Personnel Review

Emerald Article: Organizational anomie as moderator of the relationship between an unfavorable attitudinal environment and citizenship behavior (OCB): An empirical study among university administration and services personnel Pablo Zoghbi Manrique de Lara, Toms F. Espino Rodrguez

Article information:
To cite this document: Pablo Zoghbi Manrique de Lara, Toms F. Espino Rodrguez, (2007),"Organizational anomie as moderator of the relationship between an unfavorable attitudinal environment and citizenship behavior (OCB): An empirical study among university administration and services personnel", Personnel Review, Vol. 36 Iss: 6 pp. 843 - 866 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480710822391 Downloaded on: 10-05-2012 References: This document contains references to 96 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com This document has been downloaded 2524 times.

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITI SULTAN ZAINAL ABIDIN For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

Organizational anomie as moderator of the relationship between an unfavorable attitudinal environment and citizenship behavior (OCB)
An empirical study among university administration and services personnel
Pablo Zoghbi Manrique de Lara and Tomas F. Espino Rodrguez
University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between an unfavorable attitudinal environment and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). The proposed model suggests that organizational anomie (OA) acts as a moderator of that link, and thus OA interacts with unfavorable attitudes and OCB by tightening their theoretical negative association. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from 154 of the 758 non-teaching staff at a Spanish public university. Accessibility of individual e-mail accounts was similar for all employees. E-mails asking for collaboration were sent in two phases. A questionnaire was posted on the university intranet and could be accessed by clicking on a link in the e-mails. Findings Multiple hierarchical regression results support the moderating role of OA of the unfavorable attitude-OCB link because the unfavorable attitudes toward co-workers and toward the boss as-a-person among employees with low, compared with high OA, have a stronger negative relationship with OCB. OA moderation existed, but to varying degrees, between attitude toward ones job and some dimensions of OCB (OCBI, and OCBI client). OA also intensied the unpredicted positive relationship between attitude toward bosss performance and OCB. No moderating inuences were observed in the case of attitudes toward oneself and toward clients (students). Research limitations/implications The researched employees have job conditions inherent to the peculiarities of the public sector which may limit the ability to extrapolate the ndings in the private sector. Findings provide a more understandable mechanism of the inuence of attitudes on OCB. The research may aid OA acceptance into organizations, providing an explicit justication for the OA distinctiveness with other variables in the existing OB literature. Practical implications The ndings contribute to a better understanding of the attitudes-OCB link, and the ways to favor OCB through OA. Originality/value The use of OA as a moderator on this link is unprecedented. Keywords Employee attitudes, Leadership, Public sector organizations, Spain Paper type Research paper

Organizational anomie

843
Received May 2005 Revised July 2005 Accepted March 2006

In the last decade, non-task behaviors, or those not recognized in the job related tasks, both in the positive pole, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and the negative one, deviant workplace behaviors (DWB), have increasingly become the object of analysis and explanation in the literature on organizational behavior (OB), and of promotion

Personnel Review Vol. 36 No. 6, 2007 pp. 843-866 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0048-3486 DOI 10.1108/00483480710822391

PR 36,6

844

and/or control from the human resources management (HRM) perspective (Grifn et al., 1998). That interest is probably due to the also increasing evidence of its inuence on overall job performance, or its use as an indicator of a quality and efcient performance (Blancero et al., 1995; Morrison, 1996; Bell and Menguc, 2002; Kim et al., 2004). The inuence on OCB exerted by the employees evaluative perceptions, or attitudes, to determined elements of their organizational environment is a widely researched topic in the literature. Their perceptive-evaluative views of their organization, especially in terms of how fair they perceive its treatment, are shown as a very inuential factor widely supported in the literature (Farth et al., 1990; Moorman, 1991; Niehoff and Moorman, 1993; Moorman et al., 1993; Konovsky and Pugh, 1994). The same can be said about attitudes toward the leadership (Zellars et al., 2002; Tepper and Taylor, 2003); toward work groups and co-workers (Grifn et al., 1998; Robinson and OLeary-Kelly, 1998; Bommer et al., 2003); and toward ones self (Kaplan, 1976). The inuence of other attitudes toward other elements of the work context has also been studied as part of more general attitudinal models, although they have received somewhat less attention (e.g. Diefendorff et al., 2002). Hodson (1999, p. 299) states that anomic organizations are those that fail to meet a minimum set of common workplace norms. Bass (1990, p. 915) mentions the usefulness of anomie when he denes it as . . . the reduced social control against deviant behavior that is due to a disregard of norms and standards [and organizational values]. However, anomie remained largely outside empirical research in sociology until Leo Srole (1956) reformulated it into the individual-level construct of anomie (or anomia as he called it). Sroles (1956, p. 711) anomie generally refers to: the individuals generalized pervasive sense of self-to-others belongingness at one extreme [eunomia] compared with self-to-others distance and self-to-others alienation at the other pole of the continuum [anomia]. While it is clear that attitudinal dependent variables appear in many research works of unquestionable rigor and quality, the same cannot be said with regard to the inuence of multi-attitudinal surroundings on OCB. Furthermore, it appears that the inclusion of anomie as a variable moderating that attitudes-OCB relationship is unprecedented. In effect, Caruana et al. (2001) include it in a research design as an independent variable of deviant behaviors (DWB), but not of OCB and, therefore, without studying the aforementioned moderating effect. Hodson (1999) examines the OA of leaders, and not of the subordinates, and so analyzes its feed-back effect on worker resistance to the norms. In view of that gap in the literature, this research, applied to university administration and services personnel (ASP), proposes: . the verication of the negative inuence of unfavorable attitudinal surroundings on OCB; and . predicts the OA performance as a moderator of the relationship between an unfavorable attitude environment and OCB (see Figure 1). Theoretical background OCB is dened by Organ (1988, p. 4) as:
. . . the individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the

organization . . . the behavior is not the product of a requirement demanded by job functions or description . . . the behavior is the product of a personal decision.

Organizational anomie

McNeely and Meglino (1994) distinguish OCBO, directed at the organization, from OCBI, directed at individuals (also see Organ, 1997; Williams and Anderson, 1991). Therefore, OCB is extra-role behavior resulting from a performance that goes beyond what is strictly required by the job and which, by virtue of that nature, constitutes a powerful indicator of good job performance (Motowidlo and Van Scotter, 1994) from both the individual and the organizational perspective (Dunlop and Lee, 2004). This relationship seems to become more accentuated in the case of jobs with specic tasks related to the quality of service to customers (Morrison, 1996; Kim et al., 2004; Bell and Menguc, 2002; Blancero et al., 1995) and to university students (Rego, 2003). The use of individual, social and interpersonal factors in explaining employees OCB has received wide attention (Boye and Jones, 1997; Vardi and Weiner, 1996; Vardi, 2001). Although the social and interpersonal factors have been shown to exercise great inuence (Robinson and Greenberg, 1998; Robinson and OLeary-Kelly, 1998), the use of individual factors, such as workers personality traits, has been less fruitful (Robinson and Greenberg, 1998). Specically, the level of fairness in remuneration and processes that the employee perceives of the organization, or the extent to which the employee understands that the organization interacts fairly with him/her (distributive, procedural, and interactional justice), has acquired unquestionable research importance in the framework of social exchange since the beginning of the 1990s (Niehoff and Moorman, 1993; Moorman et al., 1998; Settoon et al., 1996; Shore and Wayne, 1993). Social exchange theory (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959; Homans, 1961; Blau, 1964) states how individual behavior only inuences those actions that will bring reward. When that does not occur, the responses cease. The supported inuence of the workers perceptions of determined elements of the organizational environment, where the organization forms a framework for social exchange, on OCB constitutes the non-task behavior most studied scenario (Vardi and Weiner, 1996; Boye and Jones, 1997; Vardi, 2001). Exchange theories include two types of exchange (Blau, 1964): (1) social exchange; and (2) economic exchange. The former are widespread since the exchange is neither nite nor tangible, while the latter stem from the actual contractual relationship and involve clear and tangible exchanges, such as salary (Organ, 1990). Among the perceptions that affect social

845

Figure 1. Predicted model for the analysis of OA as moderator of the relationship between an unfavorable attitudinal environment and OCB

PR 36,6

exchange, we can highlight the leader support (Smith et al., 1983), the anomic behavior of supervisors (Hodson, 1999), the leaders level of honesty (Farth et al., 1990), the perceived organization support (e.g. Moorman et al., 1998), and values in the workplace (Van Dyne et al., 1994). Moorman (1991) made signicant contributions to associations of different types of organizational justice and OCB. Attitudinal environment and OCB As seen above, the employees perceptive-evaluative view of their organization, especially in terms of how fair they perceive it, is shown to be one of the most studied and signicant factors in the explanation of OCB in the social exchange framework (Farth et al., 1990; Moorman, 1991; Niehoff and Moorman, 1993; Moorman et al., 1993; Konovsky and Pugh, 1994). In effect, perceptions of organizational experiences force the human resources to evaluate their exchange relationships with the organization (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1974), by weighing up the level of justice or equity of exchange. Thus, the workers who perceive a fair relationship tend to display more OCB through higher commitment and integration. On the other hand, those employees who perceive that relationship as one-sided or unfair tend to abandon OCB and redene their relationships as purely material or tangible, economic exchanges, engaging in misconduct (Greenberg, 1990; Skarlicki and Folger, 1997). Following the above arguments as a guide, we may state that attitudes constitute the line that links most of the previous works, by referring to perceptions and, necessarily, to evaluations of the mentioned factors. In effect, the perception of organizational justice, in any of its forms, is a specic attitude toward the organization and/or its elements. Most of the new factors are considered from the evaluative perception of the employee. Therefore, attitudes form a great part of the independent variables that have been studied in relation to OCB. The literature has addressed the interdependence of many organizational attitudes (Robbins, 2001) from a doctrinal perspective[1] that permits us to speak of an unfavorable attitudinal environment. Eagly and Chaiken (1993) point out that attitude is an internal psychological state that becomes apparent through observable cognitive, affective and behavioral responses. Attitudes are evaluative perceptions of the organizational environment that generate psychological predispositions, which, in turn, generate organizational responses. Those responses include those that encourage organizational behavior and, within that, OCB[2]. As Morgan (1986) stresses, the fundamental factor that inuences organizational behavior comprises not so much the non-observance of, or maximum compliance with, the rules, explanations and principles stemming from social interaction or from the legitimate organizational system, as the perceptions and interpretations that take place; in other words, the so-called images of the organization. In short, from that perspective, the literature has used the perceptive-evaluative element individual and collective attitudes as a fundamental variable to explain OCB (Randall et al., 1999; Moorman and Harland, 2002; Tepper et al., 2001; Bommer et al., 2003). With regard the boundaries of the environment that we methodologically propose in this study, whether the target is organizational or relational, makes the work environment the natural framework for its analysis. A second aspect involves selecting the most representative attributes of the ASP environment. The internal and external core evaluations are the appraisals individuals make of their work environment. The classic Job Descriptive Index (JDI) of Smith et al. (1969) indicates ve key facets that

846

dene favorable attitudes at work: the job itself, supervision, co-workers, pay and promotion. According to university OB literature, the most frequent internal and external core evaluations are the attitudes toward: ones self, colleagues, bosses, ones job and students (Hill, 1995; Owlia and Aspinwall, 1996; Alvarez and Rodrguez, 1997). Previous research on the university OB literature indicates that unfavorable attitudinal perceptions from the teaching and non-teaching employee may reduce OCB, decreasing commitment either toward the organization or toward other individuals OCBO and OCBI (Rego, 2003). Hence, our rst hypotheses are: H1a. An environment perceived as unfavorable by the ASP has a negative relationship with their OCBO. H1b. An environment perceived as unfavorable by the ASP has a negative relationship with their OCBI. H1c. An environment perceived as unfavorable by the ASP has a negative relationship with their OCBI expressly directed at the client (student). Sociological anomie and organizational anomie (OA) Emile Durkheim (1984), 1893) developed the concept of anomie (from the Greek, an-: absence, and -nomos: law) and used it to describe a societal condition of normlessness, a lack of solidarity and regulation in the social structure, and a general lack of integration between people and groups (see also Marks, 1974). In the former, Durkeim denes anomie as the wrongs that society as a whole has suffered due to the lack of moral and legal norms as a consequence of the weakening of mediating institutions such as the family and the Church, among others. Such a situation leads to a breakdown in the system of values of society as a whole. In the latter, anomie is explained not only on a level of the organization of society, but also by societys failure to humanize people. Durkheim speaks of the essential angst that has always been part of the human condition and that disappears when society succeeds in submitting people to its system of norms, but reappears this would be the anomie when it fails in its attempts to humanize them. Mertons (1957) classic essay on the topic rened the concept in the American sociological literature into a question of a structural disjunction for social actors between the goals that they seek and the socially constructed means by which they can pursue these goals. Anomie largely remained outside empirical research in sociology, however, until Srole (1956) reformulated it into the individual-level construct of anomie, which generally refers to the degree of felt social connectedness of the actors. As seen above, the scale he developed refers to the eunomia-anomia continuum. There has been some debate on the validity of Sroles Anomie Scale and his construct, by asserting that it really measures some mixture of powerlessness and other forms of alienation, rather than anomie (e.g. Lee, 1974; Ryan, 1981). On the other hand, several researchers have supported its validity by reporting, for example, that the scale satises the criterion of unidimensionality in a latent structure analysis (Robinson and Shaver, 1973; Miller and Buttler, 1966). Despite these criticisms, the research on the concept of anomie, in both levels, has been vast and continues to grow. Durkheim and Merton refer to an anomie whose etiology is sociological. From that perspective, a study of anomie in the organization can only consider the organization as one more factor of society as a whole. Moreover, the anomic worker can, to a greater

Organizational anomie

847

PR 36,6

848

or lesser extent, bring his/her anomie in from outside the organization, making it difcult to evaluate the differential effect of organizational variables (unfavorable attitudinal work variables) from other extra-organizational variables. In effect, our study requires a variable designed on a single level, that is, from within the organization itself. We label that anomie organizational anomie (OA). Anomie in organizations (OA). There are still few studies of OA as organizational disorder in the literature on OB and HRM. In general, OA was originally studied from the perspective of organizations lacking values or a solid normative fabric. Allport (1924) states that, when an organization does not express its values clearly, it becomes anomic. He denes such an organization as lacking vitality and seriously lacking cohesion in its social whole, and especially as easy prey to loss of morale. They seem to be shaky organizations prone to collapse. Allen and LaFollette (1977) introduce a concept very close to Anomie alienation into organizations. They related the level of alienation to the level of hierarchy of perceived authority. Shedd and Bachrach (1991) give warning of this danger to organizations in the processes of growth, expansion and greater specialization, and who neglect healthy, parallel centripetal processes. For Hodson (1999) anomic organizations are those that suffer a lack of common norms at work. Although an organization might be characterized as being anomic, it is still the individuals who are disconnected not only from others and from their environment but also from self. In other words, it may not make much sense to talk about an organization that is disconnected from itself. It is reasonable to employ the concept of anomie (as traditionally dened) as a summary term for an organization in which conditions contributing to such disconnections are abundant and there appears to be a large number of individuals who may be having similar experiences. McClosky and Schaar (1965) offered evidence that cognitive and psychological factors mediate anomic responses. Menard (1995) criticizes Bernards (1987) purely macrosocial conceptualization of anomie as being too restrictive. Echoing the claim made 30 years earlier by McClosky and Schaar (1965), Menard says that there are clearly social psychological aspects to anomie that are best operationalized at the individual level. Consequently, non-subjective meanings of anomie should also be explored. There is a tradition among sociology scholars to differentiate phenomena denition and measurement in what they called structural terms structural anomie rather than in terms of feelings felt anomie (Hagedorn and Labovitz, 1968). Thus, when analyzed and measured, anomie appears to have three clear issues. The rst is subjective, in the individual context or felt anomie , and stresses the highly personal perspective of the individual suffering the anomie and points to a sociological etiology in which other psychological factors play a part. The second perspective is more objective, seen from the social context social disorder, structural anomie or a particular anomie stressor , and refers to anomie as a social pathology of determined groups or organizations within society that lack explicit or implicit rules and values. The third is behavioral, and so manifests behaviors of anomie. Our research refers to anomie as an unfavorable attitudinal work environment that would act as a particular anomie stressor on felt anomie. In effect, an unfavorable work environment may generate feelings of exposure or emptiness that may lead the ASP to feel isolation and even adjustment problems (Hayek, 1994). At least, such a situation would inuence OCB.

Alienation, and other concepts close to anomie. Although alienation has been dened in a variety of ways, it should never be treated as objective social conditions. Srole (1956) denes anomie as feelings that have some alienation associated; but alienation is a multidimensional concept and, therefore, that association must be variegated. Seeman (1959) identied ve alternative meanings of alienation: powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, isolation, and self-estrangement. The denition most closely associated with the traditional uses of anomie is normlessness, which derives from Durkheims (1893/1897) original conceptualization (Durkheim, 1951, 1984. This is a state in which social norms regulating individual behavior have broken down or are no longer effective. Seemans focus is, however, different from both Durkheims and Mertons in that he is concerned with the individuals experience, the awareness of ones condition, and not the objectively observable state or condition itself. Isolation refers to a separation of ones self from other members of the group or society. This is not a physical state but an emotional experience, a feeling of separateness or of not being a part of the group. Anomie is also the specic individuals experience of being in that situation. Fischer (1973) expressed the possibility that the measure of isolation might be better interpreted as a gauge of the subjective sense of anomie. Despite this issue, he asserted that the two concepts are different. Those facets of alienation in organizations seem to have antecedents related to aspects of the structural properties of organizations, such as centralization or formalization (see, e.g. Sarros et al., 2002), whereas OA tends to be more a sense associated to a lack of organizational norms (e.g. Hodson, 1999) and organizational culture or values (e.g. Farrell et al., 2001). Another concept close to anomie would be the lack of perceived organizational support (POS). Esisenber et al. (1990, p. 51) described it as a general perception concerning the extent to which the organization values [employees] general contributions and cares for their well-being. POS appears be more associated to structural anomie stressors than to real feelings of anomie. Finally, anomie can suggest other OB constructs such as social support, unclear expectations and a pessimistic worldview, which, although they are really feelings associated to the anomie concept, are shades of anomie (Neves, 2003) rather than overlaps with existing OB constructs (e.g. Fischer, 1973; Aiken and Hage, 1966). The moderating role of OA in the unfavorable attitude-OCB link The question that now concerns us is whether, and how, OA may moderate our link under study. First, we should not forget that the literature on anomie shows a clear relationship between anomie and deviant behavior. In effect, Potter (1989) accepts that anomie contributes to an increase in a workers inclination to show deviant behaviors. Cohen (1995) provides a model that relates anomie to social values, business strategy, organizational culture and deviant behavior in rms. Last, it has been shown empirically that anomie is a predictor of worker turnover (Taylor and Zimmerer, 1992). Second, from a more individual perspective, OA is the perceived absence of norms and values in an individual, and thus the perception, and unfavorable inuence, of such a situation. Therefore, since it is the anomic employee him/herself who makes the evaluation in the perception of OA as a social-objective-disorder, it can be considered an attitudinal object. In this respect, we could talk of anomic attitudes focusing the attitudinal unfavorability that anomie causes (Adams, 1962). Above arguments may

Organizational anomie

849

PR 36,6

850

permit us to include the variable OA in the unfavorable attitudinal environment, reinforcing the potential negative relationship with OCB. Third, as Eagly and Chaiken (1993) state, attitude is an internal psychological condition that is reected in observable cognitive, affective and behavioral responses. Attitudes are evaluative perceptions of the organizational environment that generate psychological predispositions towards the organization, and, subsequently, the organizational responses. Those responses include those that encourage the OB, and within that, the OCB. OA, as felt anomie, may be provoked by subjective evaluations of the individual and social disorders. Thus, an unfavorable attitudinal work environment reects a framework of negative organizational evaluations as a result of the environment collapsed. OA, which by denition reects a decline of norms and values in individuals, may be closely associated with such dissatisfaction with the environment. In effect, as we mentioned earlier, attitudes) are evaluations of attitudinal objects and, therefore, attitudinal decline entails an evaluative and, inevitably, anomic decline (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993). For example, Hackman and Oldham (1976) relate attitudes toward ones job with OA when they indicate the alienation felt by employees when their attitudes toward their jobs are unfavorable. McClosky and Schaar (1965) show the inuence of the absence of boss support on the OA of the employees. Therefore, our following hypotheses are: H2a. The negative link between unfavorable attitude toward the ones job and OCB will be stronger for employees with high as compared to low OA. H2b. The negative link between unfavorable attitude toward the boss as-a-person and OCB will be stronger for employees with high as compared to low OA. H2c. The negative link between unfavorable attitude toward co-workers and OCB will be stronger for employees with high as compared to low OA. H2d. The negative link between unfavorable attitude toward the boss performance and OCB will be stronger for employees with high as compared to low OA. H2e. The negative link between unfavorable attitude toward the clients (students) and OCB will be stronger for employees with high as compared to low OA. H2f. The negative link between unfavorable attitude toward ones self and OCB will be stronger for employees with high as compared to low OA. Method Procedure and sample characteristics Data were collected from 154 employees of the administration and services personnel (ASP) of a Spanish public university. The population/universe of this collective comprises the 758 members of ASP of that university. With a response rate of 20.32 percent, we achieved a sampling error of 7.1 percent for a reliability interval of 95.5 percent. Although among the ASP there is not a deep culture of using IT communication (response rate no more than 20.32 percent) the ASP have individual access to e-mail, and also all ASP had the same opportunity to access it. Additionally, there was no reason to presume a predisposition of the ASP different from the responses. Therefore, we can support the randomness of the sample. Next, the sample descriptive structures are quite similar to the data population mentioned. Effectively,

in the universe 344 members (45.5 percent) are career civil servants while the remaining 414 (54.5 percent) have other types of contracts. With regard to age and gender, 358 (47.2 percent) are 40 years-old or younger, and only 23 (3 percent) are older than 60, while 47.3 percent are men, and 52.7 percent women. In the sample, men constituted 50.7 percent of it and women 49.3 percent, while 47.4 percent were 40 or younger and 6.6 percent were 60 or older. Finally, 46.7 percent were civil servants and the remainder were not permanent staff. E-mails asking for the ASPs collaboration were sent in two phases; the rst was on October 5, 2004 and the second on November 11. A questionnaire was posted on the university Intranet and could be accessed by clicking on a link in the e-mails. The responses were received over a period ending on December 2. Eventually, there were 154 valid responses after ve were rejected due to incorrect completion or incoherent information. Measures All the items were scored on a seven-point scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (7) Strongly Agree never (1) to constantly (7) in OCB and are shown in Tables I, II and III. Reliability was established by means of Cronbachs alphas, the values of which are shown on the main diagonal of the correlations table (Table I). A summary of the attitude variable data is given in Table I, which shows that the total explained variance signicantly exceeds an acceptable 60 percent (Hair, 1998). Attitudes toward co-workers. We used a three-item scale adapted from that of Wayne and Ferris (1990) and Wayne and Liden (1995). The scale was originally designed to measure friendliness towards the supervisors or managers. The reference to those gures was changed to co-workers in our scale. Attitudes toward superiors. Three of the seven items of this scale were also adapted from Wayne and Ferris (1990) and Wayne and Liden (1995) for the dimension of favorability in the evaluation of the person embodying superiority. Four other items, designed after a review of the literature on leadership (Pitt, 1985; Bass, 1990), were also included in the scale. Those four items completed the scale, which now measured attitude towards the boss performance. Two were automatically recodied by inverting them to adapt to the other items. All items referred to bosses and/or superiors, on the premise that those positions give an image of superiority in the respondents minds. There was no attempt to identify who was considered boss or superior, but rather the inuence that such a subjective gure exercises on each responding ASP. Attitudes toward tasks. We used a scale with six items extracted and adapted from Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) in assessing the personnels self-satisfaction with the tasks associated with their jobs. Attitudes toward the student. For assessing this variable we used the three-item scale adapted from Wayne and Ferris (1990) and Wayne and Liden (1995). In this case the reference to bosses was changed to students. Attitudes toward oneself. We used an adaptation of those designed and employed by Kaplan and Pokorny (1969) and Rosenberg (1965) in assessing self-esteem. The four chosen items were adapted as far as possible to the organizational framework by including expressions such as in my job as an initial reference to the organization. Control variables. After a review of the literature, we considered two variables, gender (1 male, 2 female), and age (1 from 23 to 30; 2 31 to 40; 3 41 to 50;

Organizational anomie

851

PR 36,6

852

Attitudes 0.146 0.160 0.211 0.078 0.090 0.074 0.052 0.070 0.156 0.338 20.054 0.095 0.069 20.047 0.333 0.065 0.090 0.061 0.265 0.224 0.129 0.178 0.275 20.152 0.196 0.432 2 0.050 0.048 0.081 0.066 0.214 2 0.163 0.277 0.124 0.130 0.123 20.004 0.154 0.044 0.143 0.535 0.839 0.745 0.846 0.597 0.068 0.145 0.224 2 0.052 2 0.033 0.061 0.079 0.220 0.039 0.816 0.851 0.772 0.597 0.080 0.245 0.263 0.088 0.049 0.013 0.040 2 0.053 0.134 2 0.245 0.258 0.012 0.924 0.906 0.908 0.127 0.177 0.227 0.159 0.120 0.111 0.010 0.053 0.011 20.064 0.101 0.065 20.110 0.074 0.122 0.179 0.155 0.225 0.832 0.829 0.836 20.128 0.108 0.086 0.159 0.197 0.172 0.187 0.895 0.860 0.891 0.011 0.023 0.010 0.096 0.194 0.130

Unfavorable attitudes towards co-workers: I really like my co-workers as people (R) I believe that my co-workers could be good friends of mine (R) There is a good relationship between me and my co-workers (R) Unfavorable attitudes towards the bosses as a person: I really like my boss as a person (R) I believe that my boss could be a good friend (R) There is a good relationship between me and my boss (R) Unfavorable attitudes towards the position of bosses: University hierarchy seems capable and efcient (R) University bosses set a good example in fullling their obligations (R) In general the University heads seek their own interests I have a bad image of the University directors Unfavorable attitudes towards ones job: I am satised with my job (R) I have a positive attitude towards my work (R) My tasks in the University are interesting (R) I learn a lot in my job (R) My work at the University is important (R) Unfavorable attitudes towards students: I really like the students as people (R) I believe that many students could be good friends of mine (R) The students and I usually get on well together (R) Unfavorable attitudes towards oneself: I think I do not have much to make me feel proud of myself In my job I sometimes think that I am not a good person The truth is that I sometimes feel useless in my job I have a positive attitude towards myself in my job

Note: the items marked (R) were recodied

Table I. Exploratory factor analysis of attitudinal variables Factors F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 0.087 0.025 0.100 14.985 0.118 0.006 0.054 28.200 0.102 0.053 0.038 2 0.049 40.667 0.128 0.168 0.141 0.023 0.067 52.894 0.054 0.085 2 0.046 63.641 0.635 0.703 0.658 0.471 Total explained variance % 71.299

4 51 to 60; 5 61 to 70; 6 71 to 75), which could covary with our dependent and independent variables and, therefore, could be included as control variables in our analyses (e.g. Zellars et al., 2002; Aquino et al., 2004). Organizational anomie. The scale used to measure this variable was based on the expanded Sroles (1956) ve-item scale to nine-items in 1972. It has been employed since 1973 to measure felt anomie at a psychological-level in Social Sciences by the National Opinion Research Center of the USA. Since the felt anomie considered by
v001 I feel well integrated into the University (R) v002 You sometimes cant help wondering what I am doing in an organization like this v003 In this organization one must live for today, I prefer not to think about the future v004 Despite what they want us to say, in general the people in this University are getting worse v005 With things as they are in the University it is difcult to get excited about the future v006 Most of the University employees are not really interested in other peoples problems v007 In my work I dont know to whom I can tell the truth v008 Sometimes I think I dont know what the University really wants of us 0.576 0.629 0.564 0.780 0.834 0.616 0.704 0.690

Organizational anomie

853

Notes: Cronbachs alpha 0.8621; total explained variance 46.263%; the items marked (R) were recodied

Table II. Factor analysis of organizational anomie (OA)

OCBO I perform functions that help the Universitys image and that are not required by my joba I support the advances and improvements in my universitya I defend the University to other employees who criticize it I feel proud when I represent the University in other places I offer ideas to improve the functioning of the University I express my loyalty to the University I do things to protect my university against possible problems I am very interested in the image that the University projects I help others when they have been away or absent I voluntarily use my time to help others who have problems with their work I plan my working day to be able to take some time to exchange opinions with my co-workers I help new co-workers to feel at home in their work I am polite and show sincere interest in my co-workers in even tense personal and professional situations I give time to others when they have personal or work problems I help others with their tasks I share my work tools with co-workers when they need them I help students with their problems I offer directions to students who appear to be lost in the corridors I help new students to feel at home in the ULPGC I do my best not to make students wait I am polite and show sincere interest in students even when they are complaining about something 0.152 0.331 0.848 0.845 0.586 0.884 0.796 0.778 0.340 0.118 0.211 0.200 0.328 0.053 0.048 0.108 0.063 0.040 0.118 0.067 0.199

OCBI 0.515 0.542 0.013 0.128 0.296 0.186 0.200 0.277 0.720 0.723 0.480 0.764 0.592 0.836 0.859 0.797 0.263 0.201 0.131 0.225 0.300

OCBI client 0.309 0.184 0.096 0.028 0.115 2 0.048 0.203 0.161 0.157 0.220 0.301 0.219 0.203 0.168 0.182 0.079 0.771 0.751 0.900 0.871 0.745 Table III. Exploratory OCB factor analysis

Notes: Total Cronbachs alpha 0.920; total explained variance 64.365%; athese items were dropped

PR 36,6

854

Srole appears to be too broad, we revised some items. We rst eliminated two broad items health and money the most important things in life, to make money there are no right and wrong ways, and, nally, it is hardly fair to bring a child into the word with the way things look for the future. The item a person doesnt really know who s/he can count on was reformulated into item v006 (see Table II). Items v001 and v008 (see Table II) were self-supplied, in line with the existing anomie literature. The remainder were basically the same as those of Sroles scale. Organizational citizenship behavior. We used the 16-items of the scale proposed by Lee and Allen (2002). The inclusion of the references to the university were made to the wording of the original 16-item scale (eight for OCBO and eight for OCBI), such as. A total of ve more items referring to OCBI toward the student were added. The nal structure was a 21-item, seven-point Likert type scale where 1 indicated total disagreement with the statement and 7 total agreement. After a factor analysis with varimax rotation, the scale was reduced to the predicted three dimensions. Two OCBO items were dropped since they unexpectedly loaded on the OCBI dimension (see Table III). Results Table IV presents the descriptive statistics, correlations (r), and reliabilities for all the study variables. An examination of Table IV reveals that the all six attitudinal variables are negatively and signicantly correlated with OCBO, however the association with OCBI and OCBI targeting the client are not so strong, especially with the latter. Consequently, those associations seem to add an initial support for our rst hypotheses. In order to test with more rigor both those hypotheses and those related to OA moderation, three multiple hierarchical regressions were conducted (Cohen and Cohen, 1983). We performed three steps: rst, the control variables were entered in Step 1, followed by the attitudinal independent variables in Step 2. The OA and the two-way interactions were entered in Step 3. The variables were centered to reduce multicolinearity (Aiken and West, 1991). The results, with the standardized Beta coefcients, are presented in Table V. The table shows the R 2 at each step of the regression, as well as the signicance of the beta weights for the individual predictor variables in the nal step. The statistical signicance of the change in R 2 when the interaction terms were added was appraised to test the hypothesized moderating effects of OA and the status variables. Each of the variables of the attitudinal environment, except for unfavorable attitudes toward ones self, showed a signicant direct relationship with some OCB dimension. In light of those results, the generated models explain the negative relationship of the unfavorable attitudinal environment as a whole and OCB. However, the betas (b) show disparate results. In effect, although the signicant results are negative in general, the betas for attitudinal unfavorability toward the bosses performance are both positive and signicant in both OCBI (B 0.20; p # 0.05) and OCBI Client (B 0.15; p # 0.05) models but strongly negative in OCBO (B 0.38; p # 0.001). These issues are partially contrary to our predictions. However we must take into account that the greater the unfavorability toward the institutional position of boss, the greater both types of relational OCB are. This appears to add support to the ASP feelings of unfavorability toward bosses performance implying an organization perceived as institutionally distant. Consequently, a refuge reaction or effect can

M 0.502 0.612 20.01 1.38 20.19 * * 1.03 0.02 1.31 0.02 1.31 0.09 0.10 (0.90) 0.45 0.16 * * 0.04 0.28 0.07 20.38 (0.89) 0.49 0.05 (0.90) 0.06 (0.83) 0.30 (0.91) 0.11 0.67 0.36 0.08 0.34 42 0.30 0.28 0.10 0.01 0.15 * 0.09 0.13 0.45 (0.95) (0.79) 38 0.05 0.22 * * * (0.70) 20.24 * * * 20.45 20.26 * * * 20.13 0.05 20.39 20.46 20.56 20.21 * * * 0.13 20.10 0.08 20.30 20.40 20.51 20.28 20.35 * * * 20.24 * * * 20.10 20.01 20.16 * 20.15 * 20.33 0.01 0.12 0.15 * 0.13 0.04 0.18 * * 20.16 *

SD

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

1.49 2.59 5.10 5.67 5.68 3.91

3.33 1.13

3.48 1.88

4.36 1.44

2.62 1.33

2.88 1.37

44 (0.82) 44 0.21 * * * (0.59)

(1) Gender (2) Age (3) OCBO (4) OCBI (5) OCBI Client (6) Organizational nomie (OA) (7) Unfavorability to co-orkers (8) Unfavorability to boss a a person (9) Unfavorability to boss perform (10) Unfavorability to 0nes job (11) Unfavorability to students (clients) (12) Unfavorability to oneself

2.41 1.23

Notes: Gender: 1 male, 2 female. Age: 1 23 to 30, 2 31 to 40, 3 41 to 50, 4 51 to 60, 5 61 to 70, 6 71 to 75. The (ai # are shown on the diagonal in italics. Levels of signicance: * p # 0.1; * *p # 0.05; * * * p # 0.01; p # 0.001

Organizational anomie

855

Table IV. Means, standard deviations, correlations and reliabilities

PR 36,6

856

Step 1: Gender Age R2 20.18 0.06 0.04 * 20.35 20.24 20.08 20.38 20.08 20.10 0.33 20.18 20.11 20.01 20.11 20.09 20.07 0.09 0.02 0.35 9.04 2 1.63 * 2 1.35 2 0.01 2 1.29 2 1.17 2 0.86 1.12 0.34 0.16 20.13 0.06 0.19 20.04 0.07 0.12 0.30 4.86 2 5.02 2 3.36 2 1.16 2 5.43 2 1.09 2 1.43 20.15 20.07 20.32 0.20 20.24 20.05 0.22 20.19 * 20.90 24.21 2.59 * * 23.14 20.60 2 2.26 * * 0.74 0.06 0.15 0.03 0.71 1.84 *

Step 2: Attitudes Attitudes Attitudes Attitudes Attitudes Attitudes DR 2 2.93 * * * 1.93 * 21.57 * 0.69 2.37 * * * 20.52 0.83

Step 3: Organizational anomie (OA) OA ones job OA boss as a person OA co-workers OA bosss performance OA students (clients) OA oneself DR 2 Adjusted R 2 F (15,122)

Note: N 154. Levels of signicance: * p# 0.1; * * p # 0.05; * * * p # 0.01; p # 0.001

Table V. Results of hierarchical regression analysis OCBO OCBI t OCBI client t

b
0.03 0.00 0.00 0.02 2 0.05 2 0.08 0.15 2 0.49 2 0.03 0.27 2 0.08 2 0.14 0.12 2 0.17 0.16 2 0.02 0.13 0.09 0.28 4.50

t 0.41 0.00

ones job boss as a person co-workers bosss performance students (client) oneself

0.23 2 0.59 2 0.99 1.98 * * 2 6.55 2 0.34

2 0.66 2 1.66 * 1.49 2 1.93 * * 1.99 * * 2 0.19 1.58

occur. This gives the impression that the ASP seek refuge in their closest social and workplace environment, especially in the work group (OCBI; B 0.20; p # 0.05) and also in being on good terms with the clients (OCBI client; B 0.15; p # 0.05). In consequence, the situation could be balanced and therefore a more intense and more gratifying interpersonal OCB could be developed. On the other hand, we observe that in the case of the OCBO model it is totally the opposite (B 0.38; p # 0.001) and, therefore, congruent with the previous analysis. Although unfavorability toward boss performance reduces OCBO, negative attitudes toward co-workers and students do not lead to fewer OCBO behaviors (interactional OCBs are not signicant). It seems logical that both attitudinal objects could be perceived as elements outside the organization from an institutional point of view. Support for that premise is found in the OCBI regression, where both elements have crucial inuence on OCBI. The same can be said in the case of OCBI toward the client in the OCBI Client regression , referring only to unfavorable attitude toward the student (B 0.49; p # 0.001). All the above leads to the acceptance of H1a, the partial acceptance of H1b and H1c, and a particularly low acceptance of H1c since only the attitudes toward students can support the relationship with OCB. Two-way interactions were applied to test the hypothesis linking OA, as the moderating variable, to the relationships between higher attitudinal unfavorability and lower OCB (Step 3; Table V). Table V shows that the two-way interactions jointly explained a signicant amount of incremental variance in OCBO (DR 2 0.02; p # 0.001), in OCBI (DR 2 0.12; p # 0.001) and OCBI Client (DR 2 0.09; p # 0.001). Inspection of the individual interactions failed to reveal a signicant two-way interaction between OA and unfavorable attitudes toward students and ones self for either of the models tested, so H2e and H2f were not supported. We also failed to nd support for H2d, which predicted negative interactions between unfavorable attitudes toward bosses performance and OCB. Contrary to expectations, there is an OA moderation, but in positive terms. Probably, OA intensies the ASP refuge effect in the relational context mentioned above. We did, however, nd a signicant interactional OA Boss as-a-person (B 0.13; p # 0.10) in the OCBI model and OA Co-workers (B 0.17; p # 0.05) in the OCBI Client model. This pattern supports H2b and H2c. Finally, we did nd opposite signicant interactional OA Ones job in both OCBI (B 0.16; p # 0.10) and OCBI Client (B 0.14; p # 0.10) models. This issue gives partial support to H1a, which is consequently partly accepted. Discussion One clear conclusion of this research refers to the overall thesis that greater attitudinal unfavorability generates lower OCB, and that OA exercises a selective control of this negative relationship that we should proceed to shade it. An inspection to the correlations reveals that the relationship between an unfavorable attitudinal environment and OCB was intense in the case of OCBO, becoming weaker in OCBI, and weaker still in OCBI directed to clients. However, OA as moderator appeared to follow the opposite direction; there are no effects in the case of OCBO and the effect intensies in OCBI and again in OCBI client. Therefore, another clear conclusion of this research seems to indicate that, in general, the OCB-attitude link is stronger for more anomic employees than for less anomic subjects, but only in the relational OCB context

Organizational anomie

857

PR 36,6

858

(see Figure 2). In effect, the ASP are more inclined to show OCBO if attitudes toward the boss as-a-person, the post of boss, and tasks are unfavorable. These attitudinal objects seem to overlap in the university institution and, consequently, they are more associated to a university that, through those issues, provides norms, support and values to its ASP. In such a context, OA could exert a minimum moderator effect (DR 2 0.02; p # 0.001) on unfavorable attitudinal inuence. However, in relational OCBs, attitudinal variables (students and co-workers) do not appear to overlap with the effects of perceptions of the university. This could be the reason why moderating effects emerged in this framework. That greater inclination might indicate that ASP who suffer normative and evaluative decline would need more support from their co-workers (affective), their immediate supervisor as-a person (affective and formal) and greater satisfaction with their tasks (functional support), in order to generate relational citizenship behaviors. In the absence of that support, their OCBI and OCBI Client could decline much more dramatically. Therefore, the university institution must understand that overall OA is a key variable to protect against the risk of a decline in high OCBIs. An unfavorable attitude toward ones self is shown to be indifferent in practically all the models and insensitive to any moderating effect of OA. The nature of structural OA, which is basically fuelled by individual external variables, as seen in the literature, is conrmed. In effect, OA is a result of the normative-evaluative collapse of the employee suffering

Figure 2. Final a posteriori model that shows all relationships supported by the study

OA. Although it has psychological signs, which are precisely what our scale attempts to measure, one must not lose sight of its marked external etiology on the employee, which is congruent with the null explanatory contribution of attitude toward oneself. Implications, limitations and recommendations Behind any decision by the management of organizations to favor and/or control the non-task behavior studied in this work, we believe there are certain practical implications, which we briey suggest. In this study we have been able to provide further corroboration of the complexity of human behavior in organizations. A complex attitudinal framework, enhanced and conditioned by OA, enables us to address the causes of human behavior, particularly OCB, in organizations. We believe that the mechanisms favoring OCB should be in keeping with the complexity and nature of those OCB. In effect, if the perceptive-evaluative element (individual and collective attitudes) did not constitute a key variable to explain OCB better, the use of strict organizational control, even when based on coercive strategies, would have already put an end to the studied phenomenon. However, the success of classic discipline and other traditional protocols are repeatedly in crisis, possibly because they act through merely symptomatic treatments and ignore more rigorous proposals that examine the deep-rooted causes of OCB in the human being. The success of the normative framework together with partial OA moderator effects could lead us to think that a modern system of control of non-task behavior should go beyond the situationalist view, which refuses to consider lazy, highly committed or irresponsible employees, but considers ASP conditioned by a more or less favorable attitudinal environment. The organizations human resources management is mainly responsible and probably must not only be seeking a classic route to ASP satisfaction and motivation but also audit the organizational norms and values in order to exercise control over OA. In this respect, we should state our personal support for organizational learning as a tool to integrate that knowledge and achieve those behavioral improvements in the organizations members. In effect, knowledge is something more than mere data or information ow charged with data (Davenport and Prusak, 1998); it is a framework of the individuals experiences, values (attitudes), information and know how that permits both the accumulation of new knowledge and effective action. Organizational learning (OL) allows the organization to integrate the knowledge to achieve those behavioral improvements in the organizations members. Therefore, it requires tools that permit individual knowledge to be converted into collective knowledge. On the same lines, Senge (1990) lays the foundations for so-called intelligent organizations. OL classies the decit of OCB as a problem if the following occurs: . the target behavior is not observed; . there is a wish to correct that; and . the skills and resources are provided to correct it (MacCrimmon and Taylor, 1976). If we limit ourselves to the greater or lesser depth and complexity required in the solution, we can distinguish two types of structure for problems (Andreu and Sieber, 1998): structured problems and non-structured problems. The rst only require the

Organizational anomie

859

PR 36,6

860

application of a routine protocol, while the second require a change in the mental structures of those involved. Therefore, we believe that the control of OCB requires in-depth changes in the mental structures of the actors, based on the hypothesis that the nature of OCB is essentially attitudinal and we face an extremely destructured problem. In effect, that control is based on the fact that OCB is strongly promoted by workers evaluative perception of his/her organizational environment rather than of the objective reality of that environment. Senge (1990) and Rouse et al. (1992), among others, already refer to the ability of OL to mobilize the mental model, or the subjects set of internal images of the world surrounding him/her that condition his/her view of it and has a strong inuence on his/her behavior and learning. In short, they refer to a know-what that goes beyond the know-how, and know-why. With regard to the academic implications, we should highlight the introduction of OA and its concomitant inuences of greater or lesser social-normative-evaluative support on citizenship behaviors into the literature on OCB. We believe that the inclusion of that variable strengthens the thesis that argues the inuence of social exchange relationships on citizenship behavior. One last academic implication may be the contribution to the ongoing debate on the real benets of job satisfaction to the organization. Faced with the skepticism in the OB and HRM literature that the satised employee is not always the most efcient, we can modestly say that this research may have introduced new elements. In effect, the supported inuence of job satisfaction on non-task behavior, which, in turn, seems to be related to performance and individual and collective quality, adds new lines of research and arguments in favor of that relationship. It is difcult to nd the study of anomie in organizations in the literature on organizational motivation and we believe that it should advance in the doctrine in light of the unpretentious success of this research, and we highlight it as a second doctrinal implication. In effect, this research has enabled us to review many concepts similar to OA, such as organizational alienation, organizational support, etc. We also think that we have helped consolidate the OA construct into organizations with our modest research. It provides a clear, explicit and important justication for the OA distinctiveness and makes a valuable addition to the existing OB literature. Perhaps we should begin to consider whether the problem of efciency in the performance of human resources in organizations requires us to speak not only of alienated employees or demotivated employees, but also of anomic employees. The study of non-task behavior, e.g. OCB, in organizations seems to require the proposal of a dual line of future research. On the one hand, there is the relationship between those behaviors and the overall performance of the worker in his/her job. That relationship may give OCB the function of an indicator of the efciency and/or quality in the overall performance in the job. Therefore, since they are no behaviors inherent to the tasks comprising the workers job, their measurement may prove useful to the organization. On the other hand, this research studies the etiology of the OCB of the university ASP but does not contemplate the other perspective that would examine the relationship with the quality and efciency of the administration activity and/or of service to the student or client. We have pointed out that there are works that show OCB as a good indicator of quality in customer service relationships (e.g. Blancero et al., 1995; Morrison, 1996; Bell and Menguc, 2002; Kim et al., 2004). Therefore, if the quality of a public service, such as the state university in this study, must be measured by the

satisfaction of the clients, the study of student satisfaction and its relationship with the OCB of the teaching staff and administration and services personnel is a line of research to be recommended. At this point, we feel that we should point out certain limitations of this work. First, the researched academic institution is a relatively recently created university, with ASP younger and with a lower proportion of career civil servants than other institutions in Spain and abroad. That circumstance could prevent the extrapolation of our results to other organizations. Second, that group of workers has certain working conditions that are often inherent to the peculiarities of jobs in state universities supervision with high turnover in academic posts, clients (students) with uncertain continuity due to their studies, etc. that also prevent extrapolation to other groups of workers, both private and public.
Notes 1. On those lines, the literature on organizational behavior refers to a favorable, or unfavorable, attitudinal enviroment, where all attitudes seem to follow similar behavioral norms and have a certain interdependence. 2. In our case, the focus is on extra-role positive cognitive responses (where the subject positively overconceptualizes his/her organizational environment), extra-role positive affective responses (where the subject affectively overestimates elements of that environment), and extra-role positive behavioral responses (where the subject behaves extremely positively toward others and toward his/her own organization). References Adams, I.H. (1962), Mothers Anomic Attitudes and Childhood Disorders? The Bias of Communication, University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Aiken, M. and Hage, J. (1966), Organizational alienation, American Sociological Review, Vol. 31, August, pp. 497-507. Allen, B.H. and LaFollette, W.R. (1977), Perceived organizational structure and alienation among management trainees, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 334-41. Allport, F.H. (1924), Social Psychology, Houghton Mifin, Boston, MA. Alvarez, M. and Rodrguez, S. (1997), La calidad total en la Universidad: Podemos hablar de clientes?, Boletn de Estudios Economicos, Vol. LII No. 161, pp. 333-52. Andreu, R. and Sieber, S. (1998), Knowledge and problem solving: a proposal for a model of individual and collective learning, Working Paper No. 99/1, IESE, Barcelona. Aquino, K., Galperin, B.L. and Bennett, R. (2004), Social status and aggressiveness as moderators of the relationship between interactional justice and workplace deviance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 34, pp. 1001-29. Bass, B. (1990), Bass & Stogdills Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, Free Press, New York, NY. Bell, S.J. and Menguc, B. (2002), The employee-organization relationship, organizational citizenship behaviors, and superior service quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78, pp. 131-46.

Organizational anomie

861

PR 36,6

862

Bernard, T.J. (1987), Testing structural strain theories, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 21, pp. 353-72. Blancero, D., Johnson, S. and Lakshman, C. (1995), Psychological contracts, OCB and customer service: an exploratory examination, Papers 95-23, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies, Ithaca, NY. Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Bommer, W.H., Grover, S.L. and Miles, E.W. (2003), Does one good turn deserve another? Coworker inuences on employee citizenship, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24, pp. 181-96. Boye, M.W. and Jones, J.W. (1997), Organizational culture and employee counterproductivity, in Giacalone, R.A. and Greenberg, J. (Eds), Antisocial Behavior in Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 172-84. Caruana, A., Ewing, M.T. and Ramaseshan, B. (2001), Anomia and deviant behaviour in marketing: some preliminary evidence, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 322-88. Cohen, D. (1995), Ethics and crime in business rms: organizational culture and the impact of anomie, in Adler, F. and Laufer, W. (Eds), The Legacy of Anomie Theory, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 183-206. Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. (1983), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organisations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA. Diefendorff, J.M., Brown, D.J., Kamin, A.M. and Lord, R.G. (2002), Examining the roles of job involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behavior and job performance, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 93-108. Dunlop, P.D. and Lee, K. (2004), Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behavior, and business unit performance: the bad apples do spoil the whole barrel, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 67-80. Durkheim, E. (1951), Suicide: A Study in Sociology. Spaulding, J.A. and Simpson, G. (trans), Free Press, New York, NY (originally published in 1897). Durkheim, E. (1984), The Division of Labor in Society, Halls, W.D. (trans), Free Press, New York, NY (originally published in 1893). Eagly, A. and Chaiken, S. (1993), Psychology of Attitudes, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, NY. Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990), Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 51-9. Farh, J.L., Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1990), Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction, Journal of Management, Vol. 16, pp. 705-21. Farrell, M., Schmitt, M. and Heinemann, G. (2001), Informal roles and the stages of interdisciplinary team development, Journal of Interprofessional Care, Vol. 15, pp. 281-93. Festinger, L. and Carlsmith, J.M. (1959), Cognitive consequences of forced compliance, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 203-10. Fischer, C.S. (1973), On urban alienations and anomie: powerlessness and social isolation, American Sociological Review, Vol. 38, pp. 311-26.

Greenberg, J. (1990), Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: the hidden cost of pay cuts, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 561-8. Grifn, R.W., OLearly-Kelly, A. and Collins, J. (1998), Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory, Organisational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 15, pp. 250-79. Hagedorn, R. and Labovitz, S. (1968), A reply to Gibbs and Martin, and Tennant, Social Problems, Vol. 15, pp. 514-15. Hair, J.F. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Hayek, F. (1994), The Road to Serfdom, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Hill, A.V. (1995), Service Guarantees: The Fast-Track to Service Quality, IMD Perspectives, Washington, DC. Hodson, R. (1999), Organizational anomie and worker consent, Work and Occupations, Vol. 26, pp. 292-323. Homans, G. (1961), Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms, Harcourt Brace, New York, NY. Homans, G. (1974), Elementary Forms of Social Behavior, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, NY. Kaplan, H.B. (1976), Self-Attitudes and Deviant Behavior, Goodyear, Pacic Palisades, CA. Kaplan, H.B. and Pokorny, A.D. (1969), Self-derogation and psychosocial adjustment, Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Vol. 149, pp. 421-34. Kim, J., Moon, J., Han, D. and Tikoo, S. (2004), Perceptions of justice and employee willingness to engage in customer-oriented behavior, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 18, pp. 267-75. Konovsky, M.A. and Pugh, S.D. (1994), Citizenship behavior and social exchange, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 656-69. Lee, G. (1974), Marriage and anomia: a causal argument, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 36, pp. 523-33. MacCrimmon, K.R. and Taylor, R. (1976), Decision making and problem solving, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL. McClosky, H. and Schaar, J.H. (1965), Psychological dimensions of anomy, American Sociological Review, Vol. 32, pp. 14-20. McNeely, B.L. and Meglino, B.M. (1994), The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior: an examination of the intended beneciaries of prosocial behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 836-44. Marks, S.R. (1974), Durkheims theory of anomie, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 80, pp. 329-63. Menard, S. (1995), A developmental test of Mertonian anomie theory, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 32, pp. 136-74. Merton, R.K. (1957), Priorities in scientic discovery, American Sociological Review, Vol. 22, pp. 635-59. Miller, C.R. and Buttler, E.W. (1966), Anomia and eunomia: a methodological evaluation on Sroles anomia scale, American Sociological Review, Vol. 31, pp. 400-6. Moorman, R.H. (1991), The relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior: do fairness perceptions inuence employee citizenship?, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 845-55.

Organizational anomie

863

PR 36,6

864

Moorman, R.H. and Harland, L.K. (2002), Temporary workers as good citizens: factors inuencing their organizational citizenship behavior performance, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 17, pp. 171-87. Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G.L. and Niehoff, B.P. (1998), Does organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior?, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 351-7. Moorman, R.H., Niehoff, B.P. and Organ, D.W. (1993), Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship behavior: sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural justice, Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 209-26. Morgan, G. (1986), Images of Organization, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Morrison, E.W. (1996), Organizational citizenship behavior as a critical link between HRM practices and service quality, Human Resource Management, Vol. 35, pp. 493-512. Motowidlo, S.J. (1994), Evidence that task performance should be distinguished from contextual performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 475-80. Neves, C.M. (2003), Optimism, pessimism, and hope in Durkheim, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 169-83. Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 527-56. Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Organ, D.W. (1990), The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, pp. 43-72. Organ, D.W. (1997), Organizational citizenship behavior: its construct cleanup time, Human Performance, Vol. 10, pp. 85-97. Owlia, M.S. and Aspinwall, E.M. (1996), A framework for the dimensions of quality in higher education, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 4, pp. 12-20. Pitt, L.F. (1985), Managerial attitudes towards corruption a pilot study, South African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 16, pp. 27-30. Potter, R.H. (1989), Ethics, discipline, and human nature: a new look ar management and deviance, Industrial Management, Vol. 31, pp. 14-21. Randall, M.L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C.A. and Birjulin, A. (1999), Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, pp. 159-74. Rego, A. (2003), Citizenship behaviours of university teachers, Active Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 4, pp. 8-23. Robbins, S.P. (2001), Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies and Applications, 9th ed., Prentice-Hall International, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Robinson, J.P. and Shaver, P.R. (1973), Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes, rev. ed., Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI. Robinson, S.L. and Greenberg, J. (1998), Employees behaving badly: dimensions, determinants, and dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance, in Cooper, C.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (Eds), Trends in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 5, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 1-30.

Robinson, S.L. and OLeary-Kelly, A.M. (1998), Monkey see, monkey do: the inuence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 658-72. Rosenberg, M. (1965), Society and the Adolescent Self-Image, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Rouse, W.B., Cannon-Bowers, J.S. and Salas, E. (1992), The role of mental models in team performance in complex systems, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 22, pp. 1296-307. Ryan, J. (1981), Marital status, happiness, and anomia, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 43, pp. 643-9. Sarros, J.C., Tanewski, G.A., Winter, R.P., Santora, J.C. and Densten, I.L. (2002), Work alienation and organization leadership, British Journal of Management, Vol. 13, pp. 285-304. Seeman, M. (1959), On the meaning of alienation, American Sociological Review, Vol. 24, pp. 783-91. Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday, New York, NY. Settoon, R.P., Bennett, N. and Liden, R.C. (1996), Social exchange in organizations: perceived organizational support, leader member exchange, and employee reciprocity, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 219-27. Shedd, J. and Bachrach, S. (1991), Tangled Hierarchies, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Shore, L.M. and Wayne, S.J. (1993), Commitment and employee behavior: a comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 774-80. Skarlicki, D.P. and Folger, R. (1997), Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 434-43. Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P. (1983), Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature and antecedents, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68, pp. 653-63. Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M. and Hullin, C.L. (1969), The Measurement of Job Satisfaction in Work and Retirement, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL. Srole, L. (1956), Social integration and certain corollaries: an exploratory study, American Social Review, Vol. 21, pp. 709-16. Taylor, G.S. and Zimmerer, T.W. (1992), Voluntary turnover among middle-level managers: an analysis of perceived causes, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 4, pp. 424-37. Tepper, B.J. and Taylor, E.C. (2003), Relationships among supervisors and subordinates procedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46, pp. 97-105. Tepper, B.J., Lockhart, D. and Hoobler, J. (2001), Justice, citizenship, and role denition effects, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 789-96. Thibaut, J.W. and Kelley, H.H. (1959), The Social Psychology of Groups, Wiley, New York, NY. Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.G. and Dienesch, R.M. (1994), Organizational citizenship behavior: construct redenition, operationalization, and validation, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 765-802. Vardi, Y. (2001), The effects of organizational and ethical climates on misconduct at work, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 29, pp. 325-37. Vardi, Y. and Weiner, Y. (1996), Misbehavior in organizations: a motivational framework, Organizational Science, Vol. 7, pp. 151-65.

Organizational anomie

865

PR 36,6

866

Wayne, S.J. and Ferris, G.R. (1990), Inuence tactics, affect, and exchange quality in supervisor-subordinate interactions: a laboratory experiment and eld study, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 487-99. Wayne, S.J. and Liden, R.C. (1995), A longitudinal study of the effects of impression management on performance ratings, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 232-60. Williams, L. and Anderson, S. (1991), Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp. 601-17. Zellars, K.L., Tepper, B.J. and Duffy, M.K. (2002), Abusive supervision and subordinates organizational citizenship behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 1068-76. About the authors Pablo Zoghbi Manrique de Lara (PhD, Las Palmas of Grand Canary University) is a Titular Professor of OB and HR Studies at Grand Canary University in Spain. His research interests focus on cyberloang, and deviant behaviour in the workplace. Pablo Zoghbi is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: pzoghbi@dede.ulpgc.es Tomas F. Espino Rodrguez (PhD, Las Palmas of Grand Canary University) is an Associate Professor at the Departament of Business and Mangement at Grand Canary University in Spain. His research interests focus on outsourcing and operations management.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints