The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

Family
Does family come first? Family motivation-
motivation-individual’s OCB individual’s
OCB assessment
assessment via self-efficacy
Waheed Ali Umrani
Department of Business Administration, Sukkur IBA University, Sukkur, Pakistan
Received 21 January 2019
Imdad Ali Siyal Revised 25 June 2019
20 September 2019
Sukkur IBA University, Sukkur, Pakistan 9 October 2019
Umair Ahmed Accepted 27 October 2019

Arab Open University Bahrain, Manamah, UK

Ghulam Ali Arain
College of Business and Economics,
United Arab Emirates University, Al-Ain, UAE
Hassan Sayed
Sukkur IBA University, Sukkur, Pakistan, and
Sumera Umrani
Moray House School of Education,
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the perceptions of faculty members about the influence
of family motivation on their self-efficacy and organizational citizenship behavior-individual (OCBI).
Design/methodology/approach – The proposed model was tested on a sample of 353 faculty members
from different public and private universities of Pakistan. Partial least squares structural equation modeling
was used to analyze data.
Findings – Surprisingly, results reveal that family motivation was not positively related to faculty members’
OCBI; instead, this relationship is fully mediated by self-efficacy. The findings suggest that it is employees’
self-efficacy belief through which their family motivation translates to their increased OCBI. This study also
finds that supporting the family is a powerful source of motivation to work, offering meaningful practical and
theoretical implications for policy-makers, leaders, managers and researchers on the new dynamics of work
and family engagements.
Originality/value – The study contributes to human resource management (HRM) and organizational
behavior (OB) literatures by providing some useful practical implications for managers and HRM and OB
consultants who are interested in understanding the underlying psychological mechanisms (i.e. self-efficacy)
through which employees’ family motivation results in the increased OCBI.
Keywords Self-efficacy, Quantitative, OCBI, Family motivation, Self-determination theory,
Pro social motivation
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
In the current era of tough competition, HR practitioners have a far greater responsibility
then ever before to facilitate organizations with mature decisions for optimum in-role and
extra-role employee performance. For this, practitioners look upto organizational scholars to
provide them with objective directions through empirical evidence. Something worthy of
mentioning is that researchers in these domains have indicated toward the need for
underlining potential factors that could bring a more sense of connectivity and purpose Personnel Review
in employees for their jobs to energize them for the desired behaviors and outcomes © Emerald Publishing Limited
0048-3486
(e.g. Fairlie, 2011; Milliman et al., 2003). DOI 10.1108/PR-01-2019-0031
PR Notably, what this study asserts for all of these enthusiasts to look into the element(s)
that could help employees bring real meaning to work and whereby, family may top the list.
Family a dominant source of meaning in life (e.g. Ryff, 1989; Ryff and Singer, 1998).
According to the two of the reputed surveys family is a universal value prized in most of the
cultures of the world (Schwartz, 1994; Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987; Schwartz et al., 2012).
Prior research into human resources management (HRM) has shown that family is a strong
driver of motivation to work (Fiksenbaum, 2014; Menges et al., 2017; Tariq and Ding, 2018).
However, most studies have focused on the negative aspect of this relationship, such as
work-family conflict (WFC) (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985) resulting in a broad range of
negative individual-, interpersonal- and organizational-level outcomes, for review, see
meta-analysis by Amstad et al. (2011). Whereas, relatively less attention has been given to
positive aspects of this relationship, such as family motivation to work, which refers to
employees’ desire to work for supporting their families (Tariq and Ding, 2018). Investigation
of the positive consequences of employees’ family motivation for their work outcomes is
warranted for at least two reasons.
First, growing body of positive organizational behavior (OB) (Luthans, 2002; Luthans and
Youssef, 2007) literature has suggested focusing more on employee strengths and optimal
functioning (e.g. family motivation) rather than employee weaknesses and malfunctioning.
Thus, research that focuses on employees’ family motivation would help HRM researchers,
consultants, and managers to better understand the potentially positive role of family in work,
such as when employees are psychologically engaged in their jobs to support their families,
rather than when they are less engaged due to WFC. Second, investigation of family
motivation as an antecedent of positive employee work outcomes would explain HR
practitioners understand and workforce decision makers as to why some employees, despite
increasing work-hours, de-unionization, time pressure, and target pressure, are motivated to
work harder to not only complete their own tasks but also help others in completing their
tasks (i.e. organizational citizenship behavior toward other individuals: organizational
citizenship behavior-individual (OCBI)). Thus, this study investigates the potentially positive
role of employees’ family motivation in fostering their self-efficacy and the subsequent
increased OCBI. In doing so, this study contributes to work-family and OCB literatures in
some important ways.
First, while the impact of family engagement on various work dynamics has been
thoroughly researched, there is still a dearth of studies concerning these practices’
influence on employee prosocial behavior, such as OCBI. For example, studies have shown
linkage of OCBI with other work-related variables yet still, its relationship with family
motivation has been given much less attention (Menges et al., 2017). On a higher note, this
paucity of research has also shaded educational organizations, being unclear as to what
could potentially influence citizenship behavior (in particular OCBI) (Mohammad et al.,
2011). In the eyes of Mohammad et al. (2011) since educational institutions require
employees’ to go beyond conventionally assigned tasks, it is crucial for them to underline
what could be vital in predicting volunteer behavior amongst in this regard. Moreover, the
present study chose OCBI as outcome of family motivation due to several scholarly
understandings. At first, this decision is in line with the assertions of prosocial motivation
theory which indicates family motivation to the idea of “living for others” that’s not
limited to immediate or extended family rather it includes students, colleagues, and
customers (Grant, 2007; Bellé, 2013; Grant and Berry, 2011; Hu and Liden, 2015; Menges
et al., 2017). Consequently it is expected that employees with high family motivation shall
exhibit OCBI, thus resulting in helping their closed ones (i.e. friends, family, students and
coworkers) (Grant, 2007; McNeely and Meglino, 1994).
Second, the potential positive relationship between employees’ family motivation and
their OCBI may not be fully understood without explaining the underlying psychological
mechanism through which family motivation translates into OCBI. For this purpose, we Family
draw on social learning theory (Bandura, 1978) and self-determination theory (SDT) motivation-
(Ryan and Deci, 2000a, b), and examine self-efficacy as the mediator of the positive individual’s
relationship between family motivation and OCBI. Self-efficacy refers to “people’s beliefs in
their capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage OCB assessment
prospective situations” (Bandura, 1995, p. 2), has been suggested as an important predictor
of positive work attitudes (Saks et al., 1995), job performance and innovative work behavior
(Arain et al., 2019; Potosky and Ramakrishna, 2002; Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998), and
training proficiency (Martocchio and Judge, 1997). Since employees are one of the crucial
stakeholders and largely responsible for an organization’s innovativeness and financial
success, the expected significant mediation effect of self-efficacy would help HRM managers
to understand the value of employees’ self-efficacy and initiate organization-wide HRM
practices that boost employees’ family motivation and subsequently their increased OCBI
through their enhanced self-efficacy.
Our paper has the following structure. First, we introduce the theoretical overview of the
principle concepts of the study. Next, we introduce family motivation which is followed by
the model and hypotheses for testing. We then discuss the methodology including sampling,
data collection measures, data analysis and discussion of main findings, respectively.
Lastly, a detailed discussion is followed by implications, limitations and prospects for future
research (Figure 1).

Theoretical background and hypotheses

Prosocial motivation is conceptualized as working and living for others, such as
organization, colleagues and family members (Meglino and Korsgaard, 2004). Research into
organizational settings has mainly concentrated on the desire to benefit the organizations
(Rioux and Penner, 2001), colleagues and co-workers (McNeely and Meglino, 1994).
End-users of the services and products of the organization are often described as clients,
patients, citizens or students (Bellé, 2013; Grant, 2008a; Hu and Liden, 2015). The present
study proposes family motivation as a special case of prosocial motivation. The present
study also draws upon SDT which suggests that people make choices with their own will
and without the interference of external influence (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Grolnick et al., 1997).

Family motivation
Notably, family motivation and prosocial motivation have a strong bearing on employees’
performance at the workplace (Brehm and Self, 1989; Menges et al., 2017). Family motivation
refers to working to benefit one’s family, for instance spouse and children (Edwards and
Rothbard, 2000; Menges et al., 2017), while prosocial motivation involves living for others,
such as colleagues, students and customers (Grant, 2007; Bellé, 2013; Grant and Berry, 2011;
Hu and Liden, 2015; Menges et al., 2017). Existing studies suggest that people give more
attention and care to their family because of kinship and biological association (Burnstein
et al., 1994) and bonding (Grant, 2007; Korchmaros and Kenny, 2001). Moreover, prosocial
motivation enhances employees‘ dedication to helping their closed ones (Grant, 2007;
McNeely and Meglino, 1994). However, some of the studies also suggest that situations

H1+

Family Self-
OCBI
Motivation Efficacy Figure 1.
Conceptual model
H2+ H3+
PR whereby employees realize that the core beneficiaries of their efforts are co-workers and not
the family members caused “social loafing” and lower sense of responsibility (Harkins and
Petty, 1982; Morrison and Phelps, 1999; Rothbard, 1999; Weiss, 1985).

Family motivation’s influence over OCBI

Human capital is the central source for achieving of organizational effectiveness; therefore,
maintaining employee-work relationship and level of motivation is indispensable. Recent
evidence suggest that when employees exert higher level of motivation it predicts higher
levels of OCB (e.g. Chow et al., 2015). Organ (1988) has explained that OCB is a voluntary
behavior of an individual in the organization that enhances organizational effectiveness. It is
beyond the formal performance appraisal stimulation mechanism. Literature has detailed
out various classifications of OCB, such as altruism (OCBI), compliance (organizational
citizenship behavior organizational (OCBO)), conscientiousness, sportsmanship, civic virtue,
initiative and helpfulness (Chen et al., 2017; Foote and Li-Ping Tang, 2008; Meynhardt et al.,
2018; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Shaheen et al., 2016). These classifications are underlined
keeping in view the behavioral outcomes of the employees.
More specifically, Williams and Anderson (1991) familiarized two important facets of
OCB that are OCBI and OCBO. The OCBI benefits individuals (i.e. co-workers and
colleagues) and it contributes to the organization indirectly (Chen et al., 2017; Shaheen et al.,
2016) whereas, OCBO benefits organizations directly instead of individuals (Chen et al.,
2017; Shaheen et al., 2016).
Notably, dedicated employees will be more generous and cooperative and can play
extra-role behavior but it is necessary that they observe that their organization value and
care them. Consecutively, these employees will be more capable of supporting their
organization, colleagues, and associates thus exhibiting more sportsmanship and altruistic
spirit (Gupta et al., 2017). Accordingly, the theory of positive emotions also asserts that
people respond positively when they experience positive emotions and feel good about
something (Fredrickson, 2001).
Previous studies have advocated positive relationship of OCB’s with psychological
capital, work engagement (Gupta et al., 2017), job performance, team commitment, job
satisfaction (Foote and Li-Ping Tang, 2008) social capital (Bolino et al., 2002), organizational
support (Borman et al., 2001; Organ, 1990) social exchange (Konovsky and Pugh, 1994).
Similarly, OCBI has remained a major attraction for practitioners and researchers as well
(LePine et al., 2002). The present study proposes the investigation of direct relationship
between family motivation and OCBI while responding to the call by Menges et al. (2017)
who suggested OCB to be investigated in the context of family motivation. Moreover, there
is strong similarity between the attitudes of family motivation and OCBI. Both of the
attitudes are tending to help others, i-e., family motivation resultantly benefits family
members whereas OCBI is for helping colleagues and co-workers.
Therefore, it is proposed that employees with high family motivation are likely to exhibit
same spirit at workplace as well to support their colleagues and coworkers (OCBI). However,
even based on these limited scholarly arguments, the understanding that can be potentially
drawn is that family motivation being a very personal factor can potentially enhance
employees‘ to nurture individual behaviors and outcomes that would apparently make them
passionate about personalized efforts to serve and facilitate others at large. This view is also
in line with the assertions of prosocial motivation theory referring to family motivation and
the entities (e.g. spouse, colleagues, students and customers) individuals with high family
motivation strive to serve and support (Grant, 2007; Grant and Berry, 2011).
Accordingly, an idea could be understood as when an employee witnesses its support
resulting for betterment for their families, this awareness can potentially act as a driving
force to facilitate others and exert more efforts at the workplace thus resulting in OCBI
(Grant, 2008b, 2012; Grant et al., 2007). Parallel to this, the authors found a dearth of research Family
on the topic as only two scholarly evidence could be traced on the topic (Menges et al., 2017; motivation-
Tariq and Ding, 2018). Hence, with the comprehension, it is proposed that employees with individual’s
high family motivation are likely to exhibit same spirit at workplace as well to support their
colleagues and coworkers (OCB): OCB assessment
H1. Family motivation is positively related to OCBI.

Family motivation’s influence on self-efficacy

How family motivation can influence self-efficacy is based on a few scholarly arguments,
more importantly from the arguments of Bandura (2010). According to him, self-efficacy is
related to individual views and beliefs about their ability to influence events that have
significance in their lives. This belief/ideology about oneself serves as the foundation of
motivation, performance, productivity and emotional well-being for many (see further
Bandura, 1997). Notably, this belief related to efficacy develops gradually from the four
notable sources of information which are mastery experiences, social modeling, social
persuasion and personal goal-setting. Therein, in connection to social modeling it can be
seen that individuals coming across people in their social circle who are working likewise to
succeed, it can help enhance their belief in personal capabilities. Accordingly, in connection
to goal-setting which caters to the perception of their efficacy based on their goal challenges.
If the employees have higher goals, they tend to be expressing more firmness in achieving
them. In consonance to this argument, it can be driven that individuals with higher family
motivation will be ideally more objective to facilitate them which in way would push them to
strive with enhanced belief in themselves and their capabilities. People with higher
family motivation will be better at self-regulating of their emotional states which could
likely enhance their coping capabilities thus in a way contributing toward individual
self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997, 2010).
Furthermore, building on the general perspective of hedonic and eudaimonic pursuits by
Aristotle (350 BCE/1985). “Hedonic aspirations” involve seeking pleasure and avoiding pain;
“eudaimonic aspirations” focus on seeking meaning and expressing important values
(McGregor and Little, 1998; Ryan and Deci, 2000a, b; Waterman, 1993). Family motivation is
eudaimonic, as it is concerned not with affective experiences for oneself but with the
important responsibility of providing for one’s dependents. Hence, the desire to give a better
life to family requires high self-efficacy, e.g. to have firm belief in one’s own abilities to
accomplish difficult tasks to achieve the greater rewards that ultimately will benefit the
family. Therefore, we propose following hypotheses:
H2. Family motivation is positively related to self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy’s influence on OCBI

Self-efficacy is explained as self-beliefs of the people in their own capabilities for performing
certain tasks and accomplishing goals (Wood and Bandura, 1989, p. 408). As per the notion
of social cognitive theory, such a judgment about oneself strongly affects ones’ job
performance. Similarly, a lack of belief in oneself doesn’t allow employees to exert true
efforts and unleash the true potential that ultimately lead to poor job performance (Bandura,
1986). In addition to these, Bandura (1986) shows a deeper connection of self-efficacy with
the health and cognitive attitude of people about themselves. The author further suggests
that self-efficacy gives people the ability to manage difficult tasks in difficult situations
without experiencing any disturbance or depression and vis-à-vis. According to Bandura
(2000), the organizations that have incorporated self-efficacy enhancing activities in their
PR HRM practices tend to enjoy increased productivity, innovation, and engagement, and
decreased stress, burnout and turnover.
The central propositions of Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy regarding well-being and
health has been extensively investigated in the perspective of employees working in
organizations. Whilst previous studies found that workplace stressors may affect the
workers easily who are low in self-efficacy and are more vulnerable than the workers with
high self-efficacy ( Jex and Bliese, 1999; Lloyd et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2005; Panatik et al., 2011;
Schaubroeck et al., 2000).
Researchers’ have agreed that adaptive behavioral strategies are better utilized by
individuals who possess a higher level of self-efficacy (Maddux and Lewis, 1995; Motowildo
et al., 1997; Raghuram et al., 2003) as these individuals exert more control over their behaviors.
Hence, according to Alexandra-Beauregard (2012) these individuals (who have high
self-efficacy) will more likely demonstrate supportive behavior toward coworkers. Moreover,
extensive research evidence is available on the influence of self-efficacy over citizenship
behaviors (see, e.g. Speier and Frese, 1997; Morrison and Phelps, 1999; Alexandra-Beauregard,
2012; Cohen and Abedallah, 2015). Specifically, the said investigation has previously been
made in the educational context (such as D’Amato and Zijlstra, 2008; Bogler and Somech,
2004; Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2000). However, these studies have either covered OCB in
general or have looked at OCBO as well as OCBI. Accordingly, Tsui (2004) suggested
replicating research findings where cultures differ. Therefore, in the light of above presented
arguments, we propose as under:
H3. Self-efficacy is positively related to OCBI.

Mediation of self-efficacy
One assertion could be drawn from social learning theory (Bandura, 1986) that employees’
may have improved belief of their self-efficacy when having a higher level of family
motivation and this, in turn, is likely to promote their OCBI-related behaviors. Second, In the
light of pro-social motivation theory, family motivation enhances self-efficacy and
ultimately benefits employees’ family members and help colleagues and coworkers at
workplace without expecting any external reward, e.g. OCBI. Lastly, the current study
suggests that family motivation has a direct effect on self-efficacy, and self-efficacy has a
direct effect on OCBI. Thus family motivation has an impact on OCBI because it helps to
increase self-efficacy.
Consequently, past research has expended much attention to the relation between self-
efficacy and job performance (Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998), job attitudes (Saks et al., 1995)
and training proficiency (Martocchio and Judge, 1997) but has not examined the
relationship between self-efficacy, family motivation and OCBI. This study aims to
examine if family motivation affects OCBI through self-efficacy. Self-efficacy stimulates
individual to perform any course of action(s) in a given situation effectively (Park et al.,
2015). Accordingly, because of its cognitive and subjective nature scholars have also
found its association with individual psychological state ( Jex and Bliese, 1999;
Lloyd et al., 2017; Lu et al., 2005; Panatik et al., 2011; Schaubroeck et al., 2000).
More importantly, only a few studies have highlighted the mediating role of self-efficacy
(e.g. Chiu, 2014; Saks, 1995).
Thus, employees with high family motivation are more likely to engage themselves to
perform OCBI at workplace, there is self-efficacy in between that actually works behind this
relationship where family motivation increases self-efficacy and ultimately self-efficacy
leads to exhibit OCBI. Hence, self-efficacy may be regarded as a cognitive construct that
reflects how employees feel about their own abilities to accomplish the tasks. Resultantly,
self-efficacy may function as it connects family motivation to positive behaviors (i.e. OCBI),
and self-efficacy may also play a role of a bridge between family motivation and OCBI. Family
Thus, it is hypothesized as under: motivation-
H4. Employees’ perception of self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between family individual’s
motivation and OCBI. OCB assessment

Methods
Participants and procedure
The data were collected from the faculty members of public and private sector universities
of Sindh, Pakistan using self-administered questionnaires. Initially, a total of 1,000
questionnaires were distributed out of which 353 responses were obtained with a 35 percent
response rate. However, after the assessment for missing values and outliers (Tabachnick
and Fidell, 2007; Hair, 2010) a final data set of 300 cases was used for analysis. Table I
provides respondents’ demographic profile.

Measures
Family motivation was measured using the five-item “pro-social motivation scale”
developed by Grant (2008a, b); a sample item includes “Why are you motivated to do your
work? I do this job because […] I care about supporting my family.” Next, we measured
OCBI (sample item – I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I have set for myself )
through eight-item scale (Lee and Allen, 2002). Self-efficacy was measured through eight
item scale of new general self-efficacy (Chen et al., 2001); an example of its item is “I Help

Characteristics Frequency ( f ) Percentage

Sector
Private 172 57.3
Public 128 42.7
Gender
Male 194 64.7
Female 106 35.3
Age
20 to 30 112 37.3
31 to 40 147 49.0
41 to 50 31 10.3
51 to 60 5 1.7
More than 60 5 1.7
Marital status
Single 80 26.7
Married 220 74.0
Position
Professor 17 5.7
Associate professor 31 10.3
Assistant professor 88 29.3
Lecturer 164 54.7
Education
PhD 90 30.0 Table I.
MS/MPhil 102 34.0 Respondent
BS/MSc/MBA/MA/MBBS 108 36.0 demographics
PR others who have been absent.” All items were measured using seven-point Likert scale
indicating (7-Strongly Disagree to 1-Strongly Agree).

Data analysis and results

Drawing upon Hair et al. (2016); Ringle et al. (2012) partial least squares structural equation
modeling was employed via deploying SmartPLS 3 software (Henseler et al., 2009; Ringle
et al., 2012) to perform data analysis. Therein, two-step approach following the suggested
trend was adopted (Umrani et al., 2018; Ahmed et al., 2017; Umrani et al., 2019). Prior to
performing the main analysis on SmartPLS, we confirmed normality (Tabachnick and
Fidell, 2007); multicollinearity-all VIF values were before 5 (Hair, 2010); and common method
variance through Harman’s single factor test (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986) through using
SPSS. Therein, all factors produced 63.37 percent of cumulative variance and 35.63 percent
of variance for the first factor (Kumar, 2012). Therefore, normality, multicollinearity and
CMV were not a major concern in the present study.

Reliability and validity tests

Referring to Hair et al. (2013, 2016); and Hulland (1999) we established indicator reliability
through standardized loadings and retained items with loadings 0.5 or above; two items
(OBCI1 and OCBI8) were deleted due to lower loadings. Next, we examined internal
consistency reliability through ensuring composite reliability (CR) scores for each construct
to be 0.7 or above (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Hair et al., 2016). Likewise, convergent validity
through assessing average variance extracted (AVE) scores for each construct was also
ensured which is supposed to be 0.5 or above as per Fornell and Larcker (1981) and Chin
(1998). Table II presents these results in greater detail.
Subsequent to this, we used Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion for the assessment of
discriminant validity according to which the squared root of AVE for each latent variable

Latent constructs and indicators Standardized loadings α CR AVE Mean SE

Family motivation
FM1 0.828 0.904 0.928 0.720 5.791 1.208
FM2 0.910
FM3 0.816
FM4 0.902
FM5 0.779
Self-efficacy
SEF1 0.808 0.929 0.942 0.671 5.805 .910
SEF2 0.871
SEF3 0.836
SEF4 0.887
SEF5 0.842
SEF6 0.880
SEF7 0.665
SEF8 0.740
Organizational citizenship behavior-individual (OCBI)
OCBI2 0.809 0.857 0.893 0.582 5.461 .886
OCBI3 0.783
OCBI4 0.797
Table II. OCBI5 0.759
Reliability and OCBI6 0.711
validity OCBI7 0.712
has to be greater than its correlations with other variables. Table III presents numerical Family
evidence for such assessment of the current study (Chin, 1998). motivation-
individual’s
Path coefficients assessment OCB assessment
In order to assess the significance of path coefficients we performed the standard
bootstrapping procedure with a number of 5,000 bootstrap samples (Hair et al., 2016;
Henseler et al., 2009) using SmartPLS software; the direct and indirect (mediation analysis)
path coefficients were produced simultaneously.
H1, Family motivation is positively related to OCBI (β ¼ −0.016, t ¼ 0.354, p ¼ 0.362
could not find empirical support. However, in examining the influence of family motivation
on self-efficacy (H2); the result indicated empirical support (β ¼ 0.456, t ¼ 10.576, p o0.01).
Lastly, regarding the influence of self-efficacy on OCBI (H3) our results also indicated
empirical support (β ¼ 0.743, t ¼ 21.009, p o0.01). The path coefficients results are provided
in Table IV.

Predictive power of the model

The assessment of coefficient of determination (R2) helps in understanding variation
explained in the dependent construct(s) (Hair et al., 2016; Henseler et al., 2009). The desired
r-squared value however varies across different fields of studies (Hair et al., 2016). However,
in social sciences research settings a minimum of 0.10 R2 is acceptable (Falk and Miller,
1992). The present study found an R2 value of 0.54 for OCBI and 0.21 for self-efficacy
constructs; which according to Chin (1998) can be considered as moderate r-squared values.
However, acceptable (refer Table V ).
Following to that, our f-squared assessment (Chin, 1998) for OCBI construct indicated
that the family motivation has no effect ( f ¼ 0.000) whereas self-efficacy exerts large effect

Latent variables 1 2 3
Table III.
Family motivation 0.849 Discriminant validity
OCBI 0.323 0.763 (Fornell-Larcker
Self-efficacy 0.456 0.736 0.819 criterion)

Relationship β SE t-value Support

H1 Family motivation → OCBI −0.016 0.045 0.354 No

H2 Family motivation → Self-Efficacy 0.456 0.043 10.576*** Yes
H3 Self-efficacy → OCBI 0.743 0.035 21.009*** Yes Table IV.
Note: ***p o0.01 Path assessment

Constructs R2 f2 Effect size Q2

OCBI 54% 0.263 Moderate 0.289 Table V.

Self-efficacy 21% 0.953 Large 0.129 Predictive capability
Family motivation n/a 0.000 None n/a of model
PR ( f ¼ 0.953); whereas, family motivation exerted moderate ( f ¼ 0.263) effect over self-efficacy
(Chin, 1998). These results are depicted in Table V.
Lastly, we examined predictive relevance of our research model using blindfolding
procedures (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974; Duarte and Raposo, 2010; McMillan and Conner,
2003), which demands that the cross-validated redundancy measure (Q2) value should be
greater than zero (Chin, 1998; Hair et al., 2016; Stone, 1974) to demonstrate a model’s
predictive relevance. Accordingly, the Q2 values for both of the endogenous variables
(i.e. OCBI and self-efficacy) were greater than zero (refer Table V ).
Mediation analysis. Following upon (Preacher and Hayes, 2008) our results of the indirect
effect of self-efficacy over family motivation and OCBI relationship indicated empirical
support (β ¼ 0.339; t-value of 8.529). Additionally as indicated by Preacher and Hayes (2008),
the indirect effect (LL ¼ 0.272, UL ¼ 0.403) does not straddle a 0 in between. Therefore,
H4 found empirical support (refer Table VI).

Discussion of the findings

This research suggests that the desire to support a family through work is the most vital
source to motivate employees to work. Most notably, when the consequences of doing work
are perceived valuable for supporting the family, they enhance the interest of the employees
in work. Family motivation enhances self-efficacy that leads to more OCBI.

Family motivation and OCBI

The present study hypothesized that family motivation is positively related to OCBI (H1).
On the contrary, family motivation was not found to exercise a positive influence on the
OCBI. These findings are somewhat not consistent with prior research that has found
positive effects for family motivation (Menges et al., 2017). However, inconsistent results
might be due to the fact that previously the relationship between work and family had
traditionally been studied in terms of segmentation (e.g. trying to keep work and personal
activities separate), compensation (e.g. spending more time at work when one is dissatisfied
with family life), and spillover (e.g. skills, attitudes and behaviors and emotions that travel
from one domain to the other) (Edwards and Rothbard, 1999; Lambert, 1990). However, this
inconsistency might be since employees with higher family motivation are likely to focus on
monetary rewards that cater for their family needs only whereas OCBI is a voluntary
behavior without any external reward.
Second, that past research with family motivation has frequently considered different
forms of family motivation (i.e. the relationship between work and family) has
traditionally been studied in terms of segmentation (e.g. trying to keep work and personal
activities separate), compensation (e.g. spending more time at work when one is
dissatisfied with family life), and spillover (e.g. skills, attitudes and behaviors and
emotions that travel from one domain to the other; (Edwards and Rothbard, 1999;
Lambert, 1990). Third, employees with a high level of family motivation have great
concern with increasing job security. At extreme levels, family motivation could even
cause unethical behavior if employees will stop at no end to support their families
(Menges et al., 2017) so that they might have less interest to help other co-workers and
colleagues at workplace.

Table VI.
Path coefficients for Relationship β SE t-value 5.0% 95% Support
mediating effect of
self-efficacy H4 Family motivation → OCBI 0.339 0.040 8.529 0.272 0.403 Yes
Family motivation and self-efficacy Family
With regards to H2, the PLS path modeling results indicated a positive relationship motivation-
between family motivation and self-efficacy. This finding asserts that family motivation individual’s
of the employees was characterized by their emotional attachment to their family (Grant,
2007), increases self-efficacy in terms of achieving organizational goals. self-efficacy has OCB assessment
been studied with many constructs including job performance (Stajkovic and Luthans,
1998), job attitudes (Saks et al., 1995), training proficiency (Martocchio and Judge, 1997).
This results is consistent with prosocial motivation theory that when prosocial motivation
goes high employees remain dedicated to helping their closed ones (Grant, 2007; McNeely
and Meglino, 1994).
The study also predicted positive relationship between self-efficacy and OCBI hence
landing support to H3. The results have confirmed the promising role of self-efficacy in
predicting positive work behaviors and outcomes (e.g. Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998; Saks
et al., 1995). The finding has indicated that individuals with higher level of self-efficacy
tend to express OCBI. In other words, employees believing in their personal abilities to
perform work tasks tend to express likeliness to help other coworkers and colleagues at
the workplace.
Result concerning the mediating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between family
motivation and OCBI is also consistent with self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1986, 1997) and
various studies in other contexts (Caprara et al., 2002; Caprara et al., 1998; Zuffianò et al.,
2013). For instance, previous research found that individuals with higher level of
self-efficacy exhibited more OCBI. Additionally, Bandura (1997) defines that self-efficacy
has a greater importance in understanding accomplishments of better performance and the
levels of motivation that how the individuals think, perceive and behave.
This study has advocated that self-efficacy plays an important role in bridging the gap
between family motivation, and OCBI such that individuals who exhibit higher level of
self-efficacy are more likely to perform OCBI. In other words, this finding highlights that
employees with higher self-efficacy are more likely to engage themselves in OCBI at work,
i.e. help their coworkers and colleagues at workplace without any extra reward. More
importantly, this result showed that family motivation improves OCBI through self-efficacy.

Theoretical implications
Previous research has established that families are a primary reason for working
(Bernard, 1981; Brief et al., 1997; Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). Yet the role of family
motivation in shaping OCBI has been neglected. In contrast, the current study has
identified the desire to support the family as the main factor. It also presents family
motivation as a special case of prosocial motivation because employees strongly identify
themselves with their immediate beneficiaries as compared to more distal contacts.
This study also provides fresh evidence about how family motivation works to help in
achieving better OCBI from the employees through a higher level of self-efficacy. This
research, thus, adds to the debate about the meaning of work, which ideally matters a lot
to employees who work to support their dependents (Rosso et al., 2010). As Weiss (1985)
observed in study that for most of the professionally successful people “having a family
made their work expressive.” Wrzesniewski et al. (2014) depicted his findings consistent
with the action identification theory that the actions are intrinsically allied with the
anticipated outcomes of doing work.
The current study has contributed to a growing body of literature on the implications
of positive OB to HRM practices by highlighting the positive aspect of the family-work
relationship. Specifically, our findings have shown that instead of focusing on the
extensively reported negative consequences of employees’ weaknesses in managing their
work-family relationship, it is better to focus on employees’ strengths in using their family
PR motivation as a strong driver of their performance. Furthermore, the current study has
also contributed to research on SDT indicating that in some contexts, values-based
motivation may be an alternative route to similar ends (Green-Demers et al., 1997; Losier
and Koestner, 1999). Thus, OCBI can be enhanced by making strategies that can promote
family motivation.

Practical implications
Our findings provide some useful practical implications for HRM researchers, consultants
and managers by highlighting the positive aspects of the family-work relationship, and
answering to the questions that why and how employees’ fully engage in their jobs to extent
that they not only complete their own tasks but also help others. Specifically, our findings
highlight that, despite increasing work demand, such as long working hours, time and task
pressures, multi-tasking assignments, family motivation is the main driving force that first
strengthens employees’ self-efficacy and then motivates them to exhibit OCBI. Accordingly,
we suggest HRM consultants and managers include family motivation as an integral
part of positive OB intervention in organization-wide HRM practices to enhance employees’
self-efficacy and the subsequent OCBI.
Organizations can take several steps to enhance employees’ family motivation. For
instance, providing work-family related social support to employees through both formal
and informal HRM practices can foster their family motivation (Kossek et al., 2011). In this
regard, the role of line managers/supervisors is very important since they are the
gatekeepers to formal organizational policies (i.e. family related incentives) and informal
practices (i.e. work schedules) (Clarke et al., 2019). Thus, line managers/supervisors’
support, particularly informal support to their subordinates in the forms of listening to
their family problems, supporting and tolerating their family commitments, and
sensitizing them to the value of their jobs for their families can play vital role in enhancing
employees’ family motivation.
Furthermore, line managers/supervisors are key in developing a family-culture in
organizations by encouraging employees to help each other in managing their family
obligations, such as allowing employees to work on behalf of those employees who are
absent due to their family commitment. These types of informal supervisory social support
to employees not only enhance their family motivation but also increase their self-efficacy
and the subsequent OCBI.
Our findings can also be applied to workers across different income strata and job
conditions. Motivation to serve the family may benefit in a variety of jobs; Companies
offering more complex jobs could also profit from appealing to employees’ family
motivation. For instance, organizing events for the families like company picnics and
employees may bring their children to work, allowing employees-the days to bring their
home lives celebrations at the workplace in or order to mitigate the gap between work and
family. In this regard, managers and HRM practitioners can benefit from Ouweneel et al.’s
(2013) web-based training program, consisting of “happiness, goal-setting, and
resource-building tasks” (cf. Chan et al., 2016; p.16), that aims at fostering employees’
motivation (e.g. family motivation), self-efficacy, and coping abilities.
Such training should be first given to line managers/supervisors so that they can lead
from the front and present themselves as practical role models for their subordinates.
Given prior research has suggested that both positive and negative supervisory behaviors
can be “trickled-down” to subordinates’ behaviors (Mawritz et al., 2012; Mayer et al., 2009),
line managers’/supervisors’ high family motivation can result in subordinates’ high
family motivation. Thus, training of line managers/supervisors on family motivation
enhancing practices can help the organizations to get full advantage of the findings of the
current study.
Limitations and future research directions Family
First, a cross-sectional design was framed for this study which limits causal inferences of motivation-
the results. A longitudinal design henceforth will be a good option for scholars to individual’s
investigate and underline considerable developments and variations in the studied
relationships effectively. Second, the present study focused mainly on faculty members OCB assessment
and therefore provides limited generalizability. Consequently, further research is advised
amongst non-teaching staff members in the higher education sector in this regard.
Accordingly, academia and industry blended studies may also be considered to provide a
comprehensive comparative analysis and understanding of the underpinned relationships
(Menges et al., 2017).
Furthermore, the research model explained 54 percent of the total variance in OCBI and
21 percent of the total variance in self-efficacy. Henceforth, future studies may be considered
to explain the remaining 46 and 79 percent of the variance for OCBI, and self-efficacy with
other potential factors. Also, pertaining to the mediating effect, future scholars may also
look into how employee’s self-efficacy could further mediate the relationship between family
motivation and OCBI amongst samples other than university employees i.e., factories,
departments, organizations other than the universities, industries and corporations. Results
also indicated that family motivation was not found to exercise a positive influence on the
OCBI. Henceforth, future studies may be conducted to confirm and forward firm empirical
conclusions on this relationship. Since these findings are somewhat inconsistent with
previous studies that found positive effects on family motivation. Therefore, future research
effort may also be considered to investigate the conditions under which a unique impact of
family motivation will emerge (Menges et al., 2017).
Similarly, in the present work, the antecedents of family motivation were not examined,
including family benefits offered by employers such as childcare, eldercare, educational
support, employee assistance programs and flexible working hours (Menges et al., 2017). It
is suspected that these offerings may help employees to mentally link their work to their
families, strengthening family motivation (Grant et al., 2011). Relatedly, antecedents of
family motivation in organizational settings are suggested to be examined by future
researchers. Moreover, this study also encourage future researchers to examine factors
beyond OCBI, such as affective commitment, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation,
self-esteem, job satisfaction, stress, turnover intentions and work-engagement (Grant,
2008b, 2012; Gupta et al., 2017; Meynhardt et al., 2018; Ryan and Deci, 2000a, b). In most
cases, it is expected that family motivation would increase the cost of switching one’s job,
and, thus, according to research on job embeddedness (Gupta et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2004),
lower turnover is expected among employees working for their families. Lower
counterproductive work behaviors are predicted among employees with high family
motivation, not only because of job security concerns (Ashford et al., 1989; Meynhardt
et al., 2018) but also because employees may want to become as a role model for serving
their children. Hence, it should be tested that family motivation could simultaneously be a
source of motivation and stress. Even when family motivation is identified or integrated,
employees may feel an inherent sense of pressure because the impact of their work
extends beyond the organization’s walls to those who matter most in their lives. And this
raises an important question for self-determination theorists to explore: Can motivation be
simultaneously theorized that (Supporting my family is a guiding principle in my life or
(self-esteem depends on supporting one’s family, and will feel guilty if fails to support
Menges et al., 2017)).
Next, due to the potential interplay between financial pressure and family motivation, the
present study encourages future scholars to consider this avenue for research. In a related
sense, we recognize that family motivation may occur indirectly, reflecting when employees
work harder because they want to keep their jobs and earn money that will allow them to
PR sustain their family simultaneously. That is, for some employees, income may be
instrumental for experiencing family motivation, as research has witnessed that living for
others and spending money on them promotes happiness (Dunn et al., 2008), which is
supported by the notion that money takes different meanings to different employees
(Mitchell and Mickel, 1999). Lastly, same source collection source was used in the present
study which might limit our findings. Therefore, a multisource data collection might help
bringing in better insights or it may also further confirm the findings of the current study.

Conclusion
The present study has brought new insights by contributing to the existing body of
knowledge on the mediating role of self-efficacy on the relationship between family motivation
and OCBI. Results of this study have provided substantial support to the significant
theoretical propositions. Notably, despite some of its limitations, it answered all of the research
questions and met the objectives successfully. While there have been many different studies
investigating the key factors of OCBI, the current study addressed the theoretical gap by
bringing self-efficacy as a significant mediator.
This study also lends empirical and theoretical support for bringing self-efficacy as a
mediator on the relationship between family motivation and OCBI. The study has also
managed to evaluate how self-efficacy theoretically mediates the relationships between the
exogenous and endogenous variables. The theoretical framework of this study has also
contributed to the domain of prosocial motivation theory and SDT by examining the
influence of family motivation on OCBI. Additionally, the findings of this study have some
important practical implications for managers and HRM consultants who are interested in
understanding the underlying psychological mechanism through which employees’ family
motivation foster their OCBI.
In a nutshell, findings of the present study have unbolted a unique dimension for HRM
enthusiasts and OB practitioners through linking an off-job prospect (Family motivation)
for better on-job work behaviors and outcomes (e.g. OCBI). Hence, the findings may be
foreseen to catalyze for scholars to unleash more of such relationships for improved
personnel and organizational results in the near future.
Not to miss that there are some important limitations and directions for future scholars
that they can work more on it. The study has also added valuable practical and theoretical
contribution to the growing body of knowledge for better understanding of the emotional,
psychological and physical well-being of faculty members, particularly in Sindh, Pakistan.

References
Ahmed, U., Umrani, W.A., Pahi, M.H. and Shah, S.M.M. (2017), “Engaging PhD students: investigating
the role of supervisor support and psychological capital in a mediated model”, Iranian Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 283-306.
Alexandra Beauregard, T. (2012), “Perfectionism, self-efficacy and OCB: the moderating role of
gender”, Personnel Review, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 590-608.
Amstad, F.T., Meier, L.L., Fasel, U., Elfering, A. and Semmer, N.K. (2011), “A meta-analysis of
work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus
matching-domain relations”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 151-169.
Arain, G.A., Bhatti, Z.A., Hameed, I. and Fang, Y.H. (2019), “Top-down knowledge hiding and
innovative work behavior (IWB): a three-way moderated-mediation analysis of self-efficacy and
local/foreign status”, Journal of Knowledge Management.
Ashford, S.J., Lee, C. and Bobko, P. (1989), “Content, cause, and consequences of job insecurity: a
theory-based measure and substantive test”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 803-829.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the Family
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94. motivation-
Bandura, A. (1978), “Social learning theory of aggression”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 28 No. 3, individual’s
pp. 12-29.
OCB assessment
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Bandura, A. (1995), Self-efficacy in Changing Societies, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Bandura, A. (2000), “Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness”, in Locke, A.
(Ed.), Handbook of Principles of Organization Behavior, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 120-136.
Bandura, A. (2010), “Self‐efficacy”, in Weiner, I.B. and Craighead, W.E. (Eds), The Corsini Encyclopedia
of Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 1-3.
Bellé, N. (2013), “Experimental evidence on the relationship between public service motivation and job
performance”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 143-153.
Bernard, J. (1981), “The good-provider role: its rise and fall”, American Psychologist, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 1-12.
Bogler, R. and Somech, A. (2004), “Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organizational
commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools”,
Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 277-289.
Bolino, M.C., Turnley, W.H. and Bloodgood, J.M. (2002), “Citizenship behavior and the creation of social
capital in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 505-522.
Borman, W.C., Penner, L.A., Allen, T.D. and Motowidlo, S.J. (2001), “Personality predictors of citizenship
performance”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 9 Nos 1‐2, pp. 52-69.
Brehm, J.W. and Self, E.A. (1989), “The intensity of motivation”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 40
No. 1, pp. 109-131.
Brief, A.P., Brett, J.F., Raskas, D. and Stein, E. (1997), “Feeling economically dependent on one’s job: its
origins and functions with regard to worker well‐being”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 27 No. 15, pp. 1303-1315.
Burnstein, E.C., Crandall, C. and Kitayama, S. (1994), “Some neo-Darwinian decision rules for altruism:
weighing cues for inclusive fitness as a function of the biological importance of the decision”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 773-789.
Caprara, G.V., Regalia, C. and Bandura, A. (2002), “Longitudinal impact of perceived self-regulatory
efficacy on violent conduct”, European Psychologist, Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 63.
Caprara, G.V., Scabini, E., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Regalia, C. and Bandura, A. (1998), “Impact of
adolescents’ perceived self-regulatory efficacy on familial communication and antisocial
conduct”, European Psychologist, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 125-132.
Chan, X.W., Kalliath, T., Brough, P., Siu, O.-L., O’Driscoll, M.P. and Timms, C. (2016), “Work–family
enrichment and satisfaction: the mediating role of self-efficacy and work–life balance”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 27 No. 15, pp. 1755-1776.
Chen, G., Gully, S.M. and Eden, D. (2001), “Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 62-83.
Chen, Y., Wen, Z. and Ye, M. (2017), “Exploring profiles of work regulatory focus: a person-centered
approach”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 116, pp. 16-21.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling”, in
Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Inc., Mahway, NJ, pp. 295-336.
Chiu, S.I. (2014), “The relationship between life stress and smartphone addiction on Taiwanese
university student: a mediation model of learning self-efficacy and social self-efficacy”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 34, pp. 49-57.
PR Chow, C.W., Lai, J.Y. and Loi, R. (2015), “Motivation of travel agents’ customer service behavior and
organizational citizenship behavior: the role of leader-member exchange and internal marketing
orientation”, Tourism Management, Vol. 48, pp. 362-369.
Clarke, N., Alshenalfi, N. and Garavan, T. (2019), “Upward influence tactics and their effects on job
performance ratings and flexible working arrangements: the mediating roles of mutual
recognition respect and mutual appraisal respect”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 58 No. 4,
pp. 397-416.
Cohen, A. and Abedallah, M. (2015), “The mediating role of burnout on the relationship of emotional
intelligence and self-efficacy with OCB and performance”, Management Research Review, Vol. 38
No. 1, pp. 2-28.
D’Amato, A. and Zijlstra, F.R. (2008), “Psychological climate and individual factors as antecedents of work
outcomes”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 33-54.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985), “The general causality orientations scale: self-determination in
personality”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 109-134.
Duarte, P.A.O. and Raposo, M.L.B. (2010), “A PLS model to study brand preference: an application to
the mobile phone market”, in Vinzi, V.E., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds),
Handbook of Partial Least Squares, Springer, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London, New York, NY,
pp. 449-485.
Dunn, E.W., Aknin, L.B. and Norton, M.I. (2008), “Spending money on others promotes happiness”,
Science, Vol. 319 No. 5870, pp. 1687-1688.
Edwards, J.R. and Rothbard, N.P. (1999), “Work and family stress and well-being: an examination of
person-environment fit in the work and family domains”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 85-129.
Edwards, J.R. and Rothbard, N.P. (2000), “Mechanisms linking work and family: clarifying the
relationship between work and family constructs”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 178-199.
Fairlie, P. (2011), “Meaningful work, employee engagement, and other key employee outcomes:
implications for human resource development”, Advances in Developing Human Resources,
Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 508-525.
Falk, R.F. and Miller, N.B. (1992), A Primer for Soft Modeling, University of Akron Press, Akron, OH.
Fiksenbaum, L.M. (2014), “Supportive work–family environments: implications for work–family
conflict and well-being”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 25
No. 5, pp. 653-672.
Foote, D.A. and Li-Ping Tang, T. (2008), “Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior
(OCB) does team commitment make a difference in self-directed teams?”, Management Decision,
Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 933-947.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fredrickson, B.L. (2001), “The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-build
theory of positive emotions”, American Psychologist, Vol. 56 No. 56, pp. 218-226.
Geisser, S. (1974), “A predictive approach to the random effect model”, Biometrika, Vol. 61 No. 1,
pp. 101-107.
Grant, A.M. (2007), “Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 393-417.
Grant, A.M. (2008a), “Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in
predicting persistence, performance, and productivity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93
No. 1, pp. 48-58.
Grant, A.M. (2008b), “The significance of task significance: job performance effects, relational
mechanisms, and boundary conditions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 108-124.
Grant, A.M. (2012), “Leading with meaning: beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the performance Family
effects of transformational leadership”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 2, motivation-
pp. 458-476.
individual’s
Grant, A.M. and Berry, J.W. (2011), “The necessity of others is the mother of invention: intrinsic and
prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, OCB assessment
Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 73-96.
Grant, A.M., Nurmohamed, S., Ashford, S.J. and Dekas, K. (2011), “The performance implications of
ambivalent initiative: the interplay of autonomous and controlled motivations”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 116 No. 2, pp. 241-251.
Grant, A.M., Campbell, E.M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D. and Lee, K. (2007), “Impact and the art of
motivation maintenance: the effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence behavior”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 53-67.
Green-Demers, I., Pelletier, L.G. and Menard, S. (1997), “The impact of behavioural difficulty on the
saliency of the association between self-determined motivation and environmental behaviours”,
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne des sciences du Comportement,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 157-166.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Beutell, N.J. (1985), “Sources of conflict between work and family roles”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 76-88.
Grolnick, W.S., Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1997), “Internalization within the family: the self-determination
theory perspective”, in Grnsec, J.E. and Kuczynski, L. (Eds), Parenting and Children's Internalization
of Values: A Handbook of Contemporary Theory, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 135-161.
Gupta, M., Shaheen, M. and Reddy, P.K. (2017), “Impact of psychological capital on organizational
citizenship behavior: mediation by work engagement”, Journal of Management Development,
Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 973-983.
Hair, J.F. (2010), “Black, WC, Babin, BJ, & Anderson, RE (2010)”, Multivariate Data Analysis: Global
Edition, 7th ed., Pearson Higher Education, London.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2013), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling:
rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 46
Nos 1-2, pp. 1-12.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M.A. (2016), Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Harkins, S.G. and Petty, R.E. (1982), “Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1214-1229.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009), “The use of partial least squares path modeling in
international marketing”, in Sinkovics, R.R. and Ghauri, P.N. (Eds), New Challenges to
International Marketing, Vol. 20, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, pp. 277-319.
Hu, J. and Liden, R.C. (2015), “Making a difference in the teamwork: linking team prosocial motivation
to team processes and effectiveness”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 58 No. 4,
pp. 1102-1127.
Hulland, J. (1999), “Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four
recent studies”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 195-204.
Jex, S.M. and Bliese, P.D. (1999), “Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-related
stressors: a multilevel study”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 3, p. 349.
Konovsky, M.A. and Pugh, S.D. (1994), “Citizenship behavior and social exchange”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 656-669.
Korchmaros, J.D. and Kenny, D.A. (2001), “Emotional closeness as a mediator of the effect of genetic
relatedness on altruism”, Psychological Science, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 262-265.
Kossek, E.E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T. and Hammer, L.B. (2011), “Workplace social support and
work–family conflict: a meta‐analysis clarifying the influence of general and work–family‐
specific supervisor and organizational support”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 289-313.
PR Kumar, B. (2012), “Theory of planned behaviour approach to understand the purchasing behaviour for
environmentally sustainable products”.
Lambert, S.J. (1990), “Processes linking work and family: a critical review and research agenda”,
Human Relations, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 239-257.
Lee, K. and Allen, N.J. (2002), “Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: the role of
affect and cognitions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 131-42.
Lee, T.W., Mitchell, T.R., Sablynski, C.J., Burton, J.P. and Holtom, B.C. (2004), “The effects of job
embeddedness on organizational citizenship, job performance, volitional absences, and
voluntary turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 711-722.
LePine, J.A., Erez, A. and Johnson, D.E. (2002), “The nature and dimensionality of organizational
citizenship behavior: a critical review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87
No. 1, pp. 52-65.
Lloyd, J., Bond, F.W. and Flaxman, P.E. (2017), “Work-related self-efficacy as a moderator of the impact
of a worksite stress management training intervention: intrinsic work motivation as a higher
order condition of effect”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 115-127,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000026
Losier, G.F. and Koestner, R. (1999), “Intrinsic versus identified regulation in distinct political
campaigns: the consequences of following politics for pleasure versus personal
meaningfulness”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 287-298.
Lu, C.-q., Siu, O.-l. and Cooper, C.L. (2005), “Managers’ occupational stress in China: the role of
self-efficacy”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 569-578.
Luthans, F. (2002), “Positive organizational behavior: developing and managing psychological
strengths”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 57-72.
Luthans, F. and Youssef, C.M. (2007), “Emerging positive organizational behavior”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 321-349.
McGregor, L. and Little, D. (1998), “Personal projects, happiness, and meaning: on doing well and being
yourself”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 494-512.
McMillan, B. and Conner, M. (2003), “Using the theory of planned behaviour to understand alcohol and
tobacco use in students”, Psychology, Health & Medicine, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 317-328.
McNeely, B.L. and Meglino, B.M. (1994), “The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in
prosocial organizational behavior: an examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial
behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 6, pp. 836-844.
Maddux, J.E. and Lewis, J. (1995), “Self-efficacy and adjustment”, in Maddux, J.E. (Ed.), Self-efficacy,
Adaptation, and Adjustment, The Plenum Series in Social/Clinical Psychology, Springer, Boston,
MA, pp. 37-68.
Martocchio, J.J. and Judge, T.A. (1997), “Relationship between conscientiousness and learning in
employee training: mediating influences of self-deception and self-efficacy”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 5, pp. 764-773.
Mawritz, M.B., Mayer, D.M., Hoobler, J.M., Wayne, S.J. and Marinova, S.V. (2012), “A trickle‐down
model of abusive supervision”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 325-357.
Mayer, D.M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M. and Salvador, R.B. (2009), “How low does ethical
leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 108 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Meglino, B.M. and Korsgaard, M.A. (2004), “Considering rational self-interest as a disposition:
organizational implications of other orientation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89
No. 6, pp. 946-959.
Menges, J.I., Tussing, D.V., Wihler, A. and Grant, A.M. (2017), “When job performance is all relative:
how family motivation energizes effort and compensates for intrinsic motivation”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 695-719.
Meynhardt, T., Brieger, S.A. and Hermann, C. (2018), “Organizational public value and employee life Family
satisfaction: the mediating roles of work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior”, motivation-
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, pp. 1-34, available at: https://doi.
org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1416653 individual’s
Milliman, J., Czaplewski, A.J. and Ferguson, J. (2003), “Workplace spirituality and employee work OCB assessment
attitudes: an exploratory empirical assessment”, Journal of Organizational Change Management,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 426-447.
Mitchell, T.R. and Mickel, A.E. (1999), “The meaning of money: an individual-difference perspective”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 568-578.
Mohammad, J., Habib, F.Q. and Alias, M.A. (2011), “Job satisfaction and organisational citizenship
behaviour: an empirical study at higher learning institutions”, Asian Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 149-165.
Morrison, E.W. and Phelps, C.C. (1999), “Taking charge at work: extrarole efforts to initiate workplace
change”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 403-419.
Motowildo, S.J., Borman, W.C. and Schmit, M.J. (1997), “A theory of individual differences in task and
contextual performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 71-83.
Organ, D.W. (1988), OCB: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Organ, D.W. (1990), “The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior”, Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 43-72.
Ouweneel, E., Le Blanc, P.M. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2013), “Do-it-yourself: an online positive psychology
intervention to promote positive emotions, self-efficacy, and engagement at work”, Career
Development International, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 173-195.
Panatik, S.A., O’Driscoll, M.P. and Anderson, M.H. (2011), “Job demands and work-related psychological
responses among Malaysian technical workers: the moderating effects of self-efficacy”,
Work & Stress, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 355-370.
Park, G., Schwartz, H.A., Eichstaedt, J.C., Kern, M.L., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D.J. and Seligman, M.E.P.
(2015), “Automatic personality assessment through social media language”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 108 No. 6, pp. 934-952.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and Bachrach, D.G. (2000), “Organizational citizenship
behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future
research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 513-563.
Potosky, D. and Ramakrishna, H.V. (2002), “The moderating role of updating climate perceptions in the
relationship between goal orientation, self-efficacy, and job performance”, Human Performance,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 275-297.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication
research”, in Hayes, A.F., Slater, M.D. and Snyder, L.B. (Eds), The Sage Sourcebook of Advanced
Data Analysis Methods for Communication Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 13-54.
Raghuram, S., Wiesenfeld, B. and Garud, R. (2003), “Technology enabled work: the role of self-efficacy
in determining telecommuter adjustment and structuring behavior”, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 180-198.
Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Straub, D. (2012), “A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS
Quarterly”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1.
Rioux, S.M. and Penner, L.A. (2001), “The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: a motivational
analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 6, pp. 1306-1314.
Rosso, B.D., Dekas, K.H. and Wrzesniewski, A. (2010), “On the meaning of work: a theoretical
integration and review”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30, pp. 91-127, available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001
Rothbard, N.P. (1999), “Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family”.
PR Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000a), “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 68-78.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000b), “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1,
pp. 764-780.
Ryff, C.D. (1989), “In the eye of the beholder: views of psychological well-being among middle-aged and
older adults”, Psychology and Aging, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 195-210.
Ryff, C.D. and Singer, B. (1998), “The contours of positive human health”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Saks, A.M. (1995), “Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and mediating effects of
self-efficacy on the relationship between training and newcomer adjustment”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 211-225.
Saks, A.M., Leck, J.D. and Saunders, D.M. (1995), “Effects of application blanks and employment equity
on applicant reactions and job pursuit intentions”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16
No. 5, pp. 415-430.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S.S.K. and Xie, J.L. (2000), “Collective efficacy versus self-efficacy in coping
responses to stressors and control: a cross-cultural study”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85
No. 4, pp. 512-525.
Schwartz, S.H. (1994), “Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values?”,
Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 19-45.
Schwartz, S.H. and Bilsky, W. (1987), “Toward a psychological structure of human values”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 550-562.
Schwartz, S.H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C. and Dirilen-Gumus, O.
(2012), “Refining the theory of basic individual values”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 103 No. 4, p. 663.
Shaheen, M., Gupta, R. and Kumar, Y.L.N. (2016), “Exploring dimensions of teachers’ OCB from
stakeholder’s perspective: a study in India”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 1095-1117.
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”,
Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 16 Nos 5-6, pp. 649-659.
Speier, C. and Frese, M. (1997), “Generalized self efficacy as a mediator and moderator between control
and complexity at work and personal initiative: a longitudinal field study in East Germany”,
Human Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 171-192.
Stajkovic, A.D. and Luthans, F. (1998), “Self-efficacy and work-related performance: a meta-analysis”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124 No. 2, pp. 240-261.
Stone, M. (1974), “Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions”, Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 111-133.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, 3rd ed., Allyn & Bacon/Pearson
Education, HarperCollins, New York, NY.
Tariq, H. and Ding, D. (2018), “Why am I still doing this job? The examination of family motivation on
employees’ work behaviors under abusive supervision”, Personnel Review, Vol. 47 No. 2,
pp. 378-402.
Tsui, A.S. (2004), “Contributing to global management knowledge: a case for high quality indigenous
research”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 491-513.
Umrani, W.A., Kura, K.M. and Ahmed, U. (2018), “Corporate entrepreneurship and business
performance: the moderating role of organizational culture in selected banks in Pakistan”, PSU
Research Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 59-80.
Umrani, W.A., Afsar, B., Khan, M. and Ahmed, U. (2019), “Addressing the issue of job performance
among hospital physicians in Pakistan: the role of job security, organizational support, and job
satisfaction”, Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, p. e12169.
Waterman, A.S. (1993), “Two conceptions of happiness: contrasts of personal expressiveness Family
(eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 4, motivation-
pp. 678-691.
Weiss, R.S. (1985), “Men and the family”, Family Process, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 49-58.
individual’s
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of
OCB assessment
organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 601-617.
Wood, R. and Bandura, A. (1989), “Social cognitive theory of organizational management”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 361-384.
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P. and Schwartz, B. (1997), “Jobs, careers, and callings: People’s
relations to their work”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 21-33.
Wrzesniewski, A., Schwartz, B., Cong, X., Kane, M., Omar, A. and Kolditz, T. (2014), “Multiple types of
motives don’t multiply the motivation of West Point cadets”, Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, Vol. 111 No. 30, pp. 10990-10995.
Zuffianò, A., Alessandri, G., Gerbino, M., Kanacri, B.P.L., Di Giunta, L., Milioni, M. and Caprara, G.V.
(2013), “Academic achievement: the unique contribution of self-efficacy beliefs in self-regulated
learning beyond intelligence, personality traits, and self-esteem”, Learning and Individual
Differences, Vol. 23, pp. 158-162.

Further reading
Bandura, A., Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., Gerbino, M. and Pastorelli, C. (2003), “Role of affective
self-regulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning”, Child Development,
Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 769-782.
Cooper-Thomas, H.D. and Anderson, N. (2006), “Organizational socialization: a new theoretical model
and recommendations for future research and HRM practices in organizations”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 492-516.
Gist, M.E. (1987), “Self-efficacy: implications for organizational behavior and human resource
management”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 472-485.
Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., Weibel, A., Dysvik, A. and Nerstad, C.G. (2017), “Do intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation relate differently to employee outcomes?”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 61,
pp. 244-258.
Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010), “Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job
performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 617-635.

Corresponding author
Waheed Ali Umrani can be contacted at: waheed.ali@iba-suk.edu.pk

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com