Information Sharing and Citizenship Behaviors

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the mediating roles of empowerment, procedural justice, and organizational support in the influence of top-down and bottom-up information sharing on citizenship behaviors. In line with our hypotheses, we found that top-down practices primarily reinforce a sense of empowerment, whereas bottom-up practices primarily reinforce the perception of procedural justice. Finally, we found that information-sharing practices significantly influence citizenship performance in all three exchange mechanisms studied.

Keywords

information sharing empowerment procedural justice organizational support organizational citizenship behavior

Many scholars and practitioners see information-sharing practices as a strategic element yielding mutual benefits for employees and organizations (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1995; Peccei, Bewley, Gospel, & William, 2005). The literature on high-performance organizations and comparable concepts (e.g., Boxall & Macky, 2009; Mohr & Zoghi, 2008) has consistently highlighted the determinant role of information sharing in ideal human resources (HR) practice configurations. Paradoxically, to date, scant attention has been paid to information sharing by HR and organizational behavior (OB) researchers, and its contribution has only rarely been established theoretically. Even though the positive impact of information sharing on some work attitude and behavior indicators has been highlighted on a regular basis (e.g., Chen, Aryee, & Lee, 2005; Clampitt & Down, 1993; Dillon & Flood, 1992; Ng, Butts, Vandenberg, Dejoy, & Wilson, 2006; Paré & Tremblay, 2007; Rodwell, Kienzle, & Shadur, 1998; Varona, 1996; Young & Worchell, 1998), such works have several limitations. First, the effect of information sharing or communication practices on citizenship performance has rarely been studied (Kandlousi, Ali, & Abdollhi, 2010). Second, to the best of our knowledge, no research has been undertaken to examine the differentiated effects of top-down information sharing (TDIS) and bottom-up information sharing (BUIS) on citizenship behaviors. Third, with few exceptions (e.g., Paré & Tremblay, 2007; Peccei et al., 2005; Zhang & Agarwal, 2009), researchers have paid very little attention to the role of social exchange mechanisms in the influence of information-sharing practices. They often treat information-sharing practices as a residual human resources activity, and rarely have they evaluated the impact of information-sharing practices and provided specific hypotheses to justify their relationship with several social exchange mechanisms. In more concrete terms, no study has tested the mediating effects of procedural justice (PJ), psychological empowerment (PE), and perceived organizational support (POS) between the two information-sharing dimensions and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs).

The primary objective of this study, which is part of ongoing work aimed at assessing the influence of HR practices on citizenship performance, is to examine whether information-sharing practices may have an effect on extra-role behaviors, and to look at the exchange mechanisms through which this influence is exerted. The theoretical model illustrated in Figure 1 suggests that top-down information affects OCBs indirectly through empowerment and POS, whereas the bottom-up effect is realized through procedural justice and POS.

Figure 1.

Test of the theoretical model.

Influence of Top-Down Information-Sharing Practices on Psychological Empowerment

TDIS refers to information dissemination practices, particularly with respect to the operation of the company, its objectives, its strategic orientation, and its financial results (Gibson, Porath, Benson, & Lawler, 2007). Spreitzer (1995) defined the concept of psychological empowerment as an intrinsic motivation expressed through four constructs: a sense of meaning, a sense of competence, a sense of self-determination, and a sense of impact. She believed that these four dimensions need to be present for an employee to feel significantly empowered. However, if one of these dimensions is either absent or weakly present, an employee’s sense of empowerment is not eliminated; rather, it is simply weakened. There is evidence to suggest that there is a strong relationship between TDIS and PE. To feel a sense of authority to act at work, employees need to be well informed of the general operation of the organization (Matthews, Diaz, & Cole, 2003).

If individuals have a poor grasp of the organization’s objectives and strategies, they may not understand the direction adopted by the company and may only be slightly aware of their personal contributions to the organization’s overall performance (line of sight) (Gibson et al., 2007; Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1992). Randolph (1995) considered TDIS as not only the most important but also the most commonly neglected and least understood component of empowerment. He believed that workers cannot act independently and responsibly if they have not been given all the information they need. To our knowledge, only Spreitzer (1996) and Bordin, Bartram, and Casimir (2007) have evaluated and found a relationship between TDIS and empowerment. Even though they do not make a distinction regarding the type of information disseminated, Zhang and Agarwal (2009) found a strong positive correlation between their communication construct and PE. Despite the dearth of available empirical evidence, arguments presented in the literature lead us to propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Top-down information sharing has a positive influence on psychological empowerment.

Link Between Bottom-Up Information Sharing and Procedural Justice

PJ refers to employees’ perception of the fairness of decision-making procedures (Konovsky, 2000). In an organizational context, employees will consider a procedure to be fair if it allows them control over the decision-making process (voice effect) or over decisions leading to results (choice effect) (Thibault & Walker, 1975). In the literature, information sharing—BUIS in particular—is associated with a perception of procedural justice (e.g., Konovsky, 2000; Paré & Tremblay, 2007; Tremblay, Cloutier, Simard, Chênevert, & Vandenberghe, 2010). Unlike TDIS, BUIS deals with information reception practices such as voice mechanisms or upward problem-solving schemes (Dundon, Wilkinson, Marchington, & Ackers, 2004; Marchington, 2005). Such practices may assume various forms (suggestion boxes, opinion surveys, advisory committees, etc.), and they are concretized when employees are encouraged to state their ideas, opinions, concerns, and suggestions (Bovee & Thill, 2005; Lawler, 1986). According to Thibault and Walker (1975) and Folger (1977), procedures are perceived as fairer if they allow employees to express themselves. By encouraging individuals to voice their ideas, opinions, and suggestions, practices associated with BUIS are designed to offer employees the opportunity to express themselves and thus create a perception of PJ among them (Bhal & Ansari, 2007). According to the group-value model, employees view the use of just and equitable procedures as a sign of respect, consideration, and influence (Lind & Tyler, 1988). This theory suggests that employees value being members of the group and holding an enviable standing within the group. Offering opportunities to voice may be interpreted as a clear indication that the employee is considered as a valued member and his or her inputs are important. Shapiro and Brett (2005) maintained that giving the opportunity to voice enhances procedural justice through two important processes: the feeling of being listened to carefully and being sincerely respected, and the perception of having an influence on decision making. Findings regarding the effect of information sharing on PJ are relatively consistent. Paré and Tremblay (2007) discovered a positive correlation coefficient between these variables for a sample of Canadian employees, whereas Zhang and Agarwal (2009) observed a similar relation with a Chinese sample. However, neither of these studies specified the direction in which information is disseminated. Nevertheless, previous research suggests a positive link between BUIS and PJ.

Hypothesis 2: Bottom-up information sharing has a positive influence on the perception of procedural justice.

Mediating Role of PE Between TDIS and Perceived Organizational Support

POS is another exchange mechanism that is likely to come into play in the relationship between information sharing and citizenship performance. POS is defined as an individual’s belief that his organization values his contributions and is concerned about his well-being (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). To some extent, POS can serve as an indication of the company’s commitment to its employees (Eisenberger et al., 1986). POS is also interpreted as assurance that the company will do everything to help and support employees experiencing difficulties (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Employees with a strong sense of POS believe that their employer is committed to them, values their contributions, is concerned about their well-being, and will support them whenever they face problems in their personal and professional life (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Tremblay et al., 2010). According to Tremblay and Simard (2005), POS is increased through normal everyday actions, particularly when the company shows an interest in employees’ opinions, values, and problems. Therefore, HR practices that value employees’ contributions are likely to be perceived as constituting a sign of support from the organization (Allen, Shore, & Griffeth, 2003). Such HR practices show employees that the organization is committed to them and it wishes to build a long-term relationship with them. By engaging in sustained information-sharing practices (ISPs) and disseminating strategic and useful information (e.g., vision and values), the employer sends out a signal that it wishes to treat its employees as true associates, and that it is ready to provide them with the resources required to optimize their contributions (Allen, 1995; Zhang & Agarwal, 2009). Because top-down information-sharing practices are more likely to be viewed as discretionary, according to POS theory, this favorable treatment tends to be interpreted as a sincere intent to fulfill several important needs (e.g., resources and self-esteem; Allen, 1995; Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011). Seen from that perspective, a clear link between ISPs and POS emerges.

Regarding PE, most authors have prioritized the analysis of the relationship combining structural empowerment and POS, thus abandoning the psychological aspect, which is central to the concerns covered in this study. An employee who believes she has a relatively high degree of freedom of action and control in her work is more likely to believe that her organization values her contributions and, consequently, will support her (Niehoff, Moorman, Blakely, & Fuller, 2001). Furthermore, to feel that they have the power to act, employees must have autonomy in their work and thus perceive that they have control over their actions. Such support enhances their feeling of self-determination (Seibert, Wang, & Courtright, 2011). According to Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002), autonomy is an antecedent for POS, and, theoretically, a high degree of autonomy should likewise be associated with high POS (Eisenberger, Rhoades, & Cameron, 1999). This relation was tested by Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002), who, as part of their meta-analysis, found a strong positive correlation coefficient between these variables. Because the perception of autonomy is one of the four components of the concept of PE, it is therefore fully plausible that PE will be positively associated with POS.

Hypothesis 3: Psychological empowerment plays a mediating role between the perception of top-down information sharing and the perception of organizational support.

Mediating Role of PJ Between BUIS and POS

Like empowerment, PJ can also be associated with POS. This relationship is based on an argument advanced by Eisenberger et al. (1986), which stipulates that an organization that treats its employees favorably increases POS among the staff. Consistent use of fair procedures (considered as favorable treatment) has a positive effect on POS because it indicates the company’s willingness to consider the well-being of its members (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). If the employee perceives the system to be just, then he will feel that the organization values him and considers him important, which will in turn lead him to feel supported by the latter. The relationship between PPJ and POS has undergone frequent empirical investigation (e.g., Ambrose & Schminke, 2003; Baran, Schanock, & Miller, 2011; Loi, Hang-Yue, & Foley, 2006; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Stinglhamber, De Cremer, & Mercken, 2006; Tremblay et al., 2010). The positive relationship between these variables thus represents a second link in the relationship between information sharing and OCBs. Tremblay et al. (2010) examined the extent to which PJ plays a mediating role between BUIS and POS. They found that adding a direct link between BUIS and POS did not significantly improve the proposed model. The authors conclude that PJ seems to have a fully mediating effect between information sharing and POS. We can therefore propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: The perception of procedural justice plays a mediating role between the perception of bottom-up information sharing and the perception of organizational support.

Mediating Role of POS Between PE, PJ, and Citizenship Behaviors

We have shown that both PJ and PE are associated with POS (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Our model suggests that these two psychological states influence OCBs only indirectly, and that their effect is concretized through POS.

Direct Link Between Perception of PJ and OCB

There is compelling evidence to suggest that OCBs are influenced by PJ (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000). The perception of PJ is more strongly associated with the presence of OCBs than is the perception of distributive justice (Ball, Trevino, & Sims, 1994; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). Tepper, Lockhart, and Hobber (2001) have demonstrated that strong PJ is associated with a higher frequency of OCBs and a greater tendency to define these behaviors as in-role activities. According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), organizations are considered to be loci of mutual social and long-term transactions between employees and employers (Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). These social exchange relationships typically trigger unspecified future obligations (Konovsky, 2000). Moreover, social exchange relationships are strongly influenced by the level of mutual confidence that the parties involved will comply with their fairly long-term obligations. PJ is thus considered one of the main factors of trust (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994) and an important input in exchange relations with employees (Masterson et al., 2000). A social exchange relationship founded on fair procedures is therefore more likely to promote a contractual relationship that gives employees the freedom to adopt discretionary behaviors. These behaviors are adjustment variables that employees can use to counter organizational injustice (Organ, 1990). Consistent with our earlier argument that fair procedures enhance the feeling of being treated as a full member of the organization, this sentiment should predispose individuals to perform activities and assume roles that exceed their normal tasks (de Cremer & Knippenberg, 2002; Tepper & Taylor, 2003). Moreover, when employees perceive they are treated fairly, they are more likely to trust authority that extra-role performance will be noticed and rewarded (Folger & Konovsky, 1989).

Direct Link Between PE and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

The relation between PE and OCBs ranks among the least studied exchange mechanisms. Niehoff et al. (2001) found a positive link between PE and loyalty behaviors. Peccei and Rosenthal (2001), much like Chebat and Kollias (2000), observed a direct relationship between consumer prosocial behaviors and empowerment dimensions. Several theoretical justifications have been advanced to account for these links. First, as previously discussed, PE may be perceived as a signal that the organization trusts its employees and that it is adopting measures to support them. According to social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), employees should be more likely to adopt behaviors that are beneficial to the organization. Nonetheless, Bailey’s model (in Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000) states that PE may also be considered as a signal that the individual has the opportunity and/or power to perform discretionary actions. A third explanation concerns the reinforcement of the perception of personal efficiency. Research has shown that perceived personal efficiency (e.g., Bandura, 1977) is linked to a high degree of diversity in behaviors that some have associated with extra-role performance (Walumbwa, Cropanzano, & Goldman, 2011).

Direct Link Between POS and OCBs

POS has been associated with extra-role behaviors such as helping others and coming up with creative suggestions (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-Lamastro, 1990; Kaufman, Stamper, & Tesluk, 2001; Lynch, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 1999; Masterson et al., 2000; Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998; Shore & Wayne, 1993; Van Yperen, van den Berg, & Willering, 1999; Wayne et al., 1997; Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002). The meta-analysis by Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) has demonstrated a moderate association between POS and OCB toward the organization (r = .28). Social exchange theory is the predominant theoretical explanation for these links (Blau, 1964). Accordingly, POS can be perceived as some favors or discretionary actions from employers that awaken feelings of indebtedness in their recipients. When and how this debt is to be repaid are generally unspecified (Wayne et al., 1997). Nonetheless, employees are motivated to repay the employer’s favorable treatment and to exhibit behaviors commensurate with the support obtained (Wayne et al., 1997). When an individual or entity treats another party well, that person is obliged to reciprocate by treating the other party better. The relation between the sense of obligation to repay a debt and citizenship performance was studied by Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, and Rhoades (2001). Adopting extra-role behaviors is thus a form of reciprocity shown to the employer. Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) suggested two other explanations for the link between POS and OCBs. First, the respect, approval, and caring that underlie POS are likely to satisfy several socioeconomic needs (e.g., needs for esteem, consideration, and inclusion in the group). Second, POS should reinforce the belief that the organization recognizes and rewards employees’ efforts and performance. These processes should in turn motivate employees to exhibit extra-role behaviors (Wayne et al., 1997). Coupled with the predicted relationships between PJ, PE, and POS, and between POS and OCB, the present study suggests that POS could serve as a mediator of justice and empowerment-OCB relationships. However, such mediation should only be partial given that POS alone is incapable of fully explaining such complex paths. We therefore propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 5: POS plays a mediating role between PJ and OCBs.

Hypothesis 6: POS plays a mediating role between PE and OCBs.

Methodology

Participants

To test our research hypotheses, we used a sample of respondents from two major Canadian organizations. The sample is made up of 568 respondents: 274 from an organization operating in the financial sector and 294 from an organization in the health care sector. Out of a total of 1696 questionnaires sent out, 908 were returned to the researchers, representing a 53.3% response rate (financial organization: 69%; health care organization: 47%). Out of 908 participants, we retained only those whose immediate superiors had agreed to assess their citizenship performance. We thus formed 568 respondent dyads. The sample retained for the study primarily consisted of women (86%), and the average age of respondents was 42. The employees had been in their organizations for an average of 11.6 years.

Procedure

To verify our research hypotheses, we used data collected as part of two surveys conducted. In the case of the financial sector organization, the sample was selected from a list of branch managers who had previously shown interest in questions about staff’s extra-role performance. Of all the managers contacted, eight responded, thus allowing researchers the possibility of reaching a pool of about 500 employees. 477 questionnaires were sent out by post to staff working in the eight branches retained. This was a voluntary, confidential, and anonymous exercise. In the case of the health care sector organization, the questionnaires were distributed at the work sites of the institution’s employees by internal mail. The respondents had 2 months to answer and had to return the completed questionnaires in a locked box. Employees who completed and returned the questionnaires were entitled to two tickets for free meals in the cafeteria. A pretest of the questionnaire was also given to about 30 people selected at random. It allowed an assessment of the employees’ understanding of the questions and indicated how much time would be needed to complete the questionnaire.

Both data collection exercises were conducted through a questionnaire administered to selected employees and their immediate superiors. All perceptions respecting practices and attitude variables were measured by the employees. Organizational citizenship behaviors were assessed by the immediate superiors. Furthermore, the fact that we had this variable measured through the immediate superior, unlike other variables measured by the employee, allowed us to avoid common variance problems and to limit social desirability bias.

Measurement Instruments

For all indicators, respondents had to state their degree of agreement on a scale ranging from (1) completely disagree to (7) completely agree.

Perception of information-sharing practices: Employees’ perceptions respecting information-sharing practices were measured using seven statements derived from the works of Lawler et al. (1995). Four statements were retained to measure top-down information sharing. For example, respondents had to indicate the degree to which they agreed with the statement “Employees are regularly provided with information respecting new products, programs, and/or services offered.” Bottom-up information sharing was measured through three distinct statements. These included the item “Employees’ opinions are sought on a regular basis.”

Perception of procedural justice: The perception of procedural justice was measured through five indicators drawn from the works of Niehoff and Moorman (1993). For example, respondents had to indicate the degree to which they agreed with statements such as “Upper management decisions are implemented evenly among all employees” amd “Upper management decisions are taken in an impartial fashion.”

Psychological empowerment: As part of this study, the concept of psychological empowerment was assessed through three items derived from work by Spreitzer (1995). Respondents were invited to indicate their degree of agreement with statements such as “I have the authority to do my work efficiently” and “I have enough power to perform tasks efficiently.”

Perception of organizational support: Perceived organizational support was measured through four indicators borrowed from Eisenberger et al. (1986) (e.g., “Management cares about my well-being” and “Upper management would help me if I had a specific request”).

Organizational citizenship behaviors: The instruments used to measure organizational citizenship behaviors were derived from Williams and Anderson (1991) and Podsakoff, Ahearne, and Mackenzie (1997), and they include six items. An exploratory factor analysis performed on these items identified two distinct factors. The first dimension, named extra-role performance, includes three indicators related to customer dedication, cooperation with others, and innovation. The second dimension, which we have named ethical performance, was measured through three indicators related to conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and loyalty. Likert-type scales range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Control variables: We controlled for several variables, including age, gender, and tenure. Our analysis shows that none of these personal-demographic variables was significantly related directly or indirectly to OCB measures. Because we did not find significant relationships between these control variables and any dependent variables in our study, we decided to exclude them from the structural model tests.

Statistical Analyses

The analytical approach used is the two-step modeling recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1998). Basically, by using a series of niche models and chi-square difference tests, this method prioritizes the factor pattern assessment before embarking on a structural analysis of a model specified a priori from theoretical bases. Thus, to determine how to adjust the measurement model to suit the data collected, we carried out a confirmatory factor analysis by specifying a measurement model and comparing it with alternative measurement models. Next, we used structural equations to test the research hypotheses, using the AMOS 7.0 software application. We also tested for the significance of the mediated effects using Sobel’s (1982) test. The chi-square difference tests allowed a comparison of our theoretical model with several alternative models found in the literature. In our analyses, we used the maximum likelihood estimation method. Several indices were used in assessing the degree of fit of the proposed measurement and structure models, that is, the chi-square (χ²), the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and the root mean square of approximation (RMSEA). We thus cover the primary absolute and parsimony indices required to assess our models (Byrne, 2001). The absolute indices selected—namely, χ², GFI, and RMSEA—allow us to measure the match between the proposed theoretical models and the data collected. Ideally, the χ² value should be significant at the p < .05 threshold, the RMSEA should be less than .08, and the GFI greater than .90 (Roussel & Wacheux, 2005). The incremental indices selected—namely, the CFI and TLI—allow assessment of the difference in fit between the theoretical models and an independent model wherein the variables are not correlated. Both of these indices should be as close as possible to 1 and ideally be greater than .90.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses

To demonstrate the construct of our measurement scales, we carried out a confirmatory factor analysis of our 7-factor model in addition to testing several alternative measurement models. We also tested a 6-factor model in which we included both top-down and bottom-up information sharing. Next, we tested a 5-factor model composed of three attitude-mediating variables, namely, PE, PJ, and POS. We also tested a 6-factor model with two OCB variables combined to form a single factor. Finally, to test the discriminating validity of our measurement scales, we examined a model in which all models are combined to form a single factor, which allowed us to identify common variance problems. As can be seen in Table 1, our 7-factor theoretical measurement model comprises highly acceptable indices (χ² = 761.47, df = 188, GFI = .891, CFI = .931, TLI = .915, and RMSEA = .073) in addition to being significantly superior to the other models evaluated. After evaluating the acceptability of the measurement model, we examined plausible alternative models to answer two specific questions related to the proposed model depicted in Figure 1: (a) Do empowerment and procedural justice have full or partial mediating effects on information-sharing practices and POS? (b) Does POS have a full or partial mediating influence on POS-OCBs? Table 2 presents averages, standard deviations, internal consistency coefficients (alphas), and correlations among the latent variables studied.

Table 1.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results.

Models	χ²	∆ χ²	df	GFI	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
1. Seven-factor theoretical measurement model	761.46	—	188	.89	.93	.92	.07
2. Six-factor model (one information-sharing factor)	1155.89	394.43**	194	.83	.88	.86	.09
3. Five-factor model (one attitude factor)	2114.39	1352.92**	203	.72	.77	.74	.13
4. Six-factor model (one OCB factor)	1067.74	306.27**	194	.83	.89	.87-	.09
5. One-factor model	3205.77	2444.31**	209	.62	.64	.60	.16

Note. χ² = chi-square; ∆ χ ² = delta chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; GFI = Goodness-of-Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA = root mean square of approximation; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior.

p < .05; **p < .01.

Table 2.

Averages, Standard Deviations, Alphas, and Correlations Between Latent Variables.

Latent factors	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Top-down sharing	4.29	1.63	(.92)	—	—	—	—	—	—
2. Bottom-up sharing	3.64	1.56	.780**	(.93)	—	—	—	—	—
3. Procedural justice	3.72	1.50	.590**	.720**	(.84)	—	—	—	—
4. Empowerment	5.71	1.13	.271**	.293**	.322**	(.87)	—	—	—
5. Organizational support	4.35	1.51	.482**	.625**	.637**	.353**	(.88)	—	—
6. Extra-role OCB	5.26	1.05	.013	.062	.045	.073	.070	(.69)	—
7. Ethical OCB	4.44	1.38	.514**	.482**	.323**	.213**	.355**	.153**	(.66)

Note. Alphas are presented diagonally, in brackets. N = 568 respondents. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior.

**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.

Test of Hypotheses

The fit indices obtained for the theoretical model are satisfactory (GFI = .871; CFI = .913; TLI = .900; RMSEA = .079). Figure 1 presents standard coefficients (β) obtained for the theoretical structure model. Furthermore, as Table 3 shows, all the links tested within the theoretical model proved to be significant. In accordance with hypotheses 1 and 2, we found a significant positive relationship between TDIS and PE (β = .29, p < .01) and between BUIS and PJ (β = .84, p < .01). In addition, the results indicate that empowerment (β = .15, p < .01) and PJ (β = .73, p < .01) are positively related to organizational support. Hypothesis 3 proposed that PE mediates the relationship between top-down information and organizational support. Sobel’s (1982) test of indirect effect indicates that mediation is significant (Z = 4.71, p < .01). Hypothesis 4 proposed that procedural justice mediates the relationship between bottom-up information and organizational support. Sobel’s test of indirect effects indicates that the mediation effect is significant (Z = 8.1, p < .01). Hypothesis 5 posited that POS mediates the relationship between PJ and extra-role and ethical OCBs. The results indicate that POS is positively related to extra-role (β = .10, p < .01) and ethical OCBs (β = .21, p < .01). Sobel’s test of indirect effect indicates that mediation is significant only for the extra-role performance path (Z = 1.98, p < .05). Hypothesis 6 stated that POS mediates the relationship between empowerment and OCBs. Sobel’s test of indirect effect indicates that mediation is significant for extra-role (Z = 2.16, p < .05) and ethical OCBs (Z = 4.74, p < .01).

Table 3.

Structure Models.

Models	χ²	∆ χ²	df	GFI	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
Model 1: Theoretical	922.522	—	202	.871	.913	.900	.079
Alternative model 2: Direct link for top-down info and POS	919.765	2.757	201	.871	.913	.900	.079
Alternative model 3: Direct link for bottom-up info and POS	903.989	18.533**	201	.873	.915	.902	.079
Alternative model 4: Direct links for empowerment and justice to ethical OCBs	900.962	21.56**	200	.872	.915	.902	.079
Model 5: Final model	889.247	33.275**	199	.874	.916	.903	.078

Note. χ ² = chi-square; ∆ χ ² = delta chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; GFI = Goodness-of-Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA = root mean square of approximation; OCBs = organizational citizenship behaviors.

p < .05; **p < .01.

Alternative Models

We tested alternative models to improve the model proposed. Alternative model 2 is based on the argument that communication from influential managers may be interpreted as discretionary favorable treatment (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011). We thus posit a direct relation between TDIS and POS. This alternative path was not significantly superior to the theoretical model. Mediation hypothesis H3 is therefore validated. Consistent with previous studies that found that discretionary HR investments that enhance employees’ initiatives and involvement are more likely to increase POS (e.g., Gavino, Wayne, & Erdogan, 2012), our results show that alternative partial mediation model 3, which specifies a direct relation between BUIS and POS, is significantly superior to the theoretical model (∆ χ² = 18.533, ∆ df = 1, p < .01). Mediation hypothesis H4 is therefore partially validated. Alternative model 4, which proposes a direct relation between empowerment, procedural justice, and ethical OCBs, also proved to be significantly superior to the theoretical model (∆ χ² = 21.56, ∆ df = 3, p < .01). Consequently, mediation hypotheses H5 and H6 are partially validated. Compared with the theoretical model, these models produce better results for all the indices evaluated. We tested an additional model (5), in which we included the direct relations proposed in models 3 and 4. As Table 3 illustrates, model 5 is significantly superior to the theoretical model (∆ χ² = 33.275, ∆ df = 3, p < .01). It also produces better results for all indices evaluated compared with the other models tested. Consequently, model 5 was retained as the final model. Figure 2 presents the standard coefficients of the final model retained.

Figure 2.

Final model.

Discussion

The primary aim of this study was to propose and test a theoretical model containing four psychological conditions forming an explanatory chain between information-sharing practices and organizational citizenship behaviors. The results support the superiority of the model by taking into consideration two distinct latent factors for the organizational information-sharing construct. The structure model test confirmed our first hypothesis concerning the positive influence of TDIS practices on PE. Concretely, the more respondents perceive management as sharing important information with them (e.g., major projects; new products, programs, and/or services; and financial performance), the greater their desire to act at work. This result is consistent with past studies (Bordin et al., 2007; Spreitzer, 1996) and is particularly interesting to the extent that it supports the theoretical arguments stating the importance of sharing strategic information with employees to increase their sense of empowerment. If individuals do not have a good idea about the challenges facing the organization, they will be more likely to either not know or not understand the direction adopted by the company, and have a limited or unclear vision of their personal contribution to the organization (Gibson et al., 2007; Lawler et al., 1992). Fully in line with this argument, our respondents consider themselves to have greater authority to act when they believe they have the information required to contribute actively and personally to realizing the organization’s objectives. Even though past studies established a relation between information sharing and PJ (Paré & Tremblay, 2007; Zhang & Agarwal, 2009), our research demonstrates that this perception of PJ is very sensitive to the BUIS dimension. The more respondents believe that management is offering them concrete means to express themselves, the greater the sense of PJ they perceive in their work environment. Thus, although information-sharing practices (opinion surveys, focus groups, etc.) aim to encourage individuals to express their ideas, opinions, and suggestions, they also allow them to strengthen the perception of procedural justice. This backs the arguments by Thibault and Walker (1975) and Folger (1977) that organizational procedures are more likely to be perceived as fair if they allow employees to express their thoughts and opinions. In line with the group-value model perspective (Bies & Shapiro, 1988), giving employees the means and power to express their opinions and ideas reinforces messages of inclusion and that the employer is treating them as worthy people.

In line with our first mediation hypothesis (H3), the model that links TDIS to POS did not prove to be superior to the theoretical model. PE thus appears to have a fully mediating effect between TDIH and POS. Few previous studies had analyzed the influence of PE on POS. However, the perception of autonomy has received more attention (see Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Our results suggest that the perception of having greater authority to act at work fosters a greater level of support. The fact that PE has a fully mediating effect leads us to believe that information sharing is perceived as a resource that fosters support, provided such actions result in a greater ability to act.

Hypothesis H4, which evaluated the mediating effect of PJ between BUIS and POS, could only be partially validated. We found a direct significant relation between BUIS and POS in this study, and this model proved to be superior to the theoretical model. This result suggests that the expression of ideas and opinions is perceived as a clear signal that the organization is striving to meet its employees’ needs (e.g., self-esteem). Alternatively, intermediate mechanisms other than PJ and PE, which are likely to influence POS, may not have been taken into consideration in this study. For example, trust in the organization or in authorities may represent an important variable explaining how information sharing influences POS. It would be interesting to have future studies verify this possibility.

Hypothesis H5, which proposed that POS should have a mediating effect between PJ and OCBs, is partially confirmed by our results. This result implies that PJ strengthens OCB performance (ethical dimension) both directly and indirectly. First, PJ appears to foster OCBs by reinforcing POS. This result is consistent with research by Stinglhamber et al. (2006) and Tremblay et al. (2010) on the partial mediating effect of POS between justice and extra-role performance. The use of fair procedures may be seen as a sign that the organization is taking steps to support its employees. To return the favor, employees who feel they have been treated fairly would have a greater tendency to reciprocate through higher extra-role performance. Whenever the organization uses procedures that are considered equitable, the moral need to repay is more strongly felt and is translated into more OCBs. However, the most parsimonious model is the one that directly links PJ to ethical extra-role behaviors, represented primarily through conscientiousness and sportsmanship. These elements capture the individual’s desire to observe the rules and accept constraints. The literature puts forth three prominent motivations to account for the effect of PJ on extra-role performance: (a) instrumental motivation (self-interest), (b) relational motivation (status, or standing in the group), and (c) moral motivation (moral principles) (Cropanzano, Rupp, Mohler, & Schminke, 2001). If individuals believe that the organization or its representatives are committing violations (e.g., non-observance of psychological contract rules), then the individuals may consider that they too are not required to observe certain moral principles, and may deem it acceptable to overlook certain explicit or implicit rules (e.g., being absent at a higher than normal rate, stealing the employer’s time, and constantly criticizing work methods). It may be interesting in the future to focus research efforts on examining the impact of various motivations associated with justice, particularly on in- and extra-role performance.

Lastly, hypothesis H6, which covers the mediating role of POS between PE and OCBs, has been partially confirmed. This result would suggest that PE affects ethical OCBs directly as well as through POS. First, PE reinforces POS, which in turn reinforces OCBs. Our results back the social exchange and opportunities arguments. Supporting social exchange, actions aimed at fostering PE are likely to improve citizenship behaviors if such actions can signal that they were implemented to provide employees with support and help (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011). However, if employees perceive increased control and a greater workload, empowerment will have little effect on POS (Chênevert & Tremblay, 2009). Incidentally, POS is not the only path through which PE influences OCBs. The direct link between PE and OCBs, recently confirmed by the meta-analysis performed by Seibert et al. (2011), can be explained by the facts that (a) empowerment may indeed lead the employee to believe that the organizational structures in place offer her opportunities and the authority to take discretionary actions (Robbins, Crino, & Fredendall, 2002); (b) it may foster a higher sense of employee identification and involvement in the overall workplace (Seibert et al., 2011); and (c) the influence of PE is indirect and is realized through other social exchange mechanisms, such as trust (Laschinger, Finegan, & Shamian, 2001; Robbins et al., 2002).

Theoretical and Practical Implications

To our knowledge, our study is one of only a few to have investigated the effect of information-sharing practices on extra-role performance, while deliberately distinguishing TDIS and BUIS, and showing the importance of examining the two modes as separate entities. Our results show TDIS to be very useful for reinforcing PE and BUIS to be very useful for increasing the perception of PJ. From a theoretical standpoint, our research sheds an interesting light by reaffirming the existence of intermediate mechanisms between information sharing and OCBs. Furthermore, our results lead us to conclude that, singly, information-sharing methods have no effect on extra-role performance. Rather, their influence is conditional on such actions being perceived as signs of relational commitment by the employer or its representatives. Third, POS cannot be considered enough of an exchange condition to prompt strong citizenship behaviors. JP and PE are thus exchange mechanisms that are just as beneficial as POS. Furthermore, our research does not allow us to confirm the existence of a social exchange hierarchy, or that there is only one principal path to extra-role performance. Rather, it seems that individuals need to accumulate significant amounts of “social debts” to be motivated to adopt reciprocity behaviors, at least regarding their citizenship performance.

From a practical standpoint, although information sharing may never have been combined with another innovative HR practice, communication efforts may indirectly contribute to improved extra-role performance. Furthermore, the close link between bottom-up information sharing and PJ shows decision makers how important it is to allow employees the chance to express themselves. Organizations wishing to foster a strong sense of fairness in procedures must make serious investments in information-sharing efforts and resources. Incidentally, in light of our results, the dissemination of strategic information (vision and values) and operational information (e.g., objectives and competitors’ performance) represents effective means of action for developing a strong sense of empowerment in the workplace. However, managers must be aware that these two information-sharing practices, although both beneficial, do not have the same effect on citizenship behaviors. The present study suggests that practitioners can encourage this type of performance using various formal and informal means of soliciting employees’ opinions and ideas. Finally, our results suggest that organizations should provide managers with resources and support (budget, time, and training) to allow them to optimize the impact of their communication initiatives on their followers.

Limitations and Future Research

Our study, nonetheless, has certain limitations. Because our sample is composed of employees working in two organizations, we cannot consider extrapolating our results to a larger scale. Second, although our structural equation analyses point to the influence that certain psychological variables have on POS and OCBs, it would indeed be a stretch to talk of a causality relationship. Indeed, since the methodology prioritized was not longitudinal, we cannot firmly conclude that a given variable predicts another, and not the other way around. It would be reckless to claim with absolute certainty that the sense of empowerment strengthens POS, that information practices and POS are the causes of extra-role performance, or that the opposite is false. Third, risks associated with a common variance error may have influenced the relations in our model. Considering that attitude variables were measured simultaneously and only in a single source (employee), there is a significantly high probability for a common variance error to occur. However, given that we wanted to study employees’ perceptions, we could not avoid this error by questioning their colleagues or their superiors. We thus minimized the common variance error by collecting performance data from immediate superiors. Our results pave the way for future research. First, we believe that it would be interesting to have our theoretical model undergo an empirical evaluation, but in a different context. We could then reexamine our research hypotheses to determine their robustness to new circumstances. This exercise should allow us to validate or cancel this study’s results while evaluating their true generalization potential. Second, we believe that it would be interesting to study the causality of the relationships in the final model using a longitudinal design. As mentioned, the methodology used in this research does not allow us to conclude that a particular variable causes another. Thus, using a longitudinal design could considerably improve our level of knowledge and provide formal backing for the direction of such relationships. To minimize the risks associated with common variance errors, we also believe that it would be important to involve the immediate superior in the process, for example by asking him or her to evaluate the level of dissemination of information-sharing practices. Fourth, it would be interesting to consider other psychological mechanisms likely to come into play. In addition to trust, which we identified earlier, the roles of organizational commitment, recognition, and interpersonal justice could be investigated. It would also be worth studying other relationships, combining information sharing in the workplace with various behaviors such as absenteeism and the turnover rate. Finally, this study suggests that the more individuals receive information or are solicited to provide it, the more positive their reactions will be. Several scholars have challenged this assumption and suggested that information overload could adversely affect performance (e.g., Clampitt, 2010; O’Reilly, 1980). For example, sharing information might have a positive influence on perceived organizational support only when information overload is low, and it could have a negative influence when overload is high. It would be worth exploring this possibility in future research.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Michel Tremblay has received a research grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Author Biographies

Michel Tremblay is a full professor in human resource management at HEC Business School Monntréal and holder of Omer DeSerres Retailing Chair. His research fccuses on organizational citizenship issues and influence of human resource behaviors on customer expriences. He has published articles in Journal of Organizational Behavior, Group and Organization Management, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Human Relations, Journal of Business Psychology.

Pascale-Edith Landreville is a MSc graduate student in human resource management at HEC Business School, Montreal.

References

Allen

D. G.

Shore

L. M.

Griffeth

R. W.

(2003). The role of perceived organizational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of Management, 29, 99–118.

Allen

(1995). Communication concepts related to perceived organizational support. Western Journal of Communication, 59(4), 326–339.

Ambrose

M. L.

Schminke

(2003). Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 295–305.

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.

Appelbaum

E. E.

Bailey

Berg

Kalleberg

(2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay off. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Ball

G. A.

Trevino

L. K.

Sims

H. P.

(1994). Just and unjust punishment: Influences on subordinate performance and citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 299–322.

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.

Baran

Schanock

Miller

(2011). Advancing organizational support theory into the twenty-first century world of work. Journal of Business Psychology, 27, 123–3147.

Bhal

Ansari

(2007). Leader-member exchange-subordinate outcomes relationship: Role of voice and justice. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(1), 20–35.

10.

Bies

R. J.

Shapiro

D. L.

(1988). Voice and justification: Their influence on procedural fairness judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 676–685.

11.

Blau

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

12.

Bordin

Bartram

Casimir

(2007). The antecedents and consequences of psychological empowerment among Singaporean IT employees. Management Research News, 30, 34–46.

13.

Bovee

C. L.

Thill

J. V.

(2005). Business communication today (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

14.

Boxall

Macky

(2009). Research and theory on high-performance work systems: Progressing the high-involvement stream, Human Resource Management Journal, 19, 3–23.

15.

Byrne

B. M.

(2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

16.

Chebat

J-C.

Kollias

(2000). Impact of empowerment on customer contact employees’ roles in service organizations. Journal of Service Research, 3, 66–81.

17.

Chen

Ayree

Lee

(2005). Test of a mediation model of perceived organizational support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 457–470.

18.

Chênevert

Tremblay

(2009). Fits in strategic human resource management and methodological challenge: Empirical evidence of influence of empowerment and compensation practices on human resource performance in Canadian firms, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 738–770.

19.

Clampitt

(2010). Communicating for managerial effectiveness (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Clampitt

P. G.

Downs

C. W.

(1993). Employee perceptions of the relationship between communication and productivity: A field study. Journal of Business Communication, 30, 5–28.

21.

Cohen-Charash

Spector

P. E.

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

22.

Colquitt

J. A.

Conlon

D. E.

Wesson

M. J.

Porter

K. Y.

(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.

23.

Cropanzano

Rupp

Mohler

Schminke

(2001). Three roads to organizational justice. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 19, 34–48.

24.

De Cremer

Knippenberg

D. L.

(2002). How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 858–866.

25.

Dillon

Flood

(1992). Organisational commitment: Do human resource practices make a difference? Irish Business and Administrative Research, 13, 49–61.

26.

Dundon

Wilkinson

Marchington

Ackers

(2004). The meaning and purpose of employee voice. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(6), 1149–1170.

27.

Eisenberger

Armeli

Rexwinkel

Lynch

P. D.

Rhoades

(2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42–51.

28.

Eisenberger

Fasolo

Davis-Lamastro

(1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51–59.

29.

Eisenberger

Huntington

Hutchison

Sowa

(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.

30.

Eisenberger

Rhoades

Cameron

(1999). Does pay for performance increase or decrease perceived self-determination and intrinsic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1026–1040.

31.

Eisenberger

Stinglhamber

(2011). Perceived organizational support: Fostering enthusiastic and productivity employees. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

32.

Folger

(1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of voice and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108–119.

33.

Folger

Konovsky

M. A.

(1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay rise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115–130.

34.

Gavino

Wayne

Erdogan

(2012). Discretionary and transactional human resource practices and employee outcomes: The role of perceived organizational support. Human Resource Management, 51(5), 665–686.

35.

Gibson

C. B.

Porath

C. L.

Benson

G. S.

Lawler

E. E.

(2007). What results when firms implement practices: The differential relationship between specific practices, firm financial performance, customer service and quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1467–1480.

36.

Kandlousi

Ali

Abdollahi

(2010). Organizational citizenship behavior in concern of communication satisfaction: The role of the formal and informal communication. International Journal of Business Management, 5(10), 51–61.

37.

Kaufman

J. D.

Stamper

C. L.

Tesluk

P. E.

(2001). Do supportive organizations make for good corporate citizens? Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 436–449.

38.

Konovsky

M. A.

(2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 489–511.

39.

Konovsky

M. A.

Pugh

S. D.

(1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656–669.

40.

Laschinger

H. K.

Finegan

Shamian

(2001). The impact of workplace empowerment and organizational trust on staff nurses’ work satisfaction and organizational commitment. Health Care Management Review, 26, 7–23.

41.

Lawler

E. E.

III (1986). High-involvement management: Participative strategies for improving organizational performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

42.

Lawler

E. E.

III Mohrman

S. A.

Ledford

G. E.

(1992). Employee involvement and total quality management: Practices and results in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

43.

Lawler

E. E.

III Mohrman

S. A.

Ledford

G. E.

(1995). Creating high performance organizations: Practices and results in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

44.

Lind

Tyler

(1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum.

45.

Loi

Hang-Yue

Foley

(2006). Linking employees’ justice perceptions to commitment and intention to leave: The mediating role of perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 101–120.

46.

Lynch

P. D.

Eisenberger

Armeli

(1999). Perceived organizational support: Inferior-versus-superior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 467–483.

47.

Marchington

(2005). Employee involvement: Patterns and explanations. In Harley

Hyman

Thompson

(Eds.), Participation and democracy at work: Essays in honour of Harvie Ramsy. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

48.

Masterson

S. S.

Lewis

Goldman

B. M.

Taylor

M. S.

(2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738–748.

49.

Matthews

R. A.

Diaz

W. M.

Cole

S. G.

(2003). The organizational empowerment scale. Personnel Review, 32, 297–318.

50.

Mohr

R. D.

Zoghi

(2008). High-involvement work design and job satisfaction. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 61, 275–296.

51.

Moorman

R. H.

Blakely

G. L.

Niehoff

B. P.

(1998). Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41, 351–357.

52.

Butts

Vandenberg

R. J.

Dejoy

D. M.

Wilson

M. G.

(2006). Effects of management communication, opportunity for learning, and work flexibility on organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 474–489.

53.

Niehoff

B. P.

Moorman

R. H.

(1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527–556.

54.

Niehoff

B. P.

Moorman

R. H.

Blakely

Fuller

(2001). The influence of empowerment and job enrichment on employee loyalty in a downsizing environment. Group & Organization Management, 26, 192–213.

55.

O’Reilly

C. A.

(1980). Individual and organizational overload in organizations: Is more necessary better? Academy of Management Journal, 23(4), 684–696.

56.

Organ

D. W.

(1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43–72.

57.

Paré

Tremblay

(2007). The influence of high-involvement human resource practices, procedural justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors on information technology professionals’ turnover intentions. Group & Organization Management, 32, 326–357.

58.

Peccei

Bewley

Gospel

William

(2005). Is it good to talk? Information disclosure and organizational performance in the UK. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 43(1), 11–39.

59.

Peccei

Rosenthal

(2001). Delivering customer-oriented behavior through empowerment: An empirical test of HRM assumptions. Journal of Management Studies, 38, 831–857.

60.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Ahearne

Mackenzie

S. B.

(1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262–270.

61.

Randolph

W. A.

(1995). Navigating the journey to empowerment, Organizational Dynamics, 23, 19–32.

62.

Rhoades

Eisenberger

(2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714.

63.

Robbins

T. L.

Crino

M. D.

Fredendall

L. D.

(2002). An integrative model of the empowerment process. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 419–443.

64.

Rodwell

J. J.

Kienzle

Shadur

M. A.

(1998). The relationship among work-related perceptions, employee attitudes and employee performance: The integral role of communication. Human Resource Management, 37, 277–293.

65.

Roussel

Wacheux

(2005). Management des ressources humaines. Méthodes de recherche en sciences humaines et sociales. Brussels: De Boeck.

66.

Seibert

Wang

Courtright

(2011). Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 981–1003.

67.

Shapiro

Brett

(2005). What is the role of control in organizational justice? In Greenberg

Colquitt

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 155–178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

68.

Shore

Wayne

(1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 774–780.

69.

Sobel

(1982). Asymptotic confidence interval for indirect effects in structural equation models. In Leinhardt

(Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

70.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465.

71.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483–504.

72.

Stinglhamber

De Cremer

F. D.

Mercken

(2006). Perceived support as a mediator between justice and trust. Group and Organization Management, 31, 442–468.

73.

Tepper

B. J.

Lockhart

Hoobler

(2001). Justice, citizenship, and role definition effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 789–796.

74.

Tepper

B. J.

Taylor

E. C.

(2003). Relationships among supervisors’ and subordinates’ procedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 97–105.

75.

Thibault

Walker

(1975). Procedural justice: A psychological perspective. Hillsdale: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

76.

Tremblay

Cloutier

Simard

Chênevert

Vandenberghe

(2010). The role of HR practices, procedural justice, organizational support and trust in organizational commitment and in-role and extra-role performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(3), 405–433.

77.

Tremblay

Simard

(2005). La mobilisation du personnel: l’art d’établir un climat d’échanges favorable basé sur la réciprocité. Gestion, 30, 60–68.

78.

Van Yperen

N. W.

van den Berg

A. E.

Willering

M. C.

(1999). Towards a better understanding of the link between participation in decision-making and organizational citizenship behaviour: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 72, 377–392.

79.

Varona

(1996). Relationship between communication satisfaction and organizational commitment in three Guatemalan organizations. Journal of Business Communication, 33, 111–141.

80.

Walumbwa

Cropanzano

Goldman

(2011). How leader-member exchange influences effective work behaviors: Social exchange and internal-external perspectives. Personnel Psychology, 64, 739–770.

81.

Wayne

S. J.

Shore

L. M.

Bommer

W. H.

Tetrick

L. E.

(2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 590–598.

82.

Wayne

S. J.

Shore

L. M.

Liden

R. C.

(1997). Perceived organizational support and leaders-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111.

83.

Williams

L. J.

Anderson

S. E.

(1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors, Journal of Management, 17, 601–617.

84.

Young

B. S.

Worchell

(1998). Organizational commitment among public service employees. Public Personnel Management, 27, 339–348.

85.

Zhang

Agarwal

N. C.

(2009). The mediating roles of organizational justice on the relationships between HR practices and workplace outcomes: An investigation in China. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 676–693.