Organizational citizenship behavior & employee well-being.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]  = 45.4, CFI = 0.96, NNFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.04); CFA2 ([chi square]  = 1.62, CFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = 0.01); CFA3 ([chi square]  = 2.87, CFI = 0.98, NNFI = 0.99, RMSEA - 0.06, SRMR = 0.02); CFA4 ([chi square]  = 4.82, CFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.99, RMSEA - 0.04, SRMR = 0.02); CFA5 ([chi square]  = 8.95, CFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR =.02); CFA6 ([chi square]  = 42.97, CFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.02);CFA7 ([chi square]  = 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]  = 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]  = 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  = 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.
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:firstname.lastname@example.org. Hemang Jauhari (E-mail: email@example.com) is Fellow & Shailendra Singh (E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org) is Professor (OB &HRM). Indian Institute of Management Lucknow.
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.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Kumar, Manish; Jauhari, Hemang; Singh, Shailendra|
|Publication:||Indian Journal of Industrial Relations|
|Article Type:||Statistical data|
|Date:||Apr 1, 2016|
|Previous Article:||Structural & psychological empowerment in rural India.|
|Next Article:||Perceived organizational climate & interpersonal trust among virtual workers.|