See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/279177055

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, Job Performance and HR Practices:

A Relational Perspective

Article  in  Management and Labour Studies · June 2015

DOI: 10.1177/0258042X15578023

CITATIONS READS

41 5,908

3 authors:

Eeman Basu Rabindra Kumar Pradhan

Indian Institute of Management Raipur Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
7 PUBLICATIONS   152 CITATIONS    107 PUBLICATIONS   1,426 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lalatendu Kesari Jena

Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar (XIMB)
150 PUBLICATIONS   1,480 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Human Resource Empowerment View project

Workplace Spirituality and Human Resource Effectiveness View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lalatendu Kesari Jena on 25 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article

Organizational Citizenship Management and Labour Studies

39(4) 1–12
Behaviour, Job Performance © 2015 XLRI Jamshedpur, School of
Business Management
and HR Practices: A Relational & Human Resources
SAGE Publications
Perspective sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0258042X15578023
http://mls.sagepub.com

Eeman Mallick1
Rabindra Kumar Pradhan1
Hare Ram Tewari1
Lalatendu Kesari Jena1

Abstract
Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) is defined as actions or behaviours that employees are
willing to engage beyond their recommended role requirements. Several empirical studies have shown
that OCB is positively related to indicators of individual, unit and organizational performance. In view of
OCB’s positive relation with individual and organizational performance, there is an increasing concern
among organizations for enhancing these contextual behaviours. The present study aims to explore the
relationship between OCB and job performance. It has also tried to examine the interactive relation-
ship between OCB and human resources (HR) practices with its corresponding impact on job perfor-
mance. The findings revealed that OCB is having a significant relationship with job performance. Among
the different dimensions of OCB, we have found that altruistic dimension has the strongest relationship
with job performance, whereas the civic virtue dimension has an insignificant one. Further, HR practices
have significantly moderated the relationship between OCB and job performance. However, the inter-
action between both the constructs was found to have an inverse effect on the relationship between
OCB and job performance. The findings have advocated that the involvement of employees in altruistic
behaviour enhances productivity and performance at workplace

Keywords
Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB), job performance, HR practices, altruistic behaviour

1
Department of Humanities and Social Science, IIT Kharagpur, India.

Corresponding Author:
Rabindra Kumar Pradhan, Department of Humanities and Social Science, IIT Kharagpur, 721 302, India.
E-mails: rkpradhan@hss.iitkgp.ernet.in; rabi2020@gmail.com
2 Management and Labour Studies 39(4)

Introduction
Organizational realities have undergone a sea change in the present-day competitive economic scenario,
and accordingly, perceptions about them have also considerably changed. Significant importance is
placed on factors that are inimitable or unique such as culture, knowledge and human resource (HR)
in organizations. The aspects leading to such differentiable identities are difficult to understand from
within the formal boundaries of organizational mechanisms. Thus, in the context of social and behavi-
oural science, concepts such as organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) have gained significant
prominence to establish its far-reaching implications on an individual performance and organizational
functioning. OCB can be defined as a behaviour of employees that is voluntary or discretionary and not
recognized within formal job descriptions laid out by organizations. But these behaviours go a long way
in maintaining positive organizational culture that reinforces employee engagement, employee
commitment, employee motivation and job performance. Strategic human resource management (HRM)
leading to high-performing HR practices motivates OCB that leads to superior job performance and
efficient organizational functioning. The current study attempts to examine the relationship between
OCB and job performance. It further tries to establish the moderating role of HR practices in its
relationship with the expected job outcome.

Importance of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour on

Job Performance
The OCB has occupied an important space in the organization theory literature for over 20 years.
The earlier conceptualization of OCB perspective as willingness to cooperate has moved towards
Katz and Kahn’s (1966) spontaneous behaviour, until Organ (1988), stating as ‘individual behaviour that
is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the
aggregate, promotes the effective functioning of the organization’. OCB has been further described by
Organ (1988) as a behaviour that contributes indirectly to the organization’s performance through the
maintenance of the organization’s social system leading to its health and hygiene. There has been
considerable debate among researchers with regard to OCB as part of employees’ in-role require-
ments even though they may believe them to be discretionary forms of behaviour that are not formally
rewarded by the organization (Morrison, 1994).
The concept of OCB comes very close to the construct of contextual performance introduced by
Borman and Motowidlo (1997), Borman et al. (1995), Motowildo and Van Scotter (1994) and Van
Scotter and Motowildo (1996), which was suggested as a replacement for the OCB construct. Contextual
performance comprises much of the same behaviour as OCBs but does not specify that the behaviour
has to be discretionary and non-rewarded, as OCB was originally conceptualized. Perhaps, in response
to the critics, OCB has been redefined to include behaviour that contributes ‘to the maintenance and
enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports task performance’ (Organ, 1997).
Although this revised definition recognizes OCB’s relevance in explaining task performance, OCBs are
still primarily viewed as behaviours that are generally discretionary and less likely to be formally or
explicitly rewarded in an organization (Podsakoff et al., 2000).
‘People don’t work alone; they combine their talents and energies to accomplish their goals’
(Snell, 1999, p. 62). The concept of OCB has evolved beyond the concepts of ‘cooperation’ that were
thought of affecting the organizational performance, and deeper research into the concept later has
Mallick et al. 3

given a firm foundation to its underlying construct. However, cooperation was predominantly considered
to be influenced by the workplace culture and environment (Smith et al., 1983). OCB is an important
phenomenon in the informal organization concept since two of its main aspects are trust and strength of
interpersonal relationships. Thus, just like social capital, OCB has also found by researchers to have a
profound impact on organizational performance and individual development. OCB encom-passes five
dimensions: altruism, generalized compliance, sportsmanship, courtesy and civic virtue (Organ, 1988;
Podsakoff et al., 2000). Furthermore, a three-factor model of citizenship behaviour emerged from the
work of Borman, Penner, Allen and Motowidlo (2001), which are interpersonal citizenship performance,
organizational citizenship performance and job/task citizenship performance.
As found in the literature, OCBs are optional pro-social behaviour of an individual, different from
official job requirements and duties that are not a part of the stipulated job description, and they benefit
others as well as the organization (Organ et al., 2006). OCBs have been shown to be positively related to
organizational success (Dunlop & Lee, 2004; Organ et al., 2006). OCB is found to influence managerial
evaluation of employees although it is not a part of their formal job description (Podsakoff et al.,
2000; Whiting et al., 2008). This implies that there is a belief of management that OCB is beneficial
to organizations in terms of its performance, and the attitude of voluntary participation is perceived
as a sign of organizational dedication (Organ et al., 2006). Whiting et al. (2008) suggested OCB to be
equally important as task performance for evaluation of its employees.
The research on OCB’s antecedents and consequences has brought forth both the positive and negative
consequences of OCB. Organ’s definition was mostly inclined towards the positive aspects; however,
later studies have thrown light on the negative antecedents (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006, 2007) and negative
effects (Bolino, Turnley & Niehoff, 2004). These studies have investigated OCBs’ effects on groups
where a drop in effort occurs.

Role of Human Resource Practices

The importance of HRM as a competitive tool and the relationship between HRM with organizational
performance has been the subject of systematic research (Becker & Gerhart, 1996; Delery & Doty, 1996;
Huselid, 1995; Truss, 2001). Cascio (1992) has suggested that contemporary organizations must gain
competitive advantage through effective utilization of their HR. Researchers have also identified
and examined certain HRM practices as crucial to developing organizational competitive advantage
(Ferris et al., 1999; Pfeffer & Veiga, 1999).
Organizational policies and practices increasingly influence its employees. As proposed in social
exchange theory (Blau, 1964), employees receive inducements for their contributions (Tsui, Pearce,
Porter & Tripoli, 1997) in the form of HRM practices, to which they reciprocate by exhibiting positive
or negative behaviours depending on the attributions they make about the reasons why manage-
ment adopts such HR practices (Nishii, Lepak & Schneider, 2008, p. 503). High-performing HR prac-
tices may increase employee’s trust towards the organization in believing that organization promotes
values that are humanistic and is beneficial to them. Thus, according to the norms of reciprocity, they
will be obliged to contribute positively towards the benefit of the organization that may possibly trans-
late into demonstrating extra role behaviours such as OCB (Tsui et al., 1997). Moreover, organiza-
tional performance is a function of team performance and individual performance, which in turn
is influenced through interaction between employee ability, voluntary or discretionary effort and
opportunities (Boxall & Macky, 2009).
4 Management and Labour Studies 39(4)

Objective and Construction of Hypothesis

The review of literature indicated that there is a very strong relationship between OCB, job performance
and HR practices of organizations. There is also sufficient literature in establishing that HR practices
influences OCB. However, there has been a dearth of literature in establishing whether HR practices can
moderate the relationship (positively or negatively) between OCB and job performance. Moreover, no
exclusive studies have been found till date in any of these above constructs in the Indian context.
Therefore, the present study has been undertaken to address the above-mentioned gap areas. Hence,
basing on the research gap areas in literature, the following objectives have been proposed:

1. To examine the relationship between OCB, job performance and HR practices.

2. To examine the moderating role of HR practices on the relationship between OCB and job
performance.

In order to examine the above-mentioned objectives, the following hypotheses were proposed
for study:

H1:  OCB would positively affect job performance.

H2:  HR practices would moderate the relationship between OCB and job performance.

Methodology

Sample and Data Collection

The sample for the study consists of 15 health care organizations, out of which 10 belong to hospitals
and nursing homes and 5 belong to diagnostic centre in and around Kolkata, India. As per the nature of
the sample, it was heterogeneous in terms of the profile because people belonging to different levels
of experience and qualifications were taken into consideration for study. People in all levels of the
organizational hierarchy were included in the study with at least two years of experience in
the organization, ranging from junior, middle and senior levels and all departments as well. The total
sample size considered for the research work was 501.
Approximately, 10 per cent of the total population of the organizations under study was randomly
selected. The sample consisted of 165 employees belonging to the middle-level profile of all administrative
departments such as patient service, finance, HR and operations. The respondents from the senior
category were 53 and consisted of mainly managers and above. The junior-level employees consisted of
283 health care professionals as respondents for the study. The average age of the sample was 33.73
years, and the minimum qualification for all respondents was graduation. Bulk of the respondents in the
middle-level category had a professional qualification degree, and majority of the respondents in the
junior-level category had technical diploma or degree.
On meeting the sampling criteria by simple random sampling, the respondents were selected, with no
deliberate bias involved in the sampling. Out of the 501 questionnaires distributed, 430 questionnaires
were finally collected. Twenty-nine responses (from the respondents) had to be rejected due to incom-
plete information filled in the questionnaires. Finally, 401 questionnaires were found to be complete in
all respects that have been used for the analysis of the present study.
Mallick et al. 5

Measures
A set of standardized tools were used for data collection on OCB, job performance and HR practices.
All these scales were presented in the form of questionnaires to all participants. Each question-
naire consisted of certain statements or questions and is answered on a five-point rating scales,
varying from strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neither agree nor disagree (3), agree (4) to strongly
disagree (5).

1. Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB)

The scale for OCB was taken from Podsakoff; Mackenzie (1990) consists of 24 items measuring
the different dimensions of OCB such as altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, sportsmanship and
civic virtue. Scales 1–5 measure the altruism dimension of OCB that implies how much of this dimension
is exhibited by team members in the organization. Similarly, items 6–10 measure the conscientious-
ness dimension of OCB. The courtesy dimension is measured by items 11–15. Items 16–20 measure the
sportsmanship dimension of OCB, and civic virtue is measured by items 21–24.

2. Human Resource Practices

This scale was taken from Delery and Doty (1996) modes of theorizing in strategic HRM. It consists of
22 items and measures different types of HR practices of the organization: internal career opportunities,
training, appraisals, employment security, participation, job description and profit-sharing.

3. Job Performance
The scale for job performance consists of 16 items, and it is taken from Sarmiento et al. (2007).
The items to assess are quality of work, dependability, knowledge of work, leadership qualities, manag-
ing ability, discipline and integrity, being proactive and innovative, teamwork and relationship and
initiative.

Procedure
After taking the permission from the management of the organizations under study, the respective
respondents were approached. The respondents were randomly selected by applying purposive sampling
techniques.
The objectives of the study and the method of filling up the questionnaire were explained to them.
They were assured that the present survey was being done for academic purpose, and therefore
the information and opinion collected from them would be kept confidential. They were further assured
that in the process of data analysis, their individual identity would never be disclosed and the
conclusion derived subsequently would be a generalized one. As soon as a rapport was established
with the respondents, they were given the questionnaire. The subjects were asked to give their frank
opinion and judgement. For better understanding, they were also interviewed to supplement the
data. However, because of their busy schedule, some refused to fill up the questionnaires (n = 70)
and some returned with incomplete information (n = 29). These questionnaires were not included
in the study. The respondents were requested to return the filled in questionnaire. They had answered
the questions in the presence of the investigator. The average time taken for each questionnaire was
about one hour.
6 Management and Labour Studies 39(4)

Table 1. Tool Characteristics

Serial Alpha
No. Variable No. of Items Range Mean SD Coefficient
1 OCB 24 53 91.27 9.62 0.83
2 HR Practices 22 53 83.63 10 0.85
3 Job Performance 16 37 62.92 7.49 0.71
Source: 
Primary data
Note:  The reliability coefficient indicated that the scale for measuring OCB, HR practices and job performance are quite
reliable as the alpha value is 0.83, 0.85 and 0.71. An alpha value of 0.60–0.70 or above is considered to be the criterion
for demonstrating internal consistency of new scales and established scales, respectively. As the value exceeded the
minimum requirement, it is thereby demonstrated that the measures are reliable.

Reliability and Validity Analysis

Reliability can be defined to the extent to which a variable is consistent in what it is intended to measure.
In the present research, the reliability of questionnaire was determined by using Cronbach’s coefficient
alpha as shown in Table 1. Validity was measured by using face validity method, and it was found that
all the three scales stands to be more than .75.

Data Analysis and Findings

Preliminary Analysis
Data were examined for outliers and possible errors prior to analysis, and none was detected. The results
(Table 2) indicated that means of OCB (91.27), HR practices (83.63) and job performance (62.92) are

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics

Dimensions N Minimum Maximum Mean SD

OCB 401 64 117 91.27 9.620
1. Altruism 401 11 25 19.75 2.834
2. Conscientiousness 401 11 25 18.64 2.666
3. Courtesy 401 7 20 15.60 2.270
4. Sportsmanship 401 5 25 17.32 3.965
5. Civic Virtue 401 11 25 19.96 2.558
HR Practices 401 54 107 83.63 10.007
1. Internal Career Opportunities 401 1 5 3.82 1.173
2. Training 401 8 20 14.96 2.422
3. Result-oriented Appraisals 401 7 20 14.90 2.453
4. Employment Security 401 6 20 15.50 2.448
5. Participation 401 1 5 3.91 1.072
6. Job Description 401 4 20 15.27 2.614
7. Profit-sharing 401 6 20 15.27 2.405
Job Performance 401 43 80 62.92 7.494
Source: Primary data.
Mallick et al. 7

Table 3. Pearson Correlation

Job
Altruism Conscientiousness Courtesy Sportsmanship Civic Virtue Performance
Altruism 1
Conscientiousness 0.510** 1
Courtesy 0.498** 0.551** 1
Sportsmanship 0.191** –.015 0.103* 1
Civic Virtue 0.394** 0.337** 0.358** 0.456** 1
Job performance 0.623** 0.518** 0.486** 0.360** 0.458** 1
Source: Primary data
Notes:  *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

above the scale mean (3). The sub-dimensions of OCB, HR practices and job performance also score
more than the scale mean. It shows that there is a kind of relationship between the underlying constructs
of OCB, HR practices and job performance.

Results of Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient (Correlation between

OCB Dimensions and Job Performance)
The results of Pearson’s correlation (Table 3) suggested that there is a significant positive correlation
between altruistic dimension of OCB and job performance (r = 0.623, p = 0.01) and the conscientious-
ness dimension of OCB and job performance (r = 0.518, p = 0.01). However, the dimensions of OCB,
that is, courtesy, sportsmanship and civic virtue, have not been found to have significant correlation with
job performance.

Results of Multiple Regression (OCB and Job performance)

The results of multiple regressions as shown in Table 4, where OCB was treated as predictor or
independent variable and job performance as outcome or dependent variable, found that OCB was a
significant predictor of job performance. The coefficient of determination R2 indicated that 53 per cent

Table 4. Multiple Regressions

Dependent Variable Predictors B Beta t R2 VIF

Job Performance (Constant) 12.196 4.861 0.53
Altruism 0.954 0.361 8.345 1.585
Conscientiousness 0.697 0.248 5.54 1.7
Courtesy 0.34 0.116 2.661 1.616
Sportsmanship 0.468 0.248 6.248 1.333
Civic Virtue 0.256 0.078 1.805 1.567
Source: Primary data
8 Management and Labour Studies 39(4)

of variance in job performance was explained by OCB. The different dimensions have significant
unique contribution in predicting job performance. The beta values indicate the unique contribution
of the dimensions in predicting job performance. In order of importance, they are altruism
(Beta = 0.361), conscientiousness and sportsmanship (Beta = 0.248), courtesy (Beta = 0.116) and
civic virtue (Beta = 0.078). As shown in the results, since OCB significantly predicts job performance,
the hypothesis H1 is accepted.

Results of Hierarchical Regressions (OCB, HR Practices and Job performance)

In order to test the moderation effect of HR practices on the relationship between OCB and job
performance, we have carried out hierarchical multiple regression. To test moderation, we have in
particular looked at the interaction effect between independent variable OCB and moderator variable
and whether or not such an effect is significant in predicting dependent variable job perfor-mance.
In order to confirm whether HR practices is making a moderation effect on the relation-ship between
the independent variable OCB and dependent variable job performance, we have shown that the nature
of this relationship changes as the values of the moderating variable HR practices change. This in turn
is done by including an interaction effect in the model and checked to see if indeed such an interaction
is significant and helps explain the variation in the response variable better than before.
A regression model was set predicting the outcome variable productivity from both the predictor
variable OCB and the moderator variable HR practices. In the second step, the interaction effect to the
previous model has been added by multiplying the independent variable OCB and moderator variable
HR practices and including that computed interaction variable as independent and checking its effect
on the predictor variable job performance and to look for a significant R2 change as well as a significant
effect by the new interaction term. Since both values were found to be significant, moderation has been
established.
The results showed that both Model 1 (without interaction) is significant with F = 237.02, p < 0.05
and Model 2 (with interaction) is significant with F = 163.90, p < 0.05 (as seen from Table 5). In
the results presented in the Table 5, we see that Model 2 with the interaction between OCB and HR
practices accounted for significantly more variance than just OCB and HR practices by themselves,
R2 change =.01.
The results showed that all the variables make a statistically significant contribution (p < 0.05).
In order of importance, they are the interaction variable (HR practices ◊ OCB) (Beta = –1.46) and

Table 5. Moderator Regression

Predictors B Beta t Sign F R2 R2 Change

(Constant) 3.82 0.01
OCB, HR 0.01 237.02 0.54
OCB 0.95 1.22 4.87 0.01 163.9 0.55
HR Practices 0.84 1.12 3.86 0.01
OCB ◊ HR –0.01 –1.46 –2.93
Practices
Source: Primary data
Mallick et al. 9

OCB (Beta = –1.23) and HR practices (Beta = 1.12). Results show OCB and HR practices explain
54 per cent (R2 = 0.54) variance in dependent variable job performance and the interaction effect explains
55 per cent (R2 = 0.55) variance in dependent variable.
Thus, the interaction effect between OCB and HR practices significantly predicts the dependent
variable job performance rather than the individual variables separately. In fact, if we assess the individual
unique contribution of each variable, we will see that OCB makes a greater contribution in predict-
ing productivity than HR practices. But with both the variables together, the contribution in predicting
productivity is more with a higher beta value. However, it is seen from the results that HR practices
inversely moderate the relationship between OCB and job performance. However, since moderation is
significant, the hypothesis H2 is accepted.

Findings and Discussion

The findings of the present study indicate that OCB significantly predicts job performance. The findings
approve the assertion of previous studies (MacKenzie et al., 1991; Organ, 1988) that has elaborated the
fact that OCB improves the ability of co-workers and managers to perform their jobs through more
efficient planning, scheduling and problem-solving and contribution to service quality (Hui et al., 2001).
Organizations that foster good citizenship behaviours are more attractive places to work and are able to
hire and retain the best people (George & Bettenhausen, 1990).
HR practices have been found to significantly moderate the relationship between OCB and job
performance. This has been supported in studies of Purcel et al. (2003) that says that the critical factor in
the relationship between HRM and performance is the way through which HRM policies can shape
discretionary behaviour, that is, the choices people often make about the way to do their work, which are
neither expected nor required, and therefore cannot officially be rewarded or punished by the organization
for their presence or absence of it, which gets translated into improved organizational and individual
performance.
The abilities, motivation and opportunity (AMO) theory is regarded to be the heart of strategic HRM
in the sense that organizations seeking to improve performance should develop HRM policies in the
domains of resourcing and development, compensation and incentives and involvement and job design
that are expected to positively shape discretionary behaviour (Boxall & Purcell, 2003; Lepak et al.,
2006). HRM outcomes such as employee skills (competences, including cooperation), employee atti-
tudes (motivation, commitment, satisfaction) and employee behaviours (retention, presence) mediate
HRM policies and discretionary behaviour (Purcel et al., 2003). However, some authors such as Gardner,
Moyniham, Park and Wright (2001) and Purcell and Hutchinson (2007) argue that in HRM–performance
causal chain, it is not just HRM outcomes that affect organizational performance, but there may exist a
serial causation from employee skills, to attitudes and then to behaviour that finally affect individual
performance and organizational performance at large.
However in the present study, the interaction effect of OCB and HR practices has been found to have
an inverse effect on the relationship between OCB and job performance. This implies that the increase
in HR practices will weaken the relationship between OCB and job performance and vice versa. This
finding has been surprising in context of previous HRM and OCB literature that has elaborated on the
positive effects of HR practices in reinforcing OCB in organizations, leading to superior performance of
individuals and firms. However, the results can be attributed to understanding the so-called ‘black box’,
that is, lack of clarity regarding ‘what exactly leads to what’ (Gerhart, 2005) in HRM and performance
10 Management and Labour Studies 39(4)

relationship. It is important to consider the intervening steps in the HRM–performance relationship,

or to consider the variables mediating or moderating the endpoint variables (Becker & Gerhart, 1996).
The dominant theoretical frameworks explaining the above contention are the ‘contingent frame-
work’ (i.e., HRM influences performance in relation to contingent factors such as business strategies)
(Schuler & Jackson, 1987), the resource-based view (i.e., HRM influences performance according to the
human and social capital held by the organization) (Barney, 1991) and the AMO theory (i.e., HRM influ-
ences performance in relation to employees’ ability, motivation and opportunity to participate)
(Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg & Kalleberg, 2000). Moreover, factors such as age, gender and career stage
have also been found to have an impact on the way HR practices are experienced by employees and thus
the corresponding impact it has on individual and organizational performance outcomes.

Implications and Scope for Future Research

The study has implications for organizations since it has highlighted the importance of OCB in predicting
job performance. It has also shown that HR practices have a significant role in the way OCB influence
performance. By bringing out the inverse effect of HR practices on the relationship between OCB
and job performance, the study suggests that organizations need to be more conscious of factors such
as HR outcomes, business strategy, gender and age that has a serious impact on ways in which HR
practices affect OCB and performance. Thus, the study has both theoretical-enriching domains of
organizational behaviour and HRM by bringing facts to prove the impact of OCB and HR practices on
job outcomes, and practical implications for professionals to put more emphasis on training and
development activities for nurturing good citizenship behaviour and making HR practices beneficial for
enhancing employee performance.
The findings of the present study cannot be generalized since the study was restricted to few health
care organizations only. Moreover, the study is silent about gender differences, and no analysis has been
carried out on differences in educational qualifications and other demographic factors. The results have
opened up scope for future research in exploring the impact of extraneous variables such as gender, age,
business strategy and others on individual and organizational phenomena and outcomes.

References
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A.L. (2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why high–performance
work systems pay off. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Borman, W.C., White, L.A. & Dorsey, D.W. (1995). Effects of ratee task performance and interpersonal factors on
supervisor and peer performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 168–77.
Boxall, P., & Macky, K., (2009). Research and theory on high–performance work systems: progressing the
high– involvement stream. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(1), 3–23.
Cascio, W.C., (1992). Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work life, profits. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Ferris, G.R., Hochwarter, W.A., Buckley, M.R., Harrell–Cook, G., & Frink, D.D. (1999). Human resources
management: Some new directions. Journal of Management, 25(3), 385–415.
Gardner, T.M., Moynihan, L.M., Park, H.J. & Wright, P.M. (2001). Beginning to unlock the black box in the HR
firm performance relationship: The impact of HR practices on employee attitudes and employee outcomes
(CAHRS Working Paper #01–12). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations,
Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies.
Mallick et al. 11

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.
Gerhart, B., (2005). Human resources and business performance: Findings, unanswered questions, and an alternative
approach. Management Review, 16(2), 174–185.
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.
Huselid, M.A. (1995). The impact of human resource practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635–667.
Katz, D. & Kahn, R.L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Lepak DP, Liao H, Chung Y, & Harden EE. (2006). A conceptual review of human resource management systems
in strategic human resource management research. In Martocchio J (Ed.), Research in personnel and human
resources management, Vol. 25 (pp. 217–271). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
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.
Morrison, W.E. (1994). Role definition and organizational citizenship behavior: the importance of the employee’s
perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1543–67.
Motowildo, S.J., & Van Scotter, J.R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475–80.
Nishii, L.H., Lepak, D.P., & Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of the “why” of HR: Their effects
on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61(3), 503–545.
Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Organ,D.W.(1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: it’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance,
10(8), 110-119..
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M. & MacKenzie, S.B. (2006), Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature,
antecedents, and consequences. London: SAGE Publications.
Pfeffer, J., & Veiga, J.F., (1999). Putting people first for organizational success. The Academy of Management
Executive, 13(2), 37–38.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, RH., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transforming leader behavior and their
effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Leadership Quarterly,
1(2), 107–42.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G., (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors:
A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestion for future research. Journal of
Management, 26(3), 513–63.
Purcell, J., Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Rayton, B., & Swart, J. (2003). Understanding the People and Performance
Link: Unlocking the Black Box. London: CIPD.
Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front–line managers as agents in the HRM performance causal chain: Theory,
analysis and evidence. Human Resource Management Journal, 17(1), 3–20.
Sarmiento, R., Beale, J., & Knowles, G., (2007). Determinants of performance amongst shop floor employees:
A preliminary investigation. Management Research News, 30(12), 915–927.
Schuler, R.S., & Jackson, S.E. (1987). Linking competitive strategies with human resource management practices.
The Academy of Management Executive, 1(3), 207–219.
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653–63.
Snell, S.A. (1999). Social Capital and Strategic HRM: It’s who you know. Human Resource Planning, 22(1), 62–66.
 12 Management and Labour Studies 39(4)

Truss, C., (2001). Complexities and controversies in linking HRM with organizational outcomes. Journal of
Management Studies, 38(8), 1122–1149.
Tsui, A.S., Pearce, J.L., Porter, L.W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the employee–organization
relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1089–1121.
Van Scotter, J.R. & Motowildo, S.J. (1996). Evidence for two factors of contextual performance: job dedication and
interpersonal facilitation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 525–31.
Vigoda–Gadot, E. (2006). Compulsory citizenship behavior: Theorizing some dark sides of good soldier syndrome
in organizations. Journal of the Theory of Social Behavior, 36(1), 77–93.
Vinor, T. (2007). Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination of compulsory extra-role behavior
in the workplace. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(3), 377–405.
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(1), 125–139.

View publication stats