樊景立版的組織公民行為量表(共23頁)

1、精選優(yōu)質(zhì)文檔-傾情為你奉上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, P. C., & Lin, S. C.出處：Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. “Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizensh

2、ip behavior in Chinese society.” Administrative 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。非常不同意    有點同意相當不同意    相當同意有點不同意    非當同意不能確定Identification with the company 認同組織Eager to tell outsiders good new

3、s about the company and clarify their misunderstandings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(guān)活動。Makes constructive suggestions that can improve the operation of the company.主動提出建設(shè)性的改善方案，供公司有關(guān)單位參考。Actively attends company meetings.以積極的態(tài)

4、度參與公司內(nèi)相關(guān)會議。Altruism 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(yīng)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 communica

5、te with colleagues.主動與同事協(xié)調(diào)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(jīng)常在背后批評主管或談?wù)撏轮[私。(R)Uses illicit tactics to seek personal influence and gain with harmful effect on interpersonal harmony in the organization. (R)在公司內(nèi)爭權(quán)奪利，勾心斗角，破壞組織和諧。(

6、R)Uses position power to pursue selfish personal gain. (R)假公濟私，利用職權(quán)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, shopping, going to barber sh

7、ops). (R)利用上班時間處理私人事務(wù)，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, copy machines, computers, and cars). (R)利用公司資源處理私人事務(wù)，如：私自利用公電話，復(fù)印機，計算機，公務(wù)車等。(R)Views sick leave as benefit and makes excuse for taking sick leave. (R)經(jīng)常借口請假，視為福利。(R)Conscientiousness敬業(yè)

8、守法Often arrives early and starts to work immediately.上班時經(jīng)常提早到達，并著手處理公務(wù)。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 and no evidence can be traced.即使無人注意或無據(jù)可查時，亦隨時遵守公司規(guī)定。Does not mind taking new or challenging assi

9、gnments.從不挑選工作，盡可能接受新的或困難的任務(wù)。Tries hard to self-study to increase the quality of work outputs.為提升工作品質(zhì)，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：Colquitt, J. A. (2001). "On the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice: A Const

10、ruct Validation of a Measure." Journal of Applied Psychology 86(3): 386-400.簡介：條目：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 influe

11、nces 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 proce

12、dures 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?3.Does your (outcome) reflect what you have con

13、tributed to the 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) t

14、reated 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

15、 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：備注：Procedural Justice英文名稱：Procedural Justice中文名稱：程序公平作者：Farh, J.-L., P. C.

16、 Earley, et al. 出處：Farh, J.-L., P. C. Earley, et al. (1997). "Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and." Administrative Science Quarterly 42(3): 421.簡介：條目：Farh, J.-L., P. C. Earley, et al. (1997). "Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and." Administrat

17、ive 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

18、 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 unders

19、tand 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

20、 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

21、 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 disagree, 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

22、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 Management Journal, 36(3), 527-556.簡介：條目：Sample: The employees and general managers of a national movie theater management compa

23、ny 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

24、 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 assi

25、stants 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

26、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 assistan

27、t 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 managers provided data for the measures of organizational citizenship

28、 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 precautio

29、ns 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 sugg

30、ested 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.    

31、;   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 a

32、re 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.   

33、0;   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 employees. 5.       All job decisions

34、 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

35、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

36、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. &#

37、160;     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.     

38、0; 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

39、used by Moorman (1991) and had reported reliabilities above .90 for 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 organ

40、izational citizenship behaviors. Academy of 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 n

41、early 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 4

42、5. 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 ass

43、istants 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. Th

44、e 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 considered the gene

45、ral managers the appropriate referents for the 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 co

46、mpany 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

47、 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 thea

48、ters Altruism1.       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. 

49、0;     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 oth

50、ers. 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. (

51、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

52、 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.

53、60;      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 t

54、hat 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 reliabilitie

55、s were over .70 for each dimension, and all items used a seven-point response format.效度：備注：cognition-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：Management and Organization ReviewVolume 2 Page 43 - March 2006doi:10.1111/j.1

56、740-8784.2006.00028.x Volume 2 Issue 1 簡介：條目：Do I contribute more when I trust more? Differential effects of cognition-and affect-based trustKok-Yee Ng (黃國燕) 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?wù)撃阍诠ぷ髦杏龅降睦щy，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

57、并向你表示關(guān)心。4. 他們傾向于在工作關(guān)系中投入大量的感情。基于認知的信任1. 他們是認真對待團隊工作的人。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?nèi)プ鰣F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：Tru

58、st中文名稱：信任作者：Brockner, J., P. A. 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

59、of outcome." Administrative Science Quarterly 42(3): 558.Participants were 354 employees whose median age was 32 years. Their median level of education completed was “some college or technical school ” and their median level of total household income for the previous year was $30000-$50000. The

60、 racial/ethnic background of the group was 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 good for me;Management can be trusted to make decisions that are also good for me;I trust the management to treat me fairly.Responses cou