Next Article in Journal
Take-Over Safety Evaluation of Conditionally Automated Vehicles under Typical Highway Segments
Previous Article in Journal
Measuring the Construction Efficiency of Zero-Waste City Clusters Based on an Undesirable Super-Efficiency Model and Kernel Density Estimation Method
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Systems
Volume 11
Issue 9
10.3390/systems11090474
systems-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Driving Sustainable Change: The Power of Supportive Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Fostering Environmental Responsibility

by
Arif Jameel
1,
Zhiqiang Ma
1,
Peng Liu
2,*,
Abid Hussain
1,
Mingxing Li
1 and
Muhammad Asif
1
1
School of Management, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang 212013, China
2
Central Research Institute of Building and Construction Co., Ltd., No. 33 Xitucheng Road, Beijing 100088, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Systems 2023, 11(9), 474; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11090474
Submission received: 22 August 2023 / Revised: 8 September 2023 / Accepted: 13 September 2023 / Published: 14 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Systems Practice in Social Science)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Change and environmental trends are enormously influencing the globe. Businesses, societies, and people are all attempting to do their part to safeguard the environment. This study examines the impact of supportive leadership on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment (OCBE) and the mediating effect of psychological empowerment and affective commitment. The survey method was utilized. Data were gathered from 362 employees of the banking and pharmaceutical sectors for the present research. This research employed AMOS-SEM to analyze data and test the formulated hypotheses. The empirical results established that supportive leadership significantly influences workers’ OCBE. The results further corroborate that psychological empowerment and affective commitment mediate between supportive leadership and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. These findings have vital implications for managers and enterprises that seek to increase their sustainability and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. This research highlights the significant role of supportive leadership in stimulating psychological empowerment and affective commitment, which in turn affect organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. The present research broadens our understanding of leadership style and its influence on OCBE. The theoretical and managerial implications of organizational environmental sustainability and future research prospects are highlighted.

1. Introduction

As worldwide environmental prospects deteriorate and company management shifts its focus to sustaining viable ecological growth Bansal and Song [1], some notable experts have devoted time and effort to studying sustainable management in businesses. They deliberately tried to verify and balance environmental altering trends but neglected to draw attention to the level of employees [2]. This has received greater focus and diligence from workers. Because workers carry out corporate plans, their attitude toward the environment is critical to promoting business-level sustainability [3]. In this context, organizational citizenship behavior for the environment (OCBE) denotes workers’ ecological practices that companies do not expect and properly acknowledge. These practices supplement the social residents’ environmental protective approach and the green development strategic business analysis. Employees participate in OCBE at work, rigorously developing their environmental defense attitudes and conceptions to meet the company’s green strategic analysis and philosophy [4]. As a result, employees’ OCBE significantly impacts the business’s environmental presentation and practices [5,6,7].
Furthermore, because of previous experiences, it can be inferred that the employees who participate in OCBE are quite important. Interestingly, contemporary management scholars are expanding their interests in forming employees’ institutional sustenance and development Paillé, Chen, Boiral, and Jin [6], environmental self-care Zhang et al. [8], business environmental security processes Paillé, Boiral and Chen [5], business environmental issues Temminck, Mearns and Fruhen [7], and business environmental behaviors [9]. The research validates moral leadership Zhang, Chen, and Liu [8], and the president as sustenance for ecological security Priyankara et al. [10], which can boost employees’ OCBE. While some academics investigated the effects of leaders on organizational citizenship behavior for the environment, some revealed the influence of “responsible leadership” on OCBE.
There is a substantial amount of literature on leadership and OCBE, but less is known regarding the impact of supportive leadership, which has received less emphasis. The present research aims to address this research gap. Nonetheless, other investigations have explored the influence of different leadership types, for instance, transformational leadership and authentic and supportive leadership on OCBE, but with a focus on society, for long-term environmental growth and good transformation [11]. Many studies focused on environmental behavior at the strategic and organizational levels of viable institutional growth but ignored it at the worker level [2]. A thorough examination of prior research revealed the significance of leadership in green behavior [8,12]. Individual discretionary behavior is the focus of OCBEs. A formal incentive system is not directly inside the institution, but it helps the natural environment collectively and quickly, eventually leading to organizational sustainable growth [13]. The current study contributes to the literature on the interface of supportive leadership, OCBE, PE, and AC. Empirical evidence reveals that supportive leadership behaviors are vital in boosting workers’ OCBE [14]. Iqbal et al. [15] conducted a study in the banking sector of Pakistan. The study’s findings show a positive association between authentic leadership and OCBE.
This research aims to explore the impact of supportive leadership on workers’ OCBE in the context of the pharmaceutical and banking sectors in Pakistan. Secondly, considering the pivotal role of leadership and PE and AC in affecting employees’ environmental behaviors on the environment at the job, this research investigates the influence of supportive leadership on employees’ PE and AC perception. To the best of our knowledge, no study has been conducted on exploring the association between supportive leadership and PE and AC perception. This is novel research that aims to explore said relationship. If workers perceive leadership and PE and AC activities as fair, they will exhibit better organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment. Finally, studies about supportive leadership and PE and AC perception have been mostly conducted in developed nations; this study will fill this gap by focusing on the developing country of Pakistan. The remaining paper is organized as follows: a review of the literature and hypotheses development in the following part, followed by the paper’s materials and methods. The study’s conclusions and findings are detailed in the following section, followed by a discussion of the practical ramifications and limitations.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Theoretical Background

According to schema theory, how people see and think about circumstances, take actions, and solve issues are based on their cognitive schemas, which represent a variety of knowledge structures and organize frameworks for thinking occurrences or social experiences that shape and define a domain [16]. Schema serves as a cognitive foundation for comprehending and responding to managerial action. Employees use the cognitive maps derived from these relational schemas to make sense of their situations. Weick [17] defines interpersonal relationships as “relationships with others”. Previous researchers have recognized the significance of schema theory as a widespread and useful paradigm for organizing knowledge clusters, explaining leadership, and framing an assessment of organizational cognitive issues [18], and subordinates encode and evaluate incoming data using these schemas information on the supporting actions of supervisors. Workers are more likely to commit to firms and their green programs when they have supportive leadership. Supportive leaders emotionally, knowledge-wise, and instrumentally assist workers with their environmentally connected voluntary actions. Workers are more committed to the firm and its green behaviors due to psychological empowerment and affective commitment [19].

2.2. Supportive Leadership and OCBE

House established and expanded the notion of supportive leadership in 1981 with three primary elements: emotional, informational, and instrumental assistance. Supportive leadership (SL) is characterized as “SL occurs when a leader states concern for, and takes care of, the desires and inclinations of followers while making decisions” [20]. Trust, respect, collaboration, and emotional support are all fostered by supportive leaders. Supportive leaders assist their followers in resolving tough circumstances by being transparent, honest, and fair in relationships [21]. Supportive leadership includes three components: emotional, informational, and instrumental assistance. Leaders provide emotional assistance to their adherents by listening to their personal and family worries Tiippana [22], showing sympathy, and attempting to comprehend their adherents’ concerns [20]. Examples of informational assistance include army officials informing soldiers about the goal of impending operations, including workers in policymaking, and discussing the group’s policies [22]. Instrumental assistance can include but doesn’t have to be restricted to when a boss makes time and resources available to assist followers in executing activities that will help them advance in their careers [22]. Schema theory concerns how individuals think about their issues and take measures to solve them. Their behaviors are supported by cognitive-perceptual schemas that describe and exhibit the range of knowledge and understanding systems. In addition, they arrange frames for comprehending circumstances or social occurrences and offer a domain structure and meaning [16]. All knowledge and experiences are arranged into information units according to the schema. Accepting, comprehending, and returning to managerial conduct is a schema. Staff members form relationships with managers using the intellectual maps generated by these interactive schemas [23]. Previous academics acknowledged schema theory’s position and worth as a consistent and valued environment for clarifying and systematizing information, elucidating leadership, and structuring the study of reasoning and intellectual challenges in institutes. Workers utilize these knowledge schemas to analyze and analyze information regarding the leader’s supporting actions. Workers are more likely to commit to firms and their green programs when they have supportive leadership. Supportive leaders emotionally, knowledge-wise, and instrumentally assist workers with their environmentally connected voluntary actions. Workers are more committed to the firm and its green behaviors as a consequence of psychological empowerment and emotional support [19]. According to schema theory and academic assistance, supportive leadership has a direct and considerable impact on the OCBE. As a result, the subsequent hypothesis may be assumed:
H1. 
SL has a positive association with OCBE.

2.3. Supportive Leadership and Affective Commitment

Mercurio [24] proposes a conceptual paradigm in which affective commitment (AC) to the company is viewed as the essential element of organizational commitment in a current review. We assert that supportive leaders impact their followers’ sense of connection to and participation with the company, which is consistent with the existing leadership-commitment research. Social exchange theory (SET), as stated by Ribeiro et al. [25], provides the foundation for understanding the association between supportive leadership and AC. Particularly, trust and connection with leaders are established by constant contact with workers and an exchange of values, implying workers identify with leaders and the values these leaders inculcate in them in the business, grounded in the norm of reciprocity. According to Jeon and Choi [26], this identification with and connection to the leader leads to enhanced AC in workers. Likewise, Pillai and Williams [27] contend that supportive leaders are critical in generating greater affective commitment. This is particularly relevant in a service-oriented firm like Ghana’s savings and lending institutions (SLCs).
Moreover, Ribeiro et al. [28] found that supportive leadership is significantly connected to affective commitment. Nevertheless, regarding the influence of supportive leadership on the emotive, normative, and continuous components of commitment, there is little evidence in the existing research, mainly in Pakistan. A small number of empirical research have discovered that supportive leadership favors followers’ affective commitment [29,30], given the importance of these two variables in a service-oriented organization. We seek to investigate their connection from the perspective of a collectivist culture, as there has been little study in his field. As a result, we contend that supportive leadership will have a favorable impact on affective commitment and participation with the institute:
H2. 
SL has a positive association with AC.

2.4. Affective Commitment and OCBE

Employee organizational citizenship behavior, such as assisting teammates who are overburdened with work, coaching freshmen in the company, or implying instructive improvement, is critical in any company as such actions may provide companies with extra resources [31]. Prior study on management has shown the relevance of workers’ organizational citizenship behavior for the efficacy and competence of work groups and companies [32]. According to researchers, workers might engage in OCB in various ways [33]. Sun and Yoon [34] identified two aspects of OCB: OCB-Individual (OCBI) and OCB Organization (OCBO). Even though voluntary helpful activities are essential components of both dimensions, the aims of those behaviors differ. Helpful behaviors are displayed toward specific coworkers in OCBI, while these actions are displayed towards organizations in OCBO. Managers who assist teammates in filling up any lost work because of their absence, for example, are regarded to be conducting OCBI, but managers who offer to complete extra duties to assist the manufacturing department are thought to be performing OCBO. However, since the company is the target of affective commitment, citizenship activities tend to be oriented toward the organization [35]. Many investigations on the link between affective commitment and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment have found that affective commitment has a substantial and positive association with OCBE in various organizational contexts [36]. Founded on a SET, emotionally connected managers will likely demonstrate OCB reciprocal conduct. Employees are more inclined to get involved in OCBE in a high-quality social exchange relationship characterized by a high level of commitment since they have an ethical responsibility to provide beneficial outcomes that benefit their relational partners. [37].
H3. 
AC has a positive impact on OCBE.

2.5. Psychological Empowerment and Affective Commitment

According to the leader–member exchange theory, Dansereau Jr et al. [38], Workers who are given the authority to complete tasks and address difficulties on their own while upholding a positive atmosphere at the workplace will demonstrate more great reciprocal behaviors toward their job tasks, unit, and organization. Employees may also take on more responsibility and dedication to the organization as a result of this. It may assist other organizational members since they are not required to participate in job duties or leave unmanaged concerns. The individual in charge will take on more responsibility, which will help the division or the overall organization. Several empirical studies support this theoretical position of a considerable link between psychological empowerment and engagement. Alotaibi et al. [39] discovered, for example, that when an organization offers a harmonized work environment, it is far more possible to have engaged workers in conditions of meaningfulness (i.e., job enrichment, work-role fit), safety (i.e., supportive management and coworkers), and availability (i.e., resources availability). As a result, workers feel recognized at work, which improves employee psychological security and contributes to better engagement [40]. Psychologically empowered employees are more likely to encourage proactive behavior and behave freely [41]. Psychologically empowered employees are more dedicated to their jobs and companies [42,43]. Other researchers have found that empowered workers are more interested in their organizations and have lower quitting rates [44,45,46]. Salminen and Miettinen [46] demonstrate that supervisory support for growth improves affective commitment (AC), raising their chance of remaining in their present position. The greater the number of PEs experienced by nurses, the higher their affective commitment and the lower their desire to quit [47,48]. Other research has found that PE can assist employees in making good adjustments to their jobs and work units [43,49]. As a result, we suggest the following hypothesis:
H4. 
There is a significant association between PE and AC.

2.6. Supportive Leadership and Psychological Empowerment

Over the past few years, scholars and business professionals have been interested in research on psychological empowerment (PE) and leadership traits. Prior study has revealed a positive association between the two concepts, with the majority indicating that leadership culture affects a company’s culture. Experimental research in this area has revealed that supervisors who utilize a supportive leadership style are more likely to psychologically empower their coworkers [46,47]. According to a research study conducted by Barroso Castro et al. [50], supportive leadership considerably benefits psychological empowerment. Jong and Faerman [51] discovered a substantial association between the two leadership types (transformational and transactional) and PE while researching the effect of leadership types (transformational, transactional, non-interference) on employee PE. According to Seibert et al. [52] recent meta-analysis, supportive leadership favors PE. Based on the facts presented above, we predicted:
H5. 
There is a positive association between SL and PE.

2.7. Mediating Influence of Psychological Empowerment and Affective Commitment

The notion of psychological empowerment (PE) is derived from industrial-organizational psychology. Empowerment is a person’s ability to practice autonomy, choice, responsibility, and involvement in organizational decision-making [53]. The core concept of PE is psychologically linked to an object. Psychological empowerment is a subset of positive organizational behaviors under psychological behavior. Psychological empowerment boosts optimism and the pursuit of achievement and success [54]. It acts as a motivator and motivates people to achieve better levels of performance [55]. A prior study has found a link between PE and employee behavior [56]. They went on to say that PE considerably influences workers’ in-role and extra-role activities. Past study has found that leadership influences the psychological behavior of workers [57,58]. Leaders are agents that aim to link people and companies and change staff behavior to promote organizational success. On the other hand, the cultural viewpoint from high powers at a distance and workers’ behavior modification controlled by their manager’s behavior is a powerful foster of workers’ behavior and PE in the company [59].
Identifying and addressing basic wants, for instance, home “self-efficacy and self-identification”, are the origins of PE [57]. In addressing these basic demands, supportive leadership has a big advantage; this leadership type increases workers’ trust and safety. These “leaders” are also concerned about their workers’ personal lives and make every attempt to meet their needs or fulfill their demands. PE also fosters institutional effectiveness and instills a robust sense of responsibility in personnel. Affective commitment denotes a worker’s emotional desire to stay with the firm due to attachment sentiments [60,61]. It depicts the strong attitude that workers acquire toward their employers [46,62]. Workers extremely loyal to the company are more likely to attain institutional objectives and exhibit positive behaviors and higher performance [61,63].
Prior research has found that affective commitment (AC) can improve positive behaviors, e.g., OCBE [31,32,64]. Because PE is one of the characteristics that might raise AC, empowered workers are more emotionally engaged in their companies, which can improve their OCBE display [52]. According to Kaur and Mittal [65], if workers believe their job is relevant and meaningful, they shall display more favorable behaviors toward their job if the firm applies policies that increase their AC. Qing et al. [66] discovered some evidence relating to the above debate in their research, which revealed that AC partially plays a mediator role in the association between ethical leadership and AC.
Hence, if workers have a sense of psychological empowerment and affective commitment to an institute, they could be involved in more active and positive behaviors. Such as this could take in organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. Therefore, in this study, we hypothesized psychological empowerment and affective commitment as potential mediators. Figure 1. Hypothesized model is given below.
H6. 
PE mediates the effect of SL on OCBE.
H7. 
AC mediates the effect of SL on OCBE.

3. Methods

3.1. Sample and Procedure

The present study aims to shed light on the relationship between supportive leadership and OCBE. Researchers generated seven study hypotheses to investigate the direct and mediated connections between supportive leadership and OCBE. The present research used a cross-sectional design. The present research employed a sample of 473 individuals from the banking and pharmaceutical industries in Punjab, Pakistan, who completed a self-administered questionnaire. The survey was split into two parts. The first part discussed the demographical features of the respondents, which comprised age, gender, and education. In part two, Participants were requested to complete a questionnaire regarding supportive leadership and OCBE, psychological empowerment, and affective commitment. Data were gathered after the respondents’ voluntary permission and an overview of the research’s aims. The study was quantitative and deductive. The data were collected from February to April 2023 using a convenient sampling method.
We obtained 390 replies from the disseminated questionnaires; 362 out of 390 were relevant (response rate of 76%), and 28 were incomplete, which were omitted from the study. In addition, around 62% of the participants were males and 38% were females. Furthermore, we used Harman’s single-factor test to exclude the risk of bias. The overall variation explained throughout the test is 22.57%, just under 50%, indicating no bias in the study [67].

3.2. Measurement Development

The questionnaire items were adopted from earlier research. The Rafferty and Griffin [68] scale, which consists of three questions, was used to assess supportive leadership; the sample question was “My supervisor considers my personal feelings when implementing actions that will affect me.” The scale created by Boiral and Paillé [69] was used to assess organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. This scale contains five questions. The sample question was, “I undertake environmental actions that contribute positively to the image of my organization”. Spreitzer [70] created a 12-item four-dimensional empowerment scale for assessing psychological empowerment. Recent research has commonly used this scale [71,72]. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate all items. This scale is divided into four parts: meaning (“The work I do is meaningful to me.”), competence (“I have the skills necessary for my job.”), Self-determination (“I can decide on my own how to go about doing my work.”), and impact (“I have significant influence over what happens in my department.”). Meyer et al. [73] developed a 6-item scale to assess affective commitment. This scale has been widely utilized in various research and accurately evaluates the desired outcomes [74,75]. On a 5-point Likert scale, employees were asked to rate their Affective commitment. A sample question is: “I would be happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization”.

4. Data Analysis and Results

We employed AMOS 25.0 to evaluate the research hypotheses using SEM. We followed Anderson and Gerbing’s [76] advice of a two-step SEM strategy, starting with CFA to ensure model adequacy. A final hypothesized structural model was then examined to assess the links between all variables. “2/df, comparative fit index (CFI), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)” were among the fit indices used.

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 shows the statistical values for each observed variable’s mean, standard deviation, and Pearson’s correlations. The mean values varied from 2.56 to 3.32, with standard deviations ranging from 0.62 to 0.81. p value is ** p < 0.01 and * p < 0.05.

4.2. Measurement Model Assessment

In this research, the measurement model was tested using “Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)” [77], and the “standard factor loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, and composite reliability” of every component are shown in Table 2 Supportive leadership, Psychological empowerment, Affective commitment, and Organizational citizenship behavior for the environment have alpha coefficients of 0.91, 0.95, 0.74, and 0.86, respectively. These alpha exceed the proposed value of 0.70 [78]. The standardized loadings for Supportive leadership varied from 0.807 to 0.916, 0.706 to 0.953 for Psychological empowerment, 0.746 to 0.916 for Affective commitment, and 0.772 to 0.851 for OCBE. All factor loadings are more than 0.50 [78] and strongly contribute. The “composite reliability (CR)” varied from 0.73 to 0.87 for Supportive leadership, Psychological empowerment, Affective commitment, and OCBE, which is above the recommended value of 0.60 [79,80]. Discriminant validity of each component for which the empirical values of “average variance extracted (AVE)” are higher than the “inter-correlational values”, and values of AVE are also greater than 0.5 [81].
Moreover, we performed a serial-wise CFA to ensure that the model captured distinct constructs. The hypothesized four-factor model (SL, PE, AC, and OCBE) provided an acceptable fit to the data: χ2 = 2815.42, df = 1013, χ2/df = 2.779, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.05 and SRMR 0.06 (Table 3. The hypothesized four-factor measurement model is the best-fitted model among all other models in Table 3.
Each observed item exhibited substantial loadings on its corresponding latent variables (Table 3). The hypothesized four-factor model was compared to other confirmatory factor analysis models. Table 3’s fit indices illustrate the components’ convergent and discriminant validity, giving a solid foundation for assessing the suggested four-factor model.

4.3. Hypothesis Testing

We employed a comprehensive SEM model with maximum likelihood estimation in “AMOS” software to evaluate our research hypotheses. At the same time, correlations (given in Table 2) and SEM results corroborated Hypotheses 1–5 (shown in Table 4). As indicated by H1, there is a substantial connection between supportive leadership and OCBE. We discovered evidence for the first Hypothesis (β = 0.26, t = 4.82, p <0.01), as shown in Table 2 and Table 4. The second hypothesis anticipates a positive relationship between SL and AC. Hypothesis 2 had support (β = 0.47, t = 8.41, p < 0.01). The H3 anticipates a positive relationship between SL and OCBE. Hypothesis 3 had support (standardized β = 0.29, t = 5.63, p < 0.01). The fourth hypothesis of our study anticipates a positive association between PE and AC. Hypothesis 4 had support (β = 0.33, t = 6.72, p < 0.01). The H5 of our research anticipates a positive association between SL and PE. H5 had support (β = 0.41, t = 7.11, p < 0.01).
In the second stage, Hypotheses 6 and 7 are analyzed by reviewing the 4 Baron and Kenny [82] prerequisites for mediating analysis: (1) the explanatory variable has to forecast the dependent variable, (2) the projected mediating variable has to be forecasted by the explanatory variable, (3) the projected mediating variable forecast the dependent variable, and (4), the direct relationship between the explanatory variable and the dependent variable has to lessen (if possible need to be not significant for complete mediation) once the mediating variable is inserted.
It Is shown in Table 4 that SL accomplished Baron and Kenny [82] first prerequisite (1), as SL exhibited substantial paths to OCBE (β = 0.26, p < 0.01) and affective commitment (β = 0.47, p < 0.01). Concerning the 2nd prerequisite of mediation, PE and AC accomplish Baron and Kenny [82] criteria. In Figure 2, SL considerably anticipated PE (β = 0.39, p < 0.01) and AC (β = 0.15, p < 0.01), whereas in the third criterion, the first mediating variable, PE predicted dependent variable (β = 0.35, p < 0.01) and second mediating variable AC considerably predicted dependent variable OCBE (β = 0.52, p < 0.01). In the last prerequisite, the direct association between supportive leadership and affective commitment in the attendance of mediating variable psychological empowerment is reduced (from β = 0.47 to β = 0.15) and is numerically significant. It offered partial mediation. Likewise, the direct association between transformational leadership and OCBE in the attendance of mediating variables vanishes and turns insignificant (β = 0.08, see Figure 2), exhibiting the whole mediation effect. Altogether, these outcomes were statistically backed. Furthermore, we evaluated the indirect effects of mediation Preacher and Hayes [83]. We conducted a bootstrapping test with 10,000 samples at 99% confidence to identify the bottom and upper limits and z values. The bootstrapping findings are shown in Table 5, and they reveal that psychological empowerment has a strong indirect influence on the supportive leadership-OCBE connection. (Estimate = 0.13; z = 4.56 and p < 0.01) and AC has a significant indirect effect on the supportive leadership-OCBE association (estimate = 0.21; z = 2.88; p < 0.01).

5. Discussion

This study examined the framework that explains how supportive leadership (SL) improves OCB in Pakistani organizations’ environments. Several hypotheses were tested. We investigated the role of PE and AC as mediators using AMOS-SEM. The statistical findings support that psychological empowerment and affective commitment influence the relationship between supportive leadership and OCBE. The outcomes of this research demonstrate that leaders’ environmental assistance has a good influence on workers’ organizational citizenship behavior towards the environment in response to the calls of earlier studies [8,10,13,84]. The favorable impact of a leader’s environmental support via OCBE aligns with the findings of Raineri and Paillé [85], who researched business schools in France and discovered that “leadership” is favorably connected with workers’ organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. While making decisions, SL considers adherents’ goals and inclinations and is also held accountable for workers’ proactive, good behaviors [20]. Trust, admiration, emotional backing, and collaboration are created in light of SL behavior. This collaboration and psychological assistance assist workers in resolving difficult problems, being open and truthful, and openly interacting with institutional and societal challenges, such as environmental issues. According to the present study, emotive, informational, and instrumental backing helps workers participate in good behaviors, i.e., organizational citizenship behavior for the environment, consistent with earlier findings [20,21].
Supportive leadership and affective commitment are directly related. Previous research in Ghana’s services industry found that supportive leaders play a vital role in producing higher levels of commitment [27,86]. Affective commitment correlates favorably with OCBE, consistent with earlier research [35]. Another hypothesis in our study claimed that psychological empowerment is connected to affective commitment. It is also supported by prior research; for example, Salminen and Miettinen [46] found that supervisory support for growth promotes affective commitment (AC), increasing their chances of staying in their current employment. Workers’ affective commitment increases, and their inclination to resign decreases as PE increase [47,48]. Supportive leaders psychologically empower their personnel; these findings align with the results of Barroso Castro, Villegas Perinan, and Casillas Bueno [50], who discovered that supportive leadership significantly influences psychological empowerment.
Moreover, the research includes a mediation framework of PE and AC of workers about supportive leadership and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment, which improves workers’ ecological performance and is also seen to be important for ecological concerns. The leader encourages his supporters to be involved in specific good behaviors. Followers’ “self-efficacy”, or psychological empowerment, when linked to the behaviors of a leader, multiplies these behaviors Ren and Chadee [87], enhancing the leader’s inventiveness and faith in himself. Employees who feel more psychologically empowered are more likely to think of themselves as important, involved, and devoted. They can deal with obstacles more successfully and engage in demanding voluntary behavior. In a similar vein, the present study’s findings experimentally confirmed that psychological empowerment plays a favorable mediation effect in supportive leadership for OCBE.
Affective commitment, as a state of mind, fosters attachment to a desired object and organization, sharing optimism and striving for achievement and success [57]. It motivates workers to perform at a greater. Leaders, as agents, link people and organizations by encouraging employees’ affective commitment, hence changing workers’ behavior toward organizational success. Affective commitment also promotes individuals to be more productive in the workplace and fosters a robust sense of responsibility for the company. The present study employed affective commitment as a mediator for supportive leadership and OCBE. Workers with an affective connection to the organization might participate in more pre-emptive and positive behaviors, such as organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. The study’s important findings demonstrated that affective commitment influences the relationship between SL behaviors and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. This is also consistent with earlier research findings [58,88]. According to the preceding discussion, OCBE is highly connected with supportive leadership among Pakistani banking and pharmaceutical personnel. Furthermore, psychological empowerment and affective commitment serve as mediators in this interaction.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

The findings of the present research offer significant additions to the literature. Initially, this research shows a link between supportive leadership and OCBE. According to “social learning theory (SLT)”, individual behavior is mostly learned through observation; consequently, direct and indirect learning happens. Individuals might learn by their behavior by witnessing others, according to SLT. According to SLT, workers learn by concentrating on a role model and assuming behavior by finding what actions are rewarded [89]. This study assists in the understanding of how leaders’ support results in OCBE. Theoretically, SLT explains leadership’s complicated mechanism, notably supportive leadership with organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. The supportive leader takes extra care of the participants’ interests, exerts his influence on them, and motivates staff members, affecting their beliefs and self-assessment toward leaders and identification with the institution. Workers are affected and agree with the standards and principles of leaders as they identify with leaders and institutions and observe leaders and institutional environmental problems. They also work on behalf of leaders to ensure the organization’s long-term development and environmental preservation [85]. Supportive leaders aim to incorporate and safeguard each stakeholder’s best interests and benefits, including their environmental interests. In line with the scope of social identity theory, this facilitates employee participation in the OCBE. Supportive leadership and leader identification could be effective explanatory processes in such instances. Moreover, “optimal distinctiveness theory”, an expansion of “social identity theory”, emphasizes how people must constantly be both different from and similar to others simultaneously.
Furthermore, schema theory claims that it is a means of thinking about workers’ conditions and making efforts to solve their difficulties. Workers’ activities are supported by cognitive-perceptual schemas, which embody and demonstrate the diversity of awareness and knowledge structures, provide structures for comprehending circumstances, and give shape and meaning to a domain [16]. Previous academics considered schema theory a useful framework for systematizing information, describing leadership, and examining rational and intellectual difficulties in institutes. Workers utilize this knowledge schema to analyze and comprehend information regarding leaders’ supportive behaviors. Workers are more likely to be dedicated to organizations and their green initiatives when they have supportive leadership. Supportive leaders emotionally, knowledge-wise, and instrumentally assist workers with their environmentally connected voluntary behaviors. Trust, respect, PE, and emotional backing are all fostered by supportive leaders [90]. Employees exhibit OCBE due to their psychological empowerment and AC to the company and its green behaviors.
Lastly, this research contributed to the “value-belief-norm theory” as a norm of assisting pro-societal behavior that stems from one’s principles and feels that these principles are under threat. These threats could be reduced by proactive action and values restored [91]. A leader’s incentive for their supporters’ good behavior boosts their innovation and efficiency, as well as their faith in themselves or self-efficacy. Situational variables influence self-efficacy beliefs, which are influenced by the adjacent environment. Unfavorable ecological changes increase workers’ drive, “self-efficacy, and self-responsibility”, encouraging them to participate in efforts that might reverse these unfavorable events. This is especially true of environmental deterioration. Pro-environmental behavior creates the impression that one is more skilled and capable of dealing with more challenging environmental chores and obstacles in the future. As a result, we contributed that this shall increase the impression of self-efficacy, and workers shall use it for pro-environmental behaviors such as OCBE.

5.2. Managerial Implications

The present study investigation has significant significance for managers, policy formulators, and human resource development practitioners in several ways. First, statistical data from this study revealed that supportive leadership is likely to bring up OCBE. Workers can benefit from supportive leadership by changing their attitude toward the environment and becoming more liable and pre-emptive in environmental-saving behaviors. Moreover, organizational citizenship behavior for the environment is a necessary byproduct of a worker’s success and well-being. As a result, by selecting SL and giving proper training to current managers, the attributes of these leaders may be used to make workers more proficient in practicing organizational citizenship behavior for the environment and changing workers’ perceptions of their values. Secondly, psychological empowerment, sentiments, and trust in environmental concerns are important in creating ecologically beneficial behaviors. Management and policy formulators should develop policies and teach staff in ways that increase workers’ self-efficacy and empowerment toward the environment. Thirdly, the present research emphasizes affective commitment. It also explains how supportive leadership improves employee OCBEs via affective commitment. Moreover, it provides a novel theoretical lens to flesh out worker OCBEs by complementing current techniques from the SET, self-determination, and the theory of planned behavior. Conclusions

6. Conclusions

This study examined the framework that explains how supportive leadership (SL) improves OCB in Pakistani organizations’ environments. Several hypotheses were tested. We investigated the role of PE and AC as mediators using AMOS-SEM. The data acquired from personnel in Pakistan’s service and industrial industries were examined using AMOS-SEM. The empirical findings show SL is favorably and significantly related to worker OCBE. Positive organizational behavior promotes proactive behavior by workers towards the organization and society. The study highlighted supportive leaders as playing a favorable influence in facilitating workers’ OCBEs. Moreover, the use of PE and AC as mediating variables in the association between supportive leadership and OCBE was examined. The statistical findings of the research revealed that as workers’ levels of psychological empowerment and affective commitment improved, their level of OCBE also improved.

7. Limitations and Future Research

The current research has certain limitations. To begin, the data used for this study was acquired from a unitary source that might be the cause of common method variance CMV [92], even though we delivered the questionnaire, ensured the confidentiality of the replies, and arbitrarily organized all of the items for every survey [92]. Furthermore, we used Harman’s single-factor approach to assess for bias and discovered no substantial impact. The findings of the CFA show that the “four-factor model” had good-fit indices when contrasted to the supplementary models, with a substantial two difference (p < 0.05). It offered a compelling indication of reduced common method variance impacts [93]. Though we admit that to mitigate the problems instigated by common method variance, forthcoming research must adopt various approaches to employee behavior. Second, we developed our study from theories offered in European nations, collected data, and tested the suggested model in Pakistani private institutions. Despite previous studies confirming the links between SL and OCBE [94,95], no studies have been undertaken to employ PE and AC as possible mediating variables. As a consequence, the findings of this research must be used cross-culturally, and imitation of our findings shall offer productive results. Third, because research participants were recruited from industries in Punjab province, future studies should recruit people from other regions to generalize the results.
These limitations can be used to guide future studies. Firstly, the present research is cross-sectional, with data gathered at a single moment. Scholars are recommended to perform longitudinal research with several data sources to investigate the causality of the links between various types of leadership and OCBE.
Future scholars must experimentally evaluate our model utilizing samples from different locations and Asian cultures to generalize the validity of our findings. More study is required in this area. Finally, our study might be replicated in other industries to investigate the fundamental linkages between SL and OCBE. While we employed structural equation modeling to conduct a concurrent analysis of complete conceptual schemes in the private sector, the results should be interpreted cautiously. We propose that a forthcoming study tackle this subject by collecting data from investigational and longitudinal studies in various sectors to enhance the fundamental association between SL and OCBE using various mediating and moderating variables.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.J.; Methodology, Z.M., M.A., P.L. and A.H.; Formal analysis, A.J.; Investigation, M.L.; Writing—original draft, A.J., P.L., M.A. and A.H.; Writing—review & editing, A.J., M.L., P.L., M.A. and A.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

National Foreign Expert Project (Foreign Youth Talent Program) (QN2023014006, QN2023014007, QN2023014008, QN2023014009).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical approval was obtained from the School of Management Research Ethics Committee (Jiangsu University, China).

Informed Consent Statement

Before data collection, all eligible respondents were informed about the aims of the study, voluntary participation, and the right to withdraw at any time without giving any reason. They were also assured of the confidentiality of the information to be collected.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors without undue reservation.

Acknowledgments

This study acknowledges the support of from the Jiangsu Province Outstanding Postdoctoral Program (2022ZB643).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bansal, P.; Song, H.-C. Similar but not the same: Differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2017, 11, 105–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Galpin, T.; Lee Whittington, J. Sustainability leadership: From strategy to results. J. Bus. Strategy 2012, 33, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Felin, T.; Foss, N.J.; Ployhart, R.E. The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2015, 9, 575–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ramus, C.A.; Steger, U. The roles of supervisory support behaviors and environmental policy in employee “Ecoinitiatives” at leading-edge European companies. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 605–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Paillé, P.; Boiral, O.; Chen, Y. Linking environmental management practices and organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: A social exchange perspective. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2013, 24, 3552–3575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Paillé, P.; Chen, Y.; Boiral, O.; Jin, J. The impact of human resource management on environmental performance: An employee-level study. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 121, 451–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Temminck, E.; Mearns, K.; Fruhen, L. Motivating employees towards sustainable behaviour. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2015, 24, 402–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhang, J.; Chen, Y.; Liu, J. Ethical leadership and OCBE: The influence of prosocial motivation and self accountability. In Academy of Management Proceedings; Academy of Management: Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  9. Lamm, E.; Tosti-Kharas, J.; King, C.E. Empowering employee sustainability: Perceived organizational support toward the environment. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 128, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Priyankara, H.P.R.; Luo, F.; Saeed, A.; Nubuor, S.A.; Jayasuriya, M.P.F. How does leader’s support for environment promote organizational citizenship behaviour for environment? A multi-theory perspective. Sustainability 2018, 10, 271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pless, N.M.; Maak, T.; Stahl, G.K. Developing responsible global leaders through international service-learning programs: The Ulysses experience. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2011, 10, 237–260. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kura, K.M. Linking environmentally specific transformational leadership and environmental concern to green behaviour at work. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2016, 17, 1S–14S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Robertson, J.L.; Barling, J. Toward a new measure of organizational environmental citizenship behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 75, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ullah, I.; Wisetsri, W.; Wu, H.; Shah, S.M.A.; Abbas, A.; Manzoor, S. Leadership styles and organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: The mediating role of self-efficacy and psychological ownership. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 683101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Iqbal, S.; Farid, T.; Ma, J.; Khattak, A.; Nurunnabi, M. The impact of authentic leadership on organizational citizenship behaviours and the mediating role of corporate social responsibility in the banking sector of Pakistan. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cooper, R.P.; Shallice, T. Hierarchical schemas and goals in the control of sequential behavior. Psychol. Rev. 2006, 113, 887–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Weick, K.E. Making Sense of the Organization, Volume 2: The Impermanent Organization; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  18. Harris, S.G. Organizational culture and individual sensemaking: A schema-based perspective. Organ. Sci. 1994, 5, 309–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Irtaza, A.; Khan, M.M.; Sadia, S.; Mujtaba, B.G. Impact of Psychological Capital on Performance of Public Hospital Nurses: The Mediated Role of Job Embeddedness. Public Organ. Rev. 2022, 22, 135–154. [Google Scholar]
  20. Rafferty, A.E.; Griffin, M.A. Perceptions of organizational change: A stress and coping perspective. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Elsaied, M. Supportive leadership and EVB: The mediating role of employee advocacy and the moderating role of proactive personality. J. Manag. Dev. 2019, 38, 225–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tiippana, K. What is the McGurk effect? Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Langenberg, S.; Wesseling, H. Making sense of Weick’s organising. A philosophical exploration. Philos. Manag. 2016, 15, 221–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mercurio, Z.A. Affective commitment as a core essence of organizational commitment: An integrative literature review. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev. 2015, 14, 389–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ribeiro, N.; Gomes, D.; Kurian, S. Authentic leadership and performance: The mediating role of employees’ affective commitment. Soc. Responsib. J. 2018, 14, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jeon, K.S.; Choi, B.K. A multidimensional analysis of spiritual leadership, affective commitment and employees’ creativity in South Korea. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2020, 41, 1035–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pillai, R.; Williams, E.A. Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2004, 17, 144–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ribeiro, N.; Yücel, İ.; Gomes, D. How transformational leadership predicts employees’ affective commitment and performance. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2018, 67, 1901–1917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chandna, P.; Krishnan, V.R. Organizational commitment of information technology professionals: Role of transformational leadership and work-related beliefs. Tec. J. Manag. Stud. 2009, 4, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  30. Riaz, T.; Akram, M.U.; Ijaz, H. Impact of transformational leadership style on affective employees’ commitment: An empirical study of banking sector in Islamabad (Pakistan). J. Commer. 2011, 3, 43. [Google Scholar]
  31. Ismail, S.; Omar, Z.; Ismail, I.A.; Alias, S.N.; Rami, A.A.M. Item Generation Stage: Teachers’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2021, 29, 2503–2523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mackenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, N.P.; Podsakoff, P.M. Individual-and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 122–141. [Google Scholar]
  33. Harvey, J.; Bolino, M.C.; Kelemen, T.K. Organizational citizenship behavior in the 21st century: How might going the extra mile look different at the start of the new millennium? In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2018; Volume 36, pp. 51–110. [Google Scholar]
  34. Sun, H.J.; Yoon, H.H. Linking organizational virtuousness, engagement, and organizational citizenship behavior: The moderating role of individual and organizational factors. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2022, 46, 879–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Li, J.; Furst-Holloway, S.; Masterson, S.S.; Gales, L.M.; Blume, B.D. Leader-member exchange and leader identification: Comparison and integration. J. Manag. Psychol. 2018, 33, 122–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Herda, D.N.; Lavelle, J.J.; Lauck, J.R.; Young, R.F.; Smith, S.M.; Li, C. Auditors’ Engagement Team Commitment and Its Effect on Team Citizenship Behavior. In Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2022; Volume 25, pp. 59–76. [Google Scholar]
  37. Cropanzano, R.; Anthony, E.L.; Daniels, S.R.; Hall, A.V. Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2017, 11, 479–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dansereau, F., Jr.; Graen, G.; Haga, W.J. A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 1975, 13, 46–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Alotaibi, S.M.; Amin, M.; Winterton, J. Does emotional intelligence and empowering leadership affect psychological empowerment and work engagement? Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2020, 41, 971–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Liu, X.; Yu, J.; Guo, Q.; Li, J. Employee engagement, its antecedents and effects on business performance in hospitality industry: A multilevel analysis. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 34, 4631–4652. [Google Scholar]
  41. Grošelj, M.; Černe, M.; Penger, S.; Grah, B. Authentic and transformational leadership and innovative work behaviour: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2021, 24, 677–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Al Otaibi, S.M.; Amin, M.; Winterton, J.; Bolt, E.E.T.; Cafferkey, K. The role of empowering leadership and psychological empowerment on nurses’ work engagement and affective commitment. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2022; ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jose, G.; Mampilly, S.R. Relationships among perceived supervisor support, psychological empowerment and employee engagement in Indian workplaces. J. Workplace Behav. Health 2015, 30, 231–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Efiyanti, A.Y.; Ali, M.; Amin, S. Institution reinforcement of mosque in social economic empowerment of small traders community. J. Socioecon. Dev. 2021, 4, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Fan, B.; Wu, Y.; He, Z.; Chen, Y.; Quek, T.Q.; Xu, C.-Z. Digital twin empowered mobile edge computing for intelligent vehicular lane-changing. IEEE Netw. 2021, 35, 194–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Salminen, H.; Miettinen, M. The role of perceived development opportunities on affective organizational commitment of older and younger nurses. Int. Stud. Manag. Organ. 2019, 49, 63–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Araujo, C.A.S.; Figueiredo, K.F. Brazilian nursing professionals: Leadership to generate positive attitudes and behaviours. Leadersh. Health Serv. 2019, 32, 18–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Robson, A.; Robson, F. Investigation of nurses’ intention to leave: A study of a sample of UK nurses. J. Health Organ. Manag. 2016, 30, 154–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wallace, J.C.; Johnson, P.D.; Mathe, K.; Paul, J. Structural and psychological empowerment climates, performance, and the moderating role of shared felt accountability: A managerial perspective. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Barroso Castro, C.; Villegas Perinan, M.M.; Casillas Bueno, J.C. Transformational leadership and followers’ attitudes: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2008, 19, 1842–1863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jong, J.; Faerman, S. The role of goal specificity in the relationship between leadership and empowerment. Public Pers. Manag. 2021, 50, 559–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Seibert, S.E.; Wang, G.; Courtright, S.H. Antecedents and consequences of psychological and team empowerment in organizations: A meta-analytic review. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lightfoot, S.L. On goodness in schools: Themes of empowerment. Peabody J. Educ. 1986, 63, 9–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Shah, T.A.; Khattak, M.N.; Zolin, R.; Shah, S.Z.A. Psychological empowerment and employee attitudinal outcomes: The pivotal role of psychological capital. Manag. Res. Rev. 2019, 42, 797–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Dewettinck, K.; Van Ameijde, M. Linking leadership empowerment behaviour to employee attitudes and behavioural intentions: Testing the mediating role of psychological empowerment. Pers. Rev. 2011, 40, 284–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Farvour, J.K. The Relationship Between Supervisor Support for Student-Centered Learning Innovation, Psychological Empowerment, and Innovation Readiness Amongst Faculty at Private Four-Year Colleges; Creighton University: Omaha, NE, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  57. Avey, J.B.; Luthans, F.; Jensen, S.M. Psychological capital: A positive resource for combating employee stress and turnover. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2009, 48, 677–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kim, M.; Beehr, T.A. Self-efficacy and psychological ownership mediate the effects of empowering leadership on both good and bad employee behaviors. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2017, 24, 466–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values; Sage: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 1984; Volume 5. [Google Scholar]
  60. Mendes, L.; Jesus, J. Influence of total quality-based human issues on organisational commitment. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2018, 29, 260–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Jang, J.; Kandampully, J. Reducing employee turnover intention through servant leadership in the restaurant context: A mediation study of affective organizational commitment. Int. J. Hosp. Tour. Adm. 2018, 19, 125–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Karatepe, O.M.; Aboramadan, M.; Dahleez, K.A. Does climate for creativity mediate the impact of servant leadership on management innovation and innovative behavior in the hotel industry? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 2497–2517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Franczukowska, A.A.; Krczal, E.; Knapp, C.; Baumgartner, M. Examining ethical leadership in health care organizations and its impacts on employee work attitudes: An empirical analysis from Austria. Leadersh. Health Serv. 2021, 34, 229–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sharma, J.; Dhar, R.L. Factors influencing job performance of nursing staff: Mediating role of affective commitment. Pers. Rev. 2016, 45, 161–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kaur, P.; Mittal, A. Meaningfulness of work and employee engagement: The role of affective commitment. Open Psychol. J. 2020, 13, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. 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]
  67. Harman, H.H.; Harman, H.H. Modern Factor Analysis; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  68. Rafferty, A.E.; Griffin, M.A. Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. Leadersh. Q. 2004, 15, 329–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Boiral, O.; Paillé, P. Organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: Measurement and validation. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 109, 431–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Spreitzer, G.M. An empirical test of a comprehensive model of intrapersonal empowerment in the workplace. Am. J. Community Psychol. 1995, 23, 601–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Ahmad, I.; Gao, Y. Ethical leadership and work engagement: The roles of psychological empowerment and power distance orientation. Manag. Decis. 2018, 56, 1991–2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Wen, J.; Huang, S.S.; Teo, S. Effect of empowering leadership on work engagement via psychological empowerment: Moderation of cultural orientation. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2023, 54, 88–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Alshaabani, A.; Naz, F.; Magda, R.; Rudnák, I. Impact of perceived organizational support on OCB in the time of COVID-19 pandemic in Hungary: Employee engagement and affective commitment as mediators. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Steele, N.M.; Rodgers, B.; Fogarty, G.J. The relationships of experiencing workplace bullying with mental health, affective commitment, and job satisfaction: Application of the job demands control model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Anderson, J.; Gerbing, D. Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  78. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate data analysis. Uppersaddle River. In Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.; Kennesaw State University: Atlanta, GA, USA, 1998; Volume 5, pp. 207–219. [Google Scholar]
  79. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y.; Phillips, L.W. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Adm. Sci. Q. 1991, 36, 421–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Elshaer, I.A.; Azazz, A.M.; Kooli, C.; Alshebami, A.S.; Zeina, M.M.; Fayyad, S. Environmentally Specific Servant Leadership and Brand Citizenship Behavior: The Role of Green-Crafting Behavior and Employee-Perceived Meaningful Work. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2023, 13, 1097–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Shaffer, J.A.; DeGeest, D.; Li, A. Tackling the problem of construct proliferation: A guide to assessing the discriminant validity of conceptually related constructs. Organ. Res. Methods 2016, 19, 80–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Han, Z.; Wang, Q.; Yan, X. How responsible leadership motivates employees to engage in organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: A double-mediation model. Sustainability 2019, 11, 605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Raineri, N.; Paillé, P. Linking corporate policy and supervisory support with environmental citizenship behaviors: The role of employee environmental beliefs and commitment. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 137, 129–148. [Google Scholar]
  86. Arasanmi, C.N.; Krishna, A. Employer branding: Perceived organisational support and employee retention–the mediating role of organisational commitment. Ind. Commer. Train. 2019, 51, 174–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ren, S.; Chadee, D. Ethical leadership, self-efficacy and job satisfaction in China: The moderating role of guanxi. Pers. Rev. 2017, 46, 371–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Bernhard, F.; O’Driscoll, M.P. Psychological ownership in small family-owned businesses: Leadership style and nonfamily-employees’ work attitudes and behaviors. Group Organ. Manag. 2011, 36, 345–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1986; Volume 1986. [Google Scholar]
  90. Javed, B.; Naqvi, S.M.M.R.; Khan, A.K.; Arjoon, S.; Tayyeb, H.H. Impact of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior: The role of psychological safety. J. Manag. Organ. 2019, 25, 117–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Strzelecka, M.; Woosnam, K.M.; Nisbett, G.S. Self-efficacy mechanism at work: The context of environmental volunteer travel. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 2002–2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Podsakoff, P.M.; Organ, D.W. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. J. Manag. 1986, 12, 531–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Çekmecelioğlu, H.G.; Özbağ, G.K. Leadership and creativity: The impact of transformational leadership on individual creativity. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 235, 243–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Koh, D.; Lee, K.; Joshi, K. Transformational leadership and creativity: A meta-analytic review and identification of an integrated model. J. Organ. Behav. 2019, 40, 625–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Systems 11 00474 g001
Figure 1. Hypothesized model.
Figure 1. Hypothesized model.
Systems 11 00474 g001
Systems 11 00474 g002
Figure 2. SEM results for mediation (H6 and H7). ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, NS: Non Significant.
Figure 2. SEM results for mediation (H6 and H7). ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, NS: Non Significant.
Systems 11 00474 g002
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.
VariablesMeanSD1234
1. Supportive Leadership2.560.71-
2. Psychological Empowerment3.010.620.45 **-
3. Affective Commitment2.840.810.27 **0.23 **-
4. OCBE3.320.720.33 **0.42 **0.19 *-
** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Table 2. Measurement Model for All Four Factors.
Table 2. Measurement Model for All Four Factors.
ConstructItemsLoadingAAVECR
Supportive Leadership 0.910.670.87
SL10.916
SL20.861
SL30.807
Psychological Empowerment 0.950.530.84
PE10.772
PE20.839
PE30.933
PE40.953
PE50.824
PE60.727
PE70.929
PE80.923
PE90.813
PE100.738
PE110.823
PE120.706
Affective Commitment 0.740.730.83
AC10.916
AC20.907
AC30.758
AC40.827
AC50.911
AC60.746
OCBE 0.860.760.73
OCBE10.772
OCBE20.848
OCBE30.851
OCBE40.772
OCBE50.826
Table 3. CFA Results.
Table 3. CFA Results.
Modelχ2dfχ2/dfCFITLIRMSEASRMR
4-factor model (hypothesized model)2815.4210132.7790.930.940.050.06
3-factor model (SL & AC combined)8589.5411087.7520.720.710.130.17
2-factor model (SL, PE & AC combined)9788.211668.3940.700.700.150.16
1-factor model 11,974.3513199.0780.580.590.230.24
Table 4. β Coefficients for Testing Hypotheses 1 and 5.
Table 4. β Coefficients for Testing Hypotheses 1 and 5.
HypothesesPathβ EstimateTLLCIULCIp-ValueSig.
HISL→OCBE0.264.820.1450.485<0.01(**)
H2SL→AC0.478.410.2780.526<0.01(**)
H3AC→OCBE0.295.630.1290.456<0.01(**)
H4PE→AC0.336.720.2230.375<0.01(**)
H5SL→PE0.417.110.2190.499<0.01(**)
** p < 0.01.
Table 5. Bootstrapping Results for Indirect Effects.
Table 5. Bootstrapping Results for Indirect Effects.
Bootstrapping
99% CI (Percentile)99% CI (Bias-Corrected)
Path EstimateS.E.ZSigLLCIULCILLCIULCI
Direct effects
SL→

OCBE

0.08

0.07

1.14

0.57

−0.09

0.21

−0.11

0.21
SL→AC 0.150.062.5(**)0.120.250.120.25
AC→OCBE 0.520.068.67(**)0.280.600.280.60
PE→AC 0.350.065.83(**)0.740.850.740.85
SL→PE 0.390.049.75(**)0.320.550.320.55
Indirect effects
SL→

PE→

OCBE

0.13

0.046

2.82

(**)

0.16

0.41

0.16

0.40
SL→ AC→OCBE0.210.0454.66(**)0.250.540.250.54
SL: Supportive Leadership, AC: Affective Commitment, PE: Psychological Empowerment, OCBE: Organizational Citizenship Behavior for the Environment, CI: Confidence Interval, LLCI: Lower Level Confidence Interval, and ULCI: Upper-Level Confidence Interval. ** p < 0.01.
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

Jameel, A.; Ma, Z.; Liu, P.; Hussain, A.; Li, M.; Asif, M. Driving Sustainable Change: The Power of Supportive Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Fostering Environmental Responsibility. Systems 2023, 11, 474. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11090474

AMA Style

Jameel A, Ma Z, Liu P, Hussain A, Li M, Asif M. Driving Sustainable Change: The Power of Supportive Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Fostering Environmental Responsibility. Systems. 2023; 11(9):474. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11090474

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jameel, Arif, Zhiqiang Ma, Peng Liu, Abid Hussain, Mingxing Li, and Muhammad Asif. 2023. "Driving Sustainable Change: The Power of Supportive Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Fostering Environmental Responsibility" Systems 11, no. 9: 474. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11090474

APA Style

Jameel, A., Ma, Z., Liu, P., Hussain, A., Li, M., & Asif, M. (2023). Driving Sustainable Change: The Power of Supportive Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Fostering Environmental Responsibility. Systems, 11(9), 474. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11090474

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