An Indian Outlook on Role Clarity,Organizational Citizenship Behavior,and Gender Relationship: Multiple Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) Approach

Abstract

This article investigates the empirical association between role clarity and organizational citizenship behavior and how this relation is moderated by gender. The data of 272 executives have been collected from management development programs conducted in various public and private Indian organizations. Chi-square difference test (Bonferroni method), latent mean approach, sub-group analyses, and multiple group confirmatory factor analysis have been used to analyze the responses. Results indicate that role clarity is positively related to all dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior. Out of five, four dimensions show signs of gender’s moderation; women scored higher in role clarity’s relation with altruism, courtesy, and conscientiousness and men showed higher role clarity–civic virtue relationship. Implications and future scope are also discussed.

Keywords

Role clarity organizational citizenship behavior gender multiple group confirmatory factor analysis subgroup analyses latent mean

Introduction

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) which has been described by Organ (1988) as “individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization” is a widely read subject. Its popularity can be judged from the fact that from the time when Organ and colleagues (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983) coined this term for the first time in the early 1980s, more than 700 studies have been conducted on OCB and related constructs such as pro-social behavior, extra-role behavior, organizational citizenship performance; antecedents of OCB-like employee attitude, personality traits, leader behavior, and also the effect OCB put on organizational and individual outcomes (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). Also, during this period, the reach and demand of OCB-like behavior has spread from field of organizational behavior to a variety of disciplines like human resource management, health administration, marketing, industrial relations, military psychology, leadership, and economics (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 2000). Consultants and practitioners have also incorporated OCB into organizations, which are hence impacting evaluation processes and even recruitment.

One of the important antecedents of OCB is “role.” OCB is also being associated with role clarity of employees. Role clarity has become an important variable for study because of multiple role sets to be performed by employees in every organization. Clarity in expectations of inter-roles and intra-role needs to be at the foundation of every work output. There has been a specular debate over the acceptance of the definition of OCB. This is because of the confusion of the type of behavior OCB possess, that is, in-role or extra-role. This gap has also been identified (Organ, 1997), hence it needs research for finding out the former.

OCB orientation has an outsized literature which stated about gender differences (Kidder & Parks, 2001). The existing literature and researches on OCB cannot be held true for other cultures apart from where they have actually been conducted, that is, North America and Europe. More researches are needed to observe the differences among other cultures. OCB study was done on the basis of role clarity and demographic along with gender difference to find out the outcome. This study is basically to understand effects of gender that forms a constraint on understanding Indian context relationship of role clarity and OCB. For this study, data are collected from organizations’ management development programs (MDPs) that enable employees of different industries with management concepts. Therefore, the aim of the study is to investigate the effect of role clarity on OCB and to examine the moderating effect of gender on the relationship between role clarity and OCB (Figure 1). To achieve the aim of the study, various hypotheses are developed and a series of tests are performed. The outcomes of the study show how both genders behave in highly demanding organizational setup.

Figure 1.

Source: Authors’ own.

The study is distributed into five parts. The first part gives the introduction of the study. The next section is literature review of the variables studied. The third part portrays the method followed for conducting the study. The subsequent part is results acquired from method employed, and the final section is discussion and conclusion of the study.

Literature Review

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

OCB is a concept as defined by Organ (1988) that engages employees and promotes effectiveness of an organization even though they are not rewarded explicitly by the organization. Moreover, literature on OCB and its involvement in achieving organizational effectiveness is largely available in organizational behavior. The recent studies are finding out the occurrences and significance of OCB across different cultures and industry. Employee behavior is supposed to have played a crucial role in stimulating positivity at workplace and lead to the increase in motivation from the supervisors and managers for their subordinates for encouraging OCB which would further increase organizational efficiency and effectiveness as a part of improved workplace outcomes and ambitions (Farh, Zhong, & Organ, 2004). The relationship between OCB and similar concepts is also observed like extra-role behavior (Van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995), pro-social behavior (Baruch, Fenton, Hind, & Vigoda-Gadot, 2004), contextual performance (Motowildo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997), civic citizenship (Graham, 1991), and organizational spontaneity (George & Brief, 1992). OCB has been also contemplated in the field of economics, education, HRM, marketing, etc. (Lievens & Anseel, 2004) on individual, group as well as organizational levels. These studies have revealed OCB as a spontaneous, effective, productive, self-initiated behavior that expected to enhance the effectiveness of the organizational workplace. Adding to it, some studies have also prompted that impression management, and other non-humanitarian motives are also involved to OCB (Bolino, 1999; Organ, 1997). Thus, the common argument constituted that OCB supports positivity and enhance productivity of an organization. As a deduction, the argument till date which is supported by studies on OCB suggests that it has beneficial, high involvement with individuals as well as multiple levels of an organization and a positive image which intensify the performance of a workplace. OCB can be looked from two prospective: an aggregate concept and through various dimensions (Tziner & Sharoni, 2014). In 1988, Organ projected five dimensions of OCB. They are altruism, courtesy, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. Vey and Campbell (2004) established that the conscientiousness and courtesy dimensions of OCB are considered as in-role and altruism and civic virtue dimensions are considered as extra-role more frequently.

Role Clarity and OCB

Role clarity is the concept where a practice of figuring out the priorities is done along with assigning appropriate trainings for the same. This assures a person of what is being expected out of him from the job (Shoemaker, 1999). Clarity level is correlated with a person’s achievement and work. Moreover, if an individual is having a fair understanding about the role then he/she would be more dedicated toward achieving it (Braxton, 2008). Role clarity is also a position wherein an employee can easily foresee the outcomes of what specific duties been completed by him/her (Mukherjee & Malhotra, 2006). This helps in enhancing the competencies of an individual, as they get to know what are they capable and competent of and how can they achieve the same (Baron & Armstrong, 1998). A sense of apathy prevails when individuals are not clear of what duties they take up and what is expected out from them. This discrepancy between the expectance and performances of an individual creates uncertainty and conflict among the employees of the organization (Fields, 2002).

Organ (1997) while making out clear about the composition of OCB, concentrated on judgmental actions of the employee which are not legitimate or proper by the role or job description. He also centralized on the conception of “role” and “job.” When comprehended about roles and jobs, characterization of duties by employees during the time of employment wherein the duties are clearly and tightly stated is considered as job whereas when these duties comes with unrestricted power they are stated as roles. “The End of the Job,” a Fortune magazine’s cover story underlined that job is no longer the finest way to proceed with a perfect way to perform the work throughout the environmental change, team size changes, team change etc. As per Smith et al. (1983), OCBs are condition wherein you have to do what your immediate boss is asking you to do, even though your boss has no clue of how to get the work done with no rewards attached to it. These behaviors thus come under role clarity regarding high-caliber position. From an investigation conducted by Morrison (1994), 18 out of 20 elements have been classified by most of the respondents as “in-role.” Moreover, he also stated that OCB fluctuates among employees within same as well as different levels, that is, between supervisor and employee.

H₁₁: Role clarity will relate positively with altruism.

H₁₂: Role clarity will relate positively with courtesy.

H₁₃: Role clarity will relate positively with conscientiousness.

H₁₄: Role clarity will relate positively with sportsmanship.

H₁₅: Role clarity will relate positively with civic virtue.

Gender as Moderator

Gender differences among employees have been considered in recent years by observing the behavior, attitude, and outcomes. From the perception of the job-related employees it has come to an impression that there is continuation of gender differences (Yadav & Rangnekar, 2015). Gender differences have seen to affect not only the employees’ working condition but also how they behave and infer (Cooper & Lewis, 1995). It has been observed that gender when considered as a trait belonging to an individual it has affected the image of an organization, the attitude toward work and others and even themselves (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). The consideration that has surfaced from the studies that analyzes the impact of gender in managerial perceptive and marketing states that men are more aligned toward completing more goal and tasks, whereas women on the other hand are more focused toward maintaining relationship within a community (Babin & Boles, 1998; Iacobucci & Ostrom, 1993). Wiersma (1990) indicated that male and female employees have different role perceptions, leading to different levels of role ambiguity and role conflict and hence, role clarity from the work place. It has been observed by Gilbert (1992) that expectations due to responsibilities of a parent, culture, and society, women are more inclined toward family responsibilities, whereas men are job-oriented and keeps it as their first priority. The expectations of men and women are observed to be different from each other as well as the outcomes from the working conditions are seen to be different demanding as per the role on which they serve as suggested by Boles, Wood, and Johnson (2003).

The correlation between OCB and gender is not seen to have contributed much from the past studies. As specified by Lovell et al. (1999) that attribute of OCB on the basis of its understanding, kind, devotion to others, and helpful to individuals are congruent to feminine behaviors. In a working environment, the interpersonal directed jobs are more adopted by women, which are seen to be a compromising factor on the basis of making friends, being kind to others (Konrad et al., 2000). There are limited surveys till date which have identified and supported that women are inclined to high level of benevolence and have high helping nature than men (Yadav et al., 2016). As per the observed literature discussed above led us to hypothesize the following:

H₂₁: The positive effect of role clarity on altruism is significantly stronger among female employees than among male employees.

H₂₂: The positive effect of role clarity on courtesy is significantly stronger among female employees than among male employees.

H₂₃: The positive effect of role clarity on conscientiousness is significantly stronger among female employees than among male employees.

H₂₄: The positive effect of role clarity on sportsmanship is significantly stronger among female employees than among male employees.

H₂₅: The positive effect of role clarity on civic virtue is significantly stronger among female employees than among male employees.

Method

The population of the study comprised full-time employees from both public and private Indian organizations. The responses are taken during MDPs conducted across the Uttaranchal region and within IIT Roorkee campus. Out of 12 MDPs conducted, eight are for public organizations and remaining four are for private organizations. To get valid responses, variables taken are discussed in detail in a one-hour session and then questionnaires are distributed. Out of 320 distributed questionnaires, 48 were returned incomplete, leading to 85 percent response rate.

Measures

Role Ambiguity: Role Clarity Questionnaire by Udai Pareek (2002), 15 items on 5-point Likert scale is used to measure role clarity. The sample items include “What your colleagues/peers expect from your role,” “Resources (financial) available for completing your tasks,” and “Appraisal system to assess how well you perform in your role.” The OCB scale by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) on 5-point Likert scale with 1 for “strongly disagree” to 5 for “strongly disagree” and sample items include “I help others who have heavy workloads,” “I keep abreast of changes in the organization,” and “I take steps to try to prevent problems with other workers” was taken to measure OCB. For gender, categorical variable is being measured by using 2-point categorical scale: 1 represents female and 2 to represent male respondents. After literature review, three demographic variables, that is, age, tenure, and position were decided to be controlled for.

Data Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis is performed using AMOS 21 for measurement model. Discriminant validity is checked by chi-square difference test using Bonferroni method (Simes, 1986). To check the causal relation, path coefficient is used; and moderation effect of gender is tested with Multiple Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MFCGA).

Results

Profile of Sample

In the sample of 272 respondents, 207 males (76.10 percent) and 65 females (23.9 percent) respondents participated. About 188 (69.12 percent) responses are from public sector employees and rest from private sector employees. The mean age is 40.5 years. Around 54.14 percent respondents are from the middle level, 30.14 percent from junior level, and rest from senior positions. The respondents were having high work experience with average tenure of 16.1 years.

Measurement Model

For data analysis, structural equation modelling is applied. Model testing is done by two-step approach proposed by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). Two indicator variables, that is, standard loadings and Cronbach’s α value are selected after continuous filtering to be used to measure all the constructs in the measurement model (Table 1). The overall goodness-of-fit indices are also calculated. The χ²/df less than 3, NFI (Normed Fit Index), NNFI (Non-Normed Fit Index), CFI (Comparative Fit Index), AGFI (Adjusted goodness of fit index), GFI (Goodness of Fit Index) with value greater than 0.9, RMR (root-mean-square residual) value at 0.05 and RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) less than 0.07 shows satisfactory model fit. Reliabilities of instruments are checked through internal consistency measurement, and convergent validity has been verified according to recommended criteria by Hatcher (2005). All loadings are above 0.7 (Table 1). Discriminant validity of the measurement model has been checked according to recommended criteria by Bonferroni method (Simes, 1986). All paired construct’s χ² difference exceeded critical χ² value (Table 2), and also all pairs showed the significance value below 0.000067 and supported the discriminant validity.

Table 1.

Standardized Loadings and Reliability

Constructs	Indicators	Standard Loadings	Cronbach’s α	Construct	Indicators	Standard Loadings	Cronbach’s α
Altruism (F1)	V1	0.65	0.86	Role Clarity	R1	0.6	0.913
	V10	0.67			R2	0.67
	V13	0.61			R3	0.62
	V15	0.67			R4	0.65
	V23	0.66			R5	0.62
Courtesy (F2)	V5	0.71	0.85		R6	0.6
	V8	0.66			R7	0.64
	V14	0.67			R8	0.72
	V17	0.64			R9	0.67
	V20	0.65			R10	0.66
Consci (F3)	V3	0.6	0.86		R11	0.69
	V18	0.67			R12	0.73
	V21	0.73			R13	0.61
	V22	0.73			R14	0.61
	V24	0.64			R15	0.66
Sports (F4)	V4	0.64	0.92
	V7	0.68
	V9	0.65
	V16	0.74
	V19	0.69
Civic (F5)	V2	0.71	0.86
	V6	0.68
	V11	0.69
	V12	0.71

Source: Primary data.

Notes: Consci, conscientiousness; sports, sportsmanship; civic, civic virtue; Goodness-of-fit indices: df= 687; χ² = 1447.07; χ²/df = 2.106; NFI = 0.91; NNFI = 0.92; CFI = 0.92; AGFI = 0.90; GFI = 0.91; RMR = 0.05; RMSEA= 0.05.

Table 2.

Chi-square Difference Test for Discriminant Validity

Unconstrained χ² (df = 687) = 1447.07
Construct Pair	Constrained χ² (df = 688)	χ² Difference	Sig. Level
(F1, F2)	1583.74***	136.67	0.0000
(F1, F3)	1613.07***	166	0.0000
(F1, F4)	1570.36***	123.29	0.0000
(F1, F5)	1591.92***	144.85	0.0000
(F1, F6)	1620.60***	173.53	0.0000
(F2, F3)	1568.35***	121.28	0.0000
(F2, F4)	1538.62***	91.53	0.0000
(F2, F5)	1552.04***	104.97	0.0000
(F2, F6)	1575.06***	127.99	0.0000
(F3, F4)	1576.13***	129.06	0.0000
(F3, F5)	1573.65***	126.58	0.0000
(F3, F6)	1591.02***	143.95	0.0000
(F4, F5)	1534.24***	87.17	0.0000
(F4, F6)	1564.56***	117.49	0.0000
(F5, F6)	1568.22***	121.15	0.0000

Source: Primary data.

Note: ‘*** denotes significance at 0.01 level by using the Bonferroni method; F1, altruism; F2, courtesy; F3, conscientious; F4, sportsmanship; F5, civic virtue; F6, role clarity.

Structural Model

To avoid making any wrong inference, age, tenure, and position are taken as control variables. Structural model result shows that H₁₁, H₁₂, H₁₃, H₁₄, and H₁₅ are significantly supported as shown in Table 3. To check the moderating effect of gender, the sample is divided on the basis of gender.

Table 3.

Path Coefficients and t-value based on Total Sample

Hypothesis	Standardized Coefficient	t-value
Role clarity → altruism	0.42***	7.92
Role clarity courtesy	0.47***	8.91
Role clarity conscientiousness	0.48***	9.35
Role clarity sportsmanship	0.17**	2.91
Role clarity civic virtue	0.47***	9.08
Role clarity → OCB	0.50***	10.11

Source: Primary data.

Notes: ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10; the effects of age, tenure, and position used as control variables in the model are insignificant.

Latent means testing (Byrne, 2013), as shown in Table 4, shows a significant negative estimate between male and female respondents, signifying high score of altruism in female compared to male respondents. Courtesy and conscientiousness also reported a significant negative estimate of latent means difference between male and female respondents. This signifies that high level of courtesy and conscientiousness are shown by female compared with male respondents. Civic virtue reported positive mean score thus signifying a high level of civic virtue in male compared with female respondents. Sportsmanship failed to report a significant estimate showing that sportsmanship is portrayed by male and female respondents equally.

Table 4.

Latent Means Difference between Female and Male Respondents

Construct	Estimate	S.E.	t-value
Altruism	–0.26	0.086	–3.062***
Courtesy	–0.29	0.096	–3.105***
Conscientiousness	–0.29	0.093	–3.117***
Sportsmanship	–0.58	0.123	–4.765
Civic virtue	0.374	0.099	3.759***

Source: Primary data.

Note: ***p < 0.01.

Subgroup analyses (Byrne, 2013; Singh, 1995) are performed with the help of MGCFA technique to test for the moderating effect of gender on structural model. The tests are run on various paths. The results with path coefficients as well as subgroup comparison are mentioned in Table 5.

The threshold limits of χ² values are 2456.01 (0.1 significance level), 2457.14 (0.05 significance level), and 2459.94 (0.01 significance level). The test of the moderating effect of gender on OCB dimensions and role clarity portrays that influence of role clarity on altruism is stronger for female than male individuals. Also, courtesy and conscientiousness showed similar results with higher score for female than male respondents. Hence, supporting hypotheses H₂₁, H₂₂, and H₂₃. Also, effect of role clarity on civic virtue is found stronger for male than female individuals, leading to rejection of hypothesis H₂₅. The influence of role clarity on sportsmanship is similar among man and woman leading to rejection of hypothesis H₂₄.

Table 5.

Path Coefficients between Female and Male Respondents with Role Clarity as Independent Variable

Construct	Female	Male	Subgroup Comparison (unconstrained), χ² (1374) = 2453.30		Results
	Standardized Coefficients	Standardized Coefficients	Constrained χ² (1375)	χ² Difference
Altruism	0.40**	0.35***	2460.12	6.82***	F>M
Courtesy	0.48***	0.38**	2458.73	5.43**	F>M
Conscientiousness	0.45***	0.41**	2458.68	5.38**	F>M
Sportsmanship	0.29	0.14	2453.34	0.04	M=F
Civic virtue	0.41***	0.43**	2460.01	6.71***	F<M

Source: Primary data.

Notes: ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10; M, male; F, female.

Discussion and Managerial Implications

The unique contribution of the study is to ascertain the potency and course of gender in relationship of role clarity and OCB. No past reported study has analyzed these relationships. In confirmation with research hypotheses, findings demonstrated that role clarity positively with OCB dimensions and role clarity–OCB relationship is high for female employees compared to male for three out of five dimensions. Our empirical research is in synchronization with theories that supports the importance of demographic and personal variables in role clarity and OCB also. Altruism, which is also referred as helping behavior is found to be higher in women, compared to men and is highly predicted by role clarity. Also, women with high role clarity are found to express superior altruistic behavior compared to men. These results are in synchronization with the historic view that women have high level of altruism (Kark & Waismel-Manor, 2005; Lovell et al., 1999; Morrison, 1994). Clear role expectations make women more confident in what they do and less hesitant in helping in similar work. These outcomes also bring certain massage for management. Since, women give great emphasis on informal collaborative relationships compared to men, which often leads to greater cooperation among employees at the workplace also. Also, women are easily approachable for help then men (Farell & Finkelstein, 2007). Being helped or asking for help generally go against masculinity norms, so, helping other by men will go against reciprocity norms (Parks, 1997). Therefore, even with the presence of role clarity, male employees’ scores low on altruism. Management should consider female employees as key to creating a cooperative environment. Women being soft spoken generally will also help in keeping positive and well-behaved environment at the workplace where the organization is facing trouble in employee behavior.

Women also scored high on courtesy and conscientiousness mean scores over men. Both OCB dimensions are predicted by role clarity, higher in women than men. These mean scores are in confirmation with Lin’s (2008) findings. Since role clarity involves related aspect of clarity of colleagues’ expectations as well (Yadav & Rangnekar, 2013), it influences courtesy and conscientiousness at a higher level. Management may take advantage of the results to create a positive environment in the organization. Since women are highly thoughtful and considerate about colleagues; they take extra care of their actions influencing colleague’s work. This will lead to low maintenance of machines and organization’s property. Orderly and punctual work behavior will bring positive change in an organization’s culture, because these women will be taken as role models by other employees irrespective of the gender. Knowledge sharing is also fostered by using the co-operative and helping environment. Civic virtue, which means being concerned about the well-functioning of the company; undertaking personal responsibility toward participation is political life of organization (Shragay & Tziner, 2011); has been found more in men than women, is highly predicted by role clarity in men than women. The results are not in consistency with Diefendorff, Brown, Kamin, and Lord (2002) which showed women as having a high civic virtue score. As female employees are expected to show less civic virtue (Chiaburu et al., 2014), pressure gets created for male employees to perform higher on civic virtue. Male employees as sole earners in most of Indian families have much more at stake on the job, so they are more concerned about well-being of the organization and want to have a constant check on improvements in organizations. The managerial implication of these findings could be helpful for organization. This concerned behavior in employees can be used in empowering them with more control of their work, greater, and conscious participation of employees in management decisions could help the organization to grow and pass through turbulent times. Participation instruments like quality circles, representation on the Board of Directors, etc., can be created to harness this potential in a positive manner.

Results of sportsmanship, having similar scores for both men and women and also role clarity predicted sportsmanship equally for men and women is interesting. Sportsmanship, which is usually seen higher in men (Diefendorff et al., 2002), gave equal results for both the genders on Indian sample. It is a good sign for management as it shows resilience and loyalty in employees. Management can go ahead with risky steps like expansion or structural change with otherwise becomes quite difficult in opposition and distrust from employees.

Conclusion

While concluding, it can be said that both the genders play a crucial role in organization’s growth and development through different dimensions of OCB through clarity of role and task to be performed by them. Mixed results achieved here regarding the influence of role clarity on OCB dimension is indeed happy news for the organization as it opens doors for all round development. The organization should have a balanced employee base of both men and women. Since, women showed higher scores on altruism, courtesy, and conscientiousness, they can act as a lubricant of sound interpersonal relations in the organization. Conflict management or organizational change will become smooth because of the roles performed by them. Knowledge sharing culture can be created and also team work increases. Men generally are stoic and unemotional can lead the organization on the right path in turbulent times. Men high on civic virtue will provide much needed decentralized command channel.

References

Anderson

J. C.

& Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411.

Babin

B. J.

& Boles

J. S.

(1998). Employee behaviour in a service environment: A model and test of potential differences between men and women. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 77–91.

Baron

& Armstrong

(1998). Out of the box. People Management, 23(6), 38–41.

Baruch

Fenton

Hind

& Vigoda-Gadot

(2004) Pro-social behaviour and job performance: Does the need for control and the need for achievement make a difference? Social Behaviour and Personality, 324, 399–412.

Bateman

T. S.

& Organ

D. W.

(1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship.” Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587–595.

Boles

J. S.

Wood

J. A.

& Johnson

(2003). Interrelationships of role conflict, role ambiguity, and work-family conflict with different facets of job satisfaction and the moderating effects of gender. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 23(2), 99–113.

Bolino

M. C.

(1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 82–98.

Braxton

J. M.

(2008). Toward a theory of faculty professional choices in teaching that foster college student success. Higher Education, 23, 181–207.

Byrne

B. M.

(2013). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York, NY: Routledge.

10.

Chiaburu

D. S.

Sawyer

Smith

T. A.

Brown

& Harris

T. B.

(2014). When civic virtue isn’t seen as virtuous: The effect of gender stereotyping on civic virtue expectations for women. Sex Roles, 70(5–6), 183–194.

11.

Cooper

C. L.

& Lewis

(1995). Working together: Men and women in organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5), 294–301.

12.

Diefendorff

J. M.

Brown

D. J.

Kamin

A. M.

& Lord

R. G.

(2002). Examining the roles of job involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behaviours and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 23(1), 93–108.

13.

Farell

S. K.

& Finkelstein

L. M.

(2007). Organizational citizenship behaviour and gender: Expectation and attribution for performance. North American Journal of Psychology, 9(1), 81–96.

14.

Farh

J. L.

Zhong

C. B.

& Organ

D. W.

(2004). Organizational citizenship behaviour in the People’s Republic of China. Organization Science, 15(2), 241–253.

15.

Fields

D. L.

(2002). Taking the measure of work: A guide to validated scales for organizational research and diagnosis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

16.

George

J. M.

& Brief

A. P.

(1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 310.

17.

Gilbert

R. K.

(1992). Revisiting the psychology of men Robert Bly and the Mytho-Poetic Movement. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 32(2), 41–67.

18.

Graham

J. W.

(1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behaviour. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4(4), 249–270.

19.

Hatcher

(2005). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

20.

Iacobucci

& Ostrom

(1993). Gender differences in the impact of core and relational aspects of services on the evaluation of service encounters. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(3), 257–286.

21.

Kark

& Waismel-Manor

(2005). Organizational citizenship behaviour: What’s gender got to do with it? Organization, 12(6), 889–917.

22.

Kidder

& Parks

J. M.

(2001). The good soldier: Who is s(he)? Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 22(8), 939–955.

23.

Konrad

A. M.

Ritchie

J. E.

Jr Lieb

& Corrigall

(2000). Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 593.

24.

Lievens

& Anseel

(2004). Confirmatory factor analysis and invariance of an organizational citizenship behaviour measure across samples in a Dutch-speaking context. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(3), 299–306.

25.

Lin

C. P.

(2008). Clarifying the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviours, gender, and knowledge sharing in workplace organizations in Taiwan. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(3), 241–250.

26.

Lovell

S. E.

Kahn

A. S.

Anton

Davidson

Dowling

Post

& Mason

(1999). Does gender affect the link between organizational citizenship behaviour and performance evaluation? Sex Roles, 41(5–6), 469–478.

27.

Mathieu

J. E.

& Zajac

D. M.

(1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychology Bulletin, 108(2), 171–194.

28.

Morrison

E. W.

(1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behaviour: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1543–1567.

29.

Motowildo

S. J.

Borman

W. C.

& Schmit

M. J.

(1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10(2), 71–83.

30.

Mukherjee

& Malhotra

(2006). Does role clarity explain employee-perceived service quality? A study of antecedents and consequences in call centres. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17(5), 444–473.

31.

Organ

D. W.

(1988). Organizational citizenship behaviour: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Heath.

32.

Organ

D. W.

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

33.

Organ

D. W.

Podsakoff

P. M.

& MacKenzie

S. B.

(2006). Organizational citizenship behaviour: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

34.

Pareek

U. N.

(2002). Role ambiguity: Role clarity questionnaire. In Pareek

U. N.

(Ed.), Training instruments for HRD and OD (Vol. 2, No. E, pp. 561–563). New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

35.

Parks

J. M.

(1997). The fourth arm of justice: the art and science of revenge. In Lewicki

R. J.

Bies

R. J.

& Sheppard

B. H.

(Eds), Research on negotition in organizations (pp. 113–144). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

36.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Moorman

R. H.

& Fetter

(1990). Transformational leader behaviours and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviours. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142.

37.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Paine

J. B.

& Bachrach

D. G.

(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviours: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563.

38.

Shoemaker

M. E.

(1999). Leadership practices in sales managers associated with the self-efficacy, role clarity, and job satisfaction of individual industrial salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 19(4), 1–19.

39.

Shragay

& Tziner

(2011). The generational effect on the relationship between job involvement, work satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviour. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 27(2), 143–157.

40.

Simes

R. J.

(1986). An improved Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika, 73(3), 751–754.

41.

Singh

(1995). Measurement issues in cross-national research. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(3), 597–619.

42.

Smith

C. A.

Organ

D. W.

& Near

J. P.

(1983). Organizational citizenship behaviour: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653.

43.

Tziner

& Sharoni

(2014). Organizational citizenship behaviour, organizational justice, job stress, and work family conflict: Examination of their interrelationships with respondents from a non-Western culture. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 30(1), 35–42.

44.

Van Dyne

Cummings

L. L.

& Parks

J. M.

(1995). Extra-role behaviours: In pursuit of construct and definitional, clarity (A bridge over muddied waters). In Cummings

L. L.

& Staw

B. M.

(Eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

45.

Vey

M. A.

& Campbell

J. P.

(2004). In-role or extra-role organizational citizenship behaviour: Which are we measuring? Human Performance, 17(1), 119–135.

46.

Wiersma

U. J.

(1990). Gender differences in job attribute preferences: Work—home role conflict and job level as mediating variables. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(3), 231–243.

47.

Yadav

& Rangnekar

(2013, December). Role clarity in India: Examining the psychometric properties of role ambiguity: Role clarity questionnaire. In Proceedings of Thirteenth Global Conference on Flexible Systems Management (pp. 200–209). New Delhi: Gift Publications.

48.

Yadav

& Rangnekar

(2015, December). Supervisory support and organizational citizenship behaviour: Mediating role of participation in decision making and job satisfaction. Evidence-based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, 3(3), 258–278.

49.

Yadav

Rangnekar

& Bamel

(2016). Workplace flexibility dimensions as enablers of organizational citizenship behaviour. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 17(1), 41–56.