Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Interactive Effect of Positive Psychological Capital and Organizational Trust on Organizational Citizenship Behavior:

The Interactive Effect of Positive Psychological Capital and Organizational Trust on... To date, numerous empirical studies have been conducted to investigate the link between organizational trust and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). However, it is surprising that the moderating role of positive psychological capital (PsyCap) on the relationship between organizational trust and OCBs has not been directly tested. Thus, this relationship is currently under-researched. Addressing this gap in the organization literature, the purpose of this study is to examine the potential moderating role of positive PsyCap on the relationship between organizational trust and OCBs. Given this context and purpose of the study, the data collected from a sample of 1,100 health care employees from seven hospitals in Istanbul provided good support for the hypothesis. The findings indicate that positive PsyCap moderates the relationship between organizational trust and OCBs in such a manner that the relationship is stronger when positive PsyCap is high. The research findings are discussed with a view to implications and suggestions for future research. Keywords positive psychological capital, PsyCap, organizational trust, organizational citizenship behavior, health care sector. trust (OT), and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) Introduction stands as an important research topic. More than ever before, organizations are turning to competi- Despite the fact that there exists a broad range of literature tiveness, performance, and other positive organizational out- regarding the influence of OT on OCBs (e.g., Konovsky & comes (Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans, 2008; Bakker & Pugh, 1994; McAllister, 1995; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Schaufeli, 2008). If so, what can they do to get these positive Bommer, 1996; Wech, 2002), and there is a limited number of outcomes? At this point, studies conducted in recent years studies in the literature regarding the interactive effects of offer a variety of ways for organizations on how to benefit positive PsyCap (Cheung, Tang, & Tang, 2011; Görgens- from positive psychology (PP) to achieve these organiza- Ekermans & Herbert, 2013; Norman, Avey, Nimnicht, & tional outcomes (S. Lewis, 2011; Uslu, Cetin, Cubuk, & Pigeon, 2010; Roberts et al., 2011), the moderating effects of Isbilen, 2014). PP, as a result of the influence of organiza- employees’ PsyCap on the relationship between OT and OCB tional psychology, began to understand the importance of have not been directly tested. Thus, the research problem positive capital within the organization. Psychological capi- raised here represents an under-researched and neglected tal (PsyCap) has emerged as a significant construct in the issue. In addition, the current state of the extant literature in literature concerning positive organizational behavior (POB) particular the western countries across different cultures and (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007). The concept of positive sectors remains another untapped research issue. Accordingly, PsyCap emphasizes “the positive aspects of it on employees this study is based on an investigation of (a) the moderating rather than the personality traits, and with regard to develop- role of employees’ positive PsyCap in the relationship between ing these aspects, it is assumed that it will provide a competi- tive advantage over its rivals” (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, Bandırma Onyedi Eylül University, Turkey 2007). This assumption demonstrates that PsyCap is one of Corresponding Author: the main antecedents of employee attitudes, and so it has a Harun Yildiz, Associate Professor, Omer Seyfettin Faculty of Applied significant impact on organizational outcomes (S. Lewis, Sciences, Bandırma Onyedi Eylül University, Central Campus, 10200 2011; Youssef & Luthans, 2010). For this reason, under- Bandırma, Balıkesir, Turkey. standing the relationships between PsyCap, organizational Email: harunyildiz@bandirma.edu.tr Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open OT and OCB and (b) the validity of the relationships in a cul- Herbert, 2013; Luthans, 2010; Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & turally different context and in the health sector mentioned in Norman, 2007; Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson, 2010; the foregoing studies. Therefore, this study is set to close these Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Li, 2005; Norman et al., gaps in the literature. The study will contribute to the relevant 2010, p. 382; Peterson et al., 2011). literature by helping define and develop employees’ positive Self-efficacy is based on Bandura’s (1982, 1997) social psychological resources and by revealing that employees’ cognitive theory. It is defined as “the belief one has in his or OCBs could be raised by way of high levels of PsyCap. her abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, Besides, the present study extends the scope of studies on and courses of action necessary to successfully execute a POB (specifically PsyCap) through an empirical investigation specific task within a given context” (Luthans, 2010, p. 234). of health care employees and the interactive effects of positive It is a state, not a personality trait (Avey et al., 2009; Luthans, PsyCap on the relationship between OT and OCB. Thus, 2010; Luthans & Youssef, 2004). According to Harms and insights could be gained into practical directions for human Luthans (2012, p. 590), efficacy is “the confidence in one’s resource selection, development, and performance manage- own abilities to successfully execute and accomplish tasks.” ment practices (Peterson, Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Employees higher in self-efficacy believe they create their Zhang, 2011). own success (Avey, Reichard, Luthans, & Mhatre, 2011). Hope is based on the study of positive psychologist C. Rick Snyder as “being a motivational state that is related to Theoretical Background the interaction between three determinants, namely, goals, agency, and pathways” (Luthans & Youssef, 2004). It is Positive PsyCap defined as “persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed” (Avey Positive PsyCap was first used as POB capacity in the et al., 2009, p. 678). According to Snyder et al. (1996), hope Journal of Organizational Behavior (Harms & Luthans, is the belief in one’s capacity to start and maintain actions 2012; Luthans, 2002b; Wright, 2003), but then Luthans and and create routes to reach goals. Employees higher in hope Youssef (2004) used the concept as positive PsyCap (simply have a belief in their personal capacity to create their own PsyCap). This concept is based on PP, that is, positive orga- success as well (Avey et al., 2011, p. 132). nizational psychology (POP; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, Optimism is based on attribution theory and is closely 2000). POP, which emphasizes the life-enhancing effects of related to the bulk of research conducted by Seligman (2006) positive emotions such as psychological well-being and researchers in “positive psychology movement” (Fredrickson, 2003), has aroused two interrelated move- (Norman et al., 2010). It is defined as “a positive explanatory ments that introduced positivity and strength-based manage- style that attributes positive events to internal, permanent, ment to the workplace (Luthans & Youssef, 2004). POB, and pervasive causes, and negative events to external, tem- which applies positively oriented psychological capacities porary, and situation-specific ones” (Avey et al., 2009; that can be measured, enhanced, and managed, has been Luthans & Youssef, 2004). According to Harms and Luthans generally related to individual positive psychological (2012, p. 590), optimism refers to “making positive attribu- aspects and their effect on performance and positive organi- tions and having positive expectations for future events.” zational outcomes (Luthans, 2002a; Luthans, Vogelgesang, Optimist employees expect to have positive experiences & Lester, 2006; Luthans & Youssef, 2004), but positive (Carver & Scheier, 2002). Thus, adverse conditions are not organizational scholarship (POS), which presents an inimi- necessarily evaluated as failures, but as opportunities that table conceptual basis for understanding how and why orga- can be developed for success (Luthans et al., 2005). nizational strategies have their influences on human Resilience can be attributed to the studies conducted by behavior in the workplace, is mainly related to organiza- Ann Masten and others (Masten, 2001; Masten & Reed, tional positive aspects (Cameron, 2005; Cameron, Dutton, 2002). It is defined as “developable capacity to rebound or & Quinn, 2003; Donaldson & Ko, 2010). Thus, POP can be bounce back from adversity, conflict, failure, or even posi- considered as an umbrella term that includes both POB and tive events, progress, and increased responsibility” (Avey POS in terms of context (Donaldson & Ko, 2010). On the et al., 2009, p. 678; Harms & Luthans, 2012, p. 590; Luthans, contrary, above-mentioned POB capacities contain self- 2002a, p. 702; Norman et al., 2010, p. 382). According to efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience, and they constitute Masten (2001), resilience means “a class of phenomena positive PsyCap as a whole (Luthans, Avey, Clapp-Smith, & characterized by good outcomes in spite of serious threats to Li, 2008; Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007). PsyCap as a adaptation or development.” It is prone to be more reactive second-order core construct (sometimes referred to as than proactive (Luthans, 2010, p. 235). Resilience is one’s higher-order factor) has also been empirically supported in good adaptation against stringent conditions from a develop- some studies (Avey, Luthans, & Jensen, 2009; Avey, mental perspective; hence, it is related to process, not result Luthans, & Youssef, 2010; Avey et al., 2008; Gooty, Gavin, (Masten & Reed, 2002). Johnson, Frazier, & Snow, 2009; Görgens-Ekermans & Yildiz 3 situations and keeping on exhibiting others positive attitude OCB as a sportsman or a sportswoman shows a positive approach Although Barnard (1938) noted that extra-role behaviors are toward the negative behaviors (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff, a need for organizations (Kidder & Parks, 2001), Katz (1964) MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). Civic virtue refers to notified that these behaviors support organizational effec- macro-level citizenship and it is generally a commitment to tiveness. However, they have gained importance since the the organization as a whole (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., study of Organ (1988). According to Organ (1988), OCB is 2000) such as attending meetings that may be useful to the “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or organization though not compelled to do so or checking explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that whether office doors are closed or not. in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the However, in some studies, OCB is divided into two broad organization.” Organ’s (1997) later research defined it as categories according to the direction of benefits to the orga- “the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psycho- nization (K. Lee & Allen, 2002; McNeely & Meglino, 1994; logical context that supports task performance” and consid- Williams & Anderson, 1991). Altruism and courtesy have ered this term synonymous with conceptual performance (p. been classified into individual-directed behavior (OCB-I), 95). Thus, these concepts are synonymous because they are whereas conscientiousness, civic virtue, and sportsmanship directed toward the advantage of the organization (Norman are organization-directed behavior (OCB-O) (Williams & et al., 2010). Anderson, 1991). OCB-O is about more extensive behaviors OCB has been classified in various ways. Smith, Organ, that are of direct benefit to the organization and that is related and Near (1983, p. 657) classified OCB as altruism and gen- to qualifications for the job such as giving advance notice eralized compliance. Altruism includes individual behaviors when unable to come to work. On the contrary, OCB-I is such as closing their deficiencies with or assisting coworkers, more individualistic behaviors that indirectly contribute to whereas generalized compliance contains schemas like help- the organization and that establish a balance between the ing make the organization better through ideas, thoughts, and organization and its employees as in the case of helping suggestions. Williams et al. (1986) elaborated on Smith recently absent coworkers (Williams & Anderson, 1991). et al.’s (1983) classification (Puffer, 1987). They categorized In this study, to assess OCB, Organ’s (1988) five-factor OCB into three dimensions, namely, altruism, impersonal model was used. The model has been proven empirically as conscientiousness, and attendance. Then, Organ (1988) the one that has the most effective and distinct factors. In reconstructed Smith and others’ (1983) classification and addition, OCB as a second-order core construct has been formed a five-factor construct. The construct consists of empirically supported in some studies (Avey et al., 2008). “courtesy, altruism, civic virtue, conscientiousness, and sportsmanship” behaviors. Conscientiousness is related to the OT employee’s discipline perception (Barksdale & Werner, 2001) regarding the job (e.g., not leaving to finish a job that cannot The concept of trust that emphasizes the importance of inter- be completed, responding immediately to urgent calls coming personal relationships increasingly gained importance in the from the business while at home; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & latter half of the 1980s (Creed & Miles, 1996; Lewicki & Fetter, 1993). Altruism is voluntary behaviors that involve Bunker, 1996; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998; Yildiz, Yildiz, intentionally helping employees who have a work-related & Iyigun, 2015). Trust is the The emotional trust is related problem such as helping discretionary to the orientation of a foundation of good relations with employers, employees, and new employee who is hired to the organization (Avey et al., organizations (Zemke, 2000). The types of trust are sub-con- 2011; MacKenzie et al., 1993; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & structs – emotional and cognitive trust (J. D. Lewis & Weigert, MacKenzie, 1994). Conscientiousness and altruism are simi- 1985). The emotional trust is related to primary group rela- lar. However, conscientiousness includes organization- tions, whereas cognitive trust is more extensive and related to oriented helping behaviors, whereas altruism is related to secondary group relations. Scott (1980) characterized trust as colleagues-oriented helping behaviors. In other words, altru- “a positive force from which cooperation is derived” (p. 158). ism directly refers to behaviors intended to help a specific According to Nyhan and Marlowe (1997), trust is defined as person, but conscientiousness is of help to the organization in “the level of confidence that one individual has in another to an indirect manner (Becker & Vance, 1993). Courtesy is ini- act in a fair, ethical, predictable manner” (p. 615). tiatives which are done without work-related problems such On the contrary, OT is expanded to the organizational as negotiating with the unit of production before making a level of trust at the individual and team level (Creed & Miles, large-scale production decision (MacKenzie et al., 1993; 1996). According to Gilbert and Tang (1998), OT is “a feel- Organ, 1988; Organ & Ryan, 1995). Courtesy and altruism ing of confidence and support in an employer; it is the belief behaviors are similar. However, courtesy behaviors are proac- that an employer will be straightforward and follow through tive, whereas altruism behaviors are reactive. Thus, courtesy on commitment” (p. 322). Nyhan and Marlowe (1997) stated behaviors are exhibited before problems occur (Yoon & Suh, that an employee’s trust in his or her supervisor is different 2003). Sportsmanship is not complaining of the difficult from his or her trust to the organization as a whole. This 4 SAGE Open perspective is based on Luhmann’s (1979) framework. includes a large number of studies supporting the relation- Luhmann (1979) claimed that “trust occurs within a frame- ship between OT and OCB (Podsakoff et al., 1996; Podsakoff work of interaction which is influenced by both personality et al., 2000; Van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995; Yoon & and social system, and cannot be exclusively associated with Suh, 2003). A number of studies have found a significantly either.” Therefore, trust for the actions of the executive group positive relationship between OT and OCB. For example, differs from the trust for the organization as a whole (Nyhan, Konovsky and Pugh (1994) found that employees’ trust in 2000; Nyhan & Marlowe, 1997). supervisor mediates the relationship between procedural Trust has strong motivational effects that create and release fairness and OCB. Deluga (1994) found that perceived fair- positive energy which provides a collectivity (Dyne, Graham, ness is related to trust in the supervisor, most closely associ- & Dienesch, 1994). However, trust can be lost quickly by a ated with OCB. Robinson (1996) found that trust mediates particular and single behavior instantly although it is built in the relationship between psychological contract breach and small steps over time (Gilbert & Tang, 1998). Thus, it is quite civic virtue behaviors. The findings of MacKenzie, important to determine the antecedents of trust and engage in Podsakoff, and Rich (2001) revealed that trust in manager confidence-building practices. There are many individual and mediates the relationship between transformational leader- organizational factors affecting the formation of trust. For ship style and OCB (civic virtue, helping [consisting of altru- example, factors such as positive PsyCap, personality traits, ism and courtesy], and sportsmanship behaviors). Wech organizational justice, organizational support, positive orga- (2002) found that trust in a supervisor consisting of the influ- nizational climate, transformational leadership style, support- ence of leader-member exchange significantly predicted ive leadership, and effective human resource management individual and organizational level OCB. practices positively affect OT (Arnold, Barling, & Kelloway, OT in the above-mentioned studies has been shown to 2001; Brockner, Siegel, Daly, Tyler, & Martin, 1997; Flaherty positively affect extra-role/discretionary behaviors such as & Pappas, 2000; Hoy & Tarter, 2004; Hoy, Tarter, & OCB. In this context, the following hypothesis was formu- Witkoskie, 1992; Hubbell & Chory-Assad, 2005; Konovsky lated to test: & Pugh, 1994; Petersen, 2008; Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998; Zeffane & Connell, 2003). Hypothesis 1a (H1a): OT will be positively related to Thus, a high level of trust leads to positive outcomes such as OCB. perceived effectiveness, open communication, collaborative decision-making processes, organizational commitment, The Moderating Role of Positive PsyCap team efficacy, job engagement, job satisfaction, achievement, and innovative behaviors (Arnold et al., 2001; Brockner et al., Positive PsyCap can be “measured, developed through train- 1997; Flaherty & Pappas, 2000; Goddart, Tschannen-Moran, ing intervention, and effectively managed for performance & Hoy, 2001; Hassan & Ahmed, 2011; Hoy et al., 1992; S. H. improvement” (Luthans, 2002a, 2002b; Luthans, Avey, Lee, 2004; Petersen, 2008; Shockley-Zabalak, Kathleen, & Avolio, Norman, & Combs, 2006; Luthans et al., 2010). Winograd, 2000; Six, 2003; Wech, 2002). Thus, it is likely that positive PsyCap has a positive impact on performance outcomes. Most qualitative studies provided convincing evidence for the relationship that positive PsyCap Research Model exhibits a strong significance related to positive behaviors such as OCB (Görgens-Ekermans & Herbert, 2013) and job OT and OCB performance (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). Trust is rooted in the affective ties linking individuals and In addition, Fredrickson’s (1998, 2001, 2003) the broaden- conditions (McAllister, 1995). Although the level of trust in and-build theory emphasizes the role of emotions in PP and organization and leader decreases due to negative conditions emphasizes the role that positive emotions play in broaden- (e.g., injustice, mobbing) (Dyne et al., 1994; Moorman, ing individuals’ temporal thought-action repertoires. The Niehoff, & Organ, 1993), it raises positive conditions (e.g., theory explains the relationship between positive PsyCap transformational leadership style, positive culture). So, and OCB. According to the theory, positive emotions and increasing trust attitude moves individuals toward better out- orientations expand an individual’s attention and focus on comes (Chen, Hwang, & Liu, 2012; Podsakoff et al., 2000; their patterns of thinking, tendencies regarding the positivity Turner & Valentine, 2001). At the same time, theory and and their behaviors such as OCB (Norman et al., 2010). research clearly support the notion that OT may help to Thus, the potential for proactive extra-role behaviors such as obtain desired organizational outcomes such as OCB (Dirks sharing innovative thoughts or submitting suggestions for & Ferrin, 2001). As a result of the social exchange between improvement increases in line with Fredrickson’s model employers and employees (Blau, 1964), as OT increases, (Avey et al., 2011). employees are more likely to be grateful to the organization On the contrary, there are some empirical studies related and then raise their motivation (Dyne et al., 1994; Morrison, to the relationship in terms of performance in the relevant 1994) and thus exhibit extra-role behaviors. The literature literature. For instance, the study of Luthans et al. (2005) on Yildiz 5 Chinese workers in three manufacturing factories revealed believed to affect the level to which an individual will that workers’ positive PsyCap states affect role-based perfor- exhibit OCBs. mance and merit-based salary performance. According to the In addition, studies conducted by Bitmis and Ergeneli study carried out by Youssef and Luthans (2007) on employ- (2013), Walumbwa et al. (2011), and Clapp-Smith, ees working in various sectors, positive PsyCap was shown Vogelgesang, and Avey (2009) revealed that positive PsyCap to be positively related to job performance in the workplace. and trust in management and group trust were positively cor- According to the study conducted by Sweetman, Luthans, related. In general, these studies did not investigate the mod- Avey, and Luthans (2011) on employees working in various erating role of followers’ positive PsyCap in the relationship sectors, positive PsyCap was found to be related to creative between OT and their OCBs. In the light of the studies, it is performance. According to the study conducted by Luthans believed that positive PsyCap will influence an employee’s et al. (2010) on managers working in various sectors, PsyCap displayed level of OCBs. However, it is particularly interest- can lead to an improvement on the job performance. ing to investigate whether positive PsyCap will moderate the According to a longitudinal study carried out by Peterson relationship between OT and an employee’s exhibited OCBs. et al. (2011) on 179 employees working in the service (finan- In other words, individuals who are high in both OT and cial) sector, a change comes out in the levels of PsyCap over positive PsyCap will be more disposed to exhibit OCB than time, and this change has a significant impact on subjective those who are low in one of these variables. In the light of and objective performance. Another study conducted by previous literature supporting each relationship, it is possible Zamahani, Ghorbani, and Rezaei (2011) on telecommunica- that there is an interactive effect between these constructs tion employees found that leaders’ positive PsyCap (not self- that will differentially influence the relationship hypothe- reported) positively affects role-based performance. The sized above. Furthermore, this interaction was not examined study of Walumbwa, Luthans, Avey, and Oke (2011) on in a culturally different context, a developing nation, Turkey, police leaders and their followers found that a leader’s posi- and comprehensively in terms of the health care sector in tive PsyCap positively affects group OCB. those studies. In keeping with this literature, we expect the In some studies, the effect of PsyCap on OCB was inves- following hypothesis: tigated. For example, the study of Gooty et al. (2009) on band members of a major university revealed that positive Hypothesis 1b (H1b): There is a significant interaction PsyCap has a significant positive effect on in-role perfor- of OT and positive PsyCap on OCBs of health care mance and OCB. According to another research conducted employees. Specifically, for employees high on positive by Avey et al. (2008) on employees working in various sec- PsyCap, higher levels of OT are associated with higher tors, PsyCap was found to be associated with positive emo- levels of OCBs. tions that were linked with their attitudes (engagement and cynicism), and OCB and deviance behaviors. Also, positive In this context, Figure 1 illustrates our research model. emotions were generally determined as the mediating role in the relationship between PsyCap and OCB. According to the Methodological Framework research conducted by Avey et al. (2010) on employees working in various sectors, PsyCap is positively linked with Sample and Procedure desired extra-role OCB, whereas it is negatively linked with The research model was tested using employees from seven “undesired organizational cynicism, intentions to quit and hospitals at Fatih Association of Public Hospitals in Istanbul, counterproductive workplace behaviors.” According to the Turkey. The association is composed of eight hospitals which research conducted by Norman et al. (2010) on employees employ 3,721 full-time medical staff. First, the research eth- working in various sectors, the employees highest in positive ics approval was obtained from Balıkesir University Faculty PsyCap and most highly identified with the organization of Medicine Ethics Committee in Balıkesir, Turkey (the were most probably to engage in OCB. According to the received decision no: 2014/50), and afterward, the permis- meta-analysis study carried out by Avey et al. (2011) on sion for the survey was obtained from this association. Then, employees working in various sectors, significant positive 1,500 standardized questionnaires were distributed to the relations were found between positive PsyCap and OCB of seven organizations agreeing to participate, and completed desirable employee behaviors. questionnaires were collected within 4 months. However, Consistent with the studies in question so far, PsyCap some of them were discarded because of the excessive miss- states are likely to go beyond enhanced in-role/work perfor- ing data. The final usable sample size comprised 1,100 par- mance, which lead to positive attitudes, intentions (e.g., ticipants including physicians and dentists (20.9%), nurses/ intention to remain), and “contextual” behaviors (discre- midwives (50.5%), technicians (18.6%), and other health tionary behaviors) such as OCB and cause desirable out- care professionals (9.9%), thereby representing a response comes such as ethical performance (Avey et al., 2010; Gooty rate of 73%. 71.7% of the participants were female and et al., 2009; Luthans & Youssef, 2004; Motowidlo & Van 28.3% of them were male. 54.2% of the respondents were in Scotter, 1994). This being the case, positive PsyCap is 6 SAGE Open Figure 1. Research model. Note. PsyCap = psychological capital; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior. the 18- to 31-year-old group, 38.1% of them were in the 32- was of good reliability (Gooty et al., 2009; Luthans, Avolio, to 45-year-old group, and 7.7% of them were aged 46 and Avey, & Norman, 2007; Luthans et al., 2005). older. The sample was composed of master/doctorate (26%), undergraduate (36.1%), college (25.8%), and high school OT. OT was measured with a 12-item Organizational Trust (12.1%) graduates. Participant tenure with the organizations Inventory (OTI; Nyhan & Marlowe, 1997). The question- ranged from 1 to 29 years. naire consists of two dimensions including eight-item for trust in the supervisor and four-item for trust in the organiza- tion. The instrument was adapted and revised by Demircan Measures (2003). Sample items for the subscales included, per con- A scale consisting of the studies of Luthans, Youssef, and struct: “My level of confidence that my supervisor will make Avolio (2007) for PsyCap, Nyhan and Marlowe (1997) for well thought out decisions about his or her job is high” (trust OT, and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) in the supervisor); “The level of trust between supervisors for OCB was used. These scales were measured on a 5-point and workers in this organization is high” (trust in the organi- Likert-type response format, ranging from (1) “strongly dis- zation). The reliability coefficient for trust in the supervisor agree” to (5) “strongly agree.” Mean scale scores were used .97 and for trust in the organization was .87. Also, the Cron- for these scales. bach’s alpha reliability coefficient for overall 12-item com- posite OTI was .94, suggesting that the core measure was of Positive PsyCap. PsyCap was measured with the 24-item excellent reliability (Erat, Erdil, Kitapci, & Comlek, 2012; “Psychological Capital Questionnaire” (PCQ; Luthans, Nyhan, 2000; Nyhan & Marlowe, 1997). Youssef, & Avolio, 2007). The questionnaire consists of four dimensions including six-item each of “hope, optimism, self- OCB. OCB was the measured with the 24-item Organiza- efficacy, and resilience”. Sample items for the subscales tional Citizenship Behavior Scale (OCBS; Podsakoff et al., included, per construct: “I feel confident analyzing a long- 1990). The scale developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990) was term problem to find a solution” (self-efficacy); “There are formed on the basis of five subdimensions of OCB proposed lots of ways around any problem” (hope); “I’m optimistic by Organ (1988). These dimensions were “conscientious- about what will happen to me in the future as it pertains to ness, sportsmanship, civic virtue, courtesy, and altruism.” work” (optimism); and “I can get through difficult times at Sample items for the subscales included, per construct: work because I’ve experienced difficulty before” (resil- “Attendance at work is above the norm” (conscientiousness); ience). “There are lots of ways around any problem.” The “Always finds fault with what the organization is doing” (R) instrument was adapted by Cetin and Basim (2012) and (sportsmanship); “Attends meetings that are not mandatory, Erkus and Afacan-Findikli (2013). In the previous validation but are considered important” (civic virtue); “Considers the studies (Cetin & Basim, 2012; Erkus & Findikli, 2013), one impact of his or her actions on coworkers” (courtesy); “Helps reverse item for resilience and two reverse items for opti- others who have heavy workloads” (altruism). The instru- mism that increased the reliability coefficients (α) for these ment was adapted by Polat (2007) and Basim and Sesen two dimensions were excluded from the instrument. The (2006) and revised by the recent study. Based on the previous adapted instrument consists of 21 items. The reliability coef- validation studies, the two reverse-scored items for sports- ficient for self-efficacy was .79, but for hope was .66, for manship increased the Cronbach’s alphas for these two optimism .65 and for resilience, it was .66. However, the dimensions were excluded from the instrument. The adapted Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for overall 24-item instrument consists of 22 items. The reliability coefficient for composite PCQ was .87, suggesting that the core measure conscientiousness was .73, for sportsmanship was .70, for Yildiz 7 Table 1. Mean Values, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Scale Reliabilities of Measured Factors (N = 1,100). Variable M SD 1 2 3 1. PsyCap 3.99 .51 (.87) 2. OT 3.32 .87 .19** (.94) 3. OCB 4.05 .42 .51** .32** (.85) Note. Cronbach’s alphas shown in the diagonal. PsyCap = psychological capital; OT = organizational trust; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior. ** Significant at .01 level (one-tailed). 2 2 courtesy was .80, for altruism was .80, and for civic virtue, it χ = 175.68; df = 47, χ /df = 3.74; GFI = .97; CFI = .99; was .66. However, the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coeffi- RMSEA = .05; and RMR = .03. Results for OTI are regarded cient for overall 22-item composite OCB was .84, suggesting acceptable (Byrne, 2001; Hair et al., 2010; Ho, 2014; Hu & that the core measure was of good reliability (Nunnally & Bentler, 1999; Sumer, 2000). The fit indices for OCB were 2 2 Benstein, 1994; Polat, 2007). χ = 717.07; df = 200, χ /df = 3.59; GFI = .95; CFI = .93; RMSEA = .05; and RMR = .04. Results for OCB are regarded acceptable (Byrne, 2001; Hair et al., 2010; Ho, Research Results 2014; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Sumer, 2000). In general, all Before analyzing the hypotheses, an array of confirmatory these models provide evidence for moderate fit. factor analytic (CFA) models was administered through IBM Besides, Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-step AMOS 20.0 to evaluate the structure of the followers’ PCQ, approach was followed. According to this notion, they sug- OTI, and OCB. An array of models pursuing the general ana- gest that before the test of the structural model (structural lytical procedure suggested by Gooty et al. (2009), Luthans, equation modeling [SEM]), first the overall construct valid- Avolio, et al. (2007), and Luthans et al. (2008) were used. To ity of the model should be tested. Thus, at the beginning of this end, three different CFAs were used including second- the SEM, the model with the overall approach of CFA was order, four-factor, and one-factor on the positive PsyCap, tested. The fit indices for the overall CFA were χ = 2,792.89; OTI, and OCB scales to assess their validity. The first model df = 1,057, χ /df = 2.64; GFI = .91; CFI = .94; RMSEA = for PCQ described “four correlated first-order factors with .04; and RMR = .04. Results for the overall CFA are regarded the 21 items” (Model 1), whereas the second defined “a one- as acceptable for suggesting moderate fit (Byrne, 2001; Hair factor model, with all 21 items loading onto a single factor” et al., 2010; Ho, 2014; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Sumer, 2000). (Model 2). The third model characterized “the four first- When the correlation matrix is examined, it is seen that order factors of hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism the relationships between the independent variables are not as loading onto a higher-order” positive PsyCap construct at a level that can cause a multicollinearity problem (Model 3). Of these models, the one-factor PsyCap (Model (r < .80). In addition, the variance inflation factor (VIF) val- 2) was a good fit for the representation of PsyCap. Therefore, ues for regression models are also within acceptable limits the one-factor model was used for hypothesis testing. Using (<10). According to the assumptions of analyses performed one-factor of PysCap has precedence in the Bitmis and before the models are tested, the suitability of the variables to Ergeneli’s (2013) study. The fit indices for positive PCQ the normal distribution was evaluated by examining the were chi-square (χ ) = 314.10; degrees of freedom (df) = skewness and kurtosis values. Since the skewness and kurto- 74, χ /df = 4.25; goodness of fit index (GFI) = .96; com- sis values were within ±2 limits, the distribution can be parative fit index (CFI) = .95; and root mean square error accepted as normal (Hair et al., 2010). approximation (RMSEA) = .05. Results for PCQ are Table 1 shows means, standard deviations, correlations, regarded as acceptable (Byrne, 2001; Hair, Black, Babin, & and scale reliabilities of measured factors. As shown, the Anderson, 2010; Ho, 2014; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Sumer, mean for positive PsyCap was 3.99 (SD = .51), OT was 3.32 2000). Also, Hu and Bentler (1999) put forward a combina- (SD = .87), and OCB was 4.05 (SD = .42) on a 5-point scale torial rule for an acceptable fit. The rule clarifies that two of for all. The mean scores suggested good levels of these vari- three indices should fit the suggestion of “root mean square ables. The correlations reveal that positive PsyCap was posi- residual (RMR)/standardized root mean square residual tively related to OT (r = .19, p < .01) and OCB (r = .51, (SRMR) ≤.08, RMSEA ≤.06, and CFI ≤.95.” The same p < .01). Also, OT was positively correlated with OCB general analytical strategy was followed for OTI and OCB in (r = .32, p < .01). These findings support the main effect this study. The higher order model for both (Model 3) was a hypothesized in this research model. good fit for the representation of OTI and OCB. Therefore, However, we need to provide more support than simple the high-order factor model was used for hypothesis testing bivariate correlations for the hypotheses in this study. relevant to these variables. The fit indices for OTI were Therefore, hierarchical regression analyses were used to 8 SAGE Open Table 2. Regression Analyses Between Measured Factors (N = 1,100). OCB Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Gender .07* .08** .08** Age .11** .08** .08* Job .13*** .05 .05 Education .03 .03 .03 Tenure .05 –.02 –.03 OT .23*** .23*** PsyCap .46*** .47*** Interaction term (PsyCap × OT) .05* Total R .033*** .323*** .325*** ∆ in R .29*** .002* VIF (max) 1.551 1.565 1.568 Note. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; OT = organizational trust; PsyCap = psychological capital; VIF = variance inflation factor. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. analyze both direct and interactive effects of positive PsyCap (Roberts et al., 2011). Thus, overall, full support was found and OT on OCB. More particularly, the regression analysis for both H1a and H1b. with three steps was run. First of all, covariates of gender, age, In the present study, the interaction effect is statistically tenure, job, and education were added to Step 1 to better sepa- significant; however, the change in R was small. A plausible rate the variance from independent variables in the dependent explanation for this outcome might be the high mean value variables. In Step 2, both positive PsyCap and OT were entered for PsyCap and low standard deviation. This implies that per- into the regression models as independent variables. Finally, in mutations of low and high levels of the moderator (i.e., the third and last step, the interaction term (PsyCap × OT) PsyCap) may not have caused a high change in OCBs. Prior was entered into the regression model. This moderation vari- empirical evidence (i.e., Abubakar & Arasli, 2016; McClean, able was a standardized variable between positive PsyCap and Burris, & Detert, 2013) reported similar patterns of interac- OT. Findings of the regression analysis in Step 2 are shown in tions with high mean values and low standard deviations Table 2. H1a estimated that OT would be positively associated couple with a small change in R . Furthermore, our observa- with OCB. As shown in Table 2, OT was a significant predic- tion denotes that the effect of OT on OCBs is mediocre, sug- tor of OCB after controlling for demographic characteristics gesting that an increase in both OT and PsyCap are likely to (β = .23, p < .001), hence supporting H1a. boost OCBs. To this end, this study highlights the impor- Moreover, H1b, which estimated that positive PsyCap tance of the interaction effects of OT and PsyCap in explain- moderated the relationship between OT and OCB such that ing greater levels of OCBs among health care employees. the relationship was stronger if PsyCap was high, was also supported. In other words, those who are high in OT and who Robustness check have positive PsyCap would engage in the highest levels of OCBs. Particularly, the interactive effect of OT and positive In the interactive model, a very small change in R was PsyCap estimated small but significant variance beyond the observed. Therefore, to test the moderator effect, we also direct effect of OT and positive PsyCap (ΔR = .002, used a structural model using covariance-based SEM which β = .05, p < .05). is more robust and stringent than ordinary least squares In exploring the nature of the interactive effect, simple (OLS). First, the variables to be included in the analysis were slope tests using procedures recommended by Aiken and standardized. Then, the interaction term consisting of the West (1991) were administered. Figure 2 was formed plot- product of the independent and moderator variable was ting the graph of the dimensions. Figure 2 shows that when obtained. Finally, all variables were included in SEM. As a PsyCap was high (b = .13, p < .000), increases in OT pre- result of the analysis, it was found that there was a significant dicted increases in OCB, similarly, low levels of PsyCap was interaction of OT and positive PsyCap on OCBs of health significant (b = .09, p < .000). However, when PsyCap was care employees. These results are also consistent with the high, the interactive effect was higher than low levels of results of the hierarchical regression analysis. Furthermore, PsyCap. Thus, PsyCap may enhance the effect of OT on all control variables were removed separately from the model OCB because employees high in PsyCap can use their and the model was re-tested. Although all five models run in resources of self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience this manner had minor changes, the interaction term still Yildiz 9 Figure 2. Total effect moderation of positive PsyCap on the relationship between OT and OCB. Note. PsyCap = psychological capital; OT = organizational trust; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior. remained significant and the pattern of results stayed the results suggest that followers’ positive PsyCap does matter to same (p < .05). Although these findings alone cannot com- some extent with respect to OCBs. Yet, the importance is pletely eliminate the possibility of suppression, they support significant though small. Particularly, those high in PsyCap confidence in the robustness of our results (McClean et al., engage in more OCBs. Moreover, employees both high in 2013). positive PsyCap and high in OT would engage in the highest frequency of OCBs compared to those who are low in OT. Indeed, the link between these two variables proposed by Conclusion Youssef and Luthans (2010) and S. Lewis (2011) is among The current claims to make two significant contributions to the key propositions of the study. When these studies are the literature. First, it reveals the relationship between OT considered, individual and organizational antecedents such and extra-role behaviors (OCB) in terms of health sector as personality traits, organizational climate, culture, and employees. Indeed, the relationship between OT and OCB leadership style can help affect followers’ positive PsyCap has been studied extensively in the past two decades. and OT (Gooty et al., 2009). Therefore, employees tend to Therefore, the relationship has gained importance. It raises rely on management and supervisor, and they constitute the positive conditions while the level of trust in the organization positive emotions and form attitudes in a positive direction. and leader decreases due to negative conditions. There are Accordingly, these employees engage in more OCBs. Hence, many theoretical and empirical studies that supported the those with higher levels of PsyCap and OT are more likely to relationship between OT and OCB in the organizational lit- gain positive outcomes, and consequently exhibit OCBs erature (Deluga, 1994; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; MacKenzie (Bitmis & Ergeneli, 2013; Clapp-Smith et al., 2009). et al., 2001; Podsakoff et al., 1996; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Considering the direct effect of PsyCap on OCB, the fact that Robinson, 1996; Van Dyne et al., 1995; Wech, 2002; Yoon & health care employees have a meaningful impact on the lives Suh, 2003). In these studies, OT was found to play an impor- of others in terms of the task significance, in general, makes tant role in the understanding of OCB. In line with this, it them more motivated against their work and thus leads to was found in the present study that OT is positively related to higher levels of OCB (Hackman & Oldman, 1976). OCB in terms of health sector employees. Hence, the result Meanwhile, working under intense and deteriorating condi- parallels with above-mentioned studies. So, increasing trust tions provides that health care employees have higher levels attitude moves individuals toward better outcomes. As a of PsyCap (self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience) in result of the social exchange between employers and employ- the process of time. Therefore, these employees are likely to ees (Blau, 1964), as OT increases, employees are more likely reciprocate with higher levels of discretionary behaviors to be grateful to the organization and then raise their motiva- toward their work. tion (Dyne et al., 1994; Morrison, 1994) and thus exhibit In this respect, positive PsyCap alters the strength of the extra-role behaviors. causal relationship between OT and OCB. In addition, there Last but more importantly, it empirically contributes to is evidence for conceptual studies implying that high PsyCap the theory that clarifies the extent to which followers’ posi- is related to job performance (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001, tive PsyCap has a place in respecting how their trust in super- 2003; Görgens-Ekermans & Herbert, 2013; Luthans, 2002a, visor and organization comes out in the workplace. In brief, 2002b; Luthans, Avey, et al., 2006; Luthans et al., 2010). On 10 SAGE Open the contrary, there are also empirically proven studies solve this problem in the organizational milieu, the positivity (Luthans et al., 2010; Luthans et al., 2005; Peterson et al., of employees should be supported and supervisors should 2011; Sweetman et al., 2011; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). exhibit behaviors supporting the positivity of employees. In High positive PsyCap was positively related to OCB in the addition, organizations should implement proactive human present study. Also, in some studies, the effect of PsyCap on resource development strategies focused on improving OCBs was investigated (Avey et al., 2010; Avey et al., 2011; employees’ overall positive PsyCap because these strategies Avey et al., 2008; Gooty et al., 2009; Norman et al., 2010). may raise their attitudes of OT and OCB. Especially, positive Hence, the result parallels with above-mentioned studies. As PsyCap that provides organizations sustainable and competi- employees’ PsyCap is fostered, they are more likely to tive advantage should be developed through training inter- exhibit OCB. Positive PsyCap refers to the fact that the posi- vention programs such as web-based training interventions, tive psychological developmental status of an individual seminars. On the contrary, recruiting employees with high activates positive emotions and orientations and directs the positive PsyCap is another option. Since the departments individual’s attention and focus on their patterns of thinking, such as customer relationships or information office com- tendencies, and behaviors. High levels of PsyCap refer to an municate directly with patients, these departments provide employee’s positive job-related cognitions (Gooty et al., information to patients about the corporate culture, structure 2009). Thus, positive PsyCap states are likely to go beyond of the organization, and general business conduct. If organi- enhanced in-role performance and lead to “contextual” zations hire the right person (high positive PsyCap) for the behaviors (discretionary behaviors) such as OCB. For right job, they will be perceived as positive by those who instance, an employee who positively assesses his or her job provide services. In this context, the measurement of PsyCap works beyond the standard working hours or attends meet- should be integrated into the recruitment process to gain a ings not mandatory, but are considered important as he or she competitive advantage. In a nutshell, in future studies, this considers the likelihood to be useful to the organization of study should be tested in different sectors and repeated over the behavior. From this practical point of view, this result time and extended by adding potential moderation or medita- emphasizes the importance of positive psychological tion variables. resources and OT in activating the workforce toward OCBs. Considering the control variables used in the study, it is Positive PsyCap has a construct that is not constant under all noteworthy that gender, age, and job variables have effects circumstances and conditions. The construct can be mea- on OCBs at various levels. In terms of gender, it was deter- sured, developed, and effectively managed for performance mined that female employees exhibited higher levels of OCB improvement (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007). Therefore, than men (Chou & Pearson, 2011; Farrell & Finkelstein, the increase of positive PsyCap through various developing 2007). In terms of job, it was found that especially nurses and or training interventions allows for a higher level of extra- other health care workers have higher levels of OCB than role behaviors (Luthans, Avey, & Patera, 2008). At this point, physicians and dentists. Given the peculiarities of the profes- it is recommended that human resources departments focus sions of female and nurses (Zaghini, Biagioli, Prandi, Fida, on the development of this capacity and support it through & Sili, 2015), the fact that nurses are more concerned with various training interventions. the patients than physicians and that they meet many differ- In conclusion, propositions in the studies of Youssef and ent needs and have a close relationship with them increases Luthans (2010) and S. Lewis (2011) were supported in this their motivation by causing them to realize the importance of study. In earlier research, the direct effects of positive PsyCap their profession. Moreover, providing their jobs direct and on OCB were considered; however, in the current study, the explicit information from patients (i.e., their jobs has high moderating effect on the relationship was better understood. feedback) motivates them to exhibit higher levels of discre- From this standpoint, this study makes a contribution to POB tionary behaviors (Hackman & Oldman, 1976; Mahnaz, literature. Likewise, the results of this study will provide Mehdi, Jafar, & Abbolghasem, 2013; Robbins & Judge, guidance to supervisors, particularly to managers of the hos- 2013). In addition, as the age increases, the level of expertise pital who would like to determine the antecedents of health of employees and their commitment to their jobs increase employees’ OCB. Besides, examining the relationships in incrementally and thus lead to exhibit higher levels of OCB the context of hospitals represents a new organizational set- (Chou & Pearson, 2011; Mahnaz et al., 2013). ting. Public hospitals are health care institutions providing Naturally, this study has some limitations. The first limi- solutions to human health and which are open 24/7 and tation is that the same source was used to collect data on therefore they work under intensive workloads. Employees’ both the predictor and criterion variables by respondents job-based cognitions and thereby attitudes can be affected (common rater effect) at the same point in time (same mea- negatively due to this intensity and some unfavorable organi- surement time effect). Our findings are potentially subject to zational factors (e.g., negative organizational climate). As common rater bias because all the data were the same mea- such, attitudes toward supervisors and organizations of surement context (see Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Podsakoff, & employees may result in distrust due to this reason. As a Lee, 2003). As a result, this common source bias may cause result, distrust may lessen OCBs within the organization. To inflated relationships. Therefore, as suggested by Elci and Yildiz 11 Alpkan (2009), we took a few procedural precautions such Arnold, K. A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Transformational leadership or the iron cage: Which predicts trust, commitment as using established scales and protecting anonymity to and team efficacy? Leadership & Organization Development minimize common rater effect. Also, the observed correla- Journal, 22, 315-320. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000006162 tions among positive PsyCap, OT, and OCB vary ranging Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. M. (2009). Psychological from .19 to .51; therefore, common rater effect may be low. capital: A positive resource for combating employee stress Frankly, this procedure can only help decrease but does not and turnover. Human Resource Management, 48, 677-693. remove this limitation. In addition, Harman’s one-factor test doi:10.1002/hrm.20294 was used to test the common method bias (CMB) problem Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2010). The additive value of (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The test result showed that although positive states in predicting work attitudes and behaviors. Journal all items in the scale were included in the exploratory factor of Management, 36, 430-452. doi:10.1177/0149206308329961 analysis, they were divided into more than one factors and at Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2011). the same time a single factor did not cover the majority of Meta-analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human covariance between measurements. On the contrary, when Resource Development Quarterly, 22, 127-152. doi:10.1002/ the items in the scale are loaded on a single factor, the total hrdq.20070 variance explained is 22.02% (test result <.50). These Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive results indicate that the CMB is not a significant distortion employees help positive organizational change? Impact of of the research results (Harman, 1979). For this reason, we psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and suggest future study designs that use longitudinal study behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 48-70. designs and obtain measures of the study variables from dif- doi:10.1177/0021886307311470 ferent sources (e.g., colleagues and subordinates). Thus, Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational how variations of psychological states may affect the trust is behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. better understood. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 147-154. doi:10.1002/ The second limitation is our study design related to its job.515 Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. scope (only on employees in the health sector) and content American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. doi:10.1037/0003- (only positive PsyCap, OT, and OCB). To overcome this 066X.37.2.122 limitation, the sample may be enlarged to different sectors Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New (e.g., telecommunication, tourism, military). Future direc- York, NY: W.H. Freeman. tions beyond this study may include testing additional out- Barksdale, K., & Werner, J. M. (2001). Managerial ratings of come variables such as ethical behaviors, absenteeism, or in-role behaviors, organizational citizenship behaviors, and counterproductive behaviors and control, moderating or overall performance: Testing different models of their relation- mediating variables such as personality, culture, engage- ship. Journal of Business Research, 51, 145-155. doi:10.1016/ ment, turnover intentions, or organizational silence. S0148-2963(99)00061-2 Barnard C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge: Declaration of Conflicting Interests Harvard University Press. Basim, N., & Sesen, H. (2006). Örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect ölçeği uyarlama ve karşılaştırma çalışması [An adaptation to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. and comparison of organizational citizenship behavior scale]. Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 61(4), Funding 83-101. The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- Becker, T. E., & Vance, R. J. (1993). Construct validity of three ship, and/or publication of this article. types of organizational citizenship behavior: An illustra- tion of the direct product model with refinements. Journal of Management, 19(3), 663-682. ORCID iD Bitmis, M. G., & Ergeneli, A. (2013). The role of psychological Harun Yildiz https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0394-9812 capital and trust in individual performance and job satisfaction relationship: A test of multiple mediation model. Procedia— References Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99, 173-179. doi:10.1016/j. Abubakar, A. M., & Arasli, H. (2016). Dear top management, sbspro.2013.10.483 please don’t make me a cynic: Intention to sabotage. Journal of Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, Management Development, 35, 1266-1286. doi:10.1108/jmd- NY: John Wiley. 11-2015-0164 Brockner, J., Siegel, P. A., Daly, J., Tyler, T., & Martin, C. (1997). Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome favor- and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 558-583. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equa- doi:10.2307/2393738 tion modeling in practice: A review and recommended Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423. Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 Lawrence Erlbaum. 12 SAGE Open Cameron, K. S. (2005). Organizational effectiveness: Its demise Erat, S., Erdil, O., Kitapci, H., & Comlek, O. (2012). The effect of the and re-emergence through positive organizational scholarship. perception of organizational trust and organizational support on In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in manage- intention to quit and individual performance: An empirical study ment (pp. 304-330). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. of the Turkish state universities. African Journal of Business Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). Positive orga- Management, 6, 8853-8861. doi:10.5897/AJBM11.471 nizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Erkus, A., & Afacan-Findikli, K. (2013). Psikolojik sermayenin Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholars (pp. 3-13). San iş tatmini, iş performansı ve işten ayrılma niyeti üzerindeki Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. etkisine yönelik bir araştırma [A research on the impact of Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2002). Optimism. In C. R. Snyder psychological capital to job satisfaction, job performance & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 74- and intention to quit]. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi 88). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Dergisi, 42, 302-318. Cetin, F., & Basim, H. N. (2012). Örgütsel psikolojik sermaye: Bir Farrell, S. K., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2007). Organizational citizen- ölçek uyarlama çalışması [Organizational psychological capi- ship behavior and gender: Expectations and attributions for tal: A scale adaptation study]. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 45(1), performance. North American Journal of Psychology, 9, 81-96. 121-137. Flaherty, K. E., & Pappas, J. M. (2000). The role of trust in sales- Chen, T. Y., Hwang, S. N., & Liu, Y. (2012). Antecedents of the person—Sales manager relationships. Journal of Personal voluntary performance of employees: Clarifying the roles of Selling & Sales Management, 20, 271-278. doi:10.1080/0885 employee satisfaction and trust. Public Personnel Management, 3134.2000.10754247 41, 407-420. doi:10.1177/009102601204100302 Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of Cheung, F., Tang, C. S. K., & Tang, S. (2011). Psychological capital General Psychology, 2, 300-319. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300 as a moderator between emotional labor, burnout, and job satis- Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive faction among school teachers in China. International Journal psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emo- of Stress Management, 18(4), 348. doi:10.1037/a0025787 tions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226. doi:10.1037/0003- Chou, S. Y., & Pearson, J. (2011). A demographic study of infor- 066X.56.3.218 mation technology professionals’ organizational citizen- Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). The value of positive emotions: The ship behavior. Journal of Management Research, 3(2), 1-15. emerging science of positive psychology is coming to under- doi:10.5296/jmr.v3i2.625 stand why it’s good to feel good. American Scientist, 91, 330- Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Authentic 335. doi:10.1511/2003.4.330 leadership and positive psychological capital: The mediat- Gilbert, J. A., & Tang, T. L. (1998). An examination of organi- ing role of trust at the group level of analysis. Organizational zational trust antecedents. Public Personnel Management, 27, Studies, 15, 227-240. doi:10.1177/1548051808326596 321-325. doi:10.1177/009102609802700303 Creed, W. E., & Miles, R. E. (1996). Trust in organizations: A con- Goddart, R. G., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). ceptual framework linking organizational forms, managerial A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects philosophies, and the opportunity costs of controls. In R. M. of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elemen- Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers tary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 3-17. of theory and research (pp. 16-39). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.1086/499690 Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader-member Gooty, J., Gavin, M., Johnson, P. D., Frazier, M. L., & Snow, D. B. exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of (2009). In the eyes of the beholder: Transformational leader- Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 315-326. ship, positive psychological capital, and performance. Journal doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1994.tb00570.x of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15, 353-367. Demircan, N. (2003). Örgütsel güvenin bir ara değişken olarak doi:10.1177/1548051809332021 örgütsel bağlılık üzerindeki etkisi [The effect of organizational Görgens-Ekermans, G., & Herbert, M. (2013). Psychological trust as a mediator variable on organizational commitment] capital: Internal and external validity of the psychological (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Gebze Institute of Technology, capital questionnaire (PCQ-24) on a South African sample. SA Turkey. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39(2), 1-12. doi:10.4102/ Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in orga- sajip.v39i2.1131 nizational settings. Organization Science, 12, 450-467. Hackman, J. R., & Oldman, G. R. (1976). Motivation through doi:10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640 the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Theory Donaldson, S. I., & Ko, I. (2010). Positive organizational psychol- and Human Performance, 16, 250-279. doi:10.1016/0030- ogy, behavior, and scholarship: A review of the emerging lit- 5073(76)90016-7 erature and evidence base. The Journal of Positive Psychology, Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). 5, 177-191. doi:10.1080/17439761003790930 Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Dyne, L. V., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Hall. Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefini- Harman, H. H. (1979). Modern factor analysis (3rd ed.). Chicago, tion, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management IL: The University of Chicago Press. Journal, 37, 765-802. doi:10.2307/256600 Harms, P. D., & Luthans, F. (2012). Measuring implicit psychologi- Elci, M., & Alpkan, L. (2009). The impact of perceived organiza- cal constructs in organizational behavior: An example using tional ethical climate on work satisfaction. Journal of Business psychological capital. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, Ethics, 84, 297-311. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9709-0 589-594. doi:10.1002/job.1785 Yildiz 13 Hassan, H., & Ahmed, F. (2011). Authentic leadership, trust and chological capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly, work engagement. International Journal of Social, Education, 21, 41-67. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20034 Economics and Management Engineering, 5(8), 150-156. Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Clapp-Smith, R., & Li, W. (2008). Ho, R. (2014). Handbook of univariate and multivariate data anal- More evidence on the value of Chinese workers’ psychologi- ysis and interpretation with SPSS. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman cal capital. The International Journal of Human Resource & Hall/CRC Press. Management, 19, 818-827. doi:10.1080/09585190801991194 Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (2004). Organizational justice in schools: Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Patera, J. L. (2008). Experimental anal- No justice without trust. International Journal of Educational ysis of a web-based training intervention to develop positive Management, 18, 250-259. doi:10.1108/09513540410538831 psychological capital. Academy of Management Learning and Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Witkoskie, L. (1992). Faculty trust Education, 7, 209-221. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2008.32712618 in colleagues: Linking the principal with school effectiveness. Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Journal of Research and Development in Education, 26, 38-45. Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new 541-572. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Li, W. (2005). Journal, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 The psychological capital of Chinese workers: Exploring the Hubbell, A. P., & Chory-Assad, M. R. (2005). Motivating factors: relationship with performance. Management and Organization Perceptions of justice and their relationship with managerial Review, 1, 249-271. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2005.00011.x and organizational trust. Communication Studies, 56, 47-70. Luthans, F., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Lester, P. B. (2006). Developing doi:10.1080/0008957042000332241 the psychological capital of resiliency. Human Resource Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Development Review, 5, 25-44. doi:10.1177/1534484305285335 Behavioral Science, 9, 131-146. doi:10.1002/bs.3830090206 Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2004). Human, social, and now pos- Kidder, D. L., & Parks, J. M. (2001). The good soldier: Who is itive psychological capital management: Investing in people s(he). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 939-959. for competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 143- doi:10.1002/job.119 160. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.01.003 Konovsky, M., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive orga- social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656- nizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33, 321-349. 669. doi:10.2307/256704 doi:10.1177/0149206307300814 Lee, K., & Allen, M. S. (2002). Organizational citizenship behav- Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological ior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. capital: Developing the human competitive edge. New York, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142. doi:10.1037/0021- NY: Oxford University Press. 9010.87.1.131 MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The Lee, S. H. (2004). Understanding employee trust, commitment, and impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations innovative behavior in the public sector: An empirical study. of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 57, 70-80. Retrieved from https://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail? doi:10.2307/1252058 nodeId=NODE06710635 MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and main- Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson taining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and 29, 115-134. doi:10.1177/03079459994506 research (pp. 114-140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mahnaz, M. A., Mehdi, M., Jafar, K. M., & Abbolghasem, P. Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social (2013). The effect of demographic characteristics on organi- Forces, 63, 967-985. doi:10.2307/2578601 zational citizenship behavior in the selected teaching hospitals Lewis, S. (2011). Positive psychology at work: How positive lead- in Tehran. African Journal of Business Management, 7, 3324- ership and appreciative inquiry create inspiring organizations. 3331. doi:10.5897/AJBM2013.7117 West Sussex, UK: Willey-Blackwell. Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. New York: John Wiley & in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227-238. Sons. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227 Luthans, F. (2002a). Positive organizational behavior: Developing Masten, A. S., & Reed, M.-G. J. (2002). Resilience in development. and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psy- Executive, 16, 57-72. doi:10.5465/AME.2002.6640181 chology (pp. 74-88). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Luthans, F. (2002b). The need for and meaning of positive orga- McAllister, D. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as founda- nizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, tions for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy 695-706. doi:10.1002/job.165 of Management Journal, 38, 24-59. doi:10.2307/256727 Luthans, F. (2010). Organizational behavior: An evidence-based McClean, E. J., Burris, E. R., & Detert, J. R. (2013). When does voice approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. lead to exit? It depends on leadership. Academy of Management Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S. M., & Combs, Journal, 56, 525-548. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0041 G. M. (2006). Psychological capital development: Toward a McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of disposi- micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 27, tional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational 387-393. doi:10.1002/job.373 behavior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries of pro- Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., & Peterson, S. J. (2010). The social behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 836-844. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.836 development and resulting performance impact of positive psy- 14 SAGE Open Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563. employees fairly and organizational citizenship behavior: doi:10.1177/014920630002600307 Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commit- Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lee, J. ment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Y. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A Rights Journal, 6, 209-225. doi:10.1007/BF01419445 critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021- citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s per- 9010.88.5.879 spective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543-1567. Polat, S. (2007). Ortaöğretim öğretmenlerinin örgütsel doi:10.2307/256798 adalet algıları, örgütsel güven düzeyleri ile örgütsel vatandaşlık Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task davranışları arasındaki ilişki [Relation between organizational performance should be distinguished from contextual perfor- justice perceptions, organizational trust levels and organza- mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475-480. doi: tional citizenship behaviors of secondary education teachers] 10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.475 (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Kocaeli University, Turkey. Norman, S. M., Avey, J., Nimnicht, J. L., & Pigeon, N. G. (2010). Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behav- The interactive effects of psychological capital and organi- ior, and work performance among commission salespeople. zational identity on employee organizational citizenship and Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 615-621. doi:10.1037/0021- deviance behaviors. Journal of Leadership and Organizational 9010.72.4.615 Studies, 17, 380-391. doi:10.1177/1548051809353764 Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2013). Organizational behavior. Nunnally, J. C., & Benstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New Jersey: Pearson. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Roberts, S. J., Scherer, L. L., & Bowyer, C. J. (2011). Job stress and Nyhan, R. C. (2000). Changing the paradigm: Trust and its role incivility: What role does psychological capital play? Journal in public sector organizations. The American Review of of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4), 449-458. Public Administration, 30, 87-109. doi:10.1177/027507400 doi:10.1177/1548051811409044 22064560 Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological Nyhan, R. C., & Marlowe, H. A. (1997). Development and psycho- contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574-599. metric properties of the organizational trust inventory. Evaluation doi:10.2307/2393868 Review, 21, 614-635. doi:10.1177/0193841X9702100505 Scott, D. (1980). The causal relationship between trust and the Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The assessed value of management by objectives. Journal of good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Management, 6, 157-175. doi:10.1177/014920638000600205 Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Learned optimism: How to change your construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85-97. mind and your life. New York, NY: Vintage Books. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2 Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psy- Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of chology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14. attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5 citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802. Shockley-Zabalak, P., Kathleen, E., & Winograd, G. (2000). doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x Organizational trust: What it means, why it matters. Petersen, K. S. (2008). Collective efficacy and faculty trust: A study Organizational Development Journal, 18(4), 35-48. of social processes in schools (Unpublished doctoral disserta- Six, F. (2003). The dynamics of trust and trouble. In B. Nooteboom tion). The University of Texas at San Antonio. & F. Six (Eds.), The trust process in organizations: Empirical Peterson, S. J., Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Zhang, studies of the determinants and the process of trust develop- Z. (2011). Psychological capital and employee performance: A ment (pp. 196-222). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. latent growth modeling approach. Personnel Psychology, 64, Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational 427-450. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01215.x citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663. doi:10.1037/0021- citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of 9010.68.4.653 Marketing Research, 31, 351-363. doi:10.2307/3152222 Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996a). Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L. (1996). Development and Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leader- validation of the state hope scale. Journal of Personality ship as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, and Social Psychology, 70, 321-335. doi:10.1037/0022- trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of 3514.70.2.321 Management, 22, 259-298. doi:10.1177/014920639602200204 Sumer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, örnek uygulamalar [Structural equation modeling: Basic con- R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects cepts and applications]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74. on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational Sweetman, D., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Luthans, B. C. (2011). citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142. Relationship between positive psychological capital and doi:10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7 creative performance. Canadian Journal of Administrative Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J., & Bachrach, D. Sciences, 28, 4-13. doi:10.1002/cjas.175 (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions Journal of Educational Administration, 39, 308-331. Yildiz 15 Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Trust in schools: Yildiz, H., Yildiz, B., & Iyigun, N. Ö. (2015, May 7-9). A conceptual and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Çalışanların sanal kaytarma davranışları örgütsel güven Administration, 36, 334-352. doi:10.1108/09578239810211518 ile açıklanabilir mi? Ampirik bir araştırma [Can employ- Turner, J. H., & Valentine, S. R. (2001). Cynicism as a fun- ees’ cyberloafing behaviors be explained by organizational damental dimension of moral decision-making: A scale trust? An empirical research]. Paper Presented at 14. Ulusal development. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 123-136. İşletmecilik Kongresi, Aksaray, Turkey. doi:10.1023/A:1012268705059 Yoon, M. H., & Suh, J. (2003). Organizational citizenship behav- Uslu, T., Cetin, M., Cubuk, D., & Isbilen, E. (2014, November 7-8). iors and service quality as external effectiveness of contact Pandora’nın Kutusu: Örgüt Desteği ve Kişilik Özelliklerinin employees. Journal of Business Research, 56, 597-611. Çalışanların Umut Düzeyleri Aracılığıyla Mesleki Özdeşleşmeye doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00290-9 Etkileri [Pandora’s Box: The effects of organizational support Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational and personality characteristics on occupational identifica- behavior in the workplace: The impact of hope, optimism, tion through employee levels of hope]. Paper presented at 2. and resilience. Journal of Management, 33, 774-800. Örgütsel Davranış Kongresi, Kayseri, Turkey. doi:10.1177/0149206307305562 Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2010). An integrated model of behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a psychological capital in the workplace. In P. A. Linley, S. bridge over muddied waters). In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings Harrington, & N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215- psychology and work (pp. 277-288). New York, NY: Oxford 285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. University Press. Walumbwa, F., Luthans, F., Avey, J., & Oke, A. (2011). Zaghini, F., Biagioli, V., Prandi, C., Fida, R., & Sili, A. (2015). Authentically leading groups: The mediating role of collec- Nurses and organizational citizenship behavior: Contribution to tive psychological capital and trust. Journal of Organizational the Italian validation of the Podsakoff et al. scale. La Medicina Behavior, 32(1), 4-24. doi:10.1002/job.653 del Lavoro, 106, 460-471. Wech, B. A. (2002). Trust context: Effect on organizational citi- Zamahani, M., Ghorbani, V., & Rezaei, F. (2011). Impact of authen- zenship behavior, supervisory fairness, and job satisfaction tic leadership and psychological capital on followers’ trust and beyond the influence of leader-member exchange. Business & performance. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, Society, 41, 353-360. doi:10.1177/0007650302041003006 5, 658-667. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and Zeffane, R., & Connell, J. (2003). Trust and HRM in the new millen- organizational commitment as predictors of organizational nium. International Journal of Human Resource Management, citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 14(1), 3-11. doi:10.1080/09585190210158484 601-617. doi:10.1177/014920639101700305 Zemke, R. (2000). Can you manage trust? Training, 37, 76-83. Williams, L. J., Podsakoff, P. M., & Huber, V. (1986). Determinants of organizational citizenship behaviors: A structural equa- Author Biography tion analysis with cross-validation. Paper presented at the Harun Yildiz is an associate professor of management and strategy at Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, the Bandırma Onyedi Eylül University, Turkey. His research focuses Chicago. on psychological capital, innovation behaviors, entrepreneurship, the Wright, T. A. (2003). Positive organizational behavior: An psychological aspects of technology use in organizations, and coun- idea whose time has truly come. Journal of Organizational terproductive work behaviors with a special interest in the effects of Behavior, 24, 437-442. doi:10.1002/job.197 cyberloafing and techno-behaviors on employees’ productivity. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png SAGE Open SAGE

The Interactive Effect of Positive Psychological Capital and Organizational Trust on Organizational Citizenship Behavior:

SAGE Open , Volume 9 (3): 1 – Jul 9, 2019

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/the-interactive-effect-of-positive-psychological-capital-and-sxaFwPHDll

References (136)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 by SAGE Publications Inc, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses.
ISSN
2158-2440
eISSN
2158-2440
DOI
10.1177/2158244019862661
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

To date, numerous empirical studies have been conducted to investigate the link between organizational trust and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). However, it is surprising that the moderating role of positive psychological capital (PsyCap) on the relationship between organizational trust and OCBs has not been directly tested. Thus, this relationship is currently under-researched. Addressing this gap in the organization literature, the purpose of this study is to examine the potential moderating role of positive PsyCap on the relationship between organizational trust and OCBs. Given this context and purpose of the study, the data collected from a sample of 1,100 health care employees from seven hospitals in Istanbul provided good support for the hypothesis. The findings indicate that positive PsyCap moderates the relationship between organizational trust and OCBs in such a manner that the relationship is stronger when positive PsyCap is high. The research findings are discussed with a view to implications and suggestions for future research. Keywords positive psychological capital, PsyCap, organizational trust, organizational citizenship behavior, health care sector. trust (OT), and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) Introduction stands as an important research topic. More than ever before, organizations are turning to competi- Despite the fact that there exists a broad range of literature tiveness, performance, and other positive organizational out- regarding the influence of OT on OCBs (e.g., Konovsky & comes (Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans, 2008; Bakker & Pugh, 1994; McAllister, 1995; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Schaufeli, 2008). If so, what can they do to get these positive Bommer, 1996; Wech, 2002), and there is a limited number of outcomes? At this point, studies conducted in recent years studies in the literature regarding the interactive effects of offer a variety of ways for organizations on how to benefit positive PsyCap (Cheung, Tang, & Tang, 2011; Görgens- from positive psychology (PP) to achieve these organiza- Ekermans & Herbert, 2013; Norman, Avey, Nimnicht, & tional outcomes (S. Lewis, 2011; Uslu, Cetin, Cubuk, & Pigeon, 2010; Roberts et al., 2011), the moderating effects of Isbilen, 2014). PP, as a result of the influence of organiza- employees’ PsyCap on the relationship between OT and OCB tional psychology, began to understand the importance of have not been directly tested. Thus, the research problem positive capital within the organization. Psychological capi- raised here represents an under-researched and neglected tal (PsyCap) has emerged as a significant construct in the issue. In addition, the current state of the extant literature in literature concerning positive organizational behavior (POB) particular the western countries across different cultures and (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007). The concept of positive sectors remains another untapped research issue. Accordingly, PsyCap emphasizes “the positive aspects of it on employees this study is based on an investigation of (a) the moderating rather than the personality traits, and with regard to develop- role of employees’ positive PsyCap in the relationship between ing these aspects, it is assumed that it will provide a competi- tive advantage over its rivals” (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, Bandırma Onyedi Eylül University, Turkey 2007). This assumption demonstrates that PsyCap is one of Corresponding Author: the main antecedents of employee attitudes, and so it has a Harun Yildiz, Associate Professor, Omer Seyfettin Faculty of Applied significant impact on organizational outcomes (S. Lewis, Sciences, Bandırma Onyedi Eylül University, Central Campus, 10200 2011; Youssef & Luthans, 2010). For this reason, under- Bandırma, Balıkesir, Turkey. standing the relationships between PsyCap, organizational Email: harunyildiz@bandirma.edu.tr Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open OT and OCB and (b) the validity of the relationships in a cul- Herbert, 2013; Luthans, 2010; Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & turally different context and in the health sector mentioned in Norman, 2007; Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson, 2010; the foregoing studies. Therefore, this study is set to close these Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Li, 2005; Norman et al., gaps in the literature. The study will contribute to the relevant 2010, p. 382; Peterson et al., 2011). literature by helping define and develop employees’ positive Self-efficacy is based on Bandura’s (1982, 1997) social psychological resources and by revealing that employees’ cognitive theory. It is defined as “the belief one has in his or OCBs could be raised by way of high levels of PsyCap. her abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, Besides, the present study extends the scope of studies on and courses of action necessary to successfully execute a POB (specifically PsyCap) through an empirical investigation specific task within a given context” (Luthans, 2010, p. 234). of health care employees and the interactive effects of positive It is a state, not a personality trait (Avey et al., 2009; Luthans, PsyCap on the relationship between OT and OCB. Thus, 2010; Luthans & Youssef, 2004). According to Harms and insights could be gained into practical directions for human Luthans (2012, p. 590), efficacy is “the confidence in one’s resource selection, development, and performance manage- own abilities to successfully execute and accomplish tasks.” ment practices (Peterson, Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Employees higher in self-efficacy believe they create their Zhang, 2011). own success (Avey, Reichard, Luthans, & Mhatre, 2011). Hope is based on the study of positive psychologist C. Rick Snyder as “being a motivational state that is related to Theoretical Background the interaction between three determinants, namely, goals, agency, and pathways” (Luthans & Youssef, 2004). It is Positive PsyCap defined as “persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed” (Avey Positive PsyCap was first used as POB capacity in the et al., 2009, p. 678). According to Snyder et al. (1996), hope Journal of Organizational Behavior (Harms & Luthans, is the belief in one’s capacity to start and maintain actions 2012; Luthans, 2002b; Wright, 2003), but then Luthans and and create routes to reach goals. Employees higher in hope Youssef (2004) used the concept as positive PsyCap (simply have a belief in their personal capacity to create their own PsyCap). This concept is based on PP, that is, positive orga- success as well (Avey et al., 2011, p. 132). nizational psychology (POP; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, Optimism is based on attribution theory and is closely 2000). POP, which emphasizes the life-enhancing effects of related to the bulk of research conducted by Seligman (2006) positive emotions such as psychological well-being and researchers in “positive psychology movement” (Fredrickson, 2003), has aroused two interrelated move- (Norman et al., 2010). It is defined as “a positive explanatory ments that introduced positivity and strength-based manage- style that attributes positive events to internal, permanent, ment to the workplace (Luthans & Youssef, 2004). POB, and pervasive causes, and negative events to external, tem- which applies positively oriented psychological capacities porary, and situation-specific ones” (Avey et al., 2009; that can be measured, enhanced, and managed, has been Luthans & Youssef, 2004). According to Harms and Luthans generally related to individual positive psychological (2012, p. 590), optimism refers to “making positive attribu- aspects and their effect on performance and positive organi- tions and having positive expectations for future events.” zational outcomes (Luthans, 2002a; Luthans, Vogelgesang, Optimist employees expect to have positive experiences & Lester, 2006; Luthans & Youssef, 2004), but positive (Carver & Scheier, 2002). Thus, adverse conditions are not organizational scholarship (POS), which presents an inimi- necessarily evaluated as failures, but as opportunities that table conceptual basis for understanding how and why orga- can be developed for success (Luthans et al., 2005). nizational strategies have their influences on human Resilience can be attributed to the studies conducted by behavior in the workplace, is mainly related to organiza- Ann Masten and others (Masten, 2001; Masten & Reed, tional positive aspects (Cameron, 2005; Cameron, Dutton, 2002). It is defined as “developable capacity to rebound or & Quinn, 2003; Donaldson & Ko, 2010). Thus, POP can be bounce back from adversity, conflict, failure, or even posi- considered as an umbrella term that includes both POB and tive events, progress, and increased responsibility” (Avey POS in terms of context (Donaldson & Ko, 2010). On the et al., 2009, p. 678; Harms & Luthans, 2012, p. 590; Luthans, contrary, above-mentioned POB capacities contain self- 2002a, p. 702; Norman et al., 2010, p. 382). According to efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience, and they constitute Masten (2001), resilience means “a class of phenomena positive PsyCap as a whole (Luthans, Avey, Clapp-Smith, & characterized by good outcomes in spite of serious threats to Li, 2008; Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007). PsyCap as a adaptation or development.” It is prone to be more reactive second-order core construct (sometimes referred to as than proactive (Luthans, 2010, p. 235). Resilience is one’s higher-order factor) has also been empirically supported in good adaptation against stringent conditions from a develop- some studies (Avey, Luthans, & Jensen, 2009; Avey, mental perspective; hence, it is related to process, not result Luthans, & Youssef, 2010; Avey et al., 2008; Gooty, Gavin, (Masten & Reed, 2002). Johnson, Frazier, & Snow, 2009; Görgens-Ekermans & Yildiz 3 situations and keeping on exhibiting others positive attitude OCB as a sportsman or a sportswoman shows a positive approach Although Barnard (1938) noted that extra-role behaviors are toward the negative behaviors (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff, a need for organizations (Kidder & Parks, 2001), Katz (1964) MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). Civic virtue refers to notified that these behaviors support organizational effec- macro-level citizenship and it is generally a commitment to tiveness. However, they have gained importance since the the organization as a whole (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., study of Organ (1988). According to Organ (1988), OCB is 2000) such as attending meetings that may be useful to the “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or organization though not compelled to do so or checking explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that whether office doors are closed or not. in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the However, in some studies, OCB is divided into two broad organization.” Organ’s (1997) later research defined it as categories according to the direction of benefits to the orga- “the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psycho- nization (K. Lee & Allen, 2002; McNeely & Meglino, 1994; logical context that supports task performance” and consid- Williams & Anderson, 1991). Altruism and courtesy have ered this term synonymous with conceptual performance (p. been classified into individual-directed behavior (OCB-I), 95). Thus, these concepts are synonymous because they are whereas conscientiousness, civic virtue, and sportsmanship directed toward the advantage of the organization (Norman are organization-directed behavior (OCB-O) (Williams & et al., 2010). Anderson, 1991). OCB-O is about more extensive behaviors OCB has been classified in various ways. Smith, Organ, that are of direct benefit to the organization and that is related and Near (1983, p. 657) classified OCB as altruism and gen- to qualifications for the job such as giving advance notice eralized compliance. Altruism includes individual behaviors when unable to come to work. On the contrary, OCB-I is such as closing their deficiencies with or assisting coworkers, more individualistic behaviors that indirectly contribute to whereas generalized compliance contains schemas like help- the organization and that establish a balance between the ing make the organization better through ideas, thoughts, and organization and its employees as in the case of helping suggestions. Williams et al. (1986) elaborated on Smith recently absent coworkers (Williams & Anderson, 1991). et al.’s (1983) classification (Puffer, 1987). They categorized In this study, to assess OCB, Organ’s (1988) five-factor OCB into three dimensions, namely, altruism, impersonal model was used. The model has been proven empirically as conscientiousness, and attendance. Then, Organ (1988) the one that has the most effective and distinct factors. In reconstructed Smith and others’ (1983) classification and addition, OCB as a second-order core construct has been formed a five-factor construct. The construct consists of empirically supported in some studies (Avey et al., 2008). “courtesy, altruism, civic virtue, conscientiousness, and sportsmanship” behaviors. Conscientiousness is related to the OT employee’s discipline perception (Barksdale & Werner, 2001) regarding the job (e.g., not leaving to finish a job that cannot The concept of trust that emphasizes the importance of inter- be completed, responding immediately to urgent calls coming personal relationships increasingly gained importance in the from the business while at home; MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & latter half of the 1980s (Creed & Miles, 1996; Lewicki & Fetter, 1993). Altruism is voluntary behaviors that involve Bunker, 1996; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998; Yildiz, Yildiz, intentionally helping employees who have a work-related & Iyigun, 2015). Trust is the The emotional trust is related problem such as helping discretionary to the orientation of a foundation of good relations with employers, employees, and new employee who is hired to the organization (Avey et al., organizations (Zemke, 2000). The types of trust are sub-con- 2011; MacKenzie et al., 1993; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff & structs – emotional and cognitive trust (J. D. Lewis & Weigert, MacKenzie, 1994). Conscientiousness and altruism are simi- 1985). The emotional trust is related to primary group rela- lar. However, conscientiousness includes organization- tions, whereas cognitive trust is more extensive and related to oriented helping behaviors, whereas altruism is related to secondary group relations. Scott (1980) characterized trust as colleagues-oriented helping behaviors. In other words, altru- “a positive force from which cooperation is derived” (p. 158). ism directly refers to behaviors intended to help a specific According to Nyhan and Marlowe (1997), trust is defined as person, but conscientiousness is of help to the organization in “the level of confidence that one individual has in another to an indirect manner (Becker & Vance, 1993). Courtesy is ini- act in a fair, ethical, predictable manner” (p. 615). tiatives which are done without work-related problems such On the contrary, OT is expanded to the organizational as negotiating with the unit of production before making a level of trust at the individual and team level (Creed & Miles, large-scale production decision (MacKenzie et al., 1993; 1996). According to Gilbert and Tang (1998), OT is “a feel- Organ, 1988; Organ & Ryan, 1995). Courtesy and altruism ing of confidence and support in an employer; it is the belief behaviors are similar. However, courtesy behaviors are proac- that an employer will be straightforward and follow through tive, whereas altruism behaviors are reactive. Thus, courtesy on commitment” (p. 322). Nyhan and Marlowe (1997) stated behaviors are exhibited before problems occur (Yoon & Suh, that an employee’s trust in his or her supervisor is different 2003). Sportsmanship is not complaining of the difficult from his or her trust to the organization as a whole. This 4 SAGE Open perspective is based on Luhmann’s (1979) framework. includes a large number of studies supporting the relation- Luhmann (1979) claimed that “trust occurs within a frame- ship between OT and OCB (Podsakoff et al., 1996; Podsakoff work of interaction which is influenced by both personality et al., 2000; Van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995; Yoon & and social system, and cannot be exclusively associated with Suh, 2003). A number of studies have found a significantly either.” Therefore, trust for the actions of the executive group positive relationship between OT and OCB. For example, differs from the trust for the organization as a whole (Nyhan, Konovsky and Pugh (1994) found that employees’ trust in 2000; Nyhan & Marlowe, 1997). supervisor mediates the relationship between procedural Trust has strong motivational effects that create and release fairness and OCB. Deluga (1994) found that perceived fair- positive energy which provides a collectivity (Dyne, Graham, ness is related to trust in the supervisor, most closely associ- & Dienesch, 1994). However, trust can be lost quickly by a ated with OCB. Robinson (1996) found that trust mediates particular and single behavior instantly although it is built in the relationship between psychological contract breach and small steps over time (Gilbert & Tang, 1998). Thus, it is quite civic virtue behaviors. The findings of MacKenzie, important to determine the antecedents of trust and engage in Podsakoff, and Rich (2001) revealed that trust in manager confidence-building practices. There are many individual and mediates the relationship between transformational leader- organizational factors affecting the formation of trust. For ship style and OCB (civic virtue, helping [consisting of altru- example, factors such as positive PsyCap, personality traits, ism and courtesy], and sportsmanship behaviors). Wech organizational justice, organizational support, positive orga- (2002) found that trust in a supervisor consisting of the influ- nizational climate, transformational leadership style, support- ence of leader-member exchange significantly predicted ive leadership, and effective human resource management individual and organizational level OCB. practices positively affect OT (Arnold, Barling, & Kelloway, OT in the above-mentioned studies has been shown to 2001; Brockner, Siegel, Daly, Tyler, & Martin, 1997; Flaherty positively affect extra-role/discretionary behaviors such as & Pappas, 2000; Hoy & Tarter, 2004; Hoy, Tarter, & OCB. In this context, the following hypothesis was formu- Witkoskie, 1992; Hubbell & Chory-Assad, 2005; Konovsky lated to test: & Pugh, 1994; Petersen, 2008; Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 1998; Zeffane & Connell, 2003). Hypothesis 1a (H1a): OT will be positively related to Thus, a high level of trust leads to positive outcomes such as OCB. perceived effectiveness, open communication, collaborative decision-making processes, organizational commitment, The Moderating Role of Positive PsyCap team efficacy, job engagement, job satisfaction, achievement, and innovative behaviors (Arnold et al., 2001; Brockner et al., Positive PsyCap can be “measured, developed through train- 1997; Flaherty & Pappas, 2000; Goddart, Tschannen-Moran, ing intervention, and effectively managed for performance & Hoy, 2001; Hassan & Ahmed, 2011; Hoy et al., 1992; S. H. improvement” (Luthans, 2002a, 2002b; Luthans, Avey, Lee, 2004; Petersen, 2008; Shockley-Zabalak, Kathleen, & Avolio, Norman, & Combs, 2006; Luthans et al., 2010). Winograd, 2000; Six, 2003; Wech, 2002). Thus, it is likely that positive PsyCap has a positive impact on performance outcomes. Most qualitative studies provided convincing evidence for the relationship that positive PsyCap Research Model exhibits a strong significance related to positive behaviors such as OCB (Görgens-Ekermans & Herbert, 2013) and job OT and OCB performance (Luthans & Youssef, 2007). Trust is rooted in the affective ties linking individuals and In addition, Fredrickson’s (1998, 2001, 2003) the broaden- conditions (McAllister, 1995). Although the level of trust in and-build theory emphasizes the role of emotions in PP and organization and leader decreases due to negative conditions emphasizes the role that positive emotions play in broaden- (e.g., injustice, mobbing) (Dyne et al., 1994; Moorman, ing individuals’ temporal thought-action repertoires. The Niehoff, & Organ, 1993), it raises positive conditions (e.g., theory explains the relationship between positive PsyCap transformational leadership style, positive culture). So, and OCB. According to the theory, positive emotions and increasing trust attitude moves individuals toward better out- orientations expand an individual’s attention and focus on comes (Chen, Hwang, & Liu, 2012; Podsakoff et al., 2000; their patterns of thinking, tendencies regarding the positivity Turner & Valentine, 2001). At the same time, theory and and their behaviors such as OCB (Norman et al., 2010). research clearly support the notion that OT may help to Thus, the potential for proactive extra-role behaviors such as obtain desired organizational outcomes such as OCB (Dirks sharing innovative thoughts or submitting suggestions for & Ferrin, 2001). As a result of the social exchange between improvement increases in line with Fredrickson’s model employers and employees (Blau, 1964), as OT increases, (Avey et al., 2011). employees are more likely to be grateful to the organization On the contrary, there are some empirical studies related and then raise their motivation (Dyne et al., 1994; Morrison, to the relationship in terms of performance in the relevant 1994) and thus exhibit extra-role behaviors. The literature literature. For instance, the study of Luthans et al. (2005) on Yildiz 5 Chinese workers in three manufacturing factories revealed believed to affect the level to which an individual will that workers’ positive PsyCap states affect role-based perfor- exhibit OCBs. mance and merit-based salary performance. According to the In addition, studies conducted by Bitmis and Ergeneli study carried out by Youssef and Luthans (2007) on employ- (2013), Walumbwa et al. (2011), and Clapp-Smith, ees working in various sectors, positive PsyCap was shown Vogelgesang, and Avey (2009) revealed that positive PsyCap to be positively related to job performance in the workplace. and trust in management and group trust were positively cor- According to the study conducted by Sweetman, Luthans, related. In general, these studies did not investigate the mod- Avey, and Luthans (2011) on employees working in various erating role of followers’ positive PsyCap in the relationship sectors, positive PsyCap was found to be related to creative between OT and their OCBs. In the light of the studies, it is performance. According to the study conducted by Luthans believed that positive PsyCap will influence an employee’s et al. (2010) on managers working in various sectors, PsyCap displayed level of OCBs. However, it is particularly interest- can lead to an improvement on the job performance. ing to investigate whether positive PsyCap will moderate the According to a longitudinal study carried out by Peterson relationship between OT and an employee’s exhibited OCBs. et al. (2011) on 179 employees working in the service (finan- In other words, individuals who are high in both OT and cial) sector, a change comes out in the levels of PsyCap over positive PsyCap will be more disposed to exhibit OCB than time, and this change has a significant impact on subjective those who are low in one of these variables. In the light of and objective performance. Another study conducted by previous literature supporting each relationship, it is possible Zamahani, Ghorbani, and Rezaei (2011) on telecommunica- that there is an interactive effect between these constructs tion employees found that leaders’ positive PsyCap (not self- that will differentially influence the relationship hypothe- reported) positively affects role-based performance. The sized above. Furthermore, this interaction was not examined study of Walumbwa, Luthans, Avey, and Oke (2011) on in a culturally different context, a developing nation, Turkey, police leaders and their followers found that a leader’s posi- and comprehensively in terms of the health care sector in tive PsyCap positively affects group OCB. those studies. In keeping with this literature, we expect the In some studies, the effect of PsyCap on OCB was inves- following hypothesis: tigated. For example, the study of Gooty et al. (2009) on band members of a major university revealed that positive Hypothesis 1b (H1b): There is a significant interaction PsyCap has a significant positive effect on in-role perfor- of OT and positive PsyCap on OCBs of health care mance and OCB. According to another research conducted employees. Specifically, for employees high on positive by Avey et al. (2008) on employees working in various sec- PsyCap, higher levels of OT are associated with higher tors, PsyCap was found to be associated with positive emo- levels of OCBs. tions that were linked with their attitudes (engagement and cynicism), and OCB and deviance behaviors. Also, positive In this context, Figure 1 illustrates our research model. emotions were generally determined as the mediating role in the relationship between PsyCap and OCB. According to the Methodological Framework research conducted by Avey et al. (2010) on employees working in various sectors, PsyCap is positively linked with Sample and Procedure desired extra-role OCB, whereas it is negatively linked with The research model was tested using employees from seven “undesired organizational cynicism, intentions to quit and hospitals at Fatih Association of Public Hospitals in Istanbul, counterproductive workplace behaviors.” According to the Turkey. The association is composed of eight hospitals which research conducted by Norman et al. (2010) on employees employ 3,721 full-time medical staff. First, the research eth- working in various sectors, the employees highest in positive ics approval was obtained from Balıkesir University Faculty PsyCap and most highly identified with the organization of Medicine Ethics Committee in Balıkesir, Turkey (the were most probably to engage in OCB. According to the received decision no: 2014/50), and afterward, the permis- meta-analysis study carried out by Avey et al. (2011) on sion for the survey was obtained from this association. Then, employees working in various sectors, significant positive 1,500 standardized questionnaires were distributed to the relations were found between positive PsyCap and OCB of seven organizations agreeing to participate, and completed desirable employee behaviors. questionnaires were collected within 4 months. However, Consistent with the studies in question so far, PsyCap some of them were discarded because of the excessive miss- states are likely to go beyond enhanced in-role/work perfor- ing data. The final usable sample size comprised 1,100 par- mance, which lead to positive attitudes, intentions (e.g., ticipants including physicians and dentists (20.9%), nurses/ intention to remain), and “contextual” behaviors (discre- midwives (50.5%), technicians (18.6%), and other health tionary behaviors) such as OCB and cause desirable out- care professionals (9.9%), thereby representing a response comes such as ethical performance (Avey et al., 2010; Gooty rate of 73%. 71.7% of the participants were female and et al., 2009; Luthans & Youssef, 2004; Motowidlo & Van 28.3% of them were male. 54.2% of the respondents were in Scotter, 1994). This being the case, positive PsyCap is 6 SAGE Open Figure 1. Research model. Note. PsyCap = psychological capital; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior. the 18- to 31-year-old group, 38.1% of them were in the 32- was of good reliability (Gooty et al., 2009; Luthans, Avolio, to 45-year-old group, and 7.7% of them were aged 46 and Avey, & Norman, 2007; Luthans et al., 2005). older. The sample was composed of master/doctorate (26%), undergraduate (36.1%), college (25.8%), and high school OT. OT was measured with a 12-item Organizational Trust (12.1%) graduates. Participant tenure with the organizations Inventory (OTI; Nyhan & Marlowe, 1997). The question- ranged from 1 to 29 years. naire consists of two dimensions including eight-item for trust in the supervisor and four-item for trust in the organiza- tion. The instrument was adapted and revised by Demircan Measures (2003). Sample items for the subscales included, per con- A scale consisting of the studies of Luthans, Youssef, and struct: “My level of confidence that my supervisor will make Avolio (2007) for PsyCap, Nyhan and Marlowe (1997) for well thought out decisions about his or her job is high” (trust OT, and Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) in the supervisor); “The level of trust between supervisors for OCB was used. These scales were measured on a 5-point and workers in this organization is high” (trust in the organi- Likert-type response format, ranging from (1) “strongly dis- zation). The reliability coefficient for trust in the supervisor agree” to (5) “strongly agree.” Mean scale scores were used .97 and for trust in the organization was .87. Also, the Cron- for these scales. bach’s alpha reliability coefficient for overall 12-item com- posite OTI was .94, suggesting that the core measure was of Positive PsyCap. PsyCap was measured with the 24-item excellent reliability (Erat, Erdil, Kitapci, & Comlek, 2012; “Psychological Capital Questionnaire” (PCQ; Luthans, Nyhan, 2000; Nyhan & Marlowe, 1997). Youssef, & Avolio, 2007). The questionnaire consists of four dimensions including six-item each of “hope, optimism, self- OCB. OCB was the measured with the 24-item Organiza- efficacy, and resilience”. Sample items for the subscales tional Citizenship Behavior Scale (OCBS; Podsakoff et al., included, per construct: “I feel confident analyzing a long- 1990). The scale developed by Podsakoff et al. (1990) was term problem to find a solution” (self-efficacy); “There are formed on the basis of five subdimensions of OCB proposed lots of ways around any problem” (hope); “I’m optimistic by Organ (1988). These dimensions were “conscientious- about what will happen to me in the future as it pertains to ness, sportsmanship, civic virtue, courtesy, and altruism.” work” (optimism); and “I can get through difficult times at Sample items for the subscales included, per construct: work because I’ve experienced difficulty before” (resil- “Attendance at work is above the norm” (conscientiousness); ience). “There are lots of ways around any problem.” The “Always finds fault with what the organization is doing” (R) instrument was adapted by Cetin and Basim (2012) and (sportsmanship); “Attends meetings that are not mandatory, Erkus and Afacan-Findikli (2013). In the previous validation but are considered important” (civic virtue); “Considers the studies (Cetin & Basim, 2012; Erkus & Findikli, 2013), one impact of his or her actions on coworkers” (courtesy); “Helps reverse item for resilience and two reverse items for opti- others who have heavy workloads” (altruism). The instru- mism that increased the reliability coefficients (α) for these ment was adapted by Polat (2007) and Basim and Sesen two dimensions were excluded from the instrument. The (2006) and revised by the recent study. Based on the previous adapted instrument consists of 21 items. The reliability coef- validation studies, the two reverse-scored items for sports- ficient for self-efficacy was .79, but for hope was .66, for manship increased the Cronbach’s alphas for these two optimism .65 and for resilience, it was .66. However, the dimensions were excluded from the instrument. The adapted Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for overall 24-item instrument consists of 22 items. The reliability coefficient for composite PCQ was .87, suggesting that the core measure conscientiousness was .73, for sportsmanship was .70, for Yildiz 7 Table 1. Mean Values, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Scale Reliabilities of Measured Factors (N = 1,100). Variable M SD 1 2 3 1. PsyCap 3.99 .51 (.87) 2. OT 3.32 .87 .19** (.94) 3. OCB 4.05 .42 .51** .32** (.85) Note. Cronbach’s alphas shown in the diagonal. PsyCap = psychological capital; OT = organizational trust; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior. ** Significant at .01 level (one-tailed). 2 2 courtesy was .80, for altruism was .80, and for civic virtue, it χ = 175.68; df = 47, χ /df = 3.74; GFI = .97; CFI = .99; was .66. However, the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coeffi- RMSEA = .05; and RMR = .03. Results for OTI are regarded cient for overall 22-item composite OCB was .84, suggesting acceptable (Byrne, 2001; Hair et al., 2010; Ho, 2014; Hu & that the core measure was of good reliability (Nunnally & Bentler, 1999; Sumer, 2000). The fit indices for OCB were 2 2 Benstein, 1994; Polat, 2007). χ = 717.07; df = 200, χ /df = 3.59; GFI = .95; CFI = .93; RMSEA = .05; and RMR = .04. Results for OCB are regarded acceptable (Byrne, 2001; Hair et al., 2010; Ho, Research Results 2014; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Sumer, 2000). In general, all Before analyzing the hypotheses, an array of confirmatory these models provide evidence for moderate fit. factor analytic (CFA) models was administered through IBM Besides, Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) two-step AMOS 20.0 to evaluate the structure of the followers’ PCQ, approach was followed. According to this notion, they sug- OTI, and OCB. An array of models pursuing the general ana- gest that before the test of the structural model (structural lytical procedure suggested by Gooty et al. (2009), Luthans, equation modeling [SEM]), first the overall construct valid- Avolio, et al. (2007), and Luthans et al. (2008) were used. To ity of the model should be tested. Thus, at the beginning of this end, three different CFAs were used including second- the SEM, the model with the overall approach of CFA was order, four-factor, and one-factor on the positive PsyCap, tested. The fit indices for the overall CFA were χ = 2,792.89; OTI, and OCB scales to assess their validity. The first model df = 1,057, χ /df = 2.64; GFI = .91; CFI = .94; RMSEA = for PCQ described “four correlated first-order factors with .04; and RMR = .04. Results for the overall CFA are regarded the 21 items” (Model 1), whereas the second defined “a one- as acceptable for suggesting moderate fit (Byrne, 2001; Hair factor model, with all 21 items loading onto a single factor” et al., 2010; Ho, 2014; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Sumer, 2000). (Model 2). The third model characterized “the four first- When the correlation matrix is examined, it is seen that order factors of hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism the relationships between the independent variables are not as loading onto a higher-order” positive PsyCap construct at a level that can cause a multicollinearity problem (Model 3). Of these models, the one-factor PsyCap (Model (r < .80). In addition, the variance inflation factor (VIF) val- 2) was a good fit for the representation of PsyCap. Therefore, ues for regression models are also within acceptable limits the one-factor model was used for hypothesis testing. Using (<10). According to the assumptions of analyses performed one-factor of PysCap has precedence in the Bitmis and before the models are tested, the suitability of the variables to Ergeneli’s (2013) study. The fit indices for positive PCQ the normal distribution was evaluated by examining the were chi-square (χ ) = 314.10; degrees of freedom (df) = skewness and kurtosis values. Since the skewness and kurto- 74, χ /df = 4.25; goodness of fit index (GFI) = .96; com- sis values were within ±2 limits, the distribution can be parative fit index (CFI) = .95; and root mean square error accepted as normal (Hair et al., 2010). approximation (RMSEA) = .05. Results for PCQ are Table 1 shows means, standard deviations, correlations, regarded as acceptable (Byrne, 2001; Hair, Black, Babin, & and scale reliabilities of measured factors. As shown, the Anderson, 2010; Ho, 2014; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Sumer, mean for positive PsyCap was 3.99 (SD = .51), OT was 3.32 2000). Also, Hu and Bentler (1999) put forward a combina- (SD = .87), and OCB was 4.05 (SD = .42) on a 5-point scale torial rule for an acceptable fit. The rule clarifies that two of for all. The mean scores suggested good levels of these vari- three indices should fit the suggestion of “root mean square ables. The correlations reveal that positive PsyCap was posi- residual (RMR)/standardized root mean square residual tively related to OT (r = .19, p < .01) and OCB (r = .51, (SRMR) ≤.08, RMSEA ≤.06, and CFI ≤.95.” The same p < .01). Also, OT was positively correlated with OCB general analytical strategy was followed for OTI and OCB in (r = .32, p < .01). These findings support the main effect this study. The higher order model for both (Model 3) was a hypothesized in this research model. good fit for the representation of OTI and OCB. Therefore, However, we need to provide more support than simple the high-order factor model was used for hypothesis testing bivariate correlations for the hypotheses in this study. relevant to these variables. The fit indices for OTI were Therefore, hierarchical regression analyses were used to 8 SAGE Open Table 2. Regression Analyses Between Measured Factors (N = 1,100). OCB Variable Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Gender .07* .08** .08** Age .11** .08** .08* Job .13*** .05 .05 Education .03 .03 .03 Tenure .05 –.02 –.03 OT .23*** .23*** PsyCap .46*** .47*** Interaction term (PsyCap × OT) .05* Total R .033*** .323*** .325*** ∆ in R .29*** .002* VIF (max) 1.551 1.565 1.568 Note. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; OT = organizational trust; PsyCap = psychological capital; VIF = variance inflation factor. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. analyze both direct and interactive effects of positive PsyCap (Roberts et al., 2011). Thus, overall, full support was found and OT on OCB. More particularly, the regression analysis for both H1a and H1b. with three steps was run. First of all, covariates of gender, age, In the present study, the interaction effect is statistically tenure, job, and education were added to Step 1 to better sepa- significant; however, the change in R was small. A plausible rate the variance from independent variables in the dependent explanation for this outcome might be the high mean value variables. In Step 2, both positive PsyCap and OT were entered for PsyCap and low standard deviation. This implies that per- into the regression models as independent variables. Finally, in mutations of low and high levels of the moderator (i.e., the third and last step, the interaction term (PsyCap × OT) PsyCap) may not have caused a high change in OCBs. Prior was entered into the regression model. This moderation vari- empirical evidence (i.e., Abubakar & Arasli, 2016; McClean, able was a standardized variable between positive PsyCap and Burris, & Detert, 2013) reported similar patterns of interac- OT. Findings of the regression analysis in Step 2 are shown in tions with high mean values and low standard deviations Table 2. H1a estimated that OT would be positively associated couple with a small change in R . Furthermore, our observa- with OCB. As shown in Table 2, OT was a significant predic- tion denotes that the effect of OT on OCBs is mediocre, sug- tor of OCB after controlling for demographic characteristics gesting that an increase in both OT and PsyCap are likely to (β = .23, p < .001), hence supporting H1a. boost OCBs. To this end, this study highlights the impor- Moreover, H1b, which estimated that positive PsyCap tance of the interaction effects of OT and PsyCap in explain- moderated the relationship between OT and OCB such that ing greater levels of OCBs among health care employees. the relationship was stronger if PsyCap was high, was also supported. In other words, those who are high in OT and who Robustness check have positive PsyCap would engage in the highest levels of OCBs. Particularly, the interactive effect of OT and positive In the interactive model, a very small change in R was PsyCap estimated small but significant variance beyond the observed. Therefore, to test the moderator effect, we also direct effect of OT and positive PsyCap (ΔR = .002, used a structural model using covariance-based SEM which β = .05, p < .05). is more robust and stringent than ordinary least squares In exploring the nature of the interactive effect, simple (OLS). First, the variables to be included in the analysis were slope tests using procedures recommended by Aiken and standardized. Then, the interaction term consisting of the West (1991) were administered. Figure 2 was formed plot- product of the independent and moderator variable was ting the graph of the dimensions. Figure 2 shows that when obtained. Finally, all variables were included in SEM. As a PsyCap was high (b = .13, p < .000), increases in OT pre- result of the analysis, it was found that there was a significant dicted increases in OCB, similarly, low levels of PsyCap was interaction of OT and positive PsyCap on OCBs of health significant (b = .09, p < .000). However, when PsyCap was care employees. These results are also consistent with the high, the interactive effect was higher than low levels of results of the hierarchical regression analysis. Furthermore, PsyCap. Thus, PsyCap may enhance the effect of OT on all control variables were removed separately from the model OCB because employees high in PsyCap can use their and the model was re-tested. Although all five models run in resources of self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience this manner had minor changes, the interaction term still Yildiz 9 Figure 2. Total effect moderation of positive PsyCap on the relationship between OT and OCB. Note. PsyCap = psychological capital; OT = organizational trust; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior. remained significant and the pattern of results stayed the results suggest that followers’ positive PsyCap does matter to same (p < .05). Although these findings alone cannot com- some extent with respect to OCBs. Yet, the importance is pletely eliminate the possibility of suppression, they support significant though small. Particularly, those high in PsyCap confidence in the robustness of our results (McClean et al., engage in more OCBs. Moreover, employees both high in 2013). positive PsyCap and high in OT would engage in the highest frequency of OCBs compared to those who are low in OT. Indeed, the link between these two variables proposed by Conclusion Youssef and Luthans (2010) and S. Lewis (2011) is among The current claims to make two significant contributions to the key propositions of the study. When these studies are the literature. First, it reveals the relationship between OT considered, individual and organizational antecedents such and extra-role behaviors (OCB) in terms of health sector as personality traits, organizational climate, culture, and employees. Indeed, the relationship between OT and OCB leadership style can help affect followers’ positive PsyCap has been studied extensively in the past two decades. and OT (Gooty et al., 2009). Therefore, employees tend to Therefore, the relationship has gained importance. It raises rely on management and supervisor, and they constitute the positive conditions while the level of trust in the organization positive emotions and form attitudes in a positive direction. and leader decreases due to negative conditions. There are Accordingly, these employees engage in more OCBs. Hence, many theoretical and empirical studies that supported the those with higher levels of PsyCap and OT are more likely to relationship between OT and OCB in the organizational lit- gain positive outcomes, and consequently exhibit OCBs erature (Deluga, 1994; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; MacKenzie (Bitmis & Ergeneli, 2013; Clapp-Smith et al., 2009). et al., 2001; Podsakoff et al., 1996; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Considering the direct effect of PsyCap on OCB, the fact that Robinson, 1996; Van Dyne et al., 1995; Wech, 2002; Yoon & health care employees have a meaningful impact on the lives Suh, 2003). In these studies, OT was found to play an impor- of others in terms of the task significance, in general, makes tant role in the understanding of OCB. In line with this, it them more motivated against their work and thus leads to was found in the present study that OT is positively related to higher levels of OCB (Hackman & Oldman, 1976). OCB in terms of health sector employees. Hence, the result Meanwhile, working under intense and deteriorating condi- parallels with above-mentioned studies. So, increasing trust tions provides that health care employees have higher levels attitude moves individuals toward better outcomes. As a of PsyCap (self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience) in result of the social exchange between employers and employ- the process of time. Therefore, these employees are likely to ees (Blau, 1964), as OT increases, employees are more likely reciprocate with higher levels of discretionary behaviors to be grateful to the organization and then raise their motiva- toward their work. tion (Dyne et al., 1994; Morrison, 1994) and thus exhibit In this respect, positive PsyCap alters the strength of the extra-role behaviors. causal relationship between OT and OCB. In addition, there Last but more importantly, it empirically contributes to is evidence for conceptual studies implying that high PsyCap the theory that clarifies the extent to which followers’ posi- is related to job performance (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001, tive PsyCap has a place in respecting how their trust in super- 2003; Görgens-Ekermans & Herbert, 2013; Luthans, 2002a, visor and organization comes out in the workplace. In brief, 2002b; Luthans, Avey, et al., 2006; Luthans et al., 2010). On 10 SAGE Open the contrary, there are also empirically proven studies solve this problem in the organizational milieu, the positivity (Luthans et al., 2010; Luthans et al., 2005; Peterson et al., of employees should be supported and supervisors should 2011; Sweetman et al., 2011; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). exhibit behaviors supporting the positivity of employees. In High positive PsyCap was positively related to OCB in the addition, organizations should implement proactive human present study. Also, in some studies, the effect of PsyCap on resource development strategies focused on improving OCBs was investigated (Avey et al., 2010; Avey et al., 2011; employees’ overall positive PsyCap because these strategies Avey et al., 2008; Gooty et al., 2009; Norman et al., 2010). may raise their attitudes of OT and OCB. Especially, positive Hence, the result parallels with above-mentioned studies. As PsyCap that provides organizations sustainable and competi- employees’ PsyCap is fostered, they are more likely to tive advantage should be developed through training inter- exhibit OCB. Positive PsyCap refers to the fact that the posi- vention programs such as web-based training interventions, tive psychological developmental status of an individual seminars. On the contrary, recruiting employees with high activates positive emotions and orientations and directs the positive PsyCap is another option. Since the departments individual’s attention and focus on their patterns of thinking, such as customer relationships or information office com- tendencies, and behaviors. High levels of PsyCap refer to an municate directly with patients, these departments provide employee’s positive job-related cognitions (Gooty et al., information to patients about the corporate culture, structure 2009). Thus, positive PsyCap states are likely to go beyond of the organization, and general business conduct. If organi- enhanced in-role performance and lead to “contextual” zations hire the right person (high positive PsyCap) for the behaviors (discretionary behaviors) such as OCB. For right job, they will be perceived as positive by those who instance, an employee who positively assesses his or her job provide services. In this context, the measurement of PsyCap works beyond the standard working hours or attends meet- should be integrated into the recruitment process to gain a ings not mandatory, but are considered important as he or she competitive advantage. In a nutshell, in future studies, this considers the likelihood to be useful to the organization of study should be tested in different sectors and repeated over the behavior. From this practical point of view, this result time and extended by adding potential moderation or medita- emphasizes the importance of positive psychological tion variables. resources and OT in activating the workforce toward OCBs. Considering the control variables used in the study, it is Positive PsyCap has a construct that is not constant under all noteworthy that gender, age, and job variables have effects circumstances and conditions. The construct can be mea- on OCBs at various levels. In terms of gender, it was deter- sured, developed, and effectively managed for performance mined that female employees exhibited higher levels of OCB improvement (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio, 2007). Therefore, than men (Chou & Pearson, 2011; Farrell & Finkelstein, the increase of positive PsyCap through various developing 2007). In terms of job, it was found that especially nurses and or training interventions allows for a higher level of extra- other health care workers have higher levels of OCB than role behaviors (Luthans, Avey, & Patera, 2008). At this point, physicians and dentists. Given the peculiarities of the profes- it is recommended that human resources departments focus sions of female and nurses (Zaghini, Biagioli, Prandi, Fida, on the development of this capacity and support it through & Sili, 2015), the fact that nurses are more concerned with various training interventions. the patients than physicians and that they meet many differ- In conclusion, propositions in the studies of Youssef and ent needs and have a close relationship with them increases Luthans (2010) and S. Lewis (2011) were supported in this their motivation by causing them to realize the importance of study. In earlier research, the direct effects of positive PsyCap their profession. Moreover, providing their jobs direct and on OCB were considered; however, in the current study, the explicit information from patients (i.e., their jobs has high moderating effect on the relationship was better understood. feedback) motivates them to exhibit higher levels of discre- From this standpoint, this study makes a contribution to POB tionary behaviors (Hackman & Oldman, 1976; Mahnaz, literature. Likewise, the results of this study will provide Mehdi, Jafar, & Abbolghasem, 2013; Robbins & Judge, guidance to supervisors, particularly to managers of the hos- 2013). In addition, as the age increases, the level of expertise pital who would like to determine the antecedents of health of employees and their commitment to their jobs increase employees’ OCB. Besides, examining the relationships in incrementally and thus lead to exhibit higher levels of OCB the context of hospitals represents a new organizational set- (Chou & Pearson, 2011; Mahnaz et al., 2013). ting. Public hospitals are health care institutions providing Naturally, this study has some limitations. The first limi- solutions to human health and which are open 24/7 and tation is that the same source was used to collect data on therefore they work under intensive workloads. Employees’ both the predictor and criterion variables by respondents job-based cognitions and thereby attitudes can be affected (common rater effect) at the same point in time (same mea- negatively due to this intensity and some unfavorable organi- surement time effect). Our findings are potentially subject to zational factors (e.g., negative organizational climate). As common rater bias because all the data were the same mea- such, attitudes toward supervisors and organizations of surement context (see Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Podsakoff, & employees may result in distrust due to this reason. As a Lee, 2003). As a result, this common source bias may cause result, distrust may lessen OCBs within the organization. To inflated relationships. Therefore, as suggested by Elci and Yildiz 11 Alpkan (2009), we took a few procedural precautions such Arnold, K. A., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Transformational leadership or the iron cage: Which predicts trust, commitment as using established scales and protecting anonymity to and team efficacy? Leadership & Organization Development minimize common rater effect. Also, the observed correla- Journal, 22, 315-320. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000006162 tions among positive PsyCap, OT, and OCB vary ranging Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. M. (2009). Psychological from .19 to .51; therefore, common rater effect may be low. capital: A positive resource for combating employee stress Frankly, this procedure can only help decrease but does not and turnover. Human Resource Management, 48, 677-693. remove this limitation. In addition, Harman’s one-factor test doi:10.1002/hrm.20294 was used to test the common method bias (CMB) problem Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2010). The additive value of (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The test result showed that although positive states in predicting work attitudes and behaviors. Journal all items in the scale were included in the exploratory factor of Management, 36, 430-452. doi:10.1177/0149206308329961 analysis, they were divided into more than one factors and at Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2011). the same time a single factor did not cover the majority of Meta-analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance. Human covariance between measurements. On the contrary, when Resource Development Quarterly, 22, 127-152. doi:10.1002/ the items in the scale are loaded on a single factor, the total hrdq.20070 variance explained is 22.02% (test result <.50). These Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive results indicate that the CMB is not a significant distortion employees help positive organizational change? Impact of of the research results (Harman, 1979). For this reason, we psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and suggest future study designs that use longitudinal study behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 48-70. designs and obtain measures of the study variables from dif- doi:10.1177/0021886307311470 ferent sources (e.g., colleagues and subordinates). Thus, Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational how variations of psychological states may affect the trust is behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. better understood. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 147-154. doi:10.1002/ The second limitation is our study design related to its job.515 Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. scope (only on employees in the health sector) and content American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. doi:10.1037/0003- (only positive PsyCap, OT, and OCB). To overcome this 066X.37.2.122 limitation, the sample may be enlarged to different sectors Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New (e.g., telecommunication, tourism, military). Future direc- York, NY: W.H. Freeman. tions beyond this study may include testing additional out- Barksdale, K., & Werner, J. M. (2001). Managerial ratings of come variables such as ethical behaviors, absenteeism, or in-role behaviors, organizational citizenship behaviors, and counterproductive behaviors and control, moderating or overall performance: Testing different models of their relation- mediating variables such as personality, culture, engage- ship. Journal of Business Research, 51, 145-155. doi:10.1016/ ment, turnover intentions, or organizational silence. S0148-2963(99)00061-2 Barnard C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge: Declaration of Conflicting Interests Harvard University Press. Basim, N., & Sesen, H. (2006). Örgütsel vatandaşlık davranışı The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect ölçeği uyarlama ve karşılaştırma çalışması [An adaptation to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. and comparison of organizational citizenship behavior scale]. Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 61(4), Funding 83-101. The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- Becker, T. E., & Vance, R. J. (1993). Construct validity of three ship, and/or publication of this article. types of organizational citizenship behavior: An illustra- tion of the direct product model with refinements. Journal of Management, 19(3), 663-682. ORCID iD Bitmis, M. G., & Ergeneli, A. (2013). The role of psychological Harun Yildiz https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0394-9812 capital and trust in individual performance and job satisfaction relationship: A test of multiple mediation model. Procedia— References Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99, 173-179. doi:10.1016/j. Abubakar, A. M., & Arasli, H. (2016). Dear top management, sbspro.2013.10.483 please don’t make me a cynic: Intention to sabotage. Journal of Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, Management Development, 35, 1266-1286. doi:10.1108/jmd- NY: John Wiley. 11-2015-0164 Brockner, J., Siegel, P. A., Daly, J., Tyler, T., & Martin, C. (1997). Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome favor- and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 558-583. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equa- doi:10.2307/2393738 tion modeling in practice: A review and recommended Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423. Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 Lawrence Erlbaum. 12 SAGE Open Cameron, K. S. (2005). Organizational effectiveness: Its demise Erat, S., Erdil, O., Kitapci, H., & Comlek, O. (2012). The effect of the and re-emergence through positive organizational scholarship. perception of organizational trust and organizational support on In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in manage- intention to quit and individual performance: An empirical study ment (pp. 304-330). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. of the Turkish state universities. African Journal of Business Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). Positive orga- Management, 6, 8853-8861. doi:10.5897/AJBM11.471 nizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Erkus, A., & Afacan-Findikli, K. (2013). Psikolojik sermayenin Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholars (pp. 3-13). San iş tatmini, iş performansı ve işten ayrılma niyeti üzerindeki Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. etkisine yönelik bir araştırma [A research on the impact of Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2002). Optimism. In C. R. Snyder psychological capital to job satisfaction, job performance & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 74- and intention to quit]. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi 88). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Dergisi, 42, 302-318. Cetin, F., & Basim, H. N. (2012). Örgütsel psikolojik sermaye: Bir Farrell, S. K., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2007). Organizational citizen- ölçek uyarlama çalışması [Organizational psychological capi- ship behavior and gender: Expectations and attributions for tal: A scale adaptation study]. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 45(1), performance. North American Journal of Psychology, 9, 81-96. 121-137. Flaherty, K. E., & Pappas, J. M. (2000). The role of trust in sales- Chen, T. Y., Hwang, S. N., & Liu, Y. (2012). Antecedents of the person—Sales manager relationships. Journal of Personal voluntary performance of employees: Clarifying the roles of Selling & Sales Management, 20, 271-278. doi:10.1080/0885 employee satisfaction and trust. Public Personnel Management, 3134.2000.10754247 41, 407-420. doi:10.1177/009102601204100302 Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of Cheung, F., Tang, C. S. K., & Tang, S. (2011). Psychological capital General Psychology, 2, 300-319. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300 as a moderator between emotional labor, burnout, and job satis- Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive faction among school teachers in China. International Journal psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emo- of Stress Management, 18(4), 348. doi:10.1037/a0025787 tions. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226. doi:10.1037/0003- Chou, S. Y., & Pearson, J. (2011). A demographic study of infor- 066X.56.3.218 mation technology professionals’ organizational citizen- Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). The value of positive emotions: The ship behavior. Journal of Management Research, 3(2), 1-15. emerging science of positive psychology is coming to under- doi:10.5296/jmr.v3i2.625 stand why it’s good to feel good. American Scientist, 91, 330- Clapp-Smith, R., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Avey, J. B. (2009). Authentic 335. doi:10.1511/2003.4.330 leadership and positive psychological capital: The mediat- Gilbert, J. A., & Tang, T. L. (1998). An examination of organi- ing role of trust at the group level of analysis. Organizational zational trust antecedents. Public Personnel Management, 27, Studies, 15, 227-240. doi:10.1177/1548051808326596 321-325. doi:10.1177/009102609802700303 Creed, W. E., & Miles, R. E. (1996). Trust in organizations: A con- Goddart, R. G., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). ceptual framework linking organizational forms, managerial A multilevel examination of the distribution and effects philosophies, and the opportunity costs of controls. In R. M. of teacher trust in students and parents in urban elemen- Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers tary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 3-17. of theory and research (pp. 16-39). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.1086/499690 Deluga, R. J. (1994). Supervisor trust building, leader-member Gooty, J., Gavin, M., Johnson, P. D., Frazier, M. L., & Snow, D. B. exchange and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of (2009). In the eyes of the beholder: Transformational leader- Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 315-326. ship, positive psychological capital, and performance. Journal doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1994.tb00570.x of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15, 353-367. Demircan, N. (2003). Örgütsel güvenin bir ara değişken olarak doi:10.1177/1548051809332021 örgütsel bağlılık üzerindeki etkisi [The effect of organizational Görgens-Ekermans, G., & Herbert, M. (2013). Psychological trust as a mediator variable on organizational commitment] capital: Internal and external validity of the psychological (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Gebze Institute of Technology, capital questionnaire (PCQ-24) on a South African sample. SA Turkey. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39(2), 1-12. doi:10.4102/ Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The role of trust in orga- sajip.v39i2.1131 nizational settings. Organization Science, 12, 450-467. Hackman, J. R., & Oldman, G. R. (1976). Motivation through doi:10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640 the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Theory Donaldson, S. I., & Ko, I. (2010). Positive organizational psychol- and Human Performance, 16, 250-279. doi:10.1016/0030- ogy, behavior, and scholarship: A review of the emerging lit- 5073(76)90016-7 erature and evidence base. The Journal of Positive Psychology, Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). 5, 177-191. doi:10.1080/17439761003790930 Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Dyne, L. V., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Hall. Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefini- Harman, H. H. (1979). Modern factor analysis (3rd ed.). Chicago, tion, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management IL: The University of Chicago Press. Journal, 37, 765-802. doi:10.2307/256600 Harms, P. D., & Luthans, F. (2012). Measuring implicit psychologi- Elci, M., & Alpkan, L. (2009). The impact of perceived organiza- cal constructs in organizational behavior: An example using tional ethical climate on work satisfaction. Journal of Business psychological capital. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, Ethics, 84, 297-311. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9709-0 589-594. doi:10.1002/job.1785 Yildiz 13 Hassan, H., & Ahmed, F. (2011). Authentic leadership, trust and chological capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly, work engagement. International Journal of Social, Education, 21, 41-67. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20034 Economics and Management Engineering, 5(8), 150-156. Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Clapp-Smith, R., & Li, W. (2008). Ho, R. (2014). Handbook of univariate and multivariate data anal- More evidence on the value of Chinese workers’ psychologi- ysis and interpretation with SPSS. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman cal capital. The International Journal of Human Resource & Hall/CRC Press. Management, 19, 818-827. doi:10.1080/09585190801991194 Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (2004). Organizational justice in schools: Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Patera, J. L. (2008). Experimental anal- No justice without trust. International Journal of Educational ysis of a web-based training intervention to develop positive Management, 18, 250-259. doi:10.1108/09513540410538831 psychological capital. Academy of Management Learning and Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Witkoskie, L. (1992). Faculty trust Education, 7, 209-221. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2008.32712618 in colleagues: Linking the principal with school effectiveness. Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Journal of Research and Development in Education, 26, 38-45. Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new 541-572. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Li, W. (2005). Journal, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 The psychological capital of Chinese workers: Exploring the Hubbell, A. P., & Chory-Assad, M. R. (2005). Motivating factors: relationship with performance. Management and Organization Perceptions of justice and their relationship with managerial Review, 1, 249-271. doi:10.1111/j.1740-8784.2005.00011.x and organizational trust. Communication Studies, 56, 47-70. Luthans, F., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Lester, P. B. (2006). Developing doi:10.1080/0008957042000332241 the psychological capital of resiliency. Human Resource Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Development Review, 5, 25-44. doi:10.1177/1534484305285335 Behavioral Science, 9, 131-146. doi:10.1002/bs.3830090206 Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2004). Human, social, and now pos- Kidder, D. L., & Parks, J. M. (2001). The good soldier: Who is itive psychological capital management: Investing in people s(he). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 939-959. for competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33, 143- doi:10.1002/job.119 160. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.01.003 Konovsky, M., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive orga- social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656- nizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33, 321-349. 669. doi:10.2307/256704 doi:10.1177/0149206307300814 Lee, K., & Allen, M. S. (2002). Organizational citizenship behav- Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological ior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. capital: Developing the human competitive edge. New York, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131-142. doi:10.1037/0021- NY: Oxford University Press. 9010.87.1.131 MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. (1993). The Lee, S. H. (2004). Understanding employee trust, commitment, and impact of organizational citizenship behavior on evaluations innovative behavior in the public sector: An empirical study. of salesperson performance. Journal of Marketing, 57, 70-80. Retrieved from https://www.dbpia.co.kr/journal/articleDetail? doi:10.2307/1252058 nodeId=NODE06710635 MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Rich, G. A. (2001). Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and main- Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson taining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and 29, 115-134. doi:10.1177/03079459994506 research (pp. 114-140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mahnaz, M. A., Mehdi, M., Jafar, K. M., & Abbolghasem, P. Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social (2013). The effect of demographic characteristics on organi- Forces, 63, 967-985. doi:10.2307/2578601 zational citizenship behavior in the selected teaching hospitals Lewis, S. (2011). Positive psychology at work: How positive lead- in Tehran. African Journal of Business Management, 7, 3324- ership and appreciative inquiry create inspiring organizations. 3331. doi:10.5897/AJBM2013.7117 West Sussex, UK: Willey-Blackwell. Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. New York: John Wiley & in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227-238. Sons. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227 Luthans, F. (2002a). Positive organizational behavior: Developing Masten, A. S., & Reed, M.-G. J. (2002). Resilience in development. and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psy- Executive, 16, 57-72. doi:10.5465/AME.2002.6640181 chology (pp. 74-88). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Luthans, F. (2002b). The need for and meaning of positive orga- McAllister, D. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as founda- nizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, tions for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy 695-706. doi:10.1002/job.165 of Management Journal, 38, 24-59. doi:10.2307/256727 Luthans, F. (2010). Organizational behavior: An evidence-based McClean, E. J., Burris, E. R., & Detert, J. R. (2013). When does voice approach. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. lead to exit? It depends on leadership. Academy of Management Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S. M., & Combs, Journal, 56, 525-548. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0041 G. M. (2006). Psychological capital development: Toward a McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of disposi- micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 27, tional and situational antecedents in prosocial organizational 387-393. doi:10.1002/job.373 behavior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries of pro- Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., & Peterson, S. J. (2010). The social behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 836-844. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.836 development and resulting performance impact of positive psy- 14 SAGE Open Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563. employees fairly and organizational citizenship behavior: doi:10.1177/014920630002600307 Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commit- Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lee, J. ment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Y. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A Rights Journal, 6, 209-225. doi:10.1007/BF01419445 critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903. doi:10.1037/0021- citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s per- 9010.88.5.879 spective. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1543-1567. Polat, S. (2007). Ortaöğretim öğretmenlerinin örgütsel doi:10.2307/256798 adalet algıları, örgütsel güven düzeyleri ile örgütsel vatandaşlık Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task davranışları arasındaki ilişki [Relation between organizational performance should be distinguished from contextual perfor- justice perceptions, organizational trust levels and organza- mance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475-480. doi: tional citizenship behaviors of secondary education teachers] 10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.475 (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Kocaeli University, Turkey. Norman, S. M., Avey, J., Nimnicht, J. L., & Pigeon, N. G. (2010). Puffer, S. M. (1987). Prosocial behavior, noncompliant behav- The interactive effects of psychological capital and organi- ior, and work performance among commission salespeople. zational identity on employee organizational citizenship and Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 615-621. doi:10.1037/0021- deviance behaviors. Journal of Leadership and Organizational 9010.72.4.615 Studies, 17, 380-391. doi:10.1177/1548051809353764 Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2013). Organizational behavior. Nunnally, J. C., & Benstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New Jersey: Pearson. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Roberts, S. J., Scherer, L. L., & Bowyer, C. J. (2011). Job stress and Nyhan, R. C. (2000). Changing the paradigm: Trust and its role incivility: What role does psychological capital play? Journal in public sector organizations. The American Review of of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4), 449-458. Public Administration, 30, 87-109. doi:10.1177/027507400 doi:10.1177/1548051811409044 22064560 Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological Nyhan, R. C., & Marlowe, H. A. (1997). Development and psycho- contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574-599. metric properties of the organizational trust inventory. Evaluation doi:10.2307/2393868 Review, 21, 614-635. doi:10.1177/0193841X9702100505 Scott, D. (1980). The causal relationship between trust and the Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The assessed value of management by objectives. Journal of good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Management, 6, 157-175. doi:10.1177/014920638000600205 Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Learned optimism: How to change your construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85-97. mind and your life. New York, NY: Vintage Books. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2 Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psy- Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of chology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14. attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5 citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802. Shockley-Zabalak, P., Kathleen, E., & Winograd, G. (2000). doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x Organizational trust: What it means, why it matters. Petersen, K. S. (2008). Collective efficacy and faculty trust: A study Organizational Development Journal, 18(4), 35-48. of social processes in schools (Unpublished doctoral disserta- Six, F. (2003). The dynamics of trust and trouble. In B. Nooteboom tion). The University of Texas at San Antonio. & F. Six (Eds.), The trust process in organizations: Empirical Peterson, S. J., Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Zhang, studies of the determinants and the process of trust develop- Z. (2011). Psychological capital and employee performance: A ment (pp. 196-222). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. latent growth modeling approach. Personnel Psychology, 64, Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational 427-450. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01215.x citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663. doi:10.1037/0021- citizenship behaviors and sales unit effectiveness. Journal of 9010.68.4.653 Marketing Research, 31, 351-363. doi:10.2307/3152222 Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996a). Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L. (1996). Development and Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leader- validation of the state hope scale. Journal of Personality ship as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, and Social Psychology, 70, 321-335. doi:10.1037/0022- trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of 3514.70.2.321 Management, 22, 259-298. doi:10.1177/014920639602200204 Sumer, N. (2000). Yapısal eşitlik modelleri: Temel kavramlar ve Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, örnek uygulamalar [Structural equation modeling: Basic con- R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects cepts and applications]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6), 49-74. on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational Sweetman, D., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Luthans, B. C. (2011). citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142. Relationship between positive psychological capital and doi:10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7 creative performance. Canadian Journal of Administrative Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J., & Bachrach, D. Sciences, 28, 4-13. doi:10.1002/cjas.175 (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions Journal of Educational Administration, 39, 308-331. Yildiz 15 Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Trust in schools: Yildiz, H., Yildiz, B., & Iyigun, N. Ö. (2015, May 7-9). A conceptual and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Çalışanların sanal kaytarma davranışları örgütsel güven Administration, 36, 334-352. doi:10.1108/09578239810211518 ile açıklanabilir mi? Ampirik bir araştırma [Can employ- Turner, J. H., & Valentine, S. R. (2001). Cynicism as a fun- ees’ cyberloafing behaviors be explained by organizational damental dimension of moral decision-making: A scale trust? An empirical research]. Paper Presented at 14. Ulusal development. Journal of Business Ethics, 34, 123-136. İşletmecilik Kongresi, Aksaray, Turkey. doi:10.1023/A:1012268705059 Yoon, M. H., & Suh, J. (2003). Organizational citizenship behav- Uslu, T., Cetin, M., Cubuk, D., & Isbilen, E. (2014, November 7-8). iors and service quality as external effectiveness of contact Pandora’nın Kutusu: Örgüt Desteği ve Kişilik Özelliklerinin employees. Journal of Business Research, 56, 597-611. Çalışanların Umut Düzeyleri Aracılığıyla Mesleki Özdeşleşmeye doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00290-9 Etkileri [Pandora’s Box: The effects of organizational support Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational and personality characteristics on occupational identifica- behavior in the workplace: The impact of hope, optimism, tion through employee levels of hope]. Paper presented at 2. and resilience. Journal of Management, 33, 774-800. Örgütsel Davranış Kongresi, Kayseri, Turkey. doi:10.1177/0149206307305562 Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2010). An integrated model of behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a psychological capital in the workplace. In P. A. Linley, S. bridge over muddied waters). In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings Harrington, & N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215- psychology and work (pp. 277-288). New York, NY: Oxford 285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. University Press. Walumbwa, F., Luthans, F., Avey, J., & Oke, A. (2011). Zaghini, F., Biagioli, V., Prandi, C., Fida, R., & Sili, A. (2015). Authentically leading groups: The mediating role of collec- Nurses and organizational citizenship behavior: Contribution to tive psychological capital and trust. Journal of Organizational the Italian validation of the Podsakoff et al. scale. La Medicina Behavior, 32(1), 4-24. doi:10.1002/job.653 del Lavoro, 106, 460-471. Wech, B. A. (2002). Trust context: Effect on organizational citi- Zamahani, M., Ghorbani, V., & Rezaei, F. (2011). Impact of authen- zenship behavior, supervisory fairness, and job satisfaction tic leadership and psychological capital on followers’ trust and beyond the influence of leader-member exchange. Business & performance. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, Society, 41, 353-360. doi:10.1177/0007650302041003006 5, 658-667. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and Zeffane, R., & Connell, J. (2003). Trust and HRM in the new millen- organizational commitment as predictors of organizational nium. International Journal of Human Resource Management, citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 14(1), 3-11. doi:10.1080/09585190210158484 601-617. doi:10.1177/014920639101700305 Zemke, R. (2000). Can you manage trust? Training, 37, 76-83. Williams, L. J., Podsakoff, P. M., & Huber, V. (1986). Determinants of organizational citizenship behaviors: A structural equa- Author Biography tion analysis with cross-validation. Paper presented at the Harun Yildiz is an associate professor of management and strategy at Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, the Bandırma Onyedi Eylül University, Turkey. His research focuses Chicago. on psychological capital, innovation behaviors, entrepreneurship, the Wright, T. A. (2003). Positive organizational behavior: An psychological aspects of technology use in organizations, and coun- idea whose time has truly come. Journal of Organizational terproductive work behaviors with a special interest in the effects of Behavior, 24, 437-442. doi:10.1002/job.197 cyberloafing and techno-behaviors on employees’ productivity.

Journal

SAGE OpenSAGE

Published: Jul 9, 2019

Keywords: positive psychological capital; PsyCap; organizational trust; organizational citizenship behavior; health care sector

There are no references for this article.