Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Vision
19(1) 1324
2015 MDI
SAGE Publications
sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0972262914564043
http://vision.sagepub.com
Santhosh V.A.1
Abstract
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) a key determinant of organizational success is getting prime focus in the research arena.
The different antecedents and consequences of this discretionary behaviour are being considered as important for management of
human resources. From among the different impacting variables explored through numerous researches, the relationship with workplace commuting, the daily travel between place of work and place of residence stands critical. The study focuses on finding out the
impact of workplace commuting on citizenship behaviour of employees. Different dimensions of workplace commuting were identified and related with those of citizenship behaviour. Statistical analysis revealed the relationship between independent and dependent
variable.
Even though the relationship between the variables are rejected by the study, the negative correlation figures indicating lowering of
citizenship behaviour as a result of workplace commuting and its different variables is worth noting. The study concludes by emphasizing the importance of further research including variables like culture and performance.
Key Words
Workplace Commuting, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, Interpersonal Helping, Individual Initiative, Personal Industry, Loyal
Boosterism
Introduction
With the changing focus and social conditions, human
variable is now considered as the most important factor
deciding organizational success. Development of the discipline of organizational behaviour and its different sub
variables has added more focus and sophistication towards
human resource management. Organizational Citizenship
Behaviour (OCB) is one prominent variable indicating the
significance of manpower in organizational effectiveness.
Different scholastic studies have been conducted in the
area of citizenship behaviour relating it to different factors
including organizational effectiveness (Podsakoff and
MacKenzie, 1997). Empirical research has focused on major
categories of OCB including its different dimensions, antecedents and consequences. It is a concept which researches
have linked towards benefits substantially (Podsakoff et al.,
2000) and is considered as important in organizations. One
area untouched by researchers is the commuting strain taken
Associate Professor and Associate Dean (Operations), TKM Institute of Management, Kollam.
Corresponding author:
Santhosh V.A., Associate Professor and Associate Dean (Operations), TKM Institute of Management, Kollam.
Email: drsanthoshva@gmail.com
14
Workplace Commuting
Commuting between place of work and place of residence
plays a significant role in deciding the overall well-being
of an employee. Generally, time and distance are two
important components used to measure the impact of
commuting between work and home. Researches suggest
implications of a wider nature in the changing social
conditions as a result of daily journey to work. Different
studies have addressed this area and have linked it with
different behavioural variables and performance measures.
Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and economist Alan
B. Krueger (2006), who studied on subjective well-being,
found that people are least interested in long commuting to
their workplace especially in the morning. Most of the
studies have negatively connoted long commuting to workplace with respect to different variables associated with
employee well-being. The more the time taken for travel
and more the distance travelled between work and home,
the more negative will be the psychological or behavioural
outcome (Koslowsky et al., 1996) and it creates more
negative effect than positive effect (Kahneman et al.,
2004). Results also indicate a negative correlation between
commuting time and individuals well-being (Stutzer and
Frey, 2004).
Commuting not only takes ones time but also gives stress
and different health problems. A Gallup survey (Crabtree,
2010) says that workers in America with lengthy commutes
are more likely to report a range of adverse physical and
emotional conditions, thereby reducing their well-being
index. Employees who commute more are also diagnosed
with health problems like high cholesterol, neck or back
pain and even obesity. The stress levels of the commuters
are also extremely high in extreme circumstances with
respect to heart rate and blood pressure. Recently, Reuters
mentions about a study conducted by researchers at
Washington University which states that long commutes to
work, particularly more than 10 miles (16 km), may be
hazardous to health and are associated with increased
weight, bigger waistlines and poorer heart and lung fitness
(Reuters, 2012). One question arises here is regarding the
appropriate commuting time which keeps an employee
healthy, physically and psychologically. The average commuting time suggested by Lewis (2004) is 4560 minutes
after comparing the heart rate and blood pressure of
125 commuters with those of pilots and police officers in
training exercises. Schwanen and Dijst (2002) on their study
concluded that a commuter spent 10.5 per cent of the time
available for work and travel (28 minutes for single trip) on
commuting for a workday comprising of eight hours.
Commuting also involves different out-of-pocket costs
and reduces the quality time spent by an employee, where
each minute an employee commute reduces his/her daily
exercise time by 0.0257 minute, food preparation time by
0.0387 minute and sleep time reduction by 0.2205 minute
(Christian, 2009). A typical household in the US spends
Vision 19(1)
20 per cent of the income on commuting compared with
food (EPA, 2001).
Researches have related commuting time with health
and family life (Haefner et al., 2001), women employees
(Novaco et al., 1991), attractiveness of the workplace
(Clark and Burt, 1980) and absenteeism (Ommeren and
Gutirrez-i-Puigarnau, 2011). If all workers would have a
negligible commute, employee absenteeism can be reduced
to 1520 per cent (Ommeren and Gutirrez-i-Puigarnau,
2011). It is also interesting to note that women experience
more stress on commuting even though men spend more
time each day on their daily commute (Nordqvist, 2011).
Hence for women even if they commute less than men, it
can become more strenuous. The domestic responsibilities
undertaken by women and their married life style compared
with men is one of the reasons that create a negative
influence in daily commuting (Hanson and Pratt, 1991).
This can also, in turn, affect their family life and worklife
balance. Hence women generally show reluctance to move
away from their family for occupation purpose and try to
find a job near to their home (Brun and Fagnani, 1994).
Ranyak (1952) says that people tend to minimize their
journey to work, maximize their employment benefits, and
maximize their residential amenities. Considering the
impact of commuting on different aspects of quality life,
the simple solution would be to minimize the distance of
travel between place of residence and place of work.
According to Carroll, Jr (1950), each worker seeks to
minimize distance from home to work. A very recent
survey conducted among 16,000 Indian professionals in
more than 80 countries has found that Indian employees
reduce their commuting time to work through various
measures and utilize that time with their families and
concentrate on their physical well-being. The research also
confirms that 72 per cent of the employees work harder,
benefiting the company, if they could reduce their commute
time (Regus International, 2012).
Different to the earlier said findings, there are also
commuters who turn the commuting time beneficially and
achieve the desired outcomes (Koslowsky et al., 1995).
The quality of commuting also has increased with better
transportation system and personal vehicles.
The overall impact of commuting on an employee thus
depends on different factors ranging from the quality of
transportation system prevailing in the country to the
interest, purpose and motive of the traveller. As commuting
being a daily affair for an employee in his work life, the
likes and dislikes towards commuting should be thoroughly
learned. The outcomes of such likes and dislikes are to be
explored as to understand its consequence on various
success parameters of the organization. One such parameter
considered as important in many organization for its
growth and success is the citizenship behaviour exhibited
by an employee towards the organization.
A critical review on the different researches conducted
in the area of citizenship behaviour would give a clear
Santhosh V.A. 15
understanding regarding the gap existing empirically on
the relationship with workplace commuting.
16
Studies say that workplace commuting not only increases
the stress level but also creates stress at home, decreased
life satisfaction and disruption of social life (Cassidy, 1992).
In another study, Costa et al. (1988) say that commuters
generally experienced a more stressful lifestyle, with
increased psychological and physical health problems
(Costa et al., 1988). Studies also endorse the influence of
commuting on preferences of work environment of employees of different age group (Rothe et al., 2012). Within the
context of earlier discussions, exploring the role of workplace commuting as an antecedent of citizenship behaviour
of an employee in an organization becomes valid. More
importantly, lack of empirical evidence portraying the relationship between workplace commuting and citizenship
behaviour gives predominant importance to this study.
Research
This research takes the form of quantitative approach which
is concerned with the objective assessment of attitude,
opinion and behaviour. The objective of the study is to
measure the impact of workplace commuting on OCB of
employees. The target population considering the objective
are employees who work with public and private sector
organizations and are engaged in workplace commuting.
Hypothesis
Considering the available literature in the area of workplace commuting and citizenship behaviour, the following
hypotheses were developed to understand the impact
of workplace commuting (independent variable) on citizenship behaviour (dependant variable).
H1: The work place commuting of an employee is
correlated negatively and significantly with
citizenship behaviour
H2: The time spend for workplace commuting of an
employee is correlated negatively and significantly
with citizenship behaviour
H3: The average cost incurred for workplace commuting of an employee is correlated negatively and
significantly with citizenship behaviour
H4: The stress experienced for workplace commuting
of an employee is correlated negatively and
significantly with citizenship behaviour
H5: The distance travelled for workplace commuting
of an employee is correlated negatively and
significantly with citizenship behaviour
H6:
The period of work place commuting of an
employee is correlated negatively and significantly
with citizenship behaviour
Measures
Different measurement tools have emerged as a result of
scrupulous researches done in the area of OCB. The scales
Vision 19(1)
developed by Smith et al. (1983), Podsakoff et al. (1990),
Moorman et al. (1995) and Williams and Anderson (1991)
are a few prominent ones among others. For the current
study, the four dimensional scale developed by Moorman
and Blakely (1995) based on Grahams dimensions (1989)
of OCB with an acceptable confirmatory fit index (CFI)
of 0.91 and acceptable reliabilities is accorded as an appropriate one. The dimensions of this scale include, Interpersonal
helping (helping coworkers in their jobs when such help in
needed), Individual initiative (communications to others in
the workplace to improve individual and group performance),
Personal industry (performance of specific tasks above and
beyond the call of duty) and Loyal boosterism (promotion of
organizational image to outsiders; Moorman et al., 1995).
Specific questions to understand the commuting characteristics and demographic variables of the respondent were
also included in the questionnaire.
Sample
Four hundred and twenty questionnaires were distributed to
employees working in public and private sector organizations
in the southern part of India. A total of 386 surveys, with a
response rate of 92 per cent, were considered for the study
after excluding those not returned by the respondents and
those with missing data.
Santhosh V.A. 17
Table 1. Demographic Variables
Frequency
Type of organization
Age
Years of Experience
Marital Status
Stay with Family
Educational Qualification
Mode of Transportation
Valid %
Cumulative %
Public
Private
2130
3140
4150
5160
010
1120
2130
Above 30
Married
Unmarried
Yes
No
194
192
143
100
72
71
256
49
49
32
226
160
338
48
50.3
49.7
37.0
25.9
18.7
18.4
66.3
12.7
12.7
8.3
58.5
41.5
87.6
12.4
50.3
49.7
37.0
25.9
18.7
18.4
66.3
12.7
12.7
8.3
58.5
41.5
87.6
12.4
50.3
100.0
37.0
63.0
81.6
100.0
66.3
79.0
91.7
100.0
58.5
100.0
87.6
100.0
Graduate
Postgraduate
Doctorate
Professional
Own vehicle
Public Transportation
Office vehicle
112
48
32
194
193
127
66
29.0
12.4
8.3
50.3
50.0
32.9
17.1
29.0
12.4
8.3
50.3
50.0
32.9
17.1
29.0
41.5
49.7
100.0
50.0
82.9
100.0
Individual Initiative
Personal Industry
Loyal Boosterism
Pearson
Sig.
Pearson
Sig.
Pearson
Sig.
Pearson
Sig.
Pearson
Sig.
Correlation (2-tailed) Correlation (2-tailed) Correlation (2-tailed) Correlation (2-tailed) Correlation (2-tailed)
Citizenship
Behaviour
Interpersonal
Helping
Individual
Initiative
Personal
Industry
Loyal
Boosterism
0.778
0.000
0.700
0.000
0.854
0.000
0.695
0.000
0.466
0.000
0.706
0.000
0.215
0.000
0.466
0.000
0.306
0.000
0.448
0.000
0.778
0.000
0.700
0.000
0.466
0.000
0.854
0.000
706
0.000
0.466
0.000
0.695
0.000
0.215
0.000
0.306
0.000
0.448
0.000
102.3
103.6
Public
Private
13.12
10.58
Std
deviation
t value
1.07
(Sig:0.283)
104.2
99.2
105.0
103.5
2130
3140
4150
5160
10.75
11.42
16.08
8.57
4.74
(Sig: 0.003)
F value
27.5
25.9
26.4
26.4
Mean
101.5
105.7
109.6
100.0
010
1120
2130
Above 30
11.92
13.69
11.36
.000
Std
deviation
8.36
(Sig: 0.000)
F value
2.93
(Sig: 0.033)
Mean
101.86
104.55
Marital Status
Married
Unmarried
12.402
11.084
2.19 (Sig:
0.029)
t value
26.28
27.39
Mean
4.063
4.462
2.53 (Sig:
0.011)
t value
Std
deviation
3.84
(Sig: 0.010)
F value
Std
deviation
4.03
5.44
5.04
0.000
Std
deviation
Interpersonal Helping
26.6
25.8
26.7
29.0
Mean
Interpersonal Helping
4.07
3.58
4.97
4.54
F value
Citizenship Behaviour
Mean
Years of
Experience
Citizenship Behaviour
Mean
Age
Std
deviation
3.12
(Sig: 0.002)
Interpersonal Helping
4.76
3.57
t value
Std
deviation
26.0
27.4
Mean
Std
deviation
Interpersonal Helping
Citizenship Behaviour
Mean
Type of
Organization
Citizenship Behaviour
4.62
(Sig: 0.000)
5.00 (Sig:
0.002)
F value
3.48
2.48
1.27
0.000
Std
deviation
22.73
(Sig: 0.000)
F value
28.87
29.21
3.257
3.267
Std
deviation
1.01 (Sig:
0.312)
t value
Individual Initiative
Mean
28.7
29.9
31.3
26.0
3.00
3.51
3.59
2.70
Std
deviation
t value
Individual Initiative
Mean
29.5
28.1
29.5
28.5
Mean
3.68
2.56
Individual Initiative
28.2
29.7
Mean
Std
deviation
Individual Initiative
3.27
3.65
7.73
(Sig: 0.000)
F value
20.80
22.75
2.93
(Sig: 0.033)
F value
3.250
3.538
Std
deviation
5.59 (Sig:
0.000)
t value
Personal Industry
3.61
3.93
3.36
0.000
Std
deviation
Personal Industry
3.43
3.46
4.06
2.43
Std
deviation
t value
2.96
(Sig: 0.003)
Personal Industry
Mean
21.7
22.2
21.4
20.0
Mean
22.5
21.4
21.1
20.3
Mean
21.0
22.1
Mean
Std
deviation
Personal Industry
5.26
3.90
Std
deviation
22.12
(Sig: 0.000)
F value
25.90
25.19
27.35
(Sig: 0.000)
F value
5.719
3.068
Std
deviation
1.42 (Sig:
0.154)
t value
Loyal Boosterism
3.86
6.96
4.99
0.000
Std
deviation
Loyal Boosterism
3.66
4.41
5.84
4.36
Std
deviation
t value
5.46
(Sig: 0.000)
Loyal Boosterism
Mean
24.4
27.7
30.0
25.0
Mean
24.5
23.7
27.8
28.1
Mean
26.8
24.3
Mean
Loyal Boosterism
Santhosh V.A. 19
initiative (P>0.05) and loyal boosterism (P>0.05) (Table
6). Educational qualification also significantly relates with
citizenship behaviour (P<0.05) and its dimensions (interpersonal helping: P<0.05), individual initiative (P<0.05),
personal industry (P<0.05) and loyal boosterism (P<0.05;
Table 7). There is no statistical significance in the difference
of the mean score of citizenship behaviour of employees
staying with their family and without their family (P>0.05).
The result is same with the variants of citizenship behaviour
like personal industry (P
>
0.05) and loyal boosterism
(P>0.05) with an exemption towards interpersonal helping
(P<0.05) and individual initiative (P<0.05) (Table 8). The
mode of transportation of an employee for his/her daily
commuting is significantly related with citizenship behaviour of an employee (P<0.05) and its dimensions (interpersonal helping: P<0.05), individual initiative (P<0.05),
personal industry (P<0.05) and loyal boosterism (P<0.05)
(Table 9).
The impact of daily commuting of an employee on
citizenship behaviour is measured through different factors
which includes the time taken for commuting, average
cost incurred for commuting, stress experienced while
commuting, distance travelled for commuting and period
of commuting (Table 10).
The study, after analyzing the data collected, reveals that
workplace commuting is not having any significant
relationship with citizenship behaviour exhibited by an
employee towards the organization thereby giving a major
insight on the relationship between workplace commuting
and citizenship behaviour. The conclusion is made after
taking into consideration all the variables of workplace
commuting like time taken for commuting, average
cost incurred for commuting, stress experienced while
commuting, distance travelled for commuting and period of
commuting and the variables of citizenship behaviour like
interpersonal helping, individual initiative, personal industry
and loyal boosterism. The correlation of workplace
commuting with citizenship behaviour is 0.172 (P>0.05)
with interpersonal helping is 0.049 (P>0.05), with individual initiative is 0.068 (P>0.05), with personal industry
is 0.104 (P>0.05) and with loyal boosterism is 0.262
(P>0.05). Considering the score the hypothesis developed
(H1), the workplace commuting of an employee is correlated
negatively and significantly with citizenship behaviour, is
rejected. Each dimension of workplace commuting and its
relationship with citizenship behaviour is given below.
The time taken by an employee to reach office and back
home is not significantly correlating with citizenship
behaviour and its dimensions. Time taken to travel office is
having a correlation of 0.050 (P>0.05) with citizenship
behaviour, .093 (P>0.05) with interpersonal helping,
0.105 (P>0.05) with individual initiative, 0.111
(P>0.05) with personal industry and 0.110 (P>0.05) with
loyal boosterism. Time taken to travel home is having a
correlation of 0.027 (P>0.05) with citizenship behaviour,
103.9
104.9
112.0
100.4
Graduate
Postgraduate
Doctorate
Professional
7.91
14.98
13.20
11.99
Std
deviation
10.46
(Sig: 0.000)
F value
11.40
15.28
.016
(Sig: .987)
27.0
24.3
Mean
14.95
6.73
7.92
105.2
101.1
99.7
Mean
Std
deviation
7.52
(Sig: 0.001)
F value
Citizenship Behaviour
24.7
27.5
26.5
Mean
Workplace Commuting
Time to Travel Office
Time to Travel Home
Average Cost
Commuting Stress
Distance Travelled
Period (Stress as Control
Variable)
0.172
0.050
0.027
0.491
0.049
.074
0.057
0.001
0.327
0.594
0.000
0.334
.148
0.267
Sig. (2-tailed)
Citizenship Behaviour
Pearson
Correlation
4.17
4.15
4.27
(Sig: 0.000)
t value
11.63
(Sig: 0.000)
F value
0.049
0.093
0.059
0.406
0.117
.222
0.402
Pearson
Correlation
Mean
0.332
0.069
0.245
0.000
0.021
.000
0.000
Sig. (2-tailed)
27.8
17.92
(Sig: 0.000)
3.16
2.65
Std
deviation
7.26
(Sig: 0.001)
F value
0.068
0.105
0.092
0.404
0.086
.186
0.111
Pearson
Correlation
19.9
22.9
20.3
Mean
0.182
0.039
0.072
0.000
0.092
.000
0.030
3.49
3.59
Std
deviation
34.89
(Sig: 0.000)
F value
0.104
0.111
0.102
0.472
0.000
.045
0.206
Pearson
Correlation
0.042
0.029
0.045
0.000
0.998
.381
0.000
0.937
(Sig: 0.349)
t value
4.96
(Sig: 0.007)
F value
0.262
0.110
0.122
0.240
0.168
.173
0.445
0.000
0.031
0.017
0.000
0.001
.001
0.000
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Loyal Boosterism
2.32
5.75
3.94
Std
deviation
Loyal Boosterism
4.75
5.15
Std
deviation
Pearson
Correlation
27.2
25.1
25.4
Mean
25.7
25.0
5.83
(Sig: .001)
F value
Loyal Boosterism
3.37
6.28
8.12
4.16
Std
deviation
Loyal Boosterism
Mean
27.0
25.6
26.0
24.7
Mean
Sig. (2-tailed)
Personal Industry
2.13
3.89
2.50
Std
deviation
t value
.827
(Sig: 0.409)
Personal Industry
21.5
22.0
12.27
(Sig: 0.000)
F value
Personal Industry
4.16
3.86
1.01
2.92
Std
deviation
Personal Industry
Mean
21.4
20.8
25.0
21.3
Mean
Sig. (2-tailed)
Individual Initiative
3.28
3.48
2.68
Std
deviation
t value
6.32
(Sig: 0.000)
Individual Initiative
28.6
31.6
29.5
28.8
1.99
1.45
1.52
3.92
F value
Individual Initiative
Mean
28.5
31.0
31.5
28.3
Std
deviation
Individual Initiative
Mean
Interpersonal Helping
5.372
4.350
2.935
Std
deviation
Interpersonal Helping
Own Vehicle
Public
Transportation
Office Vehicle
Mode of
Transportation
102.9
103.0
Yes
No
t value
Std
deviation
Mean
Std
deviation
7.13
(Sig: 0.000)
Interpersonal Helping
5.01
3.38
2.54
4.00
F value
Citizenship Behaviour
26.8
27.4
29.5
26.0
Std
deviation
Interpersonal Helping
Mean
Mean
Educational
Qualification
Citizenship Behaviour
Santhosh V.A. 21
Discussion
Employee commuting and citizenship behaviour are two
major variables analyzed as part of the study. In general, the
major variables relating to employee commuting is having
less impact in influencing the citizenship behaviour of an
employee. Workplace commuting, considering time taken
for travel to office and back home, cost incurred for
travelling, stress experienced by the commuter, distance of
daily commuting and period of commuting, shows very low
correlation with citizenship behaviour and its dimensions.
The results related with time taken to travel to workplace
and back home is one major attribute predicting the
relationship between employee commuting and citizenship behaviour. Considering the correlation score, it is
interpreted that the time taken for travel does not create
significant impact in the citizenship behaviour exhibited by
an employee. The variable is showing the trend of negative
correlation without statistical significance indicating
that the more time spend on travel, citizenship behaviour
comes down. From among the respondents, unmarried
employees travel more time than their married colleagues,
experienced people travel more time than less experienced
people with an exemption to those with very high
experience. Those using office vehicle travel more time
than those using own vehicle and those working with
public organizations travel more time than those working
with private organizations.
The same is in the case of distance travelled by an
employee to the workplace, where the values of correlation
indicate negative influence towards citizenship behaviour.
The more distance travelled by an employee to workplace,
the less will be the exhibited citizenship behaviour. But
statistically the impact can be ignored as the correlation
score is bare minimum. Even though the period spent by an
employee for commuting generally shows less impact in
influencing citizenship behaviour, correlation scores for
variants like loyal boosterism and interpersonal helping is
worth noting. It is inferred that the more the period an
employee spent for commuting, which gives stress, the
scores for loyal boosterism will go up and interpersonal
helping will come down. Each additional year of
commuting taking all other variables into consideration
creates an impact of 0.299 on interpersonal helping and
an impact of 0.370 on loyal boosterism.
Another point to note is with respect to stress experienced while commuting. For an employee who takes more
time to travel to the workplace and back home, the more
will be the level of stress with a very high correlation
between the two variables. But interestingly, the high level
of stress experienced by the employees is not directly creating an impact in the citizenship behaviour exhibited by
that employee. Here, the employees working with private
organizations exhibited more level of stress. Stress level is
also high among those employees who are married, using
Conclusions
Citizenship behaviour is an inevitable factor in deciding the
success of an organization. It not only creates a better culture
and climate, but also contributes in creating a competitive
edge for an organization among its competitors. The large
number of researches conducted recently signifies the
importance of citizenship behaviour in the corporate world.
Similar to citizenship behaviour, workplace commuting is
also getting prime focus. The stress and strain of a daily
commuter to the workplace has been the topic of interest
to many scholars and researchers. The relevance of the
study lies in the exploration of the relationship between
workplace commuting, a widely noticed facet, and citizenship behaviour, the panacea for people management.
The study concluded by rejecting the possibility of
workplace commuting creating an impact on citizenship
behaviour of employees. Some of the variables of workplace
commuting like period of commuting, cost of commuting
etc. and its effect on the dependent variable is worth noting.
Even though the relationship between independent and
dependent variable is statistically rejected by the study,
22
the negative correlation figures indicating lowering of
citizenship behaviour as a result of workplace commuting
and its different variables should be taken into consideration
with due importance.
The study can be further extended to other places to
understand the influence of cultural variables in the relationship between workplace commuting and citizenship
behaviour. The impact of work place commuting and
citizenship behaviour on employee performance is also
a very important dimension to be explored further. The
study concludes by emphasizing the finding made with
respect to different dimensions of workplace commuting
and citizenship behaviour.
References
Alizadeh, Z., Darvishi, S., Nazari, K., & Emami, M. (2012).
Antecedents and consequences of organizational citizenship
behaviour (OCB). Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary
Research in Business, 3(9), 494505.
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), 587595.
Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H., & Bloodgood, J.M. (2002).
Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organisations. Academy of Management Review, 27(4), 506522.
Borman, W.C. (2004). The concept of organizational citizenship:
Current directions. Psychological Science, 13(6), 238241.
Borman, W.C., Penner, A.L., Allen, T.D., & Motowidlo, S.J. (2001).
Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1), 5269.
Brief, A.P., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1986). Prosocial organizational
behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710725.
Brun, J., & Fagnani, J. (1994). Lifestyles and locational choicestrade-offs and compromises: A case study of middle-class
couples living in the Ile de France region. Urban Studies,
31(6), 921934.
Burroughs, S.M., & Eby, L.T. (1998). Psychological sense of community at work: A measurement system and explanatory framework. Journal of Community Psychology, 26(6), 509532.
Cappelli, P., & Rogovsky, N. (1998). Employee involvement and
organizational citizenship: Implications for labor-law reform
and lean production. Industrial and Labor Relations Review,
51(4), 633653.
Carroll, D.J., Jr. (1950). Home work relationship of industrial
employees. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, pp. 21, 24
and 130; Population distribution-spatial and temporal, op. cit.
Cassidy, T. (1992). Commuting-related stress: Consequences
and implications. Employee Counselling Today, 4(2), 15.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1984511
85?accountid=145066
Costa, G., Pickup, L., & Di-Martino, V. (1988). CommutingA
further stress factor for working people: Evidence from the
European Community, I: A Review. International Archives
of Occupational and Environmental Health, 60(5), 371376.
Christian, T.J. (2009). Opportunity costs surrounding exercise
and dietary behaviors: Quantifying trade-offs between commuting time and health-related activities. Working paper,
Georgia State University, October. Retrieved from http://ssrn.
com/abstract
Vision 19(1)
Clark, W.A.V., & Burt, J.E. (1980). The impact of workplace on
residential relocation. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 70(1), 5966.
Crabtree, S. (2010). Wellbeing lower among workers with long
commutes. Gallup, 13th August. Retrieved from http: // www.
gallup.com/poll/142142/wellbeing-lower-among- workerslong-commutes. aspx
Davis, M.H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113126.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2001). Commuter
choice leadership initiative: Facts and figures, Washington,
DC, EPA 420- -01-023.
Farh, J.L., Zhong, C.B., & Organ, D.W. (2004). Organizational
citizenship behavior in the Peoples Republic of China.
Organization Science, 15(2), 241253.
Ferk, D.J. (2005). Organizational commitment among married
dual-career employees: Traveling commuter versus single
residence. S.A.M.Advanced Management Journal, 70(2),
2127+. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/
231146632?accountid=145066
George, J.M., & Brief, A.P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good:
A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational
spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2),
310329.
Graham, J.W. (1989). Organizational citizenship behavior:
Construct redefinition, Operationalization and validation,
unpublished working paper. Loyola university of Chicago, In.
Graham, J.W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship
behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal,
4(4), 249270.
Haefner, S., Kordy, H., Kaechele, H., & Psychosozialer,
V.B. (2001). Psychotherapy, psychosomatic, medicine.
Psychology, 51(910), 373376.
Hanson, S., & Pratt, G. (1991) Job search and the occupational
segregation of women. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 81(2), 229253.
Kahneman, D., & Krueger, B.A. (2006). Developments in the
measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 20(1, Winter), 324.
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A.B., Schkade, D.A., Schwarz, N., &
Stone, A.A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily
life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science,
306(5702), 17761780.
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational
behavior. Behavioral Sciences, 9(2), 131146.
Kim, W.C., & Mauborgne, R.A. (1996). Procedural justice and
managers in-role and extra-role behavior: The case of the
multinational. Management Science, 42(4), 499515.
Kim, W.C., & Mauborgne, R.A. (1998). Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and the knowledge economy. Strategic
Management Journal, 19(4), 323338.
Konovsky, M.A., & Pugh, D.S. (1994). Citizenship behavior
and social change. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3),
656669.
Koslowsky, M., Aizer, A., & Krausz, M. (1996). Stressor and personal variables in the commuting experience. International
Journal of Manpower, 17(3), 414.
Koslowsky, M., Kluger, A., & Reich, M. (1995). Commuting
stress: Causes, effects, and methods of coping. New York,
NY: Plenum.
Santhosh V.A. 23
Lewis, D. (2004). Commuters suffer extreme stress. BBC News,
Tuesday, 30 November. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.
co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4052861.stm
Luthans Fred. (2005). Organizational behavior (10th ed., Ch. 7,
p. 220). New York: McGraw Hill International Edition.
Moorman, R.H. (1991). Relationship between organizational
justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845855.
Moorman, R.H., & Blakely, G.L. (1995). Individualismcollectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 16(2), 127142.
Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G.L., & Niehoff, B.P. (1995). Does
perceived organizational support mediate the relationship
between procedural justice and organisation citizenship
behavior. Academy of management Journal, 41(3), 351357.
Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G.L., & Niehoff, B.P. (1995). Does
perceived organizational support mediate the relationship
between procedural justice and organisation citizenship
behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 353.
Morrison, E.W. (1998). Organizational citizenship behavior as
a critical link between HRM practices and service quality.
Human Resource Management, 35(4), 493512.
Murphy, K.R., & Shiarella, A.H. (1997). Implications of the
multidimensional nature of job performance for the validity
of selection tests: Multivariate frameworks for studying test
validity. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 823854.
Nordqvist, C. (2011). Commuting stresses women more than
men. Medical News, 23 Aug. Retrieved from http//www.
medicalnewstoday.com/articles/233200.php
Novaco, R.W., Kliewer, W., & Broquet, A. (1991). Home
environmental consequences of commute travel impedance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19(6)0,
881909.
Ommeren, V.J., & Gutirrez-i-Puigarnau, E. (2011). Are workers
with a long commute less productive? An empirical analysis of absenteeism. Regional Science and Urban Economics,
41(1, January), 18.
OReilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment
and psychological attachment: The affective compliance,
identification, and internalization on pro-social behavior.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 493.
Organ, D.W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior:
Its construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2),
8597.
Organ, D.W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of
attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational
citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), winter,
775802.
Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The
good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books,
p. 4.
Parks, M.J., & Kidder, D.L. (1994). Till death do us partchanging work relationships in the 1990s. In C.L. Cooper & D.M.
Rousseau (Eds), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 1).
Chichester, NY: Wiley.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C.A., & Williams, E.S. (1999). Fairness
perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and
transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of
Management, 25(6), 897933.
Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestion for future research. Human
Performance, 10(2), 133151.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter,
R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their
effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2),
107142.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach,
D.G. (2000) Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical
review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3),
513563.
Ranyak, A.J. (1952). Theoretical approach to the journey to work.
Bachelors thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
pp. 1112.
Regus International. (2012). Indian employees prefer family and
fitness, 16th July, Mumbai. Retrieved from Http: //www.
regus.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/Indian-employeesprefer-family-and-fitness-finds-survey-3b99. aspx
Reuters. (2012). Long commutes may be bad for health: study.
Tue, May 08, 2012 at 21:00. Retrieved from www. moneycontrol.com/news/health.
Rioux, M.S., & Penner, A.L. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 13061314.
Rothe, P., Lindholm, A., Hyvnen, A., & Nenonen, S.
(2012). Work environment preferencesdoes age make
a difference? Facilities, 30(1), 7895. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/02632771211194284
Schwanen, Tim, & Dijst, Martin. (2002). Travel-time ratios for
visits to the workplace: The relationship between commuting time and work duration. Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice, 36(7), 573592.
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. (1983). Organizational
citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653663.
Spitzmuller, M., Van Dyne, L., & Llies, R. (2008). Organizational
citizenship behavior: A review and extension of its nomological network. In Julian Barling & C.L. Cooper (Eds), The Sage
handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 10623). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stutzer, A., & Frey, B.S. (2004). Stress that doesnt pay: The commuting paradox. IEW working paper, No. 151, University of
Zurich. P. 10.
Stutzer, A., & Frey, B.S. (2008). Stress that doesnt pay: The commuting paradox. Scand. Journal of Economics, 110(2), 339366.
Tomer, J.F. (1998). Organizational capital and joining-up:
Linking the individual to the organization and to society.
Human Relations, 51(6), 825846.
Ueda, Y. (2011). Organizational citizenship behavior in a Japanese
organization: The effects of job involvement, organizational
commitment, and collectivism. Journal of Behavioral Studies
in Business, 4, 114. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.
com/docview/928758835?accountid=145066
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L., & Parks, J.M. (1995). Extra-role
behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (A
bridge over muddied waters). In L.L. Cummings & B.M.
Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17,
pp. 215285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
24
Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S.E. (1991). Job satisfaction and
organizational commitment as predictors of organizational
citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management,
17(3), 601617.
Authors bio-sketch
Santhosh V.A. (drsanthoshva@gmail.com), Associate
Professor and Associate Dean (Operations), TKM Institute
Vision 19(1)
of Management Kollam is an MBA (Specialized in HRM),
MS in Counselling and Psychotherapy and Post Graduate
Diploma Holder in Marketing Management. A Master
Practitioner in Neuro Linguistic Programming, he is also a
life member of All India Management Association, New
Delhi. He has completed his PhD from the University of
Kerala. He has industrial experience in various capacities
in HRM. He has published several research papers in
nationally accredited journals.
Copyright of Vision (09722629) is the property of Sage India and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.