Can Activity Worthwhileness Explain OCB-I Change?The Mediating Role of Positive Emotions

  1. Aleksandra Muric 1
  2. Aida Soriano 1
  3. Salvatore Zappala 2
  4. José M. Peiró 1
  1. 1 Instituto de Investigación en Psicología de los Recursos Humanos, del Desarrollo Organizacional y de la Calidad de Vida Laboral (IDOCAL), Spain
  2. 2 Università di Bologna, Italy
Revista:
Revista de psicología del trabajo y de las organizaciones = Journal of work and organizational psychology

ISSN: 1576-5962

Año de publicación: 2022

Volumen: 38

Número: 2

Páginas: 93-100

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5093/JWOP2022A8 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Revista de psicología del trabajo y de las organizaciones = Journal of work and organizational psychology

Resumen

La competitividad de los mercados actuales requiere que los empleados hagan más de lo que formalmente se espera de ellos colaborando con otros para favorecer a la organización (por ejemplo, comportamiento de ciudadanía organizacional centrado en las personas, OCB-I). Partiendo de la idea de que el bienestar eudaimónico influye positivamente en el OCB-I, y considerando que las emociones positivas conducen a un funcionamiento óptimo y a importantes resultados laborales, el presente estudio analiza el papel mediador de las emociones positivas en la relación entre la valía de la actividad y el OCB-I. Los resultados de regresiones jerárquicas en el presente estudio longitudinal con una muestra de 108 trabajadores administrativos muestran que la valía de la actividad explica indirecta, pero no directamente, el cambio en OCB-I a través de las emociones positivas. Por lo tanto, cuando se trata de mejorar el desempeño en el lugar de trabajo, la inversión en bienestar, tanto hedónico como eudaimónico, contribuye a favorecer tanto a los empleados como a las organizaciones.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Allan, B. A., Batz-Barbarich, C., Sterling, H. M., & Tay, L. (2019). Outcomes of meaningful work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 56(3), 500-528. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12406
  • Angner, E. (2010). Subjective wellbeing. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 39(3), 361-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2009.12.001
  • Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C. (2007). Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 193. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.193
  • Bambale, A. J., Shamsudin, F. M., & Subramaniam, C. (2015). Effects of servant leader behaviors on organizational citizenship behaviors for the individual (OCB-I) in the Nigeria’s utility industry using partial least squares (PLS). International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 4(6), 130-144. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.11/2015.4.6./11.6.130.144
  • Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I. S., & Marinova, S. V. (2018). Five-factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behavior: Current research and future directions. In P. M. Podsakoff, S. B. MacKenzie, & N. P. Podsakoff (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational citizenship behavior. Sheridan Books.
  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
  • Cropanzano, R., & Wright, T. A. (1999). A 5-year study of change in the relationship between well-being and job performance. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 51(4), 252-265. https://doi.org/10.1037//1061-4087.51.4.252
  • Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241-1255. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241
  • Dalecki, M., & Willits, F. K. (1991). Examining change using regression analysis: Three approaches compared. Sociological Spectrum, 11(3), 127-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.1991.9981960
  • Dávila, C., & Finkelstein, M. A. (2013). Organizational citizenship behavior and well-being : Preliminary results. International Journal of Applied Psychology, 3(3), 45-51. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ijap.20130303.03
  • Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34-43.
  • Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Biswas-Diener, R., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., & Oishi, S. (2009). New measures of wellbeing. Social Indicators Research Series, 39, 247-266. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2354-4_12
  • Dolan, P. (2014). Happiness by design. Penguin.
  • Dolan, P., Layard, R., & Metcalfe, R. (2011). Measuring subjective well-being for public policy: recommendations on measures. Office for National Statistics. London, UK.
  • Eid, M., & Larsen, R. J. (Eds.). (2008). The science of subjective well-being. Guilford Press.
  • Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218-226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218
  • Fredrickson, B. L. (2016). The eudaimonics of positive emotions. In J. Vittersø (Ed.), Handbook of eudaimonic well-being (pp. 183-190). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3_12
  • George, J. M. (1995). Leader positive mood and group performance: The case of customer service. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(9), 778-794. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01775.x
  • Hadden, B. W., & Smith, C. V. (2019). I gotta say, today was a good (and meaningful) day: Daily meaning in life as a potential basic psychological need. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(1), 185-202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9946-y
  • Harari, M. B., Reaves, A. C., & Viswesvaran, C. (2016). Creative and innovative performance: A meta-analysis of relationships with task, citizenship, and counterproductive job performance dimensions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(4), 495-511. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1134491
  • Haybron, D. M. (2016). The philosophical basis of eudaimonic psychology. In J. Vittersø (Ed.), Handbook of eudaimonic well-being (pp. 27-53). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3_2
  • Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
  • Heathwood, C. (2014). Subjective theories of well-being. In B. Eggleston & D. Miller (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to utilitarianism (pp. 199-219). Cambridge University Press.
  • Hill, P. L., Burrow, A. L., & Bronk, K. C. (2016). Persevering with positivity and purpose: An examination of purpose commitment and positive affect as predictors of grit. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(1), 257-269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9593-5
  • Hosie, P., Willemyns, M., & Sevastos, P. (2012). The impact of happiness on managers’ contextual and task performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50(3), 268-287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7941.2012.00029.x
  • Huta, V., & Waterman, A. S. (2013). Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(6), 1425-1456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9485-0
  • Joshanloo, M. (2016). Revisiting the empirical distinction between hedonic and eudaimonic Aspects of well-being using exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(5), 2023-2036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9683-z
  • Kaplan, S., Bradley, J. C., Luchman, J. N., & Haynes, D. (2009). On the role of positive and negative affectivity in job performance: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 162-176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013115
  • Khan, R. A. G., Khan, F. A., & Khan, M. A. (2011). Impact of training and development on organizational performance. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 11(7), 62-68.
  • Kozusznik, M. W., Peiró, J. M., & Soriano, A. (2019). Daily eudaimonic well-being as a predictor of daily performance: A dynamic lens. Plos ONE, 14(4), Article e0215564. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215564
  • Lavy, S. (2019). Daily dynamics of teachers’ organizational citizenship behavior: Social and emotional antecedents and outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02863
  • Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131-142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.131
  • Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803-855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803
  • Ma, E., Qu, H., & Wilson, M. (2016). The affective and dispositional consequences of organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 40(4), 399-431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348013503991
  • Ménard, J., & Brunet, L. (2011). Authenticity and well-being in the workplace: A mediation model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(4), 331-346. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941111124854
  • Methot, J. R., Lepak, D., Shipp, A. J., & Boswell, W. R. (2017). Good citizen interrupted: Calibrating a temporal theory of citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 10-31. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0415
  • Miner, A. G., & Glomb, T. M. (2010). State mood, task performance, and behavior at work: A within-persons approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(1), 43-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.009
  • Motowidlo, S. J., & Kell, H. J. (2012). Job Performance. In Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology. Wiley.
  • Ocampo, L., Acedillo, V., Bacunador, A. M., Balo, C. C., Lagdameo, Y. J., & Tupa, N. S. (2018). A historical review of the development of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and its implications for the twenty-first century. Personnel Review, 47(4), 821-862. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2017-0136
  • Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books.
  • Organ, D. W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 157-164. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.157
  • Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2013). OECD Guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. OECD Publishing.
  • 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(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  • Rastogi, R., & Garg, P. (2011). Organizational citizenship behavior: Towards psychological well-being of employees. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 4(22), 13-30. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68
  • Robertson, I. T., Cooper, C. L., & Johnson, S. (2011). Well-being: Productivity and happiness at work (Vol. 3). Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141-166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
  • Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 139-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9023-4
  • Salgado, J. F. (2017). Personnel selection. In Oxford research encyclopedia of psychology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.8
  • Salgado, J. F., Moscoso, S., & Berges, A. (2013). Conscientiousness, its facets, and the prediction of job performance ratings: Evidence against the narrow measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21(1), 74-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12018
  • Settoon, R. P., & Mossholder, K. W. (2002). Relationship quality and relationship context as antecedents of person- and task-focused interpersonal citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 255-267. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.2.255
  • Sonnentag, S. (2015). Dynamics of well-being. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 261–293. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111347
  • Soriano, A., Kozusznik, M. W., Peiró, J. M., & Demerouti, E. (2020). Employees’ work patterns-office type fit and the dynamic relationship between flow and performance. Applied Psychology, 70(2), 759-787. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12251
  • Turban, D. B., & Yan, W. (2016). Relationship of eudaimonia and hedonia with work outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(6), 1006-1020. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-07-2015-0271
  • Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(4), 216-226. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00151
  • Wagner, S. H. (2017). Exploring the structure of job satisfaction and its impact on the satisfaction-performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 17(4), 90-101.
  • Warr, P. (2007). Searching for happiness at work. The Psychologist, 20(12), 726-729.
  • Waterman, A. S., Schwartz, S. J., & Conti, R. (2008). The implications of two conceptions of happiness (hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia) for the understanding of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), 41-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9020-7
  • White, M. P., & Dolan, P. (2009). Accounting for the richness of daily activities. Psychological Science, 20(8), 1000-1008. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02392.x
  • Whitman, D. S., Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Satisfaction, citizenship behaviors, and performance in work units: A meta-analysis of collective construct relations. Personnel Psychology, 63(1), 41-81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01162.x
  • Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617. https://doi.org/0803973233
  • Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2007). The happy/productive worker thesis revisited. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(07)26006-2
  • Xie, B., Zhou, W., Huang, J. L., & Xia, M. (2017). Using goal facilitation theory to explain the relationships between calling and organization-directed citizenship behavior and job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 100, 78-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.03.001
  • Zika, S., & Chamberlain, K. (1992). On the relation between meaning in life and psychological well-being. British Journal of Psychology, 83(1), 133-145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1992.tb02429.x
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet