JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY Volume 10, No. 2, W'mter 1995

PROSOCIAL ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIORS: THE, ROLES OF WORKPLACE JUSTICE, ACHIEVElVIENT STRIVING, AND

PAY SATISFACTION

Cynthia Lee Northeastern University

ABSTRACT'. In this research, the roles of workplace justice, achievement striv- ing behavior and pay satisfaction were used to predict prosocial behaviors. A total of 354 individuals from a consumer products company provided data for this research. Results suggest that achievement striving accounted for unique variance in in-role behavior. Perceived fairness in skill-based pays certification process showed positive associations with extra-role and in-role behaviors. In support of previous research, pay satisfaction also provided unique contribution to both extra-role and in-role behaviors.

Several research studies have focused on ex~,n~nlng prosocial be- haviors. According to Brief and Motowidio (1986), prosocial behaviors are helping behaviors performed to benefit or help an individual, group, or organization with whom an individual interacts while carrying out his or her organizational role. Prosocial behaviors have two components. One is extra-role. These behaviors are not assigned to an individual by the organization and they may not be acknowledged by the organiza- tion's reward system (Organ, 1988). The other prosocial behaviors are in-role. These behaviors are actually a par t of one's role prescriptions and are assigned to individuals as par t of their performance respon- sibilities.

To date, in addition to job satisfaction, much of the research has focused on studying the relations of fairness perceptions and prosocial behaviors (Moorman,1991; Organ, 1988; Schnake, 1991). Organizational fairness is concerned with the ways in which employees determine if they are t rea ted fairly in their jobs and the ways in which those deter-

Address correspondence to Cynthia Lee, 304 Hayden Hall, College of Business, North- eastern University, Boston, MA 02115.

197 @ 1995 H.mnn Sciences Press, Inc.

198 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

minations influence other work-related variables (Moorman, 1991). One reason for studying the associations between fairness and prosocial be- haviors comes from social exchange relationship with coworkers, imme- diate superior, work unit, and various other dimensions of their mem- bership (Blau, 1964; Organ, 1988). Perceptions of unfairness will create tension within a person, which he or she will attempt to resolve (Adams, 1965). Thus, perceptions of unfairness may lead to lowering or adjusting one's in-role or extra-role behaviors.

Although affect (satisfaction) and cognition (organizational justice perceptions) are the major determinant of prosocial behaviors, Organ (1990) argued that stable disposition or personality factors may also re- late to prosocial behaviors. Although research has examined the rela- tions of three factors to prosocial behaviors independently, these factors have not been studied together in a single study. Another contribution of this study is that we explore which of these three predictors are more powerful predictors of in-role or extra-role behaviors.

According to Organ and Konovsky (1989), prosocial behaviors reflect a mixture of social and economic exchange relationships with the orga- nization. Prosocial behavior depends on the cognitive appraisal of fair- ness of general treatment by the organization. The two most commonly cited organizational fairness perceptions are: distributive justice, which describes the fairness of the outcomes an employee receives; and pro- cedural fairness, which describes the fairness of the procedures or pro- cess used to determine those outcomes (Folger & Greenberg, 1985). Ac- cording to Organ (1988), when employee-management relationships are characterized by perceptions of fair exchange, employees reciprocate through prosocial behaviors or acts of citizenship. In Farh, Podsakoff, and Organ's (1990) study, they demonstrated that supervisor fairness (leader behavior of contingent reward, supportiveness, and partici- pativeness) enhances employees extra-role behaviors. Another study con- ducted by Scholl et al. (1987), found that perceptions of job and pay equities were significantly related to extra-role behavior.

Alexander and Rudsrman (1987) and Folger and Konovsky (1989) examined the relative associations of procedural and distributive justice on employee attitudes. They found that procedure justice, and not dis- tributive justice, predicted employee commitment to the organization and trust in supervisor. The organizational attachment provides a basis for discretionary collaborative or extra-role behaviors because the ex- change in a relationship based on trust and commitment entails un- specified obligations (Blau, 1964). Distributive justice, on the other hand, predicted only satisfaction with the specific outcome in question (i.e., pay raises; Folger & Konovsky, 1989). It is possible that distribu- tive justice does not sufficiently motivate employee loyalty and cooper- ation. However, it orients employees primarily toward performance

CYNTHIA LEE 199

dimensions specified by contractual arrangements or directly remune- rated by a formal performance appraisal system (Konovsky & Folger, in press). Therefore, it is predicted (H1) that distributive justice will be positively related to in-role behaviors while procedural justice will be positively related to extra-role behaviors.

Although pay satisfaction has repeatedly been shown to be an im- portant consequence of perceived pay equity (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Summers & Hendrix, 1991), it is also one of the robust correlates of prosocial or citizenship behaviors (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Moorman, 1991; Organ, 1988; Organ & Konovsky, 1989; Smith et al., 1983). As a replication, it is also predicted here (H2) that pay satisfaction will be positively related to prosocial behaviors.

Achievement striving, the extent to which people work hard, is ac- five, and take their work seriously, has been found to relate positively to job and classroom performance (Bluen et al., 1990; Lee, 1992; Lee et al., 1993; Spence et al., 1987, 1989). Achievement striving is the desire to achieve results and is similar to a related construct, need for achieve- ment. Need for achievement reflects the need to do things as well and as quickly as possible (Murray, 1938) and to avoid activities in which they have little chance of succeeding (McClelland, 1961). According to Schnake (1991), individuals with a high need for achievement may de- rive a great deal of satisfaction and pride from their task performance and may, therefore, be likely to engage in compliance citizenship behav- ior or in-role behavior. Puffer (1987) found the need for achievement to be marginally and significantly related to prosocial behavior. However, Puffer did not analyze extra-role and in-role behaviors separately. As in Schanke (1991), since extra-role behaviors involve helping others that are unrelated to achievement striving, it is predicted (H3) that achieve- ment striving will be positively related to in-role behavior but unrelated to extra-role behavior.

METHOD

Respondents and Procedures

The respondents were employees from a large consumer products organization located in the Northeast region of the United States. The purpose of this study was to examine the strengths and weaknesses of a new pay plan. This pay plan has two components: Skill-based pay and individual bonus. As a result, the justice perception items were written to reflect performance appraisal and compensation issues of these two pay components. This study was conducted by the author and the com- pany's internal task force. The surveys contained cover letters stating

200 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

the purposes of the survey and were assured that all findings would be kept completely confidential and that the company would see only data summaries.

660 employee n~mes (approximately 8 percent of the company's pop- ulation) were generated at random by a computer template. Usable questionnaires were compiled from 354 employees. The random selec- tion of participants resulted in an approximate proportional representa- tion according to race, gender, tenure and pay levels from the company's records.

Predictor Measures

Achievement Striving. A 7-item achievement striving scale was used (a= .74). This subscale was taken from the revised Jenkins Activity Survey designed to measure the achievement striving component of Type A behavior (Spence et al., 1987, 1989).

Perceived Fairness. In a skill-based pay system, organizations based sal- aries and wage rates on the repertoire of skills an employee possesses. Under skill-based pay, an employee's pay is based on the range, depth, and types of skills they are capable of using, rather than for the job they are performing at a particular time (Lawler, 1990). According to Ledford (1990), there are two sources of procedural fairness related to skill- based pay system. They are: skill-based pay system design, which in- cludes whether the skill blocks are valued fairly and whether it affords real opportunity for pay increases; and assessment/certification of em- ployee skills fairness, which is the basis for setting pay levels. These two scales were adapted from Ledford and Bergel (1990), and Ledford, Tyler, and Dixey (1990) regarding skill-based pay mechanics: four items were used to measure certification fairness (a = .64) and three items were used to measure skill-based pay system equity (a = 70).

The other two scales were developed and evaluated by Folger and Konovsky (1989) on procedural and distributive justice to measure our respondents' perceived fairness of their individual bonus decisions. Two items were used to measure the distributive fairness of individual bonus decisions (a = .90). Twenty-three items were averaged to form a pro- cedural justice index (a ffi .96).

Pay Satisfaction measure was adapted from a scale developed by Heneman (1985). Seven items were used (a -- .91).

Criterion Measures

Prosocial Behaviors. Extra-role prosocial behaviors, or action not pre- scribed by the organization, was measured with a modified version of

CYNTHIA LEE 201

Williams (1988) organizational citizenship behavior-individual subscale. Six items were used for this sample (a ffi .91). In-role behaviors, or be- haviors prescribed by the organization, were measured with 5 items adapted from Williams' (1988) subscale (a = .71).

Control Measures

The demographics (age, gender, company tenure, education and job classification: hourly versus salary) were entered in the first step of the hierarchical regression analyses.

As in Folger and Konovsky (1989), we included negative affectivity as a control in this study. Negative affectivity was measured using a 10- item scale (a = 89) developed by Watson, Clark, and Tellegan (1988). It reflects an individual's disposition to respond negatively regardless of the situation. Watson, Pennebaker, and Folger (1987) stated that this personality trait measure may operate as a nuisance factor in research and may contominate the true relationship between predictors and cri- teria.

~S~TS

To test the hypotheses, hierarchical regressions, recommended by Cohen and Cohen (1983) for its ability to provide a unique partitioning of the total variance in a dependent variable as accounted for by discrete sets of predictor variables, were used. As shown in Table 1, demo- graphics were entered in the first step followed by negative affectivity in the second step. The third step entered was either achievement striving, fairness perceptions, or pay satisfaction.

The first hypothesis predicted that distributive fairness will be pos- itively related to in-role behavior, procedural fairness will be positively related extra-role behavior. Table I shows that, after controlling for de- mographics and negative affectivity, certification or procedural fairness related positively to extra-role behavior (Bffi.21, p<.01). Although not predicted, certification fairness also related positively to in-role behavior (6 =.17, p<~.05). Contrary to hypothesis, fairness of individual bonus award (distributive fairness) related negatively to in-role behavior (6 = - .17, p<.05).

The second hypothesis predicted that pay satisfaction would be pos- itively related to beth extra-role and in-role behaviors. Results from Ta- ble 1 shows that pay satisfaction related positively to extra-role behav- ior (6 = .22, p<.01) and in-role behavior (6 ffi .18, p<.01).

Hypothesis three predicted that achievement striving would relate positively to in-role behavior, but would not relate to extra-role behavior.

202 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Table I Hierarch ica l Regressions of Outcome Measures

Extra-Role Behavior In-Role Behavior

Order of Entry ~ R s AR 2 AF ~ R 2 AR s AF

1. Demographics 06** 4.23** 02 2. Negative Affectivity - 0 1 06** 00 .04 - 0 8 03 01 3. Fairness in IBP Award - 03 - 17"

Fairness in IBP Procedure 09 12 Fairness in SBP 09 10 Certification in Fairness 21"* 15"* 09** 7.71"* 17" 09** 06**

3. Pay Satisfaction 22** 10"* 04** 14.90"* 18"* 06** 3. Achievement Striving 09 07** 01 2.78 19"* 06** 03**

1.81 2.31

5.39**

11.06"*

n = 173 ffi 354 *p<.05 **p<.01

Table I shows that achievement striving was positively related to in-role behavior (~ = .19, p<.01) but was unrelated to extra-role behavior.

To test the incremental variance explained by the predictors on prosocial behavior, usefidness analyses were used (Darlington, 1968). This procedure entered each set of predictor measures into the regres- sion equation in various sequences, noting at each stage the Amount of incremental variance explained in the criterion and testing for the sig- nificance of the increment. After controlling for negative affectivity, the order of entry for fairness perceptions, pay satisfaction and achievement striving was varied. As shown in Table 2, fairness perceptions accounted for signifiicant proportion of unique variance in both extra-role and in- role behavior beyond the variance accounted for by all the other predic- tors. Siml]arly, achievement striving also exp]~ned significant propor- tion of unique variance in in-role behavior after the effects of the other predictors were partialled out. Finally, pay satisfaction only accounted for significant proportion of unique variance on prosocial behaviors after partiMHng out the control variables.

DISCUSSION

The results suggest fairness perceptions, that is, cognition or the subjective appraisals of job and pay outcomes, surpass expressive emo- tional states such as pay satisfaction (affect) in the power to predict prosocial behaviors. The finding here supports Organ's (1990) assertion that when separate measures are taken of satisfaction and perceived fairness, the latter explains more variance in organizational citizenship

CYNTHIA LEE 203

Table 2 Usefulness Analysis"

Extra.Role Behavior

Usefulness Analysis AR AF AR 2 2

In-Role Behavior

AF

Achievement Striving (AS) beyond Negative Affec- .01 2.78 tivity (NA) and Demographics (DEMO)

AS beyond PSAY, NA, DEMO .01 2.45 AS beyond PF, NA, DEMO .01 3.00 AS beyond PSAT, PF, NA, DEMO .01 2.82 Perceived Fairness (PF) Beyond NA, DEMO .09 7.71"* PF beyond AS, NA, DEMO .08 7.75** PF beyond PSAT, NA, DEMO .05 4.23** PF beyond AS, PSAT, NA, DEMO .04 4.31"* Pay Satisfaction (PSAT) beyond NA, DEMO .04 14.90"* PSAT beyond PF, NA, DEMO .00 1.53 PSAT beyond AS, NA, DEMO .04 14.53"* PSAT beyond AS, PF, NA, DEMO .00 1.36

.03 11.06"*

.03 10.63"*

.03 11.33"*

.03 10.87"*

.06 5.39**

.06 5.48**

.05 3.97"*

.04 4.05**

.03 9.37**

.01 3.81"

.03 8.95**

.01 3.38

• In the usefulness analysis, where the entry indicates z beyond y, this indicates the increment in the squared multiple correlation coefficient beyond that obtained with y alone.

• p<.05 *~<.01

behavior. The implication is that organizations need to understand em- ployee's opinions regarding the general fairness of organizational pay policies and practices. The findings from such an understanding might prompt either modifications of the current policies or increase effort to communicate the rationale of the policies.

Individuals' achievement striving behavior predicted in-role behav- ior. This aspect of Type A behavior is consistently related to in-role be- havior or job and academic performance (Bluen et al., 1990; Lee, 1992; Spence et al., 1987, 1989). If extra-role behavior is important to organi- zations, then, future research should examine ways in which organiza- tions can motivate the achievement striving individuals to engage in the e~tra-role behaviors.

Organ (1990) notes that formal reward systems that provide incen- tives for in-role behavior are not expected to elicit extra-role contribu- tions. This may be the reason the achievement striving individuals fo- cased primarily on the in-role behaviors. For example, a reward system that rewards individual contribution via individual bonus awards may promote in-role behavior. GAinsharing or group reward systems, on the other hand, promote teamwork and collaborative behaviors. Hatcher, Ross and Collins (1989) found that suggestion contribution under a

204 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

gainsharing reward system correlated positively with e~t~a-role behav- ior but was not related to in-role behavior.

The above suggests that the motivational basis for extra-role and in-role behaviors may be quite different depending on the reward sys- tem and the individuals' belief that the orgAnlzation has treated them fairly (Organ, 1988). The results showed that the perception of fairness in certifying to a higher skill-based pay level increases the likelihood of prosocial behaviors. If replicated, the certification process that includes an element of performance appraisal fairness is critical for enhancing both extra-role and in-role behaviors. Future studies should also exRm- ine other contextual factors such as reciprocity norms, reinforcement contingencies, organizational climate, worker ownership and participa- tion in decision making as potential determinants of prosocial behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986).

Contrary to hypothesis, fairness in individual bonus award showed a negative association with in-role behavior. From the verbal feedback and written comments provided by our respondents, it appears that those who had received a higher than average individual bonus award felt guilty and were unhappy with the process of how the individual bonus award was determir~ed. It is possible that the process this organization used to determine the individual bonus award was perceived to be unfair. When individnals regard outcomes as f~iHng ~ meet some criterion of fairness, they may reduce their in-role behavior as means of righting the score.

Although our respondents were selected at random by a computer template and our samples characteristics matched the company popula- tion profile, this study is cross-sectional in nature and causality cannot be made. Further, although supervisor ratings have been the source of measurement choice in the literature, prosoeial behaviors were obtained from the employees self-ratings as in O~Reilly and Chatman (1986). However, the positive associations of fairness perceptions (e.g., Farhet al., 1990; Moorman, 1991) and pay satisfaction (e.g., Organ & Konovsky, 1989), and achievement striving (e.g., Puffer, 1987) with prosocial be- haviors are consistent with research referenced. This suggests that the self-rating of prosocial behavior by our respondents may be generalized to other settings and samples (Moorman, 1991; Organ & Konovsky, 1989; Puffer, 1987). Clearly, additional empirical evidence from other sources and research design is needed to permit confident attributions of cause-and-effect relationships.

REFERENCES

AdAm% J.S. (1965), Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz fed.), Advances in experi- mental social psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press.

CYNTHIA LEE 205

Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justiee Research, 1, 177-198.

Bateman, T.S., & Organ, D.W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier. The relation- ship between affect and employee acitizenship." Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: W'dey. Bluen, S.D., Barling, J., & Burns, W. (1990). Predicting sales performance, job satisfaction,

and depression by using the achievement striving and impatience-irritability dimen- sions of Type A behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 212-216.

Brief, A.P., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1986). Prosecial organizational behaviors. Academy of Man- agement Review, 11, 710-725.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/cerrdation analysis for the behaviora/sciences. Hillsd"~e, NJ: Erlbeum.

Darlington, I~B. (1968). Multiple regression in psychological research and practice. Psy- chological Bulletin, 69, 161-182.

Farh, J., Podsakoff, P.M., & Organ, D.W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, 16, 705-721.

Folger, R., & Konovsky, M.A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reac- tions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.

Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of person- nel systems. In IC M. Rowland & G.R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (Vol. 3, pp. 141-183). Greenwich, C~. JAI Press.

Hatcher, L., Ross, T. L., Coilln~, D. (1989). Prosecial behavior, job complexity, and suggestion contl~ution under gsinsharing pls-~= Journal of Applied Behavioral Scien~, 25, 231-248.

Heneman, H.G. (1985). Pay satisfaction. In K.M. Rowland & G.I~ Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, (Vol. 3, pp. 115-130). Greenwich, C~. JAI Press.

Konovsky, M~k., & Folger, R. (in press). The effects of procedural and distributive justice on organizational citizenship behavior.

Lawler, E.E., HI. (1990). Strategic pay. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Ledford, G.E., Jr. (1990). Three case studies on skill-based pay: An overview. Compensa-

tion and Benefits Review, Mar-Apr., pp. 11-23. Ledford, G.E., & Bergel, G. (1990). Skill-based pay case number 1; General Mills. Compen-

sation and Benefits Review, Mar-Apr., pp. 24-38. Ledford, G.E., Tyler, W.R., & Dixey, W.B. (1990). Skill-based pay case number 3: Honey-

well Ammunition Assembly Plant. Compendation and Benefits Review, Mar-Apr., pp. 57-77.

Lee, C. (1992). The relations of personality and cognitive styles .on job and class perfor- mance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 175-185.

Lee, C., Ashford, S.J., & Jamieson, L.F. (1993). The effects of Type A behavior dimensions and optimism on coping strategy, health and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 143-157.

McCleUand, D. (1961). The achieving society. N~I.: D. Van Nostrand. Moorman, R.H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational cit-

izenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 645-855.

Murray, H~ . (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press. OT~eilly, C.A. HI, & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological

attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 3, 492-499.

Organ, D.W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, (VoL 12, pp. 43-72). Stanford, C~. JAI Press.

Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lex- ington, M ~ Lexington Books.

Organ, D.W., & Konoveky, M~. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organi- zational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157-164.

206 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on trust, satisfaction, and org~nlzational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.

Puffer, S.M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behavior, and work performance among commi~qion salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 615-621.

Schnake, M. (1991). Organizational citizenship: A review, proposed model and research agenda. Human Re/ation~ 44, 735-759.

Scholl, R.W., Cooper, E~., & McKenna, J.F. (1987). Referent selection in determining eq- uity perceptions: Differential effects on behaviors and attitudinal outcomes. Personnel Psych~o~y, 40, 113-124.

Smith, C-A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior. Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 453463.

Spence, J .L, Helmreich, I~L, & Pred, R.S. (1987). Impatience versus achievement striv- ings in the Type A pattern: Differential effects on students' health and academic achievement Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 522-528.

Spence, J.L., Pred, I~S., & Helmreich, R.L. (1989). Achievement strivings, scholastic apti- tude, and academic performance: A follow-up to Ulmpatience versus achievement strivings in the Type A pattern'. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 176-178.

Summers, T.P., & Hendrix, W.H. (1991). Modelling the role of pay equity perceptions: A field study. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 145-157.

Watson, D., Clark. L-A., & Tellegan, ~_ (1988). Development and validation of brief mea- sures of positive and negative effect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

Watson, D., Pennebaker, J.W., & Folger, R (1987). Beyond negative effectivity: Measuring stress and satisfaction in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior Manage- ment, 8, 141-157.

Vc'flliams, L.J. (1988). Affect/ve and nonaffect/ve components of job satisfaction and organi. zational commitment as determinants of organizational citizenship and in-role behav- /ors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.