Professionalism andorganizational citizenship

behaviorAn empirical examination among Israeli

nurses

Aaron Cohen and Yardena KolDepartment of Political Science, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel,

Haifa, Israel

Keywords Professions, Medical personnel, Israel, Behaviour

Abstract Two alternative models were proposed to test whether the relationship betweendimensions of professionalism (profession as referent, sense of calling, autonomy) andorganizational citizenship behavior (OCB) was direct or mediated by variables representing justiceperceptions (distributive justice, interactional justice, and formal procedures). Respondents were1,035 registered nurses in four public hospitals in northern Israel. Supervisors in each medical unitat the hospitals provided the data on OCB for the employees. Hierarchical regression analysisshowed that the data strongly supported the mediated model, namely, the relationship betweenprofessionalism and OCB was mediated by variables representing justice in the workplace. Themediated effect was stronger for Jewish nurses than for non-Jewish nurses and for nurses with anacademic education in comparison to nurses with a non-academic education. Several implicationsare drawn for the continuing examination of OCB.

A topic much addressed in management research during the past decade isorganizational citizenship behavior (OCB). The concept had its roots in the work ofKatz and Kahn (1966), who identified three types of behaviors required of employeesfor the effective functioning of an organization. These were the decision to join andremain in the organization, the performance of prescribed roles in a dependablemanner, and the undertaking of innovative and spontaneous activities beyond theprescribed role requirement. The last of these was termed extra-role behavior by Katz(1964) or OCB by Bateman and Organ (1983). The latter term was meant to denoteorganizationally beneficial behaviors and gestures that can neither be enforced on thebasis of formal role obligations nor elicited by a contractual guarantee ofcompensation. According to Organ’s definition, “. . . OCB represents individualbehavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formalreward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning ofthe organization” (Organ, 1988, p. 4). Thus, OCB consists of informal contributions thatparticipants can choose to make or withhold, without regard to considerations ofsanctions or formal incentives. OCB derives its practical importance from the premisethat it represents contributions that do not inhere in formal role obligations. Thepresumption is that many of these contributions, aggregated over time and persons,enhance organizational effectiveness (Organ and Konovsky, 1989).

The logic of the concept of OCB can be better understood from the way it has beendefined and measured. Smith et al. (1983) developed a list of items inspired by

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

JMP19,4

386

Received May 2003Revised November 2003Accepted January 2004

Journal of Managerial PsychologyVol. 19 No. 4, 2004pp. 386-405q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0268-3946DOI 10.1108/02683940410537945

interviews conducted with supervisory personnel in two organizations. Thesupervisors were asked to describe subordinates’ actions that they appreciated andregarded as helpful, but could not really demand on the basis of supervisory authorityor promise of remuneration. When the measure was pre-tested in several samples, twofairly clear-cut factors emerged. One suggested the quality of altruism. The itemscomprising this factor all had to do with helping a specific person, be it the supervisor,a co-worker, or a client. The other factor, at the time labeled general compliance,appeared to represent a more impersonal sort of OCB: conscientiousness in attendance,use of work time, and adherence to various rules, but a conscientiousness that farsurpassed any enforceable minimum standards. Smith et al. (1983) argued thatcompliance emerged as a class of citizenship behavior factorially distinct fromaltruism. Whereas, altruism appeared to represent the help accorded to specific personsas the situation prompted it, generalized compliance was a factor defined by a moreimpersonal sort of conscientiousness. It implied more of the “good soldier” or “goodcitizen” approach to doing things that were “right and proper”, but doing them for thesake of the system rather than for specific persons. In the view of Smith et al. (1983), thetwo elements represent distinct classes of citizenship behavior, and therefore should beanalyzed separately.

Since the development of the concept, much research has been conducted to explorepossible determinants of OCB, and many findings have accumulated on this issue. Ademonstration of the vast amount of research on the concept can be found in severalmeta-analyses that summarize findings on OCB. One of the more recent meta-analyseswas performed by Podsakoff et al. (2000). In their review of the OCB literature theymentioned four major categories of antecedents: individual (or employee)characteristics such as employee attitudes, dispositional variables, employee roleperceptions, and demographic variables; task characteristics; organizationalcharacteristics; and leadership behaviors. From their review of research thatexamined these antecedents they concluded that job attitudes, task variables, andvarious types of leader behaviors appeared to be more strongly related to OCB than theother antecedents. In addition, they mentioned that role perceptions also proved to berelated to OCB. One construct not mentioned among the above and rarely examined inthe context of OCB is professionalism.

With the growing interest in the concept of OCB and with the growingprofessionalization of the workforce, more studies should examine the relationshipbetween OCB and professionalism. While OCB is a desirable behavior in almost anysetting, it is important to examine it among professionals. The relationship betweenprofessionals and their organizations is recognized as complex because of thesupposedly hidden conflict between the organization and the values of theprofessionals and their profession (Gouldner, 1957; Wallace, 1993, 1995a, b).Traditionally the literature has assumed that the solo practitioner best exemplifiesthe ideal professional work situation, and that once professionals become employees oforganizations, the demands of bureaucracy conflict with their professional ideal(Wallace, 1995a, b). The professional’s behavior is presumably dictated by a code ofethics established and monitored by an external collegial peer group, but directivesissued by an employing organization may also control this behavior (Aranya andFerris, 1984). These two sets of behaviors, however, need not always coincide, and theprofessional employee may be forced to subrogate one set of behaviors for the other

An empiricalexamination

387

(Sorensen, 1967). When a professional’s employing organization seeks to set asideprofessional autonomy, demanding adherence to organizational norms that areincompatible with professional ethics, organizational-professional conflict is present(Brierley and Cowton, 2000). Findings exist showing that professionals who experiencean inability to create a more ideal professional climate and who must function in anoverly bureaucratized work environment have a lower job satisfaction and strongerturnover intentions (Sorensen and Sorensen, 1974). These findings were stronglysupported by a meta-analysis that found that organizational-professional conflictincreased turnover intention and reduced job satisfaction (Brierley and Cowton, 2000).Other findings showed that professional commitment was positively related to theresearch productivity of professionals (Jauch et al., 1978) and negatively to absence(Meyer et al., 1993). Therefore, it is important to examine whether and how professionalvalues are related to a behavior that is very important to the organization but might beperceived as less important by the professionals. These individuals might prefer toperform behaviors that are important to their profession in general and to theirprofessional development in particular, but not necessarily to the organization. Thegoal of this study is to examine the relationship between professionalism and OCB.Conceptual models for this relationship were devised and tested among Israeli nursesin Israel.

Conceptual frameworkTwo related explanations have been posited for the relationship between possibledeterminants and OCB. The first is based on social exchange theory, which predictsthat given certain conditions, people seek to requite those who benefit them. To theextent that a person’s satisfaction results from the efforts of organizational officialsand such efforts are interpreted as volitional and non-manipulative in intent, thebeneficiary will seek to reciprocate those efforts. Citizenship behaviors of the sortdescribed above are more likely to be under an individual’s control, and hence morelikely to be a salient mode of reciprocation (Organ, 1990). Professionalism is a variablethat seems to represent this contention. One of the main definitions of professionalismis that of Hall (1968), who identified two main aspects of professional community:structural and attitudinal. These qualities can be used to distinguish professional fromnon-professional workers. The attitudinal attributes of professionalism, according toHall, include the following five characteristics: the use of the professional organizationas a major reference; a belief in service to the public; a belief in self-regulation; a senseof calling to the field; and a feeling of autonomy at work.

From the above definition, it can be argued that professionals who feel that theorganization meets their professional needs, as described, for example, by the abovedefinition, will reciprocate with higher OCB. Wallace (1995a) argued that if theworkplace is part of the professional community, provides professional careeropportunities, allows professional autonomy, and respects values consistent with thoseof the profession, it should reward professional behavior and provide incentives thatare consistent with the professional value system. In this case, Wallace contendedemployees should be more satisfied with their jobs and loyal to their employer, and, aswe expected, should also demonstrate higher levels of OCB. In other words,professionals who feel that their autonomy is not restricted by the organization andwho feel that the organization encourages them to maintain or increase their expertise

JMP19,4

388

will be more willing to perform OCB than those who feel that the above two conditionsare not being fulfilled in their current organizational setting.

The second explanation, which is an extension of exchange theory, suggests thatOCB stems from one’s perceptions of fairness or unfairness (Organ, 1988, 1990;Schnake, 1991). Organ (1990) postulated a general tendency for people to presume atthe outset, though probably in an intuitive or preconscious manner, a social exchangerelationship with the organization. This presumption lasts until the weight ofinterpreted evidence indicates that such a relationship is not viable because ofunfairness. Confirmation of the lack of fairness in social exchange, which isaccompanied by dissatisfaction, prompts a redefinition of the relationship as one ofeconomic exchange. Such a perception can be based on a social comparison, a promiseor imagined promise, past experience, the going rate, or one’s image of “the way theworld should be”. Thus, persons who perceive inequity are likely to withholddiscretionary behaviors and to limit their contributions to the organization to thosebehaviors that are formally prescribed.

Greenberg (1990) and Niehoff and Moorman (1993) identified three dimensions oforganizational justice. Distributive justice is the fairness of transactional contracts andeconomic exchange. Procedural justice is the use of procedurally fair supervisorypractices that affect higher-order issues such as employees’ commitment to a system.This dimension is comprised of two factors: formal procedure, namely the existence ofa formal and fair process for reward distribution and the third dimension oforganizational justice, interactional justice, namely the level of fairness that governsthe interaction between worker and employer in implementing the formal procedures.Organizational justice emerged as an important concept in the prediction of OCB, andmany studies have found a positive relationship between the two (Ball et al., 1994;Eskew, 1993; Folger, 1993; Greenberg, 1986; Mayer et al., 1995; Niehoff and Moorman,1993; Organ, 1990, 1994). Konovsky and Pugh (1994) found that procedural justice anddistributive justice positively affected an employee’s trust in a supervisor, which inturn led to higher levels of OCB. As a result, many studies on OCB have concentratedon variables that reflect perceptions of fairness or equity. Therefore, a possibilitydeemed necessary to test here was that professionalism is not directly related to OCB.Perceptions of professionalism will be related to perceptions of justice. Employees whofeel that their organization meets their professional needs will have higher perceptionsof justice, and justice perceptions will be positively related to OCB.

Research hypothesesAs mentioned above, Podsakoff et al. (2000) found that job attitudes, task variables,various types of leader behaviors, and role perceptions appear to be more stronglyrelated to OCB than the other antecedents. The concept of professionalism includessome aspects from all the categories mentioned above except leader behaviors.Professionalism is an attitude because in many studies its measurement is based on theemployees’ sensibilities and includes affective and cognitive perceptions regarding theprofession. Moreover, professionalism was referred to as part of the broad concept ofmultiple commitments at work by Morrow and Goetz (1988), who defined it as “theextent to which one is committed to one’s profession”. Conceptually, George and Jones(1997) argued that an individual who experiences positive moods at work and haspositive attitudes to the organization or the job may be more likely to perform OCB

An empiricalexamination

389

than a person with less positive workplace reactions. A person with high levels ofprofessionalism, as an attitude, is also expected to perform more OCB. Support for theprediction that professionalism as an attitude can be related to OCB was advanced byPodsakoff et al. (2000). In their meta-analysis they found that attitudes such as jobsatisfaction, perceptions of fairness, and organizational commitment were positivelyrelated to OCB.

The concept of professionalism also includes some components of task and skillcharacteristics, for example, autonomy and expertise (Hall, 1968). These characteristicscan also increase OCB. George and Jones (1997) argued that a person with low levels ofknowledge, skill, and experience may not be especially helpful to co-workers inproviding them assistance with work tasks because a low skill level constrains his orher ability to be helpful. By contrast, a person who is especially knowledgeable mayhave many opportunities to be helpful. People who have an expertise in computerhardware, for example, often have multiple opportunities to help others even thoughtheir own jobs per se are not concerned with computer technology. Podsakoff et al.(2000) argued that task characteristics such as task identity, task significance, and taskautonomy exert important effects on employees’ psychological states (e.g. perceivedresponsibility for work outcomes, experienced meaningfulness of work), job attitudes(e.g. work satisfaction), and aspects of employees’ work performance. Anotherpossibility they raised is that task properties are a surrogate for other factors (e.g. joblevel), or that they influence employees’ attitudes and perceptions (e.g. job satisfactionand commitment), which are known to have an effect on OCB. For example,higher-level jobs are likely to be less routine and more intrinsically satisfying thanlower-level or entry-level jobs.

Podsakoff et al. (2000) showed in their meta-analysis that task variables wereconsistently related to a wide variety of OCB. Task variables such as task feedback,task routinization, and intrinsically satisfying tasks were significantly related todimensions of OCB. Podsakoff et al. (2000) held that the characteristics of the task,although not emphasized in the existing OCB literature, are important determinants ofOCB and deserve more attention in future research. As noted, the concept ofprofessionalism included some aspects of the task. Therefore, we may predict thatprofessionalism will be related to OCB.

Finally, professionalism also represents a perception of one’s role in theorganization. Gouldner (1957) advanced the concept of the local versus thecosmopolitan employee. Gouldner’s definition of the cosmopolitan seems to almostcompletely overlap that of the professional. In fact, the cosmopolitan may be defined assomeone who is high on the professionalism scale. The difference is that thecosmopolitan, in addition to her/his high degree of professionalism, also has somewhatnegative attitudes towards the organization. We expected that professionalism, as arole, would be related to OCB. George and Jones (1997) elaborated on how roledefinitions can affect OCB. They argued that the boundary between in-role andextra-role behaviors is fuzzy, and people may differ in terms of how they define theirroles. At one extreme, an individual may define a role so narrowly that certainactivities are avoided because they are not formally or explicitly required, even thoughthey may be necessary for effective job performance. At the other extreme, anindividual may define a role so broadly that it includes all forms of OCB. For such anindividual these behaviors are not perceived to be voluntary, but mandatory. George

JMP19,4

390

and Jones mention a study by Morrison (1994), who found that when workers definedtheir roles more broadly, they were more likely to engage in OCB. George and Jonesconcluded that, building on Morrison’s findings, it was likely that when individualsdefined their own roles broadly, they had more opportunities to perform forms of OCB.By contrast, narrow role definitions are likely to constrain OCB. It can be argued thatthose who have a higher degree of professionalism probably have a broader roledefinition, which facilitates OCB. Podsakoff et al. (2000) reported in their meta-analysisthat role perceptions were found to have significant relationships with somedimensions of OCB, although the size of these relationships was not particularlysubstantial. They found that role ambiguity and role conflict were negatively related todimensions of OCB.

Based on the above it was expected that professionalism would be related to OCB.

H1. Professionalism will be related to OCB. Higher levels of all dimensions ofprofessionalism will be associated with higher levels of performing the twodimensions of OCB.

However, based on the above arguments an alternative model was also examined.According to this model, the relationship between professionalism and OCB is notdirect, but is mediated by perceptions of justice. High levels of professionalism arerelated to high levels of justice perceptions. High perceptions of justice are related tomore OCB. The theoretical basis for the mediating effect of justice was outlined byNiehoff and Moorman (1993), who found that perception of justice mediated therelationship between leader monitoring and OCB. We expected that this mediatingeffect was also relevant for the relationship between professionalism and OCB.Perceptions of justice are a multi-dimensional construct, and we anticipated that alldimensions would mediate the relationship between professionalism and OCB. As fordistributive justice, Niehoff and Moorman (1993) used Organ’s (1990) explanation thatthe key to understanding how distributive justice influences OCB is to realize thatemployees often overlay the economic exchanges in their organization with socialexchanges. Reciprocation in an economic exchange would be limited to in-rolebehaviors because employees would see little cause to go beyond the specific tenets ofthe employment contract. However, if employees define their relationships withemployers as social exchanges, reciprocation will probably entail behaviors that existoutside of any specific contractual promise. An employee will engage in OCB becauseto do so is consistent with the positive quality of the employment relationship, notbecause a contract specifies it.

This line of reasoning can explain how distributive justice mediates the relationshipbetween professionalism and OCB. When the organization respects and provides forprofessional needs, employees will perceive the relationship with the organization asfair regardless of their formal rewards and will reciprocate with higher OCB. Themediating effect of procedural justice is explained using the group value modeloutlined by Niehoff and Moorman, who adopted it from Lind and Earley (1991). Lindand Earley suggested that OCB occurs in organizations when there is a strongemphasis on group concerns and cognitions. Such concerns often influence anemployee’s motivation to maximize group rather than individual rewards. Proceduraljustice is instrumental in promoting group concerns because fair procedurescommunicate the message that the group values each member. Employees may

An empiricalexamination

391

therefore use OCB to support and maintain the group and seek ways to improve itshealth and welfare. Specifically, the group value model suggests that an employee seesprocedures as fair if they communicate that the employee is a respected and valuedmember of a work group. For example, a supervisor’s sensitivity to the personal needsof employees (interactional justice) may be considered fair because such concern couldinfluence the distribution of outcomes, but it also demonstrates that the supervisorconsiders the employees worthy of such concern. Following this reasoning, it wasexpected that procedural justice would also be related to OCB and mediate itsrelationship with professionalism. Professionals whose professional needs and valuesare met by the organization will perceive the procedures as fair and reciprocate withOCB.

H2. The dimensions of organizational justice that employees perceive will mediatethe relationship between professionalism and OCB. Professionalism will havea direct effect on procedural justice, and procedural justice will be related tothe two dimensions of OCB. Professionalism will have a direct effect ondistributive justice, and distributive justice will be related to the twodimensions of OCB.

MethodSubjects and procedureData were collected from a sample of 1,035 registered nurses in four public hospitals innorthern Israel that had acquiesced to our request that they participate in this study. Atotal of 1,376 questionnaires were distributed in different units in the four hospitals;1,035 usable questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 75.2 percent. Responserate in each hospital was 75.3 percent (183 nurses), 72 percent (254 nurses), 78.4 percent(433 nurses), and 71.6 percent (165 nurses). About a month after the survey,supervisors in each unit provided the OCB data for each employee who had completeda questionnaire. A demographic breakdown of respondents showed that 82 percent ofthe sample were Jewish, 59 percent were full-time employees, 87 percent were female,and 77 percent were married. Of the sample, 56 percent of the nurses were born inIsrael and 28 percent in the former Soviet Union. The average age of the respondentswas 38 years ðSD ¼ 9:7Þ; average tenure in the hospital and in the unit was 10.6 yearsðSD ¼ 8:3Þ and 8.5 years ðSD ¼ 7:2Þ; respectively; finally, 24 percent had a BA degreeor higher.

MeasuresDependent variables – organizational citizenship behavior. Williams and Anderson(1991) suggested that a good measurement of OCB should include items representingintra-role behaviors because such an analysis would clarify whether the respondentsdifferentiated between intra-role and extra-role behaviors. Their suggestion wasstrongly supported by Morrison (1994), who found that the boundary betweenintra-role and extra-role behavior was ill defined and varied from one employee to theother and between employees and supervisors. This finding implies that employeestypically viewed as good citizens may simply be doing what they consider to becomponents of their job. Consequently, a 34-item list taken from OCB scales developedby Morrison (1993), Organ and Konovsky (1989) and Williams and Anderson (1991)and some items developed for this research was presented to the participating unit

JMP19,4

392

supervisors, who were asked to evaluate each of their employees on these 34 items.Each item was measured on a scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The 34 itemssubjected to factor analysis are shown in Table I, and revealed three distinct factors.The largest factor included nine items, all of them dealing with intra-role performance.The reliability of this factor was 0.91. A second factor included eight itemsrepresenting the more impersonal sort of OCB: full use of work time and adherence tovarious rules, but displaying conscientiousness far surpassing any enforceableminimum standards. In accordance with the OCB literature discussed above, this factorwas termed general compliance; its reliability was 0.89. The third factor included nineitems, all of them concerned with helping a specific person, either the supervisor or aco-worker. This factor was labeled altruistic OCB, with a reliability of 0.86. The threefactors explained 51.1 percent of the variance: the first one 38.3 percent, the second 7.3percent, and the third 5.6 percent. Thus, factor analysis showed that the supervisorswere able to distinguish between intra-role and extra-role performance in theirparticular setting.

Smith et al. (1983) argued that because the two OCB dimensions represent distinctclasses of citizenship behavior, they should be analyzed separately. Supporting thiscontention, Smith et al. (1983) and Williams and Anderson (1991) added that thedistinction between the two OCB dimensions was important because they could havedifferent antecedents, as demonstrated in their results. Based on the findings ofconfirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and the above research, we analyzed the twodimensions as distinct constructs.

Independent variables – professionalism. Hall (1968) first measured professionalismusing a 50-item scale, with ten items representing each of the five attitudinaldimensions. These, as mentioned, were the use of the profession as a major referent, abelief in public service, a belief in self-regulation by colleagues, a sense of calling to thefield, and a desire for autonomy. Snizek (1972) re-analyzed Hall’s data and collectedmore. Based on these findings Snizek suggested that by deleting five poorlyperforming items associated with each subscale, more uni-dimensional measures couldbe devised. Morrow and Goetz (1988) used Snizek’s modifications of Hall’s originalmeasure, but they deleted one item from the autonomy scale. We adopted the 24-itemscale applied by Morrow and Goetz in this study. The scale was translated into Hebrewand was modified to suit the nursing profession better.

The 24 items of professionalism were also subjected to exploratory factor analysis,presented in Table II. Three factors emerged, not five as found by Snizek (1972). Thefirst included six items (the items underlined in factor 1 shown in Table II), four ofwhich represent a sense of calling. This factor was termed accordingly, and itsreliability was 0.61. A second factor included five items, four of which representautonomy. In accordance with the literature on professionalism discussed above, thisfactor was termed “autonomy,” and its reliability was 0.71. The third factor generatedby the analysis included four items, three of them having to do with profession asreferent. This factor was labeled “profession as referent”, and its reliability was 0.66.The three factors explained 31.5 percent of the variance: the first one explained 18.6percent, the second 7.2 percent, and the third 5.8 percent. The two other factors thatwere supposed to represent “belief in service” and “belief in self-regulation” were notinterpretable and yielded reliabilities of 0.29 and 0.17. Therefore it was decided not toinclude them in the analysis.

An empiricalexamination

393

Organizational justice. This variable was measured using a scale developed byMoorman (1991) and Niehoff and Moorman (1993). It consisted of one dimensionmeasuring perceptions of distributive justice and two dimensions measuringperceptions of procedural justice. Five items assessing the fairness of different workoutcomes measured distributive justice. The reliability for this scale was 0.72.

Items In roleGeneral

compliance Altruism

“Keeps up” all duties 0.65 0.34Volunteers for things that are not required 0.75 0.75Takes into consideration priorities in nursing intervention 0.68 0.40Helps others who have heavy work loads 0.51 0.45Keeps up with nursing standards in his/her professional

intervention 0.73Performs activities that help hospital image 0.65Orients new people even though it is not required 0.72Makes decisions based on knowledge and careful

assessment 0.65 0.43Complains about trivial matters 0.53Is patient with peers 0.73“Keeps up” with organization procedures and standards 0.72Makes innovative suggestions to improve department

work procedures 0.77Does not misuse hospital equipment 0.54 0.49Touches base with supervisor before initiating actions 0.68Helps others who have been absent 0.62Gives advance notice if unable to come to work 0.49“Keeps up” with department procedures and protocols 0.72 0.30Tries to avoid creating problems for co-workers 0.73Spends a great deal of time on private phone conversations 0.42Is well-organized and tidy 0.61Takes steps to prevent problems with other workers 0.72Willingly gives his/her time to help others with work

problems 0.40 0.61Completes activities, duties and nursing intervention as

needed 0.66 0.30Is punctual 0.39 0.40Assumes responsibilities as team member 0.63Reports clearly (verbally and in writing) 0.67Does not take extra breaksReports equipment malfunctioning 0.45 0.57Attendance at work is above the norm 0.53 0.56Treats his/her patients with respect and dignity 0.33 0.55Takes unnecessary time off work 0.49Is mindful of peers’ needs at work 0.43 0.59Initiates patient education 0.41 0.61Attends functions that are not required, but help the

department imageEigenvalue 13.03 2.47 1.91Percent of variance 38.27 7.26 5.64

Note: aOnly loadings above 0.30 are presented. Loadings in italics were applied for the scales

Table I.Results of principalcomponent factoranalysis (varimaxrotation) on OCB itemsa

JMP19,4

394

Sense ofcalling Autonomy

Professionas referent

Beliefin service

Belief inself-

regulation

Professional organizations dolittle for members 0.34 0.50

Other professions are more vitalthan nursing 0.55

Peers are competent 0.45I have a sense of calling for work

in nursing 0.63Nurse makes own decisions 0.68Nursing is accounted an

essential service 0.54No nursing knowledge of other

hospital workers 2 0.54I feel dedication gratifying 0.63I have professional judgment

opportunities 0.69Nursing importance is

overstressed 0.65No tools for professional

judgment 0.32 0.65Idealism maintained in

nursing 0.49My professional decisions are

considered 0.69Nursing is accounted

indispensable 20.34Nursing is based on professional

knowledge 0.37I will work as a nurse even with

a low income 0.54My professional decisions are

reviewed by otherprofessionals 0.51

Other occupations areimportant 0.39 0.32

There is opportunity forprofessional judgement 0.34 0.43

Few nurses don’t believe inwork importance 0.55

As health-team membermy views areconsidered 0.34 0.57

I read professional journals 0.69I attend professional

meetings 0.82I attend department nursing

meetings 0.63Eigenvalue 4.46 1.73 1.38 1.25 1.17percent of variance 18.59 7.2 5.8 5.20 4.88

Note: aOnly loadings above 0.30 are presented. Loadings in italics were applied for the scales

Table II.Principal componentfactor analysis withvarimax rotation for

professionalisma

An empiricalexamination

395

Procedural justice was measured by items designed to tap both formal procedures andinteractional justice. Formal procedures were measured by six items that measured thedegree to which job decisions included mechanisms that ensured the gathering ofaccurate and unbiased information, employee voice, and an appeal processðreliability ¼ 0:80Þ: Interactional justice was measured by nine items that measuredthe degree to which employees felt their needs were considered in, and adequateexplanations were made for, job decisions ðreliability ¼ 0:91Þ: Since this scale isconsidered an established one, it was not factor analyzed.

Data analysis. The main statistical analyses in this study were multiple andhierarchical regressions. To support the hypotheses regarding the mediatedrelationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable, weapplied the regression analysis method, as described by Baron and Kenny (1986, p.1177). Accordingly, to test for mediation one estimates the three regression equationsas follows. First, the mediator is regressed on the independent variable, whereby theindependent variable must affect the mediator. Second, the dependent variable isregressed on the independent variable, whereby the independent variable must affectthe dependent variable. Third, the dependent variable is regressed on both theindependent variable and on the mediator, whereby the mediator must affect thedependent variable. If these conditions all hold in the predicted direction, the effect ofthe independent variable on the dependent variable must be less in the third equationthan in the second.

FindingsDescriptive statisticsTable III presents descriptive statistics and the inter-correlations of the researchvariables. The data indicated reasonable psychometric properties of the measures usedin this study. The somewhat low reliabilities of the professionalism subscales arecommon for this construct. For example, Hall (1968) reported reliabilities ranging from0.69 to 0.76; Snizek (1972) reported reliabilities ranging from 0.58 to 0.74; and Morrowand Goetz (1988) reported reliabilities ranging from 0.49 to 0.75.

The correlations among the independent variables were not high except for theinter-correlations between two dimensions of justice, namely interactional justice andformal procedures. The correlation between the two was 0.78 and it did introduce apossibility of multicollinearity. Two comments should be made in this regard. First,Niehoff and Moorman (1993), whose scale was adopted here, found a similar correlationbetween the two subscales, r ¼ 0:76; in a sample of employees and managers of anational movie theater company in the United States. This fact shows that the highcorrelation between the two subscales in the Israeli sample was not specific to it or toIsraeli culture. Second, Blalock (1972) argued that whenever there are high correlationsbetween independent variables, it is necessary to have both large samples and accuratemeasurement. Both conditions were met in this research. The sample was well above1,000, and both scales had high reliabilities. All other correlations among theindependent variables were acceptable.

The correlation matrix showed positive relationships among the three dimensionsof professionalism and general compliance. Altruism was positively related toprofession as referent, but not to sense of calling and autonomy. In-role behavior wasrelated to all dimensions of professionalism. This finding provided some support for

JMP19,4

396

Mean

SD

12

34

56

78

9

Professionalism

Professionas

referent

3.62

0.70

(0.66)

Sense

ofcalling

4.22

0.54

0.27**

(0.61)

Autonom

y4.18

0.53

0.35**

0.51**

(0.71)

Justice

Distributivejustice

3.38

0.76

0.23**

0.20**

0.18**

(0.72)

Interactional

justice

3.94

0.75

0.38**

0.27**

0.26**

0.43**

(0.91)

Formal

procedures

3.44

0.74

0.40**

0.28**

0.23**

0.49**

0.78**

(0.80)

OCB In-role

4.51

0.48

0.11**

0.08*

0.15**

0.12**

0.23**

0.14**

(0.91)

General

compliance

3.94

0.72

0.19**

0.09**

0.20**

0.17**

0.26**

0.15**

0.67**

(0.89)

Altruism

4.34

0.52

0.11**

0.01

0.02

0.21**

0.34**

0.24**

0.58**

0.56**

(0.86)

Notes:*p

#0.05;**p

#0.01;***p

#0.001;reliabilitiesin

parentheses

Table III.Basic statistics andcorrelation matrix

An empiricalexamination

397

H1, which expected a positive relationship between professionalism and OCB. It alsosatisfied the important condition of mediating effect, namely a significant relationshipbetween the dependent and independent variables. Another noteworthy finding wasthe significant positive relationships between all dimensions of professionalism and alldimensions of justice. This shows that nurses with higher levels of professionalismalso have higher perceptions of justice. In other words, they believe that theorganization treats them fairly.

The findings of the correlation matrix show that professionalism is strongly relatedto aspects that represent the impersonal dimension of organizational effectiveness,namely in-role behavior and the general compliance dimension of OCB. It is related lessstrongly to the more personal dimension of effectiveness, altruism, which representsthe willingness to help people in the organization.

Table IV shows the result of four multiple regressions conducted following the firstand the second terms for mediation of Baron and Kenny (1986), namely a significantrelationship between the dependent and the independent variables and between themediator(s) and the independent variable. In each of the equations the mediatingvariables (distributive justice, interactional justice, and formal procedures) wereregressed on the independent variables. Also, the dependent variable was regressed onthe independent variables. The findings in Table IV generally support the two termsfor mediation mentioned above. First, significant relationships existed between theindependent variables and the dependent variable. Profession as referent was related toall dimensions of OCB, and in the case of in-role behavior both autonomy andprofession as referent were related to it. The variance of OCB explained byprofessionalism was relatively low and ranged between 0.02 for altruism to 0.05 forgeneral compliance. As for the relationships between the mediating and the dependentvariable, the findings showed significant relationships between the two, whichsupported the second term of mediation. These relationships were stronger than therelationship between professionalism and OCB. This finding was demonstrated in thehigher variance of OCB explained by dimensions of justice than dimensions ofprofessionalism significantly related to OCB. The general conclusion is that thefindings of Table IV meet the first and second requirements for mediation as describedby Baron and Kenny (1986).

Conceptually, the findings in Table IV provide modest support for H1, whichpredicted that professionalism would be related to OCB. While one dimension of

Justice OCBIndependentvariables:Professionalism

Distributivejustice

Interactionaljustice

Formalprocedure In-role

Generalcompliance Altruism

Profession asreferent 0.18*** 0.25*** 0.34*** 0.08* 0.17*** 0.13***

Sense of calling 0.13** 0.15*** 0.18*** 20.01 20.02 20.01Autonomy 0.05 0.10* 0.02 0.13** 0.09 0.03R 2 (adjusted) 0.08 (0.08) 0.15 (0.15) 0.19 (0.19) 0.03 (0.03) 0.05 (0.04) 0.02 (0.02)F for R 2 28.70*** 58.44*** 79.34*** 10.22*** 15.05*** 6.48***

Notes: *p # 0.05; **p # 0.01; ***p # 0.001; n = 982-1,000

Table IV.Regression analyses(standardizedcoefficients): predictingthree dimensions ofjustice and threedimensions of OCB fromprofessionalism

JMP19,4

398

professionalism, profession as referent, was related to all forms of OCB, the variance ofOCB explained by professionalism was not high, ranging between 0.02 and 0.05.Profession as referent explained more variance of general compliance (0.05) thanaltruism (0.02) or in-role behavior (0.03). An interesting finding demonstrated inTable IV is the stronger relationship of justice to OCB than professionalism to OCB.This finding seems to provide general support for the pivotal role of justice in therelationship between professionalism and OCB.

Table V contains the data for the third requirement for mediation described byBaron and Kenny (1986). These data in Table V, together with some of the data inTable IV, provide stronger information for the third requirement for mediation, namelyregressing the dependent variable on both the independent variables and themediators. In Table III, we performed a two-step regression analysis, where in the firststep the dependent variable was regressed on the mediators, and in the second step thedependent variable was regressed on both the independent variables and themediators. This two-step regression was proposed by Ferris et al. (1996) to allow amore sensitive evaluation of the third condition for mediation: the mediators mustaffect the dependent variable, and, more importantly, the effect of the independentvariables on the dependent variable must be less in the last equation of Table II (therelationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable) than in thesecond steps of Table III. As mentioned, this regression was done three times for eachof the two dimensions of OCB and for in-role behavior. The mediating factors wereentered into the equation in the first step, while the three dimensions of professionalismwere entered in the second step.

The findings in Table V provide empirical support for condition 3. First, the datastrikingly show that the three dimensions of justice were strongly related to the threedimensions of professionalism. Most of the variance in OCB was due to the effect ofjustice (R 2¼7 percent for in-role behavior, 11 percent for altruistic OCB, and 10 percentfor general compliance), while professionalism contributed 1 percent or 2 percent to thetotal explained variance. Although this estimation was not part of the researchhypotheses, note the significant effect of the mediators on professionalism. Thisfinding supports the rationale of H2, which expected strong relationships between

In-role Altruistic OCB General complianceIndependent variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

JusticeDistributive justice 0.06 0.06 0.12*** 0.12*** 0.08* 0.08*Interactional justice 0.31*** 0.30*** 0.33*** 0.33*** 0.31*** 0.30***Formal procedures 20.09 20.11* 20.09 20.09 20.05 20.08

ProfessionalismProfession as referent 0.02 0.05 0.10**Sense of calling 20.05 20.07* 20.08**Autonomy 0.11* 0.01 0.07

R 2(adjusted) 0.08(0.07) 0.09(0.08) 0.11(0.11) 0.12(0.11) 0.10(0.10) 0.12(0.11)F for R 2 27.11*** 15.54*** 40.74*** 21.44*** 36.27*** 21.42***

Notes: *p # 0.05; **p # 0.01; ***p # 0.001; n = 974-983

Table V.Hierarchical regressionanalyses (standardizedcoefficients): predictingOCB by professionalism

controlling for justice

An empiricalexamination

399

justice, as mediating factors, and the dependent variable, professionalism. The data inTable V strongly support H2 when we compare the equations for OCB in Table IVwith the three second-step equations in Table V. The data clearly show that the effectof the independent variables was less in the regression equation in Table IV than in thethree regressions of Table V. For example, professionalism explained 4 percent of thevariance of general compliance (Table IV), but only 1 percent when justice mediatedthis relationship (Table V); professionalism explained 2 percent of the variance ofaltruism (Table IV), but less than 1 percent when justice mediated the relationship(Table V); professionalism explained 3 percent of the variance of in-role behavior, butonly 1 percent when justice mediated this relationship (Table V). All these findingswere much in line with the third condition for mediation of Baron and Kenny (1986). Inshort, the findings in Tables IV and V provide empirical support forH2, namely justicemediated the relationship between all dimensions of professionalism and alldimensions of OCB.

Another notable finding is that the effect of professionalism on OCB was differentfor each OCB dimension when justice mediated the relationship. As Table V shows,autonomy was the professionalism dimension related to in-role behavior, sense ofcalling was the only professionalism dimension related (negatively) to altruistic OCB,and profession as referent and sense of calling (negatively again) were related togeneral compliance. Note the negative effect of sense of calling on OCB, altruistic, andgeneral compliance. This demonstrates the complexity of the relationship betweenprofessionalism and OCB.

In order to control the findings for the possible effect of the demographic variables,the above regressions were performed controlling for two such variables: ethnicity andeducation. In other words, the procedures for testing mediating effect were performedseparately for each subgroup of ethnicity and education. First, separate regressionswere performed for Jewish ðN ¼ 801Þ and non-Jewish ðN ¼ 167Þ nurses to control forethnicity. The findings for the Jewish sample were similar to the findings for the totalsample with and without testing for mediation. (The tables are available and can bereceived upon request). As for the non-Jewish sample, the results showed that justicedid not mediate the relationship between professionalism and both dimensions of OCBand in-role behavior. Also, for the non-Jewish population, professionalism explained5.5 percent of the variance of general compliance, while the relationship betweenprofessionalism and altruism and professionalism and in-role behavior were notsignificant. These findings demonstrate some differences between the two ethnicgroups.

In the second control variable the sample was divided into those with formalacademic education (undergraduate and above) ðN ¼ 228Þ and those without a formalacademic degree ðN ¼ 744Þ: As in the case of ethnicity, separate regressions wereperformed for each of the groups. The findings showed that justice mediated therelationship between professionalism and the two dimensions of OCB together within-role behavior for both groups. It should be noted, however, that for nurses withacademic education professionalism explained more variance of both dimensions ofOCB and in-role behavior than for nurses without an academic education. This wasfound in all the regression analyses, those that mediated the relationship betweenprofessionalism and OCB controlling for justice and those that did not. For example,the direct relationship between professionalism and general compliance for those with

JMP19,4

400

an academic education explained 10.3 percent of the variance of general compliance incomparison to 3.3 percent for those without an academic education, for altruism 3 and 1percent, respectively, and for in-role behavior 4 and 2 percent, respectively. Thisfinding shows some differences between the two groups.

DiscussionThe goal of this research was to examine the relationship between professionalism andOCB. Two explanations were advanced for this relationship. The first expected a directrelationship between the two, and the second predicted that perceptions of justicewould mediate this relationship. The findings among a large sample of Israeli nursesshowed that the direct relationship between professionalism and OCB was modest.Professionalism accounted for a relatively small amount of variance of OCB. Thefindings strongly supported the second hypothesis, namely, that dimensions of theconstruct of professionalism were strongly related to perceptions of justice and thatthese perceptions were strongly related to OCB.

The findings in this study have several conceptual and practical implications.Despite the empirical support for the mediated models, the direct relationship betweenprofessionalism and OCB has several implications. First, the fact that the directrelationship between professionalism and OCB is modest suggests thatprofessionalism is not one of the main determinants of OCB in the nursingprofession. However, the consistent, positive relationship demonstrated in thecorrelation analysis suggests that professionalism should be included as one of thedeterminants of OCB in this profession. The fact that the relationship betweenprofessionalism and OCB was stronger among nurses with higher education suggeststhat professionalism might be a stronger determinant of OCB among professionscharacterized by extensive, formal education such as the legal profession, medicine,accountancy, and engineering. This possibility should be examined in future research.

Also the interesting finding that professionalism has a stronger effect among nurseson impersonal performance dimensions such as general compliance and in-rolebehavior should also be investigated among other professions. One explanation for thisfinding is that among professionals such as lawyers or physicians this effect will beeven stronger. In the case of physicians, lawyers, or accountants, for example, there isless need to cooperate and coordinate and therefore helping behaviors, namely,altruism OCB, will be even less important than in the nursing profession. Therefore, inthese professions professionalism will be more strongly related to impersonalbehaviors than to personal ones. This finding could provide an interesting hypothesisfor future research.

The findings of this study strongly emphasized the pivotal role of perceptions ofjustice in the relationship between determinants and OCB in the nursing profession.Konovsky and Pugh (1994) and Niehoff and Moorman (1993) found that leaders whomonitored their subordinates’ performance effectively strengthened their subordinates’perception that they were being treated fairly, which in turn enhanced subordinates’trust in their leader and ultimately increased OCB. This study showed that trust is alsoimportant for nurses when professionalism is the determinant. The finding here can berelated to the preceding results if we accept the argument that professionalism in ourcase is a type of leadership substitute. An alternative argument is that perceptions of

An empiricalexamination

401

justice are important in the relationship between a variety of determinants and OCB. Inother words, OCB is strongly related to, or results from nurses’ perceptions of justice.

Possible determinants of OCB largely depend on their ability to affect perceptions ofjustice to produce higher levels of OCB. This argument needs to be examined in futureresearch with other possible determinants of OCB. An interesting finding in this regardis that profession as referent and sense of calling are the dimensions that are stronglyrelated to all three dimensions of justice among nurses, while autonomy is related onlyto one of them. In other words, adopting professional behaviors and values relates toperceptions of justice more than the autonomy provided to nurses in their work setting.It should also be mentioned that perceptions of justice are more strongly related to OCBthan to in-role behavior.

Several implications and suggestions for future research emerge from this study;they are discussed below.

As mentioned above, the relationship between professionalism and OCB did notprove to be strong, yet they were found to be significant and strong enough to meritfurther attention. Note that this was one of the first studies to examine this relationshipdirectly. It is possible that in other samples a stronger relationship betweenprofessionalism and OCB may be evident. The literature emphasizes the role of theleader or the supervisor in producing high levels of OCB from subordinates (Podsakoffet al., 2000). Professionalism in that regard can be viewed as another substitute forleadership, so its relation to OCB is to be expected. Instead of the supervisor motivatingnurses directly or indirectly to perform OCB, professionalism can be viewed as aninternal mechanism among nurses who produce higher levels of OCB regardless of therelationship between subordinates and supervisors. This expectation was in someways supported by the finding that autonomy was related to in-role behavior of nursesand not to any of the OCB dimensions. Autonomy represented more of a workenvironment variable, and as such was found to affect in-role behavior. It is professionas referent and sense of calling that represent the internal values of a professional, andthey, particularly the former, were related to OCB. To test this expectation directly,future research should examine the relationship between professionalism and OCBcontrolled by variables that represent the relationship between subordinates andsupervisors or variables that represent leadership or managerial styles.

Two dimensions of OCB were examined here in addition to in-role behavior. Thiswas done in accordance with Williams and Anderson’s (1991) suggestion. The findingsrevealed some differences among the three dimensions of the outcome variables in theirrelationship to professionalism. First, and most important, professionalism accountedfor more variance of OCB in the case of general compliance (5 percent) than in the caseof altruism (2 percent) or in-role behavior (3 percent). This finding suggests thatprofessionalism can better direct the informal and extra-role contributions of nursesregarding activities related directly to the job than the activities oriented to othernurses on in-role behaviors. This finding, in addition to the one that showed autonomyto be related only to in-role behavior but not to any of the OCB dimensions, furthersupported the above argument that professionalism is better perceived as a leadershipsubstitute.

The dimension of profession as referent was found to have the most consistentrelationship with OCB. It was related to both dimensions and also to in-role behavior.This finding showed that behavior that adopted and/or maintained more professional

JMP19,4

402

standards and values also produced more OCB. However, an indication of thecomplexity of the relationship between professionalism and OCB is demonstrated bythe finding that sense of calling was not related to OCB or in-role behavior in the directmodel. Instead, it was negatively related to OCB when the relationship betweenprofessionalism and OCB was controlled by perceptions of justice. This result attestedto the fact that while professional behavior also resulted in higher levels of OCB, deepprofessional values and ideology could result in lower OCB. This finding definitelydeserves more attention in future research. It implies that nurses might experiencesome conflict in their relationship with the hospital, a conflict that evinced here in OCB.One possibility is to test the relationship between professionalism and OCB controllingfor another attitude, namely being local versus being cosmopolitan. The relationshipbetween professionalism and OCB may well be mediated or moderated by this attitude.For example, the relationship between sense of calling and OCB may be positive forlocals and negative for cosmopolitans.

Several practical implications emerge from this study. First, it seems thatprofessionalism is an attitude worth encouraging and strengthening among nurses.Increasing professionalism among nurses will result in higher levels of OCB,particularly impersonal aspects of OCB and in-role behavior. Higher levels ofprofessionalism enable nurses to better understand their relationship with theirorganizations in the sense that it increases their perception that they are being treatedjustly and fairly. This sense of justice in return encourages nurses to perform moreOCB in their organizations. Employers, therefore, should be interested in increasing thelevels of professionalism among their nurses by exposing them to more professionalactivities.

Another way to increase professionalism among nurses is to select nurses with anacademic education. The stronger relationship found here between professionalismand OCB among nurses with higher education suggests that education is a key factorin the development of professional values and behaviors. Selecting nurses with highereducation or providing academic education to nurses in the organization is anothermeans to develop a skilled and professional workforce in hospitals who will be morewilling to demonstrate important extra-role behaviors such as OCB, as well as engagein higher levels of in-role behaviors.

Several limitations of this paper should be acknowledged. First, most of the data forthis study are derived from a self-report methodology. While this is common inorganizational research, it is nonetheless problematic. The fact that all the items of thequestionnaire were assessed by the same source at the same time may produce theeffect of common method variance. An advantage of this study in that respect was thatthe dependent variable was collected from a different data source. Another limitation ofthe study was its specific setting. We used North American measures in a non-NorthAmerican culture. While in the case of perceptions of justice a similarity existedbetween the psychometric characteristics of the scales and in their interrelationships,in the case of professionalism, culture might have had some effect on the findings. Theconstruct of professionalism should produce five factors, while only three wereinterpretable here. Despite its limitations, this study has contributed to the continuingresearch on OCB. It examined a relatively overlooked concept in terms of itsrelationship to OCB and found that professionalism is related to OCB. Naturally, more

An empiricalexamination

403

research is needed to increase our understanding about the exact nature of thisrelationship. This study is just a starting point.

References

Aranya, N. and Ferris, K.R. (1984), “A reexamination of accountants’ organizational-professionalconflict”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 119, pp. 1-15.

Ball, G.A., Klebe Trevino, L. and Sims, H.P. (1994), “Just and unjust punishment: influences onsubordinate performance and citizenship”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37,pp. 299-322.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82.

Batemen, T.S. and Organ, D.W. (1983), “Job satisfaction and the good soldier: the relationshipbetween affect and employee citizenship”,Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 26, pp. 587-95.

Blalock, H.M. (1972), Social Statistics, McGraw-Hill, Kogahasha.

Brierley, J.A. and Cowton, C.J. (2000), “Putting meta-analysis to work: accountants’organizational-professional conflict”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 24, pp. 343-53.

Eskew, D.E. (1993), “The role of organizational justice in organizational citizenship behavior”,Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 185-94.

Ferris, G.R., Frink, D.D., Bhawuk, D.P.S. and Zhou, J. (1996), “Reactions of diverse groups topolitics in the workplace”, Journal of Management, Vol. 22, pp. 23-44.

Folger, R. (1993), “Justice, motivation, and performance beyond role requirements”, EmployeeResponsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 239-48.

George, J.M. and Jones, G.R. (1997), “Organizational spontaneity in context”, HumanPerformance, Vol. 10, pp. 153-70.

Gouldner, A.W. (1957), “Cosmopolitans and locals: toward an analysis of latent social roles”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 2, pp. 281-306.

Greenberg, J. (1986), “Determinants of perceived fairness on performance evaluation”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 340-2.

Greenberg, J. (1990), “Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 16, pp. 399-432.

Hall, R.H. (1968), “Professionalism and bureaucratization”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 33,pp. 92-104.

Jauch, L.R., Glueck, F.W. and Osborn, R.N. (1978), “Organizational loyalty, professionalcommitment and academic research productivity”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 21, pp. 84-92.

Katz, D. (1964), “The motivational basis of organizational behavior”, Behavior Science, Vol. 9,pp. 131-3.

Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1966), The Social Psychology of Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY.

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

Lind, E.A. and Earley, P.C. (1991), “Some thoughts on self and group interest: a parallel-processormodel”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, MiamiBeach, FL.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.K. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizationaltrust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 709-34.

JMP19,4

404

Meyer, P.J., Allen, J.N. and Smith, C.A. (1993), “Commitment to organizations and occupations:extension and test of a three-component conceptualization”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 78, pp. 538-51.

Moorman, R.H. (1991), “Relationship between organizational justice and organizationalcitizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?”, Journalof Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 845-55.

Morrison, W.E. (1993), “Toward an understanding of employee role definition and theirimplications for organizational citizenship behavior”, paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the Academy of Management.

Morrison, W.E. (1994), “Role definition and organizational citizenship behavior: the importanceof the employee’s perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 1543-67.

Morrow, P.C. and Goetz, J.F. (1988), “Professionalism as a form of work commitment”, Journal ofVocational Behavior, Vol. 32, pp. 92-111.

Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), “Justice as a mediator of the relationship betweenmethods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior”,Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 36, pp. 527-56.

Organ, D.W. (1988), OCB: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.

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

Organ, D.W. (1994), “Personality and organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 20, pp. 465-78.

Organ, D.W. and Konovsky, M. (1989), “Cognitive versus affective determinants oforganizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 157-64.

Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and Bacharach, G.D. (2000), “Organizationalcitizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature andsuggestions for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, pp. 513-63.

Schnake, M. (1991), “Organizational citizenship: a review, proposed model, and research agenda”,Human Relations, Vol. 44, pp. 735-59.

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

Snizek, W.E. (1972), “Hall’s professionalism scale: an empirical assessment”, AmericanSociological Review, Vol. 37, pp. 109-14.

Sorensen, J.E. (1967), “Professional and bureaucratic organization in the public accounting firm”,The Accounting Review, pp. 553-65.

Sorensen, J.E. and Sorensen, T. (1974), “The conflict of professionals in bureaucraticorganizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 19, pp. 98-106.

Wallace, J.E. (1993), “Professional and organizational commitment: compatible or incompatible?”,Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 42, pp. 333-49.

Wallace, J.E. (1995a), “Corporatist control and organizational commitment among professionals:the case of lawyers working in law firms”, Social Forces, Vol. 73, pp. 811-39.

Wallace, J.E. (1995b), “Organizational and professional commitment in professional andnon-professional organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 228-55.

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

An empiricalexamination

405