This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Ó Springer 2009
Perceptions of Organizational Virtuousness and Happiness as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
´nio Rego Arme Neuza Ribeiro Miguel P. Cunha
ABSTRACT. Moral and financial scandals emerging in recent years around the world have created the momentum for reconsidering the role of virtuousness in organizational settings. This empirical study seeks to contribute toward maintaining this momentum. We answer to researchers’ suggestions that the exploratory study carried out by Cameron et al. (Am Behav Sci 47(6):766–790, 2004), which related organizational virtuousness (OV) and performance, must be pursued employing their measure of OV in other contexts and in relation to other outcomes (Wright and Goodstein, J Manage 33(6):928–958, 2007). Two hundred and sixteen employees reported their perceptions of OV and their affective well-being (AWB) at work (one of the main indicators of employees’ happiness), their supervisors reporting their organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB). The main ﬁnding is that the perceptions of OV predict some OCB both directly and through the mediating role of AWB. The evidence suggests that OV is worthy of a higher status in the business and organizational psychology literatures. KEY WORDS: organizational virtuousness, psychological climate, affective well-being, happiness, organizational citizenship behaviors
Introduction The recent moral and ﬁnancial collapse of several high proﬁle organizations around the world has led the business community (e.g., George, 2003) and the popular and business press to rediscover the worthiness of organizations’ virtues (Wright and Goodstein, 2007). Scholars themselves have begun putting virtues on the stage, with Wright and Goodstein (2007) arguing that the topic is not ‘‘dead’’ in management research. For example, the
theme of the 2007 Academy of Management annual conference was ‘‘doing well by doing good.’’ The conference organizers acknowledged that organizational performance should consider, beyond the bottom line criteria, the degree to which organizations improve the lives of its members and stakeholders. Several scholars have also stressed that virtue needs to be placed in the business and management research agenda (Gavin and Mason, 2004; Gowri, 2007; Lilius et al., 2008; Moore, 2005; Moore and Beadle, 2006; Park and Peterson, 2003; Schudt, 2000; Wright and Goodstein, 2007). Other authors have started to investigate the topic empirically (Bright et al., 2006; Cameron, 2003; Cameron et al., 2004; Chun, 2005). Cameron et al. (2004) developed and operationalized the organizational virtuousness (OV) construct, and found promising ﬁndings regarding the relationship between OV and performance. They also pointed out how OV is especially important in difﬁcult periods such as corporate downsizing (Bright et al., 2006). Noticing that the relevance ascribed to character and virtues in individual and institutional life ‘‘has waxed and waned, often depending on broader trends in society and the pervasiveness of corruption and scandals in the private and public sectors,’’ Wright and Goodstein (2007, p. 949), asked: ‘‘[w]hat is needed to maintain momentum in exploring the role of character and virtue in organizational studies?’’ They suggested that more research is necessary to answer the question. Organizational manifestations of virtuousness and its consequences, both for individuals and organizations, remain under-developed theoretically and empirically (Cameron, 2003; Cameron et al., 2004; Wright and Goodstein, 2007).
´nio Rego et al. Arme Keeping this in mind, we structured the article as follows. We start by brieﬂy discussing each construct’s deﬁnition. Making use of a double-source method for collecting data on dependent and independent variables, we hope to contribute to a better understanding of what is surely a central challenge for many contemporary organizations and their managers: to identify forms of using and developing their human capital in a way that is mutually beneﬁcial for themselves and their employees. Before proceeding, we clarify that, regarding OV, our focus is on psychological climates (James et al., 2008; Parker et al., 2003), without aggregating the individual’s perceptions at the organizational level. Psychological climate enables people to interpret events, predict possible outcomes, and gauge the appropriateness of their subsequent actions. Studying psychological climate seems an appropriate way to investigate well-being and OCB because it is people’s subjective perception and evaluation (not so much the objective situation itself) that allows them to ‘‘see’’ what the organization does, and then reciprocate (Haller and Hadler, 2006; Martin et al., 2005; Peterson, 2004).
This article is an answer to the challenges posed by those researchers. We agree with Wright and Goodstein’s (2007) suggestion that the exploratory nature of the assessment method employed by Cameron et al. (2004) invites other researchers to employ such a measure in other contexts and in relation to other outcomes (e.g., employee loyalty; organizational commitment; and well-being). More speciﬁcally, we focus on how perceptions of OV predict organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), both directly and through the mediating role of affective well-being (AWB), the hypothesized model being depicted in Figure 1. OV refers to organizational contexts where virtues (e.g., humanity, integrity, forgiveness, and trust) are practiced, supported, nourished, disseminated, and perpetuated, both at the individual and collective levels (Cameron et al., 2004). AWB is one of the most important, if not the most important, components of psychological well-being, or happiness (Daniels, 2000; Grant et al., 2007). OCB is one of the main constructs related to extra-role performance (Organ, 1997), and has a positive impact on individual and organizational performance (Podsakoff and MacKenzie, 1997; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Studies on the relationship between (a) well-being and OCB and (b) perceptions of some virtuous organizational features (e.g., trust, integrity) and well-being are not really new in the literature. However, studies focusing on the OV construct as antecedent of OCB and well-being are lacking. Although studies about integrity and trust within organizations are common in the literature, research combining such aspects with perceptions of other organizational features such as compassion, forgiveness, and optimism is yet to be done. This article assumes that, for building a ‘‘stronger science of organizational behavior’’ (Wright and Quick, 2009), more theoretical and empirical efforts must be made to identify sources of the fruitful association between ‘‘healthy organizations’’ and healthy individuals (Kets de Vries, 2001; Wilson et al., 2004).
Key constructs of the model OV The Latin word virtus means ‘‘strength’’ or ‘‘excellence.’’ Virtues are habits, desires, and actions that produce personal and social good (Aristotle, 1999; Cameron, 2003; Gowri, 2007). They can be deﬁned as ‘‘core characteristics valued by moral philosophers and religious thinkers’’ (Peterson and Seligman, 2004, p. 13). These include six broad categories: wisdom, courage, humanity, justice, temperance, and transcendence (Peterson and Seligman, 2004). Virtuousness refers to the pursuit of the highest aspirations in the human condition (Bright et al., 2006). Recent corporate scandals have prompted a growing interest in the topic as an organizational property/feature, both in the business community and academia. For example, Cameron et al. (2004) developed and validated an instrument for measuring the perceptions of OV. They found a ﬁve-factor model comprising organizational optimism, forgiveness, trust, compassion, and integrity. Organizational
Perceptions of organizational virtuousnesss
Organizational citizenship behavior
Figure 1. Hypothesized model.
2005). 1988. b. so its omission from scientiﬁc investigation leaves a void in understanding the full range of consequential organizational phenomena. 2003.Perceptions of Organizational Virtuousness and Happiness optimism means that organizational members develop a belief that they will succeed in doing well and doing good. Staw et al. 1997. Organ (1997) suggested that OCB be redeﬁned as contextual performance: ‘‘contributions to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that supports task performance’’ (Organ. 91). Rego et al. Cameron et al. boredom–enthusiasm.’’ By relating OV with extra-role performance (i. a multidimensional construct covering several components. In this article. by enhancing resiliency. attitudes. and anger–placidity. we hope to contribute toward making the construct 217 more familiar and relevant to researchers at the interface between business and psychology. and to improve performance (Bright et al. 2000). Lyubomirsky et al. 2004). which in turn. p. 2007). although only after removing several scales. Daniels (2000) proposed an AWB at work construct comprising ﬁve bi-polar dimensions: anxiety–comfort. and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization’’ (Organ. and that acts of compassion and concern are common. solidarity. we focus on AWB. 2007) and increasing individual and organizational performance (Fredrickson. p. not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system. OCB The OCB was originally deﬁned as ‘‘individual behavior that is discretionary. and maintain momentum in difﬁcult circumstances (as in the case of downsizing). Rego and Cunha (2008a) also found that a second-order factor model. 4). Diener. Empirical studies by Rego and his associates (Rego and Cunha. because virtuousness is intimately tied to what is good to and for human beings. This association between OV and performance may make virtuousness a less foreign construct to the organizational research ﬁeld (Cameron et al. 2009a. feelings.. and behaviors. and honor pervade the organization. recover from trauma. 2003. and (b) between what is contractual and noncontractual.. autonomy. Statistically signiﬁcant relationships between perceived OV and performance have been found (Cameron. employees experience positive emotions. integrative functioning. 1998. Scholars tend to treat ‘‘happiness’’ as psychological well-being (Grant et al. For example.. and can be measured in relation to the work domain... ﬁts the data reasonably well. and behaviors. 49) pointed out. lead them to replicate virtuous acts. and a sense of efﬁcacy. Virtuousness ampliﬁes positive contexts. OCB). 2004). Daniels (2000) found empirical evidence supporting the ﬁvefactor model. aspiration. For example. deﬁned as the frequent experience of positive affects and the infrequent experience of negative affects (Daniels. with the ﬁve factors loading onto an overall AWB factor. competence. Organizational compassion means that people care about each other. thus subsequently fostering social capital (Baker and Dutton. 2006. 2004).. p. and respect govern the organization and that people trust each other and their leaders. depression–pleasure. ‘‘organizational manifestations of OV and its consequences remain underdeveloped theoretically and empirically. 2000. Cameron. including AWB. As Cameron (2003. AWB ‘‘Happiness’’ is a subjective experience: people are happy to the extent that they believe themselves to be happy. trustworthiness. This is unfortunate. Observing problems and difﬁculties in distinguishing (a) between what is and what is not discretionary. 1994). At the heart of the OCB concept resides the idea that . 2009) also support the model. Organizational integrity indicates that honesty. allowing them and their organizations to overcome problems and difﬁculties. 2008a. tiredness–vigor. even when faced with major challenges.. consideration. the exposure to virtuousness may help individuals to absorb misfortune.. Organizational forgiveness means that the mistakes are quickly forgiven and used as opportunities for learning in a context characterized by high standards of performance. attitudes. when observing virtuous behaviors. Organizational trust indicates that courtesy. Cameron et al. 2000. and satisfaction (Daniels.. 2003. Virtuousness also buffers the organization and its members from negative contexts.e. The AWB construct is multidimensional and domain speciﬁc.
1997. Altruism refers to discretionary behaviors aimed at helping other individuals with an organizationally relevant task or problem. OCB increases social capital and enhances organizational functioning (Bolino et al. and help to sustain/reinforce that reputation (e. 2004. One possible explanation is that individuals tend to act in a manner consistent with the values they perceive in the organization (Baker AWB and OCB Several authors have suggested that happy employees tend to be more helpful to other people. 1998). 2004). employees may be compelled to reciprocate with acts that beneﬁt the organization and other people (Eisenberger et al.. 2003. which beneﬁt the organization (Coyle-Shapiro. Konovsky and Organ. Rego and Cunha. increase their organizational identiﬁcation. 2003. Thus. leading the observer to experience a compelling urge to join with and build upon the contributions of such virtuous people (Cameron et al. and make efforts to perform better and to beneﬁt the whole organization (Bagozzi.. which. and this may be the case when they perceive their organization as virtuous.g. 1996. Courtesy is about being mindful of how one’s action affects other people.g.. Thus. 1996). Dutton et al. 2001. 2002). (2007) also suggested that ‘‘current operationalizations of OCB are best viewed as indicators of a general OCB factor. and more prone to adopt OCB (Gavin and Mason. The ﬁve dimensions suggested by Organ (1988) and the most frequently examined by researchers (Schnake and Dumler. Feeling gratitude for working in a virtuous organization (Emmons.. more committed to improving organizational performance.. and spiritual) to the organization. we hypothesize that: H1: organizations depending upon prescribed behavior are fragile social systems (Katz. Individuals may also form positive images about the organization. courtesy. leading them to adopt afﬁliative behaviors (e. 562). including OCB. 2002) and effectiveness (Podsakoff and MacKenzie. conscientiousness.. For example.218 ´nio Rego et al. Podsakoff et al. Perceptions of OV may also lead employees to develop relational psychological contracts with the organization. 1990). 2000. and take on work more as a mission than as a mere ‘‘job’’. Arme et al. 2008b). altruism) and to repeat the good deeds. thus reacting with behaviors that go beyond their in-role duties. Podsakoff et al. Civic virtue is the responsible participation in the political process of the organization (e.g. 2000. 2003) are altruism. Bergami and Bagozzi.. develop trust and a sense of loyalty. 1964)... 1994).. in turn makes them more affectively and normatively attached to their organizations. and civic virtue. 2006).. A more recent metaanalysis conducted by Hoffman et al. Observing virtuousness creates a sense of attachment and attraction toward the virtuous actors (Bolino et al. Sportsmanship refers to tolerating the inconveniences and annoyances of organizational life without complaining and ﬁling grievances. researchers must avoid focusing on its speciﬁc dimensions. Such efforts may include OCB such as civic virtue and conscientiousness. mental. in a meta-analysis. Hypotheses perceptions of OV are related to OCB OV and OCB Perceptions of OV may induce people to adopt more OCB. Settoon et al. by speaking well about the organization in the presence of outsiders).. 2004). 2002). it is likely that they help coworkers and supervisors if they feel that those acts are valued in the organization. Wright and Cropanzano. and thus bring their entire self (physical. Empirical studies have supported this ﬁve-factor structure (e. Conscientiousness involves employees’ behaviors that go beyond minimal requirements in carrying out their tasks. emotional. They argued that. sportsmanship. to be more . LePine et al.g. They also feel that they are carrying out meaningful work.. (2002) suggested that scholars should think of Organ’s (1988) OCB as a latent construct and considered the OCB dimensions as somewhat imperfect indicators of the same underlying construct. However. when OCB is the focal construct of interest. there is likely little to be gained through the use of separate dimensional measures as opposed to an overall composite measure’’ (p. Fredrickson. contribution to discussions or the involvement in organizational activities to assist and improve the organization). courtesy.
cognition. 2008) and consider work situations as controllable (Miles et al. Ryan and Deci. and social resources (Fredrickson. and enable people to be more socially integrated and to develop more successful social interactions (Diener and Seligman. Haller and Hadler.. Positive emotions can also boost employees’ perceptions of enhanced meaning from work (Wright and Cropanzano. 1996. zest. thus experiencing higher AWB (Baker and Dutton. Spector and Fox. People in good moods engage in behaviors that will support their mood.’’ Adopting OCB is a way to perform such a ‘‘good job.. 2001. intimacy.. adopt behaviors that sustain/reinforce such reputation (e. 2002). When employees perceive that their organization acts in a virtuous way. Such positive interactions may make them more inclined to help others (altruism). 1994).. They feel proud to identify with their organization. intellectual. Kets de Vries. Observing OV may also engender positive emotions because people feel psychologically and emotionally safer (Brown and Leigh. Spector and Fox.. Close and gratifying relationships with other people may nurture perceptions of meaningful work.’’ Positive emotions can broaden the scope of attention. induce them to perform OCB. Edmondson. Such positive emotions may give rise to more effective interpersonal relationships (Staw and .g.g. Employees’ sense of being respected may also increase. 2002). and security needs. Positive emotions bring people closer. Miles et al. Staw and Barsade. Barsade and Gibson. Thus. 2004)... OV and AWB Several authors (e. we hypothesize that: H2: 219 Barsade. 2008). 2008). thus. lead to feelings of well-being (Kasser and Ryan. and enthusiasm. 1993. which in turn increases happiness (Baumeister et al. individuals are more prone to tolerate the hassles and annoyances of organizational life without complaining and ﬁling grievances (sportsmanship) and to get involved in organizational activities to assist and improve the organization (civic virtue). develop their self-esteem. thus promoting positive emotions (Arnold et al. 2008. and courteous behaviors as a means of making themselves continue to feel happy (Isen. nourishing upward positive spirals (Fredrickson. 2001). maintaining an open approach to problem solving.. George. Bagozzi (2003) suggested that positive organizational features (e. people feeling happy may choose to engage in altruistic.Perceptions of Organizational Virtuousness and Happiness empathetic and respectful. which reinforces their feeling of self-worth (Hodson. we hypothesize: H3: perceptions of OV will be positively associated with AWB. By broadening the options they perceive. Ramarajan et al. 1993) and increase the number of highquality connections (Dutton and Heaphy. and to perform OCB (Avey et al. and to avoid complaints that could damage such relationships (sportsmanship). 2002. but also for the personal gratiﬁcation of ‘‘doing a good job. Miles et al.. AWB ampliﬁes the previous high-quality connections (Dutton and Glynn. empathy. Thus.. 2004) have suggested that exposure to virtuousness produces positive emotions such as love. Fredrickson and Dutton. Weiss. Baumeister and Leary. and action. 2007. help to form and maintain relationships. 2003). by AWB will be positively related to OCB. 2000). organizational strengths and virtues) increase organizational identiﬁcation. which. 2008. and build physical. form affective bonds with the company. 1996.. 2006. 2007. 1991). leading individuals to experience positive feelings. 1991. 1996). 2007. 2008). 1998. 2002). experience more positive emotions. 2002. The feeling that one works in a virtuous organization may render the job more intrinsically rewarding and.. Waugh and Fredrickson. 2003). which are crucial for managerial success and organizational excellence (Fineman. 2003). Cameron et al. The mediating role of AWB Several arguments support hypothesizing that AWB mediates the relationship between perceptions of OV and OCB.g. 1995. awe. 2002. 2006).. empathetic. For example. and using their positive energies for adjusting behaviors to changing conditions (Avey et al. inducing them to work not only for ﬁnancial rewards or career advancement. These positive social bonds may lead people to meet their social. 2001). 1984. they form positive images about it and increase their organizational identiﬁcation (Dutton et al. in turn. to be courteous to them (courtesy).
Employees were also asked to report age. and 16% a university degree. If the employees appraise a situation as enhancing their well-being (such as when they perceive that they are working in an organizational context where virtues are practiced and nourished). and their supervisors described their OCB. the researchers conjecture that. in the cultural context of Portuguese organizations. Firm’s size (as measured by the number of employees) was also included for control. Individuals reported their perceptions of OV and AWB.8% 9 years. 2009b. Hellgren and Sverke. emotion motivates behavior that reduces negative feelings and fosters positive feelings (Spector and Fox. . subordinates and supervisors were asked to ﬁll out their questionnaires in separate locations. 2002).4% 12 years of schooling. All are located at the center of Portugal. speaking well about the organization in the presence of outsiders). 1991. asking for cooperation. 2002) also suggested that emotion mediates the effects of environmental conditions on employees’ behavior.6 years (standard deviation: 10. These variables were inserted for control. 1997. Among the respondents 25. It is possible that OCB can be encouraged by positive emotions because positive emotions induce tendencies to remain. Cognitive interpretations of such environmental conditions provide the basis for the particular emotion experienced. which can elicit positive emotions in a self-sustaining cycle. 2002. glass. 40.. 26. Consequently. while a threat to well-being will induce negative emotions (Lazarus. 2000). 2005. including OCB (Bagozzi. their sizes ranging from 11 to 270 employees. 1982.. plaster. This is a pragmatic criterion and a conservative one as well. Supervisor–subordinate dyads of intermediate and low levels in the hierarchy were built.8% have 6 years. 31. and marital status. In order to avoid any form of embarrassment. People experiencing positive emotions may choose to adopt altruistic behaviors as a means of making themselves continue to feel positive emotions (Isen.. we hypothesize that: H4: AWB mediates the relationship between perceptions of OV and OCB. Spector and Fox.0) and mean organizational tenure is 14. rubber. and make efforts to perform better and bring beneﬁt to the whole organization (Dutton et al. organizational tenure. 1976. Spector and Fox (2002) argued that situations that induce positive emotions encourage people to become more involved in the workplace. In each organization. in turn. 2009c). we talked personally with a member of the top management team. Typically. Jesuino. one may expect that when employees have positive perceptions about OV.. 2008). 2004). A few authors (e. asking ‘‘too much’’ personal information may generate a high number of nonresponses. Rego and Cunha. Spector and Fox. Litwinenko and Cooper.. schooling years. etc. considering that other researchers employ a shorter time as an exclusion criterion (e. 2006. they develop higher AWB.g. 1994). 2002. Thus. this being the minimum time the researchers considered necessary for people to gain a reliable impression of their organizations. Mean age is 39. because they have been related to well-being (Arthaud-Day et al. induce action tendencies that will tend to elicit behavior.9% are married. Nicholson and Goodge. reﬂecting fear of being identiﬁed. Bergami and Bagozzi.. They are from the personal acquaintance of the researchers and/or for which the researchers have previously provided consulting and/or training.1 years).). Keyes et al. Arme Organizations belong to several industries (plastics. and this involvement may include adopting OCB. 2002). 2003. Only individuals with an organizational tenure greater than or equal to 6 months were considered for analysis. 2002). Miles et al. Method Participants and procedures A convenience sample of 216 individuals from 14 organizations operating in Portugal was collected. 2002. and such positive experiences induce them to carry out behaviors that beneﬁt the organization and its members. Responses were anonymous. Tse et al. The job was not solicited because. 2005.8% are female and 61. 2002). molds. Spector and Fox. taking into account earlier research (Rego and Cunha. Lyubomirsky et al.7 years (SD: 11.g. 2003.. Emotions. gender. Miles et al. characterized by high in-group collectivism and high power distance (Hofstede. In order to guarantee anonymity.220 ´nio Rego et al. 1984. then they will experience positive emotions. encouraging people to engage in behavior that will support their emotions. under sealed cover. answers were delivered directly to the researchers. Shaw and Gupta...
boredom– enthusiasm.12. where the ﬁve AWB dimensions were hypothesized to load on a higher AWB factor. A CFA tested the ﬁve-factor model (Daniels. RMSEA: 0.. and later validated by Rego et al. 1980) comprises the pleasantness–unpleasantness (pleasure + comfort + placidity) and arousal (enthusiasm + vigor) dimension (RMSEA: 0. in the ‘‘Results’’ section).14. in comparison with the four-factor model: Dv2 (3) = 26. The ﬁnal version was discussed once again with two bilingual Portuguese scholars. four other models were tested. GFI: 0. tiredness–vigor.15. considering its parsimony compared with the ﬁve-factor model. and to respond to the 30 items on a seven-point scale 221 ranging from never (1) to always (7). The items were translated from English into Portuguese by a ﬁrst translator and then independently back-translated into English by a second translator (Brislin. see Table IV. 2008a. GFI: 0. 0. depression–pleasure. the items for each of the ﬁve dimensions were averaged to obtain a composite average for each of the ﬁve dimensions. and arousal (enthusiasm + vigor) (RMSEA: 0.63). The three-factor model (Daniels. 2000) considers joy–sadness (comfort + pleasure). After deliberation based on both techniques.and second-order shows no signiﬁcant change in v2 relative to the difference in degrees of freedom (Dv2 (5) = 17. Comparison of the ﬁrst. .13.75).g. A reasonably well-ﬁtted. 15 items were removed. placidity.. p < 0.44. 2009) in the Portuguese context.Perceptions of Organizational Virtuousness and Happiness Measures OV Perceptions of OV were measured with the 15-item six-point Likert scales proposed by Cameron et al.14. The two-factor model (Russell.09. the ﬁve-factor model expressing less unsatisfactory ﬁt indices. (2004).08 cutoff value. Then. RMSEA: 0. Thus.001)..43). the second-order factor model was selected for further analysis. 14-item model emerged (Table I). none showing satisfactory ﬁt indices.04. GFI: 0. the items for each of the ﬁve dimensions were averaged to obtain a composite average for each of the ﬁve dimensions. Considering that RMSEA was higher than the 0. AWB We measured AWB with the instrument validated by Daniels (2000). 15-item model emerged (Table II). Participants were invited to think about their feelings over the last three months in the organization.65)..001).29. Higher scores represent perceptions of better OV.g.. However. Comparisons of the ﬁve-factor model with each one of the four models show signiﬁcant changes in v2 relative to the difference in degrees of freedom (e. the ﬁt indices being unsatisfactory (e. A single latent factor (all the 15 items loading on a single-factor model) was also tested. A second-order factor model was also tested. Considering these ﬁndings (as well as the usefulness analysis. The single-factor model merges all the items into the same factor (e.61).g. Rego et al.61). Comparison of the ﬁrstand second-order shows a signiﬁcant change in v2 relative to the difference in degrees of freedom (Dv2 (5) = 38. After deliberation based on both techniques. In order to get a composite OV score. comfort. (Rego and Cunha. p = 0. Then. which covers ﬁve dimensions (anxiety–comfort. 2000) considers pleasure. and placidity separately. 2000).50. GFI: 0. Considering the unsatisfactory ﬁt indices (e. A second-order factor model also ﬁts the data adequately. RMSEA: 0..63). one item was removed. GFI: 0.13. as well as the results of usefulness analysis (see Table V). and merges enthusiasm with vigor (RMSEA: 0. Higher scores represent higher AWB. standardized residuals and modiﬁcation indices were analyzed for locating sources of misspeciﬁcation in the ﬁve-factor model.g. A conﬁrmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out for testing the ﬁve-factor model (Cameron et al. the averages for each of the ﬁve dimensions were averaged in turn to arrive at a composite OV score for each employee. The ﬁt indices are satisfactory. the averages for each of the ﬁve dimensions were averaged to arrive at a composite AWB score for each employee. Fit indices are reasonably satisfactory. In order to get a composite AWB score. 2004). p < 0.48) are higher than 0. All Lambdas except two (0. The four-factor model (Daniels. standardized residuals and modiﬁcation indices were analyzed for locating sources of misspeciﬁcation. and anger–placidity). A wellﬁtted. the second-factor model was selected for testing the hypotheses. Respondents were asked to report the degree to which the statements were false (1) or true (6). GFI: 0. and some ﬁnal adjustments were made. 1970). Discrepancies between the original and the back-translated versions were discussed between the translators.
and overall AWB.0 0.92 0. the means for the two groups differed by 0.96 0. Robert et al.92 0.77 0.88 0. in .77 (0. Arme TABLE I Conﬁrmatory factor analysis for OV (completely standardized solution) First-order Second-order factor model factor model Optimism We are optimistic that we will succeed. was computed for gender. enthusiasm. both with and without ‘‘problematic’’ items (Chan.61) 0.74 0. even when faced with major challenges In this organization.70) 0.60 0.82 (0. 2006). the mean score on the comfort dimension.78 0.70) 0.73 0.80 (0.16.4 0. we compared mean differences across some groups. Then.76 72 2.83 (0.99 0.78 0. and respect in this organization People trust the leadership of this organization Compassion Acts of compassion are common here This organization is characterized by many acts of concern and caring for other people Many stories of compassion and concern circulate among organization members Integrity This organization demonstrates the highest levels of integrity This organization would be described as virtuous and honorable Honesty and trustworthiness are hallmarks of this organization Forgiveness We try to learn from our mistakes here.e. 0.87 For testing the impact of removing items.69 0.49 0. vigor. missteps are quickly forgiven This is a forgiving.50 0.90 0. consequently.87 0.61) 0. The same procedure was carried out for comparing two organizational tenure levels. the difference in d being 0. With the three items. with the ﬁnal versus the six original items.76 (0. For example.77 0. placidity.67 0.92 0. compassionate organization in which to work Organizational virtuousness Optimism Trust Compassion Integrity Forgiveness Fit indices Chi-square Degrees of freedom Chi-square/degrees of freedom Root mean square error of approximation Goodness of ﬁt index Adjusted goodness of ﬁt index Comparative ﬁt index Incremental ﬁt index Relative ﬁt index In brackets: Cronbach Alphas. respectively.85 0.222 ´nio Rego et al.77) 0.08 0.95 0.80) 0. 0.01.90) 0. Considering that.80) 0.68 0..16 standard deviation units. the differences in d are.06. For pleasure.10.90 0.77 (0. With the six items.60 0.85 135.07.60 0.72 (0. we are dedicated to doing good in addition to doing well A sense of profound purpose is associated with what we do here Trust Employees trust one another in this organization People are treated with courtesy.10.72 (0. the standardized mean difference). 0.77) 0.72 67 2.71 0.70 0.68 0.07 0.70) 0. consideration..07. and 0.70) 0.95 0.73 (0. the between-group difference is also 0. (0.73 (0.98 173. gender was compared using the d statistic (i. 2000. 0.59 0.
81 (0.64) 0.79 0.66) 0.81 (0.90 0.85 (0.90 0. OCB For measuring OCB.44 0. all except one difference in d are not higher than 0.05 85 2.96 80 2. (0.65 0.79 184.84 0. 2006).73) 0.77) 0.78 0.70 0.90 0.08 0.87 0.60 0. r reverse-coded items.91. Correlations between the scores computed with the original versus the ﬁnal items range from 0.67 0.82) 0.80) 0.60 0. the impact of removing items seems not to be problematic.72 223 Second-order factor model (0.65 0.90 0.72) 0.80 (0.65) 0.67) 0.51 0.81) 0.3 0.80 (0.85 0. Supervisors were asked to report the degree to which each statement applied to his/her .10 (Robert et al.90 0.84 0.81 (0.83 (0.74 (0.90 0.70 0.75 0.08 0.75 202.58 0.50 0. The same translation process used for OV was taken.70 0.46 0.83 to 0.85 0.48 0.74 0. we used the 32 items with seven-point Likert scales suggested by Konovsky and Organ (1996).82) 0.3 0.44 0..81 (0.Perceptions of Organizational Virtuousness and Happiness TABLE II Conﬁrmatory factor analysis for AWB (completely standardized solution) First-order factor model Anxiety–comfort Anxious (r) Worried (r) Tense (r) Depression–pleasure Happy Cheerful Pleased Boredom–enthusiasm Enthusiastic Motivated Optimistic Tiredness–vigor Active Alert Full of energy Anger–placidity Aggressive (r) Angry (r) Annoyed (r) Overall AWB Comfort Pleasure Enthusiasm Vigor Placidity Fit indices Chi-square Degrees of freedom Chi-square/degrees of freedom Root mean square error of approximation Goodness of ﬁt index Adjusted goodness of ﬁt index Comparative ﬁt index Incremental ﬁt index Relative ﬁt index In brackets: Cronbach Alphas.87 0.82 0.80 each comparison.
in each comparison (gender. Arme the mean being 0.001). Four criteria are necessary for establishing mediation: (1) perceptions of OV predict OCB. and taking into account the meta-analyses of LePine et al. For all the OCB dimensions. and marital status were included as control variables. and positively with altruism and sportsmanship. and correlations between variables. organizational tenure. altruism. in most cases.16.12 (James. and (4) the effect of perceptions of OV on OCB. the mean being 0. Then. courtesy. In order to get a composite OCB score. 15 items were removed. A CFA was carried out for testing the ﬁve-factor model mentioned earlier. These ﬁndings suggest that aggregating scores is not justiﬁed. civic virtue. Finally. Results Before testing the hypotheses. For testing the impact of removing items. AWB correlates positively with altruism. subordinate (1: does not apply to this subordinate at all. ICC ranges between 0. Controlling for clustering the data For assessing the statistical robusteness of aggregating individual scores at the organization level (Bliese.08.10. There is full . Schooling correlates negatively with AWB.03. Age correlates negatively with sportsmanship. both the ﬁrst. Firm size correlates positively with age. Gender correlates negatively with sportsmanship. The procedure suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) for testing the mediation effects was used. all except one difference in d are not higher than 0.15.224 ´nio Rego et al. age. and negatively with schooling. civic virtue. (2007). For all AWB variables. RMSEA: 0. ICC ranges between 0. sportsmanship. A reasonably well-ﬁtted. the ﬁt indices being unsatisfactory (e. schooling. is zero. (2) perceptions of OV predict AWB. (3) AWB predicts OCB. and overall OCB.11. These results were then compared with the reverse situation.03. However.and second-order factor models were considered for further analysis. overall OV and overall AWB were entered into the regression. The ﬁndings (Table IV) show the following: (a) in all the cases except one (trust versus overall OV predicting AWB). standard deviations. 1990) to test whether OV and AWB may be considered as core constructs.88 and 0. Considering that. Comparison of the ﬁrst. tenure). standardized residuals and modiﬁcation indices were analyzed for locating the sources of misspeciﬁcation. organizational tenure. p < 0.01 and 0.70).. Table V depicts means. GFI: 0. the core constructs increase the R2 value above and beyond their respective individual components. All the OCB dimensions intercorrelate positively. we conducted a usefulness analysis (Darlington. Considering the unsatisfactory ﬁt indices (RMSEA: 0.11. Each individual component of each core construct was entered into a regression to predict the criterion variable. controlling for AWB. a second-order factor model was tested. the impact of removing items seems not to be problematic. Higher scores represent more OCB. The perceptions of OV correlate positively with AWB. the mean being 0. the ﬁt indices being reasonably satisfactory. For all OV variables.0 and 0.0 and 0. Firm size. gender. Correlations between the scores computed with the original versus the ﬁnal items range between 0. (2002) and Hoffman et al. 2000).97. the intraclass correlations procedure (ICC1) was used. with males showing lower scores. we carried out the same procedure used previously with the AWB measure. Therefore. ICC is a measure of within-group consensus. the averages for each of the ﬁve dimensions were averaged to arrive at a composite OCB score for each employee. the individual components of OV add no signiﬁcant variance in predicting AWB and OCB. considering its parsimony.74.67). 1982). GFI: 0. 7: applies to this subordinate completely).01. Then. ICC ranges between 0. the median value in organizational research being typically 0. the increase in the R2 value being computed.and second-order shows a signiﬁcant change in v2 relative to the difference in degrees of freedom (Dv2 (5) = 34. the items for each of the ﬁve dimensions were averaged to obtain a composite average for each of the ﬁve dimensions. After consideration based on both techniques. A single latent factor (all the 17 items loading on a single-factor model) was also tested. Organizational tenure correlates negatively with sportsmanship and positively with conscientiousness and civic virtue. (b) no individual component of AWB adds variance in predicting OCB. and two OCB dimensions. and overall OCB. 17-item model emerged (Table III). and positively with conscientiousness.g.
1 0. (0.50 0.70 0.67 0.69) 0.54 0.90 0.79 0.76 0. showing support for full mediation in predicting sportsmanship.90 0. not others’ (r) Courtesy Respects the rights and privileges of others Tries to avoid creating problems for others Never abuses his/her rights and privileges Conscientiousness Is always on time Attendance at work is above average Gives advance notice when unable to come to work Civic virtue Stays informed about developments in the company Offers suggestions for ways to improve operations Demonstrates concern about the image of the company Overall OCB Altruism Sportsmanship Courtesy Conscientiousness Civic virtue Fit indices Chi-square Degrees of freedom Chi-square/degrees of freedom Root mean square error of approximation Goodness of ﬁt index Adjusted goodness of ﬁt index Comparative ﬁt index Incremental ﬁt index Relative ﬁt index In brackets: Cronbach Alphas.83 mediation if all the criteria are met.89 0.3 0.73 0.69 0. There is partial mediation if the effect of AWB on OCB is smaller.77) 0.74) 0.67 0. and for partial mediation in predicting altruism and overall OCB.74 (0.78 225 Second-order factor model (0.82) 0.66 0.35 109 2. when both AWB and OV are considered.57 (0. The results are presented in Table VI.74 0.82) 0.79 (0.78) 0.69) 0.88 0.78) 0.77 0.81 (0.63 (0.69 0.89 0.85 0.66 0.79 (0.08 0. Sobel’s (1982) test was also .78 0.86 0.09 114 2.85 0.93 0.92 0.86 0.82 226.41 0.79 0.07 0.74) 0.72 0.66 0.62 (0.Perceptions of Organizational Virtuousness and Happiness TABLE III Conﬁrmatory factor analysis for OCB (completely standardized solution) First-order factor model Altruism Helps make others more productive Helps others who have heavy work loads Helps others who have been absent Shares personal property with others if necessary to help them with their work Sportsmanship Is able to tolerate occasional inconveniences when they arise Complains a lot about trivial matters (r) Expresses resentment with any changes introduced by management (r) Thinks only about his/her work problems.83 0.75 0. r reverse-coded items.84 0.92 0. than when only AWB is taken into account.87) 0.87) 0.73 0.75 (0.75 0.90 261.56 (0.
00 0.03* 0.14. . tenure. 2. the hypotheses are supported for some OCB dimensions but not for others.02* 0.06*** 0.00 OCB 0. 1. Fredrickson (2003) suggested that people who feel grateful for working in virtuous organizations and witness positive interchanges in their workplace may experience positive emotions. increase the possibility of ﬂow (Csikszentmihalyi. the second line represents the change in R2. 1. Dutton and Heaphy (2003) also argued that ‘‘high-quality connections’’ may foster positive emotions.00 Discussion and conclusions As hypothesized. The test assesses whether the mediating variable (AWB) carries the effects of the independent variable (OV) to a dependent variable (OCB).12*** 0. 1.00 0.04** 0.01ns 0. enable employees to create positive spirals of meaning at work. (1) The ﬁrst line represents the R2. ns non-signiﬁcant.07*** 0.’s ﬁnding. Optimism Overall OV Overall OV Optimism Trust Overall OV Overall OV Trust Compassion Overall OV Overall OV Compassion Integrity Overall OV Overall OV Integrity Forgiveness Overall OV Overall OV Forgiveness Pleasure Overall AWB Overall AWB Pleasure Comfort Overall AWB Overall AWB Comfort Placidity Overall AWB Overall AWB Placidity Enthusiasm Overall AWB Overall AWB Enthusiasm Vigor Overall AWB Overall AWB Vigor 0.08*** 0.00 0. and overall OCB (z = 2. ***p < 0. 2. AWB predicts some dimensions of OCB and overall OCB. (2005) that employees with more positive perceptions of the environment in which they work are more likely to report better adjustment in terms of greater job satisfaction and psychological well-being. 2.05* 0.04** 0.03* 0. 1.01ns 0.00 0. they affect the likelihood that the individual will choose to perform OCB. 1. The ﬁnding is consistent with Martin et al. 1. The ﬁndings are consistent with Bagozzi (2003). 2. 1. 1.09*** 0.08*** 0. **p < 0. 2. 2004) which has shown that happy employees show higher performance. Thus. sportsmanship (z = 3. As situations. schooling.05** 0. (2) Age. 2. 2. 1.25*** 0. ﬁltered through personal appraisal and perception.04** 0.23*** 0.226 TABLE IV ´nio Rego et al. 2. 2.12*** 0.g.23*** 0. The resulting statistic measures the indirect effect of the perceptions of OV on OCB by way of AWB. 2.01. induce positive emotion.00 0. 2. 2. 2003). 1. 1. and marital status were inserted as control variables.03** 0.23*** 0.06*** 0. suggesting that positive organizational features may inﬂuence OCB because organizational identiﬁcation increases. and cultivate psychological and physical wellbeing.05*** 0.00 0.05** 0.02* 0.13*** 0. p < 0.001). Usefulness analysis of overall OV and AWB compared with the individual components of each construct AWB 1.04** 0. 2. The test supports AWB mediating the relationship between perceptions of OV and altruism (z = 2.00 0. gender. 2.001. The ﬁndings are consistent with research (e. Wright and Cropanzano.08*** 0.04** 0. with the perceptions of OV inﬂuencing some OCB dimensions both directly and through the mediating role of AWB.25.06*** 0.01).06*** 0.23*** 0. 1.03* 0.06*** 0. 1. p < 0. 2.08*** 0.10*** 0.01ns 0.02ns 0.20*** 0. 2. 2000. Arme conducted to gain additional support for the mediation model.06*** 0. 1.58.05. 1. *p < 0. p < 0. They also corroborate Spector and Fox’s (2002) hypothesis that emotions mediate the effects of environmental conditions on behavior..05). 1.06*** 0. 1. 2.05** 0.00 0.00 0.01ns 0. 1. 2. 1. 2.00 0. 2. employees with more positive perceptions about the organization’s virtuousness reveal greater AWB.08*** 0.15*** 0.00 0.23*** 0.
08 -0.03 0. Organizational tenure 5.01 0. Marital statusc – – 7.9 Perceptions of Organizational Virtuousness and Happiness 14. and correlations 1 – -0. Schoolingb 14.12 0.13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Means SD 1.02 -0.8 72.09 0.01 0.00 0.19** 0.34*** 0.09 0.04 0.05 -0.04 0. Altruism 10.01.19** 0.11 -0.21** -0.47*** 0.7 1.25*** 0.56*** 0.14* 0.9 0.59*** 0. Firm size 2. male: 1.07 -0.84*** 0.6 10.7 2.01 0.15* -0. Overall OCB 5.11 -0.7 8.06 0.1 1.07 0. a Female: 0.68*** 0.24*** 0.09 0.52*** – -0.0 1.24*** 0.26*** -0.0 6.74*** 0.80*** -0. **p < 0.03 -0. c 0: unmarried.37*** 0.16* 0.37*** 0.10 0.4 11.8 4.20** – 0.02 -0. 2: 9 years.11 0.04 0.3 1.15* -0.35*** -0.0 12.50*** -0.15* 0.22*** -0. Overall AWB 5.08 0.08 0.04 – -0.3 0. standard deviation.0 4. ***p < 0.9 5.08 -0.12 0.0 11.001.1 0.36*** 0.09 0.05 0. 4: university degree.10 0.TABLE V Means.12 – 0.24*** 0.02 -0.0 0. b 1: six schooling years.20** 0.15* -0.11 -0.16* -0.00 -0.11 -0.0 – – 3.18** 0. Overall OV 4.02 0.1 0. 1: married. Age 39.05.13* 0. Conscientiousness 13. 227 .11 -0. Gendera 74.26*** – -0.13 – -0.7 9.49*** 0.7 *p < 0.07 0. Courtesy 5.69*** -0.19* 0.11 0.19** 0.61*** 0.04 0.47*** 0.07 0.12 0.03 -0. Civic virtue 5.83*** 0.01 – 0. Sportsmanship 4. 3: 12 years.21** 0.
09 0.18 -0.00* 0.00*** 0. Arme TABLE VI Hierarchical regression analyses: how OV predicts OCB through the mediating role of AWB Altruism Sportsmanship Courtesy Conscientiousness Civic virtue Overall OCB AWB First step Firm size Gendera Age Organizational tenure Schoolingb Marital statusc F R2 Second step Firm size Gender Age Organizational tenure Schooling Marital status OV F R2 R2 change Third step Firm size Gender Age Organizational tenure Schooling Marital status OV Overall AWB F R2 R2 change a 0.01 -0.07 -0. leading to positive feelings which.01 -0.81*** 0. and civic virtue.23 0.09 0.04 0.64*** 0.19* -0.08 0.03 -0..14* 0. 1: married.13 -0. because they relate differently with control (e. Female: 0.11 -0.44 0.22 *p < 0.02 0.08 0.84 0. 3: 12 years.83** 0.02 -0.228 ´nio Rego et al.60 0. Speciﬁcally. Another important consideration is that.05 0.05 0.00 0.07 0.35** 0.02 0.10 -0.18* 5.05 6.60 0. induce employees to perform extra-role behaviors that beneﬁt themselves and the organization.13 -0.27*** 0.02 0.10 0.09 0.19 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.06 -0.01.03 0.08 6. age. tenure. Regarding consci- .10 0.03 0.07 0. in turn.11 -0.05 0.001.07 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.07 -0.17 -0.07 0.19* 0.02 -0.00 0.00 -0.12 0.16* -0.14 2.06 0.15 0.27 0.32*** 0. b 1: six schooling years.13 -0.08 0.15* 0.08 -0.11 -0.00 0.18 0.28*** 5.05 -0.23** 2.01*** 0.07 0.49*** 0.19 0.05 0. male: 1.05 -0. (2007) indicated.09 -0.13 0. contrary to what the meta-analyses of LePine et al.26*** 7.00 -0.17* 0.03 -0.30*** -0.18 0. VI).03 0.05 0.05 0.25** 0.04 0.22** -0.11 -0. conscientiousness.15*** 0.06 -0.12 0.01 0.g.03 -0.13 0.17* -0.25 0.13 0.30*** -0.06 -0.07 0.17* -0. **p < 0.08 -0.15 -0.03 1.23 0.19 0. c 0: unmarried.08 0.26** -0.11 0.10 0.06 -0.14 -0.06 0.39 0.20** -0.07 1.07 0.05 0.93** 0.02 -0.06 0. our ﬁndings suggest that regarding the several OCB dimensions separately is necessary.03 0.08 -0.14 0.50*** 0.05 0.17 0.03 1.04 0.13 0.14* 6.16* 0.03 0.21** 3.02 0.09 0. (2002) and Hoffman et al.10 -0. 4: university degree.10 0.48*** 9.05 -0.10 0.50*** 0.18* 1.27*** 0.04*** 0.16 0.48*** 0.14 -0. mediating effects were not found in predicting courtesy.04 0.05 -0.05. 2: 9 years.06 -0.05 2.29*** 7.03 5.06 0.51*** 0.07 -0.16* 0.15 0.09 0.09 2.05 -0.30 0.24 0.21* -0.50*** 0.01 0.19 0.07 1.06 -0. Table V) and independent variables (Tables V.17 -0.02 0.17* -0. ***p < 0.17 0.10 -0.09 0.05 -0.
2005) movements suggest. (2007) also discussed extensive evidence indicating that employee well-being has a signiﬁcant impact on organizational performance and survival. second step). Kets de Vries. A ﬁnal issue worthy of attention relates to antecedents and/or facilitators of OV. are the employees. the mediating effect was not found because neither the perceptions of OV or AWB predict this dimension (Table VI. 1983) is a weaker facilitator than a clan-type culture.. It is also a way to promote important behaviors (e. and compassionate way of acting. third step). OCB) for organizational functioning and performance. 1995.. people may adopt such behavior. 2002). 2007. They advocated that organizational policies and practices should be designed according to their possible effects on employees’ happiness. One possible explanation is that conscientiousness is more likely to be an in-role than an extra-role behavior (Vey and Campbell. whether a market orientation culture (Quinn and Rohrbaugh. (c) a respectful. even when major challenges and difﬁculties are faced. Our ﬁndings corroborate evidence showing that employees with positive perceptions about OV develop higher AWB and adopt more OCB. (b) the capacity to create and sustain optimism. paying attention to a number of aspects: (a) the sense of purpose that managers and employees in general invest in their decisions and policies. For example. For example. as the ‘‘positive organizational scholarship’’ (Caza and Cameron. 2007). Regarding courtesy and civic virtue. Thus.Perceptions of Organizational Virtuousness and Happiness entiousness. and having a capacity to forgive (honest) errors and learn from them in order to continuously improve. managers should care about how employees perceive the organization. 2008) and the ‘‘economics of happiness’’ (Graham.. not so much the objective situation itself. trustful. 2001) have recognized that employee and organizational health and wellbeing are not antithetical. However. (e) a strong focus on getting results and avoiding errors. One may wonder. One interesting question to explore in future studies is to test whether OV promoted by instrumental/market motives produces the same effects on the several ﬁrms’ stakeholders than OV promoted by normative reasons. Thus.g..g. Spector and Fox (2002) argued that designing the organization to avoid bad feelings and enhance good feelings might. Jesuino. such effect may be moderated by the societal and business contexts. in the long run. Grant et al. not because they feel happy and more or less inclined to respond positively and reciprocally to the virtuous features of their organizational climate. what types of corporate culture and human resource management practices promote better OV climates. (d) a clear orientation for integrity and honesty. Gelfand et al. Many scholars (e. for building virtuous psychological climates and promoting individual and organizational functioning. but because they feel compelled to perform in-role or mandatory behaviors. Jaffee. more sensitive to the compassion and forgiveness features 229 of their organizational climates than are those of masculine cultures? Do organizations of the former cultures have stronger compassion and forgiveness climates than do the latter? Implications for management Promoting a psychologically happy workforce is a valuable goal in itself. Haller and Hadler (2006) pointed out that the people’s subjective perception and evaluation are more signiﬁcant for psychological well-being. Hofstede. . 1991. from feminine and ingroup collectivist cultures (similar to the case of Portugal. produce both employee and organizational well-being. Future studies must test. for example. 2007). Future studies must also test the degree to which the broad cultural context inﬂuences how the ﬁrms’ stakeholders value the several dimensions of OV and react toward them (Branzei et al. This evidence shows that the discussion about using OCB dimensions separately instead of as representative of a core construct remains open to debate. the moral and ﬁnancial scandals emerging in recent years around the world likely have made (a) the consumers more sensitive to how the ﬁrms act in terms of virtuousness and ethics and (b) the managers more prone to encourage virtuous practices in their organizations to get competitive advantages. the mediating effect was not found because AWB do not predict these dimensions. Future studies must test whether other variables other than AWB act as mediators between the perceptions of OV and these both OCB dimensions. They suggest that. after controlling the effects of the perceptions of OV (Table VI. courteous. for example.
Rego and Cunha. 1997.. and organization-based self-esteem.’s (2003) recommendation that psychological climate assessments should be part of interventions attempting to reduce employee turnover and improve motivation and performance. Although the ﬁndings (e. 2002). 2008a. nor other causal links that are plausible. compassion. (d) employees may adopt OCB because they anticipate/ expect the positive emotions that will likely result from helping colleagues and acting kindly to them (Baumeister et al. and honesty) moderate the relationships between perceptions of OV and the dependent variables. 2002). Such a recommendation does not mean that the mere management of perceptions is enough or recommendable. 2002).. are individuals with higher scores on gratitude. psychological contracts. psychological capital. 2003) between the organization and its members. induce positive reactions in the receivers. 2002).230 ´nio Rego et al. rather than the other way around. reciprocation. the most effective way to generate positive perceptions. 2007). and thus promote OV. b. For example.. 2008a). propensity to trust.. people who feel good during recent months in the organization.. and increase retaliation and counterproductive work behaviors (Andersson and Bateman. 2003. Future studies may use other mediating variables. positive and negative affect. Research diaries may also be a particularly appropriate tool for gathering data in future studies.. Future studies must improve the AWB measurement instrument or use another one. one must not discard the possibility that dropping items might have reduced the content coverage of the construct domain. Miles et al. Future studies may test. 2009a. may cognitively ‘‘reciprocate. 2008.. Managers and organizations must be aware of employees’ perceptions and be willing to make adjustments accordingly. (e) a supervisor may report more OCB regarding his/her subordinates not because they really adopt more OCB but because the . organizational identiﬁcation. Leaders and organizations risk exacerbating employee cynicism if they adopt a facade of virtuousness without substance (Grant et al. These are the reasons to follow Parker et al. Moderating variables were not included. Dean et al. especially for studying the effects of daily events on moods and emotions (Fisher. (c) performing a citizenship act may induce positive emotions of pride and accomplishment (Fredrickson. Limitations and future research The study does not examine the causal links between dependent and independent variables. forgiveness. Arme subordinate’s positive emotions improve the quality of leader–member exchange and/or create a halo effect that leads the supervisor to be more benevolent when reporting OCB..g. ‘‘Managing’’ perceptions is necessary but not enough to promote a healthy and virtuous workplace. and strengths such as gratitude. love.. Post-hoc rationalizations can also explain some ﬁndings (e. 1998). especially when virtues are put to the test (Aristotle. the degree to which some personal characteristics (e. Only AWB was tested as mediating variable. for example.. 2009). Another limitation is that improving the AWB measurement instrument properties required dropping several items. not only to change the work environment. and forgiveness less/more sensitive to perceptions of OV? The ﬁt between the employees’ preferences for virtuousness and the managers must act to inﬂuence employees’ perceptions.g. a ﬁnding already obtained in other studies (Rego and Cunha. 1999). A consequence of this may be to encourage employees to perform only what they are ‘‘forced’’ to do. but they should not focus solely on employees’ perceptions – rather they must actively operate upon the sources of OV and health. sense of community at work. For example: (a) employees’ AWB may inﬂuence their perceptions of organizational features (Brief and Weiss. Rego et al. the study does not capture the dynamics that occur over the course of time involving reciprocal relationships and upward and downward spirals (Fredrickson. 2007.’’ attributing virtuous features to the organization. (b) OCB may promote social capital (Bolino et al. such as perceived organizational support. Future longitudinal studies may be carried out to study this factor.g. kindness. regardless of the ‘‘real’’ organizational characteristics). the d statistic for comparing groups with the full versus the short version) suggest that item removal is not problematic. personal virtues. By virtue of carried out at a single moment. Avey et al. compassion. OV needs to be practiced and continuously sustained.
NJ). Arthaud-Day.. B. Aristotle: 1999. Baker. and T. experience well-being. Near: 2005. H.: 2003. in J. This will allow crossing different levels of analysis and studying. a misﬁt produces greater stress. Finally. Dutton. and ethical climates. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 44(1).g.. Future studies may also investigate antecedents of OV such as leadership behaviors (e. Wernsing and F. ‘Transformational Leadership and Psychological Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Meaningful Work’. ‘Cynicism in the Workplace: Some Causes and Effects’. Future studies must collect data from a more diverse sample and test whether the relationships found here are. Discriminant. Studying OCB and OV at the organizational level is also a valuable endeavor that future studies may advance. T. P. authentic leadership) and human resources practices and policies. L. Bagozzi. R. N. E. 849–857. considering that AWB and OCB are associated with individual and organizational performance. Kelloway and M. R. or are not contingent on the organizational size and industry type. justice. A. Quinn (eds. H. The Nicomachean Ethics. T. ‘The Subjective Well-Being Construct: A Test of Its Convergent. and less OCB (Hoffman and Woehr. (3) encouraging perceptions of OV and . adopt citizenship behaviors. ‘Positive and Negative Emotions in Organizations’. Ragins (eds. Considering the great amount of literature on the antecedents of OCB. L. Cameron. ‘Enabling Positive Social Capital in Organizations’. Arnold. S. A. In short. 231 employee happiness is not only virtuous but also a way to promote individual and organizational health. In any event. ‘The ModeratorMediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual. 48–70. forgiveness... References Andersson. organizations also ﬂourish.). Another important limitation is that the OV measure includes items that are similar to established constructs such as trust. for example. S. R. Journal of Organizational Behavior 18(5). Strategic. and D. Hunt and M. T. Luthans: 2008. Exploring Positive Relationships at Work (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. E. J. Rode. how individuals with different traits and dispositions react differently to the same (aggregated) organizational features. B. E. trans W. and optimism. J. 445–476. and J. Barling. Social Indicators Research 74. Journal of Business Research 59. Dutton: 2007. R. lower AWB. E. for example. 2006). when organizational members ﬂourish.). C. ‘Can Positive Employees Help Positive Organizational Change? Impact of Psychological Capital and Emotions on Relevant Attitudes and Behaviors’. employees may ﬁnd meaning at work. Avey. pp. M. Baron. S. future research must study the incremental validity of OV above and beyond such related constructs. Mahwah. G. perceived organizational support. L. M. the range of industries is small.. Andrews: 2006. P. and actively participate in the construction of healthy and virtuous organizations. and just small and medium ﬁrms are included. C. in K. J. Kenny: 1986. D. and Statistical Concluding remarks Despite the above criticisms. One must note that OV. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 12. Positive Organizational Scholarship (Berrett-Koehler. as a core construct. 246–325. Bateman: 1997. Our study supports Fredrickson’s (2003) observation that efforts to foster positive emotions may help organizations to avoid stagnation and evolve to better states of psychological energy. 193–203.Perceptions of Organizational Virtuousness and Happiness current organizational situation may also be examined for testing whether. (2) this may produce good results. Ross (Batoche Books). Mooney and J. W. McKee: 2007. and Factorial Validity’. 176–193. K. our study advances three important points: (1) organizations and leaders can promote employees’ AWB and OCB if they improve (in a genuine and sustainable way) the perceptions of their employees regarding OV. C. Dutton. 449–469. Turner. E. Furthermore. is different from such constructs. Baker. ‘Promoting Ethical Behavior and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: The Inﬂuence of Corporate Ethical Values’. and spirals of mutual reinforcement between such entities may emerge. By observing virtuous actions in their organizations. pp. K. future studies may also investigate how such antecedents interact with perceptions of OV in predicting OCB. as perceived organizational features. compassion. the study is based on a convenience sample collected in a single region. E. M. San Francisco). C. It would be interesting to investigate how OV inﬂuences organizational performance through the mediating role of (the aggregated) OCB and/or other mediating variables. have been understudied.
555–577. ‘How Emotions Shape Behavior: Feedback. ‘The Competitive Imperative of Learning’. Chun.). pp. 766–790. Cameron: 2008.: 2000. Dutton. in J. Brislin. 169–199. Duberich and C. Glynn: 2008. Positive Organizational Scholarship (Berrett Koehler.). S.. A. P. ‘Ethical Character and Virtue in Organizations: An Empirical Assessment and Strategic Implications’. Journal of Business Ethics 57. San Francisco). J. Human Relations 53. E.).. D. Branzei. Quinn (eds. and Reliability’. J. ‘Reciprocation of Perceived Organizational Support’. American Psychologist 55. in K. Camp: 2007. or Healthier Lifestyles?’. 497–529. in K. S. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(1). pp. B.: 2002. ‘Organizational Cynicism’. and M. Brandes and R. F. British Journal of Social Psychology 39. 349–381. W. K. Brown. Bagozzi: 2000. J. W. and Group SelfEsteem as Distinct Aspects of Social Identity in the Organization’. 1–44. Eisenberger. 279–307. ‘Positive Organizational Scholarship’.: 2000. Good Business: Leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51. E. ‘OV and Performance’. Cameron. 61–82. Multivariate Behavioral Research 35. V. Brief. ‘Very Happy People’.. E. Diener. Kozlowski (eds. 249–269. Baumeister. P. Dutton and R. in C. B. Caza. and E. Journal of Business Ethics 64. D. S. Research. Lynch and L. Vohs: 2003. Coyle-Shapiro. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 4(1). ‘The Power of High-Quality Connections’. A. P. S. 48–65. and T. Dutton and R. Academy of Management Review 23. New York). Academy of Management Review 27(4). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1. I. ‘The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation’. P. ‘CultureContingent Signs of Trust in Emergent Relationships’. ‘Measures of Five Aspects of Affective Well-Being at Work’. Anticipation. J. Handbook of Macro-Organizational Behavior (Sage. New York).. Bolino. R. Bright. Annual Review of Psychology 53.). I. and H. J. Bergami. D. Psychological Science 13. NonIndependence. Cameron. Academy of Management Perspectives 21. R. Interpersonal Success. Rather than Direct Causation’. Dutton. ‘Detection of Differential Item Functioning on the Kirton Adaptation-Innovation Inventory Using Multiple-Group Mean and Covariance Structure Analyses’. W. Campbell. Cameron.. D. ‘Organizational Behavior: Affect in the Workplace’. 239–263. 275–294. A. Rhoades: 2001. ‘A New Look at Psychological Climate and Its Relationship to Job Involvement. J. 269–284. Leigh: 1996. Caza: 2006. K. C. F. Caza: 2004. 185–216. ‘Why does Affect Matter in Organizations’. D. S.. and K. Barsade. Administrative Science Quarterly 39. E. E. E. Multi-Level Theory. Diener. E. Regression and Linear Models (McGraw-Hill. M. Cameron. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Behavior (Sage. Arme Organizational Scholarship (Berrett-Koehler. and Reﬂection. S. Zhang: 2007. M. Bloodgood: 2002. R. D. London). Weiss: 2002. 927–946. San Francisco. E. ‘Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research’. P. D. American Behavioral Scientist 47(6). Edmondson. K. R. Psychological Bulletin 117. J. A. Effort.: 2003. P. Considerations’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 104(1). B. Harvard Business Review July–August. Harquail: 1994. pp. Copper (eds. and M. K. CA). Positive . 341–352.: 2003. Rexwinkel. San Francisco). S. Darlington. ‘A Psychological Perspective on Organizational Citizenship Behavior’. ‘Does High Self-Esteem Cause Better Performance. and D. Vohs. J. R. ‘Self-Categorization. Cameron and A. Dharwadkar: 1998. Dean. Bright and A. Quinn (eds. J. pp. Turnley and J.232 ´nio Rego et al. D. K. Krueger and K. Affective Commitment. R. Seligman: 2002. G. 60– 67. Vertinsky and R. Armeli. pp. 42–51.: 2000. Flow and the Making of Meaning (Viking. ‘Exploring the Relationships Between OV and Performance’. Heaphy: 2003. E. ‘Organizational Images and Member Identiﬁcation’.. and Performance’. Klein and S. Personality and Social Psychological Review 11(2). ‘The Amplifying and Buffering Effects of Virtuousness in Downsized Organizations’. L. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(8). 264– 278. 36–59. Bliese. and M. and Methods in Organizations (Jossey-Bass. and R. Cooper and S. CA). Happiness. De Wall and L. 81–84. Barling and C.). ‘Within-Group Agreement. M. O.: 2005.: 1990. E. M. 358–368. Journal of Applied Psychology 81(4).: 1970. Gibson: 2007. W. 34–43. Clegg (eds. ‘Subjective Well-Being: The Science of Happiness and a Proposal for a National Index’. 1173-1182. R. 693–712. Baumeister. J. Csikszentmihalyi. R. L. F. in K. N. Chan. 505–522. Daniels. C..: 2008.: 2000. M. Leary: 1995. ‘Positive Organizational Scholarship’. S. Baumeister. ‘Citizenship Behavior and the Creation of Social Capital in Organizations’.. Dutton. Thousand Oaks. E. 167–203.
Cambridge). Hillsdale.: 1998. 131–133.). J. DC). American Psychologist 56. Organ: 1996. S.: 1998. D. 379–392. O. B. 479–514. 163–175. George. C. Isen. Gelfand. C.). L. B. Gavin. M. NJ). pp. J. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82(6). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22. J. ‘The Economics of Happiness: Insights on Globalization from a Novel Approach’. Srull (eds. Handbook of Social Cognition.: 2003. Journal of Positive Psychology 3(1).: 1984. Blair. ‘Organizational and Psychological Climate: A Review of Theory and Research’. R. R. in K. ‘Expanding the Criterion Domain? A Quantitative Review of the OCB Literature’. M. M.). L. ‘Emotion and Organizing’. T.). Academy of Management Perspectives 21. Fisher. C. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 17(1). Jaffee. J. C. Hoffman. L. D. and R. Positive Organizational Scholarship (Berrett-Koehler. ‘A Quantitative Review of the Relationship Between Person– Organization Fit and Behavioral Outcomes’. R. A. in S. Kets de Vries. ‘State or Trait: Effects of Positive Mood on Prosocial Behaviors at Work’. Quinn (eds. K. W. A. George. Wyer Jr. Organizational Risk Factors for Job Stress (American Psychological Association. and D. B. Ryff: 2002. Annual Review of Psychology 58. A. Woehr: 2007. Hadler: 2006. James. L. F. CA).: 1991. R. ‘How Social Relations and Structures can Produce Happiness and Unhappiness: An International Comparative Analysis’. Dutton and R. Shmotkin and C. C. Choi. Murphy and L. J. 81–89. Kasser.: 1991. Fredrickson. E. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (McGraw-Hill. ‘The Healthy Company: Research Paradigms for Personal and Organizational Health’. Motivation and Emotion 26.: 2007.: 1964. Ryan: 1996.: 1982. Washington. Journal of Organizational Behavior 17. Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting Value (Jossey Bass. Murphy (eds. R. ‘CrossCultural Organizational Behavior’. Dignity at Work (Cambridge University Press. ‘Dispositional and Contextual Determinants of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors’. Woehr: 2006. K. ‘Aggregation Bias in Estimates of Perceptual Agreement’. P. Hoffman. D. 41–55. J. Nord (eds. 280–287. J. K. L. R. 3–30. 299–307. Ko.Perceptions of Organizational Virtuousness and Happiness Emmons. J. ‘What Good are Positive Emotions?’. and R. K. 389–399. 1–3. E. Journal of Applied Psychology 92. Konovsky. M. Haller. J.. ‘Antecedents and Consequences of Real-Time Affective Reactions at Work’. L. 233 Hellgren. Hardy and W. Journal of Business Ethics 70. J. A. Aycan: 2007. H. Clegg.). 23–30. Wright and K. Erez and Z. E. C. ‘The Virtuous Organization: The Value of Happiness in the Workplace’. George. A. Journal of Applied Psychology 76. 253–266. San Francisco. Price: 2007. Positive Organizational Scholarship (Berrett Koehler. M. London). L.: 2001. Meriac and D. Dutton and R. Mason: 2004. Christianson and R. J. pp.. 300–319. Dutton: 2008. Human Relations 54(1).: 2002. ‘The Motivational Basis of Organizational Behavior’. Fredrickson. ‘The Role of Positive Emotions in Positive Psychology: The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions’. 51–63. P. ‘Unpacking Positive Organizing: Organizations as Sites of Individual and Group Flourishing’. Jesuino. or Relationships? Managerial Practices and Employee Well-Being Tradeoffs’. Hofstede. C.: 2003. and T. Behavioral Science 9. and M.. M. B. L. ‘Happiness. R.: 2001. Cameron.: 2001. ‘Salesperson Mood at Work: Implications for Helping Customers’. Kim: 2008. Gowri. pp. Health. 169–216. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 18. Organizational Dynamics 33(4). Quinn (eds. ‘Toward Understanding the Role of Affect in Cognition’. 215–236. McNeil. and M. M.: 2003. C. C. 3 (Lawrence Erlbaum. San Francisco). Journal of Vocational Behavior 68. ‘Creating Authentizotic Organizations: Well-Functioning Individuals in Vibrant Companies’. Review of General Psychology 2. 391–400. ‘Optimizing Well-Being: The Empirical Evidence of two Traditions’. World Economics 6(3). Journal of Organizational Behavior 24(2). Minton. in K.: 2005. Fredrickson. pp. H. M.. M. J. Vol. ‘Acts of Gratitude in Organizations’. T. 101–111. Cameron. ‘Positive Emotions and Upward Spirals in Organizational Settings’. Katz. Fredrickson. M. M. 81–93. A. ‘On Corporate Virtue’. 1007–1022. D. 555–566. Handbook of Organizational Studies (Sage. J. 219-229. . in S. Fineman. B. 5–32.: 2002. and J. 218–226.: 1995. ‘Further Examining the American Dream: Differential Correlates of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Goals’. S. ‘Latin Europe Cluster: From South to North’. E. B. Journal of Applied Psychology 67. M. Grant. 543–564. and D. Journal of World Business 37(1). Graham. 13–39. R. Hodson. Sverke: 2003. B. A. Social Indicators Research 75.. in R. London). M.: 1996. M. S. ‘Does Job Insecurity Lead to Impaired Well-Being or Vice Versa? Estimation of Cross-Lagged Effects Using Latent Variable Modelling’. G. James. San Francisco). Keyes.
85–97. Washington). Rego.. ‘Corporate Character: Modern Virtue Ethics and the Virtuous Corporation’. Park. Burack: 2008. ‘Perceptions of Authentizotic Climates and Employee Happiness: Pathways to Individual Performance?’. Barsade and O. pp. S. D. Martin. Journal of Management 26(3). R. 4–18. R. P. P. A.. P.. 803–855. B. ‘Do the Opportunities for Learning and Personal Development Lead to Happiness? It Depends on Work-Family Conciliation’. P. Moore. 1019–1024. Spector and S. W. J. Podsakoff. G. P. E. and S. Rego. Frost: 2008. Litwinenko. N. E. Arme Parker. L. Social Indicators Research 78. and P. Ramarajan. 263–289. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 14(3). J.. ‘The Beneﬁts of Frequent Positive Affect: Does Happiness Lead to Success?’. Maitlis. P. E. and C. Dutton and P. Baltes. ‘How IndividualismCollectivism Orientations Predict Happiness in a Collectivistic Context’. R. D. 193–218.. and M. Rego. ‘Impact of Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Organizational Performance: A Review and Suggestions for Future Research’. Altmann. Applied Psychology: An Lazarus. MacKenzie: 1997.: 1988. 334–348. K. E. ‘In Search of Organizational Virtue in Business: Agents. E. Organization Studies 27. 739–752. J. S. Cunha: 2009b. P. Institutions and Environments’. H. in K. King and E. M. Business and Society 43(3). P. 52–65.. W. ‘Organisational Citizenship Behaviours and Effectiveness: An Empirical Study in two Small Insurance Companies’. E. and J. Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classiﬁcation (American Psychological Association and Oxford University Press. Dimatteo: 2006. C. B. S. 19–35. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(1). Human Performance 10(2). Moorman and R. Fox: 2002. ‘Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It’s Construct Clean-Up Time’. ‘The Contours and Consequences of Compassion at Work’. G. Roberts: 2003. E. Podsakoff. Cunha: 2008a. Organ. Practices. ‘The Inﬂuence of Social. Kanov. N. Borman. B. Bachrach: 2000. A. 513–563. C. W. 659–685. S. Journal of Organizational Behavior 29. Journal of Happiness Studies 10. and M. Service Industries Journal 28(4). Beadle: 2006. 133–151. Paine and D. ‘The Role of Psychological Climate in Facilitating Employee Adjustment During Organizational Change’. American Psychologist 37. Goodge: 1976. Rego. .. Seligman: 2004. and M. R. S. Lexington. Young. Management Science 29(3). Rego. Johnson: 2002. MacKenzie. ‘The Inﬂuence of Organizational Respect on Emotional Exhaustion in the Human Services’. 107–142. C. Nicholson. 363–377. 269–319. Callan: 2005. S. Track and R. D. LePine. Quinn (eds. A. J. Peterson. Journal of Positive Psychology 3(1). M. Journal of Management in Medicine 11. ‘A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Toward a Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis’. R. Peterson: 2003. Cunha: 2009a. L. Business Ethics Quarterly 15. B. Lilius. L. Journal of Business Research 61(7). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome (Lexington Books. Miles. and M.). B. P. Organizational and Biographical Factors on Female Absence’. San Francisco). Lyubomirsky. M. and R. ‘The Relationship Between Perceptions of Corporate Citizenship and Organizational Commitment’. ‘Building an Integrative Model of Extra Role Work Behaviors: A Comparison of Counterproductive Work Behavior with Organizational Citizenship Behavior’. Rohrbaugh: 1983. Moore.. E. Erez and D. A.: 1982.: 2004.234 ´nio Rego et al. E. ‘Organizational Justice and Citizenship Behaviors: A Study in the Portuguese Cultural Context’. Quinn.. and C. Huff. E. A. 51–57. S. Cunha: 2009c. Goods. Podsakoff. E. Satisfaction. J. Cameron. Leadership Quarterly 1(2). Cooper: 1997. B. Human Performance 10(2). LaCost and J. ‘What are the Differences Between Happiness and Self-Esteem?’.. M. A. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24. D. Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline (Barrett-Koehler. ‘Thoughts on the Relations Between Emotion and Cognition’. A. Cunha: 2008b. 33–47. and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors’. 541–554. MacKenzie. ‘Transformational Leader Behaviors and Their Effects on Followers’ Trust in Leader. C. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 10. P. G. M. J. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 14(3). 234–254. 294–301. Psychological Bulletin 131(6). Fetter: 1990. and M. Diener: 2005. 363–404. 389–416. Lyubomirsky. A. 369–389. H. Jones and V. ‘The Nature and Dimensionality of Organizational Citizenship Behavior’. ‘Virtues and Organizations’. ‘Relationships Between Psychological Climate Perceptions and Work Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review’. Organ. Peterson. M. Dutton and R. Worline. ‘The Impact of Trust Status on Health Care Workers’. J. ‘Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future Research’. P.: 1997. A. J.: 2005. and M. A. S. Journal of Management Studies 13(3). S. MA). G.
and B. Cunha Faculdade de Economia. Journal of Management 33(6). ‘The Emerging Positive Agenda in Organizations: Greater than a Trickle. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 77. Wright. J. 711–723. M. K. but not yet a Deluge’. and Complex Understanding in the Formation of new Relationships’. J. Aveiro. Personnel Psychology 59. I. and R. N. Universidade Nova de Lisboa. and N. Quick: 2009. Tse.: 1991. Sobel. A. M. Deci: 2000. Russell. Parkes. Pelled: 1994. Portugal E-mail: armenio.Perceptions of Organizational Virtuousness and Happiness International Review. Social Development and Well-Being’. Fredrickson: 2006. Organizational Dynamics 33(4). A. 119–135. 219–227. and S. T. Performance and Well-Being: When does SuppliesValues Fit Matter?’.00 405. ‘Affect and Managerial Performance: A Test of the Sadder-but-Wiser Versus Happier-and-Smarter Hypotheses’.unl. ‘The Role of Psychological Well-Being in Job Performance: A Fresh Look at an Age-Old Quest’. B. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5. Barsade: 1993. M. ‘Asymptotic Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equations Models’. A. P. ´nio Rego Arme Universidade de Aveiro. ‘An Empirical Analysis of Measurement Equivalence with the INCOL Measure of Individualism and Collectivism: Implications for Valid Cross-Cultural Inference’. R. and S. 235 Vey. Business Ethics Quarterly 10. Spector. R. R. ‘Job Complexity. M. 51–71. Chan: 2006. ‘Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation. Souto and M. Wright.. C. P. Journal of Positive Psychology 1. 147–159. Weiss. 68–78. T. Staw. G. ‘Affective Space is Bipolar’. Ashkanazy: 2008. Dasborough and N. 290–312. ‘A Multi-Level Analysis of Team Climate and Interpersonal Relationships at Work’. B. T. ‘Nice to know you: Positive Emotions. McGrath: 2004. 195–211. 269–292. in S. Portugal E-mail: email@example.com. and R. ‘In-role or ExtraRole Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Which are we Measuring?’. D. Human Resource Management Review 12. L. Bennett and R. and J. D. Lisboa. Personnel Psychology 57. Campbell: 2007.1111/j. Human Performance 17(1). E. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology 76. Journal of Applied Psychology 81(3). and M. T. W. Schnake. Cunha: 2009.pt Miguel P. pp. Ryan. Dumler: 2003. and E. Wright. ‘The Attachment Bond in Childhood and Adulthood’.: 2000. Lee and K. and J. ‘Work Characteristics and Employee Health and Well-Being: Test of a Model of Healthy Work Organization’. Cropanzano: 2000. 304–331. A. Shaw. doi:10. Harris (eds. American Psychologist 55. H. H. ‘Employee Positive Emotion and Favorable Outcomes at the Workplace’. J. M. ‘Psychological Well-Being and Job Satisfaction as Predictors of Job Performance’. and Employee Reciprocity’. ‘Character is not ‘‘Dead’’ in Management Research: A Review of Individual Character and Organizational-Level Virtue’. Organizational Science 5. R. M. 565–588. Portugal E-mail: neuza@estg.). Journal of Organizational Behavior 30(2). Vanderberg. Instituto Polite Leiria. 928–958. 66–76. 338–351. London). Waugh. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39. ‘Taming the Corporate Monster: An Aristotelian Approach to Corporate Virtue’. Administrative Science Quarterly 38. Robert. Leinhart (ed.pt . 847–879. M. C. ‘An Emotion-Centered Model of Voluntary Work Behavior: Some Parallels Between Counterproductive Behavior and Organizational Citizenship Behavior’. C. R. J. 1152-1168. E.: 1980. E. Dejoy.pt Neuza Ribeiro Escola Superior de Tecnologia e Gesta ˜ o. Sociological Methodology (Jossey-Bass. H.rego@ua. P. StevensonHinde and P. Schudt. A. M. M. R. T. Richardson and L. Leadership Quarterly 19(2).. H. pp. San Francisco). S. 148–164. P. M. and J. Goodstein: 2007. M. Wilson. C. Self-Other Overlap. E. A.x.. 65–99.. Sutton and L. ‘Levels of Measurement and Analysis Issues in Organizational Citizenship Behavior Research’. ‘Does the Need to Belong Moderate the Relationship Between Perceptions of Spirit of Camaraderie and Employees’ Happiness?’.: 1982. P. ‘Social Exchange in Organizations: Perceived Organizational Support.-Y. 93–106. Leader-Member Exchange. Gupta: 2004. ´cnico de Leiria.ipleiria. 283–301. Liden: 1996. Cropanzano: 2004. Rego. L. Settoon. Fox: 2002..2009. G.. M. C. Staw. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 14(2). 84–94. Wright. Attachment Across the Life Cycle (Tavistock/Routledge. in C. A.).
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.