Final Thesis

EMPATHY, ALTRUISM & ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR 1
Empathy, Altruism & Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
Examining the Effect of Personality Traits On Supervisors’ Perception of OCB
Chelsea J. Kulesa
Ball State University

Abstract
The relationship between supervisors’ level of empathy and altruism and their perceptions of
their subordinates’ OCB as expected or unexpected behavior was explored among a sample of 99
current supervisors. It was shown that there is little to no relationship between their level of
empathy and their perceptions of OCBs while those high in altruism were shown to view them as
expected behavior. This study’s implications for theory and research are discussed as well as
suggestions for future research.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Tamara Montag-Smit for advising me through this project. Without her
aid and guidance, this project would not have been possible. She made it possible for me to
create my own research question and execute my own study which was an invaluable learning
experience.
I would like to thank my nana, Samantha, Taylor, and my many friends that kept me motivated
through their continuous encouragement throughout this process.

Empathy, Altruism & Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
Examining the Effect of Personality Traits On Supervisors’
Perception of OCBS
Within Human Resource Management and I/O Psychology research, a new field has
emerged in the last 30-40 years that has revolutionized how many scholars and practitioners look
at the satisfaction-performance relationship. This field of research examines the relationship
between employees’ job satisfaction and their “supra-role behavior - behavior that cannot be
prescribed or required in advance for a given job” (Bateman & Organ, 1983, p. 588). These
“supra-role behaviors” are now most frequently referred to as Organizational Citizenship
Behaviors (OCBs) or contextual performance and are the primary focus of the research discussed
here.
As with any new field, research on OCBs has been varied and has sought to answer and
wide array of questions. However, there are still many issues left to be examined and further
studied. One such area lies within supervisor expectations and reactions to their employees’
OCBs. Most all current research looks at OCBs from employee perspective: their motives,
actions, reactions, etc. While the employee perspective is undeniably vital to our understanding,
we would be naive to ignore the supervisor perspective. It is with this in mind that the research
discussed here was conducted. This study correlates supervisors’ levels of empathy and altruism
with their reactions to employee OCBs.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Originally introduced into research in 1977 and officially defined in 1988 as “individual
behavior 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” by Dennis

Organ (Organ, 1988, p. 4), OCB research has gained many supporters and critics in its time.
Throughout the years, researchers (supporters and critics alike) have examined OCBs from
numerous angles and expanded upon Organ’s original concept, inevitably altering his original
definition. In response to his own continued research and that of his colleagues and rivals, Organ
redefined organizational citizenship behavior in 1997 as “contributions to the maintenance and
enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports task performance,” also
noting that OCBs had become synonymous with “contextual performance” (Organ, 1997, p. 91).
The phrase “contextual performance” is a blanket term coined by Borman and Motowidlo
in their 1993 article. The contextual performance concept encompasses many dimensions of
employee performance, focusing on those outside their prescribed task performance. According
to Borman and Motowidlo, contextual activities differ from a person’s job, or task performance,
in 4 ways: first, they “support the organizational, social, and psychological environment”
surrounding the “technical core” as opposed to the core itself (technical core meaning the official
function of the organization); second, they are constant across many jobs, being of the same
focus, whereas tasks are specific to the position; third, the characteristics that dictate variance
within these behaviors are more strongly related to motivational and personality characteristics
than knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs); fourth, these behaviors are significantly less likely
to appear in formal job descriptions ( Schmitt & Borman, 1993, p. 73-75). OCBs are cited as one
of four domains they maintain fall within contextual performance and cite many similarities
between them as a result. As time and research has progressed, the terms have become
interchangeable to many researchers, as notated by Organ in his 1997 paper.
Before its redefinition, OCB was considered synonymous with extra-role behavior
(ERB), a concept with an equal, if not an exceeding, amount of critics and challengers. As

defined by Van Dyne, Cummings and Parks, ERB is “behavior which benefits the organization
and/or is intended to benefit the organization, which is discretionary and which goes beyond
existing role expectations” (Cummings & Park, 1995, p. 218). This definition clearly holds many
similarities to the original definition of OCBs provided above and therefore suffers from many of
the same faults. As researchers continued digging deeper into ERBs, they began finding it
difficult to find an exact definition that fit across all organizations, jobs, and even employees.
The issue was one of perception. While researchers operated under the assumption that certain
behaviors were strictly outside what was expected of employees (extra-role), they began
discovering that employees themselves viewed them as expected (in-role), even if not explicitly
listed in their job description. It soon became clear that the concept of “extra-role behavior” and
how it differed from “in-role behavior” was “ill-defined and varies from one employee to the
next and between employees and supervisors,” making it nearly impossible to research and
rendering the original definition of OCBs obsolete (Morrison, 1994, p. 1561).
A related issue with defining OCBs strictly as “extra-role behavior” comes from the
evolution of “jobs” and “roles.” From the moment a job description is written the expectations
begin to change. There are countless factors that contribute to this evolution; including, but not
limited to, employee and supervisor perception, need changes within the organization, and larger
shifts within company and industry culture. As these roles “evolve,” it seems undeniable that
“what would be considered OCB today would be regarded as something else next month,” which
of course contributes to differences in individual perception and action (Organ, 1997, p. 88). In
short, the evolution of roles changes the perceptions of those connected, while those connected
cause the evolution of their roles. The circle is never-ending, and its discovery demanded the
shift in OCB research we have seen since Organ’s initial findings.

OCB research has seen a major increase within the last few decades as further research
has been conducted, more constructs and domains discovered, and the importance of OCBs has
become accepted. Through this, OCB research has evolved into what it is today. However,
regardless of slight changes, Organ’s original idea remains the same: employees go above and
beyond, in large and small ways, when they are satisfied with their employment. The
satisfaction-causes-performance backbone of Organ’s earliest definition, sparked by growing
research in social exchange theory and the norm of reciprocity, was the beginning of what has
now evolved into a vital aspect of organizational research (Organ, 1977).
Researchers now acknowledge that OCBs and contextual behaviors are of vital
importance even while disagreeing on their exact definition. Understanding why employees go
above and beyond and perform OCBs, regardless of how exactly they manifest and how these
behaviors impact the organization long term is invaluable information to researchers and
organization leaders alike. When looking at this concept from a business perspective, the “why”
is especially important; thus, the idea of satisfaction-causes-performance, specifically OCB and
contextual performance, has been heavily tested. Among the most popular explanations is the
theory of the norm of reciprocity.
The Norm of Reciprocity
As discussed above, many researchers have connected the norm of reciprocity with
OCBs. When considering the satisfaction-causes-performance idea, the norm fits in perfectly and
certainly helps explain why satisfied employees do better work. If an employee sees their
employer as employee-focused and believes that they have done positive things for them, they
will attempt to contribute positively to the social exchange by performing better and achieving
better results. When an employee thinks this way and wants to benefit their employer, however,

they are sometimes constrained in how they are able to do so. It is because of this constraint that
employees are driven to OCBs, via the norm of reciprocity, “because variation in [productivity]
is more constrained by ability, work scheduling, or task design” (Smith, Organ, Near, 1983, p.
655).
Many fields of research examine the norm of reciprocity and its importance to the social
construct of our society. However, the one constant among research is that the norm of
reciprocity is vital to our civilization, organizations, and relationships on every level. It is an
extremely influential concept that inspires “such diverse behavior as helping, cooperation,
compliance with requests in economic exchanges, dealing with conflict and associated health
impairment in organizational settings”(Lodewijkx, 2008, p.107). Without these practices, our
social order would cease to exist as “social cohesion” would crumble around us; people would
stop feeling obligated to be with and help one another (Drenovsky, 2009, p. 147-148).
In an organizational sense this concept is vital to relationships between employee-
employee, employee-manager, and employee-company. The idea that we are “obligated to repay
others” is important in all social, business, and organizational interactions (Cialdini & Goldstein,
2002, p.43), a concept that is starting to be used by companies with not only their customers, but
also their employees. Many studies (Regan, 1971; Smolowe, 1990; Lynn, 2001) have found that
companies that have offered small but seemingly personal touches for their customers have
substantially increased their profits and traffic. Examples include bend-over-backward service by
servers for tips and free inexpensive gifts for increased donations and/or event registration.
While not exactly the same, these concepts are being applied to employees in the form of non-
monetary incentives.

Non-monetary incentives can be anything from flexible schedules to free lunch/snacks to
verbal praise and supervisory support. These incentives can be leveraged by a company and by
supervisors to gain greater commitment to the organization, higher employee morale, and lower
turnover. Three studies conducted by Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, &
Rhodes (2002) found that perceived supervisor and organizational support positively affects the
occurrence of OCB-like behaviors and lowers turnover. Several other studies, such as those
conducted by Randall and Driscoll (1997), M. Williams, Brower, Ford, L. Williams, & Carraher
(2008), and Nujjoo and Meyer (2012), have found similar results relating non-monetary
incentives and OCB-like tendencies. Non-monetary incentives, such as supervisor support,
“increase obligations to the supervisor and to the organization” which in turn increases “extra-
role performance,” or OCB, that benefits the supervisor and organization (Eisenberger et.al,
2002, p.566).
It is undeniable that the norm of reciprocity affects our business relationships and shapes
our reactions to organizational decisions. Contented employees will go out of their way to
“repay” the organization that has done so much for them while disgruntled employees will do the
opposite. This concept can be most easily observed in employee relationships with their
supervisor. In a study conducted by Tepper in 2000 examining justice as a mediator, results
showed that an employee’s relationship with their supervisor can help determine if they have a
“social exchange or economic exchange” relationship with their company (as cited in Zellars,
Tepper & Duffy, 2002, p. 1070). This indicates that the relationship between an employee and
their supervisor directly relates to how valued they feel by the organization which in turn
determines their level of commitment and likelihood of performing OCBs.

Overall, the norm of reciprocity is vital to every relationship and social interaction we
encounter. It not only dictates our perceptions, but also our reactions to our employers and
organizations. It is what makes us social creatures as it is “a common provision in the social
contracts that guide our everyday life” (Drenovsky, 2009, p. 147) and being social creatures is
what allows us to work with others and drives our desire to give back to those that provide for us.
Without the concepts behind the norm of reciprocity, OCBs would not be present in the working
world leaving much to be desired in the employee-supervisor and employee-organization
relationships.
Empathy
Empathy is our ability to view the world from another’s perspective. Our level of
empathy, like other components of a person’s emotional intelligence (EI), is located somewhere
on a scale from very low to very high. An employee’s location on the scale determines how well
they are able to “consider others’ feelings, especially when making decisions” (Singh, 2014, p.
599). This level also helps determine our perceptions and reactions to others’ decisions. With
these aspects combined, empathy ultimately plays a large part in the strength of employee
relationships with coworkers and supervisors.
How supervisors interact with their employees is highly influenced by aspects of their EI,
such as empathy. This includes their reactions to OCBs. Interestingly, most research regarding
empathy and OCBs approaches the topic from the side of the employee, examining whether a
higher rating in empathy increases their chance of engaging in OCBs. However, the supervisor
reaction can be just as important to the continuation of OCBs from the employee and in
employee satisfaction overall. This is especially true as “OCBs often require short-term personal
sacrifice in order to promote long-term collective interests,” a concept referred to as a “social

delayed fence” by some researchers (Joireman, Daniels, George-Falvy, Kamdar, 2006, p. 2268).
This temporary sacrifice requires empathy from the employee, but it also requires empathy from
the supervisor. This argument is based in the most commonly reported reasons employees
engage in OCBs, including high job satisfaction and morale, sensitivity to rewards, and highly
cohesive and rewarding work relationships. Therefore, an empathetic supervisor is more likely to
view the employee’s OCB for the sacrifice it is while a supervisor low in empathy is more likely
to see it as expected behavior.
In essence, supervisors low in empathy cannot see the OCB from the employee’s
perspective (or choose not to) and view any work from the employee as part of their job. This is
also why those rating low in empathy also tend to do poorly in prosocial behavior and
interpersonal relationships and tend to be more aggressive (Joireman et al, 2006, p. 2269). These
conditions also indicate that those low in empathy are less likely to engage in OCBs. It is with
these aspects of empathy in OCBs in mind that the argument can be made that those supervisors
low in empathy (less likely to engage in OCBs) are also less likely to recognize OCBs for the
extra/sacrifice they are; they can’t view the situation from the employee’s point of view and
don’t consider the behavior “extra-role” because they would not do anything extra themselves.
With this argument in mind, the following hypothesis was tested:
Hypothesis One: A supervisor scoring low in empathy will be
more likely to view an employee's OCB as expected behavior.
Altruism
Altruism is generally defined as acting for the benefit of another or others with no
concern for personal self. While this is a base definition, there are many interpretations that have
emerged throughout history. The primary divergence in these definitions comes from varying

ideas of who benefits from from the altruistic behavior and who pays the cost (Kerr, Godfrey-
Smith, Feldman, 2004, p. 135). However, for the sake of this research the base definition of
altruism will be used, as stated above.
The base definition for altruism is not unlike the concept of OCBs, especially when
observed in supervisors. In fact, Organ and Near even argued that “much of supervisor
consideration is, in itself, citizenship behavior (i.e., discretionary acts aimed at helping others)”
and that this behavior acts as a model for prosocial behavior (Smith, Organ, Near, 1983, p. 655).
This model for prosocial behavior then initiates a social exchange, or the norm of reciprocity,
theoretically cultivating more OCBs from employees. In other words, supervisors high in
altruism are more likely to engage in more OCBs (even if some amount is “required” by the
position) and in seeing this behavior employees are more likely to engage in their own OCBs.
If the argument is made that highly altruistic supervisors are more likely to engage in
OCBs, one could also argue that this means they are more likely to recognize OCBs in their
subordinates. For instance, if a supervisor is used to going above and beyond their station for the
organization, they are more likely to recognize when an employee is going beyond exceptional
required work and is engaging in prosocial behavior or OCBs. This recognition would support
the hypothesis that those supervisors scoring high in altruism are more likely to view employee
OCBs as favors as opposed to requirements.
While there are other factors that contribute to this relationship, it is difficult to deny that
the relationship does exist. Assuming the previous argument, understanding why altruism exists
and why it is more prevalent in some than in others is an important question to be answered for
those organizations that wish to cultivate OCBs. Most research suggests that extroversion and
certain demographic variables are the best indicators of altruism level. For instance, firstborns

have been found to exhibit more altruistic tendencies in some studies, while others have found
that employees and supervisors from rural areas exhibit more than those from the city (Smith,
Organ, Near, 1983, p. 656). Ultimately, researchers can’t say for sure why some people are more
altruistic than others. However, it can be argued that it is an important dimension in
understanding prosocial behavior and for the future of OCB research. With this argument in
mind, the following hypothesis was tested:
Hypothesis Two: A supervisor scoring high in altruism will be
more likely to view an employee's’ OCB as unexpected behavior.
Methods
Sample and Procedure
I tested my hypothesis using data collected from 99 active supervisors recruited from
Amazon MTurk. A three-part survey was distributed to each participating supervisor.
Participants completed the survey on their own computer and submitted their results via MTurk.
The survey contained measures relating to empathy, altruism and perceptions of OCBs.
Participants were also asked to provide their position title, time at the company, and number of
subordinates.
Eliminating participants that did not supervise other employees produced the 99 active
supervisor data sample. Supervisors were split nearly evenly in gender (48 men, 50 women, 1
unidentified). Roughly 75% of participants were White, 58% had a Bachelor’s degree or higher,
and 75% were under the age of 40. Roughly 71% of participants had 10 years or less with their
organization while 83% had 10 years or less in their position.
Measures

Empathy
Supervisors completed a 28-item scale from Davis (1983) referred to as the Interpersonal
Reactivity Index (IRI). This scale was chosen for its definition of empathy, “reactions of one
individual to the observed experiences of another” (Davis, 1983). The 28-item scale measures
empathy based on four scales: perspective-taking scale (PT), fantasy scale (FT), empathic
concern scale (EC), and the personal distress scale (PD). Participants rated these scales using a 5-
point system, ranging from Does Not Describe Me Well to Describes Me Very Well. I analyzed
participants’ results for each scale of empathy to correlate with their perceptions of OCBs.
Altruism
Supervisors completed a 20-item scale and a 14-item scale, both from Rushton (1981) for
self-reporting altruism. These scales were intending to “measure altruistic tendency by gauging
the frequency one engages in altruistic acts primarily toward strangers” (Rushton, 1981).
Participants judged the frequency of activities such as “I have helped push a stranger’s car that
was broken down or out of gas” a 5-point scale from 1 (Never) to 5 (Very Often). Each scale was
analyzed separately and correlated with their perceptions of OCBs.
Perceptions of OCBs
Supervisors completed 37 of a 42-item scale from Fox and Spector (2009) referred to as
the Organizational Citizenship Behavior Checklist. I removed 5 of the items from the scale that
were determined to be irrelevant to the supervisor perception context. The items were identified
as either OCB-O (actions for the benefit of the organization), OCB-P (actions for the benefit of
coworkers with work-related issues), or as general OCB behaviors (Fox and Spector, 2009).
Participants were asked to identify whether each action provided, such as “Lent a compassionate
ear when someone had a work problem,” was Expected Behavior or Unexpected Behavior from

their subordinates. Each scale was analyzed separately and correlated with each empathy and
altruism scale.
Results
Table 1 shows the correlations between each variable examined in the survey. OCB
perceptions were coded so that higher scores indicated unexpected behavior. It was found that
there is very little correlation with empathy and supervisor perceptions of OCB, the exception
being a negative correlation between personal distress (PD) empathy and OC-O, indicating that
those supervisors high in PD viewed OCBs as expected behavior. While there is a significant
correlation, PD is not, in the traditional sense, how empathy is viewed in day-to-day interactions
and as the only construct that held any correlation, is not viewed as relevant for this study. Both
altruism scales correlated negatively with the OCB-Other scale, indicating that those supervisors
high in altruism viewed OCBs as expected.
Hypothesis One was tested based on the correlations between the 4 empathy constructs
and the OCB constructs. As discussed above, only one empathy construct, PD, produced any
significant correlation. The correlation showed that supervisors high in empathy view OCBs as
expected behavior. These findings do not support Hypothesis One. However, it was determined
that as PD was the only scale with a significant correlation and as the least relevant empathy
construct, empathy appears to be unrelated to supervisor perceptions of OCBs. Hence,
Hypothesis One was not supported.
Hypothesis Two was tested based on the correlations between the 2 altruism scales and
the OCB constructs. As discussed above, both scales correlated negatively with the OCB-Other
scale. This correlation indicates that supervisors high in altruism view OCBs as expected
behavior. These findings are the opposite of what was expected initially. Thus, Hypothesis Two

was not supported.
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
N=99
Discussion
The results of this research indicate that those supervisors that are more likely to take part
in OCBs themselves (those high in altruism) are more likely to view them as expected behavior.
This is most likely due to how supervisors view their job in many cases: as a model for prosocial
behavior. As Smith, Organ and Near discussed in their research, supervisors performing OCBs
starts a social exchange, theoretically increasing OCBs in their subordinates (1983). This social
exchange likely determines supervisor perceptions of the behaviors they inspire, explaining why
those more likely to perform OCBs view them as expected behavior.
When empathy is considered, a similar argument can be made. Supervisors high in
empathy are more likely to make the short-term sacrifice necessary for OCBs (Joireman,
Daniels, George-Falvy, Kamdar, 2006) and are more likely to expect the same from their
employees. While it was originally hypothesized that those low in empathy would not be able to
view OCBs from the employee perspective and those high in empathy would understand the
Table 1
Correlations Among Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 Tenure-# of Years in Position
2 Number of Subordinates .51**
3 Empathy_Fantasy -.14 -.08
4 Empathy_EmpatheticConcern -.15 -.11 .31**
5 Empathy_PerspectiveTaking -.23* -.18 .37** .61**
6 Empathy_PersonalDistress .06 .19 .03 -.14 -.23*
7 Altruism_P -.01 .07 .27** .21* .23* .07
8 Altruism_B -.05 -.03 .39** .41** .48** -.06 .67**
9 OCB_O_Scale .10 -.09 .01 .09 .08 -.28** -.15 -.10
10 OCB_P_Scale -.04 -.20 .14 -.00 .15 -.20 -.17 -.09 . 44**
11 OCB_Other_Scale .08 -.07 -.10 -.13 -.05 -.07 -.26* -.35** .47** .52**

sacrifice, it seems there may be no relationship at all: those high in empathy understand reasons
for performing OCBs but do not necessarily expect their employees to follow suit.
Implications for Future Research
While OCBs have gained significant popularity in recent years, there is still much to
discover about this vital organizational construct. Specifically, there is little to no research done
from the supervisor point-of-view, a glaring oversight in terms of fully understanding the
frequency and impact of OCBs in the workforce. This research suggests that there is still much to
be understood and aims to begin a new wave of research. The supervisor-employee relationship
could be a vital piece to unlocking the secret behind the occurrence of OCBs and how
organizations can not only increase their frequency but also improve their quality and production
value.
Moving forward in similar research, understanding what personality traits affect
supervisor perceptions of employees could help us understand why they are more likely to
engage in them personally and why/how they encourage their subordinates to do so. This study
attempts to open this realm of research in hopes of someday predicting OCB frequency and
improving supervisor-employee relations. Empathy and altruism are examples of traits that have
been studied from the employee perspective but are not understood from the supervisor
perspective. If research is able to understand both sides and correlate supervisor-employee scores
in these types of constructs, they could in turn find ways to increase OCBs and their
effectiveness for the organization.

References
Bateman, T. S., Organ, D. W. (1983). Job Satisfaction and the Good Soldier: The
Relationship Between Affect and Employee "Citizenship". Academy of
Management Journal, 26 (4).
Borman, W. C., Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the Criterion Domain to Include
Elements of Contextual Performance. In Schmitt, N., Borman, W. C., and Associates
(Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations (pages). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J. (2002). The Science and Practice of Persuasion. Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly.
Daniels, D., George-Falvy, J., Joireman, J., Kamdar, D. (2006). Organizational Citizenship
Behaviors as a Function of Empathy, Consideration of Future Consequences, and
Employee Time Horizon: An Initial Exploration Using and In-Basket Simulation
of OCBs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36 (9).
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a
multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44.
Drenovsky, C. K. (2009). It’s All About the Norm of Reciprocity. American Journal of
Hospice & Palliative Medicine, 26 (2).
Duffy, M. K., Tepper, B. J., Zellars, K. L. (2002). Abusive Supervision and Subordinates'
Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (6).
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., Rhoades, L. (2002).
Perceived Supervisor Support: Contributions to Perceived Organizational
Support and Employee Retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (3).
Kerr, B., Godfrey-Smith, P., Feldman, M. W. (2004). What is Altruism? TRENDS in Ecology
and Evolution, 19 (3).
Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2008). Reciprocity, Norm Of. In International Encyclopedia of the
Social Sciences, Second Edition. (pp. 107-109). New York City, New York:
Macmillan Publishers USA.
Lynn, M. (2001). Restaurant Tipping and Service Quality: A Tenuous Relationship.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42 (1).
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role Definitions and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The
Importance of the Employee’s Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37
(6).
Nujjoo, A., Meyer, I. (2012). The Relative Importance of Different Types of Rewards for
Employee Motivation and Commitment in South Africa. SA Journal of Human
Resource Management, 10 (2).
Organ, D. (1988). The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington; Massachusetts/Toronto:
Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company.
Organ, D. W. (1977). A Reappraisal and Reinterpretation of the Satisfaction-Causes-
Performance Hypothesis. Academy of Management Review,2 (1).
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It's Construct Clean-Up Time.
Human Performance, 10 (2).
Randall, D. M., O’driscoll, M. P. (1997). Affective Versus Calculative Commitment:
Human Resource Implications. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137 (5).

Regan, D. T. (1971). Effects of a Favor and Liking on Compliance. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 7.
Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R.D., and Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and
the self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 1.
Singh, P. (2014). Employees’ Use of Empathy to Improve Their Job Behaviour.
International Business & Economics Research Journal, 13 (3).
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its
Nature and Antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68 (4).
Smolowe, J. (1990). Read This!!!!!!!! Time, 136 (23).
Spector, P. E. Organizational Citizenship Behavior Checklist (OCB-C) Suzy Fox, Loyola
University Chicago.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-Role Behaviors: In Pursuit of
Construct and Definitional Clarity (A Bridge Over Muddled Waters). Research in
Organizational Behavior, 17.
Williams, M. L., Brower, H. H., Ford, L. R., Williams, L. J., Carraher, S. M. (2008). A
Comprehensive Model and Measure of Compensation Satisfaction. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81.

Final Thesis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Final Thesis

Similar to Final Thesis (20)

Final Thesis