The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1934-8835.htm
Perceived organizational support as a moderator in the relationship between organisational stressors and organizational citizenship behaviors
POS as a moderator
313 Received 31 March 2012 Accepted 29 April 2012
Ajay K. Jain Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
Sabir I. Giga School of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK, and
Cary L. Cooper Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the impact of organizational stressors on organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and how perceived organizational support (POS) will moderate in the relationship between stressors and citizenship behavior. Design/methodology/approach – The sample for this research involves operators from call center organizations located around the national capital of India. A questionnaire survey was carried out involving 402 operator level employees from five different organizations. Findings – The results highlight a significant negative relationship between organizational stressors and OCB, a significant positive relationship between POS and OCB, and confirmation that POS moderates in the relationship between organizational stressors and OCB. Research limitations/implications – This research has been carried out in an emerging economy and in a sector which is seen as an attractive area of work. However, as this study is limited to the BPO sector in India, these results may not be generalized to other areas such as the public and manufacturing sectors and in other national contexts. Future research in this area should also consider using different data collection approaches to maximize participation and enrich findings. Practical implications – The analysis suggests that change management initiatives in organizations may not be implemented as effectively as they can under high stressor conditions because employee extra-role work behavior and commitment may not be at full capacity. Originality/value – There is limited research examining the relationship between organizational stressors and OCB in the presence of POS, especially within high demand environments such as the Indian BPO sector. Keywords Organizational support, Organizational citizenship behaviour, Occupational stress, Organizational behaviour, Stress, Call centres, India Paper type Research paper
Introduction This paper examines the impact of perceived organizational support (POS) as a moderator in the relationship between organizational stressors and organizational
International Journal of Organizational Analysis Vol. 21 No. 3, 2013 pp. 313-334 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1934-8835 DOI 10.1108/IJOA-Mar-2012-0574
IJOA 21,3
314
citizenship behaviors (OCBs) among operator level employees working within the business process outsourcing (BPO) sector in India. Individuals are attracted to seeking employment in BPO organizations due to the prospect of working in multi-national organizations and earning higher than average salaries (Jain and Saini, 2009). However, with its 24 hour seven day a week operational needs, the sector has been a focus of many studies relating to the impact of organizational stressors including high work demands, long working hours and permanent night shifts on outcomes such as work-related illness and absenteeism (Dataquest, 2004). The UK Health and Safety Executive define stress as “the adverse reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demand placed on them” (HSE, 2001). According to Jordon et al. (2003) pressure can be a motivating factor and stimulate activity but extreme pressure can result in detrimental outcomes and stress. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) suggest that stress can be thought of as resulting from an “imbalance between demands and resources” or as occurring when “pressure exceeds one’s perceived ability to cope”. In this research, ASSET (Cartwright and Cooper, 2002) is used as an initial screening tool to assess the demands (stressors) and the risk of organizational stress in the workforce. As this tool has been validated in a number of different cultural contexts (Jackson and Rothmann, 2006), one of the aims of this research is also to measure its predictability and validity from the perspective of the Indian BPO sector. Research on organizational stress has highlighted the negative impact it has on job satisfaction, commitment and performance (Cooper, 1996; Cooper et al., 2001). Furthermore, Lee and Ashford (1996) suggests that the greater the number of stressors, for example role conflict, workload and role stress, the stronger the association is with higher levels of stress and emotional exhaustion. Studies specifically of long work hours and mental wellbeing have highlighted the adverse impact on personal happiness, job satisfaction, workplace accidents, irritability, exhaustion, depression and interpersonal relationships (Green and Tsitsianis, 2005; Giga et al., 2008). However, as most research is focused on the direct impact of organizational stressors on employee wellbeing, satisfaction and performance, there is a lack of understanding on moderators and mediators that may reduce the impact of organizational demands on job performance in general, as well as specifically on OCBs. In this study POS is taken as the moderator variable between organizational stressors and OCBs. Organizational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Shore and Shore, 1995; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002) assumes that employees form a general perception concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their wellbeing. POS is explored because factors such as role clarity, participation in decision making and colleague support may act as buffers against organizational demands, and subsequently impact on OCBs. This is reflected in a study by Van Schlkwyk et al. (2011) whose findings suggest that POS moderates in the relationship between experiences of bullying by superiors and turnover intention. The focus of this paper is to identify what impact organizational stressors will have on OCBs and how perceived organizational support (POS) will moderate the relationship between the two variables. The organizational stressors variable is selected as a predictor to help us identify the extent to which it negatively influences OCBs. The main aims of this study therefore are to investigate the: . relationship between organizational stressors and OCBs; . relationship between POS and OCBs;
.
.
moderating impact of POS on the relationship between organizational stressors and OCBs; and to evaluate the predictability and validity of an established organizational stress screening tool (ASSET) within an Indian work context.
Organizational citizenship behavior Extensive research has been carried out on OCB since its introduction almost 30 years ago (Bateman and Organ, 1983). OCBs are seen as discretionary behaviors that are neither mandated nor compensated by the organization. This includes behaviors that contribute to maintaining an organization’s social system and indirectly benefitting the work group or organization as a whole (Smith et al., 1983). Drucker (1990, p. 145) argues that “People determine the performance capacity of an organization” and that “no organization can do better than the people it has”. Drucker (1990) therefore suggests that in order to be effective, managers have the responsibility to get more out of the people working under them. It can be argued that human resources determine an organization’s performance and long-term success. At the core of OCB however are notions of voluntary action and mutual aid without a direct reciprocal monetary reward or formal recompense. Citizenship behavior has been studied by behavioral scientists for a long time but it is a relatively new concept within organizational performance analysis. The concept was first introduced by Organ (1988) as a “good soldier syndrome”, which is seen as an absolute necessity for the functioning and long-term prosperity of every organization. Theoretically, citizenship behaviors are thought to improve an organization’s performance by “lubricating” its social machinery (Smith et al., 1983) as well contributing to the development of social capital in organizations (Bolino et al., 2002). Research suggests that for mid-level employees, OCB is positively associated with organizational performance (Walz and Niehoff, 2000; Koys, 2001) as well as work group performance (Podsakoff et al., 1997). Employees have various motives for engaging in OCBs. For example, some individuals might be predisposed towards helping others. Research suggests that people who are characterized as conscientious (Konovsky and Organ, 1996) and with positive affect (George, 1991) engage in more citizenship behaviors. It is also acknowledged that individuals may engage in OCBs to enhance their own image in the organization (Bolino, 1999). Based on social exchange theory, it can also be argued that employees who are treated well by their organizations may reciprocate by engaging in OCBs. This is perhaps made clearer by referring to the literature linking organizational support and organizational fairness with employee OCBs (Niehoff and Moorman, 1993; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). The major impact of OCB is seen on managerial evaluation of employee and organizational performance, and judgment relating to rewards such as pay rises and promotions (Podsakoff et al., 2000). In a recent study, Podsakoff et al. (2011) suggest that job candidates who exhibit higher levels of helping, voice and loyalty behaviors are generally rated as more competent, receive higher overall evaluations and higher salary recommendations than job candidates who exhibit lower levels of these behaviors. Dimensions of OCB Organ (1988) notes two critical components of OCB. First, the behavior is not part of the employee’s job description and is not rewarded explicitly, and second the behavior is not always obvious but does, in aggregate, benefit the organization. In a review article on
POS as a moderator
315
IJOA 21,3
316
citizenship behavior, Podsakoff et al. (2000) organized more than 30 potential forms of OCB into the following seven common themes or dimensions: (1) Altruism or helping behavior. Voluntarily helping others or preventing the occurrence of work related problems. (2) Sportsmanship. Defined by Organ (1988) as a willingness to gracefully tolerate the impositions and nuisances that are an inevitable outcome of employee interdependence. (3) Organizational loyalty. Through spreading good will and protecting the organization and endorsing, supporting and defending its objectives. (4) Organizational compliance. A person’s internalization and acceptance of the organization’s rules, regulations and procedures, which result in a scrupulous adherence to them, even when no one is observing or monitoring compliance. (5) Individual initiative. Engaging in task related behaviors at a level that go beyond what is required or generally expected. (6) Civic virtue. A macro level interest in or commitment to the organization as a whole. It is characterized by responsible participation in the political life of the organization such as attending meetings and reading company mail. (7) Self development. Voluntary behaviors that employees engage with in order to improve their knowledge, skill and abilities. A recent meta-analysis carried out by Hoffman et al. (2007) highlights the importance of a single factor model of OCB. Moreover, the study results show that OCB consistently relates more strongly to attitudes than does task performance. Furthermore, it shares a modest amount of variance with attitudinal correlates beyond task performance. This paper builds on the work of Jain (2003, 2009) who has developed a 48-item scale and identified the following 11 dimensions of OCB within an Indian work context: (1) emotional support; (2) concern for organizational resources; (3) conservation of time; (4) organizational pride; (5) work mindedness; (6) civic virtue; (7) social and functional participation; (8) altruism; (9) sportsman spirit; (10) individual initiative; and (11) generalized compliance. These dimensions overlap with those summarized by Podsakoff et al. (2000). The Civic Virtue dimension has seven additional items that have been developed by Jain (2003) specifically for the Indian context.
Organizational stressors and OCBs OCBs are conceptualized as extra-role behaviors suggesting that organizational stress may have a negative impact on OCBs. Organizational role theory (ORT) provides insight into the processes that affect the physical and emotional state of an individual which in turn impacts their workplace behavior (Kahn et al., 1964; Katz and Kahn, 1978). ORT suggests that people generally seek to behave in ways that are consistent with how their roles are defined. Organizational stressors may negatively impact OCBs because they are in general considered as extra-role behaviors. Moreover, organizational stressors are likely to place constraints on resources, including time and energy, which may mean that employees focus on their immediate commitments related to in-role behaviors rather than OCBs and extra-role behaviors. Research evidence suggests that organizational stress has an adverse impact on job performance, OCB and work-family conflict (Bragger et al., 2005). Bolino and Turnley (2005) highlight the relationship between a specific type of OCB, namely individual initiative, with role overload, work family conflict and occupational stress. Their results indicate that individual initiative, particularly for women in comparison to men, is associated with higher levels of employee role overload, work family conflict and occupational stress. In their study, they anticipate that employees are likely to experience higher demands or stressors when they participate in extra-role behaviors above and beyond what is expected of them (Bolino and Turnley, 2005). Furthermore, Cropanzano et al. (2003) imply that emotional exhaustion is a significant outcome of OCBO (OCBs beneficial to organizations), though organizational commitment mediates the relationship between OCBO and emotional exhaustion. Thus, after including commitment, the effect on exhaustion may be limited. Based on the above discussion, the first hypothesis is that: H1. Organizational stressors are negatively correlated with OCBs. Perceived organizational support and OCBs POS basically means recognition by the organization of an individual’s socio-emotional needs, efforts, commitment and loyalty. Organizational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Shore and Shore, 1995), proposes that employees develop a global belief concerning the extent to which an organization values their contributions and cares about their wellbeing. Supportive organizations are seen as taking pride in their employees, compensating them fairly and looking after their needs. In these circumstances, employee investment of time and effort is relatively safe. Hence, it could mean individuals raise their investment in the form of higher job performance and go beyond the organization’s expectations by getting involved in innovative and spontaneous behavior to improve organizational functioning. Wayne et al. (1997) work proposes that support is strongly correlated with both in role performance and OCB. Randall et al. (1999) suggest that POS is positively related with affective commitment, job satisfaction, performance and OCB, and negatively related to turnover intentions. Based on the above discussion, the second hypothesis is that: H2. POS is positively correlated with OCBs. Within the literature generally, social support is considered as a significant moderator in the relationship between job related stress and physical and mental health. House (1981) indicates that social support should be considered as an interpersonal transaction involving four types of support: emotional (feelings and emotions), instrumental
POS as a moderator
317
IJOA 21,3
318
(goods and services), informational (facts and data), and finally judgmental or evaluative ( judgment and appreciation). Previous studies have identified the “buffering” effect of different types of social support on the stressor/stress relationship (Karasek et al., 1982; Parasuraman et al., 1992). Other studies have established the importance of social support as a coping resource in dealing with stressors in different life domains (House, 1981; Beehr, 1985; Gore, 1987; Greehaus and Parasuraman, 1986). LaRocco et al. (1980) point to the varying impact of different sources of social support with regard to different outcome variables. For example, social support is related to lower levels of stressors/ stress and higher levels of job satisfaction and commitment. This suggests that support acts in two ways – it acts as a moderator in the relationship between different organizational stressors and indicators of wellbeing as well as buffering the magnitude of the organizational stress experienced. POS has been recognized as an important determinant of employee health and wellbeing in organizations (Leather et al., 1998). In a study of Indian executives from the automobile industry, Jain and Sinha (2005) suggest that POS has a direct positive impact on employee general health. Organizational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Shore and Shore, 1995), proposes that employees develop a global belief concerning the extent to which an organization values their contributions and cares about their wellbeing. In a recent meta-analysis, Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) indicate that three major categories, namely fairness, supervisory support and organizational rewards, and favorable job conditions are associated with POS. In turn, POS is related to positive outcomes such as improved mood and satisfaction for individual employees, as well as increased affective commitment and reduced withdrawal behavior from an organizational perspective. This is further supported by Jones et al. (1995) who suggest that POS is strongly related to job stressors, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. POS is also directly associated with reduced occupational stress, irrespective of the number or intensity of stressors that an individual encounters. A study of Japanese Bank employees by Iwata and Suzuki (1997) highlights the potential moderating effect of social support on stress outcomes. Supervisory support and support from significant others were negatively related with stress as assessed by GHQ-28. POS is expected to reduce adverse physical, psychological and behavioral reactions to stressors through the provision of financial and emotional support when needed by employees to counter-balance the challenges of the workplace (George et al., 1993; Robblee, 1998). Therefore, POS is expected to increase employees’ felt obligation to help the organization reach its objectives, their affective commitment to the organization, and their expectation that improved performance would be rewarded. Behavioral outcomes of POS could include increases in in-role and extra-role performance and a reduction in stress and withdrawal behaviors such as absenteeism and turnover. Van Schlkwyk et al. (2011) have found that POS moderates the relationship between bullying by superiors and turnover intention. Wang and Shu (2008) also observe that POS moderates the relationship between techno-stress and role conflict such that the relationship will be negative when POS is higher. Thus, similarly, the authors have assumed a significant moderating impact of POS between organizational stressors and OCBs. Social exchange theory Compared to economic exchange relationships, which are more short term in nature, social exchange relationships tend to involve the exchange of socio-emotional benefits
(Blau, 1964; Organ, 1988; Cropanzano et al., 2001). They are associated with close emotional attachment, as well as informal, personal and more transparent obligations. When individuals form social exchange relationships with their organizations, they tend to perform better, increase OCBs and reduce turnover intentions (Wayne et al., 1997; Hendrix et al., 1998). Research suggests that individuals form social exchange relationships based on judgments of receipt of worthwhile and fairly administered benefits (Rousseau, 2001). Highly demanding environments are more likely to violate both of these conditions of valuable benefits and fair distribution (Giga, 2001). High levels of stress can be perceived as a cost of investment for employees incurred as a result of belonging to their work organization. Also under higher job pressure, it is more likely that employees may perceive favorable organizational actions like fairness, equity, support and employer trust in a negative manner. Such conditions may make employees perceive organizationally supportive actions as being in the self interest of the organization and not particularly beneficial to the employee or their working conditions. Therefore, highly demanding environments may impede the development of potentially beneficial social exchange relationships. This may manifest itself through a reduction in extra-role behaviors (OCBs) as a means of self-regulating perceived role overload. Also in terms of OCBs being considered as part of extra role activities and a focus of performance reviews, during times of excessive workload both the regularity and detail of feedback from managers to individual employees is likely to be limited. Social exchange theorists suggest that the absence of a social exchange relationship may result in higher turnover, lower commitment and a reduction in OCBs (Rousseau, 2001). The implied logical structure is roughly analogous to an “energy reservoir” model; either the energy summoned by individuals to cope with their environment is used for positive behavior, or it is focused internally with potentially harmful consequences. Based on the above discussion the third hypothesis is that: H3. POS has a significant negative moderating impact on the relationship between organizational stressors and OCBs. As discussed earlier, the literature suggests that social and organizational support mechanisms reduce the impact of organizational stressors on employee performance and wellbeing. Social exchange theory proposes that OCBs, as extra-role work behaviors, may further increase existing levels of organizational pressures, whereas POS may help coping with organizational stressors through a reduction in the involvement of OCBs. However, the authors have hypothesized that POS will have a negative moderating impact on OCBs within highly demanding working environments, as is the case for the Indian BPO sector, in comparison to other Indian industries. The overall research scheme for the present study is shown in Figure 1. Methods Participants and procedure The sample for this research involves operators from call center organizations located around the national capital of India, including the cities of New Delhi, Noida and Gurgaon. The main role for these operators is to respond to queries originating from customers calling from the USA, the UK and other European countries. These call centers provide a round the clock service and operators are required to work different
POS as a moderator
319
IJOA 21,3
Organizational Support r = –0.654** β = –0.52*** Adj R2 = 0.19
320 Figure 1. The conceptual scheme for the study
Organizational stressors
r = –0.307**
r = 0.395**
Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Notes: r – correlation; b – beta value
shift patterns often impacting on family life. The work therefore requires employees to work night shifts, be continuously attentive, perform highly repetitive tasks and deal directly with customers. The nature of work within call centers is thus a major source of attention for psychologists, sociologists, policymakers and other practitioners. Sample demographics Data was collected from 402 operator level employees from five different call centers. The questionnaire was administered with the consent of participants and their HR managers. The sample demographics are as follows: . Age. A mean age of 24, ranging from 18 to 50 years and with a standard deviation of 3.7 years. . Gender. 68 percent male and 32 percent female. . Education level. 40 percent of the respondents had a graduate degree in arts, science, engineering or commerce. 60 percent had also completed professional courses in their area of work. . Tenure. The mean time employees had been in the same organization was 11.44 months with a standard deviation of 9.32 months. Some respondents had only been in their current employment for around one month, whilst others had worked for the organization for 54 months. . Marital status. 80 percent were single, 17 percent were married, 2 percent living with a partner and 1 percent were divorced. Measures A self-report method was used to collect the data. The primary variables of interest were organizational stressors, POS and OCB. ASSET (Cartwright and Cooper, 2002), which is a widely used organizational stress screening questionnaire was selected to collect the data on organizational stressors. The 37-item questionnaire includes possible sources of work, home and social stress and consists of eight factors: Work Relationships (WR, a ¼ 0.85), Your Job (YJ, a ¼ 0.61), Overload (OL, a ¼ 0.81), Control (CL, a ¼ 0.75), Job Security (JS, a ¼ 0.72), Resource and Communication (RC, a ¼ 0.76), Work-Life Balance (WLB, a ¼ 0.61) and Pay and Benefits which is a single item scale. The first two factors each consist of eight items, the next five factors contain four items and the final factor comprises of a single item.
Examples of items are “my relationships with colleagues are poor” (WR; evaluates issues arising from contacts people have at work with their colleagues/managers); “my physical working conditions are unpleasant” (YJ; related to the fundamental nature of the job itself); “I do not have enough time to do my job as well as I would like” (OL; examine the time pressure and work load); “I am not involved in decisions affecting my job” (CL; measures the perception of the amount of control over the work); “my job skills may become redundant in the near future” (JS; measuring the level of job security); “I do not have proper equipment or resources to do my job” (RC; measuring issues related to resources available at work and effectiveness of communication processes within the organization); “I work longer hours than I would choose to” (WLB; evaluates the demands of work interfere with the respondent’s personal and home life); the last single item factor, i.e. pay and benefits measures the extent to which pay and benefits are considered to be organizational stressors. Organizational Support was measured through Eisenberger et al. (1986) 36-item POS questionnaire. This has been adapted and validated by Jain and Sinha (2005) who have found 18 items that are relevant to the Indian work and cultural context. The adapted scale has a high alpha reliability (a) of 0.92. Apart from the newly constructed items, OCB was measured using items from the work of Bateman and Organ (1983), Smith et al. (1983), Organ (1988), Van Dyne et al. (1994), Moorman and Blakely (1995) and Chattopadhyay (1999). This 48-item scale has been adapted and validated by Jain (2003). It has 11 reliable factors including Emotional Support (ES, a ¼ 0.91), Concern for Organizational Resources (COR, a ¼ 0.87), Conservation of Time (CT, a ¼ 0.77), Organizational Pride (OP, a ¼ 0.87), Work Mindedness (WM, a ¼ 0.79), Civic Virtue (CV, a ¼ 0.88), Social and Functional Participation (SFP, a ¼ 0.89), Altruism (ALT, a ¼ 0.79), Sportsman Spirit (SPO, a ¼ 0.85), Individual Initiative (INI, a ¼ 0.86), and Generalized Compliance (GC, a ¼ 0.63). Examples of items for each category are as follows; “I encourage coworkers to learn new skills and techniques” (ES); “I use company resources to do personal business” (COR); “I do not take extra breaks” (CT); “I show pride when representing the organization in public” (OP); “I produce the highest quality of work regardless of circumstances” (WM); “I read and keep up with organization announcements” (CV); “I encourage management to keep knowledge/skills current” (SFP); “I willingly give my time to help others” (ALT); “I always find fault with what the organization is doing” (SPO); “I encourage others to try new and more effective ways of doing their jobs” (INI); “My attendance at work is above the norm” (GC). Two sets of controlling variables were measured. The first set included demographic and job position variables. Specifically these include age, sex, tenure within the organization (in terms of number of months), education and marital status. The second set included the two most known antecedents of OCB as identified in the literature – organizational commitment (Williams and Anderson, 1991; Moorman, 1993; Organ and Lingl, 1995) and job satisfaction (Bateman and Organ, 1983; Smith et al., 1983; Moorman, 1993). Perceived commitment of employees (PCE) was measured as part of ASSET. In addition to the above scales, Porter’s (1961) job satisfaction/frustration (JSF) scale was used in the study. It contains 15 items designed to provide information about five different motivational need classes, which were derived from Maslow’s theory of need hierarchy. A summary of the main scales used in this study is presented in Table I. All survey items were rated on a six-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 6 (“strongly agree”). As highlighted in Table I, all the measures
POS as a moderator
321
IJOA 21,3
Scales
Factors
Abbreviations
Perception of stress in your job
1. Work relationships 2. Your job 3. Overload 4. Control 5. Job security 6. Resource and communication 7. Work-life balance 8. Pay and benefits Perceived organizational support 1. Emotional support 2. Concern for organizational resources 3. Conservation of time 4. Organizational pride 5. Work mindedness 6. Civic virtue 7. Social and functional participation 8. Altruism 9. Sportsman spirit 10. Individual initiative 11. Generalized compliance Perceived commitment of employees Job satisfaction
WR YJ OL CL JS RC WLB PB POS ES COR CT OP WM CV SFP ALT SPO INI GC PCE JS
322
Perceived organizational support Organizational citizenship behavior
Table I. Summary of scales
Perceived commitment of employees Job satisfaction
No. of Cronbach’s items a 8 8 4 4 4 4 4 1 20 4 5 2 5 3 7 6 4 4 5 3 9 15
0.85 0.76 0.81 0.75 0.72 0.76 0.61 0.92 0.91 0.87 0.77 0.87 0.79 0.88 0.89 0.79 0.85 0.86 0.63 0.88 0.94
Note: n ¼ 402
except the work-life balance factor of ASSET and the generalized compliance factor of OCB have acceptable levels of reliability. However, all the factors have been used in the moderated regression analysis due to theoretical reasons. Statistical analysis Moderator regression analysis was used as the principal method for analyzing data (Zedeck, 1971; Stone and Hollenbeck, 1984; Aiken and West, 1991). On step 1, one out of eight organizational stress dimensions was entered; on step 2, POS was entered; and on step 3, one dimension of organizational stress along with POS and the interaction term (product of organizational stress dimensions and POS) was added to the regression equation. The procedure was repeated for all 11-factors of OCB as well as the combined OCB score. This means a total of 96 interaction terms (8*1*12) were generated. Clegg and Wall (1990) indicate that moderator regression analysis may fail to report significant interactions when they may actually be present and suggest using the 0.10 significance level rather than at the usual 0.05 level. This approach has been followed by other studies including Batlis (1980) and Sonnetag et al. (1994). However, to avoid any statistical errors this research has adopted the 0.05 confidence level. Any significant interaction can be seen as evidence of the moderating effect of POS on the organizational stressor-OCB relationship.
Results Confirmatory factor analysis We have administered CFA to assess the validity of the ASSET questionnaire. x 2, Tucker Lewis index, normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) are used as indicators of over all model fit to evaluate if the observed covariance matrix fitted the hypothesized model. The RMR is a measure of the average discrepancy between fitted and observed covariance matrices. An RMR of less than 0.10 points to a good model fit. The CFI compares the relative improvement in fit for a proposed model over a strict null model of complete independence between the various items. Values above 0.90 for CFI suggest acceptable fit (Bentler and Bonnett, 1980). The CFI is recommended as the best approximation of population value (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Table II presents the results of the confirmatory factor analysis of all ASSET dimensions, confirming a seven-factor model. Both a standardized RMR of 0.053 and 0.063 and CFI of 0.97 suggest that the seven-factor model of ASSET is valid for this sample.
POS as a moderator
323
Descriptive statistics and correlations The main descriptive statistics for this study and a correlation matrix are displayed in Table III. Zero order correlations demonstrate that results are consistent for the first two hypotheses. The data also suggests that all the factors within the organizational stress scale were found to be negatively related with most of the dimensions of OCB with the exception of altruism and generalized compliance. The correlations between factors of ASSET and OCB were consistently negative which supports H1. The table of correlations below also highlights the positive impact of POS on OCB except for conservation of time and generalized compliance where results were quite insignificant. To a large extent the results also support the second hypothesis. Furthermore, there is a negative correlation between organizational stress and POS, OCB, perceived commitment and job satisfaction. It is also evident from Table III that factors of organizational stress were found to be linked negatively with POS. Both the organizational stress and POS scales measured the existence of positive and negative forces in the organization and as a result an inverse relationship is evident. Based on the correlation analysis, it was hypothesized that POS will moderate the relationship between organizational stress and OCB. Moderating multiple regression analysis was carried out to test the third hypothesis. Goodness of fit statistics Degrees of freedom Minimum fit function x 2 ( p ¼ 0.0) Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) Normed fit index (NFI) Non-normed fit index (NNFI) Comparative fit index (CFI) Root mean square residual (RMR) Standardized RMR Goodness of fit index (GFI) Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) Note: n ¼ 402
Model fit 573 1,414.23 , 0.000 0.050 0.953 0.963 0.971 0.053 0.063 0.956 0.967
Table II. Results of confirmatory factor analysis for test of model fit for ASSET questionnaire
PYJ WLB OL JS CTL RC AYJ PB STS ES COR CTL OP WM CV SFP ALT SPO INI GC OCB POS PCE JS
18.5 14.0 1.7 12.9 12.0 1.57 23.3 3.67 105 19.8 25 8.18 24.3 15.1 33.7 28.3 18.8 17.8 24.0 17.5 232 78.7 9.39 51.9
6.50 4.21 4.32 4.19 4.11 4.23 5.78 1.59 26.8 3.25 5.02 2.67 4.06 2.17 4.96 4.60 3.08 4.60 3.97 2.37 24.6 16.8 1.81 1.2
1 0.445 0.651 0.502 0.607 0.695 0.566 0.343 0.841 20.232 20.409 0.029 20.282 20.201 20.164 20.12 20.06 20.379 20.241 0.033 20.344 20.535 20.358 20.326 1 0.492 0.38 0.461 0.453 0.51 0.34 0.676 20.041 20.141 0.044 20.173 20.076 20.091 20.081 20.038 20.249 20.105 20.007 20.167 20.444 20.255 20.229 1 0.513 0.539 0.655 0.575 0.387 0.809 20.154 20.276 0.084 20.25 20.118 20.116 20.121 20.075 20.29 20.125 0.055 20.244 20.474 20.346 20.266
3
1 0.505 0.507 0.518 0.391 0.712 2 0.09 2 0.12 0.047 2 0.243 2 0.112 2 0.139 2 0.117 2 0.121 2 0.137 2 0.2 2 0.068 2 0.21 2 0.502 2 0.28 2 0.375
4
1 0.652 0.512 0.343 0.772 20.101 20.24 0.073 20.214 20.157 20.108 20.071 0.005 20.182 20.189 20.017 20.204 20.55 20.327 20.369
5
1 0.522 0.41 0.819 2 0.161 2 0.335 0.038 2 0.256 2 0.167 2 0.125 2 0.088 2 0.057 2 0.349 2 0.186 0.043 2 0.282 2 0.57 2 0.333 2 0.304
6
1 0.368 0.789 20.084 20.247 0.095 20.21 20.131 20.117 20.062 20.023 20.294 20.125 0.034 20.207 20.453 20.208 20.271
7
1 0.516 0.002 20.007 20.035 20.172 20.026 20.071 20.027 0.027 20.167 20.038 0.087 20.08 20.464 20.213 20.262
8
1 20.16 20.328 0.07 20.303 20.177 20.16 20.12 20.063 20.356 20.214 0.022 2 0.307 2 0.654 2 0.386 2 0.395
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
1 0.279 1 0.194 20.077 1 0.509 0.203 0.173 1 0.574 0.252 0.261 0.573 1 0.477 0.093 0.151 0.491 0.588 1 0.44 0.076 0.067 0.432 0.407 0.597 1 0.511 0.061 0.094 0.384 0.411 0.6 0.651 1 0.187 0.517 20.05 0.25 0.214 0.118 0.091 0.102 1 0.548 0.159 0.159 0.432 0.443 0.522 0.548 0.52 0.14 1 0.268 20.092 0.104 0.185 0.229 0.356 0.276 0.361 2 0.123 0.36 1 0.735 0.441 0.251 0.704 0.717 0.759 0.708 0.695 0.436 0.727 0.378 1 0.257 0.161 0.056 0.479 0.277 0.297 0.303 0.165 0.198 0.248 0.051 0.395 1 0.329 0.181 0.086 0.467 0.308 0.356 0.28 0.263 0.205 0.241 0.17 0.444 0.502 1 0.376 0.069 0.041 0.518 0.309 0.441 0.399 0.363 0.125 0.341 0.178 0.485 0.608 0.423
10
Notes: For 400 (n ¼ 402) df the value of correlation at 0.95 level of confidence is 0.116 and at 0.99 level of confidence is 0.128; M – mean; SD – standard deviation; PYJ – perception of your job; WLB – work-life balance; OL – overload; JS – job security; CTL – control; R&C – resources and communication; AYJ – aspects of your job; P&B – pay and benefits; STS – stress; ES – emotional support; COR – concern for organizational resources; CT – conservation of time; OP – organizational pride; WM – work mindedness; CV – civic virtue; SFP – social and functional participation; ALT – altruism; SPO – sportsmanship; INI – individual initiatives; GC – generalized compliance; OCB – organizational citizenship behavior; POS – perceived organizational support; PCE – perceived commitment of employees; JS – job satisfaction
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.
2
19
1
Table III. Correlation between predictor, moderator and criterion variables along with means and standard deviations
SD
324
M
IJOA 21,3
The analytic technique used in this study was multiple regression analysis. Both the predictor variables, organizational stress and POS, are significantly correlated. Results of moderating regression analysis for all 12 dependent variables are presented in Tables IV-VI. These results highlight the strength of relationship and effect size for both the predictor variables and their impact on criterion measures. In support of the third hypothesis, the moderating regression analysis demonstrates the negative interaction effect of POS in the relationship between organizational stress and OCB. The b value of 2 0.52 was significant at the 0.999 confidence level. POS has a significant moderating impact on the relationship between organizational stressors and OCBs, which explained 19 percent of the variance in total. From the 96 interactions, 52 were found to be significant. The significant interactions of the eight-factors of organizational stress with POS on 11 dimensions of OCB, including the combined OCB score are as follows: the interaction of organizational stressors with POS was consistently significant on Overall OCB in all the places; significant interactions were found for the Emotional Support, Concern for Organizational Resources, Individual Initiative and Sportsman Spirit dimensions of OCB in seven places; Work Mindedness had six significant interactions; whereas Civic Virtue and Altruism had four significant interactions each. Only two significant interaction were observed for Social and Functional Participation. The analysis did not identify any significant interaction for the Conservation of Time, Organizational Pride and Generalized Compliance dimensions of OCB. These results highlight the potential importance of applying the combined OCB score as a dependent variable. However, all the dimensions of OCB were not found to be equally important in moderating the effect of POS in the organizational stressor-OCB relationship.
Predictor and moderator Criterion variables 1. Emotional Support 2. Concern for Organizational Resources 3. Conservation of Time 4. Organizational Pride 5. Work Mindedness 6. Civic Virtue 7. Social and Functional Participation 8. Altruism 9. Sportsman Spirit 10. Individual Initiative 11. Generalized Compliance 12. Overall OCB
Perception of your job* perceived organizational support b Adj. R 2
Work-life balance*perceived organizational support b Adj. R 2
POS as a moderator
325
Overload*perceived organizational support b Adj. R 2
20.32 *
0.08
20.42 *
0.08
20.29
0.07
20.54 * * * 0.22 20.14 20.37 * 20.34 *
0.19 0.005 0.23 0.09 0.09
20.44 * 20.17 20.13 0.64 * * * 20.27
0.04 0.003 0.23 0.10 0.09
20.29 20.20 20.12 20.36 * 20.48 * * *
0.07 0.02 0.23 0.08 0.10
20.26 20.35 20.37 * * 20.32 * 20.18 20.47 * *
0.10 0.03 0.15 0.08 0.003 0.20
20.38 * 20.36 20.51 * * 20.53 * * 20.21 20.61 * * *
0.09 0.03 0.08 0.07 0.002 0.17
20.37 * 20.45 * * 20.32 * 20.40 * 20.16 20.49 * *
0.10 0.04 0.09 0.07 0.005 0.17
Notes: Significant at: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01 and * * *p , 0.001; b corresponds to the values when moderator variable was entered to the equation; predictor variable: organizational stressors; moderator variable: perceived organizational support; criterion variables: organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
Table IV. Moderated multiple regression analysis
IJOA 21,3
326
Table V. Moderated multiple regression analysis
Table VI. Moderated multiple regression analysis
Predictor & moderator Criterion variables 1. Emotional Support 2. Concern for Organizational Resources 3. Conservation of Time 4. Organizational Pride 5. Work Mindedness 6. Civic Virtue 7. Social and Functional Participation 8. Altruism 9. Sportsman Spirit 10. Individual Initiative 11. Generalized Compliance 12. Overall OCB
Job security* perceived organizational support b Adj. R 2
Control *perceived organizational support b Adj. R 2
Resource and communication* perceived organizational support b Adj. R 2
20.42 * *
0.08
2 0.46 * * *
0.09
20.43 * *
0.07
20.44 * * * 0.28 20.14 20.47 * * 20.38 *
0.04 0.009 0.21 0.09 0.10
2 0.34 * 2 0.14 2 0.12 2 0.54 * * * 2 0.27
0.06 0.01 0.23 0.10 0.09
20.59 * * * 0.32 2 0.10 20.26 20.39
0.13 0.01 0.22 0.08 0.10
20.49 * * * 20.46 * * 20.37 * 0.43 * * * 0.009 20.54 * * *
0.10 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.006 0.18
2 0.19 2 0.12 2 0.38 * 2 0.31 * 2 0.16 2 0.46 * *
0.10 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.002 0.17
20.21 20.34 * 20.48 * * 20.52 * * * 20.29 0.55 * * *
0.10 0.03 0.13 0.09 0.009 0.18
Notes: Significant at: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01 and * * *p , 0.001; b corresponds to the values when moderator variable was entered to the equation; predictor variable: organizational stressors; moderator variable: perceived organizational support (POS); criterion variables: organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
Predictor and moderator Criterion variables
Aspects of your job * perceived organizational support b Adj. R 2
Pay and benefits * perceived organizational support b Adj. R 2
1. Emotional Support 2. Concern for Organizational Resources 3. Conservation of Time 4. Organizational Pride 5. Work Mindedness 6. Civic Virtue 7. Social and Functional Participation 8. Altruism 9. Sportsman Spirit 10. Individual Initiative 11. Generalized Compliance 12. Overall OCB
2 0.40 * 2 0.49 * * 0.18 2 0.13 2 0.22 2 0.31 2 0.28 2 0.33 2 0.35 * 2 0.33 2 0.16 2 0.46 * *
2 0.73 * * * 2 0.46 * * 0.029 2 0.037 2 0.41 * * 2 0.49 * * 2 0.37 2 0.51 * * 2 0.34 2 0.59 * * * 2 0.33 2 0.65 * * *
0.07 0.07 0.02 0.22 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.001 0.17
0.11 0.04 20.004 0.22 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.02 0.19
Notes: Significant at: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01 and * * *p , 0.001; b corresponds to the values when moderator variable was entered to the equation; predictor variable: organizational stressors; moderator variable: perceived organizational support (POS); criterion variables: organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
Specifically, Emotional Support, Concern for Organizational Resources, Individual Initiative, Sportsman Spirit, and Work Mindedness were identified as the more important dimensions. In terms of power of explanation, 19 percent of the variance in the moderated relationship between POS and organizational stressors was explained by Concern for the Organizational Resource dimension, whereas at the other end of the spectrum 0.04 percent of the variance is covered by the altruism dimension. The remainder of variances in OCB fell in between these two ranges. It is important to note that out of 56 significant interactions only one was positively significant, with the rest being consistently negative. The Individual Initiative dimension of OCB was positively influenced by the interaction effect of the Job Security dimension of organizational stressors and POS. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that POS will have a negative moderating impact on OCB as conceptualized under social exchange theory. Discussion and conclusion The results of this study need to be examined with respect to the original research objectives and hypotheses. In brief, there were four principal objectives. The first objective was to investigate the relationship between organizational stressors and OCBs. The analysis has highlighted a significant negative relationship between these two constructs as proposed in the H1. These results can be theoretically supported from the general psychology and organizational behavior literature where there is a growing body of evidence on the negative relationship between organizational stressors and performance. In the present study, the authors have used the term performance in line with OCB activities. OCB should not be considered as a final outcome at the individual level, rather a behavior which increases the functioning of the whole organization. Some recent studies negatively correlate OCBs with components of organizational stressors/stress such as role overload, job pressure, work-life balance and emotional exhaustion with OCB (Cropanzano et al., 2003; Bragger et al., 2005; Bolino and Turnley, 2005). The present study has strengthened the findings of previous work in this regard. The second purpose was to investigate the relationship between POS and OCBs. In support of H2, the data highlights the significant positive relationship between these two constructs. These results are consistent with earlier studies which have identified the impact of POS on employee’s wellbeing and satisfaction ( Jones et al., 1995; Jain and Sinha, 2005). POS may create a sense of indebtedness in employees’ minds which motivates them to get engaged in extra role OCB activities. The third objective and hypothesis was to identify the moderating impact of POS in the relationship between organizational stressors and OCBs. Results of the moderating regression analysis demonstrate the significant negative impact of POS on the relationship between organizational stressors and OCBs. The results back POS as a moderator. However, it also has a negative interaction effect on OCB which was hypothesized earlier. These results support some of earlier studies which have focused on the moderating impact of POS (LaRocco et al., 1980). These studies have suggested that as a moderator POS reduces the impact of perceived stressors on stress (Iwata and Suzuki, 1997). The present study has identified that it also reduces some OCB activities which may be a source of strain for employees. For example, the negative link between the Initiative dimension of OCB with role overload and work-family conflict (Bolino and Turnley, 2005) suggests that individuals who take initiative and perceive higher demands reduce the level of pressure
POS as a moderator
327
IJOA 21,3
328
by withdrawing their involvement in some OCB activities. Similarly, the present findings highlight the negative impact of POS in the relationship between organizational stressors and OCB. POS helps in reducing the extra efforts of individuals in the workplace in terms of OCBs because it may create extra pressure on them. The fourth purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity and predictability of the organizational stress subscales of ASSET (Cartwright and Cooper, 2002; Johnson and Cooper, 2003; Faragher et al., 2004) within an Indian work context. The results have shown a very strong relationship of ASSET factors with 11 dimensions of OCB and POS. Moreover, ASSET is confirmed as a valid and reliable tool on this sample of Indian BPO employees. These findings can be interpreted from both an organizational stress and social exchange theoretical perspective. When someone is under pressure and they seek organizational support to cope, it may negatively impact OCB. Since OCB is not a part of a formal job description, it suggests that employees tend to conserve their energy by not getting involved in such types of voluntary acts. It can also be assumed that under highly demanding situations where employees need to remain as productive as possible on their in-role activities, they may not be as concerned with engaging in OCBs because they are not as important in maintaining one’s organizational membership. Although studies have shown that OCB activities are also considered positively, particularly in performance appraisal and interview situations (Park and Sims, 1989; Allen and Rush, 1998; Podsakoff et al., 2011), there is a lack of clarity and consistency around the weight given to OCB activities and what happens to employees if they do not get involved in them. Due to its discretionary nature, OCBs may be perceived positively by managers and also to some extent rewarded. Therefore, more research is needed on whether there are penalties for employees for not getting involved. Work stressors may result in employees perceiving even favorable organizational actions negatively. In this regard, POS is also perceived negatively and has a negative influence on OCBs. Recent research by Byrne and Hochwarter (2008) demonstrates that in the case of cynical employees too low or too high levels of support have a negative impact on performance. Specifically, POS can produce a non-linear effect on employee performance and in this instance it is at its highest when perceived support is at moderate levels. This suggests that under demanding situations employee attitudes become increasingly negative, which in turn impact on their perceptions of all organizational actions. If this is the case, then it can be suggested that organizations must focus on preventive measures to reduce actual organizational stressors as well as perceptions of them in order to avoid negative outcomes in terms of stress and lower OCBs. Consequently, the social exchange viewpoint suggests that in the absence of a social exchange relationship there may be implications for organizations in terms of higher turnover, lower commitment and a reduction in OCBs. These results can be explained by considering social equity theory and social exchange theory, which suggest that employee outputs are directly in proportion to the input they receive in any social interaction. Higher organizational stress may reduce the impact of support and also result in negative employee attitudes towards the organization and its other members. Hence, employees preserve energy by putting less effort into their jobs. Furthermore, these results can be seen from an industry specific perspective. This research is conducted within the BPO sector in India, which has consistently been seen as a high pressure and low control work scenario. Employees may perceive POS as a
psychological initiative to reduce the impact of organizational demands rather than as a more meaningful and planned support initiative to remove or reduce the stressors directly. Limitations and implications of the study The context of this study is very important when interpreting the findings. As this study is limited to the BPO sector in India, these results may not be generalized to other areas such as the service and manufacturing sectors. This research has been carried out in a sector which is an emerging area of work for Indian college and university graduates. The sample population was therefore quite young and had a comparatively short tenure, factors which may also influence low levels of OCB regardless of the highly demanding environment. The operator’s job is repetitive in nature with less autonomy and freedom which gives less opportunity to get involved in extra-role citizenship activities. The nature of the job and industry in terms of long working hours, irregular timings, long travel times, lack of control and direct customer interaction may also have a negative impact on POS. It is therefore recommended that a varied population is selected in order to confirm and build on these findings. One other important limitation is the use of a questionnaire and self-reported measure as the sole form of data collection. Future researchers should consider using different approaches to maximize participation and enrich their findings. Despite the above limitations, the importance of these results cannot be ignored, particularly from a cross-cultural perspective. India has one of the world’s largest populations and biggest economies. More research on this subject matter can potentially enhance employee experiences of work as well as organizational outcomes. Moreover, as organizational stress, POS and OCB are all considered as important concepts in the organizational behavior literature, more research from different contexts can contribute to a better understanding. These results reveal significant relationships among all three variables. From a positive psychology perspective, it can be suggested that organizational stressors are an inevitable part of organizational life which cannot be ignored. However, the findings of this study suggest that efforts can be made to increase the level of positive forces such POS in organizations to prevent negative consequences. This study also highlights some practical implications for managers and organizations. Whilst it may be true that perceptions of high stressor levels are likely to be associated with negative work behaviors such as OCB, this negative relationship gets weaker or becomes insignificant in the presence of POS. This is determined by the high value of POS in its own right. However, POS has a negative moderating impact on the relationship between organizational stressors and OCB. This suggests that organizations must keep in mind that employees should not perceive POS as an effort made to please them. Rather it must be seen as an attempt to change organizational practices or a form of organizational redesign. Otherwise, under demanding conditions employees may perceive favorable organizational efforts in a negative manner. Thus, based on the above findings, organizations should first make an effort to control existing stressors by primarily aiming to reduce the effect of negative forces and then introduce positive forces to improve employee performance. As the results are important from an organizational change perspective, it may also be suggested that significant re-organization or re-structuring change management programs should not be introduced under high stressor conditions because employee extra-role work behavior and commitment is needed to bring about effective implementation. Hence, organizational
POS as a moderator
329
IJOA 21,3
330
stress can be conceptualized as an important moderator variable during a change management program, which must be dealt with before introducing any positively oriented organizational change initiatives. References Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regressions: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Allen, T.D. and Rush, M.C. (1998), “The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on performance judgment: a field study and a laboratory experiment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 247-260. Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423. Bateman, T.S. and Organ, D.W. (1983), “Job satisfaction and the good soldier: the relationship between affect and employee citizenship”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 299-322. Batlis, N.C. (1980), “Job involvement and locus of control as moderators of role perception/individual-outcome relationships”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 13, pp. 26-40. Beehr, T.A. (1985), “The role of social support in coping with organisational stress”, in Beehr, T.A. and Bhagat, R.S. (Eds), Human Stress and Cognition in Organizations: An Integrated Perspective, Wiley, New York, NY. Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980), “Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88, pp. 588-600. Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY. Bolino, M.C. (1999), “Citizenship and impression management: good soldiers or good actors?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 82-98. Bolino, M.C. and Turnley, W.H. (2005), “The personal costs of citizenship behavior: the relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 4, p. 740. Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H. and Bloodgood, J.M. (2002), “Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 505-522. Bragger, J.D., Srednicki, O.R., Kutcher, E.J., Indovino, L. and Rosner, E. (2005), “Work-family conflict, work-family culture, and organizational citizenship behavior among teachers”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 303-324. Byrne, Z.S. and Hochwarter, W.A. (2008), “Perceived organizational support and performance: relationships across levels of organizational cynicism”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 54-72. Cartwright, S. and Cooper, C.L. (2002), ASSET: An Organisational Stress Screening Tool, The Management Guide, RCL Ltd, Manchester. Chattopadhyay, P. (1999), “Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: the influence of demographic dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior”, Academy of Management of Journal, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 273-287. Clegg, C. and Wall, T. (1990), “The relationship between simplified jobs and mental health: a replication study”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 289-296. Cooper, C.L. (1996), The Handbook of Organisational Stress, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Cooper, C.L., Dewe, P.J. and O’Driscoll, M.P. (2001), Organisational Stress: A Review and Critique of Theory, Research and Application, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D.E. and Byrne, Z.S. (2003), “The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 1, pp. 160-169. Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D.E., Mohler, C.J. and Schminke, M. (2001), “Three roads to organizational justice”, in Ferris, J. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Vol. 20, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-113. Dataquest (2004), Stress: BPO Industry Stress Factors, Dataquest, available at: http://dqindia. ciol.com/content/dqtop202k4/empSurvey2004/2004/204110816.asp Drucker, P.F. (1990), Managing the Non-profit Organization, Harper Collins, New York, NY. Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-507. Faragher, E.B., Cooper, C.L. and Cartwright, S. (2004), “A shortened stress evaluation tool (ASSET)”, Stress and Health, Vol. 20, pp. 189-201. George, J.M. (1991), “State or trait: effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 299-307. George, J.M., Reed, T.F., Ballard, K.A., Colin, J. and Fielding, J. (1993), “Contact with AIDS patients as a source of work-related distress: effects of organizational social support”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 157-171. Giga, S.I. (2001), “The implied employment relationship: investigating the influences of psychological contract violations on employee wellbeing”, PhD thesis submitted to the Manchester School of Management, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, Manchester. Giga, S.I., Jain, A.K. and Cooper, C.L. (2008), “State-of-science review – working longer: hours of work and health”, A Science Review for the Foresight Project on Mental Capital and Mental Wellbeing. Report for the UK Government Office for Science, available at: www.foresight. gov.uk/Mental%20Capital/SR-C7_MCW.pdf Gore, S. (1987), “Perspective on social support and research on stress moderating process”, in Ivancevich, J.M. and Ganster, D.C. (Eds), Job Stress: From Theory to Suggestion, The Haworth Press, New York, NY. Greehaus, J.H. and Parasuraman, S. (1986), “A work-non work interactive perspective of stress and its consequences”, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 37-60. Green, F. and Tsitsianis, N. (2005), “An investigation of national trends in job satisfaction in Britain and Germany”, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 401-429. Hendrix, W.H., Robbins, T., Miller, J. and Summers, T.P. (1998), “Effects of procedural and distributive justice on factors predictive of turnover”, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 611-632. Hoffman, B.J., Blair, C.A., Meriac, J.P. and Woehr, D.J. (2007), “Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 555-566. House, J.S. (1981), Work Stress and Social Support, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. HSE (2001), Tackling Work-Related Stress: A Managers’ Guide to Improving and Maintaining Employee Health and Well-being, HSG218, Health and Safety Executive, HSE Books, Sudbury.
POS as a moderator
331
IJOA 21,3
332
Iwata, N. and Suzuki, K. (1997), “Role stress-mental health relations in Japanese bank workers: a moderating effect of social support”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 40, pp. 207-218. Jackson, L. and Rothmann, S. (2006), “Occupational stress, organisational commitment, and ill-health of educators in the North West province”, South African Journal of Education, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 75-95. Jain, A.K. (2003), “Essence and consequences of organizational citizenship behavior: the role of self-management, emotional intelligence and impression management”, an unpublished manuscript submitted to the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India. Jain, A.K. (2009), “Organizational citizenship behavior as a predictor of personal effectiveness and general health”, Academy of Taiwan Business Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 51-61. Jain, A.K. and Saini, D. (2009), “Human resource outsourcing and shared services: an Asian-Pacific perspective”, in Connell, J. and Teo, S. (Eds), Strategic HRM: Contemporary Issues in the Asia Pacific Region, Tilde University Press, Melbourne. Jain, A.K. and Sinha, A.K. (2005), “General health in organizations: relative relevance of emotional intelligence, trust and organizational support”, International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 257-273. Johnson, S. and Cooper, C.L. (2003), “The construct validity of the ASSET stress measure”, Stress and Health, Vol. 19, pp. 181-185. Jones, B., Flynn, D.M. and Kelloway, E.K. (1995), “Perceptions of support from the organization in relation to work stress, satisfaction, and commitment”, in Sauter, S.L. and Murphy, L.R. (Eds), Organizational Risk Factors for Job Stress, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Jordon, J., Gurr, E., Tinline, G., Giga, S., Faragher, B. and Cooper, C. (2003), “Beacons of excellence in stress prevention”, Research Report 133, Health and Safety Executive, HSE Books, Sudbury. Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P., Snoek, J.D. and Rosenthal, R.A. (1964), Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity, Wiley, New York, NY. Karasek, R.A., Triantis, K.P. and Chaudhary, S.S. (1982), “Coworker and supervisor support as moderators of association between task characteristics and mental strain”, Journal of Occupational Behavior, Vol. 3, pp. 181-200. Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, NY. Konovsky, M.A. and Organ, D.W. (1996), “Dispositional and contextual determinants of organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17, pp. 253-266. Koys, D.J. (2001), “The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior and turnover on organizational effectiveness: a unit-level, longitudinal study”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 101-114. LaRocco, J.M., House, J.S. and French, J.R.P. (1980), “Social support, occupational stress, and health”, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 202-218. Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984), Stress, Appraisal and Coping, Springer, New York, NY. Leather, P., Lawrence, C., Beale, D. and Cox, T. (1998), “Exposure to occupational violence and buffering effect of intra-organizational support”, Work and Stress, Vol. 12, pp. 161-178.
Lee, R.T. and Ashford, B.E. (1996), “A meta analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 123-133. Moorman, R.H. (1993), “The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction measures on the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior”, Human Relations, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 759-776. Moorman, R.H. and Blakely, G.L. (1995), “Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16, pp. 127-142. Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), “Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 527-556. Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Organ, D.W. and Lingl, A. (1995), “Personality, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 135, pp. 339-350. Parasuraman, S., Greenhaus, J.H. and Granrose, C.S. (1992), “Role stressors, social support, and well being among two career couples”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13, pp. 339-356. Park, O.S. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1989), “Beyond cognition in leadership: pro-social behavior and affect in managerial judgment”, working paper, Seoul National University and Pennsylvania State University. Podsakoff, N.P., Ahearne, M. and Mackenzie, S.B. (1997), “Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 262-270. Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and Mishra, P. (2011), “Effects of organizational citizenship behaviors on selection decisions in employment interviews”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 2, pp. 310-326. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and Bachrach, D.G. (2000), “Organizational citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 513-563. Porter, L.W. (1961), “A study of perceived need satisfactions in bottom and middle management jobs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 1-10. Randall, M.L., Cropanzano, R., Borman, C.A. and Birjulin, A. (1999), “Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, pp. 159-174. Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714. Robblee, M. (1998), “Confronting the threat of organizational downsizing: coping and health”, unpublished Master’s thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa. Rousseau, D.M. (2001), “Schema, promise and mutuality: the building blocks of the psychological contract”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 511-542. Shore, L.M. and Shore, T.H. (1995), “Perceived organizational support and organizational justices”, in Cropanzano, R.S. and Kacmar, K.M. (Eds), Organizational Politics, Justice, and Support: Managing the Social Climate of the Work Place, Quorum, Westport, CT, pp. 149-164.
POS as a moderator
333
IJOA 21,3
334
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P. (1983), “Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature and antecedents”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68, pp. 653-663. Sonnetag, S., Brodbeck, F.C., Heinbokel, T. and Stolte, W. (1994), “Stressors-burnout relationship in software development teams”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 327-342. Stone, E.F. and Hollenbeck, J.R. (1984), “Some issues associated with the use of moderated regression”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 34, pp. 195-213. Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W. and Dienesch, R.M. (1994), “Organizational citizenship behavior: construct redefinition, measurement and validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 765-802. Van Schlkwyk, L., EIs, C. and Rothmann, S. Jr (2011), “The moderating role of perceived organisational support in the relationship between workplace bullying and turnover intention across sectors in South Africa”, South African Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, p. 13. Walz, S.M. and Niehoff, B.P. (2000), “Organizational citizenship behaviors: their relationship to organizational effectiveness”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 24, pp. 301-319. Wang, K. and Shu, Q. (2008), “The moderating impact of perceived organizational support on the relationship between technostress and role stress”, paper presented at the Nineteenth International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, Turin, Italy, 1-5 September. Wayne, S.J., Shore, L.M. and Liden, R.C. (1997), “Perceived organizational support and leader member exchange: a social exchange perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40, pp. 82-111. Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictor of organizational citizenship and in-role behavior”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp. 601-617. Zedeck, S. (1971), “Problems with the use of moderator variables”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 295-310. Corresponding author Ajay K. Jain can be contacted at:
[email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
