Next Article in Journal
Impact of Sport Education Model on Sports Lifestyle and Attitudes of Vocational Education Training Students
Previous Article in Journal
Advancing Educational Equity Research, Policy, and Practice
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Social Support and Resource Drain Exploration of the Bright and Dark Sides of Teachers’ Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

by
Arcadius Florin Muntean
1,2,
Petru Lucian Curșeu
1,3,* and
Mihai Tucaliuc
1,2
1
Department of Psychology, Babeș-Bolyai University, 400084 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
2
Wellbeing Institute, 400084 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
3
Department of Organization, Open Universiteit, 6419 AT Heerlen, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12(12), 895; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120895
Submission received: 24 October 2022 / Revised: 18 November 2022 / Accepted: 2 December 2022 / Published: 6 December 2022

Abstract

:
Our study explores workload and social support as two mechanisms that explain the cost-benefit interplay of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) in relation to teachers’ work performance (WP) and maladaptive work outcomes (MWO, stress and burnout). We use a cross-sectional design to test the bright and dark sides of teachers’ OCBs with a sample of 2224 Romanian teachers (with an average age of 42.72 years old). Workload explains the association between OCBs, WP and MWO for high rather than low levels of OCBs, while social support explains the association irrespective of the OCB level. The association between OCBs targeted towards the organization, WP and MWO is mediated by workload, while the association between OCBs targeted towards individuals, WP and MWO is mediated by social support. Our results join the call for substantial social support offered to teachers and call for more refined and joint evaluations of the type and level of OCB that are conducive for teachers’ performance.

1. Introduction

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) reflects one’s engagement in supportive extra role behaviors that are beneficial for teachers and overall school performance [1,2,3]. Other OCB conceptualizations, based on role theories, argue that an excessive engagement in extra-role behaviors can be resource draining for employees [4]. Therefore, an important question arises whether teachers’ engagement in OCBs, a construct depicted as having important benefits for work outcomes (one of the most prototypical positive organizational behavior components [5,6]), may also have detrimental effects in schools. We set out to answer this question by using a framework in which we investigate the mediating role of relational benefits of OCBs (reciprocated social support received from peers and supervisors) and its costs (workload) in the relation between OCBs and teachers’ work-related outcomes (performance, exhaustion and stress).
Although OCBs were clustered in multiple ways, meta-analytic Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the OCB dimensions has supported the bi-dimensional structure of the OCB as targeted towards the organization OCB-O (including conscientiousness, sportsmanship and civic virtue) and towards individuals OCB-I (including courtesy and altruism) [7]. Moreover, in an integrative perspective on OCB research, Spitzmuller and colleagues argue “that a simple conceptual framework that contrasts types of OCB based on intended beneficiary (OCB-I and OCB-O) would provide focus and help researchers integrate and consolidate research findings.” [8] (p. 115). In line with these arguments, we set out to explore the differential association between the OCBs targeted at the organization and at the individuals on the OCB-related benefits (received social support from supervisors and peers) and costs (higher workload).
Next to the dimensionality of the OCB construct, meta-analytic evidence also shows that in relation to specific criteria such as task performance, both OCB-I and OCB-O seem to be strongly and positively correlated with task performance and a unidimensional model of OCB seems more parsimonious when predicting work related outcomes [7,9]. Such a unidimensional perspective on OCB raises the question on how the costs and benefits of OCB could be disentangled.
First, we build on a too-much-of-a-good thing [10,11] perspective to argue that the costs and benefits of OCB may vary as a function of the extent to which teachers generally engage in OCB. In line with a social exchange [12] and social capital perspective [13] on OCB we argue that teachers’ engagement in OCB is salient to peers and supervisors and as such is more likely to trigger reciprocation, thus social support. Empirical evidence shows that people tend to reciprocate rather spontaneously when they receive social support and they are more averse to over-benefitting from social support than to under-benefiting from it [14,15]. In the context of the OCB, we argue that even when performed sporadically, OCB may still bring the relational benefits and significant reciprocated social support [14]. A role overload argument applies to situations in which teachers perform numerous extra-role behaviors. In such situations, the accumulated workload (because OCB refers to extra role behaviors that are performed on top of the assigned organizational tasks), is expected to occur only when teachers show a significant engagement in OCB. To summarize, in line with the TMGT, we argue that the relational benefits of OCB (social support) explain the association between OCB and work-related outcomes for low- as well as high-levels of OCBs, while the costs (increased workload) associated with role overload will explain the association between OCB and work-related outcomes at high- rather than low-levels of OCB.
Second, the costs and benefits of OCB could be disentangled if we take into account the distinction between OCB-I and OCB-O. As OCB-I reflects extra-role behaviors targeted at co-workers, it is likely that the reciprocation in terms of social support will be stronger for OCB-I rather than for OCB-O. Moreover, as the OCB-O reflects engagement in general tasks (not necessarily related to interpersonal support) we expect that the perceived costs in terms of workload are likely to be stronger for OCB-O than for OCB-I. To conclude, as the main OCB benefits, we consider the social support received from supervisors and peers and as OCB cost we consider workload. We then argue that: (1) the extent to which teachers engages in OCB differentially impacts work performance and maladaptive work outcomes such that social support mediates the association between OCB and these outcomes at low rather than high levels of OCB, while the workload mediates the association at high rather than levels of OCB and (2) the type of OCB differentially impacts the social support received and the workload such that OCB-I drives social support while OCB-O is chiefly associated with increased workload.

2. OCB and Work-Related Outcomes

OCB was applauded as one of the most influential forms of positive organizational behaviors [3,5] and its beneficial impact for work-related outcomes was established in a variety of empirical settings and organizational contexts. Among the multiple theoretical lenses through which such benefits are explored, the Social Exchange Theory [12] states that social support is often reciprocated during interpersonal interactions and such reciprocated exchanges are associated with OCBs [4,16]. In a study using a social network approach, results have shown that employees who engage in interpersonal OCBs are more likely to receive social support from others [17].
In other words, supervisors tend to recognize the OCBs in employees and reciprocate by valuing their performance higher and by allocating more resources to the ones who engage more rather than less in OCBs [18]. Given these results on the association between OCBs and social support and in line with the Social Exchange Theory, we can argue that some of the benefits of OCBs are grounded in reciprocated social exchanges. As teachers engage in extra-role behaviors and walk the extra mile to help their co-workers to perform their tasks, their colleagues and supervisors will be more likely to reciprocate and provide social support [4]. In line with meta-analytic evidence, OCBs targeted towards the organization and individuals could in principle trigger social support received from supervisors, [18], yet in line with the previous arguments regarding the reciprocation from peers, we argue that OCB-I is more likely than OCB-O to lead to reciprocation, therefore we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
OCB is positively associated with social support received from supervisors and peers and this effect is stronger for OCB-I than for OCB-O.
Theoretical arguments point towards the significant costs associated with engaging in OCB [5,6,19]. In line with the conservation of resources perspective [20], employees have limited personal resources at their disposal and as they engage in extra role behaviors, their resources are drained faster, ultimately leading to suboptimal work outcomes, stress and exhaustion. Research has shown that OCB contributes to experienced overload [21,22] and role conflict could arise becoming a hindrance for employee due to increasing demands when engaging both in-role tasks and OCBs [23]. Additionally, OCB-O tends to involve planned activities and deliberate actions, while the benefits of enacting them may not be as immediate or discernible as the benefits of OCB-I [24]. On the other side, OCB-I are more strongly motivated by affect rather than cognitions [25], therefore one could expect that engaging in OCB-I may be considered less energy-draining than engaging in OCB-O. Therefore, considering these differences in the quantity of resources drained when teachers engage in OCB-I and OCB-O, we expect that OCB-O is more costly and demanding than OCB-I in term of invested resources; in line with predictions derived from the role strain approach and conservation of resources, we predict that:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
OCB is positively associated with workload and this association is stronger for OCB-O than for OCB-I.
OCB was labeled as form of contextual performance [26] and employees that engage in OCBs are likely to generate synergetic social exchanges that are ultimately beneficial for work performance [12]. High-task performers also tend to enact high levels of OCBs since task performance and OCB are highly correlated [7]. Considering the norm of reciprocity [27] and affective explanations for the receipt of help [17] employees that receive help would return the favor thus co-constructing a spiral of escalating help behaviors facilitating psychological ownership and the perception of social support [4]. These two consequences will further enhance employee’s competency and relatedness needs [28]. Building on the accumulation of social capital perspective, we argue that the performance benefits of engaging in OCBs will be more visible for high rather than low levels of OCB. We therefore hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
The positive association between overall OCB and work performance is stronger for high rather than low OCB levels.
It has been shown that OCB had detrimental effects on performance for employees whom exhibited this behavior more than others and their long-terms career outcomes were also affected [22]. Assisting others or offering help is disruptive for the ongoing performance episodes since time is a limited resource at work [29]. Work goal progress is essential for employees, and since OCB might interfere with attaining the intended goals, job satisfaction and affective commitment will be lower through the perception of reduced progress [30]. At low levels of OCB, resources are protected, but at high levels it would impede task progression and deplete resources leading to exhaustion and low levels of well-being [31]. In line with this resource depletion argument, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
The negative association between overall OCB and maladaptive work-related outcomes is stronger for high rather than low OCB levels.
Researches recommended using the distinction between OCB-O and OCB-I regarding the target of the behaviors because sometimes they have different and unique antecedents as well as consequences [9]. If OCB-I is focused on interpersonal aspects of citizenship behaviors, OCB-O involves rather impersonal and task-related behaviors. OCB-O is most salient to supervisors than to coworkers because these behaviors are more easily observed in organization than OCB-I [32]. OCB-I has an impact on interpersonal exchanges in dyadic relationships in which colleagues help each other, sometimes without the supervisor knowing. Studies showed that there is a positive relationship between individual initiative (OCB-O) and work-family conflict, job stress and role overload [21]. Engaging in OCBs would lead employees to allocate more personal resources and particularly time to work and work-related activities, therefore, we argue that workload will mediate the relationship between OCB-O and work-related outcomes.
OCB-I bolsters the support system of the individual by fostering reciprocated interpersonal relationships and a broad social network able to provide social support [13]. Furthermore, teachers that enact OCB-I signal to coworkers that they can be counted on for help and support when needed [33]. Social support triggered by the reciprocation of engaging in OCB-I is a plausible mechanism explaining the relation between OCB on the one hand and teachers’ wellbeing at work [34]. Considering these arguments, we hypothesize that the relationship between OCB-O and work outcomes would be mediated by workload while the association between OCB-I and work-related outcomes is mediated by social support.
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Workload mediates the association between OCB-O and work outcomes (work performance and MWRO).
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
Social support mediates the association between OCB-I and work outcomes (work performance and MWRO).
Drawing further on social exchange theories [12], we argue that sporadic engagement in OCBs still swiftly triggers a reciprocity mechanism [27]. When helped, people feel obligated to return benefits they receive from others in order to avoid being “over benefiters” [15]. In this case, peers and supervisors will reciprocate OCBs by providing social support [4] even at low levels of OCB enactment. Considering that social support is likely to occur even at low levels of OCB, and social support fosters work performance, we argue that social support mediates the relationship between teachers’ OCB and work outcomes at low rather than high levels of OCB.
On the other hand, given the fact that OCBs are extra-role behaviors, high levels of enactment would lead to greater workload, creating excessive demands on available personal resources [35]. Teachers could experience role overload or situations in which they feel that there are too many responsibilities or activities expected of them given the resources available [36]. Teachers’ high-levels OCBs would consume job-related resources and cause exhaustion and low levels of well-being [31], negatively influencing work outcomes. Summarizing all the above, we argue that at low levels of OCB, social support mediates the relationship between OCB and work outcomes, but at high levels of OCB, workload would be the mediator between the relationship.
Hypothesis 7 (H7).
The association between OCB and work outcomes (performance and MWRO) is mediated by social support when OCB is low and by workload when OCB is high.

3. Methods

Sample and Procedure

The survey was distributed online and contained items evaluating different aspects of teachers’ work life and we have received usable responses to our survey from 2224 teachers (1981 women) working in schools from different regions of Romania, (Transylvania, Moldova, Maramureș, Bucovina, Crișana, Banat, Oltenia and Muntenia) with an average age of 42.72 years old (SD = 9.6). In our sample there is an over-representation of female teachers (89%) which reflects the gender distribution of teachers in the Romanian educational system [37]. The study was cross-sectional in that it involved a single phase of data collection. Teachers agreed to participate in this research by signing an online informed consent included in our survey. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the The Scientific Council of the Babeș-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca.
The survey included, among others, measures of four constructs: organizational citizenship behaviors, workload, perceived social support, and self-reported work performance. We have also asked participants to report their age, gender and work tenure (evaluated as their work experience in years).
Organizational citizenship behaviors were evaluated using the 10 items OCB-C scale [38], from which 5 referred to helping behaviors towards the organization in general (“Volunteered for extra work assignments”, Cronbach’s alpha for the five items was 0.84) and 5 described interpersonal helping behaviors (“Helped a coworker who had too much to do”, Cronbach’s alpha for the five items was 0.87). Cronbach’s alpha for all items included was 0.91 indicating a very good internal consistency of the overall OCB scale. Our OCB measure is based on a self-report scale and in line with past results [39] self-reported OCB yields higher correlations with other work-related and interpersonal outcomes.
Work performance was evaluated using a five-item scale presented in study that investigated team effectiveness [40]. The items were adapted in order to evaluate individual performance: “How do you see your productivity?”, “How do you evaluate the quality of your work?”, “To what extent do you think you are achieving your performance goals?”, “To what extend do you respect the necessary cost in order to carry out your work?”, “How much do you respect your deadlines?”. Items were assessed using a 5-point scale (1 = “very low” 5 = “very high” for the first two questions and 1 = “not at all” 5 = “very much” for the last three). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.80 indicating a good internal reliability of the scale.
Perceived social support was evaluated using 6 items developed for this study, starting from insights presented in previous studies [41,42]. Three items constituted the supervisor support dimension which included elements of instrumental support (“If I encounter tasks related problems at work I get support from my supervisor”) emotional support (“If I encounter emotional related problems at work I get support from my supervisor”) and conflict related support (“If I encounter conflict related problems with my coworkers I get support from my supervisor”). In the second dimension, peer support included the same three dimensions with the difference that support came from peers/coworkers and not supervisor. Participants had to evaluate each statement using a 7-point scale (1 = “Not at all” 7 = “Completely”). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.92, indicating very good reliability of the scale.
The maladaptive work-related outcomes were evaluated with two items initially developed as single item measures of stress [43] and burnout [44]. The stress item was formulated as follows: “Stress describes a situation in which individual feels tension, anxiety, agitation and his/her mind is preoccupied with these aspects. Have you felt like this in the past three weeks?”. For this item participants evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 = “not at all” to 5 = “very much”. The burnout item “I feel exhausted at work”, was rated on the same type of Likert scale as the stress item. Cronbach’s alpha for these two items is 0.79, indicating a good reliability of the scale.
Workload was evaluated using a single item: “On average how many hours per week do you spend at school doing your work-related tasks” and the answers were recorded as continuous numeric values.

4. Results

Means, standard deviations and correlations among the study variables are presented in Table 1.
We have used Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression analyses to test our hypotheses and in order to reduce the concerns related to heteroscedasticity we have used a regression method with heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors [45] and implemented in the PROCESS package. Based on the recommendations from the authors [45] we have used the HC3 estimator in our regression analyses. As control variables we have entered gender, age and work tenure, as these variables are likely to be associated with the dependent variables as well as the main predictors used in our study. The first set of regression analyses used the two mediators as criteria and the results are presented in Table 2.
As indicated in Table 2, the OCB-O significantly predicts workload (β = 0.18, p < 0.001), and not social support (β = −0.01, p = 0.86), while OCB-I significantly predicts social support (β = 0.19, p < 0.001) and not workload (β = 0.02, p = 0.46). Based on these results, we can conclude that Hypotheses 1 and 2 were fully supported.
In order to explore the differential indirect effects at different levels of OCB we have adapted an analytic procedure for exploring differences in slopes for different levels of the predictor variable [46]. Originally suggested as a way to probe quadratic effects, the two-slope method [46] also allows the estimation of the mediating role of workload and social support at different levels of OCB. In other words, we can explore the extent to which the two mediating variables explain the association between OCB (separately at low and high levels) on the one hand and work performance and maladaptive work-related outcomes on the other hand. We have used a mean split procedure for OCB and we have estimated all regressions separately for low and high OCB scores. The same procedure was used to test the indirect relations. The results of the regression analyses with all OCB scores included as well as for the low and high OCB values are presented in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively. Table 3 presents the results of the regression analyses with workload and social support as dependent variables, while Table 4 presents the results of the regression analyses with work performance and maladaptive work-related outcomes as dependent variables for overall as well as separately for low and high OCB scores.
As illustrated in Table 3, OCB has a significant positive association with workload and social support overall, as well as when the low OCB or the high OCB scores are considered separately. For the whole sample (all OCB scores included), women reported a higher workload than men (β = 0.06, p = 0.03) and older teachers reported less social support than younger ones (β = −0.09, p = 0.007). Additionally, work tenure had a negative association with social support (β = −0.11, p = 0.001).
As indicated by the results presented in Table 4, when all the OCB scores are considered, the OCB has a significant positive association with work performance (β = 0.30, p < 0.001) and a significant negative association with the MWRO (β = −0.08, p = 0.004). However, when using the mean split for the OCB scores, the relationships changed such that at low levels of OCB, the OCB had a weaker positive association with work performance (β = 0.07, p = 0.01), while the association with MWRO was not significant (β = 0.04, p = 0.18). However, for above-average OCB scores, the association with work performance was positive and significant (β = 0.26, p < 0.001) while the relation with the MWRO was negative and significant (β = −0.13, p < 0.001). Based on these results, we can conclude that Hypotheses 3 and 4 were supported by the data reflecting a social capital accumulation perspective on OCB.
Next to the regression analyses, in order to test the mediation hypotheses, we have used the PROCESS macro [47]. The results of the mediation analyses using PROCESS are summarized in Table 5 which presents the indirect effects for different types and levels of OCB.
As shown in Table 5, workload significantly mediated the association between OCB-O and work performance (indirect effect −0.01, SE = 0.006, [−0.03; −0.003]) as well as with exhaustion and stress (indirect effect 0.02, SE = 0.01, [0.01; 0.04]). The indirect association of OCB-O with work performance and MWRO via social support was not significant. We can therefore conclude that Hypothesis 5 was supported. Moreover, the results showed that social support mediated positively the association between OCB-I and work performance (indirect effect 0.04, SE = 0.01, [0.02; 0.05]) and negatively the association between OCB and maladaptive work-related outcomes (indirect effect −0.07, SE = 0.01, [−0.10; −0.04]). The indirect association of OCB-I with work performance and MWRO via workload was not significant. These results fully support Hypothesis 6. As the OCB-I and OCB-O are highly correlated and the work performance is negatively correlated with the MWRO, we further checked the robustness of our finding by testing the differential mediation paths using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). SEM analyses were performed with AMOS version 23. The SEM is a parsimonious way of testing mediation effects, as it allows the simultaneous use of several dependent variables. To check the robustness of our findings we have estimated the mediating effects of workload and social support without any of the control variables included in the bootstrapping models. The SEM results are aligned with the ones reported in Table 5 and are summarized in Figure 1.
With respect to the mediation at different levels of OCB, for the overall sample, the association between OCB on work performance was partially mediated by social support (indirect effect 0.02, SE = 0.003, [0.01; 0.02]) and by workload (indirect effect −0.01, SE = 0.006, [−0.03; −0.004]). By using the mean sample split, for low OCB values the only significant indirect effect was for social support (indirect effect 0.03, SE = 0.01, [0.004; 0.05]) and not for workload (indirect effect −0.005, SE = 0.004, [−0.01; 0.003]). For high levels of OCB however the mediation pattern changed such that workload had a significant negative indirect association (indirect effect −0.01, SE = 0.004, [−0.02; −0.002]) and the indirect effect of social support was positive and significant (0.01, SE = 0.004, [0.003; 0.02]). With respect to the maladaptive work-related behaviors, both indirect effects were significant when all data was considered. The indirect effect via the social support was negative and significant (indirect effect −0.05, SE = 0.01, [−0.06; −0.03]) and the indirect effect mediated by workload was positive and significant (indirect effect 0.02, SE = 0.005, [0.01; 0.03]). When the mean split of the sample was used however, the pattern of results was similar to the ones observed for work performance such that at low OCB levels the only significant mediator was social support (indirect effect −0.05, SE = 0.02, [−0.04; −0.001]), while at the high OCB levels both indirect associations were significant (for workload indirect effect is 0.04, SE = 0.02, [0.02; 0.08] while for social support indirect effect was −0.07, SE = 0.02, [−0.12; −0.03]). These results using the mean sample split point towards the fact that different mediators are likely to explain the association between OCB and outcomes at different levels of OCB and offer partial support for Hypothesis 7. Such a pattern of results is in line with the theoretical advancements from past studies pointing to the heterogeneity of the OCB as a construct [6].
The differential main indirect effect for different levels of OCB point towards a non-linear association between OCB on the one hand and work performance and MWRO on the other hand. We have used Simonson’s algorithmic procedure [46] to investigate the plausible inflection points and the type of relationship. The association between OCB and work performance was increasingly positive as indicated in Figure 1. For low OCB scores (the heuristic inflection point identified based on the five-steps approach described by Simonsohn [46]) the association was positive yet not significant (B = 0.01, p = 0.89), while for high OCB values the association was positive and significant (B = 0.27, p < 0.0001). The association between OCB and MWRO was increasingly negative such that for low OCB values the association was positive and not significant (B = 0.06, p = 0.44), while for higher OCB values the association was negative and significant (B = −0.34, p < 0.0001). OCB’s increasing positive association with work performance and its increasing negative association with MWRO indicates a social capital accumulation perspective in OCB. The graphs derived from the Simonson’s procedure [46] are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3. We will further discuss these results.

5. Discussion

The main aim of our study was to disentangle the benefits and costs associated with engaging in OCBs, depending on the type of behavior and the intensity of OCB in a large sample of Romanian teachers. We build on social exchange and conservation of resources perspectives to argue that the benefits (reciprocated social support) and detriments (increase workload) of OCB explain the association between OCB and work performance on one hand and maladaptive work-related outcomes (burnout and stress) on the other hand. We put forward two possible ways in which the dark sides of OCB can be explored. First, we argue that different types of OCBs weight differently in terms of costs and benefits for teachers, such that workload is rather tied to OCB-O, while social support to OCB-I. Second, we claim that the balance between costs and benefits is influenced by the intensity with which teachers engage in OCB such that the relational benefits emerge more swiftly upon engaging in OCB, while the costs are tied especially to high levels of OCBs.
First, drawing on Social Exchange Theory [12] we have shown that engaging in OCB is positively associated with social support received from supervisors and peers, with this effect being significant only for OCB-I and not for OCB-O. We explain this stronger association with OCB-I through the reciprocity mechanism in social exchange relations [27]. These results are congruent with previous research showing that peers and supervisors reciprocate OCBs, especially to OCB-Is compared to OCB-Os, by providing social support and allocating more resources to the ones engaging in OCB [4,18]. Moreover, OCB has a positive association with workload, yet this association is only significant for OCB-O showing that only extra-role behaviors associated with the organizational task are perceived as overloading for teachers. Our study provides initial evidence that the costs and benefits for teachers of engaging in OCB are tied differently to the two types of citizenship behaviors. Although OCB-O and OCB-I are highly correlated, our study shows that when exploring teacher engagement in OCB in terms of costs and benefits it is important that the two types of OCB are explored separately. This differential association with the costs and benefits ultimately relates to work performance and MWRO. On the one hand, OCB-I has a positive indirect significant association with work performance, and a positive indirect association with MWRO mediated by social support. On the other hand, OCB-O has an indirect negative association with work performance and a negative indirect association with MWRO mediated by workload. Overall, not all OCBs are created equally when it comes to their associated benefits and costs, therefore future research attempting to further explore the dark sides of teacher OCB should also take into account the type of OCB displayed in organizational settings.
Second, our study shows that OCB pays off for teacher performance and well-being especially from average to high levels since social capital accumulates at an increasing rate with the intensity of engaging in OCBs [13] gaining more support and facilitating work performance at high rather than low levels of OCB [7]. In terms of MWRO, results show that overall engagement in OCB seems to decrease stress and burnout, yet only indirectly by increasing support and social capital, two buffering mechanisms that inhibit negative emotional states through building teachers’ coping capabilities [34]. In terms of the two mediators considered in our research, workload-related costs explain the association between OCB and work performance and MWRO especially at high levels of OCB, while the benefits associated with social support explain the association between OCB and work performance and MWRO at all levels of OCB. This result sheds very important insights into the balance between the costs and benefits of OCB showing that the benefits of engaging in OCB occur rather swiftly at low levels of OCB via reciprocated social support. The costs, however, tend to only occur at high levels of OCB when teachers experience a higher workload. These results open new venues for exploring further the dark sides of OCB pointing towards the existence of inverted U-shaped relationships between OCB and work-related outcomes.
Third, the literature to date prominently used a positive psychology lens and focused almost entirely on the benefits of engaging in OCB and little to no attention was shown to the deleterious effects of OCB. Extending evidence from two other important studies [5,6], our results emphasized the negative association between overall OCB and maladaptive work-related outcomes being stronger for high rather than low OCB levels. Using a resources-based framework, our results show that high levels of teachers OCB tend to interfere with resources allocated for task performance [29] affecting wellbeing and job satisfaction [31]. We captured intricate relationships such as at high OCB levels the mechanism that partially explains the association between OCB and performance as well as MWRO is workload as well as social support but at low OCB levels the mechanism that partially explains the association between OCB and performance as well as MWRO is only social support. Teachers and educational managers should carefully manage the unbalance likely to emerge at the very high levels of OCB, as the costs may overrun the relational and work performance benefits tied to performing OCBs.

5.1. Limitations

Next to its contributions, our study has also important limitations. First, the data was collected from a single source, therefore the CMB is likely to have influenced our results. We have tried to alleviate the concerns associated with the CMB by using different scale types and the workload for example was evaluated by asking participants to report the number of hours they spend in their school. For OCB, research shows that self-reported scores are the most accurate indicators of real OCB, yielding the only significant correlations with work related outcomes and the difference between self-reported and other reported OCB is not significant and “indicating over-reporting by self-raters may not be a large concern for OCB” [39] (p. 564).
Second, because our study was cross-sectional, we cannot draw definite causal claims concerning the variables included in our study. In particular, the claim that OCB is an antecedent for social support needs further investigation as most research to date considered OCB as a dependent variable and indicator of contextual performance and social support was typical considered as an antecedent for OCB [8]. One of the fundamental tenets of Social Exchange Theory [12] is the reciprocity of social exchanges and as such initial engagement in OCB could attract social support from supervisors and peers.
Third, in the process of measuring task performance, in order to preserve anonymity, we used a self-reported scale. Research has shown that self-ratings are more lenient [48] compared to supervisory ratings that are more reliable [49]. Future studies could replicate our findings by including supervisory ratings for more accurate ratings of work performance. Finally, workload was evaluated with a single item asking teachers to report the number of hours they spend in the school, a rather coarse proxy for workload. Future research could use more elaborated measures of workload. In addition, the maladaptive work-related outcomes were evaluated using only two items, for stress and burnout and the small number of items in this scale may have impacted on the validity of the measure. However, both items were previously validated as single-item measures for stress and burnout, therefore we believe they are rather accurate indicators of the overall MWRO.

5.2. Practical Implications

Our study has important practical implications for educational management, as OCB is an important antecedent of teacher and overall school performance. Leadership is an important predictor of OCB and based on our results, managers in educational settings should focus on OCB-I in order to maximize the social support benefits associated with OCB. We join multiple voices [50,51,52,53,54,55] emphasizing the role of supervisory support as a buffer against MWRO for teachers. Moreover, according to our results, the mechanism that explains the association between OCB-O and work performance and MWRO is workload. Educational managers should monitor this closely, especially the OCB-O and be aware of its deleterious effects. Although in general OCB seems to be conducive for teacher performance at high, rather than low levels, educational managers should pay attention to the deleterious effects of increased workload, stress and burnout that are associated with significant engagement in OCB. Our results show that high levels of OCB could induce role overload for teachers, a complex factor being appraised as both a challenge and a hindrance stressor [56,57,58]. Its complex nature could explain the partial mediation illustrated at high OCB levels. With respect to social support as partial mediator between low OCB level and performance and MWRO, it is possible that supervisors might evaluate employee’s performance also based on OCB behaviors [18]. We draw attention to the fundamental role of social support as a buffer against MWRO as well as a supportive factor for work performance and urge educational managers to be aware of the way in which social support is provided and tied to OCB behaviors in particular. They should strive for a balance between valuing OCB as a source of competitive advantage and avoiding its deleterious effects when performed in excess. Capitalizing on the performance benefits of OCB requires a careful consideration of the relational benefits and workload costs tied to teachers’ engagement in OCB.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.F.M. and P.L.C.; methodology, A.F.M., P.L.C. and M.T.; formal analysis, P.L.C.; investigation, A.F.M., P.L.C. and M.T.; data curation, M.T.; writing—original draft, A.F.M., P.L.C. and M.T.; supervision, P.L.C.; project administration, A.F.M. and M.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Wellbeing Institute, Cluj-Napoca Romania and the APC was funded by Babeș-Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca, Romania.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the The Scientific Council of the Babeș-Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca. The survey did not include questions with the potential to embarrass the participants or create distress, participation was voluntary and anonymous, and the participants could withdraw from the study at any time.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data analyzed in the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

References

  1. Oplatka, I. Going beyond role expectations: Toward an understanding of the determinants and components of teacher organizational citizenship behavior. Educ. Adm. Q. 2006, 42, 385–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bogler, R.; Somech, A. Psychological capital, team resources and organizational citizenship behavior. J. Psychol. 2019, 153, 784–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Göktürk, Ş. Assessment of the quality of an organizational citizenship behavior instrument. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 2011, 22, 335–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jolly, P.; Kong, D.T.; Kim, K.Y. Social support at work: An integrative review. J. Organ. Behav. 2020, 42, 229–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bolino, M.C.; Klotz, A.C.; Turnley, W.H.; Harvey, J. Exploring the dark side of organizational citizenship behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 2013, 34, 542–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Organ, D.W. Organizational citizenship behavior: Recent trends and developments. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2018, 80, 295–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hoffman, B.J.; Blair, C.A.; Meriac, J.P.; Woehr, D.J. Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Spitzmuller, M.; Van Dyne, L.; Ilies, R. Organizational citizenship behavior: A review and extension of its nomological network. SAGE Handb. Organ. Behav. 2008, 1, 106–123. [Google Scholar]
  9. LePine, J.A.; Erez, A.; Johnson, D.E. The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Grant, A.M.; Schwartz, B. Too much of a good thing: The challenge and opportunity of the inverted U. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 6, 61–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Pierce, J.R.; Aguinis, H. The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. J. Manag. 2013, 39, 313–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Blau, P. Exchange and Power in Social Life; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1964. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bolino, M.C.; Turnley, W.H.; Bloodgood, J.M. Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 505–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Haider, S.; De-Pablos-Heredero, C.; De-Pablos-Heredero, M. The paradox of citizenship cost: Examining a longitudinal indirect effect of altruistic citizenship behavior on work–family conflict through coworker support. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 661715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Uehara, E.S. Reciprocity reconsidered: Gouldner’s moral norm of reciprocity and social support. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 1995, 12, 483–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Konovsky, M.A.; Pugh, S.D. Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Acad. Manag. J. 1994, 37, 656–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lyons, B.J.; Scott, B.A. Integrating social exchange and affective explanations for the receipt of help and harm: A social network approach. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2012, 117, 66–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Podsakoff, N.P.; Whiting, S.W.; Podsakoff, P.M.; Blume, B.D. Individual-and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Somech, A.; Bogler, R. The pressure to go above and beyond the call of duty: Understanding the phenomenon of citizenship pressure among teachers. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2019, 83, 178–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hobfoll, S. Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44, 513–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bolino, M.C.; Turnley, W.H. The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Bergeron, D.M. The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 1078–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Eatough, E.M.; Chang, C.H.; Miloslavic, S.A.; Johnson, R.E. Relationships of role stressors with organizational citizenship behavior: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Grant, A.M. Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 393–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. 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]
  26. Conway, J.M. Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for managerial jobs. J. Appl. Psychol. 1999, 84, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gouldner, A.W. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1960, 25, 161–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Grant, A.M.; Hofmann, D.A. Role expansion as a persuasion process: The interpersonal influence dynamics of role redefinition. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 2011, 1, 9–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Maier, G.W.; Brunstein, J.C. The role of personal work goals in newcomers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A longitudinal analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Koopman, J.; Lanaj, K.; Scott, B.A. Integrating the bright and dark sides of OCB: A daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Acad. Manag. J. 2016, 59, 414–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Allen, T.D.; Barnard, S.; Rush, M.C.; Russell, J.E. Ratings of organizational citizenship behavior: Does the source make a difference? Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2000, 10, 97–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Oh, I.S.; Berry, C.M. The five-factor model of personality and managerial performance: Validity gains through the use of 360 degree performance ratings. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Halbesleben, J.R.B.; Bowler, W.M. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Burnout. In Handbook of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Review of “Good Soldier” Activity in Organizations; Nova Science Publishers Inc.: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 399–414. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ilies, R.; Dimotakis, N.; De Pater, I.E. Psychological and physiological reactions to high workloads: Implications for well-being. Pers. Psychol. 2010, 63, 407–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rizzo, J.R.; House, R.J.; Lirtzman, S.I. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 1970, 15, 150–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Eurostat. Eurostat: Women Teachers Largely Over-Represented in Primary Education in the EU. Available online: https://skillspanorama.cedefop.europa.eu/en/news/eurostat-women-teachers-largely-over-represented-primary-education-eu (accessed on 6 January 2021).
  38. Spector, P.E.; Bauer, J.A.; Fox, S. Measurement artifacts in the assessment of counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Do we know what we think we know? J. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 95, 781–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Carpenter, N.C.; Berry, C.M.; Houston, L. A meta-analytic comparison of self-reported and other-reported organizational citizenship behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 2014, 35, 547–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rousseau, V.; Aubé, C. Team self-managing behaviors and team effectiveness: The moderating effect of task routineness. Group Organ. Manag. 2010, 35, 751–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. da Costa, C.G.; Zhou, Q.; Ferreira, A.I. The impact of anger on creative process engagement: The role of social contexts. J. Organ. Behav. 2018, 39, 495–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Munc, A.; Eschleman, K.; Donnelly, J. The importance of provision and utilization of supervisor support. Stress Health 2017, 33, 348–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Elo, A.L.; Leppänen, A.; Jahkola, A. Validity of a single-item measure of stress symptoms. Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health 2003, 29, 444–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Dolan, E.D.; Mohr, D.; Lempa, M.; Joos, S.; Fihn, S.D.; Nelson, K.M.; Helfrich, C.D. Using a single item to measure burnout in primary care staff: A psychometric evaluation. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2015, 30, 582–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Hayes, A.F.; Cai, L. Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 709–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Simonsohn, U. Two lines: A valid alternative to the invalid testing of U-shaped relationships with quadratic regressions. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2018, 1, 538–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Hayes, A.F.; Preacher, K.J. Quantifying and testing indirect effects in simple mediation models when the constituent paths are nonlinear. Multivar. Behav. Res. 2010, 45, 627–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Heidemeier, H.; Moser, K. Self–other agreement in job performance ratings: A meta-analytic test of a process model. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Conway, J.M.; Huffcutt, A.I. Psychometric properties of multisource performance ratings: A meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and self-ratings. Hum. Perform. 1997, 10, 331–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Huber, S.G.; Muijs, D. School Leadership Effectiveness: The Growing Insight in the Importance of School Leadership for the Quality and Development of Schools and Their Pupils. In School Leadership-International Perspectives; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 57–77. [Google Scholar]
  51. Nguni, S.; Sleegers, P.; Denessen, E. Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 2006, 17, 145–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sun, J.; Leithwood, K. Direction-setting school leadership practices: A meta-analytical review of evidence about their influence. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 2015, 26, 499–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Taun, K.; Zagalaz-Sánchez, M.; Chacón-Cuberos, R. Management skills and styles of school principals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mäkelä, T.; Sikström, P.; Jääskelä, P.; Korkala, S.; Kotkajuuri, J.; Kaski, S.; Taalas, P. Factors constraining teachers’ wellbeing and agency in a Finnish university: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ben Amotz, R.; Green, G.; Joseph, G.; Levi, S.; Manor, N.; Ng, K.; Barak, S.; Hutzler, Y.; Tesler, R. Remote teaching, self-resilience, stress, professional efficacy, and subjective health among Israeli PE teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gilboa, S.; Shirom, A.; Fried, Y.; Cooper, C. A meta-analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects. Pers. Psychol. 2008, 61, 227–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Boswell, W.R.; Olson-Buchanan, J.B.; LePine, M.A. The relationship between work-related stress and work outcomes: The role of felt challenge and psychological strain. J. Vocat. Behav. 2004, 64, 165–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. LePine, J.A.; Podsakoff, N.P.; LePine, M.A. A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrance stressor framework: An explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2005, 48, 764–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The overall SEM results for work performance and maladaptive work-related outcomes (MWRO). Notes: standardized path coefficients are presented in the model; *** p < 0.01, and * p < 0.05; OCB=organizational citizenship behavior; Org=organizational; Ind=individual; MWRO—maladaptive work-related outcomes (stress and exhaustion); fit indices: Chi-square = 4.31, df=1, p = 0.04, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.039.
Figure 1. The overall SEM results for work performance and maladaptive work-related outcomes (MWRO). Notes: standardized path coefficients are presented in the model; *** p < 0.01, and * p < 0.05; OCB=organizational citizenship behavior; Org=organizational; Ind=individual; MWRO—maladaptive work-related outcomes (stress and exhaustion); fit indices: Chi-square = 4.31, df=1, p = 0.04, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.039.
Education 12 00895 g001
Figure 2. The association between OCB and work performance—WorkPerf (figure generated at: https://webstimate.org/twolines/run.php, accessed on 6 January 2021).
Figure 2. The association between OCB and work performance—WorkPerf (figure generated at: https://webstimate.org/twolines/run.php, accessed on 6 January 2021).
Education 12 00895 g002
Figure 3. The association between OCB and maladaptive work-related behaviors—MWRO (figure generated at: https://webstimate.org/twolines/run.php, accessed on 6 January 2021).
Figure 3. The association between OCB and maladaptive work-related behaviors—MWRO (figure generated at: https://webstimate.org/twolines/run.php, accessed on 6 January 2021).
Education 12 00895 g003
Table 1. Means, standard deviations and correlations among the study variables.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations and correlations among the study variables.
VariablesMeanSD123456789
1. Gender0.890.311
2. Age42.729.6−0.061 **1
3. Work tenure17.2310.430.042 *0.773 **1
4. OCB3.580.690.044 *0.065 **0.082 **1
5. OCB-Org3.590.740.0380.084 **0.090 **0.928 **1
6. OCB-Ind3.560.750.0390.0380.063 **0.929 **0.723 **1
7. Workload5.691.340.055 *0.087 **0.092 **0.200 **0.213 **0.161 **1
8. Social support5.531.410.016−0.172 **−0.169 **0.155 **0.112 **0.173 **−0.0181
9. Work performance4.350.480.0180.054 *0.046 *0.320 **0.302 **0.292 **0.0120.176 **1
10. MWRO2.421.000.062 **0.0090.027−0.100 **−0.090 **−0.097 **0.073 **−0.280 **−0.281 **
Note: gender is coded as a dummy variable with 0 = male and 1 = female; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; Org = organizational; Ind = individual; MWRO = maladaptive work-related outcomes; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.
Table 2. Results of the regression analyses for work performance and for maladaptive work-related outcomes.
Table 2. Results of the regression analyses for work performance and for maladaptive work-related outcomes.
VariablesWork PerformanceMWROMediators
Model 1Model 2Model 1Model 2WorkloadSocial Support
Constant 3.46 ***(0.08) 3.29 *** (0.09) 2.78 *** (0.17) 3.57 *** (0.20) 3.80 *** (0.30) 5.11 *** (0.23)
Gender 0.02 (0.03) 0.03 (0.03) 0.19 **(0.07) 0.16 * (0.07) 0.23 * (0.10) 0.03 (0.10)
Age 0.002 (0.002) −0.002 (0.002) −0.003 (0.004) −0.003 (0.004) 0.01 (0.005) −0.01 ** (0.01)
Work tenure (WT)−0.001 (0.002) 0.00 (0.002) 0.004 (0.003) 0.0002 (0.003) 0.01 (0.005) −0.02 **(0.005)
OCB-Org 0.12 *** (0.02) 0.12 *** (0.02) −0.06 (0.04) −0.08 * (0.04) 0.33 *** (0.05) −0.001 (0.06)
OCB-Ind0.10 *** (0.02)0.09 *** (0.02) −0.09 * (0.04) −0.03 (0.04) 0.04 (0.05) 0.35 *** (0.06)
Workload −0.02 ** (0.01) 0.07 ***(0.02)
Social support 0.05 *** (0.01) −0.20 ***(0.02)
N217021702170217021702202
R20.100.120.020.100.050.07
F change49.26 ***27.79 ***6.65 ***99.33 ***23.13 ***29.82 ***
Note: OCB-Ind = organizational citizenship behavior focused on individuals; OCB-Org = organizational citizenship behavior towards the organization; gender is coded as a dummy variable with 0 = male and 1 = female. unstandardized regression coefficients are shown with robust standard errors between parentheses (the H3 estimator was used); *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; p < 0.10.
Table 3. Results of the regression analyses for workload and social support at different levels of OCB.
Table 3. Results of the regression analyses for workload and social support at different levels of OCB.
VariablesOCB TotalOCB Low ScoresOCB High Scores
WorkloadSocial SupportWorkloadSocial SupportWorkloadSocial Support
Constant 3.78 ***(0.23) 5.14 *** (0.24) 3.71 *** (0.35) 5.62 *** (0.38) 3.72 ** (0.60) 4.80 ** (0.56)
Gender 0.23 * (0.11) 0.003 (0.10) 0.35 **(0.12) 0.01 (0.13) 0.05 (0.19) 0.06 (0.16)
Age −0.01 (0.005) −0.01 ** (0.005) 0.01 (0.01) −0.02 * (0.01) 0.004 (0.01) −0.01 (0.01)
Work tenure (WT) 0.01 (0.005) −0.02 *** (0.005) −0.004 (0.006) −0.02 ** (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) −0.01 (0.01)
OCB 0.37 *** (0.04) 0.34 *** (0.04) 0.34 *** (0.09) 0.22 *(0.09) 0.44 *** (0.13) 0.37 ** (0.12)
N217021701121112110491049
R20.050.060.040.060.020.04
F statistic26.87 ***32.97 ***9.21 ***15.26 ***4.30 **9.62 ***
Note: OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors; unstandardized regression coefficients are shown with robust standard errors between parentheses (the H3 estimator was used); gender is coded as a dummy variable with 0 = male and 1 = female; ***p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; p < 0.10.
Table 4. Results of the regression analyses for work performance and for maladaptive work-related outcomes at different levels of OCB.
Table 4. Results of the regression analyses for work performance and for maladaptive work-related outcomes at different levels of OCB.
VariablesOCB TotalOCB Low ScoresOCB High Scores
Work PerformanceMWROWork PerformanceMWROWork PerformanceMWRO
Constant 3.29 ***(0.09) 3.57 *** (0.20) 3.62 *** (0.15) 3.23 *** (0.31) 2.97 ** (0.17) 4.38 ** (0.43)
Gender −0.03 (0.03) 0.16 * (0.07) 0.03 (0.05) −0.16 (0.08) 0.02 (0.04) 0.19 (0.10)
Age 0.003 (0.002) −0.003 (0.004) 0.001 (0.002) −0.003 * (0.005) 0.004 (0.002) −0.003 (0.01)
Work tenure (WT) −0.0001 (0.002) 0.0003 (0.003) 0.001 (0.002) −0.002 (0.004) −0.001 (0.002) −0.0001 (0.005)
OCB 0.21 *** (0.02) −0.11 *** (0.03) 0.08 * (0.03) 0.09 (0.06) 0.31 *** (0.03) −0.38 *** (0.09)
Workload−0.02 * (0.01)0.06 *** (0.02) −0.01 (0.01) 0.02 (0.02) −0.02 ** (0.01) 0.10 *** (0.02)
Social support−0.05 *** (0.01)−0.20 *** (0.02) 0.06 *** (0.01) −0.21 ***(0.02) 0.04 **(0.01) −0.19 *** (0.03)
N217021701121112110491049
R20.120.100.040.090.090.11
F statistic49.79 ***35.95 ***6.50 ***17.47 ***19.90 ***21.07 ***
Note: OCB = organizational citizenship behaviors; unstandardized regression coefficients are shown with robust standard errors between parentheses (the H3 estimator was used); *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; p < 0.10.
Table 5. Results of the mediation analyses at different levels and types of OCB.
Table 5. Results of the mediation analyses at different levels and types of OCB.
VariablesWork PerformanceMaladaptive Work-Related Outcomes
OCB ScoresMediatorIndirect Effect (SE)Confidence IntervalIndirect Effect (SE)Confidence Interval
OCB totalSocial support0.02 (0.003)[0.01; 0.03]−0.07 (0.01)[−0.09; −0.05]
Workload−0.01 (0.003)[−0.01; −0.002]0.02 (0.01)[0.01; 0.04]
OCB low scoresSocial support0.01 (0.01)[0.002; 0.03]−0.05 (0.02)[−00.9; −00.01]
Workload −0.005 (0.005) [−0.01; 0.003] 0.01 (0.01) [−0.01; 0.03]
OCB high scoresSocial support0.01 (0.01)[0.004; 0.02]−0.07 (0.02)[−0.12; −0.03]
Workload−0.01 (0.005)[−0.02; −0.002]0.04 (0.02)[0.02; 0.08]
OCB OrgSocial support −0.005 (0.003) [−0.01; 0.01] 0.002 (0.01) [−0.02; 0.03]
Workload−0.01 (0.003)[−0.01; −0.001]0.02 (0.01)[0.01; 0.04]
OCB IndSocial support0.02 (0.004)[0.01; 0.03]−0.07 (0.01)[−0.10; −0.05]
Workload −0.001 (0.001) [−0.003; 0.001] 0.003 (0.004) [−0.004; 0.01]
Note: OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; Org = organizational; Ind = individual; unstandardized indirect effects are shown with robust standard errors between parentheses (the H3 estimator was used) and the confidence intervals; significant indirect effects are presented in bold.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Muntean, A.F.; Curșeu, P.L.; Tucaliuc, M. A Social Support and Resource Drain Exploration of the Bright and Dark Sides of Teachers’ Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 895. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120895

AMA Style

Muntean AF, Curșeu PL, Tucaliuc M. A Social Support and Resource Drain Exploration of the Bright and Dark Sides of Teachers’ Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Education Sciences. 2022; 12(12):895. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120895

Chicago/Turabian Style

Muntean, Arcadius Florin, Petru Lucian Curșeu, and Mihai Tucaliuc. 2022. "A Social Support and Resource Drain Exploration of the Bright and Dark Sides of Teachers’ Organizational Citizenship Behaviors" Education Sciences 12, no. 12: 895. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120895

APA Style

Muntean, A. F., Curșeu, P. L., & Tucaliuc, M. (2022). A Social Support and Resource Drain Exploration of the Bright and Dark Sides of Teachers’ Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Education Sciences, 12(12), 895. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120895

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