Organizational Anomie

7/31/2019 Organizational Anomie

1/25

ersonnel Reviewmerald Article: Organizational anomie as moderator of the relationshipetween an unfavorable attitudinal environment and citizenship behaviorOCB): An empirical study among university administration and servicesersonnel

ablo Zoghbi Manrique de Lara, Toms F. Espino Rodrguez

rticle information: cite this document: Pablo Zoghbi Manrique de Lara, Toms F. Espino Rodrguez, (2007),"Organizational anomie as moderator of

e relationship between an unfavorable attitudinal environment and citizenship behavior (OCB): An empirical study among

iversity administration and services personnel", Personnel Review, Vol. 36 Iss: 6 pp. 843 - 866

rmanent link to this document:

p://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480710822391

ownloaded on: 10-05-2012

ferences: This document contains references to 96 other documents

copy this document: [email protected]

his document has been downloaded 2524 times.

ccess to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITI SULTAN ZAINAL ABIDIN

r Authors:

you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.

formation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help

r authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

bout Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

ith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in

siness, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as


2/25

Organizational anomie asmoderator of the relationship

between an unfavorableattitudinal environment andcitizenship behavior (OCB)An empirical study among university

administration and services personnel

Pablo Zoghbi Manrique de Lara and Tomas F. Espino Rodrguez

University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between an unfavorableattitudinal environment and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). The proposed model suggeststhat organizational anomie (OA) acts as a moderator of that link, and thus OA interacts withunfavorable attitudes and OCB by tightening their theoretical negative association.

Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from 154 of the 758 non-teaching staff at aSpanish public university. Accessibility of individual e-mail accounts was similar for all employees.E-mails asking for collaboration were sent in two phases. A questionnaire was posted on theuniversity intranet and could be accessed by clicking on a link in the e-mails.

Findings Multiple hierarchical regression results support the moderating role of OA of the

unfavorable attitude-OCB link because the unfavorable attitudes toward co-workers and toward theboss as-a-person among employees with low, compared with high OA, have a stronger negativerelationship with OCB. OA moderation existed, but to varying degrees, between attitude toward onesjob and some dimensions of OCB (OCBI, and OCBI client). OA also intensified the unpredicted positiverelationship between attitude toward bosss performance and OCB. No moderating influences wereobserved in the case of attitudes toward oneself and toward clients (students).

Research limitations/implications The researched employees have job conditions inherent tothe peculiarities of the public sector which may limit the ability to extrapolate the findings in theprivate sector. Findings provide a more understandable mechanism of the influence of attitudes onOCB. The research may aid OA acceptance into organizations, providing an explicit justification forthe OA distinctiveness with other variables in the existing OB literature.

Practical implications The findings contribute to a better understanding of the attitudes-OCBlink, and the ways to favor OCB through OA.

Originality/value The use of OA as a moderator on this link is unprecedented.Keywords Employee attitudes, Leadership, Public sector organizations, Spain

Paper type Research paper

In the last decade, non-task behaviors, or those not recognized in the job related tasks,both in the positive pole, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and the negative one,deviant workplace behaviors (DWB), have increasingly become the object of analysisand explanation in the literature on organizational behavior (OB), and of promotion

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

Organizationalanomie

843

Received May 2005Revised July 2005

Accepted March 2006

Personnel ReviewVol. 36 No. 6, 2007

pp. 843-866q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0048-3486DOI 10.1108/00483480710822391


3/25

and/or control from the human resources management (HRM) perspective (Griffin et al.,1998). That interest is probably due to the also increasing evidence of its influence onoverall job performance, or its use as an indicator of a quality and efficient performance(Blancero et al., 1995; Morrison, 1996; Bell and Menguc, 2002; Kim et al., 2004).

The influence on OCB exerted by the employees evaluative perceptions, orattitudes, to determined elements of their organizational environment is a widelyresearched topic in the literature. Their perceptive-evaluative views of theirorganization, especially in terms of how fair they perceive its treatment, are shownas a very influential factor widely supported in the literature (Farth et al., 1990;Moorman, 1991; Niehoff and Moorman, 1993; Moorman et al., 1993; Konovsky andPugh, 1994). The same can be said about attitudes toward the leadership (Zellars et al.,2002; Tepper and Taylor, 2003); toward work groups and co-workers (Griffin et al.,1998; Robinson and OLeary-Kelly, 1998; Bommer et al., 2003); and toward ones self(Kaplan, 1976). The influence of other attitudes toward other elements of the workcontext has also been studied as part of more general attitudinal models, although theyhave received somewhat less attention (e.g. Diefendorffet al., 2002).

Hodson (1999, p. 299) states that anomic organizations are those that fail to meet aminimum set of common workplace norms. Bass (1990, p. 915) mentions theusefulness of anomie when he defines it as . . . the reduced social control againstdeviant behavior that is due to a disregard of norms and standards [and organizationalvalues]. However, anomie remained largely outside empirical research in sociologyuntil Leo Srole (1956) reformulated it into the individual-level construct of anomie (oranomia as he called it). Sroles (1956, p. 711) anomie generally refers to: theindividuals generalized pervasive sense of self-to-others belongingness at one extreme[eunomia] compared with self-to-others distance and self-to-others alienation at theother pole of the continuum [anomia].

While it is clear that attitudinal dependent variables appear in many research works

of unquestionable rigor and quality, the same cannot be said with regard to theinfluence of multi-attitudinal surroundings on OCB. Furthermore, it appears that theinclusion of anomie as a variable moderating that attitudes-OCB relationship isunprecedented. In effect, Caruana et al. (2001) include it in a research design as anindependent variable of deviant behaviors (DWB), but not of OCB and, therefore,without studying the aforementioned moderating effect. Hodson (1999) examines theOA of leaders, and not of the subordinates, and so analyzes its feed-back effect onworker resistance to the norms.

In view of that gap in the literature, this research, applied to universityadministration and services personnel (ASP), proposes:

. the verification of the negative influence of unfavorable attitudinal surroundingson OCB; and

. predicts the OA performance as a moderator of the relationship between anunfavorable attitude environment and OCB (see Figure 1).

Theoretical backgroundOCB is defined by Organ (1988, p. 4) as:

. . . the individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by theformal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the

PR36,6

844


4/25

organization . . . the behavior is not the product of a requirement demanded by job functionsor description . . . the behavior is the product of a personal decision.

McNeely and Meglino (1994) distinguish OCBO, directed at the organization, from

OCBI, directed at individuals (also see Organ, 1997; Williams and Anderson, 1991).Therefore, OCB is extra-role behavior resulting from a performance that goes beyondwhat is strictly required by the job and which, by virtue of that nature, constitutes apowerful indicator of good job performance (Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994) fromboth the individual and the organizational perspective (Dunlop and Lee, 2004). Thisrelationship seems to become more accentuated in the case of jobs with specific tasksrelated to the quality of service to customers (Morrison, 1996; Kim et al., 2004; Bell andMenguc, 2002; Blancero et al., 1995) and to university students (Rego, 2003).

The use of individual, social and interpersonal factors in explaining employeesOCB has received wide attention (Boye and Jones, 1997; Vardi and Weiner, 1996; Vardi,2001). Although the social and interpersonal factors have been shown to exercise greatinfluence (Robinson and Greenberg, 1998; Robinson and OLeary-Kelly, 1998), the use

of individual factors, such as workers personality traits, has been less fruitful(Robinson and Greenberg, 1998). Specifically, the level of fairness in remuneration andprocesses that the employee perceives of the organization, or the extent to which theemployee understands that the organization interacts fairly with him/her (distributive,procedural, and interactional justice), has acquired unquestionable researchimportance in the framework of social exchange since the beginning of the 1990s(Niehoff and Moorman, 1993; Moorman et al., 1998; Settoon et al., 1996; Shore andWayne, 1993).

Social exchange theory (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959; Homans, 1961; Blau, 1964) stateshow individual behavior only influences those actions that will bring reward. Whenthat does not occur, the responses cease. The supported influence of the workersperceptions of determined elements of the organizational environment, where theorganization forms a framework for social exchange, on OCB constitutes the non-taskbehavior most studied scenario (Vardi and Weiner, 1996; Boye and Jones, 1997; Vardi,2001). Exchange theories include two types of exchange (Blau, 1964):

(1) social exchange; and

(2) economic exchange.

The former are widespread since the exchange is neither finite nor tangible, while thelatter stem from the actual contractual relationship and involve clear and tangibleexchanges, such as salary (Organ, 1990). Among the perceptions that affect social

Figure 1.Predicted model for the

analysis of OA asmoderator of the

relationship between anunfavorable attitudinalenvironment and OCB


845


5/25

exchange, we can highlight the leader support (Smith et al., 1983), the anomic behaviorof supervisors (Hodson, 1999), the leaders level of honesty (Farth et al., 1990), theperceived organization support (e.g. Moorman et al., 1998), and values in the workplace(Van Dyne et al., 1994). Moorman (1991) made significant contributions to associations

of different types of organizational justice and OCB.

Attitudinal environment and OCBAs seen above, the employees perceptive-evaluative view of their organization,especially in terms of how fair they perceive it, is shown to be one of the most studiedand significant factors in the explanation of OCB in the social exchange framework(Farth et al., 1990; Moorman, 1991; Niehoff and Moorman, 1993; Moorman et al., 1993;Konovsky and Pugh, 1994). In effect, perceptions of organizational experiences forcethe human resources to evaluate their exchange relationships with the organization(Blau, 1964; Homans, 1974), by weighing up the level of justice or equity of exchange.Thus, the workers who perceive a fair relationship tend to display more OCB throughhigher commitment and integration. On the other hand, those employees who perceive

that relationship as one-sided or unfair tend to abandon OCB and redefine theirrelationships as purely material or tangible, economic exchanges, engaging inmisconduct (Greenberg, 1990; Skarlicki and Folger, 1997).

Following the above arguments as a guide, we may state that attitudes constitutethe line that links most of the previous works, by referring to perceptions and,necessarily, to evaluations of the mentioned factors. In effect, the perception oforganizational justice, in any of its forms, is a specific attitude toward the organizationand/or its elements. Most of the new factors are considered from the evaluativeperception of the employee. Therefore, attitudes form a great part of the independentvariables that have been studied in relation to OCB. The literature has addressed theinterdependence of many organizational attitudes (Robbins, 2001) from a doctrinalperspective[1] that permits us to speak of an unfavorable attitudinal environment.

Eagly and Chaiken (1993) point out that attitude is an internal psychological statethat becomes apparent through observable cognitive, affective and behavioralresponses. Attitudes are evaluative perceptions of the organizational environment thatgenerate psychological predispositions, which, in turn, generate organizationalresponses. Those responses include those that encourage organizational behavior and,within that, OCB[2]. As Morgan (1986) stresses, the fundamental factor that influencesorganizational behavior comprises not so much the non-observance of, or maximumcompliance with, the rules, explanations and principles stemming from socialinteraction or from the legitimate organizational system, as the perceptions andinterpretations that take place; in other words, the so-called images of theorganization. In short, from that perspective, the literature has used theperceptive-evaluative element individual and collective attitudes as afundamental variable to explain OCB (Randall et al., 1999; Moorman and Harland,2002; Tepper et al., 2001; Bommer et al., 2003).

With regard the boundaries of the environment that we methodologically propose inthis study, whether the target is organizational or relational, makes the workenvironment the natural framework for its analysis. A second aspect involves selectingthe most representative attributes of the ASP environment. The internal and externalcore evaluations are the appraisals individuals make of their work environment. Theclassic Job Descriptive Index (JDI) of Smith et al. (1969) indicates five key facets that

PR36,6

846


6/25

define favorable attitudes at work: the job itself, supervision, co-workers, pay andpromotion. According to university OB literature, the most frequent internal andexternal core evaluations are the attitudes toward: ones self, colleagues, bosses, ones

job and students (Hill, 1995; Owlia and Aspinwall, 1996; Alvarez and Rodrguez, 1997).

Previous research on the university OB literature indicates that unfavorable attitudinalperceptions from the teaching and non-teaching employee may reduce OCB, decreasingcommitment either toward the organization or toward other individuals OCBO andOCBI (Rego, 2003). Hence, our first hypotheses are:

H1a. An environment perceived as unfavorable by the ASP has a negativerelationship with their OCBO.

H1b. An environment perceived as unfavorable by the ASP has a negativerelationship with their OCBI.

H1c. An environment perceived as unfavorable by the ASP has a negativerelationship with their OCBI expressly directed at the client (student).

Sociological anomie and organizational anomie (OA)Emile Durkheim (1984), 1893) developed the concept of anomie (from the Greek, an-:absence, and -nomos: law) and used it to describe a societal condition of normlessness,a lack of solidarity and regulation in the social structure, and a general lack ofintegration between people and groups (see also Marks, 1974). In the former, Durkeimdefines anomie as the wrongs that society as a whole has suffered due to the lack ofmoral and legal norms as a consequence of the weakening of mediating institutionssuch as the family and the Church, among others. Such a situation leads to abreakdown in the system of values of society as a whole. In the latter, anomie isexplained not only on a level of the organization of society, but also by societys failureto humanize people. Durkheim speaks of the essential angst that has always been part

of the human condition and that disappears when society succeeds in submittingpeople to its system of norms, but reappears this would be the anomie when it failsin its attempts to humanize them. Mertons (1957) classic essay on the topic refined theconcept in the American sociological literature into a question of a structuraldisjunction for social actors between the goals that they seek and the sociallyconstructed means by which they can pursue these goals.

Anomie largely remained outside empirical research in sociology, however, untilSrole (1956) reformulated it into the individual-level construct of anomie, whichgenerally refers to the degree of felt social connectedness of the actors. As seenabove, the scale he developed refers to the eunomia-anomia continuum. There has beensome debate on the validity of Sroles Anomie Scale and his construct, by asserting thatit really measures some mixture of powerlessness and other forms of alienation, ratherthan anomie (e.g. Lee, 1974; Ryan, 1981). On the other hand, several researchers havesupported its validity by reporting, for example, that the scale satisfies the criterion ofunidimensionality in a latent structure analysis (Robinson and Shaver, 1973; Miller andButtler, 1966). Despite these criticisms, the research on the concept of anomie, in bothlevels, has been vast and continues to grow.

Durkheim and Merton refer to an anomie whose etiology is sociological. From thatperspective, a study of anomie in the organization can only consider the organizationas one more factor of society as a whole. Moreover, the anomic worker can, to a greater


847


7/25

or lesser extent, bring his/her anomie in from outside the organization, making itdifficult to evaluate the differential effect of organizational variables (unfavorableattitudinal work variables) from other extra-organizational variables. In effect, ourstudy requires a variable designed on a single level, that is, from within the

organization itself. We label that anomie organizational anomie (OA).Anomie in organizations (OA). There are still few studies of OA as organizational

disorder in the literature on OB and HRM. In general, OA was originally studied from theperspective of organizations lacking values or a solid normative fabric. Allport (1924)states that, when an organization does not express its values clearly, it becomes anomic.He defines such an organization as lacking vitality and seriously lacking cohesion in itssocial whole, and especially as easy prey to loss of morale. They seem to be shakyorganizations prone to collapse. Allen and LaFollette (1977) introduce a concept veryclose to Anomie alienation into organizations. They related the level of alienation tothe level of hierarchy of perceived authority. Shedd and Bachrach (1991) give warning ofthis danger to organizations in the processes of growth, expansion and greaterspecialization, and who neglect healthy, parallel centripetal processes. For Hodson (1999)anomic organizations are those that suffer a lack of common norms at work.

Although an organization might be characterized as being anomic, it is still theindividuals who are disconnected not only from others and from their environmentbut also from self. In other words, it may not make much sense to talk about anorganization that is disconnected from itself. It is reasonable to employ the conceptof anomie (as traditionally defined) as a summary term for an organization inwhich conditions contributing to such disconnections are abundant and thereappears to be a large number of individuals who may be having similarexperiences. McClosky and Schaar (1965) offered evidence that cognitive andpsychological factors mediate anomic responses. Menard (1995) criticizes Bernards(1987) purely macrosocial conceptualization of anomie as being too restrictive.

Echoing the claim made 30 years earlier by McClosky and Schaar (1965), Menardsays that there are clearly social psychological aspects to anomie that are bestoperationalized at the individual level.

Consequently, non-subjective meanings of anomie should also be explored. There isa tradition among sociology scholars to differentiate phenomena definition andmeasurement in what they called structural terms structural anomie rather thanin terms of feelings felt anomie (Hagedorn and Labovitz, 1968). Thus, whenanalyzed and measured, anomie appears to have three clear issues. The first issubjective, in the individual context or felt anomie, and stresses the highly personalperspective of the individual suffering the anomie and points to a sociological etiologyin which other psychological factors play a part. The second perspective is moreobjective, seen from the social context social disorder, structural anomie or a

particular anomie stressor , and refers to anomie as a social pathology ofdetermined groups or organizations within society that lack explicit or implicit rulesand values. The third is behavioral, and so manifests behaviors of anomie.

Our research refers to anomie as an unfavorable attitudinal work environment thatwould act as a particular anomie stressor on felt anomie. In effect, an unfavorablework environment may generate feelings of exposure or emptiness that may lead theASP to feel isolation and even adjustment problems (Hayek, 1994). At least, such asituation would influence OCB.

PR36,6

848


8/25

Alienation, and other concepts close to anomie. Although alienation has been definedin a variety of ways, it should never be treated as objective social conditions. Srole(1956) defines anomie as feelings that have some alienation associated; but alienation isa multidimensional concept and, therefore, that association must be variegated.

Seeman (1959) identified five alternative meanings of alienation: powerlessness,meaninglessness, normlessness, isolation, and self-estrangement. The definition mostclosely associated with the traditional uses of anomie is normlessness, which derivesfrom Durkheims (1893/1897) original conceptualization (Durkheim, 1951, 1984. This isa state in which social norms regulating individual behavior have broken down or areno longer effective. Seemans focus is, however, different from both Durkheims andMertons in that he is concerned with the individuals experience, the awareness ofones condition, and not the objectively observable state or condition itself. Isolationrefers to a separation of ones self from other members of the group or society. This isnot a physical state but an emotional experience, a feeling of separateness or of notbeing a part of the group. Anomie is also the specific individuals experience of being in

that situation. Fischer (1973) expressed the possibility that the measure of isolationmight be better interpreted as a gauge of the subjective sense of anomie. Despite thisissue, he asserted that the two concepts are different. Those facets of alienation inorganizations seem to have antecedents related to aspects of the structural propertiesof organizations, such as centralization or formalization (see, e.g. Sarros et al., 2002),whereas OA tends to be more a sense associated to a lack of organizational norms (e.g.Hodson, 1999) and organizational culture or values (e.g. Farrell et al., 2001).

Another concept close to anomie would be the lack of perceived organizationalsupport (POS). Esisenber et al. (1990, p. 51) described it as a general perceptionconcerning the extent to which the organization values [employees] generalcontributions and cares for their well-being. POS appears be more associated tostructural anomie stressors than to real feelings of anomie. Finally, anomie can

suggest other OB constructs such as social support, unclear expectations and apessimistic worldview, which, although they are really feelings associated to theanomie concept, are shades of anomie (Neves, 2003) rather than overlaps with existingOB constructs (e.g. Fischer, 1973; Aiken and Hage, 1966).

The moderating role of OA in the unfavorable attitude-OCB linkThe question that now concerns us is whether, and how, OA may moderate our linkunder study. First, we should not forget that the literature on anomie shows a clearrelationship between anomie and deviant behavior. In effect, Potter (1989) accepts thatanomie contributes to an increase in a workers inclination to show deviant behaviors.Cohen (1995) provides a model that relates anomie to social values, business strategy,

organizational culture and deviant behavior in firms. Last, it has been shownempirically that anomie is a predictor of worker turnover (Taylor and Zimmerer, 1992).

Second, from a more individual perspective, OA is the perceived absence of normsand values in an individual, and thus the perception, and unfavorable influence, of sucha situation. Therefore, since it is the anomic employee him/herself who makes theevaluation in the perception of OA as a social-objective-disorder, it can be consideredan attitudinal object. In this respect, we could talk of anomic attitudes focusing theattitudinal unfavorability that anomie causes (Adams, 1962). Above arguments may


849


9/25

permit us to include the variable OA in the unfavorable attitudinal environment,reinforcing the potential negative relationship with OCB.

Third, as Eagly and Chaiken (1993) state, attitude is an internal psychologicalcondition that is reflected in observable cognitive, affective and behavioral responses.

Attitudes are evaluative perceptions of the organizational environment that generatepsychological predispositions towards the organization, and, subsequently, theorganizational responses. Those responses include those that encourage the OB, andwithin that, the OCB. OA, as felt anomie, may be provoked by subjective evaluations ofthe individual and social disorders. Thus, an unfavorable attitudinal workenvironment reflects a framework of negative organizational evaluations as a resultof the environment collapsed. OA, which by definition reflects a decline of norms andvalues in individuals, may be closely associated with such dissatisfaction with theenvironment. In effect, as we mentioned earlier, attitudes) are evaluations of attitudinalobjects and, therefore, attitudinal decline entails an evaluative and, inevitably, anomicdecline (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993). For example, Hackman and Oldham (1976) relateattitudes toward ones job with OA when they indicate the alienation felt by employeeswhen their attitudes toward their jobs are unfavorable. McClosky and Schaar (1965)show the influence of the absence of boss support on the OA of the employees.Therefore, our following hypotheses are:

H2a. The negative link between unfavorable attitude toward the ones job and OCBwill be stronger for employees with high as compared to low OA.

H2b. The negative link between unfavorable attitude toward the boss as-a-personand OCB will be stronger for employees with high as compared to low OA.

H2c. The negative link between unfavorable attitude toward co-workers and OCBwill be stronger for employees with high as compared to low OA.

H2d. The negative link between unfavorable attitude toward the boss performanceand OCB will be stronger for employees with high as compared to low OA.

H2e. The negative link between unfavorable attitude toward the clients (students)and OCB will be stronger for employees with high as compared to low OA.

H2f. The negative link between unfavorable attitude toward ones self and OCBwill be stronger for employees with high as compared to low OA.

MethodProcedure and sample characteristicsData were collected from 154 employees of the administration and services personnel(ASP) of a Spanish public university. The population/universe of this collectivecomprises the 758 members of ASP of that university. With a response rate of 20.32percent, we achieved a sampling error of 7.1 percent for a reliability interval of 95.5percent. Although among the ASP there is not a deep culture of using ITcommunication (response rate no more than 20.32 percent) the ASP have individualaccess to e-mail, and also all ASP had the same opportunity to access it. Additionally,there was no reason to presume a predisposition of the ASP different from theresponses. Therefore, we can support the randomness of the sample. Next, the sampledescriptive structures are quite similar to the data population mentioned. Effectively,

PR36,6

850


10/25

in the universe 344 members (45.5 percent) are career civil servants while theremaining 414 (54.5 percent) have other types of contracts. With regard to age andgender, 358 (47.2 percent) are 40 years-old or younger, and only 23 (3 percent) are olderthan 60, while 47.3 percent are men, and 52.7 percent women. In the sample, men

constituted 50.7 percent of it and women 49.3 percent, while 47.4 percent were 40 oryounger and 6.6 percent were 60 or older. Finally, 46.7 percent were civil servants andthe remainder were not permanent staff.

E-mails asking for the ASPs collaboration were sent in two phases; the first was onOctober 5, 2004 and the second on November 11. A questionnaire was posted on theuniversity Intranet and could be accessed by clicking on a link in the e-mails. Theresponses were received over a period ending on December 2. Eventually, there were154 valid responses after five were rejected due to incorrect completion or incoherentinformation.

Measures

All the items were scored on a seven-point scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to(7) Strongly Agree never (1) to constantly (7) in OCB and are shown in Tables I, IIand III. Reliability was established by means of Cronbachs alphas, the values of whichare shown on the main diagonal of the correlations table (Table I). A summary of theattitude variable data is given in Table I, which shows that the total explained variancesignificantly exceeds an acceptable 60 percent (Hair, 1998).

Attitudes toward co-workers. We used a three-item scale adapted from that ofWayne and Ferris (1990) and Wayne and Liden (1995). The scale was originallydesigned to measure friendliness towards the supervisors or managers. The referenceto those figures was changed to co-workers in our scale.

Attitudes toward superiors. Three of the seven items of this scale were also adaptedfrom Wayne and Ferris (1990) and Wayne and Liden (1995) for the dimension of

favorability in the evaluation of the person embodying superiority. Four other items,designed after a review of the literature on leadership (Pitt, 1985; Bass, 1990), were alsoincluded in the scale. Those four items completed the scale, which now measured attitudetowards the boss performance. Two were automatically recodified by inverting them toadapt to the other items. All items referred to bosses and/or superiors, on the premisethat those positions give an image of superiority in the respondents minds. There wasno attempt to identify who was considered boss or superior, but rather the influence thatsuch a subjective figure exercises on each responding ASP.

Attitudes toward tasks. We used a scale with six items extracted and adapted fromFestinger and Carlsmith (1959) in assessing the personnels self-satisfaction with thetasks associated with their jobs.

Attitudes toward the student. For assessing this variable we used the three-item

scale adapted from Wayne and Ferris (1990) and Wayne and Liden (1995). In this casethe reference to bosses was changed to students.

Attitudes toward oneself. We used an adaptation of those designed and employed byKaplan and Pokorny (1969) and Rosenberg (1965) in assessing self-esteem. The fourchosen items were adapted as far as possible to the organizational framework byincluding expressions such as in my job as an initial reference to the organization.

Control variables. After a review of the literature, we considered two variables,gender (1 male, 2 female), and age (1 from 23 to 30; 2 31 to 40; 3 41 to 50;


851


11/25

F

actors

Attitudes

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

F6

Total

explained

variance%

Unfavorableattitudestow

ardsco-workers:

Ireallylikemyco-worke

rsaspeople(R)

0.1

46

0.1

97

0.89

5

0.0

11

0.0

96

0.0

87

Ibelievethatmyco-workerscouldbegoodfriendsofmine(R)

0.1

60

0.1

72

0.86

0

0.0

23

0.1

94

0.0

25

Thereisagoodrelations

hipbetweenmeandmyco-workers(R)

0.2

11

0.1

87

0.89

1

0.0

10

0.1

30

0.1

00


ardsthebossesasaperson:

14.9

85

Ireallylikemybossasa

person(R)

0.0

78

0.9

24

0.12

7

0.1

59

0.0

10

0.1

18

Ibelievethatmybossco

uldbeagoodfriend(R)

0.0

90

0.9

06

0.17

7

0.1

20

0.0

53

0.0

06

Thereisagoodrelations

hipbetweenmeandmyboss(R)

0.0

74

0.9

08

0.22

7

0.1

11

0.0

11

0.0

54


ardsthepositionofbosses:

28.2

00

Universityhierarchyseemscapableandefficient(R)

0.0

52

0.0

61

20.05

4

0.8

16

20.0

64

0.1

02

Universitybossessetagoodexampleinfulfillingtheirobligations(R)

0.0

70

0.0

79

0.09

5

0.8

51

0.1

01

0.0

53

IngeneraltheUniversity

headsseektheirowninterests

0.1

56

0.2

20

0.06

9

0.7

72

0.0

65

0.0

38

IhaveabadimageoftheUniversitydirectors

0.3

38

0.0

39

20.04

7

0.5

97

20.1

10

20.0

49


ardsonesjob:

40.6

67

Iam

satisfiedwithmyjo

b(R)

0.5

35

0.0

68

0.33

3

0.0

80

0.0

74

0.1

28

Ihaveapositiveattitude

towardsmywork(R)

0.8

39

0.1

45

0.06

5

0.2

45

0.1

22

0.1

68

MytasksintheUniversi

tyareinteresting(R)

0.7

45

0.2

24

0.09

0

0.2

63

0.1

79

0.1

41

Ilearnalotinmyjob(R)

0.8

46

20.0

52

0.06

1

0.0

88

0.1

55

0.0

23

MyworkattheUniversityisimportant(R)

0.5

97

20.0

33

0.26

5

0.0

49

0.2

25

0.0

67


ardsstudents:

52.8

94

Ireallylikethestudents

aspeople(R)

0.2

24

20.0

50

0.12

4

0.0

13

0.8

32

0.0

54

Ibelievethatmanystudentscouldbegoodfriendsofmine(R)

0.1

29

0.0

48

0.13

0

0.0

40

0.8

29

0.0

85

ThestudentsandIusuallygetonwelltogether(R)

0.1

78

0.0

81

0.12

3

20.0

53

0.8

36

20.0

46


ardsoneself:

63.6

41

IthinkIdonothavemuchtomakemefeelproudofmyself

0.2

75

0.0

66

20.00

4

0.1

34

20.1

28

0.6

35

InmyjobIsometimesth

inkthatIam

notagoodperson

20.1

52

0.2

14

0.15

4

20.2

45

0.1

08

0.7

03

ThetruthisthatIsomet

imesfeeluselessinmyjob

0.1

96

20.1

63

0.04

4

0.2

58

0.0

86

0.6

58

Ihaveapositiveattitude

towardsmyselfinmyjob

0.4

32

0.2

77

0.14

3

0.0

12

0.1

59

0.4

71

71.2

99

Note:theitemsmarked

(R)wererecodified

Table I.Exploratory factoranalysis of attitudinalvariables

PR36,6

852


12/25

4 51 to 60; 5 61 to 70; 6 71 to 75), which could covary with our dependent andindependent variables and, therefore, could be included as control variables in ouranalyses (e.g. Zellars et al., 2002; Aquino et al., 2004).

Organizational anomie. The scale used to measure this variable was based on the

expanded Sroles (1956) five-item scale to nine-items in 1972. It has been employedsince 1973 to measure felt anomie at a psychological-level in Social Sciences by theNational Opinion Research Center of the USA. Since the felt anomie considered by

v001 I feel well integrated into the University (R) 0.576v002 You sometimes cant help wondering what I am doing in an organization like this 0.629v003 In this organization one must live for today, I prefer not to think about the future 0.564v004 Despite what they want us to say, in general the people in this University are getting worse 0.780v005 With things as they are in the University it is difficult to get excited about the future 0.834v006 Most of the University employees are not really interested in other peoples problems 0.616v007 In my work I dont know to whom I can tell the truth 0.704v008 Sometimes I think I dont know what the University really wants of us 0.690

Notes: Cronbachs alpha 0.8621; total explained variance 46.263%; the items marked (R) wererecodified

Table II.

Factor analysis oforganizational

anomie (OA)

OCBO OCBI OCBI client

I perform functions that help the Universitys image and that are notrequired by my joba 0.152 0.515 0.309I support the advances and improvements in my universitya 0.331 0.542 0.184I defend the University to other employees who criticize it 0.848 0.013 0.096I feel proud when I represent the University in other places 0.845 0.128 0.028

I offer ideas to improve the functioning of the University 0.586 0.296 0.115I express my loyalty to the University 0.884 0.186 20.048I do things to protect my university against possible problems 0.796 0.200 0.203I am very interested in the image that the University projects 0.778 0.277 0.161I help others when they have been away or absent 0.340 0.720 0.157I voluntarily use my time to help others who have problems withtheir work 0.118 0.723 0.220I plan my working day to be able to take some time to exchangeopinions with my co-workers 0.211 0.480 0.301I help new co-workers to feel at home in their work 0.200 0.764 0.219I am polite and show sincere interest in my co-workers in even tensepersonal and professional situations 0.328 0.592 0.203I give time to others when they have personal or work problems 0.053 0.836 0.168I help others with their tasks 0.048 0.859 0.182

I share my work tools with co-workers when they need them 0.108 0.797 0.079I help students with their problems 0.063 0.263 0.771I offer directions to students who appear to be lost in the corridors 0.040 0.201 0.751I help new students to feel at home in the ULPGC 0.118 0.131 0.900I do my best not to make students wait 0.067 0.225 0.871I am polite and show sincere interest in students even when they arecomplaining about something 0.199 0.300 0.745

Notes: Total Cronbachs alpha 0.920; total explained variance 64.365%; athese items were dropped

Table III.Exploratory OCB factor

analysis


853


13/25

Srole appears to be too broad, we revised some items. We first eliminated two broaditems health and money the most important things in life, to make money there areno right and wrong ways, and, finally, it is hardly fair to bring a child into the wordwith the way things look for the future. The item a person doesnt really know who

s/he can count on was reformulated into item v006 (see Table II). Items v001 and v008(see Table II) were self-supplied, in line with the existing anomie literature. Theremainder were basically the same as those of Sroles scale.

Organizational citizenship behavior. We used the 16-items of the scale proposed byLee and Allen (2002). The inclusion of the references to the university were made to thewording of the original 16-item scale (eight for OCBO and eight for OCBI), such as. Atotal of five more items referring to OCBI toward the student were added. The finalstructure was a 21-item, seven-point Likert type scale where 1 indicated totaldisagreement with the statement and 7 total agreement. After a factor analysis withvarimax rotation, the scale was reduced to the predicted three dimensions. Two OCBOitems were dropped since they unexpectedly loaded on the OCBI dimension (seeTable III).

ResultsTable IV presents the descriptive statistics, correlations (r), and reliabilities for all thestudy variables. An examination of Table IV reveals that the all six attitudinalvariables are negatively and significantly correlated with OCBO, however theassociation with OCBI and OCBI targeting the client are not so strong, especially withthe latter. Consequently, those associations seem to add an initial support for our firsthypotheses. In order to test with more rigor both those hypotheses and those related toOA moderation, three multiple hierarchical regressions were conducted (Cohen andCohen, 1983). We performed three steps: first, the control variables were entered in Step1, followed by the attitudinal independent variables in Step 2. The OA and the two-way

interactions were entered in Step 3. The variables were centered to reducemulticolinearity (Aiken and West, 1991). The results, with the standardized Betacoefficients, are presented in Table V. The table shows the R2 at each step of theregression, as well as the significance of the beta weights for the individual predictorvariables in the final step. The statistical significance of the change in R2 when theinteraction terms were added was appraised to test the hypothesized moderatingeffects of OA and the status variables.

Each of the variables of the attitudinal environment, except for unfavorableattitudes toward ones self, showed a significant direct relationship with some OCBdimension. In light of those results, the generated models explain the negativerelationship of the unfavorable attitudinal environment as a whole and OCB. However,the betas (b) show disparate results. In effect, although the significant results are

negative in general, the betas for attitudinal unfavorability toward the bossesperformance are both positive and significant in both OCBI (B 0.20; p # 0.05) andOCBI Client (B 0.15; p # 0.05) models but strongly negative in OCBO (B 0.38;p # 0.001). These issues are partially contrary to our predictions. However we musttake into account that the greater the unfavorability toward the institutional position ofboss, the greater both types of relational OCB are. This appears to add support to theASP feelings of unfavorability toward bosses performance implying an organizationperceived as institutionally distant. Consequently, a refuge reaction or effect can

PR36,6

854


14/25

M

SD

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(1)Gender

1.49

0.5

02

(2)Age

2.59

0.6

12

20.0

1

(3)OCBO

5.10

1.3

8

20.1

9**

0.1

0

(0.9

0)

(4)OCBI

5.67

1.0

3

0.0

2

0.1

6**

0.4

5

(0.8

9)

(5)OCBIClient

5.68

1.3

1

0.0

2

0.0

4

0.2

8

0.4

9

(0.9

0)

(6)Organizational

nomie(OA)

3.91

1.3

1

0.0

9

0.0

7

20.3

8

0.0

5

0.0

6

(0.8

3)

(7)Unfavorabilityto

co-orkers

3.33

1.1

3

0.0

1

20.1

0

20.3

3

20.4

5

20.2

4***

0.3

0

(0.91)

(8)Unfavorabilityto

bossaaperson

3.48

1.8

8

0.1

2

0.0

8

20.3

0

20.2

6***

20.1

3

0.1

1

0.45

(0.9

5)

(9)Unfavorabilityto

bossperform

4.36

1.4

4

0.1

5*

20.0

1

20.4

0

0.0

5

0.1

3

0.6

7

0.10

0.0

1

(0.7

9)

(10)Unfavorabilityto

0nesjob

2.62

1.3

3

0.1

3

20.1

6*

20.5

1

20.3

9

20.2

1***

0.3

6

42

0.1

5*

38

(0.7

0)


students(clients)

2.88

1.3

7

0.0

4

20.1

5*

20.2

8

20.4

6

20.5

6

0.0

8

0.30

0.0

9

0.0

5

44

(0.8

2)


oneself

2.41

1.2

3

0.1

8**

20.1

6*

20.3

5*

**

20.2

4***

20.1

0

0.3

4

0.28

0.1

3

0.2

2***

44

0.21***

(0.5

9)

Notes:Gender:1

male,2

female.

Age:1

23to30,2

31to40,3

41to50,4

51to60,

5

61to70,

6

71to75.T

he(a

i

#

areshownonthediagonalin

italics.

Levelsofsignifican

ce:*p#

0.1;**p#

0.0

5;***p#

0.01

;p#

0.0

01

Table IV.Means, standard

deviations, correlationsand reliabilities


855


15/25

OCBO

OCBI

OCBIc

lient

b

t

b

t

b

t

Step1:

Gender

20.1

8

2

2.2

6**

0.0

6

0.7

1

0.0

3

0.4

1

Age

0.0

6

0.7

4

0.1

5

1.8

4*

0.0

0

0.0

0

R2

0.0

4*

0.0

3

0.0

0

Step2:

Attitudesonesjob

20.3

5

2

5.0

2

20.1

5

20.1

9*

0.0

2

0.2

3

Attitudesbossasaperso

n

20.2

4

2

3.3

6

20.0

7

20.9

0

20.0

5

20.5

9

Attitudesco-workers

20.0

8

2

1.1

6

20.3

2

24.2

1

20.0

8

20.9

9

Attitudesbosssperformance

20.3

8

2

5.4

3

0.2

0

2.5

9**

0.1

5

1.9

8**

Attitudesstudents(client)

20.0

8

2

1.0

9

20.2

4

23.1

4

20.4

9

26.5

5

Attitudesoneself

20.1

0

2

1.4

3

20.0

5

20.6

0

20.0

3

20.3

4

DR2

0.3

3

0.2

2

0.2

7

Step3:

Organizationalanomie(O

A)

20.1

8

2

1.6

3*

0.3

4

2.9

3***

20.0

8

20.6

6

OA

onesjob

20.1

1

2

1.3

5

0.1

6

1.9

3*

20.1

4

21.6

6*

OA

bossasaperson

20.0

1

2

0.0

1

20.1

3

21.5

7*

0.1

2

1.4

9

OA

co-workers

20.1

1

2

1.2

9

0.0

6

0.6

9

20.1

7

21.9

3**

OA

bosssperformance

20.0

9

2

1.1

7

0.1

9

2.3

7***

0.1

6

1.9

9**

OA

students(clients)

20.0

7

2

0.8

6

20.0

4

20.5

2

20.0

2

20.1

9

OA

oneself

0.0

9

1.1

2

0.0

7

0.8

3

0.1

3

1.5

8

DR2

0.0

2

0.1

2

0.0

9

AdjustedR2

0.3

5

0.3

0

0.2

8

F(15,1

22)

9.0

4

4.8

6

4.5

0

Note:N

154.

Levelsofsignificance:*p#0.1;**p#

0.0

5;

***p#

0.0

1;p#

0.0

01

Table V.Results of hierarchicalregression analysis

PR36,6

856


16/25

occur. This gives the impression that the ASP seek refuge in their closest social andworkplace environment, especially in the work group (OCBI; B 0.20; p # 0.05) andalso in being on good terms with the clients (OCBI client; B 0.15; p # 0.05). Inconsequence, the situation could be balanced and therefore a more intense and more

gratifying interpersonal OCB could be developed. On the other hand, we observe thatin the case of the OCBO model it is totally the opposite (B 0.38; p # 0.001) and,therefore, congruent with the previous analysis.

Although unfavorability toward boss performance reduces OCBO, negativeattitudes toward co-workers and students do not lead to fewer OCBO behaviors(interactional OCBs are not significant). It seems logical that both attitudinal objectscould be perceived as elements outside the organization from an institutional point ofview. Support for that premise is found in the OCBI regression, where both elementshave crucial influence on OCBI. The same can be said in the case of OCBI toward theclient in the OCBI Client regression, referring only to unfavorable attitude towardthe student (B 0.49; p # 0.001). All the above leads to the acceptance ofH1a, thepartial acceptance ofH1b and H1c, and a particularly low acceptance ofH1c since onlythe attitudes toward students can support the relationship with OCB.

Two-way interactions were applied to test the hypothesis linking OA, as themoderating variable, to the relationships between higher attitudinal unfavorability andlower OCB (Step 3; Table V). Table V shows that the two-way interactions jointlyexplained a significant amount of incremental variance in OCBO (DR2 0.02;p# 0.001), in OCBI (DR2 0.12; p# 0.001) and OCBI Client (DR2 0.09; p# 0.001).Inspection of the individual interactions failed to reveal a significant two-wayinteraction between OA and unfavorable attitudes toward students and ones self foreither of the models tested, so H2e and H2fwere not supported. We also failed to findsupport for H2d, which predicted negative interactions between unfavorable attitudestoward bosses performance and OCB. Contrary to expectations, there is an OA

moderation, but in positive terms. Probably, OA intensifies the ASP refuge effect inthe relational context mentioned above. We did, however, find a significantinteractional OA Boss as-a-person (B 0.13; p # 0.10) in the OCBI model andOA Co-workers (B 0.17; p # 0.05) in the OCBI Client model. This patternsupports H2b and H2c. Finally, we did find opposite significant interactionalOA Ones job in both OCBI (B 0.16; p # 0.10) and OCBI Client (B 0.14;p# 0.10) models. This issue gives partial support to H1a, which is consequently partlyaccepted.

DiscussionOne clear conclusion of this research refers to the overall thesis that greater attitudinalunfavorability generates lower OCB, and that OA exercises a selective control of this

negative relationship that we should proceed to shade it. An inspection to thecorrelations reveals that the relationship between an unfavorable attitudinalenvironment and OCB was intense in the case of OCBO, becoming weaker in OCBI,and weaker still in OCBI directed to clients. However, OA as moderator appeared tofollow the opposite direction; there are no effects in the case of OCBO and the effectintensifies in OCBI and again in OCBI client. Therefore, another clear conclusion of thisresearch seems to indicate that, in general, the OCB-attitude link is stronger for moreanomic employees than for less anomic subjects, but only in the relational OCB context


857


17/25

(see Figure 2). In effect, the ASP are more inclined to show OCBO if attitudes towardthe boss as-a-person, the post of boss, and tasks are unfavorable. These attitudinalobjects seem to overlap in the university institution and, consequently, they are moreassociated to a university that, through those issues, provides norms, support and

values to its ASP. In such a context, OA could exert a minimum moderator effect(DR2 0.02; p # 0.001) on unfavorable attitudinal influence. However, in relationalOCBs, attitudinal variables (students and co-workers) do not appear to overlap with theeffects of perceptions of the university. This could be the reason why moderatingeffects emerged in this framework.

That greater inclination might indicate that ASP who suffer normative andevaluative decline would need more support from their co-workers (affective), theirimmediate supervisor as-a person (affective and formal) and greater satisfaction withtheir tasks (functional support), in order to generate relational citizenship behaviors. Inthe absence of that support, their OCBI and OCBI Client could decline much moredramatically. Therefore, the university institution must understand that overall OA isa key variable to protect against the risk of a decline in high OCBIs. An unfavorableattitude toward ones self is shown to be indifferent in practically all the models andinsensitive to any moderating effect of OA. The nature of structural OA, which isbasically fuelled by individual external variables, as seen in the literature, is confirmed.In effect, OA is a result of the normative-evaluative collapse of the employee suffering

Figure 2.Final a posteriori modelthat shows allrelationships supported bythe study

PR36,6

858


18/25

OA. Although it has psychological signs, which are precisely what our scale attemptsto measure, one must not lose sight of its marked external etiology on the employee,which is congruent with the null explanatory contribution of attitude toward oneself.

Implications, limitations and recommendationsBehind any decision by the management of organizations to favor and/or control thenon-task behavior studied in this work, we believe there are certain practicalimplications, which we briefly suggest. In this study we have been able to providefurther corroboration of the complexity of human behavior in organizations. Acomplex attitudinal framework, enhanced and conditioned by OA, enables us toaddress the causes of human behavior, particularly OCB, in organizations. We believethat the mechanisms favoring OCB should be in keeping with the complexity andnature of those OCB. In effect, if the perceptive-evaluative element (individual andcollective attitudes) did not constitute a key variable to explain OCB better, the use ofstrict organizational control, even when based on coercive strategies, would havealready put an end to the studied phenomenon. However, the success of classicdiscipline and other traditional protocols are repeatedly in crisis, possibly because theyact through merely symptomatic treatments and ignore more rigorous proposals thatexamine the deep-rooted causes of OCB in the human being.

The success of the normative framework together with partial OA moderator effectscould lead us to think that a modern system of control of non-task behavior should gobeyond the situationalist view, which refuses to consider lazy, highly committed orirresponsible employees, but considers ASP conditioned by a more or less favorableattitudinal environment. The organizations human resources management is mainlyresponsible and probably must not only be seeking a classic route to ASP satisfactionand motivation but also audit the organizational norms and values in order to exercisecontrol over OA. In this respect, we should state our personal support fororganizational learning as a tool to integrate that knowledge and achieve thosebehavioral improvements in the organizations members. In effect, knowledge issomething more than mere data or information flow charged with data (Davenport andPrusak, 1998); it is a framework of the individuals experiences, values (attitudes),information and know how that permits both the accumulation of new knowledgeand effective action.

Organizational learning (OL) allows the organization to integrate the knowledge toachieve those behavioral improvements in the organizations members. Therefore, itrequires tools that permit individual knowledge to be converted into collectiveknowledge. On the same lines, Senge (1990) lays the foundations for so-calledintelligent organizations. OL classifies the deficit of OCB as a problem if thefollowing occurs:

.

the target behavior is not observed;. there is a wish to correct that; and. the skills and resources are provided to correct it (MacCrimmon and Taylor,

1976).

If we limit ourselves to the greater or lesser depth and complexity required in thesolution, we can distinguish two types of structure for problems (Andreu and Sieber,1998): structured problems and non-structured problems. The first only require the


859


19/25

application of a routine protocol, while the second require a change in the mentalstructures of those involved. Therefore, we believe that the control of OCB requiresin-depth changes in the mental structures of the actors, based on the hypothesis thatthe nature of OCB is essentially attitudinal and we face an extremely destructured

problem. In effect, that control is based on the fact that OCB is strongly promoted byworkers evaluative perception of his/her organizational environment rather than of theobjective reality of that environment. Senge (1990) and Rouse et al. (1992), amongothers, already refer to the ability of OL to mobilize the mental model, or the subjectsset of internal images of the world surrounding him/her that condition his/her view ofit and has a strong influence on his/her behavior and learning. In short, they refer to aknow-what that goes beyond the know-how, and know-why.

With regard to the academic implications, we should highlight the introduction ofOA and its concomitant influences of greater or lesser social-normative-evaluativesupport on citizenship behaviors into the literature on OCB. We believe that theinclusion of that variable strengthens the thesis that argues the influence of socialexchange relationships on citizenship behavior. One last academic implication may bethe contribution to the ongoing debate on the real benefits of job satisfaction to theorganization. Faced with the skepticism in the OB and HRM literature that the satisfiedemployee is not always the most efficient, we can modestly say that this research mayhave introduced new elements. In effect, the supported influence of job satisfaction onnon-task behavior, which, in turn, seems to be related to performance and individualand collective quality, adds new lines of research and arguments in favor of thatrelationship.

It is difficult to find the study of anomie in organizations in the literature onorganizational motivation and we believe that it should advance in the doctrine in lightof the unpretentious success of this research, and we highlight it as a second doctrinalimplication. In effect, this research has enabled us to review many concepts similar to

OA, such as organizational alienation, organizational support, etc. We also think thatwe have helped consolidate the OA construct into organizations with our modestresearch. It provides a clear, explicit and important justification for the OAdistinctiveness and makes a valuable addition to the existing OB literature. Perhaps weshould begin to consider whether the problem of efficiency in the performance ofhuman resources in organizations requires us to speak not only of alienatedemployees or demotivated employees, but also of anomic employees.

The study of non-task behavior, e.g. OCB, in organizations seems to require theproposal of a dual line of future research. On the one hand, there is the relationshipbetween those behaviors and the overall performance of the worker in his/her job. Thatrelationship may give OCB the function of an indicator of the efficiency and/or qualityin the overall performance in the job. Therefore, since they are no behaviors inherent to

the tasks comprising the workers job, their measurement may prove useful to theorganization. On the other hand, this research studies the etiology of the OCB of theuniversity ASP but does not contemplate the other perspective that would examine therelationship with the quality and efficiency of the administration activity and/or ofservice to the student or client. We have pointed out that there are works that showOCB as a good indicator of quality in customer service relationships (e.g. Blancero et al.,1995; Morrison, 1996; Bell and Menguc, 2002; Kim et al., 2004). Therefore, if the qualityof a public service, such as the state university in this study, must be measured by the

PR36,6

860


20/25

satisfaction of the clients, the study of student satisfaction and its relationship with theOCB of the teaching staff and administration and services personnel is a line ofresearch to be recommended.

At this point, we feel that we should point out certain limitations of this work. First,

the researched academic institution is a relatively recently created university, withASP younger and with a lower proportion of career civil servants than otherinstitutions in Spain and abroad. That circumstance could prevent the extrapolation ofour results to other organizations. Second, that group of workers has certain workingconditions that are often inherent to the peculiarities of jobs in state universities supervision with high turnover in academic posts, clients (students) with uncertaincontinuity due to their studies, etc. that also prevent extrapolation to other groups ofworkers, both private and public.

Notes

1. On those lines, the literature on organizational behavior refers to a favorable, or unfavorable,attitudinal enviroment, where all attitudes seem to follow similar behavioral norms and havea certain interdependence.

2. In our case, the focus is on extra-role positive cognitive responses (where the subjectpositively overconceptualizes his/her organizational environment), extra-role positiveaffective responses (where the subject affectively overestimates elements of thatenvironment), and extra-role positive behavioral responses (where the subject behavesextremely positively toward others and toward his/her own organization).

References

Adams, I.H. (1962), Mothers Anomic Attitudes and Childhood Disorders? The Bias ofCommunication, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Aiken, M. and Hage, J. (1966), Organizational alienation, American Sociological Review, Vol. 31,August, pp. 497-507.

Allen, B.H. and LaFollette, W.R. (1977), Perceived organizational structure and alienationamong management trainees, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 334-41.

Allport, F.H. (1924), Social Psychology, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.

Alvarez, M. and Rodrguez, S. (1997), La calidad total en la Universidad: Podemos hablar declientes?, Boletn de Estudios Economicos, Vol. LII No. 161, pp. 333-52.

Andreu, R. and Sieber, S. (1998), Knowledge and problem solving: a proposal for a model ofindividual and collective learning, Working Paper No. 99/1, IESE, Barcelona.

Aquino, K., Galperin, B.L. and Bennett, R. (2004), Social status and aggressiveness asmoderators of the relationship between interactional justice and workplace deviance,

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 34, pp. 1001-29.

Bass, B. (1990), Bass & Stogdills Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and ManagerialApplications, Free Press, New York, NY.

Bell, S.J. and Menguc, B. (2002), The employee-organization relationship, organizationalcitizenship behaviors, and superior service quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78,pp. 131-46.


861


21/25

Bernard, T.J. (1987), Testing structural strain theories, Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency, Vol. 21, pp. 353-72.

Blancero, D., Johnson, S. and Lakshman, C. (1995), Psychological contracts, OCB and customerservice: an exploratory examination, Papers 95-23, Center for Advanced Human Resource

Studies, Ithaca, NY.Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Bommer, W.H., Grover, S.L. and Miles, E.W. (2003), Does one good turn deserve another?Coworker influences on employee citizenship, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24,pp. 181-96.

Boye, M.W. and Jones, J.W. (1997), Organizational culture and employee counterproductivity,in Giacalone, R.A. and Greenberg, J. (Eds), Antisocial Behavior in Organizations, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 172-84.

Caruana, A., Ewing, M.T. and Ramaseshan, B. (2001), Anomia and deviant behaviour inmarketing: some preliminary evidence, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 16,pp. 322-88.

Cohen, D. (1995), Ethics and crime in business firms: organizational culture and the impact ofanomie, in Adler, F. and Laufer, W. (Eds), The Legacy of Anomie Theory, TransactionPublishers, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 183-206.

Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for theBehavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organisations Manage WhatThey Know, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.

Diefendorff, J.M., Brown, D.J., Kamin, A.M. and Lord, R.G. (2002), Examining the roles of jobinvolvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behavior and jobperformance, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 93-108.

Dunlop, P.D. and Lee, K. (2004), Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behavior, andbusiness unit performance: the bad apples do spoil the whole barrel, Journal of

Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 67-80.

Durkheim, E. (1951), Suicide: A Study in Sociology. Spaulding, J.A. and Simpson, G. (trans),Free Press, New York, NY (originally published in 1897).

Durkheim, E. (1984), The Division of Labor in Society, Halls, W.D. (trans), Free Press, New York,NY (originally published in 1893).

Eagly, A. and Chaiken, S. (1993), Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York,NY.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990), Perceived organizational support andemployee diligence, commitment, and innovation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75,pp. 51-9.

Farh, J.L., Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1990), Accounting for organizational citizenship

behavior: leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction, Journal of Management,Vol. 16, pp. 705-21.

Farrell, M., Schmitt, M. and Heinemann, G. (2001), Informal roles and the stages ofinterdisciplinary team development, Journal of Interprofessional Care, Vol. 15, pp. 281-93.

Festinger, L. and Carlsmith, J.M. (1959), Cognitive consequences of forced compliance, Journalof Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 203-10.

Fischer, C.S. (1973), On urban alienations and anomie: powerlessness and social isolation,American Sociological Review, Vol. 38, pp. 311-26.

PR36,6

862


22/25

Greenberg, J. (1990), Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: the hidden cost ofpay cuts, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 561-8.

Griffin, R.W., OLearly-Kelly, A. and Collins, J. (1998), Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations,JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), Motivation through the design of work: test of atheory, Organisational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 15, pp. 250-79.

Hagedorn, R. and Labovitz, S. (1968), A reply to Gibbs and Martin, and Tennant, SocialProblems, Vol. 15, pp. 514-15.

Hair, J.F. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hayek, F. (1994), The Road to Serfdom, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Hill, A.V. (1995), Service Guarantees: The Fast-Track to Service Quality, IMD Perspectives,Washington, DC.

Hodson, R. (1999), Organizational anomie and worker consent, Work and Occupations, Vol. 26,pp. 292-323.

Homans, G. (1961), Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, Harcourt Brace, New York, NY.Homans, G. (1974), Elementary Forms of Social Behavior, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York,

NY.

Kaplan, H.B. (1976), Self-Attitudes and Deviant Behavior, Goodyear, Pacific Palisades, CA.

Kaplan, H.B. and Pokorny, A.D. (1969), Self-derogation and psychosocial adjustment, Journalof Nervous and Mental Disease, Vol. 149, pp. 421-34.

Kim, J., Moon, J., Han, D. and Tikoo, S. (2004), Perceptions of justice and employee willingness toengage in customer-oriented behavior, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 18, pp. 267-75.

Konovsky, M.A. and Pugh, S.D. (1994), Citizenship behavior and social exchange, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 656-69.

Lee, G. (1974), Marriage and anomia: a causal argument, Journal of Marriage and Family,

Vol. 36, pp. 523-33.MacCrimmon, K.R. and Taylor, R. (1976), Decision making and problem solving, in Dunnette, M.D.

(Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.

McClosky, H. and Schaar, J.H. (1965), Psychological dimensions of anomy, AmericanSociological Review, Vol. 32, pp. 14-20.

McNeely, B.L. and Meglino, B.M. (1994), The role of dispositional and situational antecedents inprosocial organizational behavior: an examination of the intended beneficiaries ofprosocial behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 836-44.

Marks, S.R. (1974), Durkheims theory of anomie, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 80,pp. 329-63.

Menard, S. (1995), A developmental test of Mertonian anomie theory, Journal of Research in

Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 32, pp. 136-74.Merton, R.K. (1957), Priorities in scientific discovery, American Sociological Review, Vol. 22,

pp. 635-59.

Miller, C.R. and Buttler, E.W. (1966), Anomia and eunomia: a methodological evaluation onSroles anomia scale, American Sociological Review, Vol. 31, pp. 400-6.

Moorman, R.H. (1991), The relationship between organizational justice and organizationalcitizenship behavior: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?, Journal of

Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 845-55.


863


23/25

Moorman, R.H. and Harland, L.K. (2002), Temporary workers as good citizens: factorsinfluencing their organizational citizenship behavior performance, Journal of Businessand Psychology, Vol. 17, pp. 171-87.

Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G.L. and Niehoff, B.P. (1998), Does organizational support mediate the

relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior?,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 351-7.

Moorman, R.H., Niehoff, B.P. and Organ, D.W. (1993), Treating employees fairly andorganizational citizenship behavior: sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizationalcommitment, and procedural justice, Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal, Vol. 6,pp. 209-26.

Morgan, G. (1986), Images of Organization, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Morrison, E.W. (1996), Organizational citizenship behavior as a critical link between HRMpractices and service quality, Human Resource Management, Vol. 35, pp. 493-512.

Motowidlo, S.J. (1994), Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextualperformance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 475-80.

Neves, C.M. (2003), Optimism, pessimism, and hope in Durkheim, Journal of Happiness Studies,Vol. 4, pp. 169-83.

Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), Justice as a mediator of the relationship betweenmethods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior, Academy of Management

Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 527-56.

Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, LexingtonBooks, Lexington, MA.

Organ, D.W. (1990), The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior, Research inOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 12, pp. 43-72.

Organ, D.W. (1997), Organizational citizenship behavior: its construct cleanup time, HumanPerformance, Vol. 10, pp. 85-97.

Owlia, M.S. and Aspinwall, E.M. (1996), A framework for the dimensions of quality in highereducation, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 4, pp. 12-20.

Pitt, L.F. (1985), Managerial attitudes towards corruption a pilot study, South African Journalof Business Management, Vol. 16, pp. 27-30.

Potter, R.H. (1989), Ethics, discipline, and human nature: a new look ar management anddeviance, Industrial Management, Vol. 31, pp. 14-21.

Randall, M.L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C.A. and Birjulin, A. (1999), Organizational politicsand organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, andorganizational citizenship behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20,pp. 159-74.

Rego, A. (2003), Citizenship behaviours of university teachers, Active Learning in Higher

Education, Vol. 4, pp. 8-23.Robbins, S.P. (2001), Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies and Applications, 9th ed.,

Prentice-Hall International, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Robinson, J.P. and Shaver, P.R. (1973), Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes, rev. ed.,Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI.

Robinson, S.L. and Greenberg, J. (1998), Employees behaving badly: dimensions, determinants,and dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance, in Cooper, C.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (Eds),Trends in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 1-30.

PR36,6

864


24/25

Robinson, S.L. and OLeary-Kelly, A.M. (1998), Monkey see, monkey do: the influence of workgroups on the antisocial behavior of employees, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41,pp. 658-72.

Rosenberg, M. (1965), Society and the Adolescent Self-Image, Princeton University Press,

Princeton, NJ.Rouse, W.B., Cannon-Bowers, J.S. and Salas, E. (1992), The role of mental models in team

performance in complex systems, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,Vol. 22, pp. 1296-307.

Ryan, J. (1981), Marital status, happiness, and anomia, Journal of Marriage and the Family,Vol. 43, pp. 643-9.

Sarros, J.C., Tanewski, G.A., Winter, R.P., Santora, J.C. and Densten, I.L. (2002), Work alienationand organization leadership, British Journal of Management, Vol. 13, pp. 285-304.

Seeman, M. (1959), On the meaning of alienation, American Sociological Review, Vol. 24,pp. 783-91.

Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday, New York, NY.

Settoon, R.P., Bennett, N. and Liden, R.C. (1996), Social exchange in organizations: perceivedorganizational support, leader member exchange, and employee reciprocity, Journal of


Shedd, J. and Bachrach, S. (1991), Tangled Hierarchies, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Shore, L.M. and Wayne, S.J. (1993), Commitment and employee behavior: a comparison ofaffective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizationalsupport, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 774-80.

Skarlicki, D.P. and Folger, R. (1997), Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive,procedural, and interactional justice, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 434-43.

Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P. (1983), Organizational citizenship behavior: its natureand antecedents, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68, pp. 653-63.

Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M. and Hullin, C.L. (1969), The Measurement of Job Satisfaction in Workand Retirement, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL.

Srole, L. (1956), Social integration and certain corollaries: an exploratory study, AmericanSocial Review, Vol. 21, pp. 709-16.

Taylor, G.S. and Zimmerer, T.W. (1992), Voluntary turnover among middle-level managers:an analysis of perceived causes, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 4, pp. 424-37.

Tepper, B.J. and Taylor, E.C. (2003), Relationships among supervisors and subordinatesprocedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors, Academy of

Management Journal, Vol. 46, pp. 97-105.

Tepper, B.J., Lockhart, D. and Hoobler, J. (2001), Justice, citizenship, and role definition effects,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 789-96.

Thibaut, J.W. and Kelley, H.H. (1959), The Social Psychology of Groups, Wiley, New York, NY.Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.G. and Dienesch, R.M. (1994), Organizational citizenship behavior:

construct redefinition, operationalization, and validation, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 37, pp. 765-802.

Vardi, Y. (2001), The effects of organizational and ethical climates on misconduct at work,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 29, pp. 325-37.

Vardi, Y. and Weiner, Y. (1996), Misbehavior in organizations: a motivational framework,Organizational Science, Vol. 7, pp. 151-65.


865


25/25

Wayne, S.J. and Ferris, G.R. (1990), Influence tactics, affect, and exchange quality insupervisor-subordinate interactions: a laboratory experiment and field study, Journal of


Wayne, S.J. and Liden, R.C. (1995), A longitudinal study of the effects of impression

management on performance ratings, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38,pp. 232-60.

Williams, L. and Anderson, S. (1991), Job satisfaction and organizational commitment aspredictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors, Journal of Management,Vol. 17, pp. 601-17.

Zellars, K.L., Tepper, B.J. and Duffy, M.K. (2002), Abusive supervision and subordinatesorganizational citizenship behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 1068-76.

About the authorsPablo Zoghbi Manrique de Lara (PhD, Las Palmas of Grand Canary University) is a TitularProfessor of OB and HR Studies at Grand Canary University in Spain. His research interestsfocus on cyberloafing, and deviant behaviour in the workplace. Pablo Zoghbi is the

corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] F. Espino Rodrguez (PhD, Las Palmas of Grand Canary University) is an Associate

Professor at the Departament of Business and Mangement at Grand Canary University in Spain.His research interests focus on outsourcing and operations management.

PR36,6

866

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Date post:	05-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ipahyangcomel
View:	221 times
Download:	0 times

Organizational Anomie

Documents