Running Head: ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR AND COMMITMENT

This study examines the structure of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and its relation to organizational commitment in Nepal. Four-hundred and fifty employees of five Nepalese organizations filled out standardized questionnaires. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed two factors of OCB, altruism and compliance, replicating western models of extra-role behavior (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Structural equation analysis showed a positive relation between affective and normative commitment on the one hand and both citizenship factors on the other. Continuance commitment was negatively related to compliance and unrelated to altruism. The findings thus confirmed the structure and usefulness of the concepts in an under-researched geographical area. Findings of the research are discussed within the Nepalese socio-cultural context. ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR AND COMMITMENT 3 Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Organizational Commitment in Nepal Organizational commitment (OC) has for many years been identified as a central construct in understanding the relationship between the employee and the employer (c.f. Allen & Meyer 1996). Definitions of the construct indicate its significance in binding the individual both to the organization and to courses of action which are relevant to the target of the commitment (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). With regard to the former, analyses consistently indicate significant correlations between OC and turnover intention (c.f. Randall 1990). With regard to the latter, further relationships have been identified between components of OC and a range of discretionary and extra-role behaviors (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001) including organizational citizenship behavior (OCB, e.g. Organ & Ryan, 1995). This paper explores the structure of, and relationships between, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in a rarely studied socio-cultural context; Nepal. As used here, organizational commitment is a psychological state that categorizes the employee‟s relationship with the organization, it is understood as a commitment to the entire organization. Three components of commitment have been identified, each of which ties the employee to their organization but the nature of the "psychological-bonding" is different. Affective commitment (AC) ties people through their emotional attachment, involvement, and identification with the organization. Continuance commitment (CC) depends on employees' awareness of the costs of leaving the organization. Normative commitment (NC) rests on employees' obligatory feelings towards coworkers or management. Each component might have different antecedents and, while all lead to a reduced intention to leave the organization, result in different outcomes for employees' discretionary extra-role behavior (e.g., Gautam, van Dick & Wagner, 2001). Organizational citizenship behavior as noted above is one example of discretionary behavior which has been identified as being linked to OC. OCB is taken to be a positive outcome of a committed workforce, characterized by voluntary extraORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR AND COMMITMENT 4 role contributions of employees that are not recognized by the formal organizational reward system (Organ, 1988). While general relationships between OC and OCB are relatively well documented, (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch & Topolnytsky, 2002) there remain issues meriting further investigation. First, the cross-cultural applicability of the constructs both of OC and OCB remains open to debate. The structural invariance of OC in different cultures has been a focus of a number of studies in recent years (c.f. Vandenberghe, 2003), typically presenting culture-specific analyses. For example, both Chen and Francesco (2003) and Cheng and Stockdale (2003) broadly support the three component model in relation to Chinese samples. Ko, Price and Mueller (1997) in contrast are less convinced both of the reliability of continuance commitment in their South Korea data, and of the utility of retaining normative commitment as a separate scale. Lee, Allen, Meyer and Rhee (2001) suggest an oblique four-factor model provides the best fit of their data, also collected in South Korea. The role of normative commitment also raises questions in both western and nonwestern settings. Whereas both affective and continuance commitment are rooted primarily in the individual‟s association with the organization, normative commitment arises both from interaction with the organization, and also from more cultural and familial socialization processes whereby the individual learns the appropriateness of concepts such as loyalty, obligation and self-interest. Chen and Francesco (2003) suggest an enhanced significance for normative commitment in collectivist cultures, where group expectations and social performance are comparatively more significant issues than individual attitudes and attachments. This finding has received some support from Wasti (2003), looking at commitment in a Turkish context. Chen and Francesco further argue that the “rootedness” of the NC component might give rise to it having a moderating effect on the relationship between affective commitment and performance. Randall (1993) presents a range of hypotheses regarding the relationships between ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR AND COMMITMENT 5 organizational commitment and Hofstede‟s (1980) cultural dimensions, suggesting commitment is likely to be greater in more individualistic and less authoritarian (lower power distance) countries. Cheng and Stockdale (2003) further explore Randall‟s hypothesized relationships across three different national contexts. Moreover, the role of normative commitment as an antecedent of OCB is rarely discussed. This is particularly pertinent for the current study because, as highlighted by Paine and Organ (2000), the meaning, perception and classes of OCB may vary from culture to culture. The cultural context for the present paper is one that has rarely before been investigated. The study was carried out in Nepal, a country with a relatively small but diverse population. Nepal is broadly collectivist and high in both power distance and uncertainty avoidance. The aims of this paper are twofold. First, it seeks to examine the structure of organizational citizenship behavior in an under-researched socio-cultural setting. Second, it seeks to explore the structure of relationships between OCB and OC in this context. Organ‟s (1988) two factor construction of OCB is taken as the starting point, those factors being altruism and compliance. Based on previous findings, the theoretical assumptions underlying the present study are that organizational commitment relates to organizational citizenship behavior, and specifically that normative commitment will be associated with OCB in the collectivist context of Nepal. Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) defined OCB as individual contributions in the workplace beyond role requirement and contractually rewarded job achievements. To this extent OCB can be described as discretionary (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001), contextual (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997) or extra-role performance. The hypothesized components of OCB have attracted research attention. Some authors propose a five-factor model of OCB consisting of conscientiousness, altruism, civic virtue, sportsmanship and courtesy (Organ, 1988). Other models assume two main factors: (a) Altruism, representing those forms of OCB that provide aid to specific persons, e.g., direct team members, and (b) compliance, ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR AND COMMITMENT 6 which pertains to more impersonal contributions to the organization as a whole (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Smith et al., 1983). A number of studies have appeared which explore the construct validity of organizational citizenship behavior (Allen et al., 2004), and currently the two component model seems to dominate. However, the concept has been developed primarily in western socio-economic contexts and remains relatively untested elsewhere. This is significant for at least two reasons. First, it may be that OCB is enacted differently in different cultural contexts – that what it means to be a “good citizen” may vary. Second, underlying cultural values may place greater or lesser emphasis on the appropriateness of organizational citizenship behavior. In relation to the first of these issues, the five component model appears to demonstrate values specific to western individualistic cultures (i.e. sportsmanship, civic virtue and courtesy all appear to be “emic”), while the two-component model captures more universal or “etic” constructs. Assuming the two components are indeed etic, it may be that cultural values placing collective interest ahead of the individual might generate more organizational citizenship behavior, a suggestion to some extent supported by Paine and Organ (2000). In their recent meta-analysis, Meyer et al. (2002) found affective and normative commitment substantially correlated with both unidimensional measures of OCB ( = .32 for affective commitment, and  =.24 for normative commitment), and with both altruism and compliance (‟s between .20 and .26). However, of particular significance to the current study is the separation reported by Meyer et al. of studies carried out within North America from those carried out outside North America. Looking only at North American studies, the correlations between AC, NC and unidimensional OCB reduced to . 26 and . 10, respectively, whereas the comparable correlations for non-North American studies were . 46 and 37. Continuance commitment was unrelated to OCB ( = -.01). Thus, the present study also expects to find strong positive relations between OCB and affective and normative ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR AND COMMITMENT 7 commitment and a negative or zero correlation between OCB and continuance commitment. However it extends these findings i