Antecedents of citizenship behavior in Arab employees in Kuwait

Abstract

This study identifies antecedents of two specific dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior, altruism (OCBI) and civic virtue (OCBO), in a sample of Arab employees working in Kuwait. Results indicate that a collectivist orientation is a significant predictor of altruism and that procedural justice and job satisfaction are significant predictors of civic virtue. Additionally, respondents indicate that both altruism and civic virtue behaviors are more likely to be perceived as in-role than extra-role behaviors by study participants. Findings provide additional insight into the relevance of OCB and its antecedents in organizations within an Arab cultural context and the resultant implications for managerial processes and decisions.

Keywords

Individualism/collectivism job satisfaction Kuwait organizational citizenship behaviors procedural justice

Introduction

How relevant is the construct of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) to non-Western populations? The purpose of this study is to broaden the understanding of the cross-cultural relevance of the OCB construct by examining correlates of OCB in a sample of managers working in Kuwait. Driving this research are the broader research questions “to what extent are previously identified antecedents of OCB relevant in Arab culture?” “How does organizational citizenship manifest behaviorally in an Arab workplace?” and more specifically, “Will Arab employees demonstrate OCB directed toward both individuals and their organization?” To address these questions our study was designed to explore the relationship of two specific OCB dimensions, (1) altruism, an OCB directed toward individuals and (2) civic virtue, an OCB directed toward the organization, to employee perceptions of fairness, satisfaction, and organizational commitment as well as the dispositional element of individualism/collectivism. The study identifies these OCB antecedents in a predominantly Islamic sample of Arab managers working in Kuwait. Additionally this study examines the behaviors that are characterized by participants as outside their job requirements (extra-role) and how often those behaviors are enacted. To date, very little research on citizenship behavior in a global context has been conducted in a Middle Eastern work environment; thus, this study broadens our understanding of the applicability of the OCB construct to Arab populations.

Definition and dimensionality of OCB

More than two decades ago, Dennis Organ and his colleagues (Bateman and Organ, 1983; Smith et al., 1983) introduced the construct OCB. A substantive body of research has developed that examines a multitude of issues related to OCB, including the definition and validity of the construct (e.g. Bateman and Organ, 1983; Borman, 2004; Hoffman et al., 2007; LePine et al., 2002; Podsakoff et al., 2000), how OCB differs from similar or related constructs such as extra-role and prosocial behaviors (e.g. Organ, 1997; Van Dyne et al., 1995) and the antecedents and consequences (e.g. Dalal, 2005; Organ and Ryan, 1995; Organ et al., 2006; Podsakoff et al., 2009) of OCB in organizational settings.

Organ (1988: 4) initially defined OCB as “individual 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.” Citizenship behaviors, such as voluntarily helping a coworker learn a new skill or voluntarily providing information that may prevent a particular problem, are enacted by employees to benefit the organization, even though they may not be directly beneficial to the individual. Organizational effectiveness is thus enhanced by the accumulation, or aggregation, of these myriad behaviors across time and people (Organ and Konovsky, 1989). In a 2009 meta-analysis of 168 studies, Podsakoff et al. (2009) found that OCBs are related to individual-level outcomes such as managerial ratings of employee performance and reward allocation decisions and organizational-level outcomes such as productivity, efficiency, and customer satisfaction.

Organ (1988) initially identified five dimensions of citizenship behavior: altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. Altruism includes all discretionary behaviors that have the effect of helping a specific other person with an organizationally relevant task or problem. Courtesy involves engaging in behaviors with the intention of preventing future problems for coworkers. Conscientiousness refers to employees carrying out certain role behaviors that go beyond the minimum role requirements of the job, and sportsmanship refers to an employee’s willingness to tolerate inconveniences and impositions in the workplace without complaining or taking offense. Civic virtue refers to involvement in the political life of the organization; specifically the willingness to participate in organizational governance and look out for the best interests of the organization. Organ (1990) subsequently expanded his model to include two additional dimensions, peacekeeping and cheerleading.

The extensive literature focusing on citizenship behaviors shows a marked lack of consensus regarding the dimensionality of the OCB construct. To date researchers in diverse fields such as organizational behavior, human resource management, economics, and marketing have identified approximately 30 different forms of OCB (Podsakoff et al., 2000). In their meta-analysis of the individual-level and organizational-level consequences of OCB, Podsakoff et al. (2009) discuss the two OCB conceptualizations “most popular” among researchers in this field, Organ’s model (1988, 1990) and Williams and Anderson’s model (1991). Empirical evidence indicates that conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue (Organ, 1988, 1990) are organizationally oriented dimensions that are clearly discernable by managers, but that altruism, courtesy, peacekeeping, and cheerleading tend to be viewed as part of an overall helping dimension. Williams and Anderson (1991), as well as several other OCB scholars, have categorized citizenship behaviors according to the intended beneficiary of the actions. From this perspective, each of the five dimensions in Organ’s taxonomy (altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue) can be viewed as directed toward either another individual or the organization, with individuals as the beneficiaries of altruism and courtesy (plus peacekeeping and cheerleading), and the organization the primary beneficiary of civic virtue, sportsmanship, and conscientiousness (cf. Hoffman et al., 2007; Ilies et al, 2006; LePine et al., 2002; Robinson and Morrison, 1995). Williams and Anderson (1991) designated these two types of OCBs as organizational citizenship directed toward individuals (OCBI) and organizational citizenship directed toward the organization (OCBO).

In this study, we have chosen to focus on two specific dimensions of OCB from Organ’s taxonomy, one individually directed (altruism as an exemplar of OBCI) and one organizationally directed (civic virtue as an exemplar of OCBO). Altruism is a clear example of an individually oriented helping behavior, and thus our choice of the OCBI variable. We chose civic virtue over sportsmanship or courtesy as our OCBO variable because we felt it best captures an organizational-level orientation. According to Organ’s original conceptualization, courtesy behaviors are enacted with the intended end result being prevention of future problems for coworkers. Although this may indeed be a positive organizational outcome, the individual can envision that he/she is helping known coworkers with whom he/she has a personal relationship. Sportsmanship is the employee’s willingness to tolerate inconvenience and imposition. Again, one can envision that this will directly affect coworkers and the immediate work environment, indirectly affecting the organization in a positive way but centered on how the individual’s personal choices/behaviors affect other individuals. The OCBO that is most clearly related to behaviors that directly affect the overall well-being of the organization is civic virtue. Looking out for the best interests of the organization (perhaps even becoming involved in the political life of the organization) implies going beyond personal networks (family, friends, and coworkers) and thinking/acting with a truly organizational mind-set.

As discussed in the following section, altruism and civic virtue appear to be more universal (etic) than culture specific (emic) in nature and are shown to be robust across cultural contexts in existing studies.

Cross-cultural relevance of the OCB construct

Although most of the initial research on OCB was carried out with US samples, an increasing number of studies over the past 10 years have focused on international or cross-cultural aspects of OCB. Within the OCB literature is a much smaller subset of research that focuses on citizenship behavior in cultural settings outside the US and Western European populations. There is clear evidence that citizenship behaviors are enacted in organizations in other countries/cultures. Cross-cultural studies published over the past decade have primarily focused on (1) the dimensionality (etic vs. emic dimensions) of OCB (e.g., Farh et al, 1997, 2004; Konovsky et al., 1996; Kim, 2006; Lievens and Anseel, 2004; Ortiz, 2000), (2) whether OCB is perceived as an in-role or extra-role behavior (e.g., Blakely et al., 2005; Cohen, 2006; Lam et al., 1999; Moideenkutty et al., 2006), and (3) the various antecedents of OCB (e.g., Alotaibi, 2001; Cohen and Avrahami, 2006; Ehigie and Otukoya, 2005; Gautam et al., 2005; Kuehn and Al-Busaidi, 2002; Parnell and Crandall, 2003; Tang and Ibrahim,1998; Van Dyne et al., 2000; Wong et al., 2006). These studies have included participants from a variety of countries including China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Mexico, Nepal, Oman, Russia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

OCB research in Middle Eastern populations

There is currently a small body of literature that examines organizational citizenship and its correlates in Middle Eastern populations. Limited research in this geographic area could be attributed to any number of factors, including political barriers, military conflicts and threats of terrorism, government restrictions and regulations, research costs, cultural differences that limit access to employee populations, language barriers, and difficulties in adapting measures to other cultures (Hatem, 1994; Parnell and Crandall, 2003; Robertson et al., 2001). However, as the Middle East continues to strengthen its role as an international economic force, additional knowledge of its organizational and managerial practices should prove valuable to individuals and groups interacting with stakeholders from these countries.

In 1998, Tang and Ibrahim designed a study focusing on the antecedents of OCB in sample populations from the United States, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Their results provided evidence that organization-based self-esteem, need for achievement, and intrinsic as well as extrinsic job satisfaction were predictors of OCB, specifically altruism, in the Arab sample. An interesting aspect of this study was the use of a protestant work ethic (PWE) (Weber, 1958) scale to measure attributes of hard work, asceticism, and industriousness in the largely Islamic Arab sample. The authors contend that these attributes are highly valued in the Islamic religion and Arabic cultures and are tied to values of cooperation and group cohesion, evident in a willingness to work diligently for the collective welfare of the group. Tang and Ibrahim’s (1998) results indicate that the degree to which Middle Eastern study participants endorse the PWE is related to the altruism component of OCB, but not the compliance aspect of the construct. An Islamic work ethic (IWE) scale, developed by Ali (1988a), does provide evidence of similarity to PWE values in scale items such as “cooperation is a virtue in work,” “laziness is a vice,” “work is an obligatory activity for every capable individual,” and “those who do not work hard often fail in life.”

Kuehn and Al-Busaidi (2002) furthered our understanding of OCB in Arab populations through a study examining job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job characteristics, and demographic variables as predictors of OCB, using a sample population from the Sultanate of Oman. Their results indicated that job satisfaction, normative commitment, and age were significant indicators of citizenship behaviors. Parnell and Crandall (2003) also added valuable insight to this area of literature, with their examination of the relationships among employee job satisfaction, organizational commitment, OCB, propensity for participative decision making, and intentions to leave in a sample of Egyptian managers. The authors tested relationships among the variables of interest that had proved positive and significant in studies with Western populations to see whether the relationships would hold or vary in the Egyptian sample. Results were mixed, and the authors contend the study provides support for the argument that management behavior is strongly embedded in culture.

Cohen (2006) examined two ethnic groups of Israeli teachers, Jews and Arabs, in his study focusing on the relationships among different types of commitment (e.g. organizational and occupational), ethnicity, cultural values, and OCB. Findings showed substantive differences between Jews and Arabs in four cultural dimensions and two commitment forms and provided evidence of strong relationships between ethnicity and the four cultural values and in-role performance and OCB. Based on his findings, the author cautions researchers to be aware of cultural differences that may significantly affect research outcomes and must be controlled for during data analysis. Cohen (2006) also discusses how his results provide support for the contention that OCB is strongly affected by the culture of those enacting the OCB. Cohen continued his exploration of the effects of cultural elements on OCB in a study with coauthor Avrahami (Cohen and Avrahami, 2007) that focused on the relationships among individualism/collectivism, perceptions of justice, demographic variables, and OCBs. Results of this study showed that collectivist employees tended to display OCB more frequently than individualist employees and that justice variables were positively related to OCB. These results provide further evidence that OCB is in part determined by specific cultural elements within populations.

Recent research by Karam and Kwantes (2011) presents a more contextualized approach to studying OCB. Building on the work of researchers such as Moorman and Blakely (1995), Ehrhart and Naumann (2004), and Fischer et al. (2005), Karam and Kwantes contend that understanding OCB from an international perspective requires an insight into the (cultural) contextual variables that may serve as determinants of workplace perceptions and behaviors. In a sample of Lebanese food service workers, Karam and Kwantes (2011) found that both omnibus (sociocultural, political, and historical) and discrete contexts are important in predicting citizenship behaviors in organizations. Additionally, in an earlier study, Kwantes et al. (2008) explored the relationship between dimensions of individual-level culture-related variables (operationalized as social axioms) and the categorization of OCBs as in-role versus extra-role. Results from the study indicate that perception of OCB dimensions as in-role or extra-role is also related to cultural context, predicted in part by generalized social beliefs.

Organizational citizenship as in-role vs. extra-role behavior

Morrison (1994) found that the definition of citizenship behavior varies from one individual to another, in that some employees viewed certain behaviors as part of the job (in-role), while others viewed those same behaviors as extra-role, meaning behaviors that were above and beyond what were expected from them on the job. Morrison contends that it is important to understand how employees define their job responsibilities in order to fully and accurately understand citizenship behavior (1994: 1562) and offered two reasons why individuals may differ in their perception of the boundary between in-role and extra-role behaviors. First, Morrison suggests that role definitions are not constant due to the fact that employees who hold the same job can differ substantively in how broadly they define their job parameters and where they perceive the line between in-role and extra-role behaviors. Second, Morrison suggests that an individual is more likely to perform a behavior that he/she identifies as in-role than one that is identified as extra-role.

Previous research (e.g. Bond et al., 2004; Fischer et al., 2005; Triandis, 1994) provides support for the belief that cultural values affect how employees perceive many aspects of their work (behavioral norms, perceptions, and expectations), including whether behaviors commonly accepted as OCB are actually perceived by individuals as in-role or extra-role. Results from the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) research project has provided valuable insight regarding the values, norms, and behaviors of 62 separate cultures (House et al., 2004).The GLOBE research project has identified geographic clusters of nations that share societal norms and practices which reflect their historical, religious, and sociocultural characteristics (Kabasakal and Bodur, 2002). The cluster designated as Arabic is located in the Middle East and consists of Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, Kuwait, and Qatar. The cultural profile of the Arabic cluster is relevant to understanding how participants in our study perceive and enact OCB. According to Kabasakal and Bodur (2002), societal practices in the Arabic cluster are rated as high on group and family collectivism and power distance and low on future orientation and gender egalitarianism. Their findings also indicate that Arabic individuals have a strong commitment to fostering positive relations in a strong network of interdependent relationships. Also crucial to understanding the culture of the Arabic cluster is acknowledging the importance of Islam, the predominant religion of the populations of the Arabic cluster. The tenets of Islam emphasize cooperation in work, consultation as a way of overcoming obstacles, and an equitable and fair distribution of wealth (Yousef, 2001). Ali (1988b), who developed the concept of an IWE, contends that the IWE places more emphasis on intention than results and that it also stresses social aspects in the workplace and duty toward society (Yousef, 2001).

Given the focus in Arabic cultures on the collective good, equitable treatment and distribution of rewards, and strong feelings of loyalty and commitment to network relationships, it is probable that our sample of Arab subjects will view many of the OCB items (e.g. I attend functions that are not required but help the company image; I do not abuse the rights of others; I consider the impact of my actions on coworkers; I willingly help others who have work-related problems) as things one should expect as part of their job requirements (i.e. in-role behaviors). Even though these expectations may not be explicitly stated in job descriptions, we believe cultural values that underlie behavioral norms in this sample may presume OCB as obligatory. In other words, these are not behaviors that are above and beyond the call of duty but behaviors that should rightfully be expected of all employees.

Hypothesis 1: Citizenship behaviors specified in the study are more likely to be categorized by study participants as in-role than as extra-role.

Individualism/collectivism and OCBs

Hofstede’s (1980) seminal research on cultural values, using the Value Survey Module and aggregated at the country level, identified four dimensions of national culture: power distance, individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance, and more recently, a fifth dimension termed the “confucian dynamic” or long-term orientation (Hofstede and Bond, 1988). Hofestede’s research on cultural values included data from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Scores from these two countries were similar and thus were grouped into a category of “Arab” countries that also included Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, and the UAE. According to Hofstede’s findings, the Arab group scored high in power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity and low in individualism.

Although these aggregate-level cultural values are often assumed to correspond to individuals’ values in a given population, more recent research supports the contention that individualism/collectivism exists within cultures as an individual difference variable and may vary widely among individuals of that culture (Cohen and Avrahami, 2006; Earley, 1989; Hui and Triandis, 1986; Moorman and Blakely, 1995; Ramamoorthy and Carroll, 1998; Wagner, 1995). Findings from the GLOBE project (Kabasakal and Bodur, 2002), with individual scores aggregated at the societal level, support prior research that characterizes Middle Eastern societies (more specifically those in the designated Arabic cluster) as highly collective in nature. In a collectivistic culture individuals are oriented toward group membership, looking out for the welfare of the group, and focusing more on the social system than on themselves (Earley, 1989). Results from Moorman and Blakely’s (1995) study of individualism–collectivism as a predictor of OCB show that an individual with collectivistic values or norms would be more likely to perform citizenship behaviors than someone with more individualistic values. Moorman and Blakely’s sample was drawn from employees in the Southeastern United States. Cohen and Avrahami (2006) found a similar relationship between collectivist individuals and the frequency of OCBs in a sample of subjects from northern Israel.

Evidence of Arab cultures as collectivist in nature is consistent and well accepted in the literature. Cultural socialization would lead one to believe that individuals from an Arab cultural context would therefore be more likely to engage in behaviors that would benefit members of their social and work groups. In the interest of providing new insight, we have chosen to move from the societal level to the individual level of assessment in this variable. Because our sample consists of managers from several Arabic countries currently living and working in Kuwait, we felt that the individual difference measure of collectivism would be more appropriate than assessing collectivism at the societal level. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2: A collectivist orientation will be positively related to the enactment of citizenship behaviors.

Antecedents of citizenship behaviors

Empirical studies on the antecedents of OCB have largely focused on four main elements: individual characteristics, task characteristics, organizational characteristics, and leadership behaviors (Podsakoff et al., 2000). A number of studies exploring the relationship between individual characteristics and OCB (Bateman and Organ, 1983; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Smith et al., 1983) identify two primary causes of citizenship behavior: An affective employee “morale” factor and an array of individual dispositional factors. Organ and Ryan (1995) posit that the morale factor accounts for the correlations found between OCB and (variously) employee satisfaction, organizational commitment, perceptions of fairness, and perceptions of leader supportiveness. These variables are the most frequently and widely studied antecedents of OCB, and correlations from a meta-analytic study by Podsakoff et al. (2000) show all of them to have significant relationships (of comparable strength) with citizenship behaviors. In addition to the morale element, Organ and Ryan (1995) contend that certain dispositional factors, including agreeableness, conscientiousness, and positive affectivity, predispose employees to engage in working relationships with coworkers and managers that are likely to be perceived by the employee as satisfying, supportive, fair, and/or worthy of commitment.

This study focuses on OCB antecedents that serve as indicators of employee affect or morale; more specifically, measures of employee attitudes regarding distributive and procedural justice, job satisfaction, and affective organizational commitment. Additionally, we have included the individual difference variable of collectivist/individualist orientation. A review of the extant OCB literature leads us to believe that culture-specific values, norms, and expectations influence these variables. In seeking to understand OCB in different cultural contexts, we believe unique cultural differences are more likely to be found using measures of individual characteristics (e.g. attitudes and perceptions) than measures of task (e.g. task feedback and intrinsic satisfaction) or organizational characteristics (formalization and spatial distance).

Fairness, satisfaction, and commitment as OCB predictors

As stated previously, measures of employees’ attitudes or perceptions regarding fairness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment are some of the most widely studied correlates of organizational citizenship behavior. In a review of the existing theoretical and empirical literature on OCB, Podsakoff et al. (2000) determined that facets of organizational justice, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (all designated as attitudinal variables) have significant relationships with citizenship behaviors that are roughly comparable in strength. In a meta-analysis of studies examining the role of justice in organizations, Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) found similar levels of OCB predicted by both distributive (7 studies, 1688 subjects) and procedural (8 studies, 1835 subjects) justice. In a more recent study by Fassina et al. (2008), the authors used meta-analysis and path analysis to examine the relationships among job satisfaction, perceived fairness, and citizenship behaviors. Four models (full mediation, partial mediation, independent effects, and spurious effects) were compared using path analysis on meta-analytically derived coefficients. Findings showed the greatest support for the independent effects model, more specifically, that job satisfaction and perceived fairness accounted for unique variance in the OCB dimension.

Evidence of organizational justice variables, or perceived fairness, as significant predictors of OCB can be found in many studies in international populations. Fok et al. (1996) examined the impact of cross-cultural differences on perceptions of equity and OCB in samples from Great Britain, France, India, Russia, and the United States. They found support for the contention that individuals from different cultures do differ in their equity sensitivity orientation and willingness to engage in OCB. Similarly, Chhokar et al. (2001) found evidence of cultural effects on equity sensitivity and OCB in a study of employees from Great Britain, France, India, Russia, and the United States.

In a study of citizenship behavior in a sample of Mexican nurses, Konovsky et al. (1996) found that perceptions of distributive justice predicted two types of citizenship behaviors: altruism and civic virtue, while procedural justice was not found to be a predictor of OCB. Farh et al. (1997) examined perceptions of justice and citizenship behavior in a sample of Chinese employees in Taiwan and found that perceptions of distributive and interactional justice were related to citizenship behavior. In a sample drawn from six government agencies in Kuwait, Alotaibi (2001) found that both procedural and distributive justice accounted for unique variance in citizenship behavior. Similarly, results of a study by Cohen and Avrahami (2006) provide evidence of positive relationships between justice variables and OCB in a sample of hospital personnel in Israel. In a study of over 100 academicians in universities in Turkey, Erturk (2007) found that trust in a supervisor fully mediates the relationship between organizational justice and OCB (organization level) and partially mediates the relationship between justice and OCB (individual). Given the strong existing evidence of the relationship between perceived fairness and OCB in numerous existing cross-cultural studies we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3a: Individuals who believe they are being treated fairly by an organization will be more likely to engage in citizenship behaviors categorized as “altruism” than those who perceive they are being treated unfairly.

Hypothesis 3b: Individuals who believe they are being treated fairly by an organization will be more likely to engage in citizenship behaviors categorized as “civic virtue” than those who perceive they are being treated unfairly.

Past research has also repeatedly found support for the links between citizenship behaviors and job satisfaction (Bateman and Organ, 1983; Organ and Konovsky, 1989; Smith et al., 1983) and OCB and employee commitment (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986). In a 1991 study Williams and Anderson (1991: 603) note (up to that time), “the correlate that has been examined most frequently in the citizenship behavior studies is job satisfaction.” Research by Organ and Lingl (1995) in the mid-90s identified 15 prior studies that found statistically significant relationships between OCB and job satisfaction. The majority of research in this area supports a direct and positive relationship between OCB and satisfaction. Put simply, employees who report being satisfied with their jobs are more likely to engage in citizenship behaviors. Thus, as reported by Organ and Ryan (1995), job satisfaction can be viewed as an antecedent, or predictor, of OCB. A handful of studies also show support for this relationship specifically in Arab or Middle Eastern populations. For example, Tang and Ibrahim (1998) found that intrinsic job satisfaction and low extrinsic job satisfaction were both predictors of the OCB altruism in a sample of workers from Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Similarly a study by Kuehn and Al-Busaidi (2002) found job satisfaction, as well as normative commitment, to be significant predictors of OCB in a sample of public and private sector employees in the Sultanate of Oman. Results from a study by Alotaibi (2001) of OCB antecedents in a Kuwaiti sample show a significant positive correlation between OCB and satisfaction but did not find support for job satisfaction as a predictor. However, this study used a one-dimensional OCB scale based on peer evaluations of behavior rather than the more common supervisor observation or self-report. Based on the prior findings in this literature we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 4a: Individuals who report higher levels of job satisfaction will be more likely to engage in altruism OCBs than individuals who report lower levels of job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4b: Individuals who report higher levels of job satisfaction will be more likely to engage in civic virtue OCBs than individuals who report lower levels of job satisfaction.

It is quite common in the OCB literature to see some combination of justice, satisfaction, and commitment variables tested as antecedents of various forms of citizenship behavior. In 1982 Mowday et al. defined organizational commitment as “the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in an organization.” Organ (1990), in exploring the motivational basis of OCB, refers to commitment as an employee’s “psychosocial attachment” to his/her organization. Allen and Meyer (1990) developed the conceptualization of commitment most commonly seen in the OCB literature today; a construct comprised of three elements—affective, normative, and continuance commitment. Of the three components, we are most interested in affective commitment for the current study. Allen and Meyer define affective commitment as an “employee’s emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in, the organization” (1990: 1). Given the collective nature of Arabic culture, the strong interpersonal relationships exhibited in the workplace, and the emphasis on trust and loyalty in establishing business relationships, we felt affective commitment would likely be the strongest measure of the three commitment components for this population. Thus, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 5a: Individuals with higher levels of affective organizational commitment will be more likely to engage in altruism OCBs than individuals with lower levels of affective organizational commitment.

Hypothesis 5b: Individuals with higher levels of affective organizational commitment will be more likely to engage in civic virtue OCBs than individuals with lower levels of affective organizational commitment.

Methodology

Subjects and procedure

Management research in Arab countries is still relatively scarce when compared with other populations and faces many cultural, political social, and infrastructure barriers (Robertson et al., 2002; Tuncalp, 1988; Yavas and Habib, 1988). Due to inherent difficulties with conventional data collection methods (such as access to managerial-level employees), we focused on the representativeness (and therefore generalizability) of our sample, knowing that a truly random sample of mangers was not within our means. A variety of mid-sized business organizations in Kuwait City were targeted for distribution of our survey. Within these organizations we solicited participation from 200 managers working in various functional areas across the organization (e.g. marketing, sales, production, etc.). Additionally, we sought participation from a broad demographic cross section with regard to age, gender, and tenure in the organization. Participation was solicited and voluntary, with a return rate of 78 percent. One of the coauthors distributed the survey to study participants on-site, provided instructions (and clarification if needed), and collected the surveys directly from participants when complete. Of the 156 surveys that were returned, approximately 86 percent (134) were complete enough to be used in the data analysis. Subjects were assured of anonymity and told that results would be reported at an aggregate level. Information about individuals who declined to participate was not available; therefore, we cannot be certain the study is free of nonresponse bias.

The sample size for this study is 134 respondents; 54.4 percent were Kuwaiti, 11.1 percent Lebanese, 23.1 percent Egyptian, 6.7 percent Jordanian, 4.5 percent Syrian, 1.5 percent Palestinian, and .07 percent from Oman. All participants identified themselves as Muslim. The average age of respondents was 40.8 years. The majority of the sample was male, with men accounting for 77.6 percent of respondents. In all, 27 percent of the respondents described themselves as upper level managers, 40 percent as middle-level managers, and 33 percent as lower level managers. Average tenure of respondents in their respective organizations was 11.07 years.

Measures

The survey instrument was originally developed in English, using well-established and valid scales and/or protocols from previous studies in the OCB area. A professional translation company in Kuwait, catering to business clients and familiar with business/organizational language and concepts, translated the instrument from English to Arabic. The Arabic version (with English version attached) was then sent to the English Department at Kuwait University. A comparison of the two versions of the survey was then made by Kuwaiti professors fluent in both English and Arabic. Any items of concern were revised to enhance clarity. One of the authors of this study, an MBA student who is fluent in both Arabic and English, also reviewed the survey to ensure that the translated instrument maintained the intended meaning of the questions and aligned semantic content and structure across languages for both questions and answer scales. The translation protocol used is in accordance with basic recommendations made by cross-cultural researchers Harkness (2003) in the book Cross-Cultural Survey Methods, more specifically a chapter written by Harkness entitled “Questionnaire Translation.” Unless otherwise noted, a 5-point Likert-type scale response format was used for all of the scales in the instrument. Item scores for each scale were summed and averaged for further analysis. Participants were also asked to provide demographic information on the questionnaire regarding their age in years, their gender, and the number of years they had been with their present organization.

OCB was measured using a nine-item scale based on instruments used in studies by Podsakoff et al. (1990), Bateman and Organ (1983), and Smith et al. (1983). Scale items were statements regarding specific behaviors previously designated in these previous studies as citizenship behaviors. The instrument was used to measure self-reported performance of two specific dimensions of citizenship behavior: altruism (e.g. “I help others who have been absent”) with five items, and civic virtue (e.g. “I attend functions that are not required, but help the company image”) with four items. To measure performance or enactment of the two OCB dimensions, respondents were asked to check one of two boxes for each item: (1) “Yes, I perform this activity” or (2) “No, I do not perform this activity.” Responses from the columns indicating number of behaviors actually performed were summed and used in additional analysis. The nine-item OCB scale (derived from Smith et al, 1983) has a Cronbach’s α of 0.66, with subscale measures of 0.74 (altruism) and 0.60 (civic virtue).

In-role/extra-role determination was also based on participant classification of the items in the altruism and civic virtue scales. In order to determine whether respondents perceived these behaviors as in-role or extra-role (truly OCB), respondents were asked to classify each behavior by checking one of the following two boxes: (1) “Expected part of my job” or (2) “Somewhat above and beyond what is expected of my job” (similar to protocol suggested by Morrison, 1994). Responses from each of the columns, indicating number of behaviors perceived as in-role and number of behaviors perceived as extra-role, were summed and used in additional analysis.

Distributive and procedural justice measures used in this study were based on scales used by Moorman (1991) in his research focusing on the relationship between organizational justice and citizenship behaviors. Performance-based distributive justice was measured with a five-item scale that included items such as: “I believe that I am fairly rewarded for the amount of effort I put forth” and “I believe that I am fairly rewarded considering my job responsibilities”. Reliability (Cronbach’s α) for the distributive justice scale was 0.89. Procedural justice was measured with a seven-item scale including items such as: “My manager collects accurate information necessary for making decisions” and “My manager provides opportunities for employees to challenge his/her decisions”. The reliability (Cronbach’s α) for the procedural justice scale was 0.86.

Job satisfaction was measured with a five-item scale derived from the Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) originally developed by Hackman and Oldham (1975). Items from this scale include “Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job” and “I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do in this job.” Reliability (Cronbach’s α) for the job satisfaction scale was 0.69.

Affective organizational commitment was measured using an eight-item scale developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). Items included “I would be happy to spend the rest of my career with this unit” and “This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.” The reliability (Cronbach’s α) for the affective commitment measure was 0.72.

Individualism/collectivism was measured as an individual difference variable using a scale developed by Dorfman and Howell (1988). The scale consisted of six items, including statements such as “Group welfare is more important than individual rewards.” Higher scores indicate a collectivistic orientation, while lower scores indicate a more individualistic orientation. The reliability (Cronbach’s α) for this scale was 0.70.

Well-validated scales from the extant literature, which have previously been shown to have good to excellent reliabilities, were chosen for this study. Cronbach’s α reliability coefficient normally ranges between 0 and 1. Based upon the formula α $= r k / 1 + (k - 1) r$ , where k is the number of items considered and r is the mean of the inter-item correlations, the size of α is determined by both the number of items in the scale and the mean inter-item correlations. In Nunnally’s definitive work on psychometric theory (1978) a reliability of 0.70 is identified as acceptable, especially for scales having a small number of items. George and Mallery also provide the following rules of thumb for evaluating reliability using Cronbach’s α: “_ > 0.9—excellent; _ > 0.8—good, _ > 0.7—acceptable, _ > 0.6—questionable, _ > 0.5—poor, and _ < 0.5—unacceptable” (2003: 231). They also note that the α value is generally positively correlated with the number of items in a measurement scale. Based on these references we feel comfortable with the reliability of all of the measures used in the study. Although the reliability of civic virtue OCB subscale is less than optimal, the lower α is at least partially attributable to there being only four items in the scale.

Data analysis

Hierarchical regression analysis (Cohen and Cohen, 1983) was used to evaluate the relationships among the five predictor variables and the two categories of citizenship behavior. Three basic principles underlie the hierarchical order of predictor variable entry (Cohen and Cohen, 1983; Petrocelli, 2003): (1) presumed causal priority/direction of causal flow, (2) the hierarchical relevance of each predictor to the criterion, and (3) interactions among predictor variables. Based on our literature review and proposed theoretical relationships as stated in our hypotheses, predictors were entered into the analysis in the following order: variables being controlled for (tenure, gender, and age), individualism/collectivism, justice variables (procedural or distributive), job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The procedure used for analysis was the same for each of the two dependent variables (altruism and civic virtue). Our focus in this analysis was the change in predictability associated with endogenous variables entered in each step of the analysis over and above that contributed by independent variables entered in earlier steps. The ▵R ² and its corresponding change in F (▵F) and ρ values are the statistics of greatest interest in these hierarchical regression results. If the addition of an independent variable caused a statistically significant increase in the R ², addition of that variable to the model was found to have significantly improved the model’s ability to predict the dependent variable. As suggested by Thompson and Borello (1985), β coefficients reported for predictor variables are those computed for the step in which the variable was first entered.

Results

The data used in this study were collected from managers working for business organizations in Kuwait. The sample includes a cross section of individuals from several Middle Eastern (Arab) countries. Due to the subjects’ various countries of origin, an initial analysis of variance was performed to determine whether there were any significant differences across the various nationality groups for each of the variables included in this study. No significant differences were found, and the sample was treated as culturally homogeneous for purposes of analysis.

Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) and Pearson correlations for all variables in the study.

Table 1.

Correlates of OCB.

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Age	40.88	8.06	1.00
2. Gender	0.77	0.42	0.37**	1.00
3. Tenure	10.80	7.39	0.39**	0.11	1.00
4. Individualism/collectivism	3.78	0.69	−0.07	0.04	.06	1.00
5. Distributive justice	2.97	1.06	0−0.07	0.23**	−0.16	0.13	1.00
6. Procedural justice	3.40	0.72	−0.17	0.15	−0.20*	0.21*	0.56**	1.00
7. Job satisfaction	3.43	0.63	−0.01	0.14	−0.10	0.15	0.66**	0.60**	1.00
8. Organizational commitment	3.70	0.58	0.13	0.19*	0.11	0.13	0.39**	0.46**	0.51**	1.00
9. Altruism OCB	4.40	1.12	0.02	0.06	0.09	0.22*	0.00	0.05	0.16	0.21*	1.00
10. Civic virtue OCB	3.43	0.93	0.06	0.15	0.07	0.16	0.00	0.20*	0.20*	0.28**	0.13	1.00

OCB: organizational citizenship behavior.

Note: N = 119–127.

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Correlation analysis

We anticipated that individuals with a collectivist orientation would be more likely to engage in citizenship behaviors than those individuals with an individualistic orientation. Results of the correlation analysis show that a collectivist orientation is positively correlated with the performance of altruism OCBs (r = 0.22, p < 0.05), as predicted, but that there is no significant correlation between the performance of civic virtue OCBs and collectivism. Additionally, correlation analysis indicates that procedural justice is positively related to performing civic virtue behaviors (r = 0.20, p < 0.05) but not altruism behaviors, and distributive justice is not significantly related to either of the OCB variables. We anticipated that organizational commitment and job satisfaction would be positively related to both types of citizenship behaviors. Results do show that organizational commitment is significantly correlated with both altruism and civic virtue behaviors (r = 0.21, p < 0. 05 and r = 0.28, p < 0.01, respectively) but that job satisfaction is significantly correlated only with civic virtue (r = 0.20, p < 0.05) behaviors, not altruism behaviors.

Hypothesis 1 states our expectation that our respondents would be more likely to view the altruism and civic virtue behaviors included in the survey as in-role (i.e. an expected and accepted part of their job requirements) than extra-role (discretionary behavior above and beyond their job requirements). This hypothesis was supported. T-tests were conducted to evaluate whether the difference in means for these variables (mean = 3.85/4.0, SD 1.57 for “altruism in-role” vs. 1.12/4.0, SD 1.54 for “altruism extra-role” and mean = 3.22/5.0, SD 1.01 for “civic in-role” vs. .72/5.0, SD 0.97 for “civic extra-role”) were statistically significant. Results of the t tests (altruism in-role vs. extra-role t = 9.43, p < 0.01; civic virtue in-role vs. extra-role t = 13.47, p < 0.01) indicate that, for the sample as a whole, respondents perceived the majority of the specified altruism and civic virtue behaviors as in-role (things one should expect as part of their job requirements).

Results of the hierarchical regression analyses are reported in Table 2.

Table 2.

Summary of hierarchical regression analyses.

Model, block, and predictor variables	β	R ²	▵R ²	Adjusted R ²	▵F
Model: altruism OCB (DV) F = 2.23*
Block 1 (Control variables)		0.01	0.01	−0.03	0.08
Age	−0.03
Gender	−0.04
Tenure	0.00
Block 2 (IV)		0.12	0.11	0.07	10.86**
Individualism/collectivism	0.34**
Block 3 (IV)		0.13	0.02	0.07	0.941
Distributive justice	−0.11
Procedural justice	0.16
Block 4 (IV)		0.15	0.01	0.08	1.40
Job satisfaction	0.17
Block 5 (IV)		0.18	0.03	0.10	3.05
Organizational commitment	0.23
Model: civic virtue OCB (DV) F = 2.05*
Block 1 (Control variables)		0.03	0.03	−0.01	0.75
Age	0.04
Gender	0.11
Tenure	0.06
Block 2 (IV)		0.05	0.02	0.01	1.86
Individualism/collectivism	0.15
Block 3 (IV)		0.10	0.05	0.04	2.54
Distributive justice	−0.12
Procedural justice	0.27*
Block 4 (IV)		0.15	0.05	0.08	4.74*
Job satisfaction	0.32*
Block 5 (IV)		0.17	0.02	0.09	1.78
Organizational commitment	0.18

OCB: organizational citizenship behavior; DV: dependent variable; IV: independent variable.

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Hypotheses 2a and 2b propose that individuals with a collectivist orientation would be more likely to engage in citizenship behaviors than those individuals with an individualistic orientation. Results indicate that a collectivist orientation is a significant predictor of altruism OCBs (β = 0.34, p < 0.01), accounting for an additional 11 percent of the variance in the dependent variable but is not a significant predictor of civic virtue behaviors.

Hypotheses 3a and 3b propose that individuals who believe they are being treated fairly by an organization will be more likely to engage in citizenship behaviors, both altruism and civic virtue, than those who perceive they are being treated unfairly. Results indicate that perceptions of distributive and procedural fairness are not predictors of altruism OCBs and that only procedural justice (β = 0.27, p < 0.05), not distributive justice, is a significant predictor of civic virtue OCBs. The ▵R ² for the block comprised of the two justice variables was not significant; however, individual coefficients show that perceptions of procedural fairness do account for unique variance in civic virtue behaviors.

Hypothesis 4a and 4b propose that individuals who report higher levels of job satisfaction will be more likely to engage in altruism and civic virtue OCBs than individuals who report lower levels of job satisfaction. Results indicate that job satisfaction is a significant predictor of civic virtue OCBs (β = 0.32, p < 0.05), explaining an additional 5 percent of the variance in the dependent variable. According to our results, job satisfaction is not a predictor of altruism OCBs in this sample

Hypotheses 5a and 5b propose that individuals with higher levels of affective organizational commitment will be more likely to engage in altruism and civic virtue OCBs than individuals who report lower levels of affective organizational commitment. Results indicate that affective organizational commitment is not a significant predictor of either civic virtue or altruism OCBs.

Discussion

Our study addressed three primary questions: “To what extent are previously identified antecedents of OCB relevant in Arab culture?” “How does organizational citizenship manifest behaviorally in an Arab workplace?” and more specifically, “Will Arab employees demonstrate OCB directed toward both individuals and their organization?” To answer these questions, we analyzed a number of variables that have consistently proven to be predictors of citizenship behaviors in populations across the globe: individualism/collectivism, perceived fairness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Additionally, we examined whether the study participants viewed specific OCBs as part of their job requirements (in-role) or as discretionary behavior (extra-role). The results of our analysis provide some interesting insights.

Given the strong collective nature of the predominantly Arab culture of Kuwaiti employees, we hypothesized (Hypothesis 1) that behaviors that have been categorized as extra-role in many previous OCB-related studies would be seen as obligatory (in-role) by participants in this study. Our results support this contention. This suggests an interesting premise that what constitutes citizenship behavior (actions above and beyond what is expected in one’s job) is defined differently by participants of this study. Could this difference in perception be attributed to cultural elements unique to our sample? Evidence suggests that organizational cultures in Kuwait are strongly influenced by tribal tradition and religious tenets of Islam (Al-Kazemi and Ali, 2002; Al-Tuhaih and Van Fleet, 2011; Kabasakal and Bodur, 2002; Rice, 1999; Tang and Ibrahim, 1998; Yousef, 2001) and are characterized by patriarchal and hierarchical systems, strong personal relationships and networks, and an emphasis on the collective welfare of the group. The Islamic principles that stress duty toward society, human well-being and good life, brotherhood, socioeconomic justice, and importance of the social good pervade the professional as well as personal lives of many employees in Kuwait. Future research in this area may benefit from further delineation of the behaviors that are considered discretionary in Arab organizations.

Whether categorized as in-role or extra-role, both altruism and civic virtues, “citizenship behaviors” were enacted frequently by study participants (“Yes, I perform this activity,” $\overset{ˉ}{x} = 7.82$ ). The frequency of enactment may be partially attributable to the fact that our sample was comprised of management-level employees. In a bi-level study of managers and nonmanagerial employees, focused on performance perceptions of OCBs in the workplace, Turnipseed and Rassuli (2005) found that managers have different perceptions regarding what constitutes OCB and perceive a stronger link between OCB and job performance than nonmanagerial employees. Thus, management personnel may be more likely to engage in altruistic and civic-minded behaviors in the workplace because they view them as part of their role requirements or as necessary to achieve a higher level of job performance.

The next step in our analysis was to explore which variables are significant predictors of the enactment of these designated behaviors. The focus of Hypotheses 2–5 was determining whether OCB antecedents previously identified in the management literature were relevant to our participants, that is, Arab employees of Kuwaiti business organizations. Results from testing Hypotheses 2a–5b were mixed, with three of the eight hypotheses supported. The only significant predictor of altruism (OCBI) was a collectivist orientation, while procedural justice and job satisfaction were shown to be predictors of civic virtue (OCBO).

Given that a collectivist orientation is characterized by an emphasis on group welfare and helping others and that altruism citizenship behaviors involve helping other people with organizationally relevant tasks or problems, the relationship between collectivism and altruism is not surprising. Additionally, the tribal and religious principles that underlie Arab culture emphasize the individual’s responsibility to ensuring the overall welfare of members of the group, something that may encourage enactment of helping behaviors. However, collectivism only explains approximately 11 percent of the variance in enactment of altruism behaviors, and none of the remaining independent variables tested (distributive justice, procedural justice, job satisfaction, or organizational commitment) were significant predictors. Thus, it would appear that our model is inadequate in specifying the antecedents for altruism OCBs in this sample. What variables not included in our list might better predict variability in the altruistic citizenship behaviors? For future research in this area with Arab populations, we suggest testing more culture-specific variables such as IWE (Ali, 1988; Yousef, 2000) or additional dispositional variables such as prosocial moral orientation (Wagner and Rush, 2000).

Results for identifying the predictors of civic virtue behaviors are only slightly stronger than those for altruism OCBs. Procedural justice and job satisfaction were shown to be antecedents of civic virtue behaviors—actions that show an individual’s willingness to participate in organizational governance and look out for the best interests of the organization. It is interesting that collectivism is not shown to be a predictor of civic virtue OCBs for this sample, indicating perhaps that the notion of collective welfare in Arab culture extends to groups of individual coworkers but not the organization as an entity. This finding may be due in part to the unique nature of the workforce and organizational culture of Kuwaiti businesses. According to The World Factbook Web site compiled by the US Central Intelligence Agency, Kuwait is a geographically small country in the eastern part of the Arab world, with a relatively small population and approximately 7 percent of the world’s oil reserves. Non-Kuwaitis represent approximately 60 percent of the labor force in Kuwait (2012 established), and approximately 45 percent of our respondents are from Arab populations outside Kuwait. Ali et al. (1997) contend that, in the Arab world, loyalty is manifested by two contradictory qualities; a passionate sentiment regarding shared values and a strong tribal (or regional) identification. Similarly, in a 1988 study, Ali found Kuwaiti managers to be highly tribalistic and outer-directed. Ali and Al-Kazemi (2007) found that expatriate Arab managers have higher levels of organizational loyalty and commitment to IWE than Kuwaiti managers working in the same organization. The authors contend that this stems from the fact that the managers from other Arab countries working in Kuwait have to display higher levels of commitment and loyalty in order to maintain their jobs, whereas Kuwaitis feel their jobs are secure due to their nationality. It is possible that the mix of Kuwaiti and Arab expatriates in our sample skewed the relationship between collectivism and civic virtue.

The findings regarding the relationship between perceived fairness and citizenship behavior also deserves additional exploration. Results show that the focus for employees enacting civic virtue OCBs is on the fairness of organizational procedures, not outcomes. This may reflect the importance of consultative management style in Arab organizations or reflect the strong hierarchical nature of Arab society, where differences in distributive outcomes may be not only accepted but also expected.

It is somewhat surprising that job satisfaction is a predictor of civic virtue OCBs, but affective organizational commitment is not. This may be explained by a temporal element, with job satisfaction focused on current affect toward the organization, but not extending to the future commitment implied in the organizational commitment construct. As with the altruism OCB model, the explanatory power of the civic virtue model is low, and additional thought must be devoted to identifying independent variables that can better explain the variance in civic virtue OCBs for this population.

Research on culture-specific and cross-culturally generalizable aspects of leadership theory has shown that the cultural background of individuals partially determines the way in which those individuals perceive their social and organizational environments (Den Hartog et al., 1999). Erturk (2007) has drawn on this earlier research on leadership to support his contention that other organizationally relevant attitudes and behaviors, such as perceptions of justice and OCBs, are also strongly influenced by cultural background and thus can be expected to vary from culture to culture. This is the premise underlying most of the studies in recent years that have examined OCB in non-Western cultures. As early as 1996, Fok et al. found preliminary support for the premise that what constitutes organizational citizenship varies by culture, and Farh et al. (1997) examined how differences in perceptions arising from culturally based values impact how organizational citizenship is viewed and operates in relation to other constructs. Farh et al.’s (1997) study provided evidence of culture-specific (emic) dimensions of OCB that explained a larger proportion of the variance in a Taiwanese sample of students and employees than universal (etic) dimensions of the construct. The etic dimensions delineated by Farh et al. were identification with company (similar to civic virtue), altruism, and conscientiousness.

In a similar vein, Ortiz (2000) found that existing OCB scales did not fully capture the OCB construct in a Mexican population and thus he developed a Mexican OCB scale with etic dimensions of altruism, civic virtue, conscientiousness, and sportsmanship and emic dimensions of organizational camaraderie, sincerity, and professional development. Further evidence of etic dimensions of the OCB construct include Konovsky et al.’s (1996) study that shows the OCB factor structure in a sample of Mexican nurses to be very similar to that of a comparison group of American nurses. Additionally, a study by Lievens and Anseel (2004) provides support for the applicability of Organ’s (1988) five OCB dimensions (altruism, civic virtue, courtesy, conscientiousness, and sportsmanship) in a cross-cultural context, finding clear support for the discriminate validity of the five factors in two Belgian (Flemish) samples. Results of our study also suggest that there may be emic dimensions of the OCB construct for an Arab population.

In this study, we have examined predictors of OCBs in an Arab population, where few studies on citizenship behavior have been conducted. Limitations of this study include potential lack of generalizability due to the use of a convenience sample and the possibility of common method bias due to self-report measures used for data collection. We believe that this study contributes substantively to the citizenship behavior literature in general and, more specifically, to increased understanding of employees and workplace dynamics in the Arab culture. Given that our findings are not consistent with previous research in this area, we feel this study raises legitimate questions regarding the definition and dimensionality of citizenship behavior in Arab populations and suggests the need for further exploration of these concepts in this specific cultural context.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Abbas

(1988) A comparative study of managerial beliefs about work in the Arab States. Advances in International Comparative Management 4: 95–112.

Al-Kazemi

Ali

(2002) Managerial problems in Kuwait. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 14(2): 93–104.

Al-Tuhaih

Van Fleet

(2011) An exploratory study of organizational politics in Kuwait. Thunderbird International Business Review 53(1): 93–104.

Allen

Meyer

(1990) The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology 63: 1–18.

Ali

(1988a) Scaling an Islamic work ethic. The Journal of Social Psychology 128(5): 575–83.

Ali

(1988b) A cross-national perspective of managerial work value system. Advances in International Comparative Management 3: 151–69.

Ali

Al-Kazemi

(2007) Islamic work ethic in Kuwait. Journal of Management Development 21(5): 366–75.

Ali

Krishnan

Azim

(1997) Expatriate and indigenous managers’ work loyalty and attitude towards risk. The Journal of Psychology 3: 260–70.

Alotaibi

(2001) Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior: a study of public personnel in Kuwait. Public Personnel Management 30: 363–76.

10.

Bateman

Organ

(1983) Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of Management Journal 26(4): 587–95.

11.

Blakely

Srivastava

Moorman

(2005) The effects of nationality, work role centrality, and work locus of control on role definitions of OCB. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 12(1): 103–17.

12.

Bond

Leung

. (2004) Combining social axioms with values in predicting social behaviors. European Journal of Personality 18: 177–91.

13.

Borman

(2004) The concept of organizational citizenship. Current Directions in Psychological Science 13: 238–41.

14.

Chhokar

Zhuplev

Fok

. (2001) The impact of culture on equity sensitivity perceptions and organizational citizenship behavior: a five-country study. International Journal of Value-based Management 14: 79–82.

15.

Cohen

(2006) The relationship between multiple commitments and organizational citizenship behavior in Arab and Jewish culture. Journal of Vocational Behavior 69: 105–18.

16.

Cohen

Avrahami

(2006) The relationship between individualism, collectivism, the perception of justice, demographic characteristics and organizational citizenship behavior. The Service Industries Journal 26(8): 889–901.

17.

Cohen

(1983) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Elrbaum.

18.

Cohen-Charash

Spector

(2001) The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86(2): 278–321.

19.

Dalal

(2005) A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counter-productive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 90: 1241–55.

20.

Den Hartog

House

Hanges

. (1999) Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Leadership Quarterly (Special Issue: Char-ismatic and Transformational Leadership: Taking Stock of the Present and Future (Part I) 10(2): 219–56.

21.

Dorfman

Howell

(1988) Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management 3: 127–50.

22.

Earley

(1989) Social loafing and collectivism: a comparison of the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Administrative Sciences Quarterly 34: 565–81.

23.

Ehigie

Otukoya

(2005) Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior in a government-owned enterprise in Nigeria. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 14: 389–99.

24.

Ehrhart

Naumann

(2004) Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: a group norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology 89(6): 960–74.

25.

Erturk

(2007) Increasing organizational citizenship of Turkish academicians: mediating role of trust in supervisor on the relationship between organizational justice and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology 22(3): 257–70.

26.

Farh

Earley

Lin

(1997) Impetus for action: a cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly 42: 421–44.

27.

Farh

Zhong Organ

(2004) Organizational citizenship behavior in the People’s Republic of China. Organization Science 15: 241–53.

28.

Fassina

Jones

Uggerslev

(2008) Relationship clean-up time: using meta-analysis and path analysis to clarify relationships among job satisfaction, perceived fairness, and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management 34: 161–88.

29.

Fischer

Ferreira

Assmar

EML

. (2005) Organizational behavior across cultures: theoretical and methodological issues for developing multi-level frameworks involving culture. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 5(1): 99–120.

30.

Fok

Hartman

Villere

. (1996) A study of the impact of cross cultural differences on perceptions of equity and organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Management 13: 3–15.

31.

George

Mallery

(2003) SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 11.0 update (4th edition). Boston. Allyn & Bacon.

32.

Gautam

Dick

Wagner

. (2005) Organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment in Nepal. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 8: 305–14.

33.

Hackman

Oldham

(1975) The development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 60: 159–70.

34.

Harkness

(2003) Questionnaire Translation. Cross-Cultural Survey Methods. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

35.

Hatem

(1994) Egypt: exploring management in the Middle East. International Studies of Management and Organization 24 (1&2): 116–36.

36.

Hoffman

Blair

Meriac

. (2007) Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(2): 555–66.

37.

Hofstede

(1980) Culture’s Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

38.

Hofstede

Bond

(1988) The Confucius connection: from cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics 16(4): 5–21.

39.

House

Javidan

Dorfman

. (2004) GLOBE: The Research Program. Encyclopedia of Leadership. Great Barrington, MA: Berkshire Publishing Group.

40.

Hui

Triandis

(1986) Individualism-Collectivism: A Study of Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Lincoln, England: Nebraska University Press.

41.

Ilies

Scott

Judge

(2006) The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on individual patterns of citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal 49(3): 561–75.

42.

Kabasakal

Bodur

(2002) Arabic cluster: a bridge between east and West. Journal of World Business 37: 40–54.

43.

Karam

Kwantes

(2011) Contextualizing cultural orientation and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of International Management 17: 303–15.

44.

Kim

(2006) Public service motivation and organizational citizenship behavior in Korea. International Journal of Manpower 27: 722–40.

45.

Konovsky

Elliott

Pugh

(1996) The dispositional and contextual predictors of citizenship behavior in Mexico. In: Paper presented at the annual Academy of Management meeting, Boston.

46.

Kuehn

Al-Busaidi

(2002) Citizenship behavior in a non-Western context: an examination of the role of satisfaction, commitment, and job characteristics on self-reported OCB. International Journal of Commerce and Management 12: 107–25.

47.

Kwantes

Karam

Kuo

BCH

. (2008) Culture’s influence on the perception of OCB as in-role or extra-role. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32: 229–43.

48.

Lam

Hui

Law

(1999) Organizational citizenship behavior: comparing perspectives of supervisors and subordinates across four international samples. Journal of Applied Psychology 84(4): 594–601.

49.

LePine

Erez

Johnson

(2002) The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: a critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(1): 52–65.

50.

Lievens

Ansell

(2004) Confirmatory factor analysis and invariance of an organisational citizenship behaviour measure across samples in a Dutch-speaking context. Journal of Organisational Psychology 77: 299–306.

51.

Moideenkutty

Blau

Kumar

. (2006) Comparing correlates of organizational citizenship versus in-role behaviour of sales representatives in India. International Journal of Commerce and Management 16(1): 15–28.

52.

Moorman

(1991) Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology 6: 845–55.

53.

Moorman

Blakely

(1995) Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 16: 127–42.

54.

Mowday

Porter

Steers

(1979) The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior 14, 224–247.

55.

Morrison

(1994) Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: the importance of the employee’s perspective. The Academy of Management Journal 37(6): 1543–67.

56.

Nunally

(1978) Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

57.

O’Reilly

Chatman

(1986) Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 7: 492–99.

58.

Organ

(1988) Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

59.

Organ

(1990) The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In: BM

Staw

Cummings

(eds) Research in Organizational Behavior, Volume 12. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 43–72.

60.

Organ

(1997) Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. Human Performance 10(2): 85–97.

61.

Organ

Konovsky

(1989) Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 74: 157–64.

62.

Organ

Lingl

(1995) Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Social Psychology 135: 339–50.

63.

Organ

Ryan

(1995) A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology 48: 775–802.

64.

Organ

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

(2006) Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

65.

Ortiz

(2000) Domestic research’s cross-cultural applicability: A paradigm to follow in creating relevant and equivalent international measures by implementing the etic and emic perspective. San Antonio, TX: Southwest Academy of Management.

66.

Parnell

Crandall

(2003) Propensity for participative decision-making, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and intentions to leave among Egyptian managers. The Multinational Business Review 11: 45–65.

67.

Petrocelli

(2003) Hierarchical multiple regression in counseling research: common problems and possible remedies. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 36: 9–22.

68.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Moorman

. (1990) Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly 1: 107–42.

69.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Paine

. (2000) Organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management 26(3): 513–63.

70.

Podsakoff

Whiting

Podsakoff

. (2009) Individual and organizational level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(1): 122–41.

71.

Ramamoorthy

Carroll

(1998) Individualism/collectivism orientations and reactions toward alternative human resource management practices. Human Relations 51: 571–88.

72.

Rice

(1999) Islamic ethics and the implications for business. Journal of Business Ethics 18: 345–58.

73.

Robertson

Al-Khatib

Al-Habib

(2002) The relationship between Arab values and work beliefs: an exploratory examination. Thunderbird International Business Review 44(5): 583–601.

74.

Robertson

Al-Khatib

Al-Habib

. (2001) Beliefs about work in the Middle East and the convergence versus divergence of values. Journal of World Business 36(3): 223–44.

75.

Robinson

Morrison

(1995) Psychological contracts and OCB: the effect of unfulfilled obligations. Journal of Organizational Behavior 16: 289–98.

76.

Smith

Organ

Near

(1983) Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology 68: 653–63.

77.

Tang

Ibrahim

(1998) Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior: public personnel in the United States and in the Middle East. Public Personnel Management 27: 529–48.

78.

Thompson

Borrello

(1985) The importance of structure coefficients in regression research. Educational and Psychological Measurement 45: 203–09.

79.

Triandis

(1994) Culture and Social Behaviour. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

80.

Tuncalp

(1988) Strategy planning in export marketing: the case of Saudi Arabia. Columbia Journal of World Business 23(3): 69–76.

81.

Turnipseed

Rassuli

(2005) Performance perceptions of organizational citizenship behaviors at work: a bi-level study among managers and employees. British Journal of Management 16(3): 231–44.

82.

Van Dyne

Cummings

Parks

(1995) Extra-role behaviors: in pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). Research in Organizational Behavior 17: 215–85.

83.

Van Dyne

VandeWalle

Kostova

. (2000) Collectivism, propensity to trust, and self-esteem as predictors of organizational citizenship in a non-work setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior 21: 3–23.

84.

Wagner

III JA

(1995) Studies of individualism-collectivism: effects on cooperation in groups. The Academy of Management Journal 38(1): 152–1972.

85.

Wagner

Rush

(2000) Altruistic organizational citizenship behavior: context, disposition, and age. The Journal of Social Psychology 140: 379–91.

86.

Weber

(1958) The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York, NY: Scribner.

87.

Williams

Anderson

(1991) Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management 17(3): 601–17.

88.

Wong

Ngo

Wong

(2006) Perceived organizational justice, trust, and OCB: a study of Chinese workers in joint ventures and state-owned enterprises. Journal of World Business 41(4): 344–55.

89.

Yavas

Habib

(1988) Management related research in the Middle East. Management Research News 9(4): 7–9.

90.

Yousef

(2000) Organizational commitment as a mediator of the relationship between Islamic work ethic and attitudes toward organizational change. Human Relations 53: 513.

91.

Yousef

(2001) Islamic work ethic—a moderator between organizational commitment and job satisfaction in a cross-cultural context. Personnel Review 30(2): 152–69.