
commitment developed by Meyer and Allen (1984) was used in this study. Response
options range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items include
“enjoy discussing the organization with people outside it” and “staying with the
organization is a matte r of necessity as much as a desire”. The scale’s alpha reliability
is 0.941.
3.2.6 Chinese traditionality. We used a five-item scale developed by Farh et al. (1997)
to measure Chinese traditionality. Response options range from 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree). Sample items include “the best way to avoid mistakes is to follow
the instructions of senior persons” and “when people are in dispute, they should ask the
senior person to decode who is right”. The scale’s alpha reliability is 0.900.
3.2.7 Control variables. We controlled for employees’ gender, age, education and job
tenure. Gender was dummy-coded as 1, “male” and 0, “female”. Age had four categories:
25 or under, 26-35, 36-45 and over 45, which were coded as 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively.
Education had four categories: high school or under, vocational school, university and
graduate school, which were coded as 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Tenure was measured
by number of years.

3.3 Translation of questionnaire items

Following Brislin’s (1980) suggestion, the questionnaire items were first developed in
English and then translated into Chinese by two bilingual individual with graduate
training. The resulting questionnaires were then back translated into English by two
 different individual with similar backgrounds. The four translators met to discuss Organization
and resolve any discrepancies with the help of two professors in human resource citizenship
management.
behavior
3.4 Analytical strategy
We tested our hypotheses using a series of hierarchical regression analyses. More
specifically, to test the mediation hypotheses, we ran three regression models, as 83
suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). First, the mediators were, respectively, regressed
on the independent variable. Second, we regressed the respective dependent variables on
the independent variable. Finally, we regressed the respective dependent variables on
both the independent variable and the mediators. A mediating effect is indicated if the
effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable becomes less significant in
Downloaded by National University of Singapore At 06:16 01 February 2016 (PT)

the third regression model compared with that in the second regression model.
To test our moderating hypotheses, we entered CCB in Step 1 and the moderator,
Chinese traditionality, in Step 2. Finally, the interaction term, CCB with Chinese
traditionality, was entered. To avoid the problem of multicollinearity, we mean-centered
the two justice types before computing their interaction term (Aiken and West, 1991).

4. Results
4.1 Measurement model results
We conducted confirmatory factor analyses with maximum likelihood estimation to
examine the distinctness of the variables. The measurement model for the subordinate
questionnaire consisted of four factors: CCB, psychological contract violation,
organizational commitment and Chinese traditionality. The results indicate that the
four-factor model with 22 items provided a good fit to the data, x 2(202) ¼ 897.64,
p , 0.001, root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) ¼ 0.088, comparative fit
index (CFI) ¼ 0.94, normed fit index (NFI) ¼ 0.93. RMSEA scores approximate
0.08 and CFI and NFI scores are above 0.90 (Bentler and Bonnett, 1990), which indicate
that the indices fall above the guidelines for a good fit. We compared the three-factor
model to a single-factor model (x 2(209) ¼ 8223.71, RMSEA ¼ 0.292, CFI ¼ 0.63,
NFI ¼ 0.62). The four-factor model produced a significant improvement in chi-squares
(x 2(7) ¼ 7326.07, p , 0.001), suggesting a better fit than the single-factor model
(Schumacker and Lomax, 1996).
The measurement model for the supervisor questionnaire consisted of two
sub-factors: task performance and contextual performance. The results indicate that
the two-factor model with ten items provided a good fit to the data, x 2(34) ¼ 157.46,
p , 0.001, RMSEA ¼ 0.09, CFI ¼ 0.94, NFI ¼ 0.93. RMSEA scores approximate 0.09
and CFI and NFI scores are above 0.90 (Bentler and Bonnett, 1990), which indicate that
the indices fall above the guidelines for a good fit. We compared the two-factor model
to a single-factor model (x 2(35) ¼ 811.17, RMSEA ¼ 0.22, CFI ¼ 0.64, NFI ¼ 0.64).
The three-factor model produced a significant improvement in chi-squares
(x 2(1) ¼ 653.71, p , 0.001), suggesting a better fit than the single-factor model.

4.2 Descriptive statistics and correlations

Table I shows the descriptive statistics, intercorrelations and reliabilities for the study
variables. The zero-order correlation indicated that CCB significantly correlated to
contextual performance (r ¼ 2 0.215, p , 0.01), organizational commitment
 NBRI (r ¼ 2 0.114, p , 0.01) and psychological contract violation (r ¼ 0.497, p , 0.01), but
3,1 not task performance (r ¼ 0.065, p . 0.05). While psychological contract violation
significantly correlated to contextual performance (r ¼ 2 0.228, p , 0.01) and Chinese
traditionality (r ¼ 0.108, p , 0.05). These results provide initial support for our
hypotheses.

84 4.3 Hypotheses test results

H1 indicated that “the existence of CCB in the context of China” and our results support
this. First, using all 450 samples in this study, an exploratory principal components
analysis with an oblique rotation was performed. As shown in Table II, all items loaded
highly on one factor, with loadings ranging from 0.62 to 0.89, while the Sphericity
Bartlett’s test shows a x 2value of 974.581 (df ¼ 10, p , 0.01), the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Downloaded by National University of Singapore At 06:16 01 February 2016 (PT)

measure of sampling adequacy is 0.814 and the one-factor structure account for
61.31 percent of the total variance, suggesting one-factor structure is well supported in
the data of our study.
Second, we also surveyed 350 employees in three Car Rental Company in Shanghai,
China, in order to further illustrate the construct validity and cross-sample stability of
the CCB questionnaire. To ensure confidentiality, the respondents were instructed to
seal the completed questionnaires in the return envelopes and return them directly to the
on-site researchers. Out of the 350 questionnaires distributed, 314 usable samples were
returned, giving a response rate of 89.7 and 66 percent were men. The results of
confirmatory factor analyses with maximum likelihood estimation indicate that the CCB
with five items provided a good fit to the data, x 2(5) ¼ 15.55, p , 0.001,
RMSEA ¼ 0.082, CFI ¼ 0.98, NFI ¼ 0.97. RMSEA scores approximate 0.08 and CFI
and NFI scores are above 0.90 (Bentler and Bonnett, 1990), which indicate that CCB
questionnaire of Western is suitable for the situation in China and CCB also exists in the
Chinese organizations. Moreover, in this study, the Mean (3.82 vs 3.02) is higher than
Vigoda-Gadot’s (2007) study (Table I). This shows that CCB not only exists in China, but
may have more obvious performance. Taken together, H1 received support.
The hierarchical regression results are displayed in Table III. In support of H2-H5, we
found that CCB is significantly related to task performance, contextual performance and
organizational commitment, respectively. Results in the Table II show that, after
controlling for employees’ gender, age, education and job tenure, CCB is negatively related
to contextual performance (b ¼ 20.219, p , 0.01) and organizational commitment
(b ¼ 2 0.114, p , 0.01). In contrast, task performance (b ¼ 0.066, p . 0.05)

Variables M SD CCB TP CP OC PCV CT

CCB 3.82 0.62 (0.835)

TP 4.03 0.48 0.065 (0.773)
CP 2.15 0.76 20.215 * * 20.075 (0.908)
OC 4.59 0.72 20.114 * * 20.017 0.015 (0.941)
PCV 3.97 0.58 0.497 * * 0.016 20.228 * * 20.037 (0.904)
CT 4.02 0.53 0.282 * * 20.010 20.114 * 20.069 0.580 * * (0.900)
Table I.
Means, standard Notes: Significant at: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01; CCB, compulsory citizenship behavior; TP, task
deviations, correlations performance; CP, contextual performance; OC, organizational commitment; PCV, psychological
and reliability analysis contract violation; CT, Chinese traditionality; reliabilities are listed on the diagonal
 is not significantly related to CCB. Thus, H3 and H4 are confirmed, but H2 is not Organization
supported. Therefore, it is no need to consider the role of task performance in the following citizenship
empirical research steps.
Results in the fourth column of Table III show that, after controlling for employees’ behavior
gender, age, education and job tenure, psychological contract violation is positively
related to CCB (b ¼ 0.472, p , 0.01), which fulfills the first requirement in testing our
proposed mediating hypotheses (H6). Additionally, H3 and H5 support Condition 2 for 85
mediation. When psychological contract violation is entered into the regression
(Model 3 of Table III), psychological contract violation significantly affect contextual
performance (b ¼ 2 0.173, p , 0.01) but not organizational commitment (b ¼ 0.027,
p . 0.05), while the effects of CCB on contextual performance (b ¼ 2 0.137, p . 0.05)
and organizational commitment (b ¼ 2 0.127, p , 0.05) became weaker, albeit still
Downloaded by National University of Singapore At 06:16 01 February 2016 (PT)

significant. Taking the above results together, we can conclude that psychological
contract violation partially mediates the relationship between CCB and contextual
performance, but not the relationship between CCB and organizational commitment.
And thus H5 is partially supported by our data.
H6 proposed that Chinese traditionality moderates the relationship between CCB
and employee attitudes and behaviors. As shown in Model 5 of Table III, the
interaction term of CCB with Chinese traditionality is negative and significant to the
relationship between CCB and contextual performance (b ¼ 2 0.375, p , 0.05), but not
moderates the relationship between CCB and organizational commitment
(b ¼ 2 0.225, p . 0.05). And thus H6 is partially supported by our data. The
interaction effect is shown in Figure 1. It is clear that the relationship between CCB and
contextual performance is weaker under a higher level of Chinese traditionality.

5. Discussion
We built on the theory of organizational citizenship behavior and CCB to get a better
understanding about the existence, harmfulness and effect path of CCB in the context
of China. In supported of our predictions, we found that CCB questionnaire of Western
is not only suitable for the Chinese situation, but also has more obvious performance.
CCB significantly affect contextual performance and organizational commitment, but
not task performance. Psychological contract violation partially mediates the
relationship between CCB and contextual performance. We also found that the effect
of CCB on employees’ contextual performance is moderated by Chinese traditionality.

Items Loadings

1. The management in this organization puts pressure on employees to engage in extra- 0.62
role work activities beyond their formal job tasks
2. There is social pressure in this organization to work extra hours, beyond the formal 0.68
workload and without any formal rewards
3. I feel that I am expected to invest more effort in this job than I want to and beyond my 0.89
formal job requirements
4. I feel that I am forced to help other teachers beyond my formal obligations and even 0.83 Table II.
when I am short on time or energy CCB’s factor loading
5. I feel that I am forced to assist my supervisor against my will and beyond my formal 0.85 matrix and construct
job obligations validity after shaft
 Downloaded by National University of Singapore At 06:16 01 February 2016 (PT)

3,1

86
NBRI

Table III.

relationships
hypothesized
Multiple regressions of
CP OC
Variables TP PCV M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5

Gender 0.024 2 0.287 * * 0.092 0.060 0.010 0.046 0.035 2 0.019 2 0.036 2 0.029 20.045 20.048
Age 0.067 2 0.011 0.064 0.096 0.094 0.090 0.084 2 0.189 * * 2 0.173 * * 2 0.172 * * 20.173 * * 20.175 * *
Education 2 0.160 * * 0.022 2 0.052 2 0.071 20.067 20.071 20.064 0.196 * * 0.186 * * 0.186 * * 0.186 * * 0.188 * *
Tenure 2 0.010 0.000 2 0.014 2 0.011 20.011 20.014 20.018 0.064 0.065 0.065 0.063 0.062
CCB 0.066 0.472 * * 2 0.219 * * 20.137 * 20.202 * * 0.464 2 0.114 * * 2 0.127 * 20.103 * 0.050
PCV 20.173 * * 0.027
CT 20.060 0.463 20.041 0.080
CCB £ CT 20.375 * 20.225
R2 0.023 0.349 0.009 0.055 0.074 0.058 0.067 0.038 0.050 0.051 0.052 0.052
F 2.067 47.677 * * 0.986 0.127 * * 5.901 * * 4.514 * * 4.519 * * 4.357 * * 4.690 * * 3.938 * * 4.014 * * 3.467 * *
eR 2 0.046 * * 0.019 * * 0.003 0.009 * 0.012 * 0.000 0.001 0.000
Notes: Significant at: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01; standardized beta coefficients are reported; CCB, compulsory citizenship behavior; TP, task performance;
CP, contextual performance; OC, organizational commitment; PCV, psychological contract violation; CT, Chinese traditionality
 3 Organization
Low traditionality citizenship
2
Contextual performance High traditionality behavior
1

0 87
1
Figure 1.
Effect of CCB on
–2 contextual performance
under high and low levels
Downloaded by National University of Singapore At 06:16 01 February 2016 (PT)

–3 of Chinese traditionality
Low CCB High CCB

5.1 Implications for theory

Findings of our study, which was based on 450 dyad samples of the leaders and their
subordinate, contribute to existing knowledge in the following ways.
First, we found support for our hypothesis that CCB also exists in Chinese
organizations. The result is more fit Chinese cultural background, due to there is higher
power distance in China than in Western nations (Hofstede, 1980). Owing to such
cultural difference, supervisors tend to dominate the working life of their subordinates.
In order to avoid trouble for their career development, these Chinese employees have to
present a higher tolerance than Western employees to those compulsory behaviors of
their supervisor or organization. It will inevitably make those compulsory behaviors
lack of binding and eventually lead to employees’ CCBs in Chinese organizations.
Thus, we answered the first research question.
Second, as the first study to examine the relationship between CCB and employees’
attitudes and behaviors in the context of China, our findings showed that there are
difference of CCB’s harmfulness between Western and Chinese cultural. More
specifically, CCB is significantly related to contextual performance and organizational
commitment, but not task performance. There are two plausible explanations behind our
non-findings. From the perspective of organizational context, in Chinese job market,
employment opportunities are far less than the working population, coupled with the
impact of the recent US financial crisis and the wave of unemployment, in order to keep
their jobs, even if the employees perceived the compulsory or abusive behaviors form
their leader or organization, they are often not easily to intentionally violate job duties or
break company policy, which is not difficult to explain why CCB has no significant effect
on employees’ task performance. From the cultural perspective, Chinese traditional
culture emphasizes people should “wai fang nei yuan”, that is, when employees
perceived the compulsory pressure from their supervisor or organization, forced by
leader’s authoritarian or organizational pressure, at the individual’s explicit level
(behavior), the perception of psychology lopsided is often not promote these employees
to perform resistance behavior, such as arriving late and leaving early, etc. However,
they will find a balance at the implicit level (psychology), such as decreasing their
additional contribution to the organization and reducing organizational loyalty,
etc. Taken together, CCB is also harmful in Chinese organization and thus, we answered
the second research question.
 NBRI Third, In addition to the main effect of CCB on employees’ attitudes and behaviors,
3,1 we also expected that psychological contract violation and Chinese traditionality would
play a role in the relationships. As predicted, the results show that the effect of CCB on
employees’ contextual performance is partially mediated by psychological contract
violation and moderated by Chinese traditionality. However, both the mediating effect
and the moderating effect are not valid on the relationship between CCB and
88 organizational commitment. Possible explanation might be organizational
commitment’s special two-double construct. According to Meyer and Allen (1984),
organizational commitment indicates a psychological status of reflecting the
relationship between employees and their organization, which implies employees’
involvement (explicit behavior level), loyalty and identification (implicit cognitive level)
to their organization. The different mechanisms of the two levels lead to individual’s
Downloaded by National University of Singapore At 06:16 01 February 2016 (PT)

behavior cannot fully characterize their cognitive, that is, so-called “think in one way and
behave in another”, which is fit to Chinese some proverbs very well, such as “one
shouldn’t have the heart to harm others, but must be vigilant so as not to be harmed”.
In this situation, when employees are forced to perform citizenship behaviors, employees
with high traditionality usually have expressive relationships with their leaders based
on societal expectations of roles which have already been preexisted, they will easier to
submit to their leaders’ arrangement and present the expected behaviors at explicit
behavior level, while they will show a negative reaction at implicit cognitive level,
in order to cope with their perceptions of psychology lopsided and thus reduce
their organizational commitment. On the contrary, while for employees with low
traditionality, their attitudes and behaviors towards the leaders are usually determined
by the extent of equality and reciprocity in the process of exchange (Farh et al., 1997).
Therefore, they will show a negative reaction both at explicit behavior and implicit
cognitive levels because they will not accept such type of supervision and thus will
further reduce their organizational commitment. Taken together, although H6 are
partially supported by our data, it is not hard to deduce that both psychological contract
violation and Chinese traditionality are playing important roles in the relationship
between CCB and employees’ attitudes and behaviors. And thus, we also answered the
third research question.

5.2 Implications for practice

There are four practical contributions in this study. First, our findings show that CCB
significantly exists in Chinese organization and has negatively effect on contextual
performance and organizational commitment. Thus, organizations should try to develop
specific measures to reduce employees’ perception of CCB, such as helping solve
problems employees encountered at work, caring for their daily life and building a good
work relationship. All of these will drive employees make extra efforts voluntarily in
order to feedback the support and trust from leaders, so as to exhibit less CCB. Second,
our results suggest that the CCB is not significantly related to task performance in the
context of China. Thus, leaders should redefine the boundary of OCB in organizations
and promote the OCB transfer to in-role behavior through job duties revision, training
and guidance, etc. Third, psychological contract violation mediates the relationship
between CCB and employees’ contextual performance. Thus, an organization shall also
conduct relevant training and assessment projects to reduce employees’ psychological
contract violation. What is more important is that for the employees with different
 authority value orientation, the effect of CCB on contextual performance is also different. Organization
Therefore, leaders shall know their subordinates’ cultural orientations of Chinese citizenship
traditionality and according it to develop different strategies. Such as, the leader should
provide more opportunities and delegations to the employees with low traditioality, so behavior
as to enhance their equivalence perception and finally lower the damages of CCB to a
minimum level. While to the employees with high traditioality, the leader should
conduct relevant training to enhance their return perception and finally promote their 89
contextual performance.

5.3 Limitations and future research

The first limitation of this study is that the cross-sectional research design may have
resulted in alternative causal relationships. Although we suggest that CCB affects
Downloaded by National University of Singapore At 06:16 01 February 2016 (PT)

employees’ attitudes and behaviors through psychological contract violation, it takes

time for the effect to function. Future studies could conduct longitudinal research or use
experimental designs to determine the direction of causality. The second limitation is the
selection of the sample. As noted, our data are solely collected from indigenous business
in the Yangtze Delta River Region. Whether our findings can be applied to business in
other regions of China and to other types of organizations remains to be verified. Future
research should be based on more extensive sampling from a normal economic period to
improve the external validity of research.
Furthermore, future research can be enriched from two aspects. First, the concept of
organizational commitment and psychology contract are much closed, which is likely
to lead to the theoretical intermediary model of the present article is not tight on the
logical reasoning. Even if our findings are consistent with the theoretical mediate
hypotheses, other conclusions cannot be excluded. Thus, more mediators shall be used
to explore the mechanisms underlying the relationship between CCB and employees’
attitudes and behaviors, such as job satisfaction (Williams and Anderson, 1991),
emotional exhaustion (Wright and Cropanzano, 1998) and perceived insider status
(Wang et al., 2010). Second, further study should encourage efforts to develop other
moderating variables (such as power distance, organizational culture and climate) to
analyze the effect conditions and application scope of CCB on employees’ attitudes and
behaviors.

References
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interactions, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Allen, T.D. and Rush, M.C. (1998), “The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on
performance judgments: a field study and a laboratory experiment”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 247-60.
Aryee, S. and Chen, Z.X. (2006), “Leader-member exchange in a Chinese context: antecedents, the
mediating role of psychological empowerment and outcomes”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 59, pp. 793-801.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 1173-82.
Becker, H.S. (1960), “Notes on the concept of commitment”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 1,
pp. 32-40.
 NBRI Bentler, P.M. and Bonnett, D.G. (1990), “Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88, pp. 588-606.
3,1
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H. and Niehoff, B.P. (2004), “The other side of the story: reexamining
prevailing assumptions about organizational citizenship behavior”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 2, pp. 229-46.
90 Brislin, R.W. (1980), “Translation and content analysis of oral and written material”,
in Triandis, H.C. and Berry, J.W. (Eds), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA, pp. 349-444.
Chen, Y.X., Jia, L.D., Li, C.P., Song, J.W. and Zhang, J.J. (2006), “Transformational leadership,
psychological empowerment and organizational commitment of employees: an empirical
Downloaded by National University of Singapore At 06:16 01 February 2016 (PT)

study under Chinese context”, Management World, Vol. 1, pp. 96-105,144 (in Chinese).
Chen, Z.X. and Aryee, S. (2007), “Delegation and employee work outcomes: an examination of the
cultural context of mediating processes in China”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 50, pp. 226-38.
Cheng, B.S. and Farh, J.L. (2001), “Study on the social orientation of Chinese society:
a comparative study of Taiwan and the mainland”, Chinese Journal of Psychology, Vol. 43,
pp. 207-21 (in Chinese).
Farh, J.L., Earley, P.C. and Lin, S.C. (1997), “Impetus for action: a cultural analysis of justice and
organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 3, pp. 421-44.
Farh, J.L., Hhackett, R.D. and Liang, J. (2007), “Individual-level cultural values as moderators of
perceived organization supper-employee outcome relationships in China: comparing the
effects of power distance and traditionality”, The Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 50, pp. 715-29.
Gao, R.G. (2009), “Does abusive supervisor is the black sheep of organization: the study of
abusive supervision in the context of China”, Management World, Vol. 9, pp. 124-132,147
(in Chinese).
Gouldner, A.W. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement”, American
Sociological Review, Vol. 2, pp. 161-78.
Hofstede, G.H. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values,
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hui, C., Lam, S. and Law, K. (2000), “Instrumental values of organizational citizenship behavior
for promotion: a field quasi-experiment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 5, pp. 822-8.
Hui, C., Lee, C. and Rousseau, D.M. (2004), “Employment relationships in China: do workers
relate to the organization or to people?”, Organization Science, Vol. 15, pp. 232-40.
Law, K.S., Wong, C., Wang, D. and Wang, L. (2000), “Effect of supervisor-subordinate guanxi on
supervisory decisions in China: an empirical investigation”, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 11, pp. 751-65.
Luthans, F., Peterson, S.J. and Ibrayeva, E. (1998), “The potential for the dark side of leadership
in post-communist countries”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 33, pp. 185-202.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1984), “Testing the ‘side-bet theory’ of organizational commitment:
some methodological considerations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 373-8.
Motowidlo, S.J. and van Scotter, J.R. (1994), “Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from contextual performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 4,
pp. 474-80.
 Organ, D.W. (1997), “Organizational citizenship behavior: it’s construct clean-up time”, Human Organization
Performance, Vol. 2, pp. 85-97.
citizenship
Rioux, S.M. and Penner, L.A. (2001), “The causes of organizational citizenship behavior:
a motivational analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 1306-14. behavior
Robinson, S.L. and Morrison, E.W. (2000), “The development of psychological contract breach
and violation: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5, pp. 525-46.
Schumacker, R.E. and Lomax, R.G. (1996), A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, 91
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Tepper, B.J., Hoobler, J., Duffy, M.K. and Ensley, M.D. (2004), “Moderators of the relationship
between coworkers’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 455-65.
Downloaded by National University of Singapore At 06:16 01 February 2016 (PT)

Turnley, W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (1999), “The impact of psychological contract violations on
exit, voice, loyalty and neglect”, Human Relations, Vol. 52, pp. 895-922.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006), “Compulsory citizenship behavior in organizations: theorizing some dark
sides of the good soldier syndrome”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, No. 1, pp. 77-93.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007), “Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination of
compulsory extra-role behavior in the workplace”, Journal of Business and Psychology,
Vol. 3, pp. 377-405.
Wang, L., Chu, X.P. and Ni, J. (2010), “Leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship
behavior: a new perspective from perceived insider status and Chinese traditionality”,
Frontiers of Business Research in China, Vol. 4, pp. 148-69.
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 3, pp. 601-17.
Wright, T.A. and Cropanzano, R.S. (1998), “Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job
performance and voluntary turnover”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 486-94.
Wu, X., Wu, Z.M. and Zhang, D. (2005), “New perspectives in organizational citizenship behavior
research”, Advances in Psychological Science, Vol. 2, pp. 211-18 (in Chinese).
Yang, K.S. (2003), “Methodological and theoretical issues on psychological traditionality and
modernity research in an Asian society: in response to Kwang Kuo Hwang and beyond”,
Asian Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 263-85.
Yang, K.S., Yu, A.B. and Yeh, M.H. (1989), “Chinese individual modernity and traditionality:
construct definition and measurement”, Proceedings of the Interdisciplinary Conference on
Chinese Psychology and Behavior, pp. 287-354 (in Chinese).
Zellars, K.L., Tepper, B.J. and Duffy, M.K. (2002), “Abusive supervision and subordinates’
organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 1068-76.

Further reading
Farh, J.L. and Cheng, B.S. (2000), “Paternalistic leadership in Chinese organization: a cultural
analysis”, Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, Vol. 13, pp. 127-80
(in Chinese).
Li, J.B., Xu, B.H. and Zhang, Y.Y. (2006), “The influence of organizational commitment on work
behavior and work performance”, Chinese Journal of Ergonomics, Vol. 3, pp. 17-19 (in Chinese).
Wang, L. and Chu, X.P. (2009), “Organizational justice, employment relationships and employee
job attitudes based on private enterprises in Guangdong”, NanKai Business Review, Vol. 4,
pp. 62-70 (in Chinese).
 NBRI About the authors
Zheng-long Peng (PhD, Tongji University) is a Professor in the Department of Economics and
3,1 Management, Tongji University. His research focuses on organizational behavior and human
resource issues in China, including cross-cultural human resource development, emotional labor
and leader-member exchange in Chinese firms.
Hong-dan Zhao is a PhD candidate in the Department of Economics and Management, Tongji
University. His research interest centers on the organizational behaviors, such as extra-role
92 behavior, organizational citizenship behavior and leader-member exchange. Hong-dan Zhao is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at: jimmyzhaoxin@163.com
Downloaded by National University of Singapore At 06:16 01 February 2016 (PT)

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. David Ahlstrom. 2015. From the Editors: Publishing in the Journal of World Business. Journal of World
Business 50, 251-255. [CrossRef]
2. Hongdan Zhao, Zhenglong Peng, Hsiu-Kuei Chen. 2014. Compulsory Citizenship Behavior and
Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Role of Organizational Identification and Perceived
Interactional Justice. The Journal of Psychology 148, 177-196. [CrossRef]
3. David Ahlstrom, Garry D. Bruton, Li Zhao. 2013. Turning good research into good publications. Nankai
Business Review International 4:2, 92-106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by National University of Singapore At 06:16 01 February 2016 (PT)