Swiss Journal of Psychology 67 (3), 2008, 131���141 Advocates of the instrumental view of the stakeholder the- ory argue that organizations that behave in a considerate and socially responsible manner towards their customers, employees, shareholders, suppliers, etc., will be more suc- cessful in the longer term (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). The current study focuses on the stakeholder group of em- ployees. The goal is to provide an example that demon- strates why organizations that offer their employees favor- able working conditions are rewarded with success. In modern business practice, strict, hierarchical work structures are often being replaced by autonomous, team- based structures. As supervisors are losing some of their possibilities to exert influence and control, organizations are becoming increasingly reliant on the employees��� initia- tive, conscientiousness, and readiness to cooperate. There- fore, research and practice are becoming increasingly in- terested in organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Organ (1997, p. 91) defined OCB as ���contributions to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psy- chological context that supports task performance.��� Ac- cording to Organ (1988a), OCB comprises five dimensions: altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue. The five-factor model has been confirmed in various studies (e.g., Moorman, 1991 Podsakoff, MacKen- zie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). By contrast, in a meta-analy- sis, LePine, Erez, and Johnson (2002) showed that the sub- dimensions correlate highly and show the same links to the causal factors and consequences. Accordingly, in many pa- pers, a total score for OCB is used. OCB correlates posi- tively with profit (Avila, Fern, & Mann, 1988), performance (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997), and customer satisfaction (Hui, Lam, & Schaubroeck, 2001) and brings with it low- er fluctuation (Chen, Hui, & Sego, 1998). Owing to these positive findings, the question arises as to the conditions under which, in everyday working life, employees are willing to show OCB. Podsakoff, MacKen- zie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000) stress that through their be- havior, supervisors make a decisive contribution to the em- ployees��� OCB. Meta-analyses have revealed that the perceived fairness and support on the part of the leadership plays a key role (Organ & Ryan, 1995 Podsakoff et al., 2000). The current study seeks to provide an explanation as to why these two aspects of leadership behavior increase the tendency to engage in OCB. The relationship between employer and employee is a typical exchange relationship in which the parties involved Swiss J Psychol 67 (3), �� 2008 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern Original Communication Influence of Fair and Supportive Leadership Behavior on Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior Diana Meierhans, Brigitte Rietmann, and Klaus Jonas University of Zurich, Switzerland This study examines the influence of fair and supportive leadership behavior on employees��� self-reported organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). The model tested assumes that the impact of fair and supportive leadership on OCB is mediated by employees��� commitment to the or- ganization as well as their commitment to their supervisor. A total of 260 bank employees completed a questionnaire in which they rated their supervisor���s behavior, the two commitment foci (organization and supervisor) and the degree to which they engaged in OCB. As a whole, re- sults of structural equation modelling provide support for the hypotheses and indicate that fostering fair and supportive leadership can be worth- while for organizations. Keywords: organizational citizenship behavior, supervisory commitment, fairness, perceived supervisory support, leadership behavior DOI 10.1024/1421-0185.67.3.131

132 D. Meierhans et al.: Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior trust in the fact that the other party will sooner or later pay them back for performance shown (Blau, 1964). According to the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), people should help others who have helped them. Organ (1988a) believes that the very construct of OCB has its roots in social ex- change (and not economic exchange), as organizations gen- erally do not reward employees directly for engaging in OCB. Perceived fairness was considered a predictor of OCB early on in the research (Organ, 1988b). According to eq- uity theory (Adams, 1965), perceived unfairness leads to aversive tension, which individuals attempt to reduce, for example, by decreasing their own contribution. For sever- al reasons, it is plausible to assume that this decrease en- sues through the reduction of OCB. Firstly, OCB is rarely explicitly called for in the work processes defined, so em- ployees are not breaking any rules if they fail to display it. Secondly, a lack of OCB, even if it was explicitly demand- ed, is difficult to verify and sanction. Therefore, withhold- ing discretionary gestures (i.e., OCB) is a flexible means of responding to perceived unfairness (Organ, 1988b). Three dimensions of organizational justice are routine- ly cited: 1. Distributive justice focuses on the fairness of a distribu- tion (Adams, 1965 Deutsch, 1975 Homans, 1961 Lev- enthal, 1976). In organizations, this concerns, for exam- ple, the salary, but also the distribution of interesting tasks among the employees. Distributive fairness is fos- tered if the outcomes correspond to implicit distributive norms (e.g., equity or equality). 2. Procedural justice focuses on the fairness of formal pro- cedures (Leventhal, 1980 Leventhal, Karuza, & Fry, 1980 Thibaut & Walker, 1975). It is particularly bene- fited through structural elements such as process control and the right to have a say (Thibaut & Walker). 3. Interactional justice focuses on the fairness that people experience in their interpersonal relationships when cer- tain procedures are implemented (Bies & Moag, 1986). This concerns aspects such as dignity, respect, honesty, considerateness, and friendliness. Some authors consid- er interactional fairness to be a subcategory of procedural fairness (e.g., Moorman, 1991 Tyler & Bies, 1990). Previous research findings show that procedural and inter- actional fairness in particular are important predictors of OCB (e.g., Lee, 1995 Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). Partic- ularly worthy of mention is Skarlicki and Latham���s (1996) quasi-experiment in which labor union members were found to show more OCB after labor union leaders had par- ticipated in a fairness training program. Based on the re- search findings described above, procedural and interac- tional fairness are combined here and considered as an aspect of leadership behavior. In addition to fair leadership behavior, supportive leadership behavior also appears to be influential in relation to OCB. As that of fair leadership behavior, the effect of sup- portive leadership behavior on OCB can also be explained using the norm of reciprocity. Support may influence OCB because it is likely to be perceived by employees as help- ing behavior on the part of the leader that the employees feel obligated to reciprocate (Schnake, Dumler, & Cochran, 1993). According to House and Dessler (1974), a supervi- sor is experienced as supportive if he or she (a) guides the employees in achieving objectives, (b) treats them fairly, and (c) appreciates their work performance. Based on the construct of perceived organizational sup- port (POS), Kottke and Sharafinski (1988) created the con- cept of perceived supervisory support (PSS), which cap- tures the support on the part of the supervisor. PSS is the employees��� perception of the extent to which the supervi- sor values their contributions and cares about their well-be- ing. In addition to PSS, other approaches have been chosen to examine the influence of supportive leadership behavior on OCB. There are significant positive correlations, for ex- ample, between OCB and leader supportiveness (Smith, Or- gan, & Near, 1983), initiating structure and consideration (Schnake, Cochran, & Dumler, 1995 Schnake et al., 1993), leader support (Netemeyer & Boles, 1997), and leader- member exchange (Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996). In several meta-analyses, significant links are reported between supportive leadership behavior and OCB (LePine et al., 2002 Organ & Ryan, 1995 Podsakoff et al., 2000). One of the few studies to have examined the influence of PSS on OCB shows that PSS acts as a mediator between participation in decision making and OCB (Van Yperen, van den Berg, & Willering, 1999). PSS was also found to cor- relate significantly with OCB by Cheng, Jiang, and Riley (2003). In the current study, it is assumed that the supervi- sor���s behavior has an indirect effect on the engagement in OCB through the commitment of the employees. Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979, p. 226) define orga- nizational commitment as ���the relative strength of an indi- vidual���s identification with and involvement in a particular organization.��� The three-component model of organiza- tional commitment originates from Meyer and Allen (1991). According to this model, commitment consists of an affec- tive component (emotional attachment to and identification with the organization), a continuance component (cost-ben- efit calculation), and a normative component (feeling of obligation). Reichers (1985) was one of the first to point out that commitment can be directed at different entities, so- called commitment foci (organization, supervisor, work group or team, job or form of employment). The current study is interested in two foci: organization and supervisor. Affective organizational commitment (AOC) and nor- mative organizational commitment (NOC) are influential predictors of OCB (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topol- nytsky, 2002 Organ & Ryan, 1995 Podsakoff et al., 2000). Accordingly, the current study is limited to these two di- mensions of organizational commitment, but is also inter- ested in affective commitment to the supervisor, which is described in the following as affective supervisory com- mitment (ASC). From a theoretical point of view, it is plau- sible that commitment is not only an additional predictor of Swiss J Psychol 67 (3), �� 2008 by Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, Bern