A missing link: psychological ownership as a mediator between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour

Abstract

Interest in psychological ownership (PO) has increased due to its influence on employees' attitudes and behaviours. This study focuses on PO as a mediator between transformational leadership (TL) and organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) in the Korean public sector, which does not have employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs). With a total of 214 cases from the Korean public sector, structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis was conducted, and chi-square difference-based model comparison was performed to examine the mediating effect. Results indicated statistically significant relationships between TL and employees' PO and between employees' PO and their OCB. A statistically significant full mediating role of PO between TL and OCB in the Korean public sector context was found.

Job Stressors and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Roles of Organizational Commitment and Social Interaction

“…Finally, this research offers several key guidelines for HRD professionals who hope to promote OCB among their employees. Organizational citizenship behaviors play a critical role in determining employees’ contributions to personal development and organizational well‐being, because they imply a willingness to do more than is expected in their job descriptions (Ghosh et al., ; Park et al., ; Shantz, Alffes, Truss, & Soane, ). Our findings recommend that HRD professionals should not just emphasize positive factors that stimulate OCB but also avoid negative, stress‐inducing factors that can prevent them.…”

“…Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) refers to discretionary behaviors that go beyond formal job descriptions and enhance organizational effectiveness (Organ, ; Sommer & Kulkarni, ; Uçanok & Karabati, ), while also adding meaning to employees’ daily work by stimulating their personal development and contributions to their organization (Park, Song, Yoon, & Kim, ). The study of OCB is therefore highly relevant for human resource development (HRD) practice, which aims at “developing and unleashing human expertise through organization development and personnel training and development for the purpose of improving performance” (Swanson, , p. 208).…”

“…Previous HRD studies that investigate why some employees are more likely to engage in OCB mostly attend to positive factors, such as work engagement (Rurkkhum & Bartlett, ), constructive feedback (Sommer & Kulkarni, ), and transformational leadership (Park et al., ), rather than to the effects of stressful working conditions on OCB (Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, ; Russ‐Eft, ). This tendency may lead to oversights though, because stressful work conditions can hinder employees’ ability to allocate energy to positive behaviors such as OCB (Bakker & Demertouti, ).…”

Mitigating the negative effect of perceived organizational politics on organizational citizenship behavior: Moderating roles of contextual and personal resources

“…As a result, the negative consequences of POP on their ability to meet their formal job requirements should be mitigated, making it less likely that employees withdraw completely from OCB. Similarly, the possibility of enhanced learning about how to deal with political decision making may reduce resistance to OCB, because resilient employees regard engaging in voluntary behaviors, despite the presence of workplace adversity, as a challenge and route for personal and career fulfillment (Park, Song, Yoon, & Kim, 2013;Podsakoff et al, 2009). Thus, the negative relationship between POP and OCB should be mitigated when resilience is high, because employees derive some personal joy from undertaking voluntary activities in the presence of strong organizational politics.…”

Untitled

“…The term 'constructive deviance' was first conceptualized and validated by Galperin(2002). While constructive deviance has gained a lot of momentum in recent years, conceptual clarity still needs improvement through a more rigorous construct validity tests (Park, Song, Yoon, & Kim, 2013). There are different types of behaviours that seem to be similar to constructive deviance, including organizational citizenship behaviour (Organ, 1988(Organ, , 1997, pro-social rule breaking (Moorman et al, 1998), creative performance (Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, 2002), whistle-blowing (Miceli & Near, 1988;Near & Miceli, 2013;Near & Miceli, 1985) and prosocial behaviours, among others (O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986;Puffer, 1987).…”