樊景立-組織公民行為量表組織公平量表

1、Organizational?Citizenship?Behavior?(OCB)?Scale英文名稱： ?Organizational?Citizenship?Behavior?(OCB)?Scale?中文名稱： ?組織公民行為量表 ?作？?者：？Farh,?J.?L.,?Earley,?PC.,?&?Lin,?S.?C.?出 ?處： ?Farh,?J.?L.,?Earley,?.?PC.,?&?Lin,?S.?C.?“ Impetus?for?action:?A?cultural?oanalysis?f?justice?and?organizational?citizenship?beha

2、vior?in?Chinese?society.” ?Atrative?Science?Quarterly,?1997,?42,?421-444.?簡 ?介： ?條 ?目： ?部屬的工作行為： 以下列敘述來描述他 (她) 的行為您是否同意？請逐項閱讀后填答。?1 ? ?非常不同意？?？ ？一 ？有點同意2 ? ?相當不同意？?3 ? ?相當同意3 ? ?有點不同意？?勿？一 ？非當同意4 ?- ?不能確定Identification?with?the?company?認同組織 ?Eager?to?tell?outsiders?good?news?about?the?company?and?cl

3、arify?their?misu nderstandings主動對外介紹或宣傳公司優(yōu)點，或澄清他人對公司的誤解。 ?Willing?to?stand?up?to?protect?the?reputation?of?the?company.? 努力維護公司形象，并積極參與有關活動。 ?Makes?constructive?suggestions?that?can?improve?the?operation?of?the?company.?主動提出建設性的改善方案，供公司有關單位參考。?Actively?attends?company?meetings.?以積極的態(tài)度參與公司內相關會議。 ?Alt

4、ruism?toward?colleagues?協(xié)助同事 ?Willing?to?assist?new?colleagues?to?adjust?to?the?work?environment.? 主動幫助新進同仁適應工作環(huán)境。 ?Willing?to?help?colleague?solve?work-related?problems.? 樂意協(xié)助同仁解決工作上的困難。 ?Willing?to?cover?work?assignments?for?colleague?when?needed.? 主動分擔或代理同事之工作。 ?Willing?to?coordinate?and?communic

5、ate?with?colleagues.? 主動與同事協(xié)調溝通。 ?Impersonal?harmony?不生事爭利 ?(人際和睦 )?Often?speaks?ill?of?the?supervisor?or?colleagues?behind?their?backs.?(R)? 經常在背后批評主管或談論同事之隱私。 (R)?Uses?illicit?tactics?to?seek?personal?influence?and?gain?with?harmful?effect?o n?interpersonal?harmony?in?the?organization.?(R) 在公司內爭權奪

6、利，勾心斗角，破壞組織和諧。 (R)?Uses?position?power?to?pursue?selfish?personal?gain.?(R)? 假公濟私，利用職權謀取個人利益。 (R)?Takes?credits,?avoids?blames,?and?fights?fiercely?for?personal?gain.?(R)?斤斤計較，爭功諉過，不惜抗爭以獲得個人利益。 (R)?Protecting?company?resources?公私分明 ?Conducts?personal?business?on?company?time?(e.g.,?trading?stocks,?s

7、hopping, ?going?to?barber?shops).?(R)?利用上班時間處理私人事務， 如買股票，跑銀行，逛街，購物，上理容院等。(R)?Uses?company?resources?to?do?personal?business?(e.g.,?company?phones,?cop y?machines,?computers,?and?cars).?(R)?利用公司資源處理私人事務， 如：私自利用公電話，復印機，計算機，公務車等。 (R)?Views?sick?leave?as?benefit?and?makes?excuse?for?taking?sick?leave.?(

8、R)? 經常借口請假，視為福利。 (R)?Conscientiousness?敬業(yè)守法 ?Often?arrives?early?and?starts?to?work?immediately.? 上班時經常提早到達，并著手處理公務。 ? Takes?ones?job?seriously?and?rarely?makes?mistakes.? 工作認真，并且很少出差錯。 ?Complies?with?company?rules?and?procedures?even?when?nobody?watches?a nd?no?evidence?can?be?traced.即使無人注意或無據(jù)可查時，亦

9、隨時遵守公司規(guī)定。 ?Does?not?mind?taking?new?or?challenging?assignments.? 從不挑選工作，盡可能接受新的或困難的任務。 ?Tries?hard?to?self-study?to?increase?the?quality?of?work?outputs.? 為提升工作品質，而努力自我充實。信?度：?效?度：?備?注：Organizational?Justice?Scale?英文名稱： ?Organizational?Justice?Scale?中文名稱： ?組織公平量表 ?作?者： ?Jason?A.?Colquitt?出 ? 處： ?Col

10、quitt,?J.?A.?(2001).?On?the?Dimensionality?of?Organizational?Justice:? A?Construct?Validation?of?a?Measure.Journal?of?Applied?Psychology?86(3):?3 86-400條?目：?Procedural?justice?The following items refers to the procedures used to arrive at your (outcome). Towhat extent:1. Have you been able to expres

11、s 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 ab

12、le to appeal the (outcome) arrived at by those procedures?7. Have those procedures upheld ethical and moral standards? Distributive?justice?The 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

13、 for the work you have completed?3. Does your (outcome) reflect what you have contributed to the organization?4.Is your (outcome) justified, given your performance? ?Interpersonal?justice?The following items refer to (the authority figure who enacted the procedure). To what extent:1. Has?(he/she)?tr

14、eated?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?justice?The following items refer to (the authority figure who enacted the procedure). To what extent:1. Has (he

15、/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 individual

16、s specific needs? 信?度：? 效?度：?備?注：Procedural?Justice?英文名稱： ?Procedural?Justice?中文名稱： ?程序公平 ?作？?者：？Farh,?J.-L.,?J?C.?Earley,?et?al.?出 ? 處： ?Farh,?J.-L.,?.P?C.?Earley,?et?al.?(1997).?Impetus?for?action:?A?cultural?an alysis?of justice?and.?Administrative?Science?Quarterly?42(3):?421.簡?介：?條？目：?Farh, J.-

17、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 memb

18、ers 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 participa

19、te 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

20、)4. My company does not take employees opinions into account in designing payand 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 re

21、sponsible parties must respond to the employee appeal;Employees questions concerning pay or performance appraisal are usually answered 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?dis

22、agree,?7=strongly? agree)?效?度：?備?注：Justice?Scale?英文名稱： ?Justice?Scale? 中文名稱： ?公平問卷 ?作？?者：？Niehoff,?B.?P,?&?Moorman,?R.?H.? 出?處：?Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Manage

23、ment Journal, 36(3), 527-556.簡?介：? 條?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

24、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 man

25、agers 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

26、 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 theaters hours of business. The assistant managers were not included in the data for this study.The employees completed a survey describing their per

27、ceptions 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 considered the general managers the appropriate referents for the meas

28、urement 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

29、 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

30、returned for a response rate of 81 percent. Conversations with the companys 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.Distrib

31、utive 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 u

32、nbiased 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.4. My general manager clarifies decisions and provides additional information when requested by e

33、mployees.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

34、. 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 decisi

35、ons 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 ma

36、king 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?reliab

37、ilities?above?.90?f or?all?three?dimensions.?效?度：?備?注：OCB Scale英文名稱： OCB Scale中文名稱： 組織公民行為問卷作 者： Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H.出 處： Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of

38、Management Journal, 36(3), 527-556.簡 介：條 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 t

39、he 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

40、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

41、 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 theaters hours of business. The assistant managers were not included in the data for thisstudy.The employees completed a survey describing their p

42、erceptions 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 considered the general managers the appropriate referents for the me

43、asurement 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 t

44、wo 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 wer

45、e returned for a response rate of 81 percent. Conversations with the companys 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

46、. 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

47、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 ta

48、lks about wanting to quit his/her job. (R)4. Always focuses on whats 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 eve

49、n 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 ) a

50、re reverse scored.信 ?度 ： ?The?reliabilities?were?over?.70?for?each?dimension,?and?all?items?used? a?seven-point?response?format.?效?度：?備?注：ognition-and?affect-based?trust?英文名稱： ?cognition-and?affect-based?trust?中文名稱： ?基于情感和認知的信任 ?作？?者：？Kok-Yee?Ng?黃國燕)?and?Roy?Y.?J.?Chua蔡泳瑜)？出?處：簡 ?介： ?條 ?目： ?Do I con

51、tribute more when I trust more? Differential effects of cognition-and affect-based trust?Kok-Yee?Ng?黃國燕)？and?Roy?Y.?J.?ChuO蔡泳瑜)?基于 McAllister?(1995) 的信任量表 ? 基于情感的信任 ?1. 你能夠與他們自由地分享想法、感受和希望。2. 你能夠與他們自由地談論你在工作中遇到的困難，并且知道他們愿意傾聽。3. 如果你告訴他們你的問題，你知道他們會給你提供建議并向你表示關心。4. 他們傾向于在工作關系中投入大量的感情。 基于認知的信任1. 他們是認真對待

52、團隊工作的人。2. 他們愿意為團隊工作做出重要的貢獻。3. 你可以信賴他們去做團隊中主要部分的工作。4. 他們是能夠完成團隊工作的人信 度： The multivariate analysis of the survey data confirm the reliability and validity.效 度： The multivariate analysis of the survey data confirm the reliability and validity.備 注：?Trust? 英文名稱： ?Trust? 中文名稱： ?信任 ?作？?者：？Brockner,?J.,?P?A

53、.?Siegel,?et?al.?出 ?處： ?Brockner, J., P. A. Siegel, et al. (1997). When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome. Administrative Science Quarterly 42(3): 558.簡 ?介： ?條 ?目： ?Brockner, J., P. A. Siegel, et al. (1997). When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome. Administrative Science Q

54、uarterly 42(3): 558.Participants were 354 employees whose median age was 32 years. Their median level of education completed was “ somecollege or technical school ” and their median level of total household income for the previous year was $30000-$50000. The racial/ethnic background of the group was

55、 57 percent white, 30 percent black, 9 percent Hispanic, and 4 percent Asian. To take part in the study, participants had to meet two criteria; (1) they had to be currently working for at least 20 hours per week, and (2) they had to have a supervisor.I can usually trust my supervisor to do what is g

56、ood for me;Management can be trusted to make decisions that are also good for me;I trust the management to treat me fairly.Responses could range from “ disagree strongly ” (1) to “ agree strongly The coefficient alpha was .75?信 ?度： ?The coefficient alpha was .75 效?度：?備?注：Trust?in?Leader?文名稱：？Trust?i

57、 n?Leader?Measureme nt?Scale ?沖文名稱： ?對領導的信任 ?作?者： ?Kurt?T?Dirks?出 ?處： ?Kurt T Dirks, Trust in leadership and team performance: evidence from NCAA basketball, Journal of applied psychology, 2000, vol. 85, No. 6, 1004-1012 簡?介： 條 ?目： ?Most team members trust and respect the coach. (. 93)I can talk fre

58、ely to the coach about difficulties I am having on the team and know that he will want to listen. (. 84)If I shared my problems with the coach, I know he would respond constructively and caringly. (.90)I have a sharing relationship with the coach. I can freely share my ideas, feelings, and hopes with him (. 86)I would feel a sense of loss if the coach