TESTING RELIABILITY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR SCALE (OCBS) FOR NON- TEACHING STAFF IN ACADEMICS

International Journal of Management (IJM) Volume 6, Issue 9, Sep 2015, pp. 55-66, Article ID: IJM_06_09_007 Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/issues.asp?jtypeijm&vtype=6&itype=9 ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510 IAEME Publication Journal Impact Factor (2015): 7.9270 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com TESTING RELIABILITY OF ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR SCALE (OCBS) FOR NON- TEACHING STAFF IN ACADEMICS Ms. Niharika Singh Skill Development centre, Second Floor, Department of Law building, Opposite PUMBA, Savitribai Phule Pune University Campus, Ganeshkhind, Pune 411007 Dr. Bajrang D. Kolekar Principal, Rajaram Shinde Institute of Management Chiplun, India ABSTRACT Organizational citizenship Behaviours is being researched for last three decades by the researchers. It is sometimes compared with the prosocial behaviour, organizational spontaneity, extra role behaviour and contextual performance. Dennis Organ (1997), father of OCB has defined OCB as, Individual Behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization. Different scales has been devised by the researchers to measure different Organizational citizenship behaviour for different types of respondents. The current study aims to test the reliability of standardized questionnaire while measuring the Organizational Citizenship Behaviour of the non teaching staff in the academic sector. Doing this, test shall prove the relevance of the current scale for non teaching staff that will surely direct the future researchers to develop a new scale for non teaching staff. Key words: Organizational citizenship behaviour scale, Non teaching staff and reliability Cite this Article: Ms. Singh. N. and Dr. Kolekar, B. D Testing Reliability of Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale (OCBS) for Non-Teaching Staff in Academics, 6(9), 2015, pp. 55-66. http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/issues.asp?jtypeijm&vtype=6&itype=9 http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.asp 55 editor@iaeme.com

Ms. Niharika Singh and Dr. Bajrang D. Kolekar 1. INTRODUCTION Organizational citizenship behavior concept was first identified by Dennis Organ, who is considered to be the father of Organizational citizenship behavior in the year 1988. He has defined as Individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization. Organizational Citizenship Behavior are the explicit behaviours exhibited by employees that shows their sacrifices, their commitment and the prosperity of the organization. They defined them as good soldiers who act selflessly. According to Jon L. Pierce et.al. (2002), OCBs have these key features in comments: They are voluntary on the part of the employee. They are intentional ; the employee consciously, decides to perform them. They are intended to be positively valued by the employee and the organization. The behavior primarily benefits the organization (or co-workers) and not the employees themselves. They also agree with opinion of the researchers having the types of OCB as Altruism, Compliance, Courtesy, Sportsmanship and Civic Virtue. In a research by Van Dyne people exhibiting OCB shall demonstrate Organizational Obedience, Loyalty and Participation. They also gave some measres to measure one s own level of OCB. They also gave concept of convenatal relationship that talks about mutual benefits. As far as the determinants of OCBs are concerned, they gave two types : attitudinal ( like Job satisfaction, Fairness, Commitment & Leader supportiveness ) or dispositional (Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Positive & Negative Affectivity ) Another interesting finding by Organ & Ryan that employee moral can be the best predictor of whether employee will display OCB. Different management practices has direct or indirect effects on employee attitudes. Thus it shows that conducive practices or environment shall be a trigger for the high employee morale which in turn can led to exhibition of OCB. There was also a great curiosity among the researchers regarding why the people should engage in such kind of activity. Hence, John W. Newstrom (2009) has talked about few reasons behind these good soldiers engage in these actions: Their personality disposes them to do so. They hope that by doing so they will receive special recognition or rewards. They are attempting to engage in image enhancement through managing the impressions that others forms of them. There are different types of OCB which Fred Luthans (2011) has found as Loyalty OCBs, Service Delivering OCB, Participation OCBs that though all are undetected by the reward system but they all lead to high performance and increases effectiveness. Apart from the above mentioned adjectives OCBs has also been called as House keeping behavior by Gregory Moorhead & Ricky W. Griffin (2008) where apart from dos, they have mentioned about the don t s like finding fault with others, expressing displeasure, starting arguments and complaining about non significant things. They have also mentioned about the probable factors affecting OCB like Working condition, pay etc. Another term used for OCB was Prosocial Behavior by http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.asp 56 editor@iaeme.com

Latest Marketing Techniques: Nexa the Next Generation Showrooms of Maruti Suzuki Jerald Greenberg, Robert A. Baron (1999). Prosocial Behavior is defined as the action performed by individuals or groups that assist others without expecting a favour in return. Just as the employees have their own reasons to exhibit such behavior, similarly employers also need their employees to engage in Organizational Citizenship Behavior. According to Steven L. McShane et.al. (2010), Various forms of cooperation and helpfulness to other that support the organization s social and psychological context. And thus OCB take many forms: Some are directed towards individuals which is known as Organizational citizenship behavior of individual (OCBI) and Organizational citizenship behavior of organization (OCBO). 2. MEASURES OF OCB Different measures have been designed and developed by researchers.the researchers have the benefit of applying the diverse variety of culture specific scales. The first scale was designed by Bateman and Organ (1983) which was used to measure Organizational citizenship behaviour. According to them, OCB include any of those gestures (often taken for granted) that lubricate the social machinery of the organization but that do not directly inhere in the usual notion of task performance. This scale was a 30 item OCB scale that comprises of variety of types of OCB like cooperation, altruism, compliance, punctuality, housecleaning, protecting company property, conscientiously following company rules and dependability. A 16-item scale was developed by Smith, Organ and Near (1983). According to them, Citizenship Behaviors comprise a dimension if individual and group functioning The latter was regarded as a function of the formal organizationand the logic of facts. This scale comprises of two factors namely Altruism and Generalized Compliance. The third scale was given by Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman, and fetter (1990), they identified the following five factors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Altruism, Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship, Courtesy and Civic virtue. Fourth scale was developed by Williams and Anderson (1991) that defined that the Organizational citizenship Behavior has two broad categories : a) OCBO behaviours that benefit the organization in general (eg. Gives advance notice when unable to come to work, adheres to informal rules devised to maintain order ), and b) OCBI behaviours that immediately benefit specific individuals and indirectly through this means contribute to the organization ( e.g. helps others who have been absent, takes a personal interest in other employees) This is a fourteen item scale with seven items on OCBO and seven items on OCBI. Now there was a time for extension of basic domains of OCB and then Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1994) came with a 14 item scale which identified the two new forms of OCB namely peacekeeping and cheerleading along with the other conventional forms like Altruism, Courtesy, Civic Virtues and sportsmanship. In their words, Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCBs) are discretionary behaviours on the part of a salesperson that are believed to directly promote the effective functioning of an organization, without necessarily influencing a salesperson s objective sales productivity. Another scale of OCB designed by by Van dyne, Graham and Dienesch (1994) serves the need for Political science literature. They defined the fundamental categories as follows: Organizational obedience reflects acceptance of the necessity http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.asp 57 editor@iaeme.com

Ms. Niharika Singh and Dr. Bajrang D. Kolekar and desirability of national rules and regulations governing organizational structure, job description and personnel policies. This was a 34 item scale comprising items on obedience, loyalty, social participation, Advocacy Participation and Functional Participation. The Van Dyne s scale act as theoretical foundation for Moorman and Blakely (1995) when they came out with another scale on OCB. It was a 19 item scale that comprises of items on Interpersonal Helping, Individual initiative, Personal industry and Loyal Boosterism. After so many research development in the western culture it was found that most of the researches, findings and measures were influenced by the western culture hence this attreacted few researchers to design something that shall be applicable in china and may be in dfferent cultures. And hence Farh, Earley and Lin (1997) came out with a global scale on OCB. This was a 20 item Chinese OCB scale comprising of items on Identification with the company, Altruism towards colleague, Conscientiousness, Interpersonal Harmony and Protecting company resources. Till 1999, there was interest in Indian research as well towards this area. Few scales were developed by some Indian researchers as well. A scale by Sharma Vivek, Jain Sangeeta (2014) was developed for Manufacturing sector. It was a 36 item scale comprising of factors like altruism, Organizational compliance, Sportsmanship and Loyalty. Similarly another scale Developed by Bakhshi Arti and Kumar Kuldeep (2009) to measure OCB of employees in any Indian organization. It is a 30 item scale comprising of items on Conscientiousness, Courtesy, Sportsmanship, Helping Co-workers and civic virtue. Though the scale provided by Bakhshi Arti and Kumar Kuldeep (2009) claims to be an appropriate tool for any employee in any of the Indian organization, hence the researcher tried to find out if the scale is relevant for the non teaching staff as well in the organization. Following are the list of some measures along with their psychometric properties: 3. RATIONALE FOR PRESENT STUDY The present study aims to verify the feasibility of already existing scale on the non teaching staff in academics by testing its reliability for the aforesaid purpose. 4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4.1. Standardized Scale A standardized scale developed by Dr. Aarti Bakhshi and Kuldeep Kumar (2009) has been adopted for this study. The scale comprises of 30 items. These 30 items can be grouped into five sub factors. It measures the five variables through different items in the following pattern: Factor 1 - Conscientiousness is measured by items 1, 7, 10, 13, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22. Factor 2 - Courtesy measured by Items 4, 8, 16, 18, 23 and 28. Factor 3 Sportsmanship is measured by Items 3, 6,24,27,29,30. All the items under this factor are negative items. Factor 4 Helping co worker is measured by 2, 5, 9, 11and 25. Factor 5 civic virtue can be measured by 12, 14,15 and 26. http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.asp 58 editor@iaeme.com

Latest Marketing Techniques: Nexa the Next Generation Showrooms of Maruti Suzuki Table 1 Psychometric Properties of Various Scales Source: Kumar Rajiv (2005), Organizational citizenship performance in Non Governmental organizations development of a scale According to Dr. Aarti Bakhshi & Kuldeep Kumar (2009) rating response in the questionnaire needs to be measured in points because once the data is collected, their number can be reduced by combining the items but it cannot be increased later. Hence the 5 point likert scale is used for data collection ie Never (1), Rarely (2), Sometimes (3), Frequently (4) and Always (5). 4.2. Sample characteristics and Collection of Data The data was collected from the non teaching staff of different institutes and colleges ie basically the academic sector. Among them 26% respondents are female and 74% are males. The respondents comprises of people from various designation starting from Peon, Jr clerk, Sr. Clerk and Section Officers. Their mean age was 34 years. The data was collected by administering the questionnaire to the respondents individually. Since some of the respondents couldn t understand English hence the researcher has assisted the respondents while filling the questionnaire in making them understand the components of the questionnaire. http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.asp 59 editor@iaeme.com

Ms. Niharika Singh and Dr. Bajrang D. Kolekar 5. DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION 5.1. Item total Correlation Item total correlation shows how one item is related to other item that are expected to be measuring a common construct by finding the correlation of an item to a score (sum) of the other items. If there is low correlation, it shows that the item doesn t fit best into the lsit of questions. Items with high correlation show high reliability and ensures the reliability of the proposed scale as well. Table 2 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item- Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted OCB1 108.74 102.654.329.691 OCB2 109.77 98.768.372.684 OCB3 111.39 108.438 -.062.713 OCB4 109.87 96.573.279.691 OCB5 109.21 98.824.445.681 OCB6 111.68 112.288 -.278.721 OCB7 109.26 94.457.534.670 OCB8 109.71 100.898.168.702 OCB9 108.85 102.979.225.695 OCB10 108.77 105.686.142.700 OCB11 108.94 101.963.339.689 OCB12 108.77 104.112.236.695 OCB13 109.18 100.148.301.689 OCB14 108.60 104.507.340.694 OCB15 109.73 97.022.345.685 OCB16 109.18 98.247.325.687 OCB17 108.81 100.159.492.682 OCB18 109.18 103.034.181.698 OCB19 108.84 101.088.346.688 OCB20 109.06 99.799.361.686 OCB21 109.02 103.655.184.698 OCB22 109.32 102.386.236.694 OCB23 109.26 99.637.367.685 OCB24 111.21 102.168.168.700 OCB25 109.73 99.022.323.687 OCB26 109.53 105.761.041.709 OCB27 110.81 99.109.265.692 OCB28 110.32 103.304.096.708 OCB29 110.71 107.685 -.044.717 http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.asp 60 editor@iaeme.com

Latest Marketing Techniques: Nexa the Next Generation Showrooms of Maruti Suzuki Table 2 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item- Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted OCB1 108.74 102.654.329.691 OCB2 109.77 98.768.372.684 OCB3 111.39 108.438 -.062.713 OCB4 109.87 96.573.279.691 OCB5 109.21 98.824.445.681 OCB6 111.68 112.288 -.278.721 OCB7 109.26 94.457.534.670 OCB8 109.71 100.898.168.702 OCB9 108.85 102.979.225.695 OCB10 108.77 105.686.142.700 OCB11 108.94 101.963.339.689 OCB12 108.77 104.112.236.695 OCB13 109.18 100.148.301.689 OCB14 108.60 104.507.340.694 OCB15 109.73 97.022.345.685 OCB16 109.18 98.247.325.687 OCB17 108.81 100.159.492.682 OCB18 109.18 103.034.181.698 OCB19 108.84 101.088.346.688 OCB20 109.06 99.799.361.686 OCB21 109.02 103.655.184.698 OCB22 109.32 102.386.236.694 OCB23 109.26 99.637.367.685 OCB24 111.21 102.168.168.700 OCB25 109.73 99.022.323.687 OCB26 109.53 105.761.041.709 OCB27 110.81 99.109.265.692 OCB28 110.32 103.304.096.708 OCB29 110.71 107.685 -.044.717 OCB30 112.19 107.700 -.002.706 Table 2 shows the correlation between each item and a scale score that excludes that item. Items with negative item total correlation are not the good items and do not significantly correlate with the total score. Thus there are four items which are not significantly correlated but due to less number of items, the insignificant items has not been excluded. http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.asp 61 editor@iaeme.com

Ms. Niharika Singh and Dr. Bajrang D. Kolekar To find out the important items out of the 30 items, these items were factor analyzed using principal component method. The factors were also rotated using orthogonal rotation (Varimax). Ten factors having Eigen values of more than 1 with total variance of 71.661 was found. Component Total Initial Eigenvalues Table 3 Total Variance Explained Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings % of Cumulative % of Cumulative Total Variance % Variance % Rotation Sums of S quared Loadings Total % of Cumulative Variance % 1 5.144 17.146 17.146 5.144 17.146 17.146 3.328 11.092 11.092 2 2.928 9.760 26.905 2.928 9.760 26.905 2.644 8.813 19.905 3 2.276 7.587 34.493 2.276 7.587 34.493 2.245 7.483 27.388 4 2.070 6.900 41.392 2.070 6.900 41.392 2.209 7.364 34.752 5 1.853 6.176 47.569 1.853 6.176 47.569 2.157 7.191 41.943 6 1.670 5.568 53.136 1.670 5.568 53.136 1.858 6.192 48.135 7 1.523 5.078 58.215 1.523 5.078 58.215 1.846 6.152 54.287 8 1.453 4.842 63.056 1.453 4.842 63.056 1.747 5.825 60.112 9 1.393 4.642 67.699 1.393 4.642 67.699 1.740 5.801 65.913 10 1.189 3.962 71.661 1.189 3.962 71.661 1.724 5.748 71.661 11.941 3.137 74.798 12.891 2.970 77.768 13.834 2.780 80.548 14.770 2.566 83.114 15.695 2.318 85.432 16.627 2.089 87.521 17.625 2.085 89.606 18.515 1.717 91.324 19.446 1.485 92.809 20.380 1.265 94.074 21.310 1.034 95.108 22.276.920 96.028 23.262.874 96.901 24.209.697 97.598 25.191.638 98.237 26.167.558 98.795 27.120.398 99.193 28.099.331 99.524 29.085.284 99.808 30.058.192 100.000 5.2. Extraction Method Principal component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.asp 62 editor@iaeme.com

Latest Marketing Techniques: Nexa the Next Generation Showrooms of Maruti Suzuki Its important to identify the value of loading to be 0.33 as minimum absolute value. However, considering the sample size of 62, a loading of 0.70 was considered significant. Table 4 Rotated Component Matrix a Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 OCB1 OCB2 OCB4 OCB5 OCB7 OCB8.849 OCB9 OCB10 OCB11.790 OCB12 OCB13.801 OCB14 OCB15 OCB16 OCB17.745 OCB18 OCB19.798 OCB20 OCB21 OCB22.784 OCB23 OCB24.781 OCB25.755 OCB26 OCB27 OCB28 OCB3 OCB30 OCB6 OCB29 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 22 iterations..792.822 http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.asp 63 editor@iaeme.com

Ms. Niharika Singh and Dr. Bajrang D. Kolekar All the significant factor loadings are shown in the Table 5. Also the communalities for each item is shown in the Table 3. It can be seen that only 9 items (4,8,11,13,17,19,22,24 and 25) can load significantly on different factors, so these items have been included in the scale and rest of the items who cannot show significant loadings are excluded from the scale. 5.3. Reliability Analysis The reliability analysis has been done using SPSS version 16.0 Table 5 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items.702 30 The value of Cronbach s Alpha for the item set is 0.702 which is greater than 0.7 and is usually considered to be good. 6. RESULTS & FINDINGS Thus, by analyzing the above findings, it is found that for the final scale for non teaching staff in academic sector, only 9 items (Sr. No. 4,8,11,13,17,19,22,24 and 25) were found to be significant and can be retained. Each statement is provided by 5 alternatives on Likert scale and the respondent is free to choose the most appropriate option. Amongst the items one item no. 24 is negative and rest are positive. While analysing the data it is found that 95% of non teaching employees have high level of Organizational citizenship Behavior and only 5% were found to have less citizenship attitude in their behavior. Though while observing the same responses on sub scales as follows: Conscientiousness - Only 3% of employees were found to have low conscientious behaviour and rest 97% were found to have high conscientiousness. Courtesy Strangely 37% of non teaching employees were found to be low at courteous behaviour while 63% of them have high courteous behaviour. Helping behaviour Where 18% of non teaching employees don t show helping behaviour where as approx 82% of employees are helpful in their behaviour. Sportsmanship Once again only 63% of employees have sportsmanship attitude which is quite low in comparison to other attitudes. The results show that most of the non teaching staff are high at conscious behaviour ie they follow the rules voluntarily, do not take extra breaks, obey organization s rules and regulations by their own will and justify their pay by working and performing in the organization accordingly. Next important finding was that 82% of employees have helping behaviour i.e. they help their colleagues in personal and official work related problems and they take time out of their schedule to help their colleagues. Only 63% of employees are found to have courteous and Sportsmanship behaviour. Courteousness in behaviour denotes avoiding problems with other coworkers, do not abuse right of others and prevent problems with others. Well this is the area where the non teaching employees need to focus. Another important factor is Sportsmanship that includes avoiding complaints on small issues, focus on what is http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.asp 64 editor@iaeme.com

Latest Marketing Techniques: Nexa the Next Generation Showrooms of Maruti Suzuki right rather than wrong side and not to find faults always in the organization. Hence this is the area where the non teaching staff needs to work upon. 7. SCOPE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Despite the limitations faced by the researcher namely limitation of scope, limitation of sample size, time limitation etc, the study comes out with a relevant issue that the standardized questionnaire developed by Dr. Aarti Bakhshi & Kuldeep Kumar (2009) claimed to be an universal questionnaire for measuring the Organizational citize nship behaviour of Employees in any Indian organization. Whereas the current study disproves this idea, as it comes out with the findings that not all the items in the questionnaire are reliable when the standardized questionnaire is administered on the Non teaching staff of Academic sector. Hence here is the scope for future researchers can be to design an Organizational Citizenship behaviour Scale applicable to non-teaching staff in academics. This research paper also gives an insight that not all scales can be adopted as it is for all the kind of samples. There has to be some modification or development of entirely new scale for measuring Organizational citizenship Behavior in different context or culture specific scales needs to be developed. REFERENCES [1] Bakhshi Dr. Aarti et.al. Organizational citizenship behaviour scale, PrasadPsycho, Paperback, 2009. [2] Bateman, T. S. and Organ, D.W. Job satisfaction and the good soldier: the relationship between effect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 1983, pp. 587 595. [3] Dr. Vivek, S. et.al. A scale for measuring Organizational citizenship Behavior in manufacturing sector, Pacific Business Review International, Volume 6, Issue 8, February 2014, pp. 57 62 [4] Luthans, F. Organizational Behavior An evidence based approach. MGH USE/ISE, 12th edition, 2011. [5] Moorhead, G. and Griffin, R. W. Organization behavior Managing People and Organization. Dreamtech Press, 2009 edition. [6] Greenberg, J. and Baron, R. A. Behavior in Organizations. Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, 5th Edition, 1999. [7] Greenberg, J. and Baron, R. A. Behavior in Organization. Prentice Hall Of India Private Limited, eight edition, 2006. [8] Newstrom, J. W. Organizational Behavior Human Behavior at work. Tata McGraw Hill Education, 12th Edition, 2009. [9] Pierce, J. L. et.al. Management Organizational Citizenship Behavior An integrated perspective. South Western Thomas Learning, 2002. [10] Rajiv, K. Organizational citizenship Performance in Non governmental Organizations Development of a scale, 2005. [11] Moorman, R. H. and Blakely, G. L. Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(2), 1995, pp. 127 142. [12] Organ et.al. Organizational citizenship behaviour: Its nature, antecedents and consequences. Sage Publications, Inc., 2006. [13] Patterson, M. et.al. Development and validation of an Organizational climate measure. Aston Business School, Aston University, 2004, pp 1 45. http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.asp 65 editor@iaeme.com

Ms. Niharika Singh and Dr. Bajrang D. Kolekar [14] Podsakoff, P. M. and MacKenzie, S. B. Organizational Citizenship Behavior and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 1994, pp. 351 363. [15] Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H. and Fetter, R. Transformational leader behaviours and their effects ob followers trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviours. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 1990, pp. 107 142. [16] Stephen, R. and Judge, T. A. Organizational Behavior. Pearson Education, 13th edition, 2009. [17] Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W. and Near, J. P. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 1983, pp. 653-663. [18] McShane, S. L., Von Glinow, M. A. and Sharma, R. R. Organizational Behavior. Tata Mc Graw Hill, 4rth Edition, 2010. [19] Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W. and Dienesch, R. M. Organizational citizenship Behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1994, pp. 765 802. [20] Williams, L. J. and Anderson, S. E. Job Satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviours. Journal of Management, 17, 1991, pp. 601 617. Table 6 List of Final Items 1. I prohibit behaviour harmful to my organization. 2. I avoid taking actions that hurt others. 3. I help colleagues to solve work- related problems. 4. I engage in self study to increase the quality of work output. 5. I fulfil the responsibilities stated in my job description. 6. I perform tasks that are expected of me. 7. I take on extra responsibilities. 8. I complain about things which are not important. 9. I help new workers to adapt even though it is not required for me to do so. http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.asp 66 editor@iaeme.com