Next Article in Journal
Determinant Factors of SDG Disclosure in the University Context
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of the Entrepreneurial Strategic Orientation of Social Enterprises on Organizational Effectiveness: Case of South Korea
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Administrative Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/admsci12010020
admsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Perceived Organizational Support, Coworkers’ Conflict and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediation Role of Work-Family Conflict

by
Cláudia Andrade
1,2,* and
Paula C. Neves
1,3,*
1
College of Education, Research Center for Social and Behavioral Sciences of ESEC, Polytechnic of Coimbra, 3030-329 Coimbra, Portugal
2
Center of Psychology, University of Porto, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal
3
Centre of 20th Century Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Coimbra, 300-186 Coimbra, Portugal
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2022, 12(1), 20; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12010020
Submission received: 28 November 2021 / Revised: 6 January 2022 / Accepted: 13 January 2022 / Published: 25 January 2022
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of the present study is to investigate the extent to which perceived organizational support and coworkers’ conflict and work-family conflict play a role in the performance of three types of organizational citizenship behaviors. A cross-sectional design was used comprising a sample of 164 health support workers working in Portuguese elderly care facilities. Using structural equation model findings showed that perceived organizational support is linked with organizational citizenship behaviors, directly and indirectly, via work-family conflict. Furthermore, coworkers’ conflict was also related with organizational citizenship behaviors, directly and indirectly via work-family conflict. The linkage between perceived organizational support and coworkers’ conflict through work-family conflict can offer new insights into how to enhance organizational citizenship behaviors by active management. These findings can help elderly care organizations and their managers to design better workplace conditions where organizational support and coworkers’ conflict can be better managed allowing workers to have more control over work-family conflict and promoting organizational citizenship behaviors.

1. Introduction

Over the last several decades, organizational citizenship behaviors become an important topic of research due to their crucial importance for organizational success (Kossek and Ozeki 1998). Organizational success includes not only high levels of organizational performance but also workers’ well-being and commitment to the organizational goals. Promoting active participation and initiative of the workers is crucial but can also be a hard task to accomplish in the human services industry, such as in elderly care facilities.
Even though there is growing demand of health support workers, the role of these professionals has changed, and the composition of the health support workforce working in elderly care facilities is very diverse (Berta et al. 2018). Moreover, the type of care tasks they are requested to perform is increasingly complex and demanding (Berta et al. 2018). Like in other countries, in Portugal, there is a growing concern about the long-term effects of the work environment in the workers well-being since most of these institutions are reported to have a shortage of human resources.
Moreover, health support workers are often exposed to emotional and, in some cases, physically demanding tasks, often working on shift schedules seven days a week (Gonçalves et al. 2018). However, research from other aversive work environments found that some workers go above and beyond what is expected in terms of work tasks. As it was stated by Blakely et al. (2005), some workers “perform tasks that are outside the technical core of the job yet serve the organization by supporting the psychological and social context of work” (p. 259). Since workers’ performance are key elements for organizational development, research on the organizational dimensions that foster organizational citizenship behaviors is an important topic for human resources management.
The aim of the present study is to investigate the extent to which perceived organizational support and coworkers’ conflict and work-family conflict play a role in the performance of three types of organizational citizenship behaviors of health support workers of elderly care facilities. More precisely, it is expected that the perceptions of organizational support are negatively related to work-family conflict that, in turn, will be negatively related with organizational citizenship behaviors. Secondly, it is expected that coworkers’ conflict affects negatively work-family conflict that, in turn, will be negatively associated with organizational citizenship behaviors. Indeed, it is postulated that work-family conflict mediates the relationship between perceived organizational support and coworkers’ conflict in the three types of organizational citizenship behaviors. This study goes beyond previous research on organizational citizenship behaviors in several ways. First, many studies that have analyzed organizational citizenship behaviors tend to focus on personality dimensions and OCBs (Chiaburu et al. 2011; O’Grady 2018; Omar and Delgado 2005; Organ and Ryan 1995). Moreover, research focusing on the relations between work-family conflict and organizational citizenship behaviors has mainly considered the negative impact of work-family conflict on positive behaviors such as organizational citizenship behaviors (Bragger et al. 2005). This study extends previous research by using the job demands–resources (JD-R) model, which underlines organizational features that can increase or reduce the impact of demands associated with work performance. In this study, the relationship of work-family conflict and organizational citizenship behaviors is analyzed by taking both organizational resources and demands into consideration. In fact, on one hand, it is considered that coworkers’ conflict will consume workers’ resources, since they often require efforts, negotiations, and time that can create tensions by taking workers’ personal resources, which can trigger work-family conflict. On the other hand, on the resources side, workers that feel that they are supported by their organizations might be more prone to have lower levels of work-family conflict since, in most of the cases, given support can buffer the negative effects associated with work-family conflict. Thus, these workers might be more prone to invest in behaviors beyond their duties such as organizational citizenship behaviors. To have a better understanding of the antecedent and mediating variables selected for the study, tree types of OCBs that represent both individual and organizational level behaviors were included. Secondly, most of the studies have examined the consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors in different organizational and professions, while the study of organizational citizenship behaviors in health support workers of geriatric facilities has received less attention from the studies. Finally, research on the consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors tend to concentrate on individual and organizational performance (Podsakoff et al. 2014), while studies that focus on the simultaneous impact of workplace resources and demands on work-family conflict and organizational citizenship behaviors remain scarce.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors

Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) (Smith et al. 1983) comprise all the behaviors or actions that employees do based on their own initiative in a discretionary manner (going beyond their role requirements), which contribute to organizational success. The importance of voluntary and intentional behaviors of employees to the organizations relies on the Barnard ([1938] 1968) proposal. In line with author organizations are cooperative systems where employees’ willingness to cooperate is a key element for the system (Barnard [1938] 1968). Additionally, later, Katz and Kahn ([1966] 1978) claim the importance of innovative and spontaneous behaviors, in addition to direct role requirements, to the organizational dynamics. These behaviors include cooperation activities among employees: actions to protect the system, innovative ideas aiming system improvement, training, and behaviors that promote a good organizational climate. The importance of OCBs has been identified by research that showed that OCB is linked with organizational performance (Podsakoff et al. 2014). Organizations where employees actively engage in OCBs present higher levels of goal achievement (Walumbwa et al. 2011), good quality standards (Hadjali and Salimi 2012), high levels of employee work commitment (Shahab et al. 2018), low levels of absenteeism, and high levels of work satisfaction and organizational loyalty (Chughtai and Zafar 2006; Podsakoff et al. 2014). Research performed within health organizations found that OCBs have a positive impact on organizational performance (Mallick et al. 2014), as well as in the quality of services that are delivered (Berta et al. 2013; Hadjali and Salimi 2012). In fact, OCBs appear to be related with high standards of quality in services, mainly because they are related with better planning strategies and problem-solving actions for both employees and managers (Basu et al. 2017; Organ et al. 2006). Along with these findings, organizations where employees actively engage in OCBs tend to be more attractive and tend to retain the best professionals, with behaviors such as altruism and sportsmanship accounting for the development of healthy work environment and positive work climate that act against turnover intentions (Podsakoff and MacKenzie 1997; Shanker 2018). In organizations where resources tend to be limited, such as organizations devoted to elderly care, OCBs can have an important impact not only on the organizational performance, in general, but also in quality of the services (Van Dyne and LePine 1998).
Due to the importance of OCBs for organizational performance, several studies have been focusing on the relation of the OCBs and human resources policies and practices (Lin et al. 2016; Tinti et al. 2017) in order to identify possible antecedents of OCBs. Some of the of these antecedents found in the literature are presented in the next section.

2.2. Perceived Organizational Support

Perceived organizational support (POS) is defined as the workers’ beliefs regarding which employer is concerned about their well-being and provides resources to assist them in managing the demands related with their jobs and work roles (Eisenberger et al. 1986). Hence, organizational supportive workplaces tend to support all workers in general, in particular, workers who have to juggle work demands with family responsibilities. Organizational support is often promoted by the availability of resources (e.g., flexibility in work arrangements, flextime, etc.) aiming to reduce the strains related work-family conflict (Eisenberger et al. 1986). Thus, research claims that organizational support should not only fulfill the needs of the workers leading workers to incorporate an organizational membership but also promote a workers’ felt obligation to care about the organization’s welfare (Eisenberger et al. 1986). Research has consistently found support for the relation between POS and OCBs (Kapela and Pohl 2020; Kurtessis et al. 2017; Muhammad 2014). These studies have shown that when workers perceive their organization as supportive, caring about their well-being and needs, they exhibit more OCBs (Kapela and Pohl 2020; Kurtessis et al. 2017; Muhammad 2014). However, the relation among POS and the OCBs dimensions research showed inconsistent results. While some studies found a stronger relation between POS and OCBs devoted to the organizational level when compared to the individual level (Eisenberger et al. 1986; Wayne et al. 2002), other studies, with samples with workers from the social sectors, found opposite results (Kapela and Pohl 2020). To have a better understanding of these possible relations, since the sample of this study is composed health care professionals, we will consider the relationship of POS and different types of OCBs.
Given the presented studies, we posit the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
POS will be positively associated with OCB (defense of organizational image).
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
POS will be positively associated with OCB (cooperation with coworkers).
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
POS will be positively associated with OCB (creative solutions).

2.3. Coworkers’ Conflict

Working in teams is a common practice in organizations. Thus, there is growing body of research that devotes attention to the consequences of intragroup conflict on group performance and goal achievement. Conflicts can be defined as divergences in individual or group perspectives and can create tensions (De Dreu and Weingart 2003a).
The conflict that occurs within the work teams can be categorized in two types: relational conflict (or interpersonal incompatibilities among group members) and task conflict or disagreements among group members (Jehn 1995). Relational conflicts are based on tensions between the individuals resulting from differences in personalities, values, and attitudes that lead to the confrontation of behaviors and ways of facing the different situations, leading to the emergence of tensions. Task conflicts are disagreements about specific ideas, practices, or strategies to achieve goals, or disagreement about the distribution of roles, resources, or tasks. Although many studies focus on each of the dimensions of the conflict separately, studies that use a meta-analysis approach found high correlations between the two types of intra-group conflict (De Dreu and Weingart 2003b). Moreover, the unavoidability of conflicts in team working stimulated research with a focus on the relations between conflict and team performance (De Wit et al. 2012). However, research has mainly focused on relating the types and intensity of conflict with the outcomes of task performance, neglecting other organizational performance variables such as OCBs. The few studies that addressed this issue found a negative relation between OCBs and coworkers’ conflict (De Wit et al. 2012; Jin 2013; Kacmar et al. 2012) and supervisors (Kacmar et al. 2012). However, none of these studies were carried out in organizations devoted to elderly care. Based on the empirical findings of the abovementioned studies, it is expected that coworkers’ conflict will negatively impact organizational citizenship behaviors.
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Coworker’s conflict will be negatively associated with OCB (defense of organizational image).
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Coworker’s conflict will be negatively associated with OCB (cooperation with coworkers).
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
Coworker’s conflict will be negatively associated with OCB (creative solutions).

2.4. Work-Family Conflict as a Mediator

Work and family are the two key spheres for most working adults. Combining these two domains can be problematic (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985; Netermeyer et al. 1996). Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) demonstrated that demands and problems in one life sphere often spill over into another, creating inter-role conflict. Thus, work-family conflict has been defined as “a form of inter-role conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect” (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985, p. 77). This conflict can be bidirectional, with problems at work triggering problems in family life and vice versa (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985). Netermeyer et al. (1996) proposed that work-family conflict can assume three different forms: (1) time-based conflict, (2) strain-based conflict, and (3) behavior-based conflict, with time- and strain-based work-family conflict considered the more prominent types of conflict. Turning to the work-family literature, work-family conflict has been related with many negative outcomes such low organizational commitment (Thompson et al. 1999), high levels of burnout (Bacharach et al. 1991), emotional exhaustion (Boles et al. 1997), absenteeism, and high turnover intentions (Goff et al. 1990). Despite the fact that the reduced likelihood to engage in OCBs due to work-family conflict has attracted few studies, some showed that high levels of work-family conflict were related to low levels of engagement with OCBs (Bragger et al. 2005; Tompson and Werner 1997). Moreover, a study by Hui et al. (1994) that examined the predictors of OCBs found that work-related time pressures negatively impacted engagement in OCBs.
The current study extends this research by looking specifically to the effects of two types of work-family conflict: work-family conflict due to time constrains and work-family conflict due to strain constrains and engagement in OCBs. On the side of the organizational factors and their relationship with work-family conflict, two dimensions are considered in the present study. Using the lens of the job demands–resources (JD-R) model, every occupation has job demands and job resources (Bakker et al. 2003; Bakker and Demerouti 2007; Demerouti et al. 2001). Job resources are psychological, social, or organizational features of the job that are either functional in achieving work goals or reduce the impact of demands associated physiological and psychological costs of the job (Bakker and Demerouti 2007). The job demands–resources (JD-R) model contends that perceived organizational support could potentially alleviate employees’ work-family conflict. Specifically, if employees feel the organizational supports them in creating conditions to reduce work-family conflict, they may be less likely to experience work-family conflict.
In agreement with this perspective, some studies have found that perceived organizational support had a positive impact on work-family conflict (Casper et al. 2002; Foley et al. 2005; Gurbuz et al. 2012). Moreover, when workers are provided with organizational support to reduce work-family conflict, they may feel devoted to the organization, and this may increase the likelihood of their engaging in OCBs. Nevertheless, the JD-R model also contends the existence of job demands that are physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that entail physical and/or psychological costs for the employee (Bakker and Demerouti 2007; Bakker et al. 2003; Demerouti et al. 2001). Within this perspective, coworkers’ conflict can enhance employees’ sense of work-family conflict since it can create tensions in the work environment that may result in negative work outcomes for the employees that can spill over into family life. As argued earlier, it is expected that work-family conflict will have a mediating effect between POS, coworkers’ conflict, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Thus, is expected that:
Hypothesis 7 (H7).
Work-family conflict (time) will have a mediating role between POS and OCB (defense of organizational image, cooperation with coworkers, and creative solutions).
Hypothesis 8 (H8).
Work-family conflict (strain) will have a mediating role between coworkers’ conflict and OCB (defense of organizational image, cooperation with coworkers, and creative solutions).

3. Method

3.1. Data Collection and Sample

Google Forms was used to collect survey responses from health support workers working in elderly care facilities located in the center of Portugal. Graduate students enrolled in a program on social gerontology contacted the directors of twelve elderly care facilities in person, presented them the research goals, and asked permission to carry out the study. After permission was given, potential participants were contacted though email and received a link with information about the project goals, a request to express their consent in participating in the research project, and the questionnaire. Participants were informed that both confidentiality and anonymity were assured. To participate in the study, it was required that the participants had to work full time in elderly care facilities and had to be caregivers who spent the majority of their day interacting with clients. The sample was comped of 164 participants. The majority of respondents in our sample were female (92.7%), aged between 19 and 63 years old (Mean age = 44.18, SD = 4.11), 40.2% had a university degree, 34.7% completed high school/vocational training and 25% had elementary education, and 58.5% were parents. They worked in two types of institutions, non-profit institutions (84.1%) and private institutions (15.9%), working in a fixed schedule (65.9%) and in shift work (34.1%).

3.2. Measures

Organizational Citizenship Behavior: This construct was measured by using a 14-item scale developed by Bastos et al. (2014) that captures 3 dimensions of OCB (creative soluctions, defense of organizational image, and cooperation with coworkers). Sample item: “When someone from outside speaks badly about this facility I always try to defend it”. Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with each item (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Internal consistency was α = 0.90.
Organizational Support: This construct was measured using 5 items adapted from Thompson et al. (2005). Sample item: “I feel that I have support when I have a problem in my workplace”. Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with each item (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Internal consistency was α = 0.86.
Coworkers’ Conflict: This construct was measured by 4 items adapted from Dimas (2007) measuring both affective and task conflict. Sample item for task conflict: “There are divergences in what concerns the allocation of the tasks and responsibilities”. Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with each item (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). Internal consistency was α = 0.82.
Work-family Conflict: The construct was measured using 6 items capturing the time and strain experienced by study participants adapted from Matthews et al. (2011). Sample item: “Due to my work responsibilities I’m not able to spend the time with my family that I would like”. Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with each item (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The internal consistency for work-family conflict (time) was α = 0.92 (three items), and for work-family conflict (strain), α = 0.90 (three items).

4. Results

Table 1 shows the means, SDs, and intercorrelations among the study variables. The correlation coefficients of POS and OCB—defense of the organizational image (r = 0.37, p < 0.001), OCB—cooperation with coworkers (r = 0.49, p < 0.001), OCB—creative solutions (r = 0.32, p < 0.001), work-family conflict (time) (r = 0.31, p < 0.001), and work-family conflict (strain) (r = 0.33, p < 0.001) were significant. Coworker conflict presented a significant correlation with OCB—defense of the organizational image (r = 0.39, p < 0.001) and work-family conflict (time) (r = 0.30, p < 0.001). Moreover, the correlation coefficient of work-family conflict (time) and work-family conflict (strain) was also significant (r = 0.41, p < 0.001).
Since all study variables were tested using self-reports, we performed a factor analysis to test for the threat of common method bias with Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff et al. 2003). The results indicate that one factor accounts for 34.45% for the variance in the data, and therefore, the threat of common method bias is unlikely. A structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the hypotheses. The main reason for choosing a structural equation model was due to the possibility of modelling both dependent and mediating variables at once, also considering covariance of residual errors in the measurement of dependent variables, as well as covariances in independent variables. The proposed theoretical model was tested using AMOS 21 (Arbuckle 2007). Several adjustment indices were used: goodness of fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Models with fit indices 0.90, and RMSEA 0.08 indicate a good fit and adjusting the chi-squared for the number of estimated parameters, the AIC (lowest value indicates best fit). For the model adopted, it was found that χ2/df = 1.51, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.94, and GFI = 0.95. These values indicate an acceptable fit between the measurement model and the observed data. Post-estimation modification indices were used to see if any meaningful adjustments grounded in theory needed to be done. Results for the adjusted structural model tested are shown in Figure 1. Standardized coefficients are reported.
As for the individual hypotheses support for H1 and H2 and H3 was found. Data show that POS had a significant direct effect on all dimensions of OCB, namely OCB—defense of the organization (β = 0.60, p < 0.001), OCB—cooperation with coworkers (β = 0.58, p < 0.001), and OCB—creative solutions (β = 0.23, p < 0.001), indicating that the more organizational support is perceived by the employees more organizational citizenship behavior they will perform. Data also support H4 showing that coworkers’ conflict had a significant direct negative effect on OCB—defense of the organizational image (β = −0.026, p < 0.01). This can be interpreted as high levels of intra-group conflicts causing less willingness in employees to defend the organization’s image. Despite this result, H5 and H6 were not confirmed, meaning that the levels of intragroup conflict only have effects on employee behavior outside the organization (OCB—defense of the organizational image) and do not have an effect on the behavior of employee within the organization (OCB—cooperation with coworkers and OCB—creative suggestions). In the results on the mediating role of work-family conflict—time between POS, all OCB dimensions were hypothesized on H7, but the hypothesis was not supported. POS had a negative and statistically significant relationship with work-family conflict—time (β = −0.32, p < 0.001) and work-family conflict—strain (β = −0.17, p < 0.001), but work-family conflict—time is not directed related to OCB, showing that work-family conflict—time is not a mediator between POS and OCB. However, the negative statistically significant association between POS and work-family conflict—strain (β = −0.17, p < 0.001) and the significant association work-family conflict—strain with OCB—creative suggestions (β = 0.13, p < 0.001) show that work-family conflict—strain can act as a mediator between POS e OCB—creative suggestions. This result can be interpreted as higher levels of POS, which can ease the strain associated with WFC, creating opportunities for employees to engage in OCB—creative suggestions. Furthermore, coworker conflict is also associated with work-family conflict—time (β = 0.19, p < 0.001) and work-family conflict—strain (β = 0.17, p < 0.001). According to the post-estimation modification indices, work-family conflict—time had a positive and statistically significant association with work-family conflict—strain (β = 0.62, p < 0.001), meaning that coworker conflict directly impacts on work-family conflict—strain and indirectly impacts work-family conflict—time. The test of indirect effects of coworker conflict on OCB with work-family conflict—strain as mediator was not significant, and H8 was not confirmed. Coworkers’ conflict was associated with work-family conflict—time (β = 0.19, p < 0.001) and work-family conflict—strain (β = 0.17, p < 0.001) and, since work-family conflict—strain is also related with OCB creative suggestions (β = 0.13, p < 0.001), work-family conflict—strain can also be considered a mediator between coworker conflict and OCB—creative suggestions.

5. Discussion

5.1. Theoretical Implications

Using a job demands–resources (JD-R) approach, the current study examined the mechanisms surrounding the association between the perceived organizational support, coworker conflict, and work-family conflict on the performance of organizational citizenship behaviors in health support workers.
Overall, the results provided support for the proposed model. Specifically, perceived organizational support was associated with OCBs directly and indirectly via work-family conflict. In turn, coworker conflict was directly associated with OCB—defense of the organizational image and indirectly with OCB creative suggestions via work-family conflict. These findings deepen the understanding of why perceived organizational support translates its detrimental effects on work-family conflict and accounts directly for the performance of OCB. In fact, drawing on the job demands–resources model (JD-R), POS increases the perception about the resources in the workplace (Tims and Bakker 2010). The proposed model also claims that workers can develop emotional ties with the organization if they feel that they are supported by the organization, putting them in a condition of availability to carry out tasks beyond those that are formally prescribed. Our findings are in line with those from early studies of Eisenberger et al. (1986) that pinpoint that organizations can be personified by the workers, and by doing this, they create in workers the perception of the need for reciprocity—if the organization cares for me, I should care about the organization. Moreover, the strong direct effects of POS on all dimensions of the OCBs were supported, which adds to the growing number of studies that highlight the importance of organizational support for workers of the service industries (Ahmed and Nawaz 2015).
This study also extends the field of work-family literature by highlighting the importance of the negative impact of work-family conflict workers’ availability to perform OCBs.
As another critical aspect of the job demands–resources (JD-R) approach, this study examined the direct associations between coworker conflict (as a source of resources drain) on OCBs and the indirect effects via work-family conflict. Findings provided support of work-family conflict acting as a mediator of the effect of coworkers’ conflict on OCBs via work-family conflict. These results provided empirical support only for the OCB creative solutions, while coworkers’ conflict was only directly associated with OCB defense of the organizational image. This pattern of results is not in line with previous studies where conflict in teams and a decrease in the performance of OCB was found (De Wit et al. 2012; Jin 2013; Kacmar et al. 2012). However, these studies were carried out in diverse organizational settings. In the case of elderly care facilities where working with coworkers or teamwork is a daily activity, most problems must be managed by the team and leaders to assure the normal performance of the tasks. Thus, coworkers’ conflict seems to have a stronger impact on the OCB related with the defense of the image and reputation of the organization while also impacting work-family conflict that, in turn, prevent workers to be more involved in OCB creative solutions.

5.2. Practical Implications

One implication of the study results is that organizational support given to workers should receive more attention due to its positive effects on the mitigation of work-family conflict and impacts on the availability to perform OCB. Additionally, our findings also suggest two primary ways in which workplace resources and demands can affect workers’ availability to engage in OCBs. First and foremost, our results show that POS may be a key element that influences engagement with OCBs, that lessens the work-family conflict and that, in turn, can account for engagement in OCB. In fact, organizational support accounted to enhance OCB engagement directly and positively. Hence, as longitudinal studies by Hammer et al. (2010) suggested, organizations should adopt policies and measures to influence workers’ perceptions of support. These measures, when equitable and consistently and openly applied, can increase individual work performance (Berta et al. 2018). Moreover, the findings support the assumption that workers that feel supported by their organization are more prone to reply in beneficial ways to the organization that can be translated into extra-role behaviors (Lambert 2000). Since work resources are developed within the organizations, managers of geriatric care facilities should be aware of initiatives to support health care professionals since they can create cascade positive effects both on workers and organizations.
Furthermore, results of the current study corroborated the idea that coworkers’ conflict accounts for the perception of work-family conflict that, subsequently, can compromise engagement with OCBs. As this study does not allow any conclusions about causality, recommendations need to be considered as preliminary. Managers can facilitate opportunities for training schemes that can be put in place to mitigate the risks of conflict among team members, acting in favor of teamwork, and developing skills and coping strategies to anticipate and manage conflict in team working.

6. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

Some limitations of the study should be noted. First, although using a structural equation model provides better estimates of the study variables and their relations, since data relied on a self-report measure, at least some of relationships among variables might be the result of common-method bias. In the future, to reduce the potential for bias, data concerning POS and coworkers’ conflict should be collected from different sources (i.e., supervisors). Second, this is a cross-sectional study based on a convenience sample of health support workers working on geriatric care facilities. Thus, the results of the research may not be considered representative of all health support workers of geriatric facilities in the country. Few empirical studies have simultaneously considered the importance of POS and work-family conflict and coworkers’ conflict in OCBs performance. This study aimed to fill this gap, and current findings can advance a general understanding of the dynamics of some workplace resources and demands in engagement with OCBs, considering different types of OCBs. Future studies may also want to examine other workplace dimensions such as work schedules, supervisory roles, and type of occupation, as well as other individual factors such as career stage, to have a more complete picture of the demands and resources that account for the OCBs’ engagement in health support professionals of geriatric care facilities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.A. and P.C.N., methodology, C.A., software, C.A.; validation C.A. and P.C.N., formal analysis C.A. and P.C.N., investigation, C.A. and P.C.N.; resources, C.A.; data curation C.A., writing—original draft preparation, C.A. and P.C.N., writing—review and editing, C.A. and P.C.N. visualization, C.A. and P.C.N.; supervision, C.A.; project administration, C.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

In the data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, Paula C. Neves, pneves@esec.pt.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ahmed, Ishfaq, and Muhammad Musarrat Nawaz. 2015. Antecedents and outcomes perceived organizational support: A literature survey approach. Journal of Management Development 34: 867–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Arbuckle, James L. 2007. AMOS. version 16.0.1. Spring House: Amos Development Corporation. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bacharach, Samuel B., Peter Bamberger, and Sharon Conely. 1991. Work-Home conflict among nurses and Engineers: Mediating the impact of stress on burnout and satisfaction at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior 12: 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bakker, Arnold B., and Evangelia Demerouti. 2007. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology 22: 309–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Bakker, Arnold B., Evangelia Demerouti, Elpine De Boer, and Wilmar B. Schaufeli. 2003. Job demands and job resources as predictors of absence duration and absence frequency. Journal of Vocational Behavior 62: 341–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Barnard, Chester. 1968. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. First published 1938. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bastos, António Virgílio, Mirlene Maria Siquiera, and Ana Cristina Gomes. 2014. Cidadania Organizacional. In Novas Medidas de Comportamento Organizacional. Edited by Mirlene Maria Siqueira. Porto Alegre: Artemed, pp. 79–103. [Google Scholar]
  8. Basu, Eeman, Rabindra Kumar Pradhan, and Hare Ram Tewari. 2017. Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on job performance in Indian healthcare industries: The mediating role of social capital. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 66: 780–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Berta, Whitney, Audrey Laporte, Liane Ginsburg, Adrian Rohit Dass, Raisa Deber, Andrea Baumann, Lisa Cranley, Ivy Bourgeault, Janet Lum, Brenda Gamble, and et al. 2018. Relationships between work outcomes, work attitudes and work environments of health support workers in Ontario long-term care and home and community care settings. Human Resources for Health 16: 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Berta, Whitney, Audrey Laporte, Raisa Deber, Andrea Baumann, and Brenda Gamble. 2013. The evolving role of health care aides in the long-term care and home and community care sectors in Canada. Human Resourses for Health 11: 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Blakely, Gerald. L., Martha C. Andrews, and Robert Moorman. 2005. The moderating effects of equity sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology 20: 259–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Boles, James S., Mark W. Johnston, and Joseph F. Hair. 1997. Role stress, work-family conflict and emotional exhaustion: Inter-relationships and effects on some work-related consequences. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 17: 17–28. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bragger, Jennifer DeNicolis, Ofelia Rodriguez-Srednick, Eugene J. Kutcher, Lisa Indovino, and Erin Rosner. 2005. Work-family conflict, work-family culture, and organizational citizenship behavior among teachers. Journal of Business and Psychology 20: 303–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Casper, Wendy, Jennifer Martin, Louis C. Buffardi, and Carol Erdwins. 2002. Work-family conflict, perceived organizational support, and organizational commitment among employed mothers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 7: 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chiaburu, Dan S., In-Sue Oh, Christopher M. Berry, Ning Li, and Richard G. Gardner. 2011. The five-factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 96: 1140–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Chughtai, Aamir Ali, and Sohail Zafar. 2006. Antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment among pakistani university teachers. Applied HRM Reserach 11: 39–64. [Google Scholar]
  17. De Dreu, Carsten K., and Laurie R. Weingart. 2003a. A contingency theory of task conflict and performance in groups and organizational teams. In International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working. Edited by Michael A. West, Dean Tjosvold and Ken Smith. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 150–66. [Google Scholar]
  18. De Dreu, Carsten K., and Laurie R. Weingart. 2003b. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 741–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. De Wit, Frank R., Lindred Greer, and Karen A. Jehn. 2012. The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 97: 360–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Demerouti, Evangelia, Arnold B. Bakker, Friedhelm Nachreiner, and Wilmar B. Schaufeli. 2001. The job demands—Resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology 86: 499–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dimas, Isabel Cristina Dórdio. 2007. (Re)pensar o Conflito Intragrupal: Níveis de Desenvolvimento e Eficácia. (Dissertação de Doutoramento não Publicada). Coimbra: Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação de Coimbra. [Google Scholar]
  22. Eisenberger, Robert, Robin Huntington, Steven Hutchison, and Debora Sowa. 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 71: 500–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Foley, Sharon, Hang-Yue Ngo, and Steven Lui. 2005. The effects of work stressors, perceived organizational support, and gender on work-family conflict in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 22: 237–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Goff, Stephen J., Michael K. Mount, and Rosemary L. Jamison. 1990. Employer supported child care, work/family conflict, and absenteeism: A field study. Personnel Psychology 44: 793–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gonçalves, Ana Rita, Ana Galvão, Susana Escanciano, Marco Pinheiro, and Maria José Gomes. 2018. Stress e engagement na profissão de enfermagem: Análise de dois contextos internacionais. Revista Portuguesa de Enfermagem de Saúde Mental, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Greenhaus, Jeffrey H., and Nicholas J. Beutell. 1985. Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review 10: 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gurbuz, Sait, Omer Turunc, and Mazium Celik. 2012. The impact of perceived organizational support on work-family conflict: Does role overload have a mediating effect? Economic and Industrial Democracy 34: 145–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hadjali, Hamid Reza, and Meysam Salimi. 2012. An investigation on the effect of organizational citizenship behaviors (ocb) toward customer-orientation: A case of nursing home. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 57: 524–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Hammer, Leslie B., Ellen Ernst Kossek, W. Kent Anger, Todd Bodner, and Kristi L. Zimmerman. 2010. Clarifying work-family intervention processes: The roles of work-family conflict and family supportive supervisor behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology 96: 134–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Hui, Chun, Dennis W. Organ, and Karen Crooker. 1994. Time pressure, Type A syndrome, and organizational citizenship behavior: A laboratory experiment. Psychological Reports 75: 199–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jehn, Karen. 1995. A multidimensional examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly 40: 256–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jin, Zhang. 2013. A study on the relationship between management team conflict and organizational citizenship behavior in colleges and universities: The mediating effect of organizational justice. Paper presented at the Proceedings of International Conference on Management Science and Engineering 20th Annual Conference, Harbin, China, July 17–19; pp. 1427–32. Available online: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=andarnumber=6586458 (accessed on 4 May 2019).
  33. Kacmar, Michele, Daniel Bachrach, Kenneth Harris, and David Noble. 2012. Exploring the role of supervisor trust in the associations between multiple sources of relationship conflict and organizational citizenship behavior. The Leadership Quarterly 23: 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kapela, D. Tungisa, and S. Pohl. 2020. Organizational support, leader membership exchange and social support as predictors of commitment and organizational citizenship behaviour: Poverty as moderator. Pratiques Psychologiques 26: 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Katz, Daniel, and Robert L. Kahn. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley. First published 1966. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kossek, Erns, and Cynthia Ozeki. 1998. Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology 83: 139–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kurtessis, James N., Robert Eisenberger, Michael T. Ford, Louis C. Buffardi, Kathleen A. Stewart, and Cory S. Adis. 2017. Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal of Management 43: 1854–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Lambert, Susan J. 2000. Added benefits: The link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship behaviour. Academy of Management Journal 43: 801–15. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lin, Szu-Yin, Hsien-Chun Chen, and I-Heng Chen. 2016. When perceived welfare pratices leads to organizational citizenship behavior. Asia Pacific Management Review 21: 204–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mallick, Eeman, Rabindra Kumar Pradhan, Hare Ram Tewari, and Lalatendu Kesari Jena. 2014. Organizational citizenship behavior, job performance and HR practices: A relational perspective. Management and Labour Studies 39: 449–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Matthews, Russell A., Cathleen A. Swoody, and Janet L. Barnes-Farrell. 2011. Work hours and work-family conflict: The double-edged sword of involvement in work and family. Stress and Health 28: 234–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Muhammad, Ali H. 2014. Perceived organizational support and organizational citizenship behavior: The case of Kuwait. International Journal of Business Administration 5: 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Netermeyer, Richard, James Boles, and Robert McMurrian. 1996. Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology 81: 400–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. O’Grady, Sharon. 2018. Organizational citizenship behavior: Sensitization to an organizational phenomenon. Journal of Nursing Management 26: 795–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Omar, Alicia, and Hugo Uribe Delgado. 2005. Las dimensiones de personalidad como predictores de los comportamientos de ciudadanía organizacional. Estudos de Psicologia 10: 157–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Organ, Dennis W., and Katherine Ryan. 1995. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology 48: 775–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Organ, Dennis W., Philip M. Podsakoff, and Scott B. MacKenzie. 2006. Organizational Citizenship Behavior Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  48. Podsakoff, Philip M., and Scott B. MacKenzie. 1997. Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance 10: 133–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical view of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Podsakoff, Nathan, Philip. M. Podsakoff, Scott B. Mackenzie, Timothy Maynes, and Trevor Spoelma. 2014. Consequences of unit-level organizational citizenship behaviors: A review and recommendations for future research. Journal of Organziational Behavior 35: 87–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shahab, Hina, Nasir Mehmood, Afsheen Fatima, and Iffat Rasool. 2018. Wishful thinking and professional commitment: The forebears of organizational citizenship behavior. UW Journal of Management Sciences 1: 79–100. [Google Scholar]
  52. Shanker, Meera. 2018. Organizational citizenship behavior in relation to employees’ intention to stay in Indian organizations. Business Process Management Journal 24: 1355–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Smith, C. Ann, Dennis W. Organ, and Janet P. Near. 1983. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology 68: 653–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Thompson, Cynthia A., Laura L. Beauvais, and Karen Lyness. 1999. When work-family benefits are not enough: The influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behaviour 54: 392–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tims, Maria, and Arnold B. Bakker. 2010. Job crafting: Towards a new model of individual job redesign. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology 36: 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Tinti, Joel Adame, Luciano Venelli-Costa, Almir Martins Vieira, and Alexandre Cappellozza. 2017. O impacto das políticas e práticas de recursos humanos sobre os comportamentos de cidadania organizacional. Brazilian Business Review 14: 636–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Thompson, Cynthia A., Jeanine K. Andreassi, and David J. Prottas. 2005. Work-Family Culture: Key to Reducing Workforce-Workplace Mismatch? In Work, Family, Health, and Well-Being. Edited by Suzanne M. Bianchi, Lynne M. Casper and Rosalid Bukow King. New York: Routledge, pp. 117–32. [Google Scholar]
  58. Tompson, Holly B., and Jon M. Werner. 1997. The impact of role conflict/facilitation on core and discretionary behaviors: Testing a mediated model. Journal of Management 23: 572–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Van Dyne, Linn, and Jeffrey A. LePine. 1998. Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal 41: 108–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Walumbwa, Fred O., Russel Cropanzano, and Barry M. Goldman. 2011. How leader-member exchange influences effective work behaviors: Social exchange and internal-external efficacy perspectives. Personnel Psychology 64: 739–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wayne, Sandy, Lynn M. Shore, William H. Bommer, and Lois E. Tetrick. 2002. The role of fair treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology 87: 590–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Admsci 12 00020 g001 550
Figure 1. Path model (* p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.001).
Figure 1. Path model (* p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.001).
Admsci 12 00020 g001
Table
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations and intercorrelations.
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations and intercorrelations.
VariablesMSD1234567
1. OCB—Defense of the organizational image3.891.31-
2. OCB—Cooperation with coworkers2.951.150.36 **-
3. OCB—Creative solutions 3.151.830.41 **0.31 **-
4. POS—Perceived organizational support3.570.780.47 **0.39 **0.42 **-
5. Coworkers’ conflict3.410.780.39 **0.270.240.17-
6. Work-family conflict (time)3.121.230.210.180.220.31 **0.30 **-
7. Work-family conflict (strain)3.111.450.180.240.150.33 **0.290.41 **-
** p < 0.001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Andrade, C.; Neves, P.C. Perceived Organizational Support, Coworkers’ Conflict and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediation Role of Work-Family Conflict. Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12010020

AMA Style

Andrade C, Neves PC. Perceived Organizational Support, Coworkers’ Conflict and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediation Role of Work-Family Conflict. Administrative Sciences. 2022; 12(1):20. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12010020

Chicago/Turabian Style

Andrade, Cláudia, and Paula C. Neves. 2022. "Perceived Organizational Support, Coworkers’ Conflict and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediation Role of Work-Family Conflict" Administrative Sciences 12, no. 1: 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12010020

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop