Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior among Turkish white-collar employees in The Netherlands and Turkey

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 68–79

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior among Turkish white-collar employees in The Netherlands and Turkey Nevra Cem Ersoy a,∗ , Eva Derous c , Marise Ph. Born b , Henk T. van der Molen b a b c

I˙ zmir University of Economics, Department of Psychology, 35330 Balc¸ova, I˙ zmir, Turkey Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands Ghent University, Belgium

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 19 April 2013 Received in revised form 16 June 2015 Accepted 22 June 2015 Keywords: Organizational citizenship behavior Social axioms Relational identification with the supervisor Turkey The Netherlands

a b s t r a c t This study examined antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior (i.e., reward for application; religiosity beliefs and employees’ relational identification with their supervisor) among Turkish white-collar employees in The Netherlands (n = 103) and Turkey (n = 147). OCB related positively to reward for application (both samples) but not to religiosity beliefs among Turkish employees in their home country (Turkey). As expected, relational identification with the supervisor was less strongly related to organizational citizenship behavior among Turkish white-collar employees in their host country (The Netherlands) compared to their home country (Turkey), especially when they resided longer in their host country. Giving increasing globalization and war for talent, findings are relevant to better understand effects of white-collar migrants’ cultural background and acculturation patterns in work-related domains, like OCB. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has been defined as employee behavior supporting the social and psychological fabric of the organization (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). OCB has positive impacts on several individual-level outcomes (e.g., employee performance and reward allocation decisions) as well as on organizational-level outcomes (e.g., productivity, efficiency, costs, and customer satisfaction) (Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). Consideration of cultural differences in OCB has become more important over the last few decades, as the work-force has become highly diverse and people from many different ethno-cultural backgrounds work together. In line with these changes, the present study focuses on antecedents of OCB among employees from one of the largest minority groups in The Netherlands, namely the Turkish migrants (Luciak, 2004; Myors et al., 2008). Although, a body of research considers Turkish migrants’ family values, religiosity, and parental practices (Celenk and van de Vijver, 2013; Durgel, Van de Vijver, & Ya˘gmurlu, 2013; Güngör, Fleischmann, Phalet, Maliepaard, 2013; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2012), only few studies have investigated work behaviors and acculturation (e.g., Oerlemans & Peeters, 2010). By studying employees’ OCB, the present research extends previous research on Turkish migrants’ work behaviors and adds to the literature on acculturation of migrant workers (Arends-Toth and Van de Vijver, 2004; Verkuyten & Martinovic, 2006).

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (N.C. Ersoy). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.06.010 0147-1767/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

N.C. Ersoy et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 68–79

69

There are clear differences between Turkey and The Netherlands in terms of their socio-cultural context (IMF, 2013). While Turkey has turned out to be less collectivistic and less hierarchical than in earlier times (Aycan, 2001), it can unmistakably be considered as collectivistic and hierarchical when compared to The Netherlands. The Netherlands further rank “very high” on the human development index (HDI) whereas, Turkey is ranked in a lower HDI-category. Indeed, the first generation of Turkish migrants in the 1960s had low levels of education, low-skilled jobs, and low social status compared to their Dutch counterparts (Hagendoorn & Hraba, 1989; Pettigrew, 1998). Although, unemployment is still higher among Turkish migrants than among native Dutch (CBS, 2012), the second generation of Turkish migrants is much more highly educated and hold better jobs (Arends-Tóth, 2003). Recently, migration from Turkey only for the purpose of reunited families has declined, and in response to the war for talented workers- more skilled workers have come to The Netherlands (CBS, 2012). Hence, many Turkish migrant workers currently contribute to the Dutch economy in numerous types of jobs, also in those with a higher status. Interestingly, till today studies predominantly investigated blue-collar migrants of low SES involving manual labor; this study is one of the first to investigate Turkish white-collar employees in their host country, who typically occupy professional, managerial, or administrative positions. In line with the bidimensional model of acculturation, Turkish migrants may adapt to the Dutch culture in functional and utilitarian domains like work (Arends-Toth and Van de Vijver, 2004). In this paper, we consider this to a further extent and study acculturation by means of employees’ OCB. We specifically consider antecedents of OCB (social axioms and relational identification with supervisors) and whether these antecedents affect OCB differently among white-collar Turkish workers in their host vs. home country. Below, we first explain OCB and how it is affected by culture after which we discuss social axioms and their potential effects on OCB. We then focus on employees’ relational identification with their supervisors and the way it is expected to relate to OCB among white-collar Turkish workers in The Netherlands vs. Turkey. 2. OCB, culture, and social axioms 2.1. OCB and culture Certain ingredients for cooking a delicious meal are fundamental, such as oil and salt, but if some extra suitable seasoning is added the meal will become tastier. This metaphor introduces the central concept of this paper, namely organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). The oil and salt represent employee tasks that contribute to the organization’s technical core that employees have to perform (Borman et al., 2001), whereas the seasoning symbolizes OCB defined as an “individual behavior at work that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, but promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988, p. 4). Borman et al. (2001); (see also Van Scotter and Motowidlo, 1996) further distinguished between three OCB dimensions, namely interpersonal facilitation, organizational support, and job dedication. Interpersonal facilitation has been defined as helping co-workers when such help is needed. Organizational support refers to supporting the organization even if it is undergoing hardships (e.g., sportsmanship). Job dedication, then, refers to one’s dedication to perform specific work-related tasks above and beyond the call of duty. Both interpersonal facilitation and organizational support refer to other-directed behavior, as they are directed towards one’s colleagues and the organization as a whole, respectively. In contrast, job dedication has a much stronger focus on the self, because it refers to types of behavior such as persistence, initiative in one’s job, and self-development. Farh, Zhong, and Organ (2004) demonstrated that the importance of OCB dimensions may vary across cultures. For example, helping co-workers outside of work was mentioned as a dimension of OCB in China but not in the US. It has also been shown that perceptions of OCB as “in-role” versus “extra-role behavior” are influenced by culture (Kwantes, Karam, Kuo, & Towson, 2008; Lam, Hui, & Law, 1999). For instance, in Hong Kong, the sportsmanship dimension of OCB is typically regarded as in-role behavior which one should perform whereas in Australia sportmanship is regarded as non-obligatory, voluntary behavior (i.e., working without complaining and tolerating difficulties at work, see Lam et al., 1999). In addition to these findings, antecedents of OCB were also shown to be shaped by culture. For instance, Uc¸anok and Karabati (2013) examined the influence of Schwartz’s values on OCB in Turkey. They found that conservatism values (i.e., a preference for maintaining the status quo), were positively related to the sportsmanship dimension of OCB. Moorman and Blakely (1995) looked specifically into the relationship between other-oriented and self-oriented forms of OCB on the one hand, and individualistic and collectivistic orientations of people on the other hand. They demonstrated that collectivistic oriented people showed more other-oriented OCB such as interpersonal facilitation and organizational support than did individualistically oriented people. 2.2. Social axioms and OCB The above-mentioned findings support Triandis’ (1994) observation that culture shapes perceptions, expectations and behavioral norms, like OCB. One such cultural indicator, are “social axioms”, which can be measured both at the individual and the societal level (Kwantes, Karam, & Kuo, 2008; Leung & Bond, 2004). At the individual level, five social axioms are distinguished (i.e., reward for application, social cynicism, religiosity, fate control, and social complexity), each of them referring to one’s general beliefs about the world. Reward for application represents beliefs that careful planning will bring about positive consequences in life. Social cynicism embodies negative beliefs about human kind. Religiosity stresses the positive functions of religious beliefs in life whereas fate control represents beliefs that events in life are determined and

70

N.C. Ersoy et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 68–79

there are ways to control these events. Finally, social complexity beliefs suggest that there are not any certain rules but various ways to achieve an outcome. At the societal level, two dimensions, namely ‘dynamic externality’ and ‘societal cynicism’, have been distinguished. Dynamic externality, for instance, includes dimensions of reward for application, religiosity, fate control, and social complexity, whereas societal cynicism includes items of individual level social cynicism. In the present paper, we consider social axioms at the individual level. Although, studies have shown that employees’ social world views (i.e., social axioms) may predict their work-related behavior and attitudes (Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Singelis, Hubbard, Her, & An, 2003; Youssef & Luthans, 2007), we are only aware of two studies that looked into social axioms as potential antecedents of OCB. Kwantes, Karam, and Kuo (2008), for instance, showed that Canadian participants who scored high on reward for application considered OCB (particularly as regards conscientious behavior) more as in-role than as extra-role behavior, whereas the reverse was true for employees who scored high on religiosity beliefs. Recently, Cem Ersoy, Born, Derous, and Van der Molen (2011) reported that reward for application and religiosity beliefs were positively related to OCB among Turkish blue and white-collar employees in Turkey but that other types of social axioms (i.e., social cynicism, fate control, and social complexity) did not relate to OCB among Turkish workers. Migration to a new society is expected to influence a person’s world views and attitudes (Berry, 1999). Goodwin, Polek, and Bardi (2012), for instance, showed that Polish migrants’ social complexity beliefs changed during their stay in England due to cultural learning. Hence, social axioms (i.e., defined in this paper as people’s general beliefs about the world) are subject to change in new environments, which in turn may change their relationship with work-related behavioral outcomes, such as one’s organizational citizenship behavior. Following Berry (1999) and definitions on acculturation, we expect acculturation to affect one’s behavior (like OCB) through one’s cognitions (i.e., social axioms or world views). Specifically, building further on Cem Ersoy et al. (2011), the present study considers potential differential effects of two social axioms1 on Turkish whitecollar employees’ OCB, namely reward for application and religiosity. We specifically examine the similarities and differences between Turkish white-collar employees in their host country (The Netherlands) and home country (Turkey) for a better understanding of acculturation processes in the context of work. Comparing Turkish workers in both their host and home country might help us to better understand whether higher-educated Turkish migrants preserve their culture of origin or whether they adjust to important characteristics of the majority culture in a work setting. First, we expect white-collar employees’ reward for application to relate positively to OCB (Cem Ersoy et al., 2011) in both Turkey and The Netherlands. Reward for application involves a belief in the positive results of effort and people who possess this belief are eager to face physical and interpersonal difficulties (Leung et al., 2002), which may not be affected that much by culture but more by an individual’s SES and educational level. Reward for application has also been related to one’s level of conscientiousness, which is one of the big five personality traits on which little cultural differences are found (e.g., Chen, Fok, Bond, & Matsumoto, 2006; Van de Vlierts & Janssen, 2002). Therefore, Turkish white-collar workers who have this belief are expected to exert extra efforts on the job, regardless of whether they live in their host or home country. The reward for application belief has further been shown to positively relate to one’s job dedication (i.e., the number of working hours per week), and working hard to solve work-related problems (e.g., by working extra hours to complete a work task) as an active style of coping with difficulties on the job and life more in general (Safdar, Lewis, & Daneshpour, 2006). Since, OCB also involves helping colleagues when they cannot solve a work-related problem (e.g., by putting extra effort), working hard to solve work-related problems (e.g., by working extra hours to complete a work task) and staying at the organization despite economic hardships, one can expect a positive relation between white-collar workers’ reward for application belief and both other and self-oriented dimensions of OCB. Therefore, we expected that: Hypothesis 1. Reward for application will relate positively to OCB (i.e., interpersonal facilitation, organizational support, job dedication) both among Turkish employees in Turkey and The Netherlands. Second, we expect religiosity to relate to other-oriented forms of OCB, but with a different strength for Turkish whitecollar employees in The Netherlands vs. Turkey. Religiosity concerns the belief that supernatural forces control the universe and that religious beliefs are functional for living a happy life. Religiosity is further expected to relate to other-oriented forms of OCB as people who endorse religiosity beliefs typically have the conviction that these beliefs have a positive influence on inter-personal relationships (Bond, Leung, Au, Tong, & Chemonges-Nielson, 2004). Indeed, religiosity has been related to a concern for others, helping behaviors, and undertaking good behavior by giving up one’s own egoistic interests (Bond et al., 2004). Yet, other than reward for application, we expect different effects of religiosity beliefs on Turkish white-collar workers’ OCB in The Netherlands and Turkey. Turkey is among the countries with strong religiosity beliefs and where religiosity is an important aspect of life, whereas this general belief is rather low in The Netherlands (Leung & Bond, 2004; Ribberink, Achterberg, & Houtman, 2013). Therefore, one can expect a positive relationship between religiosity and other-focused OCB among the Turkish white-collar employees in Turkey. In contrast, for Turkish employees in The Netherlands, a less positive relation is expected. Although, religiosity has been shown to be related to positively valued constructs such as agreeableness (McCrae, 2002) and positive affect (Diener & Suh, 1999), it has also been shown to be related to rejection of culturally distant

1 Cem Ersoy et al. (2011) also looked into social axioms as potential antecedents of OCB among Turkish employees in Turkey. Because reward for application and religiosity beliefs were positively related to OCB but other types of social axioms (i.e., social cynicism, fate control, and social complexity) did not relate to OCB, we did not formulate specific hypotheses on social complexity, social cynicism, and fate control in the present study.

N.C. Ersoy et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 68–79

71

groups (Safdar et al., 2006). For instance, Safdar et al. (2006) showed that religiosity was associated with refusing intercultural contacts, the denial of customs and traditions of different cultural groups. Because Turkish and Dutch cultures have different religious backgrounds (namely Islamic and Christian background, respectively), Turkish employees in The Netherlands who endorse strong religiosity beliefs in the workplace, may be more likely to distance themselves from Dutch society. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that Turkish people in The Netherlands who scored high on religious identification were less likely to identify themselves with the Dutch culture and habits (Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2007). In line with these findings, we consequently hypothesize that: Hypothesis 2. Religiosity will relate positively to other-oriented OCB (i.e., interpersonal facilitation and organizational support) among Turkish employees in Turkey (H2a), but this relationship will be weaker among Turkish employees in The Netherlands (H2b).

3. Relational identification with the supervisor (RI) and OCB Various studies have highlighted the importance of social relationships at work for OCB (Anderson & Williams, 1996; Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007). For instance, mutual confidence between leaders and subordinates positively influences subordinates’ OCB (Anderson & Williams, 1996). Accordingly, Kamdar and Van Dyne (2007) demonstrated that the quality of the social relationship with one’s supervisor affected the employee’s OCB. Sluss and Ashforth (2007) recently introduced the concept of “relational identification with the supervisor” (RI). RI refers to how one defines his/her relationship with one’s supervisor and, therefore, can be a potential antecedent of employees’ OCB at work. An employee’s RI may be seen as an expansion of the self-concept in the sense that the self exceeds one’s personal characteristics by including “significant others”, such as one’s supervisors (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). Because people in collectivistic cultures will more naturally define their self-concepts in terms of their relationships with others, we expect employees’ RI to be especially salient for employees’ OCB in collectivistic-oriented cultures, such as Turkey (Hofstede, 1991; Smith, Bond, & Kâ˘gitc¸ibas¸i, 2006). However and although, positive social relationships have been shown to be important in individualistic cultures as well (Anderson & Williams, 1996; Kamdar & Van Dyne, 2007), one’s RI seems less relevant in individualistic than in collectivistic-oriented cultures. Moreover, Arends-Toth and Van de Vijver (2004) showed that Turkish migrants adapt to the Dutch culture particularly in public life domains, with one’s work environment being one of the most important public domains in life. In line with these findings, we argue that Turkish white-collar employees who work in Dutch-managed companies in their host country (The Netherlands) will be more familiar with Dutch individualistic values, and consequently their OCB will less likely be influenced by their RI than for Turkish white-collar employees who work in Turkish-managed companies in their home country (Turkey). Because personalized relationships between supervisors and subordinates are not expected to be as salient aspects in the Dutch workplace compared to the Turkish workplace, we expect the relationship between RI and OCB to be somewhat weaker for Turkish white-collar employees in The Netherlands than for their Turkish counterparts in Turkey. Our hypothesis consequently states that: Hypothesis 3a. Country of residence (i.e., Turkey vs. The Netherlands) will moderate the relationship between Turkish white-collar employees’ RI and OCB (i.e., interpersonal facilitation, organizational support, and job dedication), such that the relationship between one’s RI and one’s OCB will be more strong for Turkish white-collar employees in Turkey than in The Netherlands. As illustrated, when migrants get in contact with the majority culture (e.g., while they are working), they may experience and adopt novel values, attitudes and behavior. Indeed, according to the bidimensional model of acculturation, migrants can maintain their heritage culture (“cultural maintenance” dimension) but also adopt to the mainstream culture due to the amount of contact they have with members of the majority culture (“contact” dimension; see Ataca and Berry, 2002; Ryder, Alden and Paulhus 2000). Studies that have adopted this view have used demographic variables (Cortes, Rogler, & Malgady, 1994; Quarasse and Van de Vijver, 2005) as indirect measures of acculturation. For instance, Cortes et al. (1994) found immigrants’ length of stay in their host country to relate positively to migrants’ attitudes toward the foreign culture and negatively to migrants’ attitudes toward their own ethnic culture (Cortes et al., 1994). More recently, Quarasse and Van de Vijver (2005) found that the longer Moroccans lived in The Netherlands, the less they identified positively with their own ethnic culture. Further, a study conducted among Hong Kong migrants in Canada considered age at immigration and found that the younger participants were at the time of immigration, the more quickly they identified with the Canadian culture (Cheung, Chudek, & Heine, 2011). Given these findings and because of the more individualistic nature of Dutch society (Hofstede, 1991), it can be argued that the longer Turkish employees live and work in The Netherlands (i.e., the more social contact they have with majority members), the more they will adapt to the Dutch work-related culture, particularly regarding other-related OCB dimensions. Since RI seems to be a less salient characteristic of the Dutch workplace than of the Turkish work context (Aycan, 2006), Turkish employees who live longer in The Netherlands are expected to be more familiar with aspects of the Dutch workplace. Therefore, the relation of RI with their supervisors and OCB dimensions will become less strong the longer Turkish employees stay in The Netherlands:

72

N.C. Ersoy et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 68–79

Hypothesis 3b. Length of stay in The Netherlands will moderate the relationship between RI and OCB (i.e., interpersonal facilitation, organizational support, and job dedication) such that the positive relationship between RI and OCB will become weaker the longer Turkish white-collar employees stayed in The Netherlands.

4. Method 4.1. Participants and procedure Turkish white-collar employees who are members of the Turkish Academic Network in The Netherlands (TANNET) and members of an e-group such as Middle East Technical University graduates in The Netherlands (METU-NL) (n = 103, 56% female, Mage = 29, SDage = 8.37) and 147 white-collar employees from a textile factory in Western-Turkey (28% female, Mage = 28, SDage = 6.07) participated in this study. Both groups were comparable in terms of their occupations (with IT, bank employees, managers, chemical, and mechanical engineers in either of the groups). Among the Turkish employees in The Netherlands, 25% held Ph.D. degrees, 38% had university degrees, and 37% had a high school degree. Among the Turkish employees in Turkey, 1% held a Ph.D. degree, 51% had graduated from university, and 46% had a high school degree. Among the Turkish employees in The Netherlands, 55% had at least 5 years of work experience compared to 53% of the Turkish employees in Turkey. Furthermore, 45% of the Turkish employees in The Netherlands were born in The Netherlands and 38% had been living in this country for less than 10 years. We checked whether Turkish employees in The Netherlands and Turkish employees in Turkey differed in terms of age, work experience, gender, and education. T-test results showed that there was no age difference, t (245) = 3.10, n.s., and no differences in work experience, t (245) = 2.07, n.s. However, Turkish employees in The Netherlands were more highly educated than Turkish employees in Turkey, t (248) = 3.51, p ≤ 0.01, and there were more females among the Turkish participants in The Netherlands than among the Turkish participants in Turkey, t (244) = 4.69, p ≤ 0.05. All participants were informed about the research and invited via e-mails to participate on a voluntary basis. Confidentiality and anonymity of responses were emphasized and assured. Data were collected via e-survey (74%) and via paper-and-pencil forms (26%). Paper-and-pencil forms of the surveys were both distributed and collected in closed envelopes.

4.2. Measures In accordance with test translation guidelines (Van de Vijver, 2003), items were translated from English to Turkish and back-translated from Turkish to English by five bilingual experts. Four of these were linguists whose mother tongue was Turkish and who had studied the English language; the fifth was a bilingual Turkish industrial and organizational psychologist. The participants answered questionnaires in Turkish. As can be seen from Table 1, reliabilities were acceptable for research purposes (Nunnally, 1978).

4.2.1. Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication were each measured with five items adapted from Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996). Example items are: “I praise co-workers when they are successful” (interpersonal facilitation) and “I put in extra hours to get work done” (job dedication) (1 = do not agree at all; 5 = agree very much). Organizational support was measured with five items adapted from Borman et al. (2001). An example item is: “I show loyalty to the organization by staying with the organization despite temporary hardships” (1 = do not agree at all; 5 = agree very much). Confirmatory factor analyses (AMOS version 6.0) were conducted to test the three-factor structure of the OCB scale. Good fit indices were found for a three-factorial structure (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Specifically, the items for OCB showed a good fit in the Turkish sample in The Netherlands, 2 (df = 76) = 102.83, p ≤ 0.05; RMSEA = 0.06; CFI = 0.93, as well as in the sample of Turkish employees in Turkey, 2 (df = 76) = 110.37, p ≤ 0.05; RMSEA = 0.03; CFI = 0.91. We followed the invariance hierarchical nested model strategy as advocated by Cheung and Rensvold (1999) and Cheung and Rensvold (2002) to test measurement invariance. Conceptual agreement was reached when measurement invariance across both samples was tested (see Table 2 for values of the fit indices). As expected, the 2 of the restricted models increased slightly but none of the 2 -values was significant. However, it should be noted that the 2 is not the sole and certainly not the best test for evaluating fit (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Therefore, we considered subjective goodness-of-fit indices, specifically the RMSEA, the CFI, and the PCFI (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Theses goodness-of-fit indices (GFIs) indicated that the constrained models fit the data well. Specifically, the fit statistics for the more restricted models did not alter from the fit indices of the unrestricted models: RMSEA values and CFI values remained the same. The PCFI increased slightly, indicating a better model. For Turkish employees in The Netherlands, alpha coefficients were 0.72 for Interpersonal facilitation, 0.73 for job dedication, and 0.67 for organizational support. For Turkish employees in Turkey, alpha coefficients were 0.65 for Interpersonal facilitation, 0.73 for job dedication, and 0.71 for organizational support.

N.C. Ersoy et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 68–79

73

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations among study variables. Turkish–Dutch employees Turkish employees

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Length of Stay Age Gender Educational level Work experience Interpersonal facilitation Job dedication Organizational support Organizational citizenship behavior Reward for application Religiosity Relational identification

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

M

SD

˛

M

SD

˛

1

2

3

4

5

6

17.48 29.28 1.57 1.84 8.86 3.3 3.93 4.04 3.75 3.97 3.16 3.09

13.11 8.87 0.49 0.78 8.4 0.62 0.47 0.5 0.41 0.63 0.63 0.63

– – – – – 0.72 0.73 0.67 0.84 0.69 0.77 0.65

– 28.33 1.28 1.53 7.04 3.69 4.31 4.56 4.18 4.29 3.88 3.47

– 6.07 0.45 0.5 5.15 0.71 0.57 0.45 0.65 0.69 0.74 0.64

– – – – – 0.65 0.73 0.71 0.84 0.84 0.67 0.64

– −0.27* 0.15 −0.27** −0.21* −0.15 −0.04 −0.25* −0.19 −0.27** 0.08 −0.26**

– – −0.24* 0.25* 0.70** 0.27** −0.13 0.05 0.04 0.14 −0.18 −0.08

– −0.1 – −0.08 −0.31* −0.08 0.05 0.01 0.02 −0.14 −0.04 0.04

– 0.29** 0.06 – 0.20* 0.11 0.08 0.25** 0.22** 0.20* 0.07 0.04

– 0.82** −0.19* 0.33** – 0.28** −0.18 0.06 0.04 0.09 −0.15 −0.06

– 0.17* −0.11 0.28* 0.15 – 0.39** 0.54** 0.84** 0.31** 0.02 −0.1

Length of stay Age Gender Educational level Work experience Interpersonal facilitation Job dedication Organizational support Organizational citizenship behavior Reward for application Religiosity Relational identification

7

8

9

10

11

12

– 0.13 −0.08 0.15 0.01 0.35** – 0.40** 0.74** 0.23* 0.15 0.00

– 0.00 0.04 0.17* 0.20* 0.30** 0.43** – 0.80** 0.36** 0.27** −0.03

– 0.01 −0.03 0.06 0.15 0.80** 0.77** 0.70** – 0.35** 0.15 −0.02

– 0.03 −0.12 0.10 0.01 0.22* 0.29** 0.32** 0.34** – 0.09 0.06

– 0.04 −0.24** 0.04 0.04 −0.16 0.12 −0.10 0.12 0.39** – −0.15

– 0.05 −0.12 0.10 0.08 0.20* 0.12 0.22* 0.27** 0.40** 0.13 –

Note. Correlations for Turkish white-collar employees in The Netherlands are presented below the diagonal; correlations for Turkish employees in Turkey are presented above the diagonal. Gender: 1 = male; 2 = female; education: 1 = vocational school (vocational school and high school in the Turkish sample), 2 = university degree, 3 = Ph.D. degree; length of stay in The Netherlands and work experience are expressed in years. All variables except length of stay in The Netherlands, age, gender, educational level, and work experience are measured using a 5-point Likert scale. * p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01. Table 2 Overall fit indices for testing conceptual equivalence among Turkish white-collar employees in The Netherlands and Turkish white-collar employees in Turkey. 2

Df

2

df

RMSEA

CFI

PCFI

Organizational citizenship behavior 213.65 Model I 228.44 Model II

152 164

– 14.79

– 12

0.03 0.03

0.91 0.91

0.57 0.62

Relational identification Model I Model II

15.56 16.46

10 13

– 0.9

– 3

0.02 0.02

0.94 0.96

0.31 0.42

Reward for application Model I Model II

13.67 21.04

8 12

– 7.37

– 4

0.04 0.04

0.95 95

0.25 0.38

10.46 13.04

10 14

– 2.58

– 4

0.01 0

0.99 1

0.33 0.46

Religiosity Model I Model II

Note: Model 1 = no between group constraints; model 2 = factor loadings constrained to be equal; RMSEA = root means square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; PCFI = parsimonious comparative fit index.

4.2.2. Social axioms An adapted Dutch (Van de Vijver, 2002) and Turkish version (Ataca, 2002) of the short 20-item social axiom scale (Leung et al., 2002) was used (with 1 = do not believe at all–5 = believe very much) to measure reward for application and religiosity. Each axiom was measured using five items. Example items are “hard-working people will achieve more in the end” (reward for application) and “belief in a religion helps one understand the meaning of life” (religiosity). Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to analyze the one-dimensional structure of the reward for application and religiosity scales. Their cross-cultural equivalence was also tested. Overall, fit indices were good for both scales (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Specifically, reward for application showed a good fit in the Turkish sample in The Netherlands, 2 (df = 4) = 5.28; n.s.; RMSEA = 0.06; CFI = 0.96, and in the sample of Turkish employees in Turkey, the fit was good as well, 2 (df = 4) = 8.39; n.s; RMSEA = 0.05; CFI = 0.97. Items for religiosity showed a good fit in the Turkish sample in The Netherlands, 2 (df = 5) = 4.62;

74

N.C. Ersoy et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 68–79

Fig. 1. The relationship between social axioms and relational identification with the supervisor and OCB for Turkey (standardized regression coefficients).

n.s; RMSEA = 0.00; CFI = 1.00, and also in the sample of Turkish employees in Turkey, 2 (df = 5) = 5.84; n.s.; RMSEA = 0.02; CFI = 0.99. In testing the cross-cultural equivalence of both scales (see Cheung & Rensvold, 2002), the constrained models appeared to fit the data well. Specifically, for reward for application, the fit statistics for the more restricted models did not alter from the fit indices of the unrestricted models. In other words, RMSEA values and CFI values remained the same. The PCFI increased slightly, indicating a better model. For religiosity, RMSEA decreased slightly from 0.01 to 0.00 and CFI increased slightly from 0.99 to 1.00. The PCFI also increased slightly, indicating a better model (see Table 2 for the fit indices). For Turkish employees in The Netherlands alpha coefficients were 0.69 for reward for application, and 0.77 for religiosity; for Turkish employees in Turkey, alpha coefficients were 0.84 for reward for application and 0.67 for religiosity. 4.2.3. Relational identification with the supervisor (RI) An adapted version of Sluss and Ashforth’s (2007) 6-item scale on relational identification with the supervisor was used (with 1 = do not agree at all–5 = agree very much). Example items are “the relationship with my supervisor reflects what kind of a person I am at work” and “if someone criticizes my relationship with my supervisor, I feel personally insulted”. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to analyze the one-dimensional structure of the relational identification with the supervisor scale. Fit indices were very good both for Turkish employees in The Netherlands and Turkey (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Specifically, the scale showed a good fit in the Turkish sample in The Netherlands, 2 (df = 5) = 11.17, n.s.; RMSEA = 0.06; CFI = 0.92, as well as in the sample of Turkish employees in Turkey, 2 (df = 5) = 4.39 n.s.; RMSEA = 0.02; CFI = 1.00. Again, we followed the invariance hierarchical nested model strategy as used when testing measurement invariance of OCB. When testing measurement invariance across both samples, the 2 of the restricted models increased slightly but none of the 2 -values was significant. The constrained models fit the data well, with the fit statistics for the more restricted models altering from the fit indices of the unrestricted models as follows: RMSEA remained the same, whereas CFI increased from 0.94 to 0.96 (see Table 2 for the values of all fit indices). Alpha coefficients were 0.65 for Turkish–Dutch employees and 0.64 for Turkish employees in Turkey. 5. Results 5.1. Structural equation model and hypotheses testing To test the moderating effect of country (i.e., Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3a) we performed structural equation model (SEM) path analysis using AMOS version 6.0. We first tested whether the model (as displayed in Figs. 1 and 2) differed across countries. For these multi-group analyses, we compared two models: a restricted model in which all estimated parameters were required to be equal across groups, and a non-restricted multi-group model, in which these parameter estimates were allowed to differ across the groups. Model comparisons test for the two multi-group models demonstrated that the non-restricted model and restricted model were significantly different from each other 2 = 19.53; df = 7; p = 0.007. The non-restricted model fitted the data better 2 (df = 4) = 1.83, n.s.; RMSEA = 0.00; CFI = 1.00, than the restricted model 2 (df = 11) = 21, 37, n.s.; RMSEA = 0.07; CFI = 0.93. Note that Figs. 1 and 2 represent the results for Turkey and The Netherlands, respectively. First, Hypothesis 1 predicted that reward for application would be positively related to OCB both among Turkish employees in Turkey and The Netherlands. Regression weights between reward for application and interpersonal facilitation (ˇ = 0.33, p ≤ 0.01), job dedication (ˇ = 0.25, p ≤ 0.01) and organizational support (ˇ = 0.25, p ≤ 0.01) were significant among Turkish employees in Turkey (see Fig. 1). Regression weights between reward for application and interpersonal facilitation (ˇ = 43, p ≤ 0.01), job dedication (ˇ = 0.37, p ≤ 0.01) and organizational support (ˇ = 0.42, p ≤ 0.01) were also significant among

N.C. Ersoy et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 68–79

75

Fig. 2. The relationship between social axioms and relational identification with the supervisor and OCB for The Netherlands (standardized regression coefficients). Table 3 Hierarchical regression of OCB dimensions on demographics, length of stay, and relational identification (Hypothesis 3b).

Step 1

Step2 Step3 Step 4

Interpersonal facilitation ˇ

R2

R2

Job dedication ˇ R2

R2

Organizational support ˇ R2 R2

Age Work experience Gender Education Length of stay Relational identification Length of stay × relational identificaiton

0.13 −0.01 0.07 0.11 −0.01 −0.08 −0.32*

– – – 0.09 0.09 0.1 0.15*

– – – 0.09 0 0.01 0.04*

– – – 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05

– – – 0.03 0.01 0 0.01

0.1 −0.27 −0.04 −0.01 −0.06 0.04 −0.16

0 0.12 0 0.2 −0.17 −0.08 −0.31*

– – – 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.11*

– – – 0.04 0.03 0 0.04*

Note: Gender: 1 = male; 2 = female; education = educational level, with 1 = vocational school (vocational and high school in the Turkish sample), 2 = university, 3 = Ph.D. length of stay = participants’ length of stay in The Netherlands working experience and length of stay are expressed in years. * p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01.

Turkish employees in The Netherlands (see Fig. 2). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Although not hypothesized, each path was also tested for the moderation effect of country however; the country did not moderate the relationship between reward for application and OCB. Second, Hypothesis 2a expected religiosity to relate positively to interpersonal facilitation and organizational support among Turkish employees in Turkey. Nevertheless, regression weights between religiosity and interpersonal facilitation and organizational support were non-significant among Turkish employees in Turkey found (see Fig. 1). Hypothesis 2b further expected religiosity to relate more strongly to interpersonal facilitation and organizational support among Turkish employees in the Turkey than among Turkish employees in The Netherlands. On the path from religiosity to interpersonal facilitation, no country differences were found. However, on the path from religiosity to organizational support a significant country difference was present (2 (df = 5) = 9.11, n.s.) and the chi-square difference was significant at the 0.99 confidence interval. Specifically, and contrary to what we expected, the regression weight between religiosity and organizational support was significant among Turkish employees in The Netherlands (ˇ = 0.17, p ≤ 0.01) but not among Turkish employees in Turkey (see Fig. 2). Therefore, Hypotheses 2a/b could not be supported. Third, Hypothesis 3a predicted that relational identification with the supervisor (RI) would be positively related to all three dimensions of OCB, but more strongly so among Turkish employees in Turkey than in The Netherlands. Regression weights between RI and interpersonal facilitation (ˇ = 0.22, p ≤ 0.01), job dedication (ˇ = 0.14, p ≤ 0.05), and organizational support (ˇ = 0.09, p ≤ 0.05) were significant among Turkish employees in Turkey but not significant among Turkish employees in The Netherlands (see Fig. 2). Moderating effects of country were found for the paths from RI to interpersonal facilitation (2 (df = 5) = 9.82, n.s., and the chi-square difference was significant), from RI to job dedication (2 (df = 5) = 5.82, n.s., and the chi-square difference was significant), and from RI to organizational support (2 (df = 5) = 4.90, n.s., and the chi-square difference was significant). Finally, Hypothesis 3b further expected that, among Turkish employees in The Netherlands, the interaction between RI and length of stay would be positively related to OCB. To test the moderation hypothesis, we mean-centered the variables as recommended by Aiken and West (1991). The interaction term (RI × length of stay) was significantly related to interpersonal facilitation (ˇ = −0.32, p ≤ 0.01) and organizational support (ˇ = −0.31, p ≤ 0.01) (see Table 3), but not to job dedication. Simple slopes for the association between relational identification on the one hand and interpersonal facilitation and organizational support, on the other hand, were tested for low (−1 SD below the mean), moderate (mean), and high (+1 SD above the mean) levels of length of stay. In support of Hypothesis 3b, simple slope tests revealed a positive association between relational

76

N.C. Ersoy et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 68–79

identification and interpersonal facilitation for low levels of length of stay (t = −3.69, p < 0.001) compared to moderate (t = −1.29, p = 0.09) and higher levels (t = −0.29, n.s.). Simple slope tests further also revealed a positive association between relational identification and interpersonal facilitation for low levels of length of stay (t = −3.49, p < 0.001) but not for moderate (t = −1.29, p = 0.09) or higher levels of stay(t = −0.19, n.s.). 6. Discussion Although, a growing number of Turkish migrants in The Netherlands are well educated and occupy white-collar jobs, still little is known about their organizational citizenship behavior. For a better understanding of acculturation patterns at work, the present study compared Turkish white-collar workers’ social axioms and relational identification with their supervisors as potential antecedents of their OCB, both in their host country (The Netherlands) and home country (Turkey). Because migrant workers have more contact with the majority nationals culture and therefore more exposure to the majority’s way of showing OCB, we expected Turkish white-collar workers’ OCB in The Netherlands to differ in some respects from those of their Turkish counterparts in their home country. By studying Turkish white-collar employees’ work behavior in their host country (The Netherlands), the present research also extended previous work on migrants, which has almost exclusively investigated their general acculturation attitudes outside the work sphere (e.g., Güngör, Fleishmann, Maliepaard, & Phalet, 2013). We expected some social axioms, like reward for application, to relate to OCB among both Turkish white-collar employees in Turkey and The Netherlands (Hypothesis 1). In support of Hypothesis 1, our results indeed showed that OCB was similarly affected by reward for application among Turkish white-collar employees in The Netherlands and Turkey: Indeed exertion of effort and willingness to confront difficulties in life may not depend that much on the amount of contact one has with another culture, but be more related to one’s personality. Hypothesis 2, on the other hand, expected some differential relations with religiosity and OCB for both Turkish employees in their home vs. host country. Hypothesis 2a/b was not supported. We did find differential effects for religiosity but not in the hypothesized directions. Specifically, religiosity appeared to be unrelated to OCB (interpersonal facilitation and organizational support) among Turkish white-collar employees in Turkey. A possible explanation for this finding is that our sample consisted of white-collar employees; whereas religiosity may be a stronger antecedent of OCB among blue-collar employees than among white-collar workers in Turkey (see Cem Ersoy et al., 2011). In addition and contrary to our expectations, religiosity was positively related to behavior directed toward the organization (i.e., organizational support) among Turkish white-collar employees in The Netherlands. Although, Dutch society is rather individualistic in nature (Hofstede, 1991), Dutch people act together and cooperate for the common interests of organizations and society at large (e.g., Bekkers, Schuyt, & Gouwenberg, 2015). This feature of Dutch society has been labeled societal collectivism by Hofstede (1991, 2001) and fits the main premises of religiosity, namely giving up one’s egoistic interest and feeling concern for others (Bond et al., 2004). Apparently, our findings show that the adherence to religious beliefs for Turkish white-collar employees in The Netherlands implies that one is inclined to act in favor of such collectivistic interests. Alternatively, Güngör, Fleishmann, Maliepaard, & Phalet (2013) review paper on religiosity of Muslim minorities in European cities showed that equal intergroup relations, institutional and public recognition of minority religion bring about social integration in countries such as the Netherlands. This result may also explain the positive relationship between religiosity and organizational support in The Netherlands. On the other hand, there is a public debate in The Netherlands that views Islam as a threat to Dutch values (Verkuyten & Zaremba, 2005). Gijsberts (2005) showed that 50% of the Dutch people think that western and Muslim ways of life are too different from each other and therefore cannot co-exist in harmony. These views about Muslims were found to strengthen migrants’ religious in-group identifications (Verkuyten & Zaremba, 2005) and to increase their adaptation problems and inter-group conflicts. However, Verkuyten and Slooter (2007) also demonstrated that ethnic, cultural, and religious differences in intergroup relations do not always have negative consequences. For instance, highly educated Dutch people have more cognitive flexibility and therefore may not view differences as threats to the Dutch culture (Verkuyten & Slooter, 2007). The sample of Turkish employees in our research has a high status in Dutch society because these employees have respectable occupations such as in IT engineering, in chemical engineering, and in finance management. Because they have a high status and they work with highly educated Dutch people, they may be evaluated more favorably (Coleman, Jussim, & Kelley, 1995). They therefore may see their own religious beliefs as a personal freedom but not as a way of separating and distancing themselves from the Dutch culture. Note that the religiosity scale used in this research does not measure one’s specific religion, but measures the functionality of religious beliefs such as “belief in a religion makes people good citizens”. Consequently, religious beliefs as measured using this scale may reflect good citizenship. Apparently, religiosity beliefs among white-collar Turkish employees may aid their adaptation to Dutch society, which differs from previous research that demonstrated that religiosity beliefs mainly seem to play a negative role in the adaptation of migrants to the host society (Verkuyten, 2007; Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2007). As expected, relational identification with the supervisor related positively to interpersonal facilitation and organization support OCB dimensions among Turkish employees in Turkey but not to any of the OCB dimensions among Turkish employees in The Netherlands (Hypothesis 3a supported). Dutch society has a rather individualistic culture in which people define their self-concepts in terms of their individual characteristics rather than of their relationships with others (Hofstede, 2001; Smith et al., 2006; Triandis, 1994). As domain specific acculturation theory posits (Arends-Toth and Van de Vijver, 2004), Turkish employees in The Netherlands may be keeping their own ethnic cultural characteristics in terms of child rearing

N.C. Ersoy et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 68–79

77

practices, celebrations, and food habits. However, they seem to adapt to the Dutch culture in utilitarian domains of life such as work. As relational identification with supervisors is less common in rather individualistic-oriented societies such as The Netherlands, Turkish employees in The Netherlands might adjust to this practice, hence explaining this lack of correlation. In addition, Turkish employees in The Netherlands mostly work in Dutch-managed organizations, and therefore may learn that relationships with supervisors in such a work context are not appreciated in the same way as they are in Turkey. In support of this, length of stay of Turkish employees in The Netherlands did moderate the effect of relational identification on other-oriented OCB dimensions (i.e., interpersonal facilitation and organizational support), but not on self-oriented OCB (i.e., job dedication). Specifically, the strength of the relationship between relational identification and other-oriented OCB dimensions became weaker among Turkish white-collar employees the longer they had been living in The Netherlands (Hypothesis 3b largely supported for other-oriented OCB). Cortes et al. (1994) also showed that length of residence in a foreign culture was negatively related to attitudes with regard to one’s own ethno-cultural roots. Because one’s definition of self in terms of relationships to others is a salient concept in Turkey, it is a part of Turkish ethnic culture and thus will less likely be adhered to by Turkish workers in The Netherlands who become more familiar with the Dutch culture over time. 6.1. Strengths, limitations, and future research This is one of the first studies to compare OCB behavior of Turkish white-collar employees in The Netherlands (host country) with Turkish white-collar employees in Turkey (home country). To date, the Turkish migrants in The Netherlands have mainly been compared with the Dutch majority. Nevertheless, it also is important to compare this group of workers with Turkish white-collar workers to investigate the effect of foreign culture on their work behavior. However, as with any study, this study has limitations and suggestions for further research need to be mentioned. First, because we employed a cross-sectional design, we cannot draw strong causal inferences about the direction of the relationships. It would be useful to collect longitudinal data and/or to use experimental designs in order to make stronger causal inferences about the findings. Furthermore, self-report measures were used in this research. Future studies could include supervisors’ and colleagues’ evaluations of OCB and of employees’ relational identification with the supervisor. These studies could also investigate the link between relational identification with one’s colleagues and OCB, because colleagues are also part of the social network at work. Furthermore, socio-economic status differences in collectivistic countries may influence people’s constructions of their self-concepts. If urban, high educated people in collectivist societies are increasingly Western in terms of autonomous functioning (e.g., Kagitcibasi, 2005), it is possible that Turkish people in their home country too distinguish between collectivist private and individualistic work spheres or that they may have been acculturated toward Western ways of working without migration (e.g., “globalization-based acculturation”, see Berry, 2008; Chen, Benet-Martinez, & Bond, 2008). Therefore, further research may also look into Ka˘gıtc¸ıbas¸ı, (1996) theory of autonomous-related self in order to examine whether people from urban high SES groups recognize and endorse autonomous and related self-images and to what extent these self-definitions influence their work behaviors. Finally, further research might investigate whether our findings regarding antecedents of OCB hold for migrant populations from other collectivistic cultures that are living in individualistic-oriented societies. Despite these limitations; however, we strongly believe the present study adds to our understanding of white-collar migrants’ OCB in native and host cultures, an area that had previously remained under-investigated. 7. Conclusion Given the increasing globalization as well as the ‘war for talent’, international migration patterns gradually show more immigration from highly-educated workers. Hence, employers need to better understand effects of migrant workers’ cultural background and acculturation patterns in work-related domains to facilitate both individual and organization’s performance. We considered cultural patterns in OCB, being one of the most important determinants of both organizations’ and employees’ productivity. One of our key findings is that Turkish white-collar employees in their host country (i.e., The Netherlands) seemed to preserve their culture of origin to some extent. For instance, the social axiom “religiosity” still related positively to organizational support. However at the same time, highly-educated migrant workers seemed to adjust to important characteristics of the majority culture. Remarkably, the effect of relational identification with one’s supervisor on OCB became less strong when migrant workers resided longer in their host country. Hence, migrants’ work-related attitudes and behavior might become more aligned to those of their host country the longer they reside in the host country. These findings shed a first light on the complex determinants of migrant workers’ organizational citizenship behavior. We specifically focused on higher-educated migrant workers given the need for talented workers and the fact that this group has been investigated to a somewhat lesser extent when compared to their blue-collar counterparts. We hope these findings may stimulate further research in this area to increase our understanding of migrant workers acculturation in work-related domains. References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

78

N.C. Ersoy et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 68–79

Arends-Toth, J., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2004). Domains and dimensions in acculturation: implicit theories of Turkish–Dutch. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28, 19–35. Ataca, B., & Berry, J. W. (2002). Psychological, sociocultural, and marital adaptation of Turkish migrant couples in Canada. International Journal of Psychology, 37, 13–26. Aycan, Z. (2001). Human resource management in Turkey: current challenges and future trends. International Journal of Manpower, 22, 252–261. Aycan, Z. (2006). Paternalism: towards conceptual refinement and operationalization. In K. S. Yang, K. K. Hwang, & U. Kim (Eds.), Scientific advances in indigenous psychologies: empirical, philosophical, and cultural contributions (pp. 445–466). London: Cambridge University Press. Berry, J. W. (1999). Intercultural relations in plural societies. Canadian Psychology, 40, 12–21. Berry, J. W. (2008). Globalisation and acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 328–336. Bekkers, R., Schuyt, T., & Barbara Gouwenberg, B. (2015). Geven in Nederlan 2015. Giften, nalatenschappen, sponsoring en vrijwilligerswerk. [The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2013]. Amsterdam: Reed Business. Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K. K., & Chemonges-Nielson, Z. (2004). Combining social axioms with values in predicting social behaviors. European Journal of Personality, 18, 177–191. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection (pp. 71–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Borman, W. C., Daren, B. E., Hanson, M. A., Motowidlo, S. J., Stark, S., & Drasgow, F. (2001). An examination of the comparative reliability, validity accuracy of performance ratings made using computerized adaptive scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 965–973. Cem Ersoy, N., Born, M., Derous, E. Ph., & Van der Molen, H. T. (2011). Antecedents of organizational citizenship among blue and white-collar employees in Turkey. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 356–367. Celenk, O., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2013). Perceived antecedents of marital satisfaction among Turkish, Turkish–Dutch, and Dutch couples. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 1165–1175. Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS). Annual report on integration 2012 (2012). Accessed 11.05.15, from . Chen, S. X., Benet-Martínez, V., & Bond, M. H. (2008). Bicultural identity, bilingualism, and psychological adjustment in multicultural societies: immigration-based and globalization-based acculturation. Journal of Personality, 76, 803–838. Chen, S. X., Fok, H. K., Bond, M. H., & Matsumoto, D. (2006). Personality and beliefs about the world revisited: expanding the nomological network of social axioms. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 201–211. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance acros groups: a reconceptualizaion and proposed new method. Journal of Mangement, 25, 1–27. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. Cheung, B. Y., Chudek, M., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Evidence for a sensitive period for accultruation: younger immigrants report acculturaion at a faster rate. Psychological Science, 22, 147–152. Coleman, L. M., Jussim, L., & Kelly, S. H. (1995). A study of stereotyping: testing three models with sample of blacks. Journal of Black Psychology, 21, 332–356. Cortes, D. E., Rogler, L. H., & Malgady, R. G. (1994). Biculturality among Puerto Rican adults in the United States. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 707–721. Diener, E., & Suh, M. (1999). Measuring subjective well-being to compare the quality of life of cultures. In E. Diener, & M. Suh (Eds.), Culture and well-being (pp. 3–12). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Durgel, E. S., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Yagmurlu, B. (2013). Self-reported maternal expectations and child-rearing practices: disentangling the associations with ethnicity, immigration, and educational background. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37, 35–43. Farh, J. L., Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. (2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in the People’s Republic of China. Organization Science, 15, 241–253. Gijsberts, M. (2005). Opvattingen van autochtonen en allochtonen over de multi-etnische samenleving. In SCP, WODC, & CBS (Eds.), Jaarrapport integratie (pp. 189–205). Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau/WODC/CBS. Goodwin, R., Polek, E., & Bardi, A. (2012). The temporal reciprocity of values and beliefs: a longitudinal study within a major life transition. European Journal of Personality, 26, 360–370. Güngör, D., Fleischmann, F., Phalet, K., & Maliepaard, M. (2013). Contextualizing religious acculturation: cross-cultural perspectives on Muslim minorities in Western Europe. European Psychologist, 18, 203–214. Hagendoorn, L., & Hraba, J. (1989). Foreign, different, deviant, seclusive and working class: anchors to an ethnic hierarchy in The Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 12, 441–468. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. McGraw-Hill: London. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Newburry Park, CA: Sage. International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook Database. (2013). October 2013, Accessed 09.11.13, from . Ka˘gıtc¸ıbas¸ı, C¸. (1996). Family and human development across cultures: a view from the other side. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kamdar, D., & Van Dyne, L. (2007). The joint effects of personality and workplace social exchange relationships in predicting task performance and citizenship performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1286–1298. Kwantes, C. T., Karam, C. M., Kuo, B. C. H., & Towson, S. (2008). Culture’s influence on the perception of OCB as in-role or extra-role. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 229–243. Lam, S. S. K., Hui, C., & Law, K. S. (1999). Organizational citizenship behavior: comparing perspectives of supervisors and subordinates across four international samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 594–601. Leung, K., Bond, M. H., Reimel de Carrasquel, S., Munoz, C., Hernandez, M., Murakami, F., Yamaguchi, S., Bierbrauer, G., & Singelis, T. M. (2002). Social axioms: the search for universal dimensions of general beliefs about how the world functions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 286–330. Luciak, M. (2004). Minority status and schooling—John U. Ogbu’s theory and the schooling of ethnic minorities in Europe. International Education, 15, 359–368. McCrae, R. R. (2002). NEO-PI-R data from 36 cultures: further inter-cultural comparisons. In R. R. McCrae, & J. Allik (Eds.), The five-factor model of personality across cultures (pp. 105–125). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. L. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127–142. Myors, B., et al. (2008). International perspectives on the legal environment for selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 206–246. Oerlemans, W. G. M., & Peeters, M. C. W. (2010). The multicultural workplace: interactive acculturation and intergroup relations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25, 460–478. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: the good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Quarasse, O. A., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2005). The role of demographic variables and acculturation attitudes in predicting sociocultural and psychological adaptation in Moroccans in The Netherlands. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 251–272. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. Phalet, K., Maliepaard, M., Fleishmann, F., & Güngör, D. (2013). The making and unmaking of religious boundaries: comparing Turkish and Moroccan Muslim minorities in European cities. Comparative Migration Studies, 1, 123–145. Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122–141.

N.C. Ersoy et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 49 (2015) 68–79

79

Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the prediction of personality, self-identity, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 49–65. Ribberink, E., Achterberg, P., & Houtman, D. (2013). Deprivatization of disbelief? Non-religiosity and anti-religiosity in 14. Western European countries Politics and Religion, 6, 101–120. Safdar, S., Lewis, J. R., & Daneshpour, M. (2006). Social axioms in Iran and Canada: intercultural contact, coping and adjustment. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 123–131. Singelis, T. M., Hubbard, C., Her, P., & An, S. (2003). Convergent validation of the social axioms survey. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 269–282. Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32, 9–32. Smith, P. B., Bond, M. H., & Kâ˘gitc¸ibas¸i, C¸. (2006). Understanding social psychology across cultures living and working in a changing world. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. Uc¸anok, B., & Karabati, S. (2013). The effects of values, work centrality, and organizational commitment on organizational citizenship behaviors: evidence from Turkish SMEs. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 24(1), 89–129. Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2003). Test adaption/translation methods. In R. Fernandez Ballesteros (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychological assessment (pp. 960–964). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Van de Vliert, E., & Janssen, O. (2002). “Better than” performance motives as roots of satisfaction across more and less developed countries. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 33, 380–397. Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525–531. Verkuyten, M. (2007). Religious group identification and inter-religious relations: a study among Turkish–Dutch Muslims. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 341–357. Verkuyten, M., & Martinovic, B. (2006). Understanding multicultural attitudes: the role of group status, identification, friendships, and justifying ideologies. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 1–18. Verkuyten, M., & Martinovic, B. (2012). Migrants’ national identification: meanings, determinants and consequences. Social Issues and Policy Review, 6, 82–112. Verkuyten, M., & Slooter, L. (2007). Tolerance of Muslim beliefs and practices: age related differences and context effects. Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 467–477. Verkuyten, M., & Yildiz, A. (2007). National (dis) identification, and ethnic and religious identity: a study among Turkish–Dutch Muslims. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1448–1462. Verkuyten, M., & Zaremba, K. (2005). Interethnic relations in a changing political context. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 375–386. Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: the impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of Management, 33, 774–800.