This article was downloaded by: [University of Haifa Library] On: 13 May 2014, At: 04:10 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20

Organizational citizenship behaviour and employee's strain: Examining the buffering effects of leader support and participation in decision making a

Anit Somech & Anat Drach-Zahavy

a

a

University of Haifa , Israel Published online: 07 Feb 2012.

To cite this article: Anit Somech & Anat Drach-Zahavy (2013) Organizational citizenship behaviour and employee's strain: Examining the buffering effects of leader support and participation in decision making, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22:2, 138-149, DOI: 10.1080/1359432X.2011.633702 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.633702

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2013 Vol. 22, No. 2, 138–149, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.633702

Organizational citizenship behaviour and employee’s strain: Examining the buffering effects of leader support and participation in decision making Anit Somech and Anat Drach-Zahavy

Downloaded by [University of Haifa Library] at 04:10 13 May 2014

University of Haifa, Israel Investing in citizenship behaviours could entail personal costs for the employee. Specifically, we argue that OCB contributes to employee’s strain above and beyond the impact of role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload. To study the buffering role of leader support and participation in decision making (PDM) on this relationship, we collected data from 457 employees at various organizations at different time points from multisources. The results supported our hypotheses: Higher levels of OCB were related to higher levels of employee’s strain, above and beyond the impact of role overload, role ambiguity, and role conflict; and the relationship between OCB and strain was weaker for those enjoying a high degree of leader support or PDM. Keywords: Leader support; Organizational citizenship behaviour; Participation in decision making; Strain.

As working under changing circumstances becomes an essential feature of organizations (Zhang & Bartol, 2010), organizations are obliged to rely on employee contributions that go beyond the call of duty in order to function effectively (for review see Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine, & Bacharach, 2000). These voluntary activities, which exceed delineated role expectations but are important and even crucial for an organization’s survival, are defined as ‘‘organizational citizenship behaviours’’ (OCBs; e.g., Brief & Motowidlo, 1986; George, 1990; Katz & Kahn, 1966). To date, most OCB research has focused on its beneficial impacts on organizational functioning. Generally speaking, research has suggested that OCBs contribute to organizational effectiveness by creating social capital, increasing efficiency, and enhancing productivity (Bolino, Turnley, & Bloodgood, 2002; Koys, 2001; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Rego & Cunha, 2007; Walz & Niehoff, 2000). Only lately have a few studies sought to understand the potential implications of OCB for employees (e.g., Bolino, Turnley, & Niehoff, 2004). A review of the literature on the potential association of OCB and employees’ health reveals

that there is no simple solution to this quandary. Engagement in citizenship behaviours such as helping, cooperation, and solving problems of colleagues or customers should potentially furnish employees an enriched job design, and enhance their job significance. Exhibiting OCB may strengthen employees’ sense of empowerment, responsibility, competence, accomplishment, and feelings of self-esteem, and hence improve their well-being and health (Dormann & Zapf, 2004). On the other hand, when the ideal worker is an employee who not only demonstrates high levels of task performance but also engages in high levels of OCB (e.g., Vigoda-Gadot, 2006a), it seems that being a good organizational citizen might impose unprecedented demands on employees; this notion fuelled concerns about the effect of this extra work on their well-being and health (Aryee & Chen, 2006; Bergeron, 2007; Kim, 2002; Organ & Ryan, 1995). In other words, being involved in such behaviours may cause a net loss in employees’ resources. For example, employees may face strong social pressure to engage in OCBs, despite receiving no formal reward for doing so; they may thereby experience a sense of resources loss (e.g., energy, a sense of control), which in turn could elevate the level

Correspondence should be addressed to Anit Somech, Educational Leadership & Policy, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, 31905 Israel. E-mail: [email protected] © 2013 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [University of Haifa Library] at 04:10 13 May 2014

OCB AND STRAIN

of strain. This may threaten employees’ self-efficacy and/or sense of competence, which in turn may lead to various negative consequences for them (VigodaGadot, 2006a), including strain and a poorer health status. To date, however, the idea that OCBs could negatively impact employees who perform them has largely been ignored, and relatively little research links OCB and strain (e.g., Bolino & Turnley, 2005). The few studies that have examined this perspective focus on understanding the negative impacts of OCB on the employee essentially as a source of role overload (e.g., Bergeron, 2007; Bolino & Turnley, 2005). We believe that the common stressors of role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload, identified by the role theory (Katz & Kahn, 1966) are inadequate to explain all the stressful aspects of engagement in OCB. This study accordingly focused on the link between OCB and employee’s strain, but our main argument is that OCB contributes to this strain above and beyond the potential impact of employee’s role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload (Bolino et al., 2004). Further, in light of the earlier question of how OCB might affect employee’s strain, we propose to examine the role of moderator variables that may determine the direction of this relationship. Several factors may have an impact on it. Here, we have chosen to focus on the moderating role of leader support and participation in decision making (PDM). Two job stress models serve as theoretical foundations for the proposed model: the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 1998) and the demand–control/support (DC/S) model (Karasek, 1979, 1998). The former presented the notion of valued resources as a basis for explaining stress and resulting health outcomes. Further, through the COR theory one can understand how working in an environment characterized by high leader support or high levels of PDM might serve as an energy resource for employees, preventing resource depletion and consequently employees’ health deterioration. The DC/S model emphasizes the role of work environment in employee’s strain, postulating that job resources (high levels of job control and social support) may buffer the impact of stressors on strain. Accordingly, our second argument is that the extent to which OCB will evoke employee’s strain is contingent on job environment characteristics of leader support and PDM.

THEORETICAL BACKROUND AND HYPOTHESES Theoretically, the literature distinguishes employees’ inrole behaviours from their extrarole behaviours (OCBs; Organ, 1988). Whereas inrole behaviours are

139

part of formal job duties, OCBs surpass specified role requirements, and are directed towards the organization as a unit, the team, and the individual, in order to promote organizational goals (Somech & DrachZahavy, 2000). In other words, OCBs must be voluntary and not formally rewarded, and failure to engage in them cannot be formally penalized (Organ, 1988). Examples are working extra hours, helping others, volunteering for special projects in addition to one’s normal job duties, performing at levels that exceed enforceable standards, and active involvement in company affairs (Bolino et al., 2004). However, in the last two decades several scholars have challenged this distinction and have argued that the line between inrole and extrarole behaviours is not as clear as it may seem (e.g., Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000; Morrison, 1994; Tepper, Lockhart, & Hoobler, 2001). Morrison (1994) was the first to direct attention to how individuals conceptualize the boundary separating inrole and extrarole behaviour, arguing that individuals may engage in OCB because they define those behaviours as inrole; Morrison concludes: ‘‘the very importance of OCB has been tied to its being extrarole behaviour and thus is conceptually and motivationally distinct from in-role behaviour’’ (pp. 1561–1562). This research approach raised questions pertaining to OCB’s construct definitions (e.g., van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean, 1995). In brief, the problem arising when OCB is defined as discretionary, extrarole, and beyond the job requirements is that OCB, as measured, contains elements that many observers would consider as part of the job (Organ, 1997). Following Borman and Motowidlo (1993), Organ (1997) redefined OCB as ‘‘contributions to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports task performance . . .’’ (p. 91). Since the development of the concept, OCB has almost always been depicted positively in research (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 2000). The basic assumptions that have generally guided the research are that OCBs facilitate an organization’s effective functioning, and that citizenship in the organization ultimately benefits employees by making it a more attractive workplace (e.g., Organ, 1990). By contrast, scholars investigating the consequences of high levels of work effort have frequently highlighted its adverse effects on employee well-being (e.g., Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2007). Consistent with this perspective the current study set out to explore the potentially adverse consequences for employees who go the extra mile for their organization, and engage in relatively high levels of OCBs. Through COR theory one can understand why investing in OCB might serve as a source of stress. In his seminal article introducing COR theory, Hobfoll (1989) presented the notion of valued resources as a

Downloaded by [University of Haifa Library] at 04:10 13 May 2014

140 SOMECH AND DRACH-ZAHAVY basis for explaining stress and resulting health outcomes. Resources are defined as the objects (e.g., technical aids which make work easier), personal characteristics (e.g., traits and skills), conditions (e.g., organizational support), or energies (e.g., time, mental and physical energy, knowledge) that are valued in their own right or because they act as conduits to the achievement or protection of valued resources. Hobfoll’s (1989, 2001) arguments essentially suggest that psychological strain, which is an outcome of stress, occurs under one of three conditions: (1) when resources are threatened, (2) when resources are lost, and (3) when individuals invest resources and do not gain the anticipated level of return. Engaging in OCBs can also lead to resource gain: Doing so may strengthen employees’ sense of efficacy, responsibility and competence (Dormann & Zapf, 2004), may be an opportunity to win more resources from the organization, for example, via higher performance evaluation (Bolino, 1999), or may provide emotional resources (e.g., individuals who receive help from colleagues who engage in OCBs may reciprocate with social and emotional support); yet by definition, because OCB is not formally rewarded, investing in those extra behaviours without any promise of valued resources might occasionally yield more loss than total resource gain. In other words, employees cannot always expect any return on their investments in OCB, and this threatens resource loss. In line with COR theory, the primacy of resource loss is disproportionably greater than resource gain (Hobfoll, 2001). Referring to the stressors commonly identified in role theory (Katz & Kahn, 1966), several researchers (e.g., Bergeron, 2007; Bolino et al., 2004; Bolino & Turnley, 2005) argued that OCB has the potential to evoke strain through role overload, role ambiguity, and role conflict. First, because OCBs are generally outside one’s job description, fulfilling the citizenship role in the organization while also filling the inrole requirements is likely to demand additional resources from employees. Employees have limited resources, so those who are charged with too many responsibilities or activities for the time available, for their abilities, and under other constraints (Bergeron, 2007; Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970) may experience role overload, which may cause strain. Bolino and Turnley (2005) found a positive link between individual initiative (one aspect of OCB) and role overload. Second, as mentioned, research (e.g., Ashforth et al., 2000; Tepper et al., 2001) has shown that the distinction between inrole and extrarole behaviours (OCB) is not as clear as it may seem. The categorization of behaviour as inrole or extrarole may vary across job incumbents and change over time (Morrison, 1994). Employees may thus encounter

significant role ambiguity as they struggle to distinguish OCBs from their inrole behaviours (Bolino et al., 2004; Tepper et al., 2001). Finally, employees can experience role conflict when OCB is included in performance appraisals or promotion decisions (Bolino, 1999); in fact, as a voluntary behaviour it should not be recognized by the formal reward system, directly or explicitly (Organ, 1988). However, we believe that these stressors do not fully explain all the stressful aspects of high levels of employees’ OCBs. We argue that engaging in OCB may be a source of strain above and beyond role overload, role ambiguity, and role conflict. Again, Hobfoll (2001) argued that events are stressful to the extent that demands outstrip resources. Threats to resources usually take the form of role demands, and the energy and efforts expended on satisfying them. Although OCBs are expected to be voluntary behaviours, and not part of formal role demands, several scholars (e.g., George & Jones, 1997; VigodaGadot, 2006a) have claimed that involvement in citizenship behaviours may not always be voluntary and based on ‘‘goodwill’’, but a response to external pressures by significant and powerful others in the workplace (managers or coworkers) (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006a). The conventional approach assumes that OCBs are rooted in employees’ free choice; however, recent research has argued that exhibiting these behaviours result from conformity or compliance with environmental and social pressures, and at times even from direct pressure by the supervisor and or coworkers (Organ, 1997; Vigoda-Gadot, 2006a, 2006b; Tepper et al., 2004; Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002). In other words, employees may face strong social or managerial pressure to engage in OCBs, but doing so— without, moreover, any formal reward or compensation—may generate a feeling of resource loss (e.g., time, energy, sense of control), which in turn could raise the level of strain. For example, Vigoda-Gadot (2006a) mentions the possibility that under certain circumstances an employee is in no position to refuse his or her supervisor’s request for assistance or to perform tasks that are clearly outside the employee’s formal job definition and the organization’s formal reward system. In this vein, George and her colleagues (George & Bettenhausen, 1990; George & James, 1993; George & Jones, 1997) demonstrated how groups are powerful suppliers of norms to their members and leave a marked effect on the behaviour of individuals in organizations. In an environment that sends a clear message that ‘‘everyone is expected to contribute above and beyond formal job requirements’’, employees must constantly multiply their acts of citizenship so as to be seen as going ‘‘above and beyond the call of duty’’, a process for which Bolino et al. (2004)

Downloaded by [University of Haifa Library] at 04:10 13 May 2014

OCB AND STRAIN

coined the term ‘‘escalating citizenship’’. Employees may feel pressured to exhibit high levels of OCBs to ensure that they continue to earn good evaluations and be perceived as cooperative, committed employees. They may experience loss of resources if the expectations rise disproportionately and can rarely be satisfied. Employees’ self-efficacy may decline and their optimism may diminish (Dormann & Zapf, 2004). In other cases, employees who constantly volunteer and exhibit high levels of citizenship behaviours may experience feeling of hostility from their colleagues. Feelings of resentment may be harboured by those who are unable to engage in such behaviours or who are passed over for promotion even though their inrole performance is excellent (Bolino et al., 2004). Again, employees may experience loss of resources if coworkers’ anger replaces earlier gratitude, thereby lowering employees’ selfesteem, and employees’ goal pursuit may give way to rumination. Based on the previous discussion we posit: Hypothesis 1: OCB will be positively associated with employee’s strain, above and beyond the impact of role overload, role ambiguity, and role conflict. Based on general job stress models (DC/S model: Karasek. 1979, 1998; COR theory: Hobfoll, 1989), our second argument is that job environment characteristics can strengthen or weaken the relationship between OCB and employee’s strain. Specifically, we propose that leader support and participation in decision making (PDM) will moderate this relationship.

The moderating role of leader support and PDM Typically, the buffering effect explains interactions between job stressors and job resources by proposing that the relationship between stressors and strain is weaker for those enjoying a high degree of job resources (Bakker, Demerouti, Hakanen, & Xanthopoulou, 2007; Caplan, Cobb, French, van Harrison, & Pinneau, 1975).This argument is consistent with the DC/S model (Karasek, 1979, 1998), which emphasizes the role of work environment on employee’s strain. This model postulates that job resources (high levels of job control and social support) may buffer the impact of stressors on strain. In a similar vein COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002) proposes that stress experienced by individuals can be understood in relation to potential or actual loss of resources. More specifically, Hobfoll and Shirom (2001) argued that (1) individuals must bring in resources to prevent the loss of resources, (2) individuals with a greater

141

pool of resources are less susceptible to resource loss, and (3) individuals who do not have access to strong resource pools are more likely to experience increased loss. Job resources are the physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs, and therefore serve as a coping mechanism or stress-reducing action (Demerouti, Nachreiner, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2001). Taken together, these two theories offer theoretical support for the notion that job resources can buffer the positive relationship between OCB and employee’s strain. Leader support. Leader’s support is defined here as the availability of broad helping behaviours from the direct supervisor (Anderson & Williams, 1996). Leader support can be conceptualized as having two components: instrumental and emotional support (Adams, King, & King, 1996). Instrumental supervisory support refers to the provision of direct assistance with the aim of helping an employee to cope with role stressors. On the other hand, emotional supervisory support refers to emphatic understanding and listening, and genuine concern for the employee’s well-being (Drach-Zahavy, 2004). Generally speaking, social support is probably the best known situational variable that has been proposed as a potential buffer against job stress (see Beehr, Farmer, Glazer, Gudanowski, & Nair, 2003). Although some studies (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1995) have found little evidence of a buffering effect, others (e.g., O’Driscoll et al., 2003; Thomas & Ganster, 1995) have verified that the presence of social support reduces the negative consequences of work-related stressors. The meta-analysis by Viswesvaran, Sanchez, and Fisher (1999) confirmed that social support does play a buffering role in the relationship between work-related stressors and a variety of strain variables. There are compelling reasons to believe that the relationship between OCB and employee’s strain is reduced in individuals with a more supportive supervisor, in contrast to those whose supervisors are less supportive. Leader support may buffer the influence of OCB on strain by reducing the tendency of organizational properties to generate specific stressors (e.g., supervisor provides instrumental assistance for the overloaded employee), by altering the perceptions and cognitions evoked by such stressors (e.g., supervisor as an active listener, supervisor helps employee to reframe the situation), or by moderating responses that follow the appraisal process or reduce the health-damaging consequences of such responses (Bakker et al., 2007; Bakker, Demerouti, Taris, Schaufeli, & Schreurs, 2003; Kahn & Byosiere, 1992).

142

SOMECH AND DRACH-ZAHAVY

On the basis of this literature, we posit:

Downloaded by [University of Haifa Library] at 04:10 13 May 2014

Hypothesis 2: Leader support will moderate the relationship between OCB and employee’s strain, such that this relationship will be weaker for employees with high leader support (vs. low leader support). Participative decision making. Participative decision making (PDM) is defined as a superior’s and his or her employees’ joint decision making, or at least their shared influence on it (Koopman & Wierdsma, 1998). PDM might serve as a motivational resource as well as a cognitive resource for coping with the adverse impact of job stressors (Somech, 2010). The magnitude of the motivating potential is rooted in job enrichment approach (Xie & Johns, 1995). PDM gives employees a sense of responsibility, predictability, and efficacy (Aryee & Chen, 2006; Taris, 2006), which increases employee’s sense of control of the situation (i.e., job resources), which in turn may buffer the impact of job demands on strain (Karasek, 1979, 1998). As in the case of leader support, through PDM employees can actually reduce the level of stressful characteristics, but participation also serves to increase control by changing the meaning of stressors that cannot be eliminated (Sutton & Kahn, 1987). From the cognitive perspective, PDM enhances the flow and use of important information in organizations (Sagie, Zaidman, Amichai-Hamburger, Te’eni, & Schwartz, 2002). Communication serves a critical role in many stress models in reducing the experience of strain. The main argument is that PDM can provide information that helps people interpret and deal with stressful situations (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978; Somech, 2010). Based on this research, we suggest that the relationship between OCB and strain will be reduced for employees who experience a high level of participation in decision making in their work, in contrast to employees who experience a low level of PDM. Hence, we posit: Hypothesis 3: PDM will moderate the relationship between OCB and employee’s strain, such that this relationship will be weaker for employees with high level of PDM (vs. low level of PDM).

METHOD Sample and procedure Data were collected from respondents employed at various organizations. In keeping with the ‘‘snowball’’ procedure outlined by Rotondo, Carlson, Kincaid, and Kincaid (2003), 52 students in administration programmes were given 10 questionnaires to

distribute to workers at 10 different organizations, that is, one questionnaire per organization. The conditions were that individuals were at least threequarter-time employed, and that they would complete the questionnaire in full at Time 1 and again at Time 2. This was a convenience sample, but it allowed us to collect data from employees working in very different settings: financial services, health organizations, educational organizations, manufacturing, and telecommunications. Data were collected at different time points and from multiple sources. At Time 1, participants responded to a survey assessing role overload, PDM, leader support, and demographic data, while their supervisors were asked to evaluate employees’ OCB. Three months later participants filled out the strain scale. To elicit greater accuracy of response, each questionnaire carried a cover sheet guaranteeing anonymity. Of the 520 surveys distributed, 457 were returned (88% response rate for Time 1, and 100% rate for Time 2). Fifty-nine per cent were employed in the public sector and 41% in the private sector. As for type of organization, 21% worked in industry, 33% in health care, 26% in education, and 20% in finance. Fifty-nine per cent of the respondents were female. Their average age was 36.13 years (SD ¼ 7.01) and the average tenure with the organization was 8.86 years (SD ¼ 7.29). Mean years of education were 14.1 (SD ¼ 2.27).

Measures OCB scale. To measure employee’s OCB we used Williams and Anderson’s (1991) 13-item scale. The questionnaire consisted of two subscales: (1) seven items on OCB that immediately benefited particular individuals and indirectly benefited the organization (OCBI), for example, ‘‘Helps others who have been absent’’; reliability level was a ¼ .84. (2) Six items on OCB that benefited the organization as a whole and focused on the organization (OCBO), for example, ‘‘Adheres to informal rules devised to maintain order’’; reliability level was a ¼ .82. Rating of OCB was assessed by the employee’s supervisor on a 7point Likert-type scale from 1 ¼ ‘‘never’’ to 5 ¼ ‘‘always’’. Due to the high correlation between OCBI and OCBO (r ¼ .56), the OCB score was calculated as the mean of the 13 items (a ¼ .84). PDM. To assess the frequency of employee’s participation in the decision-making process, a threeitem scale developed by Sagie et al. (2002) was used (e.g., ‘‘To what extent are you involved in determining the goals of your department?’’).

OCB AND STRAIN

Participants used a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 ¼ ‘‘not at all’’ to 5 ¼ ‘‘very much’’ (a ¼ .92).

Downloaded by [University of Haifa Library] at 04:10 13 May 2014

Leader support. To assess leader support we adapted Kottke and Sharafinski’s (1988) Perceived Supervisor Support Scale (PSSQ). Participants indicated how far they disagreed or agreed with each item on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 ¼ ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to 5 ¼ ‘‘strongly agree’’. A sample item is ‘‘Help is available from my supervisor when I have a problem.’’ The scale was measured by the mean response to the 16 items (a ¼ .92). Employees’ strain. Dupuy’s (1984) General WellBeing scale (GWB) was used to measure strain. The GWB is an 18-item measure probing feelings of sadness or hopelessness, of stress and strain, of anxiety and depression, and of satisfaction with one’s life. The scale has six subscales: anxiety, depressed mood, positive wellbeing, self-control, general health, vitality. Participants are asked to answer each question in relation to ‘‘the past 12 months’’ on a 5-point Likert (e.g., ‘‘Have you felt so sad, discouraged, hopeless, or had so many problems that you wondered if anything is worthwhile?’’). The scale proved unidimensional, and a reliable and valid measure of psychological well-being and strain (Needle, Su, & Doherty, 1990; Sharpe, Williams, Granner, & Hussey, 2007; Taylor, Carlos Poston, Keith Haddock, Blackburn, Heber, Heymsfield, & Foreyt, 2003). Accordingly, for the purpose of the present study, to measure strain the scores of the subscales of positive well-being, self-control, general health, and vitality were reversed. Then the six subscales were combined to produce a general indicator of strain. Higher score represents greater strain (a ¼ .79). Role overload. To measure role overload we followed Gakovic and Tetrick (2003), and used LaRocco, Tetrick, and Meder’s (1989) three-item scale for assessing qualitative workload, and House’s (1980) two-item scale to assess quantitative workload. Because of the moderate to high correlations among the five items, we combined them into a single scale of

143

work overload. A sample item is ‘‘To what extent do you have to work long hours?’’ Responses were given on a 5-point scale from 1 ¼ ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to 5 ¼ ‘‘strongly agree’’ (a ¼ .86). Role conflict. Role conflict was measured by the eight-item scale developed by Rizzo et al. (1970). Participants indicated the extent to which they disagreed or agreed with each item on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 ¼ ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to 5 ¼ ‘‘strongly agree’’. The items included ‘‘I receive incompatible requests from two or more people’’ (a ¼ .81). Role ambiguity. Role conflict was measured by the six-item scale developed by Rizzo et al. (1970). Participants indicated the extent to which they disagreed or agreed with each item on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 ¼ ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to 5 ¼ ‘‘strongly agree’’. A sample item is ‘‘I know exactly what is expected of me’’ (a ¼ .79). Control variables. Employee’s sex (female/male) and tenure in the organization (has/does not have) were included as control variables because the literature has noted their effects on employees’ work-related behaviours and attitudes, and on their well-being (Anderson, Coffey, & Byerly, 2002; Ferrie, Shipley, Newman, Stansfeld, & Marmot, 2005; Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007).

RESULTS Table 1 shows means, standard deviations and the intercorrelation matrix of the study variables. Several insights may be drawn from it. As shown in the table, the three role stressors role overload, role ambiguity, and role conflict were positively and significantly correlated with employee’s strain, r ¼ .19, p 5 .01, r ¼ .23, p 5 .01, and r ¼ .11, p 5 .01, respectively, and with OCB, r ¼ .31, p 5 .01, with employee’s strain. To test the study hypotheses a hierarchical regression analysis for predicting employee’s strain

TABLE 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlation matrix of study’s variables

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Sex*** Tenure*** Role overload Role ambiguity Role conflict OCB PDM Leader support Strain

M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0.58 0.30 3.23 2.66 3.14 3.85 3.32 4.04 2.76

0.49 0.29 1.28 1.25 1.23 0.62 1.16 0.82 0.67

1.00

.05 1.00

7.11* .01 1.00

.09* .13** .37** 1.00

7.21** 7.03 .39** .31** 1.00

7.03 7.05 7.12** 7.19** 7.05 1.00

7.09* 7.11** 7.06 7.17** .07 .33** 1.00

.01 7.14** 7.13** 7.24** .04 .41** .36** 1.00

7.04 .10* .19** .23** .11** .31** 7.26** 7.43** 1.00

*p 5 .05, **p 5 .01, ***Dummy coded: Sex: 0 ¼ male, 1 ¼ female; Tuner: 0 ¼ Yes, 1 ¼ No.

Downloaded by [University of Haifa Library] at 04:10 13 May 2014

144

SOMECH AND DRACH-ZAHAVY

was conducted. The control variables (sex, tenure) were entered in Step 1. The role stressors (role overload, role ambiguity, role conflict) were entered in Step 2. The main effect terms of OCB, PDM, and leader support were entered in Step 3, and the second-order interactive effect terms in Step 4. To facilitate interpretation and to minimize problems of multicollinearity, the analysis was conducted with centred variables (Aiken & West, 1991). The results of the hierarchical regression analysis are presented in Table 2. Further, to better understand the interaction patterns, we plotted values respectively plus and minus one standard deviation from the means of OCB, PDM, and leader support (Aiken & West, 1991). As shown in Table 2, regarding prediction of employee’s strain, the control variables accounted for a negligible percentage of the variance in employee’s strain, .01, p 4 .05. The joint main effects of role stressors accounted for 6%, DF ¼ 8.01, p 5 .001, of the variance in employee’s strain. Specifically, role overload and role ambiguity were positively and significantly associated with employee’s strain, b ¼ 0.05, p 5 .05, and b ¼ 0.07, p 5 .05,

TABLE 2 Results of hierarchical regression analyses for predicting employee’s strain Employee’s strain Step variables Step 1: Control variable Sex Tenure

B

7.04 .07*

SE

t

DR2

DF

.01

2.52

.06

8.01***

.05 70.73 .03 0.49

Step 2: Role stressors Sex Tenure Role overload Role ambiguity Role conflict

7.04 .05 .05* .07** .01

.02 70.83 .05 0.21 .02 2.50** .02 3.16** .02 70.31

Step 3: Main effects Sex Tenure Role overload Role ambiguity Role conflict OCB PDM Leader support

7.03 .02 .03 .02 .03 .10** 7.05* 7.21

.05 .03 .02 .02 .02 .03 .02 .03

70.88 0.44 0.98 0.87 70.23 5.84*** 72.83** 70.98

Step 4: Interaction effects Sex Tenure Role overload Role ambiguity Role conflict OCB PDM Leader support OCB 6 PDM OCB 6 Leader support

7.04 .03 .02 .02 .03 .15*** 7.04 7.32 .12** .11**

.05 .03 .02 .02 .02 .07 .02 .06 .01 .01

70.97 0.52 0.98 0.86 0.88 5.31*** 71.10 70.96 72.21** 72.78**

respectively. However, no significant relation was found between role conflict and employee’s strain. Then, the main effect of OCB, PDM, and leader support was an additional 16%, DF ¼ 30.05, p 5 .001, to the variance in employee’s strain, In line with Hypothesis 1, OCB was positively and significantly associated with employee’s strain, above and beyond the impact of role overload, role ambiguity, and role conflict, b ¼ 0.10, p 5 .01. The second-order interaction effects between OCB and leader support and PDM, entered in Step 4, accounted for an additional 6% of the variance in employee’s strain, DF ¼ 4.71, p 5 .05. First, in line with Hypothesis 2, the interaction effect between OCB and leader support on employee’s strain was significant, b ¼ 0.12, p 5 .01. Analysis of the simple effects revealed that when OCB was high, employee strain was significantly lower under the condition of high leader support than of low leader support, t ¼ 3.63, p 5 .001. However, when OCB was low no difference in employee strain was found under leader’s high or low support (p 4 .05). The interaction effect is illustrated in Figure 1. Second, the results also indicate a significant interaction effect between OCB and PDM, b ¼ 0.11, p 5 .01. Analysis of the simple effects revealed that when OCB was high, employee’s strain was significantly lower under the condition of high PDM than of low PDM, t ¼ 4.01, p 5 .001. However, when OCB was low no difference in employee strain was found under high or low PDM (p 4 .05) (see Figure 2).

DISCUSSION This study focused on the notion that investing in citizenship behaviours could entail some personal

.16 30.05***

.06

4.71*

*p 5 .05, **p 5 .01, ***p 5 .001. Unstandardized regression coefficients are shown.

Figure 1. Interaction effects of OCB and leader support on employee’s strain.

Downloaded by [University of Haifa Library] at 04:10 13 May 2014

OCB AND STRAIN

Figure 2. Interaction effects of OCB and PDM on employee’s strain.

costs for the employee. This line of research is important because despite repeated calls in the organizational behaviour literature for more attention to employee’s well-being (e.g., Hart & Cooper, 2001), most research on OCB so far has taken the organization’s perspective, and focused on its beneficial impacts on the organization’s functioning and effectiveness (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Earlier work most often referred to the employee only as an entity that performed these behaviours, and consequently sought the individual characteristics such as attitudes, mood states, and dispositions that might foster OCB (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2004). It seems that this approach falls short of fully capturing the OCB phenomenon. The present study, which chose to address the OCB issue by investigating its impact on employee strain, accordingly contributes to the OCB literature in several respects. First, consistent with our first argument, the results demonstrate a positive association between employee’s OCB and strain. This finding provides additional support for the proposition that investing in work above and beyond inrole requirements and obligations may be a stressful experience for the employee. Individuals who engaged in high degree in citizenship behaviours tended to report higher incidence of psychological strain symptoms. These results are indeed in keeping with those of a number of other recent studies that show the potential negative consequence of OCB on stress-related outcomes (e.g., Bolino & Turnley, 2005). However, our results provide an additional insight for understanding the impact of OCB on employee well-being. Previous studies (e.g., Bergeron, 2007; Bolino & Turnley, 2005) suggested that OCB may be a source of stress because it demands extra time and energy (role overload), leads to incompatibility of different roles (role conflict), and/or confusion in

145

distinguishing job requirements from voluntary extrarole behaviours (role ambiguity) (Bergeron, 2007). The present results revealed that higher levels of OCB are related to higher levels of employee’s strain, above and beyond the impact of role overload, role ambiguity, and role conflict. This may imply that these stressors are not fully adequate to explain all the stressful aspects of high OCB levels exhibited by employees. Further, the present results may provide additional support for the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989) as a plausible mechanism for understanding employee’s strain in terms of its development. The tendency to contribute beyond the call of duty seems to cause a net loss in employees’ resources. This is not to say that engaging in OCB cannot offer several opportunities to garner resources, such as sense of competence, self-efficacy, or goal pursuit, but our results imply that employees may perceive a loss of these resources when they invest energy, time, knowledge, or other valuable resources in helping colleagues, working extra hours, or volunteering for special projects in addition to their normal duties. Second, the study results demonstrate the buffering role of work environment on employee’s strain. Specifically, we found that the relationship between OCB and strain was weaker for those enjoying a high measure of leader support or PDM. This means that leader support and PDM can be considered important job resources for employees, because each of these conditions was able to buffer the negative impact of OCB on employee’s well-being. These findings are important in light of the accumulating evidence of the advantages of OCB for the organization (e.g., Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2004). These results are consistent with earlier research (e.g., Dwyer & Fox 2000; Goode & Rowe 2001) on the buffer hypothesis in the DC/S model, which postulates that several job resources can buffer the impact of job stressors on strain. Similarly, consistent with COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2002) and previous research in other domains (e.g., Bakker et al., 2007), the results show that leader support and PDM serve as resources for employees, preventing resource depletion and consequently employees’ health deterioration. In other words, we may conclude that investing in OCB is not too detrimental for employees’ well-being as long as they receive support and appreciation from their supervisor or when they work in a context that enables them to be actively involved in the decision-making process. For example, leader support may alleviate the influence of OCB on strain because providing encouragement, useful information, and professional advice may aid employees in coping with the added burden of high levels of citizenship behaviours (Drach-Zahavy, 2004). Similarly, PDM can be another means serving as a

Downloaded by [University of Haifa Library] at 04:10 13 May 2014

146

SOMECH AND DRACH-ZAHAVY

protector against the possible adverse impact of OCB on the employee’s well-being. Beyond its contribution to employee’s sense of control, PDM provides information that helps people interpret and deal with stressful situations (Somech, 2010). These findings are important in light of the accumulating evidence of the advantages of OCB for the organization (e.g., Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2004). Alternatively, the moderating role of leader support and PDM in the relationship between OCB and strain might be understood in light of the current literature which challenges the common view that all OCBs are voluntary, and suggests that at least some of them may arise from coercive managerial strategies or coercive social pressure by peers (e.g., Tepper et al., 2004; Zellars et al., 2002). For example, Vigoda-Gadot (2006a, 2006b) distinguished the conventional OCB, that is, all extrarole behaviours that are voluntary in nature and are rooted in employees’ ‘‘good will’’, from Compulsory Citizenship Behaviours, which are less voluntary or less self-initiated, and may arise from strong pressure by the supervisor and/or coworkers on an employee to engage in extrarole work activities beyond his or her formal job definitions. Accordingly, our results may demonstrate that under the condition of high levels of leader support or PDM the link between OCB and strain is weaker because OCB is probably highly voluntary; on the other hand, if OCB finds little support from leaders but may nevertheless be expected, namely more forced, the relationship between OCB and strain is stronger. Accordingly, these findings may support the idea that only the compulsory citizenship behaviours have the potential to harm the employee, whereas OCBs based on the employee’s choice have less negative sides for the individual.1 Finally, like all research, the contribution of this study can be assessed only in light of its purpose and methods. A clear strength of our study is our data. These were collected at different time points and from multiple sources. Cross-sectional studies run the risk of an artificial correlation between stressors and strain due to ‘‘occasion factors’’ (e.g., time of day, mood variables), which may exaggerate strain and stressors; but in this study, because data were collected in two point of time no true occasion factor correlations over time existed (Zapf, Dormann, & Frese, 1996). Therefore, the present results are more likely to reflect true relationships between the model’s variables. Some limitations of the study should be acknowledged. First, the data were largely gathered by questionnaires and were subject to biases. In this respect, the study does not differ from previous work

1

Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for this point.

(e.g., Bolino &Turnley, 2005; Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007). Note that recent research suggests that selfreported data are not as limited as was previously believed, and people often perceive their social environment accurately (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 1998). Indeed, common method variance may not be a serious problem in our data because the criterion variable (employee’s strain) was obtained from a different source (employee) (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Second, in the current study employee’s OCB was measured by managers’ ratings. Although previous research indicated that it is a valid measure, because managers are able to assess OCB effectively, future research might benefit from OCB being judged by different raters, such as colleagues or clients. Third, this study focused on the impact of OCB on employee’s strain. It is important to broaden our understanding for the potential consequences of citizenship, especially at the individual level. Additional research is needed that explores the positive and the negative consequences of OCB on the employee, for example, by distinguishing the effects of compulsory versus voluntary OCB on the individual, as well as on the organization (Bergeron, 2007). Similarly, we chose to focus on leader support and PDM as moderators in the relationship between OCB and employee’s strain. Of course, alternative models may well explain this relationship. For example, leader support and PDM can serve as predictors of OCB, and the role stressors of role overload, role ambiguity, and role conflict can mediate the relationship between OCB and strain. Further, leader support and PDM are only examples of the possible influence of context variables on this relationship. Future research should extend the inquiry to other moderators to advance our understanding of the impact of OCB on employees’ well-being. Moderators may act on the individual level, for example, the role of personality (the Big Five) in buffering and/or enhancing the positive link between OCB and strain; and other organizational variables, such as leadership style (transformational vs. transactional) or justice climate (Cropanzano, Li, & James, 2007), might serve as moderators in this relationship.

Managerial implications Prior work on OCB does not take into consideration that individuals are constrained by resources (Bergeron, 2007; Bolino & Turnley, 2005). The results of the present study provide important evidence that OCB has the potential to harm employee’s well-being, which in turn may lead individuals to reduce performance. With job stress indications on the rise globally (Gakovic & Tetrick, 2003), this finding may move managers to reconsider their continuous pressure on employees to work extra hours or to

Downloaded by [University of Haifa Library] at 04:10 13 May 2014

OCB AND STRAIN

invest a huge amount of effort in the job (VigodaGadot, 2006). Such an environment may in fact be less attractive to individuals, and could produce higher levels of turnover and also make it more difficult to attract new employees (Bolino & Turnley, 2005). On the other hand, OCB has a clear contribution for the functioning of the organization (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Therefore, this finding urges managers to tackle the potential conflict between the importance of requiring OCB for the effectiveness of the organization and the danger of over-burdening at the employee’s expense. Employers may need to find ways of encouraging their employees to go beyond the call of duty, yet at the same time act to alleviate the potential stresses and strains associated with being a good organizational citizen (Bolino & Turnley, 2005). Our findings indeed show that leader support and PDM serve as job resources that may supply strategies for dealing with the stress caused by high levels of engaging in OCB. Managers should encourage employees to contribute above and beyond their formal inrole obligations, but at the same time they should ensure that support is maintained. Managers should develop institutionalized structures and processes that foster support. Examples are ‘‘being there’’ for workers when needed, and supporting them instrumentally and emotionally (Drach-Zahavy, 2004). Managers may also encourage employees to speak up when they feel they are being overloaded and their resources are becoming depleted (Taris, 2006). Further, according to our findings, another approach that can alleviate the potential negative consequences of OCB is to enable employees to be involved in the decision-making process. Managers should implement formal structures and procedures to create the appropriate opportunities for employees to be actively involved in significant organizational decisions. All in all, our findings demonstrate that by appropriate superior’s behaviours, employees may exert high levels of OCB without paying the price of damaging their well-being.

REFERENCES Adams, G. A., King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1996). Relationship of job and family involvement, family social support, and workfamily conflict with job and life satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 411–420. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (1998). Interdependence and controversy in group’s decision making: Antecedents to effective self-managing teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74, 33–52. Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R.T, (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work-family conflict and job-related outcomes. Journal of Management, 28(6), 787–810.

147

Anderson, S. E., & Williams, L. J. (1996). Interpersonal, job, and individual factors related to helping processes at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 282–296. Aryee, S., & Chen, Z. X. (2006). Leader-member exchange in a Chinese context: Antecedents, the mediating role of psychological empowerment and outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 59, 793–801. Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25(3), 472–491. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Hakanen, J. J., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Education Psychology, 99(2), 274–283. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Taris, T., Schaufeli, W. B., & Schreurs, P. (2003). A multi-group analysis of the job demandsresources model in four home care organizations. International Journal of Stress Management, 10, 16–38. Beehr, T. A., Farmer, S. J., Glazer, S., Gudanowski, D. M., & Nair, V. N. (2003). The enigma of social support and occupational stress: source congruence and gender role effects. Journal of Occupations Psychology, 8(3), 220–231. Bergeron, D. M. (2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizenship at what cost? Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1078–1095. Bolino, C. M. (1999). Citizenship and impression management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 82–98. Bolino, M. C., & 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, 90(4), 740–748. Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, M. J. (2002). Citizen behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27(4), 505–522. Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Niehoff, B. P. (2004). The other side of the story: Reexamining prevailing assumptions about organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 14(2), 229–246. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personality selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710–725. Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., van Harrison, R., & Pinneau, S. R. (1975). Job demands and worker health. Washington, DC: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Cropanzano, R., Li, A., & James, K. (2007). Intra-unit justice and interunit justice and the people who experience them. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues (Vol. 6, pp. 415–437). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Demerouti, E., Nachreiner, F., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (2004). Customer-related social stressors and burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(1), 61–82. Drach-Zahavy, A. (2004). Exploring team support: The role of team’s design, values, and leader’s support. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8(4), 235–252. Dupuy, H. J. (1984). The Psychological General Well-Being (PGWB) Index. In N. K. Wenger, M. E. Mattson, C. D. Furberg, & J. Elinson (Eds.), Assessment of quality of life in clinical trials of cardiovascular therapies (pp. 184–188). New York, NY: Le Jacq. Dwyer, D. J., & Fox, M. L. (2000). The moderating role of hostility in the relationship between enriched jobs and health. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1086–1096.

Downloaded by [University of Haifa Library] at 04:10 13 May 2014

148

SOMECH AND DRACH-ZAHAVY

Ferrie, J. E., Shipley, M. J., Newman, K., Stansfeld, S. A., & Marmot, M. (2005). Self-reported job insecurity and health in the Whitehall II study: Potential explanations of the relationship. Social Science and Medicine, 60, 1593–1602. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1995). Job stressors, job involvement and employee health: A test of identity theory. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, 1–11. Gakovic, A., & Tetrick, L. E. (2003). Psychological contract breach as a source of strain for employees. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(2), 235–246. George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 107–116. George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group level analysis in service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698–709. George, J. M., & James, L. R. (1993). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups revisited: Comment on aggregation, levels of analysis, and a recent application of within and between analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 798–804. George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Organizational spontaneity in context. Human Performance, 10, 153–170. Goode, D., & Rowe, K. (2001). Perceptions and experiences of primary nursing in an ICU: A combined methods approach. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 17, 294–303. Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Bowler, W. M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 93–106. Hart, P. M., & Cooper, C. L. (2001). Occupational stress: Toward a more integrated framework. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology: Vol. 2. Personnel psychology (pp. 93–114). London, UK: Sage. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. The American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. Hobfoll, S. E. (1998). Our coping as individuals within families and tribes. In S. E. Hobfoll (Ed.), Stress, culture and community: The psychology and philosophy of stress (pp. 119–140). New York, NY: Plenum. Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 337–421. Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307–324. Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2001). Conservation of resources theory: Application to stress and management in the workplace. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 57–80). New York, NY: Dekker. House, J. S. (1980). The questionnaire. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 571–650). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285–309. Karasek, R. A. (1998). Demand/control model: A social, emotional, and psychological approach to stress risk and active behaviour development. In Encyclopaedia of occupational health and safety (4th ed. pp. 34.6–34.14). Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley. Kim, S. (2002). Participative management and job satisfaction: Lessons for management leadership. Public Administration Review, 62, 231–241.

Koopman, P. L., & Wierdsma, A. F. M. (1998). Participative management. In P. J. D. Doentu, H. Thierry, & C. J. de-Wolf (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology: Vol. 3. Personnel psychology (pp. 297–324). Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 1075–1079. Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 54, 101–114. LaRocco, J. M., Tetrick, L. E., & Meder, D. (1989). Differences in perceptions of work environment conditions, job attitudes, and health beliefs among military physicians, dentists, and nurses. Military Psychology, 1, 135–151. Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543–1567. Needle, R. H., Su, S. S., & Doherty, W. J. (1990). Divorce, remarriage, and adolescent substance use: A prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 52, 157–169. O’Driscoll, M. P., Poelmans, S., Spector, P. E., Kalliath, T., Allen, T. D., Cooper, C. L., & Sanchez, J. I. (2003). Family-responsive interventions, perceived organizational and supervisor support, work-family conflict, and psychological strain. International Journal of Stress Management, 10(4), 326–344. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 43–72). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85–97. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, C. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource-dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact or organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance, 10, 133–151. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bacharach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-report in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544. Rego, A., & Cunha, M. P. (2008). Organizational citizenship behaviors and effectiveness: An empirical study in two small insurance companies. Service Industries Journal, 28, 541–554. Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity, in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150–163. Rotondo, D. M., Carlson, D. S., & Kincaid, J. F. (2003). Coping with multiple dimensions of work-family conflict. Personal Review, 32(3), 275–296. Sagie, A., Zaidman, N., Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Te’eni, D., & Schwartz, D. G. (2002). An empirical assessment of the loosetight leadership model: Quantitative and qualitative analyses. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 303–320. Sharpe, P. A., Williams, H. G., Granner, M. L., & Hussey, J. R. (2007). A randomized study of the effects of massage therapy compared to guided relaxation on well-being and stress perception among older adults. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 15, 157–163.

Downloaded by [University of Haifa Library] at 04:10 13 May 2014

OCB AND STRAIN Somech, A. (2010). Participative decision-making in schools: A mediating-moderating analytical framework for understanding school and teachers outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 174–209. Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in schools: The relationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teachers’ extra-role behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 649–659. Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2004). Exploring organizational citizenship behavior from an organizational perspective: The relationship between organizational learning and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 281–298. Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2007). Strategies for coping with work-family conflict: The distinctive relationships of genderrole ideology. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 1–19. Sutton, R. I., & Kahn, R. L. (1987). Prediction, understanding, and control as antidotes to organizational stress. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 272–285). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Taris, T. W. (2006). Is there a relationship between burnout and objective performance? A critical review of 16 studies. Work and Stress, 20(4), 316–334. Taylor, J. E., Carlos Poston, W. S., II, Keith Haddock, C., Blackburn, G. L., Heber, D., Heymsfield, S. B., & Foreyt, J. P. (2003). Psychometric characteristics of the General WellBeing Schedule (GWB) with African–American women. Quality of Life Research, 12, 31–39. Tepper, B. J., Lockhart, D., & Hoobler, J. (2001). Justice, citizenship, and role definition effects. Journal Applied Psychology, 86, 789–796. Thomas, L., & Ganster, D. C. (1995). Impact of familysupportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 6–15.

149

Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean, P. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215–285. Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006a). Compulsory citizenship behavior: Theorizing some dark sides of good soldier syndrome in organization. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 36(1), 77–93. Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006b). Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination of compulsory extra-role behavior in the workplace. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21, 377–405. Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J. I., & Fisher, J. (1999). The role of social support in the process of work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 314–334. Walz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Their relationship to organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 24, 301–319. 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, 601–617. Xie, J. L., & Johns, G. (1995). Job scope and stress: Can job scope be too high? Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1288–1308. Zapf, D., Dormann, C., & Frese, M. (1996). Longitudinal studies in organizational stress research: A review of the literature with reference to methodological issues. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 145–169. Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068–1076. Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128. Original manuscript received March 2011 Revised manuscript received October 2011 First published online February 2012