Meor Rashydan Abdullah
Walton Wider- Faculty of Business and Communications, INTI International University, Nilai, Malaysia
The study aims to examine the moderating effect of self-efficacy on supervisory support and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). An individual’s self-efficacy is defined as their belief in their own ability to successfully complete a goal or task, which influences their motivation, persistence, and decision-making. This study is based on the Conservation of Resource Theory, which holds that personal resources such as self-efficacy can influence employees’ perceived support and extra-role behavior (OCB). The data were collected from 618 employees in four public sector organizations in Putrajaya, Malaysia through a questionnaire survey and analyzed using the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) technique. Resultantly, supervisory support demonstrated a significant positive relationship with OCB. The results suggested that personal resources, such as self-efficacy increase the level of OCB with lower or higher perceived supervisory support. The results highlighted that self-efficacy strengthens supervisory support relations with OCB when supported by employees’ self-belief and confidence. It is critical to investigate the role of self-efficacy because industries must constantly change, and employees must have self-efficacy resources to continuously improve and sustain their performance level. The findings can contribute to the literature and open new avenues for future research.
Introduction
Over the years, Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) has gained considerable attention, specifically among researchers, management scholars, and practitioners (Kaur et al., 2020; Kaur and Randhawa, 2021). In recent decades, OCB research has become the most widespread topic in the organizational sciences (Klotz et al., 2018). The OCB is an important indicator which could directly contribute to an individual and the overall organizational efficiency and effectiveness (Acaray and Akturan, 2015). Organ (1997) defined OCB as “any discretionary work-related behavior that goes beyond routine duties and supports one’s social or psychological environment.” The five primary dimensions of OCB are (Organ et al., 2006) Altruism: assisting other colleagues (co-worker or supervisor), Civic virtue: an employee’s voluntary participation and involvement in organizational affairs, Conscientiousness: individual doing beyond what is required to meet the minimum requirements, Courtesy: individuals’ good deeds and respect to others, and Sportsmanship: individuals’ focus on positive aspects instead of negative aspects of the organization (Basu et al., 2017). Although OCB is not directly or explicitly part of the formal reward system, the behavior encourages functioning and overall organizational effectiveness.
Empirical research on OCB determinants has been widely identified and covers various aspects related to attitudinal variables, individual characteristics, and the work environment (Easo et al., 2020). Employee development outlines the importance of interactions between organizations, managers, and employees by emphasizing a supportive working environment, such as organizational support and supervisory support (Mylona and Mihail, 2020). Studies on supportive working environment and OCB have examined the effect of organizational support (Reader et al., 2017; Han et al., 2019; Jehanzeb, 2020; Andriyanti and Supartha, 2021), co-worker support (Pasamehmetoglu et al., 2017), and supervisory support (Yadav and Rangnekar, 2015; Tang and Tsaur, 2016; Akram et al., 2018; Shu et al., 2018; Abdullah and Marican, 2020). Most studies on OCB were conducted in developed countries, such as the United States and European countries. Hence, the literature review highlighted several OCB studies in Asian countries, such as China, Taiwan, South Korea, India, Indonesia, and the Philippines (Gan and Yusof, 2020). Most past Malaysian studies were conducted in private sectors (Yin Yin Lau et al., 2020), academic institutions (Ramlee et al., 2016), and public services (Nik Nazli and Sheikh Khairudin, 2018), which involved samples that were not from governmental organizations. Previous researchers also noted a lack of studies in Southeast Asia countries, particularly in Malaysia (Yin Yin Lau et al., 2020).
Supervisory support has been recognized as one of the important antecedences that influence employee OCB (Zhao and Zhou, 2019). Empirical research on supervisory support is vital as it is a primary factor that forms distinguishable employees’ attitudes in the workplace (Kaur and Randhawa, 2021). Supervisory support can be defined as “individuals’ beliefs that supervisor offers them work-related assistance to aid in the performance of their job” (Susskind et al., 2003; Pasamehmetoglu et al., 2017). The concept of perceived supervisory support is to what extent supervisors are considerate and assist employees’ effort in performing a task and appreciate their contribution to the organization (Pasamehmetoglu et al., 2017). Although past studies have confirmed a positive relationship between supervisory support and OCB, a gap exists within the system and no process has accurately identified the direct impact of supervisory support on employees’ OCB (Shim and Faerman, 2015; Yadav and Rangnekar, 2015). Most studies on the effect of supervisory support on behavioral outcomes have been conducted in a Western context, such as psychological capital (Bhanthumnavin, 2003; Paterson et al., 2014; Nisula, 2015; Sihag and Sarikwal, 2015; Ahmed et al., 2017), job satisfaction (Ngah et al., 2010; Adebayo and Ogunsina, 2011; Mehboob et al., 2011; Bagger and Li, 2014; Mazumder et al., 2016), and work engagement (Eisenberger et al., 2016; Ibrahim M. A. et al., 2016; Ibrahim et al., 2019; Ling Suan and Mohd Nasurdin, 2016). Significant studies have supported the predictive ability of supervisory support and OCB (Tang and Tsaur, 2016; Kaur and Randhawa, 2021). Nonetheless, few studies have examined the subject in the non-Western context (Ladebo, 2008; Yadav and Rangnekar, 2015; Tang and Tsaur, 2016; Akram et al., 2018), specifically in developing countries such as Malaysia (Abdullah and Marican, 2020). Podsakoff et al. (2017) proposed that research on supervisory support should be reconsidered under a different context and include the significance of the concept in predictive behavioral workplace outcomes.
Thus, self-efficacy is a personal resource and a belief in one’s ability to perform specific tasks (Cinamon, 2006). According to Choi et al. (2021), self-efficacy might be considered an important individual-level job resource which based on employment characteristics. Self-efficacy, which reflects people’s perceptions of social and organizational situations, can also influence innovative behavior. Positive energy that self-efficacy brings may involve exhibiting pleasant attitude toward coworkers, superiors, subordinates, or the organization in order to enhance pro-social behavior (Ullah et al., 2021). On the other hand, the effects of diverse proactive behavior when self-efficacy resources are present have not yet been investigated (Aftab and Waheed, 2021). The objective of this study is to define how self-efficacy moderates the relationship between supervisory support and OCB. Hence, OCB is positively relation to high job performance, cost reduction, improve operational efficiency, employees retention and customer satisfaction (Podsakoff et al., 2009).
Few studies highlight the role of self-efficacy as a moderator on the effect of organizational support on employees’ behavioral outcomes. The main purpose of this section is to classify the rationale offered by previous research that hypothesized self-efficacy as a moderating variable. Pradhan et al. (2020) noted that limited studies had predicted the relationship between self-efficacy and citizenship behavior, specifically in an organizational setup. Moreover, understanding the conditions of self-efficacy and its influence on job attitudes and behavior is crucial as the absence of contextual factors such as OCB would overestimate the effects of self-efficacy, which creates a misleading assumption on the reality of self-efficacy (Ozyilmaz et al., 2017).
In this study, the Conservation of Resource theory was chosen as the fundamental theoretical model (Hobfoll, 1989; Halbesleben et al., 2014). The theory describes how people strive to acquire, protect, retain, and maintain their resources (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Resources can be defined as “anything perceived by an individual to help them achieve their goals” (Halbesleben et al., 2014). Other variables have been integrated within the COR theory to better explain the role of personal resources on individual behavior based on the current research context and background (Testa et al., 2018; He et al., 2019; Marić et al., 2019; Sri Ramalu and Janadari, 2020). Current research demonstrating employees’ perceived support and self-efficacy as resources was incorporated into the COR theory to create a comprehensive theoretical model to understand individuals’ motivation to participate in extra-role activities such as OCB (de Andrade et al., 2017; Montani and Dagenais-Desmarais, 2018; Gan and Yusof, 2020; Nguyen et al., 2022).
Despite extensive research on OCB, lack of empirical research with supervisory support has been conducted in Malaysia’s public sector. The literature supports that there is still a need for a study investigating the relationship between supervisory support and OCB. Specifically, there is limited research in the Malaysian context that examines the moderating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between supervisory support and employee OCB. This study also attempts to bridge the gap between earlier studies and the current argument facing the public sector from the perspective of human resources. However, the current body of research provides a vast scope for examining the impact of supervisory support and OCB (Chen et al., 2008; Ladebo, 2008; Yadav and Rangnekar, 2015; Tang and Tsaur, 2016; Akram et al., 2018; Kaur and Randhawa, 2021).
Literature review
Supervisory support
Eisenberger et al. (2002) defined supervisory support as the degree to which employees form a general impression that their supervisors appreciate their contributions, support, and care for their subordinates. A recent definition defined supervisory support as employees’ belief regarding the support and recognition received from supervisors in exchange for the employees’ efforts (Khan et al., 2015). Mazumder et al. (2016) added that supervisory support provides administrative support, including good characteristics, such as attainability, help, support, caring, flexibility, knowledge, experience, and understanding. Supervisory support comprises three forms: emotional support, informative support, and material support (Bhanthumnavin, 2003). Hence, supervisory support is a job resource that is an essential determinant of motivational states, which can increase employees’ good impression of the organization, thus causing employees to reciprocate by performing positive attitudes that encourage greater OCB (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). Furthermore, supervisors who recognize and contribute to the improvement of the work process create a positive perception of support in the minds of their subordinates and strengthen the high quality of the employee-supervisor relationship (Paillé et al., 2013). The study will then discuss the effect of antecedent on OCB as well as the effect of moderating factors on employees’ supervisory support and OCB relationship.
Organizational citizenship behavior and antecedents
Organ (1997) described OCB as the “contribution to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that support task performance.” Organ later redefined OCB in 2006 as “discretionary individual behavior, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and that in aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ et al., 2006). Recently, the author reconceptualized OCB as a discretionary behavior of cooperation and contributions that participants view as a function of job satisfaction and perceived fairness (Organ, 2018). The antecedents of OCB derived from the study model are based on the conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989) which has gained prominence in studies of organizational behavior (Hobfoll et al., 2018).
Hence, supervisory support aligns with the COR theory and is a work-related resource (Bakker et al., 2008) that demonstrates supportive behavior toward subordinates within and outside work life where the subordinates will reciprocate with a high level of identification, compliance, and gratitude by engaging actively in OCB within the organization (Wu et al., 2014). Employees that perceive supervisory support are more likely to invest their available resources, thus engaging in citizenship behavior to gain further resource (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Therefore, the current study examined supervisory support as a predictor of employee OCB in Malaysian public institutions based on the previous COR theory discussion.
Past public sector studies have provided empirical evidence that supervisory support is a crucial predictor of employee OCB (Tang and Tsaur, 2016). For instance, Dai et al. (2018) investigated 612 employees from the hotel industry and discovered that supervisory support is positively related to OCB Pasamehmetoglu et al. (2017) revealed similar results by studying 243 restaurant employees in Turkey. In Malaysia, Ibrahim R. M. et al. (2016) examined 282 public service employees and discovered that supervisory support is positively related to OCB.
Based on the discussion, the study proposed that employees who perceived supervisory support are more likely to feel positive, motivated, and willing to engage in extra-role behavior, such as OCB. Thus, the study presents the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between supervisory support and OCB.
Self-efficacy as a moderator
In line with the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989; Halbesleben et al., 2014), employees who perceive high supervisory support may behave beyond their task requirements. The study proposed that supervisory support is positively related to demonstrating active OCB, such as performing beyond an assigned task, participating in the organizational activity, and assisting colleagues in solving a work-related issue, which are behaviors that benefit the individual and organization (William and Anderson, 1991). The COR theory describes self-efficacy as a personal resource (Bandura, 1997, 2006). Self-efficacy is defined as “individuals’ judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute course of action required to attain designated types of performances” (Bandura, 1986; Halbesleben et al., 2014). Hence, employees with low self-efficacy are more affected by low supervisory support but are easily influenced by increased supervisory support.
Contrarily, high self-efficacious employees with perceived supervisory support can maintain and perform extra-role tasks and additional work engagement. Employees with low self-efficacy may give up quickly when the situation is against their favor despite supervisory support. Employees who perceive the organizational environment as highly supportive, fair, and honest and receive high supervisory support tend to feel that their efforts are being recognized and are willing to expand their current role to include extra-role behavior outside their job description. High self-efficacious employees expect high self-belief in completing the task at hand (aligned with resource caravans in the COR theory) (Halbesleben et al., 2014) which strengthens the relationship between supervisory support and OCB.
Low self-efficacious employees exhibit a weaker connection between supervisory support and OCB due to anxiety and withdrawal behaviors. Additionally, employees perceive high support as they believe and have confidence in their supervisor to recognize and appreciate their contribution and effort in performing the tasks given (Mulki et al., 2008). Hence, the motivation to engage in OCB will increase among those who perceive high supervisory support under the condition of high self-belief. Moreover, Tsai and Lin (2014) suggested the inclusion of self-efficacy in a research model for OCB antecedents in a non-profit organization, such as the public sector. Therefore, the study proposes the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: The positive relationship between supervisory support and OCB is stronger in individuals with higher self-efficacy than lower self-efficacy.
Research model
Figure 1 illustrates the proposed study model. The main objective is to test the moderating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between supervisory support and OCB based on H2. Thus, the direct relationship in H1 was also tested.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Materials and methods
Sample and data collection
In federal government organizations in Putrajaya, Malaysia, there were 9,050 Administrative and Diplomatic Officers (ADO) in grades M41-M54 from the Professional and Management levels (Sanali et al., 2013; Abdullah and Kamil, 2020). This study’s unit of analysis is the ADO because this position is responsible for formulating policies and implementing development strategies (Masrek et al., 2013).
A cross-sectional survey of employees at the professional and management levels was conducted. The study used a population sampling strategy, which included the entire population as its sample, to reduce the possibility of a low response in a setting with a small sampling frame (Sekaran and Bougie, 2016). Thus, the specific target population was identified, and information was collected from that population as opposed to the most accessible respondents (Sekaran and Bougie, 2016). In particular, the target respondents are ADOs at the professional and managerial levels within the organization. Any employees who differed from the position scheme and were below it were ineligible to participate in the study.
To determine the sample size for structural equation modeling, the rule of thumb for minimum sample size is 100–150 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Hair et al., 2017). In addition, the current sample size exceeds the minimum of 74 recommended by G*Power analysis, which uses a medium effect size of 0.15. Consequently, a sample size of 618 was deemed adequate for this study because it exceeded the recommended range.
Overall, 1,190 self-administered questionnaires were sent to the Human Resource Department to be distributed to the respondents. Only 714 out of the 1,190 questionnaires were returned after 4-month data collection period from Feb 2018 until June 2018. After removing the questionnaires with over 15% missing value (Hair et al., 2017), 618 questionnaires with a 51.9% response rate were retained to test the study hypotheses. According to Mellahi and Harris (2016), there is no agreed-upon minimum response rate, and there are varying academic perspectives regarding the response rate. For instance, Malhotra and Grover (1998) stated that a response rate of less than 20% was undesirable for research, while Anseel et al. (2010) suggested that an acceptable range for response rate could range from 30 to 70%. Hence, it is critical for achieving the desired response rate, which can provide confidence in the data representativeness and ensure sufficient study validity (Mellahi and Harris, 2016). In this current study, the 618 total responses fulfill the minimum sample size requirement for PLS-SEM analysis as it exceed the range of sample size of 150, as Anderson and Gerbing (1988) suggested.
Measures
This study incorporated a self-report method to collect the data. Supervisory support was assessed using 16-items adopted from the perceived supervisory support scale (Kottke and Sharafinski, 1988). Examples of items are “My supervisor appreciates extra efforts from me.” The item responses were rated based on a six-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree. Meanwhile, the reported reliability score for the scale was 0.84.
Self-efficacy was measured using six items from Rigotti et al. (2008). The response was rated on a scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). One example of the item: “I feel prepared for most of the demands in my job.” The reported reliability score for the items was over 0.80.
Furthermore, OCB was measured using a 16-item scale from Lee and Allen (2002) on a six-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). For example, “I take action to protect the organization from the potential problem.” The reliability score of the OCB scale was 0.92.
Data analysis
The study utilized partial least square (PLS) software by Ringle et al. (2015) to test the research hypotheses. Compared with covariance-analytical approach, the PLS-SEM was chosen due to the following reasons: (1) PLS-SEM is highly robust and reliable to provide high statistical power and is useful in resampling procedures for significant testing (Hair et al., 2017); (2) According to Astrachan et al. (2014), PLS-SEM can handle complex models with few endogenous and exogenous constructs and indicator variables, as well as non-normal data distributions; (3) PLS-SEM is effective with small sample sizes, whereas covariance-based SEM considers 200 to be the minimum sample size required for accurate model fit assessments (Hair et al., 2014); (4) PLS-SEM is the best test for theory development and testing (Astrachan et al., 2014) and it is well suited to the current study. To date, SmartPLS is the most popular variance-based structural modeling application in Management, Strategic Management, and Marketing due to its user-friendly interface and adaptable features (Astrachan et al., 2014; Ahmad et al., 2022). Thus, the use of PLS-SEM was justified.
The study also performed a two-stage procedure from Anderson and Gerbing (1988). First, the measurement model was analyzed to assess the relationship between the observed items and latent variables. Data were scrutinized through reliability (internal consistency and validity and convergent and discriminant validity). Secondly, structural model testing was conducted to specify the relationship between latent variables in the model and evaluated using the significance path coefficient and R2 measures.
Results
Descriptive results
Out of the 618 respondents, most public administrators were female (61.0%), while the remaining were male (39.0%). Most respondents were Malay (87.9%), followed by Chinese (6.1%), Indian (5.0%), and other races (1.0%). For marital status, most respondents were married (74.1%), followed by singles (22.5%), and 3.4% of the respondents were separated or divorced. The majority of respondents were bachelor’s degree graduates (64.7%), and only 35.3% of the respondents have a Master’s or PhD. Meanwhile, most respondents have worked for 6–9 years (34.6%), followed by over 10 years of working experience (33.2%), 20.9% of the respondents have 3–5 years of experience, while only 11.3% of the respondents work in 1–2 years tenure. Table 1 presents the respondents’ demographic profiles.
Table 1. Respondent demographic profile.
Measurement model results
The first step involves evaluating the construct reliability and validity in the measurement model. The study assessed the factor loadings of each item, composite reliability (CR), and Cronbach’s alpha (see Table 2; Henseler et al., 2009). According to Hair et al. (2017), CR values above 0.70 is considered satisfactory and values below 0.60 indicate lack of consistency reliability. However, any items with factor loading between 0.4 and 0.7 will be excluded if the exclusion increases the CR of that particular variable (Hair et al., 2017).
Table 2. Internal consistency reliability and convergent validity.
All items loaded on each construct are relevant when the value exceeds the cut-off value of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2017), except supervisory support (Support2 and Support12) and OCB (OCB1, OCB2, OCB3, OCB6, OCB8, and OCB9) with loading less than 0.4. Therefore, all the constructs CR (see Table 2): supervisory support (0.947), self-efficacy (0.915), and OCB (0.914) in the study measurement model were satisfactory. Next, the convergent validity of the study was evaluated based on the item factor loading and average variance extracted (AVE). Henseler et al. (2009) stated that convergent validity is a set of indicators that represent one or similar underlying construct. Hair et al. (2017) recommended that the general rule of thumb for the AVE threshold value should exceed 0.50. Table 2 demonstrates that all constructs have an adequate AVE after removing all low loading items, whereas each construct can explain over 50% of its variance. Hence, convergent validity for the construct is verified.
The discriminant validity was assessed to evaluate the differences of each latent variable with its measurement variable or with other constructs (Hair et al., 2017). Two methods can be used to test discriminant validity: the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) criterion (Henseler et al., 2015). According to Fornell-Larcker criterion, the AVE square root for all the variables should be greater than the others when compared diagonally (Hair et al., 2017). Table 3 presents that the AVE square root for self-efficacy (0.802) is higher than supervisory support with a 0.523 value. Therefore, the AVE value for OCB exceeds self-efficacy and supervisory support with an AVE value of 0.719. The HTMT criterion values below 0.85 (Hair et al., 2017) for all the constructs in Table 4 suggest that the study measurement model has satisfactory discriminant validity.
Table 3. Discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker criterion).
Table 4. Discriminant validity (HTMT Criterion).
Common method bias
Common method bias (CMB) has been employed in procedural and statistical approaches to ensure that CMB is not an issue in the study. In the procedural approach, the respondents’ anonymity and confidentiality were ensured. For instance, a pilot test was conducted upon the actual data collection and clear instruction was provided to facilitate the survey completion (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Moreover, the study employed Harman’s one-factor test to counter common method variance issues and to predict any potential threat to the study interpretations. All 38-items were tested using exploratory factor analysis in the SPSS Version 25. Resultantly, CMB was not an issue in the study, whereas the first factor makes up 40.77% of the variance, which did not count for most of the variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Structural model results
The structural model evaluates the relationship between latent variables and the measurement model together with the indicators (Chin and Saunders, 2009; Hair et al., 2017). Table 5 and Figure 1 showed that supervisory support is an important job resource and a significant contributor to employees’ OCB (β = 0.283, t = 6.358, p < 0.01). Thus, hypothesis H1 is accepted.
Table 5. The structural model results.
The H2 suggested the moderating role of self-efficacy between supervisory support and OCB. The following product indicator approach was utilized based on Chin et al. (2003). Specifically, the study predicted (1) the influence of supervisory support on OCB; (2) The direct impact of self-efficacy on OCB; and (3) the relationship between supervisory support and self-efficacy on OCB. The path analysis evaluation was done based on the value of t statistics (t-value) from path coefficient table (Table 5) with a threshold value is above 1.96 at a significant level p-value of 0.05 (p < 0.05) (Hair et al., 2017). Based on Figure 1, the results revealed that the relationship between supervisory support and OCB is moderated by self-efficacy (β = –0.069, t = 2.387, p < 0.05), such that the negative relationship is strongest when self-efficacy is highest. Table 5 depicts significant interaction effects within the model. Subsequently, the results were plotted to determine whether the interaction was consistent. The OCB was plotted at high (+ SD) and low (–SD) levels of supervisory support and self-efficacy as illustrated in Figure 2. A simple slope test was conducted to verify if the line slopes in the interaction plot were significantly different from 0. The analysis indicated that the relationship between supervisory support and OCB was significantly different for individuals who perceived high self-efficacy compared to low self-efficacy. Thus, H2 is accepted. The coefficient of determination of R2 represents an endogenous construct is explained by the coefficient variance from all exogenous constructs. According to Hair et al. (2017), R2-values above 0.75 are considered substantial, 0.50 considered as moderate and 0.25 considered a weak level of predictive accuracy. Table 5 indicates that supervisory support explained 41.5 per cent of the variance in OCB (R2 = 0.415). Based on Cohen’s (Cohen et al., 2000) calculation, the moderating effect size (f2) was only 0.01, which is considered small. Figure 3 depicts the relationship between supervisory support and OCB which vary significantly between high self-efficacy and low self-efficacy. The results demonstrate that although employees have low self-efficacy, their level of engagement in OCB activity increases steadily as supervisory support increases from low to high.
Figure 2. Structural model.
Figure 3. The moderating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between supervisory support and OCB.
Discussion
The study aims to examine the direct relationship between supervisory support and OCB and test the moderating effect of self-efficacy among Malaysian public sector employees. Resultantly, supervisory support indicated a significant positive relationship with OCB. The finding aligns with past research, such as (Hobfoll, 2002; Wang, 2014; Yadav and Rangnekar, 2015; Tremblay and Gibson, 2016; Abdullah and Marican, 2020), which highlighted the role of supervisory support in assisting employees in engaging in OCB. Summarily, employees who perceive supervisory support will be in a state of resource gain spiral (Hobfoll, 2002), which encourages them to invest in personal resources by engaging in extra-role behavior to gain further resources. Supervisory support causes employees to feel recognized while the instrumental, informative, and emotional support received would encourage employees to execute a higher level of performance and aid the organization for better productivity and effectiveness.
The findings revealed that employees with low and high self-efficacy would steadily increase engagement in extra-role activities, such as exhibiting OCB when they perceived higher supervisory support. Generally, employees have higher confidence and ability to effectively perform the tasks at hand (Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2000) and engage in OCB activities despite low supervisory support. Similarly, a high self-efficacious individual is more engaged in OCB. Self-efficacy is a personal resource and self-motivating mechanism where competent employees are motivated to overcome a workplace obstacle (Guglielmi et al., 2012). Public administrators in governmental organizations are involved in a professional task and they must be firm with their decision-making, thus a supportive working environment is essential to boost their confidence. Public administrators manage various shareholders, such as superiors, co-workers, subordinates, and external parties. Therefore, belief in oneself is crucial to enhance their communication and decision-making skills to perform their tasks more proactively and aid the organization and colleagues without expecting reward or recognition.
Theoretical implications
The findings of the current study extends the existing literature in the following ways. First, prior research has primarily focused on various sectors such as the private sector, academic institutions, and public services. Based on this gap, the current study findings extend current knowledge of OCB, particularly in the public sector setting. Moreover, this study contributes to the existing literature by investigating the role of the moderating variable in a non-western context, such as Malaysia. Malaysians have a high level of collectivism that is not rigid or constrained by rules, and issues can be resolved through good relationships with others (Suharnomo and Hashim, 2019). As a result, the current study suggests that employees with high self-belief may strengthen supportive supervisors in order to increase citizenship behavior. This supports the assertion that maintaining good relationships with others while having high self-confidence leads to employees volunteering to participate in activities that are not part of their job responsibilities such as OCB.
Second, the findings addressed the gap in existing OCB studies, which lack moderator elements and offer a new paradigm to investigate the organizational outcome. This study is a pioneer in elaborating the underlying mechanisms of self-efficacy as a moderating variable in the perception of supervisory support in relation to OCB. Using the dynamics of COR theory (Hobfoll et al., 2003; Cherian and Jacob, 2013; Halbesleben et al., 2014), the current study identified self-efficacy as an important buffering mechanism through which perceived support from supervisors can enhance employees’ citizenship behavior and this process is further strengthened when employees have high self-belief. Self-efficacy is considered one of the psychological capital (Cherian and Jacob, 2013; Halbesleben et al., 2014) and a personal resource (Hobfoll, 2001; Guglielmi et al., 2012) which can significantly contribute to work-related resources and behavioral outcomes. To the best of our knowledge, prior studies has not explored the role of self-efficacy as a moderator in the relationship supervisory support and the OCB relationship.
Third, the results suggested that supervisory support is significantly positive with OCB, thus confirming past empirical findings (Yadav and Rangnekar, 2015; Tang and Tsaur, 2016; Abdullah and Marican, 2020). Supervisory support plays a significant role in influencing employees’ extra-role behavior. Supervisory support can motivate employees to perform beyond their current responsibilities by providing an active assessment and continuous feedback to ensure organizational effectiveness. Hence, supervisors promoting “power to authority equity” is crucial to improve power-sharing with their subordinates. Therefore, supervisors can increase support for the employees, make them feel appreciated, view the organization as a supportive entity, and be willing to participate and engage in extra-role behavior, such as OCB.
Fourth, this work extends the application of a rigorous methodological approach to management research. Although moderation research is prevalent in management studies, prior scholars are increasingly proposing such rigorous methods to better comprehend today’s management difficulties and complex reality (Hair et al., 2017). The research model suggests the possibility of employing the structural equation modeling method in a systematic manner, which has been demonstrated to be an efficient analysis tool. This is accomplished by modeling the association between supervisory support and OCB using self-efficacy and supervisory support as individual level variables and OCB as an organizational level variable. Therefore, this study provides methodological implications to consider moderation relationship between supervisory support and OCB.
Managerial implications
The finding that a supportive supervisor improves employees’ OCB and is reinforced by individuals’ self-belief suggests that creating a supportive work environment is critical for public organizations. Managers should use training interventions to encourage supervisors to recognize and value employees’ contributions to organizational improvement. Supervisors should be trained to support and treat their subordinates fairly in order to foster trust in their managers. Furthermore, an organization can foster a supportive culture by cultivating a healthy and positive supervisor-employee relationship. This will encourage job involvement and participation, which will not only result in a positive outcome but will also aid in the prevention of a variety of problems such as turnover intentions, low self-confidence, absenteeism, job dissatisfaction, and poor performance. Hence, public sector organizations may benefit from interventions that promote OCB among public sector employees. As a result, the current study has important implications for identifying the presence of supervisory support and the resulting improvement in OCB, as well as fostering employee self-efficacy.
The finding that self-efficacy buffers the significant impact of supervisory support on OCB suggests that self-efficacy can at least strengthen the low level of supportive supervisors. This highlights the importance of increasing employees’ self-efficacy as a means of reducing counter-productive behavior and encouraging OCB among employees. Public sector organizations may want to consider development programs like training, consulting, and coaching, as well as behavioral modeling and soft skills training. Such development initiatives will effectively encourage and assist employees in increasing self-confidence, resulting in availability and willingness to contribute to citizenship behavior.
Limitations and recommendations
There are several limitations to the current study. First, current findings should not be generalized to other contexts. The research was carried out in selected public sector organizations within the Malaysian federal government. Several differences may exist in terms of work environment, job scope, and individual characteristics, which are reinforced by the culture of each organization. Hence, participants in each organization differ in cultural and social contexts, and their interpretations of the constructs differ from those in other organizations and countries. As a result, the findings should be restricted to public-sector organizations. Future research could focus on other public sector organizations, such as state government, local governments, or city council levels, as well as different industries, such as the private sector, academic institutions or non-government organizations, for a more in-depth investigation, allowing for a better generalization of these findings to other contexts.
Second, self-efficacy is the only moderator used in the relationship between supervisory support and OCB. This does not imply that this is the only moderating mechanism underlying the supervisory support OCB relationship. Future research should look into the impact of other moderators on this process. In addition, future research may investigate the differential impact of supervisory support and self-efficacy on the various dimensions of OCB such as altruism, conscientiousness, civic virtue, courtesy, and sportsmanship. The findings of this study could serve as the baseline for future studies that investigate the effects of OCB on the population as a whole.
Furthermore, the current study used a cross-sectional survey that was conducted over a single time period. This precludes any conclusions about the causality implied by the relationship. A longitudinal research design could establish definitive conclusions about cause-and-effect made at different points in time (Green et al., 2016). Although CMB was not a major concern in the study, future research should consider using multi-source data collection methods and a mixed method research design. For example, data can be collected from supervisors, coworkers, colleagues, and subordinates (Podsakoff et al., 2012) and they can be interviewed to determine the exact nature of employees’ self-efficacy and supervisory support in OCB. Furthermore, data from other parties, such as supervisors or coworkers, would allow for a more complete understanding of the supervisory support and individual self-efficacy implications for OCB in the public sector. Nonetheless, the findings of this study will be useful to practitioners who want to encourage a supportive environment and improve employees’ self-efficacy and OCB.
Conclusion
According to the findings, self-efficacy moderates the relationship between supervisory support and OCB. The findings suggest that self-efficacy plays a significant role in the encouragement of supportive supervisors and workplace behavior such as OCB. The current study adds to the literature on organizational behavior, specifically employee performance, by incorporating the moderating effect of self-efficacy. The study fills a gap in the existing literature, particularly in the context of OCB, and thus adds to our understanding of the impact of various types of resources, such as self-efficacy and supervisory support, on citizenship behavior in Malaysian government organizations. As a result, the goal of this research is to encourage government organizations to develop and improve their current policies in order to successfully provide a better work environment and, as a result, increase employee productivity and overall performance.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
Ethical approval was not provided for this study on human participants because the article’s survey did not identify specific individuals, and participation was completely voluntary. Therefore, ethical review and approval was not required in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
MA: conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, and writing. WW: writing—review and editing. Both authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Abdullah, M. R., and Kamil, N. L. M. (2020). Demographic characteristics and organisational citizenship behavior in public institutions. Inst. Econ. 12, 89–105.
Abdullah, M. R., and Marican, S. (2020). Supervisory support and organisational citizenship behaviour: The role of self-efficacy as mediator. Int. J. Public Sect. Perform. Manage. 6, 854–875. doi: 10.1504/IJPSPM.2020.110989
Acaray, A., and Akturan, A. (2015). The relationship between organizational citizenship behaviour and organizational silence. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 207, 472–482. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.10.117
Adebayo, S. O., and Ogunsina, S. O. (2011). Influence of supervisory behaviour and job stress on job satisfaction and turnover intention of police personnel in Ekiti State. J. Manage. Strategy 2, 13–20. doi: 10.5430/jms.v2n3p13
Aftab, S., and Waheed, A. (2021). Proactive employee behaviors and organizational development: The role of self-efficacy as a moderator. Res. J. Soc. Sci. Econ. Rev. 2, 232–243. doi: 10.36902/rjsser-vol2-iss1-2021(232-243)
Ahmad, B., Iqbal, S., Hai, M., and Latif, S. (2022). The interplay of personal values, relational mobile usage and organizational citizenship behavior. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. 19, 260–280. doi: 10.1108/ITSE-01-2021-0016
Ahmed, U., Umrani, W. A., Pahi, M. H., and Shah, S. M. M. (2017). Engaging Ph.D. students: Investigating the role of supervisor support and psychological capital in a mediated model. Iran. J. Manage. Stud. 10, 283–306.
Akram, A., Kamran, M., Iqbal, M. S., Habibah, U., and Atif Ishaq, M. (2018). The impact of supervisory justice and perceived supervisor support on organizational citizenship behavior and commitment to supervisor: The mediating role of trust. Cogent Bus. Manage. 5, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/23311975.2018.1493902
Anderson, J. C., and Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice : A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 103, 411–423. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Andriyanti, N. P. V., and Supartha, I. W. G. (2021). Effect of perceived organizational support on organizational citizenship behavior with job satisfaction as mediating variables. Am. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Res. 5, 46–55.
Anseel, F., Lievens, F., Schollaert, E., and Choragwicka, B. (2010). Response rates in organizational science, 1995-2008: A meta-analytic review and guidelines for survey researchers. J. Bus. Psychol. 25, 335–349. doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9157-6
Astrachan, C. B., Patel, V. K., and Wanzenried, G. (2014). A comparative study of CB-SEM and PLS-SEM for theory development in family firm research. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 5, 116–128. doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2013.12.002
Bagger, J., and Li, A. (2014). How does supervisory family support influence employees’ attitudes and behaviors? A social exchange perspective. J. Manage. 40, 1123–1150. doi: 10.1177/0149206311413922
Bakker, A. B., and Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. J. Manage. Psychol. 22, 309–328. doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., and Dollard, M. F. (2008). How job demands affect partners’ experience of exhaustion: Integrating work-family conflict and crossover theory. J. Appl. Psychol. 93, 901–911. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.4.901
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2006). “Guide for constructing self-efficacy Scales,” in Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, eds F. Pajares and T. Urdan (Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing), 307–337.
Basu, E., Pradhan, R. K., and Tewari, H. R. (2017). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on job performance in Indian healthcare industries: The mediating role of social capital. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manage. 66, 780–796. doi: 10.1108/IJPPM-02-2016-0048
Bhanthumnavin, D. (2003). Perceived social support from supervisor and group members’ psychological and situational characteristics as predictors of subordinate performance in Thai work units. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 14, 79–97. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.1051
Chen, C. H., Wang, S. J., Chang, W. C., and Hu, C. S. (2008). The effect of leader-member exchange, trust, supervisor support on organizational citizenship behavior in nurses. J. Nurs. Res. 16, 321–328. doi: 10.1097/01.JNR.0000387319.28010.5e
Cherian, J., and Jacob, J. (2013). Impact of self efficacy on motivation and performance of employees. Int. J. Bus. Manage. 8, 80–88. doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v8n14p80
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., and Newted, P. R. (2003). “A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and voice mail emotion/adoption study,” in Proceedings of the 17th international conference on information systems, Cleveland, OH, 21–41. doi: 10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018
Chin, W. W., and Saunders, C. (2009). A critical look at partial least squares modeling (PLS). MIS Q. 33, 171–175. doi: 10.2307/20650283
Choi, W. S., Kang, S. W., and Choi, S. B. (2021). Innovative behavior in the workplace: An empirical study of moderated mediation model of self-efficacy, perceived organizational support, and leader–member exchange. Behav. Sci. 11:182. doi: 10.3390/bs11120182
Cinamon, R. G. (2006). Anticipated work – family conflict : Effects of gender, self-efficacy, and family background. Career Dev. Q. 54, 202–215. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-0045.2006.tb00152.x
Dai, Y. D., Hou, Y. H., Chen, K. Y., and Zhuang, W. L. (2018). To help or not to help: Antecedents of hotel employees’ organizational citizenship behavior. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 30, 1293–1313. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-03-2016-0160
de Andrade, T., Costa, V. F., Estivalete, V. F. B., and Lengler, L. (2017). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A glimpse in the light of values and job satisfaction. Rev. Bus. Manage. 19, 236–262. doi: 10.7819/rbgn.v19i64.2899
Easo, K., Balaji, M. S., and Anbazhagan, B. (2020). Organizational citizenship behaviour, its antecedents and outcome: An empirical analysis. Shanlax Int. J. Manage. 7, 74–77. doi: 10.34293/management.v7i3.1610
Eisenberger, R., Malone, G. P., and Presson, W. D. (2016). Optimizing perceived organizational support to enhance employee engagement. Soc. Hum. Resour. Manage. 2, 3–22.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., and Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. J. Appl. Psychol. 87, 565–573. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.565
Gan, J. L., and Yusof, H. M. (2020). A global research trend on organizational citizenship behaviour: A bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Psychosoc. Rehabil. 24, 163–170. doi: 10.26710/sbsee.v2i1.1295
Green, J. P., Tonidandel, S., and Cortina, J. M. (2016). Getting through the gate: Statistical and methodological issues raised in the reviewing process. Organ. Res. Methods 19, 402–432. doi: 10.1177/1094428116631417
Guglielmi, D., Simbula, S., Schaufeli, W. B., and Depolo, M. (2012). Self-efficacy and workaholism as initiators of the job demands-resources model. Career Dev. Int. 17, 375–389. doi: 10.1108/13620431211255842
Hair, J. F. Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2014). A Primer on Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc. doi: 10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J.-P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., and Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. J. Manage. 40, 1334–1364. doi: 10.1177/0149206314527130
Han, S. H., Yoon, D. Y., Suh, B., Li, B., and Chae, C. (2019). Organizational support on knowledge sharing: A moderated mediation model of job characteristics and organizational citizenship behavior. J. Knowl. Manage. 23, 687–704. doi: 10.1108/JKM-03-2018-0213
He, J., Zhang, H., and Morrison, A. M. (2019). The impacts of corporate social responsibility on organization citizenship behavior and task performance in hospitality: A sequential mediation model. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 31, 2582–2598. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-05-2018-0378
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 43, 115–135. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., and Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). “The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing,” in New challenges to international marketing, Vol. 20, eds R. R. Sinkovics and P. N. Ghauri (Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited), 277–319. doi: 10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources–a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol. 44, 513–524. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Appl. Psychol. 50, 337–421. doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00062
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 6, 307–324. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307
Hobfoll, S. E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J.-P., and Westman, M. (2018). Dynamic self-regulation and multiple-goal pursuit dynamic system: A system in which the elements change over time. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 5, 103–128. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640
Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Ennis, N., and Jackson, A. P. (2003). Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among Inner City Women. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 84, 632–643. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.632
Ibrahim, M. A., Sulaiman, W. S. W., Hafidz, S. W. M., and Abdul Aziz, S. F. (2016). Pengaruh Iklim Organisasi Terhadap Tingkah Laku Kewargaan Organisasi Dalam Kalangan Penjawat Awam. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 11, 1–16.
Ibrahim, R. M., Abd Ghani, M., Hashim, N. H., Amin, A., and Salleh, M. (2016). Organizational citizenship behavior evaluation: Insights from Local Government Agency in Malaysia. Int. Bus. Manage. 10, 1592–1598.
Ibrahim, S. N. H., Suan, C. L., and Karatepe, O. M. (2019). The effects of supervisor support and self-efficacy on call center employees’ work engagement and quitting intentions. Int. J. Manpow. 40, 688–703. doi: 10.1108/IJM-12-2017-0320
Jehanzeb, K. (2020). Does perceived organizational support and employee development influence organizational citizenship behavior?: Person–organization fit as moderator. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 44, 637–657. doi: 10.1108/EJTD-02-2020-0032
Kaur, K., and Randhawa, G. (2021). Exploring the influence of supportive supervisors on organisational citizenship behaviours: Linking theory to practice. IIMB Manage. Rev. 33, 156–165. doi: 10.1016/j.iimb.2021.03.012
Kaur, P., Malhotra, K., and Sharma, S. K. (2020). Employer branding and organisational citizenship behaviour: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Asia Pac. J. Manage. Res. Innov. 16, 122–131. doi: 10.1177/2319510X20931716
Khan, S. I., Mahmood, A., Kanwal, S., and Latif, Y. (2015). How perceived supervisor support effects workplace deviance? Mediating role of perceived organizational support. Pak. J. Commer. Soc. Sci. 9, 940–967.
Klotz, A. C., Bolino, M. C., Song, H., and Stornelli, J. (2018). Examining the nature, causes, and consequences of profiles of organizational citizenship behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 39, 629–647. doi: 10.1002/job.2259
Kottke, J. L., and Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring perceived supervisory and organizational support. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 48, 1075–1079. doi: 10.1177/0013164488484024
Ladebo, O. J. (2008). Perceived supervisory support and organisational citizenship behaviours: Is job satisfaction a mediator? S. Afr. J. Psychol. 38, 479–488. doi: 10.1177/008124630803800303
Lee, K., and Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. J. Appl. Psychol. 87, 131–142. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.131
Ling Suan, C., and Mohd Nasurdin, A. (2016). Supervisor support and work engagement of hotel employees in Malaysia: Is it different for men and women? Gend. Manage. 31, 2–18. doi: 10.1108/GM-11-2014-0105
Malhotra, M. K., and Grover, V. (1998). An assessment of survey research in POM: From constructs to theory. J. Oper. Manage. 16, 407–425. doi: 10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00021-7
Marić, M., Hernaus, T., Vujčić, M. T., and Černe, M. (2019). Job characteristics and organizational citizenship behavior: A multisource study on the role of work engagement. Društvena Istraživanja. 28, 25–45. doi: 10.5559/di.28.1.02
Masrek, M. N., Yusof, N. I., Noordin, S. A., and Johare, R. (2013). Exploring the relationship between job design and knowledge productivity: A conceptual framework in the context of Malaysian administrative and diplomatic officers. J. Organ. Knowl. Manage. 2013, 1–8.
Mazumder, B., Khumyu, A., and Boonyanurak, P. (2016). Relationships between organizational commitments, supervisory support and job satisfaction of nurses in a public specialized hospital, Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Med. Sci. 15, 39–43. doi: 10.3329/bjms.v15i1.27137
Mehboob, M., Arif, I., and Jalal, M. (2011). Analysis of effect of supervisors’ behavior on subordinates’ job satisfaction. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 5, 2984–2993.
Mellahi, K., and Harris, L. (2016). Response rates in business and management research: An overview of current practice and suggestions for future directions. Br. J. Manage. 27, 426–437. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12154
Montani, F., and Dagenais-Desmarais, V. (2018). Unravelling the relationship between role overload and organizational citizenship behaviour: A test of mediating and moderating effects. Eur. Manage. J. 36, 757–768. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2018.03.001
Mulki, J. P., Lassk, F. G., and Jaramillo, F. (2008). The effect of self-efficacy on salesperson work overload and pay satisfaction. J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manage. 28, 285–297. doi: 10.2753/PSS0885-3134280305
Mylona, E., and Mihail, D. (2020). An employee perspective of human resource development practices in the public sector: The role of organizational and supervisor support. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 88, 739–756. doi: 10.1177/0020852320952858
Ngah, N., Ahmad, A., Hamid, T. A. T. A., and Ismail, A. (2010). The mediating role of work-family conflict in the relationship between supervisor support and job satisfaction. Int. J. Interdiscip. Soc. Sci. 4, 187–197. doi: 10.18848/1833-1882/CGP/v04i11/53030
Nguyen, P. D., Khoi, N. H., Le, A. N. H., and Ho, H. X. (2022). Benevolent leadership and organizational citizenship behaviors in a higher education context: A moderated mediation model. Pers. Rev. doi: 10.1108/PR-04-2021-0234 [Epub ahead of print].
Nik Nazli, N. N. N., and Sheikh Khairudin, S. M. H. (2018). The factors that influence transfer of training and its effect on organizational citizenship behaviour: Evidence from Malaysia civil defence force. J. Workplace Learn. 30, 121–146. doi: 10.1108/JWL-09-2017-0080
Nisula, A. M. (2015). The relationship between supervisor support and individual improvisation. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 36, 473–488. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-07-2013-0098
Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Hum. Perform. 10, 85–97. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2
Organ, D. W. (2018). Organizational citizenship behavior: Recent trends and developments. Annu. Revis. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 5, 295–306. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104536
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., and MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781452231082
Ozyilmaz, A., Erdogan, B., and Karaeminogullari, A. (2017). Trust in organization as a moderator of the relationship between self-efficacy and workplace outcomes: A social cognitive theory-based examination. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 91, 181–204. doi: 10.1111/joop.12189
Paillé, P., Grima, F., and Bernardeau, D. (2013). When subordinates feel supported by managers: Investigating the relationships between support, trust, commitment and outcomes. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 79, 681–700. doi: 10.1177/0020852313501248
Pasamehmetoglu, A., Guchait, P., Tracey, J. B., Cunningham, C. J. L., and Lei, P. (2017). The moderating effect of supervisor and coworker support for error management on service recovery performance and helping behaviors. J. Serv. Theory Pract. 27, 2–22. doi: 10.1108/JSTP-06-2015-0130
Paterson, T. A., Luthans, F., and Jeung, W. (2014). Thriving at work: Impact of psychological capital and supervisor support. J. Organ. Behav. 35, 434–446. doi: 10.1002/job.1907
Podsakoff, N. P., Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Maynes, T. D., Whiting, S. W., and Spoelma, T. M. (2017). “Multilevel antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior: A review and recommendations for future research,” in The Oxford handbook of organizational citizenship behavior, eds P. M. Podsakoff, S. B. Mackenzie, and N. P. Podsakoff (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 1–88. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190219000.013.43
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., and Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 122–141. doi: 10.1037/a0013079
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Revis. Psychol. 63, 539–569. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Pradhan, R. K., Jena, L. K., and Panigrahy, N. P. (2020). Do sustainability practices buffer the impact of self-efficacy on organisational citizenship behaviour?: Conceptual and statistical considerations. J. Indian Bus. Res. 12, 509–528. doi: 10.1108/JIBR-05-2019-0170
Ramlee, N., Osman, A., Salahudin, S. N., Yeng, S. K., Ling, S. C., and Safizal, M. (2016). The influence of religiosity, stress and job attitude towards organizational behavior: Evidence from public universities in Malaysia. Procedia Econ. Finance 35, 563–573. doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00069-1
Reader, T. W., Mearns, K., Lopes, C., and Kuha, J. (2017). Organizational support for the workforce and employee safety citizenship behaviors: A social exchange relationship. Hum. Relat. 70, 362–385. doi: 10.1177/0018726716655863
Rigotti, T., Schyns, B., and Mohr, G. (2008). A short version of the occupational self-efficacy scale: Structural and construct validity across five countries. J. Career Assess. 16, 238–255. doi: 10.1177/1069072707305763
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., and Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3 (3.2.7). Available online at: http://www.smartpls.com (accessed February 15, 2022).
Sanali, S., Bahron, A., and Dousin, O. (2013). Job rotation practices, stress and motivation: An empirical study among administrative and diplomatic officers (ADO) in Sabah, Malaysia. Int. J. Res. Manage. Technol. 3, 160–166.
Sekaran, U., and Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach, 7th Edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Shim, D. C., and Faerman, S. (2015). Government employees’ organizational citizenship behavior: The impacts of public service motivation, organizational identification, and subjective OCB norms. Int. Public Manage. J. 20, 531–559. doi: 10.1080/10967494.2015.1037943
Shu, C. Y., Chiang, Y. H., and Lu, C. H. (2018). Authoritarian leadership supervisor support and workers’ compulsory citizenship behavior. Int. J. Manpow. 39, 468–485. doi: 10.1108/IJM-10-2016-0191
Sihag, P., and Sarikwal, L. (2015). Effect of perceived organizational support on psychological capital-a study of IT industries in Indian framework. Electron. J. Bus. Ethics Organ. Stud. 20, 19–26.
Somech, A., and Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in schools: The relationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teachers’ extra-role behavior. Teach. Teach. Educ. 16, 649–659. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00012-3
Sri Ramalu, S., and Janadari, N. (2020). Authentic leadership and organizational citizenship behaviour: The role of psychological capital. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manage. 71, 365–385. doi: 10.1108/IJPPM-03-2020-0110
Suharnomo, S., and Hashim, F. (2019). Differences in organization citizenship behavior between “serumpun” countries (Indonesia – Malaysia). J. Asia Bus. Stud. 13, 349–361. doi: 10.1108/JABS-12-2016-0178
Susskind, A. M., Kacmar, K. M., and Borchgrevink, C. P. (2003). Customer service providers’ attitudes relating to customer service and customer satisfaction in the customer – server exchange. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 179–187. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.179
Tang, Y.-Y., and Tsaur, S.-H. (2016). Supervisory support climate and service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality: The role of positive group affective tone. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 28, 2331–2349. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-09-2014-0432
Testa, F., Corsini, F., Gusmerotti, N. M., and Iraldo, F. (2018). Predictors of organizational citizenship behavior in relation to environmental and health & safety issues. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manage. 5192, 1–34.
Tremblay, M., and Gibson, M. (2016). The role of humor in the relationship between transactional leadership behavior, perceived supervisor support, and citizenship behavior. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 23, 39–54. doi: 10.1177/1548051815613018
Tsai, T. T.-H., and Lin, A. J. (2014). Do psychological contract and organizational citizenship behavior affect organizational performance in non-profit organizations? Chin. Manage. Stud. 8, 397–417.
Ullah, S., Raza, B., Ali, W., Amjad, S., and Jadoon, A. K. (2021). Linking self-efficacy and organizational citizenship behavior: A moderated mediation model. Int. J. Organ. Leadersh. 10, 233–247.
Wang, Z. (2014). Perceived supervisor support and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of organizational commitment. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 5, 210–214.
William, L. J., and Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J. Manage. 17, 601–617. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700305
Wu, T. Y., Lee, S. J., Hu, C., and Yang, C. C. (2014). When supervisors perceive non-work support: Test of a trickle-down model. J. Psychol. Interdiscip. Appl. 148, 215–251. doi: 10.1080/00223980.2013.774200
Yadav, M., and Rangnekar, S. (2015). Supervisory support and organizational citizenship behavior: Mediating role of participation in decision making and job satisfaction. Evid. Based HRM Glob. Forum Empir. Scholarsh. 3, 258–278. doi: 10.1108/EBHRM-04-2014-0014
Yin Yin Lau, P., Park, S., and McLean, G. N. (2020). Learning organization and organizational citizenship behaviour in West Malaysia: Moderating role of team-oriented culture. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 44, 847–864. doi: 10.1108/EJTD-01-2020-0007
Keywords: supervisory support, organizational citizenship behavior, self-efficacy, public sector, SEM-PLS
Citation: Abdullah MR and Wider W (2022) The moderating effect of self-efficacy on supervisory support and organizational citizenship behavior. Front. Psychol. 13:961270. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.961270
Received: 04 June 2022; Accepted: 08 August 2022;
Published: 20 September 2022.
Edited by:
Wangshuai Wang, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, ChinaReviewed by:
Sean McCallaghan, North West University, South AfricaJoseph Ntayi, Makerere University, Uganda
Copyright © 2022 Abdullah and Wider. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Meor Rashydan Abdullah, rashydan.abdullah@newinti.edu.my