8/4/2019 CriticARM (3)

1/4

Paper: Levels of measurement and analysis issues in organizational citizenship behaviour

research

Author: Mel E Schnake, Michael P Dumler

In the past, Organizational behaviour research has been conducted at an individual level with

regards to theory, measurement and analysis. Where as the field of organizational behaviour

is apparently mixed-level i.e. at the confluence of individual, group and organizational-level

phenomena. Despite of this observation, there is paucity of research from that perspective.

This paper endeavors to review various challenges in level of measurement and analysis taking

a contextually relevant area of organizational citizen behaviour. The author has explained

group-level and mixed-level research methodology while discussing various models of

relationships among individual-level and group-level antecedents, organization citizenship

behaviour and outcome variables. The models constituents have been drawn from a rich

literature review in the this field.

It is understood that purpose of the paper was not to present a concrete model of Organization

citizenship behaviour. Since during the whole theory discussion, the stress has been put

on group & organization levels of analysis in this type of research. In the empirical model

illustration, the analysis could have been more detailed on group or organization level

outcomes arising from organization citizen behaviour. One of the purpose of the paper was

around importance of level of measurement, same is apparently inadequately illustrated in

the models esp. the measurement level specification of various constructs mentioned in the

discussed models.

The arguments presented in the most of the sections in the paper leave an impression with the

audience that author is suggesting that group or organization level effects are more important

as compared to individual and hence the relevance of studying at those levels. But conclusive

discussion brings home the intended argument that level of analysis, measurement & theory are

indispensable parts of Organization citizenship behaviour research.

8/4/2019 CriticARM (3)

2/4

Paper: Organizations and supervisors as sources of support and targets of commitment: alongitudinal studyAuthor: Florence Stinglhamber, Christian Vandenberghe

This paper attempts to examine the relationship & linkages between perceived supportand affective commitment constructs and their general antecedents and consequences.

A longitudinal study of 238 employees has been reported as part of this paper. The study

examines the linkages between the favorableness of intrinsically and extrinsically satisfying

job conditions, perceived organizational support, perceived supervisor support, affective

commitment to the organization and supervisor, and turnover.

The presented literature review suggests that perceived organizational support and

organisational affective commitment are strongly related, but also admitting that the direction

of causality between them is uncertain. The author accepts Rhodes work which indicated that

perceived organisational support is an antecedent of organizational affective commitment. Theliterature review appears to inadequate around work on existence of reverse causality of this

linkage. That is, as the organisation can provide support because of the commitment of the

employees considering it as its obligation to do so.

The key hypothesis of this study is that organizational affective commitment will mediate the

effect of perceived organizational support on turnover. The hypothesis could have been broad

based to incorporate the causality & the direction of causality between these constructs to arrive

at a meaningful conclusion from an applicability stand point.

The sampling methodology & rationale has not been explained in the paper in adequate length.

There appears to be inherent biases or non-randomness in the sample, For instance, 70% malerespondents. Also, the constructs measured get significantly influenced by choice of industry &

age range of respondents, therefore authors have to either mention the reason behind selection

of respondents from diverse industry environment and age group (SD=4.28 around 31 years) or

highlight this as limitations in this study.

It would have been useful for the reader, if author had justified in the paper, the rationale

of adapting three items from SPOS for measurement of perceived supervisor support by

changing construct from organization with supervisor. The validity of this measurement is not

argued. As without context, these two seem to totally unrelated constructs from a measurement

methodology stand point.

The conclusion is well drawn from the results and rightfully suggests to further investigate

exchange relationships between employees and their supervisors for future turnover research.

8/4/2019 CriticARM (3)

3/4

Paper: Knowledge exchange and combination: the role of human resource practices in theperformance of high-technology firmsAuthor: Christopher J. Collins & Ken G. Smith

The paper attempts to develop a theory on effect of human resource practices on organizational

social climate facilitating knowledge exchange and resultant firm performance. The same isbeing tested against a sample of 136 technology companies for establishing that the practices

are positively related to the organizational social climates of trust, cooperation, and shared

codes and language. Further measures of social climate were shown to be related to the firms

capability to exchange and combine knowledge, which author claims to be a relationship that

predicted revenue & sales growth. The paper enriches readers theoretical foundations of

strategic human resource management especially around competitive advantage firms enjoy

through people in terms of financial performance from new products/services. The authors have

presented a brief literature survey highlighting the research gap of empirical studies of causalmechanisms governing human resource practices impact on greater firm performance.

The paper lacks in their detailed discussion arguing the relevance of their sampling choice,

since this area is highly context sensitive and therefore its important to have an appropriate

sampling model. As part of the defined scope of research, the authors have restricted their

study to high technology firms, this way they have controlled the industry variability aspect

of this sample. However one of the most important aspect of the environment is life-phase

of the company. This should have been controlled for the sample or justifiably proportionate.

A triangulation approach could have helped. Additionally, the statistics theories suggest that

the sample should consist of atleast the product of number of items and number of values in

possible response set divided by number of clusters or categories of respondent. the latter

is one in this case and the total value exceeds 138 which raises question of validity of the

conclusions drawn from statistical analysis of this data.

Though authors have put together a well argued rationale for human resource practices

influence on knowledge exchange and accentuating its strategic importance of knowledge

exchange in a high-tech firm. The paper could have presented a discussion on how firms can

create knowledge-related advantages, especially in dynamic environments. This would have

helped relate the findings to practice in a contextually apt way.

8/4/2019 CriticARM (3)

4/4

Theory,Design,Implementation,AnalysisDiscussionI. Background information to help your readers understand the nature of the work

A. Information about the work1. Title2. Author3. Publication information4. Statement of topic and purposeB. Thesis statement indicating writer's main reaction to the workII. Summary or description of the workIII. Interpretation and/or evaluationA. Discussion of the work's organizationB. Discussion of the work's styleC. EffectivenessD. Discussion of the topic's treatment

E. Discussion of appeal to a particular audienceDo u think the subject was well investigated before the research started?Do u think there are enough references in it?Do u think it is based on reliable elements?Do u think the researh design is good to address the issue in question?Do u think this design or research method actually answers the question or hypothesis?Do u think the method is reliable enough?Are there other possible methods u could use to make this research?What other methods do u think would be more suitable? why? what about the sample method?Were there enough "subjects" for the research? see this in relation to the purpose of theresearch, if the method is good enough to address the purpose.

Are there any errors in its implementation?Does her reasons support her thesis? Does she provide enough evidence to show how and whythe reasons support the thesis? Mark passages you feel provide weak support. Compliment theauthor where her reasoning is strong.Are there any errors in tis analysis?Is there another way to analyse the data u have collected?Which way do u think is better for the purpose of the research?Does it offer something finally? Something new in the field?How can its findings be implemented?Comment on whether you feel the conclusion ties together the paper or ends weakly.Discuss any persistent weaknesses or strengths. One recommended style is to give a strength,a weakness and another strength.