Self‐Engagement Moderates the Mediated Relationship Between Organizational Constraints and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Via Rated Leadership

Abstract

We examined self-engagement in job performance in a moderated mediation model where engagement moderated the relationship between organizational constraints and ratings of leadership effectiveness, and ratings of leadership effectiveness mediated the relationship between organizational constraints and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). University employees representing diverse occupations completed measures of self-engagement, organizational constraints, and leader effectiveness. Supervisors provided ratings of OCB. Tests of mediated moderation using random coefficient modeling revealed that leadership mediated the relationship between constraints and OCB for highly engaged employees. Results are discussed in terms of highly engaged workers being attuned to stressors in the work environment that may compromise performance, potentially blaming leaders for the presence of these obstacles, thus causing withdrawal of effort on nonessential performance tasks.j asp_920 1830..1846

Job engagement and work outcomes in a cognitively demanding context

“…Physically engaged individuals have been argued to have a high level of connectivity with their work tasks and being highly concerned with performance outcomes (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008;Christian et al, 2011;Britt et al, 2012). This should make expatriate academics attuned to aspects of the work environment that will increase their possibility for performing well despite the novelty of working abroad.…”

“…However, a number of scholars have started to argue that some aspects of engagement may also have a dark side (e.g. Hallsten, 1993;Vinje and Mittelmark, 2007;Kühnel et al, 2009;Britt et al, 2012). This notion can be based on Kahn's (1990) observation that engaged workers are motivated to expend energy even in the face of difficulties and threats to their long-term well-being.…”

Creative leaders create ‘unsung heroes’: leader creativity and subordinate organizational citizenship behavior

“…organizational formalization and cohesion, interactional fairness and organizational constraints), and leadership behaviors (e.g. transformational leadership, leader-member exchange, emotional expressions of leaders and supervisor mentoring) (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000;Britt et al, 2012;Gonzalez-Mule, Mount & Oh, 2014;Koning & Kleef, 2015;Eby, Butts, Hoffman & Sauer, 2015;Lam, Liang, Ashford & Lee, 2015;Matta, Scott, Koopman & Conlon, 2015;Badawy, Shaughnessy, Brouer & Seitz, 2016;Collins & Mossholder, 2017).…”

A Co-Word Analysis of Organizational Constraints for Maintaining Sustainability

“…It should be noted that components of human systems such as stress, behaviors, job, and career can also be influenced by organizational constraints. Physical strain is the first component to be influenced by organizational constraints [59,60], but organizational constraints affect other aspects related to employees, such as stress [9,48], feelings of frustration [10,61], burnout [62], work anxiety [48], job dissatisfaction [10,62], employee energy [63], career [64], counterproductive work behavior [65,66] and organizational citizenship behavior [67]. Organizational strategy and performance as important indexes of organizational sustainability are found to be negatively influenced by organizational constraints.…”

“…Teams are also closely related to organizational constraints such as decision-making behaviors of team players can be shaped by changes in practice task constraints [45], and teamwork engagement during deployment can moderate the relationship between organizational constraints and post-deployment fatigue symptoms [46]. Additionally, leadership is an important element related to organizational constraints issue as some constraints can hinder the development of leadership [47] and ratings of leadership effectiveness can mediate the relationship between organizational constraints and organizational citizenship behaviors [48].…”