Organizational identification and perceived organizational support as mediators of the procedural justice–citizenship behaviour relationship: A cross-cultural constructive replication

Abstract

This study examined the psychological processes that might underlie the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behaviour using an integrative approach. In doing so, we focused on the mediating effects of perceived organizational support and organizational identification in the relationship simultaneously. Framed as an integrated test of social exchange and social identity predictions, the hypotheses were tested using two cross-cultural samples (i.e., South Korea and the United States) as well as different operationalizations of the constructs of interest, which meets the criterion of a constructive replication (Lykken, 1968) by two samples (N = 130, 135). Interestingly, the results showed convergence in support of the mediating role of organizational identification, but not perceived organizational support, when the two mediators were included in the model concurrently. These findings indicate that social identity may be the dominant psychological mechanism underlying the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behaviour in workplaces.

Keywords:

• Organizational citizenship behaviour
• Organizational identification
• Perceived organizational support
• Procedural justice

Notes

¹ The specific translation/backtranslation procedures were as follows: (a) One of the authors (Korean bilingual) translated all the survey items into Korean. (b) The initially translated items then reviewed by two additional Korean bilingual individuals to reduce the possible obscurity of expressions that may occur in translation procedures. (c) Six Korean employees reviewed the translated items not only to identify vague expressions but also to suggest relevant modifications for the identified vague expressions. (d) The author backtranslated all the Korean items into English to ensure conceptual equivalence and comparability with the original items.

² According to Browne and Cudeck's (1993) cutoff criteria, RMSEA is an acceptable fit criterion at lower than .1.

³ It is important to note that we tested each separate mediation model for perceived organizational support and organizational identification, respectively. The results were summarized as follows: Model 1 (a fully mediated model of perceived organizational support), χ²(228) = 542.51, RMSEA = .103, CFI = .97, TLI = .96, and Model 2 (a partially mediated model of perceived organizational support), χ²(227) = 538.85, RMSEA = .103, CFI = .97, TLI = .96, showed an acceptable fit, respectively. However, the differences between chi-squares were not significant for Model 1 compared with Model 2, ΔX² = 3.66, p > .05, indicating the presence of the mediation effect of perceived organizational support in the relationship. Thus, perceived organizational support fully mediated the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behaviour: citizenship behaviour, total effect = .28, indirect effect = .10, p < .05, direct effect = .18, ns, when evaluated separately. In addition, Model 3 (a fully mediated model of organizational identification), χ²(228) = 510.66, RMSEA = .098, CFI = .97, TLI = .97, and Model 4 (a partially mediated model of organizational identification), χ²(227) = 510.34, RMSEA = .098, CFI = .97, TLI = .97, indicated an adequate fit to the data. However, the chi-squares differences between the two models were not significant, ΔX² = 0.32, p > .10, implying the presence of the mediation effect of organizational identification in the relationship. Therefore, organizational identification fully mediated the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behaviour: citizenship behaviour, total effect = .29, indirect effect = .23, p < .05, direct effect = .06, ns, in the separate mediation analysis.

⁴ The results on the separate mediation models were as follows: Model 1 (a fully mediated model of perceived organizational support), χ²(322)] = 593.22, RMSEA = .079, CFI = .97, TLI = .97, and Model 2 (a partially mediated model of perceived organizational support), χ²(321) = 591.30, RMSEA = .079, CFI = .97, TLI = .97, showed an acceptable fit, respectively. However, the differences between chi-squares were not significant for Model 1 compared with Model 2, ΔX² = 1.92, p > .10, indicating the presence of the mediation effect of perceived organizational support in the relationship. The indirect path was significant, and the direct path remained significant (although reduced: direct effect = .35 → .21) which is a case of the partial mediation model. Thus, perceived organizational support partially mediated the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behaviour: citizenship behaviour, total effect = .36, indirect effect = .15, p < .05, direct effect = .21, p < .05. In addition, Model 3 (a fully mediated model of organizational identification), χ²(322) = 571.93, RMSEA = .076, CFI = .97, TLI = .97, and Model 4 (a partially mediated model of organizational identification), χ²(321) = 571.92, RMSEA = .076, CFI = .97, TLI = .97, indicates an adequate fit to the data. However, the chi-squares differences between the two models were not significant, ΔX² = 0.01, p > .10, implying the presence of the mediation effect of organizational identification in the relationship. Consistent with Study 1, organizational identification fully mediated the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behaviour in the separate mediation analysis: citizenship behaviour, total effect = .36, indirect effect = .35, p < .01, direct effect = .01, ns.

⁵ Since the predictor and criterion in Study 2 were evaluated by subordinates, this may cause the concern of the potential method bias. In order to reduce it, three procedural remedies were introduced in the measurement of the variables as suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003). First, we provided participants with 24 differently ordered questionnaires by mixing orders of procedural justice, perceived organizational support, organizational identification, and organizational citizenship behaviour scales based on the notion that a different ordering approach in terms of predictors and criterions could neutralize some of the method biases that affect the retrieval stage (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Second, we alleviated evaluation concerns of the respondents by emphasizing both assurances of confidentiality and no judgement in relation to the answers. Lastly, we used the two different response formats for the constructs assessed in this study.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jeewon Cho

We would like to thank Christian Vandenberghe and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments during the review process.An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, California.