Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The paradox of going that extra mile : how Organizational Citizenship Behavior relates to work engagement Lau, Colleen Chung Yin 2013

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2013_fall_lau_colleen.pdf [ 377.27kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0074223.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0074223-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0074223-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0074223-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0074223-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0074223-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0074223-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0074223-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0074223.ris

Full Text

 THE PARADOX OF GOING THAT EXTRA MILE: HOW ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR RELATES TO WORK ENGAGEMENT  by Colleen Chung Yin Lau B.A., University of British Columbia, 2010   A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION  in  The Faculty of Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Studies (Organizational Behavior)   THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)   August, 2013  ? Colleen Chung Yin Lau, 2013    ii Abstract  Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) has been defined as employee behavior that is discretionary, not explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, yet contributes to the effective functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988). Although OCB contributes to positive outcomes at the organizational and team levels of analysis (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000), the results are mixed at the individual level (Podsakoff et al., 2000; Bolino, Turnley, Gilstrap, & Suazo, 2010). Also, a debate exists concerning whether discretion is an essential part of its definition. The present research examines whether perceived choice (i.e. role discretion) is a condition that influences the association between OCB and work engagement. Theoretical, research and practical implications are discussed.                iii Preface  The research presented in this thesis was approved by the UBC Behavioural Research Ethics Board, under certificate number H13-01746. I was responsible for creating the research idea, collected the data using Mechanical Turk, analyzing the data using SPSS and writing the thesis paper under the guidance of Dr. Daniel Skarlicki.                     iv Table of Contents  Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Preface................................................................................................................................ iii Table of Contents............................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... v List of Figures .................................................................................................................... vi Acknowledgements........................................................................................................... vii Dedication ........................................................................................................................ viii Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1 Work Engagement .......................................................................................................... 5 The Relationship Between OCB and Work Engagement ............................................... 6 OCB Dimensions ............................................................................................................ 8 Role Discretion ............................................................................................................... 9 Self-Determination Theory ........................................................................................... 11 Method .......................................................................................................................... 13 Measures ................................................................................................................... 13 Results........................................................................................................................... 17 Hypothesis Testing.................................................................................................... 17 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 20 Main Effects for OCBI and OCBO........................................................................... 21 Mixed Moderation Results: A Theoretical Interpretation......................................... 22 An Empirical Interpretation ...................................................................................... 24 Theoretical Implications of the Present Study .......................................................... 25 Strengths of the Present Research............................................................................. 27 Limitations ................................................................................................................ 27 Practical Implications................................................................................................ 29 Future Research ........................................................................................................ 30 Tables............................................................................................................................ 33 Figures........................................................................................................................... 40 Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 41 Appendix A................................................................................................................... 49 Measure Items........................................................................................................... 49     v List of Tables   Table 1 Factor Loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis With Varimax Rotation of Role Discretion Items ................................................................................................................ 33 Table 2 Correlations and Descriptive Statistics ................................................................ 35 Table 3 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Work Engagement with OCBI 36 Table 4 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Work Engagement with OCBO........................................................................................................................................... 37 Table 5 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Work Engagement with OCBO Interaction Controlled ....................................................................................................... 38 Table 6 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Work Engagement with OCBO Interaction Controlled ....................................................................................................... 39    vi List of Figures  Figure 1 OCBI Predicting Work Engagement at low and high levels of Role ................. 40     vii Acknowledgements  I offer my enduring gratitude to the faculty, the staff and my peers at UBC, who have inspired, guided and supported me in being creative and striving for excellence. I owe particular thanks to Dr. Daniel Skarlicki, who constantly goes above and beyond the call of duty, provides unconditional positive regard, asks thought-provoking questions and gives intelligent answers to my never-ending questions.   I also thank my committee members, Dr. Karl Aquino and Dr. Danielle van Jaarsveld, for challenging my ideas and sharing their expert knowledge with me. In addition, I would like to thank my peers and the staff in OBHR, who have been extremely helpful, generous and optimistic.   Most importantly, I would like to give special thanks to my family and close friends, who provided me with the best physical and psychological support.                                     viii Dedication  This paper is dedicated to those who strive for excellence by going that extra mile in life.        1 The Paradox of Going that Extra Mile   To overcome the anxieties and depressions of contemporary life, individuals must become independent of the social environment to the degree that they no longer respond exclusively in terms of its rewards and punishments. To achieve such autonomy, a person has to learn to provide rewards to herself. She has to develop the ability to find enjoyment and purpose regardless of external circumstances.  ? Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1990, p. 16) Introduction  Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) refers to employee performance that goes above and beyond the call of duty. OCB has been defined as employee behavior that is discretionary, not explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, yet contributes to the effective functioning of the organization (Organ, 1988). By discretionary, the behavior in the context is not an absolute requirement of the job description and involves some personal choice, such that there will be no punishment when the behavior is not performed (Organ, Podsakoff, & McKenzie, 2006). OCB is important because it contributes to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context (Organ, 1997), and is positively associated with organizational performance (Podsakoff & Mackenzie, 1994) and work unit performance (Koys, 2001). In the above quote, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) appears to argue that engaging in activities outside of one's formal job description can provide employees enjoyment and purpose, especially when it is done at the employee's discretion.     2 In general, researchers have tended to focus on the antecedents of OCB, such as satisfaction and commitment (e.g., Organ et al., 2006; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983), based on the assumption that OCB has positive effects for the organization. Podsakoff, Blume, Whiting, and Podsakoff?s (2009) meta-analysis observed a growing interest in the relationship between OCB and its potential consequences at the individual (e.g., managerial ratings of employee performance, reward allocation decisions, turnover, absenteeism) and the organizational level of analysis (e.g., productivity, efficiency, reduced costs, customer satisfaction, and unit-level turnover). However, research on the effects of OCB on individual outcomes has provided mixed results. Some research shows OCB elicits positive outcomes, such as employee satisfaction, employee retention, job involvement (Organ et al., 2006), and deflective effects on victimization (Aquino & Bommer, 2003). Other research shows that OCB elicits negative outcomes, such as work?family conflict (Halbesleben, Harvey, & Bolino, 2009), work?leisure conflict and job stress (Bolino et al., 2010).   In the present research, I explore a condition that is theorized to explain when OCB is associated with positive outcomes for employees. Based on the Self-Determination Theory, I propose that OCB is positively associated with work engagement, defined as the energetic state in which employees are dedicated to their work performance and are confident in their effectiveness (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996), more so when employees perceive their OCB as highly discretionary versus when they perceive they have little discretion. Employees can feel they have no choice in performing their OCB because they view it as part of his or her job (Morrison, 1994) or because they face social pressures (McAllister, Kamdar, Morrison, & Turban., 2007).    3 Specifically, I focus on one aspect of the discretionary definition of OCB, which is the idea of whether employees perceive choice in exhibiting their OCB, labeled role discretion (Organ et al., 2006). Although past research examined other characteristics of the discretionary aspect within OCB (e.g. Morrison?s (1994) role breadth), few researchers examined the choice characteristic of the discretionary aspect within OCB. Also, I focus on work engagement because work engagement is related to job performance (Bakker & Bal, 2010). In addition, highly engaged employees perceive meaningfulness in their work (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004). They tend to care about their work and aspire to excellence and principled conduct (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2005).  I theorize that the relationship between OCB and work engagement is stronger when employees perceive that OCB is highly discretionary as opposed to when they deem they have lower levels of discretion. The independent variable is OCB, the dependent variable is work engagement, and the moderator is role discretion. This research has potentially important implications for both theory and practice. For example, in terms of theory, although researchers examined some of the OCB components, such as job breadth, researchers have neglected to examine role discretion. This research is important because, as is explained below, scholars have debated whether discretion is a critical aspect of the OCB definition. I aim to test whether role discretion is an important qualifier of the consequences of OCB. Specifically, OCB performed with high levels of role discretion is likely to be more positively associated with work engagement than OCB performed with low levels of role discretion. As such, this research aims to contribute to understanding the construct validity of OCB. If OCB    4 performed with high levels of role discretion has different effects from OCB performed with low levels of role discretion, then it might be prudent to include items pertaining to role discretion into the OCB measure.  This research also has practical implications on how organizations can foster employee wellbeing (ie. work engagement) rather than focusing solely on how to induce in-role productivity in the organization. For example, as a result of experiencing engagement, burnout, which has been discussed as the polar opposite of work engagement (Maslach & Jackson, 1981), is less likely to occur. Most importantly, if the extent to which employees perceive they have a choice in performing OCB play a role in the experience of work engagement, then managers need to know how they can provide employees with the perception of choice in executing tasks; managers can incorporate employees? preferences and values into their tasks and compliance requests. Managers can also be suggestive instead of demanding. Moreover, managers can also explain the value, use and importance of their work, as well as involving employees in making decisions.  In the following sections, work engagement is defined. Second, the relationship between OCB and work engagement is presented. Third, OCB and its dimensions are explained. Forth, the discretionary aspect of the OCB definition is clarified, followed by an explanation of role discretion. Fifth, the Self-Determinism Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) is described in relation to the moderated relationship between OCB, role discretion and work engagement.        5 Work Engagement   Researchers have provided different definitions of engagement. An early definition is personal engagement, which refers to the expression and employment of the physical, cognitive and emotional self in work roles (Alderfer, 1972). The opposite of personal engagement, personal disengagement, refers to the withdrawal and defense of the physical, cognitive and emotional self in work roles (Kahn, 1990). Personal engagement was rooted in Goffman?s (1956; 1961) work on people?s momentary attachments and detachments in role performances; role embracement occurs when behavior signify a lack of separation between people and their roles, while role distance occurs when behavior separate people from their roles. The reason for this attachment and detachment instability is that people seek to protect themselves from isolation and engulfment by alternately pulling away from and moving toward their group memberships. Based on these findings, as well as combining the concepts of self-expression and self-employment (Alderfer, 1972; Maslow, 1954), Kahn (1990) described the relationship between the self and their role by using the terms personal engagement and personal disengagement.  Instead of conceptualizing engagement and disengagement as opposite ends of a continuum, Maslach et al. (1996) conceptualized work engagement as the energetic state in which employees are dedicated to their work performance and the degree that they are confident in their effectiveness. Burnout, in contrast, occurs when energy turns into exhaustion, dedication turns into cynicism, and efficacy turns into ineffectiveness (Maslach & Leiter, 1997).     6 In the present study, Maslach et al.?s (1996) definition of work engagement is used. It includes three dimensions: vigor, dedication, and absorption.  Vigor refers to having high levels of energy and mental resilience, as well as willingness to exert effort even when experiencing difficulties (Cole, Walter, Bedeian, & O'Boyle, 2011). Dedication refers to being involved in one?s work and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, challenge and pride (Cole et al., 2011). Absorption is being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one?s work, whereby time passes by quickly and one has difficulty detaching from work (Cole et al., 2011).     Work engagement has considerable overlap with other constructs. Macey and Schneider?s (2008) framework on the meaning of engagement showed that engagement is conceptualized as a trait (e.g., proactive personality, autotelic personality, trait positive affect), state (e.g., satisfaction, involvement, commitment, empowerment) and behavior (e.g., OCB, proactive initiative, role expansion). They conceptualized state engagement as an antecedent of behavioral work engagement, and trait engagement is reflected in state engagement (Macey & Schneider, 2008).  The Relationship Between OCB and Work Engagement  Past research examined the relationship between OCB and the state of work engagement. For example, Crawford, Lepine, and Rich (2010) showed that work engagement can predict OCB. They suggested that engaged employees do not distinguish their tasks as in-role or extra-role when they make choices to do them because they harness their full selves into their roles by doing everything possible to potentially contribute to organizational effectiveness.     7 Another example of the link between OCB and work engagement is that behavioral engagement is sometimes conceptualized as OCB (e.g., Macey & Schneider, 2008). However, a conceptual challenge in considering OCB as engagement is that what is considered in-role and extra-role performance is unclear, and differs between employees and between employees and their supervisors. Organ (1997) suggested that the problem with defining OCB as extra-role lies in the concepts of role and job. Roles evolve from leader?s expectations from subdordinates and can be arbitrary; what is considered as OCB today by one supervisor might be different than another supervisor (Organ et al., 2006). On the other hand, job requirements can also be ambiguous because they are social artifacts created to outline what is needed from employees to contribute to the organization (Organ et al., 2006). Organ (1997) suggested that this ambiguity or interpretation about what is in-role or extra-role is more of a measurement issue rather than a construct challenge; the measurement of OCB often does not include whether employees perceive it to be discretionary. As a result, exhibiting OCB might not imply doing something extra or going the extra mile, which are indications of behavioral work engagement (Macey & Schneider, 2008). In this research, work engagement is a distinct construct from OCB because work engagement is conceptualized as a state, not a behavior.   One way to ascertain what is and is not OCB is to distinguish whether employees view their performance as discretionary. A contribution of the present research is to explore whether the extent to which employees perceive having choice in exhibiting OCB (i.e., role discretion), which is a part of the discretionary definition, influences the relationship between OCB and work engagement.     8 OCB Dimensions   Organ (1988) suggested OCB consists of five dimensions: altruism, courtesy, peacemaking, cheerleading and sportsmanship. Altruism involves helping employees with problems while courtesy involves helping employees prevent problems (Organ, 1988). Peacemaking involves preventing, resolving and mitigating interpersonal conflict, cheerleading involves encouraging and reinforcing co-workers accomplishments and personal development, and  sportsmanship involves tolerating without complaining (Organ, 1988).  Alternative labels of OCB, such as contextual performance, prosocial organizational behavior, extrarole behavior, have also emerged in the literature. Contextual performance refers to the contributions that sustain cooperation and interpersonal supportiveness. Contextual performance is similar to the OCB but it has no references to the discretionary and rewards aspect in the definition (Borman & Motowildo, 1997). Prosocial organizational behavior refers to behavior in an organization aimed at improving welfare of someone to whom the behavior is directed towards (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986). This concept differs from OCB because the behavior does not have to be relevant to the organization or job description, and can involve personal issues. Extrarole behavior refers to behaviors that benefit the organization and goes beyond existing role expectations (Bateman & Organ, 1983). Extrarole behavior is similar to the OCB definition but lacks the mention of the reward aspect in the definition.    In recognition that various dimensions of these constructs overlap with the OCB dimensions, Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) proposed that interpersonal facilitation includes altruism and courtesy dimensions. Williams and Anderson (1991) combined the    9 dimensions into two conceptually and practically distinct subgroups: OCB directed toward individuals (OCBI) and OCB directed toward the organization (OCBO); OCBI is comprised of altruism and courtesy while OCBO is comprised of sportsmanship, civic virtue and conscientiousness. This present research conceptualizes OCB as OCBI and OCBO. Both of these types of OCB are proposed to be related to work engagement.  Hypothesis 1: OCBI is positively related to work engagement.     Hypothesis 2: OCBO is positively related to work engagement.      Role Discretion   Since employees can differ from other employees or their supervisors in defining what is discretionary and rewarded (Organ, 1997), researchers have paid close attention to the components of OCB. For example, Borman and Motowidlo (1993) suggested that OCB be stripped of the discretionary and non-rewarded components, but leaving one component intact, and rename it as contextual performance. This is the component on contributing to the maintenance and enhancement of the context at work.   More recent research focused on role perceptions (McAllister et al., 2007), especially on the discretionary component of OCB, for the purpose of understanding whether employees? beliefs about whether OCB is role prescribed, discretionary, and/or rewarded affect the extent to which they exhibit OCB (McAllister et al. 2007). For example, McAllister and colleagues (2007) found that role breadth and instrumentality explained unique variance in helping and taking charge (i.e., two forms of OCB), role efficacy had a unique effect on taking charge, and role discretion moderated the relationship between procedural justice and helping. Since employees? role perceptions    10 can affect their behavior (like performing OCB), then it is important to include the role perception items into the OCB scale. According to Organ (1988), the discretionary aspect of OCB is comprised of these characteristics: a) non-required behavior b) not clearly specified in job description or employment contract, c) behavior performed through choice, and d) behavior that is not punishable if omitted.  An example of research on the discretionary aspect of OCB includes Morrison?s (1994) role breadth. Role breadth refers to the extent to which employees regard extra-role behavior as part of their job (Morrison, 1994; Organ, 1997; Tepper, Lockhart, & Hoobler, 2001). Morrison (1994) reported that a majority of her respondents perceived 18 of 20 OCB items are in-role, and found that employees were more likely to display OCB if they defined the behavior as in-role, opposed to extra-role. For example, employees perceived ?being punctual everyday regardless of weather, traffic etc.? and ?reading and keeping up with organizational announcements? as in-role behavior, while they perceived ?Helping organize departmental get-togethers? as an extra-role behavior (Morrison, 1994, p. 1556).   However, little research focused on other characteristics of discretion. A contribution of this current research is to examine one characteristic of the discretion aspect of OCB, namely having choice in performing the behavior. Specifically, the extent to which employees perceive choice in their OCB is termed role discretion (McAllister et al., 2007). Although this idea of perceived choice is central to the discretionary aspect of the OCB construct, few researchers examined it.    11 Role discretion differs from the autonomy aspect of the job characteristics model (Hackman & Oldham, 1980). While role discretion refers to having choice in executing a behavior (McAllister et al., 2007), autonomy is about having the ability to decide when and how to execute a behavior (Hackman & Oldham, 1980).   In addition, role discretion differs from job breadth. While role discretion is the extent to which an employee perceives having volition to do tasks, job breadth is the extent which an employee regards behaviors as part of his or her job (Bachrach & Jex, 2000; Morrison, 1994). The reason is that employees can perceive choice in performing in-role behavior (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Spreitzer, 1995), and employees can perceive no choice in performing extra-role behavior (Organ et al., 2006). For example, employees might see little choice in doing something that is not in his or her job description if strong social pressures or social norms to perform this behavior are present. According to McAllister et al. (2007), one problem in the OCB discretion literature is that some researchers confound job breadth with role discretion (Tepper et al., 2001; Tepper & Taylor, 2003; Zellars, Tepper, & Duffy, 2002).  The present research focuses on role discretion because it concerns the idea of employees having choice or volition in performing OCB. Based on the Self-Determination Theory, this research explains why employees who view themselves as having a high level (versus a low level) of choice in performing OCB are more likely to experience higher levels of work engagement. Self-Determination Theory  The Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is a humanistic theory of motivation and well-being (Deci & Ryan, 1985). It posits that humans have the natural inclination toward    12 assimilation, mastery, spontaneous interest and exploration, which is described as intrinsic motivation. However, this innate propensity towards growth is elicited or thwarted depending on the degree to which three psychological needs (i.e., autonomy, competence and relatedness) are met (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Strong links have been found between satisfaction of the need of autonomy and intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Since role discretion and autonomy both involve the perception of choice and volition, role discretion can be conceptualized as autonomy. Central to SDT is the distinction between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation (Gagne & Deci, 2005). Under high levels of autonomy (i.e., high role discretion), behavior is intrinsically motivated (e.g., guided by self-interest), while under low levels of autonomy (i.e., low role discretion), behavior is extrinsically motivated  (e.g., externally controlled by rewards or self-esteem) (Gagne & Deci, 2005).   As a result of intrinsic motivation, work engagement can be experienced at a high level while the opposite can be true for extrinsic motivation. So, when employees perceive a high level of role discretion for OCB, they can be intrinsically motivated, which can be associated with a higher level of work engagement than when they perceive a low level of role discretion.  Although intrinsically motivating behavior is interesting and enjoyable in itself, it does not have to be pleasurable (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Even if the OCB involves an arduous activity, it can still be intrinsically motivating (i.e., interesting or enjoyable). Based on the SDT, OCB perceived as high in discretion is predicted to be more positively related to work engagement than OCB perceived as low in discretion. Although this    13 prediction is made for OCB in general, I provide two hypotheses because OCB has been shown to consist of two dimensions, namely OCBI and OCBO. Hypothesis 3: Role discretion moderates the positive relationship between OCBI   and work engagement.    Hypothesis 4: Role discretion moderates the positive relationship between OCBO and work engagement.    Method  Data was collected from a cross-section of industries through Qualtrics and Mechanical Turk. Based on Cohen?s (1988) statistical power analysis, to detect a large effect size of f2 = 0.35, and a power of 0.99 using 13 predictors, the minimum required sample size was 113. However, a sample size of 225 was collected to ensure that enough data was available for analysis after selecting for cases.  Measures   Since no sensitive questions were asked, the ordering of question items was random. All measures are given in the Appendix. OCB was measured using William and Anderson?s (1991) OCBI and OCBO scale. This 14-item scale is frequently used in OCB research and it uses a 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) Likert-type scale. A sample item for OCBI was ?I go out of my way to help new employees.? While a sample item for OCBO was ?My attendance at work is above the norm.? Previous studies reported that the internal consistency reliability of the OCBI scale is .88, and the OCBO is .75 (e.g., William & Anderson,    14 1991). Since participants self-reported, the third person items were changed to first person items.  Work Engagement was measured using the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Ebbinghaus, 2001; Demerouti, Mostert, & Bakker, 2010). The OLBI is preferred over the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) for several reasons.  The MBI is not the optimal assessment tool for assessing work engagement. First, the MBI measures burnout with only negative items, while conceptualizing engagement as the positive antithesis of burnout. Individuals who reject negatively worded statements might not agree with a positively worded one (eg. Cole, Walter, Bedeian, & O?Boyle, 2011; Demerouti & Halbesleben, 2005). Unlike the MBI, the OLBI contains positively and negatively framed items. Since MBI includes negative items only, low mean levels of exhaustion and cynicism cannot be taken as being representative of engagement (i.e. vigor and dedication); the MBI views burnout as an erosion of job engagement, whereby energy turns into exhaustion, involvement turns into cynicism, and efficacy turns into ineffectiveness (Demerouti et al., 2010). In contrast, the OLBI includes positively and negatively framed items (Demerouti et al., 2010). Second, the engagement subscales include items for vigor and dedication, the core dimensions of engagement (Demerouti et al., 2010). The items also assess burnout; exhaustion is the opposite of vigor, while disengagement is the opposite of dedication. Third, the OLBI covers not only affective aspects of exhaustion but also physical and cognitive aspects (Bakker, Albrecht, Leiter, 2011). Consequently, the OLBI can be applied to workers who perform physical work and those who perform work which involves information processing (Bakker et al.,    15 2011). Fourth, while the OLBI conceives vigor as having sufficient energy during and after work, UWES views vigor as having a surplus of energy while being at work (Demerouti, Mostert, Bakker, 2010). For example, OLBI-vigor is measured with items like ?After working, I have enough energy for my leisure activities? or ?When I work, I usually feel energized,? whereas an item of UWES-vigor is ?At my work, I feel bursting with energy.? For example, the same employee might rate ?strongly agree? for an OLBI-vigor item, but might rate ?agree? for the UWES-vigor item. If UWES was used instead of the OLBI, work engagement scores might decrease. Consequently, the main effects and mixed moderation effects might not be as significant as the obtained results. The OLBI is a 14-item scale that uses a 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree) Likert-type scale. Another sample item is ?I always find new and interesting aspects in my work.? Demerouti and colleagues (2010) found that the Chronbach?s alpha for vigor was .63 while dedication was .71. Role discretion was accessed with a role discretion scale created for this study. In this scale, the perceived freedom of choice aspect of discretionary behavior, was assessed with ?I have complete freedom in?? for each of the OCB items (Lawler, 1992; McAllister et al., 2007). The items were phrased to link closely to the OCB items. These questions were assessed with a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) Likert-type scale.   The control variables were age, gender, tenure, occupation and education. In addition, participants were asked for their first language and whether they were currently employed.     16 Older employees can perceive more choice in OCB than younger employees because older employees have greater life experience (Wagner & Rush, 2000). Also, some writers (e.g., Allen, 2006) argue that gender can determine whether OCB is perceived as discretionary; since it is consistent for the female gender role to be more altruistic and helpful, females can feel obligated to perform OCB. In addition, longer tenured employees can define more activities as in-role because they have higher levels of trust and commitment with their employers over time compared to novice employees (Morrison, 1994); since tenured employees are more knowledgeable and adept to their job tasks, they might define their job responsibilities more broadly (Morrison, 1994).  Occupation influences the extent to which work engagement is experienced because some occupations are more emotionally demanding than others (e.g., Brotheridge & Grandey, 2002; van Jaarsveld, Walker, & Skarlicki, 2010). Finally, the level of education might influence the experience of engagement (Leiter, Maslach, & Schaufeli, 2001) because educated employees might have more resources to combat hardships (Hobfoll, 1989). In addition, participants who spoke English as their first language might be more proficient in answering the survey questions due to their ability to comprehend the questions better than non-native speakers.  Age was measured with date of birth, gender was categorized as male, female or other, and organizational tenure was measured in number of years at their present job. Occupation, highest level of education and first language were measured with open-ended questions. To assess if participants are current workers, they select yes or no. All demographic variables are self-reported.    17  To ensure efficient, quality responses, only current workers who are at least 19 years of age living in the U.S. participate in this study. Although this criteria is on the consent form, a question about which country they live in is on the survey to ensure they fit the criteria about living in the U.S. To filter the participants who do not read each item, three testing items are asked as follows ?[For testing purposes, select "Agree" for this row.]?  Results  To increase the quality of the data, I used only those cases in which the participant answered the three manipulations correctly, spoke English as their first language, and were currently employed. Listwise deletion was used to account for missing data. A Principal Component Factor analysis with a Varimax (orthogonal) rotation was conducted on the role discretion measures developed for this study. As shown in Table 1, the items loaded onto three factors. The seven role discretion OCBI items loaded onto one factor. Only four of the seven role discretion OCBO items loaded onto one factor. The three items that did not load onto role discretion OCBO were dropped (i.e., items 10, 11, 13) from the measure. The Cronbach?s Alpha for role discretion for OCBI and OCBO were .85 and .70, respectively. The items were averaged to form the measures. The means, standard deviations and correlations among the study variables are shown in Table 2. The Cronbach?s Alphas are shown along the diagonal. Hypothesis Testing   Following Aiken and West?s (1991) recommended procedures, I conducted hierarchical linear regression analysis to test the hypotheses. In Step 1, the control    18 variables were entered. In Step 2, the centered predictors (OCBI and role discretion for OCBI) or (OCBO and role discretion for OCBO) were entered, and in Step 3, the interaction term of the two predictors were entered. The results are shown in Table 3 and 4. Hypothesis 1 stated that OCBI is positively associated with work engagement. The regression analysis indicated that OCBI was positively associated with work engagement, B = .11, p < .05. In addition, the analysis showed that OCBI explained a significant proportion of variance in work engagement scores, R2 = .26, F(6, 185) = 10.82, p < .001. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.  Hypothesis 2 stated that OCBO is positively associated with work engagement. Regression analysis indicated that OCBO was associated with work engagement, B = .17, p < .05. OCBO explained a significant proportion of variance in work engagement scores, R2 = .16, F(6, 185) = 5.77, p < .001. Thus Hypothesis 2 was supported.  Hypothesis 3 stated that role discretion OCBI moderates the positive relationship between OCBI and work engagement. Regression analysis indicated that the interaction term between role discretion OCBI and OCBI was significant, B = .08, p < .05. The interaction term (OCBI x role discretion OCBI) explained a significant proportion of variance in work engagement scores, R2 = .28, F(7, 184) = 10.23, p < .001.  I conducted a simple slope analysis of OCBI on work engagement at -1 SD and at +1 SD from the centered role discretion OCBI scores (Aiken & West, 1991) The results are shown in Figure 1. The slope of OCBI on engagement at high role discretion for OCBI was significantly different from zero, B = .18, p < .01, SD = .77, 95% CI [.07, .29], but the slope of OCBI on engagement at low role discretion for OCBI was not    19 significantly different from zero, B = .05, p = .36, SD = .77, 95% CI [-.06, .16]. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported.  Hypothesis 4 stated that role discretion OCBO moderates the positive relationship between OCBO and work engagement. Regression analysis showed that the interaction term between role discretion OCBO and OCBO was not significant, B = .03, p = .62. The interaction term (OCBO x role discretion OCBO) did not explained a significant proportion of variance in work engagement scores, R2 = .16, F(7, 184) = 4.96, p < .001.  Recall that Hypothesis 3 predicted that role discretion moderates the positive relationship between OCBI and work engagement and Hypothesis 4 predicted that role discretion moderates the positive relationship between OCBO and work engagement. To provide a robust test of these hypotheses, I conducted a single hierarchical linear regression predicting engagement, in which both interactive terms were included in the model. The analysis included three steps. In Step 1, the control variables, the centered scores of OCBI and OCBO were entered. In Step 2, the respective centered role discretion scores were entered. In Step 3, the Interaction terms for both OCBI and OCBO were entered. Results showed that both interaction terms were not significant. Given that there is a strong correlation between OCBI and work engagement, and between OCBO and work engagement, an explanation is that the main effects used up all of the variance and there was nothing left for the interaction to explain.  Next, I explored the model further by investigating the marginal impact of each interaction. I conducted a series of two hierarchical regression analyses with both OCBI and OCBO and their respective discretion measures in the models. The interaction for OCBO was controlled for in the first analysis, while the interaction for OCBI was    20 controlled for in the second analysis. The reason for conducting this analysis was to examine if the interaction term for OCBI and OCBO would explain a significant amount of variance in work engagement if the other interaction term was taken into account. In the first analysis, in Step 1, the control variables were entered. In Step 2, the centered OCBI and OCBO scores and their respective centered role discretion scores were entered. In Step 3, the OCBO interaction term was entered and in Step 4, the OCBI interaction term was entered. The R square change observed at the last two steps was compared. As shown in Table 5, the incremental variance was not significant. Adding the OCBI interaction term in the step did not significantly improve the prediction, R2  change = .01, F(10, 181) = 7.76, p < .001. Next, the same procedure was completed, but reversing the order of Step 3 and Step 4. As shown in Table 6, the results showed that adding the OCBO interaction term in the step did not significantly improve the prediction, R2  change = .01, F(10, 181) = 7.76, p < .001.  This suggests that neither interaction term adds incremental variance over and above the variance explained by the other interaction term.  Discussion  Writers have long debated the importance of employee discretion as part of the definition of OCB. Little research, however, has empirically explored the implications of discretion on employees? outcomes. The present study tested whether having a high (versus low) level of role discretion in performing OCB moderates the positive relationship between OCB and work engagement. The patterns for OCBI and OCBO were examined separately because considerable research has shown the OCB consists of at least these two dimensions. The results first showed that OCB is associated with work    21 engagement, regardless of whether the OCB is directed at other individuals or the organization. This finding is consistent with previous research showing that OCB correlates positively with work engagement.  However, the present data suggests that the relationship between OCB and work engagement may be more complex than previously thought when role discretion is taken into consideration. Specifically, employees experience work engagement from benefiting other people (OCBI) more so when they perceive they have a choice in doing so. In contrast, role discretion was not a significant moderator in the association between OCBO and work engagement. A positive association between OCBO and work engagement was observed for both high and low levels of role discretion. In the following section I discuss the implications of these findings in detail. Main Effects for OCBI and OCBO  An explanation for the observed main effects is that actions can influence thought (e.g., Beilock & Holt, 2007). According to the cognitive dissonance theory, discomfort arises from conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviors (Festinger, 1957). Consequently, people might maintain cognitive consistency by matching their attitudes and beliefs with their past behavior. Since OCB is not recognized by the reward system, employees who exhibit OCB might justify their reason of helping to being engaged at work. Consequently, their action of helping is consonant with their cognition (Festinger, 1957). For example, after adhering to informal rules (i.e., OCBO), the employee might attribute his/ her action to being dedicated (i.e., engaged) at work. Another example is that an    22 employee might come to the conclusion that (s)he has the energy and mental resilience in the work place after going out of his/her way to help new employees.  Mixed Moderation Results: A Theoretical Interpretation  The results showed that when employees exhibit OCBI, work engagement levels fluctuate depending upon role discretion. However, role discretion did not moderate the relationship between OCBO and work engagement. The mixed results warrant consideration; they can be explained using the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and the Job Demands-Resources model (JD-R) (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001).  According to the Job Demands-Resources model, job-resources are physical, psychological, social or organizational job aspects that buffer the negative effect of job demands, are functional in achieving work goals and stimulate personal growth, learning and development. In contrast, job-demands are physical, psychological, social or organizational job aspects that evoke strain and require sustained physical or psychological effort. Based on the JD-R model, OCB can be a job-demand because it contributes to role-overload. In contrast, role discretion can be a job-resource because it provides intrinsic motivation. While job-demands contribute to low levels of work engagement, job-resources contribute to high levels of work engagement. The interaction between one?s job-demands and job-resources determine the level of work engagement. Since job-resources particularly influence work engagement when job demands are high (Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007), it is possible that OCBI is a big job-demand while OCBO is a small job-demand. The reason is that OCBI    23 involves interacting with people directly, which require some level of self-regulation and impression management (e.g., Yun, Liu & Takeuchi, 2007). Consequently, interacting with other human beings can be more cognitively and emotionally taxing than with the organization. For example, employees might experience emotional labor (Hochschild, 1983) while exhibiting OCBI by listening to co-workers? problems and worries, but not while exhibiting OCBO by protecting organizational property.   First, a high level of role discretion is likely to act as a job-resource that buffers against OCBI to predict a high level of work engagement, while a low level of role discretion leaves a low level of job-resource to buffer against the effects of OCBI, which relates to a low level of work engagement. Second, since OCBO acts as a small job-demand, even a low level of role discretion is enough to buffer against OCBO to predict a high level of work engagement.  How does role discretion as a job-resource buffer against the straining effects of OCBI (a job-demand) to facilitate work engagement? Based on the Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), satisfying the basic need of autonomy promotes intrinsic motivation (opposed to extrinsic motivation) (Ryan & Deci, 2000); intrinsic motivation involves performing actions that are inherently interesting (i.e., has novelty, challenge or aesthetic value), while extrinsic motivation involves performing actions that are instrumentally important for personal goals (but is not inherently enjoyable of itself) (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Since role discretion and autonomy both involve the perception of having choice and volition, role discretion can be conceptualized as autonomy. So, OCBI predicts work engagement depending on the level of role discretion, which facilitates intrinsic motivation.     24 For example, at high role discretion, employees might exhibit OCB with intrinsic motivation, which predicts a high level of work engagement. They might appraise OCBI as an opportunity to express their sense of self through creativity instead of an insurmountable demand (Ryan & Deci, 2000). These employees might help others with inherent interest, enjoyment and satisfaction (Ryan & Deci, 2000). At low role discretion, employees might exhibit OCBI with extrinsic motivation, which predicts a low level of work engagement. They might help others more out of a sense of obligation (e.g., for salary, maintain a positive self image or satisfying the contingent self-esteem to maintain feelings of worth) than out of a sense of pleasure or satisfaction (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and they might view OCBI as additional burden.  Although employees might exhibit OCBO with intrinsic motivation at a high level of role discretion and with extrinsic motivation at a low level of role discretion, OCBO might be a small job-demand that only requires a low level of role discretion to buffer its effects to facilitate a high level of work engagement.  An Empirical Interpretation  The mixed moderation results might also be a function of some unmeasured variables. Since the SDT posits that three basic needs have to be fulfilled to experience intrinsic motivation, it is possible that autonomy, competence and relatedness all need to be present at high levels for employees to experience work engagement regardless of their perceived role discretion for both OCBI and OCBO. Although role discretion is conceptualized as autonomy, the scales that access the basic need of autonomy apply to    25 more general actions than OCB. When high levels of these needs are fulfilled, perhaps OCBI and OCBO predict work engagement regardless of the role discretion level.    The results could also be an artifact of the sample. For example, the participants were mostly in their mid 20?s and early 30?s. Consequently, the results might provide insight on the relationship between discretionary OCB and work engagement for younger employees as opposed to the older employees. In addition, most participants have only been on the job for 7 years or less. Consequently, the results might reveal information about those who have junior (opposed to senior) positions. Moreover, 65% of participants were male while 35% of participants were female. So, the results might pertain more to males than females. Finally, most of the participants have an associate degree or a bachelors degree, while fewer participants only have a high school diploma, have a masters degree or have a doctorate degree. So, the results might reflect a pattern seen in those who have a medium level of education, but not those who have a low level of education or a high level of education.  Last, the present sample consisted of a variety of professions.  It is possible that role discretion varies by profession. This is discussed in greater detail in the potential limitations section. Theoretical Implications of the Present Study  Previous research on the antecedents of work engagement has focused largely on job characteristics (i.e., feedback, task identity, skill variety, task significance, autonomy) Hackman & Oldham, 1980). The present research examined role discretion, conceptualized as autonomy in this research, in engaging in OCB as a potential antecedent of work engagement. This is important because autonomy (i.e., role    26 discretion) is one of the basic needs that sustain or diminish the natural inclination toward being authentic (versus externally controlled), which influences such things as performance, persistence, creativity, vitality, self-esteem and well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000).  To date, little to no research has viewed the link between discretionary OCB and work engagement through the lens of SDT. The present research examined one of the basic components from the SDT, role discretion (which is analogous to autonomy), in relation to OCB and engagement. A contribution of the present research was to explore whether the extent to which employees perceive having choice in exhibiting OCB (i.e., role discretion), which is a part of the discretionary definition, influences the relationship between OCB and work engagement. The findings of this research show the critical role discretion plays in predicting engagement, for at least OCBI. In doing so, this study suggests that role discretion is an important part of OCBI and is an important qualifier of the effects of OCB. Also, since in-role versus extra-role behavior can be difficult to distinguish, one way to ascertain whether employees perceive OCB as discretionary is to include items pertaining to the discretionary aspect of OCB with the OCB items.  In addition, previous research has studied burnout. The present research, in contrast, explored the possibility that OCB is related to work engagement, a positive construct that has been conceptualized as the opposite of burnout. Instead of understanding how to alleviate a negative state, like burnout, this research tries to understand how to build or develop a positive state, like work engagement, by understanding the conditions that foster it.  Furthermore, the present research is unique in that it examined OCB as an independent variable, and work engagement as a dependent variable; previous research    27 on OCB has typically used OCB as a dependent variable, and research on engagement has typically looked at how engagement predicts OCB. The problem, however, is that the OCB literature showed mixed results on whether OCB is associated with positive or negative effects. This research tries to understand if OCB leads to work engagement, and examines the role of role discretion in this positive relationship.  Strengths of the Present Research  Previous studies have tended to assume that OCB is already discretionary.  The present study attempted to separate role discretion from extra role behavior. The Williams and Anderson?s (1991) measure of OCB served the research well because it does not implicate discretion in its definition. Also, this measure represents extra-role behavior that is relevant to most organizations. Last, the sample was drawn from a wide range of occupations, increasing the generalizability of the findings. Limitations   A limitation of this research is that causation can not be inferred from a regression analysis based on a cross-sectional design using surveys. It is possible that work engagement leads to OCB. To infer causality, longitudinal or experimental designs are required.  Although having a wide variety of occupations adds to the research generalizability, this feature can also be a potential limitation. For example, role discretion is likely to be considerably more narrow for someone in the occupation of a    28 911 operator relative to being a housekeeper. It would be prudent in future research to study occupations that have similar levels of job discretion. Another limitation is that data was collected from U.S. participants who have the computer skills to access and to complete surveys. These participants are members of western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic societies (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). Consequently, their patterns of categorization and inferential induction, reasoning styles, self-concepts and motivations might differ from those from the rest of the world (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). Thus the results of this study might not be generalizable to the population.  To understand the relationship between discretionary OCB and work engagement, a broader subject pool is required.  Furthermore, all the variables were self-reported. Consequently, the results might be affected by the social desirability bias and the common method variance. However, Ilies, Fulmer, Spitzmuller and Johnson (2009) suggested that self-ratings may provide reasonably accurate assessments of OCB that are often difficult for others to observe.  Also, another limitation is that this research did not measure extrinsic and intrinsic motivation or the three basic needs from the SDT: autonomy, relatedness and competence. Role discretion was only conceptualized as autonomy, and it was only assumed that role discretion can be a job-resource to elicit work engagement. Furthermore, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, as well as perceived levels of job-demands and job-resources was not measured to show evidence for the unexpected mixed moderation explanation.       29 Practical Implications   The present research has potential practical implications for both managers and employees. To foster work engagement in employees, managers can create a sense of discretion (i.e., choice) for helping others. For example, managers can encourage participatory decision making to induce a sense of autonomy. Managers can also incorporate employees? preferences and values into their tasks, as well as avoid harsh deadlines and compliance requests. Moreover, managers can be more informational and flexible than demanding. If employees don?t recognize that their OCBI is discretionary, they might perceive their OCBI as part of a heavy workload, which can potentially lead to burnout. However, if employees recognize that their OCBI is volitional, the quality of their work might be higher than if they think their OCBI is part of their job. Moreover, since people spend a large portion of their lives working, it is beneficial for employees to know when and how they can maximize their psychological incentives (e.g., work engagement), which can be more rewarding than physical incentives (e.g., money). Generally, people believe that helping others or the organization benefits the recipients of the helping behavior. This study shows that helping others or the organization can also benefit the helper. Specifically, helpers experience work engagement. Instead of being passively driven by the incentives offered by the social system that are designed to ensure a certain standard is met, or conform to pressures that others impose on them, employees can take an active role in pursuing personal goals and undertaking activities that resonate with their personal values and interests through OCB. If employees are engaged at work, they are less likely to experience burnout (Maslach et al., 1996).     30 Future Research  To address the study?s limitations, future research can measure OCB with multiple sources. For example, supervisor or peer ratings can be used to measure objective OCB while self-reports can be used to measure the degree to which the employee perceives that their OCB is discretionary.  In addition, the duration and frequency of OCB can be examined to determine whether short-term (versus long-term) OCB can create long-term effects on work engagement. Other variables that influence the perception of discretion can be measured and controlled. For example, exhibiting OCB in the presence (versus the absence) of others or receiving recognition (versus non receiving recognition) can be examined in future research to understand if the perception of discretion changes, which can influence the relationship between OCB and engagement.  Also, based on the explanation of the mixed moderation effects above, future research can examine extrinsic and intrinsic motivation as a mediator for the relationship between role discretion and work engagement. The Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale (Tremblay, Blanchard, Taylor, Pelletier, & Villeneuve, 2009) can be used. Using a Likert scale from 1 (does not correspond at all) to 7 (corresponds exactly), participants are asked to indicate the extent the items corresponds to the reasons why they are presently involved in their work (Tremblay et al., 2009). A sample item for intrinsic motivation is ?for the satisfaction I experience from taking on interesting challenges.? A sample item for extrinsic motivation is ?because it allows me to earn money.? In addition, as noted above the mixed moderation findings might be a function of some unmeasured variables. Although role discretion is conceptualized as autonomy, autonomy can be measured in future research. Aside from autonomy, the SDT posits two    31 other basic needs that have to be fulfilled to promote intrinsic motivation or self-determinism. These needs are: relatedness and competence. All three basic needs can be tested as moderators to the relationship between OCB and work engagement. By doing so, researchers can examine whether all three basic needs have to be fulfilled to experience work engagement (i.e., intrinsic motivation). As a result, a more comprehensive model based on the SDT can be tested.  Moreover, to provide an even more comprehensive explanation for why discretionary OCB is positively related to work engagement, future research can also examine psychological empowerment (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990) as the moderator for the relationship between OCB and work engagement. Psychological empowerment is the increase of task motivation reflected in a set of four conditions reflecting an employee's orientation to his/her work role. The four conditions are: self-determination (i.e., having choice or autonomy in initiating and regulating actions), meaning (i.e., seeing how the work goal, purpose or requirements align with employee's own ideals, standards, beliefs, values or behaviors), competence (i.e., having self efficacy in the work role), and impact (i.e., degree to which the employee can influence outcomes at work) (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). This model incorporates Self-Determination Theory and might provide a more comprehensive explanation for why discretionary OCB is positively related to work engagement. Finally, since researchers disagree about whether the burnout dimensions are the opposite of the work engagement dimensions, and which scales best measure burnout and work engagement, both burnout and engagement can be examined in the future; the relationship between OCB and engagement can be compared to the relationship between    32 OCB and burnout to better understand the burnout-engagement relationship using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach & Jackson, 1981) and the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonz?lez-Rom?, & Bakker, 2002) in addition to the OLBI we used in this study.       33 Tables   Table 1 Factor Loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis With Varimax Rotation of Role Discretion Items   Factor Role Discretion Items 1 2 3 I have complete freedom in helping others who have been absent. .83 .15 -.05 I have complete freedom in helping others who have heavy work loads. .84 .21 -.05 I have complete freedom in assisting my supervisor with his/ her work (when not asked) .74 .09 -.09 I have complete freedom in taking time to listen to co-workers? problems and worries. .76 .04 .30 I have complete freedom in going out of my way to help new employees. .78 .07 .15 I have complete freedom in taking a personal interest in other employees. .72 .09 .31 I have complete freedom in passing along information to co-workers. .62 .39 .05 I have complete freedom in attending work above the norm .21 .68 .03 I have complete freedom in giving advance notice when unable to come to work. .10 .79 -.08     34  Table 2 Factor Loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis With Varimax Rotation of Role Discretion Items  I have complete freedom in taking undeserved work breaks. (recoded) .02 .12 -.64 I have complete freedom in withholding personal phone conversations. .11 .15 .82 I have complete freedom in withholding my complaints about insignificant things at work. .15 .24 .75 I have complete freedom in conserving and protecting organizational property. .15 .81 .10 I have complete freedom in adhering to informal rules revised to maintain order.  .06 .80 .21  Note. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax rotation of 25 with Eigenvalues > 1. Factor loadings > .40 are in boldface.              35 Table 3 Correlations and Descriptive Statistics   M SD Age Gender Edu-cation Years on the Job OCBI OCBO RD OCBI RD OCBO Work engage-ment Age 31.9 10.65 ____         Gender 1.35 .48 .031 ____        Education 2.45 .87 .022 .207** ____       Years on the Job 5.81 6.59 .552** .051 .010 ____      OCBI 4.42 .77 -.023 .124 -.093 .147* (.85)     OCBO 4.80 .65 .295** .180* -.098 .190** .285** (.70)    Role Discretion OCBI 4.61 .82 -.078 .041 -.075 .118 .582** .270** (.89)   Role Discretion OCBO 4.74 .85 .091 .073 -.018 .074 .232** .416** .353** (.80)  Work Engagement 2.61 .46 .227** -.057 .019 .218** .351** .313** .403** .241** (.88)  Note. N = 192. RD = Role Discretion. Education is coded high school (1), some college/ associate (2), college/bachelors (3), masters (4), greater than masters (5). Gender is coded male (0), female (1). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.                 36 Table 4 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Work Engagement with OCBI   Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Predictor Variables B t B t B t Age .01 1.81 .01 3.19** .01 2.96** Education .00 .00 .02 .54 .02 .44 Gender -.07 -.95 -.09 -1.44 -.11 -1.79 Year on the Job .01 1.61 .002 .29 .00 .11 OCBI   .11 2.32* .11 2.43* RD OCBI   .18 4.08*** .21 4.63*** RD OCBI x OCBI     .08 2.29* Model R2 .07 .26 .28 ?R2 .07** .19*** .02* F 3.44** 10.82*** 10.23***  Note. N = 192. RD = Role Discretion. Education is coded high school (1), some college/ associate (2), college/bachelors (3), masters (4), greater than masters (5). Gender is coded male (0), female (1). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.                 37 Table 5 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Work Engagement with OCBO   Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Predictor Variables B t B t B t Age .01 1.81 .00 .96 .00 .93 Education .00 .00 .01 .26 .01 .30 Gender -.07 -.95 -.11 -1.62 -.11 -1.55 Year on the Job .01 1.61 .01 1.55 .01 1.45 OCBO   .16 2.93** .17 2.96** RD OCBO   .08 1.85 .08 1.84 RD OCBO x OCBO     .03 .50 Model R2 .07 .16 .16 ?R2 .07** .09*** .00 F 3.44** 5.77*** 4.96***  Note. N = 192. RD = Role Discretion. Education is coded high school (1), some college/ associate (2), college/bachelors (3), masters (4), greater than masters (5). Gender is coded male (0), female (1). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.            38 Table 6 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Work Engagement with OCBO Interaction Controlled  Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Predictor Variables B t B t B t B t Age .01 1.81 .01 2.41* .01 2.42* .01 2.32* Education .00 .00 .02 .63 .03 .83 .02 .68 Gender -.07 -.95 -.11 -1.76 -.10 -1.50 -.11 -1.77 Year on the Job .01 1.61 .00 .41 .00 .05 .00 .03 OCBI   .10 2.00* .09 1.92 .10 2.04* OCBO   .10 1.84 .11 2.00* .10 1.74 RD OCBI   .16 3.42*** .18 3.77*** .20 4.04*** RD OCBO   .02 .52 .02 .39 .02 .41 RD OCBO x OCBO     .09 1.79 .06 1.15 RD OCBI x OCBI       .06 1.50 Model R2 .07 .28 .29 .30 ?R2 .07** .21*** .01 .01 F 3.44** 8.84*** 8.31*** 7.76*** Note. N = 192. RD = Role Discretion. Education is coded high school (1), some college/ associate (2), college/bachelors (3), masters (4), greater than masters (5). Gender is coded male (0), female (1). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.     39 Table 7 Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Work Engagement with OCBO Interaction Controlled  Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Predictor Variables B t B t B t B t Age .01 1.81 .01 2.41* .01 2.29* .01 2.32* Education .00 .00 .02 .63 .02 .53 .02 .68 Gender -.07 -.95 -.11 -1.76 -.13 -2.03* -.11 -1.77 Year on the Job .01 1.61 .00 .41 .00 .23 .00 .03 OCBI   .10 2.00* .10 2.13* .10 2.04* OCBO   .10 1.84 .09 1.62 .10 1.74 RD OCBI   .16 3.42*** .19 3.92*** .20 4.04*** RD OCBO   .02 .52 .02 .49 .02 .41 RD OCBI x OCBI     .07 2.04* .06 1.50 RD OCBO x OCBO       .06 1.15 Model R2 .07 .28 .30 .30 ?R2 .07** .21*** .02* .01 F 3.44** 8.84*** 8.46*** 7.76***  Note. N = 192. RD = Role Discretion. Education is coded high school (1), some college/ associate (2), college/bachelors (3), masters (4), greater than masters (5). Gender is coded male (0), female (1). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.    40 Figures  Figure 1 OCBI Predicting Work Engagement at low and high levels of Role                    41 Bibliography  Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.  Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Human needs in organizational settings. New York: Free Press of  Glencoe. Allen, T. D. (2006). Rewarding good citizens: The relationship between citizenship  behavior, gender, and organizational rewards. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(1), 120-143. Aquino, K., & Bommer, W. H. (2003). Preferential mistreatment: How victim status moderates the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and workplace victimization. Organization Science, 14(4), 374-385. Bachrach, D. G., & Jex, S. M. (2000). Organizational citizenship and mood: An experimental test of perceived job breadth. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 641?663. Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work  engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 4-28. Bakker, A., & Bal, P. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study  among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational  Psychology, 83(1), 189-206. Bakker, A.B., Hakanen, J.J., Demerouti, E. & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 274-284.    42 Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee "citizenship." Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595. Beilock, S. L. & Holt, L. E. (2007). Embodied preference judgments: Can likeability be  driven by the motor system? Psychological Science, 18, 51-57. Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., Gilstrap, J. B., & Suazo, M. M. (2010). Citizenship under  pressure: What's a ?good soldier? to do? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 835-855. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual  performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10(2), 99-109. Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of  Management Review, 11, 710-725. Brotheridge, C. M., & Grandey, A. A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of ?People work?. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60(1), 17-39. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New  Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cole, M. S., Walter, F., Bedeian, A. G., & O'Boyle, E. H. (2011) Job burnout and  employee engagement: A meta-analytic examination of construct proliferation. Journal of Management, 389(5), 1550 ? 1581. Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and resources  to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834-848.    43 Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York:  Harper and Row. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Demerouti, E., Mostert, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Burnout and work engagement: A thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(3), 209-222. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job  demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499?512. Demerouti, E., & Halbesleben, J. (2005). The construct validity of an alternative measure  of burnout: Investigating the english translation of the oldenburg burnout inventory. Work and Stress, 19(3), 208-220. Demerouti, E., Mostert, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Burnout and work engagement: A thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(3), 209-222. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331-362. Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday. Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction.  Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.    44 Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, Mass: Addison- Wesley. Halbesleben, J. R. B., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C. (2009). Too engaged? A conservation  of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work interference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1452-1465. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing  stress. The American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling.  Berkeley: University of California Press. Ilies, R., Fulmer, I. S., Spitzmuller, M., & Johnson, M. D. (2009). Personality and  citizenship behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 945-959. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and  disengagement at work. The Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724. Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship  behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level longitudinal  study. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 101-114.  Lawler, E. J. (1992). Affective attachments to nested groups: A choice process theory. American Sociological Review, 57, 327?339. Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of  Psychology, 52(1), 397-422.    45 Macey, W. H. & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial  and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3-30. Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal  of Occupational Behaviour, 2(2), 99-113. Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E, & Leiter, M.P. (1996). The maslach burnout inventory:  Manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Maslach, C. & Leiter, M.P. (1997). The truth about burnout. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper. May, D. R., Gilson, L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of  meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at  work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11?37. McAllister, D. J., Kamdar, D., Morrison, E. W., & Turban, D. B. (2007). Disentangling  role perceptions: How perceived role breadth, discretion, instrumentality, and efficacy relate to helping and taking charge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1200-1211.  Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The  importance of the employee's perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1543. Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2005). Engagement in a profession: The case of  undergraduate teaching. Daedalus, 134(3), 60-67. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.  Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It?s construct cleanup time.     46 Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship  behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage  Publications. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior and  sales unit effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 3, 351?363. Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach (2000). Organizational citizenship behavior:  A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. (2000). Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563 Podsakoff, N. P., Blume, B. D., Whiting, S. W., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2009). Individual-  and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122-141. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of  intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonz?lez-Rom?, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of Engagement and burnout: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its  nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663. Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the work place: Dimensions,  measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465. Tepper, B. J., Lockhart, D., & Hoobler, J. (2001). Justice, citizenship, and role definition     47 effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 789-796. Tepper, B. J., & Taylor, E. C. (2003). Relationships among supervisors? and subordinates? procedural justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 97?105. Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An  "interpretive" model of intrinsic task motivation. The Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666-681. Tremblay, M. A., Blanchard, C. M., Taylor, S., Pelletier, L. G., & Villeneuve, M. (2009). Work extrinsic and intrinsic motivation scale: Its value for organizational psychology research. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 41(4), 213-226. van Jaarsveld, D. D., Walker, D. D., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2010). The role of job demands and emotional exhaustion in the relationship between customer and employee incivility. Journal of Management. 36(6), 1486-1504. Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job  dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 525-531. Wagner, S. L., & Rush, M. C. (2000). Altruistic organizational citizenship behavior:  Context, disposition, and age. Journal of Social Psychology, 140(3), 379-391. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational  commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behavior. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617.     48 Yun, S., Takeuchi, R., & Liu, W. (2007). Employee self-enhancement motives and job performance behaviors: Investigating the moderating effects of employee role ambiguity and managerial perceptions of employee commitment. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 745-756. Zellars, K. L., Tepper, B. J., & Duffy, M. K. (2002). Abusive supervision and   subordinates? organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1068?1076.    49 Appendix A Measure Items OCBI   How frequently do you display the following behavior?  Never  Very Rarely  Rarely  Occasionally  Frequently   Very Frequently  1. I help others who have been absent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. I help others who have heavy work loads.  1 2 3 4 5 6 3. I assist my supervisor with his/ her work (When not asked).   1 2 3 4 5 6 4. I take time to listen to co-workers? problems and worries.   1 2 3 4 5 6 5. I go out of my way to help new employees.  1 2 3 4 5 6 6. I take a personal interest in other employees.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7. I pass along information to co-workers.  1 2 3 4 5 6                    50  OCBO   How frequently do you display the following behavior?  Never  Very Rarely   Rarely   Occasionally  Frequently  Very Frequently 1. My attendance at work is above the norm.  1 2 3 4 5 6 2. I give advance notice when unable to come to work.   1 2 3 4 5 6 3. I take undeserved work breaks.  1 2 3 4 5 6 4. A great deal of time is spent with personal phone conversations.  1 2 3 4 5 6 5. I complain about insignificant things at work.   1 2 3 4 5 6 6. I conserve and protect organizational property.   1 2 3 4 5 6 7. I adhere to informal rules devised to maintain order.   1 2 3 4 5 6                      51 Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI)  To what degree do you agree with the following items?  Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 1. I always find new and interesting aspects in my work.  1 2 3 4 2. It happens more and more often that I talk about my work in a  negative way.  1 2 3 4 3. After work, I tend to need more time than in the past in order to relax and feel better.  1 2 3 4 4. Lately, I tend to think less at work and do my job almost mechanically.  1 2 3 4 5. I find my work to be a positive challenge.  1 2 3 4 6. During my work, I often feel emotionally drained.   1 2 3 4 7. Over time, one can become disconnected from this type of work.  1 2 3 4 8. After working, I have enough energy for my leisure activities.  1 2 3 4 9. After my work I usually feel worn out and weary.  1 2 3 4 10. This is the only type of work that I can imagine myself doing.  1 2 3 4 11. There are days when I feel tired before I arrive at work.  1 2 3 4 12. I can tolerate the pressure of my work very well.   1 2 3 4     52 Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI)  13. I feel more and more engaged in my work.   1 2 3 4 14. When I work, I usually feel energized.   1 2 3 4                                          53 OCBI Role Discretion     I have complete freedom in:  Strongly disagree  Disagree   Somewhat disagree  Somewhat agree  Agree   Strongly agree  1. helping others who have been absent.  1 2 3 4 5 6 2. helping others who have heavy work loads.  1 2 3 4 5 6 3. assisting my supervisor with his/ her work (When  not asked).   1 2 3 4 5 6 4. taking time to listen to co-workers? problems and worries.   1 2 3 4 5 6 5. going out of my way to help new employees.  1 2 3 4 5 6 6. taking a personal interest in other employees.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7. passing along information to co-workers.   1 2 3 4 5 6                   54 OCBO Role Discretion    Strongly disagree  Disagree   Somewhat disagree  Somewhat agree  Agree   Strongly agree  1. attending work above the norm. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. giving advance notice when unable to come to work.    1 2 3 4 5 6 3. taking undeserved work breaks.    1 2 3 4 5 6 4. withholding personal phone conversations.  1 2 3 4 5 6 5. withholding my complaints about insignificant things at work.   1 2 3 4 5 6 6. conserving and protecting organizational property.   1 2 3 4 5 6 7. adhering to informal rules devised to maintain order.   1 2 3 4 5 6                      55 Control Variables  Date of birth: Gender:  Male    Female    Other  Number of years on the job: Highest level of education: Occupation: Which country do you live in?   Are you currently employed?  Yes  No What is your first language?     

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0074223/manifest

Comment

Related Items