The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

Self-rated and peer-rated Organizational

citizenship
organizational citizenship behavior
behavior, affective commitment,
and intention to leave in a 569

Malaysian context Received 16 April 2014

Revised 17 February 2015
Accepted 29 June 2015
Patricia Yin Yin Lau
Management Department,
Monash University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Gary N. McLean
McLean Global Consulting Inc., St Paul, Minnesota, USA, and
Bella Ya-Hui Lien and Yen-Chen Hsu
Business Administration Department,
National Chung Cheng University, Chia-Yi, Taiwan

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to determine if self-rated and peer-rated organizational
citizenship behavior mediated the relationship between affective commitment and intention to leave in
Malaysia.
Design/methodology/approach – A survey yielded 516 responses from multiple locations in
Malaysia across varied industries for a response rate of 64.5 percent. Validity based on confirmatory
factor analysis and reliability were confirmed.
Findings – Affective commitment influenced self- and peer-rated organizational citizenship behavior
and intention to leave. Only self-rated organizational citizenship behavior partially mediated affective
commitment and intention to leave. While self-rated organizational citizenship behavior increased
intention to leave positively, peer-rated organizational citizenship behavior did not influence intention
to leave.
Practical implications – The findings confirm earlier research that self-ratings and peer-ratings are
different, and, surprisingly, organizational citizenship behavior is not a factor supporting talent
retention. Human resource practitioners need to shift their focus to affective commitment that reduces
intention to leave and increases organizational citizenship behavior.
Originality/value – Past studies on organizational citizenship behavior relied on self-ratings,
supervisor-ratings, or both ratings used in Western contexts. Little was known about the assessment
of organizational citizenship behavior from peer perspectives and its relationship between affective
commitment and intention to leave. Moreover, the relationships between affective commitment and
self-rated and peer-rated organizational citizenship behavior were inconsistent. This study responded
to those gaps by integrating affective commitment, self-rated, and peer-rated organizational citizenship
behavior, and intention to leave into a single hypothesized model.
Keywords Quantitative, Malaysia, Affective commitment, Organizational citizenship behaviour,
Advanced statistical, Intention to leave, Peer-ratings, Self-ratings
Paper type Research paper
Personnel Review
Vol. 45 No. 3, 2016
pp. 569-592
This work is financially supported by Monash Seed Grant 2011. The lead author would like to © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
thank Monash University Malaysia for the research funding. DOI 10.1108/PR-04-2014-0083
PR Workplace relationships that include mutual commitment and support require
45,3 exchanged relationships (Berman et al., 2002). However, close relationships may result
in favoritism and unequal resource distribution, leading to intention to leave (Arasli
and Tumer, 2008; Deery et al., 2013). Studies on employee work behaviors have
typically relied on traditional methods of supervisor-ratings (e.g. Bolino et al., 2006;
Tourigny et al., 2013) while neglect other sources of ratings, such as peers, excepting
570 Belschak and Hartog (2010), Rioux and Penner (2001), Van Dyne and Pierce (2004), and
Ziegler et al. (2012). Such unbalanced perspectives limit others (i.e. peers) from
providing additional information about employees. As perspectives differ (Toegel and
Conger, 2003), especially across countries (Atwater et al., 2005; Brutus et al., 2006),
using different rating sources, such as self and peers, may provide more extensive
information. This applies, especially, to employee work behaviors and their
relationships with work attitudes. Additionally, most human resource and
organizational behavior studies are conducted in Western contexts, and their
findings are not generalizable to Southeast Asia. Therefore, the current study
showcases the relationship among affective commitment, self- and peer-rated
organizational citizenship behavior, and intention to leave in Malaysia. With such
information, human resource practitioners and senior managers will be able to consider
more perspectives relating to human resource practices, norms, and policies in order to
retain top talent.

Problem statement
Generally, studies on organizational citizenship behavior have relied on traditional
evaluation methods of self-ratings, supervisor-ratings, or both (Bolino et al., 2006; Paré
and Tremblay, 2007; Tourigny et al., 2013). What is often lacking is peers’ perspectives
on organizational citizenship behavior and their linkage to employee affective
commitment and intention to leave. Peers may provide insights on individuals that the
individual and supervisor do not see (Vazire and Mehl, 2008). These differences may
arise from differences in the raters’ motives and needs fulfillment (Bowler et al., 2010).
Moreover, self-ratings alone may lead to making erroneous decisions (Dunning et al.,
2004), such as to stay or to leave an organization. Hence, peer perspectives are required
to provide additional understandings of organizational citizenship behavior on the
relationship between affective commitment and intention to leave.
Additionally, most human resource studies have been conducted in Western
contexts (Bolino et al., 2006; Paré and Tremblay, 2007; Tourigny et al., 2013). However,
recent studies have found that multi-source ratings differ across countries (Atwater
et al., 2005; Brutus et al., 2006). High power distance and collectivist countries, such as
China, approach multi-source ratings differently from Western countries in that peers
inflate ratings for in-group members to protect social harmony and identity (Brutus
et al., 2006). This difference raises questions about studies in Malaysia as it shares
similar national cultures with China (Hofstede, 2001). Though studies have examined
the antecedents and work outcomes of organizational citizenship behavior in Malaysia,
those studies used self-ratings (Coyne and Ong, 2007; Gould-Williams and Mohamed,
2010; Teh and Sun, 2012). Arshad and Sparrow (2010) used longitudinal study without
describing the ratings used. Little is known about peer-ratings of organizational
citizenship behavior and how such ratings influence the relationship between affective
commitment and intention to leave in Malaysia.
Studies have also found inconsistent findings between affective commitment and
different sources of ratings of organizational citizenship behavior. Some have found
significant relationships between affective commitment and self-rated and peer-rated Organizational
organizational citizenship behavior (Kehoe and Wright, 2013; Paré and Tremblay, 2007; citizenship
Rioux and Penner, 2001; Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004; Yang, 2012), while others have
found no relationship among the variables (Belschak and Hartog, 2010; Hartog and
behavior
Belschak, 2007). Such findings deserve further attention.
Therefore, the current study determined if self-rated and peer-rated organizational
citizenship behavior mediated the relationship between affective commitment and 571
intention to leave in Malaysia. The study may be significant in illustrating the risk of using
same-source rating. Using different source ratings reduces common methods variance and
improves the accuracy of research findings, leading to improved decision making.
Second, respondents used in this study came from diverse industries in Malaysia.
Using heterogeneous subjects increases the variance of the findings and leads to a
greater representation of the intended population in Malaysia. Finally, most studies on
organizational citizenship behavior, affective commitment, and intention to leave
originate in Western countries. Those respondents may have different work values,
beliefs, norms, and other factors than those in Asian contexts. Thus, this study
provides a more culturally appropriate research context.
The following section starts with introducing social exchange theory to explain the
foundation of the study, with its limitations. Next, affective commitment and
organizational citizenship behavior concepts are explained, along with literature
explaining the impact of multi-source ratings. Finally, each proposed hypothesis is
discussed and supported from literature.

Social exchange theory

Blau (1996) defined social exchange theory as the voluntary “reciprocation of favors”
(p. 16). When one gives a favor, there is an implied obligation to repay the favor (Blau,
1996). The reciprocation of favors provides a stable relationship between two parties
that leads to continuing provision and return of benefits and services (Gouldner, 1960).
Accepting the favor implies social approval (Blau, 1996). Such approval depends on the
receiver and giver who define the values of the favors (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005;
Gouldner, 1960); favors may vary in a continuum of perceived imbalance and balance
of costs and benefits (Blau, 1996; Gouldner, 1960). Perceived balance enhances the
employee-organization relationship, but imbalance increases undesirable employee
attitudes and behaviors, such as conserving extra efforts and time, and intending to
leave (Paille, 2013; Tourigny et al., 2013).
The value of the exchanged favors determines the strength and sustainability
of the commitment to the relationship (Blau, 1996; Gouldner, 1960; Organ et al., 2006).
The greater the value of the returns is, the stronger the commitment and bonding of the
relationship will be to reciprocate in the future (Blau, 1996). Such reciprocations create
positive work attitudes and productive job behaviors, and vice versa (Cropanzano and
Mitchell, 2005). For instance, employers provide human resource practices to
employees (Kehoe and Wright, 2013; Paré and Tremblay, 2007). While employees have
rights to enjoy the benefits, they also have to perform their duties (Gouldner, 1960).
Both parties are expected to reciprocate without causing behaviors that might have
negative consequences (Gouldner, 1960). These interdependent relationships define the
work attitudes and behaviors of employees, such as affective commitment,
organizational citizenship behavior, and intention to leave.
However, exchange relationships are viewed differently in different contexts
depending on the observers. Employees who are emotionally attached to organizations
PR are perceived as being engaged in organizational citizenship behaviors (Rioux and
45,3 Penner, 2001; Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004). Such perceptions come from: peers who
observe the behavioral skills of employees even though they might not have technical
expertise (Hutchison and Burch, 2011); time spent in collaborative work (Hoffman and
Woehr, 2009); and peer expectations of the roles of the observed employees in different
contexts (Lievens et al., 2008). Hence, peers see organizational citizenship behavior
572 differently from others’ observations, a point not explained by social exchange theory.
Therefore, the theory needs to be revisited to explain more fully the relationships among
affective commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and intention to leave.

Affective commitment
Organizational commitment has been conceptualized by three dimensions: affective
(want to), continuance (need to), and normative (ought to) (Allen and Meyer, 1990).
Affective commitment expresses the desires of employees to belong to the organization;
continuance forgoes opportunity costs when deciding to leave an organization; and
normative indicates felt obligations to stay (Allen and Meyer, 1990). Affective
commitment, as described, is similar to that of Porter et al. (1974) and validated by
Mowday et al. (1979).
Several tests of the reliability and validity of the three dimensions of organizational
commitment have indicated good results (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Lee et al., 2001). Yet,
issues of reliability and validity of certain dimensions in cross-cultural contexts continue
to persist with some unstable reliabilities of normative and continuance commitment
(Cho and Kwon, 2005; Liao et al., 2009) and a lack of distinction between affective and
normative dimensions (Bergman, 2006; Meyer et al., 2002). However, the problem resides
in normative rather than affective commitment (Bergman, 2006). Hence, affective
commitment is used here to predict organizational citizenship behavior.

Organizational citizenship behavior and multi-source ratings

In 1977, Organ used organizational citizenship behavior to provide further
understanding of the causal relationship between job satisfaction and job
performance (Organ et al., 2006). Organ (1988) later identified five conceptual
dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior: altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship,
conscientiousness, and civic virtue. Van Dyne et al. (1994) redefined, tested, and
supported its construct validity and interrelationships with important variables.
Decades later, studies have compared and contrasted citizenship behavioral
domains. Distinctions have been made identifying forms of citizenship behaviors, and
antecedents and consequences of such behavior (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Such research
has clarified that organizational citizenship behaviors do not include unethical actions
that can impair the overall functioning of organizations (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986;
George and Brief, 1992; Grant and Ashford, 2008). Moreover, organizational citizenship
behavior does not support innovative and creative behaviors when compared with
prosocial and proactive organizational behaviors (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986; Grant
and Ashford, 2008).
Organizational citizenship behavior was originally defined as any form of behavior
that is not formally described as being on the job and no reward is provided (Organ, 1988).
Over time, the definition has expanded, and organizational citizenship behavior now
depends on: the expectations of managers in rewarding such performances (Podsakoff
et al., 2000); the role expectations by individuals at different positions in different contexts
(Lievens et al., 2008); the employee’s option in making such extra contributions (Organ, Organizational
1988); and national culture, with a collectivist culture being more positively related to citizenship
organizational citizenship behavior in order to maintain a positive self in the community
(Kabasakal et al., 2011). Such notions are implicitly rooted in the organizational norms
behavior
practiced freely by employees (Bolino et al., 2010). Organizational citizenship behavior is
defined as a personal preference for performing additional work so as to gain motivational
rewards and social acceptance in the community, but such work differs depending on job 573
position, context, and role expectations in employees’ extra roles.
Different sources emphasize different behaviors and provide different information
about employees’ behaviors (Hartog and Belschak, 2007; Hoffman et al., 2010; Toegel
and Conger, 2003). This is especially true when both self- and peer-ratings are added
into multi-source rating systems (Hooft et al., 2006). While self-ratings provide better
understanding about self- than peer-ratings (Paunonen and O’Neill, 2010), such ratings
are also prone to bias, either social desirability, i.e., strategic self-presentation
(Toegel and Conger, 2003) or understatement for a variety of reasons (Moneta et al., 2010).
Self- and peer-ratings can strengthen the understanding of observable behaviors
(Paunonen and O’Neill, 2010) over supervisor-only ratings (Hooft et al., 2006). Indeed,
there is a growing body of knowledge that indicates that all sources of ratings differ,
the very reason why multi-ratings are used (McLean, 1997). As such, self- and peer-
ratings of organizational citizenship behavior are used in the current study to enhance
the understanding of the relationships between different work attitudes and
organizational citizenship behaviors that rely on traditional supervisor rating methods.

Relationships between affective commitment, organizational citizenship

behavior, and intention to leave
Affective commitment is typically correlated with organizational citizenship behavior
(Felfe and Yan, 2009). The more employees are affectively committed to organizations,
the more they will help others (Paré and Tremblay, 2007). Besides helping behavior, other
dimensions, such as conscientiousness, civic virtue, courtesy, and sportsmanship, are
also found to influence organizational citizenship behavior affected by organizational
commitment ( Jo and Joo, 2011). Additionally, affective commitment is also found to
influence organizational citizenship behavior directed toward both individuals
(i.e. altruism) and organizations (i.e. conscientiousness) (Tourigny et al., 2013).
Such relationships differ according to sources of ratings. For instance, affective
commitment was found to influence self-rated citizenship behaviors (Belschak and
Hartog, 2010; Kehoe and Wright, 2013; Yang, 2012), although Hartog and Belschak
(2007) found otherwise. While Belschak and Hartog (2010) found no relationship
between peer-rated organizational proactive and organizational commitment, several
other studies have shown a significant relationship between peer-rated organizational
citizenship behavior and organizational commitment (Rioux and Penner, 2001;
Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004). Additionally, positively attached emotions at work
enhance self- and peer-rated organizational citizenship behavior (Ziegler et al., 2012).
These findings suggest that affective commitment may or may not be related to
different sources of organizational citizenship behavior ratings. From the perspectives
of self and peers, ratings depend on motive attributions and needs fulfillment.
Self maintains a positive image to self and others by inflating likeness to others
through organizational citizenship behavior (Allen et al., 2000). On the other hand, when
self has unfulfilled needs, such as autonomy, self will commit less to work and
contribute less to organizations (Riketta, 2002). Furthermore, peers attribute positively
PR to members who are emotionally attached to the organization and have organizational
45,3 citizenship behavior in order to sustain togetherness and solidarity in the organization
(Kanter, 1968). However, for out-group members, peers attribute them with lower
performance scores (Drexler et al., 2001).
As such, the plausible conflicting explanations of the relationships between affective
commitment and organizational citizenship behavior based on self- and peer-ratings
574 require further attention. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1. Affective commitment positively influences self-rated organizational citizenship
behavior.
H2. Affective commitment positively influences peer-rated organizational
citizenship behavior.
Studies have found that there is a negative relationship between self-rated organizational
citizenship behavior and intention to leave (Biswas and Varma, 2012; Regts and Molleman,
2013). Each dimension of organizational citizenship behavior can influence intention to
leave. Sportsmanship is important in reducing employees’ complaints on trivial matters
(Coyne and Ong, 2007; Paille, 2013). Helping others heightens social cohesiveness between
members, increasing members’ intention to stay (Tourangeau et al., 2010). Conscientious
employees tend to leave an organization that enforces an unethical work environment
(Pettijohn et al., 2008). Employees who provide assistance to coworkers (Regts and
Molleman, 2013) and take interest in organizational life (Paille, 2013) reduce intention to
leave. However, employees who are being forced to engage in organizational citizenship
behavior increase their intention to leave (Bolino et al., 2010).
In a meta-analysis using different databases from 1983 to 2007, organizational
citizenship behavior (using a combination of different and same-source ratings) reduces
intention to leave, though the relationship was very weak (Podsakoff et al., 2009).
In particular, peers who see the importance of the continuation of the organization expect
self and other employees to identify with, and be loyal to, the organization; they
participate in organizational life and have less contact with outsiders (Kanter, 1968). Such
expectations influence peer-ratings of performance scores to differentiate from employees
who do not identify themselves with the organization, thereby influencing other
employees’ satisfaction and intention to leave (Drexler et al., 2001). Thus, this leads to:
H3. Self-rated organizational citizenship behavior negatively influences intention
to leave.
H4. Peer-rated organizational citizenship behavior negatively influences intention
to leave.
Several causes are attributed to employee intention to leave; however, that is not the main
purpose of this paper. Intention to leave is reduced, among others, by high performance
human resource practices (Kehoe and Wright, 2013) and perceived organizational
support (Maertz et al., 2007). In contrast, emotional exhaustion and psychological contract
violation increase intention to leave by reducing affective commitment (Arshad and
Sparrow, 2010; Tourigny et al., 2013). Thus, it is hypothesized that:
H5. Affective commitment negatively influences intention to leave.
Based on social exchange theory, and as shown in Figure 1, it has been found that
self-rated organizational citizenship behavior mediates the relationship between affective
commitment and turnover intention (Biswas and Varma, 2012; Paré and Tremblay, 2007).
 H6
Organizational
citizenship
Self-rated OCB behavior

H1 (+) H3 (–)
575
Affective H5 (–)
Intention to
Commitment
leave

H2 (+)
H4 (–)

Peer-rated
OCB

H7 Figure 1.
Hypothesized model
Note: OCB, Organizational citizenship behavior

Additionally, affectively committed employees show organizational citizenship from peer

perspectives (Rioux and Penner, 2001; Van Dyne and Pierce, 2004) and, thereby, reduce
their intention to leave (Podsakoff et al., 2009). Based on the explanations shown here:
H6. Self-rated organizational citizenship behavior mediates between affective
commitment and intention to leave.
H7. Peer-rated organizational citizenship behavior mediates between affective
commitment and intention to leave.
Methods
The study employed survey questionnaires to test the hypotheses. This section
describes the methods used.
Sample
Questionnaires were distributed, based on personal contacts, to 800 employees in
22 organizations from diverse industries in the states of Penang, Johor Bahru, Selangor,
and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The major industries included services, manufacturing,
plantation, and construction, representing the major national economic players
(National Economic Advisory Council, 2010). With 516 responses, the response rate
was 64.5 percent. As a match was required between self- and peer-rated organizational
citizenship behavior, 48 self-rated questionnaires were discarded, leaving a balance of
468 paired self- and peer-ratings, for a final response rate of 58.5 percent. Respondent
demographics are shown in Table I.

Procedures
The questionnaires were distributed to human resource personnel in each organization.
The contact person was to inform all employees of the study through e-mail. Eligible
employees were volunteers who had to have at least one year of service with their current
PR Characteristic Frequency (f) Percentage
45,3
Sector
Finance 149 31.8
Private higher education 124 24.8
Manufacturing 116 26.5
Plantation 40 8.5
576 Others 33 7.1
Gender
Female 284 60.7
Male 175 37.4
Age
Less than 20 years old 1 0.2
20-29 years old 160 34.2
30-39 years old 214 45.7
40-49 years old 69 14.7
50-59 years old 14 3.0
More than 60 years old 4 0.9
Position
Non-managers 348 74.4
Managers 86 18.4
Senior managers 8 1.7
Race
Malays 200 42.7
Chinese 192 41.0
Indian 29 6.2
Education
Diploma 142 30.3
Bachelor 189 40.4
Master 51 10.9
Doctorate 6 1.3
Other qualifications 70 15.0
Length of service with the current employer
Less than 5 years 291 62.2
6-10 years 89 19.0
11-15 years 33 7.1
Table I. 16-20 years 28 6.0
Respondent More than 20 years 24 5.1
demographics Note: The percents in the table do not add up to 100 percent due to missing data

employer. Each participant received two packages with one containing a self-rating
and one containing a peer-rating questionnaire with a stamped addressed envelope.
Both packages included instructions. Employees completed the self-rating questionnaire.
The peer-rating organizational citizenship behavior questionnaire was to be completed
by a peer selected by the employees as someone who knew them well. The questionnaires
were numerically coded to link responses. The instrument used English to represent the
three major ethnicities in Malaysia because English has been used for learning,
development, and staying connected with English-speaking countries in dealing with
businesses at a global level (Tan, 2005). Participation was voluntary, anonymous, and
non-traceable. The Institutional Review Board granted approval for the procedures. Organizational
To express appreciation for responding, we gave a coffee voucher worth US$3 to those citizenship
completing a separate voucher form (optional) with name and address.
behavior
Measures
Three measures were included in the questionnaire: organizational citizenship
behavior, affective commitment, and intention to leave using a five-point Likert-type 577
scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
Organizational citizenship behavior. Organizational citizenship behavior was
measured using self- and peer-rating organizational citizenship behavior
questionnaires. Both questionnaires used a 20-item short-form questionnaire developed
by Podsakoff et al. (1990) and validated by Chiang and Hsieh (2012) and Lin et al. (2010)
with factor loadings above 0.50. The questionnaire used five dimensions: altruism, civic
virtue, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, and courtesy. An example self-rating item is,
“I help others who have heavy workloads,” and a peer-rating item is, “My colleague does
not take extra breaks.” After deleting the low factor loading items, five dimensions were
reduced to four (deleting sportsmanship) with 13 items. Reliability coefficients for the
four dimensions (conscientiousness, courtesy, altruism, and civic virtue) with self-ratings
were 0.70, 0.73, 0.68, and 0.71, respectively, with an overall α of 0.81. Five dimensions
with 14 items remained for the peer-ratings. Reliability coefficients for the five
dimensions (conscientiousness, courtesy, altruism, sportsmanship, and civic virtue) of
peer-ratings were 0.55, 0.75, 0.75, 0.59, and 0.74, respectively, with an overall α of 0.83.
The reliabilities for self-ratings were at or just below the 0.70 desired, while two of the five
for peer-ratings were low, falling below 0.70. These are consistent with reliabilities found
in previous research (Rioux and Penner, 2001; Ziegler et al., 2012).
Affective commitment. Affective commitment was measured using eight items
developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). The instrument was found in previous studies to
have the necessary psychometric properties with factor loadings above 0.70
(Camelo-Ordaz et al., 2011; Matzler et al., 2011). The Cronbach’s α in the current
study was 0.75. Previous studies found reliabilities ranging from 0.83 to 0.87 (Liu, 2009;
Sanders et al., 2008). An example of a reverse-scored item is, “I do not feel like ‘part of
the family’ at my organization.” In this study, affective commitment were divided into
two factors, three items determined positive affective feeling (reliability estimate
0.57, below the desired minimum), and three items measured belonging to the organization
(reliability estimate 0.79). Overall reliability of affective commitment was 0.74.
Intention to leave. Intention to leave was measured using five items. Landau and
Hammer (1986) developed three items, such as “I am seriously thinking about quitting
my job.” One item was taken from the Michigan Organizational Assessment
Questionnaire (Nadler et al., 1975), and another item was taken from Wayne et al. (1997).
The reliability of this measure was 0.85. Previous studies found reliabilities ranging
from 0.80 to 0.89 for this construct (Bauer et al., 2006; Lazarova and Caligiuri, 2002).
Control variables. Consistent with prior studies (Biswas and Varma, 2012; Paré and
Tremblay, 2007; Ziegler et al., 2012); age, gender, organizational tenure, and position
were treated as control variables.

Data analysis
Structural equation modeling is used to examine relationships between unobservable
factors represented by observable constructs (Hair et al., 2006). Fit indices are used to
PR determine model fit. The recommended fit indices are: significant p-values can be
45,3 expected; normed χ2/df with a ratio of 3 to 1 or less indicating better fit; comparative fit
index (CFI) more than 0.92; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) more than 0.92; and root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) less than 0.07 (Hair et al., 2006).
Before estimating the proposed model, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis
to assess the unidimensionality, validity, and reliability of each construct. The expected
578 four-factor solution (affective commitment, self-rated organizational citizenship
behavior, peer-rated organizational citizenship behavior, and intention to leave)
displayed adequate fit with the data (χ2 (df ¼ 563) ¼ 944.20, CFI ¼ 0.93, GFI ¼ 0.90,
RMSEA ¼ 0.04). Table II provides the construct measurement summary. Table III
shows the correlations for the constructs in this paper.

Findings
Table IV shows the correlations between study variables and demographic measures.
As suggested by Becker (2005), Carlson and Wu (2012), Spector and Brannick (2011), and
others, we first examined the hypothesized relationships using regression models that
did not include any control variables, and we then assessed how adding theoretically
relevant control variables affected our findings, using hierarchical linear regression
analysis. We added gender, age, tenure, and position as control variables (e.g. Ziegler
et al., 2012). In the first step, self-rated organizational citizenship behavior was regressed
on gender, age, tenure, position, and affective commitment. In the second step, peer-rated
organizational citizenship behavior was regressed on gender, age, tenure, position, and
affective commitment. In the third step, intention to leave was regressed on gender, age,
tenure, position, and affective commitment. Proceeding with more proximal variables, in
further steps, self-rated organizational citizenship behavior and peer-rated organizational
citizenship behavior were added to the intention to leave regression equation,
respectively. Table V presents the results of each step of the regression analysis.
In the first step, age, tenure, and affective commitment were significantly related to
self-rated organizational citizenship behavior. The second and the third steps show that
only affective commitment was significantly related to peer-rated organizational
citizenship behavior and intention to leave. For intention to leave, further steps
revealed that relationships remained stable.
The hypothesized structural paths were shown in Figure 1, and the actual paths are
shown in Figure 2. The structural model fits well with its fit indices of χ2 ¼ 1,120.67,
df ¼ 614, po0.001, CFI ¼ 0.90, GFI ¼ 0.89, RMSEA ¼ 0.04. Affective commitment predicts
both self-rated organizational citizenship behavior ( β ¼ 0.76, po0.001) and peer-rated
organizational citizenship behavior ( β ¼ 0.27, p W 0.001). In addition, self-rated
organizational citizenship behavior is also significantly related to intention to leave
( β ¼ 0.73, po0.001) but not peer-rated organizational citizenship behavior ( β ¼ 0.08,
pW0.05). Affective commitment negatively affected intention to leave ( β ¼ −1.42,
po0.001). We also performed Sobel (1982) test for assessing the mediating effects of
self-rated organizational citizenship behavior on affective commitment and intention to
leave. Self-rated organizational citizenship behavior partially mediates the relationship
between affective commitment and intention to leave (Sobel test, z ¼ 2.48W1.96, po0.05)
but not peer-rated organizational citizenship behavior (Sobel test, z ¼ 1.36o1.96, ns). Hence:
H1, H2 and H5 were supported.
H3, H4, and H7 were rejected.
H6 was partially supported.
 Standardized
Organizational
Construct Item loading a
Reliability SCR , AVEb citizenship
behavior
AC AC _F1
1. I would be very happy to spend the 0.71 SCR ¼ 0.57, AVE ¼ 0.32
rest of my career with this
organization 579
2. I enjoy discussing my organization 0.46
with people outside it
3. I really feel as if this organization’s 0.48
problems are my own
AC _F2
1. I do not feel “emotionally attached” 0.79 SCR ¼ 0.79, AVE ¼ 0.56
to this organization
2. This organization has a great deal 0.73
of personal meaning for me
3. I do not feel a strong sense of 0.73
belonging to my organization
χ2 ¼ 21.367; df ¼ 8; GFI ¼ 0.99; CFI ¼ 0.98; RMSEA ¼ 0.03
Self-rated Conscientiousness
OCB 1. I do not take extra breaks 0.53 SCR ¼ 0.70, AVE ¼ 0.44
2. I obey company rules and 0.73
regulations even when no one is
watching
3. I am one of the most conscientious 0.71
employees
Courtesy
1. I take steps to try to prevent 0.61 SCR ¼ 0.73 AVE ¼ 0.47
problems with other workers
2. I do not abuse the rights of others 0.71
3. I try to avoid creating problems for 0.73
coworkers
Altruism
1. I help others who have been absent 0.50 SCR ¼ 0.68, AVE ¼ 0.35
2. I help others who have heavy work 0.61
loads
3. I help orient new people even 0.63
though it is not required
4. I willingly help others who have 0.63
work-related problems
Civic virtue
1. I attend meetings that are not 0.51 SCR ¼ 0.71, AVE ¼ 0.46
mandatory, but are considered
important
2. I keep abreast of changes in the 0.74
organization
3. I read and keep up with 0.75
organization announcement,
memos, and so on
χ2 ¼ 127.285; df ¼ 61; GFI ¼ 0.96; CFI ¼ 0.95; RMSEA ¼ 0.05 Table II.
Confirmatory factor
analysis (by item)
(continued ) and scale reliabilities
PR Standardized
45,3 Construct Item loading Reliability SCRa, AVEb
Peer-rated Conscientiousness
OCB 1. My colleague is always punctual 0.47 SCR ¼ 0.55, AVE ¼ 0.29
2. My colleague does not take extra 0.52
breaks
580 3. My colleague is one of the most 0.62
conscientious employees
Civic virtue
1. My colleague attends functions that 0.67 SCR ¼ 0.74, AVE ¼ 0.49
are not required, but help the
company image
2. My colleague keeps abreast of 0.77
changes in the organization
3. My colleague reads and keeps up 0.65
with organization announcement,
memos, and so on
Courtesy
1. My colleague takes steps to try to 0.58 SCR ¼ 0.75, AVE ¼ 0.50
prevent problems with other workers
2. My colleague tries to avoid creating 0.75
problems for coworkers
3. My colleague considers the impact of 0.78
his/her actions on his/her coworkers
Altruism
1. My colleague helps others who have 0.63 SCR ¼ 0.75, AVE ¼ 0.50
heavy work loads
2. My colleague helps orient new 0.71
people even though it is not
required
3. My colleague willingly helps others 0.78
who have work-related problems
Sportsmanship
1. My colleague consumes a lot of time 0.77 SCR ¼ 0.59, AVE ¼ 0.43
complaining about trivial matters
2. My colleague always focus on 0.52
what’s wrong, rather than the
positive side
χ2 ¼ 184.569; df ¼ 72; GFI ¼ 0.95; CFI ¼ 0.94; RMSEA ¼ 0.06
Intention Intention to leave
to leave 1. As soon as I can find a better job, 0.79 SCR ¼ 0.85, AVE ¼ 0.58
I will leave (the company’s name)
2. I am actively looking for a job 0.81
outside (the company’s name)
3. I am seriously thinking of quitting 0.70
my job
4. I often think of quitting my job at 0.75
(the company’s name)
χ2 ¼ 3.60; df ¼ 2; GFI ¼ 0.99; CFI ¼ 0.99; IFI ¼ 0.99; NFI ¼ 0.99; RMSEA ¼ 0.04
Notes: AC, affective commitment (AC-Factor1 ¼ AC-Factor 1; AC-Factor2 ¼ AC-Factor 2). OCB,
organizational citizenship behavior. aScale composite reliability ñc ¼ (Óëi)2 var(î)/[(Óëi)2 var(î)+Óèii]
(Bagozzi and Yi, 1988); baverage variance extracted ñc ¼ (Óëi)2 var(î)/[(Óëi)2 var(î)+Óèii] (Fornell and
Table II. Larcker, 1981)
 Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. ACF1 3.06 0.67 1

2. ACF2 3.61 0.77 0.39** 1
3. OCBSECON 3.51 0.68 0.33** 0.20** 1
4. OCBSECOU 3.87 0.60 0.09* 0.06 0.26** 1
5. OCBSEALT 3.67 0.50 0.31** 0.21** 0.42** 0.32** 1
6. OCBSECVI 3.47 0.60 0.45** 0.32** 0.41** 0.33** 0.42** 1
7. OCBPRCON 3.49 0.59 0.10** 0.08** 0.19** −0.06** 0.04** 0.08** 1
8. OCBPRCVI 3.44 0.62 0.17** 0.12** 0.17** −0.01** 0.04** 0.15** 0.46** 1
9. OCBPRCOU 3.71 0.55 0.12** 0.11** 0.08** 0.01** 0.02** 0.11** 0.42** 0.38** 1
10. OCBPRALT 3.64 0.61 0.06** 0.03** 0.13** −0.05** 0.07** 0.09** 0.50** 0.42** 0.47** 1
11. OCBPRSPO 3.54 0.75 0.05** 0.22** 0.13** 0.07** −0.01** 0.16** 0.30** 0.12** 0.29** 0.22** 1
12. IL 2.42 0.84 −0.37** −0.55** −0.14** −0.06** −0.13** −0.30** −0.08** −0.13** −0.09** −0.05** −0.15** 1
Notes: AC, affective commitment; OCB, organizational citizenship behavior; IL, intention to leave. 1, AC factor 1; 2, AC factor 2; 3, OCB self-rated
conscientiousness; 4, OCB self-rated courtesy; 5, OCB self-rated altruism; 6, OCB self-rated civic virtue; 7, OCB peer-rated conscientiousness; 8, OCB peer-rated
civic virtue; 9, OCB peer-rated courtesy; 10, OCB peer-rated altruism; 11, OCB self-rated sportsmanship; 12, IL. *p o0.05; **p o 0.01; ***p o0.001
citizenship

Descriptive and
Table III.
behavior
Organizational

correlation matrix
581
 PR
45,3

582

Table IV.

correlations
deviations, and
Means, standard
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Gender 1.38 0.49 −

2. Agea 2.89 0.83 0.20 −
3. Positionb 1.24 0.48 0.24** 0.20** −
4. Service tenurec 2.72 1.15 0.04 0.58** 0.14** −
5. Affective commitment 3.33 0.72 0.03 0.10* 0.22** 0.13** −
6. Self-rated OCB 3.63 0.60 0.02 0.16** 0.19** 0.06 0.40** −
7. Peer-rated OCB 3.56 0.62 −0.06 0.10* 0.13** 0.09* 0.18* 0.14** −
8. Intention to leave 2.42 0.84 0.03 −0.16** −0.16** −0.16** −0.56** −0.22** −0.14** −
Notes: OCB, organizational citizenship behavior. aAge 1 ¼ less than 20 years old, 2 ¼ 20-29 years old, 3 ¼ 30-39 years old, 4 ¼ 40-49 years old, 5 ¼ 50-59 years
old, 6 ¼ more than 60; bposition 1 ¼ non-managerial, 2 ¼ manager, 3 ¼ senior manager; cservice tenure 1 ¼ less than a year, 2 ¼ 1-5 years, 3 ¼ 6-10 years,
4 ¼ 11-15 years, 5 ¼ 16-20 years, 6 ¼ more than 20 years. *p o0.05; **p o 0.01
 OCB self-rated OCB peer-rated Intention to leave
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6
B (SE) t B (SE) t B (SE) t B (SE) t B (SE) t B (SE) t

Constant −0.75 −0.82 −1.03 −1.04 −0.17 −0.20 −0.16 −0.19 −0.18 −0.22 −0.17 −0.21
(0.89) (0.99) (0.83) (0.83) (0.83) (0.83)
Gender −0.03 −0.32 −0.17 −1.64 0.08 0.99 0.08 0.99 0.08 0.96 0.08 0.97
(0.09) (0.10) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08) (0.08)
Age 0.21 3.18** 0.08 1.11 −0.05 −0.88 −0.06 −0.91 −0.05 −0.86 −0.05 −0.89
(0.07) (0.07) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06)
Service tenure −0.08 −1.89* 0.01 0.17 −0.06 −1.31 −0.06 −1.28 −0.06 −1.31 −0.05 −1.28
(0.05) (0.05) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04)
Position
Non-managerial 0.68 0.76 1.03 1.04 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.15 0.18
(0.89) (0.99) (0.82) (0.83) (0.83) (0.83)
Manager 1.02 1.14 1.35 1.36 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.09
(0.89) (0.99) (0.99) (0.83) (0.83) (0.83)
Senior manager 0.57 0.60 1.25 1.19 −0.04 −0.05 −0.05 −0.06 −0.03 −0.03 −0.04 −0.04
(0.94) (1.1) (0.87) (0.87) (0.87) (0.88)
Affect commitment 0.39 8.78*** 0.16 3.36** −0.55 −13.56*** −0.55 −12.57*** −0.55 −13.32*** −0.55 −12.40***
(0.04) (0.05) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04)
Self-rated OCB 0.01 0.25 0.01 0.26
(0.05) (0.05)
Peer-rated OCB −0.01 −0.31 −0.01 −0.3
(0.04) (0.04)
R2 0.21*** 0.07** 0.34*** 0.34*** 0.34*** 0.34***
Notes: OCB, organizational citizenship behavior. In Step 1, self-rated OCB was first regressed on gender, age, and service tenure, followed by affective
commitment; in Step 2, peer-rated OCB was first regressed on gender, age, and service tenure, followed by affective commitment; in Step 3, intention to leave
was first regressed on gender, age, and service tenure, followed by affective commitment; in Step 4, intention to leave was first regressed on gender, age, and
service tenure, followed by affective commitment and self-rated OCB; in Step 5, intention to leave was first regressed on gender, age, and service tenure,
followed by affective commitment and peer-rated OCB. *p o 0.10; **p o0.01; ***p o0.001
citizenship

leave
regression on OCB
and intention to
behavior
Organizational

Hierarchical linear
Table V.
583
PR Conscientiousness Courtesy Altruism Civic virtue

45,3
0.75*** 0.87***
0.47***
0.74***

Self-rated
OCB I2L1
0.76*** 0.73**
0.80***
584 ACF1 0.81***
Intention to 0.78***
I2L1
Affective –1.42***
Leave
commitment 0.72***
I2L1
ACF2
0.64***
0.27*** Peer-rated 0.08 0.75***
I2L1
OCB

0.98*** 0.70*** 0.79*** 0.70*** 0.48***

Figure 2. Conscientiousness Courtesy Altruism Civic virtue Sportsmanship

Structural equation
modeling results Notes: 2 = 1,120.67; df = 614; p < 0.001; CFI = 0.90; GFI = 0.89;
RMSEA = 0.04. **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

Discussion
As identified in our literature review, more research was needed comparing self and
peers’ perspectives. The literature showed inconsistent relationships between affective
commitment, and self- and peer-rated organizational citizenship behavior. Though
most studies have been conducted in Western contexts, those findings are not
generalizable to Southeast Asian contexts. Hence, this paper fills an important gap by
examining the mediating effects of self- and peer-rated organizational citizenship
behavior between affective commitment and intention to leave in a Malaysian context.
Affective commitment increases self-rated organizational citizenship behavior,
which is aligned with the literature (Belschak and Hartog, 2010; Kehoe and Wright,
2013; Yang, 2012). Though Malaysian employees rank high on altruistic values (Infeld
et al., 2010), self-rated organizational citizenship behavior increases intention to leave,
the opposite of what was proposed. There are three main cultural reasons to explain
this relationship in Malaysia. First, Malaysian employees’ work values have been
shifting toward competitive in nature with the assumption of urbanization and rising
income in Malaysia (Noordin and Jusoff, 2010). Competitive requires them to place high
priority on extrinsic values, such as high salary and benefits (Infeld et al., 2010; Islam
and Ismail, 2008), leading to their intention to leave for better offers and opportunities.
Second, high power distance and collectivism in Malaysia are embedded in the system,
emphasizing building and maintaining personal relationships with immediate
supervisors and obeying and respecting hierarchical authorities (Hofstede, 2001;
Lehmann, 2009). Such systems benefit some while disadvantaging others (Lehmann,
2009). Moreover, power to make decision is given to only one person in organizations.
Such centralization increases intention to leave (Lehmann, 2009). Finally, network
interpersonal behaviors, such as maintaining and building relationships with internal
and external contacts, may explain monthly gross income and subjective career
success (Mohd Rasdi et al., 2013). Such behaviors are considered to be prosocial
behaviors (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986) that operate based on norms of reciprocity. That
means that, if organizations or those who helped do not recognize such behaviors as
reciprocated, employees increase their intention to leave. Thus, when organizational
citizenship behavior is under pressure, without further understanding of the system, Organizational
intention to leave increases (Bolino et al., 2010). citizenship
Employee and peer perspectives enhance each other. Peers agree with employees
that performing extra work is influenced by affective commitment, as genuine
behavior
comments are difficult to reflect in words in collectivist cultures (Kennedy, 2002;
Lehmann, 2009). Social convention requires complimentary remarks (Blau, 1996).
Moreover, such cultures stress saving face to maintain membership in the system 585
(Hofstede, 2001). Therefore, affective commitment influences organizational citizenship
behavior from peer perspectives in Malaysia.
However, peer-rated organizational citizenship behavior does not influence intention
to leave. In collectivist cultures, personal relationships are emphasized (Hofstede, 2001),
and it is natural to show continuous exchange relationships in order to sustain
existence of the group (Kanter, 1968). An employee needs to be a team player to protect
social harmony, such as being a considerate player (Kennedy, 2002). Such behaviors as
perceived by peers are more important for the sustainability of the group than
employees’ intention to leave.
Affective commitment decreases intention to leave. In particular, organizations in
Malaysia are interested in retaining employees who have good attitudes; they keep
them committed through developmental programs (Lehmann, 2009). When employees
find fit between personal skills and job requirements, they become committed to
organizations in Malaysia and decreases their intention to leave (Juhdi et al., 2013).

Limitations
While the study was conducted rigorously, there are limitations. First, it is a cross-
sectional study, limiting the causal relationships among the variables. The data were
collected at a specific point in time. Second, the convenience sampling design limits the
generalizability of the findings to a larger population in Malaysia. Third, intention to
leave is not a measure of actual turnover. Thus, caution is needed when interpreting the
findings. However, intention to leave is a popular proximal variable for behavioral
turnover (Maertz et al., 2007). Employees may leave the company due to reasons other
than affective commitment. Finally, none of the instruments are indigenous to
Malaysia; they have all been imported from the USA.

Recommendations for practice

The study enlightens practitioners in a few ways. First, human resource practitioners
need to balance their perspectives when implementing certain norms in organizations
that promote organizational citizenship behaviors. As self-rated organizational
citizenship behavior may increase intention to leave, Malaysian human resource
practitioners may need to shift their focus if the intention is to retain employees.
However, from peer perspectives, organizational citizenship behavior is important to
promote social harmony and sustainability of the group. Such behaviors may be more
important than employees' intention to leave. As such, human resource practitioners
need to consider both perspectives by understanding the needs of employees. Different
human resource practices can be implemented to close the economic and social divides
between groups. Second, as the external environment is becoming more diverse and
competitive, human resource practitioners need to pay more attention to affective
commitment that may reduce intention to leave. Strategic human resource plans may
be aligned at the core of the business by implementing needs-based policies,
PR competitive salary and benefits, developmental programs, and favorable work cultures.
45,3 Finally, as organizational citizenship behavior is not helpful in employee retention, its
value may be in promoting solidarity and overall functioning of groups and
organizations. As such, self and peer perspectives may be important in providing a
more complete picture of the needs and motives of employees through organizational
citizenship behavior.
586
Recommendations for future research
Future research might investigate how national cultures influence the relationships
among affective commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and intention to
leave. As the study used cross-sectional data, a longitudinal study should be conducted
to understand the causal relationships among the variables. Though intention to leave
is a proximal cause to turnover behaviors, actual turnover behavior is recommended
for use in future study. Last, a proper stratified sampling design is required to
allow generalization.

References
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization”, Journal of Occupational Psychology,
Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Allen, T.D., Barnard, S., Rush, M.C. and Russell, J.E. (2000), “Ratings of organizational citizenship
behavior: does the source make a difference?”, Human Resource Management Review,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 97-114.
Arasli, H. and Tumer, M. (2008), “Nepotism, favoritism and cronyism: a study of their effects on
job stress and job satisfaction in the banking industry of North Cyprus”, Social Behavior
and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 1237-1250.
Arshad, R. and Sparrow, P. (2010), “Downsizing and survivor reactions in Malaysia: modelling
antecedents and outcomes of psychological contract violation”, The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, Vol. 21 No. 11, pp. 1793-1815.
Atwater, L., Waldman, D., Ostroff, C., Robie, C. and Johnson, K.M. (2005), “Self-other agreement:
comparing its relationship with performance in the US and Europe”, International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 25-40.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bauer, T.N., Erdogan, B., Liden, R.C. and Wayne, S.J. (2006), “A longitudinal study of the
moderating role of extraversion: leader-member exchange, performance, and turnover
during new executive development”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 2,
pp. 298-310.
Becker, T.E. (2005), “Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational
research: a qualitative analysis with recommendations”, Organizational Research Methods,
Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 274-289.
Belschak, F.D. and Hartog, D.N. (2010), “Pro-self, pro-social, and pro-organizational foci of
proactive behavior: differential antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 475-498.
Bergman, M.E. (2006), “The relationship between affective and normative commitment:
review and research agenda”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 5,
pp. 645-663.
Berman, E.M., West, J.P. and Richter, M.N. Jr (2002), “Workplace relations: friendship patterns Organizational
and consequences (according to managers)”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 62 No. 2,
pp. 217-230.
citizenship
Biswas, S. and Varma, A. (2012), “Linkages between antecedents of in-role performance and
behavior
intentions to quit: an investigation in India”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 987-1005.
Blau, P.M. (1996), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ. 587
Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H., Gilstrap, J.B. and Suazo, M.M. (2010), “Citizenship under pressure:
what’s a ‘good soldier’ to do?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 6,
pp. 835-855.
Bolino, M.C., Varela, J.A., Bande, B. and Turnley, W.H. (2006), “The impact of impression-
management tactics on supervisor ratings of organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 281-297.
Bowler, W.M., Halbesleben, J.R. and Paul, J.R. (2010), “If you’re close with the leader, you must be
a brownnose: the role of leader-member relationships in follower, leader, and coworker
attributions of organizational citizenship behavior motives”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 309-316.
Brief, A.P. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1986), “Prosocial organizational behaviors”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 710-725.
Brutus, S., Derayeh, M., Fletcher, C., Bailey, C., Velazquez, P., Shi, K., Simon, C. and Labath, V.
(2006), “Internationalization of multi-source feedback systems: a six-country exploratory
analysis of 360-degree feedback”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 17 No. 11, pp. 1888-1906.
Camelo-Ordaz, C., Garcia-Cruz, J., Sousa-Ginel, E. and Valle-Cabrera, R. (2011), “The influence of
human resource management on knowledge sharing and innovation in Spain: the
mediating role of affective commitment”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 1442-1463.
Carlson, K.D. and Wu, J. (2012), “The illusion of statistical control: control variable
practice in management research”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 696-717.
Chiang, C.F. and Hsieh, T.S. (2012), “The impacts of perceived organizational support and
psychological empowerment on job performance: the mediating effects of organizational
citizenship behavior”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 180-190.
Cho, D. and Kwon, D.B. (2005), “Self-directed learning readiness as an antecedent of
organizational commitment: a Korean study”, International Journal of Training and
Development, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 140-152.
Coyne, I. and Ong, T. (2007), “Organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intention:
a cross-cultural study”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 18
No. 6, pp. 1085-1097.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Deery, S., Nath, V. and Walsh, J. (2013), “Why do off-shored Indian call centre workers
want to leave their jobs?”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 212-226.
Drexler, J.A., Beehr, T.A. and Stetz, T.A. (2001), “Peer appraisals: differentiation of individual
performance on group tasks”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 40 No. 4,
pp. 333-345.
PR Dunning, D., Heath, C. and Suls, J.M. (2004), “Flawed self-assessment implications for health,
education, and the workplace”, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 5 No. 3,
45,3 pp. 69-106.
Felfe, J. and Yan, W.H. (2009), “The impact of workgroup commitment on organizational
citizenship behavior, absenteeism and turnover intention: the case of Germany and China”,
Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 433-450.
588 Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
George, J.M. and Brief, A.P. (1992), “Feeling good-doing good: a conceptual analysis of the mood
at work-organizational spontaneity relationship”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 112 No. 2,
pp. 310-329.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement”, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-178.
Gould-Williams, J. and Mohamed, R.B. (2010), “A comparative study of the effects of ‘best
practice’ HRM on worker outcomes in Malaysia and England local government”,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 653-675.
Grant, A.M. and Ashford, S.J. (2008), “The dynamics of proactivity at work”, Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 3-34.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data
Analysis, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hartog, D.N. and Belschak, F.D. (2007), “Personal initiative, commitment and affect at work”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 601-622.
Hoffman, B., Lance, C.E., Bynum, B. and Gentry, W.A. (2010), “Rater source effects are alive and
well after all”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 119-151.
Hoffman, B.J. and Woehr, D.J. (2009), “Disentangling the meaning of multisource performance
rating source and dimension factors”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 735-765.
Hofstede, G.H. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and
Organizations Across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hooft, E.A., Flier, H. and Minne, M.R. (2006), “Construct validity of multi-source performance
ratings: an examination of the relationship of self-, supervisor-, and peer-ratings with
cognitive and personality measures”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 67-81.
Hutchison, A. and Burch, G.S.J. (2011), “Senior-executive performance: inter-rater reliability and
rater effects in multi-source ratings”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 49
No. 4, pp. 425-439.
Infeld, D.L., Adams, W.C., Qi, G. and Rosnah, N. (2010), “Career values of public administration
and public policy students in China, Malaysia and the United States”, International Journal
of Public Administration, Vol. 33 No. 14, pp. 800-815.
Islam, R. and Ismail, A.Z.H. (2008), “Employee motivation: a Malaysian perspective”,
International Journal of Commerce and Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 344-362.
Jo, S.J. and Joo, B.K. (2011), “Knowledge sharing: the influences of learning organization culture,
organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 353-364.
Juhdi, N., Pa’wan, F. and Hansaram, R.M.K. (2013), “HR practices and turnover intention: the
mediating roles of organizational commitment and organizational engagement in a selected
region in Malaysia”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24
No. 15, pp. 3002-3019.
Kabasakal, H., Dastmalchian, A. and Imer, P. (2011), “Organizational citizenship behavior: Organizational
a study of young executives in Canada, Iran, and Turkey”, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 13, pp. 2703-2729.
citizenship
behavior
Kanter, R.M. (1968), “Commitment and social organization: a study of commitment mechanisms
in utopian communities”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 499-517.
Kehoe, R.R. and Wright, P.M. (2013), “The impact of high-performance human resource practices
on employees’ attitudes and behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 366-391. 589
Kennedy, J.C. (2002), “Leadership in Malaysia: traditional values, international outlook”, The
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 15-26.
Landau, J. and Hammer, T.H. (1986), “Clerical employees’ perceptions of inter-organizational
career opportunities”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 385-404.
Lazarova, M. and Caligiuri, P. (2002), “Retaining repatriates: the role of organizational support
practices”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 389-401.
Lee, K., Allen, N.J., Meyer, J.P. and Rhee, K.Y. (2001), “The three-component model of
organisational commitment: an application to South Korea”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 50
No. 4, pp. 596-614.
Lehmann, S. (2009), “Motivating talents in Thai and Malaysian service firms”, Human Resource
Development International, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 155-169.
Liao, S.H., Hu, D.C. and Chung, H.Y. (2009), “The relationship between leader-member relations,
job satisfaction and organizational commitment in international tourist hotels in Taiwan”,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 1810-1826.
Lievens, F., Conway, J.M. and Corte, W. (2008), “The relative importance of task, citizenship and
counterproductive performance to job performance ratings: do rater source and team-
based culture matter?”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 81
No. 1, pp. 11-27.
Lin, C.P., Lyau, N.M., Tsai, Y.H., Chen, W.Y. and Chiu, C.K. (2010), “Modeling corporate
citizenship and its relationship with organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 357-372.
Liu, Y. (2009), “Perceived organizational support and expatriate organizational citizenship
behavior: the mediating role of affective commitment towards the parent company”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 307-319.
McLean, G.N. (1997), “Multirater 360 feedback”, in Bassi, L.J. and Russ-Eft, D. (Eds), What Works:
Assessment, Development, and Measurement, American Society for Training and
Development, Alexandria, VA, pp. 87-108.
Maertz, C.P., Griffeth, R.W., Campbell, N.S. and Allen, D.G. (2007), “The effects of perceived
organizational support and perceived supervisor support on employee turnover”, Journal
of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 1059-1075.
Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Mooradian, T., von Krogh, G. and Mueller, J. (2011), “Personality traits,
affective commitment, documentation of knowledge, and knowledge sharing”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 296-310.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), “Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and
consequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 20-52.
Mohd Rasdi, R., Garavan, T.N. and Ismail, M. (2013), “Networking behaviors and managers'
career success in the Malaysian public service: the moderating effect of gender”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 684-703.
PR Moneta, G.B., Amabile, T.M., Schatzel, E.A. and Kramer, S.J. (2010), “Multirater assessment of
creative contributions to team projects in organizations”, European Journal of Work and
45,3 Organizational Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 150-176.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979), “The measurement of organizational
commitment”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 224-247.
Nadler, D.A., Jenkins, G.D., Cammann, C. and Lawler, E.E. (1975), “The Michigan organizational
590 assessment package”, Progress Report II, Institute for Social Research, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
National Economic Advisory Council (2010), “New economic model for Malaysia”, available at:
www.pmo.gov.my/dokumenattached/NEM_Report_I.pdf (accessed July 16, 2013).
Noordin, F. and Jusoff, K. (2010), “Individualism-collectivism and job satisfaction between
Malaysia and Australia”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 159-174.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (2006), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its
Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Paillé, P. (2013), “Organizational citizenship behavior and employee retention: how important are
turnover cognitions?”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24
No. 4, pp. 768-790.
Paré, G. and Tremblay, M. (2007), “The influence of high-involvement human resources practices,
procedural justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors on information
technology professionals’ turnover intentions”, Group and Organization Management,
Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 326-357.
Paunonen, S.V. and O’Neill, T.A. (2010), “Self-reports, peer ratings and construct validity”,
European Journal of Personality, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 189-206.
Pettijohn, C., Pettijohn, L. and Taylor, A.J. (2008), “Salesperson perceptions of ethical behaviors:
their influence on job satisfaction and turnover intentions”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 547-557.
Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and Blume, B.D. (2009), “Individual-and
organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-
analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 122-141.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leader
behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-142.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and Bachrach, D.G. (2000), “Organizational
citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature
and suggestions for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 513-563.
Porter, L.W., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T. and Boulian, P.V. (1974), “Organizational commitment,
job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 603-609.
Regts, G. and Molleman, E. (2013), “To leave or not to leave: when receiving interpersonal
citizenship behavior influences an employee’s turnover intention”, Human Relations,
Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 193-218.
Riketta, M. (2002), “Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: a meta-
analysis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 257-266.
Rioux, S.M. and Penner, L.A. (2001), “The causes of organizational citizenship Organizational
behavior: a motivational analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 6,
pp. 1306-1314.
citizenship
behavior
Sanders, K., Dorenbosch, L. and de Reuver, R. (2008), “The impact of individual and shared
employee perceptions of HRM on affective commitment: considering climate strength”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 412-425.
Sobel, M.E. (1982), “Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models”, in 591
Leinhart, S. (Ed.), Sociological Methodology 1982, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA,
pp. 290-312.
Spector, P.E. and Brannick, M.T. (2011), “Methodological urban legends: the misuse of statistical
control variables”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 287-305.
Tan, P.K. (2005), “The medium-of-instruction debate in Malaysia: English as a Malaysian
language?”, Language Problems and Language Planning, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 47-66.
Teh, P.L. and Sun, H. (2012), “Knowledge sharing, job attitudes and organisational
citizenship behavior”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 112 No. 1,
pp. 64-82.
Toegel, G. and Conger, J.A. (2003), “360-degree assessment: time for reinvention”, Academy of
Management Learning and Education, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 297-311.
Tourangeau, A.E., Cummings, G., Cranley, L.A., Ferron, E.M. and Harvey, S. (2010),
“Determinants of hospital nurse intention to remain employed: broadening our
understanding”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 22-32.
Tourigny, L., Baba, V.V., Han, J. and Wang, X. (2013), “Emotional exhaustion and job
performance: the mediating role of organizational commitment”, The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 514-532.
Van Dyne, L. and Pierce, J.L. (2004), “Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: three
field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 439-459.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W. and Dienesch, R.M. (1994), “Organizational citizenship behavior:
construct redefinition, measurement, and validation”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 765-802.
Vazire, S. and Mehl, M.R. (2008), “Knowing me, knowing you: the accuracy and unique predictive
validity of self-ratings and other-ratings of daily behavior”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 5, pp. 1202-1216.
Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. and Liden, R.C. (1997), “Perceived organizational support and leader-
member exchange: a social exchange perspective”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 82-111.
Yang, Y.C. (2012), “High-involvement human resource practices, affective commitment, and
organizational citizenship behaviors”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 32 No. 8,
pp. 1209-1227.
Ziegler, R., Schlett, C., Casel, K. and Diehl, M. (2012), “The role of job satisfaction, job ambivalence,
and emotions at work in predicting organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 176-190.

Further reading
Organ, D.W. (1997), “Organizational citizenship behavior: it’s construct clean-up time”, Human
Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 85-97.
PR About the authors
45,3 Dr Patricia Yin Yin Lau is a Lecturer and Deputy Co-ordinator for Honours program in the School
of Business, Monash University Malaysia. Prior joining Monash, she was a Manager of Teaching
and Learning Centre at the Taylor’s University Malaysia. Her research interests focus on
organizational citizenship behavior, and transfer of learning. Dr Patricia Yin Yin Lau is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: patricia.lau@monash.edu
Dr Gary N. McLean is President of McLean Global Consulting, Inc., a family OD business.
592 He was a Senior Professor at the Texas A&M University and is Professor emeritus at the
University of Minnesota. He served as President of the Academy of HRD and the International
Management Development Association. His research interests focus on organization
development and national and international HRD.
Dr Bella Ya-Hui Lien is a Professor at the National Chung Cheng University, Taiwan.
Dr Bella Ya-Hui Lien’s research interests focus on organization development, training and
development, and career development. Her research is published in Journal of World Business,
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Journal of Career Development, International
Journal of Manpower, and Human Resource Development Quarterly, etc.
Yen-Chen Hsu is currently a Doctoral Student in the National Chung Cheng University.
Her research interests focus on moods/emotions at work and employee attitudes and behaviors.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.