下载文档原格式
大学本科毕业论文（设计）题目：心理授权在心理资本与组织公民行为之间的作用机制研究学院经济与管理学院年级专业姓名学号指导教师完成日期二零一四年三月二十六日目录摘要 (1)1 文献综述 (1)2 量表信度分析 (2)3 数据分析 (3)3.1 各变量的描述统计分析 (3)3.2 差异分析 (3)3.2.1 人口统计学变量对心理资本的影响 (3)3.2.2 人口统计学变量对心理授权的影响 (4)3.2.3 人口统计学变量对组织公民行为的影响 (4)4 三者之间的关系分析 (5)4.1 相关分析 (5)4.2 回归分析 (7)4.2.1 心理资本与心理授权及其各维度的回归分析 (7)5 心理授权的中介作用分析 (10)6 结论 (22)6.1 人口统计学变量对心理资本、心理授权和组织公民行为的影响 (22)6.2 心理资本及其各维度、心理授权及其各维度与组织公民行为及其个维度之间的相关关系 (22)6.3 心理授权的和中介作用 (23)7 对管理的启示 (23)8 创新与不足之处 (23)参考文献 (23)附录 (25)心理授权在心理资本与组织公民行为之间的作用机制研究摘要随着知识经济时代的到来，员工知识经验的积累、财富的增加、工资的增长，人们的基本需要已经满足，于是更加注重心理上的满足，这就对人力资源管理提出了新的挑战，其中心理授权是一个重要的概念。
因而基于对心理授权的研究想法以及对相关知识的了解，本文旨在研究心理授权如何在心理资本和组织公民行为之间起中介作用，进而研究三者的各个维度之间的关系。
关键词心理资本心理授权组织公民行为1 文献综述本文以心理授权为主线，引出对企业管理尤其是对人管理比较重要的两个词——心理资本和组织公民行为。
其中对心理授权的研究，始于Astley（1984）参与式管理理论和员工卷入理论，意即公司管理者一级级将权利分派给下面的员工来完成特定活动的过程。
但是Conger & Kanungo（1988）发现，这样和直接将权利分派下去容易造成权力失控，进一步指出只有当员工个体感觉活着体验到“被授权”，这样才会产生授权的真正效应。
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。
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。
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。
预算助人行为：构念与量表高严;朱晓波【摘要】作为预算过程中组织公民行为的一种重要表现形式,预算助人行为本质上是预算执行人在帮助他人完成预算任务或者相关工作时的行为.我们不仅要对这一理论范畴进行构念界定,从质的规定性上区别于其他预算组织公民行为,还必须为进一步的定量研究提供测量工具.在文献回顾、理论分析后,通过深度访谈和焦点座谈,整理了预算助人行为的8个测试题项,以459份调查问卷为测量工具,运用EFA和CFA分析,获得三个维度,以及对应的8个正式题项,构建了基于本土情境的预算助人行为量表,并阐述了其应用价值.【期刊名称】《会计之友》【年(卷),期】2017(000)017【总页数】4页(P12-15)【关键词】预算助人行为;组织公民行为;预算管理【作者】高严;朱晓波【作者单位】新疆财经大学会计学院;新疆财经大学会计学院【正文语种】中文【中图分类】F811.3预算是管理会计中研究最广泛的课题之一，涉及到管理会计的方方面面（Covaleski，2003）。
然而在预算实践中却难觅成功的范例，而对它的非议和质疑却甚嚣尘上。
究其原因固然许多，但对预算管理过程中忽略所涉及的人的行为因素，无疑是重要的一个方面。
正如Gary Cokins（2014）所指出的，管理会计必须引入社会学、行为学和心理学的方法，才有可能在实质上提高其效率。
在预算契约的签订和执行中，预算个体既是预算的制定人、执行人，也是相关预算信息的使用人。
由于预算个体之间效用的差异性，会导致预算个体表现出不同的预算行为，进而会对企业的预算管理造成不同程度的影响。
考虑到先前的文献很少涉及预算相关行为的研究，也没有可供使用的测量工具，本文旨在借鉴组织公民行为（Organizational Citizenship Behavior，OCB）的大量研究成果，探讨预算个体助人行为的前因及后果，理清其理论边界，并开发能够用于测度的量表。
（一）理论和文献印象管理理论认为，人们通常喜欢比较美好的事物，希望展现出他们积极向上的态度（Baumeister，1982），人们通常会在工作中采用帮助他人的方式，来给他人留下一个比较好的印象（Leary＆ Kowalski，1990），管理者的助人行为会给他们带来好的评价，这对企业的绩效评估有正面的影响（Allen and Rush，1998）。
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., Earl ey, P. C., & Lin, S. C.出处：Farh, J. L., Earl ey, P. C., & Lin, S. C. “Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society.” Administrative Scienc e 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Id entification with the company认同组织Eager to tell outsid ers good news about the company and clarify their misund erst andings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。
组织公平量表（Organizational Justice Scale，简称OJS），概念源自Homans（1961）提出的社会交换理论中，提及个体于社会交换过程之中，期望付出与获得之间能够公平分配。
Niehoff 与Moorman（1993）将组织公平量表，分为三个维度，包含：(1)分配公平（Distributional justice）：意指员工知觉其工作任务及薪酬分配的方式是否公平的程度；(2)程序公平（Procedural justice）：意指员工知觉组织制定决策的程序与过程是否公平的程度；(3)互动公平（Interactional justice），意指员工知觉组织领导于决策的过程互动沟通是否公平的程度，量表总共为20个条目。
计分方式将受试者感受、反应及认同程度为评定指标，采用五点量表级分方法。
其标准为“1”表示非常不同意；“2”表示不同意；“3”表示普通；“4”表示同意；“5”表示非常同意。
量表的条目一、分配公平1. 我的工作排班是公平的。
①非常不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤非常同意2. 我认为我的薪酬水平是合理的。
①非常不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤非常同意3. 我认为我的工作负荷量相当公平。
①非常不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤非常同意4. 我觉得我的工作职责是公平的。
①非常不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤非常同意5. 总体而言，我在公司获得的报酬相当公平。
①非常不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤非常同意二、程序公平6. 领导会以公正的态度做出工作决定。
①非常不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤非常同意7. 领导会在工作决定前听取所有员工的意见。
①非常不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤非常同意8. 领导会在工作决定前收集准确完整的信息。
①非常不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤非常同意9. 领导会应员工的要求说明决定原因并提供额外信息。
①非常不同意②不同意③普通④同意⑤非常同意10. 所有的工作决定无论对谁都前后一致。
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。
对我国组织公民行为研究的回顾与反思Reviewing & Pondering About Our Study of the Organizational Citizenship Behaviour摘要：组织公民行为(organizational citizenship behaviour，OCB)作为组织行为学领域一个重要而新兴的课题，赢得了学术界的广泛关注。
我国对组织公民行为的研究可以追溯到20世纪90年代，樊景立教授在1997年以台湾员工为样本，展开了OCB研究。
目前的研究具体而言体现在个体水平上、群体水平上、组织水平上以及针对组织公民行为本身的研究。
而研究中存在的问题主要变现为研究者队伍构成、理论方法、研究内容、学术规范等方面。
关键字：组织公民行为、个体水平、群体水平、组织水平Abstract:As an important and new filed of organizational behaviour,organizational citizenship behaviour has won considerable attention from academics.Dated from 1990s,Our Study of the Organizational Citizenship Behaviour began in 1997 when professor Jiing-Lih Farh took employees in Taiwan as his research sample.Specifically, it is mainly embodied in three respects,one is based on the level of individual, one is based on the level of group ,anther is based on the level of organization .Besides there are studys about organizational citizenship behaviour itself. Deficiencies exist mainly in researchers, theoretical approach,content and academic standards.Key words: organizational citizenship behaviour,the level of individual,the level of group,the level of organization在对组织行为学的研究中，孙健敏认为，组织行为学研究的因变量是生产力、缺勤、流动，组织公民行为、工作满意度；自变量是个体水平的变量、群体水平的变量以及组织系统水平的变量。
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., Earl ey, P. C., & Lin, S. C.出处：Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. “Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of j ustice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society.” Administ rative 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 misun derstandings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 comp any.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 interpersonal 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, going 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 machines, 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 a nd 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 Justi ce: A Construct Validation of a Measure."Journal of Applied Psychology 86(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 theorganization?4.Is your (outcome) justified, given your performance?Interpersonal justiceThe following items refer to (the authority figure who enacted the procedure). To what 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 an alysis of justice and..." Administrative Science Quarterly 42(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 .71 7-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=stron gly agree)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 coul d 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 theirgeneral 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 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 confid entiality. 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 additionalinformation when requested by employees.5. All job decisions are applied consistently across all affected empl oyees.6. Employees are all owed 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 in a 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 bas ed on one used by Moorman (1991) and had reported reliabilities above .90 for all three 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 coul d 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 themeasurement 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 confid entiality. 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 .70 for each dimension, and all items use d a seven-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 ReviewVolume 2 Page 43 - March 20 06doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00028.x Volume 2 Issue 1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。
