WORK IN PROGRESS PAPER
Individual-level Cultural values and Workplace Attitudes and Behaviours:
Examining the moderating effects of individual-level cultural values on social exchange relationships involving organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) in Pakistani organizations

Samina Quratulain* Abdul Karim Khan* CERGAM, Université Paul Cézanne Aix-Marseille-III, France ABSTRACT The relationships among employee’s work related variables, cultural variables and OCB are investigated in Pakistani work setting. Based on the review of literature it has been observed that perceived organizational justice (procedural, distributive & interactional justice) is an important antecedent of OCB. This study intends to extend the previous research by assessing the validity of social exchange theory within Pakistan where norms of reciprocity (social exchange ideology) may play a lesser role in social exchange relationships. The primary objective of the study will be to compare the influence of individual differences in values using Hofstede’s cultural value framework (collectivism-individualism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-femininity, Power distance) as moderators of generally well established positive relationships between OCB & employee’s perception of organizational justice. The results will provide insights into the influences of employees value differences on relationships established in management literature. Keywords: Organizational citizenship behaviour; Individual-level cultural values; Perceived Organizational Justice, Social Exchange Relationships

Authors are Doctoral candidates at IAE Aix en Provence, University Paul Cézanne, Aix-Marseille-III. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Samina Quratulain, Doctoral Candidate, IAE, Clos Guiot – Puyricard, CS 30063. 13089 Aix en Provence cedex 2, France. E-mail: samina.quratulain@iae-aix.com

INTRODUCTION
An organization depends on multitude of ways to increase its competitiveness in today’s fast and complex work environment. One of the important organizational resource as emphasized by western research scholars is the presence of employees who are willing to exceed the formal roles and responsibilities specified in their job descriptions (Jordan & Sevastos, 2003). Increasing research interest on employee’s discretionary work behaviours signifies the importance of this construct for the success of organizations. There are multiple conceptualizations of discretionary employee work behaviours (e.g., prosocial organizational behaviour, extra role behaviour, contextual performance & organizational citizenship behaviour OCB). Organ’s (1988) conceptualization of OCB (Organ, 1988; Smith, Organ & Near, 1983) has received major research attention as compared to other conceptualizations of discretionary employee behaviours. Research evidence supports the fact that OCB can be an important resource to improve organizational performance in complex work environments demanding team oriented work practices (Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). With the exception of few studies that were conducted for the refinement of an organizational citizenship behaviour measure (e.g., Farh, Earley, & Lin, 1997; Lam, Hui, & Law, 1999; Lievens & Anseel, 2004; Paillé, 2009, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Van Dyne, Graham & Dienesch, 1994), the majority of literature on OCB has focussed on the antecedents and its relationship to other variables in the nomological network. Despite the presence of vast array of studies stemming from the seminal work of Organ (1988), it is little known about the citizenship behaviour in a global context (Farh et al., 1997). The purpose of this study is to provide an understanding of construct of organizational citizenship behaviour and its relevant antecedents for employees of Pakistan who are different in their cultural values as compared to their western counterparts. It is expected that results of this study will provide an insight by exploring whether organizational citizenship behaviour has a universal meaning in cultures where employee’s expectations are drastically different. Hofstede (1980, 1996) has demonstrated how people from different cultures differ in their attitudes, values and beliefs, and these differences have significant implications in work place. Few researchers have used the Hofstede’s cultural values framework to demonstrate why cultural differences in OCB occur (Farh et al., 1997; Farh, Hackett & Liang, 2007; Lam et al., 1999). Present study intends to follow the lead of these early researchers and will try to demonstrate the impact of culture if any on construct of OCB in Pakistani context. Research evidence suggests that organizational justice is a key determinant of organizational citizenship behaviour and related constructs such as satisfaction and commitment (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Moorman, 1991). Both fairness of pay received by an employee and the procedural fairness determine OCB and related outcomes (Moorman, 1991). Although research evidence suggests that organizational justice has been an important antecedent of organizational citizenship behaviour, but it is hypothesized that nature of this relationship may vary as a function of individual and contextual attributes (Morrison, 1994; Bond, Leung & Wan, 1982). Large number of studies has demonstrated the fact that social exchange theory does not have universal application to explain employee attitudes and behaviours (Brockner et al., 2001; Lee, Pillutla & Law, 2000; Westwood, Chan & Linstead, 2004). Social exchange theory explains series of interactions that are interdependent, contingent on the actions of social exchange partners, generate obligations, and have the potential to result in high quality relations (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Social exchange theory’s assumptions have been well supported in United States based studies specially incorporating positive employee reactions in response to perceived organizational support (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Only few studies have demonstrated whether relationships between POS and employee

behaviours extend beyond United State based contexts, especially in a country like Pakistan that is culturally distinct from the United States. This study intends to explore the nature of social exchange relationships by assessing if employees exhibit OCB in order to reciprocate acts of perceived fairness. This study will add to body of research on predictors of OCB by investigating the moderating effects of individual level cultural values on the relationships between dimensions of organizational justice (procedural, and distributive) and supervisory ratings of employee’s OCB. In other words, the purpose of this study is to participate in the broader effort to assess whether organizational theory-based predictions demonstrated in United States hold up in Pakistan (Brockner et al., 2001; Farh et al., 1997; Hui, Lee, & Rousseau, 2004; Lam, Schaubroeck, Aryee, 2002; Lee et al., 2000). Many researchers have undertaken this effort at individual level of analysis to recognize the presence of individual diversity in values. It has been emphasized that understanding of psychological determinants and influence of value differences within and across nations can be facilitated by studying relationships at the individual level of analysis (Brockner, 2003; Clugston, Howell, & Dorfman, 2000). This study will also adopt this approach by investigating the influence of value differences within a single nation.

Dimensionality of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in Pakistani Context
The concept of OCB has been extensively researched in the U.S. context and the same wave is developing in other cultural contexts (Organ et al., 2006). Diverse national contexts were used by various researchers, few example: China (Hui et al., 2004), Israel (Cohen, 2006), Germany (Thau, Bennett, Stahlberg, & Wernner, 2004), Belgium (Lievens & Anseel, 2004), Malaysia (Coyne & Ong, 2007), and Arab countries (Shaw, Delery, & Abdulla, 2003). Paine and Organ (2000) emphasized the fact that “the challenge lies not so much in debating whether OCB exists around the world but in understanding and defining what constitutes OCB in various cultures and countries” (p. 58). Results of various meta-analyses have provided indications and directions for the development of OCB research in diverse areas of the world. It has been observed that various forms of OCB are strongly related and some results have indicated that one-factor model of OCB is best representation (See Hoffman, Blair, Meriac, & Woehr, 2007; LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002). Many researchers (Motowidlo, 2000; Paine & Organ, 2000; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000) believed that the forms of organizational citizenship behaviour might be affected by national context. Researchers have suggested that it is necessary to investigate the structure of OCB before applying it outside the U.S. context. Same idea is stressed by Podsakoff et al. (2000) by saying that, “Research is needed on the potential impact that cultural context might have on citizenship behaviour. Several distinct cultural effects are possible.” (p.556). At present, there is no published work that applied OCB in the Pakistani context and no effort has been made to determine the forms of citizenship present in the Pakistani workplace. Gaining a better understanding of distinct forms of OCB among Pakistani employees will allow businesses to improve their management of performance. The first objective of this study is to fill this gap and contribute to the development of knowledge of OCB by examining its factorial structure in the Pakistani workplace. This study is progressing with the objective to explore the OCB measurement in a new context (Pakistan), therefore an exploratory factor analysis has been conducted on sample 1 to identify the salient forms of OCB without any a priori choice regarding the structure of its dimensions.

Cultural Context and OCB The impact of cultural context on OCB behaviours has not been extensively documented as compared to other aspects within OCB (Paine & Organ, 2000). Podsakoff et al. (2000) emphasized the importance of cultural context and delineated four possible affects “(a) the forms of citizenship behaviour observed in organizations (e.g., the factor structure); (b) the frequency of different types of citizenship behaviour (e.g., the “mean” levels of the behaviour); (c) the strengths of the relationship between citizenship behaviour and its antecedents and consequences (e.g., the moderating effects); and (d) the mechanisms through which citizenship behaviour is generated, or through which it influences organizational success” (p.556). Therefore, major objective of this study is to examine the cultural effects on OCB in Pakistani work settings. Based on a preliminary survey on cultural differences of OCB, Pain and Organ (2000) argued that Hofstede’s notions of individualism-collectivism and power distance are two possible reasons of finding cultural differences in OCB. Hofstede (1980) developed an index for each cultural dimension (such as Power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/ femininity, individualism/ collectivism and long term orientation). Scores ranged from 0 (low) to 100 (high) for all dimensions. Hofstede showed that cultures with low Individualism (IDV) scores have high Power Distance Index (PDI) (e.g., Pakistan, Chile, Greece, Taiwan, Singapore, Venezuela) and cultures with low PDI scores have high IDVs (e.g., Denmark, Great Britain, Switzerland, the United States). Till now no empirical research is conducted on Pakistani employees using the measurement scales that operationalize Organ’s (1980) concepts. As identified by Lievens and Anseel (2004) a rigorous analysis of the structure of OCB is required as a first step in a new context like Pakistan before proceeding for testing OCB’s relevant antecedents. To pursue this goal a sample of 176 respondents has been collected to conduct the exploratory factor analysis of OCB measure for Pakistani employees. Collection of sample 2 is in progress to perform the confirmatory factor analysis.

Relationships of Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour
Blau (1986: 89) presented the idea of social exchange which states “An individual who supplies rewarding services to another obligates him. To discharge this obligation, the second must furnish benefits to the first in turn. Concern here is with extrinsic benefits, not primarily with the rewards intrinsic to the association itself”. The norm of reciprocity is considered the best known exchange principle. It states that acts of helping behaviour are contingent on the expectation that the recipients of these favours will reciprocate with an act of helping in future (Gouldner, 1960). Some authors have argued that reciprocity as a norm is considered a cultural mandate, where non compliance is punished (Malinowski, 1932; Mauss, 1967). Review of research by Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005: 878) suggest that “although the norm of reciprocity may be a universally accepted principle (Gouldner, 1960), the degree to which people and cultures apply reciprocity principles varies”. Based on the explanations offered by norms of reciprocity, Organ and Konovsky (1989) identified that employees perform OCB in anticipation that their organization will reciprocate its accrued obligations through increased rewards or acts favourable to employees. Empirical findings provide evidence for the fact that organizations with supportive and advantageous work environments for employees create social pressure on employees to reciprocate through behaviours advantageous for the organization (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch & Rhoades, 2001). Trust is an important outcome of favourable social exchange process (Blau, 1986). Perceptions of fairness of organizational procedures, decision making processes and resource allocation decisions influence employee perceptions of trust (Organ & Konovsky,

1989). Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) concluded that social exchange process mediates the relationship between equitable and supportive treatment of organization, and employee work outcomes, attitudes and commitment. Recent conceptualizations have placed more emphasis on relationship formation as compared to earlier research. These ideas are reemphasized in work of Organ and colleagues (Organ, 1988, 1990; Organ & Konvsky, 1989). Organizational Citizenship Behaviours (OCB) Organ et al., (2006: 8) defined the concept of organizational citizenship behaviour as “individual behaviour that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization”. Review of theoretical and empirical research supports the fact that OCB relates with improvements in organizational performance (Organ et al., 2006; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997) and OCB dimensions of ‘helping’ and ‘consciousness’ relate more strongly with performance than with ‘sportsmanship’ and ‘civic virtue’ (Organ et al., 2006). Williams and Anderson (1991) provided evidence that employees direct some OCBs (such as helping and courtesy) towards peers and other forms (such as civic virtue, conscientiousness and sportsmanship) were directed towards organization. Distributive, Procedural and Interactional Justice Constructs Based on Adam’s (1963) equity theory, distributive justice is concerned with fairness of outcomes suggesting that individuals calculate their perceived efforts-outcome ratio and compare this ratio with that of a selected referent. If an employee feels unfairness then this feeling of inequity may lead to reactions unfavourable for an organization in terms of changed job attitude or job performance (Greenberg, 1990). Procedural justice is concerned with the perceptions of individuals’ regarding fairness of formal procedures that govern decisions. Thibaut and Walker (1975) suggested that elements of process control and opportunity for voice are major determinants of fairness perceptions. Later, Leventhal (1980) suggested six justice rules (accuracy, bias suppression, representativeness, ethicality, consistency and correctability) used by individuals for judging the fairness of procedures. Research advancement on procedural justice led to recognition of another factor considered important in determining fairness perceptions. Bies and Moag (1986) proposed the concept of interactional justice by arguing that individuals’ fairness perceptions are also based on the quality of interpersonal treatment received during the execution of organizational procedures. Therefore, interactional justice is concerned with respectful and equitable treatment received by employees from their immediate supervisors (Williams, Pitre, & Zainuba, 2002). Research has demonstrated that perceptions of interactional justice result from supervisory trust building practices such as Deluga (1994) mentioned that behaviours of “availability, competence, consistency, discreetness, fairness, integrity, loyalty, openness, promise fulfilment, receptivity, and overall trust” (p.317). Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) suggested that organizations convey a sense of concern for employees’ well being and their contribution to organizational success are considered valued, when rewards and resource distribution are equitable, procedures are fair and employees are treated with respect and dignity by their supervisor. Some researchers have demonstrated that feeling of inequity influenced employee decisions to engage in deviant behaviours (that include both interpersonal deviance and organizational deviance), reduced work efforts and turn over (Henle, 2005; Stecher & Rosse, 2005). Integrating Organizational Justice and Social Exchange Relationships Social exchange theory may provide insight into what variables might mediate the distinct effects of procedural, distributive and interactional justice on employees' reactions to

organizations and supervisors. Blau (1986) suggested that social exchange relationships are different from those based on purely economic exchange process, “only social exchange tends to engender feelings of personal obligations, gratitude, and trust; purely economic exchange as such does not” (p. 94). Social exchange process produce obligations among parties that are often unspecified and the standards for measuring contributions are often unclear. Therefore, relationships develop through social exchange process when series of mutual exchanges yield a pattern of reciprocal obligation for each party. Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, and Rupp (2001) argued that model of social exchange theory guarantees that certain work place antecedents lead to interpersonal connections which are referred to as social exchange relationships. Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005: 882) stated that “Social exchange relationships evolve when employers “take care of employees,” which thereby engenders beneficial consequences. In other words, the social exchange relationship is a mediator or intervening variable: Advantageous and fair transactions between strong relationships and these relationships produce effective work behaviour and positive employee attitudes”. Following the Blau’s (1986) framework, prior research has established that in a work setting employee is involved in at least two social exchange relationships: one with his/her organization and other with his/her immediate supervisor. Organizational justice and OCB relationship Loi, Hang-yue and Foley (2006) demonstrated that distributive and procedural justice perceptions, mediated by POS, led to increased employee self reported organizational commitment and intentions to remain with organization. Similar evidence was provided by Lynch, Eisenberger and Armeli, (1999) where supportive and equitable treatment to employees reduced their fear of exploitation and reciprocation wariness. Interactive justice was found to be significant predictor of OCB by Moorman (1991) and Williams et al., (2002). Research findings demonstrated that procedural justice predicted both organizational and managerial trust while interactive justice did not correlate with any type of trust (Hubbell & Chory-Assa, 2005). Many researchers provided evidence that interactive justice was related with positive employee-supervisory relationships, while procedural justice was related with forms of OCB directed towards organization (Chiaburu & Marinova, 2006; Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002; Roch & Shanock, 2006). Meta analysis of Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter and YeeNg (2001) demonstrated that procedural justice and OCB directed at organization were moderately correlated and weak correlations were observed between procedural and interactive justice perceptions and OCB directed at peers. Some researchers have documented evidence of no significant positive correlation between distributive justice and OCB (Cardona et al., 2004; Roch & Shanock, 2006; Williams et al., 2002). Colquitt et al., (2001) found moderate correlation between distributive justice and OCB directed at organization while weak correlations with OCB directed at peers. However, few studies (Wayne et al., 2002; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) found modest correlations between distributive justice and OCB, when mediated by POS. According to conceptualizations of organizational support theory, POS is encourages by positive activities, such as pay and promotion (Wayne et al., 2002), which make employees consider this as a signal of organizational care for their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990). Shore and Shore (1995) have suggested that distributive justice should contribute to POS and similar viewpoint is provided by Fasolo (1995) that distributive justice explains the unique variance in POS. Cropanzano & Ambrose (2001) have also supported that fairness of pay may be considered as a sign of the quality of the employeeorganization exchange relationship. In view of the above research findings, it is hypothesized that:

According to model of social exchange theory enactment of equitable allocation of resources and fairness of decision processes demonstrate organizational support and commitment to employees, which employees reciprocate through OCB (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Presence of POS as mediator between procedural justice and OCB relationship was supported (Moorman, Blakely & Niehoff, 1998; Jordan & Sevastos, 2003), while Wayne et al., (2002) provided evidence that POS mediated relationships between procedural and distributive justice and OCB directed at organization. Stinglhamber, De Cramer, and Mercken (2006) found that procedural justice promoted increased POS, while interactive justice promoted increased supervisory support. These findings suggest that procedural justice, mediated by POS leads to OCB directed at organization while interactive justice does not, as its focus is on supervisory support.

Moderating Role of Individual Level Cultural Values
This study aims to identify the effects of role of individual level cultural values on Perceived Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) relationships. According to Tyler, Lind and Huo (2000: 1139) “Psychologists have identified a number of value dimensions that appear to vary across and within cultures; values such as individualism-collectivism, power distance, masculinity-femininity, and uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1992). The assumption is that these values represent general perspectives on what is good or desirable in life. Such general perspectives are further suggested to develop out of membership within particular cultures”. Various authors have studied the influence of general civic values on the attitudes and behaviours of citizens (Dahl, 1971, 1989). Present studies intend to make a similar argument by focussing on basic cultural values instead of political values. Our goal in this study will be to test impact of basic value dimensions within organizational setting – involving perceived organizational justice and their impact on extra role behaviours. Previous research has paid little attention to variations in cultural values within same culture. This study intends to analyze cultural dimensions by comparing individual responses to the measures of these dimensions rather than aggregate comparisons based on culture. Tyler et al. (2000: 1141) pointed out “This individual level, psychological approach to cultural values is not without precedent. Although past studies have often used value scores to identify the characteristics of entire cultures (see, e.g., Triandis, 1989a, 1989b), researchers have also recognized that value orientations can be used to reflect the characteristics of individuals (see Betancourt & Lopez, 1993; Triandis, 1995). Such a psychological analysis is more sensitive to the possible effects of cultural values on the behaviour of particular people than are analyses that treat all of the members of a culture as the same.” Hofstede (1980) developed four common dimensions to explain differences between cultures. Power distance refers to the extent to which the less powerful members of society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. Individualism-collectivism is the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. In individualistic societies the ties between individuals are loose while in collectivistic societies people are integrated into strong cohesive in-groups. Masculinity-femininity refers to the degree to which values associated with masculinity or femininity stereotypes are emphasized. Uncertainty avoidance is a society’s tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty. Individual level Cultural Values and Social Exchange relationships As mentioned previously on the bases of meta-analyses that procedural justice is important for several work-related variables. Tyler and Lind (1992) presented the most influential theories of relational model of authorities to explain these justice effects, which is based on the group value model (Lind & Tyler, 1988). This model argues that people value

groups because groups provide individuals with feelings of self-worth through group membership and individuals use procedural justice judgements to evaluate the quality of their relationship with groups and authorities. “Procedures are described as fair when they offer reassurance that the person will not be excluded from the group or relegated to second-class status, with accompanying diminution of social identity” (Lind, Tyler, & Huo, 1997, p. 767). Lind et al., (1997) were the first to highlight the importance of moderator variables for justice effects. Since then, many studies have demonstrated the importance of values, in particular values referring to the acceptance of power distance (Hofstede, 1980). Power distance at the individual level refers to “the extent to which an individual accepts the unequal distribution of power in institutions and organizations” (Clugston, et al., 2000: 9). Since focus of this research is on moderating effect of individual level cultural values on the social exchange relationships in organizational settings, we will follow the lead of prior research and will define and operationalize cultural values at the individual and within organizational domain (Dorfman & Howell, 1988). Lind et al. (1997) argued that in hierarchical societies (having high power distance Index), people are embedded in groups with strong power differences. As individuals in such societies are used to unequal distribution of power and may be less likely to focus on procedural justice issues. In more egalitarian societies, status recognition is more important since people are freer to move from one group to another. The concern would consequently be one of whether one is accepted by a group. The study of Lind et al., (1997) treated power distance as a cultural moderator variable without actually measuring the cultural orientation of participants. Later studies have found more direct support for this hypothesis, Brockner et al. (2001) reported on the basis of number of studies, where authors directly measured the power distance beliefs of participants and found that those who held more egalitarian values were more strongly influenced by justice concerns, whereas those who believed that power should be distributed unequally were not influenced in their job attitudes by opportunities to voice their opinion. Similar findings were demonstrated by many authors (Begley, Lee, Fang, & Li, 2002; Fischer & Smith, 2006; Lam et al., 2002; Tyler et al., 2000). Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) argued that social exchange theory explanations for the relationship between POS and employee outcomes are based on norms of reciprocity, and “the strength of this association should be influenced by employees’ acceptance of reciprocity norm as a basis for employee-employer relationships” (p.711). Based on these findings it can be argued that employees high on a power distance measure (showing their strong deference to authority figures) are likely to be less dependent on the reciprocity norm with respect to their performance contributions as compared to their counterparts with low power distance. Based on Tyler et al. (2000) relational model of authority suggest that partners holding high power distance value maintain greater social distance, and role expectations bind employees to show respect, obedience and loyalty to authority figures and organizations. The concept that social exchange theory explanations apply less to individuals high in power distance has received substantial research support (Brockner et al., 2001; Lam et al., 2002; Lee et al., 2000). Therefore, it is hypothesized: H1: The relationship between perceived procedural justice and OCB will be stronger for employees who have lower power distance orientation and weaker for those having high power distance orientation Next hypothesis deals with the cultural value of individualism-collectivism and social exchange relationship. Earley (1989) argued that the driving force within a collectivist individual is cooperation as a mean of accomplishing group goals and safeguarding group welfare. In contrast, individualists pursue individual goals, emphasize self-sufficiency and

control and do not care whether his/her personal goals are consistent with group goals. Employees high in individualistic orientation – are because of their strong inclination on equality in exchange relationships, likely to be more reliant on reciprocity norm with respect to their performance contributions than their counterparts with collectivistic orientations. For individualistic employees social exchange relationships are more like economic exchanges. OCB is a voluntary behaviour that includes discretionary acts of helping for organization and peers rather than concentrating just on personal needs. Thus it can be hypothesized that H2: The relationship between perceived justice (procedural, distributive and interactional) and OCB will be stronger for employees who have collectivistic value and weaker for those having individualistic orientation. Chew and Putti (1995) argued that individuals with high levels of uncertainty avoidance tend to stay away from risk because of their fear of taking responsibility and fear of failure. In order to reciprocate perceived fairness and support of organization in terms of discretionary behaviours not mentioned in formal job requirements require responsibility and flexibility orientation. Employees having the high uncertainty avoidance value will hesitate more in performing OCB because this behaviour is not part of organization’s formal rules and regulations. Therefore it can be hypothesized that H3: The relationship between perceived justice (procedural, distributive and interactional) and OCB will be stronger for employees who endorse low uncertainty avoidance (open to change) and weaker for those having high level of uncertainty avoidance. The masculinity-femininity dimension portrays the relative strength of caring interests (a concern with manager subordinate relations, cooperation and support) versus assertiveness interests (only concerned with earning and advancements) (Randall, 1993). The concept of OCB is more near to feminine orientations, therefore it is hypothesized that: H4: The relationship between perceived justice (procedural, distributive and interactional) and OCB will be stronger for employees who have feminine orientation and weaker for those having masculine orientation. Hypothesized Model of Research

Power distance

Individualism / Collectivism

Masculinity / femininity

Uncertainty Avoidance

Procedural Justice Distributive Justice Interactional Justice

OCB –Organisation • Civic Virtue • Conscientiousness • Sportsmanship

OCB –Individuals • Altruism • Courtesy

Figure. 1

Data Collection Sample for this study will be drawn from organizations belonging to various sectors, including banks, pharmaceutical companies, hotels and public sector organizations. This strategy will ensure variations in employee perceptions and help avoid contextual constraints that may be associated with any particular organization. Matching questionnaires will be distributed to supervisors and subordinates in each company. Ratings for all measures will be collected from subordinates except for the ratings of employee OCB, which supervisors will provide. All questions will be administered in Urdu (national language of Pakistan). Methodology Moderated multiple regression will be applied to assess the significance of moderation effects in hypothesized relationships. Possible concern with this data analysis methodology could be the statistical power problems in MMR-based tests of moderating effects. REFERENCES Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422-436. Begley, T. M., Lee, C., Fang, Y., & Li, J. (2002). Power distance as a moderator of the relationship between justice and employee outcomes in a sample of Chinese employees. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 692–711. Betancourt, H., & Lopez, S. R. (1993). The study of culture, ethnicity, and race in American psychology. American Psychologist, 48, 629-637. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional Justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1, 43-55. Blau, P. (1986). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley. Bond, M. H., Leung, K., & Wan, K. C. (1982). How does cultural collectivism operate? The impact of task and maintenance contributions on reward allocation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 186-200. Brockner, J. (2003). Unpacking country effects: On the need to operationalize the psychological determinants of cross-national differences. In R. Kramer & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 25, pp. 335-369). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., Leung, K., Bierbrauer, G., Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37: 300–315. Cardona, P., Lawrence, B. S., & Bentler, P. M. (2004). The influence of social and work exchange relationships on organizational citizenship behavior. Group & Organization Management, 29, 219-247. Chew, I., & Putti, J. (1995). Relationship on work-related values of Singaporean and Japanese managers in Singapore. Human Relations, 48, 1149-1170. Chiaburu, D. S., & Marinova, S. (2006). Employee role enlargement: Interactions of trust and organizational fairness. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 27, 168-182. Clugston, M., Howell, J. P., & Dorfman, P. W. (2000). Does cultural socialization predict multiple bases and foci of commitment? Journal of Management, 26, 5-30.

Cohen, A. (2006). The relationship between multiple commitments and organizational citizenship behavior in Arab and Jewish culture. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 105-118. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Yee Ng, K. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445. Coyne, I., & Ong, T. (2007). Organizational citizenship behaviour and turnover intention: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 1085–1097. Cropanzano, R., & Ambrose, M. L. (2001). Procedural and distributive justice are more similar than you think: A monistic perspective and research agenda. In J. Greenberg and R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 119-151). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164-209. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900. Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group & Organizational Management, 27, 324-351. Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervision trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 315-326. Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership in patterns. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3, 127– 150. Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the People’s Republic of China, Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 34, 565-581. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 42-51. Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 51-59. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507. Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behaviour in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421–444. Farh, J. L., Hackett, R. D., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 715-729. Fasolo, P. M. (1995). Procedural justice and perceived organizational support: Hypothesized effects on job performance. In R. Cropanzano & K. M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing social climate at work (pp. 185–195).Westport, CT: Quorum Press.

Fischer, R., & Smith, P. B. (2006). Who cares about justice? The moderating effect of values on the link between organizational justice and work behaviour. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 541-562. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399–432. Henle, C. A. (2005). Predicting workplace deviance from the interaction between organizational justice and personality. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17, 247-263. Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 555–566. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Hofstede, G. (1996). The Cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. In Billsberry, J. (ed.) The effective manager: perspectives and illustrations. London: Sage. Hubbell, A. P., & Chory-Assad, R. M. (2005). Motivating factors: Perceptions of justice and their relationship with managerial and organizational trust. Communication Studies, 56, 47-70. Hui, C., Lee, C, & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Employment relationships in China: Do workers relate to the organization or to people? Organization Science, 15, 93-108. Jordan, C., & Sevastos, P. (2003). Improved understanding of job performance: Predicting organizational citizenship behaviors from perceived organizational support and fainess. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55, 131-132. Lam, S. S., Hui, C., & Law, K. S. (1999). Organizational citizenship behaviour: Comparing perspectives of supervisors and subordinates across four international samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 594-601. Lam, S. S. K., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between organizational justice and employee work outcomes: A cross-national study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 1-18. Lee, C., Pillutla, M., & Law, K. S. (2000). Power distance, gender and organizational justice. Journal of Management, 26, 685-704. LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behaviour: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52–65. Leventhal, G.S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K.J. Gergen, M.S. Greenberg & R.H. Willis (Eds.) Social Exchange: Advances in theory and Research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum. Lievens, F., & Anseel, F. (2004). Confirmatory factor analysis and invariance of an organizational citizenship behavior measure across samples in a Dutch-speaking context. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 299-306. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press. Lind, E. A., Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Procedural context and culture: Variation in the antecedents of procedural justice judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 224-253.

Loi, R., Hang-yue, N., & Foley, S. (2006). Linking employees’ justice perceptions to organizational commitment and intention to leave: The mediating role of perceived organizational support. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 101-120. Lynch, P. D., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (1999). Perceived organizational support: Inferior versus superior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 467-483. Malinowski, B. (1932). Crime and custom in savage society. London: Paul, Trench, Trubner. Mauss, M. (1967). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies. New York: Norton. Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845-855. Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41, 351–357. Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behaviour: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543-1567. Motowidlo, S. J. (2000). Some basic issues related to contextual performance and organizational citizenship behavior in human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 115–126. Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 12 (pp. 43–72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157–164. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M. & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences , Sage Publications. Paillé, P. (2009). Assessing organizational citizenship behavior in the French context: Evidence for the four-dimensional model. The Journal of Psychology, 143, 133-146. Paine, J. B., & Organ, D. W. (2000). The cultural matrix of organizational citizenship behavior: some preliminary conceptual and empirical observations. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 45-59. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Organizational Performance: A Review and Suggestion for Future Research. . Human Performance, 10, 133-151. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107 142. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563.

Randall, D. M. (1993). Cross-cultural research on organizational commitment: A review and application of Hofstede’s value survey module. Journal of Business Research, 26, 91-110. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714. Roch, S. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2006). Organizational justice in an exchange framework: Clarifying organizational justice distinctions. Journal of Management, 32, 299-322. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65. Shaw, J. D., Delery, J. E., & Abdulla, M. (2003). Organizational commitment and performance among guest workers and citizens of Arab country. Journal of Business Research, 56, 1021–1030. Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. H. (1995). Perceived organizational support and organizational justice. In R. Cropanzano & K. M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing social climate at work (pp. 149–164). Westport, CT: Quorum Press. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663. Stecher, M. D., & Rosse, J. G. (2005). The distributive side of interactional justice: The effects of interpersonal treatment on emotional arousal. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17, 229-246. Stinglhamber, F., De Cremer, D., & Mercken, L. (2006). Perceived support as a mediator of the relationship between justice and trust. Group & Organization Management, 31, 442-468. Thau, S., Bennett, R. J., Stahlberg, D., & Werner, J. M. (2004). Why should I be generous when have valued and accessible alternatives? Alternative exchange partners and OCB. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 607–626. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Triandis, H. C. (1989a). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J. J. Berman (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 41-133). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Triandis, H. C. (1989b). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115-192. Tyler, T. R., Lind, E. A., & Huo, Y. J. (2000). Cultural values and authority relations: The psychology of conflict resolution across cultures. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 1138-1163. Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765–802. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 590-598. Westwood, R., Chan, A., & Linstead, S. (2004). Theorizing Chinese employment relations comparatively: Exchange, reciprocity and moral economy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21, 365-389.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617. Williams, S., Pitre, R., & Zainuba, M. (2002). Justice and organizational citizenship behavior intentions: Fair rewards versus fair treatment. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 33-44.