Work Engagement as Mediator between Perceived Participation, Supervisor Support and Altruistic Behaviors: Empirical Results from the Italian Social Enterprise Sector

Abstract

This research note presents an empirical study conducted in a number of social cooperatives (SCoops). Democratic governance has been identified as a defining aspect of this kind of social enterprise. Using the work and organizational psychology approach, the authors studied the effects of democratic governance and supervisor support on workers' engagement and organizational citizenship behaviors. The convenience sample technique was used for gathering the data. Data was collected with a self-administered questionnaire. The sample consisted of 258 participants from three different Scoops situated in northern Italy. Statistical analysis results suggest that worker's perceived participation and supervisor support enhance work engagement, and subsequently, altruistic behaviors. Finally, the authors comment on the limitations of the study giving methodological suggestions for future empirical research.

Work Engagement in Nonprofit Organizations: A Conceptual Model

“…In addition, the studies were conducted in various sectors, including a homeless shelter (Williams, 2014), churches (Bickerton, Miner, & Dowson, 2014;Miner, Bickerton, Dowson, & Sterland, 2015), social cooperatives (Román-Calderón, Battistelli, & Odoardi, 2013), a nonprofit university (Gözükara & Şimşek, 2015), and long-term care organizations (Sarti, 2014), along with two studies conducted in general NPO settings (de Oliveira & da Silva, 2015;Selander, 2015). The studies were also conducted in diverse countries such as Australia (Bickerton et al, 2014;Miner et al, 2015), Brazil (de Oliveira & da Silva, 2015), Turkey (Gözükara & Şimşek, 2015), Italy (Román-Calderón et al, 2013;Sarti, 2014), Finland (Selander, 2015), and the United States (Williams, 2014). With respect to the definition/conceptualization of work engagement used in the 10 studies, Schaufeli and his colleagues' (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004;Schaufeli et al, 2002) conceptualizations were the most frequently used; five studies used their concepts (Bickerton et al, 2014;Miner et al, 2015;Román-Calderón et al, 2013;Sarti, 2014;Selander, 2015), one study (de Oliveira & da Silva, 2015) used other conceptualizations of work engagement (i.e., Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005), and one study (Williams, 2014) created an aggregated concept to identify work engagement by integrating Schaufeli et al's (2002) concepts of work engagement with other conceptualizations from different studies (i.e., Fleming, Coffman, & Harter, 2005;Little & Little, 2006).…”

“…The studies were also conducted in diverse countries such as Australia (Bickerton et al, 2014;Miner et al, 2015), Brazil (de Oliveira & da Silva, 2015), Turkey (Gözükara & Şimşek, 2015), Italy (Román-Calderón et al, 2013;Sarti, 2014), Finland (Selander, 2015), and the United States (Williams, 2014). With respect to the definition/conceptualization of work engagement used in the 10 studies, Schaufeli and his colleagues' (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004;Schaufeli et al, 2002) conceptualizations were the most frequently used; five studies used their concepts (Bickerton et al, 2014;Miner et al, 2015;Román-Calderón et al, 2013;Sarti, 2014;Selander, 2015), one study (de Oliveira & da Silva, 2015) used other conceptualizations of work engagement (i.e., Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005), and one study (Williams, 2014) created an aggregated concept to identify work engagement by integrating Schaufeli et al's (2002) concepts of work engagement with other conceptualizations from different studies (i.e., Fleming, Coffman, & Harter, 2005;Little & Little, 2006). Furthermore, regarding measures of work engagement, interestingly, the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) was used in all selected studies, although versions of the UWES varied; most of the studies used a short version with nine items (i.e., Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003;Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006).…”

Investigation of The Relationship Between Perception of Supervisor Support, Perceived School Effectiveness, Work Engagement, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Cynic Attitude of Teachers

“…It is of great importance that school principals consider teachers they work with as a valuable resource, support their development efforts, and prepare appropriate conditions for this to happen (Can, 2004). As a matter of fact, some studies reveal that management activities are the main factors that shape an employee's behavior (Guchiat, Paşamehmetoğlu & Dawson, 2014;Román Calderón, Battistelli & Odoardi, 2013). It is thereupon possible to say that teachers' perception that they are supported by the school principal will have many positive effects on them.…”

The Impact of Perceived Supervisor Support on OCB: The Moderating Effect of Introversion

“…They find that PSS and POS mediate the relationship between organizational justice and employee turnover. Calderón, Battistelli and Odoardi (2013) establish that WE is determined by PSS and by employees' participation in decision making (the extent to which employees feel their input is valued). Kuvaas and Dysvik (2010) argue that perceived investment in employee development mediates the relationship between PSS and employee outcomes.…”