Running Head: THE INVESTMENT MODEL AND ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR Applying the Investment Model to Organizational Behavior: An Investigation of Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

The current study investigated commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) using the Rusbult’s (1980) Investment Model. It was hypothesized that the commitment would predict OCB and workplace behaviors and mediate the effects of satisfaction, investments, and alternatives on OCB. Participants completed online surveys that also included measures of conscientiousness and Meyer and Allen’s (1991) ThreeComponent Model of commitment. The results showed that satisfaction, alternatives, and investments predicted commitment, and commitment predicted OCB. Commitment did not mediate the association between Investment Model variables and OCB. A regression revealed that the Investment Model better predicted OCB than the Three-Component Model. Researchers should continue to implement the Investment Model to study organizational commitment and its relationship to workplace behaviors. Investment Model and OCB 3 Applying the Investment Model to Organizational Behavior: An Investigation of Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior A person’s job is one of the most important aspects of their life, not only serving as a source of income, but often providing meaning for one’s life and even part of their personal identity (Laliberte-Rudman, 2002). As such a large portion of one’s life is spent working, it is worthwhile to explore an employee’s attitudes about their job as well as their behavior on the job. One’s thoughts and feelings about their job, such as their satisfaction or how much they feel they need their job have may have implications for their actions at the workplace. An area that has garnered much research is the topic of organizational commitment, which focuses on defining commitment and investigates what it means to be committed and how or under what conditions does this commitment manifest in specific behavioral outcomes on the part of the employee. These behaviors include but are not limited to turnover, low absenteeism, punctuality, and general performance. Furthermore, some people also seem to perform behaviors that are not formally specified as a job requirement at their place of employment, such as anonymously watering the office plants while fully knowing they will not be recognized or rewarded for their actions. It is then relevant to ask if this behavior is a function of their commitment level. The current study will investigate organizational commitment and its behavioral outcomes, specifically organizational citizenship behavior, using the Rusbult’s (1980a) Investment Model of Commitment. Organizational Commitment Commitment is a difficult concept to define because while many understand this idea intrinsically, forming a comprehensive definition has been the work of several Investment Model and OCB 4 decades of research. Generally, subjective commitment is a long-term orientation or the likelihood for an involvement to persist (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993; Arriaga & Agnew, 2001). Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982) defined organizational commitment as “the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in an organization” (pg. 1). They add that commitment is frequently broken down into either attitudinal commitment, which they operationalize as how people think about their relation to the organization or behavioral commitment which they define as the processes that individuals use when they become locked within the organization (Mowday et al., 1982). Commitment can be regarded as a psychological state connecting a person to an organization (Meyer & Allen, 1990). Morrow (1983) generally described thirty forms of commitment comprised of both unique and redundant pieces. These thirty can then be classified into five general categories. One can be committed to personal values or moral beliefs, a career, a job, an organization such as a social institution or company, or a union. Another way to operationalize commitment is to describe it either as global or local depending on the focus of the commitment. Billings and Becker (1993) define local commitment as being attached to supervisors and one’s co-workers, and global commitment as being attached to top management and the organization as a whole. They found that those who are committed both locally and globally reported the highest amount of job satisfaction, least intention to leave their job, and performed more prosocial behaviors in the workplace. Locally versus globally committed individuals did not significantly differ in their overall attitudes and behavior. Their commitment level was significantly lower than the group who were both locally and globally committed and Investment Model and OCB 5 higher than the uncommitted group. While this categorization can be an effective way of measuring commitment, it is broad and general and does not explain the underlying factors or motivations of the commitment. O’Reilly and Chatman (1986) approach commitment in a way that focuses on the psychological bond between the individual and the organization in three areas which they term compliance, identification, and internalization. Compliance occurs when employees adopt the beliefs and attitudes of the organization only in order to gain rewards. Identification is when an individual feels a sense of pride in and respects the accomplishments of the organization without adopting them as one’s own. Finally, internalization happens when the values of the person and the organization become congruent. An individual’s commitment level can contain varying combinations of these three factors. Building on this three factor approach, three broad themes appear in the literature that address different facets of commitment. An affective theme emphasizes the individual’s feelings toward the organization. Most generally, this centers on one’s emotional attachment to the group (Kanter, 1968). Essentially, it is the extent to which they feel connected to the organization as a whole. Affective orientation can be described as an attitude toward the organization that links the person’s identity with that of the organization (Sheldon, 1971). Commitment is also viewed as the process by which the organization’s goals become those of the individual (Hall, Schneider, & Nygren, 1970). Meyer and Allen (1991) base their affective component of commitment of their ThreeComponent Model on the definitions contained in this thematic category. More specifically, affective orientation focuses on the emotional attachment, identification, and Investment Model and OCB 6 involvement with the organization and is based on the individual’s desire to remain with it. The second theme is a cost-based approach to commitment focusing on the cost and rewards of remaining with the organization and those associated with leaving it. For example, a long commute to work may be a cost, but the organization may have a high quality benefits package one would not want to lose or one they could not find at another job. Kanter (1968) provides that commitment is the “profit associated with the continued participation and a cost associated with leaving” (p. 504). Commitment occurs as an individual gains investments during their time with the organization, such as money, time, and status (Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972). Meyer and Allen (1991) build their continuance component in their model from this theme which accounts for a person’s need to stay with the organization. The third theme from the literature contains definitions of commitment that reflect a sense of obligation or moral responsibility. These account for the individual’s feelings or duty or necessity to remain with the current organization or group. Feelings of devotion and loyalty fall into this category. Commitment can occur when a person believes it morally right to remain with the organization despite their satisfaction (Marsh & Mannari, 1977). It can also be assessed as an internalized norm that requires one to act in a certain way to meet the needs of the organization (Wiener, 1982). This theme influenced the development of the normative component of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) model, the component which addresses the individual’s feeling that they ought to remain with the organization. Investment Model and OCB 7 Meyer and Allen’s (1991) Three-Component Model of commitment has been utilized in the majority of work on organizational commitment. This is perhaps due to the way they account for many dimensions of commitment. They believe each component contains a key aspect of commitment and a complete definition must, therefore, include all three areas of affective, continuance, and normative. It is important to note that these are not different types of commitment, rather that they should be understood as three aspects of commitment. Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky’s (2002) metaanalysis of the Three-Component Model found that all three components are related yet distinct from one another and from job satisfaction, occupational commitment, and job involvement. This study showed that the model incorporates in cross cultural research as well. Overall, all three components are negatively related to turnover. Affective commitment most strongly predicted outcomes of turnover, absenteeism, and pro-social behavior. Normative commitment more weakly predicted these behaviors, and continuance commitment had no relationship with them. The authors find that affective and normative commitments are highly correlated, which they suggest is a potential weakness in the definitions. While the Three-Component Model captures the different facets in the construct of organizational commitment, it lacks the ability to be used as a global measure as well, as it only measures commitment in three different aspects, not as one broad construct of commitment. This shortcoming can be avoided by measuring commitment using Rusbult’s (1980a) Investment Model of Commitment which captures the aspects of alternatives, satisfaction, and investments all in one global, yet simultaneously faceted construct. Unlike the Three-Component Model that developed from a gathering of themes Investment Model and OCB 8 present in the organizational commitment literature, the Investment Model stems from a well-established theoretical framework of interdependence theory. Interdependence Theory and the Investment Model of Commitment The current study will focus on commitment from the perspective of interdependence theory (Kelley, 1979; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Interdependence theory suggests that satisfaction is one influential factor on a person’s feelings of dependence on a relationship. A relationship does not have to be interpersonal but can also be between an individual and an object, group, idea, or value. If one’s needs are met in that relationship and cannot be fulfilled from another source, then that person is both satisfied with and dependent on the relationship. Satisfaction is a function of rewards and costs. A reward is any outcome in the relationship that gratifies the person, something they would describe as positive or pleasurable. A cost is an outcome that detracts from a behavior such as great efforts or opposing influences. When one’s rewards exceed the costs it is believed that they experience their relationship as being satisfying. Individuals vary in their expectations, and these expectations are termed as one’s comparison level (CL). Additionally, a person’s CL alt is a measure of the outcomes that are perceived that could be obtained in a source outside of the relationship (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). If outcomes exceed the CL, that individual is satisfied. If the outcomes exceed CL alt then one is dependent. A person can be dependent and not satisfied in the relationship and vice versa. Rusbult’s (1980a) Investment Model of Commitment builds on interdependence theory by accounting for one’s quality of alternatives as a separate variable from its original conceptualization as CL alt functioning within the satisfaction component. Investment Model and OCB 9 Investment size was also added as a distinct, influential factor on commitment. According to this model, commitment is measured as one’s subjective psychological experience of dependence (Rusbult, 1980a, 1983). The Investment Model’s construct of commitment is ultimately a function of the three components, satisfaction, alternatives, and investments, strengthening as rewards increase and costs decrease within each component. Her component of satisfaction assesses outcomes, which should exceed personal expectations to keep one feeling satisfied. Satisfaction is positively correlated with commitment. Investments are anything of value one places into the relationship, such as time, money, and effort. Investments positively predict commitment. Alternatives, which negatively correlate with commitment, are any other source where a person perceives they can receive outcomes that exceed those they are getting in the current relationship. Some alternatives may be another potential partner or having no relationship at all as long as it provides outcomes more desirable than what one is receiving by remaining in the current relationship. In combination, the variables account for 61% of the variance in predicting commitment and overall support for the Investment Model was shown in a meta-analysis (Le & Agnew, 2003). Rusbult (1980b) initially tested the Investment Model on friendships. As satisfaction and investments increased and alternatives decreased, commitment became stronger. The Investment Model was then implemented in a longitudinal study of college dating relationships (Rusbult, 1983). Results showed that over time, commitment was predicted by increases in both satisfaction and investments and decreases in quality of alternatives. The decision to stay or leave a relationship was related to commitment level. The literature now extends not only to dating couples but predicts relationship Investment Model and OCB 10 commitment and stability for marriages (Impett, Beals, & Peplau, 2002). Branje et al. (2007) conducted a longitudinal study of approximately 1,000 adolescents which revealed that satisfaction, alternatives, and investments predicted commitment to a same sex friendship as well as relationship stability. Commitment also mediated the tendency to switch friends. While the Investment Model was initially tested on personal relationships, particularly romantic relationships, much research has applied the model to other domains. In a study of young cricket players, commitment was influenced by several predictors providing support that the Investment Model can be applied to commitment in sports teams (Carpenter & Coleman, 1998). Similarly, commitment to a sports activity was examined within a similar framework as the Investment Model (Raedeke, 1997). The model was used in a study of business-to-business interactions which found that satisfaction and cost-to-exit influenced the behaviors in these interactions (Ping, 1997). Furthermore, adherence to a medical regimen was predicted with the model (Putnam, Finney, Barkley, & Bonner, 1994). Lyons and Lowery (1989) used a general model similar to the Investment Model in order to describe commitment to one’s community. Overall, the Investment Model serves as an effective general model of commitment, applicable in a variety of contexts. The literature also includes research on organizational commitment using the Investment Model. A study of industrial workers found that job commitment was predicted by satisfaction, in terms of cost and rewards, value of one’s alternatives, and the investment size. While both commitment and job satisfaction correlated with turnover, commitment was the best predictor of leaving one’s job (Farrell & Rusbult, Investment Model and OCB 11 1981). The effects of the Investment Model were also investigated in a twelve month longitudinal study of nurses and accountants (Rusbult & Farrell, 1983). Low costs and high rewards resulted in greater job satisfaction which in combination with low value of alternatives and increased investment strongly predicted job commitment. Over time, job costs and investments size influenced commitment. Turnover was mediated by a decrease in job commitment over time. Oliver (1990) studied organizational commitment with the Investment Model with results that supported this approach. While a fair amount of literature utilizes the Investment Model for studying commitment in numerous contexts, there is a limited amount of work on organizational commitment from this perspective as the majority of the research uses the ThreeComponent Model approach. The two models do share some similarities; however, the Investment Model, unlike the Three-Component Model, allows for a both a global and faceted measurement of commitment. Three-Component Model and the Investment Model Several connections exist between the affective, normative, and continuance commitment of the Three-Component Model and the Investment Model’s satisfaction, alternatives, and investments. According to Meyer and Allen (1997), an employee’s met expectations correlate with higher affective commitment. They note that “it is not the experiences per se that influence affective commitment, but rather the discrepancy between those experiences (or lack thereof) and what the person expects” (p. 52). This idea is similar to the interdependence theory idea that satisfaction is a measure of expectations and outcomes. These similarities demonstrate a parallel between Rusbult’s construct of satisfaction and Meyer and Allen’s affective commitment. Investment Model and OCB 12 Continuance commitment reflects a person’s feeling of commitment based on a belief that they have to stay with the organization. Meyer and Allen (1991) suggest that this feeling is tied with one’s perceptions of their investments, what they would stand to lose if they left, and alternatives, what they would stand to gain if they pursued other options. The authors define investments analogous to Rusbult’s conceptualization, explaining that an investment can be time, money, and/or effort put into the organization. Meyer and Allen’s definition of alternatives is comparable to Rusbult’s definition as well, focusing on lowered cost and higher reward available from other sources. Alternatives in an organizational context would likely included competitive pay and the ease at which one could obtain employment elsewhere based on their skills or available resources. Because of these commonalities, the connections between the two models can be drawn. Normative commitment, the third component of commitment is described as a feeling of obligation to stay with the current organization. Johnson, Caughlin, and Huston’s (1999) commitment framework also included a feeling of obligation as an experience of commitment, which he names as the moral component. This aspect is not directly accounted for in the Investment Model; however, it could be seen as a slightly abstract type of investment. Normative commitment generally results from one’s feelings of indebtedness, stemming from an awareness of the investments they have placed into the relationship. This in combination with feelings that the organization has sacrificed in order for them to obtain their job, creates normative commitment. In essence, normative commitment is an aspect of Rusbult’s investments because it is the feeling associated with the awareness of gained resources. Investment Model and OCB 13 On the whole, the literature on organizational commitment does not frequently utilize this model, and instead, most researchers opt to use Meyer and Allen’s (1991) Three-Component Model. However, the Investment Model not only simultaneously supports a faceted and global construct of commitment, but also has associated behavioral outcomes that have been well investigated throughout the literature. Investment Model Outcomes of Commitment Much of the research on outcomes of commitment in the Investment Model stems from studies on romantic relationships, specifically in regard to relationship maintenance and stay-leave behaviors; however, a parallel can be drawn between these behaviors and those performed in the workplace by committed individuals. These behaviors are enacted for a few reasons, the first of which is that high commitment should motivate one to act in ways to ensure the stability and health of the relationship. Secondly, behaviors that benefit the relationship may also benefit the individual in the long term. Lastly, behaviors that are enacted at a cost to the individual are effective for communicating their desire for long-term commitment (Kelley, 1979). The behaviors include the decision to remain, tendencies to accommodate, derogation of alternatives, willingness to sacrifice, and perceived superiority (Rusbult et al., 1994). Commitment can predict stay-leave behavior with higher commitment levels correlating to a desire to remain in the relationship and lower levels predicting the desire to leave the relationship (Rusbult & Martz, 1995). Additionally, a willingness to sacrifice is an individual’s desire to put their partner’s best interests before their own personal interests for the good of the relationship is termed their willingness to sacrifice (Van Lange et al., 1997). Investment Model and OCB 14 Accommodation within a relationship is the amount to which one accepts dissatisfying behavior from their partner, and this behavior is also predicted by commitment level (Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus, 1991). A person can respond to a dissatisfying experience in the relationship with behaviors that lie on a continuum of two dimensions: active versus passive and destructive versus constructive (Rusbult & Zembrodt, 1983).The active constructive response is termed voice and is when one takes initiative for change for a positive outcome. Active destructive behavior is known as exit and includes behaviors that seek to end the relationship. Active passive responses are given the label of loyalty and are behaviors that involve hope for a good future outcome. Finally, neglect is the term for passive destructive responses and includes behaviors that generally ignore conflict and avoid attempts at resolution. Generally, a person reacts with loyalty or voice favorably and is increasingly tempted to respond with neglect or exit when their partner responds in those ways. However, not accommodating the partner can be a cost in the relationship and, therefore, negatively influence commitment. Derogating one’s alternatives can take a variety of forms. When an attractive alternative poses a threat to the current relationship, people utilize several methods to cope with this situation. Highly committed partners generally engage in behaviors such as removing oneself from the alternative, either physically or psychologically, emphasizing commitment to current relationship, and rating the current relationship partner as better than the alternative (Rusbult et al., 1994). Finally, committed individuals have the tendency to develop a belief that their relationship is better than it is or better than others’ relationships, and they will respond Investment Model and OCB 15 behaviorally to this belief, which can serve as an effective buffer in the face of a threatening alternative (Rusbult, Van Lange, Verette, & Yovetich, 1993). Ultimately, it is highly plausible that when the behaviors of a person committed to their organization are investigated with the Investment Model, they will perform behaviors equivalent to those of a committed individual in a romantic relationship. Outcomes of Organizational Commitment The relationship between organizational commitment and turnover has also been the topic of much work in the literature. Similar to the research on romantic relationships regarding one’s intent and desire to remain in a relationship, organizational commitment has been used to predict their stay-leave behavior with one’s organization. Steers (1979) found that organizational commitment is strongly related to the intent and the desire to remain at one’s job. With more of a behavioral approach, Porter, Crampon, and Smith (1976) conducted a longitudinal study in which they assessed employees’ commitment and their turnover. Within the initial fifteen months of employment, participants completed measures of their commitment. Those who decided to leave the organization within this time period showed a decrease in their commitment before their departure. Furthermore, those with a lower commitment level at the beginning of the study showed a significant tendency to leave within the first six months of employment. An early study showed that organizational commitment was moderately related to turnover (Steers, 1979). Angle and Perry (1981) provide support for organizational commitment being associated with lower turnover in a sample of bus service workers. In another longitudinal study, newly hired psychiatric technicians were given measures of job satisfaction and organizational commitment at four times during their first ten months on Investment Model and OCB 16 the job (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974). The researchers found that organizational commitment and not job satisfaction at the third and fourth assessment times significantly predicted if the employee stayed or left their job. Absenteeism, a workplace behavior that can be operationalized as either voluntary or involuntary, has been investigated as an outcome of organizational commitment. Involuntary absenteeism is when one is sick or has some type of emergency that would prevent them from going to work. Voluntary absenteeism, however, occurs when a person does not appear at work because they simply do not want to work. Sagie (1998) found that voluntary opposed to involuntary absenteeism is predicted by organizational commitment and job satisfaction as well as the interaction between these two factors. Steers (1977) showed support that organizational commitment was moderately related to attendance in a sample of hospital employees. Randall, Fedor, and Longenecker (1990) conducted a study of organizational commitment and its correlation to various workplace behaviors, including absenteeism, though they made no distinction between voluntary and involuntary in their definition. This study employed the Mowday et al. (1979) Organizational Commitment Questionnaire, and participants were also asked to complete ratings of behaviors the researchers believed to be related to organizational commitment based on interviews they conducted in a pilot study. The results, however, did not show significant correlations between organizational commitment and absenteeism. Angle and Perry (1981) conducted a study measuring commitment in two dimensions: how much the participant supports the goals of the organization and their commitment to stay. Neither dimension significantly Investment Model and OCB 17 predicted absenteeism in the employees. Overall, the work on absenteeism as an outcome of organizational commitment contains inconsistent findings. Dishon-Berkovits and Koslowsky (2002) investigated the relationship of time urgency, organizational commitment, and age of youngest child on one’s punctuality, which they operationalized as the extent to which one arrived at work on time. They used Burman, Pennebacker, and Glass’s (1975) definition of time urgency as a facet of Type A personality which measures one’s sense of time as a scarce resource and the tendency to plan time carefully. The age of youngest child was assessed as they hypothesized having a young child may hinder an employee’s attempts to arrive at work on time due the early morning demands of the child on the parent. They found that organizational commitment was the only significant predictor that distinguished between those who came to work on time and those who were tardy. Angle and Perry (1981) also found that organizational commitment was related to being on time for one’s job. Lastly, job performance has been the topic of work in the literature, though not frequently from the perspective of organizational commitment. Steers (1979) found that commitment was unrelated to job performance. In this study, performance was measured by supervisors’ ratings of employees’ overall performance, quality and quantity of work, as well as promotion readiness. Keller (1997) assessed organization commitment with Porter et al.’s (1974) measure and performance using a supervisor rating on quality and quantity of work, dependability, and ability to get along with co-workers. He found that organizational commitment did not significantly predict job performance. Assessing job performance has presented a large methodological issue. Many studies have cited that the results may due to the inherent biases at play in this methodology. The discrepancy that Investment Model and OCB 18 often appears in the supervisors’ ratings and the employees’ self reports, suggests that this method is neither reliable nor valid. Furthermore, job performance is difficult to operationalize and would undoubtedly challenge reliability and validity without taking extremely stringent measures in designing the study. Due to inconsistent findings and methodological issues, job performance will not be assessed in the present research. Three-Component Model of Commitment and Workplace Behaviors Most of the research on organizational behaviors of turnover and absenteeism, utilizes Meyer and Allen’s Three-Component Model when assessing organizational commitment. All three conceptualizations of commitment have been shown to correlate with turnover (Allen & Meyer, 1996). Likewise, Somers (1995) found that affective commitment predicted turnover, affective and normative commitment interacted to significantly relate to intent to remain, and continuance commitment was shown to moderate affective commitment in intent to remain, such that high levels of continuance commitment lessened one’s intent to remain. Absenteeism was explored in a number of studies of which the findings suggest that affective commitment negatively correlates with voluntary absenteeism (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993; Hackett, Bycio & Hausdorf, 1994; Gellatly, 1995; Somers, 1995). Investment Model and Workplace Behaviors When Farrell and Rusbult (1981) applied the Investment Model in a workplace setting, they found that both commitment and job satisfaction correlated with turnover, but commitment was the best predictor of leaving one’s job. The Investment Model was also used in a twelve month longitudinal study of nurses and accountants (Rusbult & Farrell, 1983). Low costs and high rewards resulted in greater job satisfaction, which in Investment Model and OCB 19 combination with low value alternatives and increased investment, strongly predicted job commitment. Over time, job costs and investment size influenced commitment. Turnover was mediated by a decrease in job commitment over time. Senter and Martin (2007) measured job satisfaction, alternatives, and organizational commitment to predict turnover in part time employees of whom they divided into fixed employees, those who needed their job, and flexible employees, those who did not need on the job. For the fixed employees, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and the amount of pay offered by other jobs were significant predictors of turnover. Organizational commitment was found to be the best predictor of turnover for both fixed and flexible part time workers. While Senter and Martin (2007) do not investigate turnover behavior using the Investment Model, several components of the model are measured and the results align with the general findings in the literature on the Investment Model. Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers, and Mainous (1988) used components of the Investment Model to predict behavioral outcomes in the workplace. High satisfaction and investment predicted voice and loyalty responses to conflict at work. Voice as defined as raising concerns in order to resolve conflict, and loyalty as remaining positive but quiet, are the active and passive positive responses, respectively. High alternatives predicted exit (leaving the job) and voice behavior. Not only does this study investigate stay-leave behavior similar to that found in personal relationships, but it also examines accommodation, another common relationship maintenance behavior. Organizational Citizenship Behavior Investment Model and OCB 20 Commitment as defined by the Investment Model predicts a variety of outcomes in both romantic relationships and workplace behaviors and, consequently, clear behavioral similarities between both contexts are present. The current study will focus on one behavior in particular, organizational citizenship behavior. This ground of behaviors bear semblance to several of the predicted outcomes of commitment, particularly those associated with relationship maintenance found in the literature on the Investment Model. Because of this parallel it is useful to explore the behavior using the Investment Model, opposed to the Three Component Model. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) first appears in the literature in a study by Smith, Organ, and Near (1983) which generally defines OCB as behaviors that “go beyond formal role requirements” and that are “acts of cooperation, helpfulness, suggestions, gestures of goodwill, altruism” (p. 653). The authors divide OCB into two distinct dimensions: altruism and compliance, operationalized as helping others and adhering to workplace rules and norms, respectively. Participants were bank employees who completed questionnaires assessing these factors. The results showed that there is indeed a distinction between the two dimensions of OCB and that job satisfaction predicted these behaviors. Job satisfaction, described as an employee’s mood, best predicted altruism. Both leader supportiveness and lying at work were correlated with general compliance. Building on the previous work, Organ (1988) further developed his definition of OCB, describing it as “behaviors that are not recognized by the formal reward system and that promote the effective functioning of the organization” (p.4). With this expanded definition of OCB, he transitioned from a two-dimensional model of altruism and general Investment Model and OCB 21 compliance to a five-dimensional model of altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, civic virtue, and conscientiousness. This new conceptualization captured more facets of the behavior than the old model. Altruism remains close to the original conceptualization of helping others without benefit for the self. Courtesy includes behaviors that demonstrate a consideration of others before the self. Keeping a positive moral in the workplace, such as not complaining and speaking well of the organization can be classified as sportsmanship behaviors. Civic virtue reflects one’s desire to integrate oneself into the organization with activities such as keeping up with changes within the company. Finally, conscientiousness, distinct from the Big Five trait of conscientiousness, includes behaviors in which the individual obeys rules and conforms to social norms in the workplace. Other conceptualizations of OCB have emerged in the literature. Williams and Anderson (1991) combined Organ’s (1988) five factor taxonomy of OCB into twodimensions: OCB-I and OCB-O. OCB-I are behaviors that are directed at an individual and comprised of the facets of courtesy and altruism. OCB-O consists of sportsmanship, civic virtue, and conscientiousness as these behaviors influence the organization. However, some favor a one-dimensional OCB construct (Allen & Rush, 1998; Chen, Hui, & Sego, 1998). A meta-analysis revealed that all five factors were highly related to one another and the different facets were not correlated with differing attitudinal antecedents such as job satisfaction or commitment (LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002). In other words, all five OCB facets all were predicted by similar attitudes, suggesting that this measure of OCB effectively assesses the construct. In another meta-analysis, Hoffman, Blair, Meriac, and Woehr (2007) showed further support for the five factor OCB construct. Investment Model and OCB 22 They find that the Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) measure of OCB based on Organ’s (1988) five factors is the most widely used in research because it is a highly valid and reliable measure of OCB. Throughout the literature OCB has been shown to be predicted by a variety of factors including, supervisor fairness, supervisor support, personality, and social influence within the workplace (LePine et al., 2002; Chen & Chui, 2008; Neuman & Kickul, 1998; Bommer, Miles, & Grover, 2003). When investigated with Meyer and Allen’s (1991) Three-Component Model a relationship is shown between some of the components and OCB. Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky’s (2002) metaanalysis found that affective commitment was strongly related to OCB, whereas normative commitment was related, but not strongly, and continuance commitment was unrelated to OCB. Generally the research on OCB is unsystematic, stemming from a large assortment of approaches which create a sense of disorder in the literature on this topic. Organizational Citizenship Behavior and the Investment Model Using the well-established theoretical framework of the Investment Model to study OCB will clarify and remove redundancy from the literature. While many studies investigate the variables of satisfaction and other variables that describe behaviors or cognitions similar to those represented in the alternatives and investments components, the variables selected for study often seem arbitrary and generally do not follow any theoretically based logic as to why they were selected or what they will predict. A unity and cohesion is much needed in this area of research, one that the Investment Model will be able to provide. This approach is broad enough to encompass and account for a variety Investment Model and OCB 23 of behaviors, yet can still account for specific categories pertinent to the study of organizational commitment and its related behavioral outcomes, particularly OCB. The relationship between job satisfaction and OCB has been examined in the literature. One study examined the effects of personality and job satisfaction on OCB and showed that job satisfaction accounted for a significant amount of the variance not explained by personality dimensions (Organ & Lingl, 1995). Chui and Chen (2005) took a slightly different approach and found that intrinsic job satisfaction mediates the relationship between job characteristics (i.e., job variety, identity, meaningfulness, and challenge) and OCB. Organ and Konovsky (1989) divided job satisfaction into cognitive and affective dimensions and examined the influence of each on OCB. Participants were asked about their typical mood at work, their attitudes toward their job, and their pay compared to equivalently trained peers within the same organization. A regression revealed that pay cognitions significantly predicted OCB. This finding suggests that a cost and reward aspect to job satisfaction exists which effectively supports the satisfaction component of the Investment Model. Organ (1988) showed that a clear correlation exists between job satisfaction and OCB. He provided evidence using eight studies that measure of job satisfaction, each defining satisfaction in differing ways and all showed a significant relationship with OCB. The construct of alternatives has been explored in the literature on organizational behavior. Thau, Bennet, Stahlberg, and Werner (2004) conducted a study measuring the attractiveness of alternative job opportunities, the ease of obtaining these alternatives, and OCB at current place of employment. They found that there were no main effects for either the ease of obtaining an alternative or attractiveness of that alternative. Neither a Investment Model and OCB 24 participant’s belief that an alternative job was easy or difficult to get nor the extent to which employees rated their alterative job opportunity as attractive had a significant influence on their OCB. However, an interaction was found between low ease and high attractive alternatives and OCB at one’ current job. Alternatives jobs rated as hard to get and highly attractive were significantly correlated with OCB at one’s current place of employment. The researchers explain that these findings show that a person attempts to make do with what they have, in this case by performing more OCB, if they feel that a desirable job is out of their reach. Individuals will improve the current relationship when they know it is their best or least costly option. This line of thought follows the cost and reward rational integral to the Investment Model. The literature on the relationship between job investments and OCB is worth examination due to its connections to the Investment Model. Money, time, and emotional connection can be considered investments in a romantic relationship (Rusbult et al., 1994). These factors also hold when examined in an organizational setting as well, for the time spent with an organization, tenure, can be categorized as an investment. Another example of an investment within an occupational context could be when one relocates in order to live closer to a job. However, one study that did investigate organizational tenure found a significant negative correlation with OCB (Thau et al., 2004). This finding suggests that the longer one has been at their current job, the less likely they are to perform OCB. This evidence does not provide direct support for Investment Model perspectives on OCB, and consequently, more work needs to be done on measuring variables of investments in the organization and how it relates to organizational commitment and OCB. Investment Model and OCB 25 Organizational commitment has been shown to correlate with OCB (Williams & Anderson, 1991; Organ & Ryan, 1995). Foote and Tang (2008) investigated the effects of organizational commitment and job satisfaction on OCB. Their study focused on team commitment within an organization, and they found that the relationship between job satisfaction and OCB was moderated by team commitment. While the results focused on team commitment and not individual commitment, the findings are still relevant as they also show commitment as a unique factor, distinct from job satisfaction. Schappe (1998) argued organizational commitment and job satisfaction are not the same. In order to separate them as individual factors and determine their effects on OCB, he conducted a regression analysis and found that of procedural justice, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment, only organizational commitment is a significant predictor of OCB, aligning with the theory of the Investment Model. Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Investment Model Outcomes of Commitment In addition to several studies that fall within the theoretical framework of the Investment Model, the five factor construct of OCB shares some similarities with the predicted outcomes of commitment from the Investment Model literature, which provide further support for studying OCB using the Investment Model. Rusbult et al. (1994) provide evidence for relationship maintenance behaviors of committed partners. These behaviors work toward improving and strengthening the relationship as well as communicating one’s commitment to the partner. It is feasible that OCB functions similarly within an organizational context, paralleling the maintenance behaviors in a personal relationship. Investment Model and OCB 26 The decision to remain in an interpersonal relationship is termed stay-leave behavior, and in a work setting is turnover. A study by Chen, Chui, and Sego (1998) collected supervisors’ ratings of employee OCB and compared them to employee turnover. Those who performed more OCB were less likely to leave their job. The cost incurred by performing OCB, communicated to the organization and the self, the decision to remain within the relationship with the organization. Another predicted outcome of commitment in the Investment Model is the tendency to accommodate, which is the amount to which one accepts dissatisfying behavior from their partner and is predicted by commitment level (Rusbult et al., 1994). Farrell and Rusbult’s (1992) meta-analysis found that the way employees respond to conflict in the workplace depends on their satisfaction, alternatives, and investment size. Those with high satisfaction more frequently used the voice and loyalty responses and used fewer neglect and exit response. Superior alternatives related to more frequent active responses either voice or exit. High investment size correlated with higher tendencies toward voice and loyalty and with less neglect. The voice construct can be loosely associated with civic virtue factor in OCB, as it describes one actively following and responding to changes within the organization. The loyalty construct seems to parallel the sportsmanship factor assesses one’s maintaining positive moral and passively keeping quiet about complaints. The willingness to sacrifice is an individual’s desire to put their partner’s best interests before their own personal interests for the good of the relationship is termed their willingness to sacrifice (Van Lange et al., 1997). Both the courtesy and altruism factors of OCB address putting other’s or the organization’s best interests before their Investment Model and OCB 27 own. These individuals might not directly benefit from their helpful actions, but the organization or their relationship with the organization does. Perceived superiority occurs when a committed individual believes their relationship is better than it is, and/or better than other’s relationships (Rusbult et al., 1994). The factor of sportsmanship also reflects the essence of this maintenance behavior as it involves an individual spreading positive moral about or thinking favorably of the organization. Based on the numerous connections between the behavioral outcomes of a committed person in a personal relationship and OCB is highly plausible that the behaviors of an organizationally committed individual can also be effectively investigated using the Investment Model. Summary and Research Goals Most of the research on OCB does not focus on showing a direct relationship between organizational commitment and OCB without examining some other variable as a predictor. These factors do not seem to be selected in accordance with any theoretical model, and, therefore, the literature generally lacks a clear, systematic study of the predictors of this OCB. Similarly, the research on organizational commitment is also disorganized and redundant. To resolve this problem, the current study will investigate the determinants of organizational commitment as well as the influence of commitment on OCB using one theoretical model. This approach is also optimal as it assesses commitment as a global construct mediating the predictors of satisfaction, alternatives, and investments, which then also creates a faceted commitment construct as it accounts for a variety of influential factors as well, unlike the Three-Component Model. Investment Model and OCB 28 Furthermore, the present study will link two areas of research simultaneously: Investment Model on organizational commitment and organizational commitment and OCB. Lastly, as the facets of OCB seem to parallel the outcomes of commitment in the Investment Model which provides further impetus to investigate OCB with the model. In the current study, participants will complete online questionnaires measuring their organizational commitment using the Investment Model, their OCB, and workplace behaviors. H1: The individual components of the Investment Model: satisfaction, alternatives, and investments will each predict organizational commitment in the predicted directions. Satisfaction and investment size will positively correlate with commitment, and alternatives will be negatively related to commitment. H2: Organizational commitment will predict OCB. H3: Organizational commitment will predict workplace behaviors such as intent and desire to remain at current job as well as social outcomes. H4: Satisfaction, alternatives, and investments will individually predict OCB and workplace behaviors. H5: The direct effects of satisfaction, alternatives, and investments on OCB will be mediated by organizational commitment; therefore, their direct effects will be reduced when organizational commitment is added to the model. H6: Organizational commitment assessed with Rusbult and Farrell’s (1983) Investment Model of Commitment will more strongly predict OCB than Meyer and Allen’s (1991) Three Component Model of Commitment. Research Question: Conscientiousness was added as a control variable to determine the effects of personality on OCB. Investment Model and OCB 29