Firm Orientation and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating and Moderating Effects of Organizational Trustworthiness and Social Value Orientation
Master thesis
Student: Sabina Erftemeijer / Student number: 11407794 MSc. Business Administration, Strategy track
University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business Student number: 11407794
Supervisor: dr. ir. J.W. Stoelhorst
University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business Date: 18-08-2017
2 STATEMENT OF ORGINALITY
This document is written by student Sabina Erftemeijer who declares to take full
responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ... 4 INTRODUCTION ... 6 LITERATURE REVIEW ... 8 RESULTS ... 40 ANALYSIS ... 44 DISCUSSION ... 59 CONCLUSION ... 64 REFERENCES ... 65 APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE... 764 ABSTRACT
Literature distinguishes between two management orientations of a firm: stakeholder-and profit-oriented firms. Elements of these management orientations influence stakeholder behavior (Quintelier et al., 2017). There has been great interest among scholars in
understanding the antecedents of motivated behavior in organizations. One specific form of such motivated behavior is organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Different scholars have argued the importance of OCB for organizational survival. Questions remain with respect to what causes some individuals to take actions that go above and beyond their formal job descriptions.
This study tried to examine the relationship between a firm’s management orientation and employee OCB by incorporating the mediating and moderating effect of organizational trustworthiness and social value orientation. A survey design was used to further explore these relationships. The results of the questionnaires confirmed a positive relationship between a firm’s stakeholder-orientation and OCB and a negative relationship between a firm’s profit-orientation and OCB, which was in line with the expectations. Furthermore, it was found that organizational trustworthiness mediates the relationships between a firm’s management orientation and OCB. The mediation was positive for a profit-orientation and negative for a stakeholder-orientation. Furthermore, a prosocial value orientation positively moderates the relationship between a profit-oriented firm and OCB-I. The hypotheses regarding the moderating effect of SVO on the relationship between profit-orientation and OCB-O and were not supported. However, when further investigated, a possible answer may lay in the fact how these employees evaluate their firm. The results did also not show support for the moderating effect of a prosocial value orientation on the relationship between a stakeholder-orientation and OCB-O.
5 The results further show that a proself value orientation negatively moderates the effect between a stakeholder-orientation and OCB-O, which is in line with the expectations. This study contributes to stakeholder literature by combining insights from social psychology and stakeholder theory. It furthermore contributes to research on individual-level
6 INTRODUCTION
Recent research on stakeholder theory emphasizes that human behavior is not purely based on self-interest, but also on reciprocal tendencies (Fehr and Gächter, 2000; Bridoux, Stofberg and Den Hartog, 2015; Quintelier, Stoelhorst and Bridoux, 2017). There has been great interest among scholars in understanding the antecedents to motivated behavior in
organizations. One specific form of positive reciprocity is organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Different scholars argue the importance of OCB. According to Katz (1964), three basic types of behavior are essential for a functioning organization: people must be induced to enter and remain within the system, they must carry out specific role requirements in a dependable fashion and there must be innovative and spontaneous activity that goes beyond role prescriptions. This last category is better known as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), which Organ (1998) described as: ‘individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization’ (Organ, 1988, p.212).
OCB has become a prominent topic of research, given the impact of OCB on
organizational outcomes. Questions remain with respect to what causes some individuals to take actions that go above and beyond their formal job descriptions. According to Quintelier et al. (2017), employee behavior is among others determined by elements of the management orientation of the firm. Literature distinguishes between profit- and stakeholder-oriented firms. But how does a firm’s management orientation influence positive stakeholder behavior, such as OCB?
In this thesis, I develop and test a theory predicting that a firm’s management orientation influences OCB, so that the relationship of a stakeholder-orientation on OCB is positive and the relationship of a profit-orientation on OCB is negative. I furthermore
7 relationship is more positive for stakeholder-oriented firms and less negative for
profit-oriented firms. Finally, I propose that the social value orientation of an employee moderates the relationship between a firm’s management orientation and OCB-I and OCB-O.
This study contributes to existing literature in different ways. First, insights from social psychology and stakeholder theory are combined. This study combines literature on social value orientation and organizational citizenship behavior with literature on
management orientation of the firm and organizational trustworthiness. Second, it contributes to research on individual-level heterogeneity in stakeholder theory by incorporating SVO as individual level differences. Finally, this study has managerial implications.
8 LITERATURE REVIEW
Stakeholder behavior
A critical assumption of classical economical theory is that people are self-interested. This means that they aim to maximize their own payoffs (Bridoux and Stoelhorst, 2014). However, recent research on stakeholder theory emphasizes that human behavior is not purely based on self-interest, but also on reciprocal tendencies (Fehr and Gächter, 2000; Bridoux, Stofberg and Den Hartog, 2015; Quintelier, Stoelhorst and Bridoux, 2017). In contrast to self-interested behavior, reciprocal behavior is norm-driven and other-regarding. Furthermore, reciprocal actors do not expect any form of material gains (Hahn, 2015). Literature distinguished some fundamental characteristics of reciprocal behavior (Kahneman, Knetsch and Thaler, 1986; Bosse, Philips and Harrison, 2009; Hahn, 2015). First, Falk, Fehr and Fischbacher (2008) argue that reciprocal behavior is triggered by norms of social fairness. Second, people react more positively to friendly actions, which can be seen as positive reciprocity, and people react more negatively to hostile actions, which is referred to as negative reciprocity (Fehr & Gächter, 2000). Therefore, reciprocal stakeholders strive to increase outcomes for the firm when they perceive the behavior of the firm as moral and fair, and vice versa (Bosse, Philips and Harrison, 2009; Hahn, 2015). At last, reciprocal actors take into account both their own outcomes and that of others (Bridoux et al., 2015).
One specific form of positive reciprocity is organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). This type of employee behavior goes above and beyond the formal job description and positively contributes to the organization (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine and Bachrach, 2000). Since different theorists argued the importance of OCB for organizational survival, the concept of OCB will be further examined in this thesis.
9 Organizational citizenship behavior
Katz (1964) identified three types of behavior essential for a functioning organization. First, people must be induced to enter and remain within the system. Second, They must carry out their role assignments in a dependable fashion. And lastly, they must be innovative and spontaneous activity in achieving organizational objectives, which go beyond the role
specifications (p.132). According to Katz (1964), this last requirement is often neglected, but vital to organizational survival and effectiveness. Theorists ascribe this phenomenon as organizational citizenship behavior (Organ, 1980).
Although there is agreement on the existence of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), there is less convergence on the comprehensiveness and theoretical underpinnings of these behaviors. Podsakoff et al. (2000) argue that OCB literature has more focussed on understanding the relationship between OCB and other concepts, rather than defining the dimensions of OCB itself.
Organ (1988) defined OCB as: ‘Individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or
explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization’ (p.3).
On the basis of this definition, some assumptions can be made. First, OCB is discretionary behavior, which means that these behaviors are not part of the formal job’s description. These behaviors are rather a matter of personal choice and are often described as behaviors that go beyond the call of duty (Jahangir, Akbar and Haq, 2004). According to Bateman and Organ (1983), OCB consists of informal contributions that participants can choose to proffer or withhold without regard to sanctions or formal incentives (in Organ, 1990). Smith, Organ and Near (1983) argue that organizational officials, like supervisors, will often notice frequent acts of OCB. In the long term, this will have some influence on appraisals of individual performance.
10
Furthermore, OCBs also contribute to the effective functioning of an organization. Organ (1988) argues that OCBs can maximize efficiency and productivity of the employee and organization as a whole (in Jahangir et al., 2004).
Over the years, more than thirty different forms of citizenship behaviors have been identified (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Examples are prosocial behavior (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986), extra-role behavior (Van Dyne and Cummings, 1990) and contextual performance (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993). However, OCB has some distinguishing features. Organizations cannot force their employees to perform these desired behaviors and employees on their turn cannot expect any kind of formal rewards.
According to McClelland (1961), OCB can best be seen as motive-based behavior. He argues that OCBs arise from an individual’s intrinsic need for a sense of achievement, competence, belonging or affiliation (in Jahangir et al., 2004).
Dimensions of OCB
Different scholars discussed the dimensionality of OCB, but there is a lack of consensus among them. However, Podsakoff et al. (2000) investigated these different dimensions and concluded that there is a lot of overlap between the different constructs.
Smith et al (1983) further investigated OCB as a construct. They distinguished between altruism and generalized compliance. Altruism is behavior directly and intentionally aimed at helping specific individuals. This can be the supervisor, co-worker or client (Organ, 1990). On the other hand, general compliance is a more impersonal form of OCB. It does not provide immediate aid to a specific person, but rather, indirectly, to others involved in the system (Smith, Organ and Near, 1983). It considers internalized norms: are things done in a ‘right and proper’ way? (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Besides the distinction between altruism and generalized compliance, Organ (1988) suggested that OCB contains other categories of
11
behavior that should be distinguishable from altruism or general compliance. He defined five dimensions of OCB:
Altruism is helping behavior towards other individuals. It contributes to group efficiency by enhancing individual’s performance (Organ, 1990).
Courtesy has been defined as discretionary behaviors that aim at preventing work-related conflicts with others (Organ, 1990).
Sportsmanship is defined as the behavior of warmly tolerating the irritations that are unavoidable in organizational settings (Lo and Ramayah, 2009). It improves the amount of time spent on constructive efforts in the organization (Organ, 1980). Civic Virtue is about behaviors that indicate the employees’ deep concerns and active
interest in the organization. According to Podsakoff et al. (2000), this reflects employees’ recognition of being part of the organization and accepts the
responsibilities it entails. An example of such behavior is attending to non-mandatory meetings and keeping up with the changes in the organization (Organ, 1988).
Conscientiousness consist of behaviors that go well beyond the minimum role requirements of the organization (Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang and Chen, 2005). Organ (1988) refers to dedication to the job that exceed formal requirements. The five categories defined by Organ (1988) as stated above, will be adopted as dimensions of OCB in this thesis.
Williams and Anderson (1991) distinguished between OCB-O and OCB-I, on the basis of to whom the behavior is directed. OCB-O refers to organizational citizenship behavior-organization and comprises behaviors directed to the organization. On the other hand, OCB-I refers to organizational citizenship behavior – individuals and comprises behaviors directed at individuals.
12
According to Ilis, Fulmer, Spitzmuller and Johnson (2009), clusters of behaviors fall into one of these two categories. Organ’s (1988) altruism and courtesy are enacted to benefit other people and fit into the OCB-I category, whereas conscientiousness, civic virtue and
sportsmanship are behaviors intended for the benefit of the organization and fit into the OCB-O category.
Since OCBs are essential for organizational survival and bring along positive
outcomes, different theorists studied antecedents of OCB. Examples of such antecedents are leadership styles (Euwema, Wendt and Emmerik, 2007), organizational culture (Suresh and Venkatammal, 2010), job satisfaction (Moorman, Niehoff and Organ, 1993; Organ and Lingl, 1995), organizational commitment (Williams and Anderson, 1991; Moorman et al., 1993) and fairness perceptions (Moorman et al., 1993). According to Quintelier, Stoelhorst and Bridoux (2017), some elements of a firm’s management orientation influence reciprocity and self-interested behavior. Since literature on this relationship is scarce, it might be interesting to further investigate the relation between the management orientation of a firm and certain types of stakeholder behavior, such as OCB.
Management orientation of the firm
Based on Jones, Felps and Bigley (2007), Quintelier et al. (2017) describe the management orientation of a firm as: ‘the firm’s motives and goals as well as the practices they lead to’ (p.7). Narver and Slater (1990) complement by arguing that a firm’s management orientation reflects the strategic directions in order to create the proper behaviors that leads to superior performance of the firm.
Quintelier et al. (2017) argue that different scholars have confirmed a relationship between the way individuals evaluate and behave towards actors, and the perceived motives, goals and behavioral patterns of that actor (Falk, Fehr & Fischbacher, 2008; McCabe, Rigdon and
13 Smith, 2003 in Quintelier et al., 2017). They emphasize the role of behavioral patterns since motives and goals cannot be perceived directly.
Based on these behavioral patterns, literature distinguishes between stakeholder-oriented firms and profit-oriented firms (Fiss and Zajac, 2004; Quintelier et al. 2017). Profit-oriented firms are considered as economic entities whose goals and motives are based on maximizing shareholder returns while respecting legal obligations (Friedman, 1970). However, stakeholder theorists argue that companies have a wider responsibility that goes beyond profit maximization and legal compliance (Hahn, 2015). They suggest that, in order to achieve high performance, firms should adopt a perspective that incorporates the needs and demands of multiple stakeholder groups (Harrison, Bosse, Philips, 2010; Hillman and Keim, 20001). Stakeholder-oriented firms are defined as ‘social institutions whose purpose it is to further the interest of the corporation, while considering the interests of multiple stakeholders’ (Fiss and Zajac, 2004, p.501). Stakeholder-oriented firms are motivated by social norms and strive to increase the well being of their stakeholders and society at large (Freeman et al., 2010; Quintelier et al., 2017).
A key difference between those two orientations is what makes business successful. Profit-oriented firms’ goals and motives are based on profit maximization and efficiency and stakeholder-oriented firms’ goals and motives are based on the motives of multiple stakeholders (Freeman et al, 2010).
Quintelier et al. (2017) argue that stakeholder behavior depends on whether the firm is oriented or profit-oriented. They suppose that this relationship in a stakeholder-oriented firm can be based on fairness perceptions and trust, and in a profit-orientated firm on competence. They furthermore argue that these differences are due to two types of
14 Stakeholder evaluations of the firm
Literature has paid little attention to the relationship between a firm’s management orientation and stakeholder behavior such as OCB. Quintelier et al. (2017) evaluated the mediating effect of stakeholder evaluations of the firm. They distinguished between moralistic and strategic evaluations.
In the same line of thinking, Judd, James-Hawkins, Yzerbyt and Kasima (2005) suppose that there are two dimensions that underlie the judgements of people, groups and organization. The first dimension includes attributes such as competence, agency and individualism and the second one comprises impressions of warmth, communality and collectivism.
Although different scholars recognized the fact that stakeholder behavior depends on stakeholder evaluations of the firm, little attention is paid to further investigate these
evaluations or other similar constructs and their underpinnings that might influence positive stakeholder behavior, such as OCB. Since OCB is known for its positive outcomes in organizations, and moreover, is needed for organizational survival, it is important to further study the relationship between a firm’s management orientation and OCB, and conditions that may influence it. This thesis will further study this relationship by examining the question: ‘What is the effect of the management orientation of a firm on employee OCB and how is this relationship mediated by organizational trustworthiness’. Furthermore, the moderating effect of social value orientation (SVO) on the direct relationship will be examined, by incorporating the difference between prosocial and proselfs and OCB-I and OCB-O. For example: are prosocials that work for a profit-oriented firm likely to engage in OCB-O’s?
15 Organizational trustworthiness as a potential mediator
Since employee behavior is among others determined by their evaluations of the firm they work for (Hahn, 2015), it is likely to incorporate an evaluation-based moderator in order to investigate this relationship. In the same line of thinking as Judd et al. (2005) and Quintelier et al. (2017), organizational trustworthiness is introduced as a potential moderator between a firm’s management orientation and OCB.
Since different theorists confirmed a relationship between trust and OCB (Deluga, 1994; Konovsky and Pugh, 1994), trustworthiness, as antecedent of trust, might be interested to investigate because it tries to explain why a party has greater or lesser amount of trust for another party.
There is no generally accepted definition of trust, but there are a number of common elements that have been identified in the literature. A widely used definition of trust is that of Mayer et al. (1995), who define trust as:
‘The willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party’ (p.712).
Literature distinguishes different forms of trust. Three well-known types are personal-, system- and institutional trust (Greenwood and Van Buren, 2010). The latter two imply that trust can be a collective attribute. Moore (2005) argues that trust can be attributed to the organization as a whole when the organization is seen as a moral actor with the capacity to hold virtuous characteristics (in Greenwood and Van Buren, 2010). They refer to this as organizational trust and provide the following definition:
‘Organizational trust refers to the trust between individuals, and/or groups of individuals, and the organization as an entity’ (p.430).
16 Nowadays, literature distinguishes trust from trustworthiness and trust propensity (Colquitt, Scott and LePine, 2007). According to Mayer et al. (1995), trustworthiness and trust
propensity can be seen as antecedents of trust.
Next to the fact that an organization is able to be an object of trust, it also displays
characteristics of trustworthiness (Greenwood and Van Buren, 2010). Greenwood and Van Buren (2010), argue that stakeholders can calculate their own behavior based on perceptions of the organization’s trustworthiness. Trustworthiness can be seen as a basis for trust; in the ideal case the trustor trusts the trustee because he or she is trustworthy (Mayer et al., 1995). The trustee’s trustworthiness inspires trust (Flores and Solomon, 1998). Organizational trustworthiness varies between different organizations because it is depends on organizational characteristics such as culture, values and orientation (Greenwood and Van Buren, 2010).
Colquitt, Scott and LePine (2007) argue that trustworthiness is a multifaceted construct that captures the competence and character of the trustee. Three characteristics of the trustee that determine trustworthiness are ability, benevolence and integrity (Mayer et al., 1995). These elements combined build the foundation for the development for trust.
The first component is ability. A lot of scholars consider ability as an essential component of trustworthiness. Mayer et al. (1995) define ability as: ‘The group of skills, competencies and characteristics that enable a party to have influence within some specific domain’ (p. 717). Ability refers to the agent’s capacity to undertake the task required. The domain of the ability is specific in the sense that the trustee may be competent in some area, but might not in another one (Mayer et al., 1995). On an organizational level, ability means whether the organization is able to use it resources and capabilities to deliver a promised result to a stakeholder (Greenwood and Van Buren, 2010).
17 Synonyms used in literature are ‘competence’ (Butler, 1991) and ‘expertness’ (Giffin, 1967). According to Jeffries and Reed (2000), it is possible to have trust in another’s abilities without having emotional attachment (in Singh and Srivastava, 2009).
The second component is benevolence. Mayer et al. (1995) define this component as: ‘The extent to which a trustee is believed to want to do good for the trustor, apart from any profit motives’ (p. 718).
Benevolence is a positive personal orientation of the trustee towards the trustor and it means that the trustee has some specific attachment to the trustor.
With regard to organizational trustworthiness, Greenwood and Van Buren (2010) argue that benevolence means that organizations feel and act positive towards stakeholders that have trust in the organization. When benevolence is high, organizations find it morally wrong to break a promise and to harm someone for whom it has positive affect.
There are synonyms in literature for benevolence as well. Two of them are ‘intentions’ (Cook and Wall, 1980) and ‘motive’ (Knee and Knox, 1970). According to Mayer et al. (1995), ‘intentions’ and ‘motives’ can include wider implications than the orientation towards the trustor.
The third and last component is integrity. Colquitt et al. (2007) provided the following definition: ‘Integrity is the extent to which a trustee is believed to adhere to sound moral and ethical principles’ (p.910).
Whitener, Brodt, Kosgaard and Werner (1998) simplify integrity as the consistency between words and deeds. According to Mayer et al. (1995), the perceived level of integrity is more important than the reasons why the perception is formed. Two behavior antecedents are defined as attributions of integrity: telling the truth and keeping promises (in Whitener, 1998). By trusting the organization, a stakeholder relies on the actions of the organization. In order to be integer, an organization should adhere to principles that its employees finds
18 worthy and relevant (Greenwood and Van Buren, 2010). Scholars have discussed similar constructs for integrity. Sitkin & Roth (1993) talk about ‘value congruence’ and Butler (1991) uses ‘consistency’. The concept of integrity parallels, but is wider than the latter two.
Although there are many synonyms discussed as components of trustworthiness, ability, benevolence and integrity together as a set are proven to be antecedents of trust (Mayer et al., 1995). The three components may vary independently, which means that they are separable. According to Mayer et al. (1995), each element contributes a unique
perspective from which the trustor considers the trustee. Trustworthiness should be thought of as a continuum. When all three components of trustworthiness are perceived to be high, the trustee would be considered quite trustworthy and vice versa (Mayer et al., 1995). In this line of thinking, employees can evaluate the firm in terms of it trustworthiness, based on its ability, benevolence and integrity. When trustworthiness is high, the organization would be considered quite trustworthy. In turn, this may have influence on employees’ engagement in OCB’s.
SVO as a potential moderator
Apart from organizational characteristics, personal characteristics may also affect the relationship between the management orientation of a firm and employee OCB.
According to Bridoux et al. (2015), stakeholders react to the firm’s practices, towards other stakeholder groups as well as towards their own group. Scholars have long studied how individuals’ motives drive their behavior in social interactions. Social Value Orientations (SVO) are identified as an important determinant of cooperative motives, strategies and choice behavior (Bogaert, Boone and Declerck, 2008). SVO is regarded as a trait that reflects how people evaluate outcomes for self and others (Bogeart et al., 2008). People differ with respect to their SVO. A three-category typology for SVO has been established, including a
19 prosocial orientation, an individualistic orientation and a competitive orientation (Bogaert et al., 2008). According to Van Lange and Liebrand (1991), the individualistic orientation and competitive orientation are often combined and referred to as proselfs.
From now on in this study, we will adopt this distinction between prosocials and proselfs. Prosocials differ from proselfs in three respects: the weight assigned to outcomes for self, the weight assigned to outcomes for others and equality in outcomes (Van Lange and Liebrand, 1991). Those authors argue that the different ways in which prosocials and proselfs value objective payoffs translate into different behaviors.
Another way to study people’s social value orientation is to incorporate underlying values. One way of doing this is by linking the theory on SVO with Schwartz’s (1992) theory of basic human values. Schwartz (1994) defines values as follows:
‘Values are cognitive representations of the important human goals or motivations about which people must communicate in order to coordinate their behavior. The content that distinguishes one value most significantly from another is the type of motivation or goal it represents’ (p.164).
Schwartz supports the existence of ten distinct types of values, whereby each value has a central goal as underlying motivator (Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987). He distinguishes between power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity and security.
Actions taken in the pursuit of each type of value have psychological and social
consequences that can be compatible with, or conflict with, the pursuit of other value types (Schwartz, 1994). Schwartz (1992; 1994) also found support for the existence of two higher-order value types that combine the standard types. He distinguished between ‘openness to change’ (including self-direction, stimulation and hedonism) versus ‘conservation’ (including
20 security, conformity and tradition) and ‘self-enhancement’ (including power, achievement and hedonism) versus ‘self-transcendence’ (including universalism and benevolence). The higher-order value types ‘self-enhancement’ and ‘self-transcendence’, as defined by Schwartz (1992), can be linked to the proself and prosocial social value orientation. People that score high on self-enhancement and proselfs, as defined by Van Lange and Liebrand (1991), are both concerned with the interests of one-self (self-regarding), whereas people that score high on self-transcendence and prosocials, as defined by Van Lange and Liebrand (1991), are also concerned with the welfare of others (other-regarding) and equality in outcomes.
Since literature established that individual characteristics and motives drive their behavior, it might be interesting to incorporate SVO as possible moderator in the relationship between a firm’s management orientation and employee OCB. Examining the moderating role of SVO will contribute to the research on individual heterogeneity in literature.
Literature gap and RQ
According to the above-discussed literature, we can assume that employee behavior is based on, and driven by, the management orientation of a firm. However, literature has paid little attention to this relationship. Quintelier et al. (2017) are one of the few that examined the moderating effect of stakeholder evaluations on the relationship between the management orientation of the firm and reciprocal stakeholder behavior. However, specific types of reciprocal behavior, such as OCB, have not been studied yet in this context.
In the same line of thinking as Judd, James-Hawkins, Yzerbyt and Kasima (2005) and Quintelier et al. (2017), this thesis will examine the mediating effect of organizational trustworthiness on the relationship between the management orientation of the firm and employee OCB. The concept of organizational trustworthiness is often overlooked and
21 applied to people, instead to the organization as a whole. Furthermore, SVO will be
incorporated as potential moderator since literature argued the effects of individual-level differences that influence their behavior.
This thesis tries to answer three questions. First: how is the relationship between a firm’s management orientation and OCB directed? Second: how is the relationship between the management orientation of a firm and OCB mediated by organizational trustworthiness? Third: how does SVO moderate the relationship between the management orientation of a firm and OCB-I and OCB-O?
22 Figure 1: conceptual model
23 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This chapter will introduce the hypotheses of this thesis. First, the hypotheses of the direct relationship between a firm’s management orientation and OCB will be presented.
Afterwards, the hypotheses of the meditating effect of organizational trustworthiness will be explained and finally, the moderating effect of social value orientation (proself versus prosocial and self-transcendence versus self-enhancement) on the relationship between a firm’s management orientation and employee OCB will be discussed.
The relationship between firm orientation and OCB
Literature distinguished between profit- and stakeholder oriented firms. A key difference between those two orientations is what makes business successful. Profit-oriented firms’ goals and motives are based on profit maximization and efficiency and stakeholder-oriented firms’ goals and motives are based on the motives of multiple stakeholders (Freeman et al, 2010).
When stakeholders assess the behavior of the firm as good because it increases their own extrinsic payoff, they rely on positive strategic evaluations (Quintelier et al., 2017). Profit-oriented firms are more likely to trigger strategic evaluations than stakeholder-oriented firms. According to Aquino et al. (2009), positive strategic evaluations increase
self-interested cooperation in organizations. Furthermore, profit-oriented firms are mainly concerned with maximizing their profits instead of incorporating interests of other stakeholders, such as employees. I therefore propose the following:
24 In contrast, when stakeholders assess the behavior of the firm as right or praiseworthy
because it is in compliance with the salient moral norm, they rely on positive moralistic evaluations (Boone et al., 2008 in Quintelier et al., 2017). Stakeholder-oriented firms are likely to trigger moralistic evaluations. According to Aquino et al. (2011), positive moralistic evaluations raise emotions as warmth and trust. Literature suggests that the occurrence of (positive) moralistic orientations increase prosocial organizational behavior, such as organizational citizenship behavior defined by Podsakoff et al. (2000). Since stakeholder-oriented firms incorporate interests of different stakeholders such as employees, it seems likely that employees of this type of firms are more likely to do something in return. I therefore propose the following:
H1b: The relationship between a firm’s stakeholder-orientation and employee OCB is positive.
Stakeholder evaluations of the firm: organizational trustworthiness
According to Quintelier et al. (2017), stakeholder behavior is explained by different mechanisms depending on the management orientation of the firm. Quintelier et al. (2017) distinguish between moralistic and strategic evaluations. When stakeholders assess the firm’s behavior on the basis of their own extrinsic payoff, they rely on strategic evaluations
(Quintelier et al, 2017). These evaluations are generated by deliberate reasoning processes (Declerck et al, 2013; Evans and Stanovich, 2013 in Quintelier, 2017). On the other hand, when stakeholders rely on moralistic evaluations, they consider the actor as being right or wrong or morally responsible in comparison with the moral norms that are salient (Boone, Declerck and Suetens, 2008; Trevino et al., 2006; Quintelier et al., 2017). Moralistic evaluations are generated by fast, emotional and intuitive mental processes (Declerck et al,
25 2013; Evans and Stanovich, 2013 in Quintelier, 2017). In the long term, moralistic
evaluations upheld cooperation whereas strategic orientations function to maximize one’s own extrinsic payoff (Quintelier et al, 2017).
The likelihood of the two types of evaluations is influenced by different cues. Gray et al. (2012) argue that stakeholders rely more on moralistic evaluations when the actor is perceived as ‘an act caused by an intentional agent’ and ‘an act impacting a satient being’ (in Quintelier et al., 2017, p.11). According to Quintelier et al. (2017), the acts of
stakeholder-oriented firms are more likely perceived as acts caused by an intentional agent and a sentient being than profit-oriented firms. When personal extrinsic gains and losses are more salient to the evaluator, which is the case for the acts of profit-oriented firms, the evaluator relies more on strategic evaluations that yield self-interested intensions (Kong, Kwok and Fang, 2012; Vohs, Mead and Goode, 2006; in Quintelier et al., 2017).
This is in line with findings of Judd et al. (2005). They argue that there are two dimensions that underlie most judgements of people and groups. The first one includes attributes such as competence, agency and individualism and the second one comprises impressions of warmth, communality and collectivism (Judd, James-Hawkins, Yzerbyt and Kasima, 2005). In their study, Aaker, Vohs and Mogilner (2011) found that non-profits are perceived as being warmer than for-profits. However, they were also perceived as less
competent than for-profits. They explained: ‘higher estimated profits were positive correlated with perceptions of social harm, unfair business practices and a lack of value to society but also with effectiveness in achieving organizational goals’ (Aaker, Vohs and Mogilner, 2011, p. 3).
In the same line of thinking, I introduced organizational trustworthiness as potential mediator. As discussed in the literature review, organizational trustworthiness consists out of
26 three components: ability, integrity and benevolence. Taken together, these three elements build the foundation for the development of trust (Mayer et al., 1995).
According to the literature above, profit-oriented firms are often evaluated in terms of competence, agency and individualism (Judd et al., 2005). Furthermore, Quintelier et al. (2017), link profit-oriented firms with strategic orientations that yield self-interested intentions. They furthermore argue that the relationship between a firm’s profit-orientation and stakeholder behavior is explained by competence.
We can link above theory to the concept of organizational trustworthiness. Based on these theories, I propose that profit-oriented firms are often evaluated in terms of its ability. Ability refers to the firm’s capacity to undertake specific tasks. Furthermore, I expect that profit-oriented firms will score low on benevolence and integrity since these firms mainly focus on profits instead of the well being of their employees. I expect a negative relationship between a firm’s profit-orientation and OCB. However, I expect that organizational
trustworthiness might positively mediate this negative direct relationship. I propose the following:
H2a: The negative relationship between a profit-oriented firm and employee OCB is positively mediated by organizational trust.
According to Quintelier et al. (2017), the acts of stakeholder-oriented firms are more likely perceived as acts caused by an intentional agent and a sentient being than profit-oriented firms. Quintelier et al. (2017) argue that the relationship between a firm’s stakeholder-orientation and stakeholder behavior is explained by fairness perceptions and trust.
Furthermore, Judd et al (2005) argue that stakeholder-oriented firms are often associated with feelings of warmth, communality and collectivism. When we link above theory with the
27 concept of organizational trustworthiness, I expect that stakeholder-oriented firms will score high on benevolence and integrity, since their motives are based on interests of multiple stakeholders. Furthermore, ability will also be taken into account, but to a lesser amount than the former two components of organizational trustworthiness. Based on the theory above, I propose that organizational trustworthiness positively influences the direct relationship between a stakeholder-oriented firm and OCB, so that:
H2b: The positive relationship between a stakeholder-oriented firm and employee OCB is positively mediated by organizational trust.
Social value orientation
Social values play an important role in influencing an individual’s social behavior (Liebrand et al., 1986). McClintock and Van Avermaet (1982) define social values as sets of
motivational or strategic preferences among various distributions of outcomes for self and others. Social values that influence the choices people make are often viewed as traits,
reflective of stable personality differences (Bogaert et al., 2009). People differ with respect to their social value orientation, since they differ in what they consider to be fair or rational (Bogaert, 2009; Van Lange, 1999).
According to Van Lange, Otten, De Bruin and Joireman (1977), social value orientation is partially rooted in patterns of social interaction as experienced during early childhood, and is further shaped through social interactions over time. It is possible that individuals acquire greater experience with a more varied set of social interactions during their lifetime, which influences the development of their social value orientation (Van Lange et al., 1977).
28 Literature distinguished between a prosocial, individualistic and competitive orientation, whereas the latter two are often combined and referred to as proself value orientation (Van Lange and Liebrand, 1991).
According to De Cremer and Van Lange (2001), interpersonal behavior needs to be understood not only in terms of self-interested motivations, but also in terms of pro-social motivations and the tendency to enhance equality in outcomes. Prosocials assign positive weight to the outcomes for self, the outcomes for others and equality in outcomes (De Cremer and Van Lange, 2001). They furthermore seek win-win situations to disagreements (Bogaert et al., 2009). Prosocials value fairness, honesty and equality in outcomes and evaluate cooperative and non-cooperative others along the morality dimension. They associate cooperation with goodness and non-cooperation with badness (Liebrandt et al., 1986).
Additionally, prosocials also take into account the degree to which they inflict harm on others and the collective as a whole. This leads to the fact that prosocials experience stronger
feelings of social responsibility than proselfs (De Cremer and Van Lange, 2001). These feelings of social responsibility refer to tendencies to be concerned about both self and others, which is a morally defined motive (Fiske et al, 1988 in Van Cremer and De Lange, 2001). Finally, prosocials also take into account the impact of the consequences of their choices on others.
On the other hand, proselfs will strive to maximize their own outcomes (Bogaert et al., 2009). Proselfs tend to act and think in an individually rational manner and they will only help or harm others when these actions increase their own potential outcome (De Cremer and Van Lange, 2001). Proselfs tend to construe social dilemmas more strongly in terms of power (strength versus weakness) and potency, and associate cooperation with unintelligence. Liebrandt et al. (1986) argue that proself individuals would be most likely to attempt to
29 establish relationships in which they could exercise dominance over others in order to meet their own self-interest.
In conclusion, prosocials and proselfs differ in the weights they assign to self and others (Bogaert et al., 2009). Prosocials tend to behave more cooperatively than proselfs, and show greater concern for the consequences of their behavior on others and on the
environment in general. They establish relationships based on fairness, honesty and trust and they evaluate others based on morality (Liebrandt et al., 1986). Contrary, proselfs act and think in an individually rational manner. They evaluate relationships in terms of power and potency and are most likely to establish relationships in which they can increase their own payoffs.
SVO as moderator between firm orientation and OCB-I/OCB-O
Literature distinguished between I and O (Williams and Anderson, 1991). OCB-O comprises helping behaviors directed towards the organization and OCB-OCB-I comprises helping behaviors directed towards individual co-workers and the supervisor (Wech, 2002). Social value orientations are predictive of helping behavior (Van Lange and De Cremer, 2001). It is likely that proselfs and prosocials differ in the way that they engage in OCB-I and OCB-O. Prosocials were found to experience stronger feelings of social responsibility than proselfs, which influenced their tendency to exhibit greater cooperation (De Cremer and Van Lange, 2001). In contrast, proselfs only cooperate when this increases their own outcomes. Overall, it is assumed that prosocials are more likely to engage in OCB than proselfs (De Cremer and Van Lange, 2001). However, in this study we distinguish between OCB-I and OCB-O.
Since proselfs only try to maximize their own pay-offs and consider cooperation as
30 pay-offs. However, helping behavior directed towards the organization (OCB-O) might positively influence proselfs’ own pay-offs since organizational outcomes influence individual outcomes as well. I therefore expect a positive relationship between a proself orientation and OCB-O.
Since prosocials assign positive weight to the outcomes for both self and others, and value equality in outcomes, they are considered to be natural co-operators. I therefore expect a positive relationship between prosocials and both OCB-I and OCB-O.
However, the management orientation of a firm still needs to be incorporated. In the literature review, we distinguished between profit-oriented and stakeholder-oriented firms. These different orientations influence stakeholder behavior (Quintelier et al., 2017). Goals and motives of profit-oriented firms are based on maximizing shareholder returns (Friedman, 1970). In contrast, stakeholder-oriented firms are motivated by social norms and strive to increase the well being of their stakeholders and society at large (Freeman et al., 2010; Quintelier et al., 2017). Both prosocial- and proself-oriented individuals work at stakeholder- and profit-oriented firms. Based on this distinction in firm-orientation and I and OCB-O, some hypotheses are formulated.
First, the relationship between a firm’s profit-orientation and OCB will be further proposed. I expect a negative relationship between a profit-oriented firm and OCB. However, we now distinguish between OCB-I and OCB-O. As discussed above, I expect a negative relationship between a proself value orientation and OCB-I. The relationship becomes more negative by incorporating a proself-value orientation as a moderator in the direct effect. Furthermore, I expect a positive relationship between a prosocial value orientation and OCB-I, which means that the negative relationship between a profit-oriented firm and OCB-I will be positively moderated by a prosocial value orientation. I therefore propose the following:
31 H3a: The relationship between a profit-oriented firm and OCB-I is moderated by SVO, so that a proself value orientation negatively influences this relationship.
H3b: The relationship between a profit-oriented firm and OCB-I is moderated by SVO, so that a prosocial value orientation positively influences this relationship.
When we look at OCB-O, I expect a moderate, slightly positive relationship between a proself value orientation and OCB-O and a positive relationship between a prosocial value orientation and OCB-O. Since the relationship between a profit-oriented firm and OCB in general is expected to be negative, a proself value orientation makes the direct effect even more negative, and a prosocial value orientation makes the direct effect less negative, since the moderated effect is expected to be positive. I therefore propose the following:
H4a: The relationship between a profit-oriented firm and OCB-O is moderated by SVO, so that a proself value orientation negatively influences this relationship.
H4b: The relationship between a profit-oriented firm and OCB-O is moderated by SVO, so that a prosocial value orientation positively influences this relationship.
For a stakeholder-oriented firm, hypotheses in the same line of thinking can be made as well. As discussed above, I expect a moderate, slightly positive relationship between a proself value orientation and OCB-O and a positive relationship between a prosocial value
orientation and OCB-O. Since the relationship between a stakeholder-oriented firm and OCB is expected to be positive, I assume that a proself value orientation negatively influences this positive effect. Furthermore, I assume that a prosocial value orientation makes the direct effect more positive. I therefore propose the following:
32 H5a: The relationship between a stakeholder-oriented firm and OCB-O is moderated by SVO, so that a proself value orientation negatively influences this relationship.
H5b: The relationship between a stakeholder-oriented firm and OCB-O is moderated by SVO, so that a prosocial value orientation positively influences this relationship.
When we look at OCB-I, I expect a negative relationship between a proself value orientation and OCB-I and a positive relationship between a prosocial value orientation and OCB-I. However, the direct relationship between a firm orientation and OCB is expected to be positive. Therefore, the moderating effect of a proself value orientation will negatively influence this positive relationship and the moderating effect of a prosocial value orientation will make the direct relationship even more positive. The last hypotheses of this study will be:
H6a: The relationship between a stakeholder-oriented firm and OCB-I is moderated by SVO, so that a proself value orientation negatively influences this relationship.
H6b: The relationship between a stakeholder-oriented firm and OCB-I is moderated by SVO, so that a prosocial value orientation positively influences this relationship.
33 METHODOLOGY
This section explains the research design of this thesis. It starts with the research method and sample and is followed by the operationalization of the dependent, independent, mediator and moderator variables. Finally, the data analysis method will be explained.
Research method
The aim of this study is to examine the influence of organizational trustworthiness and SVO on the relationship between a firm’s management orientation and employee OCB.
For this quantitative study, a survey design is chosen since it is very useful to describe and test relationships (Bryman and Cramer, 1994). A questionnaire is used as data collection instrument to gather cross-sectional data. Questionnaires are a practical way to gather data since they can be adapted and customized to any type of research and allow for gathering information from a large audience (Neuman, 2012).
The population for this study is employees of different types of organizations in the Netherlands (profit- and stakeholder-oriented firms). Sampling is done in a non-random manner, which means that there are members of the target population who have a zero chance of being selected for the sample (Neuman, 2012). Different non-probability sampling
techniques are used, among which volunteer sampling (snowball and self-selection) and convenience sampling. The questionnaire link was spread among different organizations in the Netherlands. Furthermore, respondents are approached via linked-in and management related forums, and were asked to distribute the questionnaire link among suitable candidates in their own network.
34 Data analysis method
The online questionnaire used in this study is designed and implemented with the web application Qualtrics. This application contains many possibilities for customization of the questionnaire. Furthermore, the information derived from the questionnaires is protected so that the anonymity of respondents is ensured.
After the data is collected, all statistical calculations are made with SPSS. First of all, descriptive statistics and correlations will be generated. Afterwards, the hypotheses will be tested trough multiple regression analyses, which allows for investigating the different relationships as presented in the conceptual model.
Procedure
Respondents were sent a link to fill in the online Qualtrics questionnaire in which the present study was embedded. Before the questionnaire started, a short introduction text was displayed with the aim of the study and some guidelines regarding the questionnaire. After reading the text respondents were guided to the actual questionnaire, which consisted of five sections. First, some demographic questions were queried concerning gender, age, nationality and highest level of education. Thereafter, respondents were asked to evaluate their behavior in the workplace in terms of OCB directed towards the organization and co-workers. Then, people were asked to evaluate the firm they work for regarding its management orientation. The next section was about organizational trustworthiness and the survey ended with questions about human values as defined by Schwartz (1992).
35 Sample
In total, 162 respondents started the survey. However, only 148 of them fully completed it. According to Sehvlin, Miles, Davies and Walker’s (2000) rule of thumb, at least 100
respondents are needed in order to conduct a good linear multiple regression analysis, so this condition was met. Almost all respondents were Dutch, only 2% (three respondents) were non-Dutch. Furthermore, 51% was male and 49% female, and all respondents were above 18 years old. The respondents work for organizations in different industries, among which retail (20%), health care (14%), banking (8%), and education (3%). Finally, 94% of all respondents work at least 12 hours per week, of which 74% works 38 hours per week or more.
The dependent variable
The dependent variable of this study is organizational citizenship behavior. A 15-item scale was adopted from Podsakoff et al. (1990) to measure this construct. This scale measures five facets of OCB, as identified by Organ (1988), namely altruism, courtesy, civic virtue,
sportsmanship and conscientiousness. Later on in the analysis, a division can be made between OCB-I (altruism and courtesy) and OCB-O (civic virtue, sportsmanship and conscientiousness). Respondents were asked to assess 15 statements using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
The first three statements relate to altruism, which refers to helping behavior towards other individuals. Two examples are: ‘I willingly help fellow professionals when they have work related problems’ and ‘I willingly help new comers to get oriented towards the job’.
The following three statements relate to courtesy. These items measure behaviors that aim at preventing work-related conflicts with others. An example is: ‘I am mindful of how my behavior affects other people’s jobs’.
36 Next were three statements that relate to behaviors that indicate employees’ deep concerns and interest in the organization, also known as civic virtue. Examples of corresponding statements are: ‘I always keep myself abreast of changes in the organization’ and ‘I attend meetings that aren’t compulsory but to help my department anyway’.
Then three statements followed that relate to sportsmanship, which Organ et al. (2006) describe as the ability to cope with unavoidable irritations and difficulties in organizations. An example of such statement is: ‘I usually find fault with what my organization is doing’. Finally, the last three statements concern conscientiousness, which refers to dedication to the job that exceeds formal requirements. An example of a corresponding statement is: ‘I obey organizational rules even when no one is watching’ and ‘My attendance at work is above the norm’.
The independent variable
The independent variable in this study is management orientation of the firm. To measure this construct, the CStR scale from Akremi, Gond, Swaen, Roeck and Igalens (2015) was
adopted. However, the scale needed to be adjusted since we only need to measure two critical sub-dimensions (employee-oriented CSR and shareholder-oriented CSR) instead of all six sub-dimensions of the original scale. Therefore, only eleven statements needed to be incorporated in the questionnaire instead of the original thirty-nine.
Again, respondents were asked to assess these statements using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).
The first seven statements related to employee-oriented CSR. Some examples are: ‘Our company implements policies that improve the well-being of its employees at work’, ‘Our company promotes the safety and health of its employees’ and ‘Our company avoids all forms of discrimination (age, sex, handicap, ethnic or religious origin) in its recruitment and
37 promotion policies’.
The remaining four statements related to shareholder-oriented CSR, including items as: ’Our company respects the financial interests of all its shareholders’ and ‘Our company makes sure that shareholders exert effective influence over strategic decisions’.
The mediating variable
In this study, organizational trustworthiness is the mediator between management orientation of the firm and organizational citizenship behavior. To establish the general sense of
organizational trustworthiness, a 17-item scale from Qolquitt et al. (2007) was adopted. This scale consisted of three sub-dimensions, namely ability, benevolence and integrity. Originally, this scale is based on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). However, this is adjusted to a 5-point Likert scale whereby 1 = very unlikely and 5 = very likely, in order to create a better fit with the question.
The first six statements refer to ability, which concern the skills and competences of the organization. Examples of corresponding statements are: ‘The organization has much knowledge about the work that needs to be done’ and ‘I feel very confident about the organization’s skills’.
The following five statements relate to benevolence, which is about the extent to which the organization is believed to want to do good for the employee in question. An example of such statement is: ‘The organization is very concerned with my welfare’.
Finally, the last six statements related to integrity, which referred to the extent to which the organization is believed to adhere to moral and ethical principles. An example is: ‘The organization tries hard to be fair in dealing with others’.
38 The moderator
In order to measure people’s self- and other orientation, Schwartz’s theory of human values is used. Since social value orientations, as defined by Van Cremer and De Lange (1991), are not very well measurable with questionnaires, the preference went to Swartz’s typology of
human values and the corresponding Schwartz Value Survey. However, the scale needed to be adjusted. The original scale consists of ten value dimensions including fifty-seven statements.
In this study, only the higher-order value types ‘self-enhancement’ (power,
achievement and hedonism) versus ‘self-transcendence’ (universalism and benevolence) are relevant. Therefore, only these five values with corresponding statements are incorporated in the questionnaire. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of thirty-one values as guiding principles in their lives. The rating scale was adopted from the original measure, namely -1 till 7, whereas -1 means that the value is opposed to the respondent’s guiding principles, 0 means that the value is not at all important, 3 means that the value is important and 7 means that the value is of supreme importance. In short: the higher the number, the more important the value. An explanation was provided in the parentheses following each value, to better help understanding its meaning. The first values related to ‘self-enhancement’ and contained the sub-dimensions power, achievement and hedonism. Corresponding values are social power, authority, wealth, social recognition, successful, ambitious, self-respect, and enjoying life. The remaining values related to ‘self-transcendence’ and contained the sub-dimensions universalism and benevolence. Examples of such values are equality, broad-minded, helpful, honest, forgiving, loyal, and meaning in life.
39 Control variables
Some control variables were included in this study. Most of them were demographics: age, gender, nationality, highest level of education, number of years working at the organization and number of working hours per week. These demographic variables needed to be included since literature has found evidence for a relationship between gender and morality
perceptions (Poppe and Linssen, 1999; Kracher, Chatterjee and Lundquist, 2002).
Schwartz Value Survey controls for cross-cultural differences, which means that it can be applied for studies with respondents with different nationalities. However, nationality may have an influence on morality perceptions, therefore this control variable was also
40 RESULTS
This section reports the results of this research.
Data cleaning and dealing with missing values
First, data were checked for missing values. Cases were excluded listwise, which means that only the data without missing values is analysed.
Recoding
Before analyzing the data, all scales were checked for counter-indicative items.
The first scale, firm orientation did not contain counter-indicative items. However, three items on the OCB scale had to be reversed. Namely: ‘I always require frequent doses of motivation to get the work done’, ‘I usually find fault with what my organization is doing’, and ‘I usually focus on what is wrong rather than the positive side of situations’.
Finally, one item on the organizational trustworthiness scale had to be reversed, namely: ‘The organization’s actions and behaviors are not very consistent’.
Reliability analysis of scales
First of all, the measures and scales needed to be assessed. Therefore, tests for reliability of scale were performed. The most important estimator of consistency is Cronbach’s Alpha. The items on the scale for firm orientation had a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.807, which is quite high. The scale contains one item with a corrected item – total correlation value of 0.117. The corresponding statement was ‘The company I work for respects the financial interests of all its shareholders’. Deleting this item would raise Cronbach’s Alpha to 0.822. Since this change is not very substantial, the decision was made not to delete this item.
41 The items on the scale for OCB had a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.811. This scale
contained two items with a low corrected item – total correlation value. These were both reverse-coded items, with the following corresponding statements: ‘I usually find fault with what my organization is doing’, and ‘I require frequent doses of motivation to get the work done’. Deleting these items would raise Cronbach’s Alpha to respectively 0.816 and 0.828, which was interpreted as not substantial enough to remove the items.
The items on the subscale OCB-I had a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.914, which is very high. In contrast, the other OCB subscale, namely OCB-O has a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.676, which is quite low. Item four has a corrected item-total correlation of 0,134. This is a reverse coded item with the corresponding statement: ‘I usually focus on what is wrong rather than the positive side of situations’. If this item is deleted, the Cronbach Alpha will be 0.708. However, deleting this item has also consequences for the total OCB scale. The Cronbach Alpha of OCB will decrease from 0.811 to 0.768. Since this is such a substantial difference, the decision is made not to delete this item and to further elaborate with the original OCB-I scale.
The items on the scale for organizational trustworthiness had a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.895. The corresponding corrected item – total correlations were all above 0.290, which indicates that all items have a good correlation with the total score of the scale.
The subscales ability, benevolence and integrity had Cronbach’s Alpha’s of respectively 0.899, 0.896 and 0.853, which is all very good.
Finally, the items on the scale for social value orientation had a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.847. The subscales prosocial and proself had Cronbach’s Alpha’s of respectively 0.922 and 0.916, which is very high.
In sum, all scales had a Cronbach’s Alpha above 0.807, which indicates high reliability. The only exception is the subscale OCB-I, with a Cronbach Alpha of 0.678.
42 Descriptives
Table 1 present descriptive statistics and correlations between the different variables. All OCB variables and Ability have a high negative skewness, which means that the
corresponding data is highly skewed left. Furthermore, OCB, OCB-O, Ability and SVO have a high positive kurtosis, indicating a higher and sharper peak compared to a normal
distribution. In contrast, the more negative kurtosis of benevolence and proself indicate a flatter distribution than normal. Finally, some assumptions can be made regarding the correlations between the different variables. The following standards are maintained: 0,00 – 0,29 = none/weak correlation, 0,3 – 0,69 = moderate correlation and 0,7 – 1,0 = strong correlation.
A significant positive correlation can be seen between firm orientation and
organizational trustworthiness (0.781). If we specify into the two different firm orientations, we can see a strong positive correlation between stakeholder-orientation and organizational trust (0.723). Especially benevolence (0.786) and integrity (0.797), as components of organizational trustworthiness, have a strong positive correlation with stakeholder-orientation. On the other hand, profit-orientation has a moderate positive correlation with ability (0.622) and proself (0.304), and a moderate negative correlation with prosocial (-0.438). Finally, a moderate positive relationship can be found between a prosocial value orientation and OCB (0.606), whereas this correlation is moderate negative for a proself value orientation (-0.435).
Table 1: Descriptives and correlation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Pearson Correlation 0.0807 Sig. (2-tailed) Pearson Correlation ,886** 0.918 Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 Pearson Correlation ,336** -0,140 0.880 Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,094 Pearson Correlation ,311** ,483** -,317** 0.786 Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,000 Pearson Correlation ,265** ,491** -,432** ,813** 0.914 Sig. (2-tailed) 0,001 0,000 0,000 0,000 Pearson Correlation ,240** ,291** -0,076 ,802** ,304** 0.676 Sig. (2-tailed) 0,004 0,000 0,358 0,000 0,000 Pearson Correlation ,781** ,723** ,191* ,219** 0,117 ,236** 0.895 Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,022 0,008 0,164 0,004 Pearson Correlation ,294** 0,008 ,622** -,270** -,384** -0,042 ,538** 0.899 Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,928 0,000 0,001 0,000 0,619 0,000 Pearson Correlation ,725** ,786** -0,050 ,370** ,320** ,272** ,857** 0,146 0.896 Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,549 0,000 0,000 0,001 0,000 0,079 Pearson Correlation ,741** ,797** -0,050 ,379** ,293** ,314** ,876** ,179* ,769** 0.853 Sig. (2-tailed) 0,000 0,000 0,547 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,030 0,000 Pearson Correlation 0,053 0,135 -,191* ,263** ,221* ,215* 0,073 -0,031 0,078 0,112 0.847 Sig. (2-tailed) 0,545 0,122 0,028 0,002 0,011 0,013 0,408 0,724 0,368 0,195 Pearson Correlation 0,108 ,318** -,438** ,606** ,659** ,322** 0,038 -,330** ,217* ,206* ,749** 0.922 Sig. (2-tailed) 0,214 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,660 0,000 0,011 0,016 0,000 Pearson Correlation -0,067 -,222** ,304** -,435** -,546** -0,150 0,031 ,355** -,182* -0,120 ,460** -,245** 0.919 Sig. (2-tailed) 0,445 0,010 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,078 0,722 0,000 0,032 0,161 0,000 0,004 Pearson Correlation -,205* -0,075 -,260** 0,109 0,156 0,025 -,222** -,266** -0,079 -0,140 0,017 ,268** -,346** x Sig. (2-tailed) 0,013 0,366 0,001 0,188 0,057 0,759 0,007 0,001 0,341 0,089 0,846 0,002 0,000 Pearson Correlation 0,077 0,046 0,056 0,109 -0,088 ,277** 0,070 0,002 0,057 0,138 0,039 0,062 -0,041 -,227** x Sig. (2-tailed) 0,358 0,583 0,501 0,184 0,284 0,001 0,400 0,980 0,491 0,094 0,654 0,472 0,634 0,005 Pearson Correlation -,176* -,188* 0,015 -0,022 -0,142 0,110 -0,061 0,029 -0,139 -0,062 0,042 -0,052 0,128 -0,075 -0,070 x Sig. (2-tailed) 0,034 0,023 0,853 0,790 0,084 0,179 0,465 0,726 0,091 0,454 0,628 0,551 0,133 0,359 0,394 Pearson Correlation -0,032 0,019 -0,108 0,065 0,132 -0,026 -0,079 -,174* -0,108 0,076 ,193* 0,155 0,067 0,011 -,185* 0,089 x Sig. (2-tailed) 0,702 0,818 0,193 0,427 0,110 0,752 0,345 0,036 0,192 0,360 0,025 0,072 0,436 0,894 0,024 0,281 Pearson Correlation ,205* ,189* 0,027 ,162* 0,046 ,223** ,171* 0,036 0,132 ,248** 0,093 0,112 -0,010 -,260** ,636** -0,086 -0,157 x Sig. (2-tailed) 0,014 0,023 0,747 0,050 0,576 0,006 0,041 0,668 0,111 0,002 0,288 0,197 0,904 0,001 0,000 0,298 0,056 Pearson Correlation 0,051 -0,072 ,234** 0,051 -0,120 ,214** 0,077 ,169* -0,018 0,018 -,170* -,271** 0,093 -,343** ,241** 0,143 -0,021 ,258** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) 0,546 0,388 0,004 0,534 0,144 0,009 0,358 0,042 0,827 0,825 0,050 0,001 0,278 0,000 0,003 0,081 0,796 0,001 Nationality:
For how many years do you work at the company you're currently working for? Number of working hours per week:
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
SVO Prosocia Proself Female: Age:
What is the highest level of school you have completed or the highest degree you have received? OCB_I OCB_O OrgTrust Ability BNVL INTEG Correlations FirmOr StakeOr ProfitOr OCB
