International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management

Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on job performance in Indian

healthcare industries: The mediating role of social capital
Eeman Basu, Rabindra Kumar Pradhan, Hare Ram Tewari,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Eeman Basu, Rabindra Kumar Pradhan, Hare Ram Tewari, (2017) "Impact of organizational
citizenship behavior on job performance in Indian healthcare industries: The mediating role of
Downloaded by California State University Fresno At 03:27 26 October 2017 (PT)

social capital", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 66 Issue: 6,
pp.780-796, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-02-2016-0048
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-02-2016-0048
Downloaded on: 26 October 2017, At: 03:27 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 56 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 213 times since 2017*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2017),"How does human resource management influence organisational performance?
An integrative approach-based analysis", International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 66 Iss 6 pp. 797-821 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJPPM-01-2016-0004">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-01-2016-0004</a>
(2017),"The effects of perceived authentic leadership and core self-evaluations on organizational
citizenship behavior: The role of psychological empowerment as a partial mediator", Leadership
&amp; Organization Development Journal, Vol. 38 Iss 3 pp. 463-481 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
LODJ-11-2015-0254">https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-11-2015-0254</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:409465 []
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.
Downloaded by California State University Fresno At 03:27 26 October 2017 (PT)

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

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm

IJPPM
66,6 Impact of organizational
citizenship behavior on
job performance in Indian
780 healthcare industries
Received 26 February 2016
Revised 30 May 2016 The mediating role of social capital
14 August 2016
Accepted 20 September 2016 Eeman Basu
OB and HR Group, Indian Institute of Management, Raipur, India, and
Downloaded by California State University Fresno At 03:27 26 October 2017 (PT)

Rabindra Kumar Pradhan and Hare Ram Tewari

Department of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB) and job performance. It also examines the mediating role of social capital in influencing the
relationship between OCB and job performance.
Design/methodology/approach – The study explores the dynamic relationship among the variables of
OCB and job performance and social capital. Data were collected from 501 respondents working in
15 healthcare organizations in Kolkata, India, through questionnaire survey. Likert-type rating scales of OCB,
job performance and social capital with sound reliability and validity were used to carry out the survey.
The data were analyzed using structural equation modeling.
Findings – The results of the present study show that OCB significantly predicts job performance in
healthcare organizations. Social capital found to be a significant mediator between OCB and job performance.
Research limitations/implications – The findings of the study have a number of implications for
organizations in acknowledging and leveraging social capital and encouraging OCB to facilitate superior
performance of employees. The generalization of the findings of the study should be restricted to the
healthcare organizations in Kolkata due to its own style of functioning, workforce and work environment.
The role of demographic variables in influencing the outcome measures has not been considered for the
present study. Further research on these aspects may reveal more interesting results with regard to
the dynamics among organizational citizenship behavior, social capital and job performance.
Practical implications – Employee-friendly management practices should be adopted in organizations
to facilitate the formation of network building and development of social capital which serves as an asset to
organizations and creates competitive advantage.
Originality/value – The research findings enrich our understanding of voluntary social participation
and citizenship behavior of employees for influencing performance at work. The study also provides
useful and unique insight on the benefits of networking in healthcare organizations particularly helping
employees to cope with emergency situations. The findings as well as methodology used in this study are
original and unique.
Keywords Social capital, India, Healthcare industry, Organizational citizenship behaviour,
Competitive advantage, Job performance
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
There has been a paradigm shift in organizational structures and relationships. Present-day
International Journal of organizations are moving away from traditional hierarchical and authoritative structures to
Productivity and Performance
Management autonomous team-based environments and job roles. This shift has led organizations
Vol. 66 No. 6, 2017
pp. 780-796
to acknowledge the relevance of discretionary and individual initiative and cooperation.
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0401
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), or behavior characterized by voluntary initiatives
DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-02-2016-0048 making prosocial contribution toward organization and coworkers, above and beyond their
 formal job roles, is gaining increasing importance in such an organizational context. Although Impact of
OCB is not a part of the formal organizational structure or reward system, it has far-reaching OCB on job
implications on organizational and individual performance and effectiveness. These behaviors performance
go a long way in maintaining positive organizational culture that reinforces employee
engagement, employee commitment, employee motivation and job performance.
The emphasis on inimitable or unique factors such as culture, knowledge and human
resources in organizations has also led scholars and practitioners to give considerable 781
importance to the concept of social capital. Social capital is considered as a resource or capital
that allows an individual or organization to gain competitive advantage over others by virtue
of the strategic position held in the network of relationships in which they are embedded.
Social capital is also instrumental in influencing performance of individuals and organizations
through cooperation, knowledge sharing and building relationships and networks. These
Downloaded by California State University Fresno At 03:27 26 October 2017 (PT)

relationships and networks serve as resources to gain competitive edge for individuals and
organizations at large. The present study attempts to examine the relationship between OCB
and job performance. It further tries to explore whether social capital acts as a mediator in the
relationship between OCB and job performance. The present study explores the extant
literature on OCB, social capital and job performance and further explains the relevance of
such phenomena in the healthcare industry where the study has been conducted. The study
was conducted in the healthcare industry since the nature of the industry, operations and
organizational environment makes the performance of discretionary behaviors important to
organizational functioning as well as to the formation of network structures, and to building
social capital which are considered important to task performance. The researcher’s work as a
healthcare professional has led them to place the study in this context to explore the
relationship between OCB, social capital and job performance in depth. The study proposes
four hypotheses which are tested using structural equation modeling (SEM). The next section
is the literature review which is followed by the methodology and then the results. These are
discussed and then implications and scope for future research are highlighted.

2. Review of literature
The literature review section explores the extant literature on OCB, social capital and job
performance, highlighting various theoretical and relational perspectives on the concepts.

2.1 OCB and its relevance in the healthcare industry

The concept of OCB first emerged in the organizational behavior and management literature in
the pioneering works of Bateman and Organ (1983), and since then it has been an area of
considerable research. Organ (1988, p. 4) originally described OCB as “individual behavior that
is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in
aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization.” Organ further described OCB
as behavior that contributes indirectly to the organization through the maintenance of the
organization’s social system. Research on OCB has focused on its antecedents such as job
satisfaction, interpersonal trust, organizational commitment and employee mood (Bateman and
Organ, 1983; Podsakoff et al., 1990) and on the consequences of OCB such as performance,
customer service and satisfaction, sales revenue and financial efficiency (Podsakoff et al., 2000).
OCB’s relation with such critical outcomes has led researchers and practitioners to opine
that OCB is beneficial to organizations (Bolino and Turnley, 2003) and is critical to
organizational functioning (Bateman and Organ, 1983). OCB is also considered as desirable
because such behaviors are thought to enhance available resources and minimize the need for
more formal and costly mechanisms of control (Organ, 1988).
The OCB construct as conceptualized by Organ (1988) comes very close to the concept of
contextual performance introduced approximately at the same time (Borman and
Motowidlo, 1997). The concept of contextual performance comprises almost the same
 IJPPM factors as OCB but does not specify that the behavior needs to be discretionary and non-
66,6 rewarded as was found in the classic conceptualization of OCB. However, Organ (1997) later
redefined OCB to include behavior that contributes “to the maintenance and enhancement of
the social and psychological context that supports task performance” (p. 85). Although this
revised definition recognizes OCB’s relevance to task performance, OCBs are still primarily
viewed as behaviors that are generally discretionary and less likely to be formally or explicitly
782 rewarded in an organization (Podsakoff et al., 2000).
The conceptualization of OCB that has been widely used in the research literature
views it as comprised of five dimensions: altruism, generalized compliance,
sportsmanship, courtesy and civic virtue (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Altruism is helping
behavior (e.g. coworker or supervisor). For example, altruism involves activities such as
volunteering to assist a coworker with a project in which you are not directly involved, or,
Downloaded by California State University Fresno At 03:27 26 October 2017 (PT)

without being asked, assisting new employees in assimilating into the organization.
Generalized compliance is employee conscientiousness that surpasses enforceable work
standards. For example, generalized compliance involves activities such as doing more
than what is required to meet minimum task requirements or offering specific ideas
to solve organizational problems without being asked. Sportsmanship is the tolerance of
nuisances on the job (e.g. when employees endure impositions or inconveniences without
complaint). Sportsmanship involves activities such as not complaining or making huge
issues out of minor problems or inconveniences. Courtesy is the act of touching base with
others before taking actions or making decisions that would affect their work (e.g. issuing
reminders to coworkers, giving coworkers advance notice and passing along information).
Civic virtue is the active participation and involvement of employees in company affairs
and includes activities such as attending meetings, responding to messages and keeping
up with organizational issues.
The interest in OCB has extended from organizational behavior to a wide range of
domains such as human resource management (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993; Podsakoff
et al., 1993), marketing (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994), hospital and health administration
and many others. Since hospitals continue to face intense challenges to controlling operating
costs and employee attrition, it becomes increasingly important for healthcare organizations
to nurture and retain talent. Healthcare organizations are manpower intensive where the
need for manpower or human resources cannot be replaced with technology. Moreover, they
are faced with high level of attrition due to work stress, a mismatch of demand and supply
of talented professionals. Hence, they have to constantly face a challenge of shortage in
working manpower in running day to day operations. In such a context, it is important that
hospital administrators acknowledge the concept of OCB and attempt to identify, attract
and retain those employees capable of exhibiting such behaviors for organizational
functioning and effectiveness (Organ, 1990).

2.2 Social capital and its importance in the healthcare profession

Researchers have envisioned the concept of social capital from diverse perspectives, but at the
same time they do converge on the premise that social capital is a metaphor about advantage.
If societies are viewed as markets where individuals exchange their ideas and knowledge in
pursuit of their interests, we find that not all individuals’ interests are accomplished.
The interest of some is better served than the interests of others (some get higher incomes,
better projects and so on). The social capital perspective explains this difference by pointing
out that people who do better are somehow better connected. Thus, the way individuals are
positioned in social structure can be an asset in itself, and social capital is conceptualized as
that asset. Social capital, thus, refers to a kind of capital that can create for certain individuals
or groups a competitive advantage in pursuing their ends (Burt et al., 2001). This concept
about social capital can be furthered to organizations as well, thus, saying that organizations
 that possess more social capital gain more competitive advantage than their competitors Impact of
through higher productivity and performance of its employees. OCB on job
Social capital has been defined in many ways by social scientists. In the organizational performance
contexts, social capital as a concept is referred to as “the character of social relations within
the firm” (Leana and Van Buren, 1999, p. 538; Refferty and Restubog, 2010). Although they
are broadly in consonance with each other, these different ways express some significant
nuances. First, the definitions vary depending on whether they focus on the sources of social 783
capital or the effects of social capital. Second, they vary in terms of their focus on the
structure of relationships among individuals or the relations in themselves or both kinds of
links. A focus on internal ties within collectivities foregrounds “bonding” forms of social
capital, whereas a focus on external relations focuses “bridging” forms of social capital.
Bonding perspective focuses on collective actors’ internal characteristics and bridging
Downloaded by California State University Fresno At 03:27 26 October 2017 (PT)

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

2.3 OCB and job performance

OCB as mentioned earlier refers to individual behavior that is discretionary not directly or
explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the
efficient and effective functioning of an organization (Organ et al., 2006). As OCB is important
to organizational functioning, research in OCB has focused on both the antecedents and
consequences both at the employee and organizational levels (Podsakoff et al., 2000).
The antecedents of OCB comprise employee attitudes, role perceptions, demographics, stress,
job satisfaction, interpersonal trust, organizational commitment and employee mood
(Moorman and Blakely, 1995; Williams and Wong, 1999). In addition to the antecedents of
 IJPPM OCB, researchers have examined the consequences of OCB extensively. Ehrhart et al. (2006)
66,6 found that unit-level OCB was related to unit effectiveness. Whiting et al. (2008) reported that
OCB had a significant effect on performance evaluation decisions. Sportsmanship, civic virtue
and helping others are important predictors of employee retention in an organization.
The concept of OCB has been persistently in focus in empirical research since researchers and
practitioners acknowledge its practical implications for job performance and organizational
784 success such as productivity and competitive advantage (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994).
Thus, it is hypothesized that OCB would positively influence job performance:
H1. OCB positively influences job performance.

2.4 OCB and social capital

Downloaded by California State University Fresno At 03:27 26 October 2017 (PT)

Earlier research on OCB points out that such behavior is critical for organizational
effectiveness and functioning. Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) argue that a firm’s social capital
comprises a critical source of sustainable organizational advantage. Based on their work, it
has been suggested that citizenship behaviors enhance firm functioning by contributing to
the development of social capital (structural, relational and cognitive) in organizations.
In particular, Coleman (1990) and Putnam (1995) describe how individual behavior is critical
for the creation of social capital. Putnam (1995) argues that communities or organizations
with high levels of social capital are typically characterized by high levels of civic
participation among their citizens. That is, individuals in such places are engaged in the
affairs of their communities and have a sense of obligation toward one another. Moreover, it
is the cooperation, involvement and selflessness displayed by these people that contribute to
the development of trust, affect and shared understanding among them, which are all
important aspects of social capital (Putnam, 2000). Hence, such community-centered
behaviors seem quite analogous to citizenship behaviors in organizations. In other words,
just as the “good citizens” within a community contribute to the development of social
capital within that community; “good organizational citizens” are likely to be important for
the creation of social capital within their organizations (Bolino et al., 2002). Hence, it is
reasonable to believe that social capital may result from the willingness of employees to
exceed their formal job requirements in order to help each other, to subordinate their
individual interests for the good of the organization, and to take a genuine interest in the
organization’s activities and overall mission. In short, when a firm is composed of good
organizational citizens, it is likely to accumulate higher levels of social capital. Thus, it is
hypothesized that OCB would positively influence social capital:
H2. OCB positively influences social capital.

2.5 Social capital and job performance

A few consider social capital as an organizational resource with only positive outcomes,
while others increasingly consider both positive and negative outcomes. Social capital
includes risks that may outweigh its positive outcomes (Hansen, 1999). Social capital can
have different benefits. It makes the access to broader sources of information easy which
aids in performance outcomes of individuals and organizations at large. It provides control
and influence producing benefits of solidarity and trust (Leana and Van Buren, 1999).
As proposed by Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998), it also helps in creation and renewal of
intellectual capital which is a major determinant of organizational and individual
performance. Social capital has been found to benefit organizations in several ways
(Cohen and Prusak, 2001), i.e., by better knowledge sharing, due to established trust
relationships, common frames of reference and shared goals; lower transaction costs, due to
a high level of trust and a cooperative spirit (both within the organization and between the
 organization and its customers and partners); lower turnover rates, reducing severance Impact of
costs, hiring and training expenses. Social capital may further avoid discontinuities on OCB on job
account of infrequent personnel changes, and thus maintain valuable organizational performance
knowledge. The present study has considered the positive outcomes of social capital for
individuals and organizations. Thus, it is hypothesized that social capital would positively
influence job performance:
H3. Social capital positively influences job performance. 785

2.6 OCB, social capital and job performance

As described earlier, previous research works have indicated that OCB enhances job
performance and organizational functioning (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Similarly, social capital has
Downloaded by California State University Fresno At 03:27 26 October 2017 (PT)

also been found to facilitate organizational effectiveness through increased job performance
and smooth organizational functioning (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Adler and Kwon, 2002).
Thus, the relationship between OCB and job performance may be conceptualized as indirect.
As has been specifically indicated in the studies mentioned earlier that citizenship behavior is
likely to play a critical role in the creation of structural, relational and cognitive aspects of social
capital and social capital in turn influences job performance and organizational effectiveness.
Thus, the relationship between OCB and job performance is mediated by social capital. Thus, it
is hypothesized that social capital mediates the relationship between OCB and job performance:
H4. Social capital mediates the relationship between OCB and job performance.
A conceptual model has been proposed for its empirical validation (Figure 1).

3. Methodology
3.1 Sample and data collection
The sample for the study consists of professionals employed in healthcare organizations located
in and around Kolkata, India. The total sample size considered for the research work is 501.
The sample consisted of professionals drawn from different levels. A total of 165 employees
belonged to the middle-level profile of all administrative departments such as patient service,
finance, human resources and operations. The respondents from senior category numbered
53 and consisted of mainly managers and above. There were 283 junior-level employees who
were also considered as respondents for the study. The average age of the respondents was
33.73 years and the minimum educational qualification for all respondents was graduation.
The bulk of the respondents in the middle-level category had a professional qualification
(degree) and the majority of the respondents in the junior-level category had a technical diploma
or a degree. The respondents were selected to meet the sampling criteria of simple random
sampling with no deliberate bias involved in the sampling. Personal consent was obtained from
each respondent both verbally and written for their voluntary participation in the survey.
We received consent from 501 respondents and distributed questionnaire to all of them.
However, we received 430 questionnaires out of the 501 potential respondents.

Social Capital

Organizational Job Performance Figure 1.

Citizenship Behavior Proposed conceptual
model
Source: Authors
 IJPPM Of them, 29 questionnaires were rejected due to incomplete information filled in on the
66,6 questionnaires by the respondents. This meant that 401 questionnaires were found to be
complete in all respects and were used in the data analysis of the study.

3.2 Measures
A set of standardized measures was used for data collection of OCB, social capital and job
786 performance. Each question consisted of statements or questions and was answered on a
five-point Likert-type rating scale comprising: Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neither
Agree nor Disagree (3), Agree (4), Strongly Agree (5).
3.2.1 OCB. The OCB scale developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990) was used for data collection
in the study. This scale consists of 24 items measuring the different dimensions of OCB such as
altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, sportsmanship and civic virtue. Items 1-5 measure the
Downloaded by California State University Fresno At 03:27 26 October 2017 (PT)

altruism dimension of OCB which implies how much of this dimension is exhibited by
team members in the organization. Similarly, items 6-10 measure the conscientiousness
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.
3.2.2 Social capital. The scale for social capital was modified from Pinho (2013) “The
e-SOCAPIT scale: a multi-item instrument for measuring social capital.” This scale consists
of 24 items measuring different dimensions of social capital such as cognitive, affective,
bridging or structural and bonding or relational. Items 1-3 measure the cognitive dimension
of social capital while items 4-6 measure the affective dimension of social capital or sense of
value or potential. Items 7-14 measure the structural or bridging dimension of social capital
which is the network aspect and items 15-24 measure the relational or bonding dimension of
social factor which is the level of trust and cooperation among members in the organization.
3.3.3 Job performance. The job performance scale developed by Sarmiento et al. (2007)
was used for the present study. This consists of 16 items. It measures quality of work,
dependability, knowledge of work, leadership qualities, managing ability, discipline,
integrity, proactive, innovative, teamwork, relationship and initiative.

4. Data analysis and findings

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

Variables n Mean SD SE Skewness Kurtosis No. of items

Social capital 401 94.25 3.88 0.02 −0.62 −0.05 24

Table I. OCB 401 91.27 3.76 0.02 −0.60 0.06 24
Descriptive statistics Job performance 401 62.92 3.90 0.02 −0.45 −0.13 16
and indicators of Note: Based on data prior to factor analysis
normality Source: Primary data
 4.2 Results of Pearson’s correlation coefficient Impact of
The results of Pearson’s correlation analysis are presented in Table II. The results show OCB on job
significant correlations between OCB and job performance (r ¼ 0.71, p ¼ 0.01), OCB and performance
social capital (r ¼ 0.77, p ¼ 0.01) and social capital and job performance (r ¼ 0.69, p ¼ 0.01).

4.3 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

In order to determine to what extent the observed indicators are linked to the construct, both 787
EFA and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to ascertain the factorial and
construct validity of each scale. EFA was conducted with principal component analysis
used to examine whether the factor structure of the empirical data were in line with the
factors proposed from theoretical assumptions or considerations. The appropriateness of
factor analysis is determined by examining the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure
Downloaded by California State University Fresno At 03:27 26 October 2017 (PT)

of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. Bartlett’s test of sphericity should be
significant (p o0.05), and the KMO measure of sampling adequacy should range from 0 to 1,
with 0.60 suggesting the minimum value for a good factor analysis (Hair et al. 1998). In order
to ensure that each factor identified by EFA has only one dimension and each attribute
loaded only on one factor, attributes with factor loadings of lower than 0.32 and attributes
loading on more than one factor with a loading score of equal to or greater than 0.32 on each
factor are eliminated from the analysis. Indicators with communality o0.50 are removed
from the analysis. The EFA key statistics on the final solutions of retained indicators for
each proposed construct is presented in Table III.
The results of the KMO-MSA (W0.71) revealed that the data are appropriate to be factor
analyzed. The significance of the overall correlation matrix evaluated by the Bartlett test of
sphericity is significant at 0.05 levels, indicating the sustainability of the data for factor analysis.
Based on the eigenvalues, all the three constructs are identified to be single factors. All the items
that have factor loadings greater than the 0.32 accepted levels are retained for the analysis.

4.4 Assessment of internal consistency

Reliability or internal consistency (inter-item correlation) indicates the homogeneity of items
comprising a measurement scale (De Vellis, 1991). High inter-item correlation explains that the
items of a scale have a strong relationship with the latent construct and possibly measure

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3

1. Social capital 94.25 3.88 1

2. OCB 91.27 3.76 0.77** 1
3. Job performance 62.92 3.90 0.69** 0.71** 1 Table II.
Notes: Based on data prior to factor analysis. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Correlation matrix
Source: Primary data among the variables

KMO-
Variables Original items EFA items Eigenvalues Variance (%) MSA Factor loading range

OCB 24 19 1 and above 49 0.78 0.35-0.67 Table III.

Social capital 24 20 1 and above 66 0.81 0.42-0.72 Summary of key
Job performance 16 15 1 and above 50 0.79 0.39-0.66 statistical
Source: Primary data results for EFA
 IJPPM the same thing. Cronbach’s α is a commonly used method to assess reliability of a scale. Items
66,6 with item-total correlation less than 0.30 should be eliminated from the scale to improve the
corresponding α values (Field, 2005). Construct reliability should be greater than 0.70
(Nunnally, 1978). All the constructs included in the present study have obtained an acceptable
coefficient α of above 0.70, indicating that the measurement scale is reliable and appropriate for
further data analysis. The results of the analysis are presented in Table IV. The items with high
788 reliability index were considered for CFA using standardized residuals, modification indices
and the standardized loadings estimates-path estimates linking constructs to indicators
(Hair et al., 2006). The standardized residuals represent the differences between the observed
co-variance and the estimated co-variance with smaller fitted residuals indicating good fit
(Lu et al., 2007). The results of the reliability analysis are presented in Table IV.
Downloaded by California State University Fresno At 03:27 26 October 2017 (PT)

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

4.6 Measurement model

CFA was conducted on all the constructs of the study (Table V). All the constructs achieved
acceptable level of fit with some model re-specification. The model re-specification was

Variables Originals items Items retained Cronbach’s α Criteria for deleting of items

OCB 24 20 0.90 LMI

Altruism 5 3 0.93
Conscientiousness 5 5 0.93
Courtesy 5 4 0.93
Sportsmanship 5 4 0.94
Civic virtue 4 4 0.93
Social capital 24 20 0.90
Cognitive 3 3 0.93
Affective 3 3 0.93
Bridging 8 6 0.93
Table IV. Bonding 10 8 0.93
Summary of Job performance 16 15 0.94 LMI
measurement Note: LMI, large modification index
reliability Source: Primary data

Variables χ2/df p GFI CFI RMSEA TLI

OCB 1.67 0.01 0.95 0.93 0.04 0.91

Table V. Social capital 1.68 0.01 0.94 0.93 0.04 0.90
Fit measures of Job performance 1.86 0.01 0.95 0.93 0.05 0.91
study variables Source: Primary data
 performed on the basis of large modification indices. Modification indices greater than 4 Impact of
were taken into consideration to improve model fit. Items with a standardized factor OCB on job
loading below 0.35 were removed (Hatcher, 1994). All hypothesized structural relationships performance
among variables have been presented in Figure 1. The fit measures of the hypothesized
model are presented in Table VI with goodness-of-fit index, Tucker-Lewis index,
comparative fit index and root mean square error of approximation values and they were
found acceptable. The graphical presentation of the results is given in Figure 2. The 789
examination of estimation of fit estimates was supplemented by standardized path
coefficients as presented in Table VII.

4.7 Hypotheses testing

Hypothesis testing was conducted based on the model. First, the significance of each
Downloaded by California State University Fresno At 03:27 26 October 2017 (PT)

hypothesized path in the research model was determined; thereupon the nature and
magnitudes of the relationships among the variables were examined on the basis of the
theoretical expectations. AMOS output reported standardized parameter estimates for all
specified paths along with standard errors and test statistics for each path. The proposed
hypotheses were examined with the help of the level of significance, signs and the
magnitude of estimated coefficient. The hypothesized paths with non-significant statistics
and/or significantly opposite expected directions would not be supported as such findings
have no substantive meaningful interpretations (Malhotra, 2004). The size of effect of a
particular independent variable on its outcome variable could be determined by examining

Model CMIN/df p GFI CFI RMSEA Table VI.

The fit measures
Hypothesized model 0.000 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.05 of the hypothesized
Source: Primary data model

0.43
e1
1

SOCIAL_CAPITAL

0.76 0.30
0.45
e2
1
1.00
0.49 Figure 2.
OCB JOB_PERFORMANCE Results of the
hypothesized model
Source: Authors

Hypothesized path Estimates SE CR/t-value p Decision

JP ← OCB 0.48 0.051 9.51 0.01 Supported

SC ← OCB 0.75 0.033 23.18 0.01 Supported
JP ← SC 0.30 0.051 5.87 0.01 Supported Table VII.
Source: Primary data Hypothesis testing
 IJPPM the respective absolute magnitude of the standard path coefficient (Hair et al., 2006).
66,6 The interpretations concerning the size of the effect of the standardized path coefficient with
an absolute value less than 0.10 indicate a small effect, a value of 0.30 indicate a medium
effect and values greater than 0.50 indicate a large effect (Kline, 2005). The relationships
between constructs were examined based on t-values or critical ratio values associated with
path coefficients among variables. Each of the hypotheses listed below (Table VIII) was
790 examined based on the findings:
H1. OCB positively influences job performance.
The findings of the present study showed that OCB positively influences job performance.
Hence, the hypothesis is accepted:
H2. OCB positively influences social capital.
Downloaded by California State University Fresno At 03:27 26 October 2017 (PT)

The findings of the present study showed that OCB positively influences or predicts social
capital. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted:
H3. Social capital positively influences job performance.
The findings of the present study showed that OCB positively influences or predicts social
capital. Hence, the hypothesis is accepted.

4.8 The mediation analysis

The present study has considered social capital as the mediating variable to understand the
influence of OCB on job performance. The study hypothesizes that social capital will
mediate the relationship between OCB and job performance. The model fit for mediation
effect is presented in Table IX:
H4. Social capital mediates the relationship between OCB and job performance
(Table X).
As shown in the results, social capital mediates the relationship between OCB and job
performance. However, the results suggest a partial mediation effect since the relationship is
significant (p value is o0.05). In the analysis when social capital was put in the model after
the mediator variable, we observed that the β value is reduced from 0.71 to 0.48. This
indicates that although the relationship between OCB and job performance is significant in
the presence of social capital, its effect is substantially reduced.

Hypothesized path Direction Estimate SE CR/t-value p

Table VIII. OCB → JP + 0.48 0.051 9.51 0.01

Effects of OCB, OCB → SC + 0.75 0.033 23.18 0.01
social capital and SC → JP + 0.302 0.051 5.87 0.01
job performance Source: Primary data

Table IX. IV DV Mediator CMIN p GFI CFI RMSEA TLI

Model fit for
mediation of OCB Job performance Social capital 0.01 0.01 1 1 0.05 1
social capital Source: Primary data
 Impact of
Estimate SE CR p
OCB on job
Direct performance
OCB-JP 0.71 0.03 20.52 0.005
Indirect
OCB-JP 0.48 0.05 9.51 0.024
OCB-SC 0.75 0.03 23.18 0.001 791
SC-JP 0.30 0.05 5.87 0.001 Table X.
Source: Primary data Mediator effects
Downloaded by California State University Fresno At 03:27 26 October 2017 (PT)

5. Findings and discussion

The findings of the present study indicate that OCB significantly predicts job performance.
The findings confirm the assertion of earlier studies which has found OCB to improve the
ability of coworkers and managers to perform their jobs through more efficient planning,
scheduling and problem solving (MacKenzie et al., 1991), and they contribute toward service
quality (Hui et al., 2004). Organizations that foster good citizenship behaviors are more
attractive places to work and are able to hire and retain the best people (George and
Bettenhausen, 1990). Yadav and Punia (2013) in documenting the empirical research on OCB
have examined the effect of OCB on job satisfaction, reward, emotional intelligence, spiritual
intelligence, personality, organizational justice and extra role behavior and performance.
Although it is not formally a part of the employee job description, it is seen to influence
managerial perceptions of employees’ evaluations (Whiting et al., 2008). This has also been
corroborated by respondents who held managerial positions. They stated that evaluation of
their subordinates is not just a function of fulfillment of their roles specified in job
description but how far they extend themselves in being proactive toward accomplishing
organizational requirements and sensitive toward coworkers. This was specifically
mentioned in the context of older employees’ handholding new recruits, helping in their
organizational socializing process and on job training. OCBs influence employee evaluations
because it includes a belief that OCBs are essential to the success of the organization.
Voluntary participation in OCBs has been perceived as a sign of organizational dedication,
and general expectation that OCBs should be performed and therefore OCBs are aggregated
into overall job performance (Organ et al., 2006).
The results of the present study revealed that OCB significantly predicts the formation of
social capital in the healthcare organizations under study. Social participation of employees
and performance of good citizenship behavior has helped them form networks and build
social capital. The previous studies by Van Dyne et al. (1994) assert that interpersonal social
participation involving social contact such as attending non-mandatory meetings and being
involved in social activities within the organization is likely to facilitate the formation of
relationships between organizational members who are not acquainted to each other and
would possibly never have met in course of the formal role requirements. This leads to
formation of network ties among employees. Previous studies by Bolino et al. (2002) propose
that social participation which is an aspect of OCB and good citizenship behavior will
enhance structural social capital through formation of network ties. Loyalty, obedience,
functional participation and social participation will enhance relational social capital by
increasing liking, trust and identification among employees.
Social capital is found to significantly predict job performance. The findings are
supported by previous studies (Burt, 1992; Seibert et al., 2001) which have elaborated that
individuals who gain social capital, i.e., they occupy more advantageous network positions,
gain access to a variety of people with the necessary information and the chance to
 IJPPM contribute to organizational functioning, thereby gaining more positive career outcomes, such
66,6 as faster promotions and career outcomes. Moreover, several researchers have indicated that
an individual who is central in the social network is, over time, able to accumulate knowledge
about task-related problems and workable solutions. This expertise not only enables the
central individual to solve problems readily, but also serves as a valued resource for future
exchanges with coworkers. As others become dependent on a central individual for important
792 advice, he or she gains an advantage that can be used in future exchanges for valued
resources (Cook and Emerson, 1978) aiding their performance, and thereby is more possible to
obtain promotions. The social capital formed by employees in the organizations under study
has helped them in utilizing the networks to their benefit. Many of them have capitalized on
their contacts with influential members in the networks to gain a position of prominence in the
organization. Although this was not directly reported by the employees, it has been inferred
Downloaded by California State University Fresno At 03:27 26 October 2017 (PT)

from cross-referencing and interaction with employees during the data collection. These
findings are also supported by some of the previous studies (Burt et al., 2001). Moreover,
networking activities of employees within and outside the organization have helped them in
crisis management which is a routine phenomenon in healthcare organizations. They have
been able to deal efficiently with emergencies relating to patients by collaborating with their
counterparts in other hospitals as well as colleagues within the same organizations.
The findings of the study show that social capital significantly mediates the relationship
between OCB and job performance. Voluntary social participation and citizenship behavior of
employees in the healthcare organizations help employees to form social networks and enhance
their social relationship. This in turn positively influences their performance at work.
Employees gather information, get support and cooperation from their networks which help
them to cope with emergency situations and manage crises. This has made them more effective
professionals and improved their performance. The knowledge and advice they gathered from
their friends and colleagues have helped to solve problems and come out with innovative and
effective solutions to face challenges. The findings of the study have been supported by earlier
research findings where social capital has been found to facilitate effective organizational and
individual functioning (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Adler and Kwon, 2002).

6. Implications and scope for future research

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

References
Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S. (2002), “Social capital: prospects for a new concept”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 17-40.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
 Bateman, T.S. and Organ, D.W. (1983), “Job satisfaction and the good soldier: the relationship between Impact of
affect and employee citizenship”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4, OCB on job
pp. 587-595.
performance
Bolino, M.C. and Turnley, W.H. (2003), “Going the extra mile: cultivating and managing employee
citizenship behaviour”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 60-71.
Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H. and Bloodgood, J.M. (2002), “Citizenship behavior and the creation of social
capital in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 505-522. 793
Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1993), “Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of
contextual performance”, in Schmitt, N. and Borman, W.C. (Eds), Personal Selection in
Organization, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 71-98.
Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1997), “Introduction: organizational citizenship behaviour and
contextual performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 10, pp. 67-69.
Downloaded by California State University Fresno At 03:27 26 October 2017 (PT)

Bourdieu, P. (1985), “The social space and the genesis of groups”, Theory and Society, Vol. 14 No. 6,
pp. 723-744.
Burt, R.S. (1992), Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Burt, R.S., Hogarth, R.M. and Michaud, C. (2001), “The social capital of French and American
managers”, Organization Science, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 123-147.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY and London.
Cohen, D. and Prusak, L. (2001), In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work,
Harvard Business School Press, Brighton and Boston, MA.
Coleman, J.S. (1990), Foundations of Social Theory, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, MA.
Coleman, J.S. (1994), Foundations of Social Theory, Harvard University Press, Brighton and Boston, MA.
Cook, K.S. and Emerson, R.M. (1978), “Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks”,
American Sociological Review, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 721-739.
De Vellis, R.F. (1991), Scale Development: Theory and Applications, Vol. 26, Sage Publications, London.
Ehrhart, M.G., Bliese, P.D. and Thomas, L.J. (2006), “Unit-level OCB and unit effectiveness: examining
the incremental effect of helping behaviour”, Human Performance, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 159-173.
Field, A. (2005), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 2nd ed., Sage, London.
George, J.M. and Bettenhausen, K. (1990), “Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and
turnover: a group level analysis in a service context”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 6,
pp. 698-709.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data
Analysis, 6th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hansen, M.T. (1999), “The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across
organization subunits”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 82-111.
Hatcher, L. (1994), A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Factor Analysis and Structural
Equation Modeling, The SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
Hui, C., Lee, C. and Rousseau, D.M. (2004), “Psychological contract and organizational citizenship
behavior in China: investigating generalizability and instrumentality”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 2, pp. 311-321.
Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., The Guildford
Press, New York, NY.
 IJPPM Lu, C.S., Lai, K.H. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2007), “Application of structural equation modeling to evaluate
66,6 the intention of shippers to use internet services in liner shipping”, European Journal of
Operations Research, Vol. 180 No. 2, pp. 845-867.
Leana, C.R. and Van Buren, B.H. (1999), “Organizational social capital and employment practices”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 538-555.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Fetter, R. (1991), “Organizational citizenship
794 behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of
salespersons’ performance”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50
No. 1, pp. 123-150.
Malhotra, N.K. (2004), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 4th ed., Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Moorman, R.H. and Blakely, G.L. (1995), “Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference
Downloaded by California State University Fresno At 03:27 26 October 2017 (PT)

predictor of organizational citizenship behaviour”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 16

No. 2, pp. 127-142.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
Organ, D.W. (1990), “The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior”, in Staw, B.M. and
Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 43-72.
Organ, D.W. (1997), “Organizational citizenship behaviour: it’s construct clean-up time”, Human
Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 85-97.
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (2006), Organizational Citizenship Behaviour:
Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Pinho, J.C. (2013), “The e-SOCAPIT scale: a multi-item instrument for measuring online social capital”,
Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 216-235.
Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1994), “Organizational citizenship behaviour and sales unit
effectiveness”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 351-363.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Hui, C. (1993), “Organizational citizenship behaviors and
managerial evaluations of employee performance: a review and suggestions for future research”,
in Ferris, G.R. and Rowland, K.M. (Eds), Research in Personnel Human Resources Management,
Vol. 11, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-40.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transforming leader behaviour
and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
behaviour”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-142.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and Bachrach, D.G. (2000), “Organizational citizenship
behaviour: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestion for future
research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 513-563.
Putnam, R.D. (1995), “Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital”, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 65-78.
Putnam, R.D. (2000), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon and
Schuster, New York, NY.
Refferty, A.E. and Restubog, S.L. (2010), “The impact of change process and context on change
reactions and turnover during a merger”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 5,
pp. 1309-1338.
 Sarmiento, R., Beale, J. and Knowles, G. (2007), “Determinants of performance amongst shop floor Impact of
employees: a preliminary investigation”, Management Research News, Vol. 30 No. 12, OCB on job
pp. 915-927.
performance
Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L. and Liden, R.C. (2001), “A social capital theory of career success”, Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 219-237.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W. and Dienesch, R.M. (1994), “Organizational citizenship behavior:
Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 795
No. 4, pp. 765-802.
Williams, L.J. and Wong, T.S. (1999), “Mood and organizational citizenship behaviour: the effects
of positive affect on employee organizational citizenship behaviour intentions”, Journal of
Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, Vol. 133 No. 6, pp. 656-668.
Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and Pierce, J.R. (2008), “Effects of task performance, helping voice, and
Downloaded by California State University Fresno At 03:27 26 October 2017 (PT)

organizational loyalty on performance appraisal ratings”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93

No. 1, pp. 125-139.
Yadav, P. and Punia, B.K. (2013), “Organizational citizenship behaviour: a review of antecedent,
correlates, outcomes and future research directions”, International Journal of Human Potential
Development, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 1-19.

Further reading
Bollen, K.A. (1990), “Overall fit in covariance structure models: two types of sample size effects”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107 No. 2, pp. 256-259.
Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1993), LISREL 8: A Guide to the Program and Applications, Scientific
Software International, Inc, Homewood, IL.
Keith, T.Z. (2006), Multiple Regression and Beyond, Pearson, Boston, MA.
Podsakoff, P.M., Ahearne, M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1997), “Organizational citizenship behavior and the
quantity and quality of work group performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 2,
pp. 262-270.
Steiger, J.H. (1990), “Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach”,
Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 173-180.
Walz, S.M. and Niehoff, B.P. (2000), “Organizational citizenship behaviors: their relationship to
organizational effectiveness”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 24,
pp. 301-319.

About the authors

Dr Eeman Basu received her PhD from the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian
Institute of Technology Kharagpur, India, in the year 2015. She worked at Colombia Asia Hospitals as
an Assistant HR Manager for more than five years. She also worked as an Assistant Professor of OB
and HR, at International Management Institute, Kolkata, India for one year. Currently she is working as
an Assistant Professor of OB and HR at Indian Institute of Management, Raipur, India. She has
published papers in the scientific journals of international repute in field of organizational behavior
and human resource management. She has also presented papers in many national and international
seminar and conferences. Some of her research papers have been published in the journal and books of
Sage and Emerald publications.
Dr Rabindra Kumar Pradhan is currently working as an Associate Professor in the Department of
Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur India. He completed his
PhD in the area of industrial and organizational psychology. Prior to joining Indian Institute of
Technology Kharagpur, he worked as a Scientist at the Defence Institute of Psychological Research,
DRDO, Ministry of Defence, Government of India. He has 18 years of teaching, research and training
experience in industrial and organizational psychology, organizational behavior and human resource
development and effectiveness. He has published 4 books, more than 50 journal articles and 10 book
chapters. Some of his articles have appeared in International Journal of Work Organization and
 IJPPM Emotions (Inderscience Publishers), Journal of Health Management (Sage), Psychological Studies
66,6 (Springer), Global Business Review (Sage), Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, European Journal
of Business Management, International Journal of Development and Sustainability, Japan, and
Management and Labour Studies (Sage). Dr Rabindra Kumar Pradhan is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: rkpradhan@hss.iitkgp.ernet.in
Dr Hare Ram Tewari is a former Professor and the Head of the Department of Humanities and
Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, India. He has more than 40 years of
796 teaching and research experience in social sciences and human resource management. He has several
research paper publications in national and international journals. Currently, he is a Visiting Faculty
on academic assignments to several institutes and universities. His areas of specialization are sociology
of organization, leadership, science, society and technology, and human resource management.
Downloaded by California State University Fresno At 03:27 26 October 2017 (PT)

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com