ABAC Journal Vol. 26, No. 3 (September - December, 2006, pp.21- 36)

THE ROLE OF SOCIAL POWER, PROCEDURAL JUSTICE,ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT, AND JOB

SATISFACTION TO ENGENDER ORGANIZATIONALCITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR

ByNadim Jahangir1, Muzahid Akbar2 and Noorjahan Begum3

Abstract

A conceptual framework is proposed to investigate the effects of employees' perceptionof managers' social power on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) mediated by proce-dural justice, employees' organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. To test the frame-work, structural equation modeling techniques are applied to data collected from 195 top andmiddle level employees of a private commercial bank in Bangladesh. Primarily this study aimsto test the theoretical models to measure the causality whether Social Power, Procedural Jus-tice, Organizational Commitment, and Job Satisfaction can foster Organizational CitizenshipBehavior. The results of the study indicate that procedural justice is significantly and positivelyrelated to job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The findings indicated that organi-zational commitment has a positive relationship with OCB but the relationship is found to beinsignificant. In addition the results also show that employees' with high job satisfaction willhave higher OCB, suggesting that bank management needs to value employees' job satisfactionto increase employees' OCB. Implications for practicing managers and for future research arediscussed.

1 Nadim Jahangir holds a Ph. D. (Bank Management) from Australian Catholic University (Australia) in2003 and is currently working as an Associate Professor (Director, in charge), at School of Business in Indepen-dent University, Bangladesh.

2 Muzahid Akbar has a MBA (IT Concentration) from Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS)in 2002 and Master of Commerce (Accounting) from University of Dhaka, Dhaka in 1999 and is currently workingas a Senior Lecturer (Marketing and Management) in the School of Business in the Independent University,Bangladesh.

3 Noorjahan Begum has a Master of Business Administration (MBA), Major in Marketing 2006 fromIndependent University, Bangladesh (IUB) and is currently working as a Research and Development Officer inSchool of Business, Independent University, Bangladesh.

21

Introduction

The banking services industry has undergonedramatic changes over the past two decades. In1982, to improve the performance of National-ized Commercial Banks (NCBs), the Bangladeshgovernment decided some of the NCBs wouldbe gradually decentralized and new commercialbanks would be allowed to operate in the privatesector. After this decision, in December 1986,two out of six NCBs were decentralized and sixnew private commercial banks were allowed tooperate in the banking sector (Jahangir, 2003a).Currently 19 (Bangladesher Diary, 2005) privatebanks are operating in the country. Unlike theNCBs, the private sector commercial banks areexclusively driven by profit motivation (Jahangir,2003a). Following the sweeping decentralizedpolicy of the 1980s, private banks were facedwith new and competitive operating environmentsand as a consequence are attempting both to in-crease operating efficiencies and develop newincome streams through various structural andstrategic changes initiatives.

Such changes have led the private commer-cial banks to adopt a new orientation of market-ing and embrace relationship marketing principles(Berry, 1997). The current private commercialbank environment has changed from teller to sellerand where such employees represent a key fa-cilitator in the implementation of relationship bank-ing strategy. Employees activities associate withimplementing organizational decisions are affectedby how the employees perceived supervisor'ssocial power. A number of researches (Carlson,Carlson, & Wadsworth, 2000; Rahim & Magner,1996; Mossholder, Bennett, Kemery, &Wesolowski, 1998) noted relationships betweensocial power bases (SPB) and affective workreactions (such as organizational commitment, jobsatisfaction, subordinates burn out, turnover, or-ganizational citizenship behavior), however, todate limited attempts have been made to con-ceptualize such relationships in an organizationalcontext.

While investigating the relationship amongpower, procedural justice (PJ), and subordinates'organizational commitment (OC) and job satis-faction (JS), it may be argued that subordinates'commitment and job satisfaction will also influ-ence their organizational citizenship behavior(OCB). Particularly, a plausible relationship be-tween OC and JS, and OCB can be examined asan extension of the former relational discussionregarding social power bases, procedural justice,and organizational outcomes. Precisely, OC andJS may become critical precursors of determin-ing subordinates' OCB. To explore this thesis, theresearchers have suggested a theoretical frame-work that includes SPB, PJ, OC, JS, and OCB.

The objective of this study is to propose andempirically analyze a conceptual framework thatconsiders employees' perception of managers'social power, procedural justice, organizationalcommitment, and job satisfaction constructs inrelation to OCB. The researchers incorporatedthe complex interrelationships of these constructsinto the framework and tests them in a bankingsetting, understanding how various factors relateto OCB can help managers monitor and enhanceemployees' OCB effectively through initiativesinvolving those factors that directly affect OCB.

Review of Literature

Concept of Social Power Bases

The notion of power can be traced to the1950s when Dahl (1957) argued that power isthe ability to overcome resistance in achieving adesired result. Rahim (1989) elaborated on de-sired results, and proposed that power is the abilityof one party to change or control the behavior,attitudes, opinions, objectives, needs, and valuesof another party.

A theoretical framework that has receivedmuch attention in studies of social power was firstproposed by French and Raven (1959). They

Nadim Jahangir, Muzahid Akbar and Noorjahan Begum

22

identified five types of social power (coercive,reward, legitimate, expert, and referent) that havebeen the subject of numerous organizational stud-ies.

1. Coercive power is based on subordinates'perceptions that a superior has the abilityto punish them if they fail to conform tohis or her influence attempt.

2. Reward power is based on the percep-tion of subordinates that a superior canreward them for desired behavior.

3. Legitimate power is based on the beliefof subordinates that a superior has theright to prescribe and control their be-havior.

4. Expert power is based on subordinates'belief that a superior has job experienceand special knowledge or expertise in agiven area.

5. Referent power is based on subordinates'desires to identify with a superior becauseof their admiration or personal liking ofthe superior.

The Concept of Procedural Justice

Procedural justice refers, generally, to howan allocation decision is made. According toFolger and Greenberg (1985) the perceived fair-ness or equity of the procedures used in makingthe allocation decisions regarding the distributionof rewards is an important consideration for em-ployees. On the other hand, Kumar (1996) statedthat procedural justice describes the fairness of aparty's procedures and policies for dealing withits vulnerable partners and refers to the fairnessof the means used to determine the outcomes inthe relationship.

Though there are several models that couldbe used to interpret how various actions by su-pervisors could affect subordinates' proceduraljustice perceptions (Cropanzano & Greenberg,1997), it is perhaps most useful to consider thepower bases in terms of relational/non-instrumen-

tal and instrumental process. When supervisorsmake influence attempts relying on social powerbases, relational facets of the power bases arelikely to be more important than instrumental fac-ets. This is because such facets have more to dowith the nature of the social exchange betweensupervisors and subordinates, rather than pos-sible outcomes of the exchange.

Instrumental perspectives (e.g. self-interestmodel, Lind & Tyler, 1988) portray justice judg-ments as based on how well a procedure servesinterests external to the experience of the proce-dure. Research suggests that subordinates' per-ception of procedural justice, which in turn influ-ences subordinates' attitudes to authorities andorganizational outcomes (Konovsky, 2000). Thusif subordinates feel that the supervisors are be-having fairly while using power; it would have apositive effect on subordinates' organizationaloutcomes.

Links between Social Power Bases and pro-cedural Justice

The first type of social power bases is thereward power. Studies (Jahangir, 2003b; Rahim,1989) suggested that subordinates who associ-ate supervisors' reward power with favorable cir-cumstances or outcomes are more likely to feelthat the supervisors are procedurally fair. Addi-tionally, Raven (1990) proposed that rewardpower can be seen as including relational facets,such as personal approval, praise, respect, andautonomy. Thus, for both instrumental and rela-tion based reasons, reward power should be posi-tively related with perceptions of procedural jus-tice.

Coercive power is characterized by behav-iors that are directed at forcing compliance fromsubordinates through threat, confrontation, andpunitive behaviors that are outside of normal roleexpectations (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1994). Su-pervisors who have demonstrated the capacityto behave in these ways will likely be perceived

The Role of Social Power, Procedural Justice, Organizational Commitment,and Job Satisfaction to Engender Organizational Citizenship Behavior

23

by subordinates as acting with personal bias, dis-honesty, and arbitrariness; all of which are theantithesis of procedural justice.

The substance of referent power is congru-ent with the two aforementioned procedural jus-tice perspectives. Supervisors with referent powergenerally appeal the subordinates to identify them-selves with their supervisors. Subordinates (whoare working under supervisors with referentpower) are made to feel important and person-ally accepted usually experience increased pro-cedural justice perception as they are being val-ued in the work group (Tyler & Lind, 1992).

Expert power is the capacity to administerknowledge and expertise. Supervisors perform-ing their work efficiently can demonstrate thispower base (Jahangir, 2003b). Jahangir found thatwhen supervisors share work base knowledgewith their subordinates, subordinates perceivetheir supervisors procedurally fair as comparedto those who do not share or are not capable ofsharing work base knowledge. Wilson (1995)stated that supervisors' informal discussions withsubordinates lead information sharing and in-creased perceptions of procedural justice.

Legitimate power refers to the ability to in-duce in others feelings of task-related obligationand responsibility. Jahangir (2003b) found thatwhen supervisors stay within formal boundariesin assigning responsibilities to subordinates, sub-ordinates perceive that supervisors are procedur-ally fair. Such managerial behaviors are conso-nant with procedural justice tenets (e.g., consis-tency, representativeness, bias suppression), andshould therefore, increase subordinates' percep-tion that manages are acting fairly.

From the literature review, it was postulatedthat employee perception of the manager's socialpower is related to the employees' organizationalcommitment, job satisfaction, burnout, and turn-over (Carlson, Carlson, & Wadsworth, 2000;Jahangir, 2003b; Mossholder, Bennett, Kemery,

& Wesolowski, 1998). Consistent with these find-ings, the researchers hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1: Employees' perception of man-agers' reward power, legitimate power, expertpower, and referent power have positive effectson employees' perception of procedural justice.

Hypothesis 2: Employees' perception of man-agers' coercive power has a negative effect onemployees' perception of procedural justice.

Organizational Commitment

Past studies have defined organizational com-mitment in many different ways. Porter, Steers,Mowday and Boulian (1974) defined organiza-tional commitment as the relative strength of anindividual's identification and involvement with aparticular organization. The concept employed inthis study is the affective commitment concept asoutlined in the study of Mowday, Steers, andPorter (1979).

Job Satisfaction

One of the most influential models for investi-gating various dimensions of the immediate jobenvironment was developed by Hackman andOldham (1980). One key feature of this approachis its ability to measure some of the most impor-tant dimensions that can be commonly identifiedin a workplace at the individual employee level.

Job satisfaction being an affective, cognitiveor attitudinal response to work has a significantrelationship with organizational outcomes. Al-though all most all of the concepts of employees'job satisfaction given by different researchers aresimilar, the dimensions of employees' job satis-faction provided by Hackman and Oldman(1980) was being used to elaborated the con-cept.

Links between Procedural Justice, Organi-zational Commitment and Job Satisfaction

Organizational justice (i.e. distributive justice

Nadim Jahangir, Muzahid Akbar and Noorjahan Begum

24

and procedural justice), a socially constructeddimension (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, &Ng, 2001), has explained workplace attitudinaland behavioral reactions, including job satisfac-tion (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor,2000) and organizational commitment (Konovsky& Cropanzano, 1991). McDowall and Fletcher(2004) also stated that, procedural justice wouldbe significantly and positively correlated with or-ganizational commitment and job satisfaction.Employees who perceive the review process isfair may likely feel emotionally committed to theirorganization and job, and not leaving the organi-zation. Moreover, employees who perceive theirorganizations to be fair and just with them tend tobe more satisfied with the organization. This, inturn, is likely to enhance employees' job satisfac-tion. Hence, employees' perception of proceduraljustice and job satisfaction is expected to be posi-tively linked (Koh & Boo, 2004). Therefore, thefollowing hypotheses can be proposed:

Hypothesis 3: Employees' perception of pro-cedural justice has a positive effect on employ-ees' organizational commitment.

Hypothesis 4: Employees' perception of pro-cedural justice has a positive effect on employ-ees' job satisfaction.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) isreferred to a set of discretionary workplace be-haviors that exceed one's basic job requirements(Bateman & Organ, 1983). They are often de-scribed as behaviors that go beyond the call ofduty. The vast majority of OCB research hasfocused on the effects of OCB on individual andorganizational performance. Many researchersfocused on the effects of OCB on individual andorganizational performance and found that OCBleads an organization to positive consequences(Appelbaum, Asmar, Chehayeb, Konidas,Duszara, & Duminica, 2003). Job satisfaction hasbeen found to have a positive relationship withjob performance and OCB.

Links between bases of power OrganizationalCommitment, Job Satisfaction, and Organi-zational Citizenship Behavior

Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, and Bachrach(2000) stated that some of the dimensions ofmanagers' social power (e.g. reward power, ref-erent power) may have a relationship with OCB.Simon (1976) said that in an organizational con-text, OCB is often part of an informal psycho-logical contract in which the employee hopes thatsuch extra effort may be perceived and then re-warded by the boss and the organization. There-fore the following hypotheses can be developed:

Hypothesis 5: Employees' perception of man-agers' reward power, legitimate power, expertpower, and referent power have positive effectson employees' organizational citizenship behav-ior.

Hypothesis 6: Employees' perception of man-agers' coercive power has a negative effect onemployees' organizational citizenship behavior.

Findings presented in previous empirical stud-ies (Organ & Konovsky, 1989) and the concep-tual rationale proposed by Organ (1988, 1990)support the hypothesized positive relationshipbetween job satisfaction and organizational citi-zenship behavior. Workers with high levels of jobsatisfaction are more likely to be engaged in OCB(Brown, 1993). Furthermore, individuals withhigher levels of job satisfaction demonstrate de-creased propensity to search for another job(Sager, 1994), and a decreasing propensity toleave. Thus, an employee who feels satisfied atwork will be keener to participate in extra-roleactivities, or if she/he is treated fairly she/he willalso be more interested to engage in contextualperformance (Nikolaou, 2003).

The foregoing discussion leads to the next hy-pothesis:

Hypothesis 7: Employees' job satisfaction hasa positive effect on employees' organizational citi-zenship behavior.

The Role of Social Power, Procedural Justice, Organizational Commitment,and Job Satisfaction to Engender Organizational Citizenship Behavior

25

Some researchers stated that OCB is consid-ered to be a reflection of the employees' commit-ment to their organization which is empirically re-lated to OCB (Castro, Armario, & Ruiz, 2004).Along with job satisfaction, affective organizationalcommitment is a frequently cited antecedent ofOCB. Because affective commitment maintainsbehavioral direction when there is little expecta-tion of formal rewards (Allen & Meyer, 1996), itwould seem logical that affective commitmentdrives those behaviors (i.e. discretionary behav-iors) that do not depend primarily on reinforce-ment or formal rewards. Consistent with thesefindings, it can be hypothesized:

Hypothesis 8: Employees' organizationalcommitment has a positive effect on employees'organizational citizenship behavior.

As the direct relationship between employ-ees' perception of social power bases and OCBis not well documented, the researchers also triedto find out the existence of this relationship in twodifferent modified models with two different me-diated variables.

Conceptual framework

From the literature review two different mod-els can be identified (Base model 1 and Basemodel 2). Based on these models, a two-levelanalysis was employed. The first level investigatedwhether employees' perception of procedural jus-tice, employees' organizational commitment, andemployees' job satisfaction mediates the relation-ship between managers' social power and OCB.At the second level, two modified models can bedeveloped where it will be investigated whether adirect and also mediated relationship between themanagers' social power and OCB mediated byprocedural justice, employees' organizationalcommitment, and employees' job satisfaction willbe more effective than the previous one. Firstly,the model which depicts both the direct and me-diated relationships between employees' percep-tion of supervisors' social power bases and OCB

mediated by employees' perception of proceduraljustice and employees' organizational commitmentwill be compared to the base model 1. Secondly,the second modified model which depicts boththe direct and mediated relationships betweenemployees' perception of supervisors' socialpower bases and OCB mediated by employees'perception of procedural justice and employees'job satisfaction will be compared to the basemodel 2.

Methodology

Sample

Data were collected from 195 top and middlelevel employees of a private commercial bank ofBangladesh. The minimum age of the respondentswas 24 and the maximum was 55. The averageage of the respondents was 34 years. The aver-age work experience of these employees wasaround seven years. Of the respondents, 80.5 %were male and 19.5 % were female. Of the 270questionnaires distributed, 195 completed re-sponses were received, with a response rate of72.3%.

MeasuresA structured questionnaire was used in this

research to collect data from the employees. Thequestionnaire was divided in to five sections. Thefirst section focused on employees' perception ofmanagers' social power, the second section onprocedural justice, the third section on employ-ees' organizational commitment, fourth section onorganizational citizenship behavior, and the lastsection on employees' job satisfaction.

Employees' perception of managers' socialpower

The researchers used French and Raven's(1959) power frame work to investigate employ-ees' perception of managers' social power. Theemployees' perception on managers' social power

Nadim Jahangir, Muzahid Akbar and Noorjahan Begum

26

hypothesized employees' perception of manag-ers' expert power was significant and positivelyrelated with OCB. The relationship between em-ployees' perception of procedural justice, andemployees' job satisfaction was significant. Theanticipated relationship between employees' jobsatisfaction, and employees' organizational citi-zenship behavior was also significant and in thehypothesized direction.

Discussion

The present study presents a conceptualframework that considered how employees' per-ceptions of managers' social power affect OCBthrough procedural justice, and organizationalcommitment (or job satisfaction) in the case of aprivate commercial bank in Bangladesh. Datasupport the proposed model (Modified Model2), where direct paths from managers' socialpower to OCB; and indirect paths from manag-ers' social power to OCB mediated by proce-dural justice, and job satisfaction were consid-ered.

In general, the results supported most of thedeveloped hypothesized relationships. Coercivepower appeared in the hypothesized direction inthe case of all the proposed models. The moremanagers having coercive power, the more theywere evaluated by employees as being proce-durally unjust. This unjust perception of employ-ees generally decreases employees' JS and OC,and which in turn lower employees' OCB. In suchsituations, it is important for managers to redoubleefforts at being fair (Mossholder et al., 1998).Mossholder et al. further suggested that adequateexplanation and communication is necessary whenmanagers' actions appear to violate proceduraljustice norms. The availability of voice mecha-nisms would seem crucial for subordinates to beable to air their views about impending discipline,or give an explanation of their decisions (Jahangir,2003a). Researchers (Jahangir 2003a; Mastersonet al., 2000) suggested that improved perception

The Role of Social Power, Procedural Justice, Organizational Commitment,and Job Satisfaction to Engender Organizational Citizenship Behavior

33

in the workplace will have positive impact onemployees' work attitudes (i.e. job satisfactionand organizational commitment).

The anticipated relationship between legiti-mate power and procedural justice appeared assignificant and positive for all the developed mod-els. This could be related to employees' expecta-tion that the person sitting as manager must befair in their treatment because of the position theperson holds. Interestingly, regarding the personalbase power (i.e. expert power and referentpower), only the expert power emerged as astrong predictor of OCB. Though both theory andempirical research support the relationship be-tween referent power and other work relatedvariables (Mossholder et al., 1998), in the caseof a Bangladeshi private commercial bank it wasnot supported. In Bangladesh, employees still per-ceive managers as giving orders based on posi-tion power. Most of the employees are not awareabout the referent power. Managers can possesscharisma and motivational qualities - somethingemployees might not be aware off. These resultssuggest that no single base of power is all-benefi-cial in influencing employees or all-powerful as apredictor of employees JS, OC, and OCB.Managerial effectiveness appears to be contin-gent on the fit between the type of power and theemployee criteria variable of interest.

The research findings indicate which powerbases bank managers should seek to develop.The private commercial banks in Bangladesh haveundergone dramatic changes over the past twodecades. In this study, the research has examinedvarious type of mangers' social power and howeffectively the power could be used to increaseemployees work related behavior. Organizationsmay find it useful to establish both formal and in-formal training procedures that encourage man-agers in developing power bases that positivelyaffect employees' perception regarding OC, JS,and OCB. In this regard Jahangir (2003b), Keysand Case (1990), and Rahim, Antonioni, andPsenicka (2001) suggest that skills based power

reflecting qualities associated with referent andexpert power bases may be crucial in sustaininginfluence. Also managers may need to learn oradopt an informal power sharing mechanism withemployees that could build fairness perceptions.

In this research, the researchers have con-sidered only social power in relation to PJ, OC,JS, and OCB. Future research should considerthe social bases of power in connection with jobperformance. With procedural justice, the futureresearchers could include distributive justice; alsoissues of organizational ethics and employee rightsare naturally entwined with those involving powerand employees work related behavior. By attempt-ing to explain how power relates to employeeswork reactions and organizational citizenship be-havior, it is hoped that the present study wouldshed new light on the subject and will encouragefurther organizational research in the area.

References

Allen, J., & Meyer, N. (1996). “Affective,continuance and normative commitmentto the organization: An examination ofconstruct validity”. Journal ofVocational Behaviour, 49, 252-276.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988).“Structural equation modeling in practice:A review and recommended two stepapproach”. Psychological Bulletin, 103,411-423.

Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos4.0 User’s Guide. IL: Small WaterCorporation.

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). “Jobsatisfaction and the good soldier: Therelationship between affect and employee“citizenship.”” Academy ofManagement Journal, 26, 587-595.

Berry, L. D. (1997). “Ten building blocks fordeveloping a customer- focused culture”.Bank Marketing, 29(7), 106.

Brown, R. (1993). “Antecedents andconsequences of salesperson jobsatisfaction: Meta-analysis andassessment of causal effects”. Journal ofMarketing Research, 30, 63-77.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993).“Alternative ways of assessing model fit”.In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.),Testing structural equation models,136-162. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Carlson, R. J., Carlson, D. S., & Wadsworth, L.L. (2000). “The relationship betweenindividual power moves and groupagreement type: An examination andmodel”. Advanced Management.

Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J.,Porter, C.O.L.H., & Ng, I. (2001),“Justice at the millennium: a meta-analyticreview of 25 years of organizationaljustice research”. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 86, 425-445.

Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997).“Progress in organizational justice:Tunneling through the maze”. In C. L.Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.).International review of industrial andorganizational psychology (317-372).New York: John Wiley & Sons. Journal,65(4), 4451.

Dahl, R. A. (1957). “The Concept of Power”.Behavioral Science, 2, 201-218.

Farh, J.L., Earley, P.C., & Lin, S.C. (1997).“Impetus for action: a cultural analysis ofjustice and organizational citizenshipbehavior in Chinese society”.Administrative Science Quarterly, 42,421-44.

Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). “Proceduraljustice: an interpretational analysis ofpersonnel Systems”. Research inPersonnel and Human ResourcesManagement, 3, 141-183.

Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. (1989). “Effects ofprocedural and distributive justice onreactions to pay raise decisions”.Academy of Management Journal, 32,115-130.

Nadim Jahangir, Muzahid Akbar and Noorjahan Begum

34

French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). “The Basesof Social Power”. In D. Cartwright & A.Zander (Eds.), Group Dynamics (1960ed.). Ann Arbor: Michigan: TavistockPublications.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Workredesign. Readings, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., &Black, W. C. (2003). Multivariate DataAnalysis (5th Ed.). Pearson Education:India.

Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). “Anexamination of subordinate – perceivedrelationship between leader reward andpunishment behaviour and leader basesof power”. Human Relations, 47(7),779-800.

Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989).“Development and application of newscales of measure the French and Raven(1959) bases of social power”. Journalof Psychology, 74(4), 561-567.

Jahangir, N. (2003a). “The role of proceduraljustice in organizational behavior”.Journal of International Affairs, 7 (1),10-41

Jahangir, N. (2003b). Perceptions of power: Acognitive perspective of nationalizedcommercial banks of Bangladesh. Centrefor Social Studies: Dhaka.

Keys, B., & Case, T. (1990). “How to becomea influential manager”. Academy ofManagement Executive, 4(4), 38-51.

Koh, H. C., & Boo, H.Y. (2004). “Organizationalethics and employee satisfaction andCommitment”. Management Decision,42 (5), 677- 693.

Konovsky, M. (2000). “UnderstandingProcedural Justice and its Impact onBusiness Organizations”. Journal ofManagement, 26(3), 489 - 518.

Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991).“Perceived fairness of employee drugtesting as a predictor of employee

The Role of Social Power, Procedural Justice, Organizational Commitment,and Job Satisfaction to Engender Organizational Citizenship Behavior

35

attitudes and job performance”. Journalof Applied Psychology, 76, 698-707.

Kumar, N. (1996). “The power of trust inmanufacturer-retailer relationships”,Harvard Business Review, November-December.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The socialpsychology of procedural justice. NewYork: Plenum Press.

Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M., &Taylor, M.S. (2000). “Integrating justiceand social exchange: the differing effectsof fair procedures and treatment on workrelationships”. Academy ofManagement Journal, 43, 738-748.

McDowall, A., & Fletcher, C. (2004). “Employeedevelopment: an organizational justicePerspective”. Personnel Review, 33 (1),8-29.

Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N., Kemery, E. R.,& Wesolowski, M. A. (1998).“Relationships between bases of powerand work reactions: The mediational roleof procedural justice”. Journal ofManagement, 24(4), 533-552.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W.(1979). “The measurement oforganizational Commitment”. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 14, 224 - 247.

Nikolaou, I. (2003). “Fitting the person to theorganisation: examining the personality-job performance relationship from a newperspective”. Journal of ManagerialPsychology 18 (7), 639-648.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd

edition). NY: McGraw Hill.Organ, D. (1990). “The motivational basis of

organizational citizenship behavior”,Research in Organizational Behavior,12, 43-72.

Organ, D., & Konosky, M. (1989). “Cognitiveversus affective determinants oforganizational citizenship behaviour”.Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,157-164.

Nadim Jahangir, Muzahid Akbar and Noorjahan Begum

36

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizationalcitizenship behavior: The good soldiersyndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington.

Posdakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, B.,& Bachrach, D. (2000). “Organizationalcitizenship behavior: A critical review ofthe theoretical and empirical literature andsuggestions for future research”. Journalof Management, 26 (3), 513-563.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., &Boulian, P. V. (1974). “Organizationalcommitment, job satisfaction, andturnover among psychiatric technicians”.Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603- 609.

Rahim, M. A. (1989). “Relationships of leaderpower to compliance and satisfaction withsupervision: Evidence from a nationalsample of managers”. Journal ofManagement, 15(4), 545-556.

Rahim, M. A., Antonioni, D., & Psenicka, C.(2001). “A structural equations model ofleader power, subordinates’ styles ofhandling conflict, and job performance”.International Journal of ConflictManagement, 12 (3), 191-211.

Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1996).“Confirmatory factor analysis of the basesof leader power: First - order factormodel and its invariance across groups”.Multivariate Behavioral Research,31(4), 495-516.

Rahim, M. A., & Buntzman, G. F. (1989).“Supervisory power bases, styles ofhandling conflict with subordinates, andsubordinate compliance and satisfaction”.Journal of Psychology, 123 (2), 195-210.

Raven, B. H. (1990). “Political implications ofthe psychology of interpersonal influenceand social power”. Political Psychology,1, 493-520.

Robbins, S.P. (2001). Organizational Behavior,Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Sager, J.K. (1994). “A structural model depictingsalespeople’s job stress”. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 22,74-84.

Simon, H. (1976). Administrative Behavior.Free Press, New York, NY.

Steiger, J. H. (1990). “Structural model evaluationand modification: An interval estimationApproach”. Multivariate BehavioralResearch, 25, 173-180.

Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). “A relationalmodel of authority in groups”. In M. P.Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimentalsocial psychology , 25, 115-191. SanDiego, CA: Academic Press.

Wilson, P.A. (1995). “The effects of politics andpower on the organization commitmentof federal executives”. Journal ofManagement, 21, 101-118.