Paper: Levels of measurement and analysis issues in organizational citizenship behaviour research Author: Mel E Schnake, Michael P Dumler

In the past, Organizational behaviour research has been conducted at an individual level with regards to theory, measurement and analysis. Where as the field of organizational behaviour is apparently mixed-level i.e. at the confluence of individual, group and organizational-level phenomena. Despite of this observation, there is paucity of research from that perspective.

This paper endeavors to review various challenges in level of measurement and analysis taking a contextually relevant area of organizational citizen behaviour. The author has explained group-level and mixed-level research methodology while discussing various models of relationships among individual-level and group-level antecedents, organization citizenship behaviour and outcome variables. The models constituents have been drawn from a rich literature review in the this field.

It is understood that purpose of the paper was not to present a concrete model of Organization citizenship behaviour. Since during the whole theory discussion, the stress has been put on group & organization levels of analysis in this type of research. In the empirical model illustration, the analysis could have been more detailed on group or organization level outcomes arising from organization citizen behaviour. One of the purpose of the paper was around importance of level of measurement, same is apparently inadequately illustrated in the models esp. the measurement level specification of various constructs mentioned in the discussed models.

The arguments presented in the most of the sections in the paper leave an impression with the audience that author is suggesting that group or organization level effects are more important as compared to individual and hence the relevance of studying at those levels. But conclusive discussion brings home the intended argument that level of analysis, measurement & theory are indispensable parts of Organization citizenship behaviour research.

Paper: Organizations and supervisors as sources of support and targets of commitment: a longitudinal study Author: Florence Stinglhamber, Christian Vandenberghe

This paper attempts to examine the relationship & linkages between perceived support and affective commitment constructs and their general antecedents and consequences. A longitudinal study of 238 employees has been reported as part of this paper. The study examines the linkages between the favorableness of intrinsically and extrinsically satisfying job conditions, perceived organizational support, perceived supervisor support, affective commitment to the organization and supervisor, and turnover. The presented literature review suggests that perceived organizational support and organisational affective commitment are strongly related, but also admitting that the direction of causality between them is uncertain. The author accepts Rhodes work which indicated that perceived organisational support is an antecedent of organizational affective commitment. The literature review appears to inadequate around work on existence of reverse causality of this linkage. That is, as the organisation can provide support because of the commitment of the employees considering it as its obligation to do so. The key hypothesis of this study is that organizational affective commitment will mediate the effect of perceived organizational support on turnover. The hypothesis could have been broad based to incorporate the causality & the direction of causality between these constructs to arrive at a meaningful conclusion from an applicability stand point. The sampling methodology & rationale has not been explained in the paper in adequate length. There appears to be inherent biases or non-randomness in the sample, For instance, 70% male respondents. Also, the constructs measured get significantly influenced by choice of industry & age range of respondents, therefore authors have to either mention the reason behind selection of respondents from diverse industry environment and age group (SD=4.28 around 31 years) or highlight this as limitations in this study. It would have been useful for the reader, if author had justified in the paper, the rationale of adapting three items from SPOS for measurement of perceived supervisor support by changing construct from organization with supervisor. The validity of this measurement is not argued. As without context, these two seem to totally unrelated constructs from a measurement methodology stand point. The conclusion is well drawn from the results and rightfully suggests to further investigate exchange relationships between employees and their supervisors for future turnover research.

Paper: Knowledge exchange and combination: the role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms Author: Christopher J. Collins & Ken G. Smith The paper attempts to develop a theory on effect of human resource practices on organizational social climate facilitating knowledge exchange and resultant firm performance. The same is being tested against a sample of 136 technology companies for establishing that the practices are positively related to the organizational social climates of trust, cooperation, and shared codes and language. Further measures of social climate were shown to be related to the firms capability to exchange and combine knowledge, which author claims to be a relationship that predicted revenue & sales growth. The paper enriches readers theoretical foundations of strategic human resource management especially around competitive advantage firms enjoy through people in terms of financial performance from new products/services. The authors have presented a brief literature survey highlighting the research gap of empirical studies of causal mechanisms governing human resource practices impact on greater firm performance.

The paper lacks in their detailed discussion arguing the relevance of their sampling choice, since this area is highly context sensitive and therefore its important to have an appropriate sampling model. As part of the defined scope of research, the authors have restricted their study to high technology firms, this way they have controlled the industry variability aspect of this sample. However one of the most important aspect of the environment is life-phase of the company. This should have been controlled for the sample or justifiably proportionate. A triangulation approach could have helped. Additionally, the statistics theories suggest that the sample should consist of atleast the product of number of items and number of values in possible response set divided by number of clusters or categories of respondent. the latter is one in this case and the total value exceeds 138 which raises question of validity of the conclusions drawn from statistical analysis of this data.

Though authors have put together a well argued rationale for human resource practices influence on knowledge exchange and accentuating its strategic importance of knowledge exchange in a high-tech firm. The paper could have presented a discussion on how firms can create knowledge-related advantages, especially in dynamic environments. This would have helped relate the findings to practice in a contextually apt way.

Theory, Design, Implementation, Analysis Discussion I. Background information to help your readers understand the nature of the work A. Information about the work 1. Title 2. Author 3. Publication information 4. Statement of topic and purpose B. Thesis statement indicating writer's main reaction to the work II. Summary or description of the work III. Interpretation and/or evaluation A. Discussion of the work's organization B. Discussion of the work's style C. Effectiveness D. Discussion of the topic's treatment E. Discussion of appeal to a particular audience Do u think the subject was well investigated before the research started? Do u think there are enough references in it? Do u think it is based on reliable elements? Do u think the researh design is good to address the issue in question? Do u think this design or research method actually answers the question or hypothesis? Do u think the method is reliable enough? Are there other possible methods u could use to make this research? What other methods do u think would be more suitable? why? what about the sample method? Were there enough "subjects" for the research? see this in relation to the purpose of the research, if the method is good enough to address the purpose. Are there any errors in its implementation? Does her reasons support her thesis? Does she provide enough evidence to show how and why the reasons support the thesis? Mark passages you feel provide weak support. Compliment the author where her reasoning is strong. Are there any errors in tis analysis? Is there another way to analyse the data u have collected? Which way do u think is better for the purpose of the research? Does it offer something finally? Something new in the field? How can its findings be implemented? Comment on whether you feel the conclusion ties together the paper or ends weakly. Discuss any persistent weaknesses or strengths. One recommended style is to give a strength, a weakness and another strength.