樊景立-组织公民行为量表、组织公平量表

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., & Lin, S. C. 出 处：

Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. “Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 1997, 42, 421-444. 简 介： 条 目：

部属的工作行为：以下列叙述来描述他(她)的行为您是否同意？请逐项阅读后填答。

１ － 非常不同意 ５ － 有点同意 ２ － 相当不同意 ６ － 相当同意 ３ － 有点不同意 ７ － 非当同意 ４ － 不能确定

Identification with the company 认同组织

Eager to tell outsiders good news about the company and clarify their misunderstandings

主动对外介绍或宣传公司优点，或澄清他人对公司的误解。 Willing to stand up to protect the reputation of the company. 努力维护公司形象，并积极参与有关活动。

Makes constructive suggestions that can improve the operation of the company. 主动提出建设性的改善方案，供公司有关单位参考。 Actively attends company meetings.

以积极的态度参与公司内相关会议。 Altruism toward colleagues 协助同事

Willing to assist new colleagues to adjust to the work environment. 主动帮助新进同仁适应工作环境。

Willing to help colleague solve work-related problems. 乐意协助同仁解决工作上的困难。

Willing to cover work assignments for colleague when needed. 主动分担或代理同事之工作。

Willing to coordinate and communicate with colleagues. 主动与同事协调沟通。 Impersonal harmony 不生事争利 (人际和睦)

Often speaks ill of the supervisor or colleagues behind their backs. (R) 经常在背后批评主管或谈论同事之隐私。(R)

Uses illicit tactics to seek personal influence and gain with harmful effect on interpersonal harmony in the organization. (R)

在公司内争权夺利，勾心斗角，破坏组织和谐。(R) Uses position power to pursue selfish personal gain. (R) 假公济私，利用职权谋取个人利益。(R)

Takes credits, avoids blames, and fights fiercely for personal gain. (R) 斤斤计较，争功诿过，不惜抗争以获得个人利益。(R) Protecting company resources 公私分明

Conducts personal business on company time (e.g., trading stocks, shopping, going to barber shops). (R)

利用上班时间处理私人事务，如买股票，跑银行，逛街，购物，上理容院．．．等。(R)

Uses company resources to do personal business (e.g., company phones, copy machines, computers, and cars). (R)

利用公司资源处理私人事务，如：私自利用公电话，复印机，计算机，公务车．．．等。(R)

Views sick leave as benefit and makes excuse for taking sick leave. (R) 经常借口请假，视为福利。(R) Conscientiousness 敬业守法

Often arrives early and starts to work immediately. 上班时经常提早到达，并着手处理公务。

Takes one’s job seriously and rarely makes mistakes. 工作认真，并且很少出差错。

Complies with company rules and procedures even when nobody watches and no evidence can be traced.

即使无人注意或无据可查时，亦随时遵守公司规定。 Does not mind taking new or challenging assignments. 从不挑选工作，尽可能接受新的或困难的任务。

Tries hard to self-study to increase the quality of work outputs. 为提升工作品质，而努力自我充实。 信 度： 效 度： 备 注：

Organizational Justice Scale

英文名称： Organizational Justice Scale 中文名称： 组织公平量表 作 者： Jason A. Colquitt

出 处： Colquitt, J. A. (2001). \Construct Validation of a Measure.\条 目：

Procedural justice

The 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 influences over the (outcome) arrived at by those procedures? 3.Have those procedures been applied consistently? 4.Have those procedures been free of bias?

5.Have those procedures been based on accurate information?

6.Have you been able to appeal the (outcome) arrived at by those procedures? 7.Have those procedures upheld ethical and moral standards?

Distributive justice

The following items refer to your (outcome). To what extent: 1.Dos your (outcome) reflect the effort you have put into your work? 2.Is your (outcome) appropriate for the work you have completed?

3.Does your (outcome) reflect what you have contributed to the organization? 4.Is your (outcome) justified, given your performance?

Interpersonal justice

The following items refer to (the authority figure who enacted the procedure). To

what extent:

1.Has (he/she) treated you in a polite manner?. 2.Has (he/she) treated you with dignity? 3.Has (he/she) treated you with respect?

4.Has (he/she) refrained from improper remarks or comments?

Informational justice

The following items refer to (the authority figure who enacted the procedure). To what extent:

1.Has (he/she) been candid in (his/her) communication with you? 2.Has (he/she) explained the procedures thoroughly?

3.Were (his/her) explanations regarding the procedures reasonable? 4.Has (he/she) communicated details in a timely manner?

5.Has (he/she) seemed to tailor (his/her) communications to individuals’ specific needs? 信 度： 效 度： 备 注：

Procedural Justice

英文名称： Procedural Justice 中文名称： 程序公平

作 者： Farh, J.-L., P. C. Earley, et al.

出 处： Farh, J.-L., P. C. Earley, et al. (1997). \is of justice and...\简 介：

条 目： Farh, J.-L., P. C. Earley, et al. (1997). \for action: A cultural analysis of justice and...\

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 to supervisors and subordinates in each company. The sample consisted mainly of low to mid-level managers, engineers, salespersons, and clerical staff.

Participation

1.Managers at all levels participate in pay and performance appraisal decisions; 2.Through various channels, my company tries to understand employees’ opinions regarding pay and performance appraisal policies and decisions. 3.Pay decisions are made exclusively by top management in my company; others are excluded from this process; (R)

4.My company does not take employees’ opinions into account in designing pay and performance appraisal policies. (R) Cronbach alpha was .71 7-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree)

Appeal Mechanism

The 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 .81 7-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree)

信 度：gree) 效 度：备 注：

Cronbach alpha was .71 7-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly a Justice Scale

英文名称： Justice Scale 中文名称： 公平问卷

作 者： Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. 出 处：

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. 简 介： 条 目：

Sample: The employees and general managers of a national movie theater management company that operated 11 theaters in a large southwestern city were studied. The employees (N = 213) averaged 19.9 years of age and nearly two years of experience working in the theaters. A majority had completed high school, but only 17 percent had completed college. Each theater was under the authority of a general manager; thus, 11 general managers took part in the study. The number of employees per theater varied from 15 to 45. At each location, a group of assistant managers aided the general manager in the operation of the theater, but there were no direct lines of authority between these assistants and specific employees. In fact, the vice president for human resources described the assistant managers as a pool of assistants who could be assigned to any shift 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.

The 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 general 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 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 precautions to insure confidentiality. Each employee received an envelope in which to seal the completed survey and mailed it directly to us. In total, 213 out of 260 employee surveys were 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 theaters.

All items used a seven-point response format. Distributive justice 1. 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 procedures

1. 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. 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 are applied consistently across all affected employees.

6. Employees are allowed to challenge or appeal job decisions made by the general manager. Interactional justice

1. When decisions are made about my job, the general 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 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. Concerning decisions made about my job, the general manager discusses the implications of the decisions with me.

7. The general manager offers adequate justification for decisions made about my job.

8. When 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 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., & Moorman, R. H.

出处： 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. 简介：

条目：Sample: The employees and general managers of a national movie theater management company that operated 11 theaters in a large southwestern city were studied. The employees (N = 213) averaged 19.9 years of age and nearly two years of experience working in the theaters. A majority had completed high school, but only 17 percent had completed college. Each theater was under the authority of a general manager; thus, 11 general managers took part in the study. The number of employees per theater varied from 15 to 45. At each location, a group of assistant managers aided the general manager in the operation of the theater, but there were no direct lines of authority between these assistants and specific employees. In fact, the vice president for human resources described the assistant managers as a pool of assistants who could be assigned to any shift 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.

The 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 general 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 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 precautions to insure confidentiality. Each employee received an envelope in which to seal the completed survey and mailed it directly to us. In total, 213 out of 260 employee surveys were 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 theaters

Altruism

1. 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. Helps orient new people even though it is not required. Courtesy

1. Consults with me or other individuals who might be affected by his/her actions or decisions.

2. Does not abuse the rights of others.

3. Takes steps to prevent problems with other workers. 4. Informs me before taking any important actions. Sportsmanship

1. Consumes a lot of time complaining about trivial matters. (R)

2. Tends to make \are). (R)

3. Constantly talks about wanting to quit his/her job. (R)

4. Always focuses on what's wrong with his/her situation, rather than the positive side of it. (R)

Conscientiousness 1. Is always punctual.

2. Never takes long lunches or breaks. 3. Does not take extra breaks.

4. Obeys company rules, regulations and procedures even when no one is watching. Civic virtue

1. 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. \ Items 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：

ognition-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： Management 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 trust

Kok-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 analysis 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). \of outcome...\简 介： 条 目：

Brockner, J., P. A. Siegel, et al. (1997). \of outcome...\

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 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 could range from “disagree strongly” (1) to “agree strongly” (4). 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, 1004-1012 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 sharing relationship with the coach. I can freely share my ideas, feelings, and hopes with him (. 86)

I would feel a sense of loss if the coach left to take a job elsewhere. (. 96) The coach approaches his job with professionalism and dedication. (. 87) Given the coach's past performance, I see no reason 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 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 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 executive master's 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 interdependence (Sayles, 1979), where the impact of trust's 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 relationships 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-peer 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 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 also identified one person, in most cases a superior, familiar with the performance of all triad members to provide performance information; the superior's 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 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 years, 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 trust

1. 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.

4. If I shared my problems with this person, I know (s)he would respond constructively and caringly.

5. I would have to say that we have both made considerable emotional investments in our working relationship.

Cognition-based trust

1. This person approaches his/her job with professionalism and dedication. 2. Given this person's track record, I see no reason to doubt his/her competence

and preparation for the job.

3. I can rely on this person not to make my job more difficult by careless work. 4. Most people, even those who aren't close friends of this individual, trust and respect him/her as a coworker.

5. Other work associates of mine who must interact with this individual consider him/her to be trustworthy.

6. If people knew more about this individual and his/her background, they would be more concerned and monitor his/her performance more closely. [R]

信度： Reliability estimates (Cronbach's alphas) for the cognition- and affect-based trust measures are .91 and .89, respectively. 效度： 备注：

Intention To Quit

英文名

称： Intention To Quit 中文名 称： 离职意向

作 者： Landau, J., & Hammer, T. H. 出 处：

Landau, J., & Hammer, T. H. (1986). Clerical employees' perceptions of intraorganizational career opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 385-404. 简 介： 条 目：

Sample: This study was conducted in the summer in 1982 in two different types of organizations, a university and a state agency, both located in the northeastern United States.

University: of the 1,176 questionnaires sent out, 300 usable questionnares were returned for a response rate of 27 percent. The respondents included 6 men and 16 individuals from minority groups. Their average age was 35; their average tenure was eight years; and 83 percent did not have four-year college degrees. State Agency: of the 1,600 questionnaires distributed, 372 were returned for a response rate of 23 percent. These respondents included 25 men and 20 individuals from monorities. Their average age was 37; their average tenure was eight years; and 92 percent did not have four-year college degrees.

Unless otherwise noted, we used a 7-point response format, anchored 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree for the items in the scale. 1. As soon as I can find a better job, I’ll leave . 2. I am seriously thinking about quitting my job. 3. I am actively looking for a job outside .

信度： For University, α=.77; for State Agency, α=.73. 效度： 备注：

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/bb2o.html