Psychological capital & citizenship behavior: evidence from telecom sector in India.

Shukla, Amit ; Singh, Shailendra

Introduction

The concept of psychological capital (PsyCap) emerged with the growing importance of human-centric approaches in the organizational context. Emphasis has gradually shifted from physical capital (physical assets) to human capital (represented by knowledge, skills and abilities or KSAs) and then, to social capital (networking and its benefits) over the past few decades. Psychological capital is a relatively new addition to this development and refers to a positive outlook of an individual about (not necessarily restricted to) his job and organization. The concept draws from the core of positive psychology that emphasizes on strengths and virtues, rather than dysfunctions and weaknesses (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) of people.

Initially it was primarily linked to productivity (Goldsmith et al, 1998) but later, its positive relationship with desirable (Luthans et al., 2007 a) and negative relationship with undesirable (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006) workplace attitudes and behaviour were empirically established. Later, researchers suggested that the benefits of this capital are not restricted to individuals only and, at aggregate level, can be a source of competitive advantage for the entire organization (Luthans & Youssef, 2004).

Rationale for Study

Fluidity is one of the distinctive characteristics of new age organizations after globalization (Friedman, 2005). Due to fast changing external business scenario, the rules are turning more flexible, internal boundaries increasingly blurred and, as a result, job demand more uncertain. So in this era of uncertainty and malleability, we need to look beyond personality traits, relatively stable individual dispositions. PsyCap captures this dynamism and determines the ability to quickly respond to emerging situation with a sanguine mental frame comprising, hope, optimism, confidence and resilience. We are interested in exploring association of PsyCap with some desirable attributes (job satisfaction and OCB) and also in ascertaining its predictive power for these variables. Literature review revealed that there is lack of empirical research investigating relationships between PsyCap and the other two aforementioned variables. PsyCap, in general, was found to be scantly studied a variable in the Indian context. This way present work aims to address these issues. The study is conducted in a large telecom organization and requisite empirical evidence is provided. Findings are presented and its possible implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed.

Positive Organization Behavior & PsyCap

Psychological capital is a relatively new concept in the field of positive organization behavior (POB). POB itself evolved and flourished as a result of development in the field of positive psychology (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Positive psychology stresses on the strengths of people rather than weaknesses. It deals with the possibility of individual growth and development by shifting focus away from negative to positive aspects.

Psychological Capital (PsyCap)

As delineated by Luthans (2002), psychological capital is a micro-level state like construct that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement in today's workplace. Those high in PsyCap indicated to have higher job satisfaction (Luthans et al., 2007 a). On the contrary, the negative linkage between PsyCap and stress related outcomes like burnout, psychological exhaustion or impaired heath has also been established (Bakker & Demerouti, 2006). Luthans et al. (2002, 2007 a) have suggested inclusion of four constructs, namely, hope, optimism, resilience and self-efficacy into the domain of POB. These constructs are fairly distinct and represent an individual's positive frame of mind. The umbrella concept of PsyCap encompasses these dimensions and a brief description about them is presented below.

Hope: Snyder et al. (1996) defined hope as a positive motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of successful: (1) agency (goal directed energy) and (2) pathways (planning to meet goals). Hence key constituents of hope can be: agency (will-power), pathways (way-power), and goals. Agency component is related to the motivational energy that keeps directing one on the path of goal attainment. Pathway component is concerned with means to achieve a goal. It is linked to instrumentality.

Optimism: Seligman (1998) defined optimism as making an internal, relatively stable, and global attribution regarding positive events such as goal achievement, and an external, relatively unstable, and specific cause for negative events like a failed attempt at reaching a goal. This way optimism is not necessarily based on realistic assessment of situation but it's a state like characteristic where objective assessment about what one can accomplish in a specific situation, given the available resources at that time, and therefore can vary (Peterson, 2000).

Resilience: Resilience is related to coping behavior and resulting adaptation in the wake of adversity or failures (Masten et al., 2002). When applied to work-place, it is defined as "positive psychological capacity to rebound, to 'bounce back' from adversity, uncertainty, conflict, failure, or even positive change, progress and increased responsibility" (Luthans, 2002). So the striking difference posited by Luthans in this definition is incorporation of coping behaviors even during positive changes, which may frequently occur in work-place. So basically, resilience or resiliency is the capacity to maintain equanimity during sudden and significant changes.

Self-efficacy: The concept of self efficacy evolved through extensive research of Bandura (1997). Recently it was linked to positive psychology (Bandura, 2007). General self efficacy (Bandura, 1982) is trait based self-efficacy and contextually wider in nature.

Stajkovic & Luthans (1998) defined efficacy as the individual's conviction (or confidence) about his or her abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to successfully execute a speciuc task within a given context. The higher-order core construct of PsyCap represents the common variance among the four component dimensions and as noted has both conceptual (Luthans et al., 2007 b) and empirical (Luthans et al, 2007 a) support. It being a state like construct is open for development and focuses on the richness of positive mental frame and its implication in work-place outcomes.

Job Satisfaction

As one of the consensual definitions of job satisfaction, Cranny et al. (1992) proposed: "it's an affective reaction to one's job resulting from incumbent's comparison of actual outcomes with those that are desired (expected, deserved, and so on)". Similar views can be found in earlier definitions. Locke (1969:317) defined job satisfaction as "pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job as achieving or facilitating one's job values".

A different school of thought preferred to treat job satisfaction as more of an attitude (Miner, 1992; Brief, 1998) rather than an affect. The reason for peaceful coexistence of this bipolarity is viewing of all stands as interchangeable. One example of this coexistence is found in Smith et al.'s (1969: 1, 7) work where he likened job satisfaction to attitude by stating that "problems associated with the measurement of satisfaction are but specific examples of those encountered in the measurement of any attitude" and then defining it as "feelings or affective responses to facets of the situation". We are not interested in these nuances for the present study and would rather focus on general job satisfaction. We adhere to the point of view adopted by Andrews and Whitey (1976) and also use scale for general job satisfaction designed by them.

Organization Citizenship Behavior (OCB)

OCB implies individual behaviors that are discretionary, not directly recognized by the formal reward system but are beneficial to the organization and, in general, promotes the organizational performance (Organ, 1988). In a recent meta-analysis, Podsakoff et al (2009) described both individual-level outcomes (e.g., managerial ratings of employee performance, reward allocation decisions, and a variety of withdrawal-related criteria) and organizational-level outcomes (e.g., productivity, efficiency, reduced costs, customer satisfaction) of OCB.

Though multiple dimensionality schemes have been proposed for OCB, we consider a five factor model (Organ, 1988) for present study. It consists of civic virtue, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy and altruism. A brief description is presented below.

Altruism is related to selfless concern for the welfare of others. Examples could be like helping others who have been absent, or assisting those who have very workloads.

Courtesy: One shows courtesy by respecting rights of others in workplace. Such a person takes steps to try to prevent problems with colleagues.

Civic Virtue has two key features. First is going beyond mandatory elements of job and second is to keep oneself abreast of changes in the organization.

Conscientiousness is related to being sincere, honest, punctual and dependable in the workplace. Such persons strictly adhere to rules and regulations of the organization.

Sportsmanship: Employees with sportsmanship don't focus on trivial issues at workplace and believe in "marching ahead". It is the willingness to tolerate less than ideal circumstances without complaining and refraining from activities such as complaining and petty grievances. They rather focus on the positive aspects.

Williams & Anderson (1991) classified the five dimensions of OCB by Organ into two streams based on whom the behaviors were directed. First, organizational citizenship behavior--individual (OCB-I) which are aimed at individuals, includes altruism and courtesy. Similarly organization citizenship behavior --organization (OCB-O) has organization wide implications and includes civic virtue, sportsmanship and conscientiousness.

Conceptual Framework

Modern organizations face rapid changes in their environment which may alter employee's job demand and the level of expectations. This may lead to change in job satisfaction and mental strain (Kirjonen, 1984). Conceptualized state nature of PsyCap is beneficial in at least a couple of ways. It maps the changes in job demand on PsyCap and thereon relates it with ensuing changes in job satisfaction level. The state nature also provides developmental perspective and emphasizes the importance of positive organizational interventions to management. Due to these factors, we have considered level of PsyCap as an input variable that may have close association with some other variables of interest.

Research Hypotheses

Previous research suggests that PsyCap is positively related to desirable employee attitudes and negatively related to undesirable attitudes (Avey et al., 2011). We postulate that dimensions of hope and optimism increase expectancy attached with a job. Resilience helps in overcoming minor setbacks associated with it. Self efficacy boosts confidence required to carry out a job in a convincing manner. If an employee feels empowered and competent and is sanguine about outcomes then he is more likely to evaluate that job favorably. Thus, we posit that PsyCap is expected to be positively related to job satisfaction. Bagozzi (1992) provided new insights on the theory of reasoned action (Fishben & Ajzen, 1975) by describing the additive effect of attitudes and subjective norms on intention. A positive attitude may result in weak intention in the presence of negative subjective norm and vice versa. Due to the fact that this theory is directed towards volitional behaviors only (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), we can draw a parallel in the present context. OCB, being voluntary and desirable behavior, is expected to fall under the ambit of positive subjective norm within organization. Also, high PsyCap is likely to facilitate positive appraisal of job facets and should result in enhanced job satisfaction (positive attitude). Hence, PsyCap should positively impact job satisfaction and, in turn, intention to demonstrate OCB. Thus we posit that PsyCap leads to demonstration of OCB through job satisfaction.

Earlier meta-analyses have provided empirical evidence for direct relationship between job satisfaction and OCB. Organ and Ryan (1995) reported a modest relationship (r = .226; 95 % confidence interval as .231 to .287) between job satisfaction and Altruism as a dimension of OCB. Interestingly, this relationship was stronger than the relationship between job satisfaction and in-role performance. Similarly, Podsakoff et al (2000) reported effect sizes for different OCB dimensions as: Altruism (.31), Courtesy (.25), Conscientiousness (.28), Sportsmanship (.30) and Civic Virtue (.19) with p < .05 for all.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Based on above arguments, following hypotheses is proposed:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): PsyCap is positively related to employee's job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Relationship between PsyCap and OCB is mediated through job satisfaction.

Proposed framework is depicted in Fig. 1.

Sampling & Data Collection Procedures

Employees from a large Indian telecom company participated in this study. A total of 204 mid-level managers, representing different areas, were contacted individually with the help of a list (sampling frame) provided by the HR department. Level (mid) of a manager was assigned by his/her designation within the organizational hierarchy in consultation with the HR department. Employees were requested to assemble in a hall during their lunch hour and handed over paper based questionnaires. Instruction was provided without revealing the variables or purpose to avoid the problem of social desirability. Questionnaires were collected on the same day. After screening for missing data and other irregularities, the exercise resulted in 172 useful responses. There were 46 females (27 %) and 126 males (73 %) in the final sample.

Measures

Psychological capital, job satisfaction and OCB were measured using self-reported responses through established questionnaires. The responses for all these variables were taken on a 5-point Likert-scale with anchors ranging from 1 = "Strongly disagree", 2 = "Disagree", 3 = "Neutral", 4 = "Agree" and 5 = "Strongly agree".

PsyCap: A 24-item Psychology Capital Questionnaire (PCQ 24), designed by Luthans et al. (2007 b) was used to measure PsyCap across all four dimensions. A sample item was "I feel confident in representing my work area in meetings with management".

Job Satisfaction: A re-worded Andrews and Whitey's (1979) 5-item questionnaire was used to measure job satisfaction. A sample item was "I feel good about my job".

Organization Citizenship Behavior (OCB): Podsakoff's (1990) 24-item scale was used to measure OCB. It measured OCB across all five dimensions as laid down by Organ (1988). A sample item was "I try to keep myself updated on the changes in company".

Control Variables: Additionally respondents were asked for age (in years), gender and tenure in present company (in years). Gender was measured using dummy variables ("0" = male; "1" = female).

Results

Since the entire data collection was done using paper based questionnaire, there was a concern for common method variance (CMV). Hence, an assessment for the same was made by Harman's one-factor test, as suggested by Podsakoff et al (2003). Unrotated principal component factor analysis was conducted and confirmed presence of three factors (eigenvalue greater than 1.0). These factors together accounted for 61 % and the first (largest) factor accounted for 23 % of the total variance. Thus, the largest factor accounted for less than 50 % of total variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003) and also less than 25 % cut-off value (Williams et al., 1989). In addition, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted, where all the items were loaded on a single factor. The fit indices [/[sup.2](35) = 247.39, p < .001; GFI = .79, CFI = .69, TLI = .76, RMSEA = .199] of this model showed a poor fit (Byrne, 1998). Hence, we concluded that common method variance did not significantly impact our results.

Table 1 shows means, standard deviations, Cronbach's alpha and zero-order bivariate correlations among control variables, PsyCap dimensions, job satisfaction, and OCB dimensions. Mean age was 37.23 years as mostly mid-level managers participated in the study. Also, mean tenure is high (> 14 years) indicating most of these managers have worked in their present organization for a significant time span.

Different PsyCap and OCB dimensions show a significantly high correlation among themselves; thus providing a preliminary evidence for construct validity. All alpha values are acceptable considering small sample size and multi-dimensional constructs.

Age and tenure were found to be significantly correlated to all OCB dimensions. In the present context, these three variables are themselves highly correlated (as obvious from Table 1). So it was felt important to assess the role of these variables in our model. In order to quantify and compare the relative impact of these variables in our hypothesized model, a stepwise hierarchical regression analysis was carried out. Different dimensions of OCB were treated as dependent variables in separate tests; with control variables, PsyCap and job satisfaction entered as independent variables. Analysis was done with SPSS and control variables together were entered in the first step followed by PsyCap (all dimensions together) and job satisfaction. [DELTA][R.sup.2] was calculated at each step and its significance was noted. Table 2 shows the incremental explanatory power ([R.sup.2] value) of control variables, PsyCap and job satisfaction for predicting variance in OCB.

It was found that control variables had relatively smaller predictive power (from 3.2 % to 6.1 %) for OCB as compared to other two variables (PsyCap and Job satisfaction). PsyCap showed better predictive power for OCBI as compared to OCB-O. It explained 31.6 % and 33 % variance in Courtesy and Altruism respectively. The same for other three dimensions varied from 16.2 % to 20.5 %. Job satisfaction explained lower variance for OCB dimensions that varied from 8.4 % to 18.8%.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

It is clear from Tables 1 and 2 that all dimensions of PsyCap are positively and significantly correlated with job satisfaction and all dimensions of OCB. It provides full support for our first hypothesis (H1). Thus, PsyCap is positively related to employee's job satisfaction.

Our second hypothesis (H2) on mediation was tested using structural equation modeling.

Two models were defined: first as our originally hypothesized model, showing both direct and indirect paths between PsyCap and OCB (Fig. 2) and second, showing only indirect path (Fig. 3).

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

Sobel test (1986) was conducted to make an initial assessment for mediation and the test statistic [(z = 3.944, p < 0.001; a = .65 (.077) and b = .58 (.13)] suggested presence of mediation and further confirmation was done by comparing fit indices of aforementioned models (Table 3).

It is obvious that Model 1 is a better fit on the basis of [chi square] and [DELTA][chi square] values. Incremental [chi square] is 13.19, more than the suggested value ([chi square]/[DELTA]df < 2). So it can be concluded that model with direct path is a better fit and full mediation is ruled out. All other fit indices are well within stipulated limits (Byrne, 1998) for both models. Hence, it provides support for H2. So there is a partial mediation by job satisfaction between PsyCap and OCB.

Discussion

It is worthwhile to mention that the three of PsyCap dimensions (except Optimism) were significantly correlated with age and tenure. It indicates the developmental nature of PsyCap. Intuitively, PsyCap improves as employee learns from new challenges, devices new pathways to tackle a problem, gains confidence in his/her abilities and bounces back from setbacks. This might be a reason for particular finding and we exhort researchers for further corroboration of Age (Tenure)--PsyCap link.

PsyCap was found to be positively associated with both job satisfaction and citizenship behavior. Dimensions of Self-efficacy (r = .49; p < .01) and Hope (r = .45; p < .01) were most significantly correlated with job satisfaction. Correlations between PsyCap and OCB dimensions were moderate and did not show any particular pattern. This result holds a lot of promise for researchers and practitioners. By the way of its conceptualization, PsyCap is a "changeable commodity" and differs from stable personality traits. It makes a departure from traditional personality based approach, like "plaster hypothesis" by James (1950; original work in 1890). According to this hypothesis, personality traits do not change after adulthood (say age 20). A few researches have already challenged such positions (Srivastava et al., 2003; Roberts et al., 2006) by reporting "flexibility" in supposedly rigid traits; though in varying degree. PsyCap does not confront the conventional wisdom but maintains a parallel co-existence. Even if we do not challenge the original position on personality, PsyCap represents a second layer of relatively malleable dispositions that are affected by many individual, group and organization level variables. Hence, researchers can explore its antecedents (in turn, for its dimensions) and key correlates to identify factors that shape up and enhance this "capital". But the same "malleability" entails maintenance of these factors and hence poses a challenge.

Implications for Managers

As discussed above, the concept of psychological capital poses both opportunities and challenges. Opportunity lies in the fact that an employee, with desired level of personality traits, can be further corrected for functional, attitudinal and behavioral deficiencies. But this very flexibility poses threat as well. It is challenging for an organization (and immediate supervisor in particular) to maintain all those antecedents to a level that can impact PsyCap.

Managers must help their employees "nurturing" their psychological capital through various training interventions and by providing vocational and psychosocial support. Effectiveness of PsyCap interventions (PCI) was recently studied by Luthans et al. (2010) where they found that such interventions not only improved PsyCap but also had favorable impact on employees' job performance. So PsyCap, along with others (human capital, social capital etc.) must be nurtured and nourished. It may be considered as the building block that leads to creation of other forms of capital.

Directions for Future Research

First and foremost, the key feature of "malleability" of these positive states needs to be researched. Attempts should be made to answer questions like, "How malleable are these states?", "What governs this degree?", and "Are these states totally aloof from personality traits or there is any connection?" among others. These researches may provide clarification on the trait vs. state dilemma.

We have tested the association between different variables but strong causality between variables could not be established due to cross-sectional design of research. Hence, future research, based on longitudinal study, can be carried out. It can map change in PsyCap vis-a-vis change in various attitudes and behaviors. Also, the same correspondence between job demand and PsyCap, and between various contextual factors (organizational structure, level, type of leadership etc.) and PsyCap could also be ascertained. Present work studied the proposed relationship for a telecom organization. The same may be extended and replicated for other types of organization (manufacturing, armed forces, academics, for example) to generate new insights. Relationship of different PsyCap dimensions with other attitudinal and behavioral consequences of organizational interest may be investigated. These initiatives will not only establish utility of concept of PsyCap but also incorporate and embed it into OB literature.

References

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Avey, J.B., Reichard, R.J., Luthans, F. & Mhatre, K.H. (2011), "Meta-analysis of the Impact of Positive Psychological Capital on Employee Attitudes, Behaviors and Performance", Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(2): 127-52.

Andrews, F. M. & Withey, S. B. (1976), Social Indicators of Well-Being, NY: Plenum.

Bagozzi, R.P. (1992), "The Self-Regulation of Attitudes, Intentions, & Behaviour", Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2): 178-204.

Bakker, A. B. & Demerouti, E. (2007), "The Job Demands-Resources Model: State of the Art", Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3): 309-28.

Bandura, A. (1982), "Self-efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency", American Psychologist, 37(2): 122-47.

Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, NY: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2007), "An Agentic Perspective on Positive Psychology", in Lopez, S.J. (Ed.), The Science of Human Fourishing, NY: Praeger.

Brief, A. P. (1998), Attitudes in and Around Organizations, CA: Sage.

Byrne, B.M. (1998), Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS:

Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cranny, C. J., Smith, P. C. & Stone, E. F. (1992), Job Satisfaction: How People Feel about Their Jobs and How It Affects Their Performance, NY: Lexington Press.

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Friedman, T.L. (2005), The World Is Flat, NY: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux.

Goldsmith, A.H., Darity, W. & Veum, J.R. (1998), "Race, Cognitive Skills, Psychological Capital and Wages", Review of Black Political Economy, 26: 13-22.

James, W. (1950), The Principles of Psychology, NY: Dover.

Kirjonen, J. & Hanninen, V. (1984), "Effects of Job Change on Job Satisfaction and Mental Strain", Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health, 10(6): 517-19.

Locke, E. A. (1969), "What Is Job Satisfaction?", Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(4): 309-36.

Luthans, F. (2002), "Positive Organizational Behavior: Developing and Managing Psychological Strengths", Academy of Management Executive, 16(1): 57-72.

Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J. & Peterson, S.J. (2010), "The Development and Resulting Performance Impact of Positive Psychological Capital", Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(1): 41-67.

Luthans, F., Avolio, B., Avey, J. B. & Norman, S. M. (2007 a), "Positive Psychological Capital: Measurement and Relationship with Performance and Job Satisfaction", Personnel Psychology, 60: 541-72.

Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M. & Avolio, B. J. (2007 b), Psychological Capital, NY: Oxford University Press.

Luthans, F. & Youssef, C.M. (2004), "Human, Social and Now, Positive Psychological Capital Management", Organizational Dynamics, 33: 143-60.

Masten, A. S. & Reed, M.G J. (2002), "Resilience in Development', in Snyder, C.R. & Lopez, S.L. (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology: 74-88, UK: Oxford University Press.

Miner, J. B. (1992), Industrial-Organizational Psychology, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Organ, D. W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, MA: Lexington Books.

Organ, D. W. & Ryan, K. (1995), "A Meta-analytic Review of Attitudinal and Dispositional Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour", Personnel Psychology, 48(4): 775-802.

Peterson, C. (2000), "The Future of Optimism", American Psychologist, 55(1): 44-55.

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004), Character, Strength, and Virtues, UK: Oxford University Press.

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(1): 122-41.

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.

Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. & Bachrach, D.G. (2000), "Organizational Citizenship Behaviours: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future Research", Journal of Management, 26(3): 513-63.

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E. & Viechtbauer, W. (2006), "Patterns of Mean-level Change in Personality Traits across the Life Course: A Meta-analysis of Longitudinal Studies", Psychological Bulletin, 132: 1-25.

Seligman, M. E. P. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000), "Positive Psychology: An Introduction", American Psychologist, 55(1): 5-14

Sobel, M. E. (1986), "Some New Results on Indirect Effects and their Standard Errors in Covariance Structure Models", inTuma, N. B. (Ed.), Sociological Methodology, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M. & Hulin, C. L. (1969), The Measurement of Satisfaction In Work & Retirement, Chicago: Rand McNally.

Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C.,Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A. & Higgins, R. L. (1996), "Development and Validation of the State Hope Scale", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2): 321-35.

Srivastava, S., John, O., Gosling, S., & Potter, J. (2003), "Development of Personality in Early and Middle Adulthood: Set Like Plaster or Persistent Change?", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5): 1041-53.

Stajkovic, A. (2006), "Development of a Core Confidence Higher-order Construct", Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6): 1208-24.

Stajkovic, A. & Luthans, F. (1998), "Self-efficacy and Work-related Performance: A Metaanalysis", Psychological Bulletin, 44: 580-90

Williams, L. & Anderson, S. E. (1991), "Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behaviours", Journal of Management, 17(3): 601-17.

Williams, L., Cote, J. & Buckley, M. (1989), "Lack of Method Variance in Self-reported Affect and Perceptions of Work: Reality or Artifact?", Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 462-68.

Amit Shukla (E-mail:amit.shukla@iiml.org) & Shailendra Singh are from HRM Group, Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Variable         Mean      SD        1        2       3

1. Gender (A)     .36      --       --
2. Age          37.23   10.93   .63 **
3. Tenure       14.65   11.77   .62 **   .95 **
4. Eff           3.98     .48      .13    .22 *   .16 *
5. Hp            3.92     .45    .36 *    .33 *   .32 *
6. Rs            3.88     .46      .11    .22 *   .21 *
7. Op            3.79     .38     -.11      .03     .02
8. JS            3.92     .59      .11      .15   .16 *
9. Con           3.82     .55    .22 *   .31 **   .30 *
10. Sp           3.80     .52      .15    .25 *   .29 *
11. Vr           3.85     .64      .08    .24 *   .25 *
12. Cr           4.06     .62     -.02    .17 *   .19 *
13. Al           4.05     .54    .22 *    .23 *   .26 *

Variable             4        5        6        7        8

1. Gender (A)
2. Age
3. Tenure
4. Eff           (.77)
5. Hp           .64 **    (.75)
6. Rs           .66 **   .63 **    (.65)
7. Op           .51 **   .44 **   .46 **    (.71)
8. JS           .49 **   .45 **   .37 **   .35 **    (.75)
9. Con          .35 **   .40 **    .25 *    .28 *   .48 **
10. Sp          .34 **   .36 **    .28 *    .29 *   .47 **
11. Vr          .37 **   .42 **    .34 *   .44 **   .58 **
12. Cr          .40 **   .37 **   .38 **   .47 **   .57 **
13. Al          .42 **   .45 **   .35 **   .44 **   .54 **

Variable             9       10       11       12      13

1. Gender (A)
2. Age
3. Tenure
4. Eff
5. Hp
6. Rs
7. Op
8. JS
9. Con           (.67)
10. Sp          .67 **    (.60)
11. Vr          .58 **   .63 **    (.64)
12. Cr          .61 **   .66 **   .78 **    (.86)
13. Al          .62 **   .69 **   .81 **   .78 **   (.82)

Note: A: 0--Male, 1--Female, Cronbach's alpha in parentheses,
* p < .05 and ** p < .01 (Two tailed)

Tenure--Tenure in present organization (years); Eff--Self efficacy,
Hp--Hope, Rs--Resilience, Op--Optimism; JS--Job satisfaction;
Con--Conscientiousness, Sp--Sportsmanship, Vr--Civic virtue,
Cr--Courtesy, Al--Altruism.

Table 2 Values of Change in R-square in Stepwise Regression Analysis

Variables              Con        Sp        Vr        Cr        Al

Control
[R.sup.2]             .046      .061      .032      .049      .057
Independent

Step-1 (PsyCap)
[R.sup.2]             .234      .223      .237      .365      .387
[DELTA][R.sup.2]   .188 **   .162 **   .205 **   .316 **   .330 **

Step-2 (JS)
[R.sup.2]             .326      .325      .425      .498      .471
[DELTA][R.sup.2]    .092 *   .102 **   .188 **   .133 **    .084 *

Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01 (Two tailed); JS--Job satisfaction,
Con--Conscientiousness, Sp--Sportsmanship, Vr--Civic virtue,
Cr--Courtesy, Al--Altruism.

Table 3 Comparison of Structural Equation Models

Model             [chi   df   [DELTA]   RMSEA    GFI    CFI    TLI
               square]           [chi
                              square]

Model 1          31.34   30        --    .036    .96    .99    .98
(With direct
path)

Model 2        44.53 *   31     13.19    .059    .94    .99    .98

(Without direct path)

Note. * p < 0.05 (Two tailed)