See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228197229

Organizational Citizenship Behavior as an

Outcome of Engagement
Article in SSRN Electronic Journal February 2012
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2003378

READS

100

1 author:
Arup Barman
Assam University
188 PUBLICATIONS 51 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Arup Barman

Retrieved on: 01 June 2016

Organizational Citizenship Behavior as an Outcome of Engagement

Dr. Arup Barman, Reader
Dept. of Business Administtration, JNSMS,
Assam University, Silchar-788011
Email: abgeet@gmail.com
Abstract
This study examines the outcome of engagement in the context of organization. Organsiation citizenship
behavior as an outcome enagement examines the impacts of enagement in determining the employees citizenship
with help of Eta Square analysis.
Key Words: OCB, Engagement, Job satisfaction, Work Excellence

Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Organ, D.W. (1988) stated Organizational

Citizenship Behaviour as behaviour which usually showed by employee as a good soldier.
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) understood as The good soldier syndrome in the
context of organization. In the long past Bateman, T.S. & Organ, D.W. (1983) studied Job
satisfaction and the good soldier-the relationship between affect and employee citizenship,
which provides a logical foundation to explore further the linkages of employees engagement
with citizenship behavior. Concelman mentioned Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) is a
behavioral outcome of engaged employees. Jim (April-2005) mentioned, Engagement is
Passion, Commitment, Extra effort. These terms describe employee engagementas an illusive
force that motivates employees to higher (or lower) levels of performance and discretionary
behavior. Discretionary behaviour at workplace is the organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB) as indicated by Robinson and Heyday. They also indicted that there are linkages of
engagement to OCB. Katz and Kahn, (1986), in Rosenfield et.al. (1995) stated OCB is a group of
discretionary behaviors not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, but
virtually promote the effective functioning of the organization. Ishak, N. A. (2005) in his work
mentioned that the components of workplace climate and environment especially superiorsubordinate relationship in the workplace can promote organisational citizenship behaviour
through and employees innovativeness. OCB as the outcome of engagement mentioned at the
conceptual review of the present thesis under the chapter-1(A).
Levels of OCB among the Employees: To achieve the objective mentioned above, at first
assessed and observed the level of citizenship behavior among the referred groups of employees.
To observe the level of OCB among the employees of the corporation basic frequency was used
for overall OCB and separately for the dimensions of OCB. The table- 1, 2, 3, 4 are
Table-1
Levels of Overall OCB

Employee Cadres

Executives
Supervisors
Workmen
Total

Low

High

Very High

Score Within
94-124

Score Within
125-155

Score Within
156- 186

No (%) of Resp

Nos. (%) of Resp

Nos. (%) of Resp

0
3 (15%)
17 (9%)
20 (8%)

46 (98%)
16 (80%)
173 (90%)
235 (91%)

1 (2%)
1 (2%)
1 (1%)
3 (1%)

Total no.s of
Employees
47
20
191
258

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2003378

prepared to show the level of OCB and the dimensions of OCB among the different layers of
employees. The maximum possible score for overall OCB of employees was 186, out of which 0
to 93 were negative responses, score range from 94-186 were for the positive responses
responded through the scale. The score range from the 186-93=93 divided by 3 (three) for
making equal three half it was found 31. Low level of OCB falls within score range- within 94 to
124 (low level), moderately high level within 125 to155, very high level comes within the score
range within 156 to 186.
The table 5.1 showed majority of employees 235 (i.e. 91 percent) showed moderately
high level of OCB, a very smaller portion of employee showed very high level of
citizenship behavior.
The existence of the dimensions of OCB was also similarly observed with the cross tab.
Since, under the dimension Professional Commitment there were 11 (eleven) no of items hence
maximum possible score was 66 under the six point scale of which score range 0 to 33
completely were counted for lower responses. The score within 34 to 44 considered as low
professional commitment; score within 45 to 55 was Moderately High level of Professional
Commitment; and finally within the score range 46-66 considered as Very High Level of
Professional Commitment among the employees of the organization. The table 5.2 showed level
of PCC among the different categories of people of the corporation.

Employee
Cadres
Executives
Supervisors
Workmen
Total

Low

Table-.2
Levels of Professional Commitment
Modretaly High
Very High

Score Within
34-44

Score Within
45-55

Score Within
46- 66

Nos. (%) of Resp

Nos. (%) of Resp

Nos. (%) of Resp

1(2%)
10(50%)
34(18%)
45 (18%)

43(91%)
10(50%)
155(81%)
208(80%)

3(7%)
0
2(1%)
5(2%)

Total no.s of
Employees
47
20
191
258

Out of 258 numbers of respondents 208(i.e. 80%) of people showed moderately high level
of professional commitment and at the same time only 2% of respondents showed very high
level professional commitment.
For organizational ownership dimension of OCB cross the percentage of respondents
fall in the category was cross- tabulated with the overall score of Organizational

Employee Cadres

Executives
Supervisors
Workmen
Total

Table-3
Levels of Organizational Ownership Behavior
Low
Moderately High
Very High
Score Within
31-40
Nos. (%) of Resp

Score within
41-50
No (%) of Resp

Score Within
51-60
Nos. (%) of Resp

2(4%)
11(55%)
35(18%)
48(18%)

41(87%)
9(45%)
156(82%)
206(80%)

4(8%)
0
0
4(2%)

Total no.s of
Employees
47
20
191
258

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2003378

Ownership (OOW) behaviour. The maximum possible scores from the dimension for overall
OOW were 60. Out of which 0 to 30 was considered for very low score. Score range 31-40 were
considered as low level, and within 41-50 was considered as high level of oow behavior. Finally,
score between 51-60 were considered for very high level of oow. The table-5.3 showed 206 (i.e.
80%) of total employee showed high level of organizational ownership dimension of
OCB.
Like the professional commitment dimensions, sharing and involvement also had
eleven numbers of items. Maximum possible score for this dimensions = 66. Hence, the level of
sharing and involvement dimension among the different layers of employees calculated like the
PCC dimension as appeared in the table 5.4. Like other dimensions, a majority of employees
showed high level of sharing and involvement behavior.
Table-4
Levels of Sharing and Involvement
Layers of
Employees
Executives
Supervisors
Workmen
Total

Low

High

Very High

Score Within
34-44

Score Within
45-55

Score Within
46- 66

Nos. (%) of Resp

Nos. (%) of Resp

Nos. (%) of Resp

6(13%)
4(20%)
37(19%)
47(18%)

40 (85%)
16(80%)
153(80%)
209(81%)

1(2%)
0
1
2(1%)

Total no.s of
Employees

47
20
151
258

The table showed 209 (i.e. 81%) of employee showed high level of Sharing and involvement
behavior.
From the observation on levels of OCB of employees, differences in the level ware
prominent among the all level but did not show much significant difference of OCB level
among the employee of the organization. Hence, to test the statistically the following null
hypothesis was framedH2 = There are no differences of the levels of OCB and its dimensions among the
different level of employees.
An additional hypothesis (Ha) as above is framed for testingHa = There are no differences of overall OCB and the dimensions among the different
level of experience holders.
To test the hypothesis Kruskal H- Non Parametric one way ANOVA deployed for analyzing
differences (Uthayasurian-2002) in the level of OCB as well as its dimensions among employees.
Kruskal H deployed for three times- first, for the category wise (i.e. Exe vs. Sup. vs. Workmen),
secondly for experience wise within 5yrs to 25 years, and finally workplace wise (Mills). The
result of the test summarized and showed in the table- 5.5. From the above analysis revealed that
H values for overall OCB=15.448 >13.82 (table value, significant at 0.001), PCC=

Basis of Test

Table- 5
Differences of Levels of OCB and Internal Dimensions
Kruskal H (NParametric ANOVA)
For Variables
(N=259)
H value
(Chi-Square)

Exe vs. Sup vs.

Workmen
2

Experience Wise
(within 05 -25 yrs)
3

Workplace
(Mills Wise)

Df.

Overall OCB
15.448*
2
Overall Professional Commitment
18.268*
2
(PCC)
Overall Ownership
26.246*
2
Behavior(OOW)
Overall Sharing and Involvement
6.627*
2
(SI)
Overall OCB
79.110*
11
Overall Professional Commitment
75.480*
11
(PCC)
Overall Ownership Behavior
43.509*
11
(OOW)
Overall Sharing and Involvement
126.247*
11
(SI)
Overall OCB
1.071**
1
Overall Professional Commitment
0.279**
1
(PCC)
Overall Ownership Behavior
.611**
1
(OOW)
Overall Sharing and Involvement
16.215*
1
(SI)
Table Value of Chi-Square at 0.05 = 5.99 (df=2), 19.68 (df=11), 3.84 (df=1);
Table value of Chi-Square at 0.001= 13.82 (df=2), 31.26 (df=11), 10.83 (df=1)
**Null Hypothesis accepted at .05 level of significance.
* Null Hypothesis was rejected at both 0.001 and 0.05 level of significance.

Asy. Sig.

Probable occurrence of
the value H

0.000
0.000

P<.05<0.001
P<.05<0.001

0.000

P<.05<0.001

0.036

P>.05

0.000
0.000

P<.05<0.001
P<.05<0.001

0.000

P<.05<0.001

0.000

P<.05<0.001

.301
.598

P>.05
P>.05

.434

P>.05

0.000

P<.05<0.001

18.268>13.82 (table value, significant at 0.001), OOW= 26.246>13.82 (table value,

significant at 0.001), SI= 6.627 > 5.99 (table value, significant at 0.05) were greater than table
values. From the employees category wise analysis of NPar ANOVA the result were found and
concluded that(a) Differences exist in the levels of overall OCB of different layers employees, which
was highly significant.
(b) Differences exist among the level of professional commitment (PCC), organizational
ownership (OOW), Sharing and Involvement (SI) dimension of the different layers of
employees.
The hypothesis-2 (H2) There are no differences of the levels of OCB and its dimensions among
the different level of employees was rejected and accepted alternative hypothesis as stated A1
and B1 on above.
2. On the basis of employees experience wise analysis of NPar ANOVA(a) There were differences among levels of overall OCB of different experience holders.
(b) There were differences among the level of PCC, OOW, and SI dimensions among
the different level of experience holders.
From this H 05(2) There are no differences of overall OCB and the dimensions among the
different job experience holders was rejected and accepted the alternative hypothesis as stated
above (a) and in (b).
From the third ANOVA for mill wise comparison found that the H-Values were less
than the table of required level significance. Hence, concluded that there are no difference of
overall OCB, overall PCC, and overall OOW among the employees of both the mills of the
4

corporation. For the dimension the H-Value= 16.215 greater than the table value 3.84 sig. at
0.05 for df =1; and 10.83 sig. at 0.001 for 1 degree of freedom. Based on the H Value it was
concluded that difference exist among the level of sharing of information and involvement
behavior of the employees of both workplace (Mills).
II. Relationship of Engagement and OCB: Based on the statement of Heyday OCB
has linkage and relationship to engagement the present part of the study is attempted to explore
the relationship of engagement. Initially to assume the relationship between the engagement and
OCB, the percentage of respondents for the different score level was first compared in the
following table. Maximum numbers of responses were fallen under the column-2 and shown
high engagement along with the high level of OCB for the referred group of employees of the
organization. The relationship assumed under by observing
Table-6
Levels of Overall Engagement and OCB
Low
High

Employee Cadres
Executives
Supervisors
Workmen
Total

Eng
6(13%)
10(50%)
37(19%)
53(20%)

OCB
0
3 (15%)
17 (9%)
20 (8%)

Eng
40(83%)
10(50%)
150(79%)
200(77%)

OCB
41(87%)
9(45%)
156(82%)
206(80%)

Very High
Eng
2 (4%)
0
4(2%)
6(2%)

OCB
4(8%)
0
0
4(2%)

Figures are Number & (%) of respondents

score level and the frequencies and percentage, it was further intended to explore the
relationship between engagement and OCB in the context of the referred groups of employees
of the corporation. To explore the relationship, at first, total score of overall OCB, and the score
for dimensions of OCB were calculated. Then correlations between the total score of
engagement with overall OCB, and with the dimensions of OCB were computed. Since the
plausibility of result was expected by using non-parametric correlation analysis, and hence used
Spearman Correlation Coefficient- a nonparametric measure of correlation between two ordinal
variables. For all the cases, the values of each variable are ranked from smallest to largest, and
the Pearson correlation coefficient is computed on the ranks.
Table-7
Association between Engagement and OCB

Association Between

Spearmans
Rho (r2)

Levels Of
Association

Professional
Commitment and Engagement
Organizational Ownership and Engagement

258

.722

.000

VHOA & +

259

.745

.000

VHOA & +

Sharing and Involvement and Engagement

259

.823

.000

VHOA & +

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

and Engagement

258

.798

.000

VHOA & +

r2 is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed test).,VHOA (Very High Order of Association), + (Positive)

The result of computation showed a very high order of significance and positive association of
employees engagement with employees OCB and the component behaviour.
5

From the table- 1, the professional commitment was significantly correlated to

engagement (r2 = .722 with significance P= .001 under two tailed test for degree freedom=258)
and it is interpreted that engagement is positively associated with professional commitment. The
2nd dimension organizational ownership of OCB and engagement also showed positive
association (with r2= .745 with significance .001 significant at .01 with df. = 259). The third
dimensions of OCB i.e. sharing and involvement also positively associated with engagement (r2
= .823 sig.002 with degree of freedom =259). Overall OCB is also positively associated with
engagement (r2= .798 sig. = .000 with degree freedom N= 258).
Similarly, the relationship of overall satisfaction on Workplace Environment (WPE) and
Workplace Climate (WPC) with overall OCB and its dimensions were explored by executing the
spearman rho. The result of execution of spearman rho was shown in the table 2. The result
showed significant positive association between satisfaction over the WPE and OCB and the
dimension of OCB. Similarly, satisfaction over the WPC also positively linked with OCB and
internal dimensions.
Table -8
Association of Satisfaction on Workplace Environment and OCB
Association Between
N
Spearmans
Direction of
Rho (r2)
P
Association
Prof. Comt and WPE

258

.522

.000

HOA and +tive

Orgl Ownership and WPE

259

.524

.000

HOA and +tive

Sh. and Involve and WPE

259

.560

.000

HOA and +tive

OCB and WPE

258

.585

.000

HOA and +tive

Profl Com and WPC

258

.628

.000

HOA and +tive

Orgl Ownership and WPC

259

.681

.000

HOA and +tive

Sharing and Involv and WPC

OCB and WPC

259
258

.542
.662

.000
.000

HOA and +tive

HOA and +tive

rr is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed test). *HOA( High Order Association) *+ (Positive)

From this analysis we rejects the hypothesis H05(3)- there are no significant relationship
between engagement and the dimensions of organization citizenship behavior and accepted
the alternative engagement is positively associated with OCB and its dimensions.
This association further indicated to explore over the impact of engagement on overall
OCB and its dimensions.

III. Effects of Engagement on OCB

(a)Preparatory Analysis: Literature says that engagement does not happen from the vacuum,
but happen from the result of satisfaction and impression over the work environment and
workplace climate. Employees would show their level of engagement by staying in an
environment and climate of the organization. The respondents by constantly interacting to the
engaged environment how do they show their behavior is a moot point of interest for the
researcher. Since employee engagement showed positive association with OCB and its internal
dimensions, hence, it was felt to explore over the effects of engagement and its drivers over the
OCB as well as the impact of drivers of engagement over the OCB of referred group of
employees. Evans, M. G. (1985) used a Monte -Carlo study of the effects of correlated method
6

variance in moderated multiple regression analsysis can be selected. But in the present study for
analyzing effects of engagement over the OCB the statistical tools General Linear Model (GLM)
multivariate was chosen as adapted by Koliamorthy and Mohankumar (2002), Lewin, D. (1992),
Rusbult, C. E., Farrel, D., Rogers, G. & Mainous III, A. G. (1988) for the facilities available for
analyzing the main effects (Pallant, J. -2001) . At first, for executing the multivariate analysis
operation for this study, at planned to execute for understanding the interaction of independents
and the interaction effects on OCB.
Data consideration: For the purpose of analysis, the data collected through the questionnaires
i.e. 12 items for assessing satisfaction on Workplace Environment, 10 items for assessing
satisfaction for work climate, 7 (seven) items for feeling of engagement was considered as an
independent variable. The dependent variable OCB, which contained three internal dimensions
(a) Professional Commitment (containing 11 items), (b) Organizational Ownership (contained 10
items), (c) Sharing and Involvement dimensions (contained 11 items) treated as separate
variables for analysis.
To fit to GLM-Multivariate, item scores under the different dimensions/factors overall
scores under dependent and independent variables overall scores were computed to get overall
dimensions scores.
Interpretation and Analysis: At first, inbuilt command of SPSS executed for analyzing the
interaction of independents variables and their effects on OCB. To analyse interaction of
variables the General Linear Model (GLM) as followed by Chia, H., Landau, J. & Ong, J. S.
(2000) in their study. The present study selected overall score for employee engagement as the
covariates and overall satisfaction scores on workplace environment and the overall satisfaction
score on workplace climate as well as fixed factors on which overall OCB of employees is
dependent. Then, instructed to the computer to execute the command for analyzing the effect of
interactions of independents (i.e. between Engagement and WPE, between Engagement and
WPC) on OCB of overall employees (N=259). The results were shown in the Multivariate Tests
(table- 9) and table-10 for test between subject effects. The multivariate tests (table-5.9)
displayed four multivariate tests of significance of each effect in the model. Pillais trace is the
first multivariate test listed. Wilks lambda sometimes called as U statistics. Lambda ranges
between
Table- 9(Multivariate Tests)
Effects of interaction- the results of satisfaction on WPE, WPC on employees OCB
Effect

Value

WPE*ENG
Wilks' *
.106*
WPC*ENG
Wilks' *
.045*
*WPE* WPC
Wilks *
.000*
The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.
Design: WPE * ENG+INC * ENG; (WPE+WPC)* Eng

Sig.

6.260*
11.640*
131.467*

.000*
.000*
.000*

2 (Eta Squared)
Estimated Effect
.540
.513
1.000

0 and 1, with values close to zero indicating the group means are different and values close to 1
indicating the group means are not different (equal to 1 indicates all means are the same).
Hotellings trace is based on the sum of eigenvalues. Roys largest root is the largest eigenvalue.
Of the four test statistics, Wilks lambda is convenient and related to the likelihood-ratio
criterion, which is normally accepted for this type of analysis. When the significance level of
7

lamda is relatively small (less than 0.05) for the tested effect, then concluded as the effects were
significant.
In the above table- 9, the values of U statistics (Wilks Lambda) for interaction
WPE*Eng over the OCB and its components =0.106, for WPC x EE on OCB and individual
components of OCB =0.045. From a separate operation of multivariate the interaction effect of
both groups of drivers were showed = 0.000. The values of in the above table showed the
group means were different for the interaction, which were very highly significant.
The value of eta squared 2 (estimated effect size) of the interaction over the OCB were
stated the proportion of the total variability in the dependent variable that is accounted for by
variation in the independent variable. In analyzing the eta squared for the interaction WPE x
WPC over the OCB of employees were very influential predictors for OCB. The 2 value for the
interaction of WPE*Eng
Table- 10
Variations of Interaction Effect Satisfaction on Engagement Drivers over OCB
Source
Model

ENG x WPE

ENG x WPC

Error

Total

Dependent
Sum of
df
Mean
F
Sig.
Variable
Squares
Square
OCB
5007650.258a
47
106545.750
11208.395
.000
PCC
586035.279b
47
12468.836
10884.117
.000
a
OOW
489550.383
47
10415.966
18685.756
.000
SI
597780.530c
47
12718.735
3429.719*
.000
OCB
4819.919
25
192.797
20.282*
.000
PCC
660.541
25
26.422
23.064*
.000
OOW
420.629
25
16.825
30.184*
.000
SI
754.613
25
30.185
8.140*
.000
OCB
1960.997
21
93.381
9.823*
.000
PCC
474.973
21
22.618
19.743*
.000
OOW
481.708
21
22.938
41.151*
.000
SI
163.151
21
7.769
2.095**
.005
OCB
2005.742
211
9.506
PCC
241.721
211
1.146
OOW
117.617
211
.557
SI
782.470
211
3.708
OCB
5009656.000
258
PCC
586277.000
258
OOW
489668.000
258
SI
598563.000
258
a R Squared = 1.000 (Adjusted R Squared = 1.000) b R Squared = 1.000 (Adjusted R Squared = .999)
c R Squared = .999 (Adjusted R Squared = .998)
*Values of F are critical at alpha 0.05 and 0.01 for respective df.

2
Eta Square- effect size
1.000
1.000
1.000
.999
.706
.732
.781
.491
.494
.663
.804
.173

and WPC x EE showed variations of interaction of factors were accounted for the variation of
OCB. Thus by considering the values, 2 values, and the significance level it can be concluded
that the interaction effect of WPE x WPC over OCB and its internal dimensions (i.e. Professional
Commitment, Ownership Behavior, Sharing and Involvement Behavior) more significant. In this analysis
(table-5.10), the interaction effects were statistically significant (level of sig. = 0.000).
The effects of interactions of independents over the dependent variables (OCB and its
internal components) were shown in the table-5.10, is a part of outcomes of earlier analysis
based on which conclusions were made. Column labeled source lists incorporates
variable/variables, which affects distinctively the outcome in the model. The second column
displays the sum of squares for each effect. The degrees of freedom for each sum of squares is
displayed in the column labeled df. The mean square of each effect is calculated by dividing the
sum of squares by its degrees of freedom. The F distribution and its significance value are
displayed in the next columns. The F statistic was calculated by dividing the mean square bymean-square-error. Effects with a small significance value (smaller than 0.05) are significant. The
8

value of R. squared (is the goodness of fit) with adjusted R squared describes the higher degree
of fitness of data for model for the respective df. From the table-9, interaction of EE x WPC
and EE x WPC is significant whose P= .000 (sig. at both 0.05 and 0.01) for PCC and OOW,
except for the dimension sharing involvement behavior. Since the interactive effect of WPE x EE on
overall OCB and its dimensions were significant, hence there are differences in levels of OCB and its internal
dimensions for the level of interaction between engagement and the level of satisfaction on workplace environment
i.e. WPE x EE on OCB. Similarly, the interactive effect of WPC x EE on OCB and its internal dimensions
were also significant, and thereby concluded that there were differences in the levels of OCB and its internal
dimensions due to the interaction effects (WPE+WPC) x EE on OCB and on the Dimensions of OCB of
overall employees of mills.
Effects of Satisfaction on the Drivers of Engagement on OCB (Employees Level Wise):
In the above table- 5.11, the values of U statistics (Wilks Lambda ) for- WPE x EE =0.042
(sig. at 0.001<.05), and EE x WPC =0.044 (sig. at 0.000<.05)
Table-11(a-I)
Test of Effects of Interaction of Drivers on OCB
Level of
Employee

Executives
Supervisors
Workmen

Interaction

Name of Test

Value

Sig.

2
Eta SquaredEffect size

Engagement*WPE
Engagement*WPC
Engagement*WPE
Engagement*WPC
Engagement*WPE
Engagement*WPC

Wilks'
Wilks'
Wilks'
Wilks'
Wilks'
Wilks'

.042
.044
.022
.009
.049
.067

2.456*
2.803*
2.856**
3.097**
12.465*
14.776*

.001
.000
.163
.143
.000
.000

.652
.646
.848
.903
.637
.601

The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.
Design: WPETOT * ENGTOT+INCTOT * ENGTOT
*F is critical at alpha 0.05 and 0.01 for their respective df
** F is not significant..

for the executives of both mills. For the group supervisor Wilks Lambda for- WPE*ENG
=0.022 (sig. at 0.163>.05), and WPC x EE =0.009 (sig.at 0.143>0.05); and for the workmen
group (Wilks Lambda) for- ENG x WPE =0.049 (sig. at 0.000<.05), and WPC x EE =0.067
(sig. at 0.000<0.05). The value of (Lambda) and its significance indicates to conclude as the
effects of interactions of both the variables (i.e WPE x EE and WPC x EE) were has significant
impacts on the employees OCB and its internal components in the context of executives and
workmen of HPC. However, in the context of supervisory group the interaction effects were insignificant as
described by significance of U-statistics.
Figure- 11 (a-i)
Variations of Interaction Effects of Satisfaction on Drivers over Executives OCB
=0.042,

Satisfaction onWorkplace
Environment

(sig. 0.001)
Engagement
of Executive
Satisfaction on
Workplace Climate

= 0.044
(sig. 0.001

2 =.652 (effect Size)

Executives
OCB
&
PCC, OOW, SI

2 =0.646 (effect size)

Interaction Effects of WPE*Eng-> OCB of Executive, PCC, OOW, SI behavior

Interaction Effects of WPC*Eng-> OCB of Executive, PCC, OOW, SI behavior
Figure--11 (a-ii)

Variations of Interaction Effects of Satisfaction on Drivers over Workmens OCB

2 =.637 (effect Size)

=0.049,

Satisfaction on
Workplace
Environment

Workmen
OCB
&
PCC, OOW, SI

(sig. 0.001)
Engagement
of Workmen

Satisfaction on Workplace
Climate

= 0.067
(sig. 0.001

2 =0.601 (effect size)

Interaction Effects of WPE*Eng-> OCB of workmen, PCC, OOW, SI behavior

Interaction Effects of WPC*Eng-> OCB of Workmen, PCC, OOW, SI behavior

Here from Hypothesis (H3) Effects of perception/satisfaction on two groups of drivers of

engagement on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is not significant in the context of all
groups of employees is not accepted for executives and workmen cadres of respondents.
IV. Variations of interactive effects (for Executives): The table-5.5 is the part outcome of
interaction analysis with MANOVA as applied by Hair, J.F.Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., &
Black, W.C. (1998) for explaining the variance of interactive effect of WPE x EE and WPC x
EE on OCB for the executive (within) group of employee of HPC. From the above table
interactive effects of WPC* Eng on OCB and internal components of OCB were P=0.000 (sig.
at both.05 and 0.01for 27 df.) in the model. However, the variation of interactive effects of the
levels of EE x WPE on OCB was highly significant (at 0.000<0.05 level). The effects on
professional Commitment and Organizational Ownership were also highly significant (at
0.000<0.05, on the degree of freedom 14). But in the case of sharing and involvement the interactive effect
was not significant (sig. at 0.114>0.05 with mean
Table-12
Variations of Interactive Effects on Workplace Environment amd Climate on OCB
(for executive)
Source

Dependent
Variable

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

Sig.

2 (Eta Squared)
Effect Size

Model

OCB
PC
OOW
SI
OCB
PC
OOW
SI
OCB
PC
OOW
SI
OCB
PC
OOW
SI
OCB
PC
OOW
SI

956603.210
114351.040
95967.693
109198.601
1070.511
161.794
114.572
142.214
246.575
75.154
73.070
52.725
291.790
31.960
16.307
113.399
956895.000
114383.000
95984.000
109312.000

27
27
27
27
14
14
14
14
12
12
12
12
20
20
20
20
47
47
47
47

35429.749
4235.224
3554.359
4044.393
76.465
11.557
8.184
10.158
20.548
6.263
6.089
4.394
14.590
1.598
.815
5.670

2428.439
2650.307
4359.249
713.302
5.241*
7.232*
10.037*
1.792**
1.408**
3.919*
7.468*
.775**

.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.114
.241
.003
.000
.669

1.000
1.000
1.000
.999
.786
.835
.875
.556
.458
.702
.818
.317

WPE x EE

WPC x EE

Error

Total

*F is critical at alpha= 0.05 and 0.01 respective degree of freedom

** Critical value of F is insignificant

square 10.158) explaining the error variance 5.670. Since the interactive effect (within in group) of WPE x EE
on the dependents were significant, hence there may be differences in levels of OCB and its internal dimensions- i.e.
10

professional commitment, organizational ownership due to the interaction of satisfaction on workplace

environment. The interactive effects (within groups) between Engagement and Satisfaction on
Work Place Climate (WPC*ENG) on the OCB and internal dimensions can be explained
similarly.
1. Interactive effects of WPC x EE on OCB was insignificant (sig. at 0.241>0.05 for12 df).
(i.e. insignificant interaction)
2. Interactive effects of WPC x EE on executives Professional Commitment Behavior
was highly significant (sig. at 0.003<0.05, for 12 df).(significant interaction)
3. Interactive effects of WPC x EE on executives Organizational Ownership Behavior
was highly significant (sig. at 0.000<0.05, on 12 df) (significant interaction)
4. Interactive effects of WPC x EE on executives Sharing and Involvement Behavior was
highly insignificant (sig. at 0.000<0.05, on 12 degree of freedom). (insignificant
interaction)
The analysis revealed that interaction effect of WPE*Engagement more on the OCB and
Professional commitment, organisational ownership, and information sharing than interaction of
satisfaction on WPC with Engagement. As a whole, interactive effect of (WPE + WPC) x EE on
OCB of executive was highly significant (sig. at 0.000<.05 level for 27 degree of freedom) and explained for the
executives OCB and the professional commitment, ownership behavior, sharing and involvement behaviour
(N=48). The value of 2 stated that the variability of interaction of satisfaction perception on (WPE+WPC)
upon the engagement might change the level of OCB of executive group (for 27 degree of freedom). In case of
dimensional behaviour of OCB, the effect size displayed highly statically significance.
Variations of interactive effects (for supervisors): The table-13 revealed that interactive
effects of (WPE + WPC) x EE on OCB and on the internal components of OCB of supervisors
(within group) were highly significant at
Table-13
Variations of Interactive Effects on Workplace Environment amd Climate on OCB (for Supervisors)

Source
Model

WPE x EE

INC x EE

Error

Total

Dependent
Variable
OCB
PC
OOW
SI
OCB
PC
OOW
SI
OCB
PC
OOW
SI
OCB
PC
OOW
SI
OCB
PC
OOW
SI

Sum of
Squares
374549.500
43986.000
35538.000
45742.500
48.360
7.929
4.382
4.624
63.765
15.987
13.319
3.556
32.500
1.000
.000
22.500
374582.000
43987.000
35538.000
45765.000

df
18
18
18
18
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
3
3
3
3
20
20
20
20

Mean
Square
20808.306
2443.667
1974.333
2541.250
12.090
1.982
1.096
1.156
10.628
2.664
2.220
.593
10.833
.333
.000
7.500

Sig.

1920.767
7331.000
.
338.833
1.116
5.946
.
.154
.981
7.993*
.
.079

.000
.000
.
.000
.483
.087
.
.949
.552
.058
.
.995

2 Squared
(Effect Size)
1.000
1.000
1.000
.999
.584
.883
1.000
.159
.662
.941
1.000
.136

Table value of F distribution with 0.05 at 18 df= 2.19, at 4 df.= 6.39, at 6 df.=4.28

11

P=0.000<0.05 (18 df) for the model. The effects on professional Commitment was highly
significant (sig. at 0.000<0.05).For Organizational Ownership of supervisory group significance
and F value was not computed. For sharing and involvement, the effect was highly significant in
the explained model. Separate effect of WPE x EE and WPC x EE were not shown significant,
hence further analysis was not made. However, 2 (Eta-Squared) or estimate of effect size
showed significant values for variability of independents (interactives) for this group, for
insignificant F values, the effect size were not taken into account for further explanation.
Variations of interactive effects (for Workmen): The model of interactive
Table-14
Variations of Interactive Effects on Workplace Environment amd Climate on OCB
(For Workmen)
DESIGNAT
Workmen

Source

Dependent
Sum of
df
Mean
F
Sig.
Variable
Squares
Square
Model
OCB
3677060.825
38
96764.759
13153.798
.000
PC
427780.488
38
11257.381
13525.390
.000
OOW
358096.225
38
9423.585
28777.279
.000
SI
443088.382
38
11660.221
4457.426
.000
WPE *ENG
OCB
2595.333
21
123.587
16.800*
.000
PC
316.865
21
15.089
18.129*
.000
OOW
220.216
21
10.486
32.023*
.000
SI
553.273
21
26.346
10.072*
.000
WPC* ENG
OCB
1337.175
15
89.145
12.118*
.000
PC
299.506
15
19.967
23.990*
.000
OOW
296.012
15
19.734
60.263*
.000
SI
120.904
15
8.060
3.081*
.000
Error
OCB
1118.175
152
7.356
PC
126.512
152
.832
OOW
49.775
152
.327
SI
397.618
152
2.616
Total
OCB
3678179.000
190
PC
427907.000
190
OOW
358146.000
190
SI
443486.000
190
a R Squared = 1.000 (Adjusted R Squared = .999) b R Squared = 1.000 (Adjusted R Squared = 1.000)
c R Squared = .999 (Adjusted R Squared = .998) d R Squared = 1.000 (Adjusted R Squared = .997)
e R Squared = .999 (Adjusted R Squared = .999)
F values are critical at alpha 0.05 and 0.01 for their respective degree of freedom.

2 (Eta Squd)
Effect Size
1.000
1.000
1.000
.999
.701
.717
.819
.583
.546
.709
.858
.240

effects within the group of interactive components (WPE + WPC) x EE on OCB of workmen
was explained only for 38 degree of freedom out of total df. =190. The interactive effects of
(WPE+ WPC) x EE on OCB and the components of OCB were indicated highly significant
(sig. at 0.000<0.05). The effect of interaction of WPE x EE on OCB was highly significant (sig.
at 0.000<0.05), with mean square 123.587 and explained mean square error 7.356 on df =21.
Interactive effect of same interactive components (WPE x EE) on professional commitment
(PCC) dimension was significant at 0.000<0.05; on organizational ownership (sig. at
0.000<0.05); and on sharing and involvement (sig. at 0.000<0.05). All dimensions were
explained for df.= 21 were highly significant. The estimate of effect size (eta-squared) i.e. the
proportion of the total variability in the dependent variable accounted for by variation in
interaction WPE*Eng on the dependents variables were also quite significant. Similarly, the
interactive effect of WPC*Eng on OCB of workmen were highly significant (sig. at 0.000<0.05)
explained for 15 degree of freedom with mean square=89.145 and mean square error=7.356 (for
152 df). The interactive effect of independents (WPC*Eng) on the internal dimensions of OCB
i.e. professional commitment, organizational ownership, sharing and involvement dimensions
were highly significant (sig. at 0.000<0.05). From this analysis the acceptance and rejection decision of the
H5 interaction between employees perception/satisfaction on the contents of workplace environment and
12

Table- 15
Comparison of Effect Size on Employees OCB
(2) for WPE x Eng
A
.706

Effect upon
OCB of total
Respondents
OCB of Executive
OCB of Supervisors
OCB of Workmen

(2) for WPC x Eng

B
.494

.786
.584*
.701

.458
.662*
.546

A>B

Accepted or Rejected
H5
Rejected

A>B
A<B*
A>B

Rejected
Accepted*
Rejected

engagement (WPE x EE) do not show more effect on employees OCB than the interaction of engagement and
workplace climate can be taken. For easy conclusion the values of eta square (2) meant for effect
size are compared in the above table. From comparison of effects size of single interaction of
engagement as antecedents of two groups of drivers and the related Hypothesis-5 was accepted
in the context of OCB of supervisory group of respondents. In the case OCB of all other groups
of respondents, the effect of WPE x EE is larger than the interactive effect workplace climate
dimension. Therefore, concluded that for developing employees OCB the
satisfaction/perception on workplace environment effects more. Since the effect size of the
interactive of WPC x EE is high statistical significance, hence the factors under the workplace
climate dimensions cannot be ignored.
Variation of Interactive Effects of WPE x WPC on OCB (of Overall Employees): Linking
the evidences of impacts of interaction of satisfaction/perception on workplace environment
and workplace climate over the organizational citizenship behavior, the variations of the effects
were analyzed. The following table was the result of multivariate ANOVA stating the interaction
effect over OCB and its components. With out analyzing more, in brief F statistics and the sig of
F statistics with eta squared (2) values stated that interaction effects of satisfactions over the
WPE and WPC can influence over citizenship behavior of employee. The interaction models
was explained highly significant (P= 0.000<0.01<.005) impact on overall OCB, and the internal
dimensions of OCB. The mean square error for explained degree of freedom was negligible for
respective degree of freedom. The interaction of satisfaction on workplace environment (WPE)
and workplace climate (WPC) explained more influence on
Table- 16
Variation of Interactive Effects of WPE*WPC on Employees OCB
Source
Model

WPE x WPC

Error

Total

Dependent
Variable
OCB
PC
OOW
SI
OCB
PC
OOW
SI
OCB
PC
OOW
SI
OCB
PC
OOW
SI

Type III Sum of

Squares
5009011.24
586196.610
489646.109
598241.578
5009011.24
586196.610
489646.109
598241.578
644.756
80.390
21.891
321.422
5009656.00
586277.000
489668.000
598563.000

df

Mean Square

Sig.

Eta Squared

98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
160
160
160
160
258
258
258
258

51112.360
5981.598
4996.389
6104.506
51112.360
5981.598
4996.389
6104.506
4.030
.502
.137
2.009

12683.831
11905.220
36517.568
3038.750
12683.831
11905.220
36517.568
3038.750

.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000

1.000
.960
.981
.999
1.000
.960
.981
.999

Figure-.16
(Interactive effects of satisfaction on WPE and WPC on Employees OCB)

13

Satisfaction on
Workplace
Environment

Satisfaction
on
Workplace
Climate

Explained
for df= 98
+
Minor X2
square
Error for
df=160

P=0.000<.01
of F statistics
(Model)

P= 0.000<.01
Of F statistics
(between Sub)

2= 1.000(effect size)
OCB
Of Employees
(N=258)

2= 1.000 (effect size)

the overall organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), on the dimensional behavior of OCB of
overall employee of mills. The variability of interaction of satisfaction on workplace
environment and workplace climate may change the OCB of respondents, the dimensions of
OCB. Therefore, concluded that the satisfaction over the workplace environment and workplace climate
could significantly influence over discretionary behaviour of employees.
Findings and Summary: From the analysis the findings are summarize as following(a) Statistically significant differences exhibited among levels of overall OCB of different
levels employees.
(b) Differences exist between the level of professional commitment (PCC),
organizational ownership (OOW), Sharing and Involvement (SI) dimension among the
different levels (groups) of employees.
Overall OCB among the different experience holders was significantly different but
majority of respondents showed the moderate level of citizenship behaviour.
(d) The level of PCC, OOW, and SI dimensions among the different level of experience
holders is significantly different from each other.
(e) Feeling of engagement was positively associated with employees OCB and its
internal dimensions, which were statistically significant.
(f) The effect interaction between the feeling of engagement and satisfaction on WPE,
WPC on overall OCB and its internal dimensions (i.e. Professional Commitment,
Ownership Behavior, Sharing and Involvement Behavior) were showed high statistical
significance (level of sig. = 0.000).
(g) Interactive effects of EE x WPC on Professional Commitment (PCC) behavior of
executives group was highly significant and interactive effects of EE x WPC on overall
Organizational Ownership Behavior of overall executive group was highly significant.
(h) Interactive effects of EE x WPC on OCB of workmen group of employees were
highly significant and the interactive effect of independents (EE x WPC) on the internal
dimensions of OCB i.e. professional commitment, organizational ownership, sharing and
involvement dimensions were highly significant (sig. at 0.000<0.05).
(i) The satisfaction/perception over the workplace environment and workplace climate
showed significant influence over off-role (i.e. OCB or discretionary) behaviour of
employees.
Since engagement influences on employees off-the-role behaviour, which was tested
empirically in this chapter; hence, in the next chapter attempts would be given to assess the level
employees work excellence. In addition, an attempt will be given to understand the interactive
14

effects of perception and satisfaction components of drivers of engagement on the other

dimension of off-the-role behaviour of employees (i.e. explicit discretionary efforts or work
excellence).
References:
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), 587595.
Chia, H., Landau, J. & Ong, J. S. (2000). Predictors of Voice: The Moderating Effect of the General
Economic Climate, Research and Practice in Human Resource Management, 8(2), 3-28.
Evans, M. G. (1985). A monte carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated
multiple regression analsysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 315-342.
Hair, J.F.Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ishak, N. A. (2005). Promoting Employees Innovativeness and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour
through Superior-Subordinate Relationship in the Workplace, Research and Practice in Human
Resource Management, 13(2), 16-30.
Koliamorthy. S, and Mohankumar R. Multivariate Analysis of the Inter-relationship among
Organisational Culture, Commitment and Change. Management Dynamic, Jaipuria Institute of
Management, Luknow, Vol. 3. No. 2, Oct, 2002, 18-32.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of Behavioral Research. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Lewin, D. (1992). Grievance procedures in nonunion workplaces: An empirical analysis of usage,
dynamics, and outcomes. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 68(1).
Organ, D.W. (1988). Organisational citizenship behaviour: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D.W., & Konovsky, M.A. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organisational
citizenship behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 157164.
Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual. A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for
Windows (version 10). Canberra, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Rusbult, C. E., Farrel, D., Rogers, G. & Mainous III, A. G. (1988). Impact of exchange variables on
exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of response to declining job satisfaction.
Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 599-627.
Yuen, C. C. (1995). The effects of career salience and life-cycle variables on perceptions of workfamily interfaces. Human Relations, 48 (3), 265-284.
Uthayasurian K. (2002)- Developing a performance oriented climate, Indian Journal of Commerce,
Vol.55, No. 1-2, Jan-June 2002, PP- 45-50.

15

16