The Explanation of Anti-Citizenship Behaviors in the Workplaces

Human capitals are the best competitive advantage in organizations, and have been an important element in any organizational achievement. The reverse is also true. The human resource may be a serious obstacle against organizational effectiveness. In this article, we investigate the anti-citizenship behaviors, and examine the relationship of organizational stress, injustice, personality and culture, and anti-citizenship behaviors. Experimental results suggest that there is a significant correlation between organizational injustice and anti-citizenship behaviors. Hence, when anti-citizenship behavior is increased, the organizational effectiveness is extremely decreased.


Introduction
The most important and the greatest resource of any organization, especially any science-based organization, is its humanitarian resource that affects other investments of the organization.One of the problems of today's organizations is the existence of behaviors such as work avoidance, aggression, oppression, obstinacy, intimidation, and revenge.These behaviors affect both performance of the organization and inter-personal relations and cooperative sense of workers.These kinds of behaviors are considered as anti-citizenship behaviors (ACB) and are in contrary to organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB) that lead to improvement of performance and effectiveness of organizations, satisfaction and faithfulness of clients, social interest, etc (Bolino et al., 2002;Podsakoff et al., 2000;Yoon and Suh, 2003).ACB can act as obstacles on the way of the performance of organizations (Ball et al., 1994), lead to decrease of income or damage of its credit, and have negative consequences for the society.While in the private section, dismissing workers, loosing clients, and bankruptcy of weak institutions are considered as negative consequences of ACB.The appearance of ACB in organizations and public institutions-because of their importance and enormity-may cause more serious crisis.Commonality of ACB among workers of organizations that should normally be trusted by people will damage public trust and will interrupt the public functions of these organizations.Therefore, it is necessary to find out the reasons behind ACB in order to be able to control them.At the same time, by strengthening other factors that lead to citizenship behavior increase the function and effectiveness of organizations.Being aware of the causes of such behaviors i.e. theft of the sources of organization, enforcing personal and unrelated expenses to organizations (Jelinek and Ahearn, 2006), and other behaviors that decrease physical and humanitarian sources and the credit of organizations] helps the managers to avoid them as much as possible.Therefore, in this article the attempt is to discuss the effects of some organizational, contextual, and personal factors that lead to ACB in organizations through research in a non-governmental and public institution.

Literature review
While ACB leads to the loss of millions of dollars annually (Pearce and Giacalone, 2003), studies recently done on ACB are not comprehensive.After the appearance of the concept of ACB in the management language, Ball, Trevino, and Sims (1994) have defined it as a misbehavior that decreases the output of work; also some terms such as aggression (Neuman and Barron, 1998), antisocial behavior (Giacalone and Greenberg, 1997), counterproductive work behavior (CWB) (Fox et al., 1999), delinquency (Hogan and Hogan, 1989), retaliation (Skarlicki and Folger, 1997), revenge (Bies at al., 1997), and deviance (Robinson and Bennett, 1995;Hollinger, 1986) are used to describe ACB.The researchers working in this field have found out that these behaviors may include a vast continuum of reactions such as problem-making, theft, revenge, fighting, aggression or even fun making (Pearce and Giacalone, 2003).
In many cases an improper behavior is in contrast to proper citizenship behavior.For example, the citizenship behavior due to work conscientiousness will become more evident when it is observed in contrast to work avoidance, being absent and having delay (Spector and Fox, 2002).But it is so important to be aware that ACB is not the low level of citizenship behavior.It is in accordance with Puffer's idea that ACB is not the opposing point of positive aspects of social behaviors and is not necessarily considered as deviant behaviors (Mackenzie at al., 1998).Studies on ACB mainly have focused on the damaging effects of these behaviors on operation of trading organizations.For example in the language of buyer-seller the behavior and manner of seller affects the process of trading (Crosby et al., 1990;Dwyer et al., 1987;Ramsey and Sohi, 1997).
The concept of ACB has been also used under different names.Although these concepts do not totally overlap but the extent of similarities between them is interesting.We will provide a brief description on such terms used in the literature representing ACB (Table 1).

Table 1: Interchangeable Concepts
Employee deviance behavior- Robinson and Bennett (2001) consider the abnormal behavior of employees as an optional act that violates the important organizational norms and threats the credit of an organization,its members, or both.They have made a difference between the abnormal and the unethical behavior of employees.In their opinion abnormality defines those behaviors that violate organizational norms, while unethical behaviors violate the laws and traditions of a society.Authors have also proposed a bilateral type of workplace behavior: "non-important" against "seriously important" and "interpersonal" against "organizational" ( Robinson and Bennette, 2001).Anti-social behavior-Giacalone and Greenberg (1997) define anti-social behavior as a behavior that brings damage to organization, employees, and the stakeholders.Some of the anti-social behaviors can be named as follows: arson, blackmail, bribery, discrimination, espionage, extortion, fraud, kickback, lying, sabotage, theft, violations of confidentiality and violence.This definition includes the behaviors inside and outside the organization and also the behaviors that bring damage to individuals and organizations (Giacalone and Greenberg, 1997).Dysfunctional behavior-Griffin et al., (1998) believe that dysfunctional behavior in organizations causes negative consequences for individuals and organizations.This conceptual framework includes behaviors that based on their purpose are functional and dysfunctional.These behaviors can be divided into two general groups: behaviors that directly damage individuals or groups behaviors.It is clear that so many of dysfunctional behaviors may finally damage both individual and organization; but the fact that which group receives more damage is the base of this division.As it can be seen the behaviors related to outside of organizations are not included in this division.Also, the separating lines of this division are not clear; for example some behaviors such as unsafe working acts may be included in more than one group.Counterproductive work behavior (CWB)- Spector and Fox (2002) define counterproductive work as a behavior that damages organizations or their members such as potential damaging act.Some of these behaviors are as follows: work avoidance, improper way of working, physical abuse, using insulting words, problem making and theft.Some acts such as abusing or insulting directly affect individuals while others such as improper way of working and problem making directly affect organizations.Some behaviors such as theft may affect both.Organizational misbehavior (OMB)-Any act of organization members that violates social or organizational norms is an organizational misbehavior.In this kind of behavior like unproductive behavior the purpose and intention of the employee has an important role.Behaviors that are in harmony with organizational values but in contrast with social values (such as lying for the sake of organization) are considered as organizational misbehavior, as well as behaviors in harmony with social values but in contrast with organizational values (such as revealing the secrets of organization).This approach contains most damaging behaviors, behaviors that damage inside and outside of the organization and both individuals and society (Vardi and Wiener, 1996).Workplace aggression-In the current literature, aggression in workplace, considering individuals attempt to damage the others, is defined in a vast continuum of diverse and surprising behaviors (Baron and Richardson, 1994).Baron introduces aggression in the workplace three stages: (1) non-cooperation, dissemination of rumours, ill-speaking, continuation of struggle, and using insulting and abusive words; (2) serious argument with supervisors, colleagues, and clients, sabotage, threatening, and hurting other people's feelings; (3) showing anger through threatening to suicide, fightinging, destroying belongings, using weapon, murder, raping, and inflaming (Baron, 1994).Other terms that likewise describe negative behaviors are: "retaliation" as a revengeful behavior with damaging consequences (Skarlicki and Folger, 1997), "Revenge" as a kind of behavior with permanent and long-term damage for the interests of others (Bies at al., 1997); "noncompliant behavior" as a kind of behavior that leads to violation of existing norms and regulations (Puffer, 1987); "workplace incivility behavior" as a kind of deviant behavior with vague intention and a little force for harming others (e.g.impoliteness and showing indifference towards others) (Andersson and Pearson, 1999)

Aspects of anti-citizenship behaviors
The concept of ACB in this study includes the following terminologies: Defiance-This kind of ACB is any apparent behavior of the employee that is directly in contrast to the policies and expectations of organization.Such behavior is expressed continually, in front of public, to show one's claim and enmity.For example in a commercial organization, the defiant sellers try to attract other's attention to their dissatisfaction, and to stress on their disagreement with the organization, its members and its policies; like obvious deny of regulations and the sale methods of company, avoidance from sharing the information related to clients to organization or sale manager, and apparent declaration of one's disagreement with the sale organization.Resistance-In contrast to defiance that is visible, this aspect of ACB is generally more internal and is done without public protest.People who show resistance against power of organization and its management, are considered as an opposing force with a different idea, that are mostly hidden; such as general opposition against organization, not respecting private boundaries, and one-sided attempts to take handle of the affairs of the group, deceiving or putting aside the managers.Work avoidance-Any kind of behavior that includes avoidance, flee, denial, and disregarding work and responsibilities is defined as work avoidance.In case of occupations that physical presence of the worker is not important (e.g.market-makers that mostly work outside the organization) work avoidance becomes more evident.Fleeing from work is a common problem through all organizations especially governmental organizations: stop working early, not restoring the accounts, not answering emails and telephone calls related to work, delay in submitting the report, cancelling sale appointments, and non-availability when colleagues or managers call.Revenge-Any kind of behavior done to reflect over some past mistakes or harms is defined as revenge (Jelinek and Ahearn, 2006).Examples of revenge are spending non-commercial expenses, stealing the requirements and materials of the company, and sharing the secrets of the oppressions of the organization with people outside of the organization.Aggression-Expressing physical sensations and personal excitements to express opposition, protest, and anger towards colleagues, supervisors, or clients in order to hurt them define aggression.Distinguishing between aggression in workplace and harshness in workplace, Neuman and Baron believe that aggression in a workplace is the individual's attempts to bring harm to the people or organizations affiliated with the company (Neuman and Baron, 1998).Misbehavior in appointments, full attempt for having control or ownership of the group, hostile protest to colleagues, using improper words, having proud gestures, and criminal threatening of colleagues are examples of aggression.

Causes of anti-citizenship behaviors
Although most researches implied that ACB is the result of dissemination of injustice in organizations (Ball et al., 1994), yet other studies consider other factors for the appearance of ACB.Jelinek and Ahrean (2006) claim that special organizational factors such as organizational justice and inter-organizational competition, and contextual factors, such as job stress and organizational balance, directly affect ACB; while characteristics of the employees, such as Locus of Control, introversion, and compatibility with situation, adjust the functionality of these effects.In this research injustice and culture as organizational factors and job stress as contextual factor have been chosen as causes of ACB.Researchers believed that in the organization under study, the organizational culture is effective in appearance of ACB.The lack of organizational balance is also considered as one of the reasons of the appearance of tension or the factors leading to ACB.Therefore, the study was limited to tension with the supposition that this factor is itself under the effect of organizational balance.In this study also, in spite of locus of control and self -monitoring, the moderating role of personality is studied.
It is the guiding culture that shows what employees can do and how they should do them.An organization recommends the proper and accepted behaviors which mean "what employees should do"; although what really happens depends on the situation, suppositions and what happens around them, will be different, these differences are the results of the practical theories that determine the actual behavior of experts (Argyris and Schon, 1974).Therefore it is possible that are differences among the bureaucratic recommendations of organizations, the logically accepted behaviors, and the actual behavior that happens in practice.The differences among espoused value, practical theories, and used theories can be explained by considering cultural characteristics of organization.Czarniawska (1992) introduced the perceptible and imperceptible issues of culture as follows: "culture is the actual way of doing things that have been obviously recommended in documents, decisions and rules."Khademian (2002) also believed that the perceptible signs of culture describe the manner of doing the work.Additionally Kunda (1992) noted that culture defines some rules for behavior, way of thinking and feeling.Finally, Schein considers culture as containing main suppositions and beliefs that are common among the members of an organization and work unconsciously (Schien, 1985: 6).Although in the literature, there has not been any study about the effect of organizational culture on the appearance of ACB, according to the description of organizational culture, it seems that the culture of employees of an organization have effects on the appearance of negative behaviors.Hence the first hypothesis is proposed as follows: H1: There is a significant relationship between organizational culture and ACB.
The concept of organizational justice is the understanding of an employee about correctness or incorrectness of the way of administering the company and the behavior of employees (Greenberg, 1986).The preliminary studies focused on two different types of justice understanding: distributive justice and procedure of justice.Organizational justice has gradually attracted the attention of many scholars, because many important organizational approaches and behaviors are in direct contact with the understanding of employees from justice.Till the year 1975, study of justice in organizations was mainly related to distributive justice (Colquitt et al, 2001).Studies on justice started by Adams theory of equity in which, Adams emphasizes on understood fairness of consequences that is distributive justice (Cohen-charas and Spector, 2001).Later, theory-makers of organizational justice differentiated between the concept-makings of justice that consider the content of decisions (distributive justice) and concepts that focus on the fact that how decisions are made (procedure of justice).Also, the concept of interactional justice focuses on interpersonal aspect of organizational acts, especially behavior and relation between managers and employees.It can be claimed that the basis of the concept of distributive justice is the theory of Adams (1965).In the equation theory, by comparing the inputs and outcomes, it has been discussed that people come to a judgment about concept of justice in organization by comparing these two in their own and other's acts.Therefore if they feel that there is injustice, they will stand against it.
The model of a fair judgment is a four-stage process that the individuals can evaluate consequences based on: (1) Individuals decide to use the law that seems just in their opinion and then evaluate it.
(2) Based on their definition of just, individuals estimate the extent and type of the consequences that they deserve to receive.
(3) Considering the law, individuals estimate the consequences they deserve.(4) Individuals evaluate the extent of fairness of the real consequences they have received by comparing them to the consequences they deserved to receive.Ball et al., (1994) indicated that distributive justice and procedure of justice have effects on ACB; for example it has been seen that sellers mostly feel that rewards and punishments are not distributed fairly among them (Donath, 1999).Even some of them claim that when the rate of sale is high, the company considers them as kind of products and gives rewards to those whose researches have led to increase of products.But when the rate of sale is low they consider the sellers responsible for this problem.Either way, it should be noticed that the sellers have the potential to react to the unfair behaviors of company by ACB.Hence the second hypothesis is proposed as follows: H2: There is a positive and significant relationship between organizational injustice and ACB.
Job stress of sellers is defined based on their understanding of workplace environment and the factors that put them under pressure.Sager and Wilson (1995) encourage the researchers of marketing and sale to study the damaging effects of stress on sellers (Sager and Wilson, 1995;Srivastava and Sager, 1999).
There is a hypothesis that job stress increases ACB.For example, the stress that is due to the paradox between the will of sale managers and clients, if accompanied by the necessity of having missions outside the city and the promise of a compressed working program, may put sellers into a situation that they feel "we are dying because of too much work".Hence, when they are burnout, they may start fighting (aggression) or may stand against the factor of stress (e.g.work avoidance) in order to free themselves from the intolerable pressure.Workers, who are under too much pressure, intend to ignore any relation at work; this status may lead to ACB.When such phenomenon happens, the sellers do not consider their colleagues and the sale managers as their friends and may restrain from giving them information (revenge) and when people try to make fun of them, they will show aggression.(Jelinek and Ahearn, 2006).Hence the third hypothesis is proposed as follows: H3: There is a positive and significant relationship between job stress and ACB.
Locus of control is a degree in which the individuals believe that promotion and improvement of each person depend on their own attempt, chance, accident and unexpected events.People, who have internal locus of control, believe that their success and their activities are the result of their own attempt, while those who have external locus of control believe that they do not have any role in what happens.Research shows that locus of control reference affects behavior (Chung and Ding, 2002); management experts say that the employees with internal Locus of Control are more responsible for their acts, while the researchers of sale affairs believe that the sellers with internal locus of control are more practical and more reformist towards stresses (Srivastava and Sager, 1999).
The reference of locus of control in analysis of the effects of the mentioned outcomes on ACB is considered as an adjusting factor.For example when sellers with external locus of control feel that they have lots of stress or believe that they are threatened by their organization in an unfair manner (feeling of organizational injustice), most probably it will lead to ACB.From these sellers point of view, there is no relation between ACB and their consequences.Therefore when they are punished because of their behavior, probably they see themselves as victims (Jelinek and Ahearn, 2006).
There is a tendency to see the social signs of environment and to make use of them to direct one's own behavior when facing changing outcomes (Synder, 1974).Management researchers have taken the concept of self-monitoring from psychology and have used it to study organizational behavior (Miller and Cardy, 2000;Synder and Copeland, 1989).People, who have a good self-monitoring ego, want to adapt themselves to workplace environment; it has been shown that high self-monitoring is correlated with the outcomes of well-employment (Miller and Cardy, 2000).
Since sellers are usually evaluated from various aspects such as manager's point of view, the belief that sellers adapt their behavior to the preferences of their managers seems reasonable.Therefore, self-monitoring acts as an adjusting factor in analysis of relations between mentioned outcomes and ACB (Kilduff and Day, 1994).
In contrast to Freud who considered men as a wandering creature between two opposing poles, Jung believed that the individuals will finally find way to the perfection in the challenges of life.Freud gave too much importance to the first years of life and considered that people's personalities are under those years effect until death.On the contrary, Jung believed that both past and the probable future are effective in forming one's personality.According to Jung, wishes and dreams have an amazing effect on individuals' behaviors (Gholipour, 2007: 200).There are different theories about the method of evaluating aspects of personality.For example in recent years, studies and researches put emphasis on five-factor model.These factors are as follows: Introversion/Extroversion: Jung used two terms of introversion and extroversion to name two aspects of human's personality and believed that each person from the psychological point of view is in one of these categories.According to Jung an extrovert is a person who is more interested in the outside world, real things and people, while an introvert is more concerned with his own thoughts, and feelings.It can be said that in contemporary history of psychology there has been no other definition that could have attracted as much attention as introversion and extroversion of Jung.In the literature of social sciences, extroversion and its opposing point introversion are considered as one of the five important and effective characteristics on the behavior of human (Saucier, 1994;Wiggins, 1996).Introversion is defined as the degree of isolationism and reservation and is measured based on the amount of passiveness.Sale researches have studied the effect of personal characteristics on behaviors and acts (Brown et al., 2002) and some researchers have shown that it is much more difficult for introverts to deal with problems (Windower, 2002).Probably introversion acts as an adjusting factor between the effects of organizational and contextual factors and ACB.Moreover as introverts have tendency for isolation, they face social changes with more calmness and less experience.They are not capable enough for having productive, healthy and methodological discussion and do not express their disagreement in free discussions; but usually stand and behave against their managers by concealed acts (Jelinek and Ahearn, 2006).
Agreeableness: Agreeableness is the extent of paying respect to others.Agreeable people have a cooperative character, are intimate and reliable, while disagreeable people are unfriendly, competitive and aggressive.
Conscientiousness: Conscientiousness is the extent of one's reliability.Conscientious people are responsible, stable, ordered, and reliable, while those who get low scores in this aspect are usually disordered, unreliable and confused.
Neuroticism/Emotional stability: Neuroticism is the measure for one's capability for tolerating the factors that produce stress and tension.People, who are emotionally stable, are usually safe, self confident, stable, and calm, while people who do not have emotional stability, are usually nervous, angry, unsure, unsafe, depress, anxious and have psychological problems.
Openness: Openness focuses on the interest of an individual towards new experiences.Open people are creative, curious and sensitive.While on the other side of the continuum people follow tradition, and are more relaxed in familiar situations (Gholipour, 2007: 209).It seems that added to introversion, other aspects of personality also have adjusting role in relation to the effect of organizational and contextual factors on ACB.

Sample:
The population under study are the employees of a public but non-governmental institution in Tehran with more than 2600 workers.It is a proper population for a functional and descriptive research, whose results can be generalized, as there are different levels of education, occupation, and various responsibilities in service, culture, education and research centres in an almost newly established organization and on the way of development.The sample is made of 244 random people out of 300 people who were given the questionnaires.

Data collection:
Data collection was done through questionnaires.Subjects have been guaranteed that their names will not be revealed, therefore there was no question demanding personal information about people.Data collection was through questionnaire with eight general questions and 131 questions for measuring independent, dependent and moderating variables.The questions were five choice based on Likert scale of (5) strongly agree, (4) agree, (3) neutral, (2) disagree, and (1) strongly disagree.

Reliability and Validity:
In preparing the questionnaire, we made sure to make questions simple and clear.In order to measure the validity of the questionnaire a pre-sample including 30 questionnaires was prepared and then using the data collected, after omitting some questions, its reliability was measured using Kronbach multiple alpha; for 25 questions of ACB 87%, for 11 questions of organizational culture based on Robins categorization 78%, for 10 questions of organizational justice 80%, for 6 questions of stress 91%, for 3 questions of Locus of Control 70 %, for 5 questions of self-monitoring 88%, and for 44 standard questions of personality 71% were measured.These numbers show that the questionnaire has enough reliability.To measure its validity more than contextual analysis, factor analysis was also used.
Analysing the data, copy 15 of SPSS software and LISREL 8.53 were used and 1% error level was considered for hypothesis test.The causal relation between independent and dependent variables were tested using structural equation modelling.As it can be seen in Figure 1, the model is suitable considering ratio indicators; as the amount of x²/df is 2.35 and is less than the permitted amount of 3, and the amount of RMSEA is also less than .08.Among the effective factors on ACB, only injustice has considerable effect (.50), in other words, it seems that probably with one unit increase in injustice, there will be .50unit increase in ACB.Two other factors of "stress and culture" do not have that much effect on ACB.
Figure 1, standard model Figure2, significant model Figure 2 shows that only the effect of injustice on ACB is significant and the effect of two other variables of stress and culture on ACB is not significant.The amount of determining model score is R-Square=0.37; which means that from 100% change of ACB, about 37% is because of injustice.
To test and identify the effect of moderating variables on independent and dependant variables, the Subgroup analysis method was used; firstly Regression model was performed in different amounts and situations of moderating variables (low and high quantity), and then their results were compared in cases where the results of models (especially regression score) had great difference.We understood that the effect of adjustment on the considered relation was significant.The results of the test using this method are given in Table 2: Table 2: the comparison of the moderating effect of moderating variables:

Discussion and conclusion
6.1.Results: According to the results of the comparison of models of analysis with low and high quantity of moderating variables, We derived the following statements: The variable of Locus of Control reference is moderating only for the effect of culture and stress on ACB.The variable of self-monitoring has moderating effect only on the relation between culture and stress with ACB.The variable of introversion does not have any moderating effect on the relation of culture, stress, and injustice with ACB.
The variable of agreeableness has moderating effect on the relation of all three variables of culture, stress, and injustice with ACB.
The variable of conscientiousness has moderating effect on the relation of culture, stress, and injustice with ACB.The variable of neuroticism has moderating effect on the relation of culture, stress, and injustice with ACB.The variable of extroversion has moderating effect on the relation of culture, and injustice with ACB.The results of testing hypothesises indicate that there should be some reforms in the research model of researchers.The results of research can be summed up as follows: According to the results of this research, there is a negative relation between organizational culture and ACB (with standard score of -.12) that indicates the existence of a reverse relation.This relation seems to be logical as by development of the basis and improvement of cultural indicators, it is expected that ACB decreases; but this relation is weak, it means that with the increase of organizational culture for one unit, ACB will be decreased only for .12unit; it should be mentioned that this relation is not significant in the certainty level of .95(with the significant score of -.66).Hence the first hypothesis is not fully confirmed with following reasons: The organization under study has a special culture that makes it greatly different from other organizational cultures, especially non-Iranian organizations.
Studies on ACB in organizations started recently.Especially no field study has been done on the relation between culture and ACB.Jelinek and Ahearn (2006) reviewing the literature of this field in their article under the name of "the ABC of ACB" in which they have only given some hypothesises in this regard, and have closed the discussion in their article without providing results of field studies.
Researches related to organizational citizenship behavior and ACB are generally done in commercial organizations and marketing.It is common to assume that mainly, organizational culture in such fields and organizations, that even their social responsibilities are affected by the factor of benefit, is different from organizational culture in public and governmental organizations.
The results of the research show that there is a significant, positive and considerable relation between injustice and ACB (with the standard score of 5/0 and significant score of 06/2).Therefore the data and the results of analysis confirm this hypothesis.This relation shows that with one unit increase in injustice, ACB will be increased to 5/0 units.
Table 1 shows a really weak but positive relation between job stress and ACB (with the standard score of 01/0).The level of significant in this relation is not certain and it has been completely rejected (with significant 08/0).

Conclusion:
Normally in field studies, phenomena that are not directly visible are considered and evaluated based on their effects and consequences.As it was mentioned in theoretical bases, stress has three groups of consequences; psychological, physical, and behavioral.Medical doctors and psychiatrists normally consider some psychological and physical effects as the result of stress in patients.But the stressful behavior usually may have other reasons rather than stress, and one cannot question the people under stress like a doctor or psychiatrist.The standard questionnaires that exist in this regard are prepared for the field of medicine and psychology.Therefore the proposed questions in questionnaire of this research are asking about the special factors that may potentially produce tension.On the other hand, stress has an increasing characteristic, can exist in a person but may not be seen directly, and its levels are different in different people.Probably the existence of religious feelings and beliefs can increase the capacity of people in dealing with stress.
In factor analysis some of the prepared questions to measure this variable were omitted due to the lack of the required factor loading.Hence only three questions as the indicators of evaluation were involved.This number of questions may not be enough to cover all aspects of job stress.
The results of statistical analysis, for moderating role of the "internal locus of control" on the effect of independent variables of "organizational culture", "injustice", and "stress" on "ACB" show that there is a great difference between the effect of culture on ACB in low and high quantity of "internal locus of control (with the difference of 24/0 in standard score) and the effect of "stress" on ACB.On the other hand, the difference between the results of statistical analysis of the effect of "injustice" on ACB in low and high quantity of the variable of "internal locus of control" (with the difference 23/0 in standard score), is not visible.Analysis of the results of these two situations shows that the variable of "internal locus of control" is only affecting the relations between "organizational culture" and ACB, and "stress" and ACB.In other words, the fourth hypothesis of the research about the internal locus of control is only confirmed for the first and the third hypothesises.The point that "internal locus of control" in second hypothesis does not have moderating role, may be due to the fact that "injustice" in contrary to "culture" and "stress" that have interpersonal sources, has external source.This means that employees of the organization believe that the understood "injustice" is due to some decisions that they had not been involved in."locus of control" is not a binary attribute: it is not the case that one person has "internal locus of control" and the other "external", but all individuals are on a continuum that depending on which end they are closer to, they are tagged as one.In other words, in different cases one person may have internal or external locus of control.The event and the situation they are dealing with is a good explanation of the type of locus of control they have.
Statistical analysis shows that there is a great difference among the effect of culture on ACB in low and high quantity of the variable "self-monitoring" (with the difference .11 in standard score), and the effect of stress on ACB in low and high quantity of the variable "self-monitoring" (with the difference .28 in standard score) and a little difference in the effect of injustice on ACB in low and high quantity of the variable "self-monitoring" (with the difference .03 in standard score).This comparison shows that the variable of "self-monitoring" only has moderating role for the effect of "organizational culture" on ACB and the effect of "stress" on ACB.In other words, the fourth hypothesis about "self-monitoring" is confirmed for the first and third hypothesis.In this case also the reason of lack of moderating role of "self-monitoring" in the relation between "injustice" and ACB can be sought in identity of injustice; which means that most responders, not considering the extent of the characteristic of self-monitoring in them, had the same kind of reaction towards injustice.
Considering the five aspects of personality, the results of statistical analysis of the research show that introversion does not have moderating role in relation to any of the first and third hypothesises about the effect of organizational culture, injustice, and stress on ACB.Agreeableness has moderating role in relation to the first and third hypothesises about the effect of organizational culture, injustice, and stress on ACB.Conscientiousness has moderating role in relation to the first and third hypothesis about the effect of organizational culture, injustice, and stress on ACB.Neuroticism has moderating role in relation to the first and third hypothesises about the effect of organizational culture, injustice, and stress on ACB.The fourth hypothesis about the variable of extroversion is only confirmed about the effect of culture and injustice on ACB.This variable does not have moderating role in relation to the effect of stress on ACB.
Limitations such as the variety of independent variables, the quantity of questionnaire, limitations in subjects, time and expenses, on this area of research did not let the researchers enter other fields of ACB.For the future work, it would be interesting to see research on the following subjects: The effect of organizational factors on appearance of ACB in organizations such as banks, municipals, and service organizations that deal with so many clients, Study of factors outside organizations such as social justice, poverty, suburban life, and television programmes including internal and satellite on ACB, Study of the role of public culture on appearance of ABC, Study of the relation between organizational citizenship behavior and public citizenship behavior, Study of the relation between effective managing of feelings and ACB, Study of the relation between personal power and ACB, Study of the relation between opposing management styles and ACB, and Study of the relation between the system of organizational relations and ACB.