End Questionnare

THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOCIAL POWER AND ORGANIZATIONAL
CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: THE MEDIATIONAL ROLE OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE,

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT, AND JOB SATISFACTION IN CONTEXT OF A
PRIVATE COMMERCIAL BANK IN BANGLADESH
by
Noorjahan Begum
ID: 0010091
A Senior Project Report Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Business Administration
INDEPENDENT UNIVERSITY, BANGLADESH

April 2005

CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: THE MEDIATIONAL ROLE OF PROCEDURAL
JUSTICE, ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT, AND JOB SATISFACTION IN
CONTEXT OF A PRIVATE COMMERCIAL BANK IN BANGLADESH

CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: THE MEDIATIONAL ROLE OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE,
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT, AND JOB SATISFACTION IN CONTEXT OF A
PRIVATE COMMERCIAL BANK IN BANGLADESH
by
Noorjahan Begum
ID: 0010091
has been approved

April, 2005
____________________
Dr. Nadim Jahangir
Associate Professor
School of Business
Independent University, Bangladesh
____________________
Mr. Muzahid Akbar
Senior Lecturer
School of Business
Independent University, Bangladesh
DECLARATION
This senior project contains no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in

part from a senior project/thesis/article by which I have qualified for or been awarded another
degree or diploma. No other persons work has been used without due acknowledgment in the
main text of the senior project. This senior project has not been submitted for the award of any
degree or diploma in any other tertiary institution. All research procedures reported in the senior
project received the approval of my supervisors. This senior project has been undertaken to
fulfill the requirement of BBA 499A.
_________________________
Noorjahan Begum
ID# 0010091
April, 2005
Acknowledgement
In the preparation and completion of this senior project, I acknowledge the encouragement
and assistance given by a number of people and institutions. The Independent University,
Bangladesh provided the fund to conduct this research. I am most grateful to the National Credit
and Commerce (NCC) Bank Ltd.s management for giving me the access to their employees to
collect data.
I would like to express my gratitude to my Principal Supervisor Dr. Nadim Jahangir, and
Co-Supervisor Mr. Muzahid Akbar for providing detailed feedback and advice on the research
project. They always gave me their suggestions that were crucial in making this study as flawless
as possible. My appreciation also goes to Dr. Joyce Silva for her insightful reviews of the
manuscript for this senior project.
I also want to render my special thanks to Mr. Nurul Amin, Managing Director of NCC Bank
Ltd. for giving the access to his bank; and special thanks to Mr. Omar Chowdhury, Director of
Employee Training, NCC Bank Ltd. for helping me during the questionnaire survey in the
organization. Special thanks go to the respondents, who spared their time generously, and took
the trouble of answering a detailed questionnaire and helped me to complete my study.
_______________
Noorjahan Begam
ID# 0010091
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables
Abstract
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Review of literature
2.1 Concept of Social Power bases
2.2 Concept of Procedural Justice
2.3 Link between Social Power bases and Procedural Justice
2.4 Organizational Commitment
2.5 Job Satisfaction
2.6 Link between Procedural Justice, Organizational Commitment

and Job Satisfaction
2.7 Organizational Citizenship Behavior
9
10
2.8 Links between bases of power Organizational Commitment,

Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
12
3.0 Conceptual Framework
14
4.0 Method
16
4.1 Sample
16
4.2 Pilot test
16
4.3 Data collection procedure
16
4.4 Measures
17
4.4.1 Employees perception of managers social power
17
4.4.2 Employees perception of procedural justice
17
4.4.3 Employees organizational commitment
18
4.4.4 Employees organizational citizenship behavior
18
4.4.5 Employees job satisfaction
18
4.5 Analysis
18
5.0 Results
20
5.1 Confirmatory factor analysis
22
5.2 Structural equation analysis
23
5.3 Path Analysis
24
6.0 Discussion
26
References
28
Appendices
39
List of Tables
Page
1. Summary of Theoretical Models
19
2. Reliability Coefficient and Descriptive Statistics of Employees

Perception of Mangers Social Power (Reward Power, Coercive
Power, Legitimate Power, Expert Power, Referent Power), Organizational
Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
20
3. Correlation Matrix for Employees Perception of Managers Social

Power (Reward Power, Coercive Power, Legitimate Power, Expert
Power, Referent Power) and Procedural Justice with Organizational
Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
21
4. Measurement Model Result 1
23
5. Measurement Model Result 2
23
6. Standardized Path Coefficients for the Models
24
The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The
Mediational Role of Procedural Justice, Organizational Commitment, and Job Satisfaction
in Context of a Private Commercial Bank in Bangladesh
Abstract
A conceptual framework is proposed that investigates the effects of employees
perception of managers social power on organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB) mediated by procedural justice, employees organizational commitment,
and job satisfaction. To test the framework, structural equation modeling
techniques are applied to data collected from 195 top and middle level employees
of private commercial banks in Bangladesh. The results of the study indicate that
procedural justice is significantly and positively related to job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. The findings indicated that organizational
commitment has a positive relationship with OCB but the relationship found to be
insignificant. In addition the results also show that employees with high job
satisfaction will have higher OCB, suggesting that bank management needs to
value employees job satisfaction to increase employees OCB. Implications for
practicing managers and for future research are discussed.
Introduction
The banking services industry has undergone dramatic changes over the past two decades. In
1982, to improve the performance of Nationalized Commercial Banks (NCBs), the Bangladesh
government decided some of the NCBs would be gradually decentralized and new commercial
banks would be allowed to operate in the private sector. After this decision, in December 1986,
two out of six NCBs were decentralized and six new private commercial banks were allowed to
operate in the banking sector (Jahangir, 2003a). Currently 19 (Bangladesher Diary, 2005) private
banks are operating in the country. Unlike the NCBs, the private sector commercial banks are
exclusively driven by profit motivation (Jahangir, 2003a). Following the sweeping decentralized
policy of the 1980s, private banks were faced with new and competitive operating environments
and as a consequence are attempting both to increase operating efficiencies and develop new
income streams through various structural and strategic changes initiatives.
Implicit in such dramatic change is relatively new orientation by private commercial banks
towards marketing and more recently the adoption of the relationship marketing principles
(Axson, 1992; Berry, 1997; Holland, 1992). The current private commercial bank environment
has changed from teller to seller (Durkin & Bennett, 1999) and where such employees
The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
represent a key facilitator in the implementation of relationship banking strategy. Employees

activities associate with implementing organizational decisions are affected by how the
employees perceived supervisors social power. A number of researches (Carlson, Carlson, &
Wadsworth, 2000; Rahim & Magner, 1996; Mossholder, Bennett, Kemery, & Wesolowski, 1998)
noted relationships between social power bases (SPB) and affective work reactions (such as
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, subordinates burn out, turnover, organizational
citizenship behavior), however, to date limited attempts have been made to conceptualize such
relationships in an organizational context.
While investigating the relationship among power, procedural justice (PJ), and subordinates
organizational commitment (OC) and job satisfaction (JS), it may be argued that subordinates
commitment and job satisfaction will also influence their organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB). Particularly, a plausible relationship between OC and JS, and OCB can be examined as
an extension of the former relational discussion regarding social power bases, procedural justice,
and organizational outcomes. Precisely, OC and JS can become critical precursors of
determining subordinates OCB. To explore this thesis, the researcher has suggested a theoretical
framework that includes SPB, PJ, OC, JS, and OCB.
The objective of this study is to propose and empirically analyze a conceptual framework that
considers employees perception of managers social power, procedural justice, organizational
commitment, and job satisfaction constructs in relation to OCB. The researcher incorporated the
complex interrelationships of these constructs into the framework and tests them in a banking
setting, understanding how various factors relate to OCB can help managers monitor and enhance
employees OCB effectively through initiatives involving those factors that directly affect OCB.
Review of Literature
Concept of Social Power Bases
The notion of power can be traced to the 1950s when Dahl (1957) argued that power is the
ability to overcome resistance in achieving a desired result. Rahim (1989) elaborated on desired
results, and proposed that power is the ability of one party to change or control the behavior,
attitudes, opinions, objectives, needs, and values of another party.
A theoretical framework that has received much attention in studies of social power was first
proposed by French and Raven (1959). They identified five types of social power (coercive,
reward, legitimate, expert, and referent) that have the subject of numerous organizational studies.
1. Coercive power is based on subordinates perceptions that a superior has the
ability to punish them if they fail to conform to his or her influence attempt.
2. Reward power is based on the perception of subordinates that a superior can
reward them for desired behavior.
3. Legitimate power is based on the belief of subordinates that a superior has the
right to prescribe and control their behavior.
4. Expert power is based on subordinates belief that a superior has job experience
and special knowledge or expertise in a given area.
5. Referent power is based on subordinates desires to identify with a superior
because of their admiration or personal liking of the superior.
The Concept of Procedural Justice

Procedural justice refers, generally, to how an allocation decision is made. According to
Folger and Greenberg (1985) the perceived fairness or equity of the procedures used in making
allocation a decision regarding the distribution of rewards is an important consideration for
employees. On the other hand, Kumar (1996) stated that procedural justice describes the fairness
of a partys procedures and policies for dealing with its vulnerable partners and refers to the
fairness of the means used to determine the outcomes in the relationship. Drawing on theories
from the organizational literature, Kumar (1996) added that six principles can be used to
determine whether a relationship is procedurally just. These are bilateral communication,
impartiality, refutability, explanation, familiarity, and courtesy. Procedural justice is contrasted
with distributive justice, which refers to the fairness of the decision outcome. Distributive justice
is concerned with the actual outcome of decision (i.e. pay raise, bonus, and promotion) whereas
procedural justice tries to explain the outcome of those decisions based on what procedure this
outcome has been reached. Although sometimes procedural and distributive justice could be
highly correlated (Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997; Kim, Moon, Han, & Tikoo, 2004), they are
widely used as separate, sometimes as a complementary, dimension. In researches on their
relationships with employee outcomes, each has shown differential associations with outcomes
studied (Begley, Lee, Fang, & Li, 2002). Kumar (1996) suggested that due process or procedural
justice has stronger effects on relationships than distributive justice, in that the weaker partner
sees the powerful partners system of procedural justice as reflecting more accurately the latters
real attitudes towards the former. Although early justice frameworks tended to concentrate on
distributive justice, since the early 1980s the focus has been shifted to the examination of
procedural justice (Folger & Greenberg, 1985). Procedural justice can refer to objective or
subjective circumstances. Objective procedural justice refers to actual or factual justice (Lind &
Tyler, 1988) and subjective procedural justice refers to perceptions of objective procedures or to
the capacity of an objective procedure to enhance fairness judgments (Konovsky & Cropanzano,
1991). Procedural justice researchers most frequently measure subjective procedural justice and
its effects (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997), while the link between objective justice and
subjective justice remains largely unexamined. Konovsky (2000) argued that objective
procedural justice leads to subjective justice perceptions. Subjective procedural justice
perceptions can be further understood by considering the cognitive, affective, and behavioral
components of the justice experience (Leventhal, Karuza, & Fry, 1980). The cognitive
component of subjective procedural justice refers to the calculations made by a perceiver
regarding the objective fairness of a decision. Perceivers may compare, for example, the way
they are actually treated to the way they expect to be treated. Objective justice can also serve as
the stimulus for an affective reaction as individuals form subjective justice perceptions. The
affective components of procedural justice judgments consist of positive or negative emotional
reactions to actual objective events (Tyler, 1994).
Niehoff and Moorman (1993) suggested that procedural justice consists of two factors, formal
procedures and interactional justice. The formal procedures factor represents the degree to which
fair procedures are used in an organization. The interactional justice factor represents the fairness
of the interactions that accompany an organizations formal procedures.
Though there are several models that could be used to interpret how various actions by
supervisors could affect subordinates procedural justice perceptions (Cropanzano & Greenberg,
1997), it is perhaps most useful to consider the power bases in terms of relational/noninstrumental and instrumental process. When supervisors make influence attempts relying on
social power bases, relational facets of the power bases are likely to be more important than
instrumental facets. This is because such facets have more to do with the nature of the social
exchange between supervisors and subordinates, rather than possible outcomes of the exchange.
Two perspectives that highlight relational/non-instrumental processes may be relevant to
understanding the role of procedural justice in relational processes may be relevant for
understanding the role of procedural justice in subordinates contribution towards organizational
outcomes. First, the group values perspective (Lind & Tyler, 1988) suggests that individuals are
primarily concerned about their long-term social relations with authorities employing the
procedures. Subordinates derive feelings of positive self-worth to the degree that supervisors
demonstrated power capacities include treating subordinates with respect and allowing them a
voice in work matters. A second perspective focuses on interactional justice, the interpersonal
treatment accorded individuals during the enactment of procedures (Bies & Moag, 1986).
Instrumental perspectives (e.g. self-interest model, Lind & Tyler, 1988) portray justice
judgments as based on how well a procedure serves interests external to the experience of the
procedure. Research suggests that subordinates perception of procedural justice, which in turn
influences subordinates attitudes to authorities and organizational outcomes (Konovsky, 2000).
Thus if subordinates feel that the supervisors are behaving fairly while using power; it would
have a positive effect on subordinates organizational outcomes.
Links between Social Power Bases and procedural Justice

How managers social power bases are expected to affect subordinates procedural justice
perceptions, using both instrumental and relational procedural justice perspectives will be
discussed in the following section.
Reward power involves the ability to provide another person with things that are desired or to
remove things that are not desired. In an organization, reward power typically viewed as
supervisors demonstrated capacity to provide subordinates with outcomes such as raise, benefits,
and promotions. Studies (Jahangir, 2003b; Rahim, 1989) suggested that subordinates who
associate supervisors reward power with favorable circumstances or outcomes are more likely to
feel that the supervisors are procedurally fair. Additionally, Raven (1990) proposed that reward
power can be seen as including relational facets, such as personal approval, praise, respect, and
autonomy. Thus, for both instrumental and relation based reasons, reward power should be
positively related with perceptions of procedural justice.
Coercive power is the ability to assign to others things that are not desired or to remove things
that are desired. This power base is characterized by behaviors that are directed at forcing
compliance from subordinates through threat, confrontation, and punitive behaviors that are
outside of normal role expectations (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1990, 1994). Supervisors who have
demonstrated the capacity to behave in these ways will likely be perceived by subordinates as
acting with personal bias, dishonesty, and arbitrariness; all of which are the antithesis of
procedural justice.
Referent power is the ability to administer to another feeling of personal acceptance or
approval. The substance of this power base is congruent with the two aforementioned procedural
justice perspectives. Supervisors with this power base are likely appeal to subordinates
identification with them. Subordinates made to feel important and personally accepted are likely
to experience increased procedural justice perception because this helps confirm they are being
valued in the work group (Tyler & Lind, 1992). Attention and consideration from someone of
higher status in the workplace may validate subordinates own self-identity and reinforce feelings
of a positive standing in relation to that person.
Expert power is the capacity to administer knowledge and expertise. Supervisors performing
their work efficiently can demonstrate this power base (Jahangir, 2003b). Jahangir found that
supervisors who can share work base knowledge to their subordinates, subordinates perceive
those supervisors as procedurally fair compared to those who do not share or are not capable of
sharing work base knowledge. Wilson (1995) stated that supervisors informal discussions with
subordinates lead information sharing and increased perceptions of procedural justice.
Legitimate power refers to the ability to induce in others feelings of task-related obligation and
responsibility. Hinkin and Schriesheim (1990) found that this power also correlated with
supervisors use of rational explanation as an influence tactic. Niehoff and Moorman (1993)
determined that leaders formal monitoring of subordinates through observation or meetings was
associated with subordinates justice perceptions. Jahangir (2003b) found that when supervisors
stay within the formal boundary in assigning the responsibilities to subordinates, subordinates
perceive that supervisors are procedurally fair. Such managerial behaviors are consonant with
procedural justice tenets (e.g., consistency, representativeness, bias suppression), and should
therefore, increase subordinates perception that manages are acting fairly.
From the literature review, it was postulated that employee perception of the managers social
power is related to the employees organizational commitment, job satisfaction, burnout, and
turnover (Carlson, Carlson, & Wadsworth, 2000; Jahangir, 2003b; Mossholder, Bennett, Kemery,
& Wesolowski, 1998). For almost a decade, the notion that employees perception of managers
social power is a crucial variable related to organizational outcomes has been widely
acknowledged in the West (Brass & Burkhardt, 1993; Carlson, Carlson, & Wadsworth, 2000;
Rahim & Manger, 1996). Consistent with these findings, the researcher hypothesizes the
following:
Hypothesis 1: Employees perception of managers reward power, legitimate power,
expert power, and referent power have positive effects on employees perception of procedural
justice.
Hypothesis 2: Employees perception of managers coercive power has a negative effect
on employees perception of procedural justice.
Organizational Commitment
Past studies have defined organizational commitment in many different ways. Porter, Steers,
Mowday and Boulian (1974) defined organizational commitment as the relative strength of an
individuals identification and involvement with a particular organization. They have
characterized it by three factors. These factors are- a strong belief in the goals and values of the
organization and acceptance of those organizations goals and values, a willingness to exert
considerable effort on behalf of the organization, and a strong desire to maintain membership in
the organization. Allen and Meyer (1990) conceptualized three components of organizational
commitment: (1) affective (i.e., employees emotional attachment to, identification and
involvement with the organization); (2) continuance (i.e., commitment based on the costs that the
employee associates with leaving the organization); and (3) normative (i.e., employees feelings
of obligation to stay with the organization).
For the last three decades, organizational commitment has emerged as a very important
construct in organizational research. This in part could be due to the relationship with such
important work-related constructs as absenteeism, turnover, job satisfaction, job involvement, and
leader-subordinate relations (Lok & Crawford, 2004; Bateman & Strasser, 1984; Carson, Carson,
Roe, Birkenmeier, & Phillips, 1999; Chang, 1999; Farrell & Stamm, 1988; Mathieu & Zajac,
1990; Michaels & Spector, 1982).
Organizational commitment has been widely investigated because subordinates become
committed to the organization even before attitudes towards the job can meaningfully emerge
(Bateman & Strasser, 1984), also because it is a relatively stable attitude over time compared to
other variables such as job satisfaction (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). However,
organizational commitment has been regarded as a predictor that has attracted researchers
interested in behaviors of individuals in organizations (Chang, 1999).
The concept employed in this study is the affective commitment concept as outlined in the
study of Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979). Strong affective commitment implies that
employees stay with an organization because they want to, while strong continuance commitment
suggests that the employees remain because they feel they have few options otherwise (Meyer &
Allen, 1991). While managers and employees may view these concepts somewhat similarly
(Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goofin, & Jackson, 1989; Shore, Barksdale, & Shore, 1995; Shore
and Wayne, 1993), numerous studies support the uniqueness of these two constructs (Angle &
Lawson, 1993; Hackett, Bycio, & Hausdorf, 1994; McGee & Ford, 1987; Meyer & Allen, 1984;
Meyer, Allen, & Gellatly, 1990). Shore, Barksdale, and Shore (1995) found that managers
perceive affective commitment as a desirable condition but view continuance commitment rather
negatively. Therefore, the concept of affective commitment will be used in this study rather than
continuance commitment. Mowday, Steers, and Porters affective commitment does not imply on
loyalty only towards the organization, rather it means that an individual is willing to give
something of themselves in order to contribute to the organizations well being.
Job Satisfaction
One of the most influential models for investigating various dimensions of the immediate job
environment was developed by Hackman and Oldham (1980). One key feature of this approach
is its ability to measure some of the most important dimensions that can be commonly identified
in a workplace at the individual employee level (Griffin & McMahan, 1994; Idaszak & Drasgow,
1987). On the basis of extensive research conducted to refine their measures, Hackman and
Oldham (1980) identified five "core" dimensions for evaluating the immediate work
environment. They found that these core dimensions were correlated significantly with job
satisfaction and subordinates' motivation. Key among the underlying characteristics are the
meaningfulness of the work (to what extent the individual perceives the work as significant and
important), responsibility for the job (how far the individual feels personally accountable for the
outcomes of the work), and the extent to which the subordinate has knowledge about the results
of his or her efforts.
Job satisfaction being an affective, cognitive or attitudinal response to work has a significant
relationship with organizational outcomes (Spector, 1997). Nikolaou (2003) states that, with
respect to the CAPS model, four of the five cognitive-affective units may help to explain the
personality-satisfaction relationship. First, as far as encodings are concerned, an event which
occurs at work, or the interaction with another employee or supervisor at work may not have the
same effect on levels of job satisfaction for everybody within the organization. As regards effect,
a particular task may be favorable for someone but not for somebody else, influencing their
satisfaction levels. As far as expectancies-beliefs are concerned, an employee may feel satisfied
because expectations are fulfilled within the work organization, or because efforts are
acknowledged, or even because of increased levels of self-efficacy. Finally, goals and values are
also related to job satisfaction. As was the case for expectancies, if employees personal values
are congruent with those of the organisation or if they believe that at the current positions they
can satisfy the goals they have set for themselves, then it would not be surprising to find
increased levels of job satisfaction.
Links between Procedural Justice, Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction

Organizational justice (i.e. distributive justice and procedural justice), a socially constructed
dimension (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001), has explained workplace attitudinal
and behavioral reactions, including job satisfaction (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor,
2000; Schaubroeck, May, & Brown, 1994; Mossholder et al., 1998), organizational commitment
(McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991; Masterson et al., 2000),
withdrawal (Dailey & Kirk, 1992; Masterson et al., 2000), and organizational citizenship
behavior (Moorman, 1991; Skarlicki & Latham, 1996). McDowall and Fletcher (2004),
10
Rousseau, Hui, and Lee (2002), and Wong and Wong (2002) also stated that, procedural justice,
would be significantly and positively correlated with organizational commitment and job
satisfaction. Those who perceive the review process as fair may be more likely to feel
emotionally committed to their organization, feel less likely to leave and feel more committed to
their job. Moreover, measures of procedural justice were also hypothesized to correlate
positively with the feedback climate, operationalised as feedback satisfaction, contact satisfaction
(outside the review and development process) and perceived company support. It means that
employees who perceive their organizations to be fair in justice with them tend to be more
satisfied with the organization. This, in turn, is likely to enhance employees job satisfaction.
Hence, employees perception of procedural justice and job satisfaction is expected to be
positively linked (Koh & Boo, 2004).
Konovsky (2000) argued that the consequences of procedural justice have been that
perceptions of procedural justice have strong effects on attitudes about institutions, authorities
and subordinates work attitudes. Measures of attitudes about institutions typically include
organizational commitment, trust, and job satisfaction. This perspective is supported by research
conducted during the 1990s (Cobb & Frey, 1996; Lowe & Vodanovich, 1995; McFarlin &
Sweeney, 1992). For example, Cobb and Frey (1996), and Lemons and Jones (2001) found that,
procedural fairness was positively related to subordinates satisfaction and organizational
commitment. Lowe and Vodanovich found that perceptions of the outcome fairness of a job
restructuring were more closely related to commitment than were perceptions of the procedural
fairness of the restructuring. Therefore, following hypotheses can be proposed:
Hypothesis 3: Employees perception of procedural justice has a positive effect on
employees organizational commitment.
Hypothesis 4: Employees perception of procedural justice has a positive effect on
employees job satisfaction.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is referred as set of discretionary workplace
behaviors that exceed ones basic job requirements. They are often described as behaviors that
go beyond the call of duty. Other examples of OCB are willingness to take steps to prevent
11
problems with other employees, and obeying organization rules, regulations and procedures even
when no one is watching (Chompookum & Derr, 2004). Research of OCB has been extensive
since its introduction nearly twenty years back (Bateman & Organ, 1983). MacKensie,
Podsakoff, and Praine (1999) stated several dimensions of OCB such as, helping behaviors by
employees (e.g. supportive actions to assist others and going beyond the requirements of the job);
sportsmanship (tolerating the work environment without excessive complaining); and civic
duty (constructive involvement in the processes of the organization beyond the requirement of
the job).
Dispositional factors or psychological characteristics of individuals such as personality,
psychological needs, and attitudes, appear to be promising predictors of OCB. For example,
conscientiousness, agreeableness, and positive affectivity were found to be significantly related to
OCB (George & Brief, 1992; Konovsky & Organ, 1996). Different kinds of personalities may
display different degrees of OCB because individuals tend to differ in their levels of pro social
behavior, and it was reasoned that some employees would naturally be willing to go the extra
mile and help co-workers or organizations whereas others would not (Konovsky & Organ, 1996;
Chompookum & Derr, 2004). Mischel (1977) argues that the effects of dispositional factors,
namely personality, should be related to OCB in weak situations that lack specific behavioral
demands.
The vast majority of OCB research has focused on the effects of OCB on individual and
organizational performance. Many researchers focused on the effects of OCB on individual and
organizational performance and found that OCB leads an organization to positive consequences
(Waltz & Niehoff, 1996; Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 1997; Barbuto, Brown, Wilhite, & Wheeler,
2001; Hodson, 2002; Cardona, Lawrence, & Bentler, 2004; Appelbaum, Asmar, Chehayeb,
Konidas, Duszara, & Duminica, 2003). Job satisfaction has been found to have a positive
relationship with job performance and OCB. There is consensus in this particular field that OCB
addresses silent behaviors for organizational enterprises (Barbuto, Brown, Wilhite, & Wheeler,
2001). Successful organizations have subordinates who go beyond their formal job
responsibilities and freely give of their time and energy to succeed at the assigned job. Such
altruism is neither prescribed nor required; yet it contributes to the smooth functioning of the
organization.
12
Organ (1988) noted that OCB is held to be vital to the survival of an organization. Organ
further elaborated that organizational citizenship behavior can maximize the efficiency and
productivity of both the subordinates and the organization that ultimately contribute to the
effective functioning of an organization. A prominent current organizational researcher, Brief
has supported Organs position regarding the importance for effectiveness of those behaviors,
which he labeled as organizational citizenship behavior (George & Brief, 1992).
OCB is desirable from the organizational point of view because such behavior is thought to
increase the available resources and decrease the need for costly mechanism of control (Organ,
1988; Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 1997). Kelley and Hoffman (1997) claimed that OCB can
improve the performance of an organization. They pointed out that a positive relationship exists
between OCB and customer loyalty for service-oriented organizations. They illustrated that the
ground of such organizational success depends on the positive relationship between the
employees and the organization. In this line, OCB is viewed as a critical factor which influences
the quality of provided service by the employees and also customer satisfaction (Yoon & Suh,
2003; Castro, Armario, & Ruiz, 2004). This satisfaction induces the customers to be loyal. Thus,
it can be concluded that OCB can aid to serve the best interests of the organization.
Links between bases of power Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior
Bycio, Hackett, and Allen (1995), Pillai, Schriesheim, and Williams, (1999), and Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000) stated that some of the dimensions of managers social
power (eg. reward power, referent power) may have relationship with OCB. Simon (1976) said
that in an organizational context, OCB is often part of an informal psychological contract in
which the employee hopes that such extra effort may be perceived and then rewarded by the boss
and the organization. Therefore following hypotheses can be developed:
Hypothesis 5: Employees perception of managers reward power, legitimate power,
expert power, and referent power have positive effects on employees organizational citizenship
behavior.
Hypothesis 6: Employees perception of managers coercive power has a negative effect
on employees organizational citizenship behavior.
13
A wide range of subordinate, task, organizational and leader characteristics are consistently
found to predict different types of OCB across a range of occupations (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). The search for a host of reliable predictors of OCB has been
increasing during the last two decades, during which time span the researchers tried to figure out
various enabling factors of OCB, with varying degrees of predictive merit. Smith, Organ, and
Near (1983), and Bateman and Organ (1983) conducted the first research on the antecedents of
OCB, finding job satisfaction to be the best predictor. After two decades of research, job
satisfaction is still the leading predictor of OCB (Organ, 1997).
Previous empirical studies (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Graham, 1986; Kemery, Bedeian, &
Zacur , 1996; Moorman, 1993; Motowildo, 1984; Motowildo , Packard, & Manning, 1986; Organ
& Konovsky, 1989; Puffer, 1987; Scholl, Cooper, & McKenna, 1987; Smith, Organ, & Near,
1983; Wagner & Rush, 2000; Robbins 2001; Appelbaum, Bartolomucci, Beaumier, Boulanger,
Corrigan, Dore, Girard, & Serroni, 2004; Murphy, Athanasou, & King, 2002) and the conceptual
rationale proposed by Organ (1988, 1990) provided support for a hypothesized positive
relationship between job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior.
This, in turn, has a significant influence on subordinates absenteeism, turnover, and
psychological distress (Davis, 1992). Workers with high levels of job satisfaction are more likely
to be engaged in OCB (Brown, 1993). Furthermore, individuals with higher levels of job
satisfaction demonstrate decreased propensity to search for another job (Sager, 1994), and a
decreasing propensity to leave. Thus, an employee who feels satisfied at work will be keener to
participate in extra-role activities, or if she/he is treated fairly she/he will also be more keen to
engage in contextual performance (Nikolaou, 2003).
According to Robbins (2001), there is a modest overall relationship between job satisfaction
and OCB. When fairness is controlled for, satisfaction is unrelated to OCB. However, some
literatures suggest that if no fairness is perceived, there is no correlation between job satisfaction
and OCB since trust must be present to influence organizational citizenship (Appelbaum et al.,
2004; Cohen & Kol, 2004; Folger & Greenberg, 1985; Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Folger &
Konovsky, 1989). The foregoing discussion leads to the next hypothesis:
Hypothesis 7: Employees job satisfaction has a positive effect on employees
organizational citizenship behavior.
14
Some researchers stated that OCB is considered to be a reflection of the employees

commitment to their organization and is empirically related to OCB (Castro, Armario, & Ruiz,
2004; Wong & Wong, 2002; Cohen & Vigoda, 2000; Connell, Ferres, & Travaglione, 2003).
Along with job satisfaction, affective organizational commitment is a frequently cited antecedent
of OCB. Affective commitment is conceptualized as a strong belief in, and acceptance of, an
organizations goals and a strong desire to maintain membership in the organization (Van Dyne,
Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995). Because affective commitment maintains behavioral
direction when there is little expectation of formal rewards (Allen & Meyer, 1996), it would seem
logical that affective commitment drives those behaviors (i.e. discretionary behaviors) that do not
depend primarily on reinforcement or formal rewards. Consistent with these findings, it can be
hypothesized:
Hypothesis 8: Employees organizational commitment has a positive effect on employees
Conceptual framework
Based on the above, a two-level analysis was employed. The first level investigated whether
employees perception of procedural justice, employees organizational commitment, and
employees job satisfaction mediates the relationship between managers social power and OCB.
At the second level, it will be investigated whether a direct and also mediated relationship
between the managers social power and OCB mediated by procedural justice, employees
organizational commitment, and employees job satisfaction will be more effective than the
previous one. Because of the execution limitation of the analytical software four different models
were being developed rather than two models.
Figure1: Hypothesized model 1 with results
Figure 2: Hypothesized model 2 with results
15
16
Method
Sample
Data were collected from 195 top and middle level employees of a private commercial bank of
Bangladesh. The minimum age of the respondents was 24 and the maximum was 55. The
average age of the respondents was 34 years. The average work experience of these employees
was around seven years. Of the respondents, 80.5 % were male and 19.5 % were female. Of the
270 questionnaires distributed, 195 completed responses were received, with a response rate of
72.3%.
Pilot test
The questionnaire was pre tested with 15 private commercial bank employees of Bangladesh.
Burns and Bush (1998) suggested that a pre test of 5-10 representative respondents is usually
sufficient to identify problems with a questionnaire. Therefore, the number of respondents of this
pilot test was sufficient. The pre test group was not included in this study as the participants were
not employees of the studied bank.
The participants were asked to evaluate the questionnaire for clarity, bias, ambiguity of
questions, and relevance to the organizational setting of private commercial banks of Bangladesh.
The participants were also asked to comment on the instrument with regard to wording and
timing. The pre test study indicated that participants had a problem with the questionnaire being
in English. In response to this eventuality, the questionnaire was translated into Bengali and two
questions were deleted because they were not relevant in the context of Bangladesh.
A Bengali native who is also fluent in English translated the questionnaire into Bangla. In
addition this person has had more than 10 years experience in conducting both organizational and
academic research in Bangladesh. Later, a different person, in order to ensure that the essence of
the questionnaire was not lost, distorted or diluted through translation, conducted a translation
back into English. This reverse translation was compared with the original (English) version. A
major part of the translated version was accurate.
Data collection procedure
The researchers met with the branch managers of all the branches of the bank, explained to
them the purpose of the research and requested their cooperation. All the branch managers
17
agreed to do so. The assistant vice presidents of all the branches distributed questionnaires to all
top and middle level employees in their branches. A letter accompanying the questionnaire
explained its purpose, its voluntary nature, the research intent and the confidentiality of
responses. The employees were briefly informed, prior to the survey, that the study pertained to
how they feel about their jobs, their supervisors, and the organizations they work for. They were
given the opportunity to clarify any doubts and ask questions. Finally, they were encouraged to
answer all the questions candidly and were assured of complete anonymity. The assistant vice
presidents of the branches collected the completed questionnaires from the employees after one
week and returned them to the researchers.
Measures
A structured questionnaire was used in this research to collect data from the employees. The
questionnaire was divided in to five sections. The first section focused on employees perception
of managers social power, the second section on procedural justice, the third section on
employees organizational commitment, fourth section on organizational citizenship behavior,
and the last section on employees job satisfaction.
Employees perception of managers social power
The researcher used French and Ravens (1959) power fame work to investigate employees
perception of managers social power. The employees perception on managers social power
was measured by using the scale developed by Hinkin and Schriesheim (1989). A higher score
indicates that a supervisor has a larger power base. Items are cast on a 5-point likert scale.
Hinkin and Schriesheim provided evidence of reliability of this scale (ranging from .60 to .85).
Employees perception of procedural justice
Procedural justice was measured with 10 items taken from Folger and Konovskys (1989).
These items have previously been used by Konovsky and Pugh (1994), and Mossholder, Bennett,
Kemery, and Wesolowki (1998). A 5-point response scale was used to assess procedural justice.
Folger and konovskys (1989) provided evidence of the reliability of this scale (ranging from .75
to .90).
18
Employees organizational commitment

Mowday, steers, and Porter (1979) developed this nine-item scale to measure employees
organizational commitment. A higher score indicated employees grater organizational
commitment. Each item is cast on a 5-point likert scale. Mowday et al. summarized a series of
studies that present evidence of the satisfactory reliability (ranging .53 to .75) of the scale.
Employees organizational citizenship behavior
Organizational citizenship behavior of the respondents was measured with the organizational
citizenship behavior scale developed by Farh, Earley, and Lin (1997). The items included in this
scale were based on the definitions of the five dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior
described by Organ (1988), namely, altruism, conscientiousness, courtesy, sportsmanship, and
civic virtue. A higher score indicated employees grater participation in extra-role behavior in
favor of the organization. Each item is cast on a 5-point likert scale. Farh, Earley, and Lin
(1997) provided evidence of the satisfactory reliability (ranging .82 to .87) of the scale.
Employees job satisfaction
Job satisfaction was measured with twelve items from the questionnaire developed by
Hackman and Oldham (1980). Two items were deleted from the original scale. The deleted
items were not relevant in the context of Bangladesh. A higher score indicated employees
greater satisfaction with his/ her job. Items were cast on a 5-point likert scale. A number of
studies have reported that this instrument had higher reliability (ranging from .60 to .75) (Rahim
& Buntzman, 1989; Mossholder, Bennett, Kemery, & Wesolowki, 1998).
Analysis
To assess direct and indirect relationships among social power dimensions, procedural justice,
job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior, the
researcher followed a two-step procedure using confirmatory factor analysis and structural
equation modeling (Anderson & Cerbing, 1988). Amos 4.0 (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999) was
used to perform these analyses.
In the Model 1 of Table 1, all paths from the employees perception of mangers social power
bases to procedural justice were estimated. The paths from employees perception of procedural
19
justice to employees organizational commitment, and employees organizational commitment to

employees organizational citizenship behavior were also estimated. In Model 2 all paths from
the employees perception of mangers social power bases to employees organizational
citizenship behavior were estimated. The paths from employees perception of mangers social
power bases to employees organizational citizenship behavior were also linked through
procedural justice, and employees organizational commitment. In Model 3 all paths from the
Table 1
Summary of Theoretical Models
Model
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Theoretical Models
Paths from employees perception of managers social power to employees
perception of procedural justice, employees perception of procedural justice to
employees organizational commitment, employees organizational
commitment to employees organizational citizenship behavior.
perception of procedural justice, and employees organizational citizenship
behavior, employees perception of procedural justice to employees
organizational commitment, employees organizational commitment to
employees organizational citizenship behavior.
perception of procedural justice, employees perception of procedural justice to
employees job satisfaction, employees job satisfaction to employees
perception of procedural justice, and employees organizational citizenship
behavior, employees perception of procedural justice to employees job
satisfaction, employees job satisfaction to employees organizational
citizenship behavior.
employees perception of mangers social power bases to procedural justice were estimated. The
paths from employees perception of procedural justice to employees job satisfaction, and
employees job satisfaction to employees organizational citizenship behavior were also
estimated. In Model 4 all paths from the employees perception of mangers social power bases
to employees organizational citizenship behavior were estimated. The paths from employees
perception of mangers social power bases to employees organizational citizenship behavior
were also linked through procedural justice, and employees job satisfaction.
20
Results
Descriptive and correlations statistics among studied variables are listed in Table 2 and 3. The
reliability coefficients, means and standard deviations of all the constructs in the current study are
displayed in Table 1. The coefficient alphas for the different constructs were computed using the
reliability procedure in SPSS (version 11.0). Nunnally (1978) suggested that for early stages of
any research the reliability of .50-.60 is sufficient. The reliabilities of all the constructs in this
study found to be above the standard set by Nunnally (1978).
Table 2
Reliability Coefficient and Descriptive Statistics of Employees Perception of Mangers Social
Power (Reward Power, Coercive Power, Legitimate Power, Expert Power, Referent Power),
Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Scales
Reward power
Coercive power
Legitimate power
Expert power
Referent power
Procedural justice
Organizational
commitment
Job satisfaction
Organizational
citizenship behavior
Note: n = 195
Number of items
Alpha
SD
4
4
4
4
4
10
8
0.68
0.89
0.78
0.83
0.75
0.62
0.79
3.16
3.02
4.25
4.07
3.69
3.51
3.99
0.81
1.10
0.56
0.63
0.66
0.46
0.57
12
13
0.87
0.85
3.67
4.31
0.52
0.44
Mean scores have been computed by equally weighting the mean scores of all the items. On a
five-point scale, the mean score for employees perception of managers reward power is 3.16 (sd
= .81). The mean score for coercive power is 3.02 (sd = 1.10). The mean score for legitimate
power is 4.25 (sd = 0.56). The mean score for expert power is 4.07 (sd = 0.63). The mean score
for referent power is 3.69 (sd = 0.66). The mean scores of employees perception of managers
social power range from 3.02- 4.25 indicating that employees perception of managers social
power is high.
The mean score for procedural justice is 3.51 (sd = 0.46). It suggests that employees
perception of procedural justice is also high. The mean score for organizational commitment is
3.99 (sd = 0.57). It indicates that these employees have a high level of organizational
commitment. The mean score for job satisfaction is 3.67 (sd = 0.52). It implies that the
21
employees of private commercial banks have high level of job satisfaction. The mean score for
organizational citizenship behavior is 4.31 (sd = 0.44). It suggests that these employees highly
participate in the extra-role activities on favor of their banks.
Table 3
Correlation Matrix for Employees Perception of Managers Social Power (Reward Power,
Coercive Power, Legitimate Power, Expert Power, Referent Power) and Procedural Justice with
Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
REW
COE
LEG
REW
COE
LEG
EXP
REF
PRO_
JUS
.050
.268**
.150*
.255**
.233**
.140
-.065
-.072
.131
-.085
-.151*
-.151* .029
.408**
.279**
.416**
.403**
.282** .230**
.346**
.370**
.396**
.187** .415**
.310**
.145*
.198** .235**
.401**
.339** .260**
.527** .465**
EXP
REF
PRO_
JUS
ORG_
COM
JOB_
SAT
ORG_
COM
JOB_
SAT
OCB
.035
.148*
.307**
OCB
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01.

A correlation analysis was conducted on all variables to explore the relationship between
variables. The bivariate correlation procedure was subject to a two tailed of statistical
significance at two different levels highly significant (p<.01) and significant (p<.05). The
resultof correlation analysis for all the variables is shown in Table 2. It examines the correlations
among employees perception of managers social power, procedural justice, employees
organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. The
22
variables, significantly correlated with reward power were employees perception of procedural
justice (r = .233, p< .05), and OCB (r = .15, p< .05). No significant correlation was being found
among employees perception of managers coercive power with employees perception of
procedural justice and OCB. Employees perception of managers legitimate power was found to
be significantly and positively correlated with employees perception of procedural justice (r =
.416, p< .05), and organizational citizenship behavior (r = .23, p< .01). The variables,
significantly correlated with employees perception of managers expert power were employees
perception of procedural justice ( r = .37, p< .05), and organizational citizenship behavior (r =
.415, p< .01). Employees perception of managers referent power was significantly and
positively correlated with employees perception of procedural justice (r = .31, p < .05), and
organizational citizenship behavior (r = .235, p< .01).
In the case of employees perception of procedural justice, employees organizational
commitment, and job satisfaction were positively and significantly correlated (r = .401, p< .01; r
= .339, p< .01). In the case of employees organizational commitment, organizational citizenship
behavior was positively and significantly correlated (r = .465, p< .05). Employees job
satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior were found to be positively and significantly
correlated (r = .307, p< .05).
Confirmatory factor analyses
The Comparative Fit Index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI; Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, & Black, 2003), Normed Fit Index (NFI), and Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990) were used in judging fit. The Comparative Fit Index is
a recommended index of overall fit (Gebring & Anderson, 1993), Goodness of Fit Index
measures the fitness of a model compare to another model (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black,
2003), Normed Fit Index measures the proportion by which a model improves fit compared to
null model(Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2003), and the latter provides information in terms
of discrepancy per degree of freedom for a model (Steiger, 1990). CFI, NFI, and GFI close to 1
indicates a very good fit of the model (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2003). Brown and
Cudeck (1993) suggest that an RMSEA of .05 indicates a close fitting model and that values up to
.08 represent reasonable errors of approximation for a model.
23
Table 4 (a)
Measurement Model Result 1
2
df
2 diff
df diff
CFI
NFI
Model1
(base model 1)
51.8
11
.842
.819
.942
.138
Model 2
29.9
21.9
.907
.895
.966
.143
GFI
RMSEA
Note: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; GFI = Goodness-of-Fit Index; NFI=
Normed Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index.
Table 4 (b)
Measurement Model Result 2
2
df
df diff
CFI
NFI
11
2 diff
(p<.05)
-
Model 3
(base model 2)
47.3
.831
.805
.947
.130
Model 4
38.5
8.8
.970
.949
.985
.075
GFI
RMSEA
Note: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; GFI = Goodness-of-Fit Index; NFI=
Normed Fit Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index
Structural equation analysis

Table 4 (a), (b) represent the results of measurement models to test the hypothesis with regard
to model paths. The first model (base model) estimated that procedural justice and organizational
commitment mediate the relationship between employees perception of managers social power
and OCB (2 = 51.8, df = 11). This model was then compared with a model where a direct and
also mediated relationship exist between the employees perception of managers social power
and OCB mediated by procedural justice and organizational commitment (2 = 29.9, df = 6). The
difference in fit between two models was not significant (2 diff = 21.9, df diff= 5).
As the difference in fit between these two models was not significant, another base model
(base model 2) was being developed which predicts that procedural justice and job satisfaction
24
mediate the relationship between employees perception of managers social power and OCB (2
= 47.3, df = 11). Finally, the model, which expects a direct and also mediated relationship
between the managers social power and OCB, mediated by procedural justice and job
satisfaction was compared to this base model (2 = 38.5, df = 6). This model significantly differs
from the base model (2 diff = 8.8, df diff= 5, p< .05).
Although the fit indices ( Comparative Fit index, Normed Fit Index, and Goodness of fit
Index) for the first three models were adequate, the last model had the highest fit indices (CFI =
.97; NFI = .949; GFI = .985) and also the lowest Root Square Mean Error of Approximation
(RSMEA = .075). These values explained that this fourth model is the best fit to test the
hypothesis. Therefore, the Model 4 appears to be acceptable when compared to the other three
models.
Path analysis
Considering the pattern of significance for the parameter estimates within the Model 1,
employees perception of managers reward power, coercive power, referent power, and expert
power were not significant. As hypothesized employees perception of managers coercive
Table 5
Standardized Path Coefficients for the Models
Path
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
.10
.10
.10
.10
Reward PJ
-.08
-.08
Coercive PJ
-.08
-.08
.16
.16
Referent PJ
.16
.16
.19
.19
Expert PJ
.19
.19
Legitimate PJ
.26***
.26***
.26***
.26***
Reward OCB
.05
.08
Coercive OCB
.09
.08
Referent OCB
.08
.04
Expert OCB
.26***
.36***
Legitimate OCB
-.06
-.01
PJ OC
.40***
.40***
PJ JS
.34***
.34***
OC OCB
.46***
.39***
JS OCB
.31***
.25***
Notes: PJ = Procedural Justice, JS = Job Satisfaction, OC = Organizational Commitment, OCB =
Organizational Citizenship Behavior.
* p< .05, ** p< .01, *** p< .001
25
power was negatively related with employees perception of procedural justice. The relationship
between employees perception of procedural justice, and employees organizational commitment
was significant. The anticipated relationship between employees organizational commitment,
and employees organizational citizenship behavior was also significant and in hypothesized
direction.
In case of model 2, no significant relationships were found between employees perception of
managers reward power, coercive power, referent power, and legitimate power and employees
organizational citizenship behavior. There was a significant relationship between expert power,
and OCB. Though employees perception of managers reward power, referent power, and
expert power were in hypothesize direction but in case of coercive power, and legitimate power
the relationships did not support the hypothesis.
For model 3, all the bases of power were related to procedural justice in the hypothesized
directions. Only employees perception of managers legitimate power had a significant
relationship with procedural justice. The relationship between employees perception of
procedural justice, and employees job satisfaction was significant. The anticipated relationship
between employees job satisfaction, and employees organizational citizenship behavior was
also significant and in hypothesized direction.
In case of model 4, no significant relationships were found between employees perception of
managers reward power, coercive power, referent power, and legitimate power and employees
organizational citizenship behavior. Though employees perception of managers reward power,
referent power, and expert power were in hypothesize direction but in case of coercive power,
and legitimate power the relationships did not support the hypothesis. As hypothesized
employees perception of managers expert power was significant and positively related with
OCB. The relationship between employees perception of procedural justice, and employees job
satisfaction was significant. The anticipated relationship between employees job satisfaction,
and employees organizational citizenship behavior was also significant and in the hypothesized
direction.
26
Discussion
The present study presents a conceptual framework that considered how employees
perceptions of managers social power affect OCB through procedural justice, and organizational
commitment (or job satisfaction) in case of private commercial banks in Bangladesh. Data
support the proposed model 4, where direct paths from managers social power to OCB; and
indirect paths from managers social power to OCB mediated by procedural justice, job
satisfaction was considered.
In general, the results supported most of the developed hypothesized relationships. Coercive
power appeared in hypothesized direction in case of all the proposed models. The more
managers having coercive power, the more they were evaluated by employees as being
procedurally unjust. This unjust perception of employees generally decreases employees JS and
OC, and which in turn lower employees OCB. In such situations, it is important for managers to
redouble efforts as being fair (Mossholder et al., 1998). Mossholder et al. further suggested that
adequate explanation and communication is necessary when managers action appears to violate
procedural justice norms. The availability of voice mechanisms would seem crucial for
subordinate to be able to air their views about impending discipline, or give explanation of their
taken decisions (Greenberg, 1990a). Researchers (Lemons & Jones, 2000; Schaubroeck, May, &
Brown, 1994; Mossholder et al., 1998; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Konovsky & Cropanzano,
1991; Masterson et al., 2000) suggested that improved perception in the workplace will have
positive impact on employees work attitudes (i.e. job satisfaction and organizational
commitment).
The anticipated relationship between legitimate power and procedural justice appeared as
significant and positive for all the developed models. This could be related to employees
expectation that the person sitting as manager must be fair in treatment because of the position
the person holds. Interestingly, regarding the personal base power (i.e. expert power and referent
power), only the expert power emerged as strong predictors of OCB. Though both theory and
empirical research support the relationship between referent power and other work related
variables (Mossholder et al., 1998; Tyler, 1990), in the case of Bangladeshi private commercial
banks it was not supported. In Bangladesh employees still perceive managers as giving orders
based on position power. Most of the employees are not aware about the referent power.
27
Managers can possess charisma and motivational qualities something employees might not be
aware off. These results suggest that no single base of power is all-beneficial in influencing
employees or all-powerful as a predictor of employees JS, OC, and OCB. Managerial
effectiveness appears to be contingent on the fit between the type of power and the employee
criteria variable of interest.
The research findings indicate which power bases bank managers should seek to develop. The
private commercial banks in Bangladesh have undergone dramatic changes over the past two
decades. In this study, the research has examined various type of mangers social power and how
effectively the power could be used to increase employees work related behavior. Organizations
may find it useful to establish both formal and informal training procedures that encourage
managers in developing power bases that positively affect employees perception regarding JS,
OC, JS, and OCB. In this regard Jahangir (2003b), Keys and Case (1990), and Rahim,
Antonioni, and Psenicka (2001) suggest that skills based power reflecting qualities associated
with referent and expert power bases may be crucial in sustaining influence. Also managers may
need to learn top adopt an informal power sharing mechanism with employees that could build
fairness perceptions.
In this research, the researcher has considered only social power in relation to PJ, OC, JS, and
OCB. Future research should consider the social bases of power in connection with job
performance (Tsui, 1994). With procedural justice, the future researchers could include
distributive justice (Greenberg, 1990b); also issues of organizational ethics and employee rights
are naturally entwined with those involving power and employees work related behavior
(Hollander & Offermann, 1990). By attempting to explain how power relates to employees work
reactions and organizational citizenship behavior, it is hoped that the present study would shed
new light on the subject and will encourage further organizational research in the area.
28
References
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance,
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 118.
Allen, J., & Meyer, N. (1996). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the
organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 49,
252-276.
Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in
organizational behaviour. Social Justice Research, 1, 177-198.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Angle, H.L., & Lawson, M.B. (1993). Changes in affective and continuance commitment in
times of relocation. Journal of Business Research, 26, 3-15.
Appelbaum, S., Bartolomucci, N., Beaumier, E., Boulanger, J., Corrigan, R., Dore, I.,
Girard, C., & Serroni, C. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior: a case study of
culture, leadership and trust, Management Decision, 42 (1), 13-40.
Appelbaum, S., Asmar, J. A., Chehayeb, R., Konidas, N., Duszara, V. M., & Duminica, I.
(2003). Organizational citizenship: a case study of MedLink Ltd. Team Performance
Management: An International Journal, 9 (5/6), 136-154.
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 Users Guide. IL: Small Water Corporation.
Axson, D. A. J. (1992). A return to managing customer relationship. International Journal of
Bank Marketing, 10(1), 30-35.
Bangladesher Diary. (2005, February). Banglabazar Prokashony.
Barbuto, J., Brown, L., Wilhite, M., & Wheeler, D. (2001). Justify the underlying motives of
organizational citizenship behaviour: A brief study of agricultural co-op workers.
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, 587-595.
Bateman, T. S., & Strasser, S. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organizational
29
commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 95 - 122.

Begley, T. M., Lee, C., Fang, Y., & Li, J. (2002). Power distance as a moderator of the
relationship between justice and employee outcomes in a sample of Chinese
employees. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17 (8), 692-711.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107,
238-246.
Berry, L. D. (1997). Ten building blocks for developing a customer- focused culture.
Bank Marketing, 29(7), 106.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice; Communication criteria of fairness. In R.
J. Lewicki & B. H. Sheppard & B. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in
Organizations, 1, 43-55. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of
structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 441-470.
Brown, R. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job satisfaction: Meta-analysis
and assessment of causal effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 63-77.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.A. Bollen &
J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models, 136-162. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
Burns, A. C., & Bush, R.F. (1998). Marketing Research. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D., & Allen, J. (1995). Further assessments of Basss (1985)
conceptualisation of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 80 (4), 468-478.
Cardona, P., Lawrence, B., & Bentler, P. (2004). The influence of social and work exchange
relationships on organizational citizenship behavior. Group and Organizational Management,
29(2), 219-247.
Carlson, R. J., Carlson, D. S., & Wadsworth, L. L. (2000). The relationship between individual
power moves and group agreement type: An examination and model. Advanced Management.
Carson, K. D., Carson, P. P., Roe, C. W., Birkenmeier, B. J., & Phillips, J. C. (1999). Four
commitment profiles and their relationships to empowerment, service recovery, and work
attitudes. Public Personnel Management, 28(1), 1-13.
Castro, C. B, Armario, E.M., & Ruiz, D.M. (2004). The influence of employee
organizational citizenship behavior on customer loyalty. International Journal of
30
Service Industry Management, 15 (1), 27-53.

Chang, E. (1999). Career commitment as a complex moderator of organizational commitment and
turnover intention. Human Relations, 52(10), 1257-1278.
Chompookum, D., & Derr, C. B. (2004). The effects of internal career orientations on
organizational citizenship behavior in Thailand. Career Development International, 9 (4),
406-423.
Cobb, A. T., & Frey, F. M. (1996). The effects of leader fairness and pay outcomes on
superior/subordinate relations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1401-1426.
Cohen, A., & Kol, Y. (2004). Professionalism and organizational citizenship behavior: An
empirical examination among Israeli nurses. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19 (4), 386405.
Cohen, A., & Vigoda, E. (2000), Do good citizens make good organizational citizens?
Administration and Society, 32, 596-624.
Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O.L.H., & Ng, I. (2001), Justice at the
millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.
Connell, J., Ferres, N., & Travaglione, T. (2003). Engendering trust in managersubordinate relationships: Predictors and outcomes. Personnel Review, 32 (5), 569-587.
Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through
the maze. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.). International review of industrial and
organizational psychology (317-372). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Journal, 65(4), 44
51.
Dahl, R. A. (1957). The Concept of Power. Behavioral Science, 2, 201-218.
Dailey, R.C., & Kirk, D.J. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of job
dissatisfaction and intent to turnover. Human Relations, 45, 305-317.
Davis, R.V. (1992). Person-environment fit and job satisfaction. In C.J.Cranny & P.C.Smith &
E.F. Stone (Eds.), Job Satisfaction (pp. 69-73). NY: Lexington Books.
Durkin, M., & Bennett, H. (1999). Employee commitment in retail banking: identifying and
exploring hidden dangers. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 17(3), 124-134.
Farh, J.L., Earley, P.C., & Lin, S.C. (1997). Impetus for action: a cultural analysis of justice
and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science
31
Quarterly, 42, 421-44.

Farrell, D., & Stamm, C. L. (1988). Meta-analysis of the correlates of employee absence. Human
Relations, 41, 211-227.
Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: an interpretational analysis of personnel
Systems. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 3, 141-183.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions
to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The Bases of Social Power. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander
(Eds.), Group Dynamics (1960 ed.). Ann Arbor: Michigan: Tavistock Publications.
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, 310329.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Monte Carlo evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for
structural equations models. In K.A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation
models, 40-65. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
Graham, J. W. (1986). Organizational citizenship informed by political theory, paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL.
Greenberg, J. (1990a). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, an tomorrow. Journal of
Management, 16, 399-432.
Greenberg, J. (1990b). Looking fair versus being fair: Managing impressions of organizational
justice. Research in Orgabizational Behavior, 12, 111-157.
Griffin, R. W., & McMahan, G. C. (1994). Motivation through job design. In J. Greenberg (Ed.),
Organizational behavior: The state of the science (23 - 44). NJ: Erlbaum.
Hackett, R.D., Bycio, P., & Hausdorf, P.A. (1994). Further assessments of Meyer and Allens
(1991) three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79(1), 15-23.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Readings, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2003). Multivariate Data Analysis
(5th Ed.). Pearson Education: India.
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1994). An examination of subordinate perceived
relationship between leader reward and punishment behaviour and leader bases of power.
32
Human Relations, 47(7), 779-800.

Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1990). Relationships between subordinate perceptions of
supervisor influence tactics and attributed bases of supervisory power. Human Relations,
43(3), 221-237.
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (1989). Development and application of new scales of
measure the French and Raven (1959) bases of social power. Journal of Psychology, 74(4),
561-567.
Hodson R. (2002). Management citizenship behavior and its consequences. Work and
Occupations, 29 (1), 64-96.
Holland, J. B. (1992). Relationship banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 10(2), 2940.
Hollander, E.P., & Offermman, L.R. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations: Relationship
in transition. America Psychologist, 45, 179-189.
Idaszak, J. R., & Drasgo, F. (1987). A revision of the job diagnostic survey: Elimination of a
measurement artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 69 - 74.
Jahangir, N. (2003a). The role of procedural justice in organizational behavior. Journal of
International Affairs, 7 (1), 10-41
Jahangir, N. (2003b). Perceptions of power: A cognitive perspective of nationalized commercial
banks of Bangladesh. Centre for Social Studies: Dhaka.
Kelley, S., & Hoffman, K.D. (1997). An investigation of positive affect, pro social behaviours
and service quality. Journal of Retailing, 73, 407-427.
Kemery, E.R., Bedeian, A.G. & Zacur, S.R. (1996). Expectancy-based job cognitions and job
affect as predictors of organizational citizenship behaviours. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 26, 635-651.
Keys. B., & Case, T. (1990). How to become a influential manager. Academy of Management
Executive, 4(4), 38-51.
Kim, J.Y., Moon, J., Han, D, & Tikoo, S. (2004). Perceptions of justice and employee
willingness to engage in customer-oriented behaviour. Journal of Services Marketing
18 (4), 267-275.
Koh, H.C., & Boo, H.Y. (2004). Organizational ethics and employee satisfaction and
Commitment. Management Decision, 42 (5), 677- 693.
33
Konovsky, M. (2000). Understanding Procedural Justice and its Impact on Business

Organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 489 - 518.
Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 253-266.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 656-669.
Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a
predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
698-707.
Kumar, N. (1996). The power of trust in manufacturer-retailer relationships, Harvard Business
Review, November-December.
Lemons, M. A., & Jones, C. A. (2001). Procedural justice in promotion decisions: using
perceptions of fairness to build employee commitment. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 16 (4), 268-280.
Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation
preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.). Justice and social interaction (pp. 167-218). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York:
Plenum Press.
Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2004). The effect of organizational culture and leadership style
on job satisfaction and organisational commitment: A cross-national comparison.
Journal of Management Development, 23 (4), 321-338.
Lowe, R. H., & Vodanovich, S. J. (1995). A field study of distributive and procedural justice as
predictors of satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Business and
MacKensie, S.B., Podsakoff, P., & Praine, J.B. (1999), Do citizenship behaviors matter more
for managers than salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 396-410.
Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M., & Taylor, M.S. (2000). Integrating justice and
social exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships.
Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738-748.
Mathieu, J., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and
34
consequences of organizational commitment. Psychology Bulletin, 108, 171-194.

McDowall, A., & Fletcher, C. (2004). Employee development: an organizational justice
Perspective. Personnel Review, 33 (1), 8-29.
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of
satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal,
35, 626-637.
McGee, G.W., & Ford, R.C. (1987), Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational commitment:
re examination of the affective and continuance commitment scales. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 72 (4), 638-642.
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
Commitment. Human ResourceManagement Review, 1 (1), 61-89.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Gellatly, I.R. (1990). Affective and continuance commitment to the
organization: evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (6), 710-720.
Meyer, J.P., Paunonen, S.V., Gellatly, I.R., Goofin, R.D., & Jackson, D.N. (1989). Organizational
commitment and job performance: its the nature of the commitment that
Counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 , 152-156.
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1984). Testing the side-bet theory of organizational commitment:
some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378.
Michaels, C., & Spector, P. (1982). Causes of employee turnover: A test of the Mobley, Griffeth,
hand, and Meglino model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 53-29.
Mischel, W. (Ed.) (1977). The Interaction of Person and Situation, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Moorman, R.H. (1993). The influence of cognitive and affective-based job satisfaction
measures on the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviour.
Human Relations, 46, 759-776.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76, 845-855.
Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N., Kemery, E. R., & Wesolowski, M. A. (1998). Relationships
between bases of power and work reactions: The mediational role of procedural justice.
Journal of Management, 24(4), 533-552.
35
Mossholder, K.W., Bennett, N., & Martin, C.L. (1998). A multilevel analysis of procedural
justice context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 131-141.
Motowildo, S.J., Packard, J.S., & Manning, M.R. (1986). Occupational stress: its causes and
consequences for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 618-629.
Motowildo, S.J. (1984). Does job satisfaction lead to consideration and personal sensitivity?
Academy ofManagement Journal, 27, 910-915.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224 - 247.
Murphy, G., Athanasou, J., & King, N. (2002). Job satisfaction and organizational
Citizenship behaviour: A study of Australian human-service professionals. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 17 (4), 287-297.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between
methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management
Journal, 36, 527-556.
Nikolaou, I. (2003). Fitting the person to the organisation: examining the personality-job
performance relationship from a new perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology
18 (7), 639-648.
Nunnally, J. c. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd edn). NY: McGraw Hill.
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its construct clean-up time. Human
Performance, 10, 85-97.
Organ, D. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior, Research in
Organizational Behavior, 12, 43-72.
Organ, D., & Konosky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational
citizenship behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157-164.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C., & Williams, E. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators
for transformational and transactional leadership: a two-sample study. Journal of
Management, 25 (6), 897-933.
Posdakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, B., & Bachrach, D. (2000). Organizational citizenship
behavior: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for
36
future research. Journal of Management, 26 (3), 513-563.

Podsakoff, P.M., & Mackenzie, S.B. (1997). The impact of organizational citizenship behaviour
in organizational performance: review and suggestion for future research, Human
Performance, 10, 133-51.
Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 59, 603 - 609.
Puffer, S.M. (1987). Pro-social behavior, non-compliant behavior and work performance among
commission salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 422-443
Rahim, M. A. (1989). Relationships of leader power to compliance and satisfaction with
supervision: Evidence from a national sample of managers. Journal of Management, 15(4),
545-556.
Rahim, M. A., Antonioni, D., & Psenicka, C. (2001). A structural equations model of leader
power, subordinates styles of handling conflict, and job performance. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 12 (3), 191-211.
Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (1996). Confirmatory factor analysis of the bases of leader
power: First - order factor model and its invariance across groups. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 31(4), 495-516.
Rahim, M. A., & Buntzman, G. F. (1989). Supervisory power bases, styles of handling conflict
with subordinates, and subordinate compliance and satisfaction. Journal of Psychology, 123
(2), 195-210.
Raven, B. H. (1990). Political implications of the psychology of interpersonal influence and
social power. Political Psychology, 1, 493-520.
Robbins, S.P. (2001). OrganizationalBehavior, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Rousseau, D.M., Hui, C., & Lee, C. (2002). Organization versus relationships in China:
are organizational influences distinguishable from personal relations with ones manager?,
paper presented at the National Academy of Management Meetings, Denver, CO.
Sager, J.K. (1994). A structural model depicting salespeoples job stress. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 22, 74-84.
Schaubroeck, J., May, D.R., & Brown, F.W. (1994). Procedural justice explanations and
employee reactions to economic hardship: a eld experiment, Journal of Applied
37

Scholl, R.W., Cooper, E.A., & McKenna, J.F. (1987). Referent selection in determining equity
perceptions: differential effects on behavioral and attitudinal outcomes. Personnel
Shore, L.M., Barksdale, K., & Shore, T.H. (1995). Managerial perceptions of employee
commitment to the organization. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (6), 1593-1604.
Shore, L.M., & Wayne, S.J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: comparison of
affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology,. 78 (5), 774-780.
Simon, H. (1976). Administrative Behavior. Free Press, New York, NY.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1996). Increasing citizenship within a union: A test of
organizational justice theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 161-169.
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature
and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.
Spector, P.R. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and Consequences,
Sage, London.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation
approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180.
Sweeney, P.D., & McFarlin, D.B. (1997). Process and outcome: gender differences in the
assessment of justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 83-98.
Tsui, A.S. (1994). Reputational effectiveness: Toward a mutual responsiveness framework.
Research in Organizational behavior, 16, 257-307.
Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and
procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850-863.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven. CT: Yale University press.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology , 25, 115-191. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. (1995). Extra role behaviors: In pursuit of
construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In L. L. Cummings &Van
Dyne, L., Graham, J., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship
38
behavior:construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management

Journal, 37, 765-802.
Wagner, S. & Rush, M. (2000). Altruistic organizational citizenship behavior: context,
disposition and age. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 379-391.
Waltz, S.M., & Niehoff (1996). Organizational citizenship behaviors and their effect on
organizational effectiveness in limited-menu restaurants, in Keys, J.B. and Dosier, L.N. (Ed.),
Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, George Southern University, Statesboro,
GA, pp. 307-11.
Wilson, P.A. (1995). The effects of politics and power on the organization commitment of federal
executives. Journal of Management, 21, 101-118.
Wong, Y. T., Ngo, H.Y. & Wong, C. S. (2002). Affective organizational commitment of
workers in Chinese joint ventures. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17 (7),
580-598.
Yoon, M. & Suh, J. (2003). Organizational citizenship behaviours and service quality as
external effectiveness of contact employees. Journal of Business Research, 56, 597-611.
39
Appendix -1
The Questionnaire for Bank Employees
What is your age?
________ Years
What is your gender?

Female
Male
What is the highest level of education you have completed?

SSC
HSC
Bachelors
Masters
Others (please specify)
______________________________________
How long you have been working for the bank?
_________ Years
Please carefully read each descriptive statement, thinking in terms of your manager, job
and organization. Please circle the number, which most closely responds to your thinking.
1
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Uncertain
Agree
5
StronglyAgree
1. My supervisor can increase my pay level
2. My supervisor can influence my getting a pay rise
3. My supervisor can provide me with special benefits
1 2
3 4 5
4. My supervisor can influence my getting a promotion
5. My supervisor can give me undesirable job assignments
40
6. My supervisor can make my work difficult for me
7. My supervisor can make things unpleasant here
1 2
3 4 5
8. My supervisor can make being at work distasteful
9. My supervisor can make me feel that I have commitments to meet
10. My supervisor can make me feel like I should satisfy my job
requirements
11. My supervisor can give me the feeling that I have
1 2
3 4 5
responsibilities to fulfill
12. My supervisor can make me recognize that I have tasks
to accomplish
13. My supervisor can give me good technical suggestions
1 2
3 4 5
14. My supervisor can share with me his/her considerable
1 2
3 4 5
15. My supervisor can provide me with sound job related advice
1 2
3 4 5
16. My supervisor can provide me with needed technical knowledge
17. My supervisor can make me feel valued
18. My supervisor can make me feel like he/she approves of me
19. My supervisor can make me feel personally accepted
20. My supervisor can make me feel important
21. My supervisor gave me an opportunity to express my side
22. My supervisor used consistent standards in evaluating my performance 1
experience and training
23. My supervisor gave me feedback that helped me learn
1 2
3 4 5
24. My supervisor was completely candid and frank with me
25. My supervisor showed a real interest in trying to be fair
1 2
3 4 5
26. My supervisor made me clear what was expected of me
27. My supervisor finds out why I got the size of raise I did
28. My supervisor behaves in a way I thought was not appropriate
1 2
3 4 5
29. My supervisor was influenced by things that should not been
how well I was doing
considered
41
30. My supervisor was honest and ethical in dealing with me
1 2 3
4 5
31. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that
1 2
3 4 5
normally expected in order to help this organization be successful

32. I talk up this organization to my friends as
a great organization to work for

33. I would take any type of job assignment in order to
1 2
3 4 5
34. I find that my values and organizations values are very similar
1 2
3 4 5
35. This organization really inspires the very best in me
1 2
3 4 5
1 2
3 4 5
1 2
3 4 5
38. For me this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work 1 2
3 4 5
39. I am willing to stand up to protect the reputation of the company
1 2
3 4 5
40. I am eager to tell outsiders good news about the company
41. I make constructive suggestions that can improve
1 2
3 4 5
42. I actively attend company meeting
1 2
3 4 5
43. I am willing to assist new colleagues to adjust to
44. I am willing to help colleagues solve work-related problems
45. I am willing to cover work related assignments for
46. I am willing to coordinate and communicate with colleagues
47. I comply with company rules and regulation even
48. I take my job seriously and rarely make mistakes
49. I do not mind taking on new challenging assignments
1 2
keep working for this organization
in the way of job performance

36. I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for
over others I was considering at the time I joined
37. I really care about the fate of this organization
the operation of the company
the work environment
colleagues when needed
when nobody watches and no evidence can be traced
3 4 5
42
50. I try hard to self-study to increase the quality of work output
1 2
3 4 5
51. I often arrive early and start to work immediately
1 2
3 4 5
The statement below indicate how satisfied you are with each of your job. First carefully
read each of the descriptive statement, thinking in terms of your job. Please circle the number,
which most closely responds to your thinking about your job.
1
Extremely
2
Dissatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Extremely
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
52. The amount of job security I have
53. The amount of pay and fringe benefits I receive
54. The amount of personal growth and development
55. The degree of respect and fair treatment I receive from my boss
56. The feeling of worthwhile accomplishment I get
57. The amount of support and guidance I receive from my supervisor
58. The degree to which I am fairly paid for what I
1 2
3 4 5
1 2
3 4 5
60. How secure things look for me in the future in this organization
61. The chance to help other people while at work
1 2
3 4 5
62. The amount of challenge in my job
63. The overall quality of the supervision I receive in my work
I get in doing my job
from doing my job
contribute to this organization

59. The amount of independent thought and action
I can exercise in my job
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
Appendix-2(A)
43
Appendix-2(B)
44
Appendix- 3
45

End Questionnare

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

End Questionnare

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOCIAL POWER AND ORGANIZATIONAL

CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: THE MEDIATIONAL ROLE OF PROCEDURAL JUSTICE,

A Senior Project Report Presented in Partial Fulfillment

INDEPENDENT UNIVERSITY, BANGLADESH

THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOCIAL POWER AND ORGANIZATIONAL

THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOCIAL POWER AND ORGANIZATIONAL

has been approved

This senior project contains no material published elsewhere or extracted in whole or in

2.0 Review of literature

2.1 Concept of Social Power bases

2.2 Concept of Procedural Justice

2.3 Link between Social Power bases and Procedural Justice

2.4 Organizational Commitment

2.5 Job Satisfaction

2.6 Link between Procedural Justice, Organizational Commitment

2.8 Links between bases of power Organizational Commitment,

3.0 Conceptual Framework

4.2 Pilot test

4.3 Data collection procedure

4.4.1 Employees perception of managers social power

4.4.2 Employees perception of procedural justice

4.4.3 Employees organizational commitment

4.4.4 Employees organizational citizenship behavior

4.4.5 Employees job satisfaction

5.1 Confirmatory factor analysis

5.2 Structural equation analysis

5.3 Path Analysis

2. Reliability Coefficient and Descriptive Statistics of Employees

3. Correlation Matrix for Employees Perception of Managers Social

4. Measurement Model Result 1

5. Measurement Model Result 2

6. Standardized Path Coefficients for the Models

The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

represent a key facilitator in the implementation of relationship banking strategy. Employees

The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The Concept of Procedural Justice

The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Links between Social Power Bases and procedural Justice

The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Links between Procedural Justice, Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction

The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Some researchers stated that OCB is considered to be a reflection of the employees

Figure1: Hypothesized model 1 with results

The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Figure 2: Hypothesized model 2 with results

Figure 3: Hypothesized model 3 with results

Figure 4: Hypothesized model 4 with results

The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Employees organizational commitment

The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

justice to employees organizational commitment, and employees organizational commitment to

The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The Relationships between Social Power and Organizational Citizenship Behavior