樊景立 组织公民行为量表组织公平量表
强化企业人力资源管理职能提升组织公民行为

309《商场现代化》2007年11月(中旬刊)总第521期以上问题,好的做法是选择具有好的资信记录的供应商,并签订限制条款,禁止向第三方泄露或提供该公司人力资源方面的信息。
同时,为了降低外包风险,可以通过担保、抵押、签订有约束力的合同以及进行投保等措施把外包风险降到最低。
2.加强与外包商的沟通人事外包并不是意味着将自己所有的业务都外包给供应商,取消自己的人事部门,而只是将自己一些作业性的人力资源管理工作外包出去所以为了更好地管理人力资源,增强员工的满意度,企业保留下来的人力资源管理者必须加强和外包商及内部员工的沟通。
人力资源管理者应该处处从员工的利益出发,听取他们的呼声;并随时向外包商反馈员工的意见和建议,协助他们改进工作方法,改进工作质量。
与此同时,人力资源管理者要对外包商的服务质量进行“满意度”调查。
双方多加强合作与交流,尽最大可能来满足员工的愿望,同时提高外包商的服务水平,力争做到双赢。
3.对外包商实施有效激励为了更有效地激励外包商,提高他们服务的质量,企业必须保持对外包业务性能的随时监测和评估。
可以根据双方签订的外包合同,定期或不定期地对外包商进行跟踪调查和间接约束。
一种被称为“风险或回报定价”的新合作机制值得借鉴,许多外包商都在采用。
该机制的规定是:如果外包商不能实现合同目标,外包商要受到惩罚;但如果实现或超过了目标,外包商将分享客户的利润。
在这种模式下,企业与外包商共担合同的风险,共享回报的利润,是一种十分有效的激励方法。
实际上,由于外包双方有了更加密切的利害关系,可以使合作更加密切。
4.达成文化上的共识确定哪些人力资源管理的内容适合外包,这种外包是否适应企业文化的建设,是判断外包行为成功与否的基础。
一般认为对具有下列特征的业务不适合外包:企业将人力资源管理优势视作一项核心能力,这种核心能力将关系到企业文化建设的重心,关系到企业的兴衰成败;企业的某些人力资源管理职能过于机密或具有独特性,关系到企业生存的命脉,而外包供应商难于提供有效的支持;某些人力资源未经历过外包的服务;不易有效管理的服务供应商等等。
职业健康心理学研究的因变量

职业健康心理学研究的因变量职业健康心理学的终极目标是健康的职场。
具体来说,是一个个体能够发挥潜能,卓越绩效,工作满意度高,并能带来幸福人生的职场。
那么,在职业健康心理学研究中的因变量主要涉及组织和个体,这主要包括如下几个方面。
一、个体健康在健康心理学中,健康相关行为是指个体或群体的与健康和疾病有关的行为,一般可分为促进健康的行为和危害健康的行为。
在职业健康心理学中,我们把促进健康职场的行为称为促进健康的行为。
个体健康通常指多个方面,身体健康、心理健康以及与周围环境相协调。
随着积极心理学对职业健康心理学研究的影响,在职业健康心理学中,个体健康通常除了在个体的身体,心理方面的健康,还指在组织中是否能够适应,并发挥自己的最大潜能,积极实现个体的最大价值。
在研究中,通常通过心理健康水平、工作满意度、组织承诺、组织公民行为等进行评估。
(一)工作满意度1.定义工作满意度是员工对比自己期望获得的收益与实际获得收益时产生的心理感受,通常是由内外部工作因素组成的一个多维结构。
工作满意度是组织成员所拥有的对其工作的一种特殊类型的态度和对工作的一种情感反应。
当然,这些收益可能指多个方面,例如:蒜酬、升迁、自主权、培训机会等。
这些收益的重要性具有个体化意义,也就是不同的人对这些因素的要求不同,因此,工作满意度可能也会有所不同。
事实上,很多研究表明,工作满意度是进一步工作表现的中介变量,例如,旷工,工作投入度等等。
2.影响因素(1)薪水。
是得到的经济报酬的量,以及得到的报酬与组织中其他成员相比被看做是公正的程度。
(2)升迁机会。
升迁机会是在组织中得到提升的可能性,对工作满意度有多种影响。
这是因为晋升有多种形式,伴随着不同的奖励。
例如,培训学习的机会,以及更换工作类型的可能性等。
对于大多数人来说,一个正性的工作环境、增长才干和拓展技能基础的机会变得比晋升机会更重要。
(3)上级的支持。
就是上级提供技术帮助和行为支持的能力。
影响工作满意度的上级管理的风格有两个维度:一是员工中心性,可以通过上级对于员工的个人关注程度来测量。
组织公民行为理论及其应用研究

组织公民行为理论及其应用研究张小林戚振江浙江大学管理学院 (杭州 310028) 摘要组织公民行为是近年来组织行为学领域中深受关注的内容之一。
该文对近几年国内外关于组织公民行为的研究进行了综述,首先介绍了组织公民行为产生的背景,其次简要论述了组织公民行为的理论框架,包括组织公民行为的作用、特征维度、影响因素等,接着分析了组织公民行为的结构和测量,最后对组织公民行为的应用研究及其未来发展趋势作了简单的讨论。
⋅关键词组织公民行为,个人主动力,工作满意感,组织承诺,绩效分类号 B849:C931 组织公民行为的提出 组织公民行为理论的提出是组织行为学发展的必然结果。
半个世纪以前,Barnard [1]曾提出:对整个组织系统而言,组织中每一个体的合作意愿是不可或缺的。
他所提出的合作意愿与传统的古典管理理论有很大的差别。
古典管理理论假定组织的大多数参与者并不具有自觉合作的倾向和个性,组织只能凭管理所规定和强调的正式结构进行控制。
Barnard认为,正式结构是组织活动的结果,它只能识别已存在于个体或群体内的合作意愿,而不足以预期达到组织目标所必需的全部因素。
员工的合作意愿对正式结构而言,是一个关键因素,否则正式结构就成了一个空壳。
1967年,Thompson提出了组织结构理论,对自觉合作行为的重要性作了详细的阐述。
后来,许多研究人员都认同Thompson关于自觉合作行为的观点。
毫无疑问,每一个组织应重视员工的自觉合作行为,因为任何组织系统的设计均不可能完美无缺,如只依靠组织规定的每一位员工的角色内行为,将难以达成组织目标,因而必须同时依赖于员工的合作意愿(角色外行为),以促进组织目标的实现。
员工的合作意愿对于任何类型的组织都有着举足轻重的影响,这也已成为组织和组织理论中所迫切需要解决的问题。
在上述研究的基础,Bateman和Organ[2]于1983年正式提出了组织公民行为(Organizational Citizenship Behavior,简称OCB)的概念。
组织公平与组织公民行为_组织承诺的调节作用实证研究

第13卷第5期2010年10月工业工程Industrial Engineering JournalV o.l 13N o .5O ctobe r 2010收稿日期:2009 11 23作者简介:严丹(1982 ),女,湖北省人,博士研究生,主要研究方向为企业战略管理、组织行为.组织公平与组织公民行为-组织承诺的调节作用实证研究严 丹1,张立军2(1.华南理工大学工商管理学院,广东广州510640;2.中国人民银行广州分行,广东广州510120)摘要:大多数经验表明:组织承诺能够增强组织公平与组织公民行为的正相关关系(即组织承诺对组织公平与组织公民行为有正向的调节作用)。
以珠三角地区70多家企业为背景,采用层次线性回归的方法对此进行验证,通过研究也得出与上述相同的结论:组织承诺对组织公平与组织公民行为有正向的调节作用,同时组织承诺的5个维度亦对组织公平与组织公民行为有正向的调节作用。
关键词:组织公平;组织承诺;组织公民行为中图分类号:C936 文献标识码:A 文章编号:1007 7375(2010)05 0106 06An Empirical Study on M oderati ng Functi on of O rganizational Co mm it m ent bet w een Organizati onal Justice and O rganizational C itizenshi p B ehavi orYan Dan 1,Zhang L i jun2(1.Schoo l of Business A d m i nistrati on ,South China U n i versity of T echno l ogy ,G uangzhou 510640,Chi na ;2.The people Bank o f Ch i na G uangzhou B ranch ,G uangzhou 510120,Chi na)Abst ract :It is kno wn that organizational co mm it m ent can enhance the positi v e corre lati o n bet w een organ i zational justice and o r gan izational c itizensh i p behav ior ,.i e .,organizational co mm it m ent has a positi v e regu latory role bet w een organizational justice and organizational c itizensh i p behav i o r .W ith the data fro m mo re than 70en ter prises i n the PearlR i v er Delta ,hierarch ica l linear regression analysis i s done and it sho w s thatsuch a conc l u sion is true .Th ism eans t h at or gan izational co mm it m ent is a sign ificant positi v e m oderator be t w een organ izati o na l j u stice and organizational citizensh i p behav ior .A lso ,t h e fi v e d i m ensi o ns o f organiza ti o na l co mm it m ent are sign ificant positi v e m odera tor bet w een or gan izational j u stice and organ izati o na l citi zenship behav ior .K ey w ords :organizational j u stice ;organ izati o na l co mm it m en;t organizational citizensh i p behav ior 在以往的管理实践中,人们只是简单地认为员工的个人绩效等同于任务的完成、目标的实现等任务绩效。
樊景立-组织公民行为量表、组织公平量表

樊景立-组织公民行为量表、组织公平量表Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Scale英文名称: Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Scale中文名称:组织公民行为量表作者: Farh, J. L., Earl ey, P. C., & Lin, S. C.出处:Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. “Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of j ustice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society.” Administ rative Science Quarterly, 1997, 42, 421-444.简介:条目:部属的工作行为:以下列叙述来描述他(她)的行为您是否同意?请逐项阅读后填答。
1-非常不同意5-有点同意2-相当不同意6-相当同意3-有点不同意7-非当同意4-不能确定Identification with the company认同组织Eager to tell outsiders good news about the company and clarify their misun derstandings主动对外介绍或宣传公司优点,或澄清他人对公司的误解。
Willing to stand up to protect the reputation of the company.努力维护公司形象,并积极参与有关活动。
Makes constructive suggestions that can improve the operation of the comp any.主动提出建设性的改善方案,供公司有关单位参考。
组织公民行为研究现状及评析

组织公民行为研究现状及评析摘要:组织公民行为是近年来管理学研究领域关注的热点之一。
组织公民行为的存在有利于营造良好的组织氛围,满足组织成员的社会心理需求,但出于印象管理的动机也有可能使组织公民行为具有工具性。
本文从组织公民行为的国内外研究现状出发,就有关问题进行简要评述,以期对完善我国组织公民行为研究提供借鉴。
关键词:组织公民行为角色外行为本土化一、组织公民行为的提出及发展1938年组织学派的创始人barnard提出“合作意愿”,他指出,对整个组织系统而言,组织中的每一个体的合作意愿是不可或缺的,组织成员自觉自发性的合作意愿能够弥补正式结构的不足,使得组织系统更加完整。
1964年rothlisberger和dikson对霍桑实验中的“非正式组织”进行研究,发现非正式组织内部同样存在合作的意愿,且这种合作具有交换性质。
为了进一步解释自觉自愿的合作行为对组织整体及组织绩效的作用,katz和kahn于1966年提出了组织结构理论,他们对自觉合作行为做出了进一步地阐述,即每个组织都应该充分重视组织成员的自觉合作行为,任何组织系统的设计均不可能完美无缺,如果只依靠组织规定的每位成员应该履行的职责,将难以实现组织目标,因而必须更多地依赖成员的角色外行为,以促进组织目标的达成。
在上述研究的基础上,bateman和organ于1983年首次提出了组织公民行为的概念。
而后,organ于1988年在《组织公民行为:好战士现象》一书中正式提出了“组织公民行为”的概念,他将组织公民行为定义为:组织成员自觉自愿表现出来的,并没有被组织正式报酬体系直接或明显认可的,但在总体上有利于组织有效运转的个体行为。
locALhosT1997年organ又基于“关系绩效”的概念对组织公民行为的涵义进行了修正。
organ将组织公民行为重新定义为:“有助于维持和增强任务绩效的社会和心理环境行为。
”这一概念被多数学者接受。
组织公民行为作为组织成员角色外的且有利于组织生存和发展的行为,可以表现在组织与他人、群体,组织和领导等多方面关系中,其主要表现有7个维度,即利他主义、运动员精神、组织遵从、公民美德、个人主动性、组织忠诚和自我发展7个方面。
分配公平对员工离职倾向的影响:相对剥夺感的中介作用

分配公平对员工离职倾向的影响:相对剥夺感的中介作用摘要:研究共发放问卷480份,探讨了组织内部的分配公平对员工个体的相对剥夺感以及离职倾向的影响,并讨论相对剥夺感在分配公平与离职倾向之间的中介作用。
结果表明,分配公平负向影响相对剥夺感和离职倾向;相对剥夺感正向影响离职倾向;同时,相对剥夺感在分配公平对离职倾向的影响中起到部分中介作用。
关键词:分配公平;相对剥夺感;离职倾向一、引言随着经济全球化的深入推进,中国的企业经济也快速发展,企业内部的员工结构趋向复杂化,员工的流动性也不断增强,为了满足企业发展的需要,企业越来越重视吸引人才和培养人才。
为了吸引外部优秀人才,企业往往会给出比内部同一岗位的员工更高的职位或者更丰厚的薪酬待遇,这使得内部员工与外部人才相比较后,感觉到自己受到不公正待遇和处于劣势,带来内部员工的相对剥夺感,这种感觉可以表现为不满或消极情绪,有时甚至导致内部人才流失。
企业在吸引外部人才和培养内部人才的同时,如何留住人才成为中国企业能够走向世界,实现全球化的重要管理课题通过企业中高层管理者访谈调查,发现一些管理者在应对减少员工离职行为问题时,更多地关注员工满意度、组织承诺和组织公正对员工离职倾向所产生的影响,而很少关注员工内在的心理资本因素,这也导致员工离职问题未从根本上解决。
目前国内有关相对剥夺感的研究相对薄弱,本文希望通过研究分配公平对员工离职倾向的影响,发现其中的影响机制,同时探索相对剥夺感在分配公平和离职倾向的关系中所起到的作用,补充国内对相对剥夺感的研究空白,为企业做好员工离职倾向预测,为降低员工离职倾向提出行之有效的管理对策。
二、概念界定与研究假设1. 概念界定。
相对剥夺感(Relative Deprivation)是基于分配公平理论而提出的,是指当个体将自己的某种处境与其他参照物相比较时,发现自己处于劣势,并且认为这是不公平导致的,产生一种被剥削的感觉,这种感觉会诱发消极情绪,表现为愤怒、怨恨或不满(Wood,1989)。
樊景立版的组织公民行为量表

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Scale英文名称:Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Scale 中文名称:组织公民行为量表作者:Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C.出处:Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. “Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 1997, 42, 421-444.简介:条目:部属的工作行为:以下列叙述来描述他(她)的行为您是否同意?请逐项阅读后填答。
1-非常不同意5-有点同意2-相当不同意6-相当同意3-有点不同意7-非当同意4-不能确定Identification with the company认同组织Eager to tell outsiders good news about the company and clarify their misunderstandings主动对外介绍或宣传公司优点,或澄清他人对公司的误解。
Willing to stand up to protect the reputation of the company.努力维护公司形象,并积极参与有关活动。
Makes constructive suggestions that can improve the operation of the company.主动提出建设性的改善方案,供公司有关单位参考。
Actively attends company meetings.以积极的态度参与公司内相关会议。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。
樊景立-组织公民行为量表、组织公平量表.Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Scale英文名称:Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Scale中文名称:组织公民行为量表作者:Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C.出处:Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. “Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 1997, 42, 421-444.简介:条目:部属的工作行为:以下列叙述来描述他(她)的行为您是否同意?请逐项阅读后填答。
1-非常不同意5-有点同意2-相当不同意6-相当同意3-有点不同意7-非当同意4-不能确定Identification with the company认同组织Eager to tell outsiders good news about the company and clarify their misunderstandings主动对外介绍或宣传公司优点,或澄清他人对公司的误解。
Willing to stand up to protect the reputation of the company.努力维护公司形象,并积极参与有关活动。
Makes constructive suggestions that can improve the operation of the company. 主动提出建设性的改善方案,供公司有关单位参考。
.Actively attends company meetings.以积极的态度参与公司内相关会议。
Altruism toward colleagues协助同事Willing to assist new colleagues to adjust to the work environment.主动帮助新进同仁适应工作环境。
Willing to help colleague solve work-related problems.乐意协助同仁解决工作上的困难。
Willing to cover work assignments for colleague when needed.主动分担或代理同事之工作。
Willing to coordinate and communicate with colleagues.主动与同事协调沟通。
Impersonal harmony不生事争利(人际和睦)Often speaks ill of the supervisor or colleagues behind their backs. (R)经常在背后批评主管或谈论同事之隐私。
(R)Uses illicit tactics to seek personal influence and gain with harmful effect on interpersonal harmony in the organization. (R)在公司内争权夺利,勾心斗角,破坏组织和谐。
(R)Uses position power to pursue selfish personal gain. (R)假公济私,利用职权谋取个人利益。
(R)Takes credits, avoids blames, and fights fiercely for personal gain. (R)斤斤计较,争功诿过,不惜抗争以获得个人利益。
(R)Protecting company resources公私分明Conducts personal business on company time (e.g., trading stocks, shopping, going to barber shops). (R)利用上班时间处理私人事务,如买股票,跑银行,逛街,购物,上理容院...等。
(R)Uses company resources to do personal business (e.g., company phones, copy machines, computers, and cars). (R)利用公司资源处理私人事务,如:私自利用公电话,复印机,计算机,公务车...等。
(R)Views sick leave as benefit and makes excuse for taking sick leave. (R)经常借口请假,视为福利。
(R)Conscientiousness敬业守法Often arrives early and starts to work immediately.上班时经常提早到达,并着手处理公务。
Takes one's job seriously and rarely makes mistakes.工作认真,并且很少出差错。
Complies with company rules and procedures even when nobody watches and no evidence can be traced.即使无人注意或无据可查时,亦随时遵守公司规定。
Does not mind taking new or challenging assignments.从不挑选工作,尽可能接受新的或困难的任务。
Tries hard to self-study to increase the quality of work outputs.为提升工作品质,而努力自我充实。
信度:效度:注:备.Organizational Justice Scale英文名称:Organizational Justice Scale中文名称:组织公平量表作者:Jason A. Colquitt出处:Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice: A Construct Validation of a Measure.Journal of Applied Psychology 86(3): 386-400 条目:Procedural justiceThe following items refers to the procedures used to arrive at your (outcome). To what extent:1.Have you been able to express your views and feelings during these procedures?2.Have you had influences over the (outcome) arrived at by those procedures?3.Have those procedures been applied consistently?4.Have those procedures been free of bias?5.Have those procedures been based on accurate information?6.Have you been able to appeal the (outcome) arrived at by those procedures?7.Have those procedures upheld ethical and moral standards?Distributive justiceThe following items refer to your (outcome). To what extent:1.Dos your (outcome) reflect the effort you have put into your work?2.Is your (outcome) appropriate for the work you have completed? theto contributed have you what reflect (outcome) your 3.Does organization?4.Is your (outcome) justified, given your performance? Interpersonal justiceThe following items refer to (the authority figure who enacted the procedure). To what extent:1.Has (he/she) treated you in a polite manner?.2.Has (he/she) treated you with dignity?3.Has (he/she) treated you with respect?4.Has (he/she) refrained from improper remarks or comments? Informational justiceThe following items refer to (the authority figure who enacted the procedure). To what extent:1.Has (he/she) been candid in (his/her) communication with you?2.Has (he/she) explained the procedures thoroughly?3.Were (his/her) explanations regarding the procedures reasonable?4.Has (he/she) communicated details in a timely manner?5.Has (he/she) seemed to tailor (his/her) communications to individuals' specific needs?信度:效度:注:备.Procedural Justice英文名称:Procedural Justice中文名称:程序公平作者:Farh, J.-L., P. C. Earley, et al.出处:Farh, J.-L., P. C. Earley, et al. (1997). Impetus for action: A culturalanalysis of justice and... Administrative Science Quarterly 42(3): 421.简介:条目:Farh, J.-L., P. C. Earley, et al. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and... Administrative Science Quarterly 42(3): 421.The sample for this study consisted of employees drawn from eight companies in the electronics industry of Taiwan. All eight companies were locally owned and were members of the 500 largest companies in Taiwan. Thirty to forty matching questionnaires were distributed to supervisors and subordinates in each company. The sample consisted mainly of low to mid-level managers, engineers, salespersons, and clerical staff. Participation1.Managers at all levels participate in pay and performance appraisal decisions;2.Through various channels, my company tries to understand employees' opinions regarding pay and performance appraisal policies and decisions.3.Pay decisions are made exclusively by top management in my company; others are excluded from this process; (R)4.My company does not take employees' opinions into account in designing pay and performance appraisal policies. (R) Cronbach alpha was .717-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree)Appeal MechanismThe company has a formal appeal channel;The company imposes a time limit within which the responsible parties must respond to the employee' appeal;Employees' questions concerning pay or performance appraisal are usuallyanswered promptly and satisfactorily. Cronbach alpha was .817-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree)信度:Cronbach alpha was .71 7-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree)效度:注:备.Justice Scale英文名称:Justice Scale中文名称:公平问卷作者:Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H.出处:Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 527-556.简介:条目:Sample: The employees and general managers of a national movie theater management company that operated 11 theaters in a large southwestern city were studied. The employees (N = 213) averaged 19.9 years of age and nearly two years of experience working in the theaters. A majority had completed high school, but only 17 percent had completed college. Each theater was under the authority of a general manager; thus, 11 general managers took part in the study. The number of employees per theater varied from 15 to 45. At each location, a group of assistant managers aided the general manager in the operation of the theater, but there were no direct lines of authority between these assistants and specific employees. In fact, the vice president for human resources described the assistant managers as a pool of assistants who could be assigned to any shift on anyday. The one constant at each theater was that each general manager had ultimate responsibility for the operation and was on-site for most of the theater's hours of business. The assistant managers were not included in the data for this study.The employees completed a survey describing their perceptions oftheirof behaviors monitoring the and justice procedural and distributive general manager. Since the assistant managers worked various shifts but the general managers remained on-site for most of the working hours, we considered the general managers the appropriate referents for the measurement of leader monitoring behaviors. The general managersprovided data for the measures of organizational citizenship behavior; some general managers assessed OCB for 15 employees, and some assessed 45 employees.All surveys were completed on company time. Since data were being collected from two sources, employees and general managers, we asked all participants to put their names on the surveys but took precautions to insure confidentiality. Each employee received an envelope in which to seal the completed survey and mailed it directly to us. In total, 213 out of 260employee surveys were returned for a response rate of 81 percent. Conversations with the company's vice president for human resources suggested that the demographic characteristics of the respondents reflected those of the general population of employees at the theaters.All items used a seven-point response format.Distributive justice1. My work schedule is fair.2. I think that my level of pay is fair.3. I consider my work load to be quite fair.4. Overall, the rewards I receive here are quite fair.5. I feel that my job responsibilities are fair.Formal procedures1. Job decisions are made by the general manager in an unbiased manner.2. My general manager makes sure that all employee concerns are heard before job decisions are made.3. To make job decisions, my general manager collects accurate and complete information.additionalprovides and decisions clarifies manager general My 4.information when requested by employees.5. All job decisions are applied consistently across all affected employees.6. Employees are allowed to challenge or appeal job decisions made by the general manager.Interactional justice1. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager treats me with kindness and consideration.2. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager treats me with respect and dignity.3. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager is sensitive to my personal needs.4. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager deals with me in a truthful manner.5. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager shows concern for my rights as an employee.6. Concerning decisions made about my job, the general manager discusses the implications of the decisions with me.7. The general manager offers adequate justification for decisions made about my job.8. When making decisions about my job, the general manager offers explanations that make sense to me.9. My general manager explains very clearly any decision made about my job.信度:The CFI for the three justice dimensions was .92. This scale was based on one used by Moorman (1991) and had reported reliabilities above .90 for all three dimensions.效度:注:备.OCB Scale英文名称:OCB Scale中文名称:组织公民行为问卷作者:Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H.出处:Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 527-556.简介:条目:Sample: The employees and general managers of a national movie theater management company that operated 11 theaters in a large southwestern city were studied. The employees (N = 213) averaged 19.9years of age and nearly two years of experience working in the theaters. A majority had completed high school, but only 17 percent had completed college. Each theater was under the authority of a general manager; thus, 11 general managers took part in the study. The number of employees per theater varied from 15 to 45. At each location, a group of assistant managers aided the general manager in the operation of the theater, but there were no direct lines of authority between these assistants and specific employees. In fact, the vice president for human resources described the assistant managers as a pool of assistants who could be assigned to any shift on any day. The one constant at each theater was that each general manager had ultimate responsibility for the operation and was on-site for most of the theater's hours of business. The assistant managers were not included in the data for this study.The employees completed a survey describing their perceptions of distributive and procedural justice and the monitoring behaviors of their general manager. Since the assistant managers worked various shifts but the general managers remained on-site for most of the working hours, we thefor referents appropriate the managers general the considered measurement of leader monitoring behaviors. The general managers provided data for the measures of organizational citizenship behavior; some general managers assessed OCB for 15 employees, and some assessed 45 employees.All surveys were completed on company time. Since data were being collected from two sources, employees and general managers, we asked all participants to put their names on the surveys but took precautions to insure confidentiality. Each employee received an envelope in which to seal the completed survey and mailed it directly to us. In total, 213 out of 260 employee surveys were returned for a response rate of 81 percent. Conversations with the company's vice president for human resources suggested that the demographic characteristics of the respondents reflected those of the general population of employees at the theatersAltruism1. Helps others who have heavy work loads.2. Helps others who have been absent.3. Willingly gives of his/her time to help others who have work related problems.4. Helps orient new people even though it is not required.Courtesy1. Consults with me or other individuals who might be affected by his/her actions or decisions.2. Does not abuse the rights of others.3. Takes steps to prevent problems with other workers.4. Informs me before taking any important actions.Sportsmanship1. Consumes a lot of time complaining about trivial matters. (R)2. Tends to make mountains out of molehills (makes problems bigger than they are). (R)3. Constantly talks about wanting to quit his/her job. (R)4. Always focuses on what's wrong with his/her situation, rather than the positive side of it. (R)Conscientiousness1. Is always punctual.2. Never takes long lunches or breaks.3. Does not take extra breaks.4. Obeys company rules, regulations and procedures even when no one is watching.Civic virtue1. Keeps abreast of changes in the organization.2. Attends functions that are not required, but that help the company image.3. Attends and participates in meetings regarding the organization.4. Keeps up with developments in the company.Items denoted with ( R ) are reverse scored.信度:The reliabilities were over .70 for each dimension, and all items used a seven-point response format.效度:注:备.ognition-and affect-based trust英文名称:cognition-and affect-based trust中文名称:基于情感和认知的信任作者:Kok-Yee Ng (黄国燕) and Roy Y. J. Chua (蔡泳瑜)出处:Management and Organization ReviewVolume 2 Page 43 - March 2006doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00028.x Volume 2 Issue 1简介:条目:Do I contribute more when I trust more? Differential effects ofcognition-and affect-based trustKok-Yee Ng (黄国燕) and Roy Y. J. Chua (蔡泳瑜)基于McAllister (1995)的信任量表基于情感的信任1. 你能够与他们自由地分享想法、感受和希望。