The relationship between human resource productivity ( HRP ) and organizational citizenship behavior ( OCB )

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) describes actions in which employees are willing to go above and beyond their prescribed role requirements. Prior theory suggests and some research supports the belief that these behaviors are correlated with indicators of organizational effectiveness. In present research the sample size consists of 183 employees (69 women and 114 men) that were selected at random from Tabriz 3 zone education in East Azerbaijan-Iran. Data analysis was carried out by using the statistical program packages SPSS 17.0, Amos SPSS 16.0 and Lisrel 8.5. Findings of the present study were illustrated that there is significant relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and its dimensions and human resource productivity in the present organization (p<0/05). The results of Enter regression showed that predictor variables significantly (Altruism, Courtesy, Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship and Civic virtue) have determined 73.3% of the variance of HRP together. Also the interesting results were obtained from Regression analysis to predict cognitive OCB and its dimensions on the HRP in the present study.


INTRODUCTION
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs) are a special type of work behavior that are defined as individual behaviors that are beneficial to the organization and are discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system.These behaviors are rather a matter of personal choice, such that their omission is not generally understood as punishable.OCBs are thought to have an important impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of work teams and organizations, therefore contributing to the overall productivity of the organization.OCBs are often considered a subset of contextual performance.Likewise, Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) researchers (Smith et al., 1983;Pearce and Gregersen, 1991) have for years recognized that task interdependence may affect employees' OCB.In his seminal work Organ (1988) argued that task interdependence should moderate the impact OCB has on unit-level performance.
Change in productivity has much influence on lots of social and economic phenomena, such as rapid growth of economic, promotion of life, improved balance of payment, inflation control etc. Productivity is a function of a lot of factors and these factors are different due to nature, mission, activity and operations of each organization and also the effects of these factors on organizational productivity are not same; productivity study has high importance.Among the factors of production (earth, technology, human resource, capital and etc.), human resource is most valuable and rare factor in every organization; inattention to human resource productivity and paying attention to other factors cause decrease in efficiency and effectiveness in organization (Sahay, 2005).One of the main challenges of present in organizations includes lack of sufficient use *Corresponding author.E-mail: yaghoobinor@yahoo.com.
of intellectual resource and mental power of human resource.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Human Resource Productivity (HRP): is the amount of goods and services that a worker produces in a given amount of time.It is one of several types of productivity that economists measure.Workforce productivity can be measured for a firm, a process, an industry, or a country.It was originally (and often still is) called labor productivity because it was originally studied only with respect to the work of laborers as opposed to managers or professionals.The OECD defines it as "the ratio of a volume measure of output to a volume measure of input".Volume measures of output are normally gross domestic product (GDP) or gross value added (GVA), expressed at constant prices i.e. adjusted for inflation.The three most commonly used measures of input are: hours worked; workforce jobs; and number of people in employment.Measured labor productivity will vary as a function of both other input factors and the efficiency with which the factors of production are used (total factor productivity).So two firms or countries may have equal total factor productivity (productive technologies) but because one has more capital to use, labor productivity will be higher.Output per worker corresponds to the "average product of labor" and can be contrasted with the marginal product of labor, which refers to the increase in output that results from a corresponding (marginal) increase in labor input.
The factors affecting labor productivity or the performance of individual work roles are of broadly the same type as those that affect the performance of manufacturing firms as a whole.They include: (1) physical-organic, location, and technological factors; (2) cultural belief-value and individual attitudinal, motivational and behavioral factors; (3) international influencese.g.levels of innovativeness and efficiency on the part of the owners and managers of inward investing foreign companies; (4) managerial-organizational and wider economic and political-legal environments; (5) levels of flexibility in internal labor markets and the organization of work activitiese.g. the presence or absence of traditional craft demarcation lines and barriers to occupational entry; and (6) individual rewards and payment systems, and the effectiveness of personnel managers and others in recruiting, training, communicating with, and performance-motivating employees on the basis of pay and other incentives.The emergence of computers has been noted as a significant factor in increasing labor productivity in the late 1990s, by some, and as an insignificant factor by others, such as R.J. Gordon.Although computers have existed for most of the 20th century, some economic researchers have noted a lag in productivity growth caused by computers that did not come until the late 1990s (Manufacturing in Britain, 2003).Altin and Lars (2005) believed that productivity index in the services sector depends on human factors (human resource).Japan productivity center (JPC) introduced to increase productivity of employees in three factors: development of employees included empowerment and their education, participative management, justice and equitable distribution (understanding of employees from equitable distribution and productivity growth); likewise, this center (JPC) knows factors of speed of operations, quality of operations, unit cost, job flexibility, people commitment, right communications, understanding of productivity, satisfaction and quality of work life and goodness of people participation as indexes of people productivity (Stainer, 1997).
Ozbiligin (2005) says the most important factors of human resource productivity included creativity, pay levels, capability and skills of people, job path and position of people in organization, kind of management and organizational flexibility.Wysocki et al. (2006) expressed that influence of human resource productivity in the today's world is a fact and also factors which can affect it include: nature of job and personality (appropriation of job and employee), motivation (financial and spirituality), job awareness and understanding, job satisfaction, quality of Work Life (QWL) and participating people in organization activities, participating people in action and activity, importance to employees by Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and not just important to work and finally having fair treatment with employees.Creating areas of participation and corporation, using follower commands in creating objectives and paying attention to human behaviors, removing confrontations and contradictions, removing communication barriers are factors which cause increased productivity in organizations; likewise observing performance standards and improvement, paying attention to satisfaction from kind of work and job, knowing the importance of work and understanding the beneficial of work are agents which increase productivity.
According to literature of research, main factors of productivity in the present study are creativity and innovation, Organizational commitment (Kenna, 2005;Thomas et al., 2006), organizational participation and job satisfaction (Siegel and Lane, 1987;Stifen, 1997).
Creativity: creative action has two criteria that are newness and suitable.Also, another definition of creativity means presenting new and different idea.In a summary of scientific research into creativity Michael Mumford suggested: "Over the course of the last decade, however, we seem to have reached a general agreement that creativity involves the production of novel, useful products" (Mumford, 2003).Beyond this general commonality, authors have diverged dramatically in their precise definitions; with Peter Meusburger claiming that over a hundred different versions can be found in the literature (Meusburger, 2009).
Organizational commitment: an important factor in organizations that has attracted the attention of researchers is organizational commitment.It is binding force and stable psychology that links employee with the mission of the organization (Thomas et al., 2006) 1 .

Bishop et al. expressed three features for organizational commitment:
1.Link with goals and objectives of organization.2.Desire to be tired according to company name.3.High desire to continued membership (Bishap et al., 2000).
Organizational participation: participation phenomenon is life-force and dynamic, freshness and productivity factor in organization that creates network communications in organization and causes rapid movement from status quo to good condition by collective thought.Also, participation of people causes individual growth and organizational excellence and likewise enhances morale, job satisfaction and upgrades employee's occupational prestige.
Job satisfaction: Job satisfaction has been defined as a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job (Locke, 1976 cited in Brief andWeiss, 2001); an affective reaction to one's job (Cranny et al., 1992cited in Weiss, 2002); and an attitude towards one's job (Brief, 1998cited in Weiss, 2002).Weiss (2002) has argued that job satisfaction is an attitude but points out that researchers should clearly distinguish the objects of cognitive evaluation which affect (emotion), beliefs and behaviors (Weiss, 2002).This definition suggests that we form attitudes towards our jobs by taking into account our feelings, beliefs, and behaviors.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB):
It is a personal and volunteer behavior that is not mentioned directly in official rewards system of an organization.
However, it contributes to effectiveness and efficiency in an organization (Appelbaum, et al. , 1983).A collection of volunteer and non-obligatory behavior that is not defined in the official employee job descriptions contributes to effective improvement of duties and roles in an organization (Cohen and Kol, 2004).These definitions emphasize on three main characteristics of citizenship behavior.The behavior should: 1) be voluntary (they are not predefined obligations and are not included in official job descriptions), 2) be beneficial to organization and 3) be multi-dimensional.A good organizational citizen not only should be aware of current issues of an organization but also should express an opinion about them and actively participate in solving organizational problems (Organ , 1988).This set of behaviors is not explicitly and directly mentioned in official rewards system of an organization but it contributes to effectiveness of organizational operations [Moorman and Blakely, 1995).This background identifies two main approaches related to the definition of OCB.
The effective functioning of an organization depends on employee's efforts that extend beyond formal role requirements (Barnard, 1938;Katz and Kahn, 1966;Organ, 1988).Organ (1988) termed these extra efforts "Organizational Citizenship Behaviors" (OCB), and defined them to include activities that target other individuals in the workplace (e.g., helping coworkers or communicating changes that affect others) and the organization itself (e.g., actively participating in group meetings or representing the organization positively to outsiders).A few studies have shown that OCB is positively related to indicators of individual, unit, and organizational performance (George and Bettenhausen, 1990;Karambayya, 1990;MacKenzie et al., 1991MacKenzie et al., , 1993;;Podsakoff et al., 1997;Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994;Walz and Niehoff, 2000;Werner, 1994).
Scholars hold different views with respect to the dimensionality of OCB.Smith et al. (1983) conceptualized OCB with two dimensions: altruism (behavior targeted specifically at helping individuals) and generalized compliance (behavior reflecting compliance with general rules, norms, and expectations).Later Organ (1988) identified five dimensions belonging to OCBs (Figure 1): 1.Altruism: the helping of an individual coworker on a task; 2.Courtesy: alerting others in the organization about changes that may affect their work; 3.Conscientiousness: carrying out one's duties beyond the minimum requirements; 4.Sportsmanship: refraining from complaining about trivial matters and; 5.Civic virtue: participating in the governance of the organization.
More recent conceptualizations of OCB offer slightly different categorizations.Largely based on Organ's (1988) five-dimension taxonomy, Williams and Anderson (1991) proposed a two-dimensional conceptualization of OCB: OCB-I (behaviors directed toward Individuals; comprising altruism and courtesy) and OCB-O (behaviors directed toward Organization; comprising the remaining three dimensions in Organ's (1988) conceptualization).Some scholars also have utilized a one-dimensional or overall OCB measure in their research (Decktop et al., 1999).A most recent meta-analysis conducted by Hoffman, Blair et al. (2007) suggested that "current operationalizations of OCB are best viewed as indicators of a general OCB factor..., there is likely little to be gained through the use of separate dimensional measures as opposed to an overall composite measure".A similar conclusion was reached by a previous meta-analysis (LePine et al., 2002).
Research on the relationship between OCB and organizational effectiveness has progressed through a variety of interpretations of effectiveness beyond Organ's (1988) notions of efficiency and the ability to secure needed resources.These studies have generally supported relationships between OCB and individual employee -level performance (MacKenzie et al., 1991(MacKenzie et al., , 1993;;Werner, 1994), aggregated individual performance (George and Bettenhausen, 1990;Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1994), and group-level measures of performance (Karambayya, 1990;Podsakoff et al., 1997).Walz and Niehoff (2000) studied the relationship between aggregated levels of OCB and a number of stores -level performance measures --including profitability, operating efficiency, revenue-to-full-time-equivalent, and customer assessments of service quality --in a chain of 30 fast food restaurants.They found the OCB dimension of helping to be positively related to operating efficiency, revenue -per-employee, quality performance, and customer satisfaction.They also found that all three measured dimensions of OCB (helping, sportsmanship, and civic virtue) were negatively related to customers' complaints, while helping and sportsmanship were negatively associated with a measure of food waste.These findings thus supported Organ's assertion that OCB should be related to some general categories of organizational effectiveness.
Of course, evidences which indicate job satisfaction and organizational commitment are significant correlates of OCB; the nature of casual relationships between them is still doubtful and investigations have yielded opposing conclusions.It is due to the complex links between job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
A positive relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment has been consistently reported by studies (Shin and Reyes, 1995;Shann, 1998;Currivan, 1999;Testa, 2001).But it is not clear whether job satisfaction is a precursor to organizational commitment or whether organizational commitment influences one's level of job satisfaction.Majority of research has studied job satisfaction as an antecedent to organizational commitment (Shin and Reyes, 1995;Mathieu, 1991;Gaertner, 1999;Testa, 2001).Bogler and Somech (2004) studied about Organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior.Pearson correlations and multiple regression analyses indicated that teachers' perceptions of their level of empowerment are significantly related to their feelings of commitment to the organization and to the profession, and to their OCBs.Among the six subscales of empowerment, professional growth, status and self-efficacy were significant predictors of organizational and PC, while decision making, self-efficacy, and status were significant predictors of OCB.Cohen (2006) studied about the relationship between multiple commitments and organizational citizenship behavior; the findings showed substantial differences between the two groups in the four cultural dimensions and in two commitment forms.Ethnicity and the four cultural values related strongly to in-role performance and organizational OCB.The results showed 16 significant interactions of multiple commitments with ethnicity and with cultural dimensions in relation to OCB and in-role performance.Implications of the findings for research on commitment and culture are discussed.Zeinabadia (2010) studied job satisfaction and organizational commitment as antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) of teachers.The results illustrated that job satisfaction and organizational commitment as antecedents of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) of teachers Results showed that just 1 model has the best fit indexes.In this model, intrinsic job satisfaction is a dominant variable which influences OCB directly and indirectly through partial mediating role of value commitment.Vilela et al. (2008) studied about Personorganization fit, OCB and performance appraisal.The finding indicated that the positive effect of OCB on the supervisor's evaluation of the sales agent's performance, both directly and indirectly, through the impact OCB had on the supervisor's fondness of the salesperson.Certain implications of this study, as well as directions for future research, are also addressed.Liu and Cohen (2010) studied about values, commitment, and OCB among Chinese employees.The results showed that a strong role for continuance commitment is both a dependent variable (affected by values) and independent variable (affecting OCB).A strong negative relationship between self-direction and all commitment forms is also interesting and quite unexpected.As one of the few studies to examine such relationships in a highly traditional, non-Western culture, the study offers a new perspective on the variables examined here.We conclude by emphasizing the need for further research on other non-Western cultures and by suggesting some directions for such research.Mahdiuon et al. (2010) studied about Explanation of organizational citizenship behavior with personality.The results indicated that: 1) OCB and personality dimensions take a place higher than average position.2) Results of Pearson Correlation show that OCB has positive relations with personality dimensions including: agreeableness, consciousness, openness, and extraversion; however, the relation between neuroticism and OCB seems negative.3) Result of Regression analysis demonstrates that consciousness, agreeableness and openness predict the OCB.Yi et al. (2011) studied customers' participation and citizenship behavioral influences employees' performance, satisfaction, commitment, and turnover intention.The results showed that managers have to strengthen the positive effects of customer participation behavior on employee satisfaction, as well as those of customer citizenship behavior on employee satisfaction.This study reveals that these positive relationships may change depending on similarity and likeability of customers.
Okereke and Daniel (2010) studied about staff welfare and productivity in Patani Local Government Council, Delta State, Nigeria.Based on the research findings the following conclusions were made: There was general awareness about staff welfare amongst employees at the Patani Local Government Council.The components of staff welfare included training, free medical treatment, protection against occupational hazards, provision of recreational facilities and convenience.Staff welfare was grossly neglected at the council.The working environment was poor in terms of office accommodation and furniture, working materials, monetary incentives and reliable health and safety facilities.Morale or job satisfaction was low among the employees which could result to low productivity (performance).

Research questions
1.Is there any significant correlation between dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and dimensions of human resource productivity and OCB and HRP overall?2.What is regression equation of human resource productivity in dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors?2008).The process of human productivity in the present organization is clear and also in this organization were persuaded employees to motivation and makes entrepreneurship ideas.Data for this study were collected by the questionnaires of Human Resource Productivity planned by researcher with 34 items of four indexes: job satisfaction (Weiss et al., 1967)), organizational participation, organizational commitment (Ngunia et al., 2006) and creativity; and also for assessing Organizational Citizenship Behaviors of employees, the questionnaires of OCB developed by DiPaola et al. ( 2004) that contained 15 items was used.The respondents were employees of EASTP of East Azerbaijan-Iran.The questionnaires used 5 point Likert scales (1 represents strongly disagree and 5 represents strongly agree) to measure the construct.Cronbach's α for this scale was 0.86 to Organizational Citizenship Behaviors questionnaire and 0.91 to Human Resource Productivity questionnaire respectively.Data analysis was carried out by using the statistical program packages SPSS 17.0, Amos 16.0.1 and Lisrel 8.54.Among the respondent, 74.2% was male and 25.8% female.Majority of the respondent are in the middle age which is between 35 to 45 years (59.6%).45.7% has been working with the organization for 3 to 5 years, 33.7% have been working between 1 to 3 years.Majority of the respondent have masters and bachelors degree (74.9%).

Examining the questions
The Pearson correlation for the study variables is given in Table 1.Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and its dimensions correlated with Human resource productivity.Dimensions of OCB and OCB were significantly related to Human resource management and its dimensions.The results of Table1 illustrates that there is positive relationship between all items.Table 2 illustrates the model summary of regression of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Human Resource Productivity.
As seen, the significant predictor (Altruism, Courtesy, Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship and Civic virtue) has determined 73.3% of the variance of HRP.As, it was expected to predict creating depending on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and its dimensions, P-variable regression was applied; Organizational Citizenship Behaviors as predictor variable and HRP as depended variable were analyzed.Data of Table3 illustrated that Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and its dimensions predict the HRP.Eventually each increase or decrease in dimensions of Organizational  In accordance with Byrne (1998), a ratio of X2 to df of less than 3 was generally considered an indicator of good model fit, and a ratio of less than 5 was considered acceptable.An adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) of more than 0.90, a root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) of less than 0.08, and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) of less than 0.045 and a normal fit index (NFI), Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Incremental Fit Index (IFI) of more than 0.90 were considered indicators of "good fit".Given their complementary features all four indexes were used to evaluate the path model.In this model we use abbreviation of both of criteria's dimensions (e.g.com= competency, job= job satisfaction and etc.).Data of Figures 2 and 3 1that represents the first question of present study is acceptable.Also, according to the results of Table 2 it can be concluded that significant of predictor variables namely (Altruism, Courtesy, Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship and Civic virtue) is 73.3 % variance of HRP.Also, according to results of Table 3 it can be said that significantly the Altruism is more than others.This means that present organizations pay attention to other dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors such as Altruism item.Because, we will have an HRP organization when can promote Organizational Citizenship Behaviors totally.So, the result of Tables 2, 3 which represent the second question of present study is acceptable.Likewise, according to Table 4 and Data of Figures 1 and 2 there is a strong relationship between Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and HRP.Also, it can be said that present model for measuring all items is favorable.So, the result of Table 4 and Figures 1, 2 which represent the third question of present study is acceptable.The findings of all questions of present study are in conformity with researches of George and Bettenhausen (1990); Karambayya (1990); Mathieu (1991);MacKenzie et al. (1991MacKenzie et al. ( , 1993)); Werner (1994); Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1994); Shin and Reyes (1995); Podsakoff, Ahearne and MacKenzie (1997); Organ (1988); Shann (1998); Currivan (1999); Gaertner (1999); Walz and Niehoff (2000); Testa (2001); Bogler and Somech (2004); Cohen (2006); González and Fernández (2008); Zeinabadia (2010); Liu and Cohen (2010); Mahdiuon et al. (2010); Yi et al. (2011) and Okereke and Daniel (2010).Therefore, all of organizations, both generally and specially, enhance the level of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors, because if it is higher, HRP and organizational productivity increases too.Thus, if the present organization and even other organizations want to achieve HRP and organizational productivity (OP), they should invest in acceptable OCB.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.The framework of present study.

3.
Is there acceptable goodness of fit in exploratory model and structural equation modeling in present study?METHODOLOGY East Azarbaijan Science and Technology Park (EASTP) was founded in the year 2003.It is located in Tabriz, Capital of East Azarbaijan province, Islamic Republic of Iran.On June 3rd 2003 East Park became a member of IASP.IASP (International Association of Science Parks) established in 1984-is located in Spain.It consists of members from 73 different countries from all over the word .East Azarbaijan Science and Technology Park is now a full member of IASP (

Table 1 .
Pearson correlation coefficient between Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and HRP and theirs dimensions and (n=276).

Table 2 .
Model summery of regression of Organizational CitizenshipBehaviors and Human Resource Productivity (n=276).

Table 3 .
Regression analysis to predict Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and its dimension on the HRP (n=276).
and Table 4 illustrated that the exploratory model including all hypothesized

Table 4 .
Model summary of goodness of fit statistics (n=183).

-square df RMSEA GFI AGFI NFI NNFI CFI IFI RMR 44
.56 26 0.083 0.91 0.85 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.98 .029 solution) and T-value and table-4 is Model summary of Goodness of fit statistics.Civic virtue & Sportsmanship) with Human Resource Productivity.Considering the correlation result, it can be explained that Altruism, Courtesy and Conscientiousness are more important than other dimensions of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (in the employee's view).It means, in the workplace when these items are high, the workforces have satisfaction from environment of organization and increasing organizational commitment, participation and creativity in employees.So, totally there is positive and significant relationship between Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and HRP according to the results of Table