Discussion: Recognizing the Connection Between Job Attitudes, Individual Performance, and Organizational Effectiveness

The antecedents and consequences of psychological

capital: a meta-analytic approach Wann-Yih Wu

Program of International Business, Nanhua University, Chiayi, Taiwan, and Khanh-Van Ho Nguyen

Department of Business Administration, Nanhua University, Chiayi, Taiwan

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to focus on psychological capital (PsyCap) – one of the emerging topics of human resource management, by examining its antecedents and outcomes through the lens of social exchange theory. Design/methodology/approach – A meta-analytic approach was applied to validate the proposed hypotheses. Altogether, 105 primary studies published between 2000 and 2018 were collected and used. Findings – Results show that leadership styles (authentic leadership, ethical leadership, abusive leadership) and organizational support are antecedents and desirable work attitudes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior) are consequences of PsyCap. Employee’s characteristics significantly moderated the relationship between PsyCap and work attitudes. Originality/value – This was the first attempt to examine PsyCap in a theoretical framework with its antecedents and outcomes and furthermore, to apply a meta-analytic method. The moderating role of employee characteristics in the relationship between PsyCap and work attitudes is also explored. Keywords Psychological capital, Work attitudes, Leadership styles, Perceived organizational support Paper type Research paper

Introduction Positive psychology emerged as a new research topic nearly 20 years ago. Distinct from traditional psychology, which concentrated on the negative aspects of human health, positive psychological researchers investigate what it is that is good in people, that makes them more productive (Luthans et al., 2004). A positive mind-set and belief has a critical value in people’s relationships, well-being and work life (Avey et al., 2011). Organizational behavior argues that positive behavioral features are the result of a positive psychological state (Rego et al., 2016). In organizational contexts, psychological capital (PsyCap) has drawn increasing attention from researchers because it goes beyond traditional economic, human and social capital (Luthans et al., 2004). Specifically, PsyCap focuses on “who you are” rather than “who you know” (social capital), “what you know” (human capital) or “what you have” (economic capital) (Luthans et al., 2004).

The amount of organizational research on individual PsyCap has increased since it was acknowledged. Researchers have attempted to examine where it comes from, what it leads to, and its processes. However, studies investigating its antecedents are limited. Hence, it leaves a gap in the literature in that we do not understand PsyCap as a whole theoretical concept. For example, Avey et al. (2011) conducted a meta-analysis study to investigate the outcomes of employee’s PsyCap. The integrative results of empirical studies show that there is a meaningful positive relationship between PsyCap and desirable subordinate attitudes, behaviors and performance, as well as a significant negative relationship between PsyCap and undesirable attitudes and behaviors. In that study, Avey et al. (2011) revealed a gap in the theoretical development of PsyCap (i.e. the antecedents of PsyCap). Later, Avey (2014) responded to the call for further research from Avey et al. (2011) by addressing the need to understand what predicts PsyCap. Avey (2014) conducted two field studies (respondents

Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 40 No. 4, 2019

pp. 435-456 © Emerald Publishing Limited

0143-7739 DOI 10.1108/LODJ-06-2018-0233

Received 25 June 2018 Revised 9 January 2019

12 April 2019 Accepted 13 April 2019

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

435

Antecedents and

consequences of PsyCap

from the USA and China) to find that individual differences, leadership, job characteristics and demographics significantly predict levels of PsyCap at work. This study recognized that those four predictors and PsyCap can be classified into two groups, the one being individual factors (i.e. individual differences and demographics) and the other being organizational factors (i.e. leadership and job characteristics). As for organizational factors, this study found only leadership to be an “active predictor,” which means it is about the interaction between people and people (i.e. leader and subordinate). Hence, leadership is one of the interests in this current study. In addition, these studies that addressed PsyCap lacked a strong theoretical basis (e.g. theories to support why leadership should be an antecedent of PsyCap). As a result, this study attempts to respond to the call for more research by Avey et al. (2011) and Avey (2014) by exploring how the theory of social exchange can provide valuable insights to explain how employee PsyCap can develop from organizational factors and how it consequently produces positive work outcomes which are of great interest of in much organizational research.

This study found that the level of PsyCap, which fluctuated according to leadership style and PsyCap positive work outcomes, produced could be explained by social exchange theory (SET). SET refers to “two-sided, mutually contingent, and mutually rewarding processes involving ‘transactions’ ” (Emerson, 1976, p. 336). In accordance with SET, this study assumes that if a leader gives benefits, subordinates will be motivated and respond positively in reciprocity. In contrast, if a leader does not treat an employee well, the subordinate can respond negatively by decreasing his or her desirable attitudes and behaviors.

In the context of this study, leadership is the first antecedent of PsyCap. Leadership is considered to have impact on subordinate’s PsyCap (Avey, 2014; Gooty et al., 2009). Leaders can influence the mood, motivation, behaviors and performance of their subordinates (Celik et al., 2015). Research on positive organizational behavior theory has focused on PsyCap and its relationship to leadership (Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Luthans et al., 2004) and employee well-being (Luthans, Avolio, Avey and Norman, 2007; Luthans, Youssef and Avolio, 2007). Drawing from many leadership theories, this study chose authentic leadership, ethical leadership and abusive leadership as types of leadership. The choice was based on the following reasons: among value-based leaders, authentic, ethical and transformational leadership have drawn a great amount of attention from prior research that investigated effective leaders (Copeland, 2016). However, authenticity is considered a “root construct” out of which forms transformational leadership and other positive leadership (Avolio and Gardner, 2005), so this study chose authentic leadership over transformational leadership to avoid replication. That is, authentic leadership and ethical leadership were included in this study as types of positive leadership. To highlight the different effects between positive and negative leadership styles, abusive leadership was chosen because it represented a conceptually opposite style (Palanski et al., 2014) which has emerged as an issue to be noticed in the workplace. This narrowed this study down to a similar idea as that of Avey (2014) in that those three leadership styles were among the leadership styles investigated in that study.

This study focused on organizational factors that affect employees and, based on SET, took the second antecedent of PsyCap into account, perceived organizational support (POS). POS is determined as employees “develop beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being” (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Following organizational support theory, this study assumed that as the employees perceive that they are receiving support from the organization, they will be motivated, confident, optimistic and able to produce desirable work outcomes. Studies that investigated the relationship between POS and PsyCap indicated that employees who perceive recognition, appreciation and fair treatment from their organization experience a higher level of PsyCap (Liu et al., 2015; Sihag and Sarikwal, 2015).

436

LODJ 40,4

To observe the positive consequences of PsyCap, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) were included in this study. Previous research by Avey et al. (2011) concluded that there is a meaningful positive relationship between PsyCap and desirable attitudes in subordinates (job satisfaction, organizational commitment) and behavior (citizenship). Luthans, Avolio, Avey and Norman (2007) found those high in PsyCap are more satisfied with their jobs. Luthans et al. (2008) further recognized a higher commitment to the organization from them.

In summary, the literature of positive psychology opens available space for those studies that combine both the “left and right side” of PsyCap and explains it based on a theoretical basis – through the lens of SET. Although PsyCap is still being explored, this study suggests a meta-analysis approach to have an overview on PsyCap’s antecedents and their impact on work attitudes, and to search for moderators that may condition the relationship between PsyCap and its outcomes. This study intends to contribute to the literature in the following three ways: it is the first attempt to explain PsyCap and its antecedents and outcomes through the lens of SET and to apply a meta-analytic method to test hypotheses, it examines the moderating role of employee characteristics on the relationship between PsyCap and positive work outcomes and it provides insight into the role of PsyCap in producing pleasing employee work outcomes in the context of each type of leadership and support from an organization.

Literature review Social exchange theory (SET) As the proposed model in this meta-analysis, SET has a foundational aspect in that it provides a theoretical framework for investigating the antecedents and consequences of PsyCap. SET proposes that human behaviors are driven by reciprocity and expectation of rewards (Blau, 1964). According to Emerson (1976), social exchange connects a chain of interactions that generate obligations to reciprocate. In other words, when a person gives another person a reward, the former expects a return from the latter in the future. Most social interactions associate some level of social or economic exchange (Blau, 1964). It is said that social exchange is a primary determinate which drives, influences and mediates POS, job involvement and job satisfaction within organizations (Blau, 1964; Locke, 1976). Van Knippenberg and Sleebos (2006) have defined job satisfaction and organizational commitment as social exchange outcomes resulting from the two constructs – reciprocity and reward – playing off each other, which creates the perception of the exchange quality within which the employee and the organization are required to fulfill their obligation to each other and establish ongoing reciprocity.

Psychological capital – PsyCap Luthans et al. (2004) defined positive PsyCap as a new movement that goes beyond traditional economic capital, human capital and social capital. Traditional economic capital addresses what you have; human capital addresses what you know; social capital expresses whom you know, and positive PsyCap addresses who you are (Luthans et al., 2004). PsyCap is known at individual and organizational levels to create competitive advantage by enriching knowledge and human capital (Luthans and Youssef, 2004; Luthans, Avolio, Avey and Norman, 2007; Luthans, Youssef and Avolio, 2007). At an organizational level, PsyCap is measured and managed by human resource specialists who work to give employee’s opportunities to maximize this kind of capital (Youssef and Luthans, 2012). At an individual level, PsyCap is described as a positive psychological state (Avey et al., 2011) including the four capacities of self-efficacy (or self-confidence), hope, optimism and resilience, which contribute to better workplace performance (Luthans et al., 2004). These four positive psychological resources identify PsyCap as a multi-dimensional construct (Law et al., 1998).

437

Antecedents and

consequences of PsyCap

Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s sentiment of ability to take on and put forth effort to successfully execute challenging duties (Luthans, Youssef and Avolio, 2007). Hope is characterized by having a consistent goal-orientation and planning paths to succeed (Luthans, Youssef and Avolio, 2007). Optimism refers to the positive style of explaining the good and bad events in an individual’s work and life. Specifically, optimism individually interprets good events as being permanent and attributed to the internal whereas bad events are interpreted as situational and attributed to the external (Luthans, Youssef and Avolio, 2007). Optimism is considered the capacity more closely associated with overall positive psychology than are the other capacities (Luthans et al., 2004). Resilience is the capacity to recover from difficulties or even from positive changes (Luthans et al., 2004).

Antecedents of PsyCap – leadership styles and POS Considered the root construct of leadership (Avolio and Gardner, 2005), authentic leadership is a combination of the moral and ethical components of leadership. Authentic leaders are those who care about other people and society. Jensen and Luthans (2006) demonstrated three characteristics of authentic leaders: first, they are motivated by personal beliefs rather than by attaining personal benefits; second, they are originals rather than the replication of someone else; finally, their actions are based on personal values. Avolio and Gardner (2005) defined authentic leadership as having the following components: positive PsyCap, a positive moral perspective, leader self-awareness, leader self-regulation, leadership processes or behavior, subordinate self-awareness or regulation and follower development.

Ethical leadership is defined by Brown et al. (2005) as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making” (p. 120). Although authentic leadership also has an ethical perspective, researchers differentiate these two forms of leadership. Ethical leadership concentrates entirely on the ethical dimension rather than on ethics as an aspect of leadership (Mayer et al., 2009). Further, Brown et al. (2005) mentioned that ethical leadership incorporated two dimensions: traits (i.e. honesty, fairness, morality) and behavior (i.e. making balanced decisions, promoting workplace ethicality, managing morally) dimensions.

In contrast with positive leadership, a “dark side” of leadership, that of abusive leadership, has emerged as a serious problem in today’s workplace. Abusive leadership is the verbal and non-verbal hostile behaviors that a manager performs toward a subordinate (Tepper et al., 2008). It can be expressed in a wide range of actions such as being disrespectful, ridiculing other people, using offensive names, being rude, being threatening, screaming at subordinates, holding back needed information and even threatening somebody with the loss of their job (Keashly, 1998). While managers can facilitate a positive emotional environment that benefits in increased performance, abusive leadership does not have the same effect because it does not produce positive emotions in the subordinates. Abusive leadership is a phenomenon for which prior studies have shown noteworthy consequences: greater job and life dissatisfaction in subordinate, role conflicts, intention to quit the job and distress (Zellars et al., 2002). If a subordinate were to suffer at the hand of an abusive leader, how would he/she respond? It would possibly be with bad manners, preserving a sense of autonomy, or withholding OCBs (Zellars et al., 2002). Avey (2014) found that abusive supervision reduces the subordinate’s PsyCap. This study will argue that the abusive leader does not motivate positive PsyCap in their followers.

In the literature, there is not much evidence to prove the antecedents of PsyCap (Avey, 2014). Although many prior studies have focused on the ability of PsyCap in anticipating workplace attitudes and behaviors, still there is a silence concerning the antecedents of PsyCap (Avey, 2014). Leadership is commonly explored as one of the antecedents of PsyCap. Forms of leadership explored include transformational leadership (Gooty et al., 2009), the

438

LODJ 40,4

combination of transformational and transactional leadership (McMurray et al., 2010), authentic leadership (Amunkete and Rothmann, 2015; Rego et al., 2012, 2016), ethical leadership (Bouckenooghe et al., 2015) and abusive leadership (Liao and Liu, 2015). Accordingly, this study proposed the following hypothesis:

H1a. Leadership styles are related to subordinate’s PsyCap. Specifically, authentic leadership and ethical leadership are positively related to subordinates PsyCap, whereas abusive leadership is negatively related to subordinate PsyCap.

POS is the degree to which the employees perceive that the organization values their contribution and is concerned with their well-being (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). PsyCap is an individual’s positive psychological state that links to work, so organizational factors may have an effect on PsyCap. An employee’s perception that he/she is supported by the organization, that his/her contributions are recognized, and that his/her well-being is cared about, may enhance his/her positive psychology at work, thus increasing his/her PsyCap. Liu et al. (2015) stated that those who perceive that they have high support from the organization would feel hopeful about attaining their desires and goals, and that this, in turn, would promote an optimistic perception of success. In fact, other studies have proven the existence of a positive relationship between POS and PsyCap (Hui et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2015; Sihag and Sarikwal, 2015; Wang et al., 2017). Accordingly, this study proposed the following hypothesis:

H1b. POS is positively related to a subordinate’s PsyCap.

Outcomes of PsyCap – work attitudes and behaviors Job satisfaction is the result of the degree to which job needs are perceived as being fulfilled on the job (Morse, 1953; Porter, 1962). In the industrial literature, job satisfaction is the pleasant emotional state that comes from the employer’s appraisal of the achievement of their job values (Locke, 1969). In other words, it is recognized as the positive emotion of an employee when he/she gets a job assessment (Locke, 1976). Weiss (2002) defined job satisfaction as a positive measurable judgment of an individual on his or her working conditions. Additionally, Weiss (2002) regarded job satisfaction as an internal state, which is “a positive (or negative) evaluative judgment one makes about one’s job or job situation” (p. 175).

Organizational commitment is the behavior that connects employees to the organization (Mowday et al., 1979). Organizational commitment refers to the degree that an individual takes on organizational values and goals, and coordinates with them to complete their job responsibilities (Tanriverdi, 2008). Meyer and Allen (1991) introduced three components of commitment, these being affective, continuance and normative organizational commitment. Affective commitment seems to be the most positive. It describes the commitment of an employee who feels attached to the organization and is pleased to be a member of that organization. Those who are engaged in a continuance commitment are aware of the high cost of leaving, and that they have no better choice whereas a normative commitment refers to the obligatory feeling of an employee to continue employment with the organization (Meyer and Allen, 1991).

OCB was originally defined by Organ (1988) as a combination of an individual’s discretionary actions that were not part of an employee’s official duties nor recognized by reward systems, but promoted organizational effectiveness. Employees who attend to OCBs perform extra work without objection, help their co-workers to solve work-related problems, provide them with psychological support or share positive aspects of the organization with outsiders. As mentioned above, withholding OCBs is a choice of subordinates reacting to abusive supervision. Zellars et al. (2002) showed that abusive supervision decreased OCBs. In other words, abused subordinates perform fewer OCBs than those who are not suffering from hostile behaviors.

439

Antecedents and

consequences of PsyCap

Research on leadership has argued that leaders influence the perception, values and OCBs of their group members (Abbott et al., 2006). Due to a leader sensitively demonstrating and positively responding to the individual needs of their group members, there would be an improvement in members’ satisfaction that would then lead to a willingness to express greater effort to work for the organization (Dick et al., 2007). Brown et al. (2005) also proved that ethical leadership predicts important follower outcomes including subordinates’ satisfaction with the leader, perceived leader effectiveness, follower willingness to utilize extra effort on the job and follower willingness to report problems to management. In addition, low-level job satisfaction is the consequence of abusive supervision. For this reason, this study proposed the following hypothesis:

H2a. Leadership styles are related to subordinate’s work attitudes. Specifically, authentic leadership and ethical leadership are positively related to subordinate work attitudes whereas abusive leadership is negatively related to subordinate work attitudes.

POS can generate employee satisfaction, commitment and willing behaviors that are rooted in SET. Employees who believe they are supported and valued by their organization will generate an enjoyable, good mood at work and fewer complaints. Furthermore, they are likely to be more attached to the organization (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Chi et al., 2018), satisfied with their job (Chi et al., 2018) and display OCB (Bukhari and Kamal, 2017). Accordingly, this study proposed the following hypothesis:

H2b. POS is positively related to subordinate’s work attitudes.

PsyCap and work attitudes The studies of the consequences of PsyCap focused on employee work attitudes. Prior studies have found a relationship between PsyCap, work attitudes and performance in areas such as job satisfaction, work commitment, organizational commitment, job involvement, well-being, OCB, stress, turnover intentions, cynicism for change, deviance and work–family conflict (Avey et al., 2011; Bukhari and Kamal, 2017; Chi et al., 2018; Gooty et al., 2009; Larson and Luthans, 2006; Luthans et al., 2008; Pradhan et al., 2016). The principal reason to explain the impact of PsyCap on employees’ work attitude is this, the higher PsyCap an individual is associated with, the more optimistic he or she is (i.e. optimism), believing that he or she can take on new challenges and creating the path to success (i.e. hope and efficacy), and being able to recover from change (i.e. resilience), according to Avey et al. (2011). Additionally, Avey and his colleagues further indicated that PsyCap is related to organizational commitment because the organization meets the needs for efficacy and achievement for those with a high PsyCap level. They are more enthusiastic and engaged in their work. For that reason, this study proposed the following hypothesis:

H3. PsyCap is positively related to a subordinate’s work attitudes.

The potential moderator effect of subordinate’s characteristic Avey et al. (2011) suggested that moderator testing would help to explain when PsyCap is more or less useful in the workplace. It could be job type, country culture, work–life balance and even gender that impact PsyCap. In this study, due to the limitations of the information provided in the primary studies, only demographics could be used to test their moderating impact on PsyCap and its outcomes. This study proposes the following hypothesis:

H4. Gender, age and tenure moderate the relationship between subordinates’ PsyCap and their work attitudes (Figure 1).

440

LODJ 40,4

Method The number of studies on positive psychology had grown so rapidly that Avey et al. (2011) indicated that the time had come to conduct a meta-analysis concerning to PsyCap. Meta-analysis “reviews critically and combines statistically the results of previous research in an attempt to summarize the totality of evidence relating to a particular medical issue” (Spector and Thompson, 1991, p. 89). For this study, meta-analytic approach provides an overall estimate to clarify the empirical landscape of PsyCap. To achieve the purpose of this paper, the following process was established.

Literature search and i1nclusion criteria The terms “PsyCap,” “authentic leadership,” “POS” and other variables included in the conceptual framework were entered into various scientific databases. Empirical studies were collected electronically from ProQuest, JSTOR, SAGE, Emerald, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar and WileyInterScience.

The following criteria should be met for an article to be eligible for inclusion in this study: only empirical and quantitative studies that applied hypotheses testing qualified. Sample size had to be included in the chosen studies. Those studies needed to present either a correlation coefficient, or standardized regression coefficient for each of the research hypotheses. For studies with multiple time points, one-time estimates were selected.

Variable coding The study coded PsyCap when all of its four core components (hope, optimism, efficacy, resilience) were included in a primary study and the aggregate reported. Those studies reporting only one to three of the core components would not be coded. The antecedents of PsyCap are leadership (authentic leadership, ethical leadership, abusive leadership) and POS. The consequence of PsyCap was coded as positive work outcomes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment, OCB). In line with the prior meta-analytic review (Avey et al., 2011), if a study provided multi-faceted level effect sizes of a construct, this study created a single effect size. Due to differences in presenting demographic information of participants in each of the selected papers, three general characteristics of each sample were coded as potential moderators: gender (male/female), age (under 40/40 and older) and tenure (less than five years/five years or more) of the participants.

To ensure accuracy, each of chosen articles was independently coded by one person on the coding team comprised of the authors and a subject-relevant doctoral student. Before coding, the team reviewed the coding scheme together and discussed any related questions.

Perceived Organizational

Support

Leadership Authentic Leadership Ethical leadership Abusive Leadership

Gender Age

Tenure

Job Satisfaction Organization Commitment Organizational Citizen Behavior

H2b

H3

H4

H2a

H1a

H1b

Characteristics

Psychological Capital

Work Attitudes

Figure 1. The conceptual

framework

441

Antecedents and

consequences of PsyCap

Then, each of them individually conducted data extraction and coding. After that, all coding discrepancies that came out from the coding results were discussed until 100 percent agreement was reached among the coders. Based on the above coding process, 105 articles were included in this meta-analysis (see Table I).

Analytical techniques The study utilized the correlation coefficients (r) as the primary effect size and those studies that presented standardized regression coefficients (β) were transformed to r for further analysis. After collecting and integrating all the correlation coefficients (r) that were needed, the study computed the 95% confidence interval (CI) to evaluate the statistical significance of each effect size. Effect sizes were considered statistically significant when the 95% CI did not contain 0. Q-statistics, which were proposed by Lipsey and Wilson (2001), were applied to analyze homogeneity of the effect size distribution. The criterion was that the Q-value had to be higher than χ2 ( χ2 with degree of freedom equals (n−1), where n ¼ number of studies). It makes the null hypothesis of homogeneity meaningful. If the null hypothesis of homogeneity were rejected, heterogeneity between the variance would exist. In other words, differences in effect size might be attributed to factors other than sampling.

To test for moderators, a Q-test was performed. According to Hedges and Olkin (1985), homogeneity tests were conducted utilizing the Q significance test statistic to assess the potential effects of moderators. A significant Q-statistic indicates the observed effect is heterogeneous and that there is a need to search for moderators to explain further variance in the findings. After that, the z-test that was developed by Hunter and Schmidt (1990) were performed to evaluate the statistical significance of between-group differences.

Results Results of main and moderator effects Table II displays the results for the main effects. Concerning the effect between the three types of leadership and PsyCap, the mean value of correlation coefficients among the selected studies shows that authentic leadership and ethical leadership had a significant positive influence on subordinates’ PsyCap (r ¼ 0.495 and r ¼ 0.449, respectively) in that the corrected 95% CIs did not contain 0. Abusive leadership was negatively associated with subordinates’ PsyCap and the corrected 95% CI ranged from −0.290 to −0.218, which did not contain 0. Hence, H1a is supported. POS was positively associated with PsyCap (r ¼ 0.486) and 95% CI did not contain 0, showing that H1b is supported.

About the effect between the three types of leadership and work attitudes, the study found that authentic leadership was positively related to job satisfaction (r ¼ 0.376), organizational commitment (r ¼ 0.370) and OCB (r ¼ 0.684). This finding was supported by the 95% CIs having non-zero values. Similarly, ethical leadership had a positive influence on job satisfaction (r ¼ 0.470), organizational commitment (r ¼ 0.553) and OCB (r ¼ 0.244) and the corrected 95% CIs did not contain 0. However, abusive leadership had a negative influence on job satisfaction (r ¼ −0.319), organizational commitment (r ¼ −0.345) and OCB (r ¼ −0.229) and the corrected 95% CIs did not contain 0. Therefore, H2a is supported.

POS was positively associated with job satisfaction (r ¼ 0.346), organizational commitment (r ¼ 0.493) and OCB (r ¼ 0.244) and none of the corrected 95% CIs included 0. Accordingly, H2b is supported. Finally, the results found that 95% CIs for job satisfaction (r ¼ 0.511), organizational commitment (r ¼ 0.424) and OCB (r ¼ 0.565) did not contain 0, denoting that H3 is supported.

It was noted that the Q-value was higher than χ2 for each relationship between PsyCap and job satisfaction, organizational commitment and OCB, which means that the effect is significantly heterogeneous. This suggested the potential existence of moderators (Hedges and Olkin, 1985).

442

LODJ 40,4

Studies alphabetically by source and codes for hypotheses testsa,b

Ahmad et al. (2016), 8, (AbL-JS) Liu et al. (2015), 46, (POS-PsyCap) Ali and Ali (2014), 55, (PsyCap-JS) Luthans et al. (2008), 48, (PsyCap-JS, PsyCap-OC) Amunkete and Rothmann (2015), 49, (AuL-PsyCap, PsyCap-JS, AuL-JS)

Mathieu and Babiak (2016), 57, (AbL-JS)

Arshadi (2011), 59, (POS-OC) McMurray et al. (2010), 52, (PsyCap-OC) Aryee et al. (2007), 32, (AbL-OC) Mohammadpour et al. (2017), 25, (AuL-PsyCap) Avey (2014), 42, (AuL-PsyCap, EL-PsyCap, AbL-PsyCap)

Munyaka et al. (2017), 63, (AuL-PsyCap),

Azanza et al. (2013), 51, (AuL-JS) Nafei (2015a, b), 19, (PsyCap-OCB) Badran and Youssef-Morgan (2015), 44, (PsyCap-JS)

Nafei (2015a, b), 20, (PsyCap-JS, PsyCap-OC, PsyCap-OCB)

Beal et al. (2013), 63, (PsyCap-OCB) Neubert et al. (2009), 35, (EL-JS, EL-OC) Bergheim et al. (2015), 64, (PsyCap-JS) Niemeyer and Cavazotte (2016), 72, (EL-OCB) Bilgin and Demirer (2012), 59, (POS-JS) Olaniyan and Hystad (2016), 51, (AuL-PsyCap,AuL-JS, AuL-

PsyCap, PsyCap-JS) Bitmiş and Ergeneli (2013), 59, (PsyCap-JS) Bouckenooghe et al. (2015), 35, (EL-PsyCap) Palanski et al. (2014), 35, (EL-JS, AbL-JS) Bouzari and Karatepe (2017), 21, (PsyCap-OCB)

Peng et al. (2013), 58, (PsyCap-OC)

Bowling and Michel (2011), 74 (AbL-JS) Penger and Černe (2014), 11, (AuL-JS) Breaux et al. (2008), 42, (AbL-JS) Peus et al. (2012), 35, (AuL-OC) Bukhari and Kamal (2017), 55, (POS-JS, POS-OCB)

Piccolo et al. (2010), 48, (EL-OCB)

Pillay et al. (2014), 62, (PsyCap-OC) Celik et al. (2015), 12, (EL-OC), (EL-JS) Pouramini and Fayyazi (2015), 18, (PsyCap-OCB) Cheng and O-Yang (2018), (POS-OC) Pradhan et al. (2016), 9, (PsyCap-OCB) Chi et al. (2018), 2, (POS-JS, POS-OC) Qadeer and Jaffery (2014), 55, (PsyCap-OCB) Chiang and Hsieh (2012), (POS-OCB) Read and Laschinger (2015), 31, (AuL-JS) Choi and Ahn (2016), 40, (AuL-JS, AuL-OC) Rego et al. (2012), 36, (AuL-PsyCap) Coxen et al. (2016), 63, (AuL-OCB) Rego et al. (2016), 39, (AuL-PsyCap, AuL-OC) Demirtas and Akdogan (2015), 71, (EL-OC) Sahoo and Sia (2015), 5, (PsyCap-OC) Fakhar (2014), 29, (AbL-OCB) Shin (2012), 35, (EL-OCB) Fu et al. (2013), 60, (POS-JS) Shukla and Rai (2015), 15, (PsyCap-OC, POS-PsyCap, POS-OC) Giallonardo et al. (2010), 45, (AuL-JS) Shaheen et al. (2016), 27, (PsyCap-OCB, POS-PsyCap, POS-OCB) Gregory et al. (2013), 44, (AbL-OCB) Sihag and Sarikwal (2015), 13, (POS-PsyCap) Gupta et al. (2017), 43, (POS-PsyCap) Simons and Buitendach (2013), 63, (PsyCap-OC) Haggard et al. (2011), 34, (AbL-JS) Singh et al. (2015), 50, (POS-OCB) Han and Chung (2015), 1, (PsyCap-OC) Suifan (2016), 20, (PsyCap-OCB) Hystad et al. (2013), 70, (AuL-PsyCap) Tepper (2000), 67, (AbL-JS) Jain and Kumar (2017), 30, (PsyCap-OC) Tepper et al. (2004), 32, (AbL-JS, AbL-OC) Jain et al. (2013), 24, (POS-OCB) Tepper et al. (2008), 32, (AbL-OC) Jung and Yoon (2015), 21, (PsyCap-JS) Totawar and Nambudiri (2014), 73, (PsyCap-JS, PsyCap-OC) Karatepe and Karadas (2015), 21, (PsyCap-JS)

Velez and Neves (2017), 61, (AbL-JS)

Kernan et al. (2011), 10 (AbL-JS) Walumbwa et al. (2008), 53, (EL-OC, EL-OCB) Kernan et al. (2016), 42, (AbL-JS, AbL-OC) Wang et al. (2017), 6, (POS-PsyCap) Khan et al. (2017), 8, (AuL-JS) Wang et al. (2014), 48, (AuL-PsyCap) Kim et al. (2015), 41, (PsyCap-OC) Wen et al. (2016), 54, (POS-OCB) Kim and Brymer (2011), 22, (EL-JS, EL-OC) Wong and Laschinger (2013), 31, (AuL-JS) Kim et al. (2019), 66, (AuL-JS, AuL-PsyCap, PsyCap-JS)

Woolley et al. (2011), 42, (AuL-PsyCap)

Kiyani et al. (2013), 17, (AuL-OCB) Wu and Lee (2016), 44, (AbL-PsyCap) Kwak et al. (2010), 23, (POS-OC) Yang and Wei (2018), 52, (EL-OCB, EL-OC) Kwok et al. (2015), 38, (PsyCap-JS) Yanik (2018), 37, (EL-JS, EL-OC, EL-OCB)

(continued)

Table I. The studies included in the meta-analysis

443

Antecedents and

consequences of PsyCap

Hunter and Schmidt’s (1990) z-test was performed to assess moderator effects by examining the statistical significance of between-group differences. Table II displays the results for moderator effects on the relationship between PsyCap and work attitudes. With respect to gender, there was no significant difference in the PsyCap–job satisfaction, PsyCap–organizational commitment and PsyCap–OCB relationships. The results show that age significantly affected the relationship between PsyCap and job satisfaction (r ¼ 0.518 for group of younger employee and r ¼ 0.389 for the other group), but was not significant regarding to the relationship between PsyCap–organizational commitment and PsyCap–OCB.

Larson and Luthans (2006), 42, (PsyCap-JS, PsyCap-OC)

Yates (2014), 71, (EL-JS, EL-OC, EL-OCB)

Laschinger and Fida (2014), 7, (AuL-PsyCap) Zaabi et al. (2016), 26, (AuL-OCB) Laschinger and Fida (2015), 69, (AuL-JS) Zamahani and Rezaei (2014), 28, (PsyCap-OCB) Lather and Kaur (2015), 68, (PsyCap-OC, PsyCap-OCB)

Zellars et al. (2002), 32, (AbL-OCB)

Lee et al. (2016), 16, (EL-OC, EL-OCB) Zhang et al. (2017), 3, (POS-OCB) Li et al. (2016), 47, (AbL-PsyCap) Zhang et al. (2017), 65, (AbL-PsyCap) Liao and Liu (2015), 14, (AbL-PsyCap) Zubair and Kamal (2015), 33, (AuL-PsyCap) Lin et al. (2013), 4, (AbL-JS) Notes: aCodes in parentheses: AbL, abusive leadership; AuL, authentic leadership; EL, ethical leadership; JS, job satisfaction; OCB, organizational citizen behavior; OC, organizational commitment; POS, perceived organization support; PsyCap, psychological capital; bjournals are footnoted in alphabetical order: (1) Advanced Science and Technology Letters, (2) Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, (3) Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, (4) Applied Psychology: An International Review, (5) Asia-Pacific Journal of Management, (6) BioMed Research International, (7) Burnout Research, (8) City University Research Journal, (9) Cogent Business & Management, (10) Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, (11) Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, (12) Ege Academic Review, (13) Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, (14) Frontiers of Business Research in China, (15) Global Business Review, (16) Health Policy and Management, (17) Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, (18) International Business Research, (19) International Journal of Business Administration, (20) International Journal of Business and Management, (21) International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, (22) International Journal of Hospitality Management, (23) International Journal of Nursing Studies, (24) International Journal of Organizational Analysis, (25) International Journal of Organizational Leadership, (26) International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, (27) International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, (28) International Review of Management and Business Research, (29) IOSR Journal of Business and Management, (30) IOSR Journal Of Humanities and Social Science, (31) Journal of Advanced Nursing, (32) Journal of Applied Psychology, (33) Journal of Behavioral Sciences, (34) Journal of Business and Psychology, (35) Journal of Business Ethics, (36) Journal of Business Research, (37) Journal of Business Research-Türk, (38) Journal of Happiness Studies, (39) Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, (40) Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, (41) Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration, (42) Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, (43) Journal of Management Development, (44) Journal of Managerial Psychology, (45) Journal of Nursing Management, (46) Journal of Occupational Health, (47) Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, (48) Journal of Organizational Behavior, (49) Journal of Psychology in Africa, (50) Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, (51) Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, (52) Leadership and Organization Development Journal, (53) Management Department Faculty Publications, (54) Nankai Business Review International, (55) Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, (56) Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, (57) Personality and Individual Differences, (58) PLoS ONE, (59) Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, (60) Public Health, (61) Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée, (62) SA Journal of Human Resource Management, (63) SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, (64) Safety Science, (65) Social Behavior and Personality, (66) Sport Management Review, (67) The Academy of Management Journal, (68) The International Journal of Indian Psychology, (69) The Journal of Nursing Administration, (70) The Journal of Positive Psychology, (71) The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, (72) The Mackenzie Administration Journal, (73) Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, (74) Work and Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health and OrganizationsTable I.

444

LODJ 40,4

Tenure was a significant moderator of all three relationships (PsyCap–job satisfaction, PsyCap–organizational commitment and PsyCap–OCB). Specifically, in the case of high PsyCap, those who had been working in the organization for more than five years (r ¼ 0.547) were more satisfied with their job than their less-than-five-year-tenure counterparts (r ¼ 0.402). For the PsyCap–organizational commitment relationship, in the case of high PsyCap, those who had been working in the organization for more than five years (r ¼ 0.474) were more committed to the organization than their less-than-five-year-tenure counterparts (r ¼ 0.380). However, for the PsyCap–OCB relationship, “shorter” tenured employees (r ¼ 0.559) performed more OCB than “longer” tenured employees (r ¼ 0.394). Thus, H4 is partially supported (Table III).

Discussion PsyCap has emerged as a new topic in organizational behavior research. Because of its advantages, more and more studies have been unceasingly searching for PsyCap antecedents, outcomes and other external factors to enhance the PsyCap of employees. The purpose of the present study is to explain PsyCap and its antecedents and outcomes through the lens of SET, to strengthen prior empirical findings by presenting an overall estimate, and to identify the moderators affecting the relationship between PsyCap and work attitudes. The present study made four theoretical contributions as follows.

First, meta-analytic results support the idea that leadership and POS are the antecedents of PsyCap. Consistent with the findings of Avey (2014), leadership is at “the left side” of PsyCap. The integrated results of primary studies show that all three types of leadership (i.e. authentic, ethical and abusive leadership) have a significant impact on subordinates’ PsyCap. A relatively new aspect of PsyCap considered in this study is POS. Although both constructs were studied together in only limited studies, the integrated results confirm the results of the chosen studies, that is, that employees who perceive that they get recognition

Variables Effect size and 95% confidence

interval Heterogeneity Hyp. Independent Dependent n k r LCI UCI p-value χ2 Q I2

H1a AuL PsyCap 5,780 13 0.495 0.475 0.515 0.000 32.91 356.114 96.630 EL 2,491 3 0.449 0.417 0.480 0.000 13.82 68.186 97.067 AbL 2,632 5 −0.255 −0.290 −0.218 0.000 18.47 4.981 19.702

H1b POS PsyCap 4,268 6 0.486 0.463 0.509 0.000 20.52 46.162 89.169 H2a AuL JS 3,806 11 0.376 0.351 0.400 0.000 29.59 82.417 87.867

OC 739 3 0.370 0.306 0.431 0.000 13.82 33.401 94.012 OCB 1,105 3 0.684 0.651 0.714 0.000 13.82 833.495 99.760

EL JS 3,343 7 0.470 0.443 0.496 0.000 22.46 180.609 96.678 OC 3,369 9 0.553 0.529 0.576 0.000 26.13 265.618 96.988 OCB 8,597 8 0.244 0.224 0.264 0.000 24.32 167.832 95.829

AbL JS 4,019 12 −0.319 −0.347 −0.291 0.000 31.26 91.556 87.985 OC 1,046 4 −0.345 −0.398 −0.290 0.000 16.27 28.693 89.545 OCB 935 3 −0.229 −0.289 −0.167 0.000 13.82 7.517 73.393

H2b POS JS 1,980 4 0.346 0.307 0.385 0.000 16.27 317.833 99.056 OC 1,740 5 0.493 0.457 0.528 0.000 18.47 150.637 97.345 OCB 2,589 7 0.355 0.321 0.388 0.000 22.46 24.123 75.127

H3 PsyCap JS 4,488 14 0.511 0.483 0.538 0.000 26.13 86.407 91.899 OC 3,187 14 0.424 0.395 0.452 0.000 34.53 37.151 65.008 OCB 1,779 10 0.565 0.530 0.598 0.000 24.32 53.766 86.981

Notes: AbL, abusive leadership; AuL, authentic leadership; EL, ethical leadership; JS, job satisfaction; OCB, organizational citizen behavior; OC, organizational commitment; POS, perceived organization support; PsyCap, psychological capital

Table II. Meta-analysis results

of main effects

445

Antecedents and

consequences of PsyCap

and appreciation for their devotion, and who get support and fair treatment from their organization, will attain higher PsyCap (Sihag and Sarikwal, 2015).

Second, organizational commitment, job satisfaction and OCBs are significant outcomes of PsyCap. PsyCap was found to be positively correlated with work outcomes such as work performance, employee engagement, commitment, positive mood, OCB and satisfaction (Sihag and Sarikwal, 2015). Also, the results from this study are in line with the results from previous studies on the value of PsyCap to employee work attitudes (Amunkete and Rothmann, 2015; Avey et al., 2011; Larson and Luthans, 2006; Luthans et al., 2008).

Third, there is a relationship between antecedents and outcomes of PsyCap. The results showed that positive leadership (i.e. authentic and ethical leadership) positively related to desirable work attitudes (i.e. job satisfaction, organizational commitment and OCBs). An ethical leader as a moral person can foster positive employee attitudes and behavior through the ability to influence followers (Yates, 2014). This conclusion is in line with prior

Variables

Effect size and 95% confidence

interval Heterogeneity

Independent Dependent n k r LCI UCI p-value χ2 Q I2 Significant difference

PsyCap JS 4,488 14 0.511 0.483 0.538 0.000 26.13 86.407 91.899

Gender Male 2,286 7 0.486 0.454 0.517 0.000 12.59 66.329 92.462 N Female 1,469 6 0.514 0.476 0.551 0.000 11.07 22.660 77.935

Age Less than 40 2,296 8 0.518 0.487 0.547 0.000 14.07 47.344 85.215 Y Higher than 40 951 2 0.389 0.333 0.441 0.000 3.84 3.149 68.240

Tenure Less than 5 years 1,483 4 0.402 0.358 0.444 0.000 7.82 8.439 64.453 Y Higher than 5 years 1,143 4 0.547 0.505 0.587 0.000 7.82 29.576 89.857

PsyCap OC 3,187 14 0.424 0.395 0.452 0.000 34.53 37.151 65.008

Gender Male 1,440 5 0.410 0.366 0.453 0.000 9.49 19.049 79.002 N Female 1,747 9 0.435 0.396 0.472 0.000 15.51 17.407 54.041

Age Less than 40 2,271 10 0.417 0.382 0.450 0.000 16.92 34.115 73.619 N Higher than 40 719 3 0.447 0.387 0.504 0.000 5.99 2.256 11.341

Tenure Less than 5 years 750 6 0.380 0.317 0.440 0.000 11.07 18.181 72.499 Y Higher than 5 years 1,051 4 0.474 0.426 0.520 0.000 7.82 1.913 0.000

PsyCap OCB 1,779 10 0.565 0.530 0.598 0.000 24.32 53.766 86.981

Gender Male 1,294 7 0.529 0.489 0.568 0.000 12.59 51.856 88.429 N Female 377 2 0.614 0.547 0.674 0.000 3.84 8.947 88.823

Age Less than 40 1,337 6 0.555 0.516 0.591 0.000 11.07 53.709 90.691 N Higher than 40 334 3 0.528 0.446 0.602 0.000 5.99 11.360 82.395

Tenure Less than 5 years 1,434 7 0.559 0.522 0.594 0.000 12.59 54.586 89.008 Y Higher than 5 years 295 2 0.394 0.293 0.487 0.000 3.84 0.134 0.000 Notes: Y, yes; N, no

Table III. Meta-analysis results of moderator effects (H4)

446

LODJ 40,4

studies (Palanski et al., 2014; Yanik, 2018; Yates, 2014). Employees who perceive their supervisors as displaying abusive behaviors were less satisfied with their jobs and this led to job search behavior (Palanski et al., 2014), reduced levels of affective organizational commitment and the performance of fewer OCBs (Aryee et al., 2007; Zellars et al., 2002). For POS, the integrated results show the favorable impact of organizational support on the employee’s job satisfaction, organizational commitment and OCB. Based on the significant relationship among constructs in the model, the results of this study suggest a potential mediating mechanism of PsyCap on leadership and POS on employee work outcomes, which might be taken into consideration for future research.

Fourth, besides the main effects of the study, respondents’ characteristics constructed as moderators indicated that gender is not, tenure is, and age partially is a moderator to the relationship between a subordinate’s PsyCap and his/her work attitudes. With respect to gender, when an individual’s PsyCap is high, male and female employees are no different in how they feel; both have high job satisfaction, organizational commitment and OCB. Age moderates the relationship between PsyCap and job satisfaction. Younger employees with high PsyCap have positively higher job satisfaction than older employees. There is no significance regarding the relationship between PsyCap–organizational commitment and PsyCap–OCB. Tenure is a significant moderator of all three relationships (PsyCap to job satisfaction, to organizational commitment and to OCB). Specifically, in the case of high PsyCap, those who have been working in the organization for more than five years (r ¼ 0.547) will be more satisfied with their job than their less-than-five-year-tenure counterparts (r ¼ 0.402). For the PsyCap–organizational commitment relationship, in the case of high PsyCap, those who have been working in the organization for more than five years (r ¼ 0.474) will be more committed to the organization than their less-than-five-year-tenure counterparts (r ¼ 0.380). This suggests that organizations should implement more actions to increase their employees’ PsyCap (e.g. positively supervising and supporting them) and human resource management should focus more on maintaining the longevity of the employee in the organization. However, “shorter” tenured employees performed more OCB than “longer” tenured employees. It might be that the employee who has been in the organization for a shorter time needs to work harder to finish his/her assigned duties and so is willing to work overtime. They also help other people to connect and form good relationships with them.

Practical implications From the results of this study, there are some practical implications. The first may benefit firms and organizations. Increasing the PsyCap of the employee is important, and in order to do that, appropriate leadership styles and a supportive workplace environment should be more highly desired in certain organizations. An appropriate system and structure should be designed to enhance employee PsyCap (Avey, 2014). Leadership development programs should be implemented to train leaders to practice or adjust their style of supervision to create a comfortable working context and improve follower PsyCap. Policies that discourage abusive supervision should be established to make sure abusers are dealt with harshly (Tepper et al., 2008). Supervisors and leaders should be aware that since they have the power to lead and influence other people, their treatment of their subordinates shapes the mood, performance and consequent behaviors of their followers. Therefore, leaders should behave ethically, avoid abusing others and express themselves positively in order to enhance follower PsyCap and work attitudes. Besides, the right candidates should be chosen for the suitability of their supervision of a wide range of managerial levels within the whole operating system. In recruiting, employees should be selected and hired based on their individual differences such as optimism or self-esteem to acquire a potential high level of PsyCap. Age and tenure also deserve consideration when hiring as well as in taking care of the current employees.

447

Antecedents and

consequences of PsyCap

Further, the cultural context of each organization should be considered when the organization is about to implement a specific strategy to enhance employee PsyCap and work attitudes. For example, the primary studies used in this study indicated that abusive leadership reduced follower’s PsyCap and their desirable work attitudes and behaviors. However, Gregory et al. (2013) concluded that subordinate reactions to abusive supervision could differ by national culture since some societies are more tolerant of negative supervisor behavior than others. In such cultures, employees might not react against negative behaviors for fear of supervisor retaliation.

Finally, support from the organization and the supervisor helps enrich followers PsyCap such that followers are more confident in themselves, more strategic and successful in reaching their goals, more optimistic and recover more quickly from bad situations. However, it should be acted upon with caution since Gooty et al. (2009) mentioned the negative effects of PsyCap. For instance, the employee may become over confident or overly hopeful, which are not totally good as well.

Limitations and future directions There are certain limitations of this study that need to be noted. First, although PsyCap has recently become a topic of interest resulting in a fast-growing body of research related to it, there were still a relatively small number of studies examined for some of the hypotheses. Second, this study examined only leadership (authentic, ethical and abusive leadership) and POS as antecedents of PsyCap. There are many suggested antecedents of PsyCap such as other types of leadership (e.g. transformational leadership), individual differences (e.g. self- esteem, proactive personality), job characteristics and demographics that need to be tested (Avey et al., 2011; Avey, 2014). This is a fruitful area for future research conducted in any systematic method. Third, due to the limits of the information provided in primary studies, this study did not test the cultural context of the organization in each sample, as mentioned in practical implications. Future research could examine the cultural aspect to see its effect on employee PsyCap, work attitudes and behaviors.

Conclusions By examining one more construct (i.e. POS), this study has responded to Aveys’ (2014) calling for more antecedents of PsyCap. Results of this meta-analysis provide evidence-based support for the role of a new employee capital in anticipating employee attitudes. A major contribution of the study is to combine both the “right and left side” of PsyCap and provide meta-analytic evidence from relevant research to confirm these previous propositions. Although the research on PsyCap is still emerging, at least we can conclude there are advantages to PsyCap in producing desirable work attitudes (Avey, 2011). In and of itself, this is a useful reference for practical human resource development.

References

Abbott, J.B., Boyd, N.G. and Miles, G. (2006), “Does type of team matter? An investigation of the relationship between job characteristics and outcomes within a team-based environment”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 146 No. 4, pp. 485-507.

Amunkete, S. and Rothmann, S. (2015), “Authentic leadership, psychological capital, job satisfaction and intention to leave in state-owned enterprises”, Journal of Psychology in Africa, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 271-281.

Avey, J.B., Reichard, R.J., Luthans, F. and Mhatre, K.H. (2011), “Meta-analysis of the impact of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 127-152.

448

LODJ 40,4

Avolio, B.J. and Gardner, W.L. (2005), “Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of positive forms of leadership”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 315-338.

Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Brown, M.E., Treviño, L.K. and Harrison, D.A. (2005), “Ethical leadership: a social learning perspective for construct development and testing”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 117-134.

Bukhari, I. and Kamal, A. (2017), “Perceived organizational support, its behavioral and attitudinal work outcomes: moderating role of perceived organizational politics”, Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 581-602.

Copeland, M.K. (2016), “The impact of authentic, ethical, transformational leadership on leader effectiveness”, Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 79-97.

Dick, R., Hirst, G., Grojean, M.V. and Wieseke, J. (2007), “Relationships between leader and follower organizational identification and implications for follower attitudes and behavior”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 133-150.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-507.

Emerson, R.M. (1976), “Social exchange theory”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 335-362.

Gooty, J., Gavin, M., Johnson, P.D., Frazier, M.L. and Snow, D.B. (2009), “In the eyes of the beholder: transformational leadership, positive psychological capital, and performance”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 353-367.

Gregory, B.T., Osmonbekov, T., Gregory, S.T., Albritton, M.D. and Carr, J.C. (2013), “Abusive supervision and citizenship behaviors: exploring boundary conditions”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 628-644.

Hedges, L. and Olkin, I. (1985), Statistical Methods for Meta-analysis, Academic Press, New York, NY.

Hui, Q., Cao, X., Lou, L. and He, H. (2014), “Empirical research on the influence of organizational support on psychological capital”, American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 1015-1027.

Hunter, J.E. and Schmidt, F.L. (1990), Methods of Meta-analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Jensen, S.M. and Luthans, F. (2006), “Entrepreneurs as authentic leaders: impact on employees’ attitudes”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 646-666.

Keashly, L. (1998), “Emotional abuse in the workplace: conceptual and empirical issues”, Journal of Emotional Abuse, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 85-117.

Kim, M., Kim, A.C.H., Newman, J.I., Ferris, G.R. and Perrewé, P.L. (2019), “The antecedents and consequences of positive organizational behavior: the role of psychological capital for promoting employee well-being in sport organizations”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 108-125.

Kiyani, K., Saher, N., Saleem, S. and Iqbal, M. (2013), “Emotional intelligence (EI) and employee outcomes: the mediating effect of authentic leadership style”, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 394-405.

Kwok, S.Y.C.L., Cheng, L. and Wong, D.F.K. (2015), “Family emotional support, positive psychological capital and job satisfaction among Chinese white-collar workers”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 561-582.

Law, K.S., Wong, C. and Mobley, W.H. (1998), “Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 741-755.

Liao, Z. and Liu, Y. (2015), “Abusive supervision and psychological capital: a mediated moderation model of team member support and supervisor-student exchange”, Frontiers of Business Research in China, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 576-607.

449

Antecedents and

consequences of PsyCap

Lin, W., Wang, L. and Chen, S. (2013), “Abusive supervision and employee well-being: the moderating effect of power distance orientation”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 308-329.

Lipsey, M.W. and Wilson, D.B. (2001), Practical Meta-Analysis, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Liu, L., Wen, F., Xu, X. and Wang, L. (2015), “Effective resources for improving mental health among Chinese underground coal miners: perceived organizational support and psychological capital”, Journal of Occupational Health, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 58-68.

Locke, E.A. (1969), “What is job satisfaction?”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 309-336.

Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 1297-1349.

Luthans, F. and Youssef, C.M. (2004), “Human, social, and now positive psychological capital management: investing in people for competitive advantage”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 143-160.

Luthans, F., Luthans, K.W. and Luthans, B.C. (2004), “Positive psychological capital: beyond human and social capital”, Business Horizons, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 45-50.

Luthans, F., Youssef, C.M. and Avolio, B.J. (2007), Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Avey, J.B. and Norman, S.M. (2007), “Positive psychological capital: measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 541-572.

Mayer, D.M., Kuenzi, M., Greenbaum, R., Bardes, M. and Salvador, R. (2009), “How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 108 No. 1, pp. 1-13.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three-component model conceptualization of organizational commitment”, Journal of Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-89.

Morse, N.C. (1953), Satisfaction in the White-Collar Job, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L. (1979), “The measurement of organizational commitment”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 224-247.

Niemeyer, J.R.L. and Cavazotte, F.D.S.C.N. (2016), “Ethical leadership, leader-follower relationship and performance: a study in a telecommunications company”, Revista de Administração Mackenzie, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 67-92.

Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.

Porter, L.W. (1962), “Job attitudes in management: I. Perceived deficiencies in need fulfillment as a function of job level”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 375-384.

Pouramini, Z. and Fayyazi, M. (2015), “The relationship between positive organizational behavior with job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and employee engagement”, International Business Research, Vol. 8 No. 9, pp. 57-66.

Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714.

Shaheen, S., Bukhari, I. and Adil, A. (2016), “Moderating role of psychological capital between perceived organizational support and organizational citizenship behavior and its dimensions”, International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 41-50.

Spector, T.D. and Thompson, S.G. (1991), “The potential and limitations of meta-analysis”, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 89-92.

Tanriverdi, H. (2008), “Workers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment: mediator variable relationships of organizational commitment factors”, Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 152-163.

450

LODJ 40,4

Van Knippenberg, D. and Sleebos, E. (2006), “Organizational identification versus organizational commitment: self-definition, social exchange and job attitudes”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 571-584.

Wang, X., Liu, L., Zou, F., Hao, J. and Wu, H. (2017), “Associations of occupational stressors, perceived organizational support, and psychological capital with work engagement among Chinese female nurses”, BioMed Research International, Vol. 2017, 11pp., available at: www.hindawi.com/ journals/bmri/2017/5284628/cta/

Weiss, H.M. (2002), “Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 173-194.

Wong, C.A. and Laschinger, H.K.S. (2013), “Authentic leadership, performance, and job satisfaction: the mediating role of empowerment”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 947-959.

Youssef, C.M. and Luthans, F. (2012), “Psychological capital: meaning, findings, and future directions”, in Cameron, K.S. and Spreitzer, G.M. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 17-27.

Zellars, K.L., Tepper, B.J. and Duffy, M.K. (2002), “Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 6, pp. 1068-1076.

Studies included in the meta-analysis

Ahmad, W., Khattak, A.J. and Ahmad, G. (2016), “Impact of abusive supervision on job satisfaction and turnover intention: role of power distance as a moderator”, City University Research Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 122-136.

Ali, N. and Ali, A. (2014), “The mediating effect of job satisfaction between psychological capital and job burnout of Pakistani nurses”, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 399-412.

Arshadi, N. (2011), “The relationships of perceived organizational support (POS) with organizational commitment, in-role performance, and turnover intention: mediating role of felt obligation”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 30, pp. 1103-1108.

Aryee, S., Chen, Z.X., Sun, L. and Debrah, Y.A. (2007), “Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: test of a trickle-down model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 191-201.

Avey, J.B. (2014), “The left side of psychological capital: new evidence on the antecedents of PsyCap”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 141-149.

Azanza, G., Moriano, J.A. and Molero, F. (2013), “Authentic leadership and organizational culture as drivers of employees’ job satisfaction”, Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 45-50.

Badran, M.A. and Youssef-Morgan, C.M. (2015), “Psychological capital and job satisfaction in Egypt”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 354-370.

Beal, L. III, Stavros, J.M. and Cole, M.L. (2013), “Effect of psychological capital and resistance to change on organisational citizenship behavior”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 1-11.

Bergheim, K., Nielsen, M.B., Mearns, K. and Eid, J. (2015), “The relationship between psychological capital, job satisfaction, and safety perceptions in the maritime industry”, Safety Science, Vol. 74, pp. 27-36.

Bilgin, N. and Demirer, H. (2012), “The examination of the relationship among organizational support, affective commitment and job satisfaction of hotel employees”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 51, pp. 470-473.

Bitmiş, M.G. and Ergeneli, A. (2013), “The role of psychological capital and trust in individual performance and job satisfaction relationship: a test of multiple mediation model”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 99, pp. 173-179.

Bouckenooghe, D., Zafar, A. and Raja, U. (2015), “How ethical leadership shapes employees’ job performance: the mediating roles of goal congruence and psychological capital”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 129 No. 2, pp. 251-264.

451

Antecedents and

consequences of PsyCap

Bouzari, M. and Karatepe, O.M. (2017), “Test of a mediation model of psychological capital among hotel salespeople”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 2178-2197.

Bowling, N.A. and Michel, J.S. (2011), “Why do you treat me badly? The role of attributions regarding the cause of abuse in subordinates’ responses to abusive supervision”, Work & Stress, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 309-320.

Breaux, D.M., Perrewé, P.L., Hall, A.T., Frink, D.D. and Hochwarter, W.A. (2008), “Time to try a little tenderness? The detrimental effects of accountability when coupled with abusive supervision”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 111-122.

Celik, S., Dedeoglu, B.B. and Inanir, A. (2015), “Relationship between ethical leadership, organizational commitment and job satisfaction at hotel organizations”, Ege Academic Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 53-63.

Cheng, J.-C. and O-Yang, Y. (2018), “Hotel employee job crafting, burnout, and satisfaction: the moderating role of perceived organizational support”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 72, pp. 78-85.

Chi, H., Yeh, H. and Nguyen, K.H. (2018), “How job involvement moderates the relationship between organizational commitment and job satisfaction: evidence in Vietnam”, Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 136-148.

Chiang, C. and Hsieh, T. (2012), “The impacts of perceived organizational support and psychological empowerment on job performance: the mediating effects of organizational citizenship behavior”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 180-190.

Choi, H. and Ahn, S.H. (2016), “Influence of nurse managers’ authentic leadership on nurses’ organizational commitment and job satisfaction: focused on the mediating effects of empowerment”, Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 100-108.

Coxen, L., Van der Vaart, L. and Stander, M.W. (2016), “Authentic leadership and organisational citizenship behaviour in the public health care sector: the role of workplace trust”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 1-13.

Demirtas, O. and Akdogan, A.A. (2015), “The effect of ethical leadership behavior on ethical climate, turnover intention, and affective commitment”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 59-67.

Fakhar, F.B. (2014), “Impact of abusive supervision on organizational citizenship behavior: mediating role of job tension, emotional exhaustion and turnover intention”, IOSR Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 70-74.

Fu, J., Sun, W., Wang, Y., Yang, X. and Wang, L. (2013), “Improving job satisfaction of Chinese doctors: the positive effects of perceived organizational support and psychological capital”, Public Health, Vol. 127 No. 10, pp. 946-951.

Giallonardo, L.M., Wong, C.A. and Iwasiw, C.L. (2010), “Authentic leadership of preceptors: predictor of new graduate nurses’ work engagement and job satisfaction”, Journal of Nursing Management, No. 8, pp. 993-1003.

Gupta, M., Shaheen, M. and Reddy, P.K. (2017), “Impact of psychological capital on organizational citizenship behavior: mediation by work engagement”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 973-983.

Haggard, D.L., Robert, C. and Rose, A.J. (2011), “Co-rumination in the workplace: adjustment trade-offs for men and women who engage in excessive discussions of workplace problems”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 27-40.

Han, K. and Chung, K. (2015), “Positive psychological capital, organizational commitment and job stress of nurses in small and medium-sized hospitals”, Advanced Science and Technology Letters, Vol. 88, pp. 208-211.

Hystad, S.W., Bartone, P.T. and Eid, J. (2013), “Positive organizational behavior and safety in the offshore oil industry: exploring the determinants of positive safety climate”, The Journal of Positive Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 42-53.

452

LODJ 40,4

Jain, A.K., Giga, S.I. and Cooper, C.L. (2013), “Perceived organizational support as a moderator in the relationship between organisational stressors and organizational citizenship behaviors”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 313-334.

Jain, S. and Kumar, S. (2017), “Examining organizational commitment and psychological capital in Indian bank employees”, IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 14-22.

Jung, H.S. and Yoon, H.H. (2015), “The impact of employees’ positive psychological capital on job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behaviors in the hotel”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 1135-1156.

Karatepe, O.M. and Karadas, G. (2015), “Do psychological capital and work engagement foster frontline employees’ satisfaction? A study in the hotel industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 1254-1278.

Kernan, M.C., Racicot, B.M. and Fisher, A.M. (2016), “Effects of abusive supervision, psychological climate, and felt violation on work outcomes: a moderated mediated model”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 309-321.

Kernan, M.C., Watson, S., Chen, F.F. and Kim, T.G. (2011), “How cultural values affect the impact of abusive supervision on worker attitudes”, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 464-484.

Khan, S., Muhammad, B., Afridi, G.W. and Sarwar, I. (2017), “Effect of authentic leadership on job satisfaction and employee engagement”, City University Research Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 151-166.

Kim, I.S., Seo, R.B., Kim, B.N. and Min, A.R. (2015), “The effects of positive psychological capital, organizational commitment, customer orientation in clinical nurses”, Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 10-19.

Kim, W.G. and Brymer, R.A. (2011), “The effects of ethical leadership on manager job satisfaction, commitment, behavioral outcomes, and firm performance”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1020-1026.

Kwak, C., Chung, B.Y., Xu, Y. and Cho, E. (2010), “Relationship of job satisfaction with perceived organizational support and quality of care among South Korean nurses: a questionnaire survey”, International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 47 No. 10, pp. 1292-1298.

Larson, M. and Luthans, F. (2006), “Potential added value of psychological capital in predicting work attitudes”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 45-62.

Laschinger, H.K.S. and Fida, R. (2014), “New nurses burnout and workplace wellbeing: the influence of authentic leadership and psychological capital”, Burnout Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 19-28.

Laschinger, H.K.S. and Fida, R. (2015), “Linking nurses’ perceptions of patient care quality to job satisfaction”, The Journal of Nursing Administration, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 276-283.

Lather, A.S. and Kaur, S. (2015), “Psychological capital as predictor of organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior”, The International Journal of Indian Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 103-112.

Lee, K.H., Lyu, J., Chang, Y.C. and Shin, Y. (2016), “The effect of ethical management and positive psychological capital on organizational effectiveness in hospitals”, Health Policy and Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 155-171.

Li, Y., Wang, Z. and Yang, L. (2016), “The crossover of psychological distress from leaders to subordinates in teams: the role of abusive supervision, psychological capital, and team performance”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 142-153.

Luthans, F., Norman, S.M., Avolio, B.J. and Avey, J.B. (2008), “The mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate–employee performance relationship”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 219-238.

McMurray, A.J., Pirola‐Merlo, A., Sarros, J.C. and Islam, M.M. (2010), “Leadership, climate, psychological capital, commitment, and wellbeing in a non‐profit organization”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 436-457.

453

Antecedents and

consequences of PsyCap

Mathieu, C. and Babiak, P. (2016), “Corporate psychopathy and abusive supervision: their influence on employees’ job satisfaction and turnover intentions”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 91, pp. 102-106.

Mohammadpour, S., Yaghoubi, N.M., Kamalian, A.R. and Salarzehi, H. (2017), “Authentic leadership: a new approach to leadership (describing the mediatory role of psychological capital in the relationship between authentic leadership and intentional organizational forgetting)”, International Journal of Organizational Leadership, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 491-504.

Munyaka, S.A., Boshoff, A.B., Pietersen, J. and Snelgar, R. (2017), “The relationships between authentic leadership, psychological capital, psychological climate, team commitment and intention to quit”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 1, 11pp., doi: 10.4102/sajip.v43i0.1430.

Nafei, W. (2015a), “Meta-analysis of the impact of psychological capital on quality of work life and organizational citizenship behavior: a study on Sadat City University”, International Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 42-59.

Nafei, W. (2015b), “The effects of psychological capital on employee attitudes and employee performance: a study on teaching hospitals in Egypt”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 249-270.

Neubert, M.J., Carlson, D.S., Kacmar, K.M., Roberts, J.A. and Chonko, L.B. (2009), “The virtuous influence of ethical leadership behavior: evidence from the field”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 157-170.

Olaniyan, O.S. and Hystad, S. (2016), “Employees’ psychological capital, job satisfaction, insecurity, and intentions to quit: the direct and indirect effects of authentic leadership”, Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 163-171.

Palanski, M., Avey, J.B. and Jiraporn, N. (2014), “The effects of ethical leadership and abusive supervision on job search behaviors in the turnover process”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 121 No. 1, pp. 135-146.

Peng, J., Jiang, X., Zhang, J., Xiao, R., Song, Y., Feng, X., Zhang, Y. and Miao, D. (2013), “The impact of psychological capital on job burnout of Chinese nurses: the mediator role of organizational commitment”, PLoS One, Vol. 8 No. 12, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084193.

Penger, S. and Černe, M. (2014), “Authentic leadership, employees’ job satisfaction, and work engagement: a hierarchical linear modelling approach”, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 508-526.

Peus, C., Wesche, J.S., Streicher, B., Braun, S. and Frey, D. (2012), “Authentic leadership: an empirical test of its antecedents, consequences, and mediating mechanisms”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 107 No. 3, pp. 331-348.

Piccolo, R.F., Greenbaum, R., den Hartog, D.N. and Folger, R. (2010), “The relationship between ethical leadership and core job characteristics”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 Nos 2/3, pp. 259-278.

Pillay, K., Buitendach, J. and Kanengoni, H. (2014), “Psychological capital, job demands and organizational commitment of employees in a call centre in Durban, South Africa”, SA Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, 13pp., available at: https://sajhrm.co.za/index.php/ sajhrm/rt/captureCite/599/0/ApaCitationPlugin:

Pradhan, R.K., Jena, L.K. and Bhattacharya, P. (2016), “Impact of psychological capital on organizational citizenship behavior: moderating role of emotional intelligence”, Cogent Business & Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, available at: www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi= 10.1080%2F23311975.2016.1194174.

Qadeer, F. and Jaffery, H. (2014), “Mediation of psychological capital between organizational climate and organizational citizenship behavior”, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 453-470.

Read, E.A. and Laschinger, H.K. (2015), “The influence of authentic leadership and empowerment on nurses’ relational social capital, mental health and job satisfaction over the first year of practice”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 71 No. 7, pp. 1611-1623.

454

LODJ 40,4

Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C. and Cunha, M.P. (2012), “Authentic leadership promoting employees’ psychological capital and creativity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 429-437.

Rego, P., Lopes, M.P. and Nascimento, J.L. (2016), “Authentic leadership and organizational commitment: the mediating role of positive psychological capital”, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 129-151.

Sahoo, B.C. and Sia, S.K. (2015), “Psychological capital and organisational commitment: nature, structure and relationship in an Indian sample”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 230-244.

Shin, Y. (2012), “CEO ethical leadership, ethical climate, climate strength, and collective organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 108 No. 3, pp. 299-312.

Shukla, A. and Rai, H. (2015), “Linking perceived organizational support to organizational trust and commitment: moderating role of psychological capital”, Global Business Review, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 981-996.

Sihag, P. and Sarikwal, L. (2015), “Effect of perceived organizational support on psychological capital – a study of IT industries in Indian framework”, Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 19-26.

Simons, J. and Buitendach, J. (2013), “Psychological capital, work engagement and organizational commitment amongst call centre employees in South Africa”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 2, 12pp., available at: https://sajip.co.za/index.php/sajip/rt/captureCite/10 71/0/ApaCitationPlugin

Singh, A.K., Singh, A.P., Kumar, S. and Gupta, V.K. (2015), “Role of perceived organizational support in the relationship between role overload and organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 77-85.

Suifan, T.S. (2016), “The impact of organizational climate and psychological capital on organizational citizenship behavior”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 224-230.

Tepper, B.J. (2000), “Consequences of abusive supervision”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 178-190.

Tepper, B.J., Duffy, M.K., Hoobler, J. and Ensley, M.D. (2004), “Moderators of the relationships between coworkers’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 455-465.

Tepper, B.J., Henle, C.A., Lambert, L.S., Giacalone, R.A. and Duffy, M.K. (2008), “Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organization deviance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 4, pp. 721-732.

Totawar, A.K. and Nambudiri, R. (2014), “How does organizational justice influence job satisfaction and organizational commitment? Explaining with psychological capital”, Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 83-97.

Velez, M.J. and Neves, P. (2017), “The relationship between abusive supervision, distributive justice and job satisfaction: a substitutes for leadership approach”, Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 187-198.

Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L., Wernsing, T.S. and Peterson, S.J. (2008), “Authentic leadership: development and validation of a theory-based measure”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 89-126.

Wang, H., Sui, Y., Luthans, F., Wang, D. and Wu, Y. (2014), “Impact of authentic leadership on performance: role of followers’ positive psychological capital and relational processes”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 5-21.

Wang, X., Liu, L., Zou, F., Hao, J. and Wu, H. (2017), “Associations of occupational stressors, perceived organizational support, and psychological capital with work engagement among Chinese female nurses”, BioMed Research International, Vol. 2017, 11pp., available at: www.hindawi.com/ journals/bmri/2017/5284628/cta/

455

Antecedents and

consequences of PsyCap

Wen, J., Li, Y. and Hou, P. (2016), “Customer mistreatment behavior and hotel employee organizational citizenship behavior: the mediating role of perceived organizational support”, Nankai Business Review International, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 322-344.

Woolley, L., Caza, A. and Levy, L. (2011), “Authentic leadership and follower development: psychological capital, positive work climate, and gender”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 438-448.

Wu, W. and Lee, Y. (2016), “Do employees share knowledge when encountering abusive supervision?”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 154-168.

Yang, Q. and Wei, H. (2018), “The impact of ethical leadership on organizational citizenship behavior: the moderating role of workplace ostracism”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 100-113.

Yanik, O. (2018), “The mediating role of trust in the effect of ethical leadership on employee attitudes and behaviors”, Journal of Business Research Turk, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 447-464.

Yates, L.A. (2014), “Exploring the relationship of ethical leadership with job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior”, The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, Vol. 7 No. 1, Article No. 4, available at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/jvbl/vol7/iss1/4/

Zaabi, M.S.A.S.A., Ahmad, K.Z. and Hossan, C. (2016), “Authentic leadership, work engagement and organizational citizenship behaviors in petroleum company”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 65 No. 6, pp. 811-830.

Zamahani, M. and Rezaei, F. (2014), “The impact of managers’ self-awareness, positivity and psychological ownership on organizational citizenship behavior”, International Review of Management and Business Research, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 1355-1368.

Zellars, K.L., Tepper, B.J. and Duffy, M.K. (2002), “Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organizational citizenship behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 6, pp. 1068-1076.

Zhang, J., Li, Y. and Liu, Q. (2017), “Research on influence of abusive supervision and psychological capital on team members’ tacit knowledge sharing”, 3rd Annual 2017 International Conference on Management Science and Engineering (MSE 2017), Atlantic Press, Beijing, pp. 148-152.

Zhang, L., Qiu, Y. and Teng, E. (2017), “Cross-level relationships between justice climate and organizational citizenship behavior: perceived organizational support as mediator”, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 387-398.

Zubair, A. and Kamal, A. (2015), “Authentic leadership and creativity: mediating role of work- related flow and psychological capital”, Journal of Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 150-171.

Corresponding author Khanh-Van Ho Nguyen can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

456

LODJ 40,4