Advertisement

The Role of Prosocial Motives and Social Exchange in Mediating the Relationship Between Organizational Virtuousness’ Perceptions and Employee Outcomes

  • Irene TsachouridiEmail author
  • Irene NikandrouEmail author
Original Paper
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

Theoretical arguments suggest that organizational virtuousness makes individuals surpass their exchange concerns sparking their prosocial motives. This paper focuses on the examination of this issue incorporating two field studies. The first field study examines prosocial motives and social exchange as parallel mediators of the relationship between organizational virtuousness’ perceptions and three employee outcomes (willingness to support the organization, time commitment, work intensity). The second field study examines prosocial motives, personal sacrifice and impression management motives as parallel mediators of the examined relationships. Both field studies (employing 250 and 354 employees, respectively) indicated that only prosocial motives can mediate the relationship between organizational virtuousness’ perceptions and employee outcomes.

Keywords

Virtuousness Exchange Prosocial motives Behavior 

Notes

Funding

The study has received no funding.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

It was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Agarwal, U. A., & Bhargava, S. (2014). The role of social exchange on work outcomes: a study of Indian managers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(10), 1484–1504.Google Scholar
  2. Ahmed, I., Rehman, W., Ali, F., Ali, G., & Anwar, F. (2018). Predicting employee performance through organizational virtuousness: Mediation by affective well-being and work engagement. Journal of Management Development, 37(6), 493–502.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, D. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2013). Perceived organizational support and embeddedness as key mechanisms connecting socialization tactics to commitment and turnover among new employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 350–369.Google Scholar
  4. Aristotle. (1985). Nicomachean ethics (T. Irwin, Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Arjoon, S., Turriago-Hoyos, A., & Thoene, U. (2018). Virtuousness and the common good as a conceptual framework for harmonizing the goals of the individual, organizations, and the economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(1), 143–163.Google Scholar
  6. Avanzi, L., Fraccaroli, F., Sarchielli, G., Ullrich, J., & van Dick, R. (2014). Staying or leaving: A combined social identity and social exchange approach to predicting employee turnover intentions. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(3), 272–289.Google Scholar
  7. Baran, B. E., Shanock, L. R., & Miller, L. R. (2012). Advancing organizational support theory into the twenty-first century world of work. Journal of Business Psychology, 27, 123–147.Google Scholar
  8. Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Turnley, W. H., & Gilstrap, J. B. (2008). A multi-level review of impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1080–1109.Google Scholar
  9. Bolino, M. C., Varela, J. A., Bande, B., & Turnley, W. H. (2006). The impact of impression-management tactics on supervisor ratings of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 281–297.Google Scholar
  10. Bright, D. S., Cameron, K. S., & Caza, A. (2006). The amplifying and buffering effects of virtuousness in downsized organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 64, 249–269.Google Scholar
  11. Bright, D. S., Stansbury, J., Alzola, M., & Stavros, J. M. (2011). Virtue ethics in positive organizational scholarship: An integrative perspective. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 28(3), 231–243.Google Scholar
  12. Bright, D. S., Winn, B. A., & Kanov, J. (2014). Reconsidering virtue: Differences of perspective in virtue ethics and the positive social sciences. Journal of Business Ethics, 119, 445–460.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 358–368.Google Scholar
  14. Byrne, Z., Pitts, V., Chiaburu, D., & Steiner, Z. (2011). Managerial trustworthiness and social exchange with the organization. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(2), 108–122.Google Scholar
  15. Cameron, K. S. (2003). Organizational virtuousness and performance. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 48–65). San Fransisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
  16. Cameron, K. S., Bright, D. S., & Caza, A. (2004). Exploring the relationships between organizational virtuousness and performance. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 766–790.Google Scholar
  17. Cameron, K. S., & Caza, A. (2013). Virtuousness as a source of happiness in organizations. In S. A. David, I. Boniwell & A. C. Ayers (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of happiness (pp. 676–692). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cameron, K. S., & Winn, B. (2012). Virtuosuness in organizations. In K. S. Cameorn & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The oxford handook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 231–243). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Caza, A., Barker, B. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2004). Ethics and ethos: The buffering and amplifying effects of ethical behavior and virtuousness. Journal of Business Ethics, 52, 169–178.Google Scholar
  20. Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1999). The model of followers’ responses to self-sacrificial leadership: An empirical test. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 397–421.Google Scholar
  21. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900.Google Scholar
  22. Dawley, D., Houghton, J. D., & Bucklew, N. S. (2010). Perceived organizational support and turnover intention: The mediating effects of personal sacrifice and job fit. The Journal of Social Psychology, 150(3), 238–257.Google Scholar
  23. Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001). Reciprocation of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 42–51.Google Scholar
  24. Eisenberger, R., Shoss, M. K., Karagonlar, G., Gonzalez-Morales, M. G., Wickham, R. E., & Buffardi, L. C. (2014). The supervisor POS–LMX–subordinate POS chain: Moderation by reciprocation wariness and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 635–656.Google Scholar
  25. Gotsis, G., & Grimani, K. (2015). Virtue theory and organizational behavior: an integrative framework. Journal of Management Development, 34(10), 1288–1309.Google Scholar
  26. Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393–417.Google Scholar
  27. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hur, W., Shin, Y., Rhee, S., & Kim, H. (2017). Organizational virtuousness perceptions and task crafting: The mediating roles of organizational identification and work engagement. Career Development International, 22(4), 436–459.Google Scholar
  29. Lemmon, G., & Wayne, S. J. (2015). Underlying motives of organizational citizenship behavior: Comparing egoistic and altruistic motivations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(2), 129–148.Google Scholar
  30. MacIntyre, A. (1985). After virtue (2nd edn.). London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  31. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Meyer, M. (2018, in print). The evolution and challenges of the concept of organizational virtuousness in positive organizational scholarship. Journal of Business Ethics.Google Scholar
  33. Mignonac, K., & Richebé, N. (2013). No strings attached?: How attribution of disinterested support affects employee retention. Human Resource Management Journal, 23(1), 72–90.Google Scholar
  34. Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1102–1121.Google Scholar
  35. Moore, G., & Beadle, R. (2006). In search of organizational virtue in business: Agents, goods, practices, institutions and environments. Organizational Studies, 33(3), 369–389.Google Scholar
  36. Moore, G., Beadle, R., & Rowlands, A. (2014). Catholic social teaching and the firm. Crowding in virtue: A macintyrean approach to business ethics. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 88(4), 779–805.Google Scholar
  37. Muse, L. A., & Wadsworth, L. L. (2012). An examination of traditional versus non traditional benefits. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2), 112–131.Google Scholar
  38. Ngo, H., Loi, R., Foley, S., Zheng, X., & Zhang, L. (2013). Perceptions of organizational context and job attitudes: The mediating effect of organizational identification. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 30, 149–168.Google Scholar
  39. Nikandrou, I., & Tsachouridi, I. (2015). Towards a better understanding of the “buffering effects” of organizational virtuousness’ perceptions on employee outcomes. Management Decision, 53(8), 1823–1842.Google Scholar
  40. Piccolo, R. F., Greenbaum, R., Hartog, D. N.D., & Folger, R. (2010). The relationship between ethical leadership and core job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 259–278.Google Scholar
  41. Pierro, A., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). Progress takes work: Effects of the locomotion dimension on job involvement, effort investment, and job performance in organizations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1723–1743.Google Scholar
  42. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.Google Scholar
  43. Rego, A., Reis Junior, D., & Cunha, M. P. (2015). Authentic leaders promoting store performance: The mediating roles of virtuousness and potency. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 617–634.Google Scholar
  44. Rego, A., Ribeiro, N., & Cunha, M. P. (2010). Perceptions of organizational virtuousness and happiness as predictors of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 215–235.Google Scholar
  45. Rego, A., Ribeiro, N., Cunha, M. P., & Jesuino, J. C. (2011). How happiness mediates the organizational virtuousness and affective commitment relationship. Journal of Business Research, 64(5), 524–532.Google Scholar
  46. Riggle, R. J., Edmondson, D. R., & Hansen, J. D. (2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship between perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of Business Research, 62(10), 1027–1030.Google Scholar
  47. Rioux, S. M., & Penner, L. A. (2001). The causes of organizational citizenship behavior: A motivational analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1306–1314.Google Scholar
  48. Shen, Y., Jackson, T., Ding, C., Yuan, D., Zhao, L., Dou, Y., & Zhang, Q. (2014). Linking perceived organizational support with employee work outcomes in a Chinese context: Organizational identification as a mediator. European Management Journal, 32, 406–412.Google Scholar
  49. Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Lynch, P., & Barksdale, K. (2006). Social and economic exchange: Construct development and validation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(4), 837–867.Google Scholar
  50. Shore, L. M., & Wayne, S. J. (1993). Commitment and employee behavior: Comparison of affective commitment and continuance commitment with perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 774–780.Google Scholar
  51. Singh, S., David, R., & Mikkilineni, S. (2018). Organizational virtuousness and work engagement: Mediating role of happiness in India. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 20(1), 88–102.Google Scholar
  52. Sison, A. J. G., & Ferrero, I. (2015). How different is neo-Aristotelian virtue from positive organizational virtuousness? Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(S2), S78–S98.Google Scholar
  53. Sulea, C., Virga, D., Maricutoiu, L. P., Schaufeli, W., Dumitru, C. Z., & Sava, F. A. (2012). Work engagement as mediator between job characteristics and positive and negative extra-role behaviors. Career Development International, 17(3), 188–207.Google Scholar
  54. Tsachouridi, I., & Nikandrou, I. (2016). Organizational virtuousness and spontaneity: A social identity view. Personnel Review, 45(6), 1302–1322.Google Scholar
  55. Tsachouridi, I., & Nikandrou, I. (2018). Organizational virtuousness and employee outcomes: The role of psychological safety and pro-social motives. In A. Stachowicz-, Stanusch & W. Amann (Eds.), Academic social responsibility. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  56. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader–member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 590–598.Google Scholar
  57. Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 82–111.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Marketing & CommunicationAthens University of Economics and BusinessAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations