Socialization and organizational citizenship behavior ... - IOS Press

361

Work 43 (2012) 361–368 DOI 10.3233/WOR-2012-1372 IOS Press

Socialization and organizational citizenship behavior among Turkish primary and secondary school teachers Mustafa Fedai C ¸ avus¸ Department of Management Information Systems, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Osmaniye Korkut Ata University, Karacaoglan Yerles¸kesi 8000 Osmaniye, Turkey Tel.: +90 328 827 10 10; E-mail: [email protected] Received 1 September 2010 Accepted 8 May 2011

Abstract. Objective: The aim of the present study is to investigate the effects of organizational socialization levels of employees on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Participants: A total of 185 (70 female, 115 male) teachers were sampled at 27 primary and secondary schools. Their ages ranged from 23 to 55 years, with a mean (SD) of 36 (5.1). In this sample, 100 (54.1%) worked in primary schools, and 85 (45.9%) worked in secondary schools. Methods: A three-part questionnaire was designed for the study. The research scales were self-report measures of organizational socialization, OCB, and demographic variables. The hypothesized model was tested using Pearson correlation analyses and multiple regression analyses. Results: The teachers demonstrated high level socialization (Mean 4.2, SD 0.7) and OCB (Mean 4.0, SD 0.54). Understanding, coworker support, and performance proficiency explained significant variance in organizational citizenship behavior; however, there was no relationship (p = 0.286) between the organizational goals and values and OCB. Conclusions: The findings contribute to our understanding of the relationship between the level of organizational socialization and organizational citizenship behavior in educational settings. These findings suggest that high level organizational socialization supports organizational citizenship behavior in primary and secondary school teachers. Keywords: Organizational socialization, organizational citizenship behavior, primary school, secondary school, teachers

1. Introduction In today’s competitive business world, expectations of employees and employers have been differentiated. Executives expect that the personnel not only fulfill the requirements of job but also behave voluntarily for organizations and their staff. These behaviors named Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB), are described by Organ [40] as “individual behaviors that are discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promote the effective functioning of the organization” (p. 4). Managers want to understand how different variables affect organizational citizenship behavior because or-

ganizational citizenship behavior helps to maximize the organizational effectiveness of companies [47]. This understanding can help managers assess what kind of organizational factors (such as job stress, leadermember exchange, and fairness perception) affect their employees, and also what motivates and satisfies them. So, OCB has been of increasing interest to both scholars and managers [33,37,41]. Organizational citizenship behavior was originally conceptualized and composed of five dimensions: altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue [40,47]. These dimensions are briefly described as: Altruism is helpful behavior directed to other people at work. Conscientiousness means that employees accept and adhere to the rules, regulations,

1051-9815/12/$27.50  2012 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved

362

M.F. C ¸ avus¸ / Socialization and organizational citizenship behavior

and procedures of the organization that are required to complete a task successfully. Conscientious employees are also expected to offer specific ideas to solve organizational problems without being asked. Sportsmanship is the willingness of the employee to tolerate less than ideal circumstances without complaining, when employees endure impositions or inconveniences without complaint. Courtesy is the act of consulting with others before taking actions or making decisions that prevent work-related problems for others. Civic virtue is the active participation and involvement of employees in organizational functions in both a professional and social nature, such as attending meetings, responding to mail, and keeping up with organizational issues [7]. Williams and Anderson [60] also found two broad categories of OCB: OCB-O and OCB-I. OCB-O includes behaviors directed at benefitting the organization in general. For example, performing duties to improve organizational image and performance. This dimension is similar to Organ’s [40] civic virtue construct. OCB-I includes benefits directed at individuals within the organization. An example of OCB-I could be staying after working hours to help a colleague who has a heavy workload. This dimension is similar to Organ’s altruism and courtesy constructs. Other researchers have used these two or five-factor self-report measurement models in OCB literature [18,45,58,60]. An individual’s attitude and behaviors are affected by many different practices in organizations. The organizational socialization that occurs after employment is a key element that impacts critical employee attitudes and behaviors [19]. Researchers have tended to assess the outcomes of socialization with general attitudinal measures, such as job satisfaction, commitment, intention to quit, and subjective performance. Researchers [24,35,61] suggest that the socialization process may affect work outcomes in terms of organizational commitment, job satisfaction and turnover intention. Chow [14] found that the contents of organizational socialization were positively and significantly related to employee attitudes such as organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Organizational socialization has been defined as the learning process by which newcomers develop attitudes and behavior that are necessary to function as a fullyfledged member of the organization [2]. As we understand this definition, organizational socialization focuses on the interaction between a stable social system and the newcomers who enter this system [50]. Organizational socialization is typically defined as the process through which individuals learn, develop knowledge, and orient themselves to their work context [3].

The literature on organizational socialization gives many of clues which shed light on what newcomers learn during their socialization [1,4,12,16,24]. New employees have to learn three aspects in the process of socialization [23][17, p. 52]: – Skills to perform the job. For example, how to conduct classroom observations. – Adjustment to the specific work environment. For example, who to trust for information. – Internalization of values. For example, importance of collaboration and collegiality. For employees, a good fit within the organization can lead to several positive benefits. Employees who are well socialized are more committed to their organizations, more satisfied with their jobs, and give more effort than other employees who do not learn to fit in with their organizations [11,13]. Furthermore, employees who are well socialized are less likely to leave their jobs and more likely to build successful careers within the organization [31]. The extent to which both organizational and individual socialization processes support a good person-organization fit will define the extent to which that individual has been successfully socialized [11]. Based on their review of the literature, Chao et al. [12] conceptualized six dimensions of organizational socialization that are potentially subject to direct influence by organizations through their socialization practices: Organizational history: Organizational history reflects the organizational culture. It includes the transmission of stories, rituals, myths, and defining characteristics of the organization and its people, as well as the personal backgrounds of the founders and leaders. Organizational Goals and Values: This area covers both the formal principles of the organization and its unwritten rules. If the employee understands the goals and values that maintain the integrity of the organization then he/she will fit in better. Performance proficiency: This is learning the task specific skills and knowledge that are needed to perform the job competently. People: This includes successful and satisfying work relationships with organizational members and groups, and the learning of social dynamics that are acceptable in the organization. Politics: Politics is the knowledge of the work group and organization, as well as the formal and informal power structure and work relationship within the organization. Language: Chao et al.’s [12] definition of language acquisition includes organization specific “acronyms, slang, and jargon” (p. 732).


Taormina [55] evaluated organizational socialization from a different viewpoint, and defined it as the process by which a person secures relevant job skills, acquires a functional level of organizational understanding, attains supportive social interactions with coworkers, and generally accepts the established ways of a particular organization. Taormina [56] identified and explained four distinct content areas of socialization: Training: “the development of job-related skills and abilities”. Understanding: “the extent to which an employee fully comprehends and can apply knowledge about his or her job, the organization, its people, and its culture”. Co-worker support: “the emotional, moral, or instrumental sustenance which is provided without financial compensation by other employees in the organization in which one works with the objective of alleviating anxiety, fear, or doubt”. Future prospects: “the extent to which an employee anticipates having a rewarding career within his or her employing organization” A large amount of research on OCB is focused on identifying the antecedents of OCB. Socialization is affected by both organizational and individual initiatives. These include: individual characteristics [9,32], task characteristics [44], organizational characteristics [25, 46], and leadership behavior [43]. Turkey is seeking to improve its schools to better respond to higher social and economic expectations. Indeed, Turkey is faced with the set of complex contemporary demands characteristic of societies responding to changing social, economic, and political circumstances [26,38]. Teachers who are trained under the changed system reach the field as products of a totally different approach to teacher education in Turkey. As working under changing circumstances becomes an essential feature of schools [8,49,53], institutions will necessarily become more dependent on teachers who are willing to contribute to successful change, regardless of formal job requirements. The aim of the present study is to investigate the effects of organizational socialization levels of employees on organizational citizenship behavior. 2. Method 2.1. Sample The sample consisted of 185 (70 female, 115 male) teachers at 27 primary and secondary public schools. Participants were recruited as follows. First, schools were randomly chosen from a Ministry of Education

363

list of 55 schools located in the Osmaniye province in the eastern Mediterranean region of Turkey. Second, in each school, the principal and all teachers were approached and asked to participate. The questionnaires were distributed to the teachers at regular staff meetings or during their long recess. Their ages ranged from 23 to 55 years, with a mean (SD) of 36 (5.1) years. In this sample, 100 (54.1%) were working in primary schools, and 85 (45.9%) were working in secondary schools. Sixtythree (34.1%) teachers were class teachers and the remainders (65.9%) were branch teachers. The mean (SD) duration the respondents had spent working for their current organization was 6.2 (4.5) years, and the mean (SD) duration working in the teaching profession was 12.3 (7.0) years. 2.2. Measures A three-part questionnaire was designed for the study that included self-report measures of organizational socialization, OCB, and descriptive data. One part of the scale included organizational socialization (OS) which consisted of four subscales: organizational understanding, coworker support (adapted from Taormina [54]), organizational goals and values, and performance proficiency (adapted from Chao et al. [12]). The second part of the scale, which was designed by DiPaola et al. [22], measured organizational citizenship behavior. DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran [21] and DiPaola and Hoy [22] define the OCB for the school settings and adapted a new 12 item measure from Smith et al. [52]. DiPaola and Hoy [22] findings show that this measure has got one strong factor and measure of internal consistency of the test items, reliability coefficient of 0.87 has been obtained. In Turkey, Tas¸tan and Yılmaz [57] adapted this scale and found high reliability (α = 0.87). The OS and OCB scales used the five point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The third part of the scale consisted of demographic question that includes age, gender, and organizational tenure. 2.3. Data analyses Descriptive statistics were computed for all study variables using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (Version 16.0). Cronbach’s alpha reliability analyses were also conducted for all scale variables. The hypothesized model was tested using Pearson correlation analyses (p < 0.05) and multiple regression analyses.

364

M.F. C ¸ avus¸ / Socialization and organizational citizenship behavior Table 1 Descriptive statistics and internal consistency of test items

Organization goals and values Understanding Coworker support Performance proficiency Organizational socialization Organizational Citizenship behavior

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

1.67 2.67 1.80 1.67 2.83 2.17

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

4.41 4.40 4.13 4.15 4.28 4.00

Std. Deviation 0.55 0.48 0.56 0.54 0.43 0.54

Cronbach alpha 0.79 0.81 0.77 0.75 0.84 0.83

Table 2 Correlations among organizational socialization subscales and OCB Variables 1. Gender 2. Organizational tenure 3. Organizational goals and values 4. Understanding 5. Coworker support 6. Performance proficiency 7. Organizational citizenship behavior

1 1 −0.057 −0.029 −0.098 −0.058 −0.163(*) −0.166(*)

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 0.221(**) 0.207(**) 0.184(*) 0.049 0.033

1 0.319(**) 0.405(**) 0.451(**) 0.339(**)

1 0.465(**) 0.348(**) 0.435(**)

1 0.448(**) 0.559(**)

1 0.472(**)

1

∗ Correlation

is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ∗∗ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

3. Results Descriptive statistics and reliabilities for all major study variables are presented in Table 1. Table 1 shows that teachers have high level of socializing (Mean 4.2, SD 0.4) and exhibit OCB (Mean 4.0, SD 0.5). Correlation analysis was performed to determine the relationship between organizational socialization which is independent variable and organizational citizenship behavior which is dependent variable and results are shown in Table 2. As predicted, organizational citizenship was positively and significantly related to organizational socialization. The correlations between OCB and the four organizational socialization dimensions were significant. Specifically with organizational goals and values (r = 0.339, p < 0.001), understanding (r = 0.435, p < 0.001), coworker support (r = 0.559, p < 0.001), and performance proficiency (r = 0.472, p < 0.001). We also found a statistically significant weak negative correlation between gender and OCB (r = −0.166, p < 0.05), and performance proficiency (r = −0.163, p < 0.05). This means that females exhibited certain organizational citizenship behaviors significantly better than the males. On the other hand, organizational tenure was weakly and positively correlated with organizational goals and values (r = 0.221, p < 0.01), understanding (r = 0.207, p < 0.01), and coworker support (r = 0.184, p < 0.01).

To test whether the four organizational socialization dimensions (organizational goals and values, organizational understanding, coworker support, and performance proficiency) explained additional variance in OCB, we conducted hierarchical regression analyses. Firstly, we regressed OCB on the control variables of gender and organizational tenure as a set. At the second stage, we entered gender, organizational tenure, organization goals and values, understanding, coworker support and performance proficiency in order simultaneously as the independent variables to predict OCB. Our model was also significant (F = 19.634, p < 0.001) and explained that the variance of all variables in OCB is 41.5% (Adj. R2 = 0.415, p < 0.001). R-squared (R2 ) is the percent of the variance in the dependent variable explained uniquely or jointly by the independent variables. The R2 increments estimate the predictive power an independent variable brings to the analysis when it is added to the regression model [8]. The results are presented in Table 3. The relationships between gender and OCB, and organizational tenure and OCB are not significant. As shown in Table 3, while understanding (β = 0.183, p < 0.006), coworker support (β = 0.360, p < 0.001) and performance proficiency (β = 0.205, p < 0.003) explained significant variance in organizational citizenship behavior, no relationship existed between the organizational goals and values and OCB.


365

Table 3 Results of hierarchical regression for organizational citizenship behavior Variables (Constant) Gender Organizational tenure Organization goals and values Understanding Coworker support Performance proficiency

Step 1 Beta Sig. −0.135 0.033

0.225 0.648

Adj. R2 = 0.037 F = 3.35

4. Discussion and conclusion The purpose of the current study was to extend the current literature on organizational citizenship behavior by re-examining employee socialization levels as they relate to the teachers who work in primary and secondary schools. The results show that all dimensions of organizational socialization were significantly and positively correlated with organizational citizenship behavior. Threshold employees found an organizational identity and displayed attitudes, values, and behaviors that fit in with the organization’s culture due to organizational socialization theory [6]. A number of empirical studies have shown that socialization helps establish a fit between newcomers and organizations [10,20,31] Previous research on socialization suggests that effective socialization applications, such as training and mentoring programs, lead to positive outcomes for organizations, including general satisfaction, internal work motivation, job involvement, low employee turnover, dependable performance on routine work assignments, innovation, cooperation with coworkers [5], and volunteer behaviors for the organization and its employees [49]. Results of our study support these previous findings. Our results show that the organizational goals and values, organizational understanding, coworker support, and performance proficiency are moderately correlated with OCB, and explain 41% of the variance in the organizational citizenship behavior (as shown in Tables 2 and 3). Our results show that the supports of other members of the organization are quite important. Coworker support inside the organization provides a good organizational climate and helps to make the performed activity pleasant [27,28,51]. In other words, the creation of affective connections with other members of the organization can support employees’ own volunteer behaviors. According to Grube and Piliavin [27] and Hidalgo and Moreno [30], social networks that employees

Step 2 Beta Sig. −0.071 0.225 −0.094 0.114 0.072 0.286 0.183 0.006 0.360 0.000 0.205 0.003 Adj. R2 = 0.415 F = 19.634

develop among themselves should be relevant to the development of employees’ role identities, identification with the organization, and, thus, retention and job performance. The other dimension of organizational socialization is “understanding”, which positively affects organizational citizenship behavior. Relationships between information or knowledge, such as regarding employees’ roles, the requirements of tasks and the organization as a whole, are important socialization factors for newcomers [55]. Ostroff and Kozlowski [42] found that individuals, who believed they possessed more knowledge about the organization, staff, and processes were more satisfied, committed and adjusted than the other employees who had not acquired enough knowledge. The present study reflects the moderate significant effects of understanding on the organizational citizenship behavior. The third moderate significant dimension of socialization on organizational citizenship behavior is performance proficiency, which involves learning to perform a job successfully [12]. This knowledge and understanding sets the stage for an outcome of socialization and successful job performance [15,29]. The finding of the present study supports the previous studies. OCB is behavior that benefits the organization and its employees. Employees will be more likely to demonstrate OCB to the extent that they identify with and share the organization’s values and goals. If employees share the organization’s goals and values they will tend to act instinctively in ways that benefit the organization [36]. O’Reilly and Chatman [39] found that individuals whose attachment to their organization was based on an internalization of organizational values were more likely to perform extra-role behavior than were individuals whose attachment was instrumental in nature. Despite this evidence, there is no relationship between the organizational goals and values dimension of socialization.

366


This study not only enriches and expands the research on organizational socialization and OCB, but also has important practical applications for the managers in the education sector, particularly considering the changing expectations that affect the practice of teachers and school management nowadays [59]. Managers can increase teachers’ organizational socialization levels through their company social gatherings and leadership. As long as management is able to identify the specific underlying reasons for poor organizational socialization, steps can be taken to increase socialization levels and to increase OCB. In particular, harmonization of organizational goals and values will positively affect employee citizenship behaviors. Organizations should provide incentives, training, and/or support for newcomers’ initiatives, such as experimentation and active observation of other employees. Although these strategies have got some risks, such as stress, they appear to offer an effective means for task mastery [42]. When organizations encourage newcomers to engage in these strategies, they should also try to minimize any negative effects through a social support network. During the early socialization process, a key role is played by the supervisor and co-workers, so especially supervisors must guide the former employee who helps the socialize newcomers. This paper reveals that organizations should consider applying multiple aspects to improve members’ identification in many aspects (organizational history, organizational language, and organizational values and goals etc) in the process of organizational socialization. Only in this way can socialization be truly realized. In sum, organizations should identify the different mechanisms in the relationship between organizational socialization and OCB in the practices of management. This study has some limitations. The measurement of variables was based on self-report measures, which could lead to common method variance between predictor variables and outcome variables. The study was also restricted in its scope, as it only focused on characteristics that affect the organizational citizenship behavior of teachers. The sample size in the present study was small and came from only one region of Turkey. The research should be replicated with a bigger sample ranging across different state and public and private schools. This will increase the generalizability of the results. It is therefore suggested that these results be used cautiously. Despite the limitations of this study, the findings contribute to our understanding of the relationship between the level of organizational socialization and or-

ganizational citizenship behavior in educational settings. These findings suggest that high level organizational socialization supports organizational citizenship behavior in primary and secondary school teachers. Acknowledgments The author would like to thank his colleagues at Osmaniye Korkut Ata University and the other teachers in Osmaniye for helping in the data collecting process and contributing to this study. Also thanks to Mr. Connor Hayden for his help in editing. References [1] [2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9] [10] [11] [12]

Anakwe, U. P. & Greenhause, J. H. (1999). Effective socialization of employees: socialization content perspective, Journal of Managerial Issues, 11 (3), 315-29. Antonacopoulou, E. P. & Güttel, W. H. (2010). Staff induction practices and organizational socialization: A review and extension of the debate, Society and Business Review, 5 (1), 22-47. Ashforth, B. E., Sluss D. M. & Saks, A. M. (2007). Socialization tactics, proactive behavior, and newcomer learning: Integrating socialization models, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 447-462. Atzori, M., Lombardi, L., Fraccaroli, F., Battistelli A. & Zaniboni, S. (2008) Organizational socialization of women in the Italian Army: Learning processes and proactive tactics, Journal of Workplace Learning, 20(5), 327-347. Baker III, H. U. & Feldman, D. C. (1992). Linking the organizational socialization tactics with corporate human resource management strategies, Human Resource Management Review, 16(3), 193-202. Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W. & Callister, R. R. (1998). Organizational socialization: A review and directions for future research, Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 16, 149-214. Beckton, J. B. & Field, H. S. (2009). Cultural differences in organizational citizenship behavior:a comparison between Chinese and American employees, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(8), 1651-1669. Bogler, R. & Somech, A. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior in school: How does it relate to participation in decision making? Journal of Educational Administration, 43(5), 420-438. Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D. & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship performance, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 52-69. Cable, D. M. & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person–organization fit, Personnel Psychology, 54, 1-23. Chao GT (2005). The role of socialization in the organizational entry process, Proceedings of International Symposium on Youth and Work Culture, 30-31 May, Espoo. Chao G. T., O’Leary–Kelly, A. M., Wolf S., Klein H. J. & Gardner P. D. (1994). Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 730743.

M.F. C ¸ avus¸ / Socialization and organizational citizenship behavior [13] [14] [15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19] [20]

[21] [22] [23] [24]

[25] [26]

[27] [28] [29]

[30]

Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching People and Organizations: Selection and Socialization in Public Accounting Firms, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484. Chow, I. Hau-Siu (2002). Organizational socialization and career success of Asian managers, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(4), 720-737. Cooper-Thomas, H. D. & Anderson, N. (2006). Organizational socialization: A new theoretical model and recommendations for future research and HRM practices in organizations, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(5), 492-516. Cooper-Thomas, H. D. & Anderson, N. (2002). Newcomer adjustment: the relationship betweenorganizational socialization tactics, information acquisition and attitudes, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75 (4), 423-37. Crow, G. M. (2007). The professional and organizational socialization of new english headteachers in school reform contexts, Educational Management Administration Leadership, 35(1), 51-71. Danaeefard, H., Balutbazeh, A. E. & Kashi, K. H. A. (2010). Good soldiers’ perceptions of organizational politics understanding the relation between organizational citizenship behaviors and perceptions of organizational politics: Evidence from Iran, European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 18, 146-162. ¨ utsel sosyalles¸mede is¸e alıs¸tırma Demirbilek, T. (2009). Org¨ eˇgitiminin yeri ve o¨ nemi, Selçuk University, The Journal of Social and Economic Research, 369-389. DeCooman, R., De Gieter, S., Pepermans, R., Hermans, S., Du Bois, C., Caers, R. & Jegers M. (2009). Person-organization fit: Testing socialization and attraction-selection-attrition hypotheses, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 102-107. DiPaola, M. & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Organizationa, citizenship behavior in schools and its relationships to school climate, Journal of School Leadership, 11, 424-447. DiPaola, M. F. & Hoy, W. K. (2005). Organizational citizenship of faculty and achievement of high school students, The High School Journal, 88, 35-44. Feldman DC. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 443-452. Fisher, CD. (1986), Organizational socialization: an integrative review, in Rowland, K.M. and Ferris, G.R. (eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, JAI Press, 101-45. George, J. M. & Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in context, Human Performance, 10, 153-170. Grossman, G. M., Onkol, P. E. & Sands, M. (2007). Curriculum reform in Turkish teacher education: attitudes of teacher educators towards modernization in an EU candidate nation, International Journal of Educational Development, 27, 138-150. Grube, J. A. & Piliavin, J. A. (2000). Role identity, organizational experiences and volunteer performance, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1108-1119. Haski-Leventhal, D. & Bargal, D. (2008). The volunteer stages and transitions model: Organizational socialization of volunteers, Human Relations, 61(1), 67-102. Haueter, J. A., Macan, T. H. & Winter, J. (2003). Measurement of newcomer socialization: construct validation of a multidimensional scale, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(1), 2039. Hidalgo, M. C. & Moreno, P. (2009). Organizational socialization of volunteers: the effect on their intention to remain, Journal of Community Psychology, 37(5), 594-601.

[31]

367

Kim, T. Y., Cable, D. M. & Kim, S. P. (2005). Socialization tactics, employee proactivity, and person–organization fit, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 232-241. [32] Konovsky, M. A. & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of organizational citizenship behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 215-224. [33] LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A. & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience, Personnel Psychology, 53, 563-593. [34] Meyer, J.P. & Allen, M.J. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [35] Mobley, W. H., Grifiths, R. W., Hand, N. H. & Meglino, B. M. (1979). Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process, Psychology Bulletin, 86, 493-522. [36] Morrison, E. W. (1996) Organizational citizenship behavior as a critical link between HRM practices and service quality, Human Resource Management, 35(4), 493-512. [37] Motowidlo, S. J. (2000). Some basic issues related to contextual performance and organizational citizenship behavior in human resource management, Human Resource Management Review, 10, 115-126. [38] OECD (2005). Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators 2005, OECD Publications, Paris, France. [39] O’Reilly, C. & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499. [40] Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. [41] Organ, D. W. & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior, Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802. [42] Ostroff, C. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learning process: the role of information acquisition, Personnel Psychology, 45, 849-874. [43] Pillai, R., Schreisheim, C. A., & Williams, E. A. (1999). Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational leadership and transactional leadership: A two-sample study, Journal of Management, 25, 897-933. [44] Piccolo, R. F. & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics, Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 327-340. [45] Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors, Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142. [46] Podsakoff, P. M. & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research, Human Performance, 10, 133-151. [47] Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B. & Bacharach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research, Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563. [48] Rinehart, J. S. & Short, P. M. (1994), “Job satisfaction and empowerment among teacher leaders, reading recovery teachers, and regular classroom teachers”, Education, Vol. 114, pp. 570-80. [49] Saks, A. M. & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Socialization tactics and newcomer information acquisition, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5, 48-61.

368 [50] [51] [52] [53]

[54] [55] [56]

M.F. C ¸ avus¸ / Socialization and organizational citizenship behavior Schein E. H. (1988). Organizational socialization and the profession of management, Sloan Management Review, 30, 5365. Schroeder, D. A., Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., & Piliavin, J. A. (1995). The Psychology of Helping and Altruism. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Smith, C. A. & Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s nature and antecedents, Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663. Sweetland, S. R. & Hoy, W. K. (2000), “School characteristics and educational outcomes: toward an organizational model of student achievement in middle schools”, Educational Administration Quarterly, 36, 703-29. Taormina, R. J. (2004). Convergent validation of two measures of organizational socialization, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, 76-94. Taormina, R. J. (1997). Organizational socialization: a multidomain, continuous process model, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5 (1), 29-47. Taormina, R. J. (1994). The organizational socialization in-

[57] [58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

ventory, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2(3), 133-45. Tas¸tan, M. & Yılmaz, K. (2008). Organizational citizenship and organizational justice scales’ adaptation to Turkish, TED Eˇgitim ve Bilim Dergisi, 33 (150), 87–96. Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W. & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation, Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765-802. Vilela, B. B., González, J. A. V. & Ferr´ın, P. F. (2008). Personorganization fit, OCB and performance appraisal: Evidence from matched supervisor-salesperson data set in a Spanish context, Industrial Marketing Management, 37, 1005-1019. Williams, L. J. & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behavior, Journal of Management, 17, 601-617. Wanous, J. P. (1992) Organizational Entry: Recruitment, Selection, Orientation, and Socialization of Newcomers, 2nd edn. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley .