Next Article in Journal
Deep Learning for Sustainable Finance: Robust ESG Index Forecasting in an Emerging Market Context
Previous Article in Journal
Medium-to-Long-Term Electricity Load Forecasting for Newly Constructed Canals Based on Navigation Traffic Volume Cascade Mapping
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Mediating Role of Green Human Capital in the Relationship Between Green Human Resource Management Practices and Green Employee Behavior for a Sustainable Future
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 18
Issue 1
10.3390/su18010107
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Engagement, Citizenship Behavior, Burnout, and Intention to Quit: Mechanisms Fostering Sustainable Well-Being and Driving Retention Among Thai Frontline Bank Employees

by
Kamonwon Ramdeja
and
Parisa Rungruang
*
College of Management, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2026, 18(1), 107; https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010107
Submission received: 21 November 2025 / Revised: 11 December 2025 / Accepted: 18 December 2025 / Published: 22 December 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Practices and Their Impacts on Organizational Behavior)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The objective of this study is to investigate how two forms of engagement—job engagement and organization engagement—shape organizational citizenship behaviors directed at individuals (OCBI) and the organization (OCBO), and how these behaviors, in turn, influence employee burnout and intention to quit. This study also seeks to examine the impact of burnout on intention to quit. A paper-based survey was conducted among frontline bank employees from 21 financial institutions in Thailand. Data from 562 respondents, selected through convenience sampling, were analyzed using covariance-based structural equation modeling. Findings revealed that job engagement fosters OCBI, whereas organization engagement enhances OCBO. Job engagement also reduces burnout, while the adverse effect of organization engagement on burnout was small and insignificant. OCBI positively affects burnout and positively mediates the job engagement–burnout relationship. In contrast, OCBO negatively affects burnout and negatively mediates the organization engagement–burnout relationship. Finally, burnout increases employees’ intention to quit. These findings provide theoretical insights into the mechanisms linking engagement, citizenship behaviors, burnout, and intention to quit. Importantly, this study offers practical recommendations for promoting well-being and sustainable employee retention in the high-demand banking industry.

1. Introduction

The Thai banking system is one of the most functional and resilient in Southeast Asia [1,2]. Previous studies have found that one of the key factors contributing to this success is the efficiency and commitment of frontline employees who proactively exhibit discretionary behaviors that improve service quality, innovation, and operational performance [3,4]. Such behaviors, which go beyond formal job requirements, are essential for promoting collaboration and maintaining productivity, even in challenging or high-pressure situations [4,5]. However, these extra-role efforts can also increase employees’ exposure to job stress and heighten the risk of burnout, both of which are detrimental to their job performance and mental health [6,7] and can increase their turnover intention [8,9].
The Thai banking sector provides an appropriate and meaningful context for this study for two main reasons. First, previous research has shown that Thai bank employees routinely manage heavy workloads, stringent performance targets, and continuous customer-centric responsibilities [3,4], making resource gain and loss processes particularly salient. However, these studies primarily emphasize the operational and behavioral challenges faced by frontline employees and offer limited insight into how these dynamics relate to broader mechanisms of employee well-being and discretionary work behaviors. Although they highlight significant contextual pressures, they do not fully address how employees navigate such demands through resource-based processes or how these processes translate into outcomes such as engagement or citizenship behavior. This oversight underscores the need for a more comprehensive examination of the resource mechanisms underlying employee experiences in Thailand’s banking sector, highlighting the significance of the present study within this unique cultural and professional context.
Second, despite extensive international research on engagement, organizational citizenship behavior, and burnout [10,11,12,13,14,15,16], no previous study has jointly tested these mechanisms from the dual perspectives of job versus organization engagement within the Thai banking sector. The lack of evidence on how these engagement variables distinctly influence organizational citizenship behavior and burnout limits scholars’ and practitioners’ ability to understand the nuanced motivational and strain-related processes that operate in this high-pressure service environment. In addition, the absence of research investigating how organizational citizenship behaviors—organizational citizenship behavior directed toward individuals (OCBI) and organizational citizenship behavior directed to-ward the organization (OCBO)—influence burnout, as well as how they mediate the effects of engagement variables on burnout within the unique cultural and professional context of the Thai banking sector, hinders the development of effective interventions aimed at reducing job-related stress and enhancing employee well-being. These gaps underscore the importance of the present study, which seeks to clarify the distinct interplays among job and organization engagement, organizational citizenship behaviors, burnout, and intention to quit, thereby providing actionable insights to enhance employee well-being, organizational effectiveness, and retention in the Thai banking sector.
To address these research gaps, the study seeks to answer the following research questions:
RQ1. How do job engagement and organization engagement influence OCBI, OCBO, and employee burnout?
RQ2. How do OCBI and OCBO affect employee burnout?
RQ3. What are the mediating roles of OCBI and OCBO in the relationships between job engagement, organization engagement, and employee burnout?
RQ4. What is the effect of burnout on employees’ intention to quit?
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The Section 2 reviews the relevant literature and develops the hypotheses. This is followed by a description of the research methodology and a presentation of the results. The subsequent section discusses the findings, their theoretical and practical implications, the study’s limitations, and directions for future research. The final section concludes the study.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Theoretical Underpinnings

The current study integrates the Social Exchange Theory (SET) [17,18], the Job Demands–Resources (JD–R) model [19], and the Conservation of Resources (COR) theory [20] to provide a comprehensive explanatory framework for how employee engagement shapes downstream work outcomes. In this study, SET explains why engagement triggers citizenship behaviors, JD–R explains how these behaviors operate as either demands or resources, and COR explains why accumulated resource loss translates into an intention to quit. By combining these perspectives, the study offers a more holistic understanding of the motivational processes that drive positive discretionary behaviors, as well as the resource-based mechanisms that may ultimately lead employees to either sustain their involvement or consider withdrawal from the organization.
SET proposes that the norm of reciprocity governs organizational relationships [17,18]. Prior studies applying SET to organizational behavior have indicated that when employees perceive favorable treatment from their organization, they experience a general sense of obligation to reciprocate through positive behaviors [21,22]. Building on this framework, the present study posits that job engagement serves as the primary driver of OCBI, which manifests as proactive assistance to colleagues and support for the team [23]. In contrast, organization engagement is expected to foster OCBO by encouraging civic virtue and adherence to organizational procedures [23].
The JD–R model [19] delineates two primary processes. The first is the health impairment process, whereby excessive job demands (e.g., workload, customer pressure) deplete employees’ energy and directly contribute to strain. The second is the motivational process, whereby job resources (e.g., autonomy, social support) foster engagement and positive psychological states. Drawing on this framework, the present study proposes that both job engagement and organization engagement function as critical personal resources. Job engagement enhances individuals’ vigor and absorption in their tasks [24], thereby increasing their resilience to work-related pressures. Likewise, organization engagement strengthens employees’ emotional connection to the organization [24], serving as a psychological buffer against workplace stressors. Accordingly, this study posits that these two forms of engagement mitigate the adverse effects of job demands and sustain motivation, ultimately reducing the risk of burnout.
Furthermore, within the JD–R model [19], the present study conceptualizes that although discretionary behaviors are typically regarded as beneficial [23,25], they can simultaneously function as additional demands when performed under high workloads in the banking environment. Job engagement equips employees with the energy to support their coworkers, thereby enhancing OCBI, while organization engagement fosters a stronger connection to the organization, thereby strengthening OCBO. However, when employees expend substantial effort on either OCBI or OCBO, these behaviors may deplete their personal resources, increasing the risk of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization.
Finally, COR theory [20] proposes that individuals strive to obtain, retain, and protect resources, and that stress occurs when these resources are threatened, lost, or insufficient to meet work demands. Based on these concepts, this study conceptualizes burnout as an acute state of resource depletion, in which employees perceive a profound deficit in the energy and support required to meet job expectations [26]. Based on COR theory, this loss initiates a resource-depleting spiral that drives employees toward protective coping mechanisms, including a heightened intention to quit. Intentions to quit thus represent an act of resource conservation—a strategic decision to withdraw from a high-demand, resource-draining work role to safeguard remaining personal resources.

2.2. Employee Engagement and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Job engagement and organization engagement are related but distinct dimensions of employee engagement. Job engagement is the physical, emotional, and cognitive investment employees make in their jobs and is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption in daily tasks [24]. Organization engagement refers to employees’ emotional attachment, loyalty, and identification with the organization, as well as a broader sense of belonging beyond the specific tasks assigned to them [24].
Previous studies have indicated that job engagement is positively associated with OCBI and OCBO [27,28], suggesting that employees who are energetic, dedicated, and absorbed in their work are more likely to invest extra effort voluntarily and undertake discretionary behaviors that benefit both colleagues (OCBI) and the organization (OCBO). In contrast, prior studies have not directly examined the relationship between organization engagement and OCBI or OCBO. However, they suggest that when employees feel psychologically connected and committed to the organization, they are more likely to engage in behaviors that benefit the organization [27,28,29]. This indicates that organization engagement provides the motivational and psychological resources necessary to sustain discretionary behaviors that enhance organizational effectiveness.
Therefore, drawing on the literature [27,28,29] and considering the unique challenges encountered by employees in the banking sector (e.g., high job demands and job stress) [8,9], the current study proposes that job engagement positively influences OCBI, whereas organization engagement positively influences OCBO. These relationships can be theoretically grounded in SET [17,18], which implies that employees reciprocate favorable treatment from their organization through discretionary behaviors. When employees feel supported, recognized, or given growth opportunities, they may feel obligated to reciprocate by helping colleagues and/or contributing to organizational objectives. Within this framework, employees who are deeply absorbed and enthusiastic about their specific job roles are more likely to engage in behaviors that directly help coworkers (OCBI). In contrast, those who identify strongly with the organization are more likely to engage in behaviors that promote organizational effectiveness (OCBO). Based on this reasoning, the study hypothesizes that:
H1. 
Job engagement is positively related to OCBI.
H2. 
Organization engagement is positively related to OCBO.

2.3. Employee Engagement and Burnout

Burnout is a psychological syndrome caused by work-related stress, characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment [26]. It has been shown to negatively affect employees’ mental and physical health, reduce productivity, and increase absenteeism and intention to leave [30,31,32]. In high-demand sectors such as banking, burnout can lead to a decline in service quality and organizational performance [6,7].
Empirical evidence shows that highly engaged employees report lower levels of burnout [33,34]. These findings suggest that job engagement serves as a personal resource that buffers the negative impact of job demands, helping employees maintain energy and psychological well-being even under demanding conditions. Although empirical evidence directly linking organization engagement and burnout is limited, prior studies consistently suggest a negative relationship. Healthy organizational practices that support engagement significantly reduce burnout [34], and high organization engagement counteracts the effects of stress [35]. Likewise, perceived organizational support and fairness strengthen employees’ psychological connection to the organization, buffering the impact of job demands [36,37]. Collectively, these results indicate that employees who feel valued, supported, and connected to their organization are more resilient against emotional exhaustion. Hence, organization engagement is expected to be inversely related to burnout.
The effects of job and organization engagement on burnout can be explained by the JD–R model [19], which posits that job demands drain energy and cause strain. Based on this model, the present study proposes that job engagement serves as a personal resource that helps sustain individual energy and efficacy. In contrast, organization engagement serves as a contextual resource that strengthens employees’ identification with and trust in the organization. Both forms of engagement protect employees from the corrosive effects of excessive demands: job engagement supports vitality, and organization engagement helps maintain social and structural supports that foster well-being [34,35]. Therefore, the study hypothesizes that:
H3. 
Job engagement is negatively related to burnout.
H4. 
Organization engagement is negatively related to burnout.

2.4. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Burnout

Although OCBI and OCBO are conceptually positioned as extra-role behaviors that reflect employee investment in individuals and the organization [27,28,29], and might therefore be expected to develop relational and structural resources that mitigate burnout, empirical evidence also suggests that these behaviors can, under certain conditions, increase burnout. For example, one study found that excessive OCBI is associated with increased emotional exhaustion [13], and another reported that both OCBI and OCBO were linked to greater exhaustion, notably when these behaviors led to work–family conflict [38].
Given that bank employees often experience high workloads, customer service pressures, and strict regulatory demands, which are known to contribute to burnout [6,7], the present research suggests that although OCBI and OCBO may promote cooperation and organizational functioning, they may also have counterproductive consequences under high job demands. Based on the JD–R model [19], this study posits that when demands such as heavy workloads, deadlines, and performance quotas are already elevated, the additional effort required for discretionary behaviors (i.e., OCBI and OCBO) may function as further demands, depleting employees’ energy and emotional capacity. As a result, these behaviors may increase strain. Therefore, this study posits that the more bank employees engage in these extra-role behaviors, the greater their emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. Thus, the proposed hypotheses are:
H5. 
OCBI is positively related to burnout.
H6. 
OCBO is positively associated with burnout.

2.5. Mediating Effects of Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

As hypothesized in earlier subsections and supported by prior research [27,28], higher levels of job engagement are associated with increased OCBI. Similarly, consistent with previous findings [27,28,29], higher organization engagement is expected to be positively related to OCBO. Moreover, prior studies indicate that both OCBI and OCBO can increase employee burnout [13,38]. Based on these relationships, it is proposed that OCBI mediates the relationship between job engagement and burnout, whereas OCBO mediates the relationship between organization engagement and burnout.
The potential mediating roles of organizational citizenship behaviors are grounded in SET [17,18] and the JD–R model [19]. Based on SET, the current study posits that employees who perceive support, recognition, and fairness reciprocate through discretionary behaviors (i.e., OCBI and OCBO). However, according to the JD–R framework, these discretionary efforts may deplete personal and emotional resources, thereby increasing the likelihood of burnout. Thus, while engagement generally promotes well-being and reduces burnout, it may also indirectly contribute to burnout by encouraging greater involvement in OCBI or OCBO. Therefore, the following mediation hypotheses are proposed:
H7. 
OCBI mediates the relationship between job engagement and burnout, such that higher job engagement increases OCBI, which in turn increases burnout.
H8. 
OCBO mediates the relationship between organization engagement and burnout, such that higher organization engagement increases OCBO, which in turn increases burnout.

2.6. Burnout and Intention to Quit

Intention to quit refers to employees’ conscious, deliberate desire or plan to leave their current organization [39]. It is a well-established and robust predictor of actual turnover [39]. Research has consistently shown that higher levels of employee burnout are associated with greater intention to quit [11,12,32].
Based on these findings and grounded in COR theory [27], the current study posits that burnout increases intention to quit. COR theory holds that individuals strive to gain, maintain, and protect valued resources such as energy, time, and emotional stability. Accordingly, when bank employees perceive that their valued resources are threatened or depleted due to burnout, they seek to disengage from the source of that burnout to prevent further loss. This withdrawal cognition leads to increased intention to quit. Thus, the final hypothesis of this study is:
H9. 
Burnout positively affects intention to quit.

2.7. Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework that underlies this study, depicting the hypothesized relationships among engagement, citizenship behaviors, burnout, and the intention to quit. The model begins with job and organization engagement, each hypothesized to influence distinct dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior. Specifically, job engagement is predicted to enhance OCBI (H1), while organization engagement is expected to strengthen OCBO (H2). Additionally, both types of engagement are proposed to reduce burnout (H3 and H4). Furthermore, OCBI and OCBO are posited to elevate burnout levels (H5 and H6) and to function as intermediary mechanisms through which engagement may lead to burnout (H7 and H8). Ultimately, burnout is hypothesized to predict employees’ intention to quit (H9). This framework guided the researchers in constructing the structural model used to test these relationships.

3. Methods

Previous studies on frontline bank employees commonly employ clearly defined sampling criteria, self-administered surveys, and convenience sampling to obtain responses from employees who directly engage in customer service and operational tasks [3,4,6]. In line with these methodological traditions, scholars have emphasized the importance of targeting respondents with sufficient tenure and role-specific experience to report on workplace attitudes and behaviors meaningfully. Prior research in organizational behavior and service management often relies on criterion-based convenience sampling, particularly when access to employee populations is restricted and when the focus is on frontline units with specialized responsibilities [40,41]. Consistent with this approach, the present study targeted frontline service employees in Thai banking institutions who met predefined tenure and job-role criteria, thereby aligning with established sampling techniques to ensure sample relevance and data validity.
Data were collected through on-site, self-administered questionnaires. Participation was voluntary, and respondents provided informed consent and were given assurances of confidentiality, consistent with standard ethical procedures in behavioral and managerial research [41,42]. Following practices commonly adopted in examinations of employee attitudes and service behavior, all constructs in this study were measured using multi-item, validated Likert-scale instruments. These measures ensure content validity, enhance reliability, and allow for the systematic assessment of employees’ psychological states and behavioral tendencies. Additionally, employing previously validated tools supports methodological rigor and enables meaningful comparison with earlier empirical findings in the banking and organizational behavior domains.

3.1. Sample and Data Collection

The target population for the current study comprises frontline service employees from banking institutions in Thailand, including commercial banks, retail banks, and special financial institutions. A total of 21 financial institutions participated in this research. To minimize selection bias and ensure that respondents were appropriate for the study’s objectives, a criterion-based sampling approach was employed. This approach was suitable because the study required a clearly defined group of participants who possessed characteristics relevant to the research focus [41]. Participants were eligible if they met the following conditions: (1) they had worked in their respective organizations for more than five years; (2) they were currently employed in frontline service departments; and (3) they had at least one year of frontline service experience with direct customer interaction responsibilities.
The respondents were then recruited through convenience sampling, a common method in organizational research [43]. Permissions were obtained from the participating banks to distribute and collect the self-administered questionnaires at their premises. A cover letter explaining the purpose and prospective benefits of the study, along with instructions and a self-adhesive opaque envelope, accompanied the survey. The cover letter also clarified that all data collected would be used exclusively for academic purposes within this study, would be treated with strict confidentiality, and informed participants of their right to withdraw at any point without consequences should they feel uncomfortable with any part of the process. These provisions ensured the protection of participants’ privacy, confidentiality, and autonomy in accordance with established ethical research practices.
The final sample comprised 562 participants. This sample size satisfies the 10-times rule for structural equation modeling, which recommends a minimum of 10 observations per indicator or predictor in the most complex construct [44]. In this study, the burnout construct had the most predictors (4). Of the 562 respondents working in frontline service departments, 35.2% (198) were male, and 64.8% (364) were female. The majority were aged 30–39 (39.5%), held a bachelor’s degree (51.8%), and had worked with their organizations for more than five years (71.1%).

3.2. Research Instruments

In this study, all variables were measured using multiple items to ensure content and construct validity, as well as internal consistency [45]. Respondents indicated their degree of agreement on a seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7) for each measurement item. During confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), some items were omitted from the measurement model due to low factor loadings (<0.70).
Job engagement was assessed using a scale adapted from Saks [24]. In this study, the scale measured the degree to which bank employees are psychologically and emotionally invested in their work. The Cronbach’s alpha for the three-item scale was 0.82.
Organization engagement was measured using a scale also adapted from Saks [24]. This scale assessed the extent to which bank employees are psychologically and emotionally invested in their organization. The three-item scale demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80).
OCBI was measured using Lee and Allen’s [46] scale. The scale assessed bank employees’ behaviors directed toward helping or benefiting other individuals within the organization. The Cronbach’s alpha for this three-item scale was 0.86.
OCBO was measured using a scale also adapted from Lee and Allen [46]. This scale measured respondents’ behaviors aimed at enhancing the organization’s overall effectiveness, often reflecting loyalty, civic virtue, and compliance. The Cronbach’s alpha for this six-item scale was 0.94.
Burnout was measured using the scale developed by Shirom and Melamed [47]. This scale captured the degree of physical, emotional, and cognitive exhaustion resulting from chronic job stress, emphasizing energy depletion rather than attitudinal or interpersonal aspects of burnout. The Cronbach’s alpha for this seven-item scale was 0.96.
Finally, intention to quit was measured using a scale adapted from Mobley et al. [48]. The items assessed Thai bank employees’ intention to leave their jobs, capturing the cognitive and motivational aspects of turnover propensity. The three-item scale demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91).

3.3. Estimation Method

The current study employed Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modeling (CB-SEM), an appropriate method given the model’s complexity and the study’s objective of theory confirmation. CB-SEM assesses how well the proposed model reproduces the observed covariance matrix and, as such, provides a robust test of model fit. Following the two-step approach proposed by Anderson and Gerbing [49], CFA was first used to test the reliability and validity of the constructs, followed by structural model testing of the hypothesized causal and mediation relationships. This process ensures that the measurement model is valid before assessing the structural theory. The analysis was performed using AMOS version 24.

4. Results

4.1. Measurement Model Assessment

Following the conventional CFA diagnostic procedure, factor loadings were assessed and used to guide model modification. To ensure adequate convergent validity, this study adhered to Hair et al.’s [44] conservative recommendation and accepted factor loadings of 0.70 or higher. Accordingly, items with loadings below 0.70 were sequentially removed from the measurement model, starting with the indicator with the lowest loading. After each deletion, the revised model was re-estimated until all remaining items exhibited loadings of 0.70 or higher.
Table 1 provides detailed results for the factor loadings. For job engagement, all three items showed strong loadings (0.701–0.847). Organization engagement also demonstrated adequate item performance, with loadings ranging from 0.730 to 0.769. For the citizenship behavior constructs, OCBI showed high loadings (0.722–0.874), while OCBO had the most indicators and consistently strong loadings (0.728–0.925). The burnout construct demonstrated excellent psychometric properties, with the seven indicators showing high loadings (0.782–0.946). Finally, intention to quit showed strong loadings across its three indicators (0.823–0.929). With all factor loadings exceeding 0.70, the refined measurement model indicated that the remaining indicators demonstrated strong reliability and adequately represented their respective latent constructs.
The refined measurement model comprised six latent constructs and 25 measurement items. The model was examined for internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and overall model fit. Internal consistency reliability refers to the extent to which items consistently represent their latent constructs [44]. Composite reliability (CR) values of 0.70 or higher indicate satisfactory internal consistency [44]. The results showed that all CR values exceeded the 0.70 threshold. As shown in Table 1, job engagement demonstrated a CR of 0.83, while organization engagement demonstrated a CR of 0.80. For the citizenship behavior constructs, OCBI had a CR of 0.86, and OCBO exhibited a notably high CR of 0.94. Burnout demonstrated the strongest internal consistency with a CR of 0.96. Finally, intention to quit showed a CR of 0.91, further confirming the reliability of its indicators.
Convergent validity refers to the degree to which a construct is positively correlated with alternative measures of the same construct [44]. To establish adequate convergent validity, standardized loadings should ideally exceed 0.70, and CR values should be at least 0.70 [44]. Average variance extracted (AVE) was also examined, with values of 0.50 or higher indicating that a construct explains more than half of the variance in its indicators [44]. As shown in Table 1, job engagement and organization engagement demonstrated AVEs of 0.62 and 0.57, respectively, both exceeding the recommended threshold. For the citizenship behavior constructs, OCBI had an AVE of 0.68, and OCBO reported an AVE of 0.72. The burnout construct had the highest AVE of 0.77, indicating excellent convergence among its indicators. Finally, intention to quit showed an AVE of 0.78, indicating that the construct was well represented by its three items. As all factor loadings were above 0.70, all CR values exceeded 0.70, and all AVEs were greater than 0.50, these results collectively support the model’s convergent validity.
Discriminant validity refers to the extent to which a construct is empirically distinct from other constructs [44]. In this study, discriminant validity was assessed using the Fornell–Larcker criterion [50], which evaluates whether each construct’s average variance extracted (AVE) exceeds the squared correlations it shares with other constructs. A construct is considered to demonstrate adequate discriminant validity when the square root of its AVE is greater than its correlations with all other constructs [44,50].
Table 2 presents the interconstruct correlations along with the square roots of the AVEs on the diagonal. The results consistently support discriminant validity. For instance, the square root of the AVE for job engagement (0.79) is higher than its correlations with organization engagement (0.23), OCBI (0.56), OCBO (0.64), burnout (–0.33), and intention to quit (–0.35). A similar pattern is evident for organization engagement, whose AVE square root (0.75) exceeds all corresponding correlations, the highest being with OCBO (0.37). Both forms of citizenship behavior (OCBI and OCBO) also demonstrate discriminant validity, with their AVE square roots (0.82 and 0.85, respectively) surpassing their intercorrelations and correlations with other variables.
Burnout and intention to quit show moderate to strong associations with several constructs; however, the square roots of their AVEs (0.88 for both) still exceed all relevant correlations, including their substantial mutual correlation (0.63). This indicates that despite their conceptual and empirical relatedness, the two constructs remain statistically distinct. Overall, the comparison between the square roots of the AVEs and the interconstruct correlations confirms that each latent variable captures unique variance not shared with others. Thus, the measurement model satisfies the Fornell–Larcker criterion and demonstrates adequate discriminant validity [50].
The results indicated that the χ2 statistic was significant and relatively large (χ2 = 883.89, p < 0.001; χ2/df = 3.40). These results suggested a potential problem with the model’s fit. However, they are not unusual given χ2’s high sensitivity to large sample sizes. For sample sizes larger than 400, χ2 values tend to be consistently large and statistically significant, and therefore, this index is a limited criterion for assessing model fit [44]. Further examination revealed that the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) was 0.05 and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was 0.06. These values were below the recommended maximum of 0.08, supporting the model’s absolute fit [44,51]. In addition, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) values were 0.95 and 0.94, respectively. These figures were above the recommended minimum of 0.90, supporting the model’s incremental fit [44,51]. Overall, given the support for both absolute and incremental fit indices, the measurement model showed an acceptable level of goodness-of-fit, suggesting that it is appropriate to proceed with the structural model analysis.

4.2. Structural Model Assessment and Hypotheses Testing

The validated measurement model was subsequently transformed into the theorized structural model, leading to noticeable changes in the model fit indices. The χ2 value increased to 1203.65 (p < 0.001; χ2/df = 4.51), and the SRMR exceeded the recommended cut-off (>0.08), indicating that the introduction of structural paths may have introduced additional misfit. However, the RMSEA remained within the acceptable range (0.08), reflecting reasonable absolute fit. Both the CFI (0.92) and TLI (0.91) decreased relative to the measurement model. While these incremental fit values still fall within commonly accepted thresholds of greater than 0.90 [44,51], the decline suggests that the structural specification imposed greater strain on the model.
Taken together, the deterioration in χ2, SRMR, and incremental fit indices implies the possibility of residual correlations, omitted paths, or alternative model structures not captured in the theorized model. Although the overall fit remains acceptable for hypothesis testing, these indicators warrant cautious interpretation, as they suggest potential areas of misspecification that future research should examine more closely.
The examination of the coefficients of determination (R2) showed that OCBI had an R2 of 0.24, indicating that job engagement explained 24% of its variance. In contrast, the R2 for OCBO was 0.10, suggesting that organization engagement accounted for 10% of its variance. The R2 for burnout was 0.17, indicating that job engagement, organization engagement, OCBI, and OCBO jointly explained 17% of the variance in burnout. Notably, the highest R2 value was observed for intention to quit (0.39), meaning that burnout explained 39% of its variance. Collectively, these results suggest that the predictors accounted for a meaningful proportion of variance in the key outcome variables, thereby supporting the explanatory power and overall validity of the structural model.
The results of the direct effects analysis showed that job engagement was positively related to OCBI (β = 0.56, p < 0.001), supporting H1. Similarly, organization engagement had a positive impact on OCBO (β = 0.41, p < 0.001), affirming H2. These findings indicate that employees with high job engagement are more likely to display helping behaviors toward coworkers. In contrast, those who are highly involved with their organization are more inclined to demonstrate behaviors that support organizational goals.
Furthermore, as expected, job engagement was negatively related to burnout (β = –0.21, p < 0.001), supporting H3 and suggesting that highly engaged employees experience less emotional exhaustion. However, the effect of organization engagement on burnout was not significant (β = –0.06, p > 0.05), failing to support H4. This finding suggests that identification with the organization does not reduce burnout.
Regarding the effects of organizational citizenship behaviors on burnout, OCBI had a significant positive impact (β = 0.20, p < 0.001), supporting H5 and suggesting that interpersonal helping behaviors may increase strain by depleting emotional resources. Conversely, OCBO had a significant negative impact on burnout (β = –0.36, p < 0.001). This finding did not align with the predicted positive relationship, failing to support H6. It implies that organization-directed citizenship behaviors may serve as a resource-enhancing mechanism that mitigates exhaustion rather than worsening it.
The mediation analyses revealed that OCBI significantly mediated the relationship between job engagement and burnout. The significant positive indirect effect (β = 0.06, p < 0.01) supported H7. This finding indicates a “double-edged sword” mechanism, whereby job engagement directly reduces burnout (as shown in H3) but indirectly contributes to it through OCBI. Conversely, OCBO significantly and negatively mediated the relationship between organization engagement and burnout (β = –0.11, p < 0.001). This finding suggests that when employees are highly engaged with their organization, the resulting increase in OCBO reduces burnout, contrary to the conceptualization in H8.
Finally, burnout was strongly and positively associated with intention to quit (β = 0.64, p < 0.001), confirming H9. This finding indicates that bank employees with higher burnout levels are more likely to resign.
Figure 2 shows the standardized path coefficients and R2 values for all constructs. Table 3 presents the path analysis results and the hypothesis-testing decisions.
In summary, the results show that job engagement promotes OCBI, while organization engagement enhances OCBO. Job engagement reduces burnout, but organization engagement does not. OCBI increases burnout, whereas OCBO unexpectedly reduces it. The mediation analyses further reveal that OCBI transmits a small but significant portion of job engagement’s effect on burnout in a strain-enhancing manner, while OCBO mediates the impact of organization engagement by lowering burnout—contrary to the hypothesized direction. Finally, burnout strongly predicts intention to quit. Collectively, these findings highlight that engagement and citizenship behaviors exert distinct and sometimes opposing influences on employee strain and turnover intentions.

5. Discussion

The current study aimed to investigate the relationships among job engagement, organization engagement, OCBI, OCBO, burnout, and intention to quit in the high-demand banking context. The findings offer both theoretical contributions and practical implications. Moreover, they align with the applied science perspective proposed by Espina-Romero [52], which emphasizes that organizational research should directly inform socially responsible and sustainable workplace interventions.
Consistent with the predicted relationships based on earlier studies [27,28,29], job engagement significantly influenced OCBI, whereas organization engagement significantly impacted OCBO. These results support the multidimensional nature of engagement. Specifically, the findings indicate that job-engaged employees are more likely to assist their coworkers. In contrast, employees who feel emotionally attached to their organization are more inclined to engage in behaviors that benefit organizational interests. These results also align with the reciprocity concept proposed by SET [17,18], suggesting that employees who invest physical, emotional, and cognitive resources in their job tasks—because they receive support and favorable treatment—may reciprocate with voluntary, prosocial actions. Drawing from Espina-Romero’s [52] work, these findings also carry broader implications for understanding how engagement-driven behaviors contribute to labor sustainability. They suggest that when employees experience positive exchanges with their organizations and perceive strong alignment with their roles, they are more likely to demonstrate discretionary efforts. Such patterns of behavior help cultivate a stable, committed workforce—an essential element of labor sustainability [27,29].
This study confirmed that job engagement reduces burnout, consistent with previous research [33,34]. In line with the JD–R model [19], this finding suggests that job engagement functions as a personal resource that protects employees from psychological strain [33,34]. However, the anticipated negative relationship between organization engagement and burnout was not supported. This contrasts with earlier studies [34,35] identifying organizational identification as a buffer against stress. A plausible explanation is that in banking institutions characterized by persistent pressure and high-performance demands, organization engagement may be insufficient to generate the coping resources necessary to counteract strain. Viewed through the JD–R model [19], organization engagement may fail to mitigate burnout when the intensity of job demands overwhelms its buffering capacity. Thus, strong emotional attachment to the organization does not necessarily translate into lower emotional exhaustion in highly demanding work settings such as banking.
Extending this insight beyond the banking sector and in line with Espina-Romero’s [52] applied science perspective, these findings highlight a broader labor sustainability challenge: although job engagement can reduce burnout, organizational attachment alone cannot safeguard well-being in environments marked by escalating demands. Consequently, workplaces across industries should prioritize policies that strengthen resource-building practices, redesign overly demanding roles, and cultivate sustainable and socially responsible working conditions.
The findings supported a positive association between OCBI and burnout. This is consistent with prior research indicating that interpersonal discretionary behaviors can be emotionally taxing and lead to increased exhaustion [13,38]. This suggests that OCBI in banking environments, although socially desirable, may become burdensome when employees are overloaded. In contrast, OCBO negatively predicted burnout—a finding that diverges from the original hypothesis but aligns with emerging work on the resource-enhancing potential of organization-directed behaviors. Employees who engage in OCBO may receive recognition and support, which ultimately helps reduce stress [53,54,55]. Thus, based on the JD–R model [19], OCBI may function as a resource-consuming behavior, whereas OCBO may serve as a resource-building behavior. Translating these results into socially responsible workplace interventions, the contrasting resource dynamics of OCBI and OCBO highlight practical implications for labor sustainability: organizations should design workloads, recognition systems, and support structures that mitigate the hidden costs of interpersonal helping while fostering the resource-building potential of organization-focused behaviors.
The mediation results reveal a complex mechanism through which different forms of engagement affect employee well-being. In line with SET [17,18] and the JD–R model [19], the study found that job engagement had a paradoxical, or double-edged, effect: it directly reduces burnout but indirectly increases it through OCBI. This suggests that employees who are highly absorbed and enthusiastic in their work may voluntarily support others. Yet, such interpersonal citizenship behaviors can deplete emotional and cognitive resources, ultimately contributing to burnout. In contrast, the negative mediation of OCBO in the relationship between organization engagement and burnout contradicts the assumption of a resource-depleting effect. Rather than exacerbating exhaustion, OCBO reinforces a sense of purpose and reciprocity toward the organization, thereby mitigating burnout. This finding aligns with research indicating that organization-focused citizenship behaviors increase recognition and support, enhancing employees’ sense of self-worth and reducing stress [53,54,55]. By demonstrating how citizenship behaviors can either drain or replenish resources, the results underscore practical implications for labor sustainability—particularly the need for management strategies that reduce interpersonal overload while promoting organizational practices that cultivate meaning, reciprocity, and well-being.
Finally, the strong positive relationship between burnout and intention to quit confirms previous findings that high-demand, emotionally exhausting work environments foster turnover intention [11,12,32]. This result also aligns with COR theory [20], which posits that resource-depleted workers are more likely to consider withdrawal as a self-protective strategy. Translating these insights into socially responsible workplace interventions is essential [52]. The results underscore the need for organizational interventions that mitigate chronic resource depletion, strengthen employee resilience, and support long-term workforce sustainability—particularly in sectors characterized by high emotional labor, sustained workload pressures, and intensive interpersonal demands.

5.1. Theoretical Contributions

This study makes several theoretical contributions to the literature on employee engagement, organizational citizenship behaviors, and burnout in high-demand service settings such as banking. First, by concurrently analyzing job and organization engagement, this study contributes to the conceptualization of engagement as a multidimensional construct with distinct outcomes. The results show that job engagement enhances OCBI and reduces burnout, whereas organization engagement influences OCBO without affecting burnout. This distinction highlights the importance of differentiating between work-centric and organization-centric engagement in predicting extra-role behavior and well-being. These findings also extend the use of SET [17,18] by demonstrating that foci of engagement result in associated forms of reciprocity—with colleagues or the organization—depending on where employees perceive the exchange relationship to be strongest. They further extend the JD–R model [19] by showing that, of the two engagement constructs, only job-focused engagement functions as a personal resource that protects employees from psychological strain.
Second, the study also extends the JD–R model [19] by demonstrating the divergent well-being implications of OCBI and OCBO. The findings indicate that OCBI can act as a resource-draining behavior that increases burnout, while OCBO can function as a resource-building behavior that decreases burnout. This distinction illustrates the usefulness of the JD–R framework in explaining how different forms of citizenship behaviors operate as either demands or resources depending on their focus and valence.
Third, the study reveals a paradoxical duality of job engagement by empirically demonstrating a complex interaction among job engagement, OCBI, and burnout. More specifically, the results indicate that although job engagement has a direct protective effect against burnout, it also indirectly contributes to burnout through OCBI. Extending the JD–R model’s concept of resource depletion [19], these findings suggest that positive motivational states may inadvertently contribute to self-imposed overload, leading to burnout. These results offer new insights into the resource trade-offs inherent in the relationship between job engagement and OCBI in highly demanding work contexts.
Finally, the strong positive association between burnout and intention to quit reinforces the propositions of COR theory [20], which posits that individuals strive to gain, maintain, and protect valued resources such as energy, time, and emotional stability. As burnout undermines these resources, employees engage in psychological withdrawal to preserve what remains, thereby intensifying their intention to quit.

5.2. Managerial Implications

The results of this study have several practical implications for managers seeking to enhance Thai bank employees’ well-being and retention rates. First, based on the differential effects of job and organization engagement, human resource development efforts should build both dimensions of engagement in a balanced way. Bank managers can improve employees’ job engagement by providing organizational support, treating them fairly, granting autonomy, and offering opportunities to use their skills [24,56]. Meanwhile, organization engagement can be promoted through recognition, transparent communication, and inclusive decision-making [24,56]. These initiatives are beneficial, as improved job engagement enhances employees’ OCBI and reduces burnout, while enhanced organization engagement strengthens their OCBO.
Second, the finding that OCBI can have the unintended consequence of increasing burnout underscores the importance of responsible management. While helping behaviors are essential [27,29], Thai banks should monitor workload and emotional labor demands to prevent interpersonal helping from becoming a hidden source of strain. Managers should therefore establish clear role boundaries and ensure equitable distribution of tasks to avoid overload and burnout. In contrast, given that OCBO has a resource-augmenting function, managers should adopt strategies that encourage employees to engage in organization-directed discretionary behaviors (e.g., proactive problem-solving and process improvement). These strategies bolster employees’ psychological connection to the organization [23,29], which may enhance their resilience to work-related stressors and reduce burnout.
Third, the findings demonstrate the need for interventions to prevent burnout. Given the strong association between burnout and intention to quit, bank managers should establish routine monitoring of burnout indicators and provide psychological support systems for employees experiencing strain. Mindfulness-based stress reduction programs represent one such intervention [40,57]. Training managers to identify and intervene at the earliest stages of burnout can substantially reduce employees’ intention to leave and foster sustainable retention.
Finally, the results highlight the importance of developing a resource-conserving culture in high-pressure environments. Practices such as promoting recovery, offering flexible work arrangements, and cultivating a climate of appreciation help employees replenish personal resources, interrupting the cycle of engagement-driven depletion [19,20,57,58]. By integrating engagement, citizenship, and well-being initiatives within a resource-based management philosophy, banking institutions in Thailand can sustain high performance without compromising employee health.

5.3. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

These findings contribute to both theory and practice. However, they also have several limitations. First, this study employed convenience sampling, which may undermine the representativeness of the sample [41]. Employees were recruited from a select number of banks, and factors such as organizational culture, job role, tenure, and regional differences may influence engagement, organizational citizenship behaviors, and burnout. As a result, the findings might not generalize to other banking employees or to employees in different industries with similarly high demand. Future studies should use stratified or multi-stage sampling in multiple organizations and regions to enhance the external validity of the findings.
Second, the study used a cross-sectional design, which limits the ability to make causal inferences about the relationships among the studied variables [59]. Future studies could employ longitudinal designs to examine changes in these relationships over time. Longitudinal studies provide more substantial evidence of causality.
Third, the study did not account for potential confounding variables that may have affected the observed relationships [60]. Factors such as perceived organizational support, workload, leadership style, and individual differences may influence both burnout and intention to quit. Incorporating these variables as controls in future studies would improve the validity of the results.
Lastly, although the overall model demonstrated an acceptable fit for hypothesis testing, the observed deterioration in χ2, SRMR, and incremental fit indices suggests potential areas of structural misspecification [44]. These patterns may reflect residual correlations, omitted paths, or alternative model configurations that were not captured in the current theorized framework. Such indications call for cautious interpretation of the model’s conclusions and highlight the need for future research to systematically test competing structural specifications, incorporate additional theoretically relevant paths, and examine the model’s robustness across alternative samples and contexts.

6. Conclusions

This study advances our understanding of how engagement-related mechanisms unfold within high-pressure service environments by integrating job engagement, organization engagement, OCBs, burnout, and intention to quit into a single resource-based model. The findings reveal that job engagement, often assumed to be universally beneficial, operates as a double-edged mechanism. While it stimulates interpersonal citizenship (OCBI), this discretionary support behavior also accelerates resource depletion and ultimately heightens burnout. In contrast, organization engagement channels employee energy toward organization-focused citizenship (OCBO), a resource-conserving mechanism that mitigates burnout. Thus, OCBI and OCBO represent distinct pathways through which engagement either drains or protects resources in demanding service roles. Finally, burnout emerges as the critical turning point at which accumulated resource loss translates into a higher intention to quit. Overall, this model shifts the understanding of engagement from a purely protective factor to a dynamic mechanism that can both conserve and deplete employee resources under high-pressure service conditions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.R. and P.R.; methodology, K.R. and P.R.; validation, K.R. and P.R.; formal analysis, K.R. and P.R.; writing—original draft preparation, K.R.; writing—review and editing, P.R.; visualization, K.R. and P.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Institute for Population and Social Research, Mahidol University (COA. No. 2017/07-161, 27 July 2017).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Participation was completely voluntary, and all responses were collected anonymously without any personally identifiable information.

Data Availability Statement

The primary data used in this study were collected through paper-based questionnaires from employees of 21 financial institutions in Thailand. Due to organizational confidentiality considerations, the data are not publicly available. The dataset has been anonymized to remove any personally identifiable information. Anonymized and aggregated data may be provided by the corresponding author upon reasonable request and subject to institutional approval.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express sincere gratitude to all participants for their valuable time and cooperation in completing the survey.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
OCBIOrganizational Citizenship Behavior directed toward Individuals
OCBOOrganizational Citizenship Behavior directed toward the Organization
JD–RJob Demands–Resources
SETSocial Exchange Theory:
CORConservation of Resources
CB-SEMCovariance-Based Structural Equation Modeling
CFAConfirmatory factor analysis
CRComposite reliability
JEJob Engagement
OEOrganization Engagement
BOBurnout
ITQIntention to Quit

References

  1. Ciba, K. Banking in Thailand. Statista. 7 August 2025. Available online: https://www.statista.com/topics/8709/banking-in-thailand/#topicOverview (accessed on 29 October 2025).
  2. Long, K. The Banker’s Top 30 ASEAN Banks 2024. The Banker. 24 May 2024. Available online: https://www.thebanker.com/content/92ca91f8-a0df-5fc7-969d-fcd07b4aee9d (accessed on 29 November 2025).
  3. Uppathampracha, R.; Anwar, M. The mediating role of hope and cognitive crafting in the relationship between authentic leadership and innovative employee behavior. Banks Bank Syst. 2023, 18, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Srisawang, W.; Aujirapongpan, S. Enhancing the adaptation of bank employees to support the digital transformation era: Case study of a Thai bank in Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand. J. Public Adm. Manag. 2023, 2, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  5. Boonparn, C.; Rurkwararuk, W.; Pooncharoen, N.; Leamprecha, N. The relationship of internal marketing and organizational citizenship behavior and brand citizenship behavior on credit card issuers’ call-center staff in Thailand. J. Community Dev. Res. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2020, 13, 55–68. [Google Scholar]
  6. Peng, B.; Potipiroon, W. The effect of job insecurity on bank employees’ job stress and job burnout during COVID-19: A moderated mediation model. ABAC J. 2022, 42, 38–56. [Google Scholar]
  7. Yaodam, P.; Silphiphat, K. Factors related to burnout of employees in government bank. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Res. Asia 2024, 30, 71–90. [Google Scholar]
  8. Afshan, G.; Kashif, M.; Sattayawaksakul, D.; Cheewaprakobkit, P.; Wijenayake, S. Abusive supervision, supervisor undermining, and turnover intentions: Mediation of quiescent silence and desire to seek revenge among Thai banking frontliners. Manag. Res. Rev. 2022, 45, 1479–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Soythong, K. Influence of transformational leadership on the relationship among organizational commitment, intention to leave, and innovation capability among bank employees in Nakhon Phanom Province, Thailand. J. Roi Kaensarn Acad. 2023, 8, 467–483. [Google Scholar]
  10. Saks, A.M. Caring human resources management and employee engagement. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2022, 32, 100835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bai, Y.; Zhou, J.; He, W. How employee job burnout, work engagement, and turnover intention relate to career plateau during the epidemic. Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, 394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Heyns, M.M.; McCallaghan, S.; de Wet, E.H. The role of supervisor support and basic psychological needs in predicting work engagement, burnout and turnover intentions in a medical contract research service setting. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2022, 18, 2981–2988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Nguyen, T.D.; Luu, N.; Gregory, G.; Nguyen, H.; Nguyen, H.M. Too much of a good thing? The impact of organizational citizenship behaviors on emotional exhaustion and next-day work engagement. Australas. Mark. J. 2025, 2025, 14413582251349557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Parayitam, S.; Usman, S.A.; D’Souza, G.S.; Rajakumar, C.S.C.; Kannan, B. Unfolding the relationship between emotional intelligence and performance: Organizational citizenship behavior as a mediator and emotional exhaustion as a moderator. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2025, 39, 1342–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhong, M.; Wayne, S.J.; Michel, E.J. When the past and the present collide: Contrast effect of sequential psychological contract breaches on employee outcomes. J. Manag. 2023, 49, 913–943. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gümüştaş, C.; Karataş Gümüştaş, N. How and for whom abusive supervision influences organizational citizenship behavior: The roles of burnout and workplace friendship. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 2025, 36, 70–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Blau, P.M. Justice in social exchange. Sociol. Inq. 1964, 34, 193–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cropanzano, R.; Mitchell, M.S. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. J. Manag. 2005, 31, 874–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. J. Manag. Psychol. 2007, 22, 309–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hobfoll, S.E. The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 50, 337–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jabutay, F.A.; Rungruang, P. Turnover intent of new workers: Social exchange perspectives. Asia Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 2021, 13, 60–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Nuchpramool, K.; Hsu, R.L.W.; Yeh, S.P. Rethinking leadership influence: The moderating role of transformational leadership in the relationships among perceived organizational support, psychological mechanisms, and extra-role behavior in Thailand’s luxury hotel sector. Sustainability 2025, 17, 9179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. 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]
  24. Saks, A.M. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J. Manag. Psychol. 2006, 21, 600–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hermanto, Y.B.; Srimulyani, V.A. The effects of organizational justice on employee performance using dimension of organizational citizenship behavior as mediation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Maslach, C.; Jackson, S.E.; Leiter, M.P. Maslach Burnout Inventory; Scarecrow Education: Lanham, MD, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  27. Urbini, F.; Chirumbolo, A.; Callea, A. Promoting individual and organizational OCBs: The mediating role of work engagement. Behav. Sci. 2020, 10, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Young, S.F.; Steelman, L.A.; Pita, M.D.; Gallo, J. Role-based engagement: Scale development and validation. J. Manag. Organ. 2024, 30, 248–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ashfaq, B.; Hamid, A. Person–organization fit and organization citizenship behavior: Modeling the work engagement as a mediator. Asia Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 2021, 13, 19–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ma, W.; Li, R.Y.M.; Manta, O.; Alzuman, A. Balancing wellbeing and responsibility: CSR’s role in mitigating burnout in hospitality under UN-SDGs. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Malta, G.; Plescia, F.; Zerbo, S.; Verso, M.G.; Matera, S.; Skerjanc, A.; Cannizzaro, E. Work and environmental factors on job burnout: A cross-sectional study for sustainable work. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Vinarski-Peretz, H.; Mashiach-Eizenberg, M.; Halperin, D. Workforce sustainability in our aging society: Exploring how the burden–burnout mechanism exacerbates the turnover intentions of employees who combine work and informal eldercare. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Houle, S.A.; Rich, B.L.; Comeau, C.A.; Blais, A.R.; Morin, A.J. The job engagement scale: Development and validation of a short form in English and French. J. Bus. Psychol. 2022, 37, 877–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mendoza-Llanos, R.; Acuña-Hormazábal, Á.; Pons-Peregort, O. We need engaged workers! A structural equation modeling study from the positive organizational psychology in times of COVID-19 in Chile. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Apaydin, E.A.; Rose, D.E.; McClean, M.R.; Mohr, D.C.; Yano, E.M.; Shekelle, P.G.; Stockdale, S.E. Burnout, employee engagement, and changing organizational contexts in VA primary care during the early COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2023, 23, 1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ramaci, T.; Santisi, G.; Curatolo, K.; Barattucci, M. Perceived organizational support moderates the effect of job demands on outcomes: Testing the JD-R model in Italian oncology nurses. Palliat. Support Care 2024, 22, 1338–1346. [Google Scholar]
  37. Yanbei, R.; Dongdong, M.; Yun, L.; Ning, W.; Fengping, Q. Does perceived organization support moderate the relationships between work frustration and burnout among intensive care unit nurses? A cross-sectional survey. BMC Nurs. 2023, 22, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ekowati, D.; Kasman, S.; Sulistiawan, J. Organizational citizenship behavior and emotional exhaustion: Examining the role of work-family conflict. J. Manag. Teor. Dan Terap. 2023, 16, 196–205. [Google Scholar]
  39. Tett, R.P.; Meyer, J.P. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Pers. Psychol. 1993, 46, 259–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jabutay, F.A.; Suwandee, S.; Jabutay, J.A. Testing the stress–strain–outcome model in Philippines-based call centers. J. Asia Bus. Stud. 2023, 17, 404–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Memon, M.A.; Thurasamy, R.; Cheah, J.H.; Ting, H.; Chuah, F.; Cham, T.H. Addressing common method bias, operationalization, sampling, and data collection issues in quantitative research: Review and recommendations. J. Appl. Struct. Equ. Model. 2023, 7, i–xiv. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Jabutay, F.; Novio, E.B.; Verbal, X.F. Strategic deception in call centers: Impacts on well-being, cognition, and work motivation. J. Gen. Psychol. 2024, 151, 597–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Bryman, A. Social Research Methods; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Babin, B.J.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, 7th ed.; Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hinkin, T.R. A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. J. Manag. 1995, 21, 967–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lee, K.; Allen, N.J. Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Shirom, A.; Melamed, S. A comparison of the construct validity of two burnout measures in two groups of professionals. Int. J. Stress Manag. 2006, 13, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mobley, W.H.; Horner, S.O.; Hollingsworth, A.T. An evaluation of precursors of hospital employee turnover. J. Appl. Psychol. 1978, 63, 408–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Espina-Romero, L. Ceniiac–An open window to applied knowledge. Ceniiac 2025, 1, e0001. [Google Scholar]
  53. Dubey, A.; Varma, A.; Riasudeen, S. Exploring the role of organizational identification in the nexus of psychological capital and organizational-oriented citizenship behaviors: Evidence from healthcare professionals in India. J. Health Organ. Manag. 2025, 39, 1217–1235. [Google Scholar]
  54. Halder, D.; Chatterjee, I. Work–life balance and OCB: A review of existing literature. In Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) in India: Emerging Trends and Future Directions; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 59–73. [Google Scholar]
  55. Gilbert, S.; Laschinger, H.K.; Leiter, M. The mediating effect of burnout on the relationship between structural empowerment and organizational citizenship behaviours. J. Nurs. Manag. 2010, 18, 339–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Saks, A.M.; Gruman, J.A.; Zhang, Q. Organization engagement: A review and comparison to job engagement. J. Organ. Eff. People Perform. 2022, 9, 20–49. [Google Scholar]
  57. Menardo, E.; Di Marco, D.; Ramos, S.; Brondino, M.; Arenas, A.; Costa, P.; Pasini, M. Nature and mindfulness to cope with work-related stress: A narrative review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5948. [Google Scholar]
  58. Shifrin, N.V.; Michel, J.S. Flexible work arrangements and employee health: A meta-analytic review. Work Stress 2022, 36, 60–85. [Google Scholar]
  59. Levin, K.A. Study design III: Cross-sectional studies. Evid. Based Dent. 2006, 7, 24–25. [Google Scholar]
  60. Frank, K.A. Impact of a confounding variable on a regression coefficient. Sociol. Methods Res. 2000, 29, 147–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 18 00107 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework.
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework.
Sustainability 18 00107 g001
Sustainability 18 00107 g002
Figure 2. Path Coefficients and R2 Values. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05. Italicized coefficients are not significant.
Figure 2. Path Coefficients and R2 Values. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05. Italicized coefficients are not significant.
Sustainability 18 00107 g002
Table 1. Factor loadings, CR Values, and AVEs.
Table 1. Factor loadings, CR Values, and AVEs.
ConstructItemFactor LoadingCRAVE
Job Engagement 0.830.62
JE10.847
JE20.701
JE30.803
Organization Engagement 0.800.57
OE10.763
OE20.769
OE30.730
OCBI 0.860.68
OCBI10.722
OCBI20.874
OCBI30.869
OCBO 0.940.72
OCBO10.728
OCBO10.846
OCBO20.801
OCBO40.885
OCBO50.891
OCBO60.925
Burnout 0.960.77
BO10.782
BO20.884
BO30.909
BO40.879
BO50.946
BO60.913
BO70.798
Intention to Quit 0.910.78
ITQ10.823
ITQ20.929
ITQ30.892
Table 2. Correlations and Square Roots of the AVEs.
Table 2. Correlations and Square Roots of the AVEs.
ConstructJEOEOCBIOCBOBOITQ
Job engagement (JE)0.79
Organization engagement (OE)0.23 ***0.75
OCBI0.56 ***0.14 ***0.82
OCBO0.64 ***0.37 ***0.63 ***0.85
Burnout (BO)−0.33 ***−0.21 ***−0.14 **−0.39 ***0.88
Intention to quit (ITQ)−0.35 ***−0.22 ***−0.11 *−0.35 ***0.63 ***0.88
Square roots of the AVEs are represented by diagonal values in bold. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Table 3. Hypotheses Testing Results.
Table 3. Hypotheses Testing Results.
HypothesisPathCoefficient βp-ValueDecision
H1JE → OCBI0.56<0.001Supported
H2OE → OCBO0.41<0.001Supported
H3JE → BO−0.21<0.001Supported
H4OE → BO−0.06>0.05Not Supported
H5OCBI → BO0.20<0.001Supported
H6OCBO → BO−0.36<0.001Not Supported
(Opposite Direction)
H7JE → OCBI → BO0.06<0.01Supported
H8OE → OCBO → BO−0.11<0.001Not Supported
(Opposite Direction)
H9BO → ITQ0.64<0.001Supported
JE = Job Engagement; OE = Organization Engagement; OCBI = Organizational Citizenship Behavior—Individual; OCBO = Organizational Citizenship Behavior—Organization; BO = Burnout; ITQ = Intention to Quit.
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

Ramdeja, K.; Rungruang, P. Engagement, Citizenship Behavior, Burnout, and Intention to Quit: Mechanisms Fostering Sustainable Well-Being and Driving Retention Among Thai Frontline Bank Employees. Sustainability 2026, 18, 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010107

AMA Style

Ramdeja K, Rungruang P. Engagement, Citizenship Behavior, Burnout, and Intention to Quit: Mechanisms Fostering Sustainable Well-Being and Driving Retention Among Thai Frontline Bank Employees. Sustainability. 2026; 18(1):107. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010107

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ramdeja, Kamonwon, and Parisa Rungruang. 2026. "Engagement, Citizenship Behavior, Burnout, and Intention to Quit: Mechanisms Fostering Sustainable Well-Being and Driving Retention Among Thai Frontline Bank Employees" Sustainability 18, no. 1: 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010107

APA Style

Ramdeja, K., & Rungruang, P. (2026). Engagement, Citizenship Behavior, Burnout, and Intention to Quit: Mechanisms Fostering Sustainable Well-Being and Driving Retention Among Thai Frontline Bank Employees. Sustainability, 18(1), 107. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010107

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