Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences

2017, Vol. 11 (1), 126-146

Pak J Commer Soc Sci

The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction in the

Relationship between Organizational Justice and
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Imran Akbar Saifi
Faculty of Management, University of Management & Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
Email: imran.akbar@umt.edu.pk

Khuram Shahzad (Corresponding author)

Faculty of Management, University of Management & Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
Email: khuram.shahzad@umt.edu.pk

Abstract
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) over time has emerged as a topic of debate
among scholars and practitioners. What constitutes or encourages such behaviors among
employees, especially when they are neither recognized nor paid, is an utmost concern.
This study conceptualizes and empirically tests that demonstration of citizenship
behaviors is determined by the perceptions which employees hold about the justice in
their organization. Furthermore, the relationship between justice perceptions and
citizenship behaviors is mediated by the level of job satisfaction among employees. In
order to test this hypothesis, this study employed a quantitative strategy and cross-
sectional survey method for the collection of data. Data was collected from 149
employees through a self-administered structured questionnaire. Data was collected from
different organizations of different sectors mainly in Lahore. Findings revealed that
positive perception of employees in relation to organizational justice was a significant
antecedent to employees’ job satisfaction, which in turn mediated the relationship
between justice perceptions and citizenship behaviors. These findings can be helpful for
managers and organizational leaders to create justice in all aspects of organizational life.
This study has also highlighted that job satisfaction is an important factor to promote
citizenship sense through the inclusion of organizational justice. The variables selected
for the model were few and it was beyond the scope of this research to incorporate all the
factors. This study can improve academics’ understanding of the influence that
organizational justice and job satisfaction might have on employees’ organizational
citizenship behaviors in their jobs in the context of Pakistan.
Keywords: organizational citizenship behavior, job satisfaction, organizational justice,
mediation
1. Introduction
Human resources are considered critical repositories of capabilities and behaviors which
are considered the prime source of competitive advantage difficult to imitate or substitute
by rivals (Erkutlu, 2011). Business organizations all over the world are highly
 Saifi & Shahzad

enthusiastic in searching for and developing behaviors that are critical for the
development of competitive advantage. Out of many work behaviors that are being
considered relevant, “oorganization citizenship behavior (OCB)” has been one of the
most talked about (Bhal, 2006; Bienstock et al., 2003; Bolino et al., 2010; Chou &
Pearson, 2012; Cun, 2012; Ertürk, 2007; Gonzalez & Garazo, 2006; Jawahar & Stone,
2015; Murphy et al., 2002; Sun et al., 2007; Tziner & Sharoni, 2014). Bateman and
Organ, (1983) for the first time introduced the term Organizational Citizenship Behavior
(OCB) and it was Organ (1988) who argued that, organizational citizenship behavior
influences organizational performance by facilitating resource transformations,
innovation and adaptability.
Several researches have been conducted in order to find the reasons behind the
employees’ willingness to perform OCB and their primary focus was to identify
predictors of OCB initially in workplace attitudes. There are several work related
behaviors that have been found related with OCB, but job satisfaction (Bateman &
Organ, 1983; Murphy et al., 2002; Organ & Moorman, 1993; Organ & Ryan, 1995) and
organizational justice (Blakely et al., 2005; Moorman, 1991; Organ & Moorman, 1993;
Williams et al., 2002; Yilmaz & Tasdan, 2009) have been studied most frequently (Crede
et al., 2007). Job satisfaction has long been associated with job performance as an
outcome. This simplistic formulation of a relationship begs criticism. While most
managers seem to accept this, academic researchers have argued that this relationship
may need further scrutiny as there may be better explanatory factors that can help explain
performance with respect to these factors (Behrman & Perreault Jr, 1984; Birnbaum &
Somers, 1993; Brown & Peterson, 1994; Dubinsky & Hartley, 1986; Hampton et al.,
1986; Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985; Keaveney & Nelson, 1993).
Greenberg (1987) worked on how an employee evaluates organizational behavior and the
resulting attitude and behavior of the employees was captured by the term organizational
justice. Organizational justice in previous studies is related to different positive
organizational outcomes with a positive relationship such as job satisfaction (Lam et al.,
2002; McCain, Tsai, & Bellino, 2010), and OCB (Moorman, 1991; Moorman, Niehoff, &
Organ, 1993; Williams et al., 2002; Yilmaz & Tasdan, 2009). Organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB) has proved that it is strongly related to performance due to which it has
become more important to researchers today (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Piercy et al.,
2006). It is therefore suggested that, OCB’s will be responsible for enhancement in
business performance. On the other hand while a few studies suggest the relationship
between organizational justice (OJ) and OCB it is worth noting that an integrated
framework of study which incorporates the three explanatory factors like JS, OJ and OCB
to explain the subject of OCB-performance has rarely been carried out.
The literature suggests that, job satisfaction may lead to performance but there are other
human behaviors like OCB that also impacts performance and the literature points out
that the impact of OCB is higher when compared with the impact of job satisfaction on
performance (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Smith et al., 1983;
Williams & Anderson, 1991). It is important to note that, the ambiguity lying in the
relationship between job satisfaction and performance and as discussed earlier regarding
the role of job satisfaction’s function as a mediator of the relationship between various
workplace behaviors points towards a gap whether job satisfaction causes performance
directly or indirectly.

127
 Organizational Justice, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The objective of this study is to understand the relationship between employee

perceptions of OJ and OCB and to see if the attitudinal variable of individual job
satisfaction affects this relationship as an intervening variable. This effort can further
develop and influence academics’ understanding that how organizational justice and job
satisfaction together may influence employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors in
their jobs. Study of such relationship should offer managers with information valuable
enough to develop plans to maintain organizational citizenship behavior and inspire
employees’ to improve their performance.
The study aims to concentrate on the following two questions:
Q1. Is there any relationship between organizational justice and OCB?
Q2. Does job satisfaction mediate the relationship between organizational justice and
OCB?
2. Literature Review
2.1 Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)
Chester Bernard’s (1938) concept of “willingness to cooperate” led Dennis Organ and his
colleagues three decades ago to introduce the term “Organizational Citizenship Behavior”
(Bateman & Organ, 1983; Smith et al., 1983). Organ (1988) defined OCB as, “the
behaviors that are not recognized in terms of any formal benefits and rewards.
Individuals practice these behaviors on voluntary basis it is optional not mandatory and
depends on individual’s own discretion”. Employees engaging in OCBs reflect their
satisfaction with organization’s work environment and as a way of rewarding their
organization in return (Bowling, 2010).
2.2 OCB and Performance
According to Borman and Motowidlo (1997) the conventional view confines the
performance to task performance only which is the effectiveness with which employees
carry out actions that contributes to the organizational technical side. The changing
organization environment today has moved further towards team based instead of
conventional long hierarchical structures (Becton et al., 2008). The employees’ positive
organizational behaviors contribute mostly to job performance and organizational
effectiveness (Kidwell et al., 1997; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2000). The voluntary
contributions like cooperation, helping behavior, and individual initiatives from
employees are rising and under spotlight from academics and practitioners keeping in
view there need and significance (Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Coleman & Borman, 2000;
Jawahar & Stone, 2015; LePine et al., 2001; Organ & Paine, 1999; Paine & Organ, 2000;
Podsakoff et al., 2000; Tziner & Sharoni, 2014; Wan, 2016). Researchers have
acknowledged three broad performance areas: task performance, OCB and deviant
workplace behaviors (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). OCB researchers emphasized that such
behaviors are important to increase organizational efficiency in terms of the
organizational maintenance function by means of low utilization of organizations scarce
resources (Bolino, 1999; Organ, 1988).
2.3 Antecedents of OCB
It is imperative to think about the factors which influence engagement in OCB. The
antecedents of OCB have been generally categorized into three areas: a) According to
Organ (1994) the impact of personality to demonstrate OCB is very low. Although a

128
 Saifi & Shahzad

correlation has been found between the four traits of the big five personality model and
OCB, but it is not very substantive (Borman et al., 2001). b) The attitudinal variables
exhibit a strong relationship with OCB and demonstrated to be strong predictors. These
attitudinal variables are; job satisfaction – the strongest in its impact on OCB and
organizational commitment and employee engagement (Organ et al., 2006). c)
Leadership/group factors. The last type of antecedents is the leadership practices. These
practices can be divided into transformational, transactional leadership practices, and
practices related to either the path-goal theory of leadership, or the leader-member
exchange (LMX) theory of leadership (Organ et al., 2005; Organ et al., 2006).
Job satisfaction being a better predictor of OCBs has been emphasized in the past (Smith
et al., 1983). Organ (1990) pointed out that JS measures job fairness, therefore, scholars
anticipated that alternatively perception of justice is able to predict OCB in a better way
than JS (Farh et al., 1990; Organ & Moorman, 1993). Several studies conducted through
1990s and present have acknowledged that fairness and OCB’s are highly related
(Jawahar & Stone, 2015; Moorman, 1991; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 2000;
Wan, 2016; Williams et al., 2002).
2.4 Job Satisfaction and Performance
Job satisfaction (JS) and job performance due to its vague relationship has intrigued
organizational researchers for nearly eight decades. Robbins & Judge (2012) defined JS
as, “a positive feeling concerning a job coming from an assessment of its qualities”. The
initial investigation of workplace attitudes and performance can be traced back to 1930’s
Hawthorn Studies and (Kornhauser & Sharp, 1932). There are several significant
narratives published since then. One of the earliest research was, JS leads to job
performance (Fishbein, 1973; Strauss, 1968). We are aware of two such early studies that
investigated this unidirectional relationship (Keaveney & Nelson, 1993; Shore & Martin,
1989) the reported results were inconclusive. In another effort a different model was
identified regarding the spuriousness of the relationship between JS and job performance,
(Abdel-Halim, 1983; Keller, 1997; Rich, 1997) reported that once other variables were
controlled a significant correlation between JS and performance became non-significant
that points towards the presence of other intervening variables.
Several researchers also argued that job satisfaction measure fails to predict performance
because it reflects more cognitive evaluation than the affect part (Brief & Roberson,
1989; Organ & Near, 1985). In order to find support for this argument it was
demonstrated by Brief (1998) that the correlation between cognitions and JS was stronger
(.70) than JS and affect (.43). On the other hand the premise that positive emotions and
job performance are strongly related has also gathered considerable support (Wright &
Staw, 1999). Consequently, Organ (1990) argued that when performance is broadly
conceptualized and OCB is incorporated into it, its relationship with JS becomes stronger.
Organ’s argument with its foundation in equity theory suggests that as JS evaluates
perceived fairness therefore it should have a strong relationship with OCB as compared
to the usual measures of performance. In a more recent research (Imran, Arif, Cheema, &
Azeem, 2014) found out a weak but significant relationship between job satisfaction and
performance. (Velnampy, 2008) pointed out that, JS does impact future performance
indirectly through job involvement but higher levels of performance also leave people
more satisfied and committed.

129
 Organizational Justice, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Khan et al. (2012) concluded that, job satisfaction mediates between different aspects of
job satisfaction such as salary and promotion, co-workers and supervisor relationship, job
safety and working conditions, characteristics of work and performance. Numerous OCB
studies found support for the above argument where JS was examined as a possible
predictor (Dalal, 2005; LePine et al., 2002; Murphy et al., 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995).
There is little justification available explaining the JS and OCBs positive relationship one
of it lays its foundation in principle of reciprocity (Cialdini, 2001; Gouldner, 1960) and
social exchange theory (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997). Principle of reciprocity refers
to how people reward kind actions and punishes unkind ones (Falk & Fischbacher, 2006).
Homans (1961) defined social exchange “as the exchange of activity, tangible or
intangible, and more or less rewarding or costly, between at least two persons.”
(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) suggested that the idea (Homans, 1961) represented also
highlights the exchanges of intangible aspect that may involve values like prestige or
admiration other than tangibles like cash and assets.
As an attitude, job satisfaction bears an emotional component which may be another
possibility when job satisfaction affects a person’s willingness to engage in OCBs (Brief,
1998; Brief & Roberson, 1989). This possibility support the employee emotions and
extra-role behaviors direct relationship (Miles et al., 2002; Spector, et al., 2006). As the
positive treatment from organization motivates positive emotion and a need to
reciprocate, it is possible to say that the emotion based and the social exchange
justifications are correlated (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
2.5 Job Satisfaction as a Mediator
The literature search reveals that, due to the job satisfaction’s relationship with
performance it has been also tested as a mediator in various relationships with
performance variables. (Crede et al., 2007) points out that, JS functions as a mediator
between various antecedent variables and workplace behaviors relationship. (Kuo et al.,
2014) concluded that, higher JS in a mediating role resulted in a decrease in work stress
and turnover. Güleryüz et al. (2008) found that the relationship between emotional
intelligence and organizational commitment was mediated by JS. Yousaf and Sanders
(2012) points out that the relationship between employability and organizational
commitment was mediated by JS and recently career satisfaction along with perceptions
of support mediates the organizational justice and citizenship behavior and
counterproductive behaviors.
2.6 Organizational Justice (OJ)
There is growing interest of researchers in equity theory (Adams, 1965), due to its
foundation for organizational justice. Greenberg (1987) proposed that, OJ is the
employees’ opinion of in case the organization is treating them fairly or not.
Organizational justice is a basic requirement for job satisfaction (Greenberg, 1990). If the
employees are treated unfairly by the organization or the managers, they will expect the
social exchange breach which can lead them to pull out that may be reflected in terms of
decreased citizenship behaviors, lower performance, increased absenteeism, reduced job
commitment, employees leaving the organization, and deviant workplace behaviors
(Barling & Phillips, 1993; Cowherd & Levine, 1992; Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Hulin,
1991; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992; Moorman, 1991; Skarlicki,
Folger, & Tesluk, 1999).

130
 Saifi & Shahzad

3. Theoretical Framework
The foundation of job satisfaction rests on the principles of reciprocity and social
exchange theories as mentioned earlier. Organization Justice is based on equity theory
which in turn draws its foundations from social exchange theory as well. The sub-types
of OJ such as procedural, distributive, interactional, and informational justice with its
foundation grounded in social exchange theories can also provide a strong link up with
job satisfaction where job satisfaction may play a pivotal role in the relationship between
perceived fairness and OCB. It is clear from the literature review that job satisfaction
(Dalal, 2005; LePine et al., 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995) and Organizational Justice
(Blakely et al., 2005; Moorman, 1991; Organ & Ryan, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 2000;
Tziner & Sharoni, 2014; Williams et al., 2002) influence OCB.

Job Satisfaction

Organizational OCB
Justice
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework
In the above model OJ is taken as independent while JS is the mediator and OCB as a
dependent variable, Figure 1. The relationship between JS and performance as well as
OCB and performance are taken as given with strong literature support. This study
applies the logic of OJ and JS to improve OCB which as indicated in literature strongly
affects organizational performance.
3.1 Hypothesis
Organizational justice in previous studies is related to different positive organizational
outcomes with a positive relationship such as job satisfaction (Lam et al., 2002; McCain
et al., 2010), and OCB (Moorman, 1991; Moorman et al., 1993; Tziner & Sharoni, 2014;
Williams et al., 2002; Yilmaz & Tasdan, 2009), this research hypothesize the following:
 H1: Organizational justice will have a significant positive impact on organizational
citizenship behaviors.
It is predicted that high job satisfaction influences employees’ OCBs. This premise is
supported in literature (Dalal, 2005; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). When perception of
working environment is fair within an organization, the employees’ will engage in more
OCBs in accordance with social exchange theory (Moorman & Blakely, 1995; Tziner &
Sharoni, 2014; Wan, 2016), this research predicts the following:
 H2: The perceptions of organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behaviors relationship is mediated by job satisfaction.

4. Methodology
We selected managers from a variety of business organizations including manufacturing
and services sector of Lahore, Pakistan, as participants e.g., manufacturing, financial,
information technology. The top companies including national and multinational were
surveyed. Respondents were each firm’s managers (in all levels) from manufacturing,
131
 Organizational Justice, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

human resource, sales, services and distribution and customer services department.
Convenience sampling was used to reach the respondents. A total number of 420
responses were targeted for survey. The total number of responses received was 149.
The scales included in the survey are as follows:
4.1 Organizational Citizenship Behavior
A 19 item scale developed by (Moorman & Blakely, 1995) was used to measure
oorganizational citizenship behavior. OCB multi dimensions which include the constructs
of interpersonal helping (five items), individual initiative (five items), personal industry
(four items), loyal boosterism (five items) based on (Graham, 1989).
4.2 Organizational Justice
The scale developed by (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993) based on (Moorman, 1991) was
used that measured OJ four dimensions with 20 items these dimensions were
consolidated into a single measure. This method is in conformity with the past researches
(Konovsky & Organ, 1996).
4.3 Job Satisfaction
A scale developed by (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1983) was used to measure
JS including, “All in all, I am satisfied with my job”, “In general, I don’t like my job”,
which is reversed scored and “In general, I like working here”, this scale was also used
by (Seibert et al., 2004). Participants were also asked to report their managerial position,
age, gender, marital status and type of organization (public or private).
5. Data Analysis and Results
After defining and labeling, the data was entered in SPSS version 16. Data was
scrutinized as a first step to identify any problems in the data such as outliers, missing
values, coding problems and input errors, and to check the degree to which assumptions
of statistical method we plan to utilize are met. The participants’ profile of 149
respondents of which, 40.9% are front line managers, 50.3 % are middle managers, and
8.7% are top managers. 47.7 % belong to Public and 52.3 % to Private organizations.
Majority of our participants 83.2 % are Male and 16.8 % are Females. The percentage of
Married participants was 72.5, Unmarried 24.8, and Widowed/Divorced/Separated was
2.7. The majority of our sample population belongs to 21-30 years (32.9%) and 31-40
years is (32.9%) followed by 41-50 years (18.1 %) and 51-60 years (14.1 %), >60 years
(1.3 %) and <20 years (0.7 %).
5.1 Descriptive Statistics
Descriptives in Table 1 show the mean, minimum and maximum values along with
standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis came up in the allowable range, it was also
noted that, for OCB, OJ and Job Satisfaction the data was found to be normal.

132
 Saifi & Shahzad

Table 1: Means, and Standard Deviations

Std.
N Mean
Variable Deviation Skewness Kurtosis

1. OCB 149 5.6074 .69340 - .179 - .393

2. OJ 149 4.6432 1.13389 .013 - .749
3. Job Satisfaction 149 5.2584 1.52635 - .783 - .384

5.2 Correlation between Variables

The correlations matrix shows a high correlation between OJ and JS varying together in
the same direction with high significance (i.e. .000, p<.001). Hypothesis H1 and H2
implies that it is the aggregate OCB that influence performance as predicted by Organ
(1988), it was necessary to consolidate the OCB along with organizational justice and job
satisfaction data to get a single summated value to represent each variable and Cronbach
alpha was checked for internal consistency Table 2, it was noted that, for OCB items it
was 0.847. For organizational justice 0.93 and for job satisfaction items it was 0.795. The
internal consistency for all the variables shows a high reliability value as suggested in the
literature.
Table 2: Correlations, and Relibilities of Variables

Variable 1 2 3
1. OCB (0.847) .308*** .341**
2. OJ .308*** (0.93) .560***
3. Job Satisfaction .341*** .560*** (0.795)
𝑎
N=149 Cronbach Alpha for each scale are listed on the diagonal in italics
* p < .05
** p < .01
*** p < .001
5.3 Factor Analysis
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy test (KMO) was conducted to find
out the sample size adequacy (Kaiser, 1974). Its value for OCB (.881) and Organizational
Justice (.912) as well as the models (.829) were well over the satisfactory level that
indicates the adequate inter-correlations whereas the highly significant value of chi
square (.000) indicated that the data was suitable for factor analysis, Table 3.
Table 3: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy KMO
KMO Chi-Square Df Sig.
Model .829 3700 861 .000
OCB .881 1327 91 .000
OJ .912 1504 66 .000

133
 Organizational Justice, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Since the measurements in this paper had been adapted from instruments previously
designed for study in other fields, an exploratory factor analysis analyses (principle
components, varimax rotation) was applied on the organizational justice (20 items), and
OCB (19 items) to check for the validity of the constructs in the context of Pakistan.
According to Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson (2010) Any decision to be made regarding
the initial factor to be retained is made by considering several stopping criteria such as a)
Factor with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. b) A predetermined number of factors based on
research objectives and/or prior research. Table 3 contains the results of a factor analysis
of OCB items.
Table 4: Exploratory Factor Analysis of OCB Items
Cronbach’s
Component alpha
OCB Items 1 2 3 4
Interpersonal Help .695
OCBIntPHelp2 .803
OCBIntPHelp3 .802 0.84
OCBIntPHelp4 .762
OCBIntPHelp5 .681
Individual Initiative
.691
errors
OCBIniterror2 .738
OCBIniterror3 .765 0.81
OCBIniterror4 .780
OCBIniterror5 .799
OCBperind1 .782
OCBperind2 .709 0.7
OCBperind3 .796
OCBperind4 .827
Loyalty .690
OCBloyalty2 .749
OCBloyalty3 .817 0.77
OCBloyalty4 .784
OCBloyalty5 .556
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

In this case the results of the factor analysis support the factorial independence of the four
constructs and are in general consistent with the results reported in (Moorman & Blakely,
1995), The acceptance of eigen value exceeding 0.5 depends upon the sample size, it is
only acceptable when it exceeds 120 (Hair et al., 2010) in this case it is 149.

134
 Saifi & Shahzad

Table 5 contains the results of the factor analysis of the organizational justice items
including distributive, procedural, and interactional fairness. The results of the factor
analysis support the factorial independence of the three constructs consistent with the
results reported in (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993).
Table 5: Exploratory Factor Analysis of Organizational Justice Items
Cronbach
Component
alpha
OJ Items 1 2 3
Distributive Justice .771
JusticeDJ2 .790
JusticeDJ3 .823 0.86
JusticeDJ4 .702
JusticeDJ5 .727
Procedural fairness .594
JusticePF2 .714
JusticePF3 .784 0.825
JusticePF4 .723
JusticePF5 .687
JusticePF6 .558
Interactional Fairness .676
JusticeIF2 .721
JusticeIF3 .741
JusticeIF4 .703
JusticeIF5 .580 0.935
JusticeIF6 .820
JusticeIF7 .853
JusticeIF8 .796
JusticeIF9 .760
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

After measuring reliability and descriptive statistics, hypothesis H1 that, predicts

“Organizational Justice will be positively associated with Organizational Citizenship
Behaviors”, was tested using linear regression analysis by taking organization citizenship
behavior as dependent variable organizational justice as independent variable. The value
of statistical significance was .000 (p<.05), R square value of .095 Table 6 indicates that
9.5% of the variance can be predicted from the independent variable OJ, supporting H1;
although the effect was very weak pointing towards other factors that may impact the
model.

135
 Organizational Justice, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Table 6: Results of Linear Regression Analysis of Justice on OCB

Adjusted R
Model R R Square Square Sig.
a
1 .308 .095 .089 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), OJ

The second hypothesis was tested through (Baron & Kenny, 1986) procedure based on
hierarchical regression method to measure the variability of mediating variable based on
three steps also known as the SOBEL test (Sobel, 1982).
Hypothesis H2 predicts that, “the perceptions of organizational justice and
organizational citizenship behaviors relationship is mediated by job satisfaction”. To test
this hypothesis, a macro was used for SPSS written by Dr. Andrew F. Hayes (Preacher &
Hayes, 2004) that, measures the indirect effect of X on Y through a single mediator M,
and calculate Sobel’s test.
Although the performance of the Sobel test has been discussed frequently by many
researchers with respect to its power (MacKinnon and Dwyer, 1993; MacKinnon, et al.,
2001; MacKinnon, et al., 2002; Stone and Sobel, 1990), one of its assumptions is that the
sampling distribution of the indirect effect is normal. But the sampling distribution of OJ
and OCB tends to be asymmetric, with nonzero skewness and kurtosis Table 1. As
discussed earlier, primarily we will use SOBEL test for this purpose.

Organizational OCB
Justicec c

Figure 2: Organizational Justice to OCB

Job Satisfaction

a b
a
Organizational
Justice OCB
c

Figure 3: Job Satisfaction as a Mediator

To investigate the mediating role of JS, Sobel test was initiated using (Baron & Kenny,
1986) three step procedure.
a. In our model Figure 3 Organizational Justice is the Independent Variable; path a
leads to Job Satisfaction (Mediator).
b. Next is Path b starting from Job Satisfaction (Mediator) to OCB (Dependent
Variable). The Sobel’s Indirect Effect is calculated by multiplying coefficients of
Path ‘a’ and ‘b’ at the same time controlling for OJ.
c. Path c and c’ in Fig 2, 3 respectively are used to calculate the Total Effects by adding
the coefficients

136
 Saifi & Shahzad

Table 7: Direct and Total Effects

Variables in Simple Mediation Model
Dependent Variable (DV) Y OCB
Independent Variable (IV) X OJ
Mediator Variable (MV) M Job Sat
Descriptive Statistics And Pearson Correlations
Mean Std Ocb Oj Job
Dev Satisfaction
OCB 5.6074 .6934 1.0000 .3077 .3414
OJ 4.6432 1.1339 .3077 1.0000 .5604
Job Satis 5.2584 1.5263 .3414 .5604 1.0000
Sample Size 149
Direct And Total Effects
Coeff Sig (Two
Tailed)
(Yx) .1882 .0001
(Mx) .7544 .0000
(Ym.X) .1119 .0089
(Yx.M) .1038 .0697

Table 7, present the application of Sobel test of the three conditions as put forward by
Baron and Kenny (1986). The table includes the significance tests for establishing
mediation. The first condition (OJ to OCB, the Total effect path “c”) is p = .0001 and is
significant. The second condition (OJ to JS, path “a”) was significant at p =.0000. The
third condition to look for mediation was JS to OCB (while controlling for OJ) path ‘b’
was found to be significant and came up p=.0089. "c' " path (OJ to OCB, controlling for
Job Satisfaction (the Mediator) was not significant and in this case p = .0697, showing
that the perfect mediation exist. In Table 7, all of the variables of interest are significantly
correlated, whereas the value of correlation coefficient for Organizational Justice and Job
Satisfaction was 0.5604, which shows a strong relationship between the two variables.
Our model fulfilled all of the requirements for establishing mediation.
5.4 Indirect Effect
The results of the Sobel test are presented in Table 8 along with the significance of the
indirect effect. In Table 7, path a coefficient = .7544 and path b = .1119, using the Sobel
test indirect effect is (.7544 x .1119) =.0844, and is significant (.0122, p<.05).

137
 Organizational Justice, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Table 8: Significance and Indirect Effect via Normal Distribution

Value LL95CI UL95CI Sig(two tailed)
SOBEL .0844 .0184 .1504 .0122

6. Discussion
The aim of this study was to look for relationship if any that exists between perceptions
of organizational Justice and organizational citizenship behavior and the intervention of
employee job satisfaction in this relationship.
In H1 it was hypothesized that organizational justice will be positively associated with
organizational citizenship behavior based on theory and existing literature that supports
such a relationship (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Moorman, 1991; Organ & Moorman,
1993; Tziner & Sharoni, 2014). The relationship was shown to be significant .000
(p<.05) and the R square value of .089 supported H1; the effect although positive but
suggesting that, the strength of our model was weak pointing towards other factors that
may influence this relationship. This relationship was reported by previous researchers
demonstrating the relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behavior was necessary for the development of our model. Blakely et al.
(2005) supported the positive relationship between the two variables indicating that the
good perception of justice leads to an increase in OCB, the finding was also reported in
past researches (Organ & Ryan, 1995) suggesting that perceptions of fairness is necessary
for OCBs.
The result with respect to the prediction in the primary hypothesis H2 that job satisfaction
mediates the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behavior such that, the relationship will be stronger with the addition of job satisfaction
suggest that, the respondent managers in different public and private sector organizations
of Pakistan clearly believe that the discretionary behavior of OCB that is not a part of
formal job description is high when employees have positive perceptions of
organizational justice and are satisfied from their jobs. The results are in line with the
prominent theme in the literature that, behavior follows attitudes. Previous studies have
examined the relationship between organizational justice and OCB however, lack of
sufficient research studying the relationship between these two factors where job
satisfaction acts as a mediator was the reason to carry out this research. (Dalal, 2005;
LePine et al., 2002) focused on job satisfaction where it was examined as a potential
predictor in several OCB researches. (Kashif, Khan, & Rafi, 2011) effort was in line with
the past researches conducted in the different cultural context showing that there is a
positive relationship between Job satisfaction and OCB in the context of Pakistan.
The result of our finding provides a rather new insight to help explain the positive
relationship between Organizational justice, job satisfaction and organizational
citizenship behavior. It would be of benefit for management in the sense that they should
not only focus on improving the good perceptions of organizational justice in their
employees but make every effort to improve job satisfaction by facilitating all the factors

138
 Saifi & Shahzad

that leads to it to enhance their managers OCB in the organization that in turn effects the
organizational performance.
7. Conclusion
The present study found support for job satisfaction as a mediator in the organizational
justice – OCB relationship. Therefore, organizations must focus on how to foster job
satisfaction along with organizational justice to evoke better performance, as employee
base their decision to perform OCB on the fair treatment by the organization and the
mediation effect of job satisfaction indicates a strong link based on the norm of
reciprocity. The findings of the effort can be useful for researchers, practitioners, and
organizations.
The researchers believe that, this effort will contribute towards understanding the
relationship between the three variables which has been known for a while but its
understanding has not been well defined. The knowledge of human psychology as part of
organizational behavior holds a key position in management sciences. The research work
carried out in the behavioral era has contributed a lot towards managing competitive
organizations in the 21st century.
8. Limitations
It was not possible to incorporate all the variables that may have some impact on OCB.
Data was collected from different organizations of different sectors and was mainly from
Lahore. The population of Lahore is above 10 million approximately most of it belongs
to other cities but it is not representative of the whole country population. This issue
needs to be kept in mind when generalizing the results. The sampling method of
convenience sampling comes along with some shortcomings as to compensate that, the
sampling size was doubled although the required sample size was 210 still after sending
450 questionnaires which was more than double the size required only 149 responses
were received.
9. Future implications
The following model can be tested keeping in view the demographics for better results as
the scope of this research required testing of the model with aggregate variables only.
The attitudinal variable of job satisfaction relies on many factors as well and to get a
holistic picture of what exact source of job satisfaction; whether the affect or cognitive
part actually leads to OCB also need to be brought into position. More variable can be
adopted to get a more comprehensive view of the OCB its further implications can be
explored with respect to the manufacturing and service sector as well as demographics.
The span of the study can be increased to other major cities and provinces to get a more
holistic view of the population.

REFERENCES

Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1983). Effects of task and personality characteristics on subordinate

responses to participative decision making. Academy of management Journal, 26(3), 477-
484.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 2(267-299).

139
 Organizational Justice, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Barling, J., & Phillips, M. (1993). Interactional, formal, and distributive justice in the
workplace: An exploratory study. the Journal of Psychology, 127(6), 649-656.
Barnard, C. (1938). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The
relationship between affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of Management
Journal, 26(4), 587-595.
Becton, J. B., Giles, W. F., & Schraeder, M. (2008). Evaluating and rewarding OCBs:
Potential consequences of formally incorporating organisational citizenship behaviour in
performance appraisal and reward systems. Employee Relations, 30(5), 494-514.
Behrman, D. N., & Perreault Jr., W. D. (1984). A role stress model of the performance
and satisfaction of industrial salespersons. The Journal of Marketing, 48(4), 9-21.
Bhal, K. T. (2006). LMX-citizenship behavior relationship: Justice as a mediator.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(2), 106-117.
Bienstock, C. C., DeMoranville, C. W., & Smith, R. K. (2003). Organizational
citizenship behavior and service quality. Journal of Services Marketing, 17(4), 357-378.
Birnbaum, D., & Somers, M. J. (1993). Fitting job performance into turnover model: An
examination of the form of the job performance-turnover relationship and a path model.
Journal of Management, 19(1), 1-11.
Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of
equity sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 259-273.
Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: good soldiers or good
actors? Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 82-98.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: the
relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family
conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 740.
Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., Gilstrap, J. B., & Suazo, M. M. (2010). Citizenship under
pressure: What's a “good soldier” to do? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 835-
855.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual
performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human performance, 10(2),
99-109.
Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality
predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
9(1‐2), 52-69.
Bowling, N. A. (2010). Effects of job satisfaction and conscientiousness on extra-role
behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(1), 119-130.
Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organizations (Vol. 9): Sage Publications,
Inc.

140
 Saifi & Shahzad

Brief, A. P., & Roberson, L. (1989). Job Attitude Organization: An Exploratory Study1.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19(9), 717-727.
Brown, S. P., & Peterson, R. A. (1994). The effect of effort on sales performance and job
satisfaction. The Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 70-80.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. R. (1983). Assessing the attitudes
and perceptions of organizational members, Assessing organizational change: A guide to
methods, measures, and practices (pp. 71-138): New York: Wiley.
Chou, S. Y., & Pearson, J. M. (2012). Organizational citizenship behaviour in IT
professionals: an expectancy theory approach. Management Research Review, 35(12),
1170-1186.
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (Vol. 4): Allyn and Bacon Boston,
MA.
Coleman, V. I., & Borman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the underlying structure of the
citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 25-44.
Cowherd, D. M., & Levine, D. I. (1992). Product quality and pay equity between lower-
level employees and top management: An investigation of distributive justice theory.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(2), 302-320.
Crede, M., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Dalal, R. S., & Bashshur, M. (2007). Job
satisfaction as mediator: An assessment of job satisfaction's position within the
nomological network. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(3),
515-538.
Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling
through the maze. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12,
317-372.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874-900.
Cun, X. (2012). Public service motivation and job satisfaction, organizational citizenship
behavior: An empirical study based on the sample of employees in Guangzhou public
sectors. Chinese Management Studies, 6(2), 330-340.
Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational
citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(6), 1241-1255.
Dubinsky, A. J., & Hartley, S. W. (1986). A path-analytic study of a model of
salesperson performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 14(1), 36-46.
Erkutlu, H. (2011). The moderating role of organizational culture in the relationship
between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 32(6), 532-554.
Ertürk, A. (2007). Increasing organizational citizenship behaviors of Turkish
academicians: Mediating role of trust in supervisor on the relationship between
organizational justice and citizenship behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
22(3), 257-270.

141
 Organizational Justice, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Falk, A., & Fischbacher, U. (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic
Behavior, 54(2), 293-315.
Farh, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational
citizenship behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of
Management, 16(4), 705-721.
Fishbein, M. (1973). The prediction of behaviors from attitudinal variables. Advances in
communication research. New York: Harper & Row, 3-31.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on
reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115-130.
Gonzalez, J. V., & Garazo, T. G. (2006). Structural relationships between organizational
service orientation, contact employee job satisfaction and citizenship behavior.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17(1), 23-50.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25(2), 161-178.
Graham, J. W. (1989). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition,
operationalization, and validation. Unpublished working paper, Loyola University of
Chicago, Chicago, IL, 68.
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of
Management Review, 12(1), 9-22.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of
Management, 16(2), 399-432.
Güleryüz, G., Güney, S., Aydın, E. M., & Aşan, Ö. (2008). The mediating effect of job
satisfaction between emotional intelligence and organisational commitment of nurses: a
questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(11), 1625-1635.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis
Seventh Edition Prentice Hall.
Hampton, R., Dubinsky, A. J., & Skinner, S. J. (1986). A model of sales supervisor
leadership behavior and retail salespeople’s job-related outcomes. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 14(3), 33-43.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace
& World.
Hulin, C. (1991). Adaptation, persistence, and commitment in organizations, In M. D.
Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
(2nd ed., Vol.2). 445-505.
Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 251-273.
Imran, H., Arif, I., Cheema, S., & Azeem, M. (2014). Relationship between Job
Satisfaction, Job Performance, Attitude towards Work, and Organizational Commitment.
Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management Journal, 2(2), 135-144.
Jawahar, I., & Stone, T. H. (2015). Do career satisfaction and support mediate the effects
of justice on organizational citizenship behaviour and counterproductive work behaviour?

142
 Saifi & Shahzad

Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de

l'Administration. Earnly online version [14 October 2015].
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.
Kashif, M., Khan, Y., & Rafi, M. (2011). An Exploration of the Determinants of OCB in
the Telecommunication Sector of Pakistan. Asian Journal of Business Management, 3(2),
91-97.
Keaveney, S. M., & Nelson, J. E. (1993). Coping with organizational role stress: Intrinsic
motivational orientation, perceived role benefits, and psychological withdrawal. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(2), 113-124.
Keller, R. T. (1997). Job involvement and organizational commitment as longitudinal
predictors of job performance: A study of scientists and engineers. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82(4), 539.
Khan, A. H., Nawaz, M. M., Aleem, M., & Hamed, W. (2012). Impact of job satisfaction
on employee performance: An empirical study of autonomous Medical Institutions of
Pakistan. African Journal of Business Management, 6(7), 2697-2705.
Kidwell, R. E., Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesiveness and
organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups and
individuals. Journal of Management, 23(6), 775-793.
Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(3), 253-266.
Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange.
Academy of management Journal, 37(3), 656-669.
Kornhauser, A. W., & Sharp, A. A. (1932). Employee attitudes; suggestions from a study
in a factory. Personnel Journal, 10, 393-404.
Kuo, H. T., Lin, K. C., & Li, I. c. (2014). The mediating effects of job satisfaction on
turnover intention for long‐term care nurses in Taiwan. Journal of Nursing Management,
22(2), 225-233.
Lam, S. S., Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between organizational
justice and employee work outcomes: a cross‐national study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 23(1), 1-18.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of
organizational citizenship behavior: a critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87(1), 52-65.
LePine, J. A., Hanson, M. A., Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Contextual
performance and teamwork: Implications for staffing. Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, 19, 53-90.
McCain, S.-L. C., Tsai, H., & Bellino, N. (2010). Organizational justice, employees'
ethical behavior, and job satisfaction in the casino industry. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(7), 992-1009.
McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Research notes. Distributive and procedural
justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy
of Management Journal, 35(3), 626-637.
143
 Organizational Justice, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Miles, D. E., Borman, W. E., Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2002). Building an integrative
model of extra role work behaviors: A comparison of counterproductive work behavior
with organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 10(1‐2), 51-57.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845.
Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism‐collectivism as an individual
difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 16(2), 127-142.
Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and
organizational citizenship behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6(3),
209-225.
Murphy, G., Athanasou, J., & King, N. (2002). Job satisfaction and organizational
citizenship behaviour: A study of Australian human-service professionals. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 17(4), 287-297.
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship
between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 36(3), 527-556.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome:
Lexington Books/DC Heath and Com.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 12(1), 43-72.
Organ, D. W. (1994). Personality and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of
Management, 20(2), 465-478.
Organ, D. W., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Fairness and organizational citizenship
behavior: What are the connections? Social Justice Research, 6(1), 5-18.
Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1985). Cognition vs affect in measures of job satisfaction.
International Journal of Psychology, 20(2), 241-253.
Organ, D. W., & Paine, J. B. (1999). A new kind of performance for industrial and
organizational psychology: Recent contributions to the study of organizational citizenship
behavior. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14, (337-
368).
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2005). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship
behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences: Sage.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta‐analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775-802.

144
 Saifi & Shahzad

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(1), 45-59.
Piercy, N. F., Cravens, D. W., Lane, N., & Vorhies, D. W. (2006). Driving organizational
citizenship behaviors and salesperson in-role behavior performance: The role of
management control and perceived organizational support. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 34(2), 244-262.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000).
Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical
literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 36(4), 717-731.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the
literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698-714.
Rich, G. A. (1997). The sales manager as a role model: Effects on trust, job satisfaction,
and performance of salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4),
319-328.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2012). Organizational behavior: Pearson Higher Ed.
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and
counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: a policy-capturing
approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 66-80.
Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next
level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy
of Management Journal, 47(3), 332-349.
Shore, L. M., & Martin, H. J. (1989). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment in
relation to work performance and turnover intentions. Human Relations, 42(7), 625-638.
Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator in the
relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1),
100-108.
Smith, C., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its
nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653-666.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural
equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13(1982), 290-312.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The
dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created
equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446-460.
Strauss, G. (1968). Human relations—1968 style. Industrial Relations: A Journal of
Economy and Society, 7(3), 262-276.
Sun, L.-Y., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. (2007). High-performance human resource practices,
citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy
of Management Journal, 50(3), 558-577.
145
 Organizational Justice, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Tziner, A., & Sharoni, G. (2014). Organizational citizenship behavior, organizational

justice, job stress, and workfamily conflict: Examination of their interrelationships with
respondents from a non-Western culture. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las
Organizaciones, 30(1), 35-42.
Velnampy, T. (2008). Job attitude and employees performance of public sector
organizations in Jaffna district, Sri Lanka. GITAM Journal of Management, 6(2), 66-73.
Wan, H. L. (2016). Organisational Justice–Job Satisfaction–Organisational Citizenship
Behaviour Organisational Justice and Citizenship Behaviour in Malaysia (pp. 207-220):
Springer.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of
Management, 17(3), 601-617.
Williams, S., Pitre, R., & Zainuba, M. (2002). Justice and organizational citizenship
behavior intentions: Fair rewards versus fair treatment. The Journal of Social Psychology,
142(1), 33-44.
Wright, T. A., & Staw, B. M. (1999). Affect and favorable work outcomes: two
longitudinal tests of the happy–productive worker thesis. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 20(1), 1-23.
Yilmaz, K., & Tasdan, M. (2009). Organizational citizenship and organizational justice in
Turkish primary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(1), 108-126.
Yousaf, A., & Sanders, K. (2012). The Role of Job Satisfaction and Self‐Efficacy as
Mediating Mechanisms in the Employability and Affective Organizational Commitment
Relationship: A Case From a Pakistani University. Thunderbird International Business
Review, 54(6), 907-919.

146