Article

A Study on the Impact of Workplace

Commuting on Citizenship Behaviour
of Employees Working with Public
and Private Sector Organizations

Vision
19(1) 1324
2015 MDI
SAGE Publications
sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0972262914564043
http://vision.sagepub.com

Santhosh V.A.1

Abstract
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) a key determinant of organizational success is getting prime focus in the research arena.
The different antecedents and consequences of this discretionary behaviour are being considered as important for management of
human resources. From among the different impacting variables explored through numerous researches, the relationship with workplace commuting, the daily travel between place of work and place of residence stands critical. The study focuses on finding out the
impact of workplace commuting on citizenship behaviour of employees. Different dimensions of workplace commuting were identified and related with those of citizenship behaviour. Statistical analysis revealed the relationship between independent and dependent
variable.
Even though the relationship between the variables are rejected by the study, the negative correlation figures indicating lowering of
citizenship behaviour as a result of workplace commuting and its different variables is worth noting. The study concludes by emphasizing the importance of further research including variables like culture and performance.

Key Words
Workplace Commuting, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, Interpersonal Helping, Individual Initiative, Personal Industry, Loyal
Boosterism

Introduction
With the changing focus and social conditions, human
variable is now considered as the most important factor
deciding organizational success. Development of the discipline of organizational behaviour and its different sub
variables has added more focus and sophistication towards
human resource management. Organizational Citizenship
Behaviour (OCB) is one prominent variable indicating the
significance of manpower in organizational effectiveness.
Different scholastic studies have been conducted in the
area of citizenship behaviour relating it to different factors
including organizational effectiveness (Podsakoff and
MacKenzie, 1997). Empirical research has focused on major
categories of OCB including its different dimensions, antecedents and consequences. It is a concept which researches
have linked towards benefits substantially (Podsakoff et al.,
2000) and is considered as important in organizations. One
area untouched by researchers is the commuting strain taken

by an employee to travel from place of stay to work place

and its relationship with OCB. The relevance of this topic
arises as commuting between workplace and home is a
major issue in the modern work culture. Employees spend
considerable amount of time travelling between home and
workplace. It creates mental and physical burden and is only
chosen if it is either compensated by the job or by pleasant
living environment according to Stutzer and Frey (2008).
Citizenship behaviours, on the other hand, are a special
type of work behaviour that are defined as individual
behaviours that are beneficial to the organization and are
discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the
formal reward system (Organ and Ryan, 1995). Luthans
(2005) states the pre-dispositional traits of employees
with OCB to be cooperative, helpful, caring and conscientious. Since these behaviours primarily becomes a matter
of personnel choice, the impact of daily travel and its
consequences on citizenship behaviour needs more understanding and exploration.

Associate Professor and Associate Dean (Operations), TKM Institute of Management, Kollam.

Corresponding author:
Santhosh V.A., Associate Professor and Associate Dean (Operations), TKM Institute of Management, Kollam.
Email: drsanthoshva@gmail.com

14

Workplace Commuting
Commuting between place of work and place of residence
plays a significant role in deciding the overall well-being
of an employee. Generally, time and distance are two
important components used to measure the impact of
commuting between work and home. Researches suggest
implications of a wider nature in the changing social
conditions as a result of daily journey to work. Different
studies have addressed this area and have linked it with
different behavioural variables and performance measures.
Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and economist Alan
B. Krueger (2006), who studied on subjective well-being,
found that people are least interested in long commuting to
their workplace especially in the morning. Most of the
studies have negatively connoted long commuting to workplace with respect to different variables associated with
employee well-being. The more the time taken for travel
and more the distance travelled between work and home,
the more negative will be the psychological or behavioural
outcome (Koslowsky et al., 1996) and it creates more
negative effect than positive effect (Kahneman et al.,
2004). Results also indicate a negative correlation between
commuting time and individuals well-being (Stutzer and
Frey, 2004).
Commuting not only takes ones time but also gives stress
and different health problems. A Gallup survey (Crabtree,
2010) says that workers in America with lengthy commutes
are more likely to report a range of adverse physical and
emotional conditions, thereby reducing their well-being
index. Employees who commute more are also diagnosed
with health problems like high cholesterol, neck or back
pain and even obesity. The stress levels of the commuters
are also extremely high in extreme circumstances with
respect to heart rate and blood pressure. Recently, Reuters
mentions about a study conducted by researchers at
Washington University which states that long commutes to
work, particularly more than 10 miles (16 km), may be
hazardous to health and are associated with increased
weight, bigger waistlines and poorer heart and lung fitness
(Reuters, 2012). One question arises here is regarding the
appropriate commuting time which keeps an employee
healthy, physically and psychologically. The average commuting time suggested by Lewis (2004) is 4560 minutes
after comparing the heart rate and blood pressure of
125 commuters with those of pilots and police officers in
training exercises. Schwanen and Dijst (2002) on their study
concluded that a commuter spent 10.5 per cent of the time
available for work and travel (28 minutes for single trip) on
commuting for a workday comprising of eight hours.
Commuting also involves different out-of-pocket costs
and reduces the quality time spent by an employee, where
each minute an employee commute reduces his/her daily
exercise time by 0.0257 minute, food preparation time by
0.0387 minute and sleep time reduction by 0.2205 minute
(Christian, 2009). A typical household in the US spends

Vision 19(1)
20 per cent of the income on commuting compared with
food (EPA, 2001).
Researches have related commuting time with health
and family life (Haefner et al., 2001), women employees
(Novaco et al., 1991), attractiveness of the workplace
(Clark and Burt, 1980) and absenteeism (Ommeren and
Gutirrez-i-Puigarnau, 2011). If all workers would have a
negligible commute, employee absenteeism can be reduced
to 1520 per cent (Ommeren and Gutirrez-i-Puigarnau,
2011). It is also interesting to note that women experience
more stress on commuting even though men spend more
time each day on their daily commute (Nordqvist, 2011).
Hence for women even if they commute less than men, it
can become more strenuous. The domestic responsibilities
undertaken by women and their married life style compared
with men is one of the reasons that create a negative
influence in daily commuting (Hanson and Pratt, 1991).
This can also, in turn, affect their family life and worklife
balance. Hence women generally show reluctance to move
away from their family for occupation purpose and try to
find a job near to their home (Brun and Fagnani, 1994).
Ranyak (1952) says that people tend to minimize their
journey to work, maximize their employment benefits, and
maximize their residential amenities. Considering the
impact of commuting on different aspects of quality life,
the simple solution would be to minimize the distance of
travel between place of residence and place of work.
According to Carroll, Jr (1950), each worker seeks to
minimize distance from home to work. A very recent
survey conducted among 16,000 Indian professionals in
more than 80 countries has found that Indian employees
reduce their commuting time to work through various
measures and utilize that time with their families and
concentrate on their physical well-being. The research also
confirms that 72 per cent of the employees work harder,
benefiting the company, if they could reduce their commute
time (Regus International, 2012).
Different to the earlier said findings, there are also
commuters who turn the commuting time beneficially and
achieve the desired outcomes (Koslowsky et al., 1995).
The quality of commuting also has increased with better
transportation system and personal vehicles.
The overall impact of commuting on an employee thus
depends on different factors ranging from the quality of
transportation system prevailing in the country to the
interest, purpose and motive of the traveller. As commuting
being a daily affair for an employee in his work life, the
likes and dislikes towards commuting should be thoroughly
learned. The outcomes of such likes and dislikes are to be
explored as to understand its consequence on various
success parameters of the organization. One such parameter
considered as important in many organization for its
growth and success is the citizenship behaviour exhibited
by an employee towards the organization.
A critical review on the different researches conducted
in the area of citizenship behaviour would give a clear

Santhosh V.A. 15
understanding regarding the gap existing empirically on
the relationship with workplace commuting.

Organizational Citizenship Behaviour

OCB, initially conceptualized by Organ (1988), is a topic of
interest for the past 25 years. Organ (1988) defined OCB as:
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. By discretionary, we mean that the behavior
is not an enforceable requirement of the role or the job
description, that is, the clearly specifiable terms of the persons
employment contract with the organization; the behavior is
rather a matter of personal choice, such that its omission is not
generally understood as punishable.

The importance of OCB has been identified as an important

factor for any organization. The concept has undergone different revisions as a result of researches conducted in this field.
Basically OCB was divided into altruism (behaviour targeted
specifically at helping individuals) and generalized compliance (behaviour reflecting compliance with general rules,
norms and expectations; Smith et al., 1983). Further, Organ
(1988) divided it into altruism, courtesy, civic virtue, conscientiousness and sportsmanship. Podsakoff et al. (2000)
presented OCB with seven common themes or dimensions
like Helping Behaviour, Sportsmanship, Organizational
Loyalty, Organizational Compliance, Individual Initiative,
Civic Virtue and Self Development. Farh et al. (2004) categorized nine major dimensions of OCB: altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, civic virtue, functional
participation, advocacy participation, loyalty and voice. OCB
has also been refereed in different constructs, namely, prosocial organizational behaviour (Brief and Motowidlo, 1986),
pro-role behaviour (Parks and Kidder, 1994), extra-role
behaviour (Katz, 1964; Van Dyne et al., 1995), organizational spontaneity (George and Brief, 1992) and organizational
citizenship performance (Borman, 2004). Williams and
Anderson (1991) have given a different dimension to citizenship behaviour as those exhibited towards individuals
(OCBI) and towards organizations (OCBO).
Different studies have been conducted in exploring the
relationship of different antecedents of OCB like individual
characteristics, task characteristics, leadership behaviours
and organizational characteristics (Podsakoff et al., 2000).
Alizadeh et al. (2012) mention about role clarity, leadership,
organizational commitment, organizational justice and
individual traits as antecedents for citizenship behaviour.
The same study outlays the consequences of an employee
exhibiting citizenship behaviour as reduced employee
turnover, reduced absenteeism, employee satisfaction and
loyalty, consumer satisfaction and consumer loyalty.
Further researches have related citizenship behaviour
exhibited with employee attitude towards job and organization (Bateman and Organ, 1983), organizational

commitment (OReilly and Chatman, 1986), perceived

justice and fairness (Moorman, 1991), job satisfaction
(Organ and Ryan, 1995), leader behaviour (Pillai et al.,
1999), employees personality traits (Borman et al., 2001),
motivation (Rioux and Penner, 2001), task orientation and
contextual characteristics (Organ, 1997) and political and
communal citizenship (Graham, 1991). Procedural fairness
in supervisors decision is also related with citizenship
behaviour mediated by employee trust (Konovsky and
Pugh, 1994).
Demographic variables like experience, gender etc. is not
strongly associated with citizenship behaviour considering
the researches done so far. But further studies are required
for absolute confirmation as variables like empathetic
concern, perspective taking associated with women (Davis,
1983) conscientious behaviour associated with males (Parks
and Kidder, 1994) are all stimulators of OCB.
Now the concept of OCB has entered into other areas of
management, such as, human resources management
(Murphy and Shiarella, 1997), community psychology
(Burroughs and Eby, 1998), industrial and labour law
(Cappelli and Rogovsky, 1998), strategic management (Kim
and Mauborgne, 1998), international management (Kim and
Mauborgne, 1996), economics (Tomer, 1998) and leadership
(Podsakoff et al., 2000). On its relation with human resource
management, the philosophy, selection, evaluation, socialization rewards and rules framed and implemented by the
department influences the citizenship behaviour (Morrison,
1998). Researches also have emphasized on the contribution of citizenship behaviour to the development of structural, relational and cognitive forms of social capital (Bolino
et al., 2002).
Even with numerous studies conducted in the area of
OCB, certain areas still remain untouched. As noted by
Van Dyne et al. (1995), most of the studies conducted have
been concentrating on substantive validity, rather than on
construct validity. Spitzmuller et al. (2008) mention about
the relationship between citizenship behaviour and workrelated attitudes, OCB-O for positive mood at a work place,
organizational level outcomes, interpersonal relationships
and inter-group relationships as further areas for research.
Podsakoff et al. (2000) have made a critical study on the
theoretical and empirical literature of citizenship behaviour
and recommended different suggestions for future research.
Although there is little documentation of workplace
commuting, impacting citizenship behaviour, there are
enough studies to link the variable with different antecedents of OCB. One major study conducted in this area reports
that travelling commuters work more hours than noncommuters and have higher levels of affective commitment
with positive organizational behaviours (Ferk, 2005).
Studies have also found significant positive relationship
between organizational commitment, job involvement and
collectivism (Ueda, 2011). The studies become more important underlying the fact that commitment being the most
prominent antecedent of OCB according to various studies.

16
Studies say that workplace commuting not only increases
the stress level but also creates stress at home, decreased
life satisfaction and disruption of social life (Cassidy, 1992).
In another study, Costa et al. (1988) say that commuters
generally experienced a more stressful lifestyle, with
increased psychological and physical health problems
(Costa et al., 1988). Studies also endorse the influence of
commuting on preferences of work environment of employees of different age group (Rothe et al., 2012). Within the
context of earlier discussions, exploring the role of workplace commuting as an antecedent of citizenship behaviour
of an employee in an organization becomes valid. More
importantly, lack of empirical evidence portraying the relationship between workplace commuting and citizenship
behaviour gives predominant importance to this study.

Research
This research takes the form of quantitative approach which
is concerned with the objective assessment of attitude,
opinion and behaviour. The objective of the study is to
measure the impact of workplace commuting on OCB of
employees. The target population considering the objective
are employees who work with public and private sector
organizations and are engaged in workplace commuting.

Hypothesis
Considering the available literature in the area of workplace commuting and citizenship behaviour, the following
hypotheses were developed to understand the impact
of workplace commuting (independent variable) on citizenship behaviour (dependant variable).
H1: The work place commuting of an employee is
correlated negatively and significantly with
citizenship behaviour
H2: The time spend for workplace commuting of an
employee is correlated negatively and significantly
with citizenship behaviour
H3: The average cost incurred for workplace commuting of an employee is correlated negatively and
significantly with citizenship behaviour
H4: The stress experienced for workplace commuting
of an employee is correlated negatively and
significantly with citizenship behaviour
H5: The distance travelled for workplace commuting
of an employee is correlated negatively and
significantly with citizenship behaviour
H6: 
The period of work place commuting of an
employee is correlated negatively and significantly
with citizenship behaviour

Measures
Different measurement tools have emerged as a result of
scrupulous researches done in the area of OCB. The scales

Vision 19(1)
developed by Smith et al. (1983), Podsakoff et al. (1990),
Moorman et al. (1995) and Williams and Anderson (1991)
are a few prominent ones among others. For the current
study, the four dimensional scale developed by Moorman
and Blakely (1995) based on Grahams dimensions (1989)
of OCB with an acceptable confirmatory fit index (CFI)
of 0.91 and acceptable reliabilities is accorded as an appropriate one. The dimensions of this scale include, Interpersonal
helping (helping coworkers in their jobs when such help in
needed), Individual initiative (communications to others in
the workplace to improve individual and group performance),
Personal industry (performance of specific tasks above and
beyond the call of duty) and Loyal boosterism (promotion of
organizational image to outsiders; Moorman et al., 1995).
Specific questions to understand the commuting characteristics and demographic variables of the respondent were
also included in the questionnaire.

Sample
Four hundred and twenty questionnaires were distributed to
employees working in public and private sector organizations
in the southern part of India. A total of 386 surveys, with a
response rate of 92 per cent, were considered for the study
after excluding those not returned by the respondents and
those with missing data.

Results and Discussion

Results
The questionnaire was responded by 194 employees
(50.3 per cent) from public sector and 192 (49.7 per cent)
employees from private sector organizations. Of the
participating respondents, 37 per cent were in the age
group between 21 and 30, 25.9 per cent in the age group
between 31 and 40, 18.7 per cent in the age group between
41 and 50 and 18.4 per cent in the age group between
51 and 60. While 66.3 per cent of the employees who
participated in the survey had 010 years of experience,
12.7 per cent had experience between 11 and 20 years,
12.7 per cent had experience between 21 and 30 years and
8.3 per cent had experience above 30 years. On an average,
an employee commuted 9.94 km, taking 30.26 minutes to
reach the workplace and 31.32 minutes to reach home. The
average amount spent by an employee for daily commuting
to work place is 46.14. Out of the total respondents,
50 per cent used their own vehicle for commuting while
32.9 per cent used public transportation system and
17.1 per cent used office vehicle. Out of 112 graduates
(29 per cent), 48 (12.4 per cent) postgraduates, 194
(50.3 per cent) professionals and 32 (8.3 per cent) doctorate
degree holders who participated in the survey, 226
(58.5 per cent) respondents were married and 160 (41.5)
unmarried and a total of 338 respondents (87.6 per cent)
stayed with their family. The minimum period an employee
commuted to his workplace on a continuous basis is one

Santhosh V.A. 17
Table 1. Demographic Variables
Frequency
Type of organization
Age

Years of Experience

Marital Status
Stay with Family
Educational Qualification

Mode of Transportation

Valid %

Cumulative %

Public
Private
2130
3140
4150
5160
010
1120
2130
Above 30
Married
Unmarried
Yes
No

194
192
143
100
72
71
256
49
49
32
226
160
338
48

50.3
49.7
37.0
25.9
18.7
18.4
66.3
12.7
12.7
8.3
58.5
41.5
87.6
12.4

50.3
49.7
37.0
25.9
18.7
18.4
66.3
12.7
12.7
8.3
58.5
41.5
87.6
12.4

50.3
100.0
37.0
63.0
81.6
100.0
66.3
79.0
91.7
100.0
58.5
100.0
87.6
100.0

Graduate
Postgraduate
Doctorate
Professional
Own vehicle
Public Transportation
Office vehicle

112
48
32
194
193
127
66

29.0
12.4
8.3
50.3
50.0
32.9
17.1

29.0
12.4
8.3
50.3
50.0
32.9
17.1

29.0
41.5
49.7
100.0
50.0
82.9
100.0

year and the maximum period is 25 years with an average

period of 5.83 years (Table 1).
The dimensions of citizenship behaviour, namely, interpersonal helping, individual initiative, personal industry and
loyal boosterism, were measured and correlated for further
understanding (Table 2). When compared with citizenship
behaviour, personal industry is having more relation with a
score of 0.854 followed by interpersonal helping (0.778)
and individual initiative (0.700). When the dimensions were
compared each other, interpersonal helping and personal
industry showed the highest correlation (0.706) followed by
interpersonal helping and individual initiative (0.466) and
personal industry and individual initiative (0.466). Loyal
boosterism correlates more with personal industry (0.448)
and least with interpersonal helping (0.215). Individual
initiative and loyal boosterism obtained a correlation score
of 0.306.

As per the study, there is no significant difference in the

mean score of citizenship behaviour of the employees
working with public (mean: 102.32) and private (mean:
103.63) sector organizations (P>0.05 Table 3). Age of
employees shows significant relationship with citizenship
behaviour (P<0.05) and its dimensions (interpersonal
helping: (P<0.05), individual initiative (P<0.05), personal industry (P<0.05) and loyal boosterism (P<0.05);
Table 4). Similar to age, experience of employees also
shows significant relationship with citizenship behaviour
(P<0.05), interpersonal helping (P<0.05), individual
initiative (P<0.05), personal industry (P<0.05) and loyal
boosterism (P<0.05) (Table 5).
Marital status significantly relates with citizenship
behaviour (P<0.05), interpersonal helping (P<0.05)
and personal industry (P<0.05) but not with individual

Table 2. Citizenship Behaviour and its Dimensions

Citizenship Behaviour Interpersonal Helping

Individual Initiative

Personal Industry

Loyal Boosterism

Pearson
Sig.
Pearson
Sig.
Pearson
Sig.
Pearson
Sig.
Pearson
Sig.
Correlation (2-tailed) Correlation (2-tailed) Correlation (2-tailed) Correlation (2-tailed) Correlation (2-tailed)
Citizenship
Behaviour
Interpersonal
Helping
Individual
Initiative
Personal
Industry
Loyal
Boosterism

0.778

0.000

0.700

0.000

0.854

0.000

0.695

0.000

0.466

0.000

0.706

0.000

0.215

0.000

0.466

0.000

0.306

0.000

0.448

0.000

0.778

0.000

0.700

0.000

0.466

0.000

0.854

0.000

706

0.000

0.466

0.000

0.695

0.000

0.215

0.000

0.306

0.000

0.448

0.000

102.3
103.6

Public
Private

13.12
10.58

Std
deviation
t value
1.07
(Sig:0.283)

104.2
99.2
105.0
103.5

2130
3140
4150
5160

10.75
11.42
16.08
8.57

4.74
(Sig: 0.003)

F value
27.5
25.9
26.4
26.4

Mean

101.5
105.7
109.6
100.0

010
1120
2130
Above 30

11.92
13.69
11.36
.000

Std
deviation
8.36
(Sig: 0.000)

F value

2.93
(Sig: 0.033)

Mean

101.86
104.55

Marital Status

Married
Unmarried

12.402
11.084

2.19 (Sig:
0.029)

t value
26.28
27.39

Mean
4.063
4.462

2.53 (Sig:
0.011)

t value

Std
deviation

3.84
(Sig: 0.010)

F value

Std
deviation

4.03
5.44
5.04
0.000

Std
deviation

Interpersonal Helping

26.6
25.8
26.7
29.0

Mean

Interpersonal Helping

4.07
3.58
4.97
4.54

F value

Citizenship Behaviour

Table 6. Marital Status and Citizenship Behaviour

Mean

Years of
Experience

Citizenship Behaviour

Table 5. Years of Experience and Citizenship Behaviour

Mean

Age

Std
deviation

3.12
(Sig: 0.002)

Interpersonal Helping

4.76
3.57

t value

Std
deviation

26.0
27.4

Mean

Std
deviation

Interpersonal Helping

Citizenship Behaviour

Table 4. Age and Citizenship Behaviour

Mean

Type of
Organization

Citizenship Behaviour

Table 3. Type of Organization and Citizenship Behaviour

4.62
(Sig: 0.000)

5.00 (Sig:
0.002)

F value

3.48
2.48
1.27
0.000

Std
deviation

22.73
(Sig: 0.000)

F value

28.87
29.21

3.257
3.267

Std
deviation

1.01 (Sig:
0.312)

t value

Individual Initiative
Mean

28.7
29.9
31.3
26.0

3.00
3.51
3.59
2.70

Std
deviation

t value

Individual Initiative
Mean

29.5
28.1
29.5
28.5

Mean

3.68
2.56

Individual Initiative

28.2
29.7

Mean

Std
deviation

Individual Initiative

3.27
3.65

7.73
(Sig: 0.000)

F value

20.80
22.75

2.93
(Sig: 0.033)

F value

3.250
3.538

Std
deviation

5.59 (Sig:
0.000)

t value

Personal Industry

3.61
3.93
3.36
0.000

Std
deviation

Personal Industry

3.43
3.46
4.06
2.43

Std
deviation

t value
2.96
(Sig: 0.003)

Personal Industry

Mean

21.7
22.2
21.4
20.0

Mean

22.5
21.4
21.1
20.3

Mean

21.0
22.1

Mean

Std
deviation

Personal Industry

5.26
3.90

Std
deviation

22.12
(Sig: 0.000)

F value

25.90
25.19

27.35
(Sig: 0.000)

F value

5.719
3.068

Std
deviation

1.42 (Sig:
0.154)

t value

Loyal Boosterism

3.86
6.96
4.99
0.000

Std
deviation

Loyal Boosterism

3.66
4.41
5.84
4.36

Std
deviation

t value
5.46
(Sig: 0.000)

Loyal Boosterism

Mean

24.4
27.7
30.0
25.0

Mean

24.5
23.7
27.8
28.1

Mean

26.8
24.3

Mean

Loyal Boosterism

Santhosh V.A. 19
initiative (P>0.05) and loyal boosterism (P>0.05) (Table
6). Educational qualification also significantly relates with
citizenship behaviour (P<0.05) and its dimensions (interpersonal helping: P<0.05), individual initiative (P<0.05),
personal industry (P<0.05) and loyal boosterism (P<0.05;
Table 7). There is no statistical significance in the difference
of the mean score of citizenship behaviour of employees
staying with their family and without their family (P>0.05).
The result is same with the variants of citizenship behaviour
like personal industry (P
>
0.05) and loyal boosterism
(P>0.05) with an exemption towards interpersonal helping
(P<0.05) and individual initiative (P<0.05) (Table 8). The
mode of transportation of an employee for his/her daily
commuting is significantly related with citizenship behaviour of an employee (P<0.05) and its dimensions (interpersonal helping: P<0.05), individual initiative (P<0.05),
personal industry (P<0.05) and loyal boosterism (P<0.05)
(Table 9).
The impact of daily commuting of an employee on
citizenship behaviour is measured through different factors
which includes the time taken for commuting, average
cost incurred for commuting, stress experienced while
commuting, distance travelled for commuting and period
of commuting (Table 10).
The study, after analyzing the data collected, reveals that
workplace commuting is not having any significant
relationship with citizenship behaviour exhibited by an
employee towards the organization thereby giving a major
insight on the relationship between workplace commuting
and citizenship behaviour. The conclusion is made after
taking into consideration all the variables of workplace
commuting like time taken for commuting, average
cost incurred for commuting, stress experienced while
commuting, distance travelled for commuting and period of
commuting and the variables of citizenship behaviour like
interpersonal helping, individual initiative, personal industry
and loyal boosterism. The correlation of workplace
commuting with citizenship behaviour is 0.172 (P>0.05)
with interpersonal helping is 0.049 (P>0.05), with individual initiative is 0.068 (P>0.05), with personal industry
is 0.104 (P>0.05) and with loyal boosterism is 0.262
(P>0.05). Considering the score the hypothesis developed
(H1), the workplace commuting of an employee is correlated
negatively and significantly with citizenship behaviour, is
rejected. Each dimension of workplace commuting and its
relationship with citizenship behaviour is given below.
The time taken by an employee to reach office and back
home is not significantly correlating with citizenship
behaviour and its dimensions. Time taken to travel office is
having a correlation of 0.050 (P>0.05) with citizenship
behaviour, .093 (P>0.05) with interpersonal helping,
0.105 (P>0.05) with individual initiative, 0.111
(P>0.05) with personal industry and 0.110 (P>0.05) with
loyal boosterism. Time taken to travel home is having a
correlation of 0.027 (P>0.05) with citizenship behaviour,

0.059 (P>0.05) with interpersonal helping, 0.092

(P>0.05) with individual initiative, 0.102 (P>0.05)
with personal industry and 0.122 (P>0.05) with loyal
boosterism. The hypothesis developed (H2), the time spend
for workplace commuting of an employee is correlated
negatively and significantly with citizenship behaviour, is
rejected.
Average cost incurred by an employee is moderately
correlated with citizenship behaviour (r = 0.491, P<0.05),
interpersonal helping (r = 0.406, P<0.05), individual
initiative (r = 0.404, P<0.05), personal industry (r = 0.472,
P<0.05) and loyal boosterism (r = 0.240, P<0.05). Even
though the score shows a moderate relationship, the
relationship being positively correlated, the hypothesis set
for the study (H3), average cost incurred for workplace
commuting of an employee is correlated negatively and
significantly with citizenship behaviour, is rejected.
Even though stress experienced by an employee with
respect to the time taken for travel to office and home is
highly correlated with a correlation score of 0.824 (P<0.05)
and 0.838 (P<0.05) respectively, citizenship behaviour
exhibited by an employee is not getting impacted. The
correlation score of stress and citizenship behaviour is only
0.049 (P>0.05), followed by interpersonal helping (r =
0.117, P>0.05), individual initiative (r = 0.086, P>0.05),
personal industry (r = 0.000, P>0.05) and loyal boosterism
(r = 0.168, P>0.05). The hypothesis set for the study on this
aspect (H4), the stress experienced for workplace commuting
of an employee is correlated negatively and significantly
with citizenship behaviour, is rejected.
Distance travelled to the workplace and back home is
having least significance in determining the citizenship
behaviour exhibited in the work place by an employee
(r = 0.074, P>0.05). Interpersonal helping (0.222,
P>0.05), individual initiative (0.186, P>0.05), personal
industry (0.045, P>0.05) and loyal boosterism (0.173,
P
>
0.05), the dimensions of citizenship behaviour is
also having least significance when compared with the
distance travelled by an employee for work. Considering
the findings made, the hypothesis set (H5), the distance
travelled for workplace commuting of an employee is
correlated negatively and significantly with citizenship
behaviour, is rejected.
Period of commuting, taking commuting stress as a
controlling factor is not significantly correlated with citizenship behaviour (r = 0.057, P>0.05) and the variants
of citizenship behaviour like individual initiative (0.111,
P>0.05) and personal industry (0.206, P>0.05) thereby
rejecting the hypothesis (H6), the period of work place
commuting of an employee is correlated negatively and
significantly with citizenship behaviour. With respect to
loyal boosterism (r = 0.445, P<0.05) and interpersonal
helping (r = 0.402, P<0.05), there shows a moderate
level of positive and negative correlation respectively with
commuting period.

103.9
104.9
112.0
100.4

Graduate
Postgraduate
Doctorate
Professional

7.91
14.98
13.20
11.99

Std
deviation
10.46
(Sig: 0.000)

F value

11.40
15.28

.016
(Sig: .987)

27.0
24.3

Mean

14.95
6.73
7.92

105.2
101.1

99.7

Mean

Std
deviation
7.52
(Sig: 0.001)

F value

Citizenship Behaviour

24.7

27.5
26.5

Mean

Workplace Commuting
Time to Travel Office
Time to Travel Home
Average Cost
Commuting Stress
Distance Travelled
Period (Stress as Control
Variable)

0.172
0.050
0.027
0.491
0.049
.074
0.057

0.001
0.327
0.594
0.000
0.334
.148
0.267

Sig. (2-tailed)

Citizenship Behaviour
Pearson
Correlation

4.17
4.15

4.27
(Sig: 0.000)

t value

11.63
(Sig: 0.000)

F value

0.049
0.093
0.059
0.406
0.117
.222
0.402

Pearson
Correlation

Mean

0.332
0.069
0.245
0.000
0.021
.000
0.000

Sig. (2-tailed)

27.8

17.92
(Sig: 0.000)

3.16
2.65

Std
deviation

7.26
(Sig: 0.001)

F value

0.068
0.105
0.092
0.404
0.086
.186
0.111

Pearson
Correlation

19.9

22.9
20.3

Mean

0.182
0.039
0.072
0.000
0.092
.000
0.030

3.49
3.59

Std
deviation

34.89
(Sig: 0.000)

F value

0.104
0.111
0.102
0.472
0.000
.045
0.206

Pearson
Correlation

0.042
0.029
0.045
0.000
0.998
.381
0.000

0.937
(Sig: 0.349)

t value

4.96
(Sig: 0.007)

F value

0.262
0.110
0.122
0.240
0.168
.173
0.445

0.000
0.031
0.017
0.000
0.001
.001
0.000

Sig.
(2-tailed)

Loyal Boosterism

2.32

5.75
3.94

Std
deviation

Loyal Boosterism

4.75
5.15

Std
deviation

Pearson
Correlation

27.2

25.1
25.4

Mean

25.7
25.0

5.83
(Sig: .001)

F value

Loyal Boosterism

3.37
6.28
8.12
4.16

Std
deviation

Loyal Boosterism

Mean

27.0
25.6
26.0
24.7

Mean

Sig. (2-tailed)

Personal Industry

2.13

3.89
2.50

Std
deviation

t value
.827
(Sig: 0.409)

Personal Industry

21.5
22.0

12.27
(Sig: 0.000)

F value

Personal Industry

4.16
3.86
1.01
2.92

Std
deviation

Personal Industry

Mean

21.4
20.8
25.0
21.3

Mean

Sig. (2-tailed)

Individual Initiative

3.28

3.48
2.68

Std
deviation

t value
6.32
(Sig: 0.000)

Individual Initiative

28.6
31.6

29.5
28.8

1.99
1.45
1.52
3.92

F value

Individual Initiative
Mean

28.5
31.0
31.5
28.3

Std
deviation

Individual Initiative
Mean

Interpersonal Helping

5.372

4.350
2.935

Std
deviation

Interpersonal Helping

Table 10. Workplace Commuting and Citizenship Behaviour

Own Vehicle
Public
Transportation
Office Vehicle

Mode of
Transportation

Table 9. Mode of Transportation and Citizenship Behaviour

102.9
103.0

Yes
No

t value

Std
deviation

Mean

Staying with Family

Std
deviation

7.13
(Sig: 0.000)

Interpersonal Helping

5.01
3.38
2.54
4.00

F value

Citizenship Behaviour

26.8
27.4
29.5
26.0

Std
deviation

Interpersonal Helping
Mean

Table 8. Staying with Family and Citizenship Behaviour

Mean

Educational
Qualification

Citizenship Behaviour

Table 7. Educational Qualification and Citizenship Behaviour

Santhosh V.A. 21

Discussion
Employee commuting and citizenship behaviour are two
major variables analyzed as part of the study. In general, the
major variables relating to employee commuting is having
less impact in influencing the citizenship behaviour of an
employee. Workplace commuting, considering time taken
for travel to office and back home, cost incurred for
travelling, stress experienced by the commuter, distance of
daily commuting and period of commuting, shows very low
correlation with citizenship behaviour and its dimensions.
The results related with time taken to travel to workplace
and back home is one major attribute predicting the
relationship between employee commuting and citizenship behaviour. Considering the correlation score, it is
interpreted that the time taken for travel does not create
significant impact in the citizenship behaviour exhibited by
an employee. The variable is showing the trend of negative
correlation without statistical significance indicating
that the more time spend on travel, citizenship behaviour
comes down. From among the respondents, unmarried
employees travel more time than their married colleagues,
experienced people travel more time than less experienced
people with an exemption to those with very high
experience. Those using office vehicle travel more time
than those using own vehicle and those working with
public organizations travel more time than those working
with private organizations.
The same is in the case of distance travelled by an
employee to the workplace, where the values of correlation
indicate negative influence towards citizenship behaviour.
The more distance travelled by an employee to workplace,
the less will be the exhibited citizenship behaviour. But
statistically the impact can be ignored as the correlation
score is bare minimum. Even though the period spent by an
employee for commuting generally shows less impact in
influencing citizenship behaviour, correlation scores for
variants like loyal boosterism and interpersonal helping is
worth noting. It is inferred that the more the period an
employee spent for commuting, which gives stress, the
scores for loyal boosterism will go up and interpersonal
helping will come down. Each additional year of
commuting taking all other variables into consideration
creates an impact of 0.299 on interpersonal helping and
an impact of 0.370 on loyal boosterism.
Another point to note is with respect to stress experienced while commuting. For an employee who takes more
time to travel to the workplace and back home, the more
will be the level of stress with a very high correlation
between the two variables. But interestingly, the high level
of stress experienced by the employees is not directly creating an impact in the citizenship behaviour exhibited by
that employee. Here, the employees working with private
organizations exhibited more level of stress. Stress level is
also high among those employees who are married, using

official vehicle, having higher qualification and less

experience.
Two important variables relating to employee commuting that contribute towards citizenship behaviour are the cost
incurred and mode of transportation. The inference made
here considering the relationship between both variables
(cost incurred and mode of transportation) and citizenship
behaviour is that the attitude to spend more in terms of
money is related with the attitude to contribute more to the
workplace. With respect to mode of transportation, employees who prefer to use their own vehicle for commuting
exhibits more citizenship behaviour than those who prefer
public transportation and office vehicle. The trend is visible
on all variants of citizenship behaviour (interpersonal
helping, individual initiative and personal industry) except
loyal boosterism. The employees who spend more money
for their commuting shows more affinity towards interpersonal helping, individual initiative, personal industry and
loyal boosterism when compared with their peer group who
spend much less. The mean scores for interpersonal helping
and individual initiative, with respect to employees stay with
family also shows significant relationship. The employees,
who stay with their family, shows more affinity towards
interpersonal helping and takes more individual initiatives,
compared with those who stay without their family.
The result gives the same perspective with respect to
statistical significance when relating employee commuting
(time taken to travel office and back home, distance, mode
of commuting, cost of commuting and period of commuting)
with citizenship behaviour, by taking variables like age,
marital status, qualification and experience as controlling
variables.

Conclusions
Citizenship behaviour is an inevitable factor in deciding the
success of an organization. It not only creates a better culture
and climate, but also contributes in creating a competitive
edge for an organization among its competitors. The large
number of researches conducted recently signifies the
importance of citizenship behaviour in the corporate world.
Similar to citizenship behaviour, workplace commuting is
also getting prime focus. The stress and strain of a daily
commuter to the workplace has been the topic of interest
to many scholars and researchers. The relevance of the
study lies in the exploration of the relationship between
workplace commuting, a widely noticed facet, and citizenship behaviour, the panacea for people management.
The study concluded by rejecting the possibility of
workplace commuting creating an impact on citizenship
behaviour of employees. Some of the variables of workplace
commuting like period of commuting, cost of commuting
etc. and its effect on the dependent variable is worth noting.
Even though the relationship between independent and
dependent variable is statistically rejected by the study,

22
the negative correlation figures indicating lowering of
citizenship behaviour as a result of workplace commuting
and its different variables should be taken into consideration
with due importance.
The study can be further extended to other places to
understand the influence of cultural variables in the relationship between workplace commuting and citizenship
behaviour. The impact of work place commuting and
citizenship behaviour on employee performance is also
a very important dimension to be explored further. The
study concludes by emphasizing the finding made with
respect to different dimensions of workplace commuting
and citizenship behaviour.

References
Alizadeh, Z., Darvishi, S., Nazari, K., & Emami, M. (2012).
Antecedents and consequences of organizational citizenship
behaviour (OCB). Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary
Research in Business, 3(9), 494505.
Bateman, T.S., & Organ, D.W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the
good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee
citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587595.
Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H., & Bloodgood, J.M. (2002).
Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organisations. Academy of Management Review, 27(4), 506522.
Borman, W.C. (2004). The concept of organizational citizenship:
Current directions. Psychological Science, 13(6), 238241.
Borman, W.C., Penner, A.L., Allen, T.D., & Motowidlo, S.J. (2001).
Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1), 5269.
Brief, A.P., & Motowidlo, S.J. (1986). Prosocial organizational
behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 710725.
Brun, J., & Fagnani, J. (1994). Lifestyles and locational choicestrade-offs and compromises: A case study of middle-class
couples living in the Ile de France region. Urban Studies,
31(6), 921934.
Burroughs, S.M., & Eby, L.T. (1998). Psychological sense of community at work: A measurement system and explanatory framework. Journal of Community Psychology, 26(6), 509532.
Cappelli, P., & Rogovsky, N. (1998). Employee involvement and
organizational citizenship: Implications for labor-law reform
and lean production. Industrial and Labor Relations Review,
51(4), 633653.
Carroll, D.J., Jr. (1950). Home work relationship of industrial
employees. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, pp. 21, 24
and 130; Population distribution-spatial and temporal, op. cit.
Cassidy, T. (1992). Commuting-related stress: Consequences
and implications. Employee Counselling Today, 4(2), 15.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1984511
85?accountid=145066
Costa, G., Pickup, L., & Di-Martino, V. (1988). CommutingA
further stress factor for working people: Evidence from the
European Community, I: A Review. International Archives
of Occupational and Environmental Health, 60(5), 371376.
Christian, T.J. (2009). Opportunity costs surrounding exercise
and dietary behaviors: Quantifying trade-offs between commuting time and health-related activities. Working paper,
Georgia State University, October. Retrieved from http://ssrn.
com/abstract

Vision 19(1)
Clark, W.A.V., & Burt, J.E. (1980). The impact of workplace on
residential relocation. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 70(1), 5966.
Crabtree, S. (2010). Wellbeing lower among workers with long
commutes. Gallup, 13th August. Retrieved from http: // www.
gallup.com/poll/142142/wellbeing-lower-among- workerslong-commutes. aspx
Davis, M.H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113126.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2001). Commuter
choice leadership initiative: Facts and figures, Washington,
DC, EPA 420- -01-023.
Farh, J.L., Zhong, C.B., & Organ, D.W. (2004). Organizational
citizenship behavior in the Peoples Republic of China.
Organization Science, 15(2), 241253.
Ferk, D.J. (2005). Organizational commitment among married
dual-career employees: Traveling commuter versus single
residence. S.A.M.Advanced Management Journal, 70(2),
2127+. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/
231146632?accountid=145066
George, J.M., & Brief, A.P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good:
A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational
spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2),
310329.
Graham, J.W. (1989). Organizational citizenship behavior:
Construct redefinition, Operationalization and validation,
unpublished working paper. Loyola university of Chicago, In.
Graham, J.W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship
behavior. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal,
4(4), 249270.
Haefner, S., Kordy, H., Kaechele, H., & Psychosozialer,
V.B. (2001). Psychotherapy, psychosomatic, medicine.
Psychology, 51(910), 373376.
Hanson, S., & Pratt, G. (1991) Job search and the occupational
segregation of women. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 81(2), 229253.
Kahneman, D., & Krueger, B.A. (2006). Developments in the
measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 20(1, Winter), 324.
Kahneman, D., Krueger, A.B., Schkade, D.A., Schwarz, N., &
Stone, A.A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily
life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science,
306(5702), 17761780.
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational
behavior. Behavioral Sciences, 9(2), 131146.
Kim, W.C., & Mauborgne, R.A. (1996). Procedural justice and
managers in-role and extra-role behavior: The case of the
multinational. Management Science, 42(4), 499515.
Kim, W.C., & Mauborgne, R.A. (1998). Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and the knowledge economy. Strategic
Management Journal, 19(4), 323338.
Konovsky, M.A., & Pugh, D.S. (1994). Citizenship behavior
and social change. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3),
656669.
Koslowsky, M., Aizer, A., & Krausz, M. (1996). Stressor and personal variables in the commuting experience. International
Journal of Manpower, 17(3), 414.
Koslowsky, M., Kluger, A., & Reich, M. (1995). Commuting
stress: Causes, effects, and methods of coping. New York,
NY: Plenum.

Santhosh V.A. 23
Lewis, D. (2004). Commuters suffer extreme stress. BBC News,
Tuesday, 30 November. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.
co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4052861.stm
Luthans Fred. (2005). Organizational behavior (10th ed., Ch. 7,
p. 220). New York: McGraw Hill International Edition.
Moorman, R.H. (1991). Relationship between organizational
justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845855.
Moorman, R.H., & Blakely, G.L. (1995). Individualismcollectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 16(2), 127142.
Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G.L., & Niehoff, B.P. (1995). Does
perceived organizational support mediate the relationship
between procedural justice and organisation citizenship
behavior. Academy of management Journal, 41(3), 351357.
Moorman, R.H., Blakely, G.L., & Niehoff, B.P. (1995). Does
perceived organizational support mediate the relationship
between procedural justice and organisation citizenship
behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 353.
Morrison, E.W. (1998). Organizational citizenship behavior as
a critical link between HRM practices and service quality.
Human Resource Management, 35(4), 493512.
Murphy, K.R., & Shiarella, A.H. (1997). Implications of the
multidimensional nature of job performance for the validity
of selection tests: Multivariate frameworks for studying test
validity. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 823854.
Nordqvist, C. (2011). Commuting stresses women more than
men. Medical News, 23 Aug. Retrieved from http//www.
medicalnewstoday.com/articles/233200.php
Novaco, R.W., Kliewer, W., & Broquet, A. (1991). Home
environmental consequences of commute travel impedance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19(6)0,
881909.
Ommeren, V.J., & Gutirrez-i-Puigarnau, E. (2011). Are workers
with a long commute less productive? An empirical analysis of absenteeism. Regional Science and Urban Economics,
41(1, January), 18.
OReilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment
and psychological attachment: The affective compliance,
identification, and internalization on pro-social behavior.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 493.
Organ, D.W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior:
Its construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2),
8597.
Organ, D.W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of
attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational
citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), winter,
775802.
Organ, D.W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The
good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books,
p. 4.
Parks, M.J., & Kidder, D.L. (1994). Till death do us partchanging work relationships in the 1990s. In C.L. Cooper & D.M.
Rousseau (Eds), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 1).
Chichester, NY: Wiley.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C.A., & Williams, E.S. (1999). Fairness
perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and
transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of
Management, 25(6), 897933.

Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestion for future research. Human
Performance, 10(2), 133151.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., 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(2),
107142.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach,
D.G. (2000) Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical
review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3),
513563.
Ranyak, A.J. (1952). Theoretical approach to the journey to work.
Bachelors thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
pp. 1112.
Regus International. (2012). Indian employees prefer family and
fitness, 16th July, Mumbai. Retrieved from Http: //www.
regus.presscentre.com/Press-Releases/Indian-employeesprefer-family-and-fitness-finds-survey-3b99. aspx
Reuters. (2012). Long commutes may be bad for health: study.
Tue, May 08, 2012 at 21:00. Retrieved from www. moneycontrol.com/news/health.
Rioux, M.S., & Penner, A.L. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 13061314.
Rothe, P., Lindholm, A., Hyvnen, A., & Nenonen, S.
(2012). Work environment preferencesdoes age make
a difference? Facilities, 30(1), 7895. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/02632771211194284
Schwanen, Tim, & Dijst, Martin. (2002). Travel-time ratios for
visits to the workplace: The relationship between commuting time and work duration. Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice, 36(7), 573592.
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. (1983). Organizational
citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 68(4), 653663.
Spitzmuller, M., Van Dyne, L., & Llies, R. (2008). Organizational
citizenship behavior: A review and extension of its nomological network. In Julian Barling & C.L. Cooper (Eds), The Sage
handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 10623). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stutzer, A., & Frey, B.S. (2004). Stress that doesnt pay: The commuting paradox. IEW working paper, No. 151, University of
Zurich. P. 10.
Stutzer, A., & Frey, B.S. (2008). Stress that doesnt pay: The commuting paradox. Scand. Journal of Economics, 110(2), 339366.
Tomer, J.F. (1998). Organizational capital and joining-up:
Linking the individual to the organization and to society.
Human Relations, 51(6), 825846.
Ueda, Y. (2011). Organizational citizenship behavior in a Japanese
organization: The effects of job involvement, organizational
commitment, and collectivism. Journal of Behavioral Studies
in Business, 4, 114. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.
com/docview/928758835?accountid=145066
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). In L.L. Cummings & B.M.
Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17,
pp. 215285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

24
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), 601617.

Authors bio-sketch
Santhosh V.A. (drsanthoshva@gmail.com), Associate
Professor and Associate Dean (Operations), TKM Institute

Vision 19(1)
of Management Kollam is an MBA (Specialized in HRM),
MS in Counselling and Psychotherapy and Post Graduate
Diploma Holder in Marketing Management. A Master
Practitioner in Neuro Linguistic Programming, he is also a
life member of All India Management Association, New
Delhi. He has completed his PhD from the University of
Kerala. He has industrial experience in various capacities
in HRM. He has published several research papers in
nationally accredited journals.

Copyright of Vision (09722629) is the property of Sage India and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.