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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2050-7003.htm

Organizational
Self-esteem, organizational citizenship
citizenship behavior and behavior

commitment among
university students 975

Edem Maxwell Azila-Gbettor Received 24 April 2019

Revised 24 August 2019
Department of Management Sciences, Ho Technical University, Ho, Ghana 29 November 2019
Accepted 10 December 2019
Eli Ayawo Atatsi
Department of Modern Languages and Communication,
Ho Technical University, Ho, Ghana
Christopher Mensah
Department of Hospitality, Tourism and Institutional Management,
Ho Technical University, Ho, Ghana, and
Martin K. Abiemo
Department of Management Sciences, Ho Technical University, Ho, Ghana

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationships between self-esteem (SE), university
commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) within a higher education setup.
Design/methodology/approach – A convenience sample of 354 students in a three-year higher
national diploma awarding technical university in Ghana participated in the study via the completion of
self-administered questionnaires. Descriptive statistics and partial least square-based structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM) were used to analyze data.
Findings – Path results using a PLS-SEM analysis showed a positive and significant association between SE
and OCBs and university commitment among the students. Furthermore, OCBs were found to partially
mediate the relationship between SE and university commitment.
Practical implications – The findings of the study provide important implication for management of higher
education institutions. Management of higher education institutions must orient academic and non-academic
staff to adopt communication strategies that help to improve students’ self-worth and assertiveness. All students
should be encouraged to participate in extra-curricular activities in order to build students’ beliefs about
themselves and self-confidence.
Originality/value – This paper is one of the first to have tested a model including SE, university commitment
and OCBs in a technical university setup from a developing country perspective.
Keywords Ghana, Commitment, Organizational citizenship behaviour, Self-esteem, University
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
This paper applies the self-consistency theory (Korman, 1976) to examine self-esteem (SE) as
an antecedent of commitment of students to their university (CU) and empirically test the
mediating effect of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) on the direct relationship
between SE and students’ CU. Self-consistency theory suggests that individuals will engage
in and find satisfaction in behavioral roles which maximize their sense of consistency.
High SE individuals are motivated to maintain a positive self-perception and approach a
task with self-perceived competence as a result of chronic or situational SE. Journal of Applied Research in
The current study was motivated by two main reasons. First, the significance of OCB in Higher Education
Vol. 12 No. 5, 2020
academic setting has received limited empirical investigations (Khalid et al., 2012; Ang and pp. 975-991
Ramayah, 2010; Allison et al., 2001) compared to work organizations (Podsakoff et al., 2009). © Emerald Publishing Limited
2050-7003
After over a decade when Oplatka (2006) opined that research on OCB in the context of DOI 10.1108/JARHE-04-2019-0095
JARHE education is limited, most recent attempts were skewed in favor of administrators (Farris,
12,5 2018; Eyupoglu, 2016) and faculties (Kagaari and Munene, 2007; Ertürk, 2007), implying the
investigation of OCB of students within the higher education setup has largely been ignored
(Khalid et al., 2010; Allison et al., 2001). Second, though existing literature suggests that both
SE and OCB are significant factors that affect commitment (Tan et al., 2016; Sadoughi and
Ebrahimi, 2015; Ariani, 2012), there is no integrated model that examines this relationship in
976 the context of higher educational environment. Clearly, there are inadequate studies on the
OCB and SE given that numerous calls have been made to extend the scope of OCB research
specifically in the higher education environment. In this paper, we address this gap by
examining whether the relationship between SE and CU is mediated by OCB.
This study contributes to the literature on SE, OCB and university commitment in the
following ways: first, the present study extends research on OCB and commitment literature
by focusing on the educational environment. Second, while few OCB research has
highlighted the role of SE in promoting students’ OCB (Khaola, 2014), the researchers are
not conversant with any study that has assessed the interaction between students’ SE, OCB
and students’ commitment to their universities. This study expands on earlier studies by
examining OCB within SE and students’ commitment nexus.

Literature review
Self-esteem
SE constitutes basic self-evaluation traits that affect how people act and respond in different
settings (Brown, 2014; Brown and Marshall, 2006; Judge et al., 1997). Rosenberg (1965)
defined SE as an individual’s positive assessment about him/herself as a person. SE is a trait
referring to individuals’ degree of like or dislike for oneself (Lent and Fouad, 2011) or how
much people think of themselves as worthy (Baumeister et al., 2003). SE involves a person’s
general self-evaluation (Pierce and Gadner, 2004) and includes cognitive, motivational and
affective components (Chen et al., 2004). SE is also conceptualized as a hierarchical
phenomenon, which implies that it possesses different levels of specificity such as global
and task or situation-specific SE (Simpson and Boyle, 1975) or recognized as a multifaceted
phenomenon and arises from varied sources including one’s physical, social and spiritual
self (Shavelson et al., 1976; Korman, 1970). Korman (1976) suggests that the fundamental
principles are that people will develop attitudes and behave in ways that will maintain their
level of SE overtime. Regardless of individuals abilities, beliefs and skills, high SE persons
usually feel good about themselves, whereas low-SE individuals feel bad about themselves
even if they consider themselves as extremely effective (Chen et al., 2004). Pierce and
Gardner (2004) argue that SE aids individuals to maintain the feeling of happiness,
contentment and competence when facing life challenges. At the individual level, studies
have confirmed that people high in SE exhibit superior work motivation (Pierce et al., 1989)
and achieve several work outcomes including higher performance ratings (Van Dyne and
Pierce, 2003; Gardner et al., 2000; Marion-Landais, 2000), commitment (Kharsah and
Fatmawati, 2016; Sadoughi and Ebrahimi, 2015), general satisfaction (Chen et al., 2016; Chui
and Wong, 2016; Kapıkıran, 2013; Luo et al., 2016) and OCB (Vahdaniasadi and Rohani,
2014; Matzler et al., 2011). In the educational setting, Zimmerman (2000) indicates that high
self-efficacious students usually select tougher and challenging tasks, spending more effort
and being more determined in realizing a specific task goal.

Organizational citizenship behavior

The concept of OCB, proposed by Organ (2004), relates to the cluster of extra-role behaviors
(Allen et al., 2011; Van Dyne et al., 2008) that significantly contribute indirectly to
organizational effectiveness through the maintenance of the organization’s social
system (Organ, 1997). Referred to as “going beyond the call of duty” or “esprit de corps”
(Bolino and Turnley, 2003), OCB is initially defined as “individual behavior that is Organizational
discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and that in citizenship
aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988, p. 4). Results behavior
of previous studies have suggested that, for any organization to function efficiently, it must
of necessity have employees who undertake innovative and spontaneous activities that go
beyond prescribed role or job requirement (Osman et al., 2019; Mushtaq and Umar, 2015;
Skarlicki and Latham, 1997). 977
OCB has been examined as multidimensional concept (Podsakoff et al., 2000). For example,
Organ (1988) proposed five dimensions of OCB including altruism, consciousness,
sportsmanship, courtesy and civil virtue. Smith et al. (1983) conceptualize two-dimensional
variable, namely, altruism and generalized compliance. Coleman and Borman (2000) categorized
OCB into three clusters labeled interpersonal citizenship, job/task conscientiousness and
organizational citizenship based on 27 factors used for citizenship performance in the literature.
Finally, Williams and Anderson (1991) proposed two categorizations of OCB including OCBI-
citizenship behavior directed toward individuals and OCBO-citizenship behavior directed
toward the organization or work unit.
In the context of students, OCB or extra-role behavior is defined as “voluntary help or
assistance of others or extra engagement for the organization without either an explicit or
implicit promise of reward” (Conway, 1999, p. 3). “Class participation, saying positive
things about their school and helping others” (McNally and Irving, 2010, p. 204),
improving teaching quality, serving as mentors for younger students (Schmitt et al., 2008)
are examples of extra-role behaviors exhibited by students and identified in the extant
literature. LeBlanc (2014) has suggested that a primary function of university is to prepare
students for future careers. Understanding OCB will help students’ careers and the
organizations where they will work (Kernodle and Noble, 2013). Schmitt et al. (2007) also
argued that nurturing OCB among students would enable them “help fellow students
academically and socially, contribute to local community service efforts, and help
recruit new students.” The results of students exhibiting OCB have been found to benefit
other students and the university community at large (Felfe et al., 2014). Other empirical
studies have confirmed a strong and significant relationship between students OCB and
commitment (Khaola, 2014), reduction in academic dishonesty and improving academic
performance (Khalid et al., 2012).

Commitment to university
Commitment reflects the feelings of dependency, identity, loyalty and desire to continuously
stay within an organization in order to achieve a goal (Womack et al., 2018; Morrow, 1983).
Commitment remains a basic value on which an organization relies, and staff are assessed
(Cohen, 1993). Organizational commitment is conceptualized differently, and it includes
prominent characteristic of an employee’s relationship with an organization (Sloan et al.,
2017); employees sense of attachment and loyalty to their organization or employer (Kessler,
2013; Muchinsky, 2007); feeling of belonging to the organization (Markovits et al., 2008); and
tendency of people to put their energy and loyalty to the disposal of organizations
(Kim et al., 2005). Highly committed employees are found to trust in the goals and values of
their organizations and make a willing effort in order to achieve what they are expected to
do (Dogan and Kilic, 2007) and exhibit loyalty, help co-workers and promote their
organizations to friends and family ( Johanson and Cho, 2007).
On the other hand, commitment to the university, termed, “institutional commitment” (Tinto,
1987), depicts an attachment to an institution, which is influenced by students appreciation and
relation with the universities core values, mission and determination to follow the institutions
strategic direction (Womack et al., 2018; Sholihin and Pike, 2010). Though most students
graduate and leave their universities, Felfe et al. (2014) suggest that commitment is usually
JARHE nurtured and enhanced through alumni association. A study by Sanchez et al. (2006) has
12,5 revealed that institutional commitment is influenced by factors such as well-known academic
staff, positive image and scientific reputation of the institution. Strauss and Volkwein (2002,
2004) also established that social growth and campus experiences including classroom vitality
and peer support are related to institutional commitment.

978 Self-esteem and organizational citizenship behavior

Empirical studies have confirmed a significant effect of personality on employee attitudes
and behaviors in organizations (Matzler et al., 2011; Lee, 2003) to the extent that personality
has been reported to be a better predictor of OCB compared to performance (Borman et al.,
2001). This is based on the premise that conscientious and agreeable individuals are inclined
to perform citizenship behaviors. There are also numerous empirical studies that report a
positive correlation between SE and OCB (Park and Bok, 2019; Sholikhah et al., 2019;
Samreen et al., 2018; Eisenberg et al., 2016). For example, Ariani (2012) researched 500 bank
tellers from 115 banks in Indonesia and found that SE affects both self-ratings of OCB and
supervisor ratings of OCB. In the field of education, Qureshi et al. (2011) reported SE as a
significant predictor of OCB among 158 teaching and administrative staff of public
university in Pakistan. Devin et al. (2012) also found a positive significant correlation
between SE and OCB in the study of 86 teachers of Shirvan, Iran. Finally, a significant
contribution of SE to OCB has also been confirmed in the study of 205 international
university branch campus students of Malaysia (Tan et al., 2016). Based on the above
evidence, we infer the following hypothesis:
H1. SE positively predicts OCB.

Self-esteem and commitment to university

SE is considered as a behavior predictor (Elloy and Patil, 2012; Van Dyne et al., 2000) and
Jackson and Jackson (2019) likewise Chi et al. (2013) recognize SE as one of the main
constructs of organizational commitment. Sadoughi and Ebrahimi (2015) found a
positively significant relationship between SE and commitment in a study involving 400
employees of health information technology department of the tertiary care hospitals of
Tehran in 2010. Similarly, Kharsah and Fatmawati (2016) researched 194 undergraduate
students from the University of Malaysia, Pahang and found SE to correlate positively
with students’ commitment to the university. Based on the above evidence, we infer the
following hypothesis:
H2. SE positively predicts CU.

Organizational citizenship behavior and commitment to university

A review of current studies has shown a positive and significant relationship between
commitment and OCB (Yeh, 2019; Vipraprastha et al., 2018; Terzi, 2015; Salehi and Gholtash,
2011; Morin et al., 2011; Lavelle et al., 2009; Gautam et al., 2005). For example, Salehi and
Gholtash (2011) found a positive and significant relationship between commitment
and OCB among members of faculty in the Islamic Azad University. Other notable studies
also examine a reciprocal relation between OCB and commitment and found a positive
significant effect (Yılmaz and Çokluk-Bökeoğlu, 2008; Özcan, 2008; Mercan, 2006;
Fenton Le Share, 2004). For example, a study by Hasani et al. (2013) on 293 physical
education officers from Kurdistan, Kermanshah, West Azerbaijan, and Hamadan provinces
found a positive and significant relationship between OCB and commitment. We therefore
hypothesis on this basis that:
H3. OCB positively predicts students’ CU.
Mediation role of OCB Organizational
Finally, based on the established relationships from the reviews conducted: SE and OCB citizenship
(Vahdaniasadi and Rohani, 2014; Ariani, 2012; Qureshi et al., 2011); SE and commitment behavior
(Kharsah and Fatmawati, 2016; Sadoughi and Ebrahimi, 2015); and OCB and commitment
(Yeh, 2019; Vipraprastha et al., 2018; Hasani et al., 2013; Yılmaz and Çokluk-Bökeoğlu, 2008;
Fenton Le Share, 2004). We expect that students’ SE would enhance their commitment to the
institution if they exhibit extra-role behaviors. We therefore infer the following hypothesis: 979
H4. OCB positively mediates the direct relationship between SE and CU.

Methodology
Sample and procedure
The study population included full-time students in a technical university in Ghana. Based
on the population size of about 5,000 with 5 percent margin of error and confidence level of
95 percent, the sample size for the study was estimated to be 357. However, 456 participants
were selected using convenience sampling technique. Out of 378 self-administered
questionnaires retrieved, 24 were discarded due to incomplete information and the
remaining 354 were found to be usable resulting in a response rate of 77.6 percent. Data for
the study was collected from the September 1–30, 2016 through a paper-and-pencil
questionnaire that took an average of 10 min to complete. Data collection was carried in
lecture halls with the assistance of colleagues of the authors. Students were informed of
voluntary participation and assured of anonymity and confidentiality. Out of the 354 usable
questionnaires, 57.6 percent were male with 42.4 percent being female. Most of the students
were 25 years or below (87.6 percent) and majority were in the third year (44.1 percent)
followed by second year (35.9 percent). A little over half (51.1 percent) of the participants
were studying in the Business School, whereas the remaining 48.9 percent were in the
Faculty of Applied Sciences and Technology.

Measures
OCB was measured using ten-item validated instrument for learning environment
developed by Allison et al. (2001). The instrument measures all the five dimensions of OCB
proposed by Organ (1988). Sample items include “I willingly give my time to help other
students who have school-related problems,” “I attend and actively participate in school
meetings” and “I do not always find fault with what the university is doing.”
ES was measured using Rosenberg’s (1965) ten-item instrument. Sample items were “On
the whole, I am satisfied with myself,” “I am able to do things as well as most other people”
“I take a positive attitude towards myself.”
CU was measured with an eight-item instrument adapted from Cook and Wall (1980) and
Meyer and Allen (1984). Sample items include “I am quite proud to tell people I study with
this university,” “I am willing to put myself out to help my university” “I feel myself to be
part of this university.” Participants rated all items for OCB, SE and CU on a seven-point
Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Data analysis. Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 24.0 and SmartPLS
version 3.2.7 (Ringle et al., 2015). Demographic characteristics of respondents were
summarized using descriptive statistics. Second, the theoretical framework and its
associated hypothesis were tested using partial least square-based structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM). The choice of PLS-SEM was made based on its ability to estimate
causal relationships among all latent constructs simultaneously, while dealing with
measurement errors in the structural model (Hair et al., 2017). Considering the guidelines
suggested by Hair et al. (2017), measurement models were evaluated separately before the
JARHE evaluation of structural model. PLS algorithm followed by bootstrapping sampling (5,000 re-
12,5 sample) was applied to determine factor loadings (FL), path coefficients and their respective
significance levels.

Results
Measurement model assessment
980 The measurement model was tested for convergent validity and reliability using average
variance extracted (AVE), composite reliability (CR) and FL (Hair et al., 2012, 2013). As
shown in Table I, Cronbach’s α is greater than the recommended threshold of 0.70 (Hair
et al., 2010; Nunnally, 1978) suggesting all measures were robust in terms of their reliability.
The CR ranges from 0.828 to 0.938. This exceeds the recommended threshold of 0.70
(Hair et al., 2010). Convergent reliability was tested using AVE. The AVE for CU, ES and
OCB are above 0.5, thus confirming the reliability and validity of the model’s latent
variables (Hair et al., 2014).
Fornell and Larcker (1981) guidelines was used to evaluate the discriminate validity of
the model (Table II). As shown in the table, the square root of AVE of each construct in the
matrix diagonal is higher than the related correlation in corresponding rows and columns.
It therefore suggests the quality of the reflective model.
Another test for the discriminant validity of reflective measurement models was performed
by evaluating all cross-loading values of reflective constructs indicators. As a rule of thumb,
indicators of reflective measurement models should have the highest loading on their own
underlying latent construct compared to other constructs involved in the structural model
(Hair et al., 2017). As shown in Table III, all indicators (measurement scale items) of reflective
measurement models have a higher loading on their corresponding underlying latent
constructs, compared to loading on any other construct in the model. Consequently, these
results meet the cross-loadings assessment criteria and provide a satisfactory evidence for the
discriminant validity of the reflective measurement models.

Analysis of structural model

The overall model fit was assessed using the standardized root mean square residual
(SRMR) composite factor model (Henseler et al., 2016). According to Hu and Bentler (1999),
SRMR value less than 0.08 indicates a good model fit. Therefore, the research model for the
study (0.071) is indicative of a good model fit. Two approaches, endogenous variables’
determination coefficient (R2) (Sarstedt et al., 2014) and path coefficient of all latent variables
(Memon and Rahman, 2014), were used to assess structural model. The R2 criterion

Latent construct Actual range Mean SD AVE Composite reliability Cronbach’s α

Table I.
Validity, reliability Commitment to university (CU) 1.13–6.67 5.379 1.287 0.684 0.938 0.928
and descriptive General self-esteem (GSE) 2.20–6.51 5.075 0.916 0.538 0.852 0.783
statistics of latent Organizational citizenship
construct behavior (OCB) 1.89–70 4.974 0.968 0.510 0.828 0.759

CU OCB GSE
Table II.
Discriminant validity Commitment to university (CU) 0.827
(Fornell–Larcker Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) 0.467 0.640
criterion) General self-esteem (GSE) 0.496 0.533 0.733
Item Commitment to University General Self-Esteem Organizational Citizenship Behavior
Organizational
citizenship
CU1 0.865 0.481 0.468 behavior
CU2 0.903 0.436 0.407
CU3 0.738 0.267 0.341
CU4 0.827 0.338 0.343
CU5 0.862 0.446 0.377
CU6 0.762 0.442 0.372 981
CU8 0.820 0.409 0.372
GSE1 0.338 0.667 0.421
GSE3 0.414 0.829 0.447
GSE4 0.327 0.770 0.398
GSE7 0.231 0.602 0.253
GSE10 0.462 0.776 0.400
OCB1 0.290 0.322 0.688
OCB2 0.233 0.337 0.701
OCB3 0.249 0.247 0.611 Table III.
OCB4 0.350 0.372 0.674 Cross-loading
OCB6 0.343 0.348 0.664 among reflective
OCB8 0.228 0.304 0.508 measurement
OCB9 0.350 0.414 0.615 scale items

was utilized to assess the predictive power of the structural model (Chin, 1998). The
examination of the endogenous constructs’ predictive power shows that CU, the primary
outcome measure of the model, has a very weak R2 value 0.304. Prediction of OCB is also
very weak with an R2 value of 0.284. This is an indication that SE can predict only
28.4 percent of OCB while SE and OCB accounted for 30.4 percent of CU.
The hypotheses were evaluated on the basis of the conventional significance level of 0.05.
As indicated in Figure 1, all the three paths were significant. SE had a significant positive
influence on OCB (β ¼ 0.533; t ¼ 10.794; p o0.005), thereby providing support for H1.
In support of H2, the path relationship between SE and commitment to the university was
significant and positive (β ¼ 0.345; t ¼ 4.639; p o0.005). A positive significant relationship
was found with respect to OCB and commitment to the university (β ¼ 0.283; t ¼ 4.102;
p o0.005), thus providing support for H3. The relationships between SE and CU were
partially mediated by OCB (β ¼ 0.351; t ¼ 4.719; p o0.005), providing support for H4.
Finally, estimated variance accounted for (VAF) reveals that 30 percent of the total effect of
students’ commitment to the university is explained by their OCB.

Organizational
Citizenship
Behavior
R 2 = 0.284

 = 0.283
 = 0.533 t = 4.102**
t =10.784**

Figure 1.
Commitment Results of structural
Self-  = 0.345 model of relationship
to University
esteem t = 4.639** between SE, OCB and
R 2 = 0.304
commitment to the
university
Note: **p= 0.001
JARHE Discussions
12,5 This study sets out to investigate the relationships between SE, CU and OCB among
students in a higher education environment. Therefore, we validated a set of hypotheses
using structural PLS modeling and a sample of 354 students selected using convenience
sampling technique. In confirmation of results of earlier studies, SE was found to be
positively related to OCB (Sholikhah et al., 2019; Samreen et al., 2018; Qureshi et al., 2011).
982 This implies that students who have positive perception about themselves in relation to
their studies are likely to demonstrate behaviors that satisfy not only their personal needs
but also those of others and the university in general. These students are more likely to take
steps to prevent problems with other students and focus on their positive attitudes or
behaviors. In comparison with earlier studies that pointed to a correlation between OCB and
commitment (Yeh, 2019; Vipraprastha et al., 2018; Hasani et al., 2013; Jafari et al., 2011),
students in this study have revealed a significantly positive reciprocal link between
commitment and OCB. The study shows that students’ OCB is considerable in generating
their disposition to be committed or loyal to their university. This result adds to the scarce
extant literature showing that OCB is a relevant attribute in promoting commitment of
students to their university, an interesting link that needs further examination. Previous
studies have found highly SE individuals to be highly committed to their organizations or
institutions ( Jackson and Jackson, 2019; Sadoughi and Ebrahimi, 2015; Poorgharib et al.,
2013). Similar finding was inductively revealed in this study, suggesting that students high
on SE tend to have positive attitudes toward their institutions (Pierce and Gardner, 2004)
and are likely to be committed to their universities. Finally, OCB was found to partially
mediate the direct relationship between SE and CU. Our results suggest OCB as a significant
mediator in the SE and CU relationship. Thus, students are committed to their university if
they are encouraged to engage in OCB. The support for SE and behavioral outcomes
examined is consistent with self-consistency theory (Korman, 1970, 1976). Our findings
suggest that students with high SE have superior motivation to be dedicated to their
university, perform extra roles and maintain a consistent level of SE. In other words,
students perform pro-social activities to be consistent with their self-concept.

Theoretical implications
By investigating the prior mentioned relationships, the study has made the following
significant and interesting contributions to the higher education literature. In the context of
education, “a positive SE has been viewed as a desirable attribute for students” (Booth and
Gerard, 2011; p. 631) because it impacts the degree of consistency in the behavior of students
(Schmeck, 1988). Furthermore, empirical evidence shows that high SE is related to academic
achievement, social and personal responsibility of students (Redenbach, 1991). However,
this SE has not received adequate empirical validation. This study examined the direct
nexus between SE and OCB and CU of higher education students, thereby enriching the
higher education literature. The findings of the study provide support for the relation
between SE and the existence of OCB and CU among students, suggesting that SE in the
higher education environment might be an important precursor of OCB and CU.
Additionally, this study has examined OCB as a mediator of students’ SE and CU, a
relationship that has not yet been explored. Result shows that the predictive power of
students’ OCB on CU is partially achieved through OCB. The findings contribute to the
higher education literature by demonstrating that the effects of SE on CU are not
predetermined as a conceptual preposition but are contingent on students exhibiting OCB.

Practical implications
The results of the study have provided significant information that can be leveraged by
administrators and managers of higher education institutions to enhance the commitment
of continuing students and alumni. The study shows that an association between Organizational
student’s SE and behavioral variables including OCB and CU exists in an academic citizenship
setting. The findings suggest that if administrators take steps to improve students’ SE, behavior
they will believe that they are significant, worthy and valuable to the university
community (Pierce and Gardner, 2004). This verdict should encourage faculty to inspire
students to pursue the development of their SE for both short-term academic benefits and
long-term career impact. Consequently, classroom-based session programs that focus on 983
enhancing positive students’ SE should be encouraged (Park et al., 2014). For example,
lecturers must be educated on focusing on accentuating the positive deeds of students as
well as setting realistic goals for them to work upon (King et al., 2014). Additionally,
students should not be treated as homogenous group since they have their own sets of
talents, unique strengths and needs. Lecturers should take notice of the different strengths
and learning styles of their students and create a classroom environment that fosters the
unique abilities of individual students. The study also provides an insight into the
relationship that OCB predicts students’ CU and as mediator in the relationship between
students’ SE and CU. Consequently, efforts must also be directed at developing students
OCB. For example, lecturers should stimulate OCB among students by consciously
modeling students’ behavior along students who initially demonstrate OCB
(Christophersen et al., 2015). OCB encompasses behaviors that occur within a group
setting that are interpersonal in nature (Allison et al., 2001). Consequently, we encourage
lecturers to use students’ teams to foster the behavior of OCB (McKendall, 2000; Gardner
and Korth, 1998).

Limitations of the study

Investigation into the interrelationship between SE, OCB and CU has limitations. First, the
current investigation applied a cross-sectional design. This may raise possible issues
concerning the validity of research outcome. We encourage future studies to use
longitudinal designs and deploy it on one cohort of students from first to the third year of
their study to strengthen the claim regarding the predictive validity between SE, OCB and
commitment of students. Second, the present research relied on self-report data which is
likely to raise the question of social desirability bias. For this study, a self-administered
questionnaire was used to overcome the problem of social desirability bias (Nederhof,
1984; Sudman and Bradburn, 1974). However, future empirical investigations must use
other data collection strategies such as teacher-report ratings to eliminate the likely
problem of self-reporting bias.

Conclusion
The present study tested a model that examined OCB as a mediator between students’ SE
and CU. The findings from the study show that students’ SE positively predicts both OCB
and CU. Additionally, students OCB positively predicts CU. We also found evidence to
support the claim that OCB mediates the relationship between SE and CU. Accordingly,
the university must focus more on encouraging students to engage in OCB. Tactically, this
deliberate act expectantly would ensure students’ attachment to their universities.
Furthermore, high SE individuals are opinion leaders, socially energetic and extremely
interconnected in their communities (Solomon et al., 2016), having voluntary personal
characteristics; hence, their commendation carry lots of weight (Tan et al., 2016). The
university authorities must seek out for such individuals among students and engage
them in their OCB and commitment drive. Replication of this study across different
countries and other higher educational environment is recommended for cross validating
the reported findings.
JARHE References
12,5 Allen, R.S., Evans, W.R. and White, C.S. (2011), “Affective organizational commitment and
organizational citizenship behavior: examining the relationship through the lens of equity
sensitivity”, Organization Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 218-228.
Allison, B.J., Voss, R.S. and Dryer, S. (2001), “Student classroom and career success: the role
of organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 76 No. 5,
984 pp. 282-288.
Ang, M.C.H. and Ramayah, T. (2010), “An empirical assessment of the role of organizational citizenship
behavior in explaining academic success: some evidence from East Malaysian sample”, Gadjah
Mada International Journal of Business, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 55-74.
Ariani, D.W. (2012), “Linking the self-esteem to organizational citizenship behavior”, Business and
Management Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 26-38.
Baumeister, R.F., Campbell, J.D., Krueger, J.I. and Vohs, K.D. (2003), “Does high self-esteem cause better
performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles”, Psychological Science in
Public Interest, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-44.
Bolino, M.C. and Turnley, W.H. (2003), “Going the extra mile: cultivating and managing organizational
citizenship behavior”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 60-71.
Booth, M.Z. and Gerard, J.M. (2011), “Self-esteem and academic achievement: a comparative study of
adolescent students in England and the United States”, A Journal of Comparative and
International Education, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 629-648.
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 No. 1/2,
pp. 52-69.
Brown, J.D. (2014), The Self, Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY.
Brown, J.D. and Marshall, M.A. (2006), “The three faces of self-esteem”, in Kernis, M.H. (Ed.),
Self-Esteem Issues and Answers: A Sourcebook of Current Perspectives, Psychology Press,
New York, NY, pp. 4-9.
Chen, G., Gully, S.M. and Eden, D. (2004), “General self-efficacy and self-esteem: toward theoretical and
empirical distinction between correlated self-evaluations”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 375-395.
Chen, W., Niu, G.F., Zhang, D.J., Fan, C.Y., Tian, Y. and Zhou, Z.K. (2016), “Socioeconomic status and life
satisfaction in Chinese adolescents: analysis of self-esteem as a mediator and optimism as a
moderator”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 95, pp. 105-109.
Chi, H., Yeh, H. and Choum, S. (2013), “The organizational commitment, personality traits, and teaching
efficacy of junior high school teachers: the mediating effect of job involvement”, Journal of
Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 131-142.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 12-16.
Christophersen, K.-A., Elstad, E., Solhaug, T. and Turmo, A. (2015), “Explaining motivational
antecedents of citizenship behavior among preservice teachers”, Education Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 126-145.
Chui, W.H. and Wong, M.Y. (2016), “Gender differences in happiness and life satisfaction among
adolescents in Hong Kong: relationships and self-concept”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 125
No. 3, pp. 1035-1051.
Cohen, A. (1993), “Age and tenure in relation to organizational commitment: a meta-analysis”, Basic
and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 143-159.
Coleman, V.I. and Borman, W.C. (2000), “Investigating the underlying structure of the citizenship
performance domain”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 25-44.
Conway, J.M. (1999), “Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance of managerial
jobs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1980), “New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and Organizational
personal need non-fulfilment”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 39-52. citizenship
Devin, H.F., Zohoorian, Z., Peymanizad, H. and Sane, M.A. (2012), “Investigating the relationship behavior
between organizational citizenship behavior and self-esteem among physical education
teachers”, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 46, pp. 1203-1207.
Dogan, S. and Kilic, S. (2007), “The situation and importance of empowerment in obtaining
organizational commitment”, Erciyes University Journal of Economics and Administrative 985
Sciences, Vol. 29, pp. 37-61.
Eisenberg, N., VanSchyndel, S.K. and Spinrad, T.L. (2016), “Prosocial motivation: inferences from an
opaque body of work”, Child Development, Vol. 87 No. 6, pp. 1668-1678.
Elloy, D. and Patil, V. (2012), “Exploring the relationship between organization based self- esteem and
burnout: a preliminary analysis”, International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 3
No. 9, pp. 283-288.
Ertürk, A. (2007), “Increasing organizational citizenship behaviors of Turkish academicians; mediating
role of trust in supervisor on the relationship between organizational justice and citizenship
behaviors”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 1-11.
Eyupoglu, S.Z. (2016), “The organizational citizenship behaviour of academic staff in north Cyprus”,
Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 701-704.
Farris, D. (2018), “Organisational citizenship behaviour in university administrative committees”,
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 224-238.
Felfe, J., Schyns, B. and Tymon, A. (2014), “The impact of university students’ commitment on in- and
extra-role performance”, Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 149-167.
Fenton Le Share, K.S. (2004), “A correlation analysis among organizational citizenship behavior,
teacher job satisfaction, and organizational commitment in low performing New York City
public high schools”, unpublished master thesis, Submitted to Regent University School of
Leadership Studies, New York.
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.
Gardner, B.S. and Korth, S.J. (1998), “A framework for learning to work in teams”, Journal of Education
for Business, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 28-33.
Gardner, D.G., Pierce, J.L., Van Dyne, L. and Cummings, L.L. (2000), “Relationships between pay level,
employee stock ownership, self-esteem and performance”, Australia and New Zealand Academy
of Management Proceedings, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 307-322.
Gautam, T., Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Upadhyay, N. and Davis, A.J. (2005), “Organizational citizenship
behavior and organizational commitment in Nepal”, Asian Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 305-314.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. and Tatham, R. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
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., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Mena, J.A. (2012), “An assessment of the use of partial least
squares structural equation modeling in marketing research”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 414-433.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Matthews, L.M., Matthews, R.L. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), “PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated
guidelines on which method to use”, International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, Vol. 1
No. 2, pp. 107-123.
JARHE Hasani, K., Boroujerdi, S. and Sheikhesmaeili, S. (2013), “The effect of organizational
12,5 citizenship behavior on organizational commitment”, Global Business Perspectives, Vol. 1
No. 4, pp. 452-470.
Henseler, J., Hubona, G.S. and Ray, P.A. (2016), “Using PLS path modeling in new technology research:
updated guidelines”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
986 conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Jackson, S. and Jackson, L.T.B. (2019), “Self-esteem: its mediating effects on the relationship between
discrimination at work and employee organisation commitment and turn-over intention”,
Journal of Psychology in Africa, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 13-21.
Jafari, H., Sadeghi, A. and Khodayari Zarnaq, R. (2011), “The relationship between organizational
citizenship behavior and organizational commitment in Martyr Hashemi Nejad Hospital in
Tehran”, Journal of Health Sciences Research, Vol 4 No. 3, pp. 28-40.
Johanson, M.M. and Cho, S. (2007), “Organizational commitment and loyalty among part time
hospitality employees”, Hospitality Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 40-46.
Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A. and Durham, C.C. (1997), “The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: a core
evaluations approach”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 151-188.
Kagaari, J.R.K. and Munene, J.C. (2007), “Engineering lecturers’ competencies and organizational
citizenship behavior at Kyambogo University”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 31
No. 9, pp. 1-11.
Kapıkıran, Ş. (2013), “Loneliness and life satisfaction in Turkish early adolescents: the mediating role of
self-esteem and social support”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 111 No. 2, pp. 617-632.
Kernodle, T.A. and Noble, D. (2013), “Organizational citizenship behavior: it’s importance in
academics”, Journal of Business Education, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 235-240.
Kessler, E.H. (2013), Encyclopedia of Management Theory, Sage Publications, Pace University,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Khalid, S.A., Abdul Rahman, N. and Sinthamadar, A.R. (2012), “Undergraduates’ organizational
citizenship behavior and academic dishonesty”, Jurnal Intelek, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 35-45.
Khalid, S.A., Jusoff, K., Othman, M., Ismail, M. and Rahman, N.A. (2010), “Organizational citizenship
behavior as a predictor of student academic achievement”, International Journal of Economics
and Finance, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 65-71.
Khaola, P.P. (2014), “The relationship among students’ commitment, self-esteem, organizational
citizenship behavior and academic performance”, African Education Review, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 119-132.
Kharsah, W.S. and Fatmawati, L. (2016), “The correlation between levels of self-esteem, university
commitment and academic performance among undergraduate students”, Proceedings of the
National Conference for Postgraduate Research, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Pekan, September
24–25, pp. 200-205.
Kim, W.G., Leong, J.K. and Lee, Y.K. (2005), “Effect of service orientation on job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and intention of leaving in a casual dining chain restaurant”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 171-193.
King, A.C., Hekler, E.B., Castro, E.M., Buman, M.P., Marcus, B.H., Friedman, R. H. and Napolitano, M.A.
(2014), “Exercise advice by humans and computers: maintenance effects at 18 months”, Health
Psychology, Vol. 33, pp. 192-196.
Korman, A.K. (1970), “Toward a hypothesis of work behaviour”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 31-41.
Korman, A.K. (1976), “Hypothesis of work behavior revisited and an extension”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 50-63.
Lavelle, J.J., Brockner, J., Konovsky, M.A., Price, K.H., Henley, A.B., Taneja, A. and Vinekar, V. (2009), Organizational
“Commitment, procedural fairness, and organizational citizenship behavior: a multifocal citizenship
analysis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 337-357.
behavior
LeBlanc, C.J. (2014), “Characteristics shaping college student organizational citizenship behavior”,
American Journal of Business Education, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 99-108.
Lee, J. (2003), “An analysis of organization-based self-esteem as a mediator of the relationship between
its antecedents and consequences”, The Korean Personnel Administration Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2, 987
pp. 25-50.
Lent, R.W. and Fouad, N.A. (2011), “The self as agent in social cognitive career theory”, in Hartung, P.J.
and Subich, L.M. (Eds), Developing Self in Work and Career: Concepts, Cases, and Contexts,
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 71-89.
Luo, Y., Zhu, R., Ju, E. and You, X. (2016), “Validation of the Chinese version of the Mind Wandering
Questionnaire (MWQ) and the mediating role of self-esteem in the relationship between mind-
wandering and life satisfaction for adolescents”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 92,
pp. 118-122.
McKendall, M. (2000), “Teaching groups to become teams”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 75
No. 5, pp. 277-28.
McNally, J.J. and Irving, P.G. (2010), “The relationship between university student commitment profiles
and behavior: exploring the nature of context effects”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 201-215.
Marion-Landais, C.A. (2000), “Dyadic agreement about ideal leadership behaviors and its relationship
to job satisfaction and performance”, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The
Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 60 No. 8-B, pp. 4283-4283.
Markovits, Y., Ullrich, J., van Dick, R. and Davis, A.J. (2008), “Regulatory foci and organizational
commitment”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 485-489.
Matzler, K., Renzl, B., Mooradian, T., Von Krogh, G. and Mueller, J. (2011), “Personality traits, affective
commitment, documentation of knowledge, and knowledge sharing”, The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 296-310.
Memon, A.H. and Rahman, I.A. (2014), “SEM-PLS analysis of inhibiting factors of cost performance for
large construction projects in Malaysia: perspective of clients and consultants”, The Scientific
World Journal, Vol. 2014 No. 165158, pp. 1-9.
Mercan, M. (2006), Öğretmenlerde örgütsel bağlılık, örgütsel yabancılaşma ve örgütsel vatandaşlık,
Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü,
Afyonkarahisar.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1984), “Testing the ‘side-bet theory’ of organizational commitment:
some methodological considerations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 3,
pp. 372-378.
Morin, A.J.S., Vandenberghe, C., Boudrias, J.S., Madore, I., Morizot, J. and Tremblay, M. (2011),
“Affective commitment and citizenship behaviors across multiple foci”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 716-738.
Morrow, P.C. (1983), “Concept redundancy in organizational research: the case of work commitment”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 486-500.
Muchinsky, P. (2007), Psychology Applied to Work, Thomson International, Bakersfield, CA.
Mushtaq, K. and Umar, M. (2015), “Association between job satisfaction, motivation and five factors of
organizational citizenship behavior”, International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 8, pp. 2872-2878.
Nederhof, A.J. (1984), “Visibility of response as mediating factor in equity research”, Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 122 No. 21, pp. 1-215.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
JARHE Oplatka, I. (2006), “Going beyond role expectations: toward an understanding of the determinants and
12,5 components of teacher organizational behavior”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 42
No. 3, pp. 385-423.
Organ, D. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA.
Organ, D.W. (1997), “Organizational citizenship behavior: it’s construct clean-up time”, Human
988 Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 83-97.
Organ, D.W. (2004), “The roots of OCB: theory and research at Indiana University”, paper presented at
the Workshop: Future Challenges in OCB Theory and Research, Eilat.
Osman, R.H., Abdul Ghani, M. and Alis, N. (2019), “Antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviour
among public/civil employees: a scoping review”, International Journal of Education, Psychology
and Counseling, Vol. 4 No. 32, pp. 338-350.
Özcan, O. (2008), İlköğretim öğretmenlerinin örgütsel özdeşim, örgütsel bağlılık ve örgütsel vatandaşlık
davranışlarının demografik özelliklere göre incelenmesi, Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi.
Yeditepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Istanbul.
Park, J.C. and Bok, K.S. (2019), “The relationship between goal orientation and organizational
citizenship behavior: the mediating effect of self-esteem and the moderating effect of ethical
leadership”, The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 316-330.
Park, Y.S., Chen, J. and Holtzman, S. (2014), “Evaluating efforts to minimize rater bias in scoring
classroom observations”, in Kerr, K., Pianta, R. and Kane, T. (Eds), Designing Teacher
Evaluation Systems: New Guidance from the Measures of Effective Teaching Project, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA, pp. 383-414.
Pierce, J.L. and Gardner, D.G. (2004), “Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: a review of
the organization-based self-esteem literature”, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 591-62.
Pierce, J.L., Gardner, D.G., Cummings, L.L. and Dunham, R.B. (1989), “Organization-based self-esteem:
construct definition, measurement, and validation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32
No. 3, pp. 622-648.
Podsakoff, N., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and Blume, B.D. (2009), “Individual- and organizational
level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 122-141.
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.
Poorgharib, M., Abzari, M. and Azarbayejani, K. (2013), “The relationship between self-esteem,
organizational attachment, and perceptions of quality of work life in Jahad-e-Keshavarzi organization
of Isfahan”, International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, Vol. 5, pp. 255-261.
Qureshi, J.A., Zeb, A.S.F. and Saifullah, K. (2011), “The effect of self-esteem and organizational
identification on organizational citizenship behavior: a case of Pakistani public-sector
university”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5 No. 9, pp. 3448-3456.
Redenbach, S. (1991), Self-Esteem, the Necessary Ingredient for Success, Esteem Seminar Programs and
Publications.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J.M. (2015), SmartPLS 3, SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt.
Rosenberg, M. (1965), Society and the Adolescent Self-Image, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Sadoughi, F. and Ebrahimi, K. (2015), “Self-esteem and organizational commitment among health
information management staff in tertiary care hospitals in Tehran”, Global Journal of Health
Science, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 328-334.
Salehi, M. and Gholtash, A. (2011), “The relationship between job satisfaction, job burnout and
organizational commitment with the organizational citizenship behavior among members of
faculty in the Islamic Azad University – first district branches, in order to provide the
appropriate model”, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 15, pp. 306-310.
Samreen, F., Rashid, A. and Bodla, M. (2018), “Effect of abusive supervision on pro-social citizenship Organizational
behaviors: the mediating role of interactional justice, organization-based self-esteem citizenship
and meaning of work”, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 807-830. behavior
Sanchez, R.J., Bauer, T.N. and Paronto, M.E. (2006), “Peer mentoring freshmen: implications for
satisfaction, commitment, and retention to graduation”, Academy of Management Learning and
Education, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 25-37.
989
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Smith, D., Reams, R. and Hair, J.F. (2014), “Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM): a useful tool for family business researchers”, Journal of Family
Business Strategy, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 105-115.
Schmeck, R. (1988), “Strategies and styles of learning: an integration of varied perspectives”,
in Schmeck, R. (Ed.), Learning Strategies and Learning Styles, Plenum Press, New York, NY,
pp. 317-347.
Schmitt, N., Keeney, J., Oswald, F.L., Kim, B.H., Imus, A., Merritt, S., Friede, A. and Shivpuri, S. (2007),
“The use of background and ability profiles to predict college student outcomes”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 165-171.
Schmitt, N., Oswald, F.L., Friede, A., Imus, A. and Merritt, S. (2008), “Perceived fit with an academic
environment: attitudinal and behavioral outcomes”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 72
No. 3, pp. 317-335.
Shavelson, R.J., Hubner, J.J. and Stanton, G.C. (1976), “Self-concept: validation of construct
interpretations”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 407-441.
Sholihin, M. and Pike, R. (2010), “Organizational commitment in the police service: exploring the effects
of performance measures, procedural justice, and interpretational trust”, Financial
Accountability and Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 392-421.
Sholikhah, Z., Wang, X. and Li, W. (2019), “The role of spiritual leadership in fostering
discretionary behaviors”, International Journal of Law and Management, Vol. 61 No. 1,
pp. 232-249.
Simpson, C.K. and Boyle, D. (1975), “Esteem construct generality and academic performance”,
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 897-904.
Skarlicki, D.P. and Latham, G.P. (1997), “Leadership training in organizational justice to increase
citizenship behavior within a labor union: a replication”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 3,
pp. 617-633.
Sloan, D., Buckham, R. and Lee, Y. (2017), “Exploring differentiation of self and organizational
commitment”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 193-206.
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P. (1983), “Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature and
antecedents”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 653-663.
Solomon, M.R., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S. and Hogg, K.M. (2016), Consumer Behaviour: A European
Perspective, 6th ed., Pearson Education, UK.
Strauss, L.C. and Volkwein, J.F. (2002), “Comparing student performance and growth in 2-and 4-year
institutions”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 133-161.
Strauss, L.C. and Volkwein, J.F. (2004), “Predictors of student commitment at two-year and four-year
institutions”, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 203-227.
Sudman, S. and Bradburn, N.M. (1974), Response Effects in Surveys, Aldine, Chicago, IL.
Tan, V.M., Quoqua, F., Fauziah, S.H. and Ahmad, J.M. (2016), “Effect of self-esteem on customer
citizenship behaviors among international university branch campus students”, International
Review of Management and Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 467-475.
Terzi, A.R. (2015), “Organizational commitment and citizenship behaviors among teachers”,
The Anthropologist, Vol. 21 Nos 1/2, pp. 350-360.
Tinto, V. (1987), Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
JARHE Vahdaniasadi, M.T.R.F. and Rohani, Z. (2014), “The predictive role of personality, self-esteem and
12,5 religious orientation in organizational citizenship behavior”, Knowledge and Research in Applied
Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 121-129.
Van Dyne, L. and Pierce, J.L. (2003), “Psychological ownership: feelings of possession and
workplace attitudes and behaviour”, Working paper, Eli Broad School of Management,
Michigan State University.
990 Van Dyne, L., Kamdar, D. and Joireman, J. (2008), “In-role perceptions buffer the negative impact of low
LMX on helping and enhance the positive impact of high LMX on voice”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 6, pp. 1195-1207.
Van Dyne, L., Vandewalle, D., Kostova, T., Latham, M.E. and Cummings, L.L. (2000), “Collectivism,
propensity to trust and self-esteem as a predictors of organizational citizenship in a non-work
setting”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 3-23.
Vipraprastha, T., Sudja, I.N. and Yuesti, A. (2018), “The effect of transformational leadership and
organizational commitment to employee performance with citizenship organization behavior as
intervening variables”, International Journal of Contemporary Research and Review, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 20503-20518.
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 601-617.
Womack, A., Lenty, M.E. and Bullock-Yowell, E. (2018), “Understanding commitment: relationship
between major commitment, satisfaction, involvement, fit, university commitment, and intention
to quit”, Journal of Career Development, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 166-182.
Yeh, C.H. (2019), “The relationship between tourism involvement, organizational commitment and
organizational citizenship behaviors in the hotel industry”, Tourism and Hospitality
Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 75-93.
Yılmaz, K. and Çokluk-Bökeoğlu, Ö. (2008), “Organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational
commitment in Turkish primary schools”, World Applied Science Journal, Vol. 3 No. 5,
pp. 775-780.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2000), “Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn”, Contemporary Educational
Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 82-91.

Further reading
Alexandra Beauregard, T. (2012), “Perfectionism, self-efficacy and OCB: the moderating role of
gender”, Personnel Review, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 590-608.
Bergman, M.M. and Scott, J. (2001), “Young adolescents, wellbeing and health risk behaviors: gender
and socioeconomic differences”, Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 183-197.
Brockner, J. (1988), Self-Esteem at Work: Research, Theory, and Practice, Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA.
Brown, J.D. (1998), The Self, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Davenport, T. (1999), Human Capital: What it is and Why People Invest it, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
DiPaola, M.F. and Hoy, W.K. (2005), “School characteristics that foster organizational citizenship
behavior”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 387-406.
DiPaola, M.F. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001), “Organizational citizenship behavior in schools and its
relationship to school climate”, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 424-447.
Gentile, B., Grabe, S., Dolan-Pascoe, B., Twenge, J.M., Wells, B.E. and Maitino, A. (2009), “Gender
differences in domain-specific self-esteem: a meta-analysis”, Review of General Psychology,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 34-45.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizations, Vol. 2, Wiley, New York, NY.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment”, Human Resources Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-89.
Mohamadreza, V., Reshvanloo, T., Zahra, F.R. and Hossein, M. (2014), “The predictive role of Organizational
personality, self-esteem and religious orientation in organizational citizenship behavior”, citizenship
Knowledge and Research in Applied Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 121-129.
Okediji, A.A., Esin, P.A., Sanni, K.B. and Umoh, O.O. (2009), “The influence of personality
behavior
characteristics and gender on organizational citizenship behavior”, Global Journal of Social
Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 69-76.
Organ, D.W. and Ryan, K. (1995), “A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of 991
organizational citizenship behaviour”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 775-802.
Rill, L., Baiocchi, E., Hopper, M., Denker, K. and Olson, L.N. (2009), “Exploration of the relationship
between self-esteem, commitment, and verbal aggressiveness in romantic dating relationships”,
Communication Reports, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 102-113.
Schmitt, N., Keeney, J., Oswald, F.L., Pleskac, T.J., Billington, A.Q., Sinha, R. and Zorzie, M. (2009),
“Prediction of 4-year college student performance using cognitive and noncognitive predictors
and the impact on demographic status of admitted students”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 94 No. 6, pp. 1479-1497.
Teoh, H.J. and Nur Afiqah, R. (2010), “Self-esteem amongst young adults: the effect of gender social
support and personality”, Malaysian Psychiatric Association e-Journal Online Early, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 42-56.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. and Parks, J. (1995), “Extra-role behaviors: in pursuit of construct and
definitional clarity: a bridge over muddied waters”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17,
pp. 215-286.

Corresponding author
Edem Maxwell Azila-Gbettor can be contacted at: eazila-gbettor@htu.edu.gh

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