Editorial Board

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management

A Study on the Impact of Organizational Culture on Employees' Organizational Commitment and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Public Sector

Hong-Cheng Liu

Department of Public Policy and Management,

Shih-Hsin University,

5F., No. 111, Sec. 1, Muzha Rd.,

Wenshan Dist., Taipei City 11645,

Taiwan (R.O.C.)

Email: hcliu@mail.shu.edu.tw

Abstract: Organizational commitment performance can help the strengthening employees’ cohesion with the organization and considering organizational interests as individual interests. Based on this an individual can be willing to invest in extra time for the organization. It can be seen that employees with higher organizational commitment exhibit organizational citizenship behavior more easily. The purpose of the research is to explore the effects of public sector organizational culture on organizational commitment and citizenship behaviors of employees. The current study was conducted with the participation of employees in public sector of Taiwan. According to the results, the current study is expected to help public sectors strengthen employees’ cohesion with public sectors by considering the public sector benefits, being willing to invest extra time for public sectors, and showing higher performance in terms of organizational citizenship behavior.

Keywords: Employees, Identifying Organization, Organizational Commitment, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Public Sector Organizational Culture

Introduction

Human resource is the most important asset in an organization, and the promotion, training and managing talents are the keys in the survival of an organization. In a highly competitive environment, managers in an organization, regardless of the internal or external environment, should think ahead, plan strategically, and have excellent organizational personnel with high “organizational citizenship behavior” to reach organizational objectives. These are essential in order to promote industrial competitiveness and create sufficient organizational performance and sustainable organizational operations. Improving the organizational citizenship behavior of employees to contribute more to the organization becomes a key to maintaining the sustainability of an organization in the fierce competition. Jain et al. (2019) mentioned that many scholars have addressed the importance of organizational citizenship behavior and discussed the factors of organizational citizenship behavior of employees. Several studies indicated that employees who have high job satisfaction can create more benefits for the organization. It was also stated that employees who are willing to spend more time on their work can promote their organizational commitment and this can lead to higher output value for the organization (Guan & Frenkel, 2019). Andersén & Andersén (2019) regarded close relations between organizational citizenship behavior and organizational culture; from the perspective of social exchange to view human resource management, support for organizational goal was the critical factor in inducing employee performance (Kessler et al., 2020). Xu & Yu (2019) explained the theory of justice that employees’ perception of just pay & reward and input-output balance would promote the responsibilities for and obligation to the organization and enhance the positive work to support the organization effectiveness (Yu Sheng & Ibrahim, 2019). In the past, public sector employees emphasized obedience from the top down. Employees simply followed the instructions of principals and directors, without complaints. Along with the change in social value and relevant regulations, public sector leaders are gradually reducing arbitrariness and emphasizing communication and coordination. Besides, the strengthening of employees’ autonomy right has the effect of reducing employees' cohesion with the public sector as well as willingness to devote themselves to the organization and work attitude. When they feel that public sector leaders’ decisions are not fair and just and they are treated unfairly; the public sector’s management performance will suffer. According to national and international research, organizational culture is about the perception of justice in the work environment, including employees’ work motivation, health, job attitude, employee interaction, work performance, and other organization-related interactions that are related to employees perceived organizational culture. In this respect, it is important for public sector leaders to understand the content of organizational culture in order to promote public sector members’ perceived organizational culture. As a result, this study aims to to explore the effects of public sector organizational culture on organizational citizenship behaviors and commitment of employees, expecting to help a public sector reinforce the employees’ cohesion to the public sector to consider public sector benefit as individual benefit, be willing to make efforts for the public sector by investing in time beyond working hours, and present organizational citizenship behavior.

Literature review and hypotheses

Tremblay et al. (2019) defined organizational culture as employees’ subjective perception of organization, including the given salary conforming to the reward to the employees’ job involvement; it was similar to the use of reward or punishment standards, inquiry of employees’ opinions, and clear explanation of decisions. Jehanzeb & Mohanty (2020) regarded organizational culture as the result of organizational members’ subjective justice perception concerning about organizational resource allocation, internal management system, and interpersonal interaction. Yao et al. (2019) explained justice theory as a from the point of social comparison that compares personal performance with others’ performance to measure the awareness of fairness. If the ratio is found unequal, it can be stated that the individual perceives unjust psychological stress. The latent drives can facilitate to retrieve the injustice disadvantage, and various possible behaviors might be adopted to reduce such unbalanced cognitive dissonance for justice. It was indicated that organizational culture promotes the formation of social exchange relationships among employees that drive employees’ organizational commitment. Chowdhury (2020) interpreted justice from the sociological perspective that social or organizational learning influences outcome attribution, the overall organizational decision-making process, and employees’ perceptions of justice. In this respect, justice was defined as an instrument that helps individuals to analyze the relationships occurred in the social situation, which is constructed in the society. It is a subjective perceptual cognition. The research results revealed positive relationships between the interaction between organizational culture and leader-member exchange and organizational commitment (Lay et al., 2020). Chen and Ayoun (2019) consider organizational culture the fair treatment of employees in the workplace and they describe and explain the justice in working environment. This study was designed as research on the development of human resources with structural equation modeling. It was discovered that employees’ perception of organizational culture can show organizational commitment. According to the literature review above, the following research hypothesis was developed in this study. H1: Organizational culture shows significant and positive effects on employees’ organizational commitment.

Meynhardt et al. (2020) regarded organizational commitment as the intensity of individual loyalty and contribution to the organization to affect individual organizational involvement as well as individual attitude or tendency to link with the organization; such a link showed importance to individual and revealed value on the organization and even the entire society. Bizri & Hamieh (2020) regarded organizational commitment as individual identity to and involvement in specific organization, i.e. organizational members’ behavioral tendency of not leaving the organization due to salary, position, and friendship with colleagues. Kong et al. (2019) mentioned that many empirical studies pointed out organizational commitment as a key factor in organizational citizenship behavior. Organizational citizenship behavior was described as an individual member’s spontaneous and informal behavior required by work and organizational commitment showed large correlations with the formation of organizational citizenship behavior. Keulemans and Sandra (2020) considered that organizational commitment stands for an individual’s loyalty and contribution to the organization which affects the strength of individual involvement in the organization as well as individual attitude or tendency toward organizational connection. This is not only important to individuals, but also valuable for the organization and even to the entire society. In the discussing the effects of employees’ work attitudes on organizational citizenship behavior, it was found that employees with higher organizational commitment exhibit better organizational citizenship behavior. In the research on the correlations between organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior, Britt et al. (2020) considered organizational commitment as individual identification and involvement in a particular organization. In other words, it can be described as the behavioral tendency of organizational members who are unwilling to leave the organization because of salary, position, and relationship with colleagues. Research has found positive effects of organizational commitment on organizational citizenship behavior. Employees with stronger organizational identification and deeper involvement show higher organizational commitment and are more likely to exhibit organizational citizenship behaviors (Ohunakin et al., 2019). According to the above literature review, the following hypothesis was derived in this study. H2: Organizational commitment presents remarkable and positive effects on employees’ organizational citizenship behavior.

Choong et al. (2020) considered that organizational citizenship behavior was resulted from employees’ emitted behavior, a contract or chemistry between employees and the organization, as well as a belief between employees and the organization. Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2019) defined organizational citizenship behavior as employees spontaneously engaging in ex-role behavior exceeding organizational norms of formal roles and without formal reward or definite return from the organization; such behavior was a kind of social exchange behavior to effectively promote organizational effectiveness. Chang et al. (2019) suggested that justice might affect organizational citizenship behavior, mainly because employees’ perceptions of justice can reinforce trust in the organization to promote citizenship behavior. Research on justice and organizational citizenship behavior, in which employees in different organizations served as participants, revealed positive correlations between organizational culture and organizational citizenship behavior. Koopman et al. (2020) considered organizational citizenship behavior as the behavior exhibited by employees, a contract or agreement between employees and the organization that stands for the shared understanding between employees and the organization. Research on the antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior indicated that subordinates who perceive fair treatment and receive fair rewards exhibit behaviors that are beneficial to the organization. In other words, the fair treatment returns the organization with organizational citizenship behavior. Frye et al. (2020) studied the relationships between organizational culture and organizational citizenship behavior and found highly positive correlations between organizational culture and organizational citizenship behavior. Employees who perceive an equitable relationship with the organization can easily show citizenship behavior beneficial to the organization and view organizational citizenship behavior as a reasonable contribution to the organization (Singla & Beri, 2020). According to the above literature review, the following hypothesis was proposed in this study. H3: Organizational culture reveals notable and positive effects on employees’ organizational citizenship behavior.

Operational definition

• Organizational culture

In line with Dai et al.’s (2020) study, distributive, procedural, and interactional equity were considered as the dimensions of organizational culture, and the operational definitions of these concepts can be explained as below.

1. Distributive equity: This concept refers to just and fair organizational distribution of resources and the subordinates’ response to the results of this distribution.
2. Procedural equity: The term procedural equity refers to employees’ perceived fairness and justice during organization decision making.
3. Interactional equity: This term can be described as employees’ feelings about the organization’s exchange with members and consideration of subordinates’ opinions, ideas, and positions before decision making.

• Organizational commitment

Considering Chou et al.’s (2020) study, it can be stated that organizational commitment contains three dimensions which are value commitment, effort commitment, and retention commitment, and the operational definitions and scale are explained as follows.

1. Value commitment: This term refers to employees’ identification of the objectives and values of the company.
2. Effort commitment: This concept can be defined as employees’ willingness to spend effort to achieve the objectives of the company and take these objectives as the priority.
3. Retention commitment: This concept refers to employees’ willingness to continuously stay in the company and help the company achieve its objectives.

• Organizational citizenship behavior

According to Chan et al. (2019), organizational citizenship behavior covers “assisting colleagues”, “identifying organization”, and “devotion and dedication”, and the operational definitions for these terms can be explained as below.

1. Assisting colleagues: This refers to actively help colleagues with the problems at work.
2. Identifying organization: The term can be described as the employees’ efforts to maintain organizational image, their positive participation in the organization related activities and meetings, as well as their positive and active suggestion-making to benefit the organization.
3. Devotion and dedication: This term refers to employees’ proactive behavior to promote the quality of work.

Methodology

1. Conceptual framework of this study

Based on the above literature review, the conceptual framework for this study can be designed (Figure 1) to discuss the relationships between organizational culture, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior.

Figure 1: Conceptual framework

1. Research object

The current study was conducted with the participation of employees in public sector of Taiwan. A total of 320 copies of questionnaire were distributed. After removing invalid and incomplete copies, 283 copies were found to be valid. The retrieval rate was found as 88%. The questionnaire survey is preceded in May- June, 2024.

• Method and model

The goodness of fit in LISREL model is generally tested considering overall model fit (i.e. extrinsic quality of model) and intrinsic quality of model. In terms of overall model fit test, the common indicators contain (1) “χ2 ratio” (Chi-Square ratio) which stands for the difference between actual theoretical model and expected value, and it is better when it is smaller than 3, (2) Goodness of fit index (GFI) and adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) which reveals better fit when close to 1, (3) root mean square residual (RMR) which reflects the square root of “residual variance of fit/covariance mean”, and is better when smaller than 0.05, (4) incremental fit index (IFI), which shows excellent model fit when higher than 0.9.

Indicators for intrinsic quality of model are often used in LISREL. Referring to McDonald & Marsh (1990), it contain (1) SMC (square multiple correlation) of individual manifest variable, an equivalent of R2 of manifest variables and latent variables, it should be higher than 0.5, (2) composite reliability (ρ) of latent variables, an equivalent of Cronbach’s α of observed indicators of the latent variable, it should be higher than 0.6, (3) average variance extracted of latent variables, which is calculated by dividing the R2 sum of manifest variables of a latent variable by the number of manifest variables to reveal the percentage of the latent variable to be measured with manifest variables, it should be higher than 0.5.

Results of the study

1. Factor analysis

Factor analyses for this study are shown in Table 1. Three factors as “distributive equity” (eigenvalue=3.162, α=0.86), “procedural equity” (eigenvalue=2.532, α=0.88), and “interactional equity” (eigenvalue=2.175, α=0.90) were extracted through factor analysis under the organizational culture. The cumulative covariance explained achieved 78.176%. Three factors as “value commitment” (eigenvalue=2.163, α=0.89), “effort commitment” (eigenvalue=1.841, α=0.82), and “retention commitment” (eigenvalue=1.536, α=0.89) were extracted through factor analysis under the organizational commitment. The cumulative covariance explained was found as 80.177%. The organizational citizenship behavior scale revealed to be composed of three factors as “assisting colleagues” (eigenvalue=2.733, α=0.80), “identifying organization” (eigenvalue=2.428, α=0.83), and “devotion and dedication” (eigenvalue=1.862, α=0.87) as a result of the factor analysis. The cumulative covariance explained was found as 74.833%.

1. Correlation analysis

The correlation analysis results showed significant correlations between organizational culture, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior. The results revealed the possibility of multicollinearity, and the notable correlations among dimensions also revealed the consistency with researchers’ hypotheses.

• Model fit test

“Maximum likelihood” was applied in this study, and the results reached convergence. The overall model fit indicators passed the test (Table1) fully reflecting good extrinsic quality of the model (McDonald & Marsh, 1990).

Table 2 Model analysis result

1. Path relation test

Selecting latent variables of distributive equity, value commitment, and assisting colleagues as the reference indicators with fixed 1, the causal relation path (Table 2) showed significant estimates between other dimensions and variables. Procedural equity=1.05 presented more explanatory power than distributive equity, and effort commitment=1.04 had more explanatory power than value commitment.

Table 2 Overall linear structural model analysis result

Discussion

The results of this study revealed that public sector commitment of employees can lead to their identification with the public sector. It should be remembered that the spirit of reciprocity comes from both parties and that the interaction between employees and the public sector is a two-way process. When a graphic design employee enters a public sector, the public sector organizational culture depends on the public sector’s sincerity first, and then the graphic design employee can present excellent citizenship behavior and spend efforts to establish organizational identification (Chen & Ayoun, 2019; Lay et al., 2020). Such a two-way process might lead to the public sector to adjust its policies and be willing to give more respect and attention to the graphic design employee, who then improves his/her organizational citizenship behavior (Frye et al., 2020; Singla & Beri, 2020) in the public sector. When a public sector is able to consider the policy-making from the perspective of justice, employees demonstrate a higher level of commitment to the public sector and exhibit behaviors that are beneficial to the organization. Employees who identify more strongly with the public sector and are willing to make an effort to stay in the public sector exhibit organizational citizenship behavior that is beneficial to the public sector. It is a key advantage of a public sector when competing with other public sectors. Regarding public sector organizational culture, Batistič & der Laken (2019) indicated that human resource development practice could be utilized for constructing complete cooperative learning climate among employees, helping and rewarding employees’ learning, effectively recording valuable ideas and measures to integrate into the work, effective application of knowledge and information, performance evaluation system, complete learning information, global thinking aspect, leaders’ guidance and leadership attitude, leaders’ learning intention, and value of leader and organization (Tu et al., 2019). The complete construction of such organizational culture measures could promote the storage effectiveness of human resources, social resources, and public sector organization resources (Ertürk & Nartgün, 2019). In this case, a public sector that views employees as the assets and gives the deserved attention and welfare can improve employees’ morale to a great extent, increase their public sector identification, and exhibit relatively better job performance. This is a virtuous circle of inspiring and managing public sector culture. A public sector can provide incentives through just salary and reward system to strive for employees’ organizational identification with the public sector and promote their performance in the public sector with organizational citizenship behavior. Employees respected by the public sector and the public sector receive employees’ efforts and identification are the key advantages for the public sector. Ahmad et al. (2019) stated that education was changing with time change, and many time elements were increased, including marketing and innovation; however, basic organizational commitment, value and basic requirement for employees’ competency should be consistent (Liu et al., 2020). Under the premise, public sector leaders should stress on the application of human resource development strategies of employees; enhance public sectors’ organizational culture measures, and further promote employees’ organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (Tornuk & Gunes, 2020).

Conclusion

It was found that employees who perceive organizational culture were motivated in terms of organizational citizenship behavior. As a result, "H1: Organizational culture has significant and positive effects on employees' organizational commitment" is supported. This finding is consistent with the research results of Lay et al. (2020) and Yao et al. (2019). Employees with higher levels of organizational commitment were able to identify the objectives and values of the organization and were willing to spend extra effort at work (Ohunakin et al., 2019; Britt et al., 2020). In other words, an employee who has a stronger identification with the organization, is willing to spend effort. The emplyee who intends to stay with the organization exhibits beneficial organizational citizenship behaviors. As a result, "H2: Organizational commitment has significant and positive effects on organizational citizenship behavior of employees" is supported. This finding is consistent with the research results of Britt et al. (2020), and Keulemans and Sandra (2020). Morevover, these findigns are consistent with the real-life. Employees who show stronger organizational commitment can also show stronger organizational citizenship behavior. Consequently, "H3: Organizational culture shows significant and positive effects on organizational citizenship behaviors of employees" is supported. This result is consistent with the research findings of Frye et al (2020), and Singla and Beri (2020). In this respect, employees with stronger organizational commitment to the public sector can promote the organizational citizenship behavior. Therefore, employees’ organizational citizenship behavior can be motivated to exhibit altruistic behavior that is also beneficial to the organization. Based on this understanding, the public sector motivates employees to demonstrate their best performance. For this reason, a public sector that considers policy from the perspective of respecting employees can promote employees’ willingness to extend themselves, positively engage in the work, support others, promote collaboration, and actively share knowledge for the public sector’s needs. Benevolent interaction stems from employees’ motivation to engage in organizational citizenship behavior. A public sector should remember that employees are the primary assets of a successful organization.

References

Ahmad, I., Donia, M. B. L., Khan, A., & Waris, M. (2019). Do as I say and do as I do? The mediating role of psychological contract fulfillment in the relationship between ethical leadership and employee extra-role performance. Pers Rev, 48(1), 98-117. doi:10.1108/PR-12-2016-0325

Andersén, J., & Andersén, A. (2019). Are high-performance work systems (HPWS) appreciated by everyone? The role of management position and gender on the relationship between HPWS and affective commitment. Empl Relat. 41(5). 1046-1064. doi:10.1108/ER-03-2018-0080

Batistič, S., & der Laken, P. (2019). History, Evolution and Future of Big Data and Analytics: A Bibliometric Analysis of Its Relationship to Performance in Organizations. Br. J. Manag. 30(2), 229-251. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12340

Bizri, R. M., & Hamieh, F. (2020). Beyond the “give back” equation : The influence of perceived organizational culture and support on extra-role behaviors. Int J Organ Anal, 28(3), 699-718. doi:10.1108/IJOA-07-2019-1838

Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2019). Psychological capital, team resources and organizational citizenship behavior. J psychol, 153(8), 784-802. doi:           10.1080/00223980.2019.1614515

Britt, T. W, Wilson, C. A, Sawhney, G. & Black K. J. (2020). Perceived unit climate of support for mental health as a predictor of stigma, beliefs about treatment, and help-seeking behaviors among military personnel. Psychol Serv, 17(2), 141-150. doi:10.1037/ser 0000362

Chan, W. L., Ho, J. A., Sambasivan, M., & Ng, S. I. (2019). Antecedents and outcome of job embeddedness: Evidence from four and five-star hotels. Int J Hosp Manag, 83, 37-45. doi:   10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.04.011

Chang, C. M., Huang, H. C., Huang, F. M., & Hsieh, H. H. (2019). A multilevel analysis of coaches’ paternalistic leadership on burnout in Taiwanese athletes. Percept Mot Skills, 126(2), 286-304. doi: 10.1177/0031512518819937

Chen, H., & Ayoun, B. (2019). Is negative workplace humor really all that "negative"? Workplace humor and hospitality employees' job embeddedness. Int J Hosp Manag, 79, 41-49. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.12.010

Choong, Y. O., Ng, L. P., Ai Na, S., & Tan, C. E. (2020). The role of employees’ self-efficacy between trust and organisational citizenship behaviour among secondary public sector employees. Pers Rev, 49(3), 864-886. doi:10.1108/PR-10-2018-0434

Chou, H. H., Fang, S. C., & Yeh, T. K. (2020). The effects of facades of conformity on employee voice and job satisfaction: The mediating role of emotional exhaustion, Manag Decis, 58(3), 495-509. doi: 10.1108/MD-04-2019-0492

Chowdhury, S. (2020). The role of affect- and cognition-based trust in Complex knowledge sharing. J. Manag. Issues, 32(1), 43-59.

Dai, Y. D., Hou, Y. H., Wang, C. H., Zhuang, W. L., & Liu, Y. C. (2020). TMX, social loafing, perceived accountability and OCB. Serv Ind J, 40(5-6), 394-414. doi:10.1080/02642069.2018.1500554

Ertürk, R., & Nartgün, S. S. (2019). The relationship between employee perceptions of distributed leadership and public sectors as learning organizations. Int J Contemp Educ Res, 6(2), 381-396. doi: 10.33200/ijcer.596918

Frye, W. D., Kang, S., Huh, C., & Lee, M. J. M. (2020). What factors influence Generation Y’s employee retention in the hospitality industry?: An internal marketing approach. Int J Hosp Manag, 85, 102352. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102352

Guan, X., & Frenkel, S. (2019). How perceptions of training impact employee performance: Evidence from two Chinese manufacturing firms. Pers Rev, 48(1), 163-183. doi:10.1108/PR-05-2017-0141

Jain, P., Duggal, T. and Ansari, A.H. (2019). Examining the mediating effect of trust and psychological well-being on transformational leadership and organizational commitment. Benchmarking, 26(5), 1517-1532. doi:10.1108/BIJ-07-2018-0191.

Jehanzeb, K., & Mohanty, J. (2020). The mediating role of organizational commitment between organizational culture and organizational citizenship behavior: Power distance as moderator. Pers Rev, 49(2), 445-468. doi:10.1108/PR-09-2018-0327

Kessler, S. R., Pindek, S., Kleinman, G., Andel, S. A., & Spector, P. E. (2020). Information security climate and the assessment of information security risk among healthcare employees. Health Informatics J, 26(1), 461-473. doi: 10.1177/1460458219832048.

Keulemans, S. & Sandra G. (2020). Supervisory Leadership at the Frontlines: Street-Level Discretion, Supervisor Influence, and Street-Level Bureaucrats' Attitude Towards clients, J Public Adm Res Theory, 30(2), 307-323. doi: 10.1093/jopart/muz019

Kong, D. T., Cooper, C. D., & Sosik, J. J. (2019). The state of research on leader humor. Organ Psychol Rev, 9(1), 3-40. doi:  10.1177/2041386619846948

Koopman, J., Rosen, C. C., Gabriel, A. S., Puranik, H., Johnson, R. E., Ferris, D. L. (2020).         Why and for whom does the pressure to help hurt others? Affective and cognitive mechanisms linking helping pressure to workplace deviance, Pers Psychol, 73, 333-362. doi: 10.1111/peps.12354

Lay, Y., Basana, S., & Panjaitan, T. (2020). The Effect of Organizational Trust and Organizational Citizenship Behavior on Employee Performance. SHS web conf.. 76, 01058. doi: 10.1051/shsconf/20207601058

Liu, C., Wang, N., & Liang, H. (2020). Motivating information security policy compliance: The critical role of supervisor-subordinate guanxi and organizational commitment. Int J Inf Manage, 54, 102152 doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102152

McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. M. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness-of-fit. Psychol Bull, 107, 247-255. doi:          10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.247

Meynhardt, T., Brieger, S. A., & Hermann, C. (2020). Organizational public value and employee life satisfaction: the mediating roles of work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag, 31(12), 1560-1593. doi:10.1080/09585192.2017.1416653

Ohunakin, F., Adeniji, A. A., Oludayo, O. A., Osibanjo, A. O., & Oduyoye, O. O. (2019). Employees’ retention in Nigeria’s hospitality industry: The role of transformational leadership style and job satisfaction. J. Hum. Resour. Hosp. Tour., 18(4), 441-470. doi:        10.1080/15332845.2019.1626795

Singla, S., & Beri, V. (2020). Wisdom and organizational citizenship behavior: An empirical research. Indian J Posit Psychol , 11(3), 179-185.

Tornuk, N., & Gunes, D. Z. (2020). Perception of professional social support as a predictor of burnout level of pre-public sector employees. Int J Curric Instr, 12, 105-114.

Tremblay, M., Gaudet, M. C., & Vandenberghe, C. (2019). The role of group-level perceived organizational support and collective affective commitment in the relationship between leaders’ directive and supportive behaviors and group-level helping behaviors. Pers Rev, 48(2), 417-437. doi:10.1108/PR-06-2017-0172

Tu, Y., Lu, X., Choi, J. N., & Guo, W. (2019). Ethical leadership and team-level creativity: mediation of psychological safety climate and moderation of supervisor support for creativity. J. Bus. Ethics, 159(2), 551-565. doi:10.1007/s10551-018-3839-9

Xu, X.-m., & Yu, K. (2019). When core self-evaluation leads to career adaptability: effects of ethical leadership and implications for citizenship behavior. J psychol, 153(5), 463-477. doi:10.1080/00223980.2018.1564724

Yao, T., Qiu, Q., & Wei, Y. (2019). Retaining hotel employees as internal customers: Effect of organizational commitment on attitudinal and behavioral loyalty of employees. Int J Hosp Manag, 76, 1-8. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.03.018

YuSheng, K., & Ibrahim, M. (2019). Service innovation, service delivery and customer satisfaction and loyalty in the banking sector of Ghana. Int J Bank Mark, 37(5), 1215-1233. doi: 10.1108/IJBM-06-2018-0142