2021年1月23日发(作者：鱼刺)
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Scale

英文名
称：

中文名
称：

作


者：

出


处：

简


介：

条


目：

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Scale
组织公民行为量表

Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C.
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.

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
Organizational Justice Scale
称：

中文名
组织公平量表

称：

作


者：

出


处：

Jason A. Colquitt
Colquitt, J. A. (2001).
Organizational Justice: A Construct Validation of a Measure.
Journal of Applied Psychology 86(3): 386-400.
简


介：

条


目：

Procedural justice
The following items refers to the procedures used to arrive at your
(outcome). To what extent:
you been able to express your views and feelings during these
procedures?
you had influences over the (outcome) arrived at by those
procedures?
those procedures been applied consistently?
those procedures been free of bias?
those procedures been based on accurate information?
you been able to appeal the (outcome) arrived at by those
procedures?
those procedures upheld ethical and moral standards?
Distributive justice
The following items refer to your (outcome). To what extent:
your (outcome) reflect the effort you have put into your work?
your (outcome) appropriate for the work you have completed?
your (outcome) reflect what you have contributed to the
organization?
your (outcome) justified, given your performance?
Interpersonal justice
The following items refer to (the authority figure who enacted the
procedure). To what extent:
(he/she) treated you in a polite manner?

(he/she) treated you with dignity?
(he/she) treated you with respect?
(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:
(he/she) been candid in (his/her) communication with you?
(he/she) explained the procedures thoroughly?
(his/her) explanations regarding the procedures reasonable?
(he/she) communicated details in a timely manner?
(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).

for
action:
A
cultural
analysis
of
justice and...

简


介：


条


目：

Farh, J.-L., P. C. Earley, et al. (1997).
justice and...
42
(3): 421.

The sample for this study consisted of employees drawn from eight companies in
the electronics industry of Taiwan. All eight companies were locally owned and
were members of the 500 largest companies in Taiwan. Thirty to forty matching
questionnaires were distributed to supervisors and subordinates in each company.
The
sample
consisted
mainly
of
low
to
mid-level
managers,
engineers,
salespersons, and clerical staff.

Participation
rs at all levels participate in pay and performance appraisal decisions;

h
various
channels,
my
company
tries
to
understand
employees’

opinions regarding pay and performance appraisal policies and decisions.
decisions are made exclusively by top management in my company; others
are excluded from this process; (R)
company does not take employees’ opinions into account in design
ing 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：

Cronbach alpha was .71 7-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree)

效


度：


备


注：




Justice Scale
英文名
Justice Scale
称：

中文名
公平问卷

称：

作


者：

出


处：

Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H.
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
OCB Scale
称：

中文名
组织公民行为问卷

称：

作


者：

出


处：

Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H.
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


Sample:
The
employees
and
general
managers
of
a
national
movie