Next Article in Journal
Based on AFC Data Calculation of Walking Time in Metro Stations Considering the Impact of Passenger Flows
Previous Article in Journal
Digital Transformation, Green Innovation, and Pollution Abatement: Evidence from China
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Causal Model of Ethical Leadership Affecting the Organizational Citizenship Behavior of Teachers in the Office of the Basic Education Commission

by
Pimolpun Phetsombat
1 and
Khahan Na-Nan
2,*
1
Faculty of Technical Education, Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi, Thanyaburi 12110, Thailand
2
Faculty of Business Administration, Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi, Thanyaburi 12110, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(8), 6656; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086656
Submission received: 5 March 2023 / Revised: 6 April 2023 / Accepted: 13 April 2023 / Published: 14 April 2023

Abstract

:
The objective of this study was to examine the direct and indirect effects of ethical leadership on organizational citizenship behavior while considering job stress, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction as full and partial mediators through which these effects are transmitted. The study comprised a sample of 400 teachers working at the Office of the Basic Education Commission. The instruments utilized in this study were adapted from previous studies by scholars, and their content validity and reliability were tested before data collection. Analysis of the direct and indirect effects of full and partial mediators was conducted using the PROCESS program. The results indicated that ethical leadership had a direct effect on organizational citizenship behavior with statistical significance, as well as an indirect effect transmitted through job stress and job satisfaction. Job stress and job satisfaction functioned as partial mediators between ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior with statistical significance. However, organizational commitment did not show statistical significance as a mediator. The developed model suggested that ethical leadership theory effectively increased organizational citizenship behavior, with job stress and job satisfaction playing vital roles as mediators in transmitting organizational citizenship behavior with higher effectiveness. The mediators identified in this study were helpful in more accurately explaining organizational citizenship behavior.

1. Introduction

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) represents the final outcome of human resource management and development, aimed at driving personnel to engage in altruistic, conscientious, sportsmanlike, courteous, and civic-virtue behaviors, all of which enhance employees’ successful and effective work performance [1,2]. Ethical leadership, as another widely discussed theory or concept, is considered a key factor in explaining OCB [3,4]. Ethical leaders act as good role models, behaving appropriately and correctly to encourage employees to operate effectively through personal actions and interpersonal relationships. Ethical leadership promotes positive behaviors in subordinates through effective communication, knowledge sharing, reinforcement, and decision-making, thereby encouraging and supporting employees to engage in OCB.
However, working environments change constantly and rapidly, and studying only one factor of ethical leadership may be insufficient or inaccurate in predicting OCB. For instance, research conducted by Mayer, et al. [5] and Kalshoven, et al. [6] found that while ethical leadership can positively impact employee behavior, it may not be sufficient to predict OCB. They suggest that other factors, such as organizational culture and climate, may also be important in shaping employee behavior. Several studies have examined potential mediator variables that affect the relationship between ethical leadership and OCB [7,8,9]. Mediators can have a significant effect on employees’ performance of behaviors, such as job satisfaction (JSAT), organizational commitment (OC) [10], and job stress (JST) [11]. According to self-perception theory, people become aware of certain attitudes by assessing and observing their own behavior [12]. Therefore, if organizations or executives can create JSAT, employees are more likely to perform OCB. OC refers to the level of engagement and physical and mental devotion that an employee feels toward an organization. Zayas-Ortiz, et al. [13] stated that employees with high OC are more likely to engage in OCB. JSAT and OC are complex factors that are influenced by other variables and, therefore, function as mediators. Any study aimed at promoting OCB must consider how these factors create employee JSAT and OC at a high level.
The issue of corruption continues to plague Thailand in various forms and remains challenging to resolve. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index for 2020 ranked Thailand 104th out of 180 countries surveyed, indicating a high level of perceived corruption in the country [14]. Studies by Pongsudhiraks [15] and Chirathivat and Pongpattrachai [16] have highlighted corruption as a significant problem in the country’s education system, influenced by various factors, including social norms, power relations, and institutional context. The authors have suggested strategies to address corruption, such as promoting transparency and strengthening governance. Corruption is a societal disease that reflects the degradation of ethics. Public servants are often mentally driven by passion, eagerness, anger, and delusion, some of whom crave to control life and cannot distinguish right from wrong. Chongvisal [17] reminds us that “if morality does not exist, the world will perish”, highlighting the importance of ethical values in society. In order to tackle the issues of corruption and lack of ethics, it is crucial to target teachers and educational personnel and educate them to be role models for youths and people by increasing their immunity to behave ethically [18]. Raising awareness of morality and ethics should be taught through dharmic principles relevant to work operations to prevent corruption.
OCB has been related to teachers for several reasons. Firstly, teachers are key actors in educational institutions, and their positive behaviors and attitudes are crucial for creating a positive learning environment. Teachers who engage in OCB behaviors such as helping colleagues, supporting the school’s vision and values, and participating in extracurricular activities contribute to the overall success of the school. Research has shown that OCB has a positive effect on various work outcomes, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job performance [19,20]. Teachers who engage in OCB behaviors are likely to experience higher levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, leading to increased job performance [21]. Secondly, teachers are often seen as role models for students, and their behavior can influence the behavior and attitudes of their students. Teachers who engage in OCB behaviors are likely to model those behaviors for their students, which can contribute to the development of positive attitudes and behaviors among students [22]. Thirdly, teachers often work in teams or collaborate with colleagues, and their positive behaviors can contribute to building a positive work environment. When teachers engage in OCB behaviors such as sharing knowledge and resources, providing support, and helping colleagues, they contribute to a positive work culture and enhance team cohesion [23].
Teachers possess the necessary knowledge, attitudes, and skills to establish ethical networks; however, they may lack the ability to apply appropriate ethical principles effectively in various situations [24]. Morality and ethics must be employed differently when dealing with diverse circumstances. One principle may be selected for different situations, such as intending to teach for conducting classroom research, or educators may choose to treat people differently, such as displaying kindness toward good students [25]. It is imperative that teachers and educational personnel consistently demonstrate ethical behavior. As stated by Professor Dr. Saroj Buasri, “Graduates must possess knowledge like philosophers and behave like people of virtue” [26]. In addition to their routine responsibilities, teachers and educational personnel should incorporate ethical values into learning activities and skills training [18]. Therefore, ETH should be fostered among teachers and educational personnel as they serve as role models for driving students to achieve learning objectives and benefit society. ETH should possess characteristics such as trust, responsibility, respect, citizenship, and fairness, which are observable behaviors that have direct effects on teachers and educational personnel.
School administrators must adhere to fair and transparent policies, particularly regarding appraisals for promotion or remuneration. Some teachers perceive their performance appraisals as lower than anticipated and unfair. The primary causes for this are the absence of notification regarding performance appraisal criteria and the lack of feedback from the appraisers. Employees are not informed about the outcomes of their performance appraisals, and previous results are utilized to evaluate current performance. Human resources management in schools often fails to meet acceptable standards.
Problems frequently arise between school administrators and teachers who perceive that the school administrators’ ethics are not transparent, leading to biased personnel management and ineffective performance. These issues diminish teachers’ motivation and morale. Although performance appraisal results may be rectified after filing a complaint, relationships between the parties involved may become strained. Kaewkrajay and Saengsawang [27] suggested that if school leaders promote unethical educational management, then this behavior will inevitably affect the work behaviors of subordinates, leading to decreased motivation and job satisfaction, increased job stress, and poor organizational citizenship behavior.
Most prior research on ETH, JSAT, OC, JST, and OCB was conducted separately, such as a study on the relationship between ETH and JSAT [28], the impact of JSAT on OC [29], JST and OCB [11], and ETH and OCB [30]. The data from these studies cannot be integrated into a holistic explanation that covers all the different phenomena. Furthermore, these issues have received limited attention from researchers and scholars, and current knowledge is insufficient to comprehensively understand and explain the relationships between the various concepts and phenomena for use in decision-making by relevant personnel for effective management. Based on the ETH problems discussed earlier, this study examined and validated the reliability and validity of the variables to explain OCB. The study aimed to answer two primary research questions: (a) what are the effects of ETH on OCB, and (b) do JSAT, OC, and JST act as mediators between ETH on OCB? The findings of this study will be valuable for researchers, scholars, students, human resource officers, and the general public interested in problems arising from performance appraisals.

2. Background

2.1. Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Sustainable organizations promote employees’ OCB in accordance with Barnard’s [31] concept of a cooperative system being crucial for the organizational operation and personnel willingness to cooperate. This willingness to cooperate is reflective of an individual’s abilities and/or values and is not always explicitly defined within an organization’s job description. Katz and Kahn [32] later proposed that effective organizational operation comprises three elements: (1) attracting employees and integrating them into the organizational system, (2) allowing employees to perform job roles in accordance with their actual feelings, and (3) promoting innovative behaviors in employees. Therefore, promoting tasks beyond employees’ regular job demands should be given due importance.
OCB is a voluntary action that employees take without expecting rewards in return [33,34]. In a workplace, OCB can motivate employees to act altruistically, which in turn leads to improved performance [35]. Various dimensions of OCB have been explored in research. For instance, Smith, et al. [36] interviewed managers in industrial factories in Indiana State, Southern USA, to understand what motivates employees to go beyond their duties without expecting rewards. The managers stated that such behaviors promote management and organizational success as quickly as possible.
Bateman and Organ [37] developed a 20-item questionnaire and asked 67 students in a Master’s program in Business Administration who were experienced managers or heads of divisions to answer the questions. They used factor analysis and identified two factors that were later used in a study of 422 employees from 58 organizations and two banks in the Midwestern United States. Their results confirmed that OCB could be categorized into two factors: altruism and generalized compliance [38]. Altruism refers to supportive behaviors in various situations, such as giving advice to new colleagues or helping colleagues with high workloads, while generalized compliance refers to behaviors that are not directly beneficial to oneself but indirectly help others, such as being punctual or helping to maintain organizational assets.
Later, Organ [39] defined OCB as behaviors that are the result of careful consideration and independent decision-making, where employees choose to do something that does not have direct effects on receiving formally specified rewards from the organization. These behaviors enhance work effectiveness. Organ [39] and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman and Fetter [2] categorized OCB into five aspects as follows:
  • Altruism: employees helping their colleagues or the organization without expecting anything in return.
  • Conscientiousness: employees performing their duties diligently and accurately and being responsible and dependable.
  • Sportsmanship: employees accepting decisions and outcomes without complaining and showing patience and tolerance towards others.
  • Courtesy: employees being polite, considerate, and respectful towards others.
  • Civic virtue: employees actively participating in the organization’s decision-making and engaging in activities that are beneficial to the organization.
Encouraging employees to engage in OCB can enhance organizational sustainability, following Barnard’s concept [31] that a cooperative system with personnel willingness to cooperate is important for organizational operations. Katz and Kahn [32] proposed that effective operation consists of at least three aspects: attracting employees and making them part of an organizational system, allowing employees to take on work roles according to their senses, and encouraging employees to perform innovative behaviors. Therefore, encouraging employees to perform tasks outside their normal job demands should be given importance.
Naqshbandi, et al. [40] developed a concise and reliable scale to measure organizational citizenship behavior that covers all five factors. They noted that existing scales had too many questionnaire items, which led to respondent bias and unreliable responses. Their scale has fewer items and is still effective in measuring the five factors. Consequently, their scale has become popular among the new generation of researchers.

2.2. Job Satisfaction

JSAT is a significant variable in studies on work attitudes, which can be assessed based on the observation and emotional experience of a person towards work [41]. Greenberg and Baron [42] defined job satisfaction as the feeling and response to work with a positive or negative attitude, which is consistent with Schultz and Schultz [43], who stated that JSAT refers to the positive or negative feelings and attitudes of a person towards work based on work factors. Riggio [44] described JSAT as the emotion or feeling of a person towards work contexts or an invisible attitude that is crucial in determining work behavior. A person with high JSAT usually performs better than one with low JSAT.
JSAT represents an internal positive feeling of a person towards work. Herzberg noted that employees are often dissatisfied with their work environment, and external factors called hygiene factors should be established or promoted to reduce dissatisfaction. JSAT promotes collaboration to achieve objectives, fosters company loyalty, enhances compliance with rules and regulations, strengthens the resolve to cope with obstacles, and enables employees to initiate various activities.
Smith, et al. [45] developed a JSAT scale, Job Descriptive Index (JDI), which is now widely used worldwide. Their JDI consisted of five facets: (1) satisfaction with the work itself, (2) satisfaction with pay, (3) satisfaction with opportunities for promotions, (4) satisfaction with supervision, and (5) satisfaction with co-workers. Tsui, et al. [46] developed a comprehensive and more concise scale to measure employee JSAT suitable for present situations, reflecting job satisfaction with high accuracy and reliability. These scale developments show that JSAT is a critical factor that motivates people to pay more attention to work, increases active operation, and determines the achievement of success and performance in line with specified goals. JSAT also generates the willingness to transfer knowledge, skills, and attitudes to promote benefits. Overall, JSAT has many advantages, including helping to achieve specified company goals.

2.3. Organizational Commitment

Long-serving employees make an investment in the company, which may take the form of time, physical and mental effort, intelligence, or sacrifice of opportunities to work elsewhere. Becker [47] suggests that such investment is made with the expectation of receiving benefits such as welfare, pension, and provident fund payments, which would be lost if they resigned. Hence, long-serving employees continue to work for the organization, making it difficult for them to leave as the benefits of working elsewhere will be lower in comparison.
The concept of organizational commitment was first introduced in the 1950s by social psychologists, who sought to understand why some employees stay with their organizations while others leave. However, it wasn’t until the 1970s that organizational commitment became a significant area of study in organizational behavior and management research. It refers to the strong relationship among organizational members, with behaviors that align with organizational values and cultures, and the willingness to devote physical and mental effort to participate in organizational activities. OC generates benefits for both employees and their superiors. Salancik [48] summarized OC in two aspects: behavioral commitment and attitudinal commitment. Behavioral commitment refers to the expression of relationships in accordance with organizational goals, values, and cultures, whereas attitudinal commitment refers to the expression of attitude or opinion on one’s own relationships in accordance with organizational goals, values, and cultures.
Kongchan [49] stated that OC helps to reduce employee work absence since they are satisfied with their job and motivated to work successfully to fulfill their assignments. Employees are punctual, and the staff turnover rate reduces. Steers [50] stated that organizational commitment improves four aspects: participation in different organizational activities, the devotion of potential to achieve work according to organizational goals, performing responsibilities effectively, and not resigning to work with other organizations. Sheikh [51] summarized that employee OC occurs when they believe and accept organizational goals and values and are willing to contribute their full potential to the work operation.
Meyer, et al. [52] proposed three guidelines for measuring OC: affective commitment, referring to a person’s sense of being part of an organization and readiness to devote effort and potential; continuance commitment, referring to the feeling of engagement and desire to work without leaving as an investment to receive higher benefits; and normative commitment, referring to an agreement with organizational goals, values, cultures, and norms expressed in the form of loyalty. Later, Meyer and Herscovitch [53] developed questions to measure these three factors of OC, and their scale is widely used in research, education, and work operation.

2.4. Stress

Stress is a common occurrence in modern life, ranging from an exciting incident while crossing the road to studying anxiety or disagreements with others. However, stress can be managed if individuals prepare their mindsets in advance. People encounter stress when their surroundings are limited in terms of opportunity or when they have demanding physical or mental needs. The first level of stress occurs when an obstacle inhibits a person’s attempt to meet their needs. This can cause stress while trying to overcome limitations. The second condition of stress is more positive as a challenge to be embraced. The third condition of stress is negative as an incident requiring great physical or mental attention. Stressors are antecedents of stress that occur at work, during leisure time, and at different periods of life transitions. People react to stressors in diverse ways. If a stressor is perceived as something demanding or harmful, the person will suffer from stress; however, if the stressor is seen as a challenge, the person will experience positive stress, called eustress. The results are different. Work stressors include delivery deadlines, high workload, shift work, work safety, political behavior, and physical environment, while non-work stressors include financial problems, relocation, and holding down two jobs. Life transition stressors include the death of a loved one, divorce, or children leaving home.
When a person is ready to act or perform behaviors, he/she will choose a behavioral response suitable for the stressors. These choices include eliminating a stressor, changing a stressor, or escaping from a stressor. Stressful situations allow little time to make decisions. For example, a pilot who encounters an emergent incident while flying a plane must respond to the stressor immediately. Training and experience are helpful for the pilot to make the best decision. We all have to face difficult situations and make decisions to choose the behavior suitable for a stressor. Choosing wrongly may cause suffering, while choosing correctly may lead to positive stress. Cooper, et al. [54] stated that job stress is something employees cannot avoid in their work life. Indicators of job stress are high staff turnover or absence from work. Job stress also impacts employees’ physical health through sickness and accidents. Sickness and accidents caused by stress increase expenses. Job stress also affects behaviors such as delivering work late, being late for work, working carelessly, resulting in frequent mistakes, being reluctant to make decisions, and having problems with colleagues. These behaviors reduce organizational commitment and levels of organizational citizenship behavior.

2.5. Ethical Leadership

ETH involves demonstrating appropriate conduct both within and outside the workplace while respecting ethical beliefs, values, and the dignity of others. It is a dynamic concept that allows both leaders and followers to achieve success, acceptance, admiration, and interdependence [55]. Gardner [56] considers ETH to involve everybody. A leader should trust and listen to people, respect their rights and potential to build a team system, lead through coordination and collaboration, make people take responsibility, and act as a role model to achieve ethical goals. Brown, et al. [57] state that ETH attempts to persuade people to behave properly through personal practice and interpersonal relationships while enhancing good practice through communication, knowledge sharing, reinforcement, and decision-making. Ethical leadership is usually characterized by honesty, care, compliance with principles, fairness, good decision-making, good communication skills, high ethical standards, kindness, unpretentiousness, implementation as promised, and being a good role model [58].
Koay and Lim [59] stated that ETH is enacted by a reliable person whom employees can trust and rely on as a partisan leader rather than an adversary leader. An ethical leader performs caring behaviors and collaborates with colleagues to create unity. ETH behavior encourages employees to trust actions and words. A trusted leader works as an ethical compass, providing a navigation light to follow. When employees trust their leader, mutual trust will develop, and social capital will increase. Northouse [60] measured ETH using five factors: respect for others, service to others, justice, honesty, and community benefits. Later, Brown, Treviño and Harrison [57] developed a scale for measuring ETH that is still widely used in education and research.

2.6. Development of the Hypotheses

According to the social learning theory [61], people learn new behaviors through observation, imitation, and modeling of others. An ethical leader sets high standards of honesty, discipline, and care for subordinates and serves as an important role model for employees to follow, leading to organizational citizenship behavior [57,58]. Moreover, an ethical leader fosters reciprocal relationships with subordinates and promotes awareness of responsibility, positive attitudes toward work, and organizational citizenship behavior [3,62]. This, in turn, increases loyalty and organizational commitment [63]. Huang, et al. [4] also suggest that ethical leadership plays a crucial role in influencing the behaviors and attitudes of subordinates by fostering a trustworthy environment, improving well-being, and promoting appropriate behavior, which encourages employees to work with full effort. Therefore, based on these theories, concepts, and research results, Hypothesis 1 is proposed as follows:
Hypothesis 1:
ETH has a significant effect on the OCB.
While the social learning theory suggests that ETH directly influences OCB through observation and imitation of leaders, recent research has challenged this view by examining the indirect effects of ETH on OCB through mediators such as JST, JSAT, and OC. For instance, a study by Yılmaz and Yılmaz [64] found that JSAT and OC partially mediated the relationship between ETH and OCB. Similarly, another study by Hakanen, et al. [65] found that job resources, such as job control and social support, mediated the relationship between ETH and OCB. Additionally, a study by Gao, et al. [66] found that JST partially mediated the relationship between ETH and OCB. They suggested that ethical leaders who create a supportive work environment may reduce employee stress levels, which in turn may increase their willingness to engage in OCB. These findings suggest that the relationship between ETH and OCB is complex and may be influenced by multiple mediators. While social learning theory may explain some aspects of this relationship, it may not fully capture the range of mechanisms through which ethical leadership influences OCB.
JST is an important issue that cannot be avoided, as it results in reduced OCB [67,68]. JST causes negative perceptions of stimuli or the surroundings, inhibits access to resources and personal work, and negatively impacts the sense of humor, relationships with colleagues, and communication levels. Amin, et al. [69] studied university lecturers in Bangladesh and found that JST had a statistically significant negative effect on OCB. Lecturers who were responsible for various assignments became stressed and did not exhibit positive behaviors. Yosiana, et al. [70] and Tongchaiprasit and Ariyabuddhiphongs [71] determined that JST functioned as a mediator, resulting in negative behavior with statistical significance. Therefore, according to the concepts and research results mentioned above, JST can be viewed as the mental state of employees, occurring after interpreting stimuli through the five senses of the body. JST mostly causes distress rather than eustress; therefore, Hypothesis 2 is postulated as follows.
Hypothesis 2:
ETH has a significant effect on the OCB through JST.
JSAT is another important variable in the study of employee behavior. Researchers such as Ladebo [72], Wahyu, et al. [73], Islam, et al. [74], and Ilies, et al. [75] found that JSAT acts as a mediator with statistical significance. JSAT reflects an employee’s positive mental state, and when employees experience positive stimuli, they feel satisfied. Qing, et al. [76] found that ETH has a positive and statistically significant effect on JSAT, while Aldrin and Yunanto [77] and Nurjanah, et al. [78] found that JSAT influences OCB. In addition, Lin, et al. [79] used JSAT as a mediator between ETH and OCB and found that JSAT fully mediates this relationship with statistical significance. The above concepts and research findings suggest that when a leader serves as an ethical role model, employees are more satisfied in their jobs and exhibit OCB. Therefore, to test this issue, Hypothesis 3 is formulated as follows:
Hypothesis 3:
ETH has a significant effect on the OCB through JSAT.
ETH has a significant effect on organizational citizenship behavior [76,80]. An ethical leader demonstrates trust, power distribution, consciousness, justice, and work transparency, which encourages employees to accept goals and devote their knowledge and abilities to work with no desire to change jobs. Benevene, et al. [81] emphasized that employees perceive leadership behavior as essential in building their work attitudes. ETH is continuously verified as a crucial variable that can predict high OCB [57,82,83]. In the ethical context, people take pride in their activities, leading to OC. Purwanto and Sudargini [84] found that employees willingly accepted organizational goals, values, cultures, and standards of OCB with statistical significance, while Claudia [85] used OC as an instrument to accurately and reliably predict OCB. This includes goal acceptance, devotion to the effort, and the desire to promote success and readiness to perform in-role and extra-role behaviors. Therefore, based on the above concepts, theories, and previous research, Hypothesis 4 is postulated as follows:
Hypothesis 4:
ETH has a significant effect on the OCB through OC.
ETH has a direct effect on OCB [3,62,63,86]. While job stress is inevitable, ETH can help to reduce stressful situations [87,88]. An ethical leader is a role model who builds good interpersonal relationships that enhance and support subordinates to work and live happily, communicates and shares various work and life matters, and always has time to care for colleagues and employees. These characteristics can help to reduce JST. Human resource management personnel should be available to support and enhance employees’ job satisfaction, with ETH behaviors fostered as a role model of justice and transparency, leading to increased JSAT. However, employees may encounter stresses from work, non-work or life transition aspects that reduce JSAT. Khalatbari, Ghorbanshiroudi and Firouzbakhsh [89] commented that stressful employees showed reduced satisfaction in their environment, while Ahsan, Abdullah, Fie and Alam [90] found that a poor work environment led to JST and consequently reduced JSAT. Moreover, Bhatti, Hashmi, Raza, Shaikh and Shafiq [91] found that poor health reduced JSAT and could lead to organizational failure in the future. Therefore, to test the above concepts, theories, and previous research, Hypothesis 5 is postulated as follows:
Hypothesis 5:
ETH has a significant effect on the OCB through JST and JSAT.
According to the literature review discussed above, ethical leadership has been shown to affect organizational citizenship behavior by reducing job stress. However, some scholars and researchers have suggested that job stress should be studied as a mediator between ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Furthermore, other scholars have proposed organizational commitment as an additional mediator. Based on the literature and research, high job stress has been found to have a negative effect on organizational commitment, with studies showing that a high workload can cause problems such as fatigue, discouragement, and burnout, leading to health problems and intentions to quit the job [92,93,94]. Similarly, Wang, et al. [95] determined that job stress was an obstacle for a leader or an organization to build goal acceptance and devotion of effort to work. Bhatti, Hashmi, Raza, Shaikh and Shafiq [91] mentioned that employees face stressors from personal life, family problems, and workplace disputes that can cause a lack of motivation, encouragement, and a sense of goal involvement. These employees may often search for alternative employment. Therefore, to test the concepts, theories, and previous research, Hypothesis 6 is postulated as follows:
Hypothesis 6:
ETH has a significant effect on the OCB through JST and OC.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Population and Sample

The units of analysis in this study were 286,519 teachers employed at the Office of the Basic Education Commission. A sample size of 400 was calculated based on the concept of Yamane [96] and a 95% confidence interval. Multistage random sampling was used, starting with cluster sampling divided according to the six Thai geographical regions: north, south, east, west, central, and northeast. Simple random sampling was conducted by distributing questionnaires to the selected schools. After a waiting period of six weeks, 385 completed questionnaires were returned, but six were incomplete, resulting in a total of 379 questionnaires for analysis. According to Hoelter [97], a sample size of more than 200 units is considered adequate for structural equation modeling analysis. Therefore, the number of samples in this study was considered sufficient for the structural equation modeling analysis.
The present study’s units of analysis comprised 286,519 teachers employed by the Office of the Basic Education Commission. The sample size of 400 was determined based on Yamane [96] concept and a confidence interval of 95%. Multistage random sampling was employed, using cluster sampling divided into the six geographical regions of Thailand: north, south, east, west, central, and northeast. Simple random sampling was carried out by distributing questionnaires to selected schools. After a 6-week wait, 385 completed questionnaires were received, but six were found to be incomplete, resulting in 379 questionnaires being available for analysis. Hoelter [97] has suggested that a sample size of more than 200 units would be adequate for structural equation modeling analysis. Hence, the sample size in this study was considered adequate for the analysis of structural equation modeling.

3.2. Measurement of Validity and Reliability

The questionnaire utilized in this study was adapted from previous studies to ensure its suitability for the sample group and the study context. The questionnaire comprised 8 items on ethical leadership, adapted from Brown, Treviño and Harrison [57]; 6 items on organizational commitment, adapted from Meyer and Herscovitch [53]; 6 items on job satisfaction, adapted from Tsui, Egan and O’Reilly Iii [46]; 2 items on job stress, adapted from Park, et al. [98]; and 12 items on organizational citizenship behavior, adapted from Naqshbandi, Singh and Ma [40]. All items in the questionnaire were translated into Thai by experts in English and organizational behavior and back-translated to ensure high translation quality (Appendix A).
All the scales used in the study were validated for content validity by five experts in organizational behavior, management, industrial psychology, human resource development, and testing and evaluation. The results of the content validity ranged between 0.8 and 1.00, meeting the criterion of Rovinelli and Hambleton [99], who suggested that the IOC should be at least 0.80 to be considered statistically significant. The questionnaire was also tested for internal consistency reliability with another group of 30 teachers who were not included in the sample. The data were analyzed to determine the alpha correlation coefficient at 0.950 for the corrected item-total correlation coefficient. According to Bonett and Wright [100], the alpha correlation coefficient should be more than 0.60. The alpha correlation coefficient of the questionnaire in this study was 0.931, which was higher than the criterion, indicating that the measurements had good internal consistency and reliability.
The convergent validity of the scale was tested using the concept of Fornell and Larcker [101]. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test the construct validity of each variable in the model and determine whether they were real factors based on previous theories and concepts using empirical data. The statistics used to measure congruence were Chi-square (χ2), relative Chi-square (χ2/df), goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), comparative fit index (CFI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) as suggested by Kline [102]. Table 1 presents the validity measurements of the structure of each factor with standardized factor loading. Each observed variable had a high factor loading value (>0.50) at a statistically significant level of p < 0.01 (all t values were higher than 3). Therefore, all questionnaire items were deemed statistically significant within the theoretical structure.
The structural reliability of the measurement model was tested by calculating Composite Reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) [101], as shown in Table 1. The CR values for each latent variable ranged from 0.916 to 0.941, which exceeded the threshold of 0.7, indicating good reliability. AVE values for all variables in the study ranged from 0.563 to 0.728, higher than the criterion of AVE > 0.50. Therefore, we concluded that all theoretical structures exhibited acceptable psychometric properties.
In analyzing the mediators, the path coefficient of the total effect was examined to determine whether it was too high, with a value greater than 0.20 considered high Chin [103], indicating that the hypothesized relationship was likely true. Mediating variables can link causal variables and outcome variables. The mediators were inserted between the two variables, and indirect effects were analyzed. If the indirect effect was not statistically significant (i.e., accepting H: βiβj = 0) and the path coefficient value was reduced to 0, this indicated that the variable was not a mediator. However, if significance was found (i.e., accepting H: βiβj ≠ 0) and the path coefficient value was reduced but not to 0 (full mediation), this indicated partial mediation with other possible mediators [104].

4. Results

4.1. Sample Characteristics

The sample of 400 respondents in this study consisted mostly of females (62.70%), while males accounted for 37.30%. The majority of respondents had a bachelor’s degree (71.8%), with the remainder holding a master’s degree (28.20%). In terms of work experience, most respondents had worked between 5–10 years (66.50%), followed by over 11 years (26.80%), with the least amount of respondents having worked for 5 years (6.80%). Regarding job positions, the majority of respondents were K2 teachers (professional level) (51.50%), followed by K1 teachers (practitioner level) (36.00%), K3 teachers (senior professional level) (9.50%), and assistant teachers (3.00%). The majority of respondents worked in medium-sized schools (40.8%), followed by large schools (30.50%), small schools (23.00%), and extra-large schools (5.50%).

4.2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

The means, standard deviations, and coefficients of variation for the indicators of ethical leadership, job stress, and organizational commitment were at a very low level, while the indicators of job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior were at a very high level. The correlation coefficients among the 10 pairs of factors ((5 × 4)/2) ranged between −0.293 and 0.746. The relationships among the five studied factors had correlation coefficients, as shown earlier, and no multicollinearity was observed among the variables in the model. According to Tabachnick and Statistics [105], multicollinearity occurs when correlation coefficients among each pair of variables are 0.90 or higher. Therefore, the results of the relationship analysis among the study variables were in accordance with the statistical assumptions, as shown in Table 2.
The path coefficient of ETH on OCB was found to be statistically significant (|t| > 2.58, p < 0.01) with an influence coefficient greater than 0.20 (Table 2). This suggests that ETH has a significant predictive effect on OCB (R2 = 0.438), which is considered very high as values exceeding 0.260 are considered high-level criteria [106]. However, it is possible that some latent factors may be involved in mediating the influence of ETH on OCB (see Figure 1).
After inserting JST, JSAT, and OC as mediators between ETH and OCB, the direct effect of ETH on OCB reduced from 0.345 to 0.202 (58.55%). However, it remained statistically significant at the 0.001 level. These results indicate that ETH has an effect on OCB, consistent with the literature. However, the effect was too high, indicating that JST, JSAT, and OC mediate the relationship between ETH and OCB. This suggests that ETH enables employees to perform OCB at high levels. When leaders exhibit ETH behavior, the JST of employees decreases, and JSAT increases, which in turn promotes and supports OC. However, only JST and JSAT were found to be significant mediators between ETH and OCB. Therefore, ETH reduces JST and increases JSAT, thereby transmitting its effect on OCB, as shown in Figure 2.
Next, the researchers performed a test of the indirect effect by resampling with the replacement of 1000 sets. Since the sample size was 379 units, duplicates were not considered errors in the resampling process. Each dataset was subjected to regression analysis with the dependent variables, independent variables, and mediators specified. The resulting path coefficients and path coefficient products were calculated, both converging to and diverging from the mediators, with a standard error (SE) value of 1000. One of the methods presented in Table 3 was then applied.
Method 1: Calculate the path coefficient products and mean of SE. Then, calculate the t-statistics and significance value. If |t| > 2.00, this indicates significance at the 0.05 level. Method 2: Arrange 1000 values of path coefficient products converging to mediators and diverging from mediators in ascending order. Consider whether intervals of these values at percentile 2.5 to percentile 97.5 covers 0 or not. If a value covers 0, the product is not significantly different from 0 at a significance level of 5% [107]. The results of the indirect effect analysis using Model 4 of the Hayes [108] PROCESS macro 3.1 in IBM SPSS Statistics version 24.0 for Windows are presented below.
According to the results presented in Table 3, ethical leadership was found to have a significant influence on organizational citizenship behavior, thus supporting Hypothesis 1. Furthermore, when job satisfaction was included as a latent factor, it was found to function as a mediator linking ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior with statistical significance, supporting Hypothesis 3. Additionally, the study found that job stress and job satisfaction functioned as chain mediators linking ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior, thus providing support for Hypothesis 5. However, the study did not find support for Hypothesis 2, as job stress was not found to be a mediator linking ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. Similarly, organizational commitment was not found to function as a mediator linking ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior, and therefore Hypothesis 4 was not supported.

5. Discussion

The results of this study showed that ethical leadership had both direct and indirect effects on OCB, which supports Hypothesis 1. This finding implies that school administrators who exhibit ethical behavior can effectively encourage employees to engage willingly in OCB. This result is consistent with Bandura and Walters’ social learning theory [61], which posits that new behavior can arise from observation and imitation of others in an organization. Employees learn from role models through observation, imitation, and modeling. Thus, if a leader behaves ethically, employees are likely to imitate the leader’s behavior. Therefore, if school administrators display good behavior and serve as good models for teachers, the teachers are more likely to imitate and engage in such good behaviors. These findings are consistent with previous studies by Gardner [56], Brown, Treviño and Harrison [57], Brown and Treviño [58], Yang and Wei [3], and Dirks and Ferrin [62], which found a significant positive effect of ethical leadership on organizational citizenship behavior.
The study found no support for Hypothesis 2, as job stress was not found to be a mediating variable between ETH and OCB. This finding is consistent with the study by Yılmaz and Yılmaz [64], which also found no support for the hypothesis that job stress mediates the relationship between ethical leadership and OCB. The authors suggested that job stress may not function as a mediator in this relationship because it is not directly related to either ethical leadership or OCB. They further noted that the complex relationship between ethical leadership, JST, and OCB might require further investigation and analysis. The relationship between job stress and organizational behavior has been studied extensively with mixed results. While some studies have suggested a negative relationship between job stress and OCB (e.g., Podsakoff, et al. [109]), others have found no significant relationship or even a positive relationship (e.g., Bakker, et al. [110]). Therefore, the finding that job stress did not function as a mediator in the relationship between ethical leadership and OCB highlights the need for further research on the mechanisms through which ethical leadership influences OCB.
The results of the study also indicated that job satisfaction partially mediated the relationship between ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior, supporting Hypothesis 3. This finding implies that in order to promote positive perception or reduce job dissatisfaction, it is necessary to build employee job satisfaction when trying to influence organizational citizenship behavior through ethical leadership. In the context of the samples in this study, the welfare system for government teachers provides support for both teachers and their families, which leads to positive feelings and job satisfaction among teachers. This finding is consistent with previous studies by Ladebo [72], Wahyu, Tentama and Sari [73], Islam, Ahmad and Ahmed [74], Ilies, Fulmer, Spitzmuller and Johnson [75], Qing, Asif, Hussain and Jameel [76], Ruiz-Palomino, et al. [111] and Lin, Irawan, Anggarina, Li-Feng and Chun-Ping [79], which found that job satisfaction acted as a mediator between ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior.
Our findings did not support Hypothesis 4, as we found that OC was not a mediator variable between ETH and OCB. This suggests that OC is a complex construct that is influenced by a range of factors beyond just ethical leadership. These factors may include JSAT, perceived organizational support, and employee engagement, among others. Therefore, it is possible that ETH may not have a direct impact on OC or that its impact may be relatively small in comparison to other factors [64]. Previous research has also found mixed results regarding the relationship between OC and OCB. While some studies have suggested a positive relationship between these variables (e.g., Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff and Blume [109]), others have found no significant relationship (e.g., Chang and Chi [112]). This suggests that the relationship between OC and OCB may be more complex than previously thought and may be influenced by other factors such as job characteristics, job resources, and individual differences. Some researchers have suggested that the lack of support for Hypothesis 4 may be due to the fact that OC is a more distal variable, affected by a range of other factors beyond just ethical leadership. Furthermore, OC may be influenced by a range of other factors, such as organizational culture, leadership style, and job characteristics, which may have a greater impact on OC than ethical leadership. Overall, the finding that OC did not function as a mediator in the relationship between ETH and OCB highlights the need for further research to better understand the complex mechanisms through which ETH influences OCB, and the factors that may mediate or moderate this relationship.
The study results revealed that JST and JSAT acted as chain mediators between ETH and OCB, confirming Hypothesis 5. This finding suggests that JST and JSAT play a partial mediating role in the relationship between ETH and OCB. ETH can reduce employees’ JST because leaders who care about their employees and build good relationships with them are ready to help them solve work and life problems. This is consistent with Thai culture, where administrators are typically kind and caring towards subordinates. Furthermore, JST reduces JSAT due to the high workload of teachers, including teaching, educational quality assurance, advice-giving, and other duties as assigned. This negative impact reduces teachers’ JSAT and, consequently, their willingness to engage in OCB. However, JSAT supports teachers in performing OCB as they receive higher compensation, sufficient welfare, and care from school administrators. These factors enhance their willingness to engage in OCB. This finding aligns with the study results of Schwepker and Dimitriou [87], Khalatbari, Ghorbanshiroudi and Firouzbakhsh [89] and Bhatti, Hashmi, Raza, Shaikh and Shafiq [91], who found significant relationships between these variables and OCB.
However, our study findings did not support Hypotheses 6 based on the concepts, theories, and previous studies. There could be several reasons why job satisfaction and organizational commitment did not function as mediators in the relationship between ethical leadership and OCB. Firstly, JSAT and OC are complex constructs that are influenced by a range of factors beyond just ETH. These factors may include job characteristics, job resources, and individual differences, among others. Therefore, it is possible that ETH may not have a direct impact on JSAT or OC or that its impact may be relatively small in comparison to other factors. Secondly, previous research has found mixed results regarding the relationship between JSAT and OCB. For instance, some studies have suggested a positive relationship (e.g., Lee, et al. [113]), while others have found no significant relationship (e.g., Ng and Feldman, 2015). Similarly, previous research has also found mixed results regarding the relationship between organizational commitment and OCB, with some studies suggesting a positive relationship (e.g., Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff and Blume [109]) and others finding no significant relationship (e.g., Chang and Chi [112]). Overall, the finding that job satisfaction and organizational commitment did not function as mediators in the relationship between ethical leadership and OCB highlights the need for further research to better understand the complex mechanisms through which ethical leadership influences OCB and the factors that may mediate or moderate this relationship.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

The findings of this study have practical implications, as they suggest that ETH has a direct effect on OCB. Additionally, increased employee JSAT is positively associated with higher levels of OCB. As JST is a common experience in the workplace, ETH can help to mitigate employees’ JST, leading to increased JSAT. When exploring the path of OCB, variables such as JST and JSAT must be considered as mediators between ETH and OCB. The study results suggest that using JST and JSAT as mediators to predict OCB significantly improves the predictive power of the model. Therefore, it is important to consider these two mediators when attempting to increase OCB through ETH. Overall, the results of this study provide valuable evidence in support of ETH theory as an effective means of increasing OCB.

5.2. Practical Implications

The findings of this study clearly indicate that job stress and job satisfaction are mediators that link ethical leadership to organizational citizenship behavior. Therefore, relevant organizations should promote and support administrators to perform ethical behavior as good role models to reduce the job stress of employees. Furthermore, job satisfaction should be enhanced by arranging training programs to teach employees about stress management while also supervising and caring for their well-being by managing resources to adequately support work operations. Encouraging relationship enhancement activities beyond those organized by the Ministry of Education can also make both teachers and personnel work happily together and promote job satisfaction.
Schools or relevant organizations need to set policies to promote, drive, and develop ethical leadership. Annual plans should be set for personnel development in both the short and long terms for continuous sustainability. Policies should also be set to promote stress management activities by providing advice. The work environment should be adjusted to build and support job satisfaction and organizational commitment through a healthy work atmosphere by arranging activities for teamwork and supporting personnel to participate in school activities. These aspects will help to support, promote, and drive personnel to perform organizational citizenship behavior.

5.3. Research Limitations

This study had several limitations that should be acknowledged. Firstly, a cross-sectional design was used, which only covered a specific period of time. Therefore, a longitudinal study should be considered in the future to obtain more reliable and valid results. Secondly, this study only focused on the context of teachers in a bureaucratic system. Future research should explore the relationships between organizational commitment and the study variables in different contexts, such as other areas of occupations, languages, societies, and cultures, to increase the generalizability of the model. Thirdly, this study only examined government teachers, and the scope should be expanded to include private or other sectors to test the results. Finally, this study verified only two mediators, and the prediction results were not very high. Future research should explore other factors obtained from interviewing specialists and people dealing with human resources to expand the scope of the model.

6. Conclusions

This study aimed to explore the relationship between ETH and OCB in the context of government schools in Thailand. The study revealed that ETH had both direct and indirect effects on OCB, providing support for Hypothesis 1. This suggests that leaders who demonstrate ethical behavior can encourage employees to engage willingly in OCB. The finding is consistent with Bandura and Walters’ social learning theory, which proposes that new behavior can arise from observing and imitating others in an organization. This implies that if school administrators exhibit ethical behavior and serve as good models for teachers, the latter are more likely to imitate and engage in such behaviors. The study, however, did not find support for Hypothesis 2, as job stress was not found to be a mediating variable between ethical leadership and OCB. On the other hand, the study supported Hypothesis 3, as it found that job satisfaction partially mediated the relationship between ethical leadership and OCB. This implies that building employee JSAT when trying to influence OCB through ETH can promote positive perceptions and reduce job dissatisfaction. The study also found that conscientiousness was not a mediator variable between ETH and OCB, failing to support Hypothesis 4. This suggests that conscientiousness is a complex construct that is influenced by various factors beyond just ETH. In addition, the study revealed that JST and JSAT acted as chain mediators between ETH and OCB, supporting Hypothesis 5. This finding suggests that ETH can reduce JST among employees and build good relationships with them, thereby promoting JSAT. The latter, in turn, can enhance employee willingness to engage in OCB. However, the study did not support the hypotheses that JSAT and OC mediated the relationship between ETH and OCB.
In conclusion, this study sheds light on the complex mechanisms through which ETH influences OCB in the context of government schools in Thailand. While ETH has both direct and indirect effects on OCB, JST, and JSAT play a chain-mediating role in this relationship. The study highlights the need for further research to better understand the factors that may mediate or moderate this relationship and the complex nature of conscientiousness as a construct.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.P. and K.N.-N. methodology, P.P. and K.N.-N.; software, P.P. and K.N.-N.; validation, P.P. and K.N.-N.; formal analysis, P.P. and K.N.-N.; investigation, P.P. and K.N.-N.; resources, P.P. and K.N.-N.; data curation, P.P. and K.N.-N.; writing—original draft preparation, P.P. and K.N.-N.; writing—review and editing, P.P. and K.N.-N.; visualization, P.P. and K.N.-N.; supervision, P.P. and K.N.-N.; project administration, P.P. and K.N.-N.; funding acquisition, P.P. and K.N.-N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by The Science, Research and Innovation Promotion Funding (TSRI) (Grant no. FRB660012/0168). These research block grants were managed under Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi (FRB66E0103).

Institutional Review Board Statement

For studies involving humans was approved by the human ethics of Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi (RMUTT_REC No.E XP59/65 and 29 September 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Organisational citizenship behaviours
  • Help others who have heavy workloads.
  • Help others who have been absent.
  • Represent the office by participating in different sporting activities.
  • Willingly give their time to others who have work-related problems.
  • Consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters.
  • Tend to make problems bigger than they are.
  • Constantly talk about wanting to quit their job.
  • Always focus on what is wrong with their situation, rather than a positive side.
  • Are always punctual.
  • Never take long breaks.
  • Do not take extra breaks.
  • Obey company rules, regulations, and procedures even when no one is watching.
Ethical leadership
  • Listens to what employees have to say.
  • Disciplines employees who violate ethical standards.
  • Conducts his/her personal life in an ethical manner.
  • Makes fair and balanced decisions.
  • Discusses business ethics or values with employees.
  • Sets an example in terms of how to do things the right way in terms of ethics.
  • Defines success not just by results but also the way that they are obtained.
  • When making decisions, asks “what is the right thing to do?”
Job stress
  • Today, I felt a great deal of stress because of my job.
  • Today, my job was extremely stressful.
Job satisfaction
  • How satisfied are you with the nature of the work you perform?
  • How satisfied are you with the person who supervises you [your organizational superior]?
  • How satisfied are you with your relations with others in the organization with whom you work [your co-workers or peers]?
  • How satisfied are you with the pay you receive for your job?
  • How satisfied are you with the opportunities which exist in this organization for advancement [promotion]?
  • Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your current job situation?
Organizational commitment
  • Remaining a member of this organization is important to me.
  • I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization.
  • It would be costly for me to leave this organization now.
  • Right now, staying with this organization is a matter of necessity.
  • I would feel guilty if I left this organization now.
  • I do not feel any moral obligation to remain with my current organization.

References

  1. Na-Nan, K.; Panich, T.; Thipnete, A.; Kulsingh, R. Influence of Job Characteristics, Organizational Climate, Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement That Affect the Organizational Citizenship Behavior of Teachers in Thailand. Soc. Sci. 2016, 11, 4523–4533. [Google Scholar]
  2. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Moorman, R.H.; Fetter, R. Transformational Leader Behaviors and Their Effects on Followers’ Trust in Leader, Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Leadersh. Q. 1990, 1, 107–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Yang, Q.; Wei, H. The Impact of Ethical Leadership on Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2017, 39, 100–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Huang, N.; Qiu, S.; Yang, S.; Deng, R. Ethical Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Mediation of Trust and Psychological Well-Being. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 2021, 14, 655–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mayer, D.M.; Kuenzi, M.; Greenbaum, R.; Bardes, M.; Salvador, R.B. How Low Does Ethical Leadership Flow? Test of a Trickle-Down Model. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2009, 108, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kalshoven, K.; Hartog, D.N.D.; De Hoogh, A.H.B. Ethical Leader Behavior and Big Five Factors of Personality. J. Bus. Ethic 2010, 100, 349–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Eisenbeiss, S.A.; van Knippenberg, D.; Boerner, S. Transformational Leadership and Team Innovation: Integrating Team Climate Principles. J. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 93, 1438–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Li, M.; Wang, Z. Linking Ethical Leadership to Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Role of Psychological Safety Climate and Perceived Insider Status. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1929. [Google Scholar]
  9. Zhu, W.; Treviño, L.K.; Zheng, X. Ethical Leadership and Employee Voice Behavior: A Moderated Mediation Model. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 165, 159–172. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bashir, B.; Gani, A. Testing the Effects of Job Satisfaction on Organizational Commitment. J. Manag. Dev. 2020, 39, 525–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Khalique, M.; Arif, I.; Siddiqui, M.; Kazmi, S.W. Impact of Workplace Bullying on Job Performance, Intention to Leave, Ocb and Stress. Pak. J. Psychol. Res. 2018, 33, 55–74. [Google Scholar]
  12. Mohammad, J.; Quoquab Habib, F.; Alias, M.A. Job Satisfaction and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour: An Empirical Study at Higher Learning Institutions. Asian Acad. Manag. J. 2011, 16, 149–165. [Google Scholar]
  13. Zayas-Ortiz, M.; Rosario, E.; Marquez, E.; Colón Gruñeiro, P. Relationship between Organizational Commitments and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in a Sample of Private Banking Employees. Int. J. Sociol. Soc. Policy 2015, 35, 91–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Transparency International. Corruption Perceptions Index 2020. Available online: Https://www.Transparency.Org/En/Cpi/2020/Index/Nzl (accessed on 5 February 2023).
  15. Pongsudhiraks, S. Understanding the Complexity of Corruption in Education: Evidence from Thailand. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2014, 34, 46–55. [Google Scholar]
  16. Chirathivat, S.; Pongpattrachai, D. The Impact of Corruption on Educational Outcomes in Thailand. J. Dev. Soc. 2014, 30, 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chongvisal, S. Ear and Hearing School Survey for Hearing Impair Prevalence in the Southern Part of Thailand 2011. Siriraj Med. J. 2013, 65, 51–54. [Google Scholar]
  18. Monteiro, M.D.; Ferreira, P.D. Teaching Ethics in Schools: Responsibility, Rational Autonomy and Citizenship Education. Educ. Sci. 2018, 8, 196. [Google Scholar]
  19. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Paine, J.B.; Bachrach, D.G. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future Research. J. Manag. 2000, 26, 513–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Williams, L.J.; Anderson, S.E. Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and in-Role Behaviors. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 601–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lin, B. Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Chinese Schools: A Study of Relations with Socialization Antecedents and Work Outcomes. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2010, 24, 205–221. [Google Scholar]
  22. Sugiyama, K.; Demerouti, E.; Bakker, A.B.; Shimazu, A.; Shimada, K. Using Proactive Personality to Predict Job Resources and Job Performance: The Role of Job Control and Job Social Support. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2014, 19, 99. [Google Scholar]
  23. Peng, H.Y.; Huang, Y.M.; Tsai, C.Y. The Relationships among Trust, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Green Organizations. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 124, 209–220. [Google Scholar]
  24. Cury, H.J.; Lima, L.C. The Ethical Dimension in the Education of Teachers: Contributions from a Critical Perspective. Educ. Chang. 2016, 20, 133–150. [Google Scholar]
  25. Phanisuwan, D. Foundation of the Education Profession; Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University: Nonthaburi, Thailand, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  26. Pongsriwat, S. Ethical Leadership. 2012. Available online: https://www.Gotoknow.Org/Posts/390689 (accessed on 2 April 2023).
  27. Kaewkrajay, C.; Saengsawang, W. Ethical Leadership of Secondary Education School Administrator under Lop Buri Provincial Education. J. MCU Soc. Sci. Rev. 2021, 10, 54–67. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kampkötter, P. Performance Appraisals and Job Satisfaction. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2017, 28, 750–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Singh, P.S.P.; Rana, S. The Impact of Performance Appraisal on Organizational Commitment of Bank Employees. Age 2015, 20, 2964–2967. [Google Scholar]
  30. Mo, S.; Shi, J. Linking Ethical Leadership to Employees’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Testing the Multilevel Mediation Role of Organizational Concern. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 141, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Barnard, C.I. The Functions of the Executive; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1939. [Google Scholar]
  32. Katz, D.; Kahn, R.L. The Social Psychology of Organizations; John Wiley & Sons. Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1966. [Google Scholar]
  33. Konovsky, M.A.; Pugh, S.D. Citizenship Behavior and Social Exchange. Acad. Manag. J. 1994, 37, 656–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shore, L.M.; Wayne, S.J. Commitment and Employee Behavior: Comparison of Affective Commitment and Continuance Commitment with Perceived Organizational Support. J. Appl. Psychol. 1993, 78, 774–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Teh, P.L.; Sun, H. Knowledge Sharing, Job Attitudes and Organisational Citizenship Behaviour. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2012, 112, 64–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Smith, C.; Organ, D.W.; Near, J.P. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature and Antecedents. J. Appl. Psychol. 1983, 68, 653–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bateman, T.S.; Organ, D.W. Job Satisfaction and the Good Soldier: The Relationship between Affect and Employee “Citizenship”. Acad. Manag. J. 1983, 26, 587–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Organ, D.W.; Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  39. Organ, D.W. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome; Lexington Books: Lexington, MA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  40. Naqshbandi, M.M.; Singh SK, G.; Ma, P. The Link between Organisational Citizenship Behaviours and Open Innovation: A Case of Malaysian High-Tech Sector. IIMB Manag. Rev. 2016, 28, 200–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. McShane, S.L.; Von Glinow, M.A. Organizational Behavior-International Edn; McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  42. Greenberg, J.; Baron, R.A. Behavior in Organization, 7th ed.; Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  43. Schultz, D.P.; Schultz, S.E. Psychology and Work Today: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  44. Riggio, R.E. Introduction to Industrial/Organizational Psychology; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  45. Smith, P.C.; Kendall, L.M.; Hulin, C.L. The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement; Rand McNally: Chicago, IL, USA, 1969. [Google Scholar]
  46. Tsui, A.S.; Egan, T.D.; O’Reilly, C.A., III. Being Different: Relational Demography and Organizational Attachment. Adm. Sci. Q. 1992, 37, 549–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Becker, H.S. Notes on the Concept of Commitment. Am. J. Sociol. 1960, 66, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Salancik, G.R. Commitment Is Too Easy! Organ. Dyn. 1977, 6, 62–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kongchan, A. Organizational Management. Chulalong Korn Bus. Rev. 1986, 9, 34–41. [Google Scholar]
  50. Steers, R.M. Motivation and Work Behavior; McGraw-Hili: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  51. Sheikh, A.M. Impact of Perceived Organizational Support on Organizational Commitment of Banking Employees: Role of Work-Life Balance. J. Asia Bus. Stud. 2023, 17, 79–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Meyer, J.P.; Allen, N.J.; Smith, C.A. Commitment to Organizations and Occupations: Extension and Test of a Three-Component Conceptualization. J. Appl. Psychol. 1993, 78, 538–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Meyer, J.P.; Herscovitch, L. Commitment in the Workplace: Toward a General Model. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2001, 11, 299–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Cooper, C.L.; Sloan, S.J.; Williams, S. Occupational Stress Indicator Management Guide; Nfer-Nelson Windsor: London, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  55. Burns, J.M. Leadership; Harper and Row: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  56. Gardner, R.A. The Parental Alienation Syndrome and the Differentiation between Fabricated and Genuine Child Sex Abuse; Creative Therapeutics: Cresskill, NJ, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  57. Brown, M.E.; Treviño, L.K.; Harrison, D.A. Ethical Leadership: A Social Learning Perspective for Construct Development and Testing. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2005, 97, 117–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Brown, M.E.; Treviño, L.K. Ethical Leadership: A Review and Future Directions. Leadersh. Q. 2006, 17, 595–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Koay, K.Y.; Lim, P.K. Ethical Leadership and Knowledge Hiding: Testing the Mediating and Moderating Mechanisms. J. Knowl. Manag. 2021, 26, 574–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Northouse, P.G. Leadership: Theory and Practice; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  61. Bandura, A.; Walters, R.H. Social Learning Theory; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  62. Dirks, K.T.; Ferrin, D.L. Trust in Leadership: Meta-Analytic Findings and Implications for Research and Practice. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 611–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hassan, S.; Wright, B.E.; Yukl, G. Does Ethical Leadership Matter in Government? Effects on Organizational Commitment, Absenteeism, and Willingness to Report Ethical Problems. Public Adm. Rev. 2014, 74, 333–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yılmaz, S.; Yılmaz, S. The Relationship between Ethical Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Job Stress. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2019, 14, 11–26. [Google Scholar]
  65. Hakanen, J.J.; Bakker, A.B.; Schaufeli, W.B. Burnout and Work Engagement among Teachers. J. Sch. Psychol. 2006, 43, 495–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Gao, J.; Greenberg, R.; Wong-On-Wing, B. The Role of Leader Emotional Expressiveness in Followers’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Moderating Effect of Leader Ethical Attitudes. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2015, 36, 556–574. [Google Scholar]
  67. De Clercq, D.; Belausteguigoitia, I. When Does Job Stress Limit Organizational Citizenship Behavior, or Not? Personal and Contextual Resources as Buffers. J. Manag. Organ. 2020, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tziner, A.; Sharoni, G. Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Organizational Justice, Job Stress, and Workfamily Conflict: Examination of Their Interrelationships with Respondents from a Non-Western Culture. Rev. Psicol. Del Trab. Y Organ. 2014, 30, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Amin, R.; Hossain, A.; Al Masud, A. Job Stress and Organizational Citizenship Behavior among University Teachers within Bangladesh: Mediating Influence of Occupational Commitment. Management 2020, 24, 107–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Yosiana, Y.; Hermawati, A.; Mas’ud, M.H. The Analysis of Workload and Work Environment on Nurse Performance with Job Stress as Mediation Variable. J. Socioecon. Dev. 2020, 3, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Tongchaiprasit, P.; Ariyabuddhiphongs, V. Creativity and Turnover Intention among Hotel Chefs: The Mediating Effects of Job Satisfaction and Job Stress. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 55, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ladebo, O.J. Perceived Supervisory Support and Organisational Citizenship Behaviours: Is Job Satisfaction a Mediator? South Afr. J. Psychol. 2008, 38, 479–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wahyu, A.; Tentama, F.; Sari, E.Y.D. The Role of Servant Leadership and Organizational Climate on Organizational Citizenship Behavior with Job Satisfaction as Mediator. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 2019, 8, 1134–1141. [Google Scholar]
  74. Islam, T.; Ahmad, U.N.U.; Ahmed, I. Exploring the Relationship between Pos, Olc, Job Satisfaction and Ocb. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 114, 164–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Ilies, R.; Fulmer, I.S.; Spitzmuller, M.; Johnson, M.D. Personality and Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Qing, M.; Asif, M.; Hussain, A.; Jameel, A. Exploring the Impact of Ethical Leadership on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Public Sector Organizations: The Mediating Role of Psychological Empowerment. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2020, 14, 1405–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Aldrin, N.; Yunanto, K.T. Job Satisfaction as a Mediator for the Influence of Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture on Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Open Psychol. J. 2019, 12, 126–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Nurjanah, S.; Pebianti, V.; Handaru, A.W. The Influence of Transformational Leadership, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitments on Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Ocb) in the Inspectorate General of the Ministry of Education and Culture. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2020, 7, 1793521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Lin, L.L.C.; Irawan, A.P.; Anggarina, P.T.; Chou, L.-F.; Hung, C.-P. The Relationship between Moral Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Effect of Job Satisfaction; Universitas Tarumanagara: West Jakarta, Indonesia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  80. Lee, J.; Cho, J.; Baek, Y.; Pillai, R.; Oh, S.H. Does Ethical Leadership Predict Follower Outcomes above and Beyond the Full-Range Leadership Model and Authentic Leadership?: An Organizational Commitment Perspective. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2019, 36, 821–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Benevene, P.; Corso, L.D.; De Carlo, A.; Falco, A.; Carluccio, F.; Vecina, M.L. Ethical Leadership as Antecedent of Job Satisfaction, Affective Organizational Commitment and Intention to Stay among Volunteers of Non-Profit Organizations. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Neubert, M.J.; Carlson, D.S.; Kacmar, K.M.; Roberts, J.A.; Chonko, L.B. The Virtuous Influence of Ethical Leadership Behavior: Evidence from the Field. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 90, 157–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Yates, L. Exploring the Relationship of Ethical Leadership with Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. J. Values-Based Leadersh. 2014, 7, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  84. Purwanto, A.; Sudargini, Y. Partial Least Squares Structural Squation Modeling (Pls-Sem) Analysis for Social and Management Research: A Literature Review. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. Res. 2021, 2, 114–123. [Google Scholar]
  85. Claudia, M. The Influence of Perceived Organizational Support, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment toward Organizational Citizenship Behavior (A Study of the Permanent Lecturers at University of Lambung Mangkurat, Banjarmasin). J. Indones. Econ. Bus. 2018, 33, 23–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kalshoven, K.; Den Hartog, D.N. Ethical Leader Behavior and Leader Effectiveness: The Role of Prototypicality and Trust. Int. J. Leadersh. Stud. 2009, 5, 102–120. [Google Scholar]
  87. Schwepker, C.H.; Dimitriou, C.K. Using Ethical Leadership to Reduce Job Stress and Improve Performance Quality in the Hospitality Industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 94, 102860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Elçi, M.; Şener, İ.; Aksoy, S.; Alpkan, L. The Impact of Ethical Leadership and Leadership Effectiveness on Employees’ Turnover Intention: The Mediating Role of Work Related Stress. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 58, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Khalatbari, J.; Ghorbanshiroudi, S.; Firouzbakhsh, M. Correlation of Job Stress, Job Satisfaction, Job Motivation and Burnout and Feeling Stress. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 84, 860–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ahsan, N.; Abdullah, Z.; Fie, D.Y.G.; Alam, S.S. A Study of Job Stress on Job Satisfaction among University Staff in Malaysia: Empirical Study. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. 2009, 8, 121–131. [Google Scholar]
  91. Bhatti, N.; Hashmi, M.A.; Raza, S.A.; Shaikh, F.M.; Shafiq, K. Empirical Analysis of Job Stress on Job Satisfaction among University Teachers in Pakistan. Int. Bus. Res. 2011, 4, 264–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Bhatti, M.H.; Bhatti, M.H.; Akram, M.U.; Hashim, M.; Akram, Z. Relationship between Job Stress and Organizational Commitment: An Empirical Study of Banking Sector. J. Bus. Manag. Econ. 2016, 7, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Abdelmoteleb, S.A. A New Look at the Relationship between Job Stress and Organizational Commitment: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Study. J. Bus. Psychol. 2019, 34, 321–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Saadeh, I.M.; Suifan, T.S. Job Stress and Organizational Commitment in Hospitals: The Mediating Role of Perceived Organizational Support. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2019, 28, 226–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Wang, P.; Chu, P.; Wang, J.; Pan, R.; Sun, Y.; Yan, M.; Jiao, L.; Zhan, X.; Zhang, D. Association between Job Stress and Organizational Commitment in Three Types of Chinese University Teachers: Mediating Effects of Job Burnout and Job Satisfaction. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 576768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Yamane, T. Problems to Accompany “Statistics, an Introductory Analysis”; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
  97. Hoelter, J.W. The Analysis of Covariance Structures: Goodness-of-Fit Indices. Sociol. Methods Res. 1983, 11, 325–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Park, I.-J.; Kim, P.B.; Hai, S.; Dong, L. Relax from Job, Don’t Feel Stress! The Detrimental Effects of Job Stress and Buffering Effects of Coworker Trust on Burnout and Turnover Intention. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 45, 559–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Rovinelli, R.J.; Hambleton, R.K. On the Use of Content Specialists in the Assessment of Criterion-Referenced Test Item Validity. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, USA, 19–23 April 1976. [Google Scholar]
  100. Bonett, D.G.; Wright, T.A. Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability: Interval Estimation, Hypothesis Testing, and Sample Size Planning. J. Organ. Behav. 2015, 36, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Publications: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  103. Chin, W.W. The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 1998, 295, 295–336. [Google Scholar]
  104. Piriyakul, M. Test of Moderation Effect in Structural Equation Modeling. J. Ind. Technol. 2016, 12, 78–91. [Google Scholar]
  105. Tabachnick, B.G.F.; Statistics, L.S. Using Multivariate; Pearson: Lexington, MA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  106. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 1992, 1, 98–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Piriyakul, M. Mediators and Tests of Indirect Effect. J. Manag. Dev. Ubonratchatani Rajabhat Univ. 2015, 2, 11–31. [Google Scholar]
  108. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  109. Podsakoff, N.P.; Whiting, S.W.; Podsakoff, P.M.; Blume, B.D. Individual-and Organizational-Level Consequences of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 122–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E.; Verbeke, W. Using the Job Demands-Resources Model to Predict Burnout and Performance. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2004, 43, 83–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Ruiz-Palomino, P.; Ruiz-Amaya, C.; Knörr, H. Employee Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: The Direct and Indirect Impact of Ethical Leadership. Can. J. Adm. Sci. Rev. Can. Sci. L’administration 2011, 28, 244–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Chang, C.H.; Chi, N.W. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Systematic Review and Future Directions. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2019, 29, 306–318. [Google Scholar]
  113. Lee, C.; Kim, Y.; Park, M. Ethical Leadership and Employee Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Nursing: The Mediating Role of Organizational Commitment. J. Nurs. Manag. 2015, 23, 540–547. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. The direct effect of ETH on OCB. *** indicates correlation is significant at the 0.001 level.
Figure 1. The direct effect of ETH on OCB. *** indicates correlation is significant at the 0.001 level.
Sustainability 15 06656 g001
Figure 2. Analysis of the direct and indirect effects of ETH on OCB through the mediators of JST, JSAT and OC. * indicates correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. ** indicates correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. *** indicates correlation is significant at the 0.001 level.
Figure 2. Analysis of the direct and indirect effects of ETH on OCB through the mediators of JST, JSAT and OC. * indicates correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. ** indicates correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. *** indicates correlation is significant at the 0.001 level.
Sustainability 15 06656 g002
Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis.
ItemStandardized
Factor Loading
AVEComposite Reliability
Model 1: Ethical leadership
Model fit indices: χ2 = 11.657, df = 8, p = 0.167, χ2/df = 1.457, GFI = 0.993, AGFI = 0.967, CFI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.035 and SRMR = 0.020
ETH 10.9410.5820.916
ETH 20.901
ETH 30.768
ETH 40.700
ETH 50.802
ETH 60.555
ETH 70.763
ETH 80.589
Model 1: Job stress
Model fit indices: χ2 = 0.089, df = 1, p = 0.766, χ2/df = 0.089, GFI = 1.000, AGFI = 0.999, CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = 0.000 and SRMR = 0.001
JST 10.8780.5700.865
JST 20.914
Organizational commitment
Model fit indices: χ2 = 7.950, df = 6, p = 0.242, χ2/df = 1.325, GFI = 0.993, AGFI = 0.976, CFI = 0.999, RMSEA = 0.029 and SRMR = 0.014
OC 10.7770.6920.931
OC 20.887
OC 30.866
OC 40.829
OC 50.765
OC 60.861
Job satisfaction
Model fit indices: χ2 = 12.977, df = 7, p = 0.073, χ2/df = 1.854, GFI = 0.989, AGFI = 0.967, CFI = 0.997, RMSEA = 0.048 and SRMR = 0.014
JSAT 10.8420.7280.941
JSAT 20.909
JSAT 30.875
JSAT 40.871
JSAT 50.802
JSAT 60.818
Organizational citizenship behavior
Model fit indices: χ2 = 46.360, df = 33, p = 0.061, χ2/df = 1.405, GFI = 0.980, AGFI = 0.953, CIF = 0.996, RMSEA = 0.033 and SRMR = 0.013
OCB 10.7250.5630.939
OCB 20.720
OCB 30.757
OCB 40.741
OCB 50.762
OCB 60.811
OCB 70.791
OCB 80.886
OCB 90.789
OCB 100.662
OCB 110.665
OCB 120.659
Table 2. Relationships between ETH, JST, JSAT, OC and OCB.
Table 2. Relationships between ETH, JST, JSAT, OC and OCB.
MeanSDETH1JST1JSATOC1OCB
ETH11.5580.1481
JST11.5970.140−0.131 *1
JSAT4.3790.2000.264 **−0.412 **1
OC11.6430.3110.446 **−0.162 **0.343 **1
OCB4.4260.1160.439 **−0.293 **0.746 **0.355 **1
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table 3. Test results of indirect effects through OC, JST and JSAT using the bootstrap method.
Table 3. Test results of indirect effects through OC, JST and JSAT using the bootstrap method.
Path AnalysisEstimateSEt95% CIResult
LLUL
ETH → OCB0.1820.0424.3330.1180.293Supported
ETH → JST → OCB−0.0030.007−0.429−0.0210.006Not supported
ETH → JSAT → OCB0.1460.0255.8400.0960.197Supported
ETH → OC → OCB0.0040.0300.133−0.0160.114Not supported
ETH → JST → JSAT → OCB0.0340.0152.2670.0050.065Supported
ETH→ JST → OC → OCB0.0000.0010.000−0.0000.003Not supported
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Phetsombat, P.; Na-Nan, K. A Causal Model of Ethical Leadership Affecting the Organizational Citizenship Behavior of Teachers in the Office of the Basic Education Commission. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6656. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086656

AMA Style

Phetsombat P, Na-Nan K. A Causal Model of Ethical Leadership Affecting the Organizational Citizenship Behavior of Teachers in the Office of the Basic Education Commission. Sustainability. 2023; 15(8):6656. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086656

Chicago/Turabian Style

Phetsombat, Pimolpun, and Khahan Na-Nan. 2023. "A Causal Model of Ethical Leadership Affecting the Organizational Citizenship Behavior of Teachers in the Office of the Basic Education Commission" Sustainability 15, no. 8: 6656. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086656

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop