下载文档原格式
组织公民行为量表（Organizational Citizenship Behavior，简称OCB），组织公民行为即为个人除了达到组织的基本要求之外，还额外为组织做出自发性的工作和奉献。
由Organ(1889)提出组织公民行为包括５个维度，即公民美德、责任意识、利他行为、运动员精神、文明礼貌，而Williams & Anderson(1991) 修改为三大维度，包含：注重个人的公民行为、注重组织的公民行为及角色内行为。
Podsakoff&Mackenzie(2009)修改为７个维度对组织公民行为进行度量，即帮助他人、运动员精神、忠诚于组织、顺从于组织、自我驱动、公民道德、自我发展。
组织公民行为量表的维度组织公民行为量表分成三大维度，包含：一、注重个人的公民行为：指个人可以组织为带来好处的行为与为组织间接做出的贡献。
二、注重组织的公民行为：指个人重视于组织中工作能力的情况与遵守组织制度的程度。
三、角色内行为：个人对于自我承担与被期望完成工作的责任感。
组织公民行为量表的计分方式将受试者感受、反应及认同程度为评定指标，采用5点量表级分方法。
其标准为“1”表示完全不同意；“2”表示不同意；“3”表示普通；“4”表示同意；“5”表示完全同意。
其中第11、12、13、20、21题为反向计分。
组织公民行为量表的条目一、注重个人的公民行为1. 帮助那些缺席人员2. 帮助那些工作量繁重的人①完全不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤完全同意3. 没有被要求时仍然协助上司完成他(她)的工作①完全不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤完全同意4. 抽时间倾听同事遇到的问题和担忧①完全不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤完全同意5. 主动自觉地帮助新员工①完全不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤完全同意6. 对其他人员表达自我关注①完全不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤完全同意7. 传递资讯给同事①完全不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤完全同意二、注重组织的公民行为8. 对工作的参与度高于标准要求9. 提高对工作中能力欠缺的关注度①完全不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤完全同意10. 本不该休息的时候停止工作①完全不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤完全同意11. 花大量的时间打私人电话①完全不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤完全同意12. 对工作中无关重要的事情经常抱怨①完全不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤完全同意13. 节约和保护组织财产①完全不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤完全同意14. 为维护秩序而遵守非正式的制度①完全不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤完全同意三、角色内行为15. 恰当的完成布置的工作任务16. 能履行工作描述中明确指定的责任①完全不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤完全同意17. 能完成被期望的任务①完全不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤完全同意18. 满足工作要求的行为表现①完全不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤完全同意19. 参与可直接对他(她)的绩效产生影响的活动①完全不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤完全同意20. 忽视了他(她)本有义务去做的工作①完全不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤完全同意21. 没有承担最基本的责任①完全不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤完全同意。
职业健康心理学研究的因变量职业健康心理学的终极目标是健康的职场。
具体来说，是一个个体能够发挥潜能，卓越绩效，工作满意度高，并能带来幸福人生的职场。
那么,在职业健康心理学研究中的因变量主要涉及组织和个体，这主要包括如下几个方面。
一、个体健康在健康心理学中，健康相关行为是指个体或群体的与健康和疾病有关的行为，一般可分为促进健康的行为和危害健康的行为。
在职业健康心理学中，我们把促进健康职场的行为称为促进健康的行为。
个体健康通常指多个方面，身体健康、心理健康以及与周围环境相协调。
随着积极心理学对职业健康心理学研究的影响，在职业健康心理学中，个体健康通常除了在个体的身体，心理方面的健康，还指在组织中是否能够适应，并发挥自己的最大潜能，积极实现个体的最大价值。
在研究中，通常通过心理健康水平、工作满意度、组织承诺、组织公民行为等进行评估。
(一)工作满意度1.定义工作满意度是员工对比自己期望获得的收益与实际获得收益时产生的心理感受，通常是由内外部工作因素组成的一个多维结构。
工作满意度是组织成员所拥有的对其工作的一种特殊类型的态度和对工作的一种情感反应。
当然，这些收益可能指多个方面，例如：蒜酬、升迁、自主权、培训机会等。
这些收益的重要性具有个体化意义，也就是不同的人对这些因素的要求不同，因此，工作满意度可能也会有所不同。
事实上，很多研究表明，工作满意度是进一步工作表现的中介变量，例如，旷工，工作投入度等等。
2.影响因素(1)薪水。
是得到的经济报酬的量，以及得到的报酬与组织中其他成员相比被看做是公正的程度。
(2)升迁机会。
升迁机会是在组织中得到提升的可能性，对工作满意度有多种影响。
这是因为晋升有多种形式，伴随着不同的奖励。
例如，培训学习的机会，以及更换工作类型的可能性等。
对于大多数人来说，一个正性的工作环境、增长才干和拓展技能基础的机会变得比晋升机会更重要。
(3)上级的支持。
就是上级提供技术帮助和行为支持的能力。
影响工作满意度的上级管理的风格有两个维度：一是员工中心性，可以通过上级对于员工的个人关注程度来测量。
樊景立-组织公民行为量表、组织公平量表．Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Scale英文名称：Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Scale中文名称：组织公民行为量表作者：Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C.出处：Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. “Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 1997, 42, 421-444.简介：条目：部属的工作行为：以下列叙述来描述他(她)的行为您是否同意？请逐项阅读后填答。
１－非常不同意５－有点同意２－相当不同意６－相当同意３－有点不同意７－非当同意４－不能确定Identification with the company认同组织Eager to tell outsiders good news about the company and clarify their misunderstandings主动对外介绍或宣传公司优点，或澄清他人对公司的误解。
Willing to stand up to protect the reputation of the company.努力维护公司形象，并积极参与有关活动。
Makes constructive suggestions that can improve the operation of the company. 主动提出建设性的改善方案，供公司有关单位参考。
．Actively attends company meetings.以积极的态度参与公司内相关会议。
第13卷第5期2010年10月工业工程Industrial Engineering JournalV o.l 13N o .5O ctobe r 2010收稿日期:2009 11 23作者简介:严丹(1982 ),女,湖北省人,博士研究生,主要研究方向为企业战略管理、组织行为.组织公平与组织公民行为-组织承诺的调节作用实证研究严 丹1,张立军2(1.华南理工大学工商管理学院,广东广州510640;2.中国人民银行广州分行,广东广州510120)摘要:大多数经验表明:组织承诺能够增强组织公平与组织公民行为的正相关关系(即组织承诺对组织公平与组织公民行为有正向的调节作用)。
以珠三角地区70多家企业为背景,采用层次线性回归的方法对此进行验证,通过研究也得出与上述相同的结论:组织承诺对组织公平与组织公民行为有正向的调节作用,同时组织承诺的5个维度亦对组织公平与组织公民行为有正向的调节作用。
关键词:组织公平;组织承诺;组织公民行为中图分类号:C936 文献标识码:A 文章编号:1007 7375(2010)05 0106 06An Empirical Study on M oderati ng Functi on of O rganizational Co mm it m ent bet w een Organizati onal Justice and O rganizational C itizenshi p B ehavi orYan Dan 1,Zhang L i jun2(1.Schoo l of Business A d m i nistrati on ,South China U n i versity of T echno l ogy ,G uangzhou 510640,Chi na ;2.The people Bank o f Ch i na G uangzhou B ranch ,G uangzhou 510120,Chi na)Abst ract :It is kno wn that organizational co mm it m ent can enhance the positi v e corre lati o n bet w een organ i zational justice and o r gan izational c itizensh i p behav ior ,.i e .,organizational co mm it m ent has a positi v e regu latory role bet w een organizational justice and organizational c itizensh i p behav i o r .W ith the data fro m mo re than 70en ter prises i n the PearlR i v er Delta ,hierarch ica l linear regression analysis i s done and it sho w s thatsuch a conc l u sion is true .Th ism eans t h at or gan izational co mm it m ent is a sign ificant positi v e m oderator be t w een organ izati o na l j u stice and organizational citizensh i p behav ior .A lso ,t h e fi v e d i m ensi o ns o f organiza ti o na l co mm it m ent are sign ificant positi v e m odera tor bet w een or gan izational j u stice and organ izati o na l citi zenship behav ior .K ey w ords :organizational j u stice ;organ izati o na l co mm it m en;t organizational citizensh i p behav ior 在以往的管理实践中,人们只是简单地认为员工的个人绩效等同于任务的完成、目标的实现等任务绩效。
组织公民行为理论及其应用研究张小林戚振江浙江大学管理学院 （杭州 ３１００２８） 摘要组织公民行为是近年来组织行为学领域中深受关注的内容之一。
该文对近几年国内外关于组织公民行为的研究进行了综述，首先介绍了组织公民行为产生的背景，其次简要论述了组织公民行为的理论框架，包括组织公民行为的作用、特征维度、影响因素等，接着分析了组织公民行为的结构和测量，最后对组织公民行为的应用研究及其未来发展趋势作了简单的讨论。
⋅关键词组织公民行为，个人主动力，工作满意感，组织承诺，绩效分类号 B849：C93１ 组织公民行为的提出 组织公民行为理论的提出是组织行为学发展的必然结果。
半个世纪以前，Barnard [1]曾提出：对整个组织系统而言，组织中每一个体的合作意愿是不可或缺的。
他所提出的合作意愿与传统的古典管理理论有很大的差别。
古典管理理论假定组织的大多数参与者并不具有自觉合作的倾向和个性，组织只能凭管理所规定和强调的正式结构进行控制。
Barnard认为，正式结构是组织活动的结果，它只能识别已存在于个体或群体内的合作意愿，而不足以预期达到组织目标所必需的全部因素。
员工的合作意愿对正式结构而言，是一个关键因素，否则正式结构就成了一个空壳。
1967年，Thompson提出了组织结构理论，对自觉合作行为的重要性作了详细的阐述。
后来，许多研究人员都认同Thompson关于自觉合作行为的观点。
毫无疑问，每一个组织应重视员工的自觉合作行为，因为任何组织系统的设计均不可能完美无缺，如只依靠组织规定的每一位员工的角色内行为，将难以达成组织目标，因而必须同时依赖于员工的合作意愿（角色外行为），以促进组织目标的实现。
员工的合作意愿对于任何类型的组织都有着举足轻重的影响，这也已成为组织和组织理论中所迫切需要解决的问题。
在上述研究的基础，Bateman和Organ[2]于1983年正式提出了组织公民行为(Organizational Citizenship Behavior,简称OCB)的概念。
组织公民行为研究现状及评析摘要：组织公民行为是近年来管理学研究领域关注的热点之一。
组织公民行为的存在有利于营造良好的组织氛围，满足组织成员的社会心理需求，但出于印象管理的动机也有可能使组织公民行为具有工具性。
本文从组织公民行为的国内外研究现状出发，就有关问题进行简要评述，以期对完善我国组织公民行为研究提供借鉴。
关键词：组织公民行为角色外行为本土化一、组织公民行为的提出及发展1938年组织学派的创始人barnard提出“合作意愿”，他指出，对整个组织系统而言，组织中的每一个体的合作意愿是不可或缺的，组织成员自觉自发性的合作意愿能够弥补正式结构的不足，使得组织系统更加完整。
1964年rothlisberger和dikson对霍桑实验中的“非正式组织”进行研究，发现非正式组织内部同样存在合作的意愿，且这种合作具有交换性质。
为了进一步解释自觉自愿的合作行为对组织整体及组织绩效的作用，katz和kahn于1966年提出了组织结构理论，他们对自觉合作行为做出了进一步地阐述，即每个组织都应该充分重视组织成员的自觉合作行为，任何组织系统的设计均不可能完美无缺，如果只依靠组织规定的每位成员应该履行的职责，将难以实现组织目标，因而必须更多地依赖成员的角色外行为，以促进组织目标的达成。
在上述研究的基础上，bateman和organ于1983年首次提出了组织公民行为的概念。
而后，organ于1988年在《组织公民行为：好战士现象》一书中正式提出了“组织公民行为”的概念，他将组织公民行为定义为：组织成员自觉自愿表现出来的，并没有被组织正式报酬体系直接或明显认可的，但在总体上有利于组织有效运转的个体行为。
locALhosT1997年organ又基于“关系绩效”的概念对组织公民行为的涵义进行了修正。
organ将组织公民行为重新定义为：“有助于维持和增强任务绩效的社会和心理环境行为。
”这一概念被多数学者接受。
组织公民行为作为组织成员角色外的且有利于组织生存和发展的行为，可以表现在组织与他人、群体，组织和领导等多方面关系中，其主要表现有7个维度，即利他主义、运动员精神、组织遵从、公民美德、个人主动性、组织忠诚和自我发展7个方面。
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Scale英文名称：Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Scale 中文名称：组织公民行为量表作者：Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C.出处：Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. “Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 1997, 42, 421-444.简介：条目：部属的工作行为：以下列叙述来描述他(她)的行为您是否同意？请逐项阅读后填答。
１－非常不同意５－有点同意２－相当不同意６－相当同意３－有点不同意７－非当同意４－不能确定Identification with the company认同组织Eager to tell outsiders good news about the company and clarify their misunderstandings主动对外介绍或宣传公司优点，或澄清他人对公司的误解。
Willing to stand up to protect the reputation of the company.努力维护公司形象，并积极参与有关活动。
Makes constructive suggestions that can improve the operation of the company.主动提出建设性的改善方案，供公司有关单位参考。
Actively attends company meetings.以积极的态度参与公司内相关会议。
樊景立-组织公民行为量表、组织公平量表Orga ni zati onal Citize nship Behavior (OCB) Scale英文名称：Orga ni zatio nal Citize nship Behavior (OCB) Scale中文名称：组织公民行为量表 作 者：Farh, J. L., Earley, P C., & Lin, S. C.出处:Farh, J. L., Earley, P C., & Lin, S. C. “ Impetusfor action: A cultural analysis of j ustice and orga ni zati onal citize nship behavior in Chin ese rative ScienceQuarterly, 1997, 42, 421-444.简介:条目:以下列叙述来描述他（她）的行为您是否同意？请逐项阅读后填答。
4 —不能确定Identification with the company认同组织Eager to tell outsiders good n ews about the compa ny and clarify their mis un dersta ndings 主动对外介绍或宣传公司优点，或澄清他人对公司的误解。
Willi ng to sta nd up to protect the reputati on of the compa ny.努力维护公司形象，并积极参与有关活动。
Makes con structive suggesti ons that can improve the operati on of the comp any.主动提出建设性的改善方案，供公司有关单位参考Actively atte nds compa ny meet in gs.以积极的态度参与公司内相关会议。
组织公民行为的相关理论基础论述作者：孙立新来源：《商业时代》2013年第02期内容摘要：作为一种利他、利组织的角色外行为，组织公民行为的概念最早由美国印第安那大学的Dennis Organ教授及其同事在1983年首次提出。
与组织公民行为有关的理论主要有社会交换、心理契约、理性行为、契约关系和动机等理论。
本文就此问题进行了研究，并得出相关结论，文章希望通过自身的研究，为当前组织公民行为的相关理论的研究提供新的思路。
关键词：组织公民行为社会交换心理契约理性行为契约关系问题的提出作为一种利他、利组织的角色外行为，组织公民行为（Organizational Citizenship Behavior，OCB）的概念最早由美国印第安那大学的Dennis Organ教授及其同事在1983年首次提出。
综合一些学者对组织公民行为概念的研究，可知组织公民行为具备以下一些特征：一是组织公民行为不是工作说明书上所描述的角色内行为，也不是雇员与组织的雇佣合约具体条款所规定的，是一种外显的角色外行为；二是组织公民行为与组织的正式报酬没有直接关系，是一种自我裁量的自动自发行为；三是组织公民行为是组织中正面的利社会、利组织行为。
对组织公民行为的研究带来了管理学理论的两大发展：一是角色理论的出现。
角色理论将员工绩效分为角色内行为（由工作所决定）和超角色行为（非正式组织和工作所必需的）；二是引发了工作满意度和工作绩效之间关系的热烈讨论。
由于组织公民行为表现出来的自愿协助同事、主管、顾客解决与组织有关的助人行为、忍受不公正待遇的运动员精神、自愿参与组织政治生活的公民道德，以及责任意识、组织忠诚、热心支持、敬业守法、公私分明、人际和谐、个人勤奋，学者们形象地称其为“雷锋”精神、“好战士”形象、“主人翁”意识，并提出了一些理论作为组织公民行为的基础，主要有社会交换、心理契约、理性行为、契约关系和动机等理论。
社会交换理论社会交换理论（Social Exchange Theory）是由 Barnard（1938）提出的，后来March & Simon（1958）对其进行了完善，其主要观点认为，个体用自己的贡献与组织所提供的某种报酬构成交换关系。
Organizational Citizenship Behavior(OCB)Scale英文名称：Organizational Citizenship Behavior(OCB)Scale中文名称：组织公民行为量表作者：Farh,J.L.,Earley,P.C.,&Lin,S.C.出处：Farh,J.L.,Earley,P.C.,&Lin,S.C.“Impetus for action:A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society.”Administrative Scien ce Quarterly,1997,42,421-444.简介：条目：部属的工作行为：以下列叙述来描述他(她)的行为您是否同意？请逐项阅读后填答。
１－非常不同意５－有点同意２－相当不同意６－相当同意３－有点不同意７－非当同意４－不能确定Identification with the company认同组织Eager to tell outsiders good news about the company and clarify their misunders tandings主动对外介绍或宣传公司优点，或澄清他人对公司的误解。
Willing to stand up to protect the reputation of the company.努力维护公司形象，并积极参与有关活动。
Makes constructive suggestions that can improve the operation of the company.主动提出建设性的改善方案，供公司有关单位参考。
Actively attends company meetings.以积极的态度参与公司内相关会议。
Altruism toward colleagues协助同事Willing to assist new colleagues to adjust to the work environment.主动帮助新进同仁适应工作环境。
Willing to help colleague solve work-related problems.乐意协助同仁解决工作上的困难。
Willing to cover work assignments for colleague when needed.主动分担或代理同事之工作。
Willing to coordinate and communicate with colleagues.主动与同事协调沟通。
Impersonal harmony不生事争利(人际和睦)Often speaks ill of the supervisor or colleagues behind their backs.(R)经常在背后批评主管或谈论同事之隐私。
(R)Uses illicit tactics to seek personal influence and gain with harmful effect on inter personal harmony in the organization.(R)在公司内争权夺利，勾心斗角，破坏组织和谐。
(R)Uses position power to pursue selfish personal gain.(R)假公济私，利用职权谋取个人利益。
(R)Takes credits,avoids blames,and fights fiercely for personal gain.(R)斤斤计较，争功诿过，不惜抗争以获得个人利益。
(R)Protecting company resources公私分明Conducts personal business on company time(e.g.,trading stocks,shopping,goin g to barber shops).(R)利用上班时间处理私人事务，如买股票，跑银行，逛街，购物，上理容院．．．等。
(R)Uses company resources to do personal business(e.g.,company phones,copy ma chines,computers,and cars).(R)利用公司资源处理私人事务，如：私自利用公电话，复印机，计算机，公务车．．．等。
(R)Views sick leave as benefit and makes excuse for taking sick leave.(R)经常借口请假，视为福利。
(R)Conscientiousness敬业守法Often arrives early and starts to work immediately.上班时经常提早到达，并着手处理公务。
Takes one’s job seriously and rarely makes mistakes.工作认真，并且很少出差错。
Complies with company rules and procedures even when nobody watches and no evidence can be traced.即使无人注意或无据可查时，亦随时遵守公司规定。
Does not mind taking new or challenging assignments.从不挑选工作，尽可能接受新的或困难的任务。
Tries hard to self-study to increase the quality of work outputs.为提升工作品质，而努力自我充实。
信度：效度：备注：Organizational Justice Scale英文名称：Organizational Justice Scale中文名称：组织公平量表作者：Jason A.Colquitt出处：Colquitt,J.A.(2001)."On the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice:A Construct Validation of a Measure."Journal of Applied Psychology86(3):386-400条目：Procedural justiceThe following items refers to the procedures used to arrive at your (outcome). To what extent:1.Have you been able to express your views and feelings during these procedures?2.Have you had influences over the (outcome) arrived at by those procedures?3.Have those procedures been applied consistently?4.Have those procedures been free of bias?5.Have those procedures been based on accurate information?6.Have you been able to appeal the (outcome) arrived at by those procedures?7.Have those procedures upheld ethical and moral standards?Distributive justiceThe following items refer to your (outcome). To what extent:1.Dos your (outcome) reflect the effort you have put into your work?2.Is your (outcome) appropriate for the work you have completed?3.Does your (outcome) reflect what you have contributed to the organization?4.Is your (outcome) justified, given your performance?Interpersonal justiceThe following items refer to (the authority figure who enacted the procedure). Towhat extent:1.Has(he/she)treated you in a polite manner?.2.Has(he/she)treated you with dignity?3.Has(he/she)treated you with respect?4.Has(he/she)refrained from improper remarks or comments?Informational justiceThe following items refer to (the authority figure who enacted the procedure). To what extent:1.Has (he/she) been candid in (his/her) communication with you?2.Has (he/she) explained the procedures thoroughly?3.Were (his/her) explanations regarding the procedures reasonable?4.Has (he/she) communicated details in a timely manner?5.Has (he/she) seemed to tailor (his/her) communications to individuals’ specific needs?信度：效度：备注：Procedural Justice英文名称：Procedural Justice中文名称：程序公平作者：Farh,J.-L.,P.C.Earley,et al.出处：Farh,J.-L.,P.C.Earley,et al.(1997)."Impetus for action:A cultural analys is of justice and..."Administrative Science Quarterly42(3):421.简介：条目：Farh, J.-L., P. C. Earley, et al. (1997). "Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and..." Administrative Science Quarterly 42(3): 421.The sample for this study consisted of employees drawn from eight companies in the electronics industry of Taiwan. All eight companies were locally owned and were members of the 500 largest companies in Taiwan. Thirty to forty matching questionnaires were distributed to supervisors and subordinates in each company. The sample consisted mainly of low to mid-level managers, engineers, salespersons, and clerical staff.Participation1.Managers at all levels participate in pay and performance appraisal decisions;2.Through various channels, my company tries to understand employees’ opinions regarding pay and performance appraisal policies and decisions.3.Pay decisions are made exclusively by top management in my company; others are excluded from this process; (R)4.My company does not take employees’ opinions into account in designing pay and performance appraisal policies. (R) Cronbach alpha was .717-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree)Appeal MechanismThe company has a formal appeal channel;The company imposes a time limit within which the responsible parties must respond to the employee’ appeal;Employees’ questions concerning pay or performance appraisal are usually answered promptly and satisfactorily. Cronbach alpha was .817-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree)信度：Cronbach alpha was.717-point scale(1=strongly disagree,7=strongly a gree)效度：备注：Justice Scale英文名称：Justice Scale中文名称：公平问卷作者：Niehoff,B.P.,&Moorman,R.H.出处：Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 527-556.简介：条目：Sample: The employees and general managers of a national movie theater management company that operated 11 theaters in a large southwestern city were studied. The employees (N = 213) averaged 19.9 years of age and nearly two years of experience working in the theaters. A majority had completed high school, but only 17 percent had completed college. Each theater was under the authority of a general manager; thus, 11 general managers took part in the study. The number of employees per theater varied from 15 to 45. At each location, a group of assistant managers aided the general manager in the operation of the theater, but there were no direct lines of authority between these assistants and specific employees. In fact, the vice president for human resources described the assistant managers as a pool of assistants who could be assigned to any shift on any day. The one constant at each theater was that each general manager had ultimate responsibility for the operation and was on-site for most of the theater's hours of business. The assistant managers were not included in the data for this study.The employees completed a survey describing their perceptions of distributive and procedural justice and the monitoring behaviors of their general manager. Since the assistant managers worked various shifts but the general managersremained on-site for most of the working hours, we considered the general managers the appropriate referents for the measurement of leader monitoring behaviors. The general managers provided data for the measures of organizational citizenship behavior; some general managers assessed OCB for 15 employees, and some assessed 45 employees.All surveys were completed on company time. Since data were being collected from two sources, employees and general managers, we asked all participants to put their names on the surveys but took precautions to insure confidentiality. Each employee received an envelope in which to seal the completed survey and mailed it directly to us. In total, 213 out of 260 employee surveys were returned for a response rate of 81 percent. Conversations with the company's vice president for human resources suggested that the demographic characteristics of the respondents reflected those of the general population of employees at the theaters.All items used a seven-point response format.Distributive justice1. My work schedule is fair.2. I think that my level of pay is fair.3. I consider my work load to be quite fair.4. Overall, the rewards I receive here are quite fair.5. I feel that my job responsibilities are fair.Formal procedures1. Job decisions are made by the general manager in an unbiased manner.2. My general manager makes sure that all employee concerns are heard before job decisions are made.3. To make job decisions, my general manager collects accurate and complete information.4. My general manager clarifies decisions and provides additional information when requested by employees.5. All job decisions are applied consistently across all affected employees.6. Employees are allowed to challenge or appeal job decisions made by the general manager.Interactional justice1. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager treats me with kindness and consideration.2. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager treats me with respect and dignity.3. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager is sensitive to my personal needs.4. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager deals with me ina truthful manner.5. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager shows concern for my rights as an employee.6. Concerning decisions made about my job, the general manager discusses the implications of the decisions with me.7. The general manager offers adequate justification for decisions made about my job.8. When making decisions about my job, the general manager offers explanations that make sense to me.9. My general manager explains very clearly any decision made about my job.信度：The CFI for the three justice dimensions was.92.This scale was based o n one used by Moorman(1991)and had reported reliabilities above.90for all th ree dimensions.效度：备注：OCB Scale英文名称：OCB Scale中文名称：组织公民行为问卷作者：Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H.出处：Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 527-556.简介：条目：Sample: The employees and general managers of a national movie theater management company that operated 11 theaters in a large southwestern city were studied. The employees (N = 213) averaged 19.9 years of age and nearly two years of experience working in the theaters. A majority had completed high school, but only 17 percent had completed college. Each theater was under the authority of a general manager; thus, 11 general managers took part in the study. The number of employees per theater varied from 15 to 45. At each location, a group of assistant managers aided the general manager in the operation of the theater, but there were no direct lines of authority between these assistants and specific employees. In fact, the vice president for human resources described the assistant managers as a pool of assistants who could be assigned to any shift on any day. The one constant at each theater was that each general manager had ultimate responsibility for the operation and was on-site for most of the theater's hours of business. The assistant managers were not included in the data for this study.The employees completed a survey describing their perceptions of distributive and procedural justice and the monitoring behaviors of their general manager. Since the assistant managers worked various shifts but the general managers remained on-site for most of the working hours, we considered the general managers the appropriate referents for the measurement of leader monitoring behaviors. The general managers provided data for the measures oforganizational citizenship behavior; some general managers assessed OCB for 15 employees, and some assessed 45 employees.All surveys were completed on company time. Since data were being collected from two sources, employees and general managers, we asked all participants to put their names on the surveys but took precautions to insure confidentiality. Each employee received an envelope in which to seal the completed survey and mailed it directly to us. In total, 213 out of 260 employee surveys were returned for a response rate of 81 percent. Conversations with the company's vice president for human resources suggested that the demographic characteristics of the respondents reflected those of the general population of employees at the theatersAltruism1. Helps others who have heavy work loads.2. Helps others who have been absent.3. Willingly gives of his/her time to help others who have work related problems.4. Helps orient new people even though it is not required.Courtesy1. Consults with me or other individuals who might be affected by his/her actions or decisions.2. Does not abuse the rights of others.3. Takes steps to prevent problems with other workers.4. Informs me before taking any important actions.Sportsmanship1. Consumes a lot of time complaining about trivial matters. (R)2. Tends to make "mountains out of molehills" (makes problems bigger than they are). (R)3. Constantly talks about wanting to quit his/her job. (R)4. Always focuses on what's wrong with his/her situation, rather than the positive side of it. (R)Conscientiousness1. Is always punctual.2. Never takes long lunches or breaks.3. Does not take extra breaks.4. Obeys company rules, regulations and procedures even when no one is watching.Civic virtue1. Keeps abreast of changes in the organization.2. Attends functions that are not required, but that help the company image.3. Attends and participates in meetings regarding the organization.4. "Keeps up" with developments in the company.Items denoted with ( R ) are reverse scored.信度：The reliabilities were over.70for each dimension,and all items used a s even-point response format.效度：备注：ognition-and affect-based trust英文名称：cognition-and affect-based trust中文名称：基于情感和认知的信任作者：Kok-Yee Ng(黄国燕)and Roy Y.J.Chua(蔡泳瑜)出处：Management and Organization ReviewVolume2Page43 - March2006d oi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00028.x Volume2Issue1简介：条目：Do I contribute more when I trust more? Differential effects of cognition-and affect-based trustKok-Yee Ng(黄国燕)and Roy Y.J.Chua(蔡泳瑜)基于McAllister(1995)的信任量表基于情感的信任1. 你能够与他们自由地分享想法、感受和希望。
