The Prosocial-Culture-Work Nexus: An Integrative Literature Review and Future Research Agenda

Abstract

Organization culture is a potential antecedent and moderator of prosocial behaviors at work. So, what is currently known about the prosocial-culture-work nexus? Studies of this nexus may be predicted to exist in the form of research on organization cultures of three types. One would be studies of specific organization cultures representing espoused Employer Value Propositions (EVPs). One would be etic studies using constructs of organization culture. The other would be emic studies, with the ‘thick description’ associated with ethnography/anthropology. An integrative literature review on the prosocial-organization culture-work nexus located 22 studies. Most studies are of the etic type, while others are mainly concerned with theory development. There is no evidence of a clear concept of organization culture being used in any study. The future research agenda for the prosocial-culture-work nexus follow from this. Constructs of organization culture need to be adopted and used. There is huge scope for EVP studies to explicitly and critically explore the breadth of the prosocial themes these often contain. Etic studies are the ones where the lack of organization culture constructs is most striking, given their methodologies. More emic studies with ethnographic/anthropological depth to explore, both work organizations in single countries, and in comparative studies across countries, are needed. Better clarified prosocial constructs will not in themselves advance knowledge if the organizational culture contexts in which prosociality exists remain under-appreciated.

Psychometric Validation of the Adult Prosocialness Behavior Scale in a Professional Teaching Context

“…First, there is the validation of the instrument with participants belonging to a particular professional sphere. This agrees with the recommendations to evaluate the operationalization of the construct in a specific cultural, social, and professional framework [56,72,73], particularly one where prosociality becomes a relevant job skill [72,73] and-in the specific case of the context studied-authenticated by regulatory requirements [51,52]. Although possibly comparable in different degrees and forms of operationalization, the actions of helping [36,37], sharing [38], caring [39][40][41], and feeling empathy [32,[43][44][45][46][47][48] constitute expressions of prosociality in various teaching scenarios, and it is displayed on multiple levels [1].…”

“…In contrast with the preceding empirical research, this factor structure agrees with the presented one by Mieres-Chacaltana et al [ 76 ] and differs from the other explored options [ 70 , 79 ]. Consequently, these discrepancies highlight the importance of considering the specific contexts in which prosociality unfolds when studying it [ 56 , 72 , 73 ].…”

“…The diversity of prosocial behaviors and underlying motivations has made a consistent understanding of the construct complex [ 53 ], although a singular and unidimensional concept has predominated [ 54 ]. However, even though this general characteristic prevails, it is important to consider the different types of prosociality [ 55 ] and their operationalization in specific organizational contexts [ 56 ]. On the other hand, the differences noted with respect to gender [ 57 ], particularly the emotional support [ 58 ] and empathy [ 59 , 60 ] commonly favorable to women, appear to be associated with cultural stereotypes [ 61 ], which are especially influential during adolescence [ 62 ].…”

Connecting with Future Talent: A Review of Employer Value Propositions and Digital Media Channels for Sustainable Companies Targeting Generations Y and Z

“…Regarding the employer value proposition that needs to be offered to deliver a solid and positive employer branding, sustainable companies need to pay attention to the basic needs of their target employees, namely Millennials and Generation Z. The value aspects that job seekers from both generations are looking for do have many similarities, namely prioritizing jobs that offer clear career progression (Dutta et al, 2021), work-life balance (Anakpo et al, 2023;Gibb, 2023;Priyashantha, 2022;Reineholm et al, 2023;Ronda et al, 2018), a supportive work atmosphere (Lesenyeho et al, 2018;Prakash et al, 2022) and of course a good salary (Binu Raj, 2020;Deepa & Baral, 2019;Hosseini et al, 2022;Sulich, 2020), but some studies find that the priority dimensions of their value proposition are slightly different, because they are also influenced by their family life cycle and work experience (Binu Raj, 2020;Dutta et al, 2021;Emelifeonwu & Valk, 2019;Schroth, 2019). A value proposition that includes the ethical aspects of the company, such as the company's efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of its production, its efforts to value diversity and inclusion, and other good practices, can certainly make the company more highly valued than companies that do not promote these aspects and also become a preferred workplace for the best talent (Dabija et al, 2020;Klimkiewicz & Oltra, 2017;Maj & Kasperek, 2020).…”

“…There have been numerous empirical studies examining the combination of general employer branding topics and sustainability aspects (Aziz et al, 2019;Kowalczyk & Kucharska, 2020), employer value proposition, and generation Y (Suen et al, 2020;Yasin et al, 2023), employer value proposition and generation Z (Arasanmi & Krishna, 2019;Huseynova et al, 2022), and employer value proposition with generational preferences and sustainability aspects (Deepa & Baral, 2019;Dutta et al, 2021;Samoliuk et al, 2022) in the context of the situation of workers from developing and developed countries and from various work industry sectors. To the best of the author's knowledge, there is a lack of literature review studies that provide a comprehensive discussion of the employer value proposition (Gibb, 2023;Ronda et al, 2018) and also review articles that examine the combination of this topic with a company's sustainability efforts, as well as the employment preferences of Generation Y and Generation Z, as this is a niche and specific topic. Therefore, this review aims to address this gap by answering the following research questions: 1) What employer value propositions are necessary offered by sustainable companies to attract potential employees from both Y and Z generations?…”