The domino effect of doing good
Identifying behavioural outcomes among employees in corporate social responsibleorganisations.
Tamar van Drie 11361956
Amsterdam Business School Faculty of Economics and Business
Master thesis MSc Leadership & management
MSc. Business Administration: Leadership & Management
Supervisor: dr. N. Abu Ghazaleh Second reader: dr. C. K. Buengeler
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student, Tamar van Drie, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
Corporate Social Responsible (CSR) activities in organisations positively influences behavioural outcomes among employees. This study aims to examine prosocial motivation as a particular outcome of CSR activities in organisations. It will enhance the knowledge on influences of individuals’ willingness to carry out those activities. Possible mediating effects of organisational commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) are discussed because they are seen as behaviours outcomes after perceiving CSR. In addition, organisational support is integrated in the model to test if it motivates employees to act prosocial. Quantitative data was collected from 177 employees working for 49 different Dutch organisations participating in CSR activities. Results showed that perceived CSR positively influences employees’ prosocial motivation. This direct relationship is fully mediated by OCB and is totally explained by OCB on organisational level (OCB-O). No significant mediating effect of organisational commitment was found. Furthermore, perceived organisational support is not moderate the direct relationship between perceived CSR and prosocial motivation. However, organisational support positively influences employees’ prosocial motivation. Concluding, CSR activities motivates employees to act prosocial which might result in more impact of the activities. Implications of these findings are discussed and future research suggestions are suggested.
Keywords: Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), prosocial motivation, organisational commitment, organisational citizenship behaviour, perceived organisational support.
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION --- 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW --- 4
2.1. Corporate Social Responsibility --- 4
2.2. Perceived corporate social responsibility by employees --- 5
2.3. Prosocial motivation --- 7
2.4. Organizational commitment --- 10
2.5. Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) --- 12
2.6. Organizational support --- 14
2.7. Research model --- 16
3. METHOD --- 17
3.1. Procedure & Research design --- 17
3.2. Sample --- 17 3.3. Measurements --- 20 3.4. Statistical procedure --- 22 4. RESULTS --- 23 4.1. Correlation analysis --- 23 4.2. Hypotheses testing --- 26 4.3. Exploratory results --- 35 5. DISCUSSION --- 36 6. CONCLUSION --- 45 7. REFERENCES --- 46 APPENDIX: Questionnaire --- 54
6
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figures Page
Figure 1 Conceptual model 16
Tables
Table 1 Amount of respondents per organisation 19
Table 2 Amount of respondents per type of organisation 19 Table 3 Means, Standard deviation and reliability coefficients 25 Table 4 Regression on perceived CSR and prosocial motivation 26 Table 5 Regression on perceived CSR, organisational support and
prosocial motivation 27
Table 6 Mediating effect of organisational commitment (M1) and OCB
(M2) 31
Table 7 Bootstrap results of organisation commitment and OCB as mediators on the direct relationship between perceived CSR and prosocial motivation
31
Table 8 Mediating effect of OCB-O (M1) and OCB-I (M2) 33
Table 9 Bootstrap results of OCB-O and OCB-I as mediators on the direct
relationship between perceived CSR and prosocial motivation 33
Table 10 The moderating effect of organisational support on perceived
INTRODUCTION| 1
1. INTRODUCTION
There has recently developed a renewed interest among Dutch organisations in taking responsibility for their impact on environment and society (Lageweg, Vlaming, Tol & Klomp, 2012). This interest has arisen by the increasing pressure from customers, partners and government. These groups have become more demanding for organisations role towards society. This responsibility, can be explained as corporate social responsibility (CSR) (European Commission, 2012). CSR stands for the integrated social and environmental concern in both business operations and cooperation between organisations and stakeholders. 87% of the participated Dutch companies in the national sustainability monitor agree that organization are obligated to consider their societal and environmental impact. Only half of the participating organizations translate this obligation into sustainable organizational goals that improves society (SGS search, 2015).
To implement CSR in organisations, companies are dependent on employees’ behavioural performance because they are take decisions regarding to CSR policies and are intended to carry out activities to (Bauman & Skitka, 2012). Since CSR activities are focused helping others and improving the welfare of society, employees’ prosocial motivation should be a good indicator for employees’ contribution towards CSR activities. Employees’ prosocial motivation is a psychological state in which they have a desire to benefit others (Grant, 2008) based on a concern for the welfare of others (Batson, Ahmad, Powell, Stock, Shah & Gardner, 2008). Therefore, looking at the behavioural outcomes of employees in CSR organizations may broaden our view of employees’ behavioural outcomes towards CSR activities.
For many decades, there has been increasing interest in researching outcomes of CSR organizations (Aguines & Glavas, 2012), which is mostly studied on an institutional and organisational level. However, research on employees’ contributions in, and behavioural outcomes of CSR organizations are limited in current literature (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams & Ganapathi, 2007). Employees are considered to be the primary stakeholders when it comes to
INTRODUCTION|2 direct contribution to the success of an organization (Bauman & Skitka, 2012). Moreover, it is individual employees who are developing CSR strategies, making decisions and accomplishing CSR activities, which highlights the importance of knowledge on employee behaviour outcomes. For organisations it is relevant to consider these outcomes because it enhances the success of the CSR activities. First, organizations with CSR activities improve their ability to recruit and keep high talented employees, since CSR organisations are more attractive for employees. Working for a CSR organisation increase individuals meaningfulness in life (Glavas & Kelley, 2014). In addition, employees are intended to stay longer in CSR organisations (Albinger & Freeman, 2000; Greening & Turban, 2000; Turban & Greening, 1997). Both recruitment and the maintenance of high talented employees is important to sustain organizational responsible quality and services and contribute to organizational goals (Grawitch & Ballard, 2016). At the same time, employees increase their identification with and commitment to the firm while working for a CSR organization. It might establish a connection between organisation and employees through a shared meaning and value (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008; Aguilera et al., 2007). Finally, working for a CSR organization will stimulate employees’ work behaviour and organization citizenship behaviour (OCB) (Newman, Nielsen & Miao, 2015) which contributes to organizational effectiveness (Frese, Kring, Soose & Zempel, 1996).
However, little research has been done on an employee perspective and how employees’ behaviour and day-to-day attitudes are affected by organisational CSR activities (Hansen, Dunford, Boss, Boss & Angermeier, 2011). Therefore, a better understanding of behavioural outcomes of employees in CSR organisation is needed, which enhance insight in the predictors that influence individual’s willingness to carry out CSR activities (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012. p.953). This study will fill this gap in research by focusing, on an HRM level, on what links CSR activities with outcomes on individual level. An analysis on individual level relates to the individual actors who actually execute CSR initiatives and perceive CSR initiatives (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). Therefore, the following question will be answered; ‘’Will the perceived CSR of an organisation influence the prosocial motivation among employees? ’’. This question is extended with OCB and
INTRODUCTION|3 organisational commitment as possible predictors of prosocial motivation since previous researches already found these variables as a positive outcome of perceived CSR (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch & Topolnytsky, 2002; Grant, 2007). Including these variables will enlarge the understanding of the predictors that affects individuals to carry out CSR activities, (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). Organisational commitment is seen as a predictor for organisational behaviour what goes beyond regular job duties (Meyer et al., 2002). This is similar to prosocial behaviour. Therefore, organisational commitment might mediate the relationship between perceived CSR and prosocial motivation due to more committed employees in CSR organisations. OCB has the potential to mediate this relationship because perceived CSR stimulates employees to show organisational citizenship behaviour which means that employees are more likely to participate in CSR activities. This increase employees’ perceived impact on beneficiaries which in turn might enlarge employees’ prosocial motivation (Grant, 2007). Organisational support has the potency to moderate the relationship because it boosts employees’ confidence while simultaneously showing ethical behaviour (Hsieh and Chan, 2012). Additionally, the insights will contribute to the creation of a more prosocial environment, which might affect organisation’s impact on society positively.
First, a literature review on the main concepts is given on the available knowledge and hypotheses are created based on the literature. Subsequently, a detailed description of the methodology what outlines the data collection procedure and research method. Afterwards, findings on the collected data are discussed in the results section. Finally, conclusions are discussed and limitations on the results of this study are described together with directions for further research.
LITERATURE REVIEW|4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Corporate Social Responsibility
Recent developments in organizational behaviour towards sustainable initiatives have heightened the need for employees’ behavioural outcomes on CSR activities. Unfortunately, hardly any common definition of CSR activities is used in previous research which makes it difficult what actually generates a particular behaviour (Dahlsrud, 2008). It is known as doing something good, but there is no common understanding of doing good (Garriga & Melé, 2004). The most used definition of CSR are created by the Commission of European communities (2001) where it is described as ‘’ a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interactions with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis. This concept is intended to contribute to a better society and cleaner environment and has become a primary concern for business activities. Organisations conduct business what goes beyond the legal, moral and ethical requirements (Lin, Tsai, Chen & Chio, 2010). More and more organisations are aware of supporting social and environmental programmes and are creating responsible policies partnerships with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (Maon, Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010). These CSR activities determine organisations accountability for society.
The progress towards CSR activities in organisations requires a fundamental shift in organisational culture (Mirvis & Googings, 2012). To acquire a higher level of CSR in organisations, the CSR concept and values should be embodied by all individuals in the organisation. This process shows different levels of acceptance, understanding and integrating of its CSR principles at different time periods (Moan et al., 2010). The stages of CSR development consist of a progressive integration of social concerns into organisational decision-making processes, meaning that the more CSR is developed in an organisation, the more social concern is integrated in business activities. Moan et al (2010) developed a seven stage model to describe the CSR developments in organisations based on earlier stage models. The first stage is described as ‘winning at all costs’ where no CSR related initiatives emerge in these organisations and where the seventh stage is
LITERATURE REVIEW|5 described as ‘change the game’ and do much to transform the current businesses. Social enterprises are examples of organisations who are in the last stage. A social enterprise is an organisation which uses of nongovernmental, market-based approaches to address social issues as their core business (Kerlin, 2006). These organisations take philanthropic responsibility to contribute in resources to improve the quality of life for the community (Carrol, 1991)
Instead of solely adding value for target groups of the CSR activities, e.g. farmers in developing countries, CSR activities contribute positively to organization’s own wealth generating (Moir, 2001) such as improving organizational financial performance (Cochran & Wood, 1985; Kapoor & Sandhu, 2010) and organizational competitiveness (Smith, 2007). Customers will evaluate organizations and products positively when they participate in socially responsible activities (Arora & Henderson, 2007; Ellen, Mohr & Webb, 2000). Due to the growth of interest in CSR activities, research should invest in the way CSR initiatives influence their day-to-day behaviour, because employees are seen as an extremely important resource in CSR organizations (Onkila, 2015). First of all, employees can be seen as the main stakeholders in CSR organizations because they will eventually bring the CSR behaviour outside the organization (Jamali & Sidani, 2008; Preuss, Haunschild & Matten, 2009; Aguilera et al., 2007). Therefore an investigation on employees’ behavioural outcomes of perceived CSR will be done. The following part will explain employees’ perceived CSR in organisations as a predictor of employees’ behaviour.
2.2. Perceived corporate social responsibility by employees
Organisations are implementing human resource practices or systems to enhance firms by motivating employees to adapt a desired attitude or behaviour that helps to achieve organizational goals (Ostroff & Bowen, 2016). Since CSR activities are affecting employee outcomes such as OCB (Newman et al., 2015) and organizational commitment (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008; Aguilera et al., 2007), the activities can be considered as an HRM practice. However, Nishii,
LITERATURE REVIEW|6 Lepak and Schneider (2008) make a distinction between the variance in the interpretation of HRM practices. These distinctions are the intended practices, actual practices and the perceived practices. The intended practice is the desired outcome of the practice by its top management. Actual practices relate to the practices that are actually implemented by line-managers. The interpretation of the practices among employees individually, are the perceived practices. When HRM practices are introduced it does not mean that this is understood by all employees in the same way According to Den Hartog, Boon, Verburg and Croon (2013) employees can differ in this interpretation due to bad communication and every employee is unique on how interpretations are made.. Without well understood intentions, employees might experience a top-down approach which can lead to conflicting outcomes between an employee and its organisation. For example, the intended CSR approach might not be accepted by the employees in the organization who are supposed to carry out CSR activities. Secondly, the intended CSR that does not meet the current work of employees will be questioned because their values may vary from management values (Onkila, 2015). Therefore, looking at the perceived CSR activities is expected to give a realistic view on how perceived CSR is affecting employees’ behavioural.
Brown and Dacin (1997) explain perceived CSR activities as the perceptions among employees about organizational identity on important matters in society, such as improving the livelihood of suppliers of creating valuable partnerships with NGOs. Folger, Cropanzano and Goldman (2005) argue that the perceptions of CSR influence workers’ attitudes and behaviour at work. Employees not only react based on their experienced treatment but also how the organization treats others outside the organization. When this treatment is highly responsible, employees are likely to work harder, be more productive and have more positive attitudes towards the organization (Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera & Williams, 2006). CSR activities of organisations perceived by employees influence their behavioural outcomes and is explained by the following theories. The first one is the social exchange theory. According to this theory, ‘’ CSR activities are sending signals to the employees that their organization is caring, kind, and benevolent what contribute to the obliged feeling to reciprocate good deeds with positive
LITERATURE REVIEW|7 attitudes and behaviours’’ (Farooq, Payaud, Merunka & Valette-Florence, 2014 p.565). In addition, the collective learning process among employees will stimulate internal responsible (Siebenhüner & Arnold, 2007) to achieve a shared and understandable focus for sustainability and responsibility (Haugh & Talwar, 2010). Finally, supervisor behaviour can act as an example of responsible behaviour and affects employees’ actions and ideas (Ramus, 2002). Behavioural outcomes are intended to increase societies’ well-being and contribute to a better and sustainable future for all. To achieve this, participation of employees in CSR activities is very important. The behavioural outcome discussed in this study is prosocial motivation, which will test employees reciprocate motivation of helping others. Influencing employees’ prosocial motivation might in turn be a good indicator for the success of the CSR activities. The following part will explain the expected behavioural outcome, prosocial motivation, as an outcome of perceived CSR.
2.3. Prosocial motivation
Being prosocially motivated means that people seem to engage more in problem-solving behaviour which lead to a positive result for all involved in the problem (De Dreu, Weingart & Kwon, 2000). Highly prosocial motivated employees are more emphatic and feel needs and perspectives of others, for example from customers, co-workers and suppliers. Furthermore, they are concerned about others’ well-being and feelings. Others are seen as partners instead of threats to achieve the best for both parties (De Dreu, et al., 2000).
The outcomes of employees’ behaviour is important for maintaining, shaping and stimulating prosocial motivation (Staw, 1977) whereby the visibility on the perceived outcome is very important (Michaelson, Pratt, Grand & Dunn, 2014). Being prosocially motivated is the result of two psychological states, the perceived impact and affected commitment to beneficiaries, which explain the dependency of employee behaviour and the prosocial outcome. The individuals, groups, or stakeholders whom the employee is devoted to serve are the beneficiaries of certain behaviour (Grant & Sumathi, 2009). The first relates to the awareness of employees’ action
LITERATURE REVIEW|8 affecting other people. Secondly, prosocial behaviour is stimulated through the affected commitment to beneficiaries, which relates to the concern for those people (Grant, 2007). When employees are directly linked to beneficiaries of their work such as clients, customers, patients and other end users who are effected by prosocial behaviour, employees are more motivated and willing to show prosocial behaviour. Furthermore, when the connection between employee and beneficiaries is provided and employees are able to see the impact of their behaviour, it is likely that those employees are motivated to work harder and enhance their effectivity (Michealson, et al., 2014). Therefore engagement by employees in CSR activities is important to enhance prosocial motivation.
Having prosocially motivated employees is beneficial for organizations since it positively influences organizational performance and productivity. This may be caused by the fact that prosocial employees build trust and have a positive attitude and perception towards others. Also, they listen and interchange information with ‘’partners’’ to create a better understanding from other perspectives (De Dreu, et al., 2000). Vallerand (1997) distinguished three different levels of motivation which are also applicable for prosocial motivation. The different levels are divided by the point of focus in the shown behaviour. The prosocial behaviour that highly focusses on benefiting others in general is global prosocial motivation (Bear & Hwang, 2015). Secondly, situational motivation consist of a certain behaviour in a particular time or situation and is likely to vary in the situations (Chaplin, John & Goldberg, 1988). Lastly, prosocial motivation that focuses on individuals’ motivation to contribute to something beneficial at work and others relate to this is called contextual prosocial motivation (Bear & Hwang, 2015). This study relates to contextual prosocial motivation, because it investigate employees’ prosocial motivation in work related context, were CSR activities are part of.
Employees’ prosocial motivation can be stimulated in work related context. For example, Romani and Grappi (2014) state that positive CSR initiatives are capable of enhancing stakeholders own prosocial behaviour, due to the feeling of moral elevation. In fact, stakeholders who perceive CSR initiatives positively will experience moral elevation and are therefore more
LITERATURE REVIEW|9 willing to participate in the responsible goal of the organization. Benefiting others and having prosocial impact is one of the core values in life and a source of meaningfulness at work for employees what is widely shared among different cultures, industries and jobs (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001; Colby, Sippola & Phelps, 2001).
Prosocial motivated employees play an important role in achieving CSR activities what contribute to societies’ well-being since employees are essential resources for communicating and carry out these activities towards customers and other stakeholders. Employees with high prosocial motivation will behave in a desirable way when there is an agreement in ethical values. Another reason why employees in CSR organisations are more prosocial motivated is due to the recruitment of prosocial employees. When organisations are recruiting new employees, they are looking for a good person – organisational fit (PO fit). P-O fit is described as the connection between individual and organisational goals, structure and climate (Kristof, 1996). Organisations use selection and development procedures to find individuals who share the same values and fit the company culture (Boon, Boselie, Paauwe, Den Hartog, 2007; Cable and Judge, 1997). Therefore, it is expected that recruiters of CSR organisations recruit employees who match the values of the organisation; for example, improving the livelihood society where the organisation does business with. The findings of this research should make an important contribution to CSR organization to enhance their responsible impact.
However, when employees’ value organizational initiatives as harmful or unethical moral disengagement and ethical fading can occur (Bandura, 1999; Tenbrunsel & Messick, 2004). This may result in less engagement and prosocial motivation, what badly influence organisational performance. When CSR activities aren’t well accomplished in organisations, employees will only do assigned tasks what will not influence organisational success positively
The literature is as far as we know lacking evidence for a direct positive relationship between perceived CSR activities and the prosocial motivation among employees. However, based on the social-exchange theory employees will reciprocate good deeds with positive attitudes and
LITERATURE REVIEW|10 behaviour what organisations are expressing with the CSR activities. It is therefore expected when employees perceive many signals that their organisations is caring, kind and benevolent via CSR activities, are likely to be more prosocial motivated to show good behaviour in return. In addition, the PO fit mechanism explains the recruitment of employees in CSR organisations. Employees who match with the values and culture of the organisations are hired. Meaning that CSR organisations recruit prosocial motivated employees. Based on these two arguments, the following hypothesis is expected.
Hypothesis 1:
The perceived CSR by employees has a positive effect on employees’ prosocial motivation
Social exchange theory is fundamental in our understanding to behavioural outcomes of perceiving CSR. Sections that follow will discuss how this direct relationship between perceived CSR and employees’ prosocial motivation can be explained by earlier findings of employees’ behavioural outcomes when they perceive CSR. Both organisational commitment and OCB are explained as behavioural outcomes according to the social exchange theory and might influence stimulate employees’ prosocial motivation.
2.4. Organizational commitment
Organizational commitment is mostly described as an affective attachment to an organisation. This organisational attachment can be directed from several point of views. This study focus on employees’ attachment for the organisation they work for because this relates to their behavioural outcomes. As a result of this attachment, employees share organisation’s values and enhance their willingness to exert more effort (Mowday, Steers and Porter. 1979). Allen and Meyer (1990) distinguished three forms of organizational commitment. The first one, affective commitment, relates to the emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization
LITERATURE REVIEW|11 (p.21). Normative commitment explains the perceived costs associated with leaving an organization. At least, the perceived obligation to remain in the organization describes the normative commitment which is the last form. In this research only affective commitment is taken into account because this concerns the involvement of employees in business activities what contribute to behavioural outcomes.
Employees increase their identification with and commitment to the firm while working for a CSR organization (Rodrigo & Arenas, 2008; Aguilera et al., 2007). Several researches have demonstrated the direct positive relationship between employees’ perception of CSR and organizational commitment (Brammer, Millington & Rayton, 2007; Stites & Micheal, 2011). According to Brammer et al., (2007) the direct relationship can be explained using the social identity theory. This theory suggest that employees are most satisfied when they identify themselves with organizations who have a positive reputation. Working for such organizations will enhance employees’ self-concept because they will be associated with the good reputation (Maignan & Ferrell, 2001a). Furthermore, these positive attitudes and favourable activities of organizations is associated with higher organizational commitment among employees what induce several positive organizational outcomes such as higher work motivation and lower turnover rates (Peterson, 2004). Employees who are strongly committed to their company tend to experience its success and failures as their own what stimulate them to do their best (Dutton, Dukerich & Harguail, 1994).
Hypothesis 2 is formulated based on Peterson’s (2004) result on a stronger relationship between perceived CSR among employees and organisational commitment who highly believe in the importance of the social responsibility of the organization. Meaning that perceived CSR lead to more organisational commitment. To extend the current literature with mediating mechanism on behavioural outcomes in CSR organisations, organisational commitment is investigated as mediator on the relationship between perceived CSR and prosocial motivation. The mediated effect is expected based on research from Dick, Hirst, Grojean and Wieseke (2007) because employees with high organizational commitment are likely to involve in behaviour that is in line
LITERATURE REVIEW|12 with organizational goals. In addition, positive affective commitment turned out as a strong predictor of beneficial and voluntary actions in organisations that extend above and beyond formal job duties (Meyer et al., 2002). Finally, high commitment human resource practices will stimulate affective organisational commitment (McClean and Collins, 2011). These practices are impacting employees’ willingness to exert extra effort and satisfy stakeholders, which might increase employees’ commitment to beneficiaries. Highly affective committed employees to beneficiaries are seen as a predictor for problem-solving behaviour (Grand, 2007). Based on this the following hypotheses are expected:
Hypothesis 2:
Organisational commitment mediates the relationship between perceived CSR and prosocial motivation, so that perceived CSR lead to an increase in organisational commitment which in turn
has a positive relationship with prosocial motivation.
2.5. Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB)
OCB is individuals’ contributions in the workplace that go beyond role requirements and contractually rewarded job achievements. Employees contribute to organizational effectiveness by doing things other than their main job tasks. These extra activities are important because it enhances organizational and social context that support task activities (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Lately, CSR is intensified in organisations across a variety of initiatives (Maignan & Ferrell, 2001b) due to a growing pressure of customers, partners and government. Employees with a high level of OCB contribute in for example, voluntary projects, extra job activities, ethical trainings and assert rules and processes at work even when it is against negligent personal inconvenience (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). In addition, employees who are motivated to show OCB contribute to the overall productivity of the organization by delivering a higher quality service, stimulation in teamwork and higher employee satisfaction (William & Anderson, 1991).
LITERATURE REVIEW|13 OCB is visible on two levels, OCB on individual level (OCB-I) and OCB on organizational level (OCB-O) (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Individual OCB is helping behaviour that is directly linked to specific individuals or groups in the organisation. An example of OCB-I is helping others with work-related problems (Finkelstein & Penner, 2004). Whereas, OCB on organisational level is ‘’directly linked towards organization, comprising conscientiousness, sportsmanship and civic virtue’’ (Abdullah, Rashid, 2012. P. 68). OCB-O is intended to benefit the organisation of team as a whole by for example offering ideas to improve organisational performance. Showing OCB in CSR activities relates to the organisational level because it contributes in the organisational functioning (Finkelstein & Penner, 2004) to improve the quality of life in society, which lead to more impact by the organisation.
Several studies have found a significant effect between a favourable perception of CSR and employee work behaviours and OCB (Lin et al., 2010; Newman et al., 2015). Employees’ actions are influenced by their perception of CSR in the organisation. This perception enhanced employees’ in-role and extra-role behaviour and the esteemed feeling to perform positive behaviours in the organisation. This will eventually lead to a positive relationship between perceived CSR and OCB. When employees participate in extra task besides regular job tasks, it is likely that employees perceive more impact of their actions on beneficiaries. This is the degree of awareness on actions affecting others, which in turn shapes employees motivation to make a prosocial difference (Grant, 2007). Besides the awareness, employees’ experience how meaningful and relevant their work is for others welfare stimulate them to continue or increase this behaviour. Therefore, hypothesis 3 is formulated as stated below. Since perceived CSR is likely to predict someone’s OCB and participation in extra activities, such as CSR activities, lead to more perceived impact of its behaviour (Grant, 2007). It is expected that OCB plays a mediating role because perceived impact will in turn lead to prosocial motivation. Based on this, the hypothesis is as followed:
LITERATURE REVIEW|14
Hypothesis 3a:
Organisational citizenship behaviour mediates the relationship between perceived CSR and prosocial motivation, so that perceived CSR lead to an increase in organisational citizenship
behaviour which in turn has a positive relationship with prosocial motivation.
Making a distinction in the two levels of OCB will deepen the insights on mediation mechanisms on behavioural outcomes in CSR organisations. When OCB turned out to play a mediating role on the relationship between perceived CSR and prosocial motivation, it is expected that this mediating effect is explained by OCB-O. CSR activities are intended to improve society’s welfare, which is more related to OCB-O. Meaning that employees show more extra-role behaviour what is in line with organisational targets. Therefore, the following hypothesis is conducted;
Hypothesis 3b:
OCB-O has a stronger mediating effect on the relationship between perceived CSR and prosocial motivation, so that perceived CSR lead to an higher increase in OCB (O) than OCB (I) which in turn
has a more positive relationship with prosocial motivation.
2.6. Organizational support
Organizational support is employees’ beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being (Eisenberger, Huntingtion, Hutchinson & Sowa, 1986, p. 501). When employees perceive organizational support, it is likely that it will influence work related outcomes. According to the organisational support theory of Eisenberger et al., (1986) the experienced valued feeling among employees result in high levels of perceived organisational support, what positively affects employees’ commitment to the organisation and show behaviour what is the interests of the organisation. Harzing & Christensen (2004) already found a relationship between organizational support, work engagement and citizenship behaviour. When employees feel supported by their organisations, they receive the potential to enhance competence, confidence and commitment what effects their engagements in daily work
LITERATURE REVIEW|15 processes. Secondly, Organizational support is stimulating a high quality work environment what is financially beneficial for organizations because employees are able to develop themselves to their full potential (Grawitch & Ballard, 2016). Employees who perceive high organizational support will probably show more work behaviour what is desirable and valuable for the organization because employees feel obliged to repay the organization. Moreover, when employees feel supported by their organization it is likely that workers finish their tasks and are more engaged with external stakeholders of the organization (Harzing & Christensen, 2004). The rise of engagement with stakeholders makes them more committed to them and are likely to perceive more impact of their actions, which are the two psychological states influencing prosocial motivation (Grant, 2007). Furthermore, organization support enhance employees’ self-realization (Fenner & Selmer, 2008) which might stimulate prosocial motivation. Explaining that, employees have a higher level of job satisfaction when they feel supported by the organization while showing ethical behaviour (Hsieh & Chan, 2012). Since organizational support seems to act as a source of prosocial motivation, it is likely that the presence of a high level organizational support lead to more prosocial behaviour. Therefore, the following hypothesis is formulated:
Hypothesis 4:
Perceived organisational support is positively related to prosocial motivation.
It is expected that organisational support strengthen the positive relationship of perceived CSR on prosocial motivation because organisational support foster employees to engage in OCB and employees’ participation in co-operative behaviours (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch & Rhoades, 2001). In agreement with the social exchange theory employees feel obliged to reciprocate good behaviour of its organisation. When employees feel supported it might stimulate them to show more prosocial motivation, because it gives them confidence to show such behaviour. Contrary to low organisational support which might provoke less participation in extra-role behaviour and even has the opportunity to increase turnover intentions among
LITERATURE REVIEW|16 employees. Therefore, it is expected that organisational support moderate the direct relationship on perceived CSR and prosocial motivation. Based on this the hypothesis is stated as followed;
Hypothesis 5:
Organisational support positively moderates the relationship between perceived CSR and prosocial employees, such that when the organisational support is high, the relationship between perceived
CSR and prosocial motivation is stronger than when the organisational support is low.
2.7. Research model
Five hypotheses were formulated based on knowledge of current literature and are illustrated in figure 1. Hypothesis 1 is related to the main relationship of this study and will investigate the direct relationship between perceives CSR activities of organisations on employees’ prosocial motivation. Hypotheses 2, 3 and 5 are the indirect relations on prosocial motivation via organisational commitment, OCB and organisational support. Hypothesis 5 is again a direct relationship to prosocial motivation.
METHOD|17
3. METHOD
This part represents the empirical part of the research that has been done. First, the procedure and research design are discussed. Afterwards, evident characteristics of the collected sample are described and the used variables including the questionnaire items and corresponding reliabilities are discussed. Finally, the statistical procedures for this research are discussed.
3.1. Procedure & Research design
To test the previous mentioned hypotheses, a quantitative research was carried out. The survey consisted of 47 items who were already tested in previous researches. Surveys are the most suitable because employees get the opportunity to fill it anonymously and the relationship of both variables can be tested. In addition, a survey design was a suitable research method to learn more about attitudes, opinions, intentions and expectations (Blumberg, Cooper & Schindler, 2014). The survey was translated to Dutch to decrease the likelihood of individuals to understand the survey and it decrease the dropout of participants in this research. The back translation procedure was used, meaning that a third person translated into Dutch items back into English. The inconsistencies between both translated versions were corrected in the final Dutch survey (appendix 1). This online questionnaire were send out by mail and LinkedIn to organizations who participate in CSR activities to receive 177 surveys in total. The respondents will be chosen based on their ability and willingness to participate for this research, which is a convenience sample.
3.2. Sample
The sample consists of Dutch employees working for a corporate social responsible organisation. Employees of 48 organisations were approached to fill in the questionnaire and distribute it among co-workers. These organisations were selected for this research based on their CSR policies in annual reports and on websites. In eight organisations, five or more employees completed the survey and were considered as individual organisations. The organisations with
METHOD|18 less than five participating employees are grouped together as ‘’others’’. Due to privacy reasons, the names of the organisations are not mentioned in this research. An overview of the amount of different organisations are shown in table 1. To broaden the insight on prosocial motivation of employees, a distinction between social enterprises and organisations with only CSR activities is made (table 2).
From the 177 employees that started filling out the questionnaire, 149 respondents fully completed the questionnaire (finish rate 84.2%). The 28 respondents were removed from the data set since they only filled in control variables or only partly answered the questions. Overall, more women (n= 75) than men (n=62), (M=1.55 SD= -.50) participated in this research and had an average age of 33,72 (SD=11.95). The sample covered a high educational background. 73 respondents were highly educated and completed an education programme at research university (University: 49%, PHD: 1.4%) which is the majority of the sample. 66 respondents completed an educational program at university of applied science (MBO: 8.3% and HBO: 37.2%). 6 respondents only finished High School (4.1%). The remaining 6 respondents did not fill in their educational background. The majority of the employees (n=80, 55.2%) worked 40 hours or more during a week. On an average level employees work M= 35.06 hours a week in corporate social responsible organisations (SD= 12.18).
METHOD|19 Table 1:
Amount of respondents per organisation
Organisation Frequency % of total
A 11 7,4% B 5 3,4% C 10 6,7% D 26 17,4& E 19 12,8% F 6 4,0% G 10 6,7% H 6 4,0% Others 56 37,6% Total 149 100% Table 2:
Amount of respondents per type of organisation
Type of organisation Frequency % of total
Social Enterprise 24 16.1%
CSR policies and activities 125 83,9%
METHOD|20
3.3. Measurements
The questions of the survey were categorised per subject and were operationalized and tested before by other researchers. This means that the reliability of the questions has already been tested in other researches. All items were measured on seven-point Likert scales (1: ‘’Strongly disagree,’’ and 7: ‘’Strongly agree’’) at an interval level. The survey consist of the following instruments;
Perceived Corporate social responsibility (dependent variable) is measured though items by Liechenstein, Drumwright and Braig (2004) what consist of 5 items. Those items were rated on a seven-point Likert scale. Two items were added by Valentine & Fleischman (2008) to extend this measurement. Examples of questions are; ‘’ My organisation gives back to the communities in which it does business’’ and ‘’My organization gives time, money, and other resources to socially responsible causes’’. A factor analysis is conducted since this variable consist of a combination of items from different researches. The sample size is big enough (N=149) for running a factor analysis (MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang & Hong, 1999). However, only one component had an Eigenvalue above 1.00 explaining 62,34% of the variance. Thus, all items are loaded in one factor. The scale proved to be reliable (α = .92) which means that all items can combined into one variable which represented the total perceived CSR.
Prosocial motivation (independent variable) was measured according to the questions created by Grant and Sumanth (2009). This measurement consist of 5 items
with a confirmed
reliability ofα = .85
. Used questions are;’’ I get energized by working on tasks that have the potential to benefit others.’’ And ‘’I like to work on tasks that have the potential to benefit others’’. The factor analysis showed that only one component had an Eigenvalue above 1.00 explaining 62.29% of the variance. Thus, all items are loaded in one factor.Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (mediator) is questioned in the survey on an individual level and organizational level and consisted both of 7 point Likert-scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) (Lee & Allen, 2002). The Cronbach of all 15 items was α = 0.82 meaning that
METHOD|21 all items can be combined to one OCB variable. In addition, the two levels proved to be reliable (OCB-I: α = .77; OCB-O: α = .84) and each related items were compute into two variables. The results of the factor analysis are not taken into account since the scale already proved its reliability in previous research and the Cronbach alpha are supporting this. Examples of questions are; ‘’ I attend functions that are not required but that help the organizational image’’, ‘’I show pride when representing the organization in public’’ and ‘’I adjust your work schedule to accommodate other employees’ requests for time off.’’
Organisational commitment (mediator) was tested on the organisational commitment of Allen and Meyer (1990). The reliability is measured with a Cronbach alpha of
α =
0.81 ‘’I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own’’ and ‘’This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me’’ are questions used in the survey. Four of the eight items where reverse coded meaning that a relatively low score indicates relatively high levels of organisational commitment. A factor analysis was conducted on the scales. Two components had eigenvalues > 1 according to Kaiser’s criterion and explained 40,72% of the variance. The items that cluster on the same factors suggest that factor 1 represents showing commitment to others, and factor 2 emotional organisational commitment. Since the original items by Allen and Meyer (1990) proved to be reliable, this scale of affective organisational commitment is used in this paper.To measure organisational support (moderator), a smaller version of eight items from Eisenberger et al. (1986) is used what is tested in (Rhoades, Eisenberger & Armeli, 2001). The reliability is tested with a Cronbach alpha of
α =
0.73. Examples of the items are; ‘’My organisation really cares about my well-being’’ and ‘’My organisation strongly consider my goals and values’’Control variables are measured by asking the respondents to fill in questions about their gender (1= man, 2= woman), age, organisations they work for and weekly working hours (ratio variables). These four variables are used to control the results of this study and were asked at the beginning of the questionnaire.
METHOD|22
3.4. Statistical procedure
Data for this research was collected in the form of an online survey in the online program Qualtrics. The data collection started on April 3th 2017 and stopped 5 weeks later on May 9th
2017. One reminder was sent to few respondents. After the collection period the data was imported for statistical analyses in the Statistical software Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, version 24). First, incomplete cases were deleted. Frequencies test were done to check for errors, missing values and outliers. Some missing values were found in the control variables. For Gender 5.5% values were missing and for age 4,1% was missing since the items of the variables where complete these cases are used in the analysis. The missing data is replaced by a value of 999. Three cases had scores with a z-score below or above three and were excluded in this analysis since these scores are seen as outliers. After recoding the counter-indicative item and testing the scale reliabilities and factor analysis is conducted for the 6 main variables. Afterwards, scale means were computed for all variables in the conceptual model by calculating the mean score of all related items to the scale. Furthermore, the Skewness, Kurtosis and normality tests were computed to discover normally distributed data. From the six variables, perceived organisational support, organisational citizenship behaviour, organisation commitment were normally distributed. The absence of a normal distribution in the variable ‘perceived CSR’ can be explained by the fact that all employees in this sample work for a corporate social responsible organisation and therefore high scores were obtained on this level. The lack of a normal distribution in the variable prosocial motivation can be explained by the fact that employees might think that it is socially undesirable to give low answers on prosocial motivation and organisational citizenship behaviour. This explains relatively high answers on those items.
Regression analyses were undertaken to test the hypothesized direct relationship between perceived CSR and prosocial motivation and the direct relationship between organisational support and prosocial motivation. The mediating effects are simultaneously tested in simple mediating Process model 4 by Preacher and Hayes (2004). At last, the moderating effect is tested according to PROCESS Macro model 5 by Preacher, Rucker and Hayes, 2007.
RESULTS|23
4. RESULTS
4.1. Correlation analysis
Table 3 gives an overview of the descriptive statistics, correlations and scale reliabilities of the six variables of the conceptual model and control variables. Prosocial motivation correlates positively with perceived CSR (r = .28, p <0.01). This means the more CSR experienced by employees, the more prosocial motivated employees are. In addition, organisational support positively correlate between perceived CSR (r = .26, p <0.01) and prosocial motivation (r = .41, p <0.01). This means the more support by the organisation, the more perceived CSR and prosocial motivated the employees are. These correlations between organisational support, perceived CSR and prosocial motivation might explain the moderating effect of organisational support.
Mediating effects of OCB and organisational commitment might exist since the presence of the correlation between OCB and perceived CSR (r = .27, p <0.01) and prosocial motivation (r = .48, p <0.01). Meaning that the more OCB, the more perceived CSR and prosocial motivation. As well as organisation commitment and perceived CSR are correlated with each other (r =.31, p <0.01) an organisation commitment and prosocial motivation (r = .29, p <0.01). This indicates that the more an employee is committed to its organisation, they perceive more CSR and show more prosocial motivation. The correlation between perceived CSR and OCB-O (r = .21, p <0.01), and OCB-O and prosocial motivation (r = .43, p <0.01) is stronger than the correlations of these variables on OCB-I. Perceived CSR and OCB-I does not significantly correlate (r = .15, p >0.05) and OCB-I and prosocial motivation (r = .21, p <0.01) which is lower than OCB-O. This might predict the mediating effect of OCB by OCB-O.
In addition, the control variables showed several correlations with variables of the conceptual model. Working for a social enterprise correlates positively with prosocial motivation (r = .21, p <0.05), perceived CSR (r = .34, p >0.01) organisational support (r = .18, p <0.05) and organisational behaviour (r = .33, p <0.01) meaning that working for such organisations lead to higher prosocial motivation, employees perceive more CSR, are more supported by their organisations and show
RESULTS|24 more organizational citizenship behaviour. Employees who work more hours in a week are likely to be more committed to their organisation (r = .21, p<0.05).
RESULTS|25 Table 3: Means. Standard Deviation. Correlations and reliability coefficients
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9a 9b 10
1. Gender (1= male. 2= female) 1.56 0.5 X
2. Age 33.21 1.18 .16* X 3. Education 3.33 0.82 .21* .38** X 4. Working hours 35.06 12.18 -.31** .27** -0.06 X 5. Type of organisation (1= CSR. 2= Social entr) 1.17 0.37 0.13 -0.11 -0.03 -0.06 x 6. Perceived CSR 5.48 1.17 -0.03 -0.12 -0.01 -0.03 .34** (0.92)
7. Perceived Organisational support 5.28 0.73 0.07 -0.16 0.05 -0.1 .18* .26** (0.82)
8. Prosocial motivation 6.13 0.58 0.08 0.12 -0.04 0.01 .21* .28** .41** (.85)
9. Organisation citizenship behaviour 5.62 0.56 -0.07 .27** -0.13 0.11 .33** .27** .25** .48** (.82)
a. OCB-O 5.6 0.62 -0.07 .351** -0.15 0.34* 0.08 .21** .42** .43** - (.84)
b. OCB-I 5.69 0.55 0 .181* -0.12 0.06 0.1 0.15 .23** .35** - .42** (0.77)
10. Organisational commitment 4.7 0.92 -.16 .31** -0.2 .21* 0.15 .25** .31** .29** .58** .52** .23** (0.81)
Note: N=151. Reliabilities are reported along the diagonal * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
RESULTS|26
4.2. Hypotheses testing
4.2.1. Direct relations
A regression analyse is done because it investigate the ability of perceived CSR to predict levels of prosocial motivation, after controlling for gender, age and education (table 4). In this regression analyses the mediators are not yet added to the model. In the first step of this regression, three predictors were entered: gender, age and education. This model was statistically not significant F (3,133) = 0.98; p > 0,05. After entry of perceived CSR at Step 2 the total variance explained by the model as a whole was 34.8% F (4, 132) = 3.68; p < 0.001. The introduction of perceived CSR additional explained 10% variance in prosocial motivation, after controlling for gender, age and education (R2 Change = .10; F (1, 132) = 11.68; p <0.001). In the final model one
out of four predictor variables were statistically significant, with Perceived CSR recording a Beta value of β = .32, p < 0.001. In other words, if employees’ perceived CSR increase for one, their prosocial motivation will increase for 0.32, which support hypothesis 1.
Table 4: Regression on perceived CSR and prosocial motivation
R R2 R2 change B SE β T Step 1 0.15 0.02 Gender 0.12 0.10 0.10 1.19 Age 0.01 0.01 0.11 1.20 Education -0.02 0.07 -0.33 -0.35 Step 2 0.35 0.12*** 0.1*** Gender 0.14 0.10 0.12 1.41 Age 0.01 0.00 0.16 1.77 Education -0.01 0.06 -0.02 -0.18 PCSR 0.16 0.04 0.32*** 3.86
RESULTS|27 Hypothesis 4 is proved by regression analysis because this investigated the ability of organisation support to predict levels of prosocial motivation, after controlling for gender, age and education (Table. 5). The first step was not significant as stated before, F (3,137) = 0.94; p > 0.05. After entry of perceived organisation support at step 2 the total variance explained by the model as a whole was 32.6% F (4, 136) = 4.21; p <0.001. The introduction of perceived CSR explained 11% variance in prosocial motivation, after controlling for gender, age and education (R2 Change = .09; F (1, 132) = 13,75; p < 0.001). In step 3 organisational support was introduced
to the model what explained the total variance in 39%, F (1,135) =4,83. Three of the five predictor variables were statistically significant, with perceived organisational support a Beta value of β = .25, p < .001, gender of β = .14, p <0.05 and perceived CSR of β = .21, p <0.05. The direct relationship between perceived CSR and prosocial motivation (β = .28, p <0.001) before entering organisational support was higher. Which means that the effect of perceived CSR on prosocial motivation is weaken by organisational support and thus partly explains employees’ prosocial motivation.
Table 5: Regression on perceived CSR, organisational support and prosocial motivation
R R2 R2 change B SE B T Step 1 0,147 0,02 Gender 0,12 0,10 0,10 1,19 Age 0,01 0,01 0,11 1,20 Education -0,02 0,07 -0,03 -0,35 Step 2 0,33 0,11*** 0,09** Gender 0,13 0,10 0,12 1,46 Age 0,01 0,01 0,17 1,90 Education -0,01 0,06 -0,04 -0,13 PCSR 0,13 0,04 ,28** 3,42 Step 3 Gender 0,39 0,15* 0,04** 0,14 0,10 0,12 1,50 Age 0,01 0,00 0,181* 2,08 Education 0,00 0,06 0,00 0,03 POS 0,28 0,10 0,25** 2,93 PCSR 0,10 0,04 ,21* 2,57
RESULTS|28
4.2.2. Mediating effect
To test the mediating effect of OCB and organisation commitment, the above mentioned results are complemented in the simple mediation model through PROCESS ‘’Model 4’’ (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). The relationship between the independent and depended variable is first divided into the direct and indirect effect, by the mediator’s organisational commitment and OCB.
A mediation effect occurs when a variable carries the influence of an independent variable to a dependent variable. Four conditions need to be achieved when a variable is considered as a mediator. First, the independent variable should significantly affect the mediator. Second, the Independent variable need to significantly affect the depended variable without the mediator(s) integrated in the model. Third, the mediator has a significant effect on the dependent variable. At last, the effect of the independent on the dependent is lower when the mediator is added to the model (Baron & Kenny, 1986). In this part, the direct relationships between perceived CSR (independent variable) and organisational commitment (M1) is described. Following, the effect of the mediator on prosocial motivation (dependent variable) is discussed. Finally, the direct and total effect of this model are given. Section 4.2.4 will do the same with OCB (M2). The results are represented in table 6 and table 7.
4.2.3. Organisational commitment as a mediator
The results (Table 6) indicated that perceived CSR and organisational commitment were positively and significantly related (a1, β= 0,21). This suggest that employees who perceive higher levels of CSR are more committed to their organisation. This relation is statistically different from zero, t= 3,46, p <0.005, with a 95% confidence interval from 0.09 to 0.32. Effect b2 = 0.05 indicates that two employees who experience the same level of CSR but that differ by one unit in their level of organisation commitment are estimated to differ by b2 = 0.05 units in prosocial motivation. Unfortunately, this effect is not statistically different from zero, t= 1,02, p >0.05. The indirect effect of organisation commitment (a1b1) is 0.01. This indirect effect is not statistically different from
RESULTS|29 zero, as revealed by a 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval that is not entirely above zero (-.01 to 0.05). This means that organisational commitment does not mediate the relationship between perceived CSR and prosocial motivation and hypothesis 2 is not supported in this study.
4.2.4. Organisational citizenship behaviour as a mediator
The results (Table 6) indicated that perceived CSR and OCB were positively and significantly related (β= 0,12 p <0.01). The effect of Perceived CSR on OCB (a1) = 0.13, which means that two employees that differ by one unit on perceived CSR are estimated to differ by 0.13 units on OCB. The sign of a1 is positive, meaning that those relatively higher in perceived CSR are estimated to be higher in their organisational citizenship behaviour. This relationship is statistically different from zero, t= 3,81, p <0.005, with a 95% confidence interval from 0.06 to 0.19. Effect b1 = 0.44 indicates that two employees who experience the same level of Corporate Social Responsibility but that differ by one unit in their level of OCB are estimated to differ by 0.44 units in prosocial motivation. This effect is statistically different from zero, t= 1.68, p <0.001, with a 95% confidence interval from 0.24 to 0.63.
The indirect effect (table 7) of organisational citizenship behaviour (a2b2) of 0.06 means that two workers who differ by one unit in their perceived CSR are estimated to differ by 0.06 units in their prosocial motivation as a result of the organisational citizenship behaviour, which in turn translates into more prosocial motivation. This indirect effect is statistically different from zero, as revealed by a 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval that is entirely above zero (0.02 to 0.11). The direct effect of perceived CSR, c1′ = .06, is the estimated difference in prosocial motivation between two workers experiencing the same level of organisational citizenship behaviour but who differ by one unit in their perceived CSR, meaning that the person perceiving more CSR but who show equally organisational citizenship behaviour is estimated to be 0.10 units higher in prosocial motivation. However, this direct effect is not statistically different from zero, t= 1.68, p <0.05, with a non 95% confidence interval from -0.01 to 0.14. The total effect of
RESULTS|30 perceived CSR on employees’ prosocial motivation is c = 0.13 meaning that two employees who differ by one unit in perceived CSR are estimated to differ by .13 units in their prosocial motivation. This effect is statistically different from zero, t = 3,41, p <0.05, or between 0.05 and 0.21 with 95% confidence.
Since the direct effect loses its significance after adding the mediators and the indirect effect of OCB is significant, organisational citizenship behaviour fully mediates the effect between perceived CSR and prosocial motivation. This means that workers who perceive more CSR of their organisation are likely to show more organisational citizenship behaviour, which is likely to result in higher prosocial motivated employees. Thus hypothesis 3, the fully mediation on the relationship between perceived CSR and prosocial motivation through organisational citizenship behaviour is supported.
RESULTS|31 Table 6: Mediating effect of organisational commitment (M1) and OCB (M2)
(M1)/(M2) PROM (Y)
Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p
PCSR (X) a1 0.21 0.06 0.00 c1' 0.06 0.04 0.09 a2 0.13 0.03 0.00 Organisational commitment (M1) - - - b1 0.06 0.06 0.32 OCB (M2) - - - b2 0.44 0.10 0.00 Gender d1 -0.17 0.15 0.26 d3 0.14 0.09 0.11 d2 0.02 0.09 0.85 Age d1 0.02 0.01 0.00 d3 0.00 0.00 0.89 d2 0.01 0.00 0.00 Education d1 -0.06 0.11 0.57 d3 0.01 0.06 0.89 d2 -0.03 0.06 0.63 Constant j1 3.26 0.64 0.00 j3 2.82 0.55 0.00 j2 4.49 0.34 0.00 R21= .16 R22=.17 R 2 = .27 F1(4,132) = 7.04, p <.001 F(6.130) = 8,08, p <.001 F2 (4,132) = 7.06, p <.001
Table 7: Bootstrap results of organisation commitment and OCB as mediators on the direct relationship between perceived CSR and prosocial motivation
Effect SE P LLCI ULCI
Direct effect c1' 0.06 0.05 0.09 -.01 0.14
Total effect c1 0.16 0.05 0.00 0.06 0.21
Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Indirect
effect a1b1 0.01 0.01 -.01 0.05
Indirect
RESULTS|32 Since OCB fully mediates the relation between perceived CSR and prosocial motivation, a closer look on this mediation mechanism is taken. OCB is measured in two levels, organisational and individual related OCB (table 5). To broaden the insights on Perceived CSR and OCB, the mediating effect of both levels is measured too. The results suggest that perceived CSR and OCB-O are positively and significantly related (β= 0,18, p <0.001). In addition, perceived CSR is significantly related to OCB-I since β= 0,08, p <0.05. The effect of OCB-O on prosocial motivation is b1=.25, p <0.001 where b2 (OCB-I on prosocial motivation) is β= 0,22, p <0.05 meaning that both levels of OCB are positively related to prosocial motivation.
The indirect effects of both levels are represented in table 6. The indirect effect of OCB-O is 0.05 with a 95% confidence interval from 0.02 and 0.10, meaning that this effect is significant (table 9). However, the indirect effect for OCB-I is not significant. This confidence level was not above zero, -.002 and .06. After introducing both mediators, the direct effect loses its significance, c1= 0.07, p >0.05. This means that only the indirect effect of OCB-O is significant and OCB-O fully mediates the relation between perceived CSR and prosocial motivation. Workers who perceive more CSR of their organisation are likely to show more organisational citizenship behaviour on organisational level, which is likely to result higher prosocial motivated employees. Thus hypothesis 3b, the mediating effect of OCB on the relationship between perceived CSR and prosocial motivation is fully explained through OCB-O, is supported.
RESULTS|33 Table 8: Mediating effect of OCB-O (M1) and OCB-I (M2) on the direct relationship between
perceived CSR and prosocial motivation
(M1)/(M2) PROM (Y)
Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p
PCSR (X) a1 0.18 0.04 0.00 c1' 0.07 0.04 0.09 a2 0.13 0.04 0.04 OCB-O (M1) - - - b1 0.25 0.09 0.00 OCB-I (M2) - - - b2 0.22 0.00 0.01 Gender d1 -.02 0.11 0.87 d3 0.14 0.09 0.14 d2 0.05 0.10 0.60 Age d1 0.01 0.00 0.00 d3 0.00 0.00 0.99 d2 0.01 0.00 0.10 Education d1 -0.01 0.07 0.85 d3 0.01 0.06 0.92 d2 -0.05 0.06 0.41 Constant j1 3.93 0.37 0.00 j3 2.82 0.57 0.00 j2 5.09 0.41 0.00 R21= .23 R22=.06 R 2 = .26 F1(4,134) = 9.78, p <.001 F(6,132) = 7.70, p<.001 F2 (4,134) = 2.22, p>.05
Table 9: Bootstrap results of OCB-O and OCB-I as mediators on the direct relationship between perceived CSR and prosocial motivation
Effect SE P LLCI ULCI
Direct effect c1' 0,07 0,04 0,09 -,01 0,14
Total effect c1 0,13 0,04 0,00 0,06 0,21
Boot SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Indirect
effect a1b1 0,05 0,02 0,02 0,10
Indirect
RESULTS|34
4.2.5. Organisational Support as a moderator.
The moderating effect of organisational support on the direct relationship between perceived organisation and employees’ prosocial motivation is tested according the moderation mediation model through PROCESS ‘’Model 5’’ (Preacher, Rucker & Preacher, 2008). The interaction effect of prosocial motivation on the relationship between the independent and depended variable is explained (table 10). The regression coefficient for XM (PCSR*POS) is c3= -.11 and is not statistically different from zero, t (128) = -1.33, p> 0.05. Thus, the strength of the effect of perceived CSR on employees’ prosocial motivation does not depends on the perceived organisational support. In other words, hypothesis 5 is not supported.
Table 10: The moderating effect of organisational support on perceived CSR and prosocial motivation Coeff. SE t p Intercept j1 2.61 0.69 3.80 <0.001 PCSR c1 0.65 0.44 1.47 0.14 POS c2 0.14 0.09 1.53 0.12 POS*PCSR c3 -0.11 0.08 -1.33 0.19 Gender 0.12 0.09 1.34 0.17 Age 0.00 0.01 0.38 0.72 Education 0.00 0.05 0.08 0.94 R2= .29, p<.001 F(8, 130) = 6.70, p<.001
