Journal of Japanese Management Vo.3, No.2, November 2019ISSN 2189-9592

The OCB Inducement Process: Mediating Effect of Work Values
Sharing
Yutaka Ueda
Faculty of Economics, Seikei University
Japan Society for Information and Management (JSIM)
Email: ueda@econ.seikei.ac.jp
Abstract
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is one of the most intensely investigated research
topics in organizational behavior (OB). Compared to research focusing on the antecedents of
OCB, there are far fewer studies that theoretically consider or empirically examine therelationship between OCB and its subsequent effects. This study aims to focus on the mediating
effect of work values sharing on the relationship between supervisor’s OCB and subordinate’s
OCB in a given organization. Shared work values comprise the foundation of this study in which
employees perform their jobs smoothly without prior promises or explicit communication on how
other employees behave at work. A supervisor’s OCB can become a language with which he or
she communicates his or her work values to subordinates, and these subordinates areencouraged to exhibit their own OCB. By analyzing the data collected from 2,000 Japaneseemployees, this study empirically examines the effect of supervisors’ OCB-I (OCB forindividuals) on subordinates’ OCB-I and OCB-O (OCB for the organization), which is partiallymediated by work values sharing.
Keywords: OCB (organizational citizenship behavior), OCB-I (OCB for individuals), OCB-O(OCB for the organization), work values(1) Introduction

on OCB was first conducted by Western

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)

researchers using Western samples in thehas received a significant amount of attention

1980s and early 1990s; OCB has also beenfrom researchers in organizational behavior

focused on and empirically examined by(OB) around the world since Dennis W. Organ

researchers in Asia and other countries sinceand his co-researchers proposed the ground-the late 1990s (Farh, Early, & Lin, 1997; Ueda,

breaking idea that a worker’s job satisfaction2009).

has a greater impact on his or her

Although a large number of studies havediscretionary contributive behaviors to thefocused on OCB thus far, they can essentiallyorganization (that is, OCB) than his or her

be classified into three groups according toformal role behaviors (Bateman & Organ,

their research objectives (Organ et al., 2006;

1983; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Research

Ueda, 2004, 2016). The first group addresses
1Journal of Japanese Management Vo.3, No.2, November 2019ISSN 2189-9592

the concept or dimensions of OCB. They aimof these behaviors has little impact on otherto deepen discussions on the concept andemployees or the organization. Only after

dimensions of OCB. The second groupthese small behaviors have accumulated overincludes research that aims to determine thea long period of time can an explicit effect on

antecedents of OCB. This group is further

the organization be revealed.

divided into several subgroups focusing on theSecond, the characteristics of OCB also

individual, task, group, and organizational

tend to inhibit researchers’ investigation on

antecedents. Finally, there is a group of

the impact of OCB on the organization. Somestudies that address the effect of OCB on

typical behaviors of OCB, such as “help[ing]individual or organizational factors.

others,” “punctuality,” and “does not take

Among these three categories, the concept

extra breaks,” (Smith et al., 1983) areor dimension of OCB was primarily discussed

inherently good and necessary for thein the 1980s and 1990s. A large portion oforganization. One also tends to develop some

OCB research has focused on the individual

illusions about the positive effects of theseor organizational antecedents of OCB andbehaviors on the organization that one does

conducted empirical studies to determine thenot have to consider because they seem to besignificant impact of these antecedents on

clear. However, it is not sufficient to easily

various dimensions of OCB (Organ et al.,conclude that these behaviors are good for the

2006; Ueda, 2004, 2016). In contrast, how anorganization, as will be discussed later.

employee’s OCB impacts other employees or

As a nod to this trend in OCB research, thisthe organization has received far lessstudy aims to focus on how OCB impacts

attention from researchers.

others and the OCBs of others and proposes a

Generally,

comparedtothecausalnewframework

that

can

be

used

to

relationship between antecedents and OCB,

understand the causal process between theit is much more difficult to empiricallyfirst OCB to subsequent OCBs or from one

examine the relationship between OCB and

employee’s OCB to another’s OCB. An

its subsequent effects. One of the reasons for

empirical study was conducted to confirm thethis is related to the concept of OCB itself.

validity of our framework. The next section

Among several definitions of OCB, every OCB

classifies past research, focusing on the effectresearcher recognizes that the followingof OCB on consequent effects. The third

definition by Organ (1988) is most often cited:section considers the important role of work

“(OCB

is

values sharing as a mediator between OCBs.

explicitly

Following our proposed hypotheses, the fifth

recognized by the formal system, and that inand sixth sections address the study’s

theeffective

empirical method and results. The discussionfunctioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988,

and conclusion are delineated in the final twop.4). From this definition, OCB consists ofsections.

is)individual

discretionary,notaggregate

behavior

directly

promotes

or
the

that

small behaviors by many employees, and each2

Journal of Japanese Management Vo.3, No.2, November 2019ISSN 2189-9592(2) Classification of Research on the Effects of

implications for researchers, it cannot be said

OCB

that this research examines the effects of

As described above, there are far fewer

OCB. These researchers merely measure how

studies that address the effects of OCB on

widely managers consider their subordinates’

individual or organizational factors than“obligatory”

those focusing on the antecedents of OCB.

researchers found that subordinates’ OCB

Despite the limited number of studies, thispositively

type of research can be further classified into

evaluation of them, they did not find the effectthe following three categories: (1) researchof OCB on supervisors’ perceptions, but

regardingpersonnelrather supervisors’ implicit tendencies toevaluation of an OCB performer by his or her

consider a wider range of subordinate

supervisor, (2) research focusing on OCB’s

behavior,

effects on the psychological outcomes or

evaluations. This is because they know theseproductivity of an OCB performer, and (3)behaviors are not only effective but also

research investigating OCB’s effects on thenecessaryoutcomes or productivity of the group or theorganization.

OCB’s

effectsonorganization that an OCB performer belongs

job

roles

influences

including

for

the

to
their

OCB,

be.

Even

if

supervisors’

forfunctioning

their

of

the

The research in the second category focusesto.

on the effect of OCB on performers. These

Researchers in the first category havestudies vary depending on the type of effectattempted to empirically determine whether

they focus on, such as OCB effects on worker

managers comprehensively consider not only

productivity (Bergeron, Ostroff, Schroeder, &task performance but also the OCB of

Block, 2014), stress (Bolino, Turnley, Gilstrap,

subordinates when conducting evaluations& Suazo, 2010), and intention to leave the(MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1991, 1993).

organization (Bolino et al., 2010; Paille,

For example, MacKenzie et al. (1993)

Bourdeau, & Galois, 2010; Paille & Grima,

empirically examined the relative impact of2011).

the rated performance of various OCBs and

For example, Bergeron et al. (2014) focused

objective sales productivity on sales managers’

on the effect of two types of academic

performance evaluations of their salespersons.

members’

Morrison (1994) also empirically indicatedTypically, academic members belong not onlythat a supervisor and his or her subordinates

to the employing organization but also to adiffered

regardedprofessional organization, and their OCB issubordinates’ various behaviors as in-role orclassified into internal OCB, which directly

extra-role, and how broadly they considered

contributes to the employing organization,

subordinates’ job responsibilities. Lam, Hui,and external professional OCB, which isand Low (1999) also found that supervisors

directly related to a professional organization,

had broader definitions of job roles than did

such as an academic society. They empiricallytheir subordinates.

revealed that internal OCB had a negativein

whetherthey

Although these findings have important

OCB

on

their

performance.

impact on individuals’ productivity and career3

Journal of Japanese Management Vo.3, No.2, November 2019ISSN 2189-9592

outcomes, while external professional OCB

for any two separate (independent) activities

had a positive influence.

that are conducted during working hours.

Bolino et al. (2010) paid attention to the fact

Therefore, they should have revealed thatthat employees often feel pressured tothis effect comes not from extra role behaviors

perform OCBs as “good soldiers” in thein general, but from extra contributive

organization because they know OCBs are

behaviors to the organization.

often informally encouraged and rewarded.

The final category is related to research

They named this type of pressure “citizenshipthat aims to empirically determine whetherpressure,”

OCB contributes to some concrete measuresandempirically

found

that

citizenship pressure and actual OCB wereofsignificantly correlated with job stress, work-

effectiveness (Dunlop & Lee, 2004; Ehrhart,family conflict, work-leisure conflict, and theBliese, & Thomas, 2009; Koh, Steers, &intention to quit. Paille et al. (2010) also

Terborg, 1995; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994;

indicated

Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997).

that

OCB-O

(OCB

for

the

organization) had a negative impact on theorganizational

performanceor

For example, Podsakoff and MacKenzie

intention to leave.

(1994) aggregated the OCBs of 839 sales

Compared to research in the first category,agents in 116 sales units in a major insurance

these studies have addressed some of thecompany in order to compile unit-level OCB,

effects of OCB on individual consequentand examined the impact of these unit-levelfactors. However, among these findings, theOCBs on agency performance. They founddiminishingthat

impacton

productivity

or

civic

virtues

andsportsmanshipincreasing impact on stress might not be thepositively affected unit performance, but

only effects attributable to the outcomes of

helping behavior negatively impacted unit

OCB. They might commonly occur in any

performance.

situation in which employees have to engage

examined the effect of the aggregated workin behaviors that go beyond what theycrew members’ OCBs on quantity and quality

consider to be a part of their formal jobs.

measures of work crew performance. TheyIn this context, Bergeron (2007) proposed

found

that

Podsakoff

helpingetal.

behavior(1997)

andthe resource allocation model. According tosportsmanship had a positive impact on

his idea, for any employees, “(w)ithin aperformance, while civic virtues had no effectspecified time interval (e.g., a day, week, oron either performance measure. Further,year), individuals make certain resource

while Koh et al. (1995) found a positive effectallocation decisions as to where to spend theirof helping behavior on school performance intime” (Bergeron, 2007, p.1083). He further

schools in Singapore, Dunlop and Lee (2004)

notes that “individuals must make choices as

did not find a significant effect of helping

to how much time to allocate to task

behavior, civic virtues, and sportsmanship on

performance versus OCB” (Bergeron, 2007,

several performance measures, such as

p.1084).

counter service time and unexplained food

However, this tradeoff relationship holds

figures at fast food restaurants.
4

Journal of Japanese Management Vo.3, No.2, November 2019As

described

before,becauseISSN 2189-9592

each

bad employee understand and master theemployee’s OCBs are usually too small andwork. It can also make a good employee

subtle to influence the whole organization, it

experience significant additional stress.

is not meaningful to relate one individual’sThus, helping a bad employee often utilizes

OCB to the effectiveness of the organizationa good employee’s time and energy, which isunless it is ensured that this individual, suchimportant to the organization. When we

as a CEO, has sufficient power to drive theconsiderorganization. Many employees’ OCBs shouldorganizational performance, we have to

be

the

implicitly assume that, through this type oforganizational variable, assuming that thehelping and helping process, a bad employee’sorganization is composed of this employee

increased productivity is worth more than a

type. Then, if it is empirically revealed thatgoodthose aggregated OCBs have a positive

However, a good employee is often the mostimpact on organizational performance orefficient employee, and a bad employee often

someorganizational

does his or her job less efficiently. Thus,

effectiveness, this empirical result is not only

organizational performance could worsen ifconvincing but also complies with Organ’s

helping means that the time and energy of an(1988) original definition of OCB.

efficient employee is sacrificed for the sake ofaggregatedmeasuresandrelatedoftoHowever, even if this relationship isthat

helping

employee’s

contributes

decreasedtoproductivity.

a less efficient employee.

statistically evident, it is not clear how or

We have to move beyond an over-simplified

through what processes actual OCB canargument that the helped employee will

enhance organizational performance. For

contribute significantly to the organization

example, every researcher recognizes thatand need to develop a more persuasive logical“helping” is a typical OCB. How can a goodfoundation regarding what happens to other

employee’s assistance to a bad employee

employees and the organization when OCB iseventually

performed.

enhanceorganizational

performance?
One might consider that if the performance(3) The Role of Work Values Sharingof a bad employee is improved through the

1. Reciprocal Relationship between Helping

help of a good employee, the performance ofand Helped Persons

the whole organization should necessarily

While OCB researchers have consideredalso be enhanced. However, only focusing onthat helping is one of the most basic

the improvement of the performance of a bad

dimensions of OCB, it is rare that they

employee is too simplistic. In many cases,

address how a person considers the help or

helping a bad employee is a significant

behaves after they are helped. However,undertaking. In particular, when he or she is

helping is not a special behavior performed

slow in comprehending how the work should

only in the organization but a common

be done, a good employee has to expend

behavior frequently performed in a variety ofsignificant time and energy in order to help aspaces. Thus, researchers outside of the field5

Journal of Japanese Management Vo.3, No.2, November 2019ISSN 2189-9592

of organizational behavior have also paid

Takagi and Senoo (2006) also considered theattention to this behavior. In particular,

possibility that this process spreads beyond

researchers

in

have

this dyadic helping–helped relationship. They

addressedtheregardingempirically confirmed that a helped person

interpersonal relationships between helping

was encouraged to help not only the person

and helped persons (reviewed by Ito, 2012;

who once helped him or her but also other

Mizuno & Ishikuma, 1999; Nishikawa &persons beyond this dyadic relationship

Takagi, 1986).

because a helped person expects that helping

socialpsychology

problem

In most cases, they focus on a reciprocal

will contribute to the helping person’s growth

relationship between two focal persons. A

and development.

person tends to be more likely to help a person

In this way, social psychology research on

who previously helped him or her. This focus

helpingbehavior

is different from OCB researchers who

phenomenon that helping or helped persons

address helping behavior in the organization.

recognize

OCB researchers discuss the situation intransformation

which a person helps another person in theexperiencessame organization regardless of whether thisHowever, they have not considered the effectother person had previously helped him or her.

of helping behavior on employees’ perception

In contrast, some researchers in socialof work situations within the organization.

psychology also discuss the possibility that

How have OCB researchers considered thishelping behavior could have some effectpoint?

thehas
growththatathroughaddressedtheor

personal

helping

personhelpingbehavior.

beyond interpersonal relationships between
helping and helped persons. For example,

2. What is Work Values Sharing?

Takagi (1997) proposed a model that assumed

Although each employee is required to workthat a helping person evaluates his or her

cooperatively

help not only in terms of how effective it wasorganization, the employee’s behaviors arein solving the problem of a helped person but

not in principle completely controlled by otheralso from the perspective of how it contributed

employees. Employees have to communicate

to

with

his

or

her

personal

growth

and

each

with

other

co-employees

aboutvariousinthethingsdevelopment. It further assumed that aregarding their work, including their attitude

helped person also considers the value of the

toward the work and their co-employees.

help he or she received not only by judging

Different methods of communication arewhether the help was useful in solving his or

required depending on the organizational

her problem, but also from the perspective ofsituation (Daft & Wiginton, 1979; Daft &whether the help advanced the growth and

MacIntosh, 1981; Daft & Lengel, 1986). Whiledevelopment of the helping person. The effect

explicit language is appropriate to conveyof this type of evaluation can further facilitate

concrete,both actors’ assistance of other persons

language—including subtle motions

beyondpostures—is also used and is sometimes more

theirinterpersonal

relationship.
6

definitive

things,ambiguousandJournal of Japanese Management Vo.3, No.2, November 2019

appropriate

forcommunicating

ISSN 2189-9592

diverse,without explicit communication or promises

complicated ideas such as how to workand allows employees to determine how they

cooperatively in an uncertain situation.

should behave at work.

Particularly, in organizations in which aApositive

psychologicalhumanlimited number of people know each other andrelationship between employees needs to be

are working together for a long time, even if

established in the organization for eachno explicit language is used to communicate

employee to perform his or her job smoothly

between employees, each employee’s behavior

without worrying about how other employees

becomes an important message to otherare performing their jobs. OCB is considered

employees who have to coordinate their work

to be one of the typical organizationalin order to cooperate with each other. In otherbehaviors that allows a positive atmospherewords, each employee knows what to do

to be cultivated in which every employee

without exchanging explicit words with otherworks

employees.

previously determined or nothing is explicitly

The core of this implicit language that is

comfortably

even

if

nothing

iscommunicated.

communicated through employees’ behaviors

Although each OCB is a small, subtle

is the criteria for attitude and positivity

behavior, employees observe other employees’

toward jobs, supervisors, and co-employees.

OCBs or, at least, the results of their OCBs.

This is referred to as work values. Here, work

For example, if they often see some employees

values are “more specific than general human

helping others (helping behavior as OCB-I

values, but are more abstract than both

(OCB for individuals)) (Williams & Anderson,

vocational interests and attitudes toward1991), they come to consider the spirit of

specific work” (Lyons, Higgins, & Duxbury,

cooperation as

2010, p.971), and we refer to “values as theorganization. They also consider that if they

underlying psychological criteria that guidefind themselves in trouble, someone willancertainsurely lend a helping hand. They are likely to

behaviors and outcomes” (Lyons et al. 2010,

experience low anxiety, even without priorp.972).

promises or contracts with the organizationindividual's

Even

preferences

without

in theappropriate

regarding when and how they are to be helped.

communication or explanation, employees

In a similar way, when they see that many ofwork in a harmonious way if they share

their co-employees proactively participate incommon work values in which each canevery meeting (conscientiousness as OCB-O

imagine what others consider and how they

(OCB for the organization)) (Williams &perform certain jobs. This type of work values

Anderson, 1991), they do not worry that asharing

work

plan will fall through because of theharmoniously in the organization. Work

negativity of many of the participants at avalues sharing can more precisely be definedmeeting.

enables

prior

for

being pervasive

employees

toas a type of infrastructure that makes
employees expect other employees’ behaviors
7

Journal of Japanese Management Vo.3, No.2, November 2019(4) Hypotheses

ISSN 2189-9592

H5: Work values sharing will have a positive

It is considered that work values are shared

impact on subordinate’s OCB-I.

among employees not through one employee’s
behavior but through many employees’

Following from this set of hypotheses, welongtime contributive behaviors. Nonetheless,assume that work values sharing partiallya supervisor is an iconic figure in amediates

department or organization. His or her

subordinate’s OCB. When a supervisor

behavior and values have a huge impact on

performs OCB-I, subordinates may simply

his or her subordinates’ behaviors. Past

emulateresearch revealed that instrumental andmediating effect of work values sharing. This

supportive leadership behavior is positively

means that only the partial mediating effectrelated to subordinates’ OCB (Podsakoff,of work values can be assumed. Even when a

MacKenzie,

Shnake,subordinate performs OCB-O, as Takagi

Cochran, & Dumler, 1995). Adkins and Russel(1997) imagined the effect on a subordinate’s(1997) also revealed that a supervisor’s

perception of some benefit received by thevaluing of fairness relates to his or her

OCB performer,

subordinates’ performance.

considered to link two persons’ OCBs. These&

Bommer,1996;

If a supervisor often helps a newcomerasupervisor’s

similarOCB

behavior

andwithoutathea different process ishypothetical relationships are shown inperform his or her job, a spirit of mutual

Figure 1.

support is created in the department. Other
employees also come to believe that theyshould help when someone is in need andexpect that they will be helped when they are
in need.
Here, we focus on the effect of supervisors’
OCB-I

on

the

OCB-I

and

OCB-O

of

subordinates. The following hypotheses were
proposed.

Figure 1 Hypothetical Model (Partial
Mediation Model)

H1: Supervisor’s OCB-I will have a positive
impact on subordinate’s OCB-O.

(5) Research Method

H2: Supervisor’s OCB-I will have a positive

1. Sample

impact on subordinate’s OCB-I.

This study utilized data from an “attitude

H3: Supervisor’s OCB-I will have a positive

survey of people in their 20s and 50s with

impact on work values sharing.

college degrees regarding their job growth,

H4: Work values sharing will have a positive

2010” by Recruit Works Incorporated (RWI).1

impact on subordinate’s OCB-O.

RWI collected the data in March 2010 using

The survey was conducted through theInternet. Among registered people, those who

met the conditions of having attained a college
degree, were currently employed, and were1

8

Journal of Japanese Management Vo.3, No.2, November 2019ISSN 2189-9592

an Internet survey and deposited the data atinordinately on the visible behaviors of

the Center for Social Research and Dataattention seekers (Bolino, 1999; Schnake,Archives

Social1991). The method of blending OCB items

Sciences, the University of Tokyo. CSRDA

into various work behaviors is also consideredgave the author permission to use the data.

effective in investigating subtle OCB in

The sample comprises 2,000 people withJapanese organizations.

(CSRDA),

Instituteofcollege degrees who work as regular or nonregular

employees(1,000males,All the following items are measured using

1,000

a regular five-point scale ranging from [1]females).

“not at all” to [5] “very often / always.”2

Subordinate’ OCB-I: The questionnaire
2. Variables

investigated how many of the 36 listed

Although these data were not originallyactivities respondents engage in during theircollected to explore employees’ OCB, somework. Four of these items were selected as

scale items were considered to be appropriate

representative behaviors of OCB-I. The

measures of OCB and work values sharing

average of these four items was calculated.

withConcretely, they were “I take on a leadershipcarefulattentiontotheinternal

reliability between these items.

position,” “I am asked by those around me forThis study then utilized OCB items that

advice,” “I encourage co-employees to build

were slightly different from those establishedbetter human relationships,” and “I raiseby past researchers in the West. This method

someone well.”may have made it difficult to compare our
empirical results to those of Western studies.

Subordinate’s OCB-O: As with asubordinate’s OCB-O, five items were used.

However, appropriate items with which OCB

Concretely, they were “I have my own goal forcan be measured are dependent on national

my daily job,” “I am aware of the speed of mycultural factors (Farh, Earley, & Lin, 1997;

growth,” “I am aware of job performance,” “IOrgan et al. 2006). Further, Williams andmake my own challenges,” and “I try various

Anderson (1991) also first collected data on

methods.”

various behaviors and then separated OCB

Supervisor’ OCB-I: As the variable for a(OCB-I and OCB-O) from in-role behaviors. In

supervisor’s OCB-I, eight items out of thirty

fact, if only OCB items rather than various

were selected to enquire about a current

work behavior items, which include both OCB

supervisor: “he or she helps me,” “he or she is

and in-role behaviors, are shown in theclosely involved with me,” “because he or shequestionnaire,

watches over me, I can try a difficult job withrespondents

may

focus

aged between 22 and 59 years were asked toanswer the questionnaire.
2 The questionnaire has 36 items that ask
employees about the frequency of various
behaviors using terms such as “did difficult
things,” “required high performance,” and“competed with other employees.” Further, it
included 30 items asking about theirsupervisors’ behaviors, including “engaged
honestly with me”, “listened to my opinions”,
and “attractive as a person.” For more detailed
information on this survey, see
https://ssjda.iss.utokyo.ac.jp/Direct/gaiyo.php?lang=eng&eid=08
45
9

Journal of Japanese Management Vo.3, No.2, November 2019ISSN 2189-9592

a sense of security,” “he or she provides a

Next, structural equation modeling (SEM)

pleasant working environment,” “he or she

was used after the basic statistics—such as

lends an ear in a time of need,” “he or shemeans, standard deviations of the variables,

motivates me,” “he or she gives good advice

and the correlations between two variables—

promptly when he or she notices that I needwere calculated. Although SEM is usuallyit,” and “he or she suggests me my goodused to confirm the assumed validity of thepoints.”model chosen by the researcher, we compare

Work values sharing: Work values sharing

possible models to determine the best one.

is a newly proposed concept, and there is no

Although we assume the partial mediating

question item that directly enquires about it.

effect of the work context between two

Thus, we selected appropriate items out ofdifferent OCBs, other models that assume fulltwenty to examine how respondents feel inor no mediating effect of the work context

their working and daily lives, assuming thatwere considered as possible alternatives. It isthey have good feelings if they share work

thus crucial to compare our hypotheticalvalues with other employees.

model and the alternative models in order totest our hypotheses.

For example, when an employee shares workvalues with other employees at the workplace,he or she comes to believe that he or she can go(6) Result

through life with these values given that most

1. Result of EFA and CFA

employees spend so much of their time at work.

First, EFA was conducted to examine

Further, it is difficult to compare one’s values

whether all the question items wouldwith those of others in the organization; it isconstruct the predetermined variables. As themore effective to recognize shared work values

results in Table 1 show, all of the items were as

by asking about the individual’s impressions of

expected. Four factors explained 60.04 percent

daily life.

of the total variance (principal axis factoring,

Concretely, the following four items werepromax with Kaiser normalization).

used as variables for the work context: “I

Next, we also conducted CFA to confirm thethink I can live by my own values in society,”validity of our four-dimensional model. Table“I think others around me understand me

1 depicts some indices of reliability and inter-well,” “I am confident that I can live my life incorrelationsofmy own way in society,” and “I think I cancorrelations

arefulfill my potential in society.”significance level). First, all the values of

all

four

constructs

significant

at

a

(all
0.05

Cronbach’s alpha are over 0.7, those of AVE
3. Analytical Method

are over 0.5, and those of CR are over 0.7,

First, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was

which

indicates

that

they

satisfytheutilized to examine whether the items

conditions of reliability (Hair, Black, Babin, &construct predefined variables. Confirmatory

Anderson, 2010; Said, Badru, & Shahid, 2011).

factor analysis (CFA) was also conducted toFurther, the measures of goodness of fit are

determine the reliability of the variables.

χ2 = 976.966, df = 183, CFI = 0.945, TLI =10

Journal of Japanese Management Vo.3, No.2, November 2019ISSN 2189-9592

0.931, and RMSEA = 0.047; these values are

assumes that a supervisor’s OCB-I has two

also satisfactory. Therefore, according to theseparate effects on a subordinate’s OCB. One

results of the CFA, it can be concluded that

effect is a direct positive impact on a

our four-dimensional model is valid (Table 2).

subordinate’s OCB-O [1] or OCB-I [2]. The
other effect is indirect—a supervisor’s OCB-I

Table 1. Result of Pattern Matrix of EFA

initially has an effect on work values sharing

Pattern Matrix[3], and this work values sharing influences a

Factorsubordinate’s OCB-O [4] or OCB-I [5].

12
34SubOCB-I1-0.1140.066-0.0430.763
SubOCB-I2-0.019
0.002
0.044
0.606
SubOCB-I3
0.096
0.239
-0.0610.400
SubOCB-I4
0.023-0.1190.072
0.748
SubOCB-O1
0.080
0.626
0.025
0.064
SubOCB-O2
0.026
0.640
0.015
0.177
SubOCB-O3-0.0090.777-0.0530.034
SubOCB-O4-0.0590.995-0.010-0.111
SubOCB-O5-0.0020.803
0.045-0.086SupOCB-I1
0.823-0.027-0.021-0.099SupOCB-I2
0.846-0.0170.013-0.008SupOCB-I3
0.866-0.0170.055
0.008
SupOCB-I4
0.843-0.057-0.023-0.009SupOCB-I5
0.857
0.010
-0.010-0.044SupOCB-I6
0.806
0.077
-0.001
0.073
SupOCB-I7
0.790
0.072
0.009
-0.117SupOCB-I8
0.764-0.013-0.0200.172
WVS1-0.007-0.0540.775-0.033
WVS2
0.058-0.069
0.556
0.124
WVS3
-0.0100.045
0.905-0.064WVS4-0.036
0.089
0.673
0.057
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

Customarily, SEM examines whether paths
betweenconstructs

aresignificant

and

whether measures of goodness of fit meetcriteria to determine the validity of the modelthat represents hypothetical causal andcorrelational relationships. However, one
drawback of this method is that it is not
sufficient to simply determine significant
relationships

betweenvariablesinthehypothetical model. Our study aims toconfirm that considerations relating to workvalues sharing necessarily explain the effectof certain OCBs on other OCBs. Thus, SEM
has to reveal that our hypothetical model isbetter than alternative models in terms of
measures of goodness of fit.

Table

2.

IndicesofReliability

and

For this purpose, the goodness of fit of other

Correlations between Two Constructs
variables
Subordinates'
OCB-I
Subordinates'
2
OCB-O
Supervisor's
3
OOB-I
Work Values
4
Sharing1

considered. For example, the model with [3],Cronbach's
alphas

AVE

CR

0.807

0.516

0.810

0.875

0.592

0.878

0.593

context fully moderates the relationship

0.944

0.678

0.944

0.227 0.386

between

0.836

0.57

0.840

0.388 0.419 0.251

subordinate’s OCB. The model with only [1],1Correlations
2models with or without paths should be3[4], and [5] paths considers that the workasupervisor’s

OCB

and

a

[2], and [3] assumes that the work context has
2. Hypothesis Testing

no effect on subordinates’ OCBs. Concretely,

The analysis was conducted as follows.

this study adopted the specification searchFirst, the partial mediation model shown inmethod of AMOS. According to this method,

Figure 1 was examined through SEM. A

each path is added to and removed from themediating relationship can be relative easilymodel, and the validity of each of the 32 (25 =examined by applying SEM. Our model32) models is examined (Table 3).
11Journal of Japanese Management Vo.3, No.2, November 2019ISSN 2189-9592

Table 3 Comparison of All 32 Models
models

arrow

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

None
4
5
1
3
2
4, 5
1, 2
1, 4
3, 4
2, 4
1, 5
3, 5
1, 3
2, 5
2, 3
1, 2, 3
1, 4, 5

19

3, 4, 520
21
22

1, 2, 42, 4, 5
1, 2, 523

1, 3, 524

2, 3, 425
26
27

1, 3, 42, 3, 5
1, 2, 4, 5

names ofmodel

direct model
full mediation
model

full mediationand direct-1
full mediationand direct-2

partialmediationand direct-1
partial
29 1, 2, 3, 5 mediationand direct-2
partial and full
30 1, 3, 4, 5
mediation-1
partial and full
31 2, 3, 4, 5
mediation-2
partial
32 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 mediation
model
28

1, 2, 3, 4parameters
63
64
64
64
64
64
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
66
66

df

C

C-df

AIC 0

BCC 0

BIC 0

CFI

TLI

RMSEA

189
188
188
188
188
188
187
187
187
187
187
187
187
187
187
187
186
186

25015.3
24732.82
24794.18
24965.53
24999.14
25005.73
24469.76
24626.93
24699.5
24713.3
24723.26
24744.41
24777.1
24784.36
24791.27
24882.19
24328.34
24437.73

24826.3
24544.82
24606.18
24777.53
24811.14
24817.73
24282.76
24439.93
24512.524526.3
24536.26
24557.41
24590.1
24597.36
24604.27
24695.19
24142.34
24251.73

778.338497.864559.217730.569
764.179770.775
236.802393.969466.537480.336490.301
511.448544.144551.396558.311649.225
97.378206.767778.227497.775
559.128730.48764.09770.686236.735
393.902466.471480.27490.234
511.382544.077551.329558.244649.159
97.333206.723750.333475.461536.814708.166
741.776748.371219.999377.166449.735
463.534473.499494.646527.341534.593541.508
632.42386.176
195.566

0.878
0.897
0.893
0.881
0.879
0.879
0.915
0.905
0.900
0.894
0.898
0.897
0.899
0.894
0.893
0.887
0.925
0.918

0.851
0.874
0.869
0.854
0.851
0.851
0.896
0.882
0.876
0.869
0.874
0.872
0.875
0.869
0.868
0.861
0.907
0.898

0.068
0.063
0.064
0.068
0.068
0.069
0.057
0.061
0.062
0.064
0.063
0.063
0.063
0.064
0.064
0.066
0.054
0.057

66 186 24448.75 24262.75

217.795

217.75206.593

0.917

0.897

0.057

66 186 24465.82 24279.82
66 186 24467.76 24281.76
66 18624526
24340

234.859236.8
295.042234.814236.755
294.998

223.657
225.598283.841

0.916
0.916
0.912

0.895
0.895
0.890

0.057
0.057
0.059

66 186 24538.36 24352.36

307.401

307.356296.199

0.911

0.889

0.059

66 186 24571.46 24385.46

340.501

340.456

329.299

0.908

0.886

0.060

66 186 24677.01 24491.01
66 186 24773.05 24587.05
67 185 24255.43 24070.43

446.054542.089
26.474446.01542.045
26.452434.852530.887
20.873

0.901
0.895
0.930

0.877
0.869
0.913

0.062
0.064
0.052

67 185 24293.26 24108.26

64.30164.279

58.7

0.927

0.909

0.053

67 185 24311.88 24126.88

82.92

82.89877.319

0.926

0.908

0.054

67 185 24413.85 24228.85

184.889

184.867

179.289

0.919

0.899

0.056

67 185 24445.68 24260.68

216.72

216.698

211.119

0.917

0.896

0.057

68 184 24226.96 24042.96

0

0

0

0.932

0.915

0.052

When the specification search method was

OCB-O that is significantly influenced by aadopted, it showed that our hypotheticalsupervisor’s OCB-I.

model [model 32] is the best model according

The more subordinates perceive theirto the measures of goodness of fit. This model

supervisor as “helping me” or “is closely

has CFI = 0.932, TLI = 0.915, and RMSEA =involved with me,” the more subordinates

0.052. Although the value of RMSEA might betend to perceive that they “encourage co-slightly higher than the criteria, it can be

employees

concluded that this model has high validity.

relationships” and “have my own goal for myThis model demonstrates that it is not only

to

build

betterhumandaily job.” Furthermore, the model depicts

a subordinate’s OCB-I but also his or her

this effect as being partially mediated by
12

Journal of Japanese Management Vo.3, No.2, November 2019ISSN 2189-9592

work values sharing, which enhances therequired. Western ideas consider that anperception that “I think I can be myself in

employee hopes to repay the organization forsociety.” All the paths are significant for the 5tangible and intangible benefits he or she has

percent significance level. From this result,received from the organization based on the

all of our hypotheses are supported.

social exchange between the organization andan employee (Organ, 1988). Further, this idea
can be applied not only to OCB-O but also to
OCB-I, which helps other employees or asupervisor in the organization, by assumingthat a helping employee considers employees
who he or she has helped to finally contributeto the organization.

Figure 2 Result of the Partial Mediation

In contrast, Hui, Lee, and Rousseau (2004)

Model

described“(a)perspective

ignoring

interpersonal ties is likely to be inadequate in(7) Discussion

accounting for organizational commitment

The results of this empirical analysis show

and citizenship behavior in the context of thethat considering work values sharing is

Chinese organization-employee relationship”

effective for understanding the processes by(Hui, Lee, & Rousseau, 2004, p.233). In bothwhich a supervisor’s OCB has an effect on a

Chinese and Japanese society, employees

subordinate’s OCB.

tend to consider not only their relationships

As previously mentioned, some past studies
insocialpsychology

regarding

with

the

organization

but

also

their

the

interpersonal relationships with others in therelationship between helping and helped

organization when they perform OCB-I. Their

persons have revealed that the helped person

OCB-I is exhibited not as a way to receive

sometimes tends to help others other than thebenefits

from

the

organization

helping person when he or she considers thatconsiderationofmaintaining

helping contributes to a helper’s sense of

relationships with other employees in thegrowth or accomplishment. From this finding,organization. Hui et al. (2004) described thisit could be easily inferred that employees

point as follows:

similarly tend to exhibit more OCB when they

but

in

good

“The Chinese are expected to relate to anreceive OCB from their supervisor in theorganization

organization. The unique contribution of thisrelationships that exist between individuals

study is the finding that work values sharing

and

can

Chinesemediatetherelationshipbetweenemployees’ OCB and their supervisor’s OCB.

their

throughsuperiors.

peopletheHence,

tend

particular
traditional

toapproachorganizations ‘thinking interpersonally,’ inTraditionally, there are two beliefs of why

contrasttotheWestern

view

of

the

OCB is performed by employees who know

employment relationship that is based uponthat these types of behaviors are not formally‘thinking organizationally’.” (Hui et al, 2004,
13

Journal of Japanese Management Vo.3, No.2, November 2019

p.233)ISSN 2189-9592

dimensions, and some of the OCB items used

To judge the relative persuasiveness ofhere are different from those establishedthese two ideas, we must refer to theitems. However, as described previously, it isempirical result; while the effect of aalso true that the actual behaviors thatsupervisor’s OCB-I on a subordinate’s OCB-I

should be considered as OCB are culturally

can be interpreted in either the Western or

dependent (Organ et al., 2006); it might be

Asian framework, it is much easier to explain

effective to identify and adopt appropriate

the effect of a supervisor’s OCB-I on a

behaviors among those that are in accordance

subordinate’s OCB-O by using the Westernwith the established definition of OCB.

framework. This finding is very important

Second, measuring shared work values isbecause it means that the validity of the

problematic. In fact, it is quite difficult toWestern framework is supported despite themeasure how much work values are shareddata having been collected from Japaneseamong

employees.

Although some studies have proposed scale

employeesinanorganization.

items to examine work values (Fields, 2002),(8) Conclusion

work values sharing has a similar effect onThis study aimed to propose a new

employees’ minds as that of organizationalframework to understand the effect of OCB

culture.

As

Schein(2016)

described,

and empirically examine its validity. In

organizational

cultureis

explicitly

particular, this study empirically revealed

recognized by employees because it is toothat a supervisor’s OCB had a positive impact

natural for them to be conscious of it.

on subordinates’ OCB, and this relationship

Therefore, we had to accept the use of proxy

was found to be mediated by their sharedvariables to represent work values sharing.

work

We selected certain items assuming thatvalues.

This

indicatesthatasupervisor’s OCB can become a language with

employees

which

are

understood by other employees and are ablecommunicated to his or her subordinates; into act like themselves if they have sharedturn, this encourages subordinates to havework values with other employees. Therefore,

the same work values and exhibit their own

this variable does not directly measure theOCB.

degree of sharing work values but rather

his

Although

or

her

this

work

to

believetheyarecontributes

tomeasures an employee’s mindset that is

proposed frameworkbyexpected to be produced by work values

focusing on the effect of sharing work values

sharing. However, the relationship between

between two OCBs, it has several limitations.

the employee’s mindset and work values

First, this study utilized data collected by an

sharing is not obvious and should be further

outside institution with objectives other thaninvestigated.

confirming thestudyvaluescomenottesting our hypotheses. Many western OCB
researchers

havequestionnaire

items

developedtosetsmeasureThird, we assumed the existence of aofrelationship between OCB, work values

OCB

sharing,14

andanother

OCB.

However,Journal of Japanese Management Vo.3, No.2, November 2019

employees are not, or are not able to be,

ISSN 2189-9592

anonymous reviewers.

explicitly conscious of work values sharing.
Therefore, to properly explain the effect ofReferences

work values sharing, the model that directly

Adkins, Cheryl. L. and Craig, J. Russel (1997).

links work values sharing with another OCB

Supervisor-subordinate

work

might not be sufficient to explain the work

congruencesituation. For example, if one employee’s OCB

performance: A pilot study, Journal of

has a positive effect on another employee’s job

Business and Psychology, 12(2), pp.205-

satisfaction, the satisfied employee may

218.

and

value

subordinate

exhibit further OCB, even if work values are

Bateman, Thomas. S. and Dennis W. Organnot shared between them. The validity of(1983). Job satisfaction and the goodalternativeothersoldier: The relationship between affectattitudinal factors, such as job satisfactionand employee “citizenship”. Academy ofbetween the work context and other OCB,Management Journal, 26(4), pp.587-595.

modelsthat

includeshould be explored.

Bergeron, Diane. M. (2007). The potential

Finally, although SEM analysis of cross-paradoxoforganizational

citizenshipsectional data is effective for determining the

behavior: Good citizens at what cost?

effect of one factor on another, it is limited inAcademy of Management Review, 32(4),its ability to precisely clarify how one

pp.1078-1095.

employee’s behavior is repeated/adopted by―――, Cheri Ostroff, Tiffany D. Schroeder, andother employees. Time-series data acquired

Caryn, J. Block (2014). The dual effects ofthrough long-term observation are necessaryorganizational

to investigate the process of one OCB

Relationships to research productivity andaffecting another OCB. This should becareer outcomes in academe. Humancitizenshipbehavior:

As mentioned in the introduction, thePerformance, 27(2), pp.99-128.
Bolino, Mark. C. (1999). Citizenship andproblem of how OCB is influential in an

impression management: Good soldiers ororganization

rigorously

good actor? Academy of Management

investigated. Although this study has several
limitations, we believe that it serves to

Review, 24(1), pp.82-98.
Bolino, Mark. C., William, H. Turney, J. Bruce

highlight the importance of further discussion

Gilstrap, and Mark M. Suazo (2010).

and empirical examination of the effect of

Citizenship under pressure: What’s a “goodOCB on the organization.

soldier” to do? Journal of Organizational

addressed in future research.

has

not

been

Behavior, 31(6), pp.835-855.
Acknowledgements

Daft, Richard L. and John, C. Wiginton (1979).
acknowledges

Language and organization. Academy ofvaluable comments and suggestions from Prof.
Yukiko Hirao (Seikei University), Prof. Yukio

Management Review, 4(2), pp.179-191.
――― and Noman B. MacIntosh (1981). A

Takagaki (the Editor-in-Chief of JJM), andtentative exploration into the amount andThe

authorgratefully

15

Journal of Japanese Management Vo.3, No.2, November 2019ISSN 2189-9592

equivocality of information processing in(Trends in social psychological studies

organizational work units. Administrative

regarding interpersonal relationships andScience Quarterly, 26(2), pp.207-224.
――― and Robert, H. Lengel (1986).

relatedness). Kyoiku Shinrigaku Nenpou

Organizational information requirements,

Psychology in Japan), 51, pp.42-52.
Koh, William. L., Richard. M. Steers, and(The

media richness and structural design.

Management Science, 32(5), pp.554-571.
Dunlop, Patrick. D. and Kibeom Lee (2004).
Workplacedeviance,

AnnualReportof

Educational

James R. Terborg (1995). The effects oftransformational leadership on teacher

organizational

attitudes and student performance incitizenship behavior, and business unit

JournalSingapore.

performance. Journal of Organizationalof

Organizational

Behavior, 16(4), pp.319-333.
Lam, Simon. S. K., Chui Hui, and Kenneth S.

Behavior, 25(1), pp.67-80.
Ehrhart, Mark, G., Paul D. Bliese, and Jeffrey

Low (1999). Organizational citizenship

L. Thomas (2009). Unit-level OCB and unit

behavior:

effectiveness: Examining the incremental

supervisors and subordinates across fourHumaninternational samples. Journal of Applied

Performance, 19(2), pp.159-173.
Farh, Jiang-Lih, P. Christopher Early, andPsychology, 84(4), pp.594-601.
Lyons, Sean, T., Chris A. Higgins, and Linda

effectofhelpingbehavior.

Comparing

Duxbury

culturalandDevelopment of a new three-dimensionalorganizational citizenship behavior instructure based on confirmatory smallest

Chinese society, Administrative Science

space analysis. Journal of Organizational

Quarterly, 43(3), pp.421-444.
Fields, Dail, L. (2002). Taking the Measure of

Behavior, 31(7), pp. 969-1002.
MacKenzie, Scott. B., Phillip M. Podsakoff,

Work: A Guide to Validated Scales for
Organizational Research and Diagnosis,

and Richard Fetter (1991). Organizational
citizenshipbehavior

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

productivity

asofjusticeWorkof

Shu-Chi, Lin (1997). Impetus for action: A
analysis(2010).

perspectives

andvalues:objective

determinantsofHair, Joseph, F., William C. Black, Barry, J.

managerial evaluations of salespersons’Babin, and Rolph E. Anderson (2010).

performance. Organizational Behavior andMultivariate Data Analysis, 7th edition,

Human Decision Processes, 50(1), pp.1-28.

New York, NY: Person.

――― (1993). The impact of organizational

Hui, Chun, Cynthia Lee, and Denise M.
Rousseau(2004).

citizenship behavior on evaluation of

Employment

salespersonorganization

Mizuno, H. and Ishikura, T. (1999). Hienjo

Organizational Science, 15(2), pp.232-240.

shikousei, Hienjo koudou ni kansuru

Tadahiro(2012).

kankeiseinisyakaishinrigaku

no

or

to

of

people?

Ito,theJournalMarketing, 57(1), pp.70-80.

relationships in China: Do workers relate
toperformance,

Taijin kankei

toKenkyukanrenshita
kenkyunodoukou(Help-seeking

preferences and help-seeking behaviors:

doukouAn
16

overviewofstudies).

KyouikuJournal of Japanese Management Vo.3, No.2, November 2019

Shinrigaku Kenkyu (The Japanese
Journal of Educational Psychology), 47(4),Podsakoff, Phillip. M., Michael Ahearne, andScott B. MacKenzie (1997). Organizational

pp.530-539.
Morrison,ISSN 2189-9592

citizenship behavior and the quantity andElizabeth,W.

(1994).

Role

quality

of

work

group

performance.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2),pp.262-270.

definitions and organizational citizenshipbehavior: The importance of the employee’s
perspective. Academy of Management―――

Journal, 37(6), pp.1543-1567.

and

Scott

B.

MacKenzie(1994).

Organizational citizenship behaviors andtaisuru henrei koudou no kenkyuu: Hienjo

Journal ofMarketing Research, 31(3), pp.351-363.

keiken no umu to enjo itosei no kouka (The

Podsakoff, Phillip, M., Scott B. MacKenzie,

study of recipient's reactions to helping: (1)and William H. Bommer (1996). A meta-

Effects

andanalysis of the relationships between Kerrtheand Jermier’s substitutes for leadership

recipient's willingness to reciprocate aand employee job attitudes, role perception,

Nishikawa, M. and Takagi, O. (1986). Enjo niofexperience

help
of

intentionality

being

Syakaihelpedunit

effectiveness.

Kenkyuand performance, Journal of Applied(Japanese Journal of Social Psychology),2(1), pp.11-16.

Psychology, 81(4), pp.380-399.
Said, Hamdan, Badrullah Bakri Badru, andOrgan, Dennis. W. (1988). Organizational

M. Shahid (2011). Confirmatory factor

Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier

analysis (Cfa) for testing validity andSyndrome, Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.

reliability instrument in the study of―――, Phillip M. Podsakoff, and Scott B.

Organizational

Applied Sciences, 5(12), pp.1098-1103.
Shein, Edgar, H. (2016). Organizational

Citizenship
Behavior:
Its
Nature,Antecedents, and Consequences, Sage.

Culture and Leadership, 4th ed. Hoboken,
NJ: Jossey-Bass.

favor).

MacKenzie

Paille,Pascal,Sinrigaku

on

sales

(2006).

Laurent

Bourdeau,

education, Australian Journal of Basic andandSchnake,Mel(1991).

Organizational

Isabelle Galois (2010). Support, trust,citizenship: A review, proposed model, andsatisfaction, intent to leave and citizenshipresearch agenda, Human Relations, 44(7),at organizational level: A social exchange

pp. 735-759

International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 18(1), pp.41-58.
approach.

Schnake, Mel, Michael P. Dumler, and DanielS.

――― and Francois Grima (2011). Citizenshipandwithdrawal

in

the

Cochran(1993).

between traditional

workplace:The

relationshipleadership, superleadership, and organizational citizenshipcitizenship behavior, intention to leave

Group and Organization
Management, 18(3), pp.252-365.

current job and intention to leave theSmith, C. A., Organ, D. W., and Near, J. P.

Relationshipbetweenorganizational

behavior,

organization. Journal of Social Psychology,(1983).

151(4), pp.478-493.

behavior: Its nature and antecedents.
17

Organizational

citizenshipJournal of Japanese Management Vo.3, No.2, November 2019

Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4),pp.653-663.

ISSN 2189-9592

Williams, Larry. J., and Stella, E. Anderson(1991). Job satisfaction and organizational

Takagi Osamu (1997). Soshiki koudou nocommitment

aspredictorsofseikikatei ni kansuru moderu no teianorganizational citizenship behavior and in-(The process of helping behavior: Arole behaviors. Journal of Management,

proposal of a new model). Kansai

17(3), pp.601-617.

Daigaku Syakaigakubu Kiyou (Bulletinof the Faculty of Sociology, Kansai(Received: November 30, 2018)

University), 29(1), pp.1-21.
Takagi, Osamu and Senoo, Kaori (2006). Enjo
koudou to enjo yousei･juyou koudou no(Accepted: April 10, 2019)aida no kanrensei: Koudou keiken ga
enjosya oyobi hienjosya ni oyobosu
naiteki ･ shinriteki eikyou no kenkyu(Relationship between help-giving andhelp-seeking-receiving : Effects of giving
and getting help on the helper and thehelped). Kansai Digaku Syakaigakubu

kiyou (Bulletin of the Faculty of Sociology,
Kansai University). 38(1), pp.25-38.
Ueda, Yutaka (2004). Soshiki shimin koudounokeihu:

Yobitekikousatu(A

preliminary review of researches onorganizational

citizenshipbehavior).

Seikei Daigaku Keizaigakubu Kiyou (The
Journal of the Faculty of Economics,
Seikei Universit), 34(3), pp.1-87.
――― (2009). Particularity of the Japaneseorganizational

citizenshipbehavior(OCB) construct and antecedent factors:
From the review of East Asian OCB
studies, Seikei Daigaku Keizaigakubu

Kiyou (The Journal of the Faculty of
Economics, Seikei Universit), 40(2),pp.43-66.
――― (2016). Recent trends in organizational
citizenship behavior research: 2010-2015,”

The Journal of the Faculty of Economics,
Seikei University, 47(1), pp.9-41.
18