1、Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Scale英文名称：Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Scale中文名称：组织公民行为量表作 者：Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., 2.Through various channels, my company tries to understand employees opinions regarding pay and performance appraisal policies and decisions.3.Pay decisions
2、 are made exclusively by top management in my company; others are excluded from this process; (R)4.My company does not take employees opinions into account in designing pay and performance appraisal policies. (R)Cronbach alpha was .717-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree)Appeal Mechan
3、ismThe company has a formal appeal channel;The company imposes a time limit within which the responsible parties must respond to the employee appeal;Employees questions concerning pay or performance appraisal are usually answered promptly and satisfactorily.Cronbach alpha was .817-point scale (1=str
4、ongly disagree, 7=strongly agree)信 度： Cronbach alpha was .71 7-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree)效 度：备 注：Justice Scale英文名称：Justice Scale中文名称：公平问卷作 者：Niehoff, B. P., thus, 11 general managers took part in the study. The number of employees per theater varied from 15 to 45. At each lo
5、cation, a group of assistant managers aided the general manager in the operation of the theater, but there were no direct lines of authority between these assistants and specific employees. In fact, the vice president for human resources described the assistant managers as a pool of assistants who c
6、ould 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 theaters hours of business. The assistant managers were not included in the data for this study. The employees comple
7、ted 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 general managers the a
8、ppropriate 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 company time. Since
9、data were being collected from two sources, employees and general managers, we asked all participants to put their names on the surveys but took precautions to insure confidentiality. Each employee received an envelope in which to seal the completed survey and mailed it directly to us. In total, 213
10、 out of 260 employee surveys were 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 s
11、even-point response format.Distributive justice1. My work schedule is fair. 2. I think that my level of pay is fair. 3. I consider my work load to be quite fair. 4. Overall, the rewards I receive here are quite fair. 5. I feel that my job responsibilities are fair. Formal procedures1. Job decisions
12、are made by the general manager in an unbiased manner.2. My general manager makes sure that all employee concerns are heard before job decisions are made. 3. To make job decisions, my general manager collects accurate and complete information. 4. My general manager clarifies decisions and provides a
13、dditional information when requested by employees. 5. All job decisions are applied consistently across all affected employees. 6. Employees are allowed to challenge or appeal job decisions made by the general manager. Interactional justice1. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager
14、 treats me with kindness and consideration. 2. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager treats me with respect and dignity. 3. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager is sensitive to my personal needs. 4. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager de
15、als with me in a truthful manner. 5. When decisions are made about my job, the general manager shows concern for my rights as an employee. 6. Concerning decisions made about my job, the general manager discusses the implications of the decisions with me. 7. The general manager offers adequate justif
16、ication for decisions made about my job. 8. When making decisions about my job, the general manager offers explanations that make sense to me. 9. My general manager explains very clearly any decision made about my job.信 度： The CFI for the three justice dimensions was .92. This scale was based on one
17、 used by Moorman (1991) and had reported reliabilities above .90 for all three dimensions.效 度：备 注：OCB Scale英文名称：OCB Scale中文名称：组织公民行为问卷作 者：Niehoff, B. P., 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
18、 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 shif
19、t 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 this study. The employees completed a survey describing thei
20、r 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 general managers the appropriate referents for the
21、 measurement of leader monitoring behaviors. The general managers provided data for the measures of organizational citizenship behavior; some general managers assessed OCB for 15 employees, and some assessed 45 employees. All surveys were completed on company time. Since data were being collected fr
22、om two sources, employees and general managers, we asked all participants to put their names on the surveys but took precautions to insure confidentiality. Each employee received an envelope in which to seal the completed survey and mailed it directly to us. In total, 213 out of 260 employee surveys
23、 were 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 loa
24、ds.2. Helps others who have been absent. 3. Willingly gives of his/her time to help others who have work related problems. 4. Helps orient new people even though it is not required. Courtesy1. Consults with me or other individuals who might be affected by his/her actions or decisions. 2. Does not ab
25、use the rights of others. 3. Takes steps to prevent problems with other workers. 4. Informs me before taking any important actions. Sportsmanship1. Consumes a lot of time complaining about trivial matters. (R) 2. Tends to make “mountains out of molehills“ (makes problems bigger than they are). (R) 3
26、. Constantly talks 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
27、 and procedures even when no one is watching. Civic virtue1. Keeps abreast of changes in the organization. 2. Attends functions that are not required, but that help the company image. 3. Attends and participates in meetings regarding the organization. 4. “Keeps up“ with developments in the company.I
28、tems denoted with ( R ) are reverse scored.信 度： The reliabilities were over .70 for each dimension, and all items used a seven-point response format.效 度：备 注：cognition-and affect-based trust英文名称：cognition-and affect-based trust中文名称：基于情感和认知的信任作 者：Kok-Yee Ng (黄国燕) and Roy Y. J. Chua (蔡泳瑜)出 处： Managemen
29、t and Organization ReviewVolume 2 Page 43 - March 2006doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00028.x Volume 2 Issue 1 简 介：条 目： Do I contribute more when I trust more? Differential effects of cognition-and affect-based trustKok-Yee Ng (黄国燕) and Roy Y. J. Chua (蔡泳瑜)基于 McAllister (1995)的信任量表基于情感的信任1. 你能够与他们自由地分享
30、想法、感受和希望。2. 你能够与他们自由地谈论你在工作中遇到的困难，并且知道他们愿意倾听。3. 如果你告诉他们你的问题，你知道他们会给你提供建议并向你表示关心。4. 他们倾向于在工作关系中投入大量的感情。基于认知的信任1. 他们是认真对待团队工作的人。2. 他们愿意为团队工作做出重要的贡献。3. 你可以信赖他们去做团队中主要部分的工作。4. 他们是能够完成团队工作的人信 度： The multivariate analysis of the survey data confirm the reliability and validity.效 度： The multivariate analys
31、is of the survey data confirm the reliability and validity.备 注：Trust英文名称：Trust中文名称：信任作 者：Brockner, J., P. A. Siegel, et al. 出 处： Brockner, J., P. A. Siegel, et al. (1997). “When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome.“ Administrative Science Quarterly 42(3): 558.简 介：条 目： Brockner, J., P. A.
32、 Siegel, et al. (1997). “When trust matters: The moderating effect 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
33、 household income for the previous year was $30000-$50000. The 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
34、 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 could range from “disagree strongly” (1) to “agree strongly” (4
35、).The coefficient alpha was .75信 度： The coefficient alpha was .75效 度：备 注：Trust in Leader文名称： Trust in Leader Measurement Scale 中文名称：对领导的信任作 者：Kurt T Dirks出 处： Kurt T Dirks, Trust in leadership and team performance: evidence from NCAA basketball, Journal of applied psychology, 2000, vol. 85, No. 6, 1
36、004-1012简 介：条 目：Most team members trust and respect the coach. (. 93) I can talk freely 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 sha
37、ring 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 left to take a job elsewhere. (. 96) The coach approaches his job with professionalism and dedication. (. 87) Given the coachs past performance, I see no reaso
38、n to doubt his comoetence. (. 87) I can rely on the coach not to make my job (as a player) more difficult by poor coaching.( 88)Other players and coaches consider the head coach to be trustworth. (. 94)Note. Instructions specify the head coach as the referent, Factor loading for the items are shown
39、in parentheses.All responses were on 7-point Likert scales ranging from I (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).信 度：效 度：备 注：Interpersonal Trust英文名称：Interpersonal Trust中文名称： 人际信任作 者：McAllister, D. J. 出 处： McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
40、 cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.简 介：条 目： Sample: A sample of 194 managers and professionals, including men and women from various industries, reported on cross-functional dyadic relationships with peers at work. Individuals enrolled in, and alumni of, the e
41、xecutive masters of business administration (EMBA) program of a major university in southern California were requested to participate and to nominate peers from work to participate with them. In examining relations among middle- and upper-level managers, I focused on relations of lateral interdepend
42、ence (Sayles, 1979), where the impact of trusts presence or absence was expected to be pronounced (Thompson, 1967). Each EMBA affiliate agreeing to participate nominated two peers, so triads were formed. Triad members separately completed surveys describing various aspects of their working relations
43、hips with one another. Respondents provided two forms of data: (1) information concerning one triad member from the perspective of a focal manager, and (2) information concerning the second triad member from the perspective of a peer. Data collected from respondents were combined to form manager-pee
44、r dyad records. Of the 197 individuals initially contacted, 80 agreed to participate, a 41 percent acceptance rate. Given the level of commitment involved (questionnaire response, as well as nominating peers), this response rate is well within accepted limits. The nominated peers were not associated
45、 with the EMBA program, and the response rate at the second stage of the study was 81 percent (194 of 240 EMBA students, alumni, and nominated peers). From the data collected, I constructed 175 complete manager-peer dyad records, which formed the basis for the present research. The initial contacts
46、also identified one person, in most cases a superior, familiar with the performance of all triad members to provide performance information; the superiors response rate was 86 percent. The respondents were, for the better part, mature (an average age of 38 years), well-educated (57 percent with some
47、 graduate training, 28 percent with undergraduate degrees) individuals with considerable organizational experience (an average professional tenure of 11.7 years). The profile of respondents by age and gender corresponds well with that of the population of EMBA students and alumni (average age 37 yea
48、rs, 74.8 percent men). Although further information on the population from which respondents were drawn was not available, it appeared likely that they were representative of the population.Ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Affect-based trust1. We have a sharing relationship. We can both freely share our ideas, feelings, and hopes.2. I can talk freely to this individual about difficulties I am having at work and know that (s)he will want to listen. 3. We would both feel a sense of loss if one of us was transferred and we could no longer work together
