How to Elicit Organizational Citizenship Behavior? The Role of Strengths-Based Leadership

Abstract

This paper sought to study the association of strengths-based leadership with follower organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and to consider the mediating role of organizational identification and the moderating role of role overload in the relationship. We collected data at three time points from a sample of 272 employees working in diverse organizations in China. Structural equation modeling analysis was utilized to examine our hypotheses. Results showed that strengths-based leadership has a positive relationship with follower OCB even after controlling for humble leadership, and organizational identification mediates this relationship. Moreover, results also indicated that role overload negatively moderates the direct relationship of strengths-based leadership with organizational identification and the indirect relationship of strengths-based leadership with OCB via organizational identification. The present article is the first to investigate the strengths-based leadership and OCB relationship, which contributes to deepening our understanding of how, why, and when strengths-based leadership is associated with OCB.

Keywords

strengths-based leadership role overload organizational identification organizational citizenship behavior

Introduction

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) as important driving force of career success (Russo et al., 2014), defined as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988, p. 4), is quite important for organizations in that it can bring out diverse valuable consequences such as increased work performance (Deery et al., 2017). To motivate employees to exhibit more OCBs, the relationship of leadership with follower OCB has received substantial attention from scholars because leadership plays a key role in affecting follower behaviors. Considerable research has demonstrated that employee OCB can be driven by various leadership behaviors such as humble leadership, transformational leadership, and empowering leadership (Cho et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2023).

It is worth noting that these leadership behaviors do not explicitly indicate their focuses either on deficits correction or strengths use. Given that an increasingly number of studies found that strengths use is more likely to promote employees’ growth and development than deficits correction (Van Woerkom, Mostert, et al., 2016), strengths-based leadership aimed at spurring follower strengths use has increasingly triggered scholars’ interest in recent decade (Ding & Yu, 2020). Unfortunately, to our knowledge, no prior research considered the relationship of strengths-based leadership with follower OCB. This gap in the literature is surprising considering the importance of strengths-based approaches in affecting employee attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Van Woerkom, Oerlemans, & Bakker, 2016). In addition, the main objective of strengths-based leadership is to spur follower strengths use (Ding & Yu, 2022). Since strengths use is a significant predictor of OCB (Lavy & Littman-Ovadia, 2017), it is possible to believe that strengths-based leadership has a positive association with follower’s OCB. Practically, it is quite meaningful for researchers to study the influencing factor of follower OCB from the perspective of strengths-based leadership because strengths-based leaders are ubiquitous in various organizations. For example, in 1967, Drucker pointed out that an effective executive always focuses their own and others’ strengths. The Gallup consulting firm also showed that the most effective leaders are good at investing in strengths (Rath & Conchie, 2008). Thus, the present article seeks to bridge the above gap by theorizing and testing a moderated mediation model of the relationship between strengths-based leadership and OCB of followers from the perspective of social identity theory.

Specifically, the present article has two main aims. First, the first purpose of the present article is to investigate why strengths-based leadership is associated with follower OCB by considering the mediating effect of organizational identification. Organizational identification involves “the perception of oneness or belongingness with the organization” (Chen et al., 2016, p. 1083). Social identity theory suggests that positive perception of the contextual factors in work settings or job resources such as socio-emotional resources from organization contributes to elevating employees’ identification with the employer organization, thereby positively affecting employees’ attitudes, behaviors, and performance (Bednar et al., 2020). Considering that strengths-based leadership can be conceptualized as a specific type of job resources (Ding & Yu, 2022), it may be positively associated with OCB through organizational identification. As such, it is reasonable to believe that organizational identification mediates the relationship between strengths-based leadership and follower OCB.

In addition, we also considered role overload as a moderator in the relationships among strengths-based leadership, organizational identification, and OCB. Role overload refers to “the degree to which a person perceives him/herself to be under time pressure because of the number of commitments and responsibilities one has in life” (Jones et al., 2007, p. 664), it widely exists in the current work settings. According to social identify theory, social resources from the organization can cultivate employees’ identification with the organization (Bednar et al., 2020). Since role overload will consume employees’ resources produced by strengths-based leadership (Jones et al., 2007), employees who experience higher levels of role overload have less resources used for improving organizational identification. As such, role overload may lessen the positive relationship between strengths-based leadership and organizational identification, such effect, in turn, may be transmitted to follower OCB.

In sum, the present article attempts to add to extant literature on strengths-based leadership and follower OCB in three ways. First, the present article is the first to empirically test the relationship between strengths-based leadership and follower OCB, which provides a new perspective of understanding the formation of follower OCB. Second, the present article contributes to a better understanding of the underlying process mechanism of the relationship between strengths-based leadership and follower OCB. Third, this paper contributes to a better understanding of the boundary condition of the relationship between strengths-based leadership, follower organizational identification, and OCB, and, in doing so, helps us look for way by which organizations can elicit a high level of follower OCB.

Theory and Hypotheses

Strengths-Based Leadership, Follower Organizational Identification, and OCB

Alongside the emergence of strengths-based approaches, strengths-based leadership has gradually triggered researchers’ interest (Wang & Ding, 2023). Strengths-based leadership refers to a series of behaviors that leader executes to promote followers’ strengths identification, development, and use (Ding & Yu, 2020). Strengths-based leadership construct is proposed based on strengths management theory. Strengths management theory suggests that: (1) each employee has their own strengths (Van Woerkom, Mostert, et al., 2016) and (2) the greatest area of employees’ growth and development locates in the area of personal strengths (Burkus, 2011). Thus, to maximize employees’ growth and development and organizational performance, leaders should motivate their followers to capitalize on their strengths at work. It is worth noting that strengths-based leadership is different from extant well-established leadership constructs such as leader-member exchange, authentic leadership, humble leadership, and transformational leadership (see Ding et al., 2020).

Extant research has found that strengths-based leadership can bring various positive outcomes such as improved task performance, career satisfaction, and innovative behavior (e.g., Ding & Yu, 2020, 2022; Wang et al., 2023). However, little is known about whether strengths-based leadership is positively associated with follower OCB. We believe that strengths-based leadership has a positive relationship with follower OCB. For one thing, leaders who promote followers to identify, develop, and utilize their own strengths at work can mobilize followers to work on their strengths (Ding & Yu, 2022) that, in turn, stimulates followers to execute higher levels of OCB in that followers who capitalize on strengths are more readily to achieve personal resources required for performing discretionary behaviors (Lavy & Littman-Ovadia, 2017). For another, when leaders help followers work on their strengths, followers will perceive greater leader-member exchange (Els et al., 2016). Because followers high in leader-member exchange are more likely to reciprocate their leaders through executing more OCBs (Harris et al., 2014), it is possible to believe that strengths-based leadership is positively related to follower OCB.

To better understanding why strengths-based leadership is positively related to follower OCB, drawing upon social identity theory, we introduce organizational identification as an important explanation. Numerous studies have indicated the positive association of organizational identification with OCB (e.g., Newman et al., 2016). To find out ways of facilitating employees’ organizational identification, scholars have conducted many studies about the antecedents to organizational identification. Existing literature has shown that managerial policies and practices such as formal mentoring (Chen & Wen, 2016), and interpersonal interactions such as leader humility (Carnevale et al., 2019) are conductive to enhanced organizational identification. However, we have yet to know the relationship between strengths-based leadership and organizational identification.

In the present article, we believe that strengths-based leadership contributes to boosted organizational identification. For one thing, according to research on social identify theory (Cohen-Meitar et al., 2009), when employees regard their work tasks as meaningful, they are more inclined to have higher levels of identification with their organizations. Strengths-based leaders who ask employees to do work tasks congruent to their strengths is conductive to stimulating follower intrinsic motivation, which in turn, makes followers experience higher levels of work meaningfulness (Allan et al., 2016). For another, strengths-based leaders are expertise in building good relationship with followers. Higher levels of leader-member exchange has been revealed to be rather effective in boosting employees’ organizational identification (Loi et al., 2014). Hence, it is plausible to believe that strengths-based leadership is positively related to follower organizational identification.

More importantly, the present article points to the mediating effect of organizational identification on the relationship of strengths-based leadership with OCB. According to social identity theory, positive work environment or job resources are conductive to boosting employees’ identification with their work organizations that, in turn, influences employees’ behaviors and performance (Bednar et al., 2020). Given that strengths-based leadership can shape positive work environment (Joo & Lim, 2013) and be also considered as an important job resource (Ding & Yu, 2022), it might stimulate employees to identify with their organizations, thereby promoting employees to exhibit more OCBs. As such, based on the above reasoning, we obtain the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1

Organizational identification serves as a mediator in the relationship between strengths-based leadership and follower OCB.

The Moderating Effect of Role Overload

Role overload has been regarded as a specific form of job demands in that employees need to deplete valuable resources to cope with such job stressor (Park & Jang, 2017). When employees perceive that they need to do a large number of work tasks and have no adequate time to do these tasks, role overload occurs (Duxbury et al., 2018). Recently, some researchers have begun to investigate role overload as a moderator. For example, Kacmar et al. (2020) found that role overload lessens the effect of resilience on family–work enrichment and in turn, job satisfactions. In a similar vein, the present article anticipates role overload to lessen the relationship between strengths-based leadership and organizational identification.

Social identity theory suggests that when employees obtain more resources from social contexts and jobs, they tend to have higher levels of organizational identification (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Because employees need to deplete their resources to cope with role overload, strengths-based leadership as a critical job resource will be used for reducing followers’ perceptions of role overload rather than improving followers’ organizational identification. More specifically, when role overload is high, although strengths-based leadership enables followers to obtain valuable social resources which are conductive to fostering organizational identification (Ding & Yu, 2022), these resources will be depleted by higher levels of role overload, which in turn, leads followers to possess less resources to cultivate organizational identification. On the contrary, when role overload is low, followers will derive more resources from strengths-based leadership, which in turn, fosters higher levels of organizational identification. Hence, based on the above reasoning, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2

Role overload has a negative moderating effect on the relationship of strengths-based leadership with organizational identification.

By integrating Hypotheses 1–2, the current study further formulates a moderated mediation model in which the mediation effect of organizational identification on the strengths-based leadership-follower OCB relationship will be attenuated by role overload. As such, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3

Role overload negatively moderates the mediational effect of organizational identification on the relationship between strengths-based leadership and follower OCB.

Method

Participants and Procedures

Employees from a wide variety of companies in China (e.g., manufacturing and financial industry) participated in the study. The second author of the current study as a teacher contacted his graduated students and asked them to invite their colleagues to participate in our research. Self-administrated electronic questionnaires were utilized to collected data at three points in time, spaced by one month interval. After receiving informed consent from participants, we conducted the procedure of data collection and promised that all information associated with participants would be treated as confidential strictly. Each participant was distributed a fixed code to match three-wave data.

At Time 1, participants were instructed to complete questionnaire concerning demographic variables and strengths-based leadership scale. A total of 399 participants responded to this survey, indicating 76.73% response rate. At Time 2, we asked participants who responded at Time 1 to complete role overload and organizational identification scales. 305 questionnaires were received, suggesting 76.44% response rate relative to Time 1. At Time 3, participants who responded at Time 2 were asked to complete OCB scale. 288 participants responded to this survey, showing 94.43% response rate relative to Time 2. Finally, 272 valid matched samples were derived. Of 272 participants, 51.50% were male, 96.00% had bachelor’s degree, and 75.40% had been employed by the present company for more than five years. With respect to job level, 49.30% were leaders. The average age of respondents was 34.52 years (SD = 7.02) with a range of 18–55.

Measures

Given that organizational identification, role overload, and OCB scales were initially developed in English, we translated these scales into Chinese following the translation back-translation procedure. All items of research constructs were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).

Strengths-Based Leadership

Strengths-based leadership was measured with a 7-item scale developed by Ding and Yu (2022). The work of Ding and Yu (2022) showed that this scale has a good reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.94) and the scores related as expected to employee well-being. An example item was “My leader discusses with me how I can improve my strengths.” In the present study, Cronbach’s α of this scale was 0.93.

Organizational Identification

We measured organizational identification with a five-item scale developed by Smidts, Pruyn, and Van Riel (2001). The work of Smidts et al. (2001) showed that this scale has a good reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.84) and organizational identification evaluated by this scale is positively and moderately related to perceived external prestige. An example item was “I am glad to be a member of the organization”. Cronbach’s α of this scale was 0.95.

Ocb

OCB was measured with a ten-item scale used by Bachrach, Wang, Bendoly, and Zhang (2007). This scale consisted of two dimensions, namely, helping behavior and civic virtue. The two sub-scales have been confirmed by Bachrach et al. (2007) to have acceptable reliability (helping behavior: Cronbach’s α = 0.81; civic virtue: Cronbach’s α = 0.73) and found to be positively associated with task performance, respectively (Bachrach et al., 2007). An example item was “Be willing to risk disapproval to express beliefs about what’s best for the department.” Participants were asked to evaluate the extent to which they agree that they execute OCBs. In the current study, Cronbach’s α of this scale was 0.95.

Role Overload

Role overload was evaluated with a three-item scale developed by Bolino and Turnley (2005). The work of Bolino and Turnley (2005) showed that this scale has a good reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.84) and role overload assessed by this scale is positively and moderately related to job stress and work–family conflict. An example item was “It often seems like I have too much work for one person to do”. In the current study, Cronbach’s α of this scale was 0.89.

Control Variables

Shareef and Atan (2019) pointed out that employee’s gender, age, and education might affect employee’s OCB. Therefore, these three variables were treated as control variables. Gender was coded as follows: 1 = male, 2 = female; education was coded as follows: 1 = bachelor’s degree or below, 2 = master’s degree, 3 = doctor’s degree. Participants were asked to show their age in years. Furthermore, to examine the incremental validity of strengths-based leadership in predicting follower OCB, humble leadership was viewed as control variable. Humble leadership was evaluated using a 14-item scale developed by Chen et al. (2017). An example item was “My supervisor can adopt reasonable suggestions of subordinates”. In the current study, Cronbach’s α of this scale was 0.98.

Analysis and Results

Discriminant Validity

CFA was utilized to examine the discriminant validity of research variables. To reduce inflated measurement errors due to multiple items of the latent variable (Nasser & Wisenbaker, 2006), we created two item parcels for OCB and four item parcels for humble leadership according to their dimensions. Five-factor measurement model was regarded as baseline model. Results of CFA showed that five-factor model exhibits the best fit to the data compared to other four alternative models (see Table 1). Accordingly, we could conclude that research variables of this study have an adequate discriminant validity.

Table 1.

Results of CFAs: Comparison of Measurement Models.

Models	χ²	df	χ²/df	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	IFI	Δχ² (Δdf)
Baseline model	419.36	179	2.34	.07	.96	.95	.96	-
Four-factor model^a	748.76	183	4.09	.11	.90	.88	.90	329.40^***(4)
Three-factor model^b	2104.58	186	11.32	.20	.64	.60	.65	1685.22^***(7)
Two-factor model^c	2364.75	188	12.58	.21	.60	.55	.60	1945.39^*** (9)
One factor model^d	2841.70	189	15.04	.23	.51	.45	.51	2422.34^*** (10)

Notes: ^a strengths-based leadership and humble leadership combined into one factor; ^b strengths-based leadership, humble leadership, and organizational identification combined into one factor; ^c strengths-based leadership, humble leadership, organizational identification, and OCB combined into one factor; ^d all combined into one factor. ^***p < .001.

Common Method Variance Testing

Although we gathered research data at three time points, self-report data might result in serious common method variance. A latent unmeasured common method factor method was applied to evaluate the degree of common method variance of this study data (Podsakoff et al., 2003). To this end, a common method factor was created and loaded on all items of strengths-based leadership, role overload, and organizational identification and four item parcels of humble leadership as well as two item parcels of OCB. The six-factor measurement model comprising the common method factor and five research variables reported a better fit to the data (χ² = 393.85, df = 178, χ²/df = 2.21, RMSEA = 0.07, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.95, IFI = 0.96) than six-factor measurement model. However, the common method factor only explained 10.11% of variance, less than 25.00% suggested by Williams et al. (1989). Accordingly, common method variance of the current study data did not exert a serious threat to our results.

Descriptive Statistics

Means, standard deviations, and correlations of research variables are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Gender	1.49	.50	-
2. Age	34.53	7.02	−.06	-
3. Education	1.43	.59	−.16^**	.07	-
4. Strengths-based leadership	3.96	.75	−.08	−.11	−.14^*	-
5. Humble leadership	4.06	.74	−.03	−.25^**	−.17^**	.79^**	-
6. Role overload	3.58	.79	.09	.05	−.07	−.07	−.07	-
7. Organizational identification	3.90	.71	−.01	−.05	−.02	.29^**	.29^**	.08	-
8. OCB	4.00	.55	−.20^**	−.06	−.05	.43^**	.35^**	−.02	.38^**

Notes: ^*p < .05, ^**p < .01.

Hypotheses Testing

Before examining our hypotheses, we conducted structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis without mediator and moderator (Model 1). Specifically, strengths-based leadership, humble leadership, gender, age, and education predicted follower OCB, and strengths-based leadership was correlated with humble leadership. The model exerted an acceptable fit to the data (χ² = 299.06, df = 101, χ²/df = 2.96, RMSEA = 0.09, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, IFI = 0.94). The relationship of strengths-based leadership with follower OCB was significant (β = 0.45, p < .01) even after controlling for humble leadership.

To examine Hypothesis 1, based on Model 1, we constructed Model 2 by introducing organizational identification as a mediator. Organizational identification was treated as a latent variable. Bootstrapping analysis with 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals (CI) based on 2000 iterations was used to determine the significance of indirect effect. Model 2 fitted the data very well (χ² = 448.18, df = 184, χ²/df = 2.44, RMSEA = 0.07, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, IFI = 0.95). Path coefficients are reported in Table 3. The indirect effect of strengths-based leadership on follower OCB via organizational identification was significant (estimate = 0.07, 95% CI: [0.03, 0.13], p < .001). In addition, since the direct relationship between strengths-based leadership and follower OCB after introducing organizational identification as a mediator was significant (β = 0.42, p < .01), we could conclude that organizational identification partially mediates the relationship between strengths-based leadership and follower OCB. Thus, Hypothesis 1 received support.

Table 3.

The Path Coefficients (Hypothesis 1).

Predictors/Outcomes	OCB (95% CI, p)
Gender	−.19 ([-0.31, −0.08], p < .01)
Age	−.02 ([-0.13, 0.09], p > .05)
Education	−.03 ([-0.16, 0.09], p > .05)
Strengths-based leadership	.42 ([0.17, 0.69], p < .01)
Humble leadership	−.08 ([-0.35, 0.16], p > .05)
Organizational identification	.28 ([0.15, 0.40], p < .01)

Hypothesis 2 postulated that role overload has a negative moderating effect on the relationship of strengths-based leadership with organizational identification. Model 3 was constructed based on Model 2 by introducing role overload as a moderator. Path coefficients were reported in Table 4. Specifically, role overload was treated as a latent variable, and the interaction term of standardized strengths-based leadership and role overload was treated as an explicit variable. The two variables were used to predict organizational identification. The Model 3 fitted the data very well (χ² = 555.96, df = 267, χ²/df = 2.08, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, IFI = 0.95). The interactive effect of strengths-based leadership and role overload on organizational identification was significant (β = −0.23, p < 0.01). To explicate this interaction effect more precisely, the relationship of strengths-based leadership with organizational identification at high (Mean + SD) and low (Mean – SD) levels of role overload was plotted in Figure 1. More specifically, the positive association of strengths-based leadership with organizational identification was stronger when role overload is low (estimate = 0.49, p < 0.01, 95% CI: [0.32, 0.68]) than when role overload is high (estimate = 0.22, p < 0.05, 95% CI: [0.05, 0.39]), and the slope difference is significant (estimate = 0.27, p < 0.01, 95% CI: [0.11, 0.45]). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 received support from the data.

Table 4.

The Path Coefficients (Hypotheses 2 and 3).

Predictors/Outcomes	Organizational Identification (95%CI, p)	OCB (95% CI, p)
Gender		−.19 ([-0.31, −0.07], p < .01)
Age		−.02 ([-0.13, 0.09], p > .05)
Education		−.03 ([-0.16, 0.09], p > .05)
Strengths-based leadership	.31 ([0.20, 0.43], p < .01)	.42 ([0.17, 0.69], p < .01)
Humble leadership		−.08 ([-0.35, 0.16], p > .05)
Role overload	.21 ([0.05, 0.37], p < .05)
Strengths-based leadership × role overload	−.23 ([-0.41, −0.09], p < .01)
Organizational identification		.28 ([0.15, 0.39], p < .01)

Figure 1.

The interactive effect of strengths-based leadership and role overload on organizational identification.

Hypothesis 3 postulated that role overload negatively moderates the mediational effect of organizational identification on the strengths-based leadership and follower OCB relationship. The moderated mediation effect was significant (estimate = −0.03, p < 0.01, 95% CI: [-0.05, −0.01]). More specifically, the mediating effect of organizational identification was stronger for employees with lower levels of role overload (estimate = 0.10, p < 0.01, 95% CI: [0.05, 0.16]) than for employees with higher levels of role overload (estimate = 0.04, p < 0.01, 95% CI: [0.01, 0.10]), and he slope difference is significant (estimate = 0.06, p < 0.01, 95% CI: [0.02, 0.10]). Hence, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

Discussion

The present article considered organizational identification as a mediator and role overload as a moderator in the relationship between strengths-based leadership and follower OCB. All of hypotheses received support from research data. Specifically, organizational identification mediated the strengths-based leadership-follower OCB linkage, and role overload lowered the positive direct relationship between strengths-based leadership and organizational identification and the indirect relationship of strengths-based leadership with follower OCB through organizational identification.

The present article adds to the previous literature on strengths-based leadership and follower OCB in three aspects. First, the present article was the first to investigate the relationship between strengths-based leadership and follower OCB, and found that strengths-based leadership is positively related to follower OCB. This finding is similar to previous research revealing the positive relationship of strengths use with OCB (e.g., Lavy & Littman-Ovadia, 2017) and extends these previous studies in that strengths-based leadership stresses behaviors that leaders execute toward followers (Ding & Yu, 2022), whereas strengths use represents followers’ own behaviors (Van Woerkom, Mostert, et al., 2016). The positive relationship between strengths-based leadership and follower OCB can be explicated by the fact that leaders focusing on followers’ strengths is quite effective in stimulating followers to leverage their strengths at work (Ding & Yu, 2022), which in turn leads followers to exhibit more discretionary and voluntary behaviors (Littman-Ovadia et al., 2017). Taken together, this study provides a new pathway of fostering employees’ OCB.

Second, the current study contributes to a better understanding of why strengths-based leadership is positively associated with follower OCB. Our findings indicated that strengths-based leadership can affect follower OCB though its influence on organizational identification, which is line with prior research revealing that organizational identification play an important mediating role in the relationship between developmental leadership and follower OCB (Zhang & Chen, 2013). This finding can be elucidated by social identity theory suggesting that contextual factors in work settings or job resources can affect employees’ identification with their work organizations, which in turn, shapes employees’ attitudes and behaviors (Bednar et al., 2020). More specifically, leaders who promote followers to identify, develop, and utilize their strengths at work can boost followers’ identification with their organizations primarily because followers leveraging strengths at work are more likely to experience authentic self which is conductive to improved organizational identification (Ding & Liu, 2023). Such increased organizational identification will in turn motivate followers to exhibit higher levels of OCB. Therefore, the present article can help us understand the underlying mechanism of the relationship between strengths-based leadership and OCB.

Third, by revealing the negatively moderating effect of role overload on the relationships between strengths-based leadership, organizational identification, and follower OCB, this study contributes to a better understanding of when strengths-based leadership has a more positive relationship with organizational identification and follower OCB. We found that when role overload is low, the direct relationship of strengths-based leadership with organizational identification and the indirect of strengths-based leadership with follower OCB through organizational identification will be stronger. This finding is consistent with social identity theory suggesting that social resources contribute to improving organizational identification and then employee performance (Bednar et al., 2020). Specifically, when role overload is high, employees’ social resource (i.e., strengths-based leadership) will be depleted, which in turn, leads employees to have less social resource enhance organizational identification and consequently leads to lower levels of OCB. Although previous research has found that job insecurity (Wang & Ding, 2023) and job autonomy (Ding & Yu, 2022) can moderate the effect of strengths-based leadership, this study identified a new boundary condition of the effectiveness of strengths-based leadership. Thus, this study advances our understanding of the effectiveness of strengths-based leadership.

Practical Implications

The present article has several practical implications. First, the positive relationship between strengths-based leadership and follower OCB implies that employees should seek leaders who are good at capitalizing on their own strengths because such leaders can motivate them to execute more OCBs. For example, during the interview process, employees can judge whether their future leader is a strengths-based leader by observing the extent to which the leader exhibits strengths-related behaviors. Second, as for employees, to stimulate themselves to exhibit more OCBs, employees should proactively change their cognition to their organizations in a positive way so as to enhance their identification with organizations. For instance, previous research has showed that leader-member exchange is positively related to organizational identification (Zhao et al., 2019). Thus, employees should try to establish a good relationship with their supervisor. Third, the attenuating effect of role overload on the relationships among strengths-based leadership, organizational identification, and OCB implicitly means that reducing perception of role overload is necessary for employees when they seek strengths-based leaders to enhance their OCBs. An important way of reducing perceived role overload is that employees make more efforts to improve their capacities to effectively accomplish work tasks because competence is beneficial for lowering perceived role overload (Vaughn & Wittig, 1980).

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Some limitations of the present article should be noted. First, we gathered data from a single source, which might result in severe common method variance. Although the result of common method variance testing indicated that the common method variance of our data is not serious, we still encourage researchers to collect data from different sources in the future research so as to enhance the internal validity of our theoretical model. Second, we only used data of employees working in various Chinese organizations to test our predictions, which limits the cross-cultural applicability of our results because employees from different cultures might have different perceptions of strengths-based leadership, organizational identification, role overload, and OCB. Therefore, in the future, researchers should attempt to extend the cross-cultural applicability of our results by conducting research on a sample of employees from different cultures. Third, the present article only considered organizational identification as a mediator between strengths-based leadership and OCB. However, leader-member exchange might be an important alternative mediator in the relationship between strengths-based leadership and follower OCB in that when strengths-based leader promotes employees to use their own strengths at work, employees will perceive good relation with the leader (Ding & Yu, 2020), which in turn will motivate employees to execute more OCB to reciprocate the leader (Liu & Wang, 2013). As such, it is quite valuable to dig the potential mechanism underlying the relationship between strengths-based leadership and follower OCB from the perspective of social exchange theory.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 72202063).

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the North China Electric Power University and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

ORCID iDs

Fuxiang Wang

He Ding

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from HD (believedh@126.com), upon reasonable request.*

Author Biographies

Fuxiang Wang received a PhD in human resource management from the Renmin University of China. His research focuses on strengths-based leadership, organizational behavior, and human resource management. He is an associate professor of human resource management at the School of Public Administration, Huaiyin Normal University. In his spare time, he enjoys photography, reading, and sports.

He Ding received a PhD in human resource management from the Renmin University of China. He has several years of human resource management experience, specializing in the recruitment, performance management, and talent management. He is currently an associate professor in the School of Economics and Management at North China Electric Power University. His research interests are in the areas of strengths-based approach, leadership, and human resource management. He enjoys reading and plays guitar.

References

Allan

B. A.

Autin

K. L.

Duffy

R. D.

(2016). Self-determination and meaningful work: Exploring socioeconomic constraints. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 71. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00071

Ashforth

B. E.

Mael

(1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4278999

Bachrach

D. G.

Wang

Bendoly

Zhang

(2007). Importance of organizational citizenship behaviour for overall performance evaluation: Comparing the role of task interdependence in China and the USA. Management and Organization Review, 3(2), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2007.00071.x

Bednar

J. S.

Galvin

B. M.

Ashforth

B. E.

Hafermalz

(2020). Putting identification in motion: A dynamic view of organizational identification. Organization Science, 31(1), 200–222. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1276

Bolino

M. C.

Turnley

W. H.

(2005). The personal costs of citizenship behavior: The relationship between individual initiative and role overload, job stress, and work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 740–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.740

Burkus

(2011). Building the strong organization: Exploring the role of organizational design in strengths-based leadership. Journal of Strategic Leadership, 3(1), 54–66.

Carnevale

J. B.

Huang

Paterson

(2019). LMX-differentiation strengthens the prosocial consequences of leader humility: An identification and social exchange perspective. Journal of Business Research, 96, 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.048

Chen

Wen

(2016). The effect of mentoring on protégés’ organizational deviance. Psychological Reports, 119(1), 200–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294116659456

Chen

C. C.

Sheldon

O. J.

(2016). Relaxing moral reasoning to win: How organizational identification relates to unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1082–1096. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000111

10.

Chen

Y. H.

Zhang

Chen

(2017). The structure and measurement of humble leadership in Chinese cultural context. Journal of Management Science, 30(3), 14–22. (Chinese).

11.

Cho

Schilpzand

Huang

Paterson

(2021). How and when humble leadership facilitates employee job performance: The roles of feeling trusted and job autonomy. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 28(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051820979634

12.

Cohen-Meitar

Carmeli

Waldman

D. A.

(2009). Linking meaningfulness in the workplace to employee creativity: The intervening role of organizational identification and positive psychological experiences. Creativity Research Journal, 21(4), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410902969910

13.

Deery

Rayton

Walsh

Kinnie

(2017). The costs of exhibiting organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management, 56(6), 1039–1049. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21815

14.

Ding

Liu

(2023). The dark side of strengths-based approach in the workplace: Perceived strengths-based human resource system spurs unethical pro-organizational behavior. Current Psychology, 42(25), 22062–22071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03249-x

15.

Ding

(2020). Follower strengths-based leadership and follower innovative behavior: The roles of core self-evaluations and psychological well-being. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 36(2), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2020a8

16.

Ding

(2022). Strengths-based leadership and employee psychological well-being: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Career Development, 49(5), 1108–1121. https://doi.org/10.1177/08948453211018807

17.

Ding

(2020). Strengths-based leadership and its impact on task performance: A preliminary study. South African Journal of Business Management, 51(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajbm.v51i1.1832

18.

Duxbury

L. E.

Stevenson

Higgins

(2018). Too much to do, too little time: Role overload and stress in a multi-role environment. International Journal of Stress Management, 25(3), 250–266. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000062

19.

Els

Viljoen

Beer

L. D.

Brand-Labuschagne

(2016). The mediating effect of leader-member exchange between strengths use and work engagement. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 26(1), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2016.1149278

20.

Harris

T. B.

Kirkman

B. L.

(2014). Leader–member exchange (LMX) in context: How LMX differentiation and LMX relational separation attenuate LMX's influence on OCB and turnover intention. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 314–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.09.001

21.

Jones

Chonko

Rangarajan

Roberts

(2007). The role of overload on job attitudes, turnover intentions, and salesperson performance. Journal of Business Research, 60(7), 663–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.02.014

22.

Joo

B. K.

Lim

(2013). Transformational leadership and career satisfaction: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(3), 316–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051813484359

23.

Kacmar

K. M.

Andrews

M. C.

Valle

Tillman

C. J.

Clifton

(2020). The interactive effects of role overload and resilience on family-work enrichment and associated outcomes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 160(5), 688–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2020.1735985

24.

Lavy

Littman-Ovadia

(2017). My better self: Using strengths at work and work productivity, organizational citizenship behavior, and satisfaction. Journal of Career Development, 44(2), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845316634056

25.

Littman-Ovadia

Lavy

Boiman-Meshita

(2017). When theory and research collide: Examining correlates of signature strengths use at work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(2), 527–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9739-8

26.

Liu

X. Y.

Wang

(2013). Abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behaviour: Is supervisor–subordinate guanxi a mediator? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(7), 1471–1489. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.725082

27.

Loi

Chan

K. W.

Lam

L. W.

(2014). Leader–member exchange, organizational identification, and job satisfaction: A social identity perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(1), 42–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12028

28.

Nasser

Wisenbaker

(2006). A Monte Carlo study investigating the impact of item parceling strategies on parameter estimates and their standard errors in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(2), 204–228. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302_3

29.

Newman

Miao

Hofman

P. S.

Zhu

C. J.

(2016). The impact of socially responsible human resource management on employees' organizational citizenship behaviour: The mediating role of organizational identification. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(4), 440–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1042895

30.

Organ

D. W.

(1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, Books.

31.

Park

Jang

S. J.

(2017). Family role overload’s relationship with stress and satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 32(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-01-2016-0020

32.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

33.

Rath

Conchie

(2008). Strengths based leadership: Great leaders, teams, and why people follow. Gallup Press.

34.

Russo

Guo

Baruch

(2014). Work attitudes, career success and health: Evidence from China. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(3), 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.01.009

35.

Shareef

R. A.

Atan

(2019). The influence of ethical leadership on academic employees’ organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intention: Mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Management Decision, 57(3), 583–605. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-08-2017-0721

36.

Smidts

Pruyn

A. T. H.

Van Riel

C. B.

(2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1051–1062. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069448

37.

Van Woerkom

Mostert

Els

Bakker

A. B.

De Beer

Rothmann

J. , S.

(2016a). Strengths use and deficit correction in organizations: Development and validation of a questionnaire. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 25(6), 960–975. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1193010

38.

Van Woerkom

Oerlemans

Bakker

A. B.

(2016b). Strengths use and work engagement: A weekly diary study. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 25(3), 384–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1089862

39.

Vaughn

L. S.

Wittig

M. A.

(1980). Occupation, competence, and role overload as evaluation determinants of successful women. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10(5), 398–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1980.tb00719.x

40.

Wang

Ding

(2023). Strengths-based leadership and employee strengths use: The roles of strengths self-efficacy and job insecurity. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 39(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2023a6

41.

Wang

Zhang

Henry

S. E.

(2023). You raise me up and I reciprocate: Linking empowering leadership to organizational citizenship behavior and unethical pro‐organizational behavior. Applied Psychology, 72(2), 718–742. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12398

42.

Williams

Cote

Buckley

(1989). Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 462–468. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.3.462

43.

Zhang

Chen

C. C.

(2013). Developmental leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Mediating effects of self-determination, supervisor identification, and organizational identification. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(4), 534–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.03.007

44.

Zhao

Liu

(2019). Leader–member exchange, organizational identification, and knowledge hiding: The moderating role of relative leader–member exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(7), 834–848. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2359