Skip to main content
Log in

Employees’ mood, perceptions of fairness, and organizational citizenship behavior

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

ABSTRACT

Previous research findings concerning employees’ perceptions of fairness and positive mood as predictors of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) have been equivocal. Explanations for this inconsistency may be related to the varying types of manipulation techniques adopted and samples tested. To address these issues, the present study adopted the mood and fairness manipulation techniques of Bachrach and Jex (2000, Journal of Applied Psychology, 30(3), 641–663) to investigate their effect on OCB amongst a sample of 138 employees from five large service organizations. The findings revealed that employees’ perceptions of fairness affected their likelihood to perform organizational citizenship behaviors. One implication of this finding is that employees’ perceptions of fairness may have a more enduring effect, in comparison to their mood, on increasing their extra role work behaviors. However, a close evaluation of the mood manipulation technique suggests that further research is needed before any firm conclusions can be made on the relative effect of empolyees’ perceived fairness and positive mood on OCB.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bachrach D. G., Jex S. M., (2000). Organizational citizenship and mood: An experimental test of perceived job breadth Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30(3): 641–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau P. M., (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson M., Charlin V., Miller N., (1988). Positive mood and helping behavior: A test of six hypotheses Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55(2): 211–229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crowne D. P., Marlowe D., (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology Journal of Consulting Psychology 24(4):349–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Folger R., Konovsky M. A., (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions Academy of Management Journal 32:115–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forgas J. P., George J. M., (2001). Affective influences on judgements and behavior in organizations: An information processing perspective Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86(1):3–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George J. M., Jones G. R., (1996). The experience of work and turnover intentions: Interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood Journal of Applied Psychology 81(3):318–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • George J. M., (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work Journal of Applied Psychology 76(2): 299–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isen A. M., Daubman K. A., (1984). The influence of affect on categorisation Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 47(6): 1206–1217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konovsky M. A., Pugh S. D., (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange Academy of Management Journal 37(3): 656–670

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McNeely B. L., Meglino B. M., (1994). The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior The Journal of Applied Psychology 79(6): 836–844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackinnon A., Jorm A. F., Christensen H., Korten A. E., Jacomb P. A., Rodgers B., (1999). A short form of the positive and negative affect schedule: Evaluation of factorial validity and invariance across demographic variables in a community sample Personality and Individual Differences 27: 405–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. M. (2000). Able but not motivated? The relative effects of happy and sad mood on persuasive message processing. Communication Monographs, 67(2), 215-225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman R. H., (1993). The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction measures on the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior Human Relations 46(6): 759–765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman R. H., (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship Journal of Applied Psychology 76(6): 845–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison E. W., (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective Academy of Management Journal 37(6): 1543–1567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organ D. W., (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Organ D. W., (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time Human Performance 10(2): 85–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organ D. W., Konovsky M., (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior Journal of Applied Psychology 74(1): 157–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piaget J., (1981). Intelligence and affectivity. Annual Reviews, Inc., Palo Alto, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff P. M., Ahearne M., MacKenzie S. B., (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance Journal of Applied Psychology 82(2): 262–270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Paine J. B., Bachrach 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhan D. L., Salovey P., Hargis K., (1981). The joys of helping: Focus of attention mediates the impact of positive affect on altruism Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40(5): 899–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnake M., (1991). Organizational citizenship: A review, proposed model, and research agenda Human Relations 44(7): 735–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair R. C., Mark M. M., Enzle M. E., Borkovec T. D., Cumbleton A. G. (1994). Toward a multiple-method view of mood induction: The appropriateness of a modified velten mood induction technique and the problems of procedures with group assignment to conditions Basic and Applied Social Psychology 15(4):389–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloat K. C. (1999). Organizational citizenship Professional Safety 44(4):20–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith C. A., Organ D. W., Near J. P., (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents Journal of Applied Psychology 68(4):653–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick B. G., Fidell L. S., (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4) Allyn & Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson W. C., Cowan C. L., Rosenhan D. L., (1980). Focus of attention mediates the impact of negative affect on altruism Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38(2):291–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson D., Clark L. A., Tellegen A., (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scale Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54(6):1063–1070

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams S., Shiaw W., (1999). Mood and organizational citizenship behavior: The effects of positive affect on employee organizational citizenship behavior intentions The Journal of Psychology 133(6):656–668

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fiona A. White.

Appendices

Appendix A

Fair Scenario

The following scenario depicts a true work situation within an organization. Please read the following description carefully and place yourself in the situation and imagine what this would be like for you.

Please imagine that you are a full-time staff member working in an office of medium size, where three other staff members started at the same time as you. Staff members are typically paid an average of $13.00 an hour for a 40-hr workweek. You have worked in this position at the company for almost 11 months, and, as a result of your performance, the company pays you $14.50 an hour for doing the job. Of all the other people who started working at the same time as you, you are paid the highest hourly wage, due to the system of raises. Your immediate supervisors usually give you the space you need to do your job, and they generally treat you fairly while you are at work. They take into consideration that you have worked there for 11 months, and so let you do a lot of work without direction, keeping out of your way unless you ask for help or run into a problem. You are given opportunities by the head of the office to have input about work policy, pay raises, performance evaluation, and training. Your input about office policy is taken seriously by the office manager. You are evaluated for regular raises every 3-1/2 months, and the amount of each raise is dictated by the performance evaluations you receive from your immediate supervisor as well as the office manager during that period. Your supervisor is very conscientious and honest, and your performance evaluations are a very fair indicator of how well you do your job. During the day, you are entitled to have one 40-min lunch break, and two 15-min breaks. You can take these breaks at any time during your day. You receive full pay for all three of these breaks. If you decide not to take the breaks, you can accumulate extra holiday hours.

Unfair Scenario

The following scenario depicts a true work situation within an organization. Please read the following description carefully and place yourself in the situation and imagine what this would be like for you.

Please imagine that you are a full-time staff member working in an office of medium size. Staff members are typically paid an average of $13.00 an hour for a 40-hr workweek. You have worked in this position at the company for only 11 months, and so the company pays you $11.50 an hour for doing the job. Of the other people who started working at the same time as you, your hourly wage is the lowest. Your immediate supervisors usually don’t give you the space you need to do your job comfortably, and are constantly telling you what to do and not letting you work out anything for yourself, even though you have already been at the position for 11 months. You are not given the same space that some of your co-workers get, even though you work just as hard. In general, your supervisors don’t treat you very professionally or fairly while you are at work, and don’t give you the recognition you deserve. You really do not have a chance to give your input about office policy, because suggestions that you make are never taken seriously by the head of the office or implemented by senior staff members. The suggestions of some other of your co-workers, however, are implemented. Every 4-1/2 months, raises are supposed to be given based on performance evaluations by supervisors during that period. However, based on your work and that of co-workers, it is obvious that there is extreme favoritism going on. Your supervisor does not report honestly how well you do your work and all the energy you put into your job, and so your raises are not in accordance with how you perceive your performance. Some people you work with seem to get raises, however, for doing nothing except run errands for the head of the office. During your 8-hour shift, you are given only one break; it’s a 30-minute break, which you must take at noon. You are not paid for this break.

Appendix B

Instructions for ‘baseline’ OCB: “Use the scale below to rate how likely you are to perform the following behaviors”.

Instructions for the ‘state’ OCB: “Use the scale below to rate how likely you are to perform the following behaviors given this workplace situation”.

      

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Messer, B.A., White, F.A. Employees’ mood, perceptions of fairness, and organizational citizenship behavior. J Bus Psychol 21, 65–82 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-005-9018-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-005-9018-x

Keywords

Navigation