Luis Ortiz
                           University of Texas - Pan American


This paper postulates a conceptual framework delineating two streams of research with
three evolutionary stages, which are organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behavior with their relevance to cross-cultural research. The paper offers a plan that
considers cross-cultural research problems to obtain indigenous (etic-emic dyad)
measures of organizational justice and OCB.


This paper expands recent research on organizational justice theory [Price & Mueller
1986; Greenburg 1987; Niehoff & Moorman 1993] and organizational citizenship
behavior [Organ & Batman 1983; Organ 1988; Moorman 1991] into a cross-cultural
environment. Adler [1983a] mentions that cross-cultural research has not kept pace with
international business. This parochial perspective seems to hold true in the research
streams under investigation [Alder 1983b]. Thus, the overall goal of the research is to
explain these phenomena in a cross-cultural perspective. Equity theory [which led to
organizational justice] and organizational citizenship behavior [OCB] have had been
growing in interest to researchers in recent years. In regards to a cross-culture research
however only a few studies have attempted to explain whether these concepts have a
universal component [Farh et al. 1997; Krilowicz & Lowery 1996; Fok et al. 1996; Leung
et al. 1996]. Organizational behaviorists have begun to investigate whether these
concepts have international implications. For instance, Krilowicz and Lowery [1996]
discussed several implications of their work and mentioned that the OCBs appears to be a
cross-cultural phenomenon. Thus, the general underlying tenet in this paper is that
international managers can encourage OCBs in a cross-cultural environment.

Two assumptions in cross-cultural research are important to mention. First, a researcher
needs to clearly address whether the research is using the nationality of the country as the
measure of culture or ethnicity of the individuals or whether a regional area is defining
culture. The second issue that researchers need to be aware of is that one's own culture
[as defined by nationality, ethnicity, or region] creates some unseen biases that may tint
the methods, results, or conclusions of the study. This paper has considered many of the
pitfalls of cross-cultural research in order to remain objective [Nasif et al. 1991].
The purpose of this paper is to explain organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behavior in a cross-cultural setting and to develop a plan to obtain Spanish
scale of these concepts. This study defines culture not so much by the use of nationality
but rather, by the use of ethnicity and local regions. A reasonable future goal of this
research will study the population frame of the interior of the U.S., the southern border
with Mexico, the northern border of Mexico and the interior of Mexico. This regional
setting will produce different cultures to investigate. This is hypothesized from the notion
that the border cultures of both the U.S. and Mexico are unique to the interior of either
country. It is well understood that the two thousand-mile [3,000 kilo.] international
border of the United States and Mexico is extremely unique in the world because in
separates a highly developed country from a developing country [Lorey 1990]. One can
create a 4 X 4 factorial design by defining culture with different ethnic and regional
groups such as U.S. Anglos [interior/U.S.], U.S. Hispanics [U.S. border], Northern
Mexicans [Mx. border], and Mexicans [Mx. interior].

This paper focuses on clearly defining organizational justice and OCB, along with a
literature review of each, in which I identify three stages in the evolution of the two
research streams. This paper will discuss the implications of the review for both the
practitioner and to the academicians. Future researchers as mentioned above can then
continue to extend these finding to a broader Latin American. This first step will help
researcher obtain good samples, carefully developed scales, and consider the etic and
emic dimensions of organizational justice and OCB. This research is timely and
important for the U.S., Mexico, and other international business research because of the
following reason. Although the border divides two people and their historical
experiences, they are at the same time simply an arbitrary line immersed by the flow of
products, services, commerce, people, and cultures [Lorey 1990].


Organizational justice [based on equity theory] and organizational citizenship behavior
[OCB] have finally come into an international business and cross-cultural research
prospective. The investigation of the two conceptual frameworks has unraveled over the
years. From Adams' [1965] equity theory evolves the concept of organizational justice
and from Bateman and Organ [1983] evolved the concept of organizational citizenship
behavior. Multinational corporations continue to pursue global diversity. This new trend
places a demand on research to aid business in creating new competitive advantages.
Thus, explaining solid theories such as equity, organizational justice, and OCB in a cross-
cultural setting is timely and important. This paper identifies three stages that the two
streams of literature of organizational justice and OCB, have undergone. The first stage
consists of the organizational justice and OCB and their evolution as independent
concepts. The second stage consists of the merger of the two steams of literature.
Researchers at in this stage explain how these concepts relate to each other and help to
address the job satisfaction-performance hypothesis. The final stage identified contains
only a limited number of articles, since only a few studies have begun to explain
organizational justice and OCBs in a cross-cultural setting. This third stage also presents
a definition of international organizational behavior. In addition, included in these
sections are tables showing the number of articles that were obtained using the
ABI/INFORM for each of the three stages, the methods used in the articles and the
concepts explored by the researchers.

Stage I - Independent Development of Organizational Justice and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior

In this section, I will first examine organizational justice from its roots in the human
psyche to its recent role in the academic literature. Then, I will turn my attention to
organizational citizenship behavior and explain its linkage to performance in an
organization. This review will also trace OCB to its historical beginning in the literature.

Organizational justice explained

This stage reviews the organizational justice literature from its historical beginning in the
work of Adams [1963; 1965] to the current work of Greenburg [1987] and Folger [1977].
Cognitive dissonance [Festinger 1957] was cited by Adams as the theoretical
underpinning of equity theory. Equity theory is the historical root of organizational
justice [Homans 1961]. Adams [1963] mentioned that a man suffers from cognitive
dissonance when things do not go in the manner as he or she expected. In the 1960s,
research focused on studying what perceived inequities did in relation to pay and other
extrinsic factors [Adams 1963; 1965; Blau 1964; Homans 1961]. Organizational justice
currently contains three dimensions studied by research. They are distributive justice
[Price & Mueller 1986], procedural justice [Thibaut and Walker 1975], and interactive
justice [Bies & Moag 1986].

Equity theory in its basic form predicts that individuals are motivated by the perception
of inequity [Adams 1965]. The theory states that men and women are in a continual and
never ending state of social comparison with a referent group of individual. Adam's
traditional theory assumes that responses to injustices are more dynamic in form and
entail a need to reduce that level of distress or dissonance created by the inequitable state.
Individuals constantly measure their perceived "inputs" and their "outcomes" as a ratio in
comparison to a referent individual. Adams defines the "inputs" in social exchange as
qualities and characteristics that a person possesses such as age, seniority, social status,
education, effort, ability or skill, etc. The "outcomes" are defined as items or privileges
received in social exchange such as rewards, money, increased status, authority, or
enjoyable work/assignments/duties. It is crucial to note that inequity produces two
different social behaviors. Here is a simplistic example. If an individual perceives
inequity because his or her "inputs" far exceed his or her "outcomes" or vice-versa, one
may expect that anger or guilt will follow.

Blau [1964 p.88-89] mentioned that this notion of social exchange is at work in just about
every facet of life. One can see this as the "keeping up with the Jones' syndrome" in
neighborhoods or in people being jealous of others because they feel inequitable in some
respect. The basic belief in equity theory is that when someone is in the inequity stage, he
or she will then be moved or motivated to do something that will help the person regain a
perception of equity in the situation. When equity is present, the belief is that the person
is at peace with the social exchange and is not moved to any action other then
contentment. Greenburg [1990] found that employee pay reduction without an
explanation as to why the cut in pay occurred moved [motivated] employees to ratify the
injustice [inequity] by raising the levels of employee-organizational theft. In another
article, Greenburg [1979] studied people who subscribed with high degree to "The
Protestant Ethic". By controlling this variable, Greenburg believed that the "input" and
"outcome" ratio would not match the norm of equity theory. He found that in fact, people
did not conform to the norm under such conditions. This finding is particularly interesting
because one could posit that the religion in a border culture or the Mexican culture might
affect equity as perceived by the samples.

Huseman et al. [1987] introduced a new perspective to equity theory with the notion of
equity as a question of sensitivity. In the mid-eighties, studies involving issues of equity
and organizational justice lead to conflicting findings. In order to address this issue,
Huseman et al. developed the construct of equity sensitivity. One can see this as a logical
step forward from the type of research Greenburg [1979] conducted with "The Protestant
Ethic", where he found that protestants were not sensitive to the normal notion of equity
theory. Huseman et al. [1987] hypothesized that individuals come to terms with equity in
one of three ways. The three types of individuals are equity sensitive, benevolent, and
entitled. These three types of people deal with equity in different manners.

First, equity sensitive individuals follow the traditional equity theory model of behavior
and understand equity in the traditional inputs/outcome ratio with a referent group. Either
form of inequity thus motivates equity sensitive individuals in that they are moved to
equalize the social exchange. Regardless if equity sensitive individual's inputs exceed
outcomes or vice-versa, they are easily motivated to act. Second, benevolent individuals
are those that sense equity only when their inputs exceed their outcomes as compares to
the referent other. One can easily understand these individuals as people who regardless
of all their efforts and other inputs seem to go unrecognized or unappreciated. The third
and final category discussed by Huseman et al. was entitled individuals. The entitled
individuals are those who sense equity only when their outcomes surpass their inputs.
The classic example of this individual is that of someone who seems to be rewarded more
than what is deserved. In reference to the border culture and the Mexican culture, one
may ask whether this area contains a higher percentage of benevolent individuals that
may see the system under which they live as "just the way things are". Thus, benevolent
individuals may simply accept their lot in life and continually produce far more inputs
than the received outcomes.

Greenburg [1987] developed a taxonomy of equity and organizational justice theories
that fit into two dimensions' reactive--proactive dimension and a process--content
dimension. The taxonomy helped give researchers an identification of where the research
was and where research needs to go in the future. The classification of a reactive theory,
according to Greenburg, focused on people's attempts to avoid or escape perceived states
of unfairness. These theories examine individual's reactions to injustices. On the other
hand, Greenburg mentions that the classification of proactive theories focuses on
behaviors designed to promote justice, thus avoiding a future injustice. The theories
belonging to the proactive dimension examine individuals who are continuously
attempting to create just states. The second dimension proposed by Greenburg was
process--content dimension which was developed from the area of legal research, which
distinguishes between the way that verdicts are derived and what those verdicts are. A
process approach, according to Greenburg, focuses on how various outcomes in the
organization are determined. These theories focus on procedures used to make decisions
and the implementation of those organizational decisions. By contrast, a content approach
concerns itself with articles that are concerned with the fairness of the results from the
distribution of outcomes in an organization.

Greenburg reemphasized Adam's theory of inequity in that he stated that over-paid
workers would feel guilty about their outcomes exceeding their inputs and that under-
paid workers would feel angry because their inputs far outweighed their outcomes. He
also stated that according to equity theory, underpaid workers should be less productive
and less satisfied than equitably paid workers and that overpaid workers should be more
productive and less satisfied than equitably paid workers. General support has been found
for these predictions over a large variety of experimental settings.

Thibaut and Walker [1975] began to research procedural justice in the 1970s. Deutsch
[1975] and Leventhal [1976] were among the first to demonstrate that procedural justice
could be viewed as an extension to equity theory in that it researched the domain of the
allocation process. Folger's [1977] research shifted the focus from how employees react
to inequitable outcomes to how they react to unfair procedures. By changing the focus,
Folger demonstrated that giving the employees an opportunity to have a voice in the
decisions affecting them enhanced their reactions to the outcomes of the decision and
thus avoided an inequitable state. Bies and Moag [1986] along with Tyler and Bias
[1990] were among the first to begin the research of interactional justice, which is seen as
a component of procedural justice.

The literature has developed three constructs that make up organizational justice. The
three types of justices widely adopted and researched in the literature are distributive,
procedural, and interactive justice. Recall that distributive justice deals with the fairness
of the allocation of an outcome or reward and is firmly grounded in equity theory that
states that one's rewards should be proportional to one's inputs in regards to one's referent
group [Adams 1965]. Thibaut and Walker [1975] define procedural justice as being
concerned with the procedure used in the allocation of resources. Bies and Moag [1986]
define interactional justice as being concerned with the quality of the treatment received
from decision-makers. Interactional justice is also concerned with the extent that the
formal decision-making procedures are properly enacted. Several studies have found that
these three type of justices are related to job satisfaction [Moorman 1991; Leung et al.

Weick [1966] mentioned that equity theory is "among the more useful middle-range
theories of organizational behavior". In the Journal of Management, Greenburg [1990]
conducted a meta-analysis of organizational justice. He chronicled the history of the field
of organizational justice, identified current themes, and recommended directions for the
future. Greenburg cited one hundred and forty-eight articles that have developed the
concepts of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational justice refers to the search
for fairness in the workplace. Sheppard et al. [1992] presented a new and comprehensive
framework for understanding injustices in the workplace. In their book, Organizational
Justice, Sheppard et al. discuss among other things, the balancing of competing interests
that modern organizations deal with today.

In recent years, distributive and procedural justice have been researched in relation to job
satisfaction, selection systems, employee theft, and organizational commitment
[Greenburg 1990; Gilliland 1993; Tang et al. 1996]. Procedural justice has also been
researched in regards to trust, turnover, strategic decision-making, and job performance
[Konovsky & Cropanzano 1991; Kim & Mauborgne 1993]. Greenburg and Bies [1992]
addressed business ethics and the role that organizational justice empirical studies
perform in this area of business. Studies have focused on the psychometric, self-reports,
and cognitive perceptions of organizational justice [Harrison et al. 1995].

Organizational citizenship behavior explained

In the 1930s Chester Bernard observed the phenomena of organizational citizenship
behavior, which he then termed "extra role behaviors" [Bernard 1938]. His notion that
employees demonstrated OCB is the earliest example identified in this review. Katz and
Kuhn [1966] defined supra-role behaviors that improved the effectiveness of the
organization. In the words of Katz and Kahn [1966] this, "includes any gestures that
lubricate the social machinery of the organization and do not directly adhere to the usual
notion of task performance". The extra-role behaviors identified included helping other
workers with work-related problems, accepting others into the work group without a fuss,
either putting up with or minimizing interpersonal conflict in the organization, and
protecting and conserving organizational resources. Katz and Kahn coined the term
"citizenship" to represent the workers that displayed these extra-role behaviors.

Managers and executives value employees who display "citizenship behavior" perhaps
because they make their job easier. The extra time obtained by management allows and
the manager to improve the organizational effectiveness by having more time for
managerial issues. Bateman and Organ [1983] in the seminal article, Job satisfaction and
the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee "citizenship" began a
large series of articles into the topic of OCB.

It is crucial to clearly differentiate between in-role and extra-role behaviors at work. In-
role behavior is a technical performance required by the job. In other words, in-role
behavior is that which is acceptable behavior to management. Extra-role behavior on the
other hand, is referred to as "innovative and spontaneous behavior". Extra-role behaviors
include the in-role behavior and extra-role gestures that enhance or improve
organizational effectiveness, informal acts of cooperation, goodwill, and helpfulness
[Organ & Batman 1983]. Some examples of extra-role behaviors are helping to orient
new workers in the organization, not abusing the rights of other, and being friendly to the
customers. A basic notion underpinning this concept of in-role and extra-role work
behavior is the idea that any employer can in affect force a certain degree of work out of
an individual who needs a job, thus, the in-role. Nevertheless, the organization can
encourage the extra-role behaviors that can increase their competitiveness. For example,
if an employer hired a worker and stated that he or she ought to be able to produce 350
widgets per shift. If the employee was unable to accomplish that task, one can say that the
in-role behavior was not achieved and thus, no extra-role behavior occurred either. If the
employee achieved the goal of 350 widgets per shift, the employee could then be
encouraged to engage in extra-role behavior. Thus, Organ [1990] theorized that in-role
and extra-role behaviors are influenced by different motivational dynamics. Perhaps in-
role behaviors or to achieve a certain degree of work from an employee, a manager may
be more apt to use extrinsic tactics. While with an employee that is achieving the in-role
duty, intrinsic tactics may encourage extra-role behavior.

Along with the understanding of in-role and extra-role behavior, a distinction must be
made between the formal and the informal functions of an organization. Organ [1988]
defined the formal organization as including the organizational systems, policies, rules,
and regulations that govern task behavior to achieve effective technical production. Thus,
one can clearly understand that in-role behavior is a requirement by management to
obtain the job. The informal organization exists in any business and can be thought of as
a pre-requisite of an effective organization [Organ 1990]. In the informal organization,
extra-role behaviors such as welfare of co-workers, low absenteeism, or teaching new
hires the ropes are abundant.

Organ [1988] defined organizational citizenship behavior as, "OCB represents individual
behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward
system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization."
Organ then proceeds to define what he meant by discretionary, "We mean that the
behavior is not an enforceable requirement of the role or the job description, that is, the
clearly specifiable terms of the person's employment contract with the organization; the
behavior is rather a matter of personal choice, such that its omission is not generally
understood as punishable". He gives a clear explanation of what does and does not
constitute OCB behavior in his example of a college professor. He states, "Thus, college
professors who prep for their courses, teach, do research, and write are not by our
construction exhibiting OCB, no matter how good their teaching and research is judged
by others". The notion is that fulfilling one's contractual obligations to the organization in
which one works is just the in-role requirements. An OCB for the college professor may
include picking up trash on the classroom floor after or before class and tossing it in the
wastebasket or perhaps engaging in a conversation in the community that will promote
the organization in a positive manner.

Organ [1988] provided a multi-dimensional scale of organizational citizenship behavior.
The scale contained five dimensions that make up the OCB construct. The five
dimensions identified by Organ are altruism [welfare], courtesy, sportsmanship, civic
virtue, and conscientiousness. Altruism is the category consisting of discretionary
behaviors that aim at helping certain people in an organization with a relevant task or
problem. Courtesy includes proactive gestures that consider consulting with other
workers in the organization before acting, giving advance notice, and passing along
information. Sportsmanship refers to the forbearance of doing some action such as filing
petty grievances. Civic virtue is the involvement that the employee shows in the political
life of the organization. Finally, conscientiousness is originally termed general
compliance, which involves employees going beyond the minimum requirements of the

Research in the area of OCB has expanded in the literature since the work of Organ and
Batman [1983] in which they used the Job Description Index at two points in time,
finding higher correlations than in previous satisfaction-performance studies. Skarlicki
and Latham [1995] found that peer evaluations correlated negatively with a professor's
publications and years on the job. Schnake [1991], Organ, and Katherine [1995] have
conducted meta-analysis of the OCB literature. Organ and Katherine [1995] conducted a
meta-analysis with 55 studies, which showed that job attitudes are robust predictors of
OCB. Different task, leadership, cognitive and positive affect studies have also been
conducted [Organ & Konovsky 1989; Farh, Podsakoff & Organ 1990].

An interesting line of research involves unions, their members, and the role that OCBs
can play within a union [Latham & Karambayya 1997; Skarlicki & Latham 1996;
Skarlicki & Latham 1997]. Articles in the marketing and organizational decision journals
have studied salespersons and managerial performance appraisals and evaluations
[MacKenzie, Podsakoff & Fetter 1991; 1993]. Not all studies have embraced the new
conceptualization of OCB as a new and better measure of performance. Morrison [1994]
calls for research clarifying the meaning of in-role and extra-role performance or re-
conceptualizing OCB [Van Dyne & Graham 1994]. Still, studies continue to explain
OCB in regard to rewards, in-role, extra-role, dispositional factors [big-five], personality,
and satisfaction [Eastman 1994; Konovsky & Organ 1993; Organ 1994: Moorman 1993].

Moorman and Blakely [1995] found that a collectivistic individual is more apt to engage
in OCBs. The study demonstrated robustness of OCB to the issues of self-report bias and
common method variance in that the use of multiple means of obtaining data is possible
[e.g. employee self-report and the manager rating of the employee's OCB]. These
findings are important because they point out the need for research to understand the
Mexican or other international environment. For instance, Mexico ranked high on
collectivism in Hofestede's [1980] study this study may find that Mexican nationals are
more apt to display OCB than United States citizens are. Power distance as described by
Hofstede [1980] regarded that small power distances cultures require that inequities
among people should be minimized [U.S. culture]. On the other hand, a large power
distance cultures believes according to Hofstede that inequalities among people are both
expected and desired [Mexico's culture]. These two notions of the Mexican and U.S.
environment are the focus of the next section.
Stage II - Merger in the Literature of Organizational Justice and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior

In this section, I will explain the job satisfaction-performance hypotheses and the merger
of the concepts organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior.
Organizational theorists continue to explore the relationship between job satisfaction and
job performance. The question continues to linger in both the minds the practitioner and
the researcher "If one can intuitively posit that high job satisfaction leads to higher
performance why has research failed to answer this observation?" The two streams of
literature are merging in as researchers continued pursuit to the job satisfaction and
performance relationship with a new approach.

The job satisfaction-performance hypothesis has lead researchers to believe that
organizational justice plays an important role in the job satisfaction-performance
framework. At the job performance end of the model, researchers believe that OCB is a
better way to understand and measure job performance. I propose that the independent
streams of literature are merging to better address the job satisfaction-performance
hypothesis and are producing challenging, creative, and innovative new streams of
research. This section identifies the third and final stage in this paper as the
organizational justice and OCB literature obtains a cross-cultural international research

Job satisfaction-performance hypotheses

Job satisfaction-performance hypothesis refers to the intuitive belief of management that
a happy worker is the cause of a productive worker or that a productive employee causes
an employee to be happy. Research, however, has not yielded any strong evidence that
the relationship exists [Moorman 1991]. It is apparent that job satisfaction has a long and
rich history within the organizational behavior literature. Researchers have observed that
a person's morale seems to be higher in firms that are efficient and effective [Schneider &
Schmitt 1986]. Ever since the early 1900s, the work of Frederick W. Taylor set off the
search for higher job performance. In contrast, the early pioneering work of Whiting
Williams [1876-1975] and the work done in the Hawthorne studies led to the search for
job satisfaction and the human-being aspect of the organization. Williams [1918] was an
early industrial sociologist who found that workers in the early part of the century wanted
the company to provide them with a sense of direction of where the company was going
in the future. Hamel and Prahalad [1994] say that employees need that sense of destiny in
order to create organizational citizenship behavior that benefits the company [Organ
1988]. By the early 1920s Munsterberg's [1913; 1922] work demonstrated that people
innately search for job satisfaction at work. Herzburg [1959] discussed certain variables
that create satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and other variables that simply maintain
performance [hygiene]. Studies then did not focus on a cultural investigation or whether
culture's impact is direct or indirect in regards to the variables identified in job
The traditional belief in the past was that an organization must choose to either maximize
job satisfaction or maximize job performance [productivity], while arguing that the two
are not simultaneously obtainable. The trade-off between high job productivity and job
satisfaction has plagued researchers, managers, employees, and teachers of management
since the turn of the century [Campion & Higgs 1995]. Currently, an organization knows
that to survive or compete in the future, it must find a way to align its goals for
production and that of its human resources [Hamel & Prahalad 1994]. Labor or union
disputes are just one example of the problems that any globally competitive organization
must avoid. The company must position the needs of the employees in a manner that will
benefit both--the organization's need for productivity because it provides the jobs, and the
employees' need for satisfaction because they provide the labor in the social exchange
[human capital].

There is a notion that in order to improve job performance; one must turn to the
application of engineering-oriented principles such as re-engineering techniques and
process approach. On the other hand, the notion is that to increase job satisfaction; one
will require the use of psychology-oriented principles [intrinsic] such as job sharing,
work teams, or job enrichment. The belief is that high job performance is obtained at the
cost of employee satisfaction. Tomorrow's organization must re-think these notions in
order to survive, compete, and be profitable in a global economy [Cranny, Smith & Stone
1992; Campion & Higgs 1995]. A few innovative organizations [i.e. Southwest Airlines,
Motorola] are doing an impressive job of aligning job satisfaction and performance in
order to benefit both the employees and the organization. The cultures studied will
contain certain strengths and weaknesses that will provide a more appropriate
understanding of the way an organization should manage a new diverse work force
[women, Hispanics, and other ethnicities].

The majority of the findings by researchers indicate the correlation between job
satisfaction and performance to be relatively low [Brayfield & Crockett 1955; Iaffaldano
& Muchinsky 1985; Locke 1976; 1984; Vroom 1964]. Consequently, the researchers on
job satisfaction and performance have concluded that the two are only weakly, if even
related, while one continues to assume that relatively satisfied workers perform relatively
well in their jobs. Not having definite results, the researchers examining the low
correlation of job satisfaction and performance have approached the problem from
numerous angles [Iaffaldano & Muchinsky 1985; Podsakoff & Williams 1986]. Recent
literature in organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior link
performance and job satisfaction in a meaningful way [Organ 1988; Moorman 1991].

The bulk of the early research focused on the individual within the organization and
implied that job satisfaction leads to higher job performance [Likert 1961; Mayo 1933;
McGregor 1960]. The literature in human relations does not imply that increases in job
satisfaction will lead to increased job performance or vice-versa. As can be seen, this is
quite open for debate as much today as in the past (Organ 1977; Moorman 1991;
Morrison 1997]. It is possible that firms which have more satisfied employees are more
productive and thus, more profitable than firms with less satisfied employees.
From a theoretical perspective, several theorists from the psychological tradition to the
field of human relations have discussed such a weak link. The organizational theorists
that have been in search of the illusive relationship between job satisfaction and
performance argue that performance depends on either a social structure or the
organizational effectiveness and openness with employees. The human relations theorists
[Likert 1961; Williams 1918; Mayo 1933; McGregor 1960] suggest that satisfied workers
equal productive workers. The basic view is that a firm achieves productivity through
employee satisfaction and through careful attention on a person's physical and emotional
needs [Likert 1961; McGregor 1960]. An employee's decision about whether to give his
or her services to an organization wholeheartedly [OCB] or not depends in large part on
the way that the employee feels about the job, pay, promotion, managers, and co-workers
[Churchill 1974; Locke 1976]. Satisfaction and a positive attitude can be achieved by
maintaining a positive social environment with good communication, autonomy,
participation, and trust [Argyris 1964; Likert 1961].

The merger of organizational justice and OCB

Measurement problems have been pointed out regarding of job satisfaction and
performance [Fisher 1980], research design characteristics [Iaffaldano & Muchinsky
1985], and the analyses of the effects of job characteristics [Ivancevich 1978],
organizational commitment [Fletcher & Williams 1996], job turnover and stress
[Parasuraman & Alluto 1984], constraints placed on job performance [Bhagat 1982;
Herman 1973], personality characteristics [Steers 1975], and rewards [Porter & Lawler
1968; Schwab & Cumming 1970]. Organizational theorists believe that the reason for
much of the confusion may lie in the way that performance is measured. Researchers are
proposing that organizational citizenship behavior be used as a broader and truer measure
of performance. A myriad of studies has shown that OCBs and job satisfaction result in a
more robust relationship between job satisfaction and performance, yet, the relationship
between job satisfaction and OCBs remains a bit more complex than originally
envisioned [Moorman 1993]. Thus, organizational justice may be an important construct
that will mediate that relationship between job satisfaction and OCB and hence,

Moorman [1991] was among the first to research organizational justice and
organizational citizenship behavior. Moorman's studies examined the relationship of
perceptions of fairness and OCB in two midwestern companies. He found a relationship
between procedural justice and four of the five dimensions of OCB. In a different study,
Niehoff and Moorman [1993] examined the results that monitoring an employee had on
the results of an employee choosing to engage in extra-role behaviors. OCB and social
exchange theory were studied with 475 hospital employees [Konovsky & Pugh 1994].
Konovsky and Pugh [1994] wanted to see how trust played a role in organizational justice
and OCB. They found that trust might play a role in mediating the relationship of
organizational justice and OCBs. Skarlicki and Latham [1996; 1997] found in their quasi-
experiment that training significantly improved the perceptions of fairness in an
employee over that of an untrained group. Netemeyer et al. [1997) found a direct and
indirect relationship among the variables: personal fit, leadership support, fairness
[justice], job satisfaction, and OCBs.

Stage III - Cross-Cultural Research and Organizational Justice and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior

In this final section, a definition of international organizational behavior is proposed and
only a few articles are identified that research organizational justice and OCB in a cross-
cultural context. The goal of this type of research is to identify whether similarities exist
among different cultures, what Adler [1983b] termed "culturally synergistic". The
implicit assumptions of this research posit that in cross-cultural studies, an etic and emic
dimension exists. Thus, behavioral theories may apply in a different culture only when
one correctly considers the etic and emic dyad. Thus, it is believed that cultures are
similar [etic] in many respects and different in some ways [emic]. This manner of
research makes sense because one knows that work behavior must contain some
dimensions that are cross-cultural and that are global phenomena [Farh et al 1997]. In the
past, it has been hard to research across cultures because of cost-related issues.
Researchers must take advantage of the resources available today [e.g. Internet, e-mail,
technology] in order to better understand behavioral theories in light of cross-cultural

Organizational behavior as defined by Organ [1987] states, "[OB] as a field of study,
represents the applications of behavioral science concepts and methods to the study of
human behavior in the organizational environment." It is crucial that a definition of
international organizational behavior [IOB] be posed here because it can be used as a
needed link in studying and understanding organizational behavior in a global context.
Thus, the IOB is defined as, "a field of study that represents the applications of
behavioral science concepts and methods to the study of human behavior in any
organizational environment that promotes the use of global diversity to operate
effectively in a global market.

Leung et al. [1996] investigated organizational justice in a joint venture in China and
found that procedural and distributive justice significantly influence job satisfaction.
Krilowicz and Lowery [1996] studied performance appraisals and OCB in the U.S. and
the Dominican Republic. The researchers found that OCB and the objective performance
of both the U.S. and the Dominican Republic determined performance appraisals. The
researchers concluded that OCB and performance appraisals are cross-cultural

Fok et al. [1996] conducted a study that dealt with equity theory, equity sensitivity, and
OCB. The main finding in the study was that different equity sensitivity orientations in
the four national cultures studied do exist. For instance, they found that the Chinese were
significantly more benevolent than the British and French. Recall that an equity
sensitivity state of "benevolence" is in those individuals that only sense equity when their
inputs exceed their outcomes. Mexico's interior or Mexico's border or the U.S. border
may fall into this category.
Van Dyne and Ang [1998] studied OCBs in Singapore and found support for social
exchange theory. Equally important in their investigation is their findings of employee's
willingness to engage in OCB. The researchers compared of regular workers and
contingent worker in their study. They found that when contingent workers have positive
attitudes about their relationship with an organization the contingent worker is more apt
to engage in OCB.

Farh, Early, and Lin [1997] investigated organizational justice and OCB in a cross-
cultural manner. They studied organizational justice and OCB in China. The well-
planned and organized research was composed of two studies, as is this paper. They first
developed an etic and emic [indigenous] scale. Then they used the scale to measure
Chinese levels of OCB and to explore similarities and differences in their Western
counterparts. To develop the Chinese Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale
[COCB], the researchers used both q-sort and factor analysis techniques to obtain the
indigenous scale. The scales were similar in regards to three of the five constructs found
in Organ's scale. The three similar or etic dimensions are civic virtue, altrusim, and
conscientiousness. The different or emic dimensions found in the study were elements of
sportsmanship and courtesy, which were not seen by the Chinese as part of the COCB
scale. Farh et al [1997] discovered two new factors that apply to in the Chinese context,
which are interpersonal harmony and protecting company resources.

In the findings, the most interesting result was that men in China perceive unfairness
much more than women in China do. Understanding whether a Mexican-female
maquiladora worker detects more or less fairness than other men in Mexico is of high
value and importance for future study. The window of opportunity currently lies in
studying organizational justice and OCB in an international context. This will extend
current research and shed new light on the over debated job satisfaction-performance
hypothesis. This type of research will help to understand and explain if job satisfaction
produces higher job performance or vice versa along with clearly explaining to manager
the enormous need organizational justice in the workplace.


This paper reviewed the literature of organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behavior and laid the groundwork [content validity] for a methodologically sound cross-
cultural study involving the international research in particular in a U.S. and Mexico
setting. This research uncovered that three evolutionary stages existed in the
organizational justice and OCB literature. The three phases found were 1] the construct's
history and maturity independent of each other, 2] the constructs joining to address the
job satisfaction-performance hypotheses, and 3] the emergence of the constructs cross-
cultural focus.

The implications of stage one [the independent development of organizational justice and
OCB] indicate that the concepts for organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behavior are well grounded in theory. This is an important finding because if one
proposes to study these phenomena in a cross-cultural setting, one cannot depend on
concepts that lack the refinement of empirical testing. Currently, researchers continue to
improve our understanding of these concepts in business.

The second stage [the merger of organizational justice and OCB] found that researchers
[organizational theorist] in the U.S. have found a better way to address the job
satisfaction-performance hypotheses that have plagued the research for years. This line of
research identified by stage two promises to continue to yield interesting and exciting
results in the field of international organizational behavior. The work currently underway
in this stage will produce comprehensive and integrated models that will better explain
job satisfaction and performance.

The final section identified in this study is perhaps the most challenging to undertake, but
at the same time, perhaps the most needed. For instance, in light of the NAFTA
agreement and the fact that Mexico and the U.S. are destined by geography to co-exist
and rely on each other for future success indicates that research in this area is essential.
The development of international scales and research with international partners is
encouraged in the literature in order to produce results that are more objective. In
addition, the traditional belief in cross-cultural studies has been simply to find
statistically significant differences, even if only minutely different. A clear understanding
from this paper is that as Adler [1983b] mentioned, some universals do exist in
synergistic research. The etic and emic dimensions considered gives American
ethnocentric research hope for going international and global.

This study strongly believes that certain phenomena have global implications such as the
search for fairness in the workplace and the willingness of an employee to give his or her
whole effort to an employer. Multinational corporations deal with these issues on a daily
basis. Researchers must help both the practitioner and the academician to understand
these phenomena in an international business context. The need for new global
competitive advantages will soon follow after explaining to companies how perceived
fairness can hinder or encourage the display of organizational citizenship behaviors.

References available from the author

To top