Editorial Board

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management

Perceived Effect of Interpersonal Trust, Intention to Stay and Demographic Variables on Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Author

Dr. Nasir Ali Associate Professor Department of Business Administration College of Business University of Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Dr. Mohammad Saleh Miralam Associate Professor Department of Business Administration College of Business University of Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Abstract

The present study was planned to explore the relationships between interpersonal trust, intention to stay and certain demographic factors and organizational citizenship behavior among IT professionals. It aimed at to predict the factors that influence the organizational citizenship behavior. A sample of 320 IT professional consisting of male and female selected to represent the population with an average age of 39 years. Organizational Citizenship Behavior questionnaire, Interpersonal Trust scale and Intent to Stay Scale were used to collect the information. Data were analyzed by means of stepwise multiple regression with the help of SPSS package. The results found positive correlation between age, salary, experience, and organizational citizenship behavior. Moreover, communication, openness and managerial support dimensions of interpersonal trust revealed inverse relationship whereas professional support, intention to stay revealed positive correlation with organizational citizenship behavior. However, salary and professional support appeared dominant factors that influence OCB and its dimensions. Salary, professional support and intention to stay with organizational citizenship behavior showed significant positive correlation. Moreover salary, experience, professional support, managerial support, communication and intention to stay emerged as the predictors of organizational citizenship behavior and its dimensions. Further significance of results and implications of the study discuss in detail.

Keywords: Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Interpersonal Trust, Intention to Stay

Introduction

In a highly global competitive professional environment organizational citizenship behavior plays very significant role for the development of employees skill, performance and organizational success where any voluntary action of employees may term OCB that employees select to do suddenly on their own will which is beyond their specified roles in job description. The organizational citizenship behavior witnessed the dependency of organizations on employees who helped others beyond bounded roles to help them for organizational effectiveness and efficiency (Sulphey & Al Kahtani, 2017). The employees working in any organization perform certain role that has been prescribed in job descriptions but they willingly co-operate colleagues without expecting any external rewards to achieve individual as well as organizational goals and enhance organizational efficiency, showing loyalty, team cohesiveness, organizational success and leading overall satisfaction. The concept of organizational citizenship behavior coined by Smith, et al. (1983) conducted a study and identified two important construct altruism and generalized compliance. Organ (1988) defined organizational citizenship behavior as an “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization”. He identified three main features of OCB that it is discretionary behavior; it goes beyond an enforceable requirement of job description and positively contributes to overall effectiveness of organization. Primarily organizational citizenship behavior is pro-social behavior which based on the description of an individual and bounded by prescribed role of the job. Further Organ (1988) highlighted altruistic and pro-social behavior, Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship, Courtesy and Civic Virtue as specific categories of discretionary behavior which is not recognizing for rewards though encourages active organizational functioning. OCB observed as extra role behavior performed beyond stated job requirement (Van Dyne, et al. 1995). Researchers discussed the differences and similarities of OCB from other concept like organizational commitment. Organ (1988) stated that difference is based on attitude while Cohen & Vigoda (2000) argued that OCB is empirically established fact related to Organizational commitment. However, interest gradually developing in OCB but there is lack of consensus on its facets. There is conceptual redundancy over the OCB constructs. However, different researchers identified redundant OCB construct by different names: altruism, helping behavior, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, organizational compliance, conscientious, individual initiatives, civic virtue, and self- development (Smith et al., 1983; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 1990; Moorman and Blakely, 1995; George and Jones, 1997; Di Paola et al., 2005; Organ et al., 2006; Kumar & Shah, 2015). OCB provides benefits to individual as well as organization (McNieely and Meglino, 1994). Halbesleben and Bellairs (2015) suggested that different people display same types of OCB but it does not mean it has the same source of motivation.

Trust: Socio-political and economic condition instigate the individual to develop group oriented organizational culture where employees take independent decision. It requires developing trust between employees and managers (Whitner, et al., 1998) and within the members of organization. The concept of trust first appeared in American Heritage Dictionary (1991) connotes "confidence in the integrity, ability, and truth of a person or thing". Trust refers a trademark of significance that determines the relationships within the group members in the organization. Mayer et al., (1995) defined trust as “a willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trust or, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that party.” According to Mishra (1996), trust defined “as one party’s willingness to be vulnerable to another party based on the belief that the latter party is competent, open, concerned and reliable”. Kramer (1999) stated that trust occupies a vibrant place in present-day organization theory and research. Many researchers observed that development of mutual trust as an integrative force determining organizational success and stability (Tyler & Kramer, 1996 and Shaw, 1997). Atkinson and Butcher (2003) viewed that trust can generated through cooperation and collaboration rather than utilization of authority. Hence, it became the central point of organizational social capital to realize the organizational goals through social interaction. Since trust is considered one of the pillar resemblance to the significant associations within the members of the organization working together. According to Robbins & Coulter (2005) trust can be defined as “the belief in the integrity, character, and ability of a leader”. The leader trusted behavior change the attitude of followers and group members towards the object.

Interpersonal trust: It is a close, deep and strong bond between two or more people that may last for a short duration to long period. It exists within the members of organization where people have belief and faith, and try to understand each other. According Six (2007) interpersonal trust refers as “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability to the actions that is important to you”. McAllister (1995) defined “interpersonal trust as the extent to which a person is confident in and willing to act on the basis of, the words, actions and decisions of another”. Geller (1999) defines “interpersonal trust is the extent of people ascribes good intentions and abilities to their peers”. Different researchers have different view on interpersonal trust but concentrating on belief, faith, confidence, positive intention and willingness to understand each other as the strength for smooth functioning of the organization. Intention to stay: The current period showing the highest unemployment rate stands at 6.1% in India beating the record of 45 years back (Business Standard, January 31, 2019), hence every employed person wants to remain with present employer. It might not be intention to quit the job unless an option is available. Intention to stay has defined as “employees' intention to stay in the present employment relationship with their current employer on long term basis”. The concept of intention to stay based on Social Exchange Theory of Thibaut and Kelley (1959) described the reason of personal relations of individual with others. The theory also highlighted the subjective associations as well as its costs and benefits. It demonstrated the costs and rewards relationships between employees and employer. Those who received benefits from other feel obligation and payoff through effort, commitment and loyalty. Hence, intention to stay in the organization reflects the employee’s commitment to his/her organization and the disposition to continue employed (Hewitt, 2004). Many studies have explained that it refers to intent to stay or intent to leave the organization revealed the behavior commitment and attachment (Halaby, 1986; Igharia & Greenhaus, 1992 and Tett & Meyer, 1993).

Review of Literature

Human relation movement paved the way for organizational citizenship behavior that influenced a large number of variables at individual as well as organizational levels. Several analytical studies conducted to determine the relationships of organizational citizenship behavior, trust, and interpersonal trust, intent to stay and intent to leave the organization. Harvey et al. (2018) tried to evaluate the impact of ten workplace trends which are related to human resource management influence OCB. On the basis of these 10 trends they identified the possible tendencies that influence citizenship behaviors of employees and the workplace of the future. They develop plans about how each trend of human resource management may impact OCB and observed the trends that influence the types of citizenship and opportunities for citizenship related to OCB are organizations and managers. In textile sector Kiziloglu (2018) observed a significant relation between organizational citizenship behavior and whistleblowing. Organizational citizenship behavior positively influenced job satisfaction and performance of employees (Lestari & Ghaby, 2018). Velickovska (2017) reviewed a number of studies conducted on OCB and tried to determine the relationship between OCB and other concepts like attitude, values, motivation, organizational culture, leader’s role as motivation factor to make them involve in organizational citizenship behavior (McClelland (1961). Kvitne (2017) conducted a study and utilized longitudinal data and found that individual OCB developed over the time and individuals differed in their development process and it is considered as a dynamic construct. Several Studies conducted to observe the effect of job satisfaction, job involvement, job stress, organizational commitment, turnover intention, job burnout, commitment, trust, role ambiguity and demographic factors on OCB (Lambert, Hogan, and Griffin,2008; Lambert, 2010; Lambert, Hogan, Kelly, Altheimer, Barton, and Shannon, 2012). It has also tried to examine the individual characteristic (Organ and Ryan, 1995 and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996), Task characteristics (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994) and Organizational characteristics (Lambert and Hogan, 2013). Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) attracted a wide range of attention and interest within the management scientist and organizational psychology (Sandhya & Sulphey, 2019 and Podsakoff, et al. 2009). OCB represents work behavior and increases organizational efficiency and task performance (Organ, 1997). These behaviors are voluntary and less likely to formal organizational rewards than task performance such as helping colleagues without expecting any reward, passing information and obedience for informal rules (Williams & Anderson, 1991). The success of an organization to a large extent depends on job satisfaction, commitment, employee engagement (Ali, et al., 2004, Allam & Harish, 2010; Al-Kahtani & Allam, 2017a) and job performance of employees (Kozlowski, Chen, & Salas, 2017) and also involved in voluntary and spontaneous activities to assist and help other employees at workplace (Organ, Podsakoff, and Mackenzie, 2006) willing to cooperate their coworkers, contribute to achieve overall organizational goals. OCB has been identified as an outcome behavior of offering, if such behavior sponsored by employer, it may aptly appear as a categorized form of OCB in future (Rodell, Breitsohl, Schröder, and Keating, 2016). Leadership behavior, trait and style significantly influence Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (Suliman& Al Obaidli , 2013 & Malik et al. 2012). Researchers conducted to determine the relationships between OCB and trust and established the fact that those who trust their supervisors increased OCB (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen 2002; Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Moorman, & Fetter 1990). In others research Aryee et al., (2002) and Rahim, Magner, Antonioni, & Rahman, (2001) observed significant relationships between perceptual work behavior as OCB and trust in supervisor. Allam (2017) investigated the level of interpersonal trust among university employees and observed that female employees showed significantly higher degree of professional support as compared to male. On the other hand professional support and managerial competence appeared to be highest factors of interpersonal trust. Ali &Allam (2016) conducted a research on employee’s interpersonal trust and general role stress and found significant relationship between general role stress and openness, professional support and managerial competence parameter of interpersonal trust. They observed managerial competence one of the most dominant parameter of interpersonal trust has significant effect on general role stress as a whole. It was found that all facets of OCB showed positive relationships with organizational trust (Singh & Srivastava, 2016). High degree of Interpersonal trust influence the smooth functioning of organization. Asamani (2015) observed that interpersonal trust significantly influenced OCB at work. Further, it was found that OCB influenced by employees trust in co-workers greater than managers. Singh & Srivastava (2009) conducted a study to examine the relationships between interpersonal trust and OCB on different levels of executives in manufacturing and services sectors and observed positive relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and Interpersonal trust. Interpersonal trust and intergroup relations suggested pro-social behavior might be related to compassion, compromise, and constant assistance between group members. There is strong global level competition and organizations need multifaceted specialized workforce to compete global market. Organizations are searching to retain competent and skilled personnel and in absence organization faces great problem, since OCB instigate employees to remain with organization (Lavelle, 2010). Altruistic behavior offer technical, moral and social support to co-workers without expecting anything in return at the time of need and can boost confidence, group cohesiveness to team members which enhance performance and attract skilled, competent employees to remain in the organization ( Ali et at., 2004 and Organ et al., 2006). Podsakoff et at., (2009) observed OCB affects the employees turnover intention. Khalid and Ali (2005) observed that employee’s altruistic behavior, sportsmanship and civic virtue were related to turnover intention. It was found that employees’ perception towards Leader’s fairness and equity forces them citizenship behavior and predict intention to stay with the organization (Organ, 1988 and Mc Farlin & Sweeney, 1992). Bolino et al., (2015) suggested that intention to stay among employees in the organization is one of the important outcomes of OCB and their behavior will endure till environment changes.

Objectives of the Study

The present study contemplated to determine the effect of interpersonal trust, intention to stay and certain demographic variables on organizational citizenship behavior among IT professionals. 1. To determine the relationships between demographic variables, interpersonal trust and intention to stay with organizational citizenship behavior and its dimensions among IT professionals. 2. To determine the predictors of organizational citizenship behavior and its dimensions within the demographic variables, interpersonal trust and intention to stay among IT professional.

Hypothesis: In order to verify the results certain null hypothesis were formulated as follow:
H01. There would not be any predictors within demographic variables, interpersonal trust and intention to stay of organizational citizenship behavior among IT professionals. 
H02. There would not be any predictors within demographic variables, interpersonal trust and intention to stay of altruism.
H03. There would not be any predictors within demographic variables, interpersonal trust and intention to stay of courtesy.
H04. There would not be any predictors within demographic variables, interpersonal trust and intention to stay of civic virtue.
H05. There would not be any predictors within demographic variables, interpersonal trust and intention to stay of sportsmanship.
H06. There would not be any predictors within demographic variables, interpersonal trust and intention to stay of compliance.

Methodology

Sample

Sample is any small number of events, individuals or objects selected to represent the population according to certain rules. A good sample is unbiased and representative of the population. The sample size is utmost most important features for empirical researches that play a significant role in statistical analysis and to drawing conclusion based on obtained results. Keeping in view the objectives in mind a sample of 320 IT Professionals selected through convenient random sampling technique from Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The sample consists of male (187) and female (133) with a varied age and experience. Age varied from 25 to 57 with an average of 39 years and work experience varied from 3 to 25 with an average of 16 years. Respondents were assured that their information will be kept confidential and use only for academic purposes.

Tools Used:

Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Kumar and Shah (2015) adopted version of Podsakoff (1990) scale in Asian context used to collect information to measure OCB. This scale consists of 15 items with 5 dimensions viz. altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, civic virtue and compliance. Each item rated on a 7 point Likert scale with a weighted score of 1 to 7 (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree). The reliability and validity of scale was determined. Interpersonal Trust Scale: Shafali et al., (2011) interpersonal trust scale used to collect the data. This instrument consists of 24 items and 4 parameters i.e. communication, openness, professional support and managerial support, each item rated on four point rating scale with a response category of totally disagree to totally agree with a weighted score of “0 – 3”. All odd items are positively keyed and all even items are negatively keyed. Reliability of scale was established by reliability coefficient is 0.91 and its validity was determined. Intent to Stay Scale: A four items Intent to Stay Scale developed by Price and Muller (1986) and each item rated on a 5- point Liker type rating scale. Item No.1 is negatively keyed and remaining items are positively keyed with a score range from 4 to 20. The reliability of the scale is established by Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .85 to .90. 4. 3. Design of the study: In the present study correlational research design is used to see the relationship with each variable and also predict the factors that contribute to influence the criterion variables.

Results and Discussion

Table-1: Descriptive statistics showing Mean, Sd. and Correlations between demographic variables, Facets of Interpersonal Trust, Intention to Stay and Organizational Citizenship Behavior of IT Professionals (N = 320).

on IT professionals. All the facets of interpersonal trust, intention to stay, and demographic variables e.g. age, salary and work experience taken as independent variables showed mean, standard deviation and correlation with organizational citizenship behavior of information technology professionals. The results revealed significant positive correlation between age, salary and work experience (r = .545, P<.01 and r = .862 P<.01) respectively. Employees work experience and salary positively correlated (r = .48, P<.01), age and managerial support showed significant negative correlation (r = -.147, P< .01). There is inverse relationship between intention to stay and age of employee (r = -.112, P< .05). Age, civic virtue (r = .139, P<.05) and total OCB (r = .051) exhibited positive correlation. Similarly salary appeared of one of the important factor that influenced OCB (r = .213, P<.01) and its facets for example courtesy, civic virtue and sportsmanship revealed significant positive relationships (r =.226, P<.01; r = .245, P< .01 and r = .197, P< .01) respectively. On the other hand inverse relationships observed between salary and interpersonal trust (r = -.205, P< .01) and its facets communication (r -.259, P<.01), professional support (r = -.241, P< .01) but salary and managerial support revealed positive correlation (r = .053). Salary and intention to stay with organization exhibit inverse relationship (r = -.111, P< .05). There is a significant positive relationship between total trust and communication, openness, managerial support and professional support. Indeed, in the organization, professional support, managerial support prevails with priority and doors are open for communication trust built up among employees and set goals of organization are realized. Professional support appeared important factor of interpersonal trust that significantly influenced altruism (r = .158, P<.01) and organizational citizenship behavior ( r=.127, P< .05) as a whole. There are significant positive correlation between Intention to stay and OCB (r = .333, P< .01), altruism (r = .185, P< .01), courtesy (r = .151, P< .01) and compliance (r = .560, P< .01). Many researchers observed that developing mutual trust between employees and managers as an integrative force determining organizational success and stability (Tyler & Kramer, 1996; Shaw, 1997 and Whitner, Brodt, Korsgaard& Werner, 1998). Intention to stay is one of the important independent variable that significantly influenced organizational citizenship behavior.

Table- 2: Model Summary of Regression analysis on Organizational Citizenship Behavior of IT Professionals (N = 320).

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	Change Statistics
					R Square Change	F Change	Sig. F Change
1. Intention to Stay	.333a	.111	.108	9.495	.111	39.629	.000
2. Intention to Stay, Salary	.417b	.174	.169	9.165	.063	24.287	.000
3. Intention to Stay, Salary, Professional Support	.456c	.208	.200	8.990	.034	13.460	.000
4. Intention to Stay, Salary, Professional Support, Communication	.473d	.224	.214	8.913	.016	6.478	.011

a. Predictors: (Constant), Intention to Stay
b. Predictors: (Constant), Intention to Stay, Salary
c. Predictors: (Constant), Intention to Stay, Salary, Professional Support
d. Predictors: (Constant), Intention to Stay, Salary, Professional Support, Communication

Table 2 is showing the summary of regression analysis on OCB among IT professionals and in the first step intention to stay emerged as the dominant predictor of organizational citizenship behavior within the independent variables. The correlation coefficient between independent and dependent variable (R = .333) found significant. The calculated value of R2 = .111 indicative of linear model as coefficient of determination of OCB for IT professionals. It explained 11.1% variation in OCB as dependent variable. The observed value of F- change (F = 39.62, P< .01) is significant in the organizational citizenship behavior of employees. In the second step salary emerged as the important predictor of organizational citizenship and correlation coefficient between independent and dependent variable (R = .417) found significant. The calculated value of R2 = .174 indicative of linear model as coefficient of determination of OCB for IT professionals. It explained alone 6.3% variance in the dependent variable. In the third step professional support one of the factors of interpersonal trust emerged as the predictor of organizational citizenship behavior within the demographic variables and factors of interpersonal trust among IT professionals. The correlation coefficient between organizational citizenship behavior and professional support along with Intention to Stay, and salary found significant (R = .456). The observed R2 = .208 indicated the linear relationship between OCB and professional support. It explained 20.8% variation in the organizational citizenship behavior along with intention to stay and salary and alone explained 3.4% variance and F-Change (F = 13.46, P< .01) observed significant. In the fourth step communication one of dimensions of interpersonal trust emerged as the predictor of organizational citizenship and correlation coefficient between independent and dependent variable (R = .473) found significant. The calculated value of R2 = .224 indicative of linear model as coefficient of determination of OCB for IT professionals. It alone explained 1.6% variance in the dependent variable and F-Change (F = 6.478, P< .01) observed significant. The significant level of F Change rejects the proposed null hypothesis (H01) that OCB has been identified as an outcome behavior of intention to stay, salary, professional support and communication (Rodell, Breitsohl, Schröder, and Keating, 2016). Salary, Professional support and communication (Allam, 2017b; Ali & Allam, 2016 and Singh & Srivastava, 2016) supported the current research

Table – 3: Coefficient of Regression on Organizational Citizenship Behavior of IT Professionals (N = 320).

Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	41.997	1.713		24.511	.000
	Intention to Stay	.860	.137	.333	6.295	.000
2	(Constant)	32.674	2.513		13.002	.000
	Intention to Stay	.932	.133	.361	7.028	.000
	Salary	.001	.000	.253	4.928	.000
3	(Constant)	28.272	2.741		10.313	.000
	Intention to Stay	.932	.130	.361	7.163	.000
	Salary	.001	.000	.299	5.757	.000
	Professional Support	.456	.124	.189	3.669	.000
4	(Constant)	30.396	2.843		10.691	.000
	Intention to Stay	.932	.129	.361	7.223	.000
	Salary	.001	.000	.276	5.283	.000
	Professional Support	.601	.136	.250	4.428	.000
	Communication	-.348	.137	-.144	-2.545	.011

a. Dependent Variable: Total –OCB (Organizational Citizenship Behavior) It is apparent from Table-3 that regression coefficient for OCB of IT professionals. In the first model unstandardized coefficient OCB made constant at B =41.997, with standard error 1.713 observed for intention to stay with total OCB in regression equation. Intention to stay emerged as predictor of total OCB in IT professional. Standard errors are displaying the variations in sample scores on organizational citizenship behavior. The Beta coefficient for intention to stay was found .333 emerged in standardized (z-score) form with t-value 6.295 found significant at .01 levels. In the second model OCB made constant at B = 32.674 with standardized coefficient Beta for salary was found .253 emerged in standardized (z-score) form with t-value 4.928 found significant at .01 levels. In the third step professional support one of dimensions of interpersonal trust (B = .456) with standard error .124 used to compute regression equation of employees on OCB. The observed Beta coefficient .189 described the variables in the same unit of measurement. The t-value of professional support (t =3.669, P<.01) appeared statistically significant while communication revealed inverse Beta coefficient -.144 with t- value -2.545 significant at .01 levels. The proposed rejected the null hypothesis (H01) was rejected

Table- 4: Model Summary of Regression analysis on Altruism one of dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behavior of IT Professionals (N = 320).

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	Change Statistics
					R Square Change	F Change	Sig. F Change
1. Intention to Stay	.185a	.034	.031	3.168	.034	11.310	.001
2. Intention to Stay, Professional Support	.240b	.058	.052	3.134	.023	7.877	.005

a. Predictors: (Constant), Intention to Stay b. Predictors: (Constant), Intention to Stay, Professional Support Table 4 is showing the summary of regression analysis on altruism one of dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior among IT professionals. In the first step Intention to stay emerged as the dominant predictor of altruism within the independent variables. The correlation coefficient between independent and dependent variable (R = .158) found significant. The calculated value of R2 = .034 indicative of linear model as coefficient of determination of altruism for IT professionals. It explained 3.4 % variation in altruism as dependent variable. The observed value of F- change (F = 11.310, P< .01) is significant in the altruistic behavior of employees. In the second step professional support along with intention to stay emerged as predictor of altruism. The correlation coefficient between professional support and altruistic behavior R = .240 suggests that there is a linear relationship between predictor and outcome variable. It might be interpreted that professionally competent employees helped others without expecting anything in return based on interpersonal trust influenced altruistic behavior among fellow workers (Ali & Allam, 2016 and Singh & Srivastava, 2016). The observed value of coefficient of determination R2 = .058 is accounted for 2.3% variation in dependent variable explained by regression model. The significant level of F Change (F = 7.877, P< .01) rejects the proposed hypothesis (H02) that professional support emerged as predictor of altruism.

Table – 5: Coefficient of regression on Altruism one of dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behavior of IT Professionals (N = 320).

Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	13.438	.572		23.507	.000
	Intention to Stay	.153	.046	.185	3.363	.001
2	(Constant)	12.734	.619		20.581	.000
	Intention to Stay	.150	.045	.181	3.322	.001
	Professional Support	.118	.042	.153	2.807	.005

a. Dependent Variable: Altruism Results shown in Table 5 that regression coefficient for altruistic behavior of employees explore the fact that altruism made constant at B =13.438, unstandardized coefficient B =.153, standard error .046 observed for intention to stay with altruism in regression model. Intention to stay appeared as predictor of helping behavior of employees. The employees want to stay with organization help others without expecting anything in return from them. Standard errors are showing the deviations in scores on altruism. Standardized Beta coefficient for intention to stay .185 explained variable in standardized (z-score) form and t = 3.363 found significant at .01 levels. In the second model professional support appeared predictor of altruism with unstandardized coefficient B = .118 with standard error .042. Standardized Beta coefficient for professional support .153 explained variable in standardized (z-score) form and t = 2.807 found significant at .01 levels rejects the proposed hypothesis (H02) that professional support along with intention to stay emerged as the predictors of altruism dimensions of OCB among IT professionals

Table- 6: Model Summary of Regression analysis on Courtesy one of dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behavior of IT Professionals (N = 320).

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	Change Statistics
					R Square Change	F Change	Sig. F Change
1. Salary	.226a	.051	.048	3.028	.051	17.168	.000
2. Salary, Intention to Stay	.287b	.083	.077	2.983	.031	10.817	.001
3. Salary, Intention to Stay, Professional Support	.330c	.109	.101	2.944	.026	9.388	.002
4. Salary, Intention to Stay, Professional Support, Experience	.362d	.131	.120	2.912	.022	8.076	.005
5. Salary, Intention to Stay, Professional Support, Experience, Total- Trust	.392e	.154	.140	2.878	.022	8.336	.004

a. Predictors: (Constant), Salary
b. Predictors: (Constant), Salary, Intention to Stay
c. Predictors: (Constant), Salary, Intention to Stay, Professional Support
d. Predictors: (Constant), Salary, Intention to Stay, Professional Support, Experience
e. Predictors: (Constant), Salary, Intention to Stay, Professional Support, Experience, Total- Trust

It appears from the results shown in Table 6 that salary emerged as the dominant predictor of courtesy. There is correlation coefficient between salary and courtesy among information technology professionals (R = .226, P< .01) and R2 = .051 explained alone 5.1% variation in courtesy with F change (F = 17.168, P< .01). In the second model salary along with intention to stay accounted for 8.3% variation in the dependent variable courtesy with F change ( F = 10.817, P < .01). In the third model professional support one of the dimensions of interpersonal trust emerged as predictor of courtesy which is discretionary behavior of individuals preventing problems at workplace. The result interpreted that there is substantially higher degree of interpersonal among employees. In the fourth step work experience appeared as the predictor of courtesy. The work experience alone explained 2.2% variance in the courtesy that enhance the organizational citizenship behavior among employees. In the last model total interpersonal trust along with salary, intention to stay, professional support and experience influenced courtesy that accounted for 15.4% variation and alone total interpersonal trust explained 2.2% variance in courtesy, one of dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior with F change ( F = 8.336, P < .01) rejects the proposed hypothesis (H03).

Table – 7: Coefficient of Regression on Courtesy one of dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behavior of IT Professionals (N = 320).

Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	5.746	.589		9.762	.000
	Salary	.000	.000	.226	4.143	.000
2	(Constant)	3.848	.818		4.706	.000
	Salary	.000	.000	.246	4.545	.000
	Intention to Stay	.142	.043	.178	3.289	.001
3	(Constant)	2.645	.898		2.946	.003
	Salary	.000	.000	.286	5.206	.000
	Intention to Stay	.142	.043	.178	3.331	.001
	Professional Support	.125	.041	.168	3.064	.002
4	(Constant)	3.053	.899		3.395	.001
	Salary	.000	.000	.374	5.981	.000
	Intention to Stay	.141	.042	.177	3.341	.001
	Professional Support	.140	.041	.189	3.452	.001
	Experience	-.083	.029	-.172	-2.842	.005
5	(Constant)	4.342	.995		4.364	.000
	Salary	.000	.000	.376	6.084	.000
	Intention to Stay	.144	.042	.180	3.445	.001
	Professional Support	.261	.058	.351	4.500	.000
	Experience	-.091	.029	-.188	-3.138	.002
	Total- Trust	-.063	.022	-.222	-2.887	.004

It is evident from results shown in Table 7 that coefficient of regression on Courtesy as one of the dimensions of OCB studied as dependent variable and salary, intention to stay, professional support, experience and total interpersonal trust as independent variable of IT professionals. Salary, intention to stay and professional support emerged as predictor of courtesy among Information Technology professional (Ref. Table- 3). The constant unstandardized coefficient for Courtesy observed, B = 5.746 with standard error = .589 explained the variations in sample scores on Courtesy. The standardized Beta coefficient (β = .226) explained the variables in z- score form with t- value, used to test the hypothesis, there is not predictors within the independent variables. But salary, intention to stay, professional support, experience and total interpersonal trust emerged as predictors for courtesy. In might interpreted that salary, intentions to stay with the same organization, work experience and high interpersonal trust among employees influence the citizenship behavior. The t- values were found significant beyond .01 levels. Thus proposed hypothesis (H03) was rejected.

Table- 8: Model Summary of Regression analysis on Civic Virtue one of dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behavior of IT Professionals (N = 320).

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Change Statistics
				R Square Change	F Change	Sig. F Change
1. Salary	.245a	.060	.057	.060	20.341	.000
2. Salary, Professional Support	.299b	.089	.084	.029	10.154	.002
3. Salary, Professional Support, Managerial Support	.332c	.110	.102	.021	7.484	.007

a. Predictors: (Constant), Salary
b. Predictors: (Constant), Salary, Professional Support
c. Predictors: (Constant), Salary, Professional Support, Managerial Support

Table 8 is showing the results that salary emerged as the most dominant predictor of civic virtue followed by professional support and managerial support to develop civic virtue among employees. In the first model R = .245 appeared between salary and civic virtue accounted for 6.0% variation in dependent variable with F Change (F = 20.341, P< .01). In the second model salary along with professional support accounted for 8.9% variation in civic virtue while in the third model salary along with professional support and managerial support accounted for 11.0% variations in the civic virtue. Professional support and managerial support dimensions of interpersonal trust play significant role to develop civic virtue as part of organizational citizenship behavior among IT professionals. These are associated with words, action and decision leading OCB in organizations. R squire change for professional support alone explained 2.9% variation whereas managerial support explained 2.1% variation in dependent variable and F Change (F = 10. 154, P<.01 and F = 7.484, P< .01) respectively found significant beyond .01 levels. The proposed hypothesis (H04) rejected, hence these factors emerged as predictors of civic virtue.

Table – 9: Coefficient of Regression on Civic Virtue one of dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behavior of IT Professionals (N = 320).

Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	5.900	.756		7.803	.000
	Salary	.000	.000	.245	4.510	.000
2	(Constant)	4.164	.923		4.511	.000
	Salary	.000	.000	.276	5.063	.000
	Professional Support	.187	.059	.173	3.187	.002
3	(Constant)	5.560	1.047		5.312	.000
	Salary	.000	.000	.286	5.298	.000
	Professional Support	.208	.058	.193	3.552	.000
	Managerial Support	-.137	.050	-.147	-2.736	.007

It is evident from Table-9 showing the regression coefficient for civic virtue of IT professionals. In the first model unstandardized coefficient civic virtue made constant at B =5.90, with standard error .756 observed for salary civic virtue in regression equation. Standard errors are displaying the variations in sample scores on civic virtue. The Beta coefficient for salary was found .245 emerged in standardized (z-score) form with t-value 4.51 significant at .01 levels. In the second model civic virtue made constant at B = 4.164 with standardized coefficient Beta for professional support one of dimensions of interpersonal trust (β = .187) with standard error .059 used to compute regression equation of employees on civic virtue. The Beta coefficient observed .173 described the variables in the same unit of measurement. The t-value of professional support (t =3.187, P<.01) appeared statistically significant levels rejected the null hypothesis (H04) that there is no linear relationship between independent variable and civic virtue. In the third model civic virtue made constant at B = 5.560 with standardized coefficient Beta for managerial support one of dimensions of interpersonal trust (β = -.137) with standard error .050 used to compute regression equation of employees on civic virtue. Calculated Beta coefficient (β = -.147) described the variables in the same unit of measurement. The t- ratio of managerial support (t =2.736, P<.01) appeared statistically significant. The proposed hypothesis (H04) was rejected.

Table- 10: Model Summary of Regression analysis on Sportsmanship one of dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behavior of IT Professionals (N = 320).

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	Change Statistics
					R Square Change	F Change	Sig. F Change
1. Salary	.197a	.039	.036	2.630	.039	12.851	.000
2. Salary, Experience	.225b	.051	.045	2.618	.012	3.958	.048

a. Predictors: (Constant), Salary 
b. Predictors: (Constant), Salary, Experience

Table 10 reveals the fact that salary is one the most important demographic factors that appeared to predict OCB and its facets. On the other hand experience emerged as the factor within the demographic variable that predict the OCB and its factors. There is correlation coefficient between salary and sportsmanship among IT professionals (R = .197) and R2 Change = .039 explained 3.9% variation alone in sportsmanship with F change (F = 12.851, P< .01). Sportsmanship is employee citizenship behavior that explains acceptable level of troublesomeness at workplace (Organ, 1988, 2006). In the second model coefficient of determination for experience calculated R2 = .051 accounted for 5.1% variation in sportsmanship. Although experience alone explained 1.2% variation in dependent variable with F Change (F =3.958, P < .05). It was presumed earlier that there is not any predictor within the independent variable on sportsmanship among IT professional. But F Change found significant hence rejects the proposed hypothesis (H05). The result might be attributed that salary and experience develop OCB as sportsmanship tolerating less than an ideal circumstance and avoiding complaining about the situations.

Table – 11: Coefficient of Regression on Sportsmanship one of dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behavior of IT Professionals (N = 320).

Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	4.945	.511		9.672	.000
	Salary	.000	.000	.197	3.585	.000
2	(Constant)	5.284	.537		9.846	.000
	Salary	.000	.000	.257	4.114	.000
	Experience	-.052	.026	-.124	-1.990	.048

Coefficient of regression on sportsmanship as one of the dimensions of OCB studied as dependent variable and work experience as independent variable among IT professionals. Salary and experience emerged as predictor of sportsmanship among Information Technology professional (Ref. Table- 6). The constant unstandardized coefficient for sportsmanship observed, B = 4.945 with standard error = .511 explained the variations in sample scores on sportsmanship. The standardized Beta coefficient (β = .197) explained the variables in z- score form with t = 3.585 found significant at .01 levels while salary along with experience made constant B = 5.284 with unstandardized coefficient of standard error .537. The standardized coefficient Beta (β= -.124) expressed the variable in z-score form with t = -1.990 used to test the hypothesis, there is not predictors within the independent variables. But salary and experience emerged as predictors for sportsmanship. Thus proposed hypothesis (H05) was rejected.

Table- 12: Model Summary of Regression analysis on Compliance one of dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behavior of IT Professionals (N = 320).

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	Change Statistics
					R Square Change	F Change	Sig. F Change
1. Intention to Stay	.560a	.314	.312	2.977	.314	145.511	.000

It is depicted from Table 12 that regression analysis on compliance one of the dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior. Intention to stay with the organization emerged as predictor of compliance among employees. The observed correlation coefficient between intention to stay and compliance R = .560 and coefficient of determination R2 = .314 revealed that intention to stay accounted for 31.4% variation in compliance with calculated F Change = 7.603 found significant beyond .01 levels. Employees who want to stay with the organization obey rules, regulation and procedures. They are willing to remain attached with the organization working for long hours, perform duties beyond prescribed hours in their job description (Shanker, 2018) where they comply with rules and regulations. Hence there is a close relationship between intention to stay and organizational citizenship behavior. The proposed hypothesis H06 rejected.

Table – 13: Coefficient of Regression on Compliance one of dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behavior of IT Professionals (N = 320).

Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	6.878	.537		12.803	.000
	Intention to Stay	.517	.043	.560	12.063	.000

Table 13 provides the descriptions of coefficient of regression for compliance. In the first model unstandardized coefficient compliance made constant B = 6.878 with standard error .537 and observed intention to stay with compliance in regression equation. Standard errors are displaying the variations in sample scores on compliance. The Beta coefficient for intention to stay was found .560 emerged in standardized (z-score) form with t-value 12.063 found significant beyond .01 levels rejected the proposed hypothesis (H06). The result attributed to intention to stay with organization accounted for developing organizational compliance among employees.

Conclusion

In the present scenario of global competitive professional environment organizational citizenship behavior plays a very significant role for the development of employees’ skills, performance and organizational success where any voluntary action of employees may term organizational citizenship behavior that employees select to do unexpectedly on their own will which is beyond their specified roles in job description. Interpersonal trust described as the extent of people ascribes good intentions and abilities to their peers whereas intent to stay explained employees' intention to stay in the present employment relationship with their current employer on long term basis. It has been tried to explore the relationships between interpersonal trust, intention to stay and certain demographic factors with organizational citizenship behavior among IT professionals. It also aimed at to predict the factors that influence the organizational citizenship behavior and its facets.Data were analyzed by means of stepwise multiple regressions with the help of SPSS package. The results found positive correlation between age, salary, experience, and organizational citizenship behavior. Moreover, communication, openness and managerial support dimensions of interpersonal trust revealed inverse relationship whereas professional support, intention to stay yield positive correlation with organizational citizenship behavior. However, salary and professional support appeared dominant factors that influence OCB and its dimensions. Salary, professional support and intention to stay with organizational citizenship behavior showed significant positive correlation. Moreover salary, experience, professional support, managerial support, communication and intention to stay emerged as the predictors of organizational citizenship behavior and its dimensions. The outcomes may vary as a result of socio-cultural effect from country to country and even in the same country within different regions.

Suggestions

In the light of outcomes certain suggestions have been made to improve organizational citizenship behavior. Organizations should motivate employees; provide autonomy to take part in voluntary activity, employees to be inculcated to trust with each other. Organization provides reasonable pay, incentives and benefits to satisfy their needs to retain them for success of organization. Because, the success and failure of an organization to a large extent depending on a satisfied/dissatisfied workforce. Further organizations pay attention to productive employees to develop organizational citizenship behavior. Organization provides opportunity to develop cordial interpersonal relations that improve interpersonal trust and faith amongst employees. Managers can apply organizational citizenship behavior for hike in salary, performance, promotion and transfer of employees in the organization.

References

Al Kahtani, N.S.  & Allam, Z. (2013).  A Comparative Study of Job Burnout, Job Involvement, Locus of Control and Job Satisfaction among Banking Employees of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Life Science Journal, 10(4), 2135-2144
Albrecht, S., & Travaglione, A. (2003). Trust in public sector senior management during the times of turbulent changes. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(2), 1–17.

Ali, N. & Allam, Z. (2016).Antecedents and outcomes of interpersonal trust and general role stress: The case of prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, International Journal of Economic Research, 13(1), 395-411.
Ali, N., Khan, M.S., & Allam, Z. (2004). Job satisfaction among doctors: Effect of locus of control, age and marital status. PCTE Journal of Business Management, 1(2), 34-36.
Allam, Z.   (2017a). Employee   Disengagement:   A   Fatal   Consequence to Organization    and    its    Ameliorative    Measures.    International    Review    of Management and Marketing, 7(2), 49-52. 
Allam, Z. (2017b). Interpersonal Trust among University Employees: An Empirical Investigation. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 7, No. 4, 437-449.
Allam, Z., & Harish, K.T. (2010).Influence of Sociodemographic Factors on Job Burnout and Satisfaction among Eritrean Medical Workers. Nigerian Journal of Psychiatry, 8(1), 43-47.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P.S., & Chen, Z.X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3): 267–28.

Asamani, L. (2015). Interpersonal trust at work and employees’ organizational citizenship behaviour.International Journal of Business and Management Review, Vol.3, No.11, pp.17-29.
Atkinson, S., & Butcher, D. (2003). Trust in managerial relationships. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(4): 282–304.
Bolino, M.C., Hsiung, H.-H., Harvey, J. and LePine, J.A. (2015), “Well, I’m tired of tryin’!’ organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.100No.1,p.56.
Cohen, A.&Vigoda, E.  (2000). Do good citizens make good organizational citizens? Administration and Society, Vol. 32, 596-624.
DiPaola, M.F., Tarter, C.J. and Hoy, W.K. (2005), “ Measuring organizational citizenship of schools: the OCB scale”, in Hoy, W. and Miskel, C. (Eds), Educational Leadership and Reform, Vol. 4, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, pp. 319-341.
Geller, E. S. (1999). Interpersonal trust: Key to getting the best from behavior-based safety coaching. Professional Safety 44:4, 16-19.
George, J.M. and Jones, G.R. (1997), “Organizational spontaneity in context”, Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 153-170.

Halaby, C.N. (1986). Worker attachment and workplace authority. American Sociological Review. 51: 634649.

Halbesleben, J. and Bellairs, T. (2016). What Are the Motives for Employees to Exhibit Citizenship Behavior? Oxford Handbooks Online. 

Hewitt Associates LLC (2004). “Research brief: employee engagement higher at double digit growth companies”, available at: www.hewitt.com (accessed March 25, 2013).

Khalid, S.A. and Ali, H. (2005), “The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on withdrawal behavior: a Malaysian study”, International Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 30-40. 

Kiziboglu, M. (2018).The Relationship between Whistleblowing and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in Textile Sector. International journal of Organizational leadership,  Volume: 7   Issue: 4   Pages: 398-403. 
Kozlowski, S. W., Chen, G., & Salas, E. (2017). One hundred years of the Journal of applied psychology: Background, evolution, and scientific trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 237–253.
Kramer, R. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–598.
Kumar, M. M. and Shah, S.A. (2015).  Psychometric Properties of Podsakoff’s  Organizational Citizenship Behaviour  Scale in the Asian Context. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, Volume 3, Issue 1, No.9, pp. 51-60.
Kvitne, M.B. (2017). Development of Organizational Citizenship Behavior and the Effect of Psychological Contract Fulfillment: A Multilevel Longitudinal Study. Masters’ thesis at the Department of Psychology, University of Oslo.
Lambert, E. G. (2010).The relationship of organizational citizenship behavior with job satisfaction, turnover intent, life satisfaction, and burnout among correctional staff. Criminal Justice Studies, 23(4), 361-380. 

Lambert, E. G., & Hogan, N. L. (2013).The association of distributive and procedural justice with organizational citizenship behavior. Prison Journal, 93(3), 313-334. 

Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Dial, K. C., Altheimer, I., & Barton-Bellessa, S. M. (2012). Examining the effects of stressors on organizational citizenship behaviors among private correctional staff: A preliminary study. Security Journal, 25(2), 152-172. doi:10.1057/sj.2011.16.  

Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., & Griffin, M.L. (2008).Being the good soldier.Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(1), 56.

Lavelle, J.J. (2010), “What motivates OCB? Insights from the volunteerism literature”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 918-923.
Lestari,  E. R. &Ghabi, N.F. (2018). The influence of organizational citizenship behavior on employee's job satisfaction and performance. Industria: JurnalTeknologi and Manajemen Agroindustri, Vol. 7 (2), 116-123.

Malik, M. E., Ghafoor, M. M. &Iqbal, H. K. (2012).Leadership and Personality Traits as Determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) in Banking Sector of Pakistan. World Applied Sciences Journal 20 (8): 1152-1158.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., &Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational  trust.  Academy of Management Review,  20, 709 –734. 

McFarlin, D., & Sweeney, P. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 626–637.

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

Mishra, A.K. (1996). Organizational response to crises: The centrality of trust. In R.M. Kramer & T.R. Tyler (Eds), Trust in organization: Frontiers of theory and research (pp., 261–287). Newbury Park CA. Sage.

Moorman, R.H. and Blakely, G.L. (1995), “Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 127-142.

Narang, L., & Singh, L. (2012).Role of perceived organizational trust in the relationship between HR practices and organizational trust. Global Business Review, 13(2), 239–249.

Organ, D. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Organ, D. W. (1988).A Restatement of the Satisfaction-Performance Hypothesis.Journal of Management, 14(4), 547-57.

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. Human performance, 10(2), 85-97.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Mackenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, Ca: sage.
Organ, D., & Ryan, K. (1995).A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802.

Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and Mackensie, S.B. (2006), Organizational Citizenship Behavior.Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences, Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and Mackensie, S.B. (2006), Organizational Citizenship Behavior.Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences, Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual-and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied psychology, 94(1), 122-141.
Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and Blume, B.D. (2009), “Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a metaanalysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 122-141.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 22(2), 259-298. 

Podsakoff, P.M. and Mackenzie, S.B. (1994). Organizational citizenship and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 3 (3): 351–363.

Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S., Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), “Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers trust in leaders, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Leadership, Vol. 1, pp. 107-142.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., and Bachrach, D.G. (2000). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Critical Review of the Theoretical  and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Firther Research. Jjournal of Management, Vol. 26, No.3, 513-563.
Price, J., & Mueller, C. (1986).Handbook of organizational measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.  

Rahim, M.A., Magner, N.R., Antonioni, D., & Rahman, S. (2001). Do justice relationship with organization-directed reaction differ across U.S. and Bangladesh employees? International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(4), 339–349.

Rodell, J. B., Breitsohl, H., Schröder, M., & Keating, D. J. (2016).employee volunteering: a review and framework for future research. Journal of Management, 42, 55–84.
Sandhya, S. & Sulphey, M. M. (2019). An assessment of contribution of employee engagement, psychological contract and psychological empowerment towards turnover intentions of IT employees. International Journal of Environment, Workplace and Employment, 5 (1), 22-31.http://doi:10.1504/IJEWE.2019.097186.
Shafali et al., (2011). Training instruments in HRD and OD, 3rd Ed. New Delhi, Tata McGraw Hill Education Private Limited.
Shankar, M. (2018). "Organizational citizenship behavior in relation to employees’ intention to stay in Indian organizations", Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 24 Issue: 6, pp.1355-1366, https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-02-2018-0048.
Shaw, R.B. (1997). Trust in the balance: Building successful organization on results, integrity and concern. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Singh, U. and Srivastava, K.B.L. (2009). Interpersonal Trust and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Psychological Studies, 54:65–76.
Singh, U. and Srivastava, K.B.L. (2016).Organizational Trust and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. Global Business Review 17(3) 594–609.
Six , F. E. (2007). Building Interpersonal Trust within Organizations: A Relational Signaling Perspective. Journal of  Management Governance,11, 285–309.
Smith, C., Organ,  D. W. and Near,  J. P. (1983). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature and Antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653–663.
Suliman, A. & Al Obaidli, H. (2013). Leadership and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in the financial service sector The case of the UAE. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 115-134.
Sulphey, M. M. & Alkahtani, N. S. (2017). Organizational ambidexterity as a prelude to corporate sustainability, Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, 7 (2), 335-347. https://doi.org/10.9770/jssi.2017.7.2(13)
Sweeney, P.D. and Mc Farlin, D.B. (1993), “Workers’ evaluations of the ‘ends’ and the ‘means’: an examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 55, pp. 23-40. 

Tan, H.H., & Tan, C.S. (2000).Towards the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in organization. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 126(2), 241–260.

Tett, R.P., & Meyer, J.P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organisational commitment, turnover intention and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46(2), 259–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993. tb00874.

Thibaut, J.W. & Kelley, H.H., (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: John Wiley  and Sons, Inc

Tyler, T.R. & Kramer, R.M. (1996). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. London: Sage.

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors-in pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters).Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews, Vol. 17, 1995, 17, 215-285.

Velickovska, I. (2017). Organizational Citizenship Behavior- Definition, Determinants and Effects. Engineering management, 3 (1) (2017)  40-51.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991).Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of management, 17(3), 601-617. 
Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., and Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behaviour. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513-530.