Next Article in Journal
Positive Massage: An Intervention for Couples’ Wellbeing in a Touch-Deprived Era
Previous Article in Journal
Shared Decision-Making and Information Needs among People with Generalized Anxiety Disorder
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
EJIHPE
Volume 11
Issue 2
10.3390/ejihpe11020032
ejihpe-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

Impact of Prosocial Motivation on Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Organizational Commitment: The Mediating Role of Managerial Support

by
Muhammad Arshad
1,*,
Ghulam Abid
2,
Francoise Contreras
3,
Natasha Saman Elahi
1 and
Muhammad Ahsan Athar
1
1
School of Business Administration, National College of Business Administration & Economics, Lahore 54660, Pakistan
2
Department of Business Studies, Kinnaird College for Women, Lahore 54000, Pakistan
3
Escuela de Administración, Universidad Del Rosario, Bogota 541030, Colombia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2021, 11(2), 436-449; https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11020032
Submission received: 16 April 2021 / Revised: 15 May 2021 / Accepted: 18 May 2021 / Published: 21 May 2021
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study, based on the conservation of resources (COR) theory, explores the impact of contextual variables, such as prosocial motivation, on employee discretionary behavior and organizational commitment. The mediating mechanism of managerial support at work defines the nature of the proposed relationships. Data from 303 administrative, instructional, and supervisory staff—predominantly male (95%) and with an average age of 30 years—working on Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) for Pakistan’s public sector were collected and analyzed by employing SPSS version 24. Confirmatory factor analyses suggested a good fit model, while a correlation matrix provided a significant and positive effect of prosocial motivation on employee citizenship behaviour and organizational commitment. Managerial support mediated the relationship between prosocial motivation and the employees’ organizational commitment and citizenship behaviour. The theoretical and practical implications discussed in this study seek to guide the management area to promote managerial support for better outcomes. These outcomes have considerable tactical, statistical, and real-world inferences for the stakeholders of the TVET sector.

1. Introduction

Due to its significant contribution to sustainable country development, the technical and Vocational Education and Training sector has become a driving force and is drawing global attention [1]. In developing countries where the workforce is enormous, the TVET sector plays a vital role by developing human resources to promote the structure of economic development [2]. Pakistan, being an emerging economic force, understands the importance of human resources development engaged in promoting the TVET sector in the country [3]. Prosocial employees are valuable resources for the country’s development [4] from the perspective of the TVET sector, where thousands of trainees are receiving technical and vocational skills. Previous research suggests that prosocial motivation, which refers to the desire to help others [5], has a positive impact on a number of work outcomes, such as the employee’s connection with the workplace [6,7], citizenship behavior [4,8], and organizational performance [9]. However, without managerial support, prosocial employees may not necessarily produce sustainable outcomes, and the achieved success may only be temporary and disappear over time. Thus, it is important to inspect the boundaries of the conditions under which prosocially motivated employees may develop a working environment that is conducive to achieving the organizational objectives. This study is then based on the assumptions of the conservation of resources theory, which investigates the indirect influence of prosocial motivation on organizational commitment and discretionary behavior through managerial support. The COR theory argues that individuals are motivated to protect, procure, and preserve the resources of an organization when they perceive organizational support [10]. These relationships of social exchange evolve when employers appreciate the employees’ stance, thus entailing positive consequences in the long run [11]. Previous literature reviews suggest that despite the importance of this topic, very few studies have explored the contextual factors that may promote the positive effects of prosocial motivation. They also recommend that employees’ prosocial motivation exert positive influence on their citizenship behavior in the conducive working environments, duly supported by the supervisors [7]. This study observes the indirect impact of prosocial motivation on OCB and organizational commitment [OC] through the mediating mechanism of managerial support in the context of the TVET in the public sector.
Managerial Support is depicted as the perception by employees that their supervisors provide them with support towards their new and innovative ideas [12]. This support is an integral part in the smooth execution of organizational objectives [13], particularly in the TVET sector, where thousands of trainees of lower strata of society are engaged in acquiring technical and vocational skills [14]. Similarly, managerial support is important in creating an influence on the overall organizational behavior of the employees [15]. Our study postulates that managerial support can also enhance the employees’ discretionary behavior which may be presumed to be a kind of prosocial or voluntary behavior considered by organizational fellows and, in turn, provide social settings that support the achievement of organizational goals while improving task performance [16]. This employee behavior thus plays a significant role in improving the job performance and achieving the organizational desired goals [17].
Organizational commitment refers to the employees’ emotional attachment to the organization [18,19]. Previous studies have explored positive effects of employee prosocial behavior [20], self-efficacy [21], and thriving at work [22] on organizational commitment [20]. However, the contextual factors relating to the circumstances where prosocial motivation fosters organizational commitment remain less explored. Therefore, this study empirically examines the role of managerial support in the relationship between employees’ prosocial motivation and organizational commitment. Bearing the former claims in mind, organizational commitment is a highly researched job attitude in the field of organizational behavior, management [19,23], human resources management [24], and organizational psychology [25]. This issue has attracted extensive attention from scholars and practitioners due to its positive organizational and individual outcomes such as higher productivity, job performance [26], better work-life balance, workplace stability, employee satisfaction [27,28], organizational citizenship behavior, better attendance, employee retention, and lower turnover intention [29], among others. The relationship between managerial support and employee commitment is less explored in the Asian context. In this regard, we desire to provide evidence that managerial support could be an important contributor to organizational commitment.
Extending the discussion further, managerial support at the organizational level is presumed to promote the employees’ citizenship behavior. Organizational citizenship behavior is the proactive discretionary behavior to voluntarily contribute to the organization [30] displayed by an individual. Previous research has explored the positive impact of prosocial motivation on employee discretionary behavior [4]. This study, however, is interested in investigating the impact of managerial support on the relationship between the employees’ prosocial motivation and their citizenship behavior in the context of the TVET sector.
Furthermore, this research has empirically examined the influence of prosocial motivation on managerial support. Prosocial motivation is a motivational power that appreciates the efforts of employees [31]. According to researcher [5], prosocial motivation is a desire to exert effort to value other people. This behavior carries a significant impact on employees’ working in the communal sector, particularly those of the public TVET sector, are meant to serve the common people. We are also interested in examining the indirect effect of the prosocial motivation of employees serving in the public sector with organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior with the help of managerial support. The past literature explores the relationship between these and other variables, but there are limited studies that explore the impact of prosocial motivation on organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment in the public sector. Thus, the present research seeks to answer the following research questions in the public sector TVET organizations in Pakistan:
Is there any connection between prosocial motivation and managerial support?
Does managerial support affect organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior?
Does managerial support mediate the relationship between prosocial motivation and organizational commitment as well as prosocial motivation and organizational citizenship behavior?

2. Theoretical Perspective

This research is supported by the conservation of resources theory proposed initially by [32], which has been applied in studies of supervisor–subordinate relationships [33]. According to this theory, when employees are motivated and seek to conserve new resources, organizations obtain optimistic assistance from their workers as give-and-take for providing assistance to their workers. The more the organizational management supports its workers well, the more the workers will respond in multiplication by demonstrating organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior [34]. Mainly, the commitment of workers to their organization increases as a result of managerial support that advances organizational performance. In sum, the present research seeks to test the relationships between prosocial motivation and organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment, exploring the mediating role of managerial support in the assumptions of conservation of resources theory. This discussion promotes the notion that prosocially motivated employees serving in the public TVET sector, would procure and preserve the resources of educational institutes engaged in disseminating technical education and vocational skills to the workforce of economically downtrodden classes in developing countries like Pakistan.

2.1. Prosocial Motivation and Managerial Support

The coordination and cooperation between employees and management may ease the execution of challenging tasks; therefore, employees’ prosocial behaviour always serves as a contributing factor in this perspective [35]. The desire to help colleagues promotes the welfare of others and also frames the notion that people are the most valuable asset for any organization [36]. Supported in studies [37,38] asserts that motivated people are those who are primarily concerned about their contribution to the benefit of others, ignoring a personal return. These are employees who achieve real long-term success, dealing in a better way with the organizational stressors. Prosocially motivated employees are not usually discouraged by daily troubles because they find their work valuable and meaningful [39]. Due to their willingness to contribute, these employees are the preferred choice for the organizations obtaining support from supervisors and managers [35]. This kind of behavior works in different dimensions, benefiting the organization and promoting the proactive behavior that finally gets administrative support [40]. In light of the above discussion, we derive the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Prosocial motivation is positively associated with managerial support.

2.2. Managerial Support and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Employees demonstrating high discretionary behaviour support their supervisors, managers and colleagues in the high times and always remain concerned about their partners’ well-being [41]. Normally, these employees show an ethical behavior in the workplace [42] and go beyond the expectations of job demands. Similarly, organizational citizenship behavior has been associated with positive organizational outcomes and employee performance [43]. Employee participation in the organizational affairs in the work context demonstrates their contentment and support backed by supervisors and managers [44]. Furthermore, previous research has discussed that cordial relationships between employees and management areas keep employees motivated to pursue their assigned tasks within allocated times and resources [45]. They, based on the assumption of the COR theory, invest their potential and abilities in the promotion of organizational objectives.
The appreciation of organizational support promotes more positive relationships among workers and their managers and instigates organizational citizenship behavior in junior employees [46]. Employees with an optimistic attitude appreciate management support, which signifies an attachment to the organization that mitigates turnover intention [47]. Consequently, their discretionary behaviour may be strengthened. We assume that, in the public sector, the demonstration of employee discretionary behavior is an expression of support from their colleagues and management that motivates employees to extend their cooperation to their supervisors and the dealings of the workplace. This also supports the notion that employees who demonstrate citizenship behavior are actively involved in solving citizens’ issues, vigorously recognizing problems concerning the current public service. They also advise the best possible solutions to their communities. This discussion supports the notion that managerial support leads to a positive impact on employees’ OCB, thus we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Managerial support is positively associated with employee discretionary behavior.

2.3. Managerial Support and Organizational Commitment

Managerial support at an organizational level is a vital factor for workers to build trust [48] and achieve organizational goals [49]. Organizations expect supervisors or leaders to play a leading role by pursing employee’s motivation. On the other hand, employees pursue managers who assess their performance reports as agents of the organization. Consequently, workers receive support from their supervisors as organizational support [45]. Employees who perceive their supervisors as competent, trustworthy, and supportable are more motivated to share the organizational goals by demonstrating their OC. To achieve this high standard of organizational commitment from employees, supervisors with a democratic leadership style allow employees to participate in the decision-making procedure, which promotes their confidence and, resultantly, increases their performance [50]. Thus, managerial support may improve or decrease the OC of employees. Research has found evidence about the positive association of managerial support and organizational commitment, i.e., it was found that high levels of organizational assistance are related to a high organizational commitment from employees [51,52]. On the contrary, the lack or scarcity of managerial support of employees decreases their organizational commitment and causes poor performance, also encouraging turnover, absenteeism, and stress [53]. So, on the basis of the above discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Managerial support is positively associated with organizational commitment.

2.4. Managerial Support: Prosocial Motivation and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Research has already explored the association between the prosocial motivation of individuals and supportive behaviors by management [54]. Another study by scholars [55] has dignified an association between two prosocial personality features and volunteerism, and found that prosocial personality features have important links to a commitment to volunteer deeds. Management of the organization always encourages and supports the prosocially motivated employees. The impact of the multiplication of the support of management and prosocial motivation spurs the organizational citizenship behavior of the employees. This notion is hypothesized as:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Managerial support mediates the association between prosocial motivation and organizational citizenship behaviors.

2.5. Managerial Support: Prosocial Motivation and Organizational Commitment

Organizations expect commitment from workers in order to decrease expenses and improve performance and provision of product quality [56]. This commitment can be improved by building beliefs, cooperation, and employee empowerment. These approaches were often established in the non-profit sector but are now being progressively and effectually employed by the profit sector as well. Organizations should spend on HR and retain employees in order to achieve organizational objectives. The higher-level organizational pledge and prosocial motivation are associated with managerial support and the managerial working style [50]. Similarly, motivated employees within a supportive environment encourage managers to involve them in the decision-making processes which, in turn, increase the employees’ commitment to achieve the objectives of the organization. Thus, we posit that managerial support may mediate the relationship between prosocial motivation and the OC of workers.
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Managerial support mediates the relationship between prosocial motivation and organizational commitment.

2.6. Research Model

The literature suggests that there is a positive relationship between prosocial motivation and managerial support. Similarly, managerial support is positively associated with OCB. Managerial support may be positively associated with OC. The literature also suggests that managerial support mediates the relationship between prosocial motivation and OCB. Managerial support can also mediate the proposed relationship between prosocial motivation and OC. The conceptual model of this study, outlined in light of the review of literature is shown in Figure 1.

3. Method

3.1. Participants and Procedure

The study was carried out in the Technical and Vocational Education Training [TVET] sector of Pakistan. The targeted respondents belonged to two categories: managerial and instructional staff. In the first category, the respondents were managerial and administrative staff working at the head and at a field office of technical education in Punjab, the largest province of Pakistan. The staff was comprised of strategic and operational management including the general managers, deputy general managers, managers/directors, deputy managers, assistant managers, and their supporting staff. In the second category, the respondents were instructional staff, which included principals, heads of departments, instructors, and support staff of the different short courses/technologies engaged at the Govt. College of Technologies and Govt. Technical Training Institutes under the administrative control of the Punjab Technical Educational and Vocational Training Authority (PTEVTA]. PTEVTA supervises more than 400 technical and vocational training institutes, where about 0.2 million trainees are enrolled annually in different trades and technologies [14].
A self-administered questionnaire was used for the data collection process. This study was cross-sectional and counted with a time-lagged structure as the data were collected at a three-wave period with a two-week pause between each wave, used as a multi-source for the removal of common method biases. As suggested by [57], in this study data was collected from employees and from their supervisors. Furthermore, to observe the possible change in the predictor variables, a temporal three-wave design was adopted to avoid common method biases. A team comprised of five members was trained and guided to apply the questionnaires, and a cover letter was sent beforehand to the heads of the sections and departments. This letter communicated the goal of this research, namely, to examine the attitudes of staff pertaining to prosocial motivation, managerial support, OC, and OCB. Participants were encouraged to respond as accurately as possible and were assured that their participation would be kept confidential and anonymous. Furthermore, they were told that the data would be used for academic research purposes only.
A total of 370 questionnaires were distributed to managerial/administrative and instructional staff at time period 1 [T1]. Out of 370 distributed questionnaires, 350 completed questionnaires [T1] were received. At time period 2 [T2], a total of 350 questionnaires were distributed again to those respondents who responded at time 1 and 335 completed questionnaires were received back. At time 3 [T3], we contacted the respondents’ immediate boss to gather data regarding the organizational citizenship behavior towards the organization. A total of 30 bosses/supervisors responded 303 questionnaires. Participants were predominantly male [95%] with an average age of 30 years and more than half of the participants belonged to supporting staff. Participants had been recruited 5 to 20 years before and had stayed in their current ranks/positions for a range varying from of almost 11 months to 10 years; 32% of respondents were supporting staff. Furthermore, the education level of the supporting staff ranged from intermediate education to master’s degrees, whereas the qualification of instructional staff ranged from a diploma in associate engineering to graduate and post-graduate engineering studies. The heads of departments/sections and principals/HOIs were holders of engineering degrees, master‘s degrees in business administration, and PhDs. The average age of principals/supervisors was 42 and their qualification level varied from master/engineering to postgraduate. The span of control for each manager varied from person to person; however, the range of span of control was 5–10 personals in case of managerial offices in head and field offices.

3.2. Measure

All items in the questionnaire with the exception of demographic characteristics were measured on a five-point Likert type scale from five [strongly agree] to one [strongly disagree]. Prosocial motivation was measured with five items based on validated measures reported in prior research [58]. The sample items from the scale were, “I do my best when I am working on a task that contributes to the well-being of others” and “I like to work on tasks that have a potential to benefit others”. The average score of responses from employees other than the general manager/deputy general managers/principal was used to compute this measure. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.80, representing a higher level of internal reliability for the used scale.
Managerial Support was measured through six items based on validated measurements reported in prior research [59]. The sample items from the scale were “my supervisor is supportive when I have a problem at work” and “my supervisor accommodates me when I have family or personal business to take care of”, for example, medical appointments, meetings with the child’s teachers, etc. The average score of responses from employees other than the general manager/deputy general managers/principal was used to compute this measurement. The combined scale, designed by combining the values of the six items that had a Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.82, showed a higher level of internal reliability.
Organizational commitment was measured using a nine-item scale developed by [60]. This scale includes three basic components of organizational commitment: identification [three-item], involvement [three-item], and devotion [three-item]. Sample items: “I talk about this organization to my friends as a great organization I work for” [identification], “I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization” [involvement], and “What this organization stands for is important to me” [loyalty]. In this study, the variable was taken as a composite variable. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86, indicating a higher level of internal reliability for the used scale.
Organizational Citizenship Behavior was measured using the eight validated items developed by [61]. This scale comprises eight statements for OCB focused on individuals within the organization [OCB]. The sample items from the scale were “this employee attends functions that are not required but that help the organizational image” and “my supervisor accommodates me when this employee defends the organization against other employees criticizing it.”. The average score of responses from employees other than the general manager/deputy general managers/principal was used to compute this measure. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.85, signifying a higher level of internal reliability for the used scale.

3.3. Control Variables

Past studies suggest a potential relationship between demographic characteristics and both workplace organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment [62]. Thus, gender, age, education level, organizational tenure, job level, and marital status were carefully controlled, avoiding potential effects from demographic variables on resultant variables [OCB and OC].

4. Analysis and Results

CFA was applied to check the data’s factor structure following the traditions [63]. After CFA, descriptive statistics were used to understand the data. This led the researchers to use a correlation matrix, useful for understanding the relationship among the study’s variables. Finally, the regression analysis helped in verifying the hypotheses included in this study.

4.1. Analysis and Results

A measurement model using AMOS 24 reveals the factor structure based on the validated measurement scales that are used. Four latent factors were distinguished: prosocial motivation, managerial support, OCB, and organizational commitment. CFA specifies that the associations between all observed variables and their respective latent dimensions are statistically significant. The chi-square statistical model is divided by degrees of freedom 1.96, CFI 0.90 and a Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] 0.06. The modified measurement model shows that all observed variables associated to their latent constructs are statistically significant. The fit indices show an acceptable fit to the data (Table 1).
Table 2 shows the convergent and discriminant validity of our studied model. It shows a composite reliability of variables above the standard, which is 0.70. The average variance extracted [AVE] is also above the standard [0.5], which means that convergent validity of the model shows model fitness. Discriminant validity also shows model fitness. So, both results show that the model is fit and valid.
Means [M], SD, range[R], and number of observations [N] of all variables is described in Table 3. The outcome shows that the mean of prosocial motivation is fairly high, with a mean score of 4.33 on a five-point scale. Certainly, it makes sense that employees working in the public TVET sector demonstrate a high degree of prosocial motivation. The scores stated below arise from the prosocial motivation construct which is 1.40 (Table 1). In contrast to the other impressions that are measured on a five-point Likert scale, the SD of PM is also relatively small, i.e., 0.53. Another prominent result is the relatively low score on managerial support [3.87], which matches with the top-down direction in which policy reform needs to be employed. The table also explains the reliability analysis of the study variable. It shows that the Cronbach alpha reliability of prosocial motivation is 0.80, managerial support [0.82], organizational commitment [0.85], and organizational citizenship behavior [0.86]. All of these are above the standard, which is 0.7.
The bivariate correlations among all variables are shown (Table 3). Correlational analysis indicates that there is a statistically significant correlation among the dependent variable, i.e., managerial support, and each concept that was identified in the CFA. The relationship of prosocial motivation with managerial support is strong [r = 0.30, p < 0.05]. Similarly, the associations between managerial support and organizational commitment are also particularly strong [r = 0.37, p < 0.05]. Prosocial motivation is not related to organizational citizenship behavior [r = 0.06, p > 0.05]. Correlation of management support is also significantly strong with organizational citizenship behavior [r = 0.15, p < 0.05]. The employees of the public TVET sector organization in Pakistan consider management support for their OCB and organizational commitment. The correlation matrix further shows a significant relation between OCB and organizational commitment [r = 0.13, p < 0.05].

4.2. Hypotheses Testing

To verify the research’s hypotheses, a PROCESS Macros [Model 4] was used [Hayes, 2013]. Two separate models are projected. Model 1 includes prosocial motivation and managerial support. It is observed that there is a significant correlation between prosocial motivation and managerial support [B = 0.36, p < 0.05], which supports hypothesis H1 as shown in Table 3. Similarly, Model 2 shows a significant relationship between managerial support and organizational citizenship behavior [B = 0.12, p < 0.05]. Similarly, in Model 4, there is a significant relationship between managerial support and organizational commitment [B = 0.32, p < 0.05]. In Model 3, the table shows that prosocial motivation is not significantly related to organization citizenship behavior [B = 0.02, p > 0.05]. Therefore, H2 of the study is not supported by the data. Model 5 shows that prosocial motivation is not positively related to organizational commitment [B = 0.15, p > 0.05], therefore H3 of the study is not supported by data either (Table 4).
Furthermore, there is no direct significant relationship between prosocial motivation and the dependent variable, namely organizational citizenship behavior, although the indirect impact of prosocial motivation was checked through the construct, i.e., managerial support. It was observed that managerial support mediates the significant relationship between prosocial motivation and organizational citizenship behavior [B = 0.05, p = 0.00], which is shown in Table 5. Here, hypothesis H4 is reported to support the relationship between prosocial motivation and organizational citizenship behavior. Although it is observed that there is no direct significant relationship between prosocial motivation and organizational commitment, the indirect impact of prosocial motivation appears through the construct (i.e., managerial support). It is also observed that managerial support mediates the significant relationship between prosocial motivation and organizational commitment [B = 0.12, p = 0.00] as shown in Table 5. Here, hypothesis H5 supports the relationship between prosocial motivation and organizational citizenship behavior.

5. Discussion

The present study aims to investigate the impact of prosocial motivation on the OCB and OC of employees, exploring the mediating role of managerial support in the public TVET sector in Pakistan. This research also highlights that the support that workers perceive from managers and the organization leads employees to demonstrate a response in terms of OCBs and OC. It also guides management of the TVET sector to promote the prosocially motivated employees to demonstrate a better performance. According to the results, the first hypothesis is supported: prosocial motivation shows a significantly positive relationship with managerial support. These results are consistent with a previous study [64] and the findings suggest that managerial support to the motivated employees may promote the positive conduct of their employees with the masses.
The results also provide a significantly positive relationship between prosocial motivation and OCB and relationship is mediated by the managerial support. Associations are further supported by the regression analysis results where prosocial motivation is positively related to OCB. Thus, the fourth hypothesis was also supported. This finding corresponds with previous studies [65,66]. Outcomes also propose that the workers getting support from their management were motivated and pay back to the organization by demonstrating OCB and OC, which is significantly vital for the promotion of the TVET’s image in developing countries. Thus, workers get involved in citizenship behaviors to respond to managerial support provided by the organization. The second hypothesis is also supported: management support positively predicts the OCB. This is to say that workers who have a greater organizational commitment are more likely to perform additional role behaviors, which are very important for organizations. The fifth hypothesis is concerned with the mediating role between the relationship of prosocial motivation and OC that managerial support plays. It seems that when individuals perceive support from the organization and from their managers, they can feel energized and enthusiastic to perform better at their work.
Results provide useful information for managers working in the public TVET sector where the main objective is to facilitate and provide services to common people. Recently, ref. [54] found that employees’ commitment to their organization can produce changes in the public sector. Likewise, since this study highlights the impact of prosocial motivation behavior on OCB and OC in coordination with managerial support, the managers can reduce the distance between employees and higher managerial staff as they are in permanent interaction with both of them at the same time. Research shows that managerial support has a promising association with organizational commitment: the higher the level of organizational support that the employees feel, the higher their commitment towards the organization. Therefore, management support fosters organizational citizenship behavior.

Theoretical and Practical Contribution

This research was carried out in the public TVET sector, where the objective of organizations is to serve the common people. Theoretically it adds new knowledge indicating that managerial support plays a vital role in improving the OC and OCB of TVET sector employees. Supportive management indirectly motivates and enhances employees’ efficiency. This research also has imperative practical implications for the managers of the TVET sector, where TVET institutions are engaged in serving the poor sectors of the society. If higher management of the TVET sector were to support the operational management, this would enhance their OC and OCB. The highly motivated operational management would perform their duties more enthusiastically and the lower strata of society, whose children are receiving technical and vocational training, would realize their impact. Furthermore, this skilled workforce would be an important source for contribution to the feeble economy of Pakistan, which can be applied to other developing countries.

6. Limitations and Future Directions

This research carries some limitations. First, the test was focused only on a single public TVET sector organization, thus its findings cannot be generalized to other sectors and organizations in Pakistan. Therefore, we suggest replicating this model in other sectors in order to generalize the findings in other cities of Pakistan and in other developing countries. These limitations are in line with the suggestion of [67], which suggests the collection of data from more than one organization. The study was conducted only in the public sector; however, this model may be tested on the private sector as well, and also in the other countries of the world. The second limitation of this study is that its findings are based on the data collected from 303 respondents, therefore, the results may not be applicable to the whole TVET sector. Third, this study was carried out in Pakistan, which is a developing country; therefore, results may vary if study is conducted in developed countries, where working environment and HR practices are observed differently. Future research may include collecting data from a larger population in order for the results to be more appropriate and meaningful. We also encourage future researchers to consider other mediators such as family support in these relationships. Further studies may include some strong moderator, which is useful to the study settings. However, apart from the limitations, this study highlights important findings regarding the impact of prosocial motivation on employee OCB, and the mediating role of managerial support between the relationship of prosocial motivation and OCB.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A. and G.A.; Data curation, M.A., N.S.E., and M.A.A.; Formal analysis, M.A. and M.A.A.; Investigation, M.A., G.A., and F.C.; Methodology, M.A. and G.A.; Project administration, G.A.; Resources, M.A.; Writing—original draft, M.A. and G.A.; Writing—review, proof reading and editing, G.A., F.C. and M.A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

All procedures performed in the study ensured that human participants’ involvement in the research was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution and/or national research committee and with the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the School of Business Administration & Economics, and the National College of Business Administration & Economics in Lahore, Pakistan.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed in the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zancajo, A.; Valiente, O. TVET policy reforms in Chile 2006–2018: Between human capital and the right to education. J. Vocat. Educ. Train. 2019, 71, 579–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Kanwar, A.; Balasubramanian, K.; Carr, A. Changing the TVET paradigm: New models for lifelong learning. Int. J. Train. Res. 2019, 17, 54–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Shabbir, M.S.; Shariff MN, M.; Alshaibani, Y.H.; Faisal, M.; Salman, R. Entrepreneurship and skills development for socioeconomic growth; Present landscape and future agenda for Pakistan. Acad. Entrep. J. 2018, 24, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  4. Arshad, M.; Abid, G.; Torres, F.V.C. Impact of prosocial motivation on organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating role of ethical leadership and leader–member exchange. Qual. Quant. Int. J. Methodol. 2020, 55, 133–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Grant, A.M. Employees without a Cause: The Motivational Effects of Prosocial Impact in Public Service. Int. Public Manag. J. 2008, 11, 48–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Abid, G.; Sajjad, I.; Elahi, N.S.; Farooqi, S.; Nisar, A. The influence of prosocial motivation and civility on work engagement: The mediating role of thriving at work. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2018, 5, 1439712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shao, B.; Cardona, P.; Ng, I.; Trau, R.N. Are prosocially motivated employees more committed to their organization? The roles of supervisors’ prosocial motivation and perceived corporate social responsibility. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 2017, 34, 951–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nawaz, M.; Abid, G.; Rana, K.S.; Ahmad, M. Extra-role performance of nurses in healthcare sector of Pakistan. Int. J. Entrep. 2021, 25, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cai, Z.; Huo, Y.; Lan, J.; Chen, Z.; Lam, W. When do frontline hospitality employees take charge? Prosocial motivation, taking charge, and job performance: The moderating role of job autonomy. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2019, 60, 237–248. [Google Scholar]
  10. Jin, M.H.; McDonald, B.; Park, J. Person–organization fit and turnover intention: Exploring the mediating role of employee followership and job satisfaction through conservation of resources theory. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 2018, 38, 167–192. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cropanzano, R.; Mitchell, M.S. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. J. Manag. 2005, 31, 874–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Oldham, G.R.; Cummings, A. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 607–634. [Google Scholar]
  13. Torres, F.; Abid, G.; Govers, M.; Elahi, N.S. Influence of support on work engagement in nursing staff: The mediating role of possibilities for professional development. Acad. Rev. Latinoam. Adm. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Arshad, M.; Tahir, A.; Khan, M.M.; Basit, A. Impact of career counseling & vocational guidance on employment in TVET sector. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Stud. 2018, 8, 274–289. [Google Scholar]
  15. Heydari, M.D.; Lai, K.K. The Effect Employee Commitment on Service Performance through a Mediating Function of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour Using Servqual and Collaborative Filtering Modeling: Evidence From China’s Hospitality Industry. J. Tour. Hosp. 2019, 8, 2167-0269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Shim, D.C.; Faerman, S. Government employees’ organizational citizenship behavior: The impacts of public service motivation, organizational identification, and subjective OCB norms. Int. Public Manag. J. 2017, 20, 531–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Supriyanto, A.S.; Ekowati, V.M.; Masyhuri, M. The Relationship among Spiritual Intelligence, Emotional Intelligence, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour, and Employee Performance. Etikonomi 2019, 18, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yu, Q.; Yen, D.A.; Barnes, B.R.; Huang, Y.A. Enhancing firm performance through internal market orientation and employee organizational commitment. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019, 30, 964–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Nisar, A.; Butt, T.H.; Abid, G.; Farooqi, S.; Qazi, T.F. Impact of grit on voice behavior: Mediating role of organizational commitment. Future Bus. J. 2020, 6, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ong, J.F.B.; Tan, J.M.T.; Villareal, R.F.C.; Chiu, J.L. Impact of quality work life and prosocial motivation on the organizational commitment and turnover intent of public health practitioners. Rev. Integr. Bus. Econ. Res. 2019, 8, 24–43. [Google Scholar]
  21. Erum, H.; Abid, G.; Torres, F.; Islam, T. Role of family motivation, workplace civility and self-efficacy in developing affective commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2020, 10, 358–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Abid, G.; Torres, F.; Ahmed, S.; Qazi, T.F. Contextual factors and organizational commitment: Examining the mediating role of thriving at work. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Đorđević, B.; Ivanović-Đukić, M.; Lepojević, V.; Milanović, S. The impact of employees’ commitment on organizational performances. Strateg. Manag. 2020, 25, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Marques, J.M.R.; La Falce, J.L.; Marques, F.M.F.R.; De Muylder, C.F.; Silva, J.T.M. The relationship between organizational commitment, knowledge transfer and knowledge management maturity. J. Knowl. Manag. 2019, 23, 1367–3270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Wołowska, A. Determinants of organizational commitment. Hum. Resour. Manag. Ergon. 2019, 8, 124–146. [Google Scholar]
  26. Saadeh, I.M.; Suifan, T.S. Job stress and organizational commitment in hospitals. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2020, 28, 1934–8835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Randall, D.M. Commitment and the organization: The organization man revisited. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1987, 12, 460–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sarhan, N.; Harb, A.; Shrafat, F.; Alhusban, M. The effect of organizational culture on the organizational commitment: Evidence from hotel industry. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2020, 10, 183–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Arumi, M.S.; Aldrin, N.; Murti, T.R. Effect of Organizational Culture on Organizational Citizenship Behavior with Organizational Commitment as a Mediator. Int. J. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2019, 8, 124–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Lavelle, J.J. What motivates OCB? Insights from the volunteerism literature. J. Organ. Behav. 2010, 31, 918–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mo, S.; Shi, J. Linking ethical leadership to employees’ organizational citizenship behavior: Testing the multilevel mediation role of organizational concern. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 141, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hobfoll, S.E. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44, 513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Guan, X.; Frenkel, S.J. Explaining supervisor–subordinate guanxi and subordinate performance through a conservation of resources lens. Hum. Relat. 2019, 72, 1752–1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jehanzeb, K.; Mohanty, J. The mediating role of organizational commitment between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Pers. Rev. 2019, 49, 48–3486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Shao, D.; Zhou, E.; Gao, P.; Long, L.; Xiong, J. Double-edged effects of socially responsible human resource management on employee task performance and organizational citizenship behavior: Mediating by role ambiguity and moderating by prosocial motivation. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Grant, A.M. Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the performance effects of transformational leadership. Acad. Manag. J. 2012, 55, 458–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Grant, A.M. Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success; Viking: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hu, J.; Liden, R.C. Making a difference in the teamwork: Linking team prosocial motivation to team processes and effectiveness. Acad. Manag. J. 2015, 58, 1102–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bakker, A.B. A Job Demands–Resources approach to public service motivation. Public Adm. Rev. 2015, 75, 723–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lebel, R.D. Moving beyond fight and flight: A contingent model of how the emotional regulation of anger and fear sparks proactivity. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2017, 42, 190–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gerpott, F.H.; Van Quaquebeke, N.; Schlamp, S.; Voelpel, S.C. An identity perspective on ethical leadership to explain organizational citizenship behavior: The interplay of follower moral identity and leader group prototypicality. J. Bus. 2019, 156, 1063–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Turnipseed, D.L. Are good soldiers good? Exploring the link between organizational citizenship behavior and personal ethics. J. Bus. Res. 2002, 55, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Deery, S.; Rayton, B.; Walsh, J.; Kinnie, N. The costs of exhibiting organizational citizenship behavior. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2017, 56, 1039–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. 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] [CrossRef]
  45. Kurtessis, J.N.; Eisenberger, R.; Ford, M.T.; Buffardi, L.C.; Stewart, K.A.; Adis, C.S. Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. J. Manag. 2017, 43, 1854–1884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Shaheen, S.; Bukhari, I.; Adil, A. Moderating role of psychological capital between perceived organizational support and organizational citizenship behavior and its dimensions. Int. J. Res. Stud. Psychol. 2016, 5, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tang, Y.Y.; Tang, Y.Y.; Tsaur, S.H.; Tsaur, S.H. Supervisory support climate and service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality: The role of positive group affective tone. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 28, 2331–2349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rehmat, M.; Abid, G.; Ashfaq, F.; Arya, B.; Farooqi, S. Workplace Respect and Organizational Identification: A Sequential Mediation. Int. J. Innov. Creat. Chang. 2020, 14, 446–471. [Google Scholar]
  49. Emhan, A. Relationship among managerial support, job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A comparative study of nonprofit, for-profit and public sectors in Turkey. Int. J. Bus. Humanit. Technol. 2012, 2, 179–190. [Google Scholar]
  50. Worku, D. Leadership Behavior in CBE and Its Effect on Employee Performance: The Mediating Role of Organizational Commitment. Ph.D. Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kleine, C.; Weißenberger, B.E. Leadership impact on organizational commitment: The mediating role of management control systems choice. J. Manag. Control 2014, 24, 241–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yasar, M.F.; Emhan, A.; Ebere, P. Analysis of organizational justice, supervisor support, and organizational commitment: A case study of energy sector in Nigeria. J. Bus. Stud. Q. 2014, 5, 37. [Google Scholar]
  53. Eisenberger, R.; Malone, G.P.; Presson, W.D. Optimizing perceived organizational support to enhance employee engagement. Soc. Hum. Resour. Manag. Soc. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2016, 2, 3–22. [Google Scholar]
  54. Van der Voet, J.; Steijn, B.; Kuipers, B.S. What’s in it for others? The relationship between prosocial motivation and commitment to change among youth care professionals. Public Manag. Rev. 2017, 19, 443–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Rodell, J.B.; Booth, J.E.; Lynch, J.W.; Zipay, K.P. Corporate volunteering climate: Mobilizing employee passion for societal causes and inspiring future charitable action. Acad. Manag. J. 2017, 60, 1662–1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Ullah, I.; Elahi, N.S.; Abid, G.; Butt, M.U. The impact of perceived organizational support and proactive personality on affective commitment: Mediating role of prosocial motivation. Business. Manag. Educ. 2020, 18, 183–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. 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]
  58. Eisenberg, N.; Carlo, G.; Murphy, B.; Van Court, P. Prosocial development in late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Child Dev. 1995, 66, 1179–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Anderson, S.E.; Coffey, B.S.; Byerly, R.T. Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work-family conflict and job-related outcomes. J. Manag. 2002, 28, 787–810. [Google Scholar]
  60. Williams, L.J.; Anderson, S.E. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 601–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Smith, C.A.; Organ, D.W.; Near, J.P. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. J. Appl. Psychol. 1983, 68, 653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. John, C.A. A Study on Organizational Commitment in Relation to Job Involvement in the Information Technology Industry. Ph.D. Thesis, Christ University, Bangalore, Karnataka, India, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  63. Eaton, P.; Willoughby, S.D. Confirmatory factor analysis applied to the Force Concept Inventory. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 2018, 14, 010124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Hu, J.; Zhang, Z.; Jiang, K.; Chen, W. Getting ahead, getting along, and getting prosocial: Examining extraversion facets, peer reactions, and leadership emergence. J. Appl. Psychol. 2019, 104, 1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Miao, R.T. Perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, task performance and organizational citizenship behavior in China. J. Behav. Appl. Manag. 2011, 12, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kaplan, M.; Öğüt, A.; Karayel, S.; İlhan, İ. The effects of ethical climate types on job satisfaction: The case of tourism industry. Hacet. Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Derg. 2013, 31, 117–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Kazlauskaite, R.; Buciuniene, I.; Turauskas, L. Organisational and psychological empowerment in the HRM-performance linkage. Empl. Relat. 2011, 34, 138–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ejihpe 11 00032 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework.
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework.
Ejihpe 11 00032 g001
Table
Table 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Table 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
CFIGFIRMRTLINFIRMSEA
Four factor Model0.900.920.910.910.930.06
Three factor Model0.850.820.860.840.790.09
Two factor Model0.74 0.780.820.720.690.12
One factor Model0.730.720.690.710.680.13
Note: Four Factor Model [“Prosocial Motivation”, “Managerial Support”, “Organizational Citizenship Behavior”, “Organizational Commitment”]. Three Factor Model [“Prosocial Motivation”, “Managerial Support”, “Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Organizational Commitment”]. Two Factor Model [“Prosocial Motivation, Managerial Support”, “Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Organizational Commitment”]. One Factor Model [“Prosocial Motivation, Managerial Support, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Organizational Commitment”].
Table
Table 2. Convergent and Discriminant Validity.
Table 2. Convergent and Discriminant Validity.
CRAVEMSVASVPMMSOCBOC
PM0.800.620.350.200.66
MS0.820.590.250.120.490.79
OCB0.850.620.630.280.360.500.77
OC0.860.710.540.250.210.230.310.68
Table
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Matrix.
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Matrix.
VariablesMeanS.D123456789
1.Martial Status1.760.421
2. Age3.110.320.54 **1
3. Designation1.780.240.030.091
4. Experience2.650.510.47 **0.86 **0.071
5.Qualification3.440.58−0.12 *−0.30 **0.050.32 **1
6. Prosocial Motivation4.330.530.100.09−0.020.100.050.80
7. Managerial Support3.870.670.010.11−0.060.11−0.030.30 **0.82
8.Organizational Commitment3.870.590.010.0600.06−0.060.14 *0.37 **0.85
9.Organizational Citizenship Behavior4.000.57−0.04−0.07−0.08−0.040.050.060.15 **0.13 *0.86
Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level(2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level(2-tailed). Cronbach’s alphas are on the diagonal (highlighted).
Table
Table 4. Results of Regression Analysis.
Table 4. Results of Regression Analysis.
Variables Managerial SupportOrganization Citizenship BehaviorOrganizational Commitment
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5
Independent
Prosocial Motivation0.36 ** 0.02 0.15
Mediator
Managerial Support 0.12 ** 0.32 **
Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level(2-tailed).
Table
Table 5. Results of Mediation Analysis.
Table 5. Results of Mediation Analysis.
MediationβSig.LLCIULCI
PM Ejihpe 11 00032 i001 MS Ejihpe 11 00032 i001 OCB0.050.000.020.16
PM Ejihpe 11 00032 i001 MS Ejihpe 11 00032 i001 OC0.120.000.070.18
Note: PM: Prosocial motivation, MS: Managerial support, OCB: Organizational citizenship behavior, OC: Organizational commitment.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Arshad, M.; Abid, G.; Contreras, F.; Elahi, N.S.; Athar, M.A. Impact of Prosocial Motivation on Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Organizational Commitment: The Mediating Role of Managerial Support. Eur. J. Investig. Health Psychol. Educ. 2021, 11, 436-449. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11020032

AMA Style

Arshad M, Abid G, Contreras F, Elahi NS, Athar MA. Impact of Prosocial Motivation on Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Organizational Commitment: The Mediating Role of Managerial Support. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education. 2021; 11(2):436-449. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11020032

Chicago/Turabian Style

Arshad, Muhammad, Ghulam Abid, Francoise Contreras, Natasha Saman Elahi, and Muhammad Ahsan Athar. 2021. "Impact of Prosocial Motivation on Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Organizational Commitment: The Mediating Role of Managerial Support" European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education 11, no. 2: 436-449. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11020032

APA Style

Arshad, M., Abid, G., Contreras, F., Elahi, N. S., & Athar, M. A. (2021). Impact of Prosocial Motivation on Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Organizational Commitment: The Mediating Role of Managerial Support. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 11(2), 436-449. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe11020032

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop