Organizational citizenship behavior & employee well-being.
Kumar, Manish ; Jauhari, Hemang ; Singh, Shailendra 等
This work tests the relationship between dimensions of
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and measures of well-being.
The study hypothesizes that OCB will be related positively with
psychological health and negatively with burnout. OCB targeted at other
individuals (OCBI) will positively relate with relatedness need
satisfaction. It further hypothesizes negative relationship of
relatedness need satisfaction with burnout and burnout with
psychological health. Web-based survey was used for data collection for
the study. OCBI was found positively related with relatedness need
satisfaction and OCB-Organization was positively related with
psychological health. Further, relatedness need satisfaction was
negatively associated with burnout and burnout was negatively associated
with psychological health.
Introduction
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) was initially defined by
Organ (1988: 4) as "behavior that is discretionary, not directly or
explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and that in the
aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization".
Later, Organ (1997:91) redefined OCB as behavior that "contributes
to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological
context that supports task performance". Since then, there has been
rapid growth in research on the nature, antecedents, and consequences of
OCB (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000; Podsakoff,
Whiting, Podsakoff & Blunie, 2009). However, the growth in research
is uneven, as the consequences of OCB have not been studied as
extensively as its antecedents (Spitzmuller, Van Dyne & Hies, 2008).
In the past research, consequences of OCB have been studied at
organizational, group, and individual levels. Studies focusing on the
organizational level outcomes of OCB (e.g., Dunlop & Lee, 2004;
Podsakoff et al., 2009) have shown that OCB is positively related to a
variety of organizational effectiveness measures (including production
quantity, efficiency, profitability, and reduction of costs). At
unit/group level, OCB is negatively related to unit-level turnover
(e.g., Sun, Aryee & Law, 2007; Podsakoff et al., 2009), and
positively related to unit sales (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 2009) and
customer satisfaction (e.g., Yen & Niehoff, 2004; Podsakoff et al.,
2009). At the individual level of analysis, OCB-like behaviors are
positively related to performance evaluations (e.g., Allen & Rush,
1998; Podsakoff et al., 2009) and reward recommendation decisions (e.g.,
Allen & Rush, 1998; Johnson, Erez, Kiker, &Motowidlo, 2002); and
negatively related to turnover intentions (e.g., Chen, Hui & Sego,
1998;Coyne & Ong, 2007).
It is evident from the past research that scholars have mostly
focused on the outcomes of managerial interest. Possibly, the only
individual-level outcome that takes the actor's perspective is
turnover intentions. Otherwise, the outcomes of OCB for the doer/actor
have been ignored. In recent times, an increasing body of research on
pro-social behaviors has taken a social and personality psychology
perspective for exploring its consequences for the doer/actor (e.g.,
Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin & Schroeder, 2005; Thoits & Hewitt,
2001). However, no such attention has been paid in the OCB research
despite the fact that OCBs are a specific form of pro-social behaviors
(Spitzmuller et al., 2008). We believe that the focus on
individual-level consequences of OCB from the social and personality
psychology front offers a promising research avenue. From the research
on pro-social behaviors, it is evident that people who indulge in
pro-social behaviors experience positive affect (Penner et al., 2005),
less burnout (Grant & Campbell, 2007), good psychological health
(Penner et al., 2005), and relatedness need satisfaction (Weinstein
& Ryan, 2010). As OCB is a specific form of pro-social behavior, we
expect similar relationships between OCB and aforesaid individual-level
outcomes.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)
Organ (1997) defined OCB as "the contribution to the
maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that
supports task performance". Further, Organ et al. (2006) emphasized
the discretionary nature of OCB by defining it as "discretionary
contributions that go beyond the strict description and that do not lay
claim to contractual recompense from the formal reward system".
Since the early work of Organ and colleagues, the domain of citizenship
behavior has grown at an impressive rate and it has been categorized in
several ways. One framework describes a typology based on clusters of
behaviors (e.g., sportsmanship, conscientiousness, civic virtue,
altruism, and courtesy; Organ, 1988). Another approach distinguishes
behaviors by their intended beneficiary (e.g., OCBs targeted at
individuals or OCBI vs. OCBs targeted at organizations or
OCB-Organization; Williams & Anderson, 1991). Spitzmuller et al.
(2008) opine that the vast majority of OCB research can be subsumed into
two categories defined by Williams and Anderson (1991): OCBI and OCBO.
In this study, we follow the classification of OCB by Williams and
Anderson(1991).
OCB & Relatedness Need Satisfaction
Natural groups are characteristic of all human beings (Coon, 1946).
People in every society indulge in face-to-face and personal
interactions in small groups (Mann, 1980). Interpersonal relationships
are the basis of human life and, therefore, most human behavior takes
place in the context of the individual's relationships with others
(Reis, Collins, & Berscheid, 2000). In Maslow's (1968) views
'love and belongingness needs' formed the middle of his needs
hierarchy theory. Human beings, therefore, have a "pervasive drive
to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive,
and significant interpersonal relationships" (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995). The need for relatedness is defined as
"individual's inherent propensity to feel connected to others,
that is, to be a member of a group, to love and care and be loved and
cared for" (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).The need for relatedness
is a nutriment that is required for psychological growth, integrity, and
well-being across developmental stages and cultures (Deci & Ryan,
2000). It is satisfied when people experience and develop close and
intimate relationships with others (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
OCB contributes to employees' socialization in the
organization (Feather & Rauter, 2004). Helping is inherently
interpersonal and therefore, affects relatedness by bringing in
closeness to others, positive responses from others, and cohesiveness or
intimacy (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). Caprara and Steca (2005) claim
that our ability to help is essential to the maintenance of mutually
rewarding relationships and we as human beings are evolutionarily
programmed to experience relatedness by helping others. From a
relational perspective, behavior performed to benefit co-workers (OCBI)
indicates the depth of feeling for and connection with others in an
organization. This may evoke positive emotions from both parties
involved in help exchanges, reinforcing perceptions of relatedness
(Mossholder et al., 2005). Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1 .OCBI is positively related to relatedness need
satisfaction of the actor.
OCB & Burnout
Burnout has been defined as a symptom of emotional exhaustion,
depersonalization, and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment, each
of which can occur among individuals who work in jobs where interaction
with people is involved (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). As per this
definition, burnout is exclusive to situations such as working in some
kind of 'human services' or 'people work' of some
kind (Maslach & Schaufeli, 1993). However, it has been realized that
burnout can also exist outside the human services (Maslach & Leiter,
1997). It has been established that pro-social behavior leads to higher
positive affect (Piliavin, Dovidio, Gaertner, & Clark, 1981),
relieves/reduces bad moods (Cialdini & Kenrick, 1976), and enhances
personal efficacy, self-esteem & confidence (Giles & Eyler,
1994; Yates &Youniss, 1996). As all of these constructs positive
affect, high personal efficacy, self-esteem and confidence are
negatively associated with burnout, it is implied that indulgence in
pro-social behavior, like OCB, can reduce the burnout levels of the
actor.
OCB research well established that employees who display OCB get
favorable treatment and support from their supervisors in the form of
favorable performance evaluation, reward allocation, among others
(Podsakoff et al., 2000). So, OCB is likely to build a supportive
climate for the actor. This supportive climate can reduce the burnout
levels of employees (Firth, Mellor, Moore & Loquet, 2004). For
example, in a study on nurses it was found that supervisory support
reduced two components of burnout, namely depersonalization and
emotional exhaustion (Kalliath& Beck, 2001). Based on the above
rationale, we believe that OCB will reduce burnout by building a
supportive climate and enhancing esteem, self-efficacy, and positive
affect.
Hypothesis2a. OCBI is negatively related to burnout of the actor.
Hypothesis 2b. OCBO is negatively related to burnout of the actor.
OCB & Psychological Health
The psychological component of health, as conceptualized by Testa
and Simonson (1996), reflects one's affective experiences, which
interact with associated cognitive states, processes, and judgments
about one's life, oneself, and the future. The notion of
'positive psychological health' refers to behaviors,
attitudes, and feelings that represent an individual's level of
personal effectiveness, success, and satisfaction. Social psychological
research has found positive effects of pro-social behavior on
psychological health of those who engage in the behavior (Thoits &
Hewitt, 2001). Penner and colleagues (2005) suggest three reasons for
this relationship: First, pro-social behavior can lead to more favorable
self-assessments, which then translate into better psychological health.
Second, helping others can provide distraction from personal troubles.
Third, pro-social behavior includes a social component which facilitates
social integration and interaction. When people help individuals (OCBI)
or community (OCBO), for larger good, these mechanisms will likely
influence their psychological health. Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 3a.OCBI is positively related to psychological health of
the actor.
Hypothesis 3b.OCBO is positively related to psychological health of
the actor.
Relationships
Self-determination theory holds that basic psychological need
satisfaction will result in more self-determined forms of behavior
regulation, and in turn, signs of optimal functioning and well-being. On
the contrary, need frustration is considered to lead to the adoption of
more controlled regulations (i.e., behavior driven by internal or
external contingencies), understood to lead to states of ill-being (Deci
& Ryan, 2000). Work-related need satisfaction has furthermore been
related to general well-being in terms of vitality, life-satisfaction,
self-esteem, and less ill-being as indexed by anxiety, depression and
somatization (Baard, Deci & Ryan, 2004). This leads us to an
understanding that relatedness need satisfaction leads to positive
affect at the workplace and reduces burnout (Van den Broeck,
Vansteenkiste, De Witte & Lens, 2008; Perreault, Gaudreau, Lapointe
& Lacroix, 2007). Moreover, burnout has widely been associated
negatively with psychological health (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004;
Tang, Au, Schwarzer & Schmitz, 2001). Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 4.Relatedness need satisfaction is negatively related to
burnout of the actor.
Hypothesis 5.Bufnout is negatively related to psychological health
of the actor.
Sample & Procedures
We conducted the study among working executives, who took part in
the executive education program of a top rated Indian B-school. The
participants were majorly from private sector organizations across
diverse industries (e.g., information technology, banking,
pharmaceuticals, telecommunication, automobiles, oil & gas etc.). A
web based survey link was sent through email communications to415
participants of the program. A total of 389 usable responses were
considered for analysis. In terms of demographics, out of the 389
respondents, 5% were female, and 84% were married. Mean age of the
respondents was 33 years. The respondents had an average tenure of 56
months while average overall experience for them was 127 months.
Measurement
Organizational citizenship behavior was measured using a 14-item
scale by Williams and Anderson (1991). This scale is based on two
dimensional conceptualization of OCB: OCB-Individuals (OCBI) and
OCB-Organization (OCBO). Factor analysis however revealed three factors.
All items measuring OCB towards individuals loaded on a single factor.
However, positively worded items measuring OCB towards organization
loaded separately other than negatively worded items. Moreover, one item
measuring OCBO was dropped due to poor factor loading. Thus, we use
three components of OCB in our study: OCBI, OCBO (Negative), and OCBO
(Positive). The Cronbach's alpha for OCBI, OCBO (Negative), and
OCBO (Positive) was 0.75, 0.70, and 0.61 respectively.
Burnout: We measured only the emotional exhaustion dimension of
burnout using an eight-item scale developed by Maslach and Jackson
(1981). Out of eight items, one item was dropped in the confirmatory
factor analysis due to poor loading. The Cronbach's alpha
coefficient for seven items was 0.92.
Relatedness Need Satisfaction was measured using a nine-item scale
adapted from Leary, Kelley, Cottrell and Schreindorfer (2005). The
Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.83.
Psychological Health was measured using a twelve-item scale by
Goldberg and Williams (1988). Confirmatory factor analysis indicated two
separate factors for positively and negatively worded items. One item
was dropped in the confirmatory factor analysis due to poor loading. The
Cronbach's alpha for psychological health (positive) and
psychological health (negative) was 0.78 and 0.81 respectively.
Analysis
We rely on self-reports as the data collection technique, therefore
the threat of common method variance is present. To determine the extent
of this problem, we conducted Harman one-factor test (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003) using LISREL 8.52 (Joreskog &
Sorborn, 1993).
In the next step, we determined the dimensionality and correlations
of all the constructs. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis for all
the constructs to confirm the dimensionality and then checked for the
discriminant validity using LISREL. To test our hypotheses, we followed
structural equation modeling approach using LISREL. To assess model fit,
relative [chi square] ([chi square]/df) less than 3; RMSEA less than
0.08; CFl greater than 0.95; SRMR less than 0.08; and NNFI greater than
0.95 were taken as acceptable threshold levels (Hooper et al., 2008;
Kline, 2005).
For checking the significance of indirect effects, we used the more
rigorous and powerful bootstrap test instead of Sobel test, as suggested
by Zhao, Lynch and Chen (2010). In this test, if 'Bootstrap Results
for Indirect Effects' at 95% confidence interval do not include 0
(zero), the indirect effect is significant and mediation is established.
Results
Our first step was to validate the factor structure of individual
constructs. For this, we loaded items on their respective latent
factors. Apart from relatedness need satisfaction and OCBI, one item
each was dropped from burnout, psychological health, and OCBO constructs
due to poor factor loadings. These items were removed from further
analysis. During CFA, there were concerns with negatively worded items
of OCBO and psychological health. These items formed separate factors
that were named OCBO (Negative) and psychological health (Negative).
CFA1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 refer to single-factor models of OCBI, OCBO
(Positive), OCBO (Negative), psychological health (positive),
psychological health (negative), burnout, relatedness need satisfaction,
respectively. All the seven models revealed an acceptable fit to the
data, based on majority of fitness indicators used : CFA1 ([chi square]
[11] = 45.4, CFI = 0.96, NNFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.04); CFA2
([chi square] [1] = 1.62, CFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR =
0.01); CFA3 ([chi square] [1] = 2.87, CFI = 0.98, NNFI = 0.99, RMSEA -
0.06, SRMR = 0.02); CFA4 ([chi square] [3] = 4.82, CFI = 0.99, NNFI =
0.99, RMSEA - 0.04, SRMR = 0.02); CFA5 ([chi square] [4] = 8.95, CFI =
0.99, NNFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR =.02); CFA6 ([chi square] [13] =
42.97, CFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.02);CFA7 ([chi
square] [27] = 84.22, CFI = 0.97, NNFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR =
0.04).
Next, we examined the discriminant validity of constructs. A
measurement model where all items load on a single factor was compared
with a measurement model where items load on the seven factors. The
results show that the one-factor model ([chi square] [773] = 4163.09,
CFI = 0.85, NNFI = 0.85, RMSEA = 0.10, SRMR = 0.13) doesn't fit the
data well and seven-factor model ([chi square] [752] = 1486.17, CFI =
0.95, NNFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.09) fits the data better.
Thus, support for the discriminant validity of the variables in the
current study is provided. Moreover, as the one-factor model did not fit
the data well, common method variance is not a great concern in the data
and is unlikely to confound the interpretation of results.
A preliminary correlation analysis was then performed. The
findings, presented in Table 1, confirm that relations proceeded in the
expected directions. Next, we specified a model with hypothesized
relationships. When we subjected the specified model to test in LISREL,
our data supported many of the specified relationships between
constructs. Specifically, the direct path from OCBI to relatedness need
satisfaction was significant, but direct paths from OCBI to burnout and
health (both positive and negative) were insignificant. On the other
hand, paths from OCBO (positive) to psychological health (negative) and
OCBO (negative) to psychological health (positive) were insignificant.
However, paths from OCBO (positive) to psychological health (positive)
and OCBO (negative) to psychological health (negative) were significant.
Additionally, the hypothesized relationship between relatedness need
satisfaction and burnout was significant. Similarly, burnout was found
to have significant relationship with both psychological health
(positive) and psychological health (negative).In other words, results
lend full support to hypotheses I, 4, and 5; and partial support to
hypothesis 3. Hypotheses 2 was not supported by the results.
Once we removed these insignificant paths from the specified model,
the overall model (Fig. 1) showed a good fit to the data (=2 [679] =
1231.94, CFI = 0.98, NNFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = 0.04). To further
validate the significance of indirect paths, we performed the
Bootstrapping test (as suggested by Zhao et al., 2010). First test was
performed to check if there was an indirect relationship between OCBI
and burnout through relatedness need satisfaction. From the bootstrap
analysis, we found that the mean indirect effect is significant with a
95% confidence interval excluding zero (-0.1934 to -0.058). This
indicates that even if there isn't a direct relationship between
OCBI and burnout, there is an indirect effect through relatedness need
satisfaction.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Second test was performed to check if there was an indirect
relationship between relatedness need satisfaction and psychological
health (positive) through burnout. We found that the mean indirect
effect is significant with a 95% confidence interval excluding zero
(0.1184 to 0.2177). Next test was performed to check if there was an
indirect relationship between relatedness need satisfaction and
psychological health (negative) through burnout. The mean indirect
effect is significant with a 95% confidence interval excluding zero
(0.1667 to 0.3420). These results lend support to the existence of an
indirect relationship between relatedness need satisfaction and
psychological health (positive and negative) through burnout.
Discussion
This study examines the impact of organizational citizenship
behavior on burnout, psychological health, and relatedness need
satisfaction of the actor. On the one hand, OCBI leads to relatedness
need satisfaction, which is an essential nutriment for individual
well-being. On the other hand, OCBO leads to better overall
psychological health. Importantly, relatedness need satisfaction also
improves the psychological health indirectly by reducing the burnout
level of an individual. In fact OCBI indirectly relates to psychological
health through relatedness need satisfaction and burnout.
It is important to highlight that we encountered some problems with
the negatively worded items in OCBO and psychological health constructs.
Albeit the proponents of mixed wording approach suggest that this
practice reduces the dangers of response bias such as acquiescence,
critics suggest that this mixture may lessen a scale's internal
consistency and disrupt its dimensionality (Wong, Rindfleisch &
Burroughs, 2003). In our case, mixed worded scales lead to disruption of
dimensionality of OCBO and psychological health constructs. In this
case, it is important to decide whether the two factors are
substantively meaningful rather than a method artifact. Since, we have
used well tested and psychometrically validated scales in our study, we
expect this problem to be a method artifact, like in many other cases
(reported in Tomas & Oliver, 1999; Wong et al., 2003).
One interesting result of the study was that OCBO (positive) and
OCBO (negative) related differentially with psychological health
(positive) and psychological health (negative). On perusal of items of
Williams and Andersen (1991) scale, the positively worded items of OCBO
seem to represent discretionary but organizationally desirable behavior
whereas negatively worded items seem to represent discretionary but
organizationally undesirable behavior. It is possible that for some
"undesirable to desirable" may represent a continuum while for
some others it could well be a case of "desirable to not indulging
in desirable" representing a continuum while "non-desirable to
not indulging in non-desirable" as another separate continuum. The
above possibility, if considered to be true, could be either on account
of uniqueness in preference of the sample respondents or it could very
well be on account of cultural preferences of Indian respondents.
Similarly continuum can be perceived differently for condition of
psychological health ("good health and bad health as a
continuum" vs. "good health and not good health" and bad
health and not bad health" as two separate continuum). If the
respondents' mental models see the continuum as separate in both
the cases then it is likely that the positively and negatively worded
items would have differential relations. Yet another alternative
explanation for differential relationship between OCBO and psychological
health components could be that the use of English language based
questionnaire may have separate connotations of structure of sentences
for a non-native language speaker. Although the respondents of the study
were well versed with the use of English, the role of social context in
interpretations cannot be completely ruled out. For example,
"having above norm attendance" may be seen as going against
group norms or group conformity; "giving advance notice" may
be seen as being too formal or acting smart; while "taking
undeserved breaks" for example may be seen as symptoms of
difficulties being faced at home front and therefore can be seen as
appropriate in particular cultures where personal and professional lives
are not considered disparate.
Similarly non-support of hypotheses on relation between OCB and
burnout could possibly be explained on account of items of burnout (only
emotional exhaustion dimension was considered representing burnout in
our study) being directed at job related aspects while OCBI is directed
at interpersonal discretionary behaviors and OCBO is directed at
organizational level discretionary behavior. It may well be the case
that OCB relates with a phenomenon such as supervisory support
(Podsakoff et al., 2000) and presence of such support relates with
reduction in experiences such as job burnout (e.g., Kalliath & Beck,
2001) but the effect of OCB is felt indirectly.
Theoretical & Practical Contributions
The consequences of organizational citizenship behavior have not
been studied as extensively as antecedents of citizenship, perhaps
because most empirical studies focus on OCB as a valuable outcome in and
of itself (Spitzmuller et al., 2008). Studies that consider OCB as the
predictor of other outcomes focus majorly on OCB as a predictor of
individual, group, and organizational performance. This tendency is not
surprising due to the managerial bias of early work on OCB (Organ,
1997). We viewed this as an opportunity to expand our understanding of
the individual level consequences of OCB, specifically from social and
personality psychology perspective, which provides strong evidence that
helping behavior has important implications for those who do the
helping.
Taking a lead from the research on pro-social behaviors, we tested
that individuals who indulge in citizenship towards other individuals
experience relatedness need satisfaction due to reception of positive
responses from the receivers of help and experience of cohesiveness or
intimacy, which is essential to the maintenance of mutually rewarding
relationships that humans are evolutionarily wired for. The satisfaction
of relatedness need keeps a check on the burnout levels of the actor
that may emanate from emotional exhaustion, otherwise. On the other
hand, citizenship behaviors targeted at the organization may help
improve the psychological health of the actor due to the feelings of
effectiveness, success and satisfaction. Moreover, social integration
that results from such behaviors may also lead to heightened positive
affect at work. This positive affect can originate from the feeling of
warmth that one receives from others as well as other advantages that
one may get.
Past research has not explored these consequences of citizenship
behaviors. However, these individual level outcomes are of great
importance. Relatedness need satisfaction, less burnout, and good
psychological health can all in fact act as positive reinforcements that
motivate an individual to re-engage in citizenship behaviors.
From a practitioner perspective our study can be seen as one which
existing employees can appreciate for themselves that indulging in OCB
is not only important from organization's point of view but also
from the point of view of their own well-being. Such thought processes
are likely to self-motivate the employees to indulge in more of OCB
acts. Individuals not only join organizations for making their ends meet
but also for aspects such as increasing their overall well-being.
Another contribution to practitioners is that the findings can act
as sense-making tool for managers to resolve the dilemma as to why
should they ask employees to indulge in OCB beyond indulging in
activities on performance parameters just because OCB related behaviors
are beneficial for the organization. When the managers get to see the
rationale that it is not only organizations which stands to gain
directly from such discretionary activities of employees but the
employees themselves, the managers are more likely to persuade employees
in a spirited way to increase their citizenship behavior as well as
proactively create the enabling environment such as on the spot rewards,
recognition through words of praise in both formal and informal settings
etc. which will motivate employees to indulge in OCB. The two above
mentioned ways of self-motivation and managerial motivation are likely
to lead to the virtuous cycle of OCB in organizations.
Limitations & Implications
First, the primary data for the investigation came from a
self-report survey, making it possible that common-method variance
inflated relationships between variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Albeit we conducted the Harman one-factor test for assuring that
common-method bias was not prominent in our study, future studies can
temporally separate the measurement of predictor and criterion variables
to further minimize the effect. To inhibit the occurrence of
common-method bias, future studies in this area can collect data using
multiple methods (e.g., interviews, surveys, peer reports, etc.).
Another limitation of our study is its research design that prohibits
statements of causality. The strongest evidence of mediation effects is
derived using experimental research designs (Spencer, Zanna & Fong,
2005), thus suggesting future quasi-experimental designs as a useful
extension of this study. Additionally, the data has been collected from
highly educated working executives from a premier business school and
therefore generalization may be problematic. Furthermore, collection of
data over web may have its own nuances, although we took care to caution
participants with issues like technical glitches. The participants
however were highly conversant with use of computers and therefore web
based difficulty is less likely to be a problem. In addition, the sample
was more representative of private sector organizations and male
participants. Replication of the study therefore with public sector,
NGOs and other forms of organizations particularly with significant
number of female participants consisting of diverse educational
background may further add to the generalizability of the study
particularly in the Indian context.
It becomes clear from this research that OCB relates with variables
of individual well-being. Further, past research (e.g., Chen et al.,
1998; Coyne & Ong, 2007; Pare & Tremblay, 2007; Biswas &
Varma, 2012) has found OCB to have good relationship with turnover
intentions. Turnover intention as a variable has always been subject of
much interest to organizations. As a natural extension of scholarly
enquiry, it therefore, makes sense to explore bridging mechanism between
variables of interest to individuals and the organization; and naturally
OCB's role in it. A study which would be able to use individual
well-being measures as mediators of relationship between OCB and
turnover intention is expected to be the future scope of this study.
In fact future research may include test of cyclic relationship
between OCB and well-being. As well-being makes an individual indulge in
OCB and after indulging in OCB one experiences wellbeing. This is how
OCB may be sustained for longer periods. Similarly differential effects
of OCBI and OCBO on individual well-being variables may also be an
interesting area to research on. Role of individual differences and
context such as culture in explaining variations in the relationship of
OCB with individual wellbeing variables is likely to be a rich source of
information for both academicians and practitioners alike.
Manish Kumar is Asst. Professor (OB & HRM), Indian Institute of
Management Kozhikode. Email:colamanish@gmail.com. Hemang Jauhari
(E-mail: hemang.jauhari@gmail.com) is Fellow & Shailendra Singh
(E-Mail: iim.shail@gmail.com) is Professor (OB &HRM). Indian
Institute of Management Lucknow.
References
Allen, T. D. & Rush, M. C. (1998), "The Effects of
Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Performance Judgments: A Field
Study and a Laboratory Experiment", Journal of Applied Psychology,
83(2): 247-60.
Baard, P., Deci, E. L& Ryan, R. M. (2004), "Intrinsic Need
Satisfaction: A Motivational basis of Performance and Well-being in Two
Work Settings", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34: 2045-68.
Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. (1995), "The Need to
Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human
Motivation", Psychological Bulletin, 117(3): 497-529.
Biswas, S. & Varma, A. (2012), "Linkages between
Antecedents of In-role Performance and Intentions to Quit: an
Investigation in India", International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 23: 987-1005.
Caprara, G. V. & Steca, P. (2005), "Self-efficacy Beliefs
as Determinants of Pro-social Behavior Conducive to Life Satisfaction
across Ages", Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24:
191-217.
Chen, X. P., Hui, C.& Sego, D. J. (1998), "The Role of
Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Turnover: Conceptualization and
Preliminary Tests of Key Hypotheses", Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(6): 922-31.
Cialdini, R. B. & Kenrick, D. T. (1976), "Altruism as
Hedonism: A Social Development Perspective on the Relationship of
Negative Mood State and Helping", Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,34(5): 907-14.
Coon, C. S. (1946), "The Universality of Natural Groupings in
Human Societies", Journal of Educational Sociology, 20 (3): 163-68.
Coyne, I. & Ong, T. (2007), "Organizational Citizenship
Behavior and Turnover Intention: A Cross-cultural Study",
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(6): 1085-97.
Deci. E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2000), "The 'What'
and 'Why' of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the
Self-determination of Behavior", Psychological Inquiry, 11:319-38.
Dunlop, P. D. & Lee, K. (2004), "Workplace Deviance,
Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and Business Unit Performance: The
Bad Apples Do Spoil the Whole Barrel", Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25(1): 67-80.
Feather, N. T. & Rauter, K. A. (2004), "Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors in Relation to Job Status, Job Insecurity,
Organizational Commitment and Identification, Job Satisfaction and Work
Values", Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
77:81-94.
Firth, L., Mellor, D. J., Moore, K. A. & Loquet, C. (2004),
"How Can Managers Reduce Employee Intention to Quit", Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 19(2): 170-87.
Giles, D. E. Jr., & Eyler, J. (1994), "The Impact of a
College Community Service Laboratory on Students' Personal, Social,
and Cognitive Outcomes", Journal of Adolescence, 17(4): 327-39.
Goldberg, D. & Williams, P. (1988), A User's Guide to the
General Health Questionnaire, Nfer Nelson Publishing Company Ltd.
Windsor
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. & Mullen, M.R.(2008), "Structural
Equation Modeling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit",
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6: 53-60.
Johnson, D. E., Erez, A., Kiker, D. S. & Motowidlo, S. J.
(2002), "Liking and Attributions of Motives as Mediators of the
Relationships between Individuals' Reputations, Helpful Behaviors,
and Raters' Reward Decisions", Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(4): 808-15.
Joreskog, K. & SOrbom, D. (1993), L1SREL 8: Structural Equation
Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language, Chicago, IL: Scientific
Software International Inc.
Kalliath, T. J. & Beck, A. (2001), "Is the Path to Burnout
and Turnover Paved by a Lack of Supervisory Support: A Structural
Equations Test", New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 30: 72-78.
Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation
Modeling (2nd Edition), New York: The Guilford Press.
Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C.A. & Schreindorfer, L.
S. (2005), "Individual Difference in the Need to Belong: Mapping
the Nomological Network", Working Paper, Department of Psychology,
Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC.
Mann, L. 1980, "Cross-cultural Studies of Small Groups",
in H. Triandis& R. Brislin (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural
Psychology: Social Psychology, Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 5: 155-209.
Maslach, C.& Jackson, S. E. (1981): "The Measurement of
Experienced Burnout", Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2: 99-113.
Maslach, C. & Leiter, M. P. (1997), Truth about Burnout: How
Organizations Cause Personal Stress and What to Do about It, San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Maslach, C., and Schaufeli, W. B. (1993), "Historical and
Conceptual Development of Burnout", in Schaufeli, W. B., Maslach,
C. & Marek, T. (Eds.), Professional Burnout: Recent Developments in
Theory and Research, Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis: 1-16.
Maslow, A. (1968): Toward a Psychology of Being, New York, D. Van
Nostrand Company.
Organ, D. W. (1997), "Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
It's Construct Clean-up Time", Human Performance, 10(2):
85-97.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: the Good
Soldier Syndrome, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M. & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006),
Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents and
Consequences, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Pare, G. & Tremblay, M. (2007), "The Influence of
High-involvement Human Resources Practices, Procedural Justice,
Organizational Commitment, and Citizenship Behaviors on Information
Technology Professionals' Turnover Intentions", Group &
Organization Management, 32: 326-57.
Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A. & Schroeder, D.
A. (2005), "Pro-social Behavior: Multilevel Perspectives",
Annual Review of Psychology, 56: 365-92.
Perreault, S., Gaudreau, P., Lapointe, M. C. & Lacroix, C.
(2007), "Does It Take Three to Tango? Psychological Need
Satisfaction and Athlete Burnout", International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 38: 437-50
Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L. & Clark, R. D.
Ill (1981), Emergency Intervention, New York: Academic.
Podsakoff, N. P" Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M. & Blume,
B. D. (2009), "Individualand Organizational-level Consequences of
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis", Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(1): 122-41.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B. & Bachrach, D.
Q (2000), "Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Critical Review
of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future
Research", Journal of Management, 26: 513-63.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N.P.
2003, "Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical
Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies", Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903.
Reis, H. T, Collins, W. A. & Berscheid, E. (2000), "The
Relationship Context of Human Behavior and Development",
Psychological Bulletin, 126 (6): 844-72.
Schaufeli, W. B. & Bakker, A. B. (2004), "Job Demands, Job
Resources and their Relationship with Burnout and Engagement: A
Multi-sample Study", Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25:
293-315.
Spencer S.J., Zanna M.P. & Fong G.T. (2005), "Establishing
a Causal Chain: Why Experiments Are often More Effective Than
Mediational Analyses in Examining Psychological Processes", Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 89: 845-51.
Spitzmuller, M., Van Dyne, L, & Hies, R. (2008),
"Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Review and Extension of Its
Nomological Network", in J. Barling & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), The
SAGE Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Sun, L.Y., Aryee, S. & Law, K. S. (2007),
"High-performance Human Resource Practices, Citizenship Behavior,
and Organizational Performance: A Relational Perspective", Academy
of Management Journal, 50(3): 558-77.
Tang, C. S., Au, W., Schwarzer, R. & Schmitz, G. (2001),
"Mental Health Outcomes of Job Stress among Chinese Teachers: Role
of Stress Resource Factors and Burnout", Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 22: 887-901.
Testa, M. A. & Simonson, D. C. 1996, "Assessment of
quality-of-life outcomes",New England Journal of Medicine, 334
:835-840.
Thoits, P. A. & Hewitt, L. N. (2001), "Volunteer Work and
Well-being", Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42(2): I 15-31.
Tomas, J. M. & Oliver, A. (1999), "Rosenberg's
Selfesteem Scale: Two Factors or Method Effects", Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6: 84-98.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H. & Lens, W.
(2008), "Explaining the Relationships between Job Characteristics,
Burnout and Engagement: The Role of Basic Psychological Need
Satisfaction", Work & Stress, 22: 277-94.
Weinstein, N. & Ryan, R. M. (2010), "When Helping Helps:
Autonomous Motivation for Pro-social Behavior and Its Influence on
Well-being for the Helper and Recipient", Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 98: 222-44.
Williams, L. J. & Anderson, S. E. 1991, "Job Satisfaction
and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational
Citizenship and ln-role Behaviors", Journal of Management, 17, (3):
601-17.
Wong, N., Rindfleisch. A. & Burroughs, J. E. (2003), "Do
Reverse-Worded Items Confound Measures in Cross-Cultural Consumer
Research?", Journal of Consumer Research, 30:72-91.
Yates, M. & Younnis, J. (1996), "A Developmental
Perspective on Community Service in Adolescence". Social
Development, 5(1): 85-111.
Yen, H. R., & Niehoff, B. P. (2004), "Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors and Organizational Effectiveness: Examining
Relationships in Taiwanese Banks", Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 34(8): 1617-37.
Zhao, X., Lynch J. G. & Chen, Q. 2010, "Reconsidering
Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis",
Journal of Consumer Research, 37:197-206.
Table I Means, Standard Deviations & Correlations
SI. Variable 1 2 3
No.
1 Gender
2 Marital -.07
Status
3 Age -.12 * .57 **
4 Tenure -.12 * .38** .55 **
5 OCBI -.01 -.08 -.02
6 OCBOP .08 -.08 .05
7 OCBON -.08 .16 ** .19 **
8 Burnout .12 * -.16 ** -.17 **
9 Related- -.04 .10 .12 *
ness
10 HealthP -.11 * .13 ** .24 **
11 HealthN -.08 .12 * .16 **
12 M
13 S.D.
SI. 4 5 6 7
No.
1
2
3
4
5 .01 (.75)
6 -.00 .41 ** (.61)
7 .10 .12 * .15 ** (.70)
8 -.12 * -.07 -.09 -.14 **
9 .16 * .19 ** .14 ** .11 *
10 .07 .12 * .22 ** .15 **
11 .08 -.02 .02 .25 **
12 3.63 4.19 3.98
13 .65 .69 .88
SI. 8 9 10 11
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 (.92)
9 -.45 ** (.83)
10 -.44 ** .24 ** (.78)
11 -.47 ** .24 ** .28 ** (-81)
12 2.57 3.62 3.64 3.57
13 .97 .66 .76 .90
Note: N= 389. The Cronbach's alpha estimates are given
on the diagonals.* p < .05. ** p < .01.
