Previous organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) research (a) has not demonstrated that extra-role behaviors can be distinguished empirically from in-role activities, and (b) has not examined the relative contributions of components ofjob satisfaction a nd organizational commitment to the performance of OCBs. Factor analysis of survey data from 127 employees' supervisors supported the distinction between in-role behaviors and two forms of OCBs. Hierarchical regression analysis found two job cognitions variables (intrinsic and extrinsic) to be differentially related to the two types OCBs, but affective variables and organizational commitment were not significant predictors. The link between the present findings and previous research is discussed, as are directions forfuture research.

In this article the authors replicate a study that was conducted to examine the effects that organizational formalization had on the feelings of alienation of professional employees. The authors of the present study add the wrinkle of also examining non-professional employees in their research. They note that while the original study found that increased formalization did not directly affect feelings of alienation it did increase role conflict, decrease role ambiguity and enhanced organizational identification. They discuss how formalization can have conflicting effects in the areas of role stress and alienation and are interested if the same results can be obtained among nonprofessional employees as well.

A widespread methodological concern in the organizational literature is the possibility that observed results are due to the influence of common-method variance or mono-method bias. This concern is based on a conception of method variance as being produced by the nature of the method itself, and therefore, variables assessed with the same method would share common-method variance that inflates observed correlations. In this paper, we argue for a more complex view of method variance that consists of multiple sources that affect each measured variable in a potentially unique way. Shared sources among measures (common-method variance) act to inflate correlations, whereas unshared sources (uncommon-method variance) act to attenuate correlations. Two empirical examples, one from a simulation study and the other from a single-source survey, are presented to illustrate the complex action of multiple sources of method variance. A five-step approach is suggested whereby a theory of the measure is generated for each measured variable that would inform strategies to control for method variance by assessing and modeling the actions of identified method variance sources.