A Meta-analysis of the Relationship Between Organizational Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Test of Potential Moderator Variables

Abstract

We meta-analyzed the correlation between organizational commitment (OC) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and tested the effects of four potential moderators of this relationship. Eighty-six primary samples (N = 27,640) were included in the meta analysis. A moderate positive correlation was found between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Moderator analysis showed that there was a significant effect of rating source, organization type and culture dimension of individualism vs. collectivism on the OC-OCB relationship. Moderating effect of publication bias was not significant. Implications of findings for theory and practice were discussed and suggestions for further research were provided.

Full text

A Meta-analysis of the Relationship
Between Organizational Commitment
and Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
Test of Potential Moderator Variables
Sahin Cetin
1
&Sait Gürbüz
2
&Mahmut Sert
2
#Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract We meta-analyzed the correlation between organizational commitment (OC) and
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and tested the effects of four potential moderators
of this relationship. Eighty-six primary samples (N=27,640) were included in the meta
analysis. A moderate positive correlation was found between organizational commitment
and organizational citizenship behavior. Moderator analysis showed that there was a signifi-
cant effect of rating source, organization type and culture dimension of individualism vs.
collectivism on the OC-OCB relationship. Moderating effect of publication bias was not
significant. Implications of findings for theory and practice were discussed and suggestions
for further research were provided.
Keywords Organizational citizenship behavior .Organizational commitment
Introduction
Employee behaviors that are outside formal job requirements but help make the workplace
better and thus contribute to unit functioning are collectively called organizational citizenship
behaviors (OCBs). OCBs are important at multiple levels. They are believed to Bshape the
organizational, social, and psychological contexts that serve as the catalyst for task activities
and processes^(Borman and Motowidlo 1997: 100). Employees who perform OCBs tend to
receive more favorable performance evaluations and/or rewards (Van Scotter et al. 2000;
Dulebohn et al. 2005; Whiting et al. 2008; Lievens et al. 2008). Research has also shown that
Employ Respons Rights J
DOI 10.1007/s10672-015-9266-5
*Sahin Cetin
scetin93@gmail.com; scetin2@harpak.edu.tr
1
Department of Management, Turkish War College, Istanbul, Turkey
2
Turkish Military Academy, Ankara, Turkey

OCBs also contribute to organizational performance and social capital (Bolino et al. 2002;
Podsakoff et al. 1997).
As OCBs are associated with a variety of desirable personal and organizational outcomes,
much research has examined its antecedents. Organizational commitment is among the most
commonly studied antecedents of OCB (e.g., Schappe 1998; Van Scotter 2000;Gürbüz2009).
Research on the relationship between OC and OCB generally found a significant positive
correlation between the two constructs (e.g.,: MacKenzie et al. 1998; Chen and Francesco
2003; Bogler and Somech 2004; Chu et al. 2006; Lin et al. 2008). Yet, contrary to expecta-
tions, in some studies researchers did not find a significant relationship between OC and its
dimensions and OCB (e.g.,: Williams and Anderson 1991;Tansky1993; Alotaibi 2001). The
relationship between continuance commitment (OC.Cont.) and OCB, on the other hand, was
consistently negative or insignificant (Meyer et al. 2002; Organ and Ryan 1995).
Meta analyses on the OCB-OC relationship reported significant positive correlations
between the two constructs (LePine et al. 2002; Meyer et al. 2002;Riketta2002;Dalal
2005) and/or their dimensions, with the exception of facets of OCB and continuance commit-
ment not correlating significantly (Organ and Ryan 1995; Podsakoff et al. 1996).
The present study uses meta-analysis to explore (a) the relationship between OC and OCB,
and (b) the effect of potential moderator variables in this relationship. It reports the results of a
meta-analysis that is based on a comprehensive sample of studies dealing specifically with the
OC-OCB relationship and also identifies four potential moderators of this correlation.
Although OC-OCB relationship has been meta-analyzed in previous research, there is value
in revisiting these relationships for a number of reasons. First, studies carried out after the last
meta-analysis (Dalal 2005), seem to have accumulated large enough empirical literature on
OC-OCB relationship to merit a new meta-analysis. By aggregating results across many recent
studies, a more precise and updated estimate of the population correlation between OC and
OCB can be obtained.
Second, previous meta-analyses involved mostly samples from predominantly individualist
cultural settings. As Meyer and his colleagues (2002) noted earlier, research based on the
Three-Component Model of commitment is increasingly being conducted outside North
American context. So, addition of 10 years worth of research including samples from
predominantly collectivist cultural settings (69 % in our sample) should lead to more compre-
hensive and realistic estimates of the OC-OCB relationship.
Further, testing the effects of such potential moderators as source of ratings, publication
bias, type of the organization, and culture on the relationship between OC and OCB might be
an important contribution to the literature too.
Construct Def initions
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
OCB was originally defined as Bindividual behavior 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 (Organ 1988: 4). In response to criticism concerning
various aspects of the original definition (e.g., Morrison 1994: 1561; MacKenzie et al. 1991;
Podsakoff and MacKenzie 1994)Organ(1997) later acknowledged that OCB may be recog-
nized and rewarded during performance appraisals. Most recently, Organ and colleagues
Employ Respons Rights J

(as cited in Spitzmuller et al. 2008: 107) emphasized the discretionary nature of OCB and
redefined it as ‘discretionary contributions that go beyond the strict description and that do not
lay claim to contractual recompense from the formal reward system’.
In our analysis we differentiate between three forms of OCB: OCB as a general construct
(OCB-G), OCB directed at the organization as a whole (OCB-O) and OCB directed at
individuals (OCB-I); a framework suggested by Williams and Anderson (1991). OCB-I
involves voluntarily helping co-workers and facilitating their work, thereby contributing to
unit effectiveness as a whole (Williams and Anderson 1991). OCB-O, on the other hand, is not
directed toward any specific employee but aimed at the organization as a whole. Organization
is the primary beneficiary of these behaviors (Williams and Anderson 1991).
We believe that this simple conceptual framework is relevant as it covers all dimensions
defined by Organ (1988) as well as many other forms of OCB in literature (Podsakoff et al.
2009). This framework is also supported by findings of past theoretical and empirical research
(Ilies et al. 2007:270–271; Ilies et al. 2009: 947). In a study carried out in Turkey, for instance,
Şeşen (2010) reported better CFA goodness of fit indexes for the two-factor model of OCB
compared to the five-factor model.
Also, previous meta analyses (e.g.,: Chang et al. 2007; Cohen-Charash and Spector 2001;
Chiaburu et al. 2011;Dalal2005; Fassina et al. 2008; Ilies et al. 2007,2009;OrganandRyan
1995; Podsakoff et al. 2009) combined various forms/factors of OCB into two factors (OCB-I
and OCB-O).
Based upon our analysis of cited meta analyses, we classified following OCB dimensions
as OCB-I; Balturism^and Bcourtesy^defined by Organ (1988), Balturism^defined by
Morrison (1994), Binterpersonal helping^definedbyBormanandMotowidlo(1997),
Binterpersonal facilitation^defined by Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996)andBinterpersonal
facilitation^defined by Van Dyne and LePine (1998). OCB dimensions classified as OCB-O
were; Bgeneral compliance^defined by Smith et al. (1983), Bconscientiousness,^Bcivic
virtue,^and Bsportsmanship^defined by Organ (1988), Van Dyne and LePine (1998),
Moorman and Blakely (1995), Bjob dedication^defined by Van Scotter and Motowidlo
(1996) and Van Dyne and LePine (1998), Borganizational loyalty^defined by Graham
(1991)andBdefending organizational objectives^defined by Borman and Motowidlo
(1997). Those studies that defined other citizenship behaviors were not included in our
analysis.
The procedure followed in combining these dimensions into OCB-I and OCB-O will be
explained in detail in the Procedure section.
Organizational Commitment
Like OCB, organizational commitment (OC) has, for quite some time, been a popular topic
among researchers in management and organizational behavior because it is, too, associated
with various positive organizational outcomes (Riketta 2002).
Porter et al. (1974) defined organizational commitment as the strength of an individual’s
identification with and involvement in an organization. They argued that commitment is
characterized by (a) a belief in and acceptance of organizational goals and values, (b) a
willingness to spend effort, and (c) a desire to maintain membership.
Meyer and Herscovitch (2001: 301) defined commitment as a force that guides a course of
action toward one or more targets. According to this definition, two aspects of commitment are
Bforce and target(s).^A target is an Banchor^of attachment and may be the organization, the
Employ Respons Rights J

supervisor, coworkers, customers, the occupation, or the team. BForce^is about willingness of
an employee to maintain his/her membership in the organization. These reasons can be
affective, normative, or continuance (Dagenais-Cooper and Paille 2012). This definition draws
upon Meyer and Allen’s (as cited in Meyer et al. 1993). Three-Component Model of
Commitment; a widely used model of organizational commitment that defines three forms
of commitment; affective, continuance, and normative commitment. Affective commitment is
described as the emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organi-
zation. Continuance commitment is related with the perceived costs of leaving the organiza-
tion. Normative commitment is the felt obligation to remain in the organization (Solinger et al.
2008).
Relationship Between OCB and Organizational Commitment
Social exchange theory has been used to explain the relationship between OCB and OC. This
theory contends that employees who have had satisfying experiences about the organization
respond by behaving in ways that benefit the organization and/or other employees (i.e., OCB)
and by displaying commitment to the organization (Cohen and Danny 2008:434).
Studies generally found a positive relationship between OCB and OC (e.g.,: Bogler and
Somech 2004; Chen and Francesco 2003; Chu et al. 2006; MacKenzie et al. 1998). As noted
earlier, some studies did not find a significant relationship between OC or its dimensions and
OCB (e.g.,: Williams and Anderson 1991;Tansky1993; Alotaibi 2001).
In many studies there was a significant positive relationship between affective commitment
and OCB (e.g.,: Feather and Rauter 2004;Gürbüz2006; Moorman et al. 1993; Van Scotter
2000) and between normative commitment and OCB (e.g.,: Gautam et al. 2005; Meyer et al.
1993; Meyer et al. 2002; Nguni et al. 2006; Wasti 2005). The relationship between affective
commitment and OCB is relatively stronger, albeit some evidence for the contrary (Cichy et al.
2009; Meyer et al. 2002; Pianluprasidh 2005).
Research on the relationship between continuance commitment and OCB gave conflicting
results. Although some studies found a significant positive relationship between continuance
commitment and OCB (Nguni et al. 2006; Moorman et al. 1993; Bolat and Bolat 2008)some
others found a negative or an insignificant relationship (Karacaoğlu and Güney 2010;Meyer
et al. 1993; Meyer & Allen, 1986 cited in Meyer and Allen 1991; Shore and Wayne 1993).
Meta analyses on the OCB-OC relationship generally found significant positive correlations
between the two constructs. For the relation between affective commitment and OCB, mean
correlations ranged between (0.20) (LePine et al. 2002) and (ρ=0.32) (Meyer et al. 2002). Ng
and Feldman (2011) reported an effect size of 0.23 for the same relation. For normative
commitment similar corrected mean correlations were found (ρ=0.24 (Meyer et al. 2002)(see
also Riketta 2002;Dalal2005). As regards dimensions of OC and OCB, Podsakoff and
colleagues (1996), for instance, reported significant positive correlations between the two
facets of OCB (altruism and generalized compliance) and two forms of (OC and Affective
Commitment). However the correlation between the two facets of OCB and Continuance
Commitment was insignificant. Similarly, insignificant correlations were reported between
continuance commitment and general construct of OCB (Meyer et al. 2002 or altruism (Organ
and Ryan 1995).
Based on findings of past empirical research and meta analyses, following hypotheses were
formulated on the relationship between OC and OCB:
Employ Respons Rights J

H
1
: There is a significant positive relationship between OC as a general construct (OC-G)
and OCB-G (H
1a
), OCB-I (H
1b
) and OCB-O (H
1c
).
H
2
: There is a significant positive relationship between OC-Aff. and OCB-G (H
2a
), OCB-
I(H
2b
) and OCB-O (H
2c
).
H
3
: There is a significant positive relationship between OC-Norm. and OCB-G (H
3a
),
OCB-I (H
3b
) and OCB-O (H
3c
).
H
4
: There is a no significant relationship between OC-Cont. and OCB-G (H
4a
), OCB-I
(H
4b
)andOCB-O(H
4c
).
Potential Moderator Variables
Source of Ratings
Studies of OCB have mostly used measures from self or supervisor ratings. Some
scholars argue that using the same method for measuring variables (usually self report
surveys) may result in inflated correlations (Spector 2006: 221). Leniency of self-
ratings has been found for a variety of occupations like clerical workers, technical
subordinates, nurses, first-level superiors and executives and for a variety of constructs.
For instance research has shown that self-ratings of performance were significantly
higher than ratings by superiors, a phenomenon accounted for by such theoretical
explanations as social desirability, self-enhancement or self-serving (see Allen et al.
2000).
Research suggests that although self and supervisor ratings of OCB may be
moderately correlated (r=.35, p<0.01inKhalidandAli2005) or not significantly
correlated (Allen et al. 2000), means for self ratings of OCB as a general concept
(Khalid and Ali 2005;Ariani2012)orsomedimensionsofOCB(altruismand
courtesy in Allen et al. 2000) are significantly higher. Similarly, Cardona and
Espejo (2002) found significantly higher means for subordinate and self ratings of
OCB than for colleague ratings. In their meta analysis, Meyer and colleagues (2002)
also found higher correlations between OCB and affective commitment for self ratings
(ρ=0.37) than for supervisor ratings (ρ=0.27).
However Organ and Ryan argued that using supervisor/peer reports for measuring OCB,
too, involves bias, as supervisors or peers sometimes fail to notice certain citizenship behav-
iors. Research findings suggest that managers view citizenship behaviors as a required part of
employees’jobs (Podsakoff et al. 2000). More importantly, superiors may only observe OCB
that is performed in their presence, which may result in a lowering of the scores in superior
ratings of OCB. Using supervisor/peer reports for measuring OCB may thus result in lowered
correlations.
74 (88 %) of 84 studies included in our meta analysis used self reports for measuring
variables, which may bring about inflated correlations. It is therefore hypothesized that:
H
5
:OC–OCB relationship will be moderated by the source of the ratings.
Specifically, relationships should be more strongly positive when the behaviors
are rated by job incumbents themselves (self rating) than when they are rated by
supervisors/peers.
Employ Respons Rights J

Publication Bias
Being unable to get a study published, a.k.a. file drawer problem, is one of the major problems
concerning meta analyses (Sutton et al. 2001: 142). It is a widespread belief that editors/
journals favor and prefer to publish studies reporting significant correlations or effects
(Rosenthal 1991 cited in Özcan 2008: 77). This belief may sometimes cause researchers to
include in their meta analyses only those published studies with significantly positive corre-
lations, so that meta analyses too may yield similar (significantly positive) results. The
argument that published findings are not representative of insignificant effects is referred to
as publication bias. This publication bias may inflate correlations/effect sizes (Eatough et al.
2011:622).
Eatough and colleagues (2011) investigated the relationships of role ambiguity, role
conflict, and role overload with OCB for published and unpublished studies and found that
unpublished studies yielded stronger effect sizes than did published studies. In their analysis of
48 studies from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Sutton and colleagues (2000)
examined the missing studies and their effect on conclusions of metaa nalyses. They found that
about half of the sample had some indication of publication bias and a fifth had a strong
indication. Yet in most cases these biases did not affect the conclusions.
Based on extant literature and meta analyses (Sutton et al. 2000; Christian et al. 2011;
Eatough et al. 2011; Ilies et al. 2007) it is hypothesized that:
H
6
:OC–OCB relationship will be moderated by publication bias. Specifically, relation-
ship should be more strongly positive in published studies than unpublished studies.
Organization Type (Public-Private)
There are certain major differences between public and private organizations. Firstly, goals and
objectives vary substantially (Metin and Altunok 2002: 86). Organizational culture in public
organizations is generally more bureaucratic and accordingly pay and reward systems tend be
based more on such factors as age, status, experience and seniority rather than performance
(Kalleberg et al. 2006). As long as they meet formal job requirements public employees
are entitled to full pay and privileges. As they are not latently or explicitly expected
to exceed task performance, public sector employees may be more prone to display
higher levels of OCB.
In contrast, private organizations promote performance based pay and reward systems.
Expected to perform better, employees tend to meet high performance expectations first, for
which they are entitled to formally specified benefits and privileges. For profit oriented private
sector managers the boundary between extra role and in-role performance may often be blurred
(Özdevecioğlu 2002). They might start expecting employees to display OCB as part of formal
job roles. As a result, private sector employees might be expected to display lower levels of
OCB than their public sector counterparts.
We could not find any studies in the extant literature testing the moderating effect of
organization type on the OC-OCB relationship. Yet, two distinct meta analyses examining the
relationship between emotional strain and role conflict vs. role uncertainty and OCB found that
organization type had a moderating effect and that employees in the public sector displayed
higher levels of OCB (Chang et al. 2007; Eatough et al. 2011).
Employ Respons Rights J

Studies comparing OC and OCB levels of public vs. private sector employees generally
reported higher levels of OC for private sector employees. For instance, Buchanan (1974)
reported lower levels of OC for public sector managers and a study carried out in Turkey
(Kaya 2008) found higher levels of OC for private sector and private bank employees
respectively. In contrast, in two studies carried out in India, public employees were found to
display higher OCB than private sector employees (Pal and Dasgupta 2012; Sharma et al.
2011).
Therefore we hpothesized that:
H
7
:OC–OCB relationship will be moderated by the type of organization (public vs.
private) in which studies were carried out.
Cultural Differences
After Hofstede’s seminal research program around 1980’s, culture has started to play a more
central role in organizational behavior literature (Gelfand et al. 2007) rendering the general-
izability of theories developed and research carried out in western organizational environments
to non-western settings questionable.
Referring to culture as the Bcollective programming of the mind^(Hofstede et al. 2010:6),
Hofstede defined five dimensions along which cultures are different: individualism vs. collec-
tivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity vs. femininity, and long vs. short
term orientation. Individualism vs. collectivism is about whether individual or collective
values are prevalent in a society. In individualist cultures group values are less important
whereas in collectivist cultures there is a stronger drive for the group (Hofstede et al. 2010).
Taking into account the influence of culture on individuals’behaviors, attitudes and
reactions, cultural differences can be expected to have a significant effect on employees’OC
and OCB too.
In a meta analysis involving studies from 14 countries, Jaramilloa and colleagues (2005)
showed that cultural differences had a moderating effect on the relationship between job
performance and OC and the relationship was stronger in collectivist cultures.
In another meta analysis, Meyer and colleagues (2002) found a stronger relationship
between normative commitment and OCB in studies conducted outside North America (ρ=
0.37 vs. ρ=0.10). The same was true for correlations involving affective commitment (ρ=0.46
vs. ρ=0.27). Similarly, Wasti (2003) and Cheng and Stockdale (2003) found that the relation-
ship between normative commitment and tendency to stay in the organization was stronger in
collectivist cultures.
In the literature on the effects of cultural differences on OCB individualism vs.
collectivism and power distance are the most commonly studied dimensions. Yet the
strong relationship between these dimensions and the resulting potential
multicollinearity problem may complicate their use in a single study (Rockstuhl et al.
2012;Shaoetal.2013). Therefore we preferred to focus on the moderating effect of
individualism vs. collectivism alone in our meta analysis.
We classified individual studies according to individualism vs. collectivism index of the
country as specified by Hofstede and colleagues (2010; Geert-hofstede [web], 2013). For our
analysis countries were classified as either individualist or collectivist. For instance Turkey,
with an individualism index value of 37 was classified as a collectivist country.
Employ Respons Rights J

Therefore we hypothesized that:
H
8
:OC–OCB relationship will be moderated by the culture dimension of individualism
vs. collectivism of the country the study was carried out. Specifically, relationship should
be more strongly positive in studies carried out in a collectivist, compared to individualist,
cultural context.
Method
Literature Search
Published and unpublished studies were included in the meta-analysis. Literature
search was carried out in 16 international databases (Academic Search Complete,
Business Source Complete, EBSCO, Emerald, ERIC, DOAJ, IEEE Xplore Digital
Library, JSTOR, PsycINFO, Sage Journals Online, Science Direct, Springer Link,
Taylor and Francis Online Journals, Wiley Online Library, Web of Knowledge, Web
of Science) and one national (Turkish ULAKBIM) using a variety of related key
words (e.g., organizational commitment, extra-role behaviour, organizational citizen-
ship) both in Turkish and English. Popular internet search engines (Google, Google
Scholar and Yandex) were also used.
In order to locate full-text unpublished master’s theses and doctoral dissertations,
Theses and Dissertations Databases of Turkish Council of Higher Education (YOK
TVT) and ProQuest were searched. For those theses/dissertations without author’s
approval for full text accessibility different solutions were tried. One master’sthesis
was found in library catalogues (Loğa2003). To access other theses/dissertations,
either the author or advisor was contacted. One author sent an electronic copy of his
thesis in one week (Akbaş2010). To access unpublished manuscripts in Turkish,
Proceedings of 13 National Management and Organization Congresses held between
2000 and 2012 were searched and authors of studies that had carried out research on
related/similar topics were contacted to see if they had any unpublished studies or
research in progress.
Inclusion Criteria
Only those studies that reported a correlation coefficient or presented data that could be used to
compute a correlation coefficient were included in our analysis. Another inclusion criterion
required that the particular study investigate the relationship between OCB as a general
construct or OCB factors and OC as a general construct and its three factors suggested by
Meyer and Allen (1991) (affective, continuance and normative commitment). Only those
studies with a sample that worked either full or part-time in an organization were selected.
Two studies that had students as their sample were not included. If two distinct studies used the
same sample, only one was included.
No effective limit was set for studies with a Turkish sample. Of studies with a
non-Turkish sample, only those made in and after 2005 were included. Because the
meta analysis by Dalal (2005) of the relationship between the very same variables
covered that sample.
Employ Respons Rights J

Coding and Results of Searches
Information and data from selected studies were coded in a form developed by researchers.
Two coders worked independently to code the data. One of the coders was the third author of
the present study and the other was a PhD candidate in the field of organizational behavior.
Overall agreement level between coders was 95.84 %. All disagreements were resolved using
a subsequent joint discussion.
We used Hunter and Schmidt’s(2004:479–487) and Card’s(2012:64–81) studies as
models in developing the coding form which had four sections; the first section involved
information about the study and the sample. Information about the instruments was coded in
the second section of the form. Correlation coefficients and statistical data that can be used to
compute a correlation coefficient (e.g., t-test or ANOVA values) were coded in the third section
and finally potential moderator variables were coded in the last section. We identified four
potential moderator variables: rating source, type of organization (public vs. private), publi-
cation bias and culture dimensions of individualism vs. collectivism.
86 independent samples (N=27,640) were identified from 84 studies. Two studies (Felfe
and Yan 2009 and Rajashi et al. 2012) had been carried out with two independent samples. Of
86 samples, 65 were from published studies; the remaining 21 were from conference presen-
tations, posters, unpublished dissertations, master’s theses, and data sets. The overall sample
size was 27,640 (mean: 321). 31 of the samples were Turkish (N=8752, mean: 282) and 55
comprised non-Turkish respondents. Characteristics of the sample in terms of particular
variables are provided in Table 1.
Tab l e 1 Demographic and other characteristics of primary sample respondents
Characteristic Samples or percentages of primary samples with the characteristic
Country Number of samples
Turkey 31 (36 %)
United States 15 (17 %)
Iran 8 (9 %)
Israel 5 (6 %)
Pakistan 3 (3 %)
Canada 4 (5 %)
Other (14 countries with 2 or less samples) 20 (24 %)
Publication bias Number of studies
Published studies 63 (75 %)
Unpublished theses 21 (25 %)
Rating source Number of samples
Self report 75 (87.82 %)
Supervisor/peer report 11 (13.18 %)
Culture dimensions
Collectivism 57 (68.74 %)
Sector in which surveyed
Public 35 (40 %)
Private 47 (55 %)
Not specified 4 (5 %)
Employ Respons Rights J

Procedure
Meta-analytic procedures specified by Hunter and Schmidt (1990) were used to correct
correlations to account for the effects of sampling error. Correction for unreliability was
performed for each individual sample.
In those studies that reported correlation coefficients between variables no further compu-
tation was made. Some studies reported ttest or F-test values. These values were converted to
correlation coefficients using the method suggested by Hunter and Schmidt (2004)andthe
formula suggested by Card (2012). For finding fail-safe N and Q-test, Cohen’s d value was
converted to correlation coefficient (r) using the formula suggested by Borenstein and col-
leagues (2009:77).
For each relationship between our variables, uncorrected weight sample-size correlation
coefficient values (ṝ) were found by means of sample size and observed (uncorrected)
correlation coefficients using the formula suggested by Hunter and Schmidt (2004:81).
Using the formula suggested by Borenstein and colleagues (2009: 343) instrument related
errors were corrected and corrected correlation values (ŕ) were found. When a reliability
estimate was not provided for a measure in an individual primary sample, however, the
correction was accomplished using the mean reliability from the reliability distribution
generated from the primary samples (Chan et al. 2008: 365).
Next, using the formula suggested by Borenstein and colleagues (2009: 343) corrected
mean correlation coefficients (corrected mean effect size, ρ) were found. Standard error for the
ρvalue was found using the formula suggested by Hunter and Schmidt (2004: 206). Formulas
suggested by Hunter and Schmidt (2004: 94; 167) were used to find instrument and sampling
error variances, consequently making up the total error variance. Total error variance was
found using the formula suggested by Borenstein and colleagues (2009:348).
B75 % rule^was used to test potential moderator effects and the BQ-test^based on Hunter
& Schmidt’sformula(2004: 421) was employed to validate the results.
Eighty percent credibility interval and 95 % confidence interval were used. SDSρvalue was
found by using Borenstein and colleagues’formula and 80 % credibility interval was found by
using Hunter and Schmidt’s(2004: 205) formula. Ninety-five percent confidence interval was
used for examining the accuracy of the meta-analytic effect size estimate. Homogeneity of
effect sizes was assessed using 80 % credibility intervals.
Corrected mean effect size (ρ) for 95 % confidence interval was found using the formula ρ±
1.96SEρ. Hunter and Schmidt’sformula(2004: 206) was used to find Standard Error. Fail-safe
number was found using Orwin’s(1983:158)formula.
Total error variance and Q-test (when needed) findings were used for moderator effect
analyses. Microsoft Excel application (Meta-Analysis Mark X) was used for analyses (Steel
[web], 2012).
Findings
Results of the meta-analysis on the relationship between general constructs and facets of OC
and OCB are provided in Table 2.
The sample-size-weighted mean correlation between OC and OCB-G refers to a
moderateley strong relationship (ṝ=0.40). After correcting for unreliability in both OC and
OCB, the sample-size-weighted mean correlation was (ρ=0.49). Both 80 % credibility interval
Employ Respons Rights J

and 95%confidence intervals, based on the uncorrected correlations, indicated that the rela-
tionship was significant.
The relationship between OC and the two facets of OCB was also strong. After correcting
for unreliability, the sample-size-weighted mean correlation between OC and OCB-I(ρ=0.40);
and OCB-O (ρ=0.50) were also significant. OCB facets assessed together, relationship was
strongest between OC and OCB-O in both samples (ρ=0.50).
The analysis of the relationship between OC-Aff. (affective commitment) and three OCB
facets showed that relationship was strongest between OC-Aff. and OCB-O (ρ=0.37).
The relationship between normative commitment (OC-Norm) and three facets of OCB was
moderate. Sample-size-weighted mean correlations were OC-Norm.-OCB-G (ρ=0.33), OC-
Norm.-OCB-I (ρ=0.31) and OC-Norm.-OCB-O (ρ=0.35) respectively. Lower and upper
limits of 80 % credibility interval and 95 % confidence intervals, based on the uncorrected
correlations, indicated that the relationship was significant. This relationship is strongest for
OC-N and OCB-O (ρ=0.35).
Relationships between continuance commitment and all facets of OCB were positive and
higher than expected. Corrected sample-size-weighted mean correlation value was (ρ=0.20)
for the relationship between OC-Cont. and OCB-G, (ρ=0.16) for the relationship between OC-
Cont. and OCB-I and (ρ=0.17) for the relationship between OC-Cont. and OCB- O. But since
80 % credibility interval lower limit values were negative, relationships were not significant. It
is important to note that lower limits for the 95 % confidence interval were positive but still
Tab l e 2 Meta-analytic correlation matrix for behavior facets
OCB-General OCB-Individual OCB-Organizational
OC 0.40 (0.49)a 0.34 (0.40)b 0.42 (0.50)c
OC-Affective 0.29 (0.37)d 0.25 (0.32)e 0.29 (0.37)f
OC-Normative 0.25 (0.33)g 0.24 (0.31)h 0.27 (0.35)i
OC-Continuance 0.15 (0.20)j 0.11 (0.16)k 0.12 (0.17)l
Correlations are weighted by sample size (N). Those outside parentheses are correlations uncorrected correlations
(i.e., mean r); those in parentheses arecorrected for unreliability (i.e., mean ρ). k=number of samples in which
relationship was estimated; N=total number of individuals in the ksamples; Mean r=mean of uncorrected
correlations, weighted by sample size (N); Mean ρ=mean of corrected correlations, weighted by sample size (N);
SDρ=standard deviation of correctedcorrelations; 95 % CI=lower and upper limits of 95 % confidence interval;
80 % CrI=lower and upper limits of 80 % credibility interval; OCB=organizational citizenship behavior; OC=
organizational commitment
ak=39, N= 13,134, SDρ=0.18, 80 % CrI=(0.26–0.72), 95 % CI=(0.43–0.55)
bk=11, N = 3977, SDρ=0.27, 80 % CrI=(0.05–0.77), 95 % CI= (0.24–0.56)
ck=11, N = 3982, SDρ=0.23, 80 % CrI=(0.20–0.81), 95 % CI=(0.36–0.65)
dk=40, N= 11,354, SDρ=0.20, 80 % CrI=(0.11–0.63), 95 % CI=(0.30–0.44)
ek=27, N=8942, SDρ=0.17, 80 % CrI=(0.10–0.54), 95 % CI=(0.25–0.39)
fk=26, N=8931, SDρ=0.20, 80 % CrI=(0.13–0.64), 95 % CI=(0.31–0.47)
gk=30, N= 7618, SDρ=0.22, 80 % CrI=(0.26–0.61), 95 % CI=(0.24–0.41)
hk=18, N= 5370, SDρ=0.15, 80 % CrI=(0.04–0.50), 95 % CI=(0.23–0.39)
ik=18, N=5370, SDρ=0.18, 80 % CrI=(0.12–0.59), 95 % CI=(0.26–0.44)
jk=26, N=7052, SDρ=0.24, 80 % CrI=(−0.10–0.51), 95 % CI = (0.11–0.30)
kk=17, N=5510, SDρ=0.14, 80 % CrI=(−0.02–0.33), 95 % CI=(0.08–0.23)
lk=18, N=6209, SDρ=0.21, 80 % CrI=(−0.10–0.43), 95 % CI = (0.06–0.27)
Employ Respons Rights J

very close to (0) and standard deviation of corrected correlations were high. Therefore we
concluded that relationships were not significant.
Based on results, hypotheses H
1
,H
2
,H
3
(
a,b,c
)andH
4
(
a,b,c
) were accepted.
Moderator Analyses
Four moderators of the OC-OCB relationship were analyzed. According to the hypotheses, the
four set of moderator variables (source of ratings, publication bias, type of the organization and
culture dimension of individualism vs. collectivism) would have a significant effect on the
strength of the relationship between OC–OCB.
Table 3shows the results of moderator effect analysis for rating source on OC-OCB
relationship.
Table 3shows that, like hypothesized, OC-OCB relationship is stronger for incumbent
ratings (self report) than for supervisor/peer ratings. Corrected sample-size-weighted mean
correlation between OC and OCB was (ρ=0.37) for supervisor/peer ratings and (ρ=0.51) for
self ratings. Based on our findings, hypothesis H5 was accepted.
Results of the moderator effect analysis for publication bias on OC-OCB relationship are
provided in Table 4.
The moderating effect of publication bias was significant only on the relationship between
normative commitment (OC-Norm.) and OCB. As hypothesized, the relationship between OC-
Norm. and OCB is stronger in published studies (ρ=0.37) than in unpublished studies (ρ=
0.26). There was not a significant moderator effect on the relationship between other OC facets
and OCB-G. Because, as can be seen in Table 4, lower and upper limits of 95 % confidence
interval are close and means of SDρfor published/unpublished studies are not lower than SDρ
mean values before grouping. Besides, contrary to our expectations, the relationship between
OC.Cont.-OCB is stronger for unpublished studies (ρ=0.23) than published studies (ρ=0.19).
Therefore hypothesis H
6
was rejected.
Table 5shows results of moderator effect analysis of organization type on OC-OCB
relationship.
The moderating effect of organization type (public vs. private) on the OC-OCB relationship
was significant. Corrected sample-size-weighted mean correlation between OC and OCB for
private sector employees (ρ=0.54) was stronger than for public sector employees (ρ=0.44).
Therefore hypothesis H
7
was accepted.
Tab l e 3 The moderating effect of rating source
kN ṝρSD
ρ
80 % CrI 95 % CI
Lower Upper Lower Upper
OC-OCB Supervisor/Peer 3 1579 0.32 0.37 0.14 0.19 0.54 0.20 0.53
SD
ρ
=0.18* Job incumbent (Self) 36 11,555 0.42 0.51 0.18 0.28 0.74 0.45 0.57
OC-Aff.-OCB Supervisor/Peer 3 862 0.16 0.20 0.12 0.04 0.35 0.04 0.35
SD
ρ
=0.20* Job incumbent (Self) 37 10,492 0.30 0.39 0.20 0.13 0.64 0.32 0.45
k; number of samples in which relationship was estimated,N;total number of individuals in the ksamples, ṝ;mean
of uncorrectedcorrelationsweighted by sample size, ρ;mean of corrected correlations, weighted by sample size,
SDρ=standard deviation of correctedcorrelations; 95 % CI=lower and upper limits of 95 % confidence interval;
80 % CrI=lower and upper limits of 80 % credibility interval
Employ Respons Rights J

Results of the analysis for the moderator effect of culture dimension of individualism vs.
collectivism on OC-OCB relationship are provided in Table 6.
The moderating effect of individualism/collectivism on the relationship between OC and
OCB was significant. Therefore hypothesis H
8
was accepted. Corrected sample-size-
weighted mean correlation for OC-OCB relationship was significantly higher in
indivudualist cultures (ρ=0.57) than that in collectivist cultures (ρ=0.46) whereas
the relationship between OC-Affective, OC-Normative and OC-Continuance and
OCB was stronger in collectivist cultures than in individualist cultures.
Tab l e 4 The moderating effect of publication bias
kN ṝρSD
ρ
80 % CrI 95 % CI
Lower Upper Lower Upper
OC-OCB Published 27 10,702 0.42 0.52 0.17 0.30 0.73 0.45 0.58
SD
ρ
=0.18 Unpublished 12 2456 0.34 0.41 0.22 0.13 0.69 0.28 0.54
OC.Aff.-OCB Published 24 7833 0.30 0.39 0.18 0.15 0.62 0.31 0.46
SD
ρ
=0.20 Unpublished 16 3521 0.27 0.34 0.24 0.04 0.64 0.22 0.46
OCNor-OCB Published 17 4754 0.28 0.37 0.25 0.05 0.69 0.25 0.50
SD
ρ
=0.22 Unpublished 13 2864 0.21 0.26 0.16 0.05 0.46 0.16 0.35
OC.Cont-OCB Published 15 4544 0.14 0.19 0.27 −0.15 0.53 0.05 0.33
SD
ρ
=0.24 Unpublished 11 2508 0.18 0.23 0.17 0.01 0.45 0.12 0.34
k; number of samples in which relationship was estimated,N;total number of individuals in the ksamples, ṝ;mean
of uncorrectedcorrelationsweighted by sample size, ρ;mean of corrected correlations, weighted by sample size,
SDρ=standard deviation of correctedcorrelations; 95 % CI=lower and upper limits of 95 % confidence interval;
80 % CrI=lower and upper limits of 80 % credibility interval
Tab l e 5 The moderating effect of organization type
kN ṝρSD
ρ
80 % CrI 95 % CI
Lower Upper Lower Upper
OC-OCB Public 20 5599 0.36 0.44 0.19 0.19 0.68 0.35 0.52
SD
ρ
=0.18 Private 17 6670 0.43 0.54 0.16 0.33 0.75 0.46 0.62
OC-Aff.-OCB Public 1648170.250.330.18 0.10 0.55 0.24 0.42
SD
ρ
=0.20 Private 21 5703 0.34 0.43 0.21 0.16 0.70 0.33 0.52
OC-Nor-OCB Public 11 2881 0.26 0.35 0.26 0.01 0.68 0.19 0.51
SD
ρ
=0.22 Private 16 3826 0.27 0.34 0.21 0.07 0.61 0.23 0.45
OC-Cont-OCBPublic 1129580.100.140.29−0.23 0.52 −0.03 0.32
SD
ρ
=0.24 Private 15 4094 0.19 0.25 0.17 0.04 0.46 0.16 0.34
k; number of samples in which relationship was estimated,N;total number of individuals in the ksamples, ṝ;mean
of uncorrectedcorrelationsweighted by sample size, ρ;mean of corrected correlations, weighted by sample size,
SDρ=standard deviation of correctedcorrelations; 95 % CI=lower and upper limits of 95 % confidence interval;
80 % CrI=lower and upper limits of 80 % credibility interval
Employ Respons Rights J

Discussion
The present meta analysis estimated the relationship between OCB and OC at both general
construct and facet levels and assessed moderators of this relationship.
Based on 86 independent samples (N=27,640) from 84 studies, we found moderately
strong to strong relationships between general constructs of OCB and OC and their facets.
Especially the relationship between OC and OCB as general constructs; and the relationship
between OC and OCB-O were relatively stronger. At facet level, relationship between affective
commitment (OC.Aff.) and organization-directed citizenship (OCB-O) was relatively stronger.
An exception was the relationship between continuance commitment (OC.Cont.) and OCB,
which was still positive but not significant. As employees display higher levels of commit-
ment, they have a greater tendency to direct those behaviors toward the organization as a
whole rather than individuals in the organization.
Our findings are consistent with findings of previous meta-analyses which reported signif-
icant positive correlations between OC and OCB (Podsakoff et al. 1996;LePineetal.2002;
Meyer et al. 2002; Riketta 2002;Dalal2005) but negative or insignificant relationships
between continuance commitment (OC.Cont.) and OCB (Meyer et al. 2002; Organ and
Ryan 1995; Podsakoff et al. 1996).
Four moderators of the OC-OCB relationship were tested: rating source, publication bias,
organization type and culture dimension of individualism vs. collectivism.
Moderator analysis showed that source of ratings had a significant effect on the OC-OCB
relationship. Most studies (76 %) included in our analysis used self reports of OCB. Such
concerns as social desirability and common method variance associated with self reports may
have resulted in inflated correlation coefficients (Spector 2006; Podsakoff et al. 2012).
Analysis results prior to rating source-based grouping support this claim, as mean value for
SDρ- supervisor/peer (0.14) and SDρ- self (0.18) is lower than the pre-grouping SDρvalue
(OC-OCB SDρ: 0.18). Thus we suggest that meta analyses, rather than studies using single
rating source, should incorporate a greater number of studies with various rating sources so as
to allow a more realistic assessment of the relationship between OCB and other constructs.
Tab l e 6 The moderating effect of ındividualism vs. collectivism
kN ṝρSD
ρ
80 % CrI 95 % CI
Lower Upper Lower Upper
OC-OCB Individualist 6 4189 0.45 0.57 0.05 0.50 0.64 0.52 0.63
SD
ρ
=0.18 Collectivist 33 8945 0.38 0.46 0.20 0.20 0.71 0.39 0.53
OC-Aff.-OCB Individualist 9 3269 0.19 0.25 0.13 0.08 0.42 0.15 0.34
SD
ρ
=0.20 Collectivist 31 8085 0.33 0.42 0.21 0.15 0.68 0.34 0.49
OC-Nor-OCB Individualist 7 1547 0.12 0.15 0.14 −0.02 0.32 0.03 0.27
SD
ρ
=0.22 Collectivist 23 6071 0.29 0.37 0.22 0.08 0.65 0.27 0.47
OC-Cont-OCB Individualist 6 1542 −0.01 −0.01 0.16 −0.21 0.19 −0.15 0.13
SD
ρ
=0.24 Collectivist 20 5510 0.20 0.27 0.22 −0.01 0.55 0.17 0.37
k; number of samples in which relationship was estimated,N;total number of individuals in the ksamples, ṝ;mean
of uncorrectedcorrelationsweighted by sample size, ρ;mean of corrected correlations, weighted by sample size,
SDρ=standard deviation of correctedcorrelations; 95 % CI=lower and upper limits of 95 % confidence interval;
80 % CrI=lower and upper limits of 80 % credibility interval
Employ Respons Rights J

Findings on the moderating effect of publication bias show that whether a study has been
published or not has no significant effect on the relationship between OC and OCB or between
facets of both constructs, except on OC.Norm. and OCB relationship. As a result, we think it is
safe to argue that moderator effect of publication bias is slight and insignificant, a result
supporting previous evidence (Hauenstein et al. 2001; Eatough et al. 2011; Christian et al.
2011).
Moderator effect of organization type (public vs. private) on the OC and OCB relationship
was significant with a stronger OC-OCB relationship for private sector employees than for
public sector employees. Moderating effect of organization type on OC.Norm.-OCB and OC.
Cont.-OCB relationship was not significant.
Previous research comparing OC and OCB levels of public vs. private sector employees
found significantly higher levels of OC (Buchanan 1974;Kaya2008) and lower levels of OCB
(Pal and Dasgupta 2012;Sharmaetal.2011) for private sector employees. Our analysis
explored the moderating effect of sector type on the OC-OCB relationship and showed that
this relationship was moderated by sector type with a significantly stronger relationship in
private sector organizations.
Our analysis on the moderating effect of individualism vs. collectivism showed that
relationship between OC facets (OC.Aff., OC.Norm. and OC.Cont.) and OCB was stronger
in collectivist cultures than in individualist cultures. Interestingly enough, relationship between
OC-OCB as global constructs was stronger in individualist cultures than in collectivist
cultures, which is among the most noteworthy findings of our analysis. This finding conflicts
with findings of previous research (Dalal 2005; Meyer et al. 2002; Organ and Ryan 1995;
Riketta 2002) carried out in individualist cultural setting of North America. The high corre-
lation between OC-OCB in individualist cultures can be explained by the fact that only studies
after 2005 were included in our analysis (k=6) and one study (Albrecht 2012)(N=3437)
accounted for 82 % of the overall sample (N=4189) of the 6 studies in the analysis.
Implications for Theory and Practice
Our meta analysis showed that there were moderately strong to strong relationships between
general constructs and dimensions of OCB and OC with the exception of the relationship
between continuance commitment (OC.Cont.) and OCB, which was not significant.
Given the importance of OCB for more effective organizational functioning as well as a
plethora of desired organizational outcomes and the strong relationship between OC and OCB,
especially between OC.Gen. and OC.Aff. and OCB-O, a high level of employee commitment
is crucial for promoting extra role behaviors directed towards the organization as a whole and
individuals therein.
The primary finding of the present meta-analysis demonstrated that the relationship be-
tween organizational commitment and extra-role performance is rather straightforward. The
relationship between OC and OCB as general constructs and their facets are significantly
positive. Except for employees who feel that it is more costly to leave the organization,
employees who are committed tend to display higher levels of extra role behavior.
Based on our findings it can be argued that the relationship between organizational
commitment and citizenship behaviors is also highly contextual. Although findings do not
allow us to arrive at uniform conclusions as to the role of contextual variables, factors like the
type of the organization and individualist vs. collectivist orientation of the culture play an
important role in this relationship. Our meta-analysis showed that as expected, OC-OCB
Employ Respons Rights J

relationship was stronger for incumbent (self) ratings than for supervisor/peer ratings, and for
private sector employees than for public sector employees. Similarly, the relationship between
OC.Norm. and OCB was stronger in published studies than in unpublished studies. The
relationship between OC and OCB as general constructs was significantly stronger in
indivudualist cultures than in collectivist cultures. However, the relationship between three
OC facets and OCB was stronger in collectivist cultures than in individualist cultures.
The results of this meta-analysis have practical implications in two respects. First, the
results suggest that OC is a better predictor of OCB when: (a) performance is measured by
self-reports rather than supervisor-peer ratings; (b) private sector employees rather than for
public sector employees are targeted; and (c) collectivist cultures rather than individualist
cultures are studied. Second, with the same caveat, conditions (b) and (c) point to circum-
stances under which attempts to increase productivity through OC may be particularly
effective. The present findings cleariy illustrate Meyer et al.’s(2002) contention that B…but
what is needed is more systematic cross-cultural research in which relations among the
constructs are examined in the context of existing theories of cultural differences. Such
research would make a particularly valuable contribution to our understanding of commitment
in the global economy^(p. 44).
References
*References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis
*Akbaş,T.T.(2010).Örgütsel Etik İklim, Kişi-Örgüt Uyumu, Örgütsel Bağlılık ve Örgütsel Vatandaşlık
Davranışı İlişkisi: Görgül Bir Araştırma. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Gazi University,
Ankara.
*Albrecht, S.L. (2012). The influence of job, team and organizational level resources on employee well-being,
engagement, commitment and extra-role performance: test of a model. International Journal of Manpower,
33(7), 840–853.
Allen, T. D., Barnard, S., Rush, M. C., & Russel, J. E. A. (2000). Ratings of organizational citizenship behavior:
does the source make a difference? Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 97–114.
Alotaibi, A. G. (2001). Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior: a study of public personnel in Kuwait.
Public Personnel Management, 30(3), 363–376.
Ariani, D. W. (2012). Linking the self-esteem to organizational citizenship behavior. Business and Management
Journal, 1(2). doi:10.5430/bmr.v1n2p26.
Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’organizational commitment,
professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 20(3), 277–289.
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior andthe creation of social capital
in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27(4), 505–522.
*Bolat, O. İ. & Bolat, T. (2008). Otel İşletmelerinde Örgütsel Bağlılık ve Örgütsel Vatandaşlık Davranışı İlişkisi.
Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(19), 75–94.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. UK:
John Wiley and Sons.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: the meaning for
personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99–109.
Buchanan, B. (1974). Government managers, business executives, and organizational commitment. Public
Administration Rewiew, 34(4), 339–347.
Card, N. A. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. New York: The Guilford Press.
Cardona, P., & Espejo, A. (2002). The effect of the rating source in organizational citizenship behavior: A
multitrait-multimethod analysis. Research Paper, No: 474, University of Navarra.
Chan, D. K.-S., Lam, C. B., Chow, S. Y., & Cheung, S. F. (2008). Examining the job-related, psychological and
physical outcomes of workplace sexual harassment: a meta-analytic review. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 32,362–376.
Employ Respons Rights J

Chang, C.-H., Johnson, R. E., & Yang, L. (2007). Emotional strain and organizational citizenship behaviours: a
meta-analysis and review. Work and Stress, 21(4), 312–332.
Chen, Z. X., & Francesco, A. M. (2003). The relationship between the three components of commitment and
employee performance in china. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(3), 490–510.
Cheng, Y., & Stockdale, M. S. (2003). The validity of the three-component model of organizational commitment
in a Chinese context. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(3), 465–489.
Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I.-S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011). The five-factor model of personality
traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1140–
1166.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: a quantitative review and test of its
relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136.
*Chu, C., Lee, M-S., & Hsu, H-M. (2006). The ımpact of social support and job stress on public health nurses’
organizational citizenship behaviors in rural Taiwan. Public Health Nursing, 23(6), 496–505.
*Cichy, R. F., Cha, J. M., & Kim, S. H. (2009). The relationship between organizational commitment and
contextual performance among private club leaders. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
28(1), 53–62.
*Cohen, A., & Danny, K. (2008). Individual values and social exchange variables: examining their relationship to
and mutual effect on ın-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior. Group and Organization
Management, 33(4), 425–452.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321.
*Dagenais-Cooper, V., & Paille, P. (2012). Employee commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors in the
hotel ındustry: do foci matter? Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 11(4), 303–326.
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and
counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241–1255.
Dulebohn, J. H., Shore, L. M., Kunze, M., & Dookeran, D. (2005). The differential impact of OCBs and
influence tactics on leader reward behavior and performance ratings over time. Organizational Analysis,
13(1), 73–90.
Eatough, E. M., Chang, C. H., Miloslavic, S. A., & Johnson, R. E. (2011). Relationships of role stressors with
organizational citizenship behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 619–632.
Fassina, N. E., Jones, D. A., & Uggerslev, K. L. (2008). Meta-analytic tests of relationships between organiza-
tional justice and citizenship behavior: testing agent-system and shared-variance models. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 29,805–828.
Feather, N. T., & Rauter, K. A. (2004). Organizational citizenship behaviours in relation to job status, job
insecurity, organizational commitment and identification, job satisfaction and work values. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 81–94.
*Felfe, J., & Yan, W. H. (2009). The ımpact of workgroup commitment on organizational citizenship behaviour,
absenteeism and turnover ıntention: the case of Germany and and China. Asia Pacific Business Review,
15(3), 433–450.
*Gautam, T., Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Upadhyay, N., & Davis, A.J. (2005). Organizational Citizenship
Behavior and Organizational Commitment in Nepal. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 305–314.
Geert Hofstede Home Page. <http://www.geert-hofstede.com/national-culture.html> Retrieved in 24 January
2013.
Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of
Psychology, 58, 479–514.
Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal, 4(4), 249–270.
*Gürbüz, S. (2006). Örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı ile duygusal bağlılıkarasındaki ilişkilerin belirlenmesine
yönelik bir araştırma. Ekonomik ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(1), 48–75.
*Gürbüz, S. (2009). Some possible antecedents of military personnel organizational citizenship behavior.
Military Psychology, 21, 200–215.
Hauenstein, N. M. A., McGonigle, T. M., & Flinder, S. W. (2001). A meta-analysis of the relationship between
procedural justice and distributive justice: implications for justice research. Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal, 13(1), 39–56.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.).
New York: Mc Graw Hill.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias inresearch findings.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Employ Respons Rights J

Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Leader–member exchange and citizenship behaviors: a
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 269–277.
Ilies, R., Fulmer, I. S., Spitzmuller, M., & Johnson, M. D. (2009). Personality and citizenship behavior: the
mediating role of Job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 945–959.
Jaramillo, F., Mulki, J. P., & Marshall, G. W. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational
commitment and salesperson job performance: 25 years of research. Journal of Business Research, 58,705–
714.
Kalleberg, A. L., Marsden, P. V., Reynolds, J., & Knoke, D. (2006). Beyond profit? Sectoral differences in high-
performance work practices. Work and Occupations, 33, 271–302.
*Karacaoğlu,K.,&Güney,Y.S.(2010).Öğretmenlerin örgütsel bağlılıklarının, örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışları
üzerindeki etkisi: Nevşehir ili örneği. Öneri Dergisi, 9(34), 137–153.
Kaya, H. (2008). Kamu ve özel sektör kuruluşlarının örgütsel kültürünün analizi ve kurum kültürünün
çalışanlarınörgütselbağlılığına etkisi: Görgül bir araştırma. Maliye Dergisi, 155(2), 119–143.
Khalid, S. A., & Ali, H. (2005). Self and superior ratings of organizational citizenship behavior: are there
differences in the source of ratings? Problems and Perspectives in Management, 4,147–153.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship
behavior: a critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52–65.
Lievens, F., Conway, J. M., & De Corte, W. (2008). The relative importance of task, citizenship and counter-
productive performance to job performance ratings: do rater source and team-based culture matter? Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81,11–27.
Lin, C. P., Hung, W. T., & Chiu, C. K. (2008). Being good citizens: understanding a mediating
mechanism of organizational commitment and social network ties in OCBs. Journal of Business
Ethics, 81, 561–578.
*Loğa, A. (2003). Çalışanların demografik özelliklerinin örgütsel özdeşim, örgütsel bağlılık ve örgütsel
vatandaşlık davranışına etkileri: Askeri birimlerde bir araştırma. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Başkent
University, Ankara.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Ahearne, M. (1998). Some possible antecedents and consequences of in-
role and extra-role salesperson performance. The Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 87–98.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1991). Organizational citizenship behavior and objective
productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salesperson’s performance. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(1), 123–150.
Metin, H., & Altunok, M. (2002). Karşılaştırmalıbir yaklaşımla kamu yönetimi ve özel sektörde halkla ilişkiler.
Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3(1), 79–99.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human
Resource Management, 1(1), 61–89.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test
of a three–component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538–551.
Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L.(2001). Commitment inthe workplace: toward a general model. Human Resource
Management Review, 11(3), 299–326.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative
commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 61,20–52.
Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship
behavior: sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural justice.
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6(3), 209–225.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(2), 127–142.
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: the importance of the
employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1543–1567.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2011). Affective organizational commitment and citizenship behavior: linear
and non-linear moderating effects of organizational tenure. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 528–537.
*Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership effects on
teachers’job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in primary
schools: the tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 145–177.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington: Lexington
Books.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: it’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10,
85–97.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of
organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48,775–802.
Employ Respons Rights J

Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe n for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral
Statistics, 9(2), 157–159.
Özcan, Ş. (2008). Eğitim yöneticisinin cinsiyet ve hizmetiçi eğitim durumunun göreve etkisi: Bir Meta analitik
etki analizi. Marmara University (İstanbul): Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
Özdevecioğlu, M. (2002). Kamu ve özel sektör yöneticileri arasındaki davranışsal çalışma koşullarıve kişilik
farklılıklarının belirlenmesine yönelik bir araştırma. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi
Dergisi, 19(2), 115–134.
Pal, D., & Dasgupta, S. K. (2012). Work motivation vis-a-vis organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of the
IndianAcademy of Applied Psychology, 38(2), 352–360.
Pianluprasidh, P. (2005). The effect of perceived organizational support and organizational commitment on
organizational citizenship behavior among nurses in Thailand. Alliant International University, California:
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness.
Journal of Marketing Research, 31,351–363.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Meta-analysis of the relationships between Kerr
and Jermier's substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 380–399.
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity
and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,262–270.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship
behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research.
Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S.B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research
and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 65,539–569.
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual and organizational level
consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94(1), 122–141.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulin, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job
satisfactions, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59,603–609.
*Rajashi, G., Reio Jr. T. G., & Haynes, R. K. (2012). Mentoring and organizational citizenship behavior:
estimating the mediating effects of organization-based self-esteem and affective commitment. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 23(1), 41–63.
Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 257–266.
Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J. H., Ang, S., & Shore, L.M. (2012). Leader–member exchange (LMX) and culture: a
meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1097–1130.
Schappe, S. P. (1998). The influence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and fairness perceptions on
organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 132(3), 277–
290.
Shao, R., Rupp, D. E., Skarlicki, D. P., & Jones, K. S. (2013). Employee justice across cultures: a meta-analytic
review. Journal of Management, 39(1), 263–301.
Sharma, J. P., Bajpai, N., & Holani, U. (2011). Organizational citizenship behavior in public and private sector
and its impact on job satisfaction: a comparative study in Indian perspective. International Journal of
Business and Management, 6(1), 67–75.
Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: comparison of affective commitment
and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5),
774–780.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature and
Antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653–663.
Solinger, O. N., Olffen, W., & Roe, R. A. (2008). Beyond the three-component model of organizational
commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 70–83.
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research. Truth or urban legend? Organizational
Research Methods, 9(2), 221–232.
Spitzmuller, M., Van Dyne, L., & Ilies, R. (2008). Organizational citizenship behavior: A review and extension of
ıts nomological network. In J. Barling & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational
behavior: Volume I—Micro approaches (pp. 106–123). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Steel, P. Procrastination and you home page. <http://people.ucalgary.ca/~steel/procrastinus/metanalysis.php>
Retrieved in 4 September 2012.
Sutton, A. J., Duval, S. J., Tweedie, R. L., Abrams, K. R., & Jones, D. R. (2000). Empirical assessment of effect
of publication bias on meta-analysis. BMJ, 320, 1574–1577.
Employ Respons Rights J

Sutton, A. J., Abrams, K. R., & Jones, D. R. (2001). An illustrated guide to the methods of meta-analysis.
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 7(2), 135–148.
Şeşen, H. (2010). Kontrol Odağı, Genel Öz Yeterlilik, İş Tatmini ve Örgütsel Adalet Algısının Örgütsel
VatandaşlıkDavranışına Etkisi: Ankara’da Bulunan Kamu Kurumlarında Bir Araştırma. Hacettepe
Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(2), 195-220.
Tansky, J. W. (1993). Justice and organizational citizenship behavior: what is the relationship? Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6(3), 195–207.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of construct and
predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119.
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of
contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 525–531.
Van Scotter, J., Motowidlo, S. J., & Cross, T. C. (2000). Effects of task performance and contextual performance
on systemic rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,526–535.
Van Scotter, J. R. (2000). Relationships of task performance and contextual performance with turnover, job
satisfaction, and affective commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 79–95.
Wasti, S. A. (2003). Organizational commitment, turnover intentions andthe influence of cultural values. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76(3), 303–321.
*Wasti, S.A. (2005). Commitment profiles: Combinations of organizational commitment forms and job out-
comes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 290–308.
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.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of
organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617.
Further reading
*Ahmad, S., Shahzad, K., Rehman, S., Khan, N. A., & Shad, I. U. (2010). Impact of organizational commitment
and organizational citizenship behavior on turnover intentions of call center personnel in Pakistan. European
JournalofSocialSciences,17(4), 585–591.
*Allameh, S. M., Amiri, S., & Asadi, A. (2011). A survey of relationship between organizational commitments
and organizational citizenship behavior case study: regional water organization of Mazandaran Province.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(5), 360–368.
*Altas, S. S., & Çekmecelioglu, H.G. (2007). Is Tatmini, Örgütsel Baglilik ve Örgütsel Vatandaslik Davranisinin
Is Performansi Üzerindeki Etkileri: Bir Arastirma. Öneri Dergisi, 7(28), 47–57.
*Aslan, S. (2008). Örgütsel Vatandaslik Davranisi ile Örgütsel Baglilik ve Meslege Baglilik Arasindaki Iliskilerin
Arastirilmasi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 15(2), 163–178.
*Aycan, A., Görün, L., & Tabuk, E. (2012). Beden Egitimi Ögretmenlerinin Örgütsel Bagliliklari ve Örgütsel
Vatandaslik Davranislarinin Incelenmesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Beden Egitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi,
14(1), 29–41.
*Bakhshi, A., Sharma, A. D., & Kumar, K. (2011). Organizational commitment as predictor of organizational
citizenship behavior. European Journal of Business and Management, 3(4), 78–86.
*Benjamin, A. (2012). The influence of affective commitment on citizenship behavior and intention to
quit among commercial banks’employees in Nigeria. Journal of Management and Sustainability,
2(2), 55–68.
*Binoya-Strugar, A. (2007). The relationships of distributive justice, procedural justice, job satisfaction and
organizational commitment upon organizational citizenship behaviors. Colorado School of Professional
Psychology, Colorado: Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
*Bozkurt, F. (2007). Denizcilik Sektöründe Çalisan Gemiadamlarinin Demografik Özellikleri Ile
Örgütsel Baglilik, Örgütsel Vatandaslik Davranisi ve Algilanan Örgütsel Destek Düzeyi
Arasindaki Iliskiyi Incelemeye Yönelik Bir Arastirma. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Celal Bayar
University, Manisa.
*Carmeli, A. (2005). Perceivedexternal prestige, affective commitment, and citizenship behaviors. Organization
Studies, 26(3), 443–464.
*Cohen, A. (2006). The relationship between multiple commitments and organizational citizenship behavior in
Arab and Jewish culture. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 105–118.
*Cohen, A. (2007). One nation, many cultures: a cross-cultural study of the relationship between personal
cultural values and commitment in the workplace to in-role performance and organizational citizenship
behavior. Cross-Cultural Research, 4(3), 273–300.
Employ Respons Rights J

*Cohen, A., & Liu, Y. (2011). Relationships between in-role performance and individual values, commitment,
and organizational citizenship behavior among Israeli teachers. International Journal of Psychology, 46(4),
271–287.
*Çekmecelioglu, H.G. (2011). Algilanan Örgüt Ikliminin Çalisanlarin Is Tatmini, Duygusal Baglilik ve Örgütsel
Vatandaslik Davranisi Üzerindeki Etkilerinin Incelenmesi. Yönetim, 22(68), 22–49.
*Çetin,F.(2011).Örgütsel Vatandaslik Davranislarinin Açiklanmasinda Örgütsel Baglilik, Is Tatmini, Kisilik ve
Örgüt Kültürünün Rolü. Ankara University, Ankara: Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
*Çetin, F., Sesen, H., & Basim, H. N. (2012). Örgüt Kültürünün Rol Ötesi Olumlu Davranislara Olan Etkisi:
Örgütsel Bagliligin Araci Degisken Rolü. Dogus Üniversitesi Dergisi, 13(2), 197–211.
*Dilek, H. (2005). Liderlik Tarzlarinin ve Adalet Algisinin; Örgütsel Baglilik, Is Tatmini ve Örgütsel Vatandaslik
Davranisi Üzerine Etkilerine Yönelik Bir Arastirma. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Gebze, Gebze
Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü, Kocaeli.
*Djibo, I. J. A., Desiderio, K. P., & Price, N. M. (2010). Examining the role of perceived leader behavior on
temporary employees’organizational commitment and citizenship behavior. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 21(4), 321–342.
*Erbay,A.(2009).Örgütsel Baglilik ile Banka Çalisanlarinin Demografik Özellikleri ve Örgütsel Vatandaslik
Davranislari Arasindaki Iliskilerin Belirlenmesine Yönelik Bir Alan Arastirmasi. Unpublished Master’s
Thesis, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu.
*Foote, D. A., & Tang, T. L. (2008). Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB): Does team
commitment make a difference in self-directed teams? Management Decision, 46(6), 933–947.
*Gale, B. (2010). Örgütsel Vatandaslik ve Örgütsel Baglilik Iliskisi (Tokat Valiliginde Uygulamali Bir Arastirma).
Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat.
*Horvath, M., & Andrews, S. B. (2007). The role of fairness perceptions and accountability attributions in
predicting reactions to organizational events. The Journal of Psychology, 141(2), 203–222.
*Inelmen, K., Özgümüs, E., Parlak, G., Salti, N., & Sariot, H. (2010). The effects of career commitment,
organizational commitment and trust on organizational citizenship behaviors of hospital and hotel em-
ployees. International Journal of Business, Management and Economics, 11–12(4), 12–25.
*Jahangir, N., Akbar, M., & Begum, N. (2006). The role of social power, procedural justice, organizational
commitment, and job satisfaction to engender organizational citizenship behavior. ABAC Journal, 26(3), 21–
36.
*Javadi, M. H. M., & Yavarian, J. (2011). Effect of organizational identity and commitment on organizational
citizenship behavior (case study: Educational Department of Isfahan Province). Interdisciplinary Journal of
Contemporary Research in Business, 3(2), 100–112.
*Jo, S. J., & Joo, B. (2011). Knowledge sharing: the influences of learning organization culture, organizational
commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,
18(3), 353–364.
*Karriker, J. H., & Williams, M. L. (2009). Organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior: a
mediated multifoci model. Journal of Management, 35(1), 112–135.
*Katono, I. W., Manyak, T. G., Katabaazi, A., & Kisenyi, V. (2012). Organization commitment andorganization
citizenship behavior: the moderating role of workplace spirituality. International Journal of Business
Research, 12(2), 114–125.
*Kazemipour, F., Mohamad Amin, S., & Pourseidi, B. (2012). Relationship between workplace spirituality and
organizational citizenship behavior among nurses through mediation of affective organizational commit-
ment. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 44(3), 302–310.
*Khan, S. K., & Rashid, M. Z. A. (2012). The mediating effect of organizational commitment in the organiza-
tional culture, leadership and organizational justice relationship with organizational citizenship behavior: a
study of academicians in private higher learning institutions in Malaysia. International Journal of Business
and Social Science, 3(8), 83–91.
*Kiliç, E. (2010). Örgütsel Baglilik, Örgütsel Vatandaslik Davranisi ve Yabancilasma Arasindaki Iliski: Çagri
Merkezi Çalisanlari Üzerine Uygulama. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Uludag University, Bursa.
*Kima, T., Parkb, S., & Chang, K. (2011). Antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviours among part-time
employees of service organizations in Korea. Asia Pacific Business Review, 17(1), 85–101.
*Küçükbayrak, R. (2010). An integrative model of transformational leadership, organizational commitment, job
satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Middle East Technical
University, Ankara.
*Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Griffin, M. L. (2008). Being the good soldier: organizational citizenship
behavior and commitment among correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(1), 56–68.
*Lavelle, J. J., Brockner, J., Konovosky, M. A., Price, K. H., Henley, A. B., Taneja, A., & Vinekar, V. (2009).
Commitment, procedural fairness, and organizational citizenship behavior: a multifoci analysis. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30,337–357.
Employ Respons Rights J

*Latrice, H. R. (2010). Employee commitment: an examination of the relationships among organizational
commitment, occupational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in human resource profes-
sionals. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis.
*Liao, H.,& Rupp, D. E. (2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: a cross-
level multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 242–256.
*Meierhans, D., Rietmann, B., & Jonas, K. (2008). Influence of fair and supportive leadership behavior on
commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 67(3), 131–141.
*Mercan, M. (2006). Ögretmenlerde Örgütsel Baglilik Örgütsel Yabancilasma ve Örgütsel Vatandaslik.Afyon
Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar: Unpublished Master’sThesis.
*Mohammad, J., Zakaria, S. B., & Habib, F.Q. (2010). Organizational citizenship behavior and commitment: do
age and tenure make any difference? Business Management Quarterly Review, 1(3), 28–49.
*Mohamed, M. S., & Anisa, H. (2012). Relationship between organizational commitment and organizational
citizenship behavior. The IUP Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11(3), 7–22.
*Morin, A. J. S., Vandenberghe, C., Boudrias, J., Madore, I. Morizot, J., & Tremblay, M. (2011). Affective
commitment and citizenship behaviors across multiple Foci. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(8), 716–
738.
*Najafi, S., Noruzy, A., Azar, H. K., Shirkouhi, S. N., & Dalvand, M. R. (2011). Investigating the relationship
between organizational justice, psychological empowerment, job satisfaction, organizational commitment
and organizational citizenship behavior: an empirical model. African Journal of Business Management,
5(13), 5241–5248.
*Noor, A. (2009, 14 November). Examining organizational citizenship behavior as the outcome of organiza-
tional commitment: A study of university teachers of Pakistan. Paper presented at the 2nd CBRC, Lahore,
Pakistan.
*Noor, M., Bhatti, A. M., Khan, M. A. A., & Khan, M. Y. (2011). The ımpact of employees’perception of
organizational climate on organizational citizenship behavior: mediating role of organizational commitment
and moderating ımpact of social network ties in Pakistani context. European Journal of Social Sciences,
22(1), 81–96.
*Özcan, O. (2008). İlköğretim Öğretmenlerinin Örgütsel Özdeşim, Örgütsel Bağlılık ve Örgütsel Vatandaşlık
Davranışlarının Demografik Özelliklere Göre İncelenmesi. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Yeditepe
University, Istanbul.
*Öztürk, F. (2010). Determinants of organizational citizenship behavior among knowledge workers: the role of
job charcteristics, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Middle
East Technical University, Ankara.
*Par, G., & Tremblay, M. (2007). The ınfluence of high-ınvolvement human resources practices, procedural
justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors on ınformation technology professionals’
turnover ıntentions. Group and Organization Management, 32(3), 326–357.
*Philipp, B. L. U. (2012). Psychological contracts in the workplace: relationships among organizational
commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors, and ethical leadership. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Alliant International University, California.
*Pirali, J. (2007). The ınfluence of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and perceptions of organiza-
tional justice on organizational citizenship behavior in Turkish education sector. Unpublished Master’s
Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
*Rezaiean, A., Givi, M. E., Givi, H. E., & Nasrabi, M. B. (2010). Therelationship between organizational justice
and organizational citizenship behaviors: the mediating role of organizational commitment, satisfaction and
trust. Resarch Journal of Business Management, 4(2), 112–120.
*Rifai, H. A. (2005). A test of the relationships among perceptions of justice, job satisfaction, affective
commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business,
7(2), 131–154.
*Salehi, M., & Gholtash, A. (2011). The relationship between job satisfaction, job burnout and organizational
commitment with the organizational citizenship behavior among members of faculty in the Islamic Azad
University—first district branches, in order to provide the appropriate model. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 15,306–310.
*Sivri, C. (2010). Yöneticilerin Başarma İhtiyacı, Örgütsel VatandaşlıkDavranışı ve Bütçesel KatılımınÖrgütsel
Bağlılık Üzerindeki Etkileri. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Gebze Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü, Kocaeli.
*Şeşen, H., & Basım, H. N. (2012). Impact of satisfaction and commitment on teachers’organizational
citizenship. Educationa Psychology, 32(4), 195–207.
*Tremblaya, M., Cloutierb, J., Simardb, G., Chenevert, D., & Vanderberghe, C. (2010). The role of HRM
practices, procedural justice, organizational support and trust in organizational commitment and ın-role and
extra-role performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(3), 405–433.
Employ Respons Rights J

*Ünüvar, T. G. (2011). An ıntegrative model of job characteristics, job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and organizational citizenship behavior. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Middle East Technical
University, Ankara.
*Walumbwa, F. O., Wu, C., & Orwa, B. (2008). Contingent reward transactional leadership, work attitudes, and
organizational citizenship behavior: the role of procedural justice climate perceptions and strength. The
Leadership Quarterly, 19,251–265.
*Wang, D., & Zhang, D. (2010, 24–26 November). Relationship among organizational support, organizational
commitment and organizational citizenship behavior of university faculty members. Paper presented at the
2010 International Conference on Management Science and Engineering, Melbourne.
*Wang, Y. (2011). Examining organizational citizenship behavior of japanese employees: a multidimensional
analysis of the relationship to organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 1–20.
*Watrous-Rodriguez, K. M. (2010). What makes a good citizen? An examination of personality and organiza-
tional commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Texas A&M University, Texas.
*Yıldırım, Y., Üzüm, H., & Yıldırım, İ. (2012). An examination of physical education teachers in terms of their
organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational loyalty according to some demographic variables.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 2146–2156.
*Yılmaz, K., &. Bökeoğlu, O.Ç. (2008). Organizational citizenship behaviors and commitment in turkish
primary schools. World Applied Sciences Journal, 3(5), 775–780.
*Yılmazer, A. (2010). Örgütsel Bağlılık ve Ekstra Rol Davranışı Arasındaki İlişkiler: İmalat Sektöründe Bir
Araştırma. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 5(2), 236–250.
*Zehir, C., Müceldili, B., & Zehir, S. (2012). The ımpact of corporate entrepreneurship on organizational
citizenship behavior and organizational commitment: evidence from Turkey SMEs. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 58,924–933.
*Zeinabadi, H. (2010). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as antecedents of Organizational
Citizenship Behavior (OCB) of teachers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5,998–1003.
*Zeinabadi, H., & Salehi, K. (2011). Role of procedural justice, trust, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment in Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) of teachers: proposing a modified social
exchange model. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29,1472–1481.
Employ Respons Rights J