Team Citizenship Pressure: How Does It Relate to OCB and Citizenship Fatigue

Abstract

The aim of this research is to shed light on the phenomenon of citizenship pressure as a team-level construct. Building on the conservation of resources theory, the study used a moderated-mediation model to explore whether team organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) mediates the relationship between team citizenship pressure and team citizenship fatigue and whether this mediation is moderated by perceived supervisor support. Results from a study of 91 professional teams in the educational system indicate that team citizenship pressure had a significant and positive relationship with team OCB, as well as with team citizenship fatigue. The results also support the overall moderated-mediation model, but contrary to the hypothesized pattern of interaction, we found that team citizenship pressure was significantly and positively correlated with OCB when perceived supervisor support was low, but not when it was high. Limitations and implications for future research are discussed.

Keywords

citizenship pressure organizational citizenship perceived supervisor support citizenship fatigue

Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has emerged in recent decades as one of the most prominent research topics in the field of organizational behavior (Nadeem et al., 2019; Nohe & Michaelis, 2016). Employee OCB has been found to be a key factor that contributes to the improvement of a wide range of organizational outputs (Podsakoff et al., 2000). OCB refers to an array of voluntary activities that exceed delineated role expectations and are important and even crucial for an organization’s survival (Gupta & Singh, 2017; Reynolds et al., 2015). Scholars have recently challenged the perspective that OCB are voluntary behaviors that cannot be enforced through formal obligations (Cohen & Keren, 2010; Organ, 1988), arguing that going above and beyond the call of duty is not always voluntary, and that an individual faces strong social or managerial pressure to involuntarily engage in citizenship behaviors (Bolino et al., 2010; Germeys et al., 2019). In light of this approach, Bolino et al. (2010) coined the concept of citizenship pressure, defined as “a specific job demand in which an employee feels pressured to perform OCBs” (p. 836).

A review of the literature indicates that, although the phenomenon of citizenship pressure is quite prevalent in organizations (Bolino et al., 2010), research on the subject is still in its infancy (Horn et al., 2015). Research conducted to date has focused on understanding citizenship pressure as an experience of the individual and has ignored the view that this phenomenon grows within a context. The extent to which employees experience citizenship pressure is not determined in a vacuum, and the team and/or organizational context likely serves to intensify or lessen these feelings (Podsakoff et al., 2018). The theoretical ground that establishes the idea of team citizenship pressure is derived from theories of group norms and team climate (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004; Peiró et al., 1992). Thus, examining team citizenship pressure only through an individual-level lens is likely to result in a misalignment between theory and measurement (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), since citizenship pressure is influenced by team-level factors and may be more than the sum of its individual-level parts (Cole et al., 2008). This means that, although citizenship pressure is experienced by individuals in the team, instead of isolating and identifying individual characteristics that contribute to its team-based manifestation (Carpenter et al., 2021), examining citizenship pressure at the team level emphasizes the notion that collective citizenship pressure is a different construct than that experienced at the individual level (Paulin & Griffin, 2017). Conceptualizing citizenship pressure as a property of the team, therefore, enables researchers and practitioners to identify factors in the work environment that encourage or discourage the shared experience of citizenship pressure within the team (Ehrhart et al., 2014). Furthermore, given that team outputs are subject to collective-level dynamics, it can also be argued that team citizenship pressure is a better predictor of organizational and team functioning and effectiveness than an individual’s sporadic input.

Conflicting evidence emerged regarding citizenship pressure’s impact on OCB and its consequences for both the individual and the organization (Bolino et al., 2010, 2015). Several researchers (e.g., Bolino et al., 2010; Wang & Huang, 2019) found a positive link between citizenship pressure and OCB, at the individual level; others found a negative relationship between the two constructs (e.g., Vigoda-Gadot, 2006; Zhao et al., 2014). Although several studies showed that citizenship pressure can lead to positive outcomes of job engagement and work-family enrichment (Cates et al., 2010; Germeys et al., 2019), most have pointed to its detrimental effects, especially on the well-being of employees (e.g., Bolino et al., 2015; de Clercq et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2017; Somech & Bogler, 2019; Yildiz & Elibol, 2021). Overall, the impact of citizenship pressure is still not fully understood. Moreover, research has heretofore identified neither mechanisms that translate the feeling of citizenship pressure into the negative experience of strain or fatigue nor circumstances that may enhance or decrease this relationship.

The present research seeks to address these deficiencies by proposing an integrative team-level model. We focus on citizenship pressure as a team-level phenomenon and examine its impact on team citizenship fatigue, a concept that was developed to specifically address the phenomenon of tiredness stemming from investing in citizenship behaviors (Bolino et al., 2015). Team OCB consequently serves as a mediator, functioning as a mechanism that translates the feeling of citizenship pressure into the negative experience of OCB fatigue. The pressure to contribute above-and-beyond formal obligations may be beneficial to the organization, but that investing in OCB may lead, in return, to stress-related outcomes for the team members (Bolino & Turnley, 2005). In this regard, the model integrates two lines of research: one that focuses on the link between citizenship pressure and OCB (Bolino et al., 2010), and the other that examines the impact of OCB on employee well-being (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013).

Furthermore, we claim that perceived supervisor support (PSS) will moderate the relationship between team citizenship pressure and team OCB. Given the dominant role of leadership in the workplace (Shin & Zhou, 2003), the pattern of the leader’s behavior toward its team has substantial impact on the consequences of team citizenship pressure. We chose to focus on PSS because it represents a set of leader behaviors, such as caring or instrumental assistance, which appear to be key components in various stress-coping models and were found to have the potential to reduce the negative outcomes of stress (Horn et al., 2015). The overall moderated-mediation model suggests that team OCB serves as a mediator in the relationship between the interaction of team citizenship pressure and PSS and team citizenship fatigue. Such a moderated-mediation model indicates when (PSS moderation) and why (team OCB mediation) team citizenship pressure translates into the harmful outcome of team citizenship fatigue (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The study model.

The model relies on the conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 2001) as a theoretical ground. Since citizenship pressure is considered a stressor in the workplace, COR theory can help us understand the impact of citizenship pressure on the team. While citizenship pressure may drain the resources of team members, PSS adds resources due to its instrumental and/or emotional assistance, and thus mitigates the resource loss (Youn et al., 2017).

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

OCB is defined as an “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988, p. 4), cumulatively promoting the effective and beneficial functioning of the organization (Gupta & Singh, 2017; Reynolds et al., 2015). Williams and Anderson (1991) identified two broad dimensions of OCB: The first is OCBI (OCBs toward individuals in the organization), which includes behaviors that immediately benefit particular individuals, such as colleagues, hence contributing to the organization indirectly. The second dimension is OCBO (OCB toward the organization), which includes behaviors that benefit the organization as a whole. Although most existing research has identified OCB as the behavior of individuals, scholars have begun suggesting in recent years that since OCB is a phenomenon that grows within a context and is a situational rather than dispositional tendency, it should be treated as a team-level phenomenon (Cohen et al., 2012; Somech & Khotaba, 2017). This approach identifies the unit of team as a powerful source of norms that influences individuals’ perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors (van Dick et al., 2006). Thus, it may be argued that team-level OCBs are subject to collective-level dynamics that contribute to individual and organizational outcomes above and beyond the sporadic activities of the individual (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). To better understand the shift from individual to team-level conceptualization, Kozlowski and Klein (2000) describe two types of team-level constructs: shared and configural. These two types of constructs

Emerge from the characteristics, behaviors, or cognitions of unit members-and their interactions-to characterize the unit as a whole. . . Shared unit properties are essentially similar across levels (that is, isomorphic), representing composition forms of emergence. In contrast, configural unit properties are functionally equivalent but different (that is, discontinuous), representing compilation forms of emergence. (p. 13)

We refer to team OCB as a shared construct with the definition that it is the “extra efforts performed by the whole team, that are above and beyond what is required, and contribute to the effective functioning of the organization” (Lam & Lau, 2008, p. 142). The team-level approach calls for the development of an appropriate measure that evaluates group-level OCB differently than simply aggregating individual-level data to the team level (Tepper et al., 2004). In the present study, we adopt a scale of group-level OCBs (GOCB) developed and validated by Vigoda-Gadot et al. (2007), which is similar to the individual-level taxonomy presented by Williams and Anderson (1991) and consists of two dimensions: the first (GOCB-Individual) represents behaviors that the team intentionally directs at helping a specific person, while the second (GOCB-Organization) pertains to citizenship behaviors for the benefit of the entire team or organization as a whole.

The conventional approach in OCB research assumes that exhibiting extra-role behaviors is rooted in the employee’s free choice (Organ, 1988). In other words, the assumption is that OCBs are done voluntarily with the intention and goodwill on the part of the employee to contribute to the goals of the organization (Kidwell et al., 1997). Vigoda-Gadot (2006, 2007) recently challenged this “free will” assumption and coined the term compulsory citizenship behavior; a term that represents the social pressure that an employee faces to engage involuntarily in citizenship behaviors, without receiving any formal reward in return. Later, Bolino et al. (2010) suggested a related concept- citizenship pressure- defined as “a specific job demand in which an employee feels pressured to perform OCBs” (p. 836), which we use in the present study. These two concepts similarly neutralize the component of free will and free choice and demonstrate how employees are expected to exhibit a kind of non-spontaneous citizenship behavior, due to managerial or group pressure.

Although citizenship pressure reflects the subjective experience of the individual, we argue that it can also be considered a team-level phenomenon. The theoretical justification for examining citizenship pressure as a team construct derives from three sources. The first source is research in the arena of group norms and workplace climate (Ehrhart & Naumann, 2004). This research shows that teams have a critical influence on the perceptions, beliefs, and approaches of individuals in different areas. Furthermore, it indicates that interactions among team members, their joint tasks, and the clearly defined limits of teamwork enable team members to adopt collectivist views and develop common norms (George, 1990; Jehn et al., 1997). Second, according to the shared mental model perspective (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994), teams develop an organized understanding of relevant knowledge that is shared by team members (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993). This collective understanding enables team members to anticipate each other’s actions and respond in a coordinated fashion (Lim & Klein, 2006). The third source of the theoretical justification for examining citizenship pressure at the team level is based on theories of social learning, which claim that people learn by observing the reactions and behaviors of others (Bandura, 1986). Individuals working in environments in which most of the members express feelings and emotions of stress in response to the demand to contribute above and beyond tend to adopt the same attitudes and perceptions (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997). For example, George (1990) found that team members tend to exhibit similar moods; specifically, teams, as a collective, can exhibit homogeneous positive and/or negative moods. Following this vein, we argue that team members will tend to experience the social demand to contribute above and beyond in a similar manner. In other words, team citizenship pressure as an emergent state represents a product of the dynamics and interaction among team members, which create a “characteristic” that is more than the total of the attributes of the individuals (Marks et al., 2001). Accordingly, team citizenship pressure is a shared construct and is defined as a collective feeling of pressure to perform OCBs shared by team members.

Having established the advantages of viewing citizenship pressure as a team-level construct, we now discuss its links with two team outcomes: citizenship fatigue and team OCB.

The Link Between Team Citizenship Pressure and Team Outcomes

We first argue that team citizenship pressure will have an impact on team perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. The general idea is that stress undermines team resources and thus has a detrimental effect on the team members’ well-being and performance. Resources are defined as objects (e.g., technical aids that make work easier), personal characteristics (e.g., traits and skills), conditions (e.g., organizational support), and energies (e.g., time, mental, and physical energy, knowledge) that are valued in their own right or because they act as conduits to the achievement or protection of other valued resources (Somech, 2016). Based on Hobfoll (1989, 2001) conservation of resources (COR) theory, individuals strive to preserve, innovate, and increase their resources, and when they are unable to do so, they will experience stress, such as when (1) resources are threatened, (2) resources are lost, or (3) individuals invest resources without obtaining the anticipated level of return. Thus, the pressure exerted on team members to engage in citizenship behaviors would negatively impact their own well-being, such as experiencing fatigue, because they are investing resources without anticipating rewards (Bergeron, 2007).

Team citizenship fatigue

Citizenship fatigue is defined as a “state in which employees feel worn out, tired, or on edge attributed to engaging in OCB” (Bolino et al., 2015, p. 57). This concept was developed to specifically address the phenomenon of fatigue that stems from investing in citizenship behaviors. Although citizenship fatigue reflects the subjective experience of the individual, we consider it a team-level phenomenon, in line with the present model’s approach. Team citizenship fatigue is, therefore, defined as a collective psychological state in which team members feel worn out, tired, or on edge and such feelings are attributed to engaging in OCB. In line with the COR theory, the pressure to perform OCB might in itself be taxing. The job demand of contributing above and beyond the call of duty can be considered a stressor that threatens resources (Hobfoll, 2001), leading team members to experience a sense of stress, and consequently to feel citizenship fatigue (Chi & Liang, 2013). Indeed, Bolino et al. (2010) found a positive link between citizenship pressure and job stress. They claimed that “citizenship pressure is likely to increase the occurrence of job stress among employees, stress describes the harmful physical and emotional responses that result when job requirements incompatible with the capabilities, resources, or needs of an employee” (p. 840). Accordingly, we argue that team members who face strong social or managerial pressure to engage in citizenship behavior feel as if their resources, like energy, time, or autonomy, are being threatened or even depleted (Liu et al., 2017). This experience can exacerbate negative emotions and attitudes, which in turn can cause feelings of exhaustion and tiredness, namely, citizenship fatigue. Hence, we propose that:

H1: There is a positive relationship between team citizenship pressure and team citizenship fatigue.

Team OCB

It seems that the most intuitive variable that should be linked to team citizenship pressure is team OCB. Indeed, several studies that were conducted at the individual level supported the notion that when an employee faces the demand to invest the extra mile, they tend to comply and exhibit higher levels of citizenship behaviors (Bolino et al., 2010; Wang & Huang, 2019). This positive link may be even more solid in the context of teams, as teams are a powerful source of influence on their members (van Dick et al., 2006). At the team level, citizenship pressure induces team members to conform to the explicit and implicit message regarding the norms that prevail in the team (Liu et al., 2017). This message specifies clearly that team members are expected to contribute above and beyond the call of duty, even at the expense of a possible loss of resources. We therefore hypothesize that:

H2: There is a positive relationship between team citizenship pressure and team OCB.

The Link Between Team OCB and Team Citizenship Fatigue

As indicated above, COR theory explains also why investment in OCB might cause citizenship fatigue. COR theory posits that the primacy of resource loss is disproportionately greater than resource gain (Hobfoll, 2001). Although engaging in OCB can lead to resource gain, such as a sense of competence or empowerment (Dormann & Zapf, 2004), it also consumes resources, such as energy, time, and knowledge. Also, since OCB is not formally rewarded, investing in OCB without any promise of gaining valued resources might yield more loss than total resource gain (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013) and could in turn increase the team members’ level of fatigue (Bolino et al., 2015). Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2013) found that higher levels of OCB were related to higher levels of employee strain, above and beyond the impact of other stressors evoked by OCB, such as role overload, role ambiguity, and role conflict (e.g., Bergeron, 2007; Bolino & Turnley, 2005; Bolino et al., 2004). Thus, we hypothesize that:

H3: There is a positive relationship between team OCB and team citizenship fatigue.

The Mediating Role of Team OCB

The research, heretofore, has not identified any mechanisms that translate team members’ feeling of citizenship pressure into the negative experience of citizenship fatigue. The present model proposes that team OCB will serve as a mediator in this relationship. We suggest that team members who experience high levels of citizenship pressure may feel that they must comply with the demand to invest their resources in contributing above and beyond the call of duty (Bolino et al., 2010); an investment that consequently leads to feelings of exhaustion, namely, citizenship fatigue (Bolino et al., 2015). We, therefore, posit that team OCB serves as a stimulator that translates team citizenship pressure into team citizenship fatigue.

H4: Team OCB mediates the relationship between team citizenship pressure and team citizenship fatigue.

The Moderating Role of Perceived Supervisor Support

A further argument of our model focuses on the moderating role of PSS in the relationship between team citizenship pressure and team OCB. As elaborated above, although team members may perceive team citizenship pressure as a job demand that would result in resource loss (Banwo & Du, 2020), they may capitulate to such pressures to exhibit citizenship behaviors, albeit unwillingly, rather than directly resist them (Vigoda-Gadot, 2006). This suggests that the pattern and strength of the relationship between citizenship pressure and OCB depends on the presence of boundary conditions, such as the presence of PSS. PSS refers to the general perception of team members of the way their supervisor values their contribution and cares about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 2002). We chose to focus on PSS because it represents a set of leader behaviors that appear to be key components in various stress-coping models and were found to have the potential to reduce the negative effects of stress (Horn et al., 2015).

Hobfoll and Shirom (2001) argued that team members with a greater pool of resources are less susceptible to resource loss. Accordingly, we suggest that supportive leaders provide team members with resources that can buffer the potential resource loss resulted from the demand to invest extra efforts and energy in citizenship behaviors. Put simply, highly supportive leaders provide their teams with practical assistance to cope directly with stressful events and/or give emotional support through active listening that helps team members reframe the situation and reappraise negative emotions (Bakker et al., 2007). Indeed, Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2013) found that PSS has a moderating effect on the relationship between OCB and strain, such that the relationship was weaker under high PSS compared with low PSS. Hence, we expect that more supervisor support will equip team members with additional resources that will enable them to respond positively to the demand for extra effort, namely, to exhibit higher levels of citizenship behaviors. Conversely, teams whose leaders do not provide them with sufficient support are less likely to engage in citizenship behavior because they are more likely to experience it with a sense of resource loss (Viswesvaran et al., 1999). We posit that:

H5: PSS moderates the relationship between team citizenship pressure and team OCB, such that the positive relationship is stronger for teams with high PSS compared with low PSS.

Moderated Mediation Model

Finally, our model proposes that the interaction effect of PSS influences the indirect effect of team citizenship pressure on team citizenship fatigue through the mediating role of team OCB. The overall model suggests that, first, the strength of the link between team citizenship pressure and the mediating variable of team OCB depends upon the level of the moderator PSS; and second, that team OCB will mediate the relationship between team citizenship pressure and team citizenship fatigue. Specifically, we suggest that under the condition of high levels of PSS (compared with low levels), the positive relationship between team citizenship pressure and OCB will be stronger, leading in return to higher levels of team citizenship fatigue. In other words, the strength of the indirect relationship between team citizenship pressure and team citizenship fatigue through team OCB will vary, depending on the level of the team’s PSS. Such a moderated-mediation model indicates when (PSS moderation) and why (team OCB mediation) team citizenship pressure translates into the harmful outcome of team citizenship fatigue. Hence, we hypothesize that:

H6: Team OCB mediates the relationship between team citizenship pressure and team citizenship fatigue, and the indirect effect is stronger among teams with high PSS.

Method

Sample and Procedure

The present research included 91 professional teams in nine educational organizations, namely middle and high schools in Israel. Each professional team consists of teachers teaching a specific subject matter (e.g., mathematics, science, or literature), guided by a team coordinator. Of a total of 385 participants, 294 were team members, and 91 were their direct supervisors. The criterion for inclusion in the sample was that the team coordinator and at least 60% of the team members completed the questionnaire. Team size ranged from 3 to 15 members with an average of 5.28 (SD = 2.99) and an average meeting frequency of about three times per month (M = 2.90, SD = 1.08). Of the 294 members of the professional teams, 209 were women (71.1%) and 80 were men (27.2%), which reflects the ratio of male to female teachers in Israel. The average age of the team members was 36.94 (SD = 8.60). They had an average of 10.55 years of experience (SD = 8.94) with an 8.54 year tenure teaching at their current school (SD = 7.50). In terms of education status, 61.6% had a bachelor’s degree, 36.1% had a master’s degree, and 2.3% of the participants did not specify their degree. Of the 91 professional team coordinators, 70 were women (76.9%) and 21 were men (22.0%), with an average age of 48.03 (SD = 7.56). In terms of education status, 27.5% had a bachelor’s degree, 70.5% had a master’s degree, and 2% of the coordinators did not specify their degree.

Measures

All variables were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree, except for the citizenship pressure scale that ranged from 1 never feel pressured to 5 always feel pressured.

Team OCB

Team OCB was measured using a questionnaire developed by Vigoda-Gadot et al. (2007), which includes 18 items that measure two dimensions: Team OCBI (nine items) and team OCBO (nine items). OCBI is OCB that is directed at and contributes to a certain person in the organization, that is, an individual (e.g., “My teammates also help teachers and parents who are not in professional contact with them”; α = .89), while OCBO refers to OCB that is directed at and contributes directly to the organization as a whole (e.g., “Team members help absent colleagues by assigning learning tasks to their classes”; α = .82). Cronbach’s alpha reliability level for the entire questionnaire was .91. Due to the high correlation between OCBI and OCBO (r = .71; p < .001), we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis. We present the results below.

Team citizenship pressure

To evaluate citizenship pressure as a more specific phenomenon, we used the OCB scale developed by Vigoda-Gadot et al. (2007) and added the following prefix to each item: “In my professional team, we feel pressured to.” For example: “In my professional team, we feel pressured to volunteer to perform tasks that are not required in our formal role” (α = .96).

Perceived supervisor support

An eight-item questionnaire developed by Lambert (2000) was adopted and adjusted for the current study to fit the context of educational setting and team level analysis. For example: “Our coordinator is ready to help the team members when the team is under stress or has an emergency” (α = .93).

Team citizenship fatigue

A scale with six items adopted from Bolino et al. (2015) that measures citizenship fatigue was adjusted in the present study to fit the school context and team level analysis. For example: “Going above and beyond at school exhausts staff members mentally and physically” (α = .96).

Construct validity was examined within a two-level maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis framework (ML-CFA), based on a mix of higher and lower loadings to integrate the maximum error level of the original item measurement (Bandalos, 2002; Matsunaga, 2008). To reduce complexity, we applied the parceling technique (De Bruin, 2004), built of a preliminary exploration that leads to a smaller set of parcels, which in our case are three parcels of the OCB construct in two forms, the OCB as one construct and divided into OCBI and OCBO. First, the OCB was tested as a single factor that included the two dimensions of OCBI and OCBO. The model goodness of fit was above acceptance criteria: χ² = 128.95, df = 72, p < .001; CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR_w = 0.04, SRMR_b = 0.06. In the second run, we split OCB into two sub-scales, χ² = 175.44, df = 104, p < .001; CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR_w = 0.04, SRMR_b = 0.05. The model difference test showed that one-factor OCB was slightly better than when split into two factors: Δχ2 = 46.49, df = 32, p = .047. Moreover, the correlation between these two dimensions of OCB was high (r = .85, p < .001), and the average variance extracted for the organizational dimension was 0.56, smaller than the squared correlation r² = .72. Thus, we argue that these two sub-factors were undistinguishable.

We calculated composite reliability and average variance extracted for all the variables at the individual and the team levels. Other than the PSS, for which the composite reliability at level one was 0.69, which is still a fair value (Geldhof et al., 2014), the calculated composite reliabilities at both levels for all variables exceeded 0.75. The average variance extracted were above 0.65 for both levels and the combined OCB composite reliability was 0.885. In addition, due to the high correlation between team citizenship pressure and team citizenship fatigue (r = .76, p < .01), we perform a partial CFA to validate the discrimination between these two constructs. We compared the two-factor and the one-factor model. For the two-factor model we received excellent model fit: χ² = 46.80, df = 16, p < .001; CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR_w = 0.03, SRMR_b = 0.02, whereas the one-factor model failed to meet goodness-of-fit threshold, that is, CFI = 0.76, TLI = 0.58.

Control variables

Gender, frequency of team meetings, and team size were included as control variables in this study. Gender was measured as a dichotomous variable (0 = male, 1 = female). Accumulating evidence indicated that women are more likely than men to exhibit OCB as part of their in-role job performance (Morrison, 1994), possibly because women are expected to perform OCB as a routine part of their job and are sanctioned if they do not, whereas men not only are not expected to exhibit OCB but are rewarded if they do (Alexandra Beauregard, 2012). In addition, men and women differ in the way they assess stress and in how they perceive and evaluate their resources and performance outcomes (Watson et al., 2011). Frequency of team meetings (i.e., number of team meetings per month) has been found to be a vital component in the prediction of team effectiveness (Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2001). A higher frequency of team meetings improves communication and cooperation and increases motivation and commitment among team members, which in turn enhances the team’s functioning and success (Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2002; Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012). Finally, since team size influences individuals’ attitudes and performance within the team (e.g., Hülsheger et al., 2009; Kauffeld & Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2012) and impacts team processes and outcomes (Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2002), we included it as a control variable, measured by the question posed to team coordinators: “How many teachers do you have in your team?.”

Level of Analysis

To avoid one-source bias, data were collected from two sources. Team members evaluated team citizenship pressure, PSS, and team citizenship fatigue, and team coordinators evaluated team OCB. Thus, OCB is a team level construct when data was collected, whereas citizenship pressure, PSS, and team citizenship fatigue needed to be aggregated, since this study identified the team as the unit of analysis. To aggregate the individual responses to the team level, it was critical to examine the homogeneity of the responses. Two tests were conducted: an r_wg test that assesses the level of within-team agreement (James et al., 1993) and the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) test, which includes two scores: ICC(1), which reflects the extent of within- versus between-group variability, and ICC(2), which provides an estimate of the reliability of the group means (Bliese & Halverson, 1996; James et al., 1982). In our research, the average r_wg score for citizenship pressure was 0.98, for team citizenship fatigue 0.90, and for PSS 0.96. These findings showed that the r_wg indexes of the variables were all greater than 0.7, which indicated a “good” extent of within-group interrater agreement (James et al., 1993). ICC(1) and ICC(2) values for citizenship pressure were 0.47 and 0.47, for team citizenship fatigue 0.53 and 0.87, and for PSS 0.37 and 0.65, respectively. The ICC(1) values exceeded the median score 0.12, as recommended by James et al. (1982), and ICC(2) values were also high. Thus, we concluded that aggregation was justified for these variables Table 1.

Table 1.

R_wg, ICC(1), and ICC(2) of Study’s Variables.

Variable	R_wg	ICC(1)	ICC(2)
Team citizenship pressure	0.98	0.47	0.47
Team citizenship fatigue	0.90	0.53	0.87
Perceived supervisor support	0.96	0.37	0.65

Note. R_wg = within-team agreement; ICC = intra-class correlation coefficient.

Modeling Strategy

Since our hypotheses were phrased at the team level, but empirical data were collected both at individual level, from teachers (Level 1-L1), and also at team level, from team coordinators (Level 2-L2), we built a two-level maximum likelihood estimation of sequential equation model (ML-SEM; Hox, 2013) in which individual data were nested within teams. The multilevel framework allowed us to test the hypotheses at the team level, while integrating data at the individual level. Specifically, we tested indirect cross-level effects, where team OCB was a team level variable, assessed by team coordinators (L2), and PSS, team citizenship pressure, and the outcome team citizenship fatigue were individual level variables assessed by each teacher on the team (L1).

To integrate both levels, we applied the L1-L2-L1 modeling solution suggested by Preacher et al. (2010, 2011), using the Mplus V.8.3 statistical package (Muthén & Muthén, 2018). The L1-L2-L1 modeling procedure is the least problematic way of estimating indirect cross-level effects as there is no random slope involved. In our case, however, the direct effect of team citizenship pressure (L1) on team citizenship fatigue (L1) was the result of two sources at different levels: (1) the direct effect from OCB (L2) and (2) the individual team slope estimated based on teachers’ responses (L1). This complication also applied to testing the moderation and moderated mediation effects. Thus, we report the modeling results in a set of charts in which we show the gradual development of the hypothesis-testing procedure. In each chart, we show the two-level path results, separately (Figures 2 –8). All models were run within the two-level framework, even if no L1 paths were defined. We used the Bayesian estimator to produce asymmetric confidence intervals as a substitute for the commonly used bootstrapping technique. With the Bayesian estimator, standardized coefficients are produced, which support our conclusion regarding the role of the mediation effect and moderated mediation. Bayesian priors are set as non-informative or diffused priors (large variance indicates a high level of uncertainty). As prior variances increase, Bayesian estimates get closer to the ML estimates. Credibility intervals for the posterior distribution of the estimates were added. The p-values were based on the ratio between the estimate over the posterior SD assuming a Z distribution. The MLR estimator for robust standard errors was, nevertheless, used to ensure similar estimates.

Figure 2.

Simple test results of two-level indirect effect.

Figure 3.

Simple test results of two-level moderate effect.

Figure 4.

Interaction effect of team citizenship pressure and PSS on team OCB.

Figure 5.

Simple test results of the included model.

Figure 6.

Simple test results of two-level indirect effect on two dimensions of team OCB.

Figure 7.

Simple test results of two-level moderate effect.

Figure 8.

Interaction effect of team citizenship pressure and PSS on two dimensions of team OCB.

Results

Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations for the study variables.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Matrix of Study’s Variables.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4
Individual level
1. Gender*	1.73	0.48	—
2. Teachers’ citizenship pressure	3.05	0.75	0.09	—
3. Teachers’ citizenship fatigue	2.97	1.16	0.07	0.64**	—
4. Perceived supervisor support	3.81	0.77	0.06	−0.20**	−0.43**	—

Note. N = 294. *Dummy coded: Gender: male = 0, female = 1.

p < .01.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
Team level
1. Team size	5.28	2.99	—
2. Frequency of meetings	2.90	1.08	−.07	—
3. Team citizenship pressure	3.02	.64	−.11	−.12	(.96)
4. Perceived supervisor support	3.74	.66	.04	−.01	−.21*	(.93)
5. Team OCB	3.66	54.	.16	.23*	.35**	.44**	(.91)
6. Team citizenship fatigue	2.97	1.04	.25*	.25*	.76**	−.21*	.05	(.96)

Note. Team-level variables N = 91. Cronbach’s alphas are displayed on the diagonal and parentheses.

p < .01, *p <.05.

The first model tested the mediation role of team OCB in the relationship between team citizenship pressure and team citizenship fatigue. In line with Hypothesis 1, the direct effect of team citizenship pressure on team citizenship fatigue is demonstrated twice, as both the mean slope at the individual level and at the team level (β = .34, p < .001; β = .75, p < .001; respectively; total unstandardized direct effect: b = 1.73, p < .001, and 95% CI [1.42, 2.06]; Figure 2). The assessed indirect effect was positive (indirect b = 0.12, p = .01, and 95% CI [0.02, 0.27]). Team size and team meeting measurements were included as team level controls. We also tested for possible gender differences in citizenship pressure and citizenship fatigue and found no significant difference, and thus, gender was excluded from further analyses.

As expected, in line with Hypothesis 2, team citizenship pressure showed a positive relationship with team OCB (β = .39, p < .001), which in turn was positively associated with team citizenship fatigue (β = .20, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 3. We also found that the indirect effect of team citizenship pressure on team citizenship fatigue through team OCB was partial and complemented the direct effect, supporting Hypothesis 4 (unstandardized total effect: b = 1.86, p < .001, and 95% CI [1.55, 2.19]). Overall, the posterior predictive p-value (PPP = 0.37) was within the acceptance range (Muthén & Asparouhov, 2012), and the potential scale reduction factor (PSRF) approached 1.00. These criteria were maintained for all further analyses.

In the second model, we examined the moderation effect of PSS on the relationship between team citizenship and team OCB. We found a significant relationship (b = −2.10; p < .001; Figure 3), with a posterior predictive p-value (PPP = 0.06) that was within the acceptance range.

To better understand the interaction pattern, we plotted the high (+1SD) and low (–1SD) levels of PSS (the moderator). Contrary to Hypothesis 5, the results indicated that at a low PSS level and at a moderate PSS level, team citizenship pressure was significantly and positively associated with team OCB (b = 1.02, p < .001,and 95% CI [0.62, 1.46]; b = 0.50, p < .001,and 95% CI [0.27, 0.75]) respectively. However, at a high PSS level, there was no significant association (p = .98; Figure 4).

Lastly, we ran a complete integrative model in which we included the moderation effect of PSS on the relationship with team citizenship pressure and team OCB to test the possible moderated mediation effect (Hypothesis 6). In other words, we examined the indirect effect of team citizenship pressure on team citizenship fatigue through team OCB with respect to varying levels of team PSS. Although the model’s PPP was greater than 0.01 (PPP = 0.20; 95% CI of difference between observed and replicated χ2 value [−15.40,40.06]), the model’s PSR remained high (1.57) and did not converge after a large number of iterations (see Figure 5). The effect of the moderation effect was significant (b = −0.82, p < .001), as was the assessed mediation effect of team citizenship pressure on team citizenship fatigue through team OCB (indirect b = 1.02, p = .01). This indicates a moderated mediation effect, supporting Hypothesis 6. We assessed this mediation for two levels of team PSS, based on the aforementioned categorization criterion (low PSS: indirect b = 1.16, p = .01, and 95% CI [0.22, 2.68]; high PSS: indirect b = 0.87, p = .01, and 95% CI [0.17, 1.99]), due to the reduced effect of team citizenship pressure on team OCB alongside increasing moderating values of team PSS. To confirm that these results were reproducible, we ran the model with the MLR estimator for robust standard error estimation. The goodness of fit for the model was within the common acceptance range: RMSE = 0.06, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.96, SRMR_within = 0.03, SRMR_between = 0.14, χ² = 21.17, df = 10, p = .017 and a scaling factor of 1.07. Examining the overall model results, we found the estimates to be highly similar, but no standardized estimation was available.

Post Hoc Analyses

We conducted further analyses to examine whether the two dimensions of team OCB (OCBI, OCBO) have different impact as mediators in the relationship between team citizenship pressure and team citizenship fatigue. Of the two estimated indirect paths via team OCBI and team OCBO, the first was found to be significant (indirect b = 0.13, p = .038, and 95% CI [0.007, 0.299]), while the second was not (indirect b = −0.001, p = .92, and 95% CI [−0.07, 0.30]). The results indicate that team citizenship pressure was positively related to team OCBI (β = .37, p < .001), which in turn was positively associated with team citizenship fatigue (β = .21, p < .05); while team citizenship pressure had no significant relationship with team OCBO (p > .05) and team OCBO had no significant relationship with team citizenship fatigue (p > .05). We also found that the indirect OCBI effect was partial and complemented the direct effect (unstandardized total effect: b = 1.85, p < .001, and 95% CI [1.54, 2.18]). Overall, the posterior predictive p-value (PPP = 0.36) was within the acceptance range.

Furthermore, we examined the moderation effect of PSS on the relationship between team citizenship pressure and the two dimensions of team OCB (i.e., team OCBI and team OCBO). We present the model results in Figure 7. We found a significant moderation effect of PSS on the relationship between team citizenship pressure on both team OCBI (b = −1.78; p < .001) and team OCBO (b = −2.04; p < .001). The model’s posterior predictive p-value (PPP = 0.07) was within the acceptance range.

To better understand the interaction pattern, we plotted the high (+1SD) and low (–1SD) levels of PSS (the moderator) on each dimension of OCB and conducted correlations for each PSS level. Regarding team OCBI, the results indicate that at a low PSS level and at a moderate PSS level, team citizenship pressure was significantly and positively related to team OCBI (b = 1.14, p < .001, and 95% CI [0.64, 1.69]); b = 0.60, p < .001, and 95% CI [0.30, 0.91]) respectively. However, at a high PSS level, there was no significant relationship (p = .78). Similarly, regarding team OCBO, the results indicate that at a low PSS level, team citizenship pressure was significantly and positively related to team OCBO (b = 0.77, p < .001, and 95% CI [0.34, 1.25]), while at a high PSS level and at a moderate PSS level, there were no significant relationship (p = .13; p = .06), respectively; see Figure 8.

Discussion

Organizations often perform in a highly dynamic and competitive environment where behaviors that go beyond in-role duties have become a fundamental component for achieving effectiveness (Dalakoura, 2010). Such circumstances encourage managers to create an environment that formally or informally forces team members to exhibit citizenship behaviors (Somech & Bogler, 2019). The findings presented herein support the notion that citizenship pressure promotes team OCB that benefits the organization, but at the same time, directly and indirectly leads to the cost of fatigue among team members (Bolino & Turnley, 2005). Specifically, our results show that team citizenship pressure is positively related to team OCB and to team citizenship fatigue. It is important to note that when the two dimensions of OCB were examined separately, the results revealed that only the array of citizenship behaviors that are directed toward specific individuals in the organization (OCBI) served as a mediator in the relationship between team citizenship pressure and team citizenship fatigue, while no significant association was found between team citizenship pressure and team OCBO, nor between OCBO and team citizenship fatigue. Our findings also show that PSS serves as a moderator in the relationship between team citizenship pressure and team OCB. Contrary to our hypothesis, however, when PSS was low, team citizenship pressure was positively associated with OCB, while no significant relationship was found when PSS was high. The findings also support the overall moderation-mediation model and suggest that team OCB mediates the moderated effect of PSS on the relationship between team citizenship pressure and team citizenship fatigue. These results contribute to the OCB literature in several ways.

First, the findings indicate within-team homogeneity of how teams respond to citizenship pressure. This is to say that, although the pressure to exhibit citizenship behaviors is the experience of the individual, this experience can be conceptually extended to the team level. This finding supports the notion that citizenship pressure is a phenomenon that grows within a context. When a group of people work together as a team with frequent interactions, shared goals, and clear boundaries, they develop common psychological structures called emergent states. Emergent states represent the shared attitudes, values, cognitions, and motives of the team members and are manifested in team interactions and/or processes that, in turn, influence team outcomes (Marks et al., 2001). Thus, investigating citizenship pressure only as an individual-level concept falls short of fully capturing the phenomenon. Research should therefore focus on the characteristics of both the team and the organization to better understand the antecedents and consequences of citizenship pressure.

Second, we found that team citizenship pressure is positively associated with team citizenship fatigue. This finding is consistent with the classic stress models, which claim that job demand often functions as a stressor and, hence, has the potential to elevate feelings of strain (e.g., Job Demand-Resources Model; Demerouti et al., 2001). Similarly, according to the conservation of resources (COR) theory, demands at work are experienced as a loss of resources, resulting in a sense of stress and strain (Hobfoll, 2001). However, we also found a positive link between team citizenship pressure and team OCB, which implies that the pressure to contribute above and beyond may also motivate a resource gain through citizenship behavior. This duality is evident in studies that found that, while employees report on the costs of citizenship pressure, they also identify its benefits (e.g., Somech & Bogler, 2019). Accordingly, we suggest that, instead of dividing resources into either loss or gain, we may develop a both/and approach, thus enabling us to see resources in genuinely new ways; a perspective that would enrich the COR theory.

Third, beyond the direct link between team citizenship pressure and team citizenship fatigue, we also found that team OCB served as a mediator in this relationship. In addition, our results showed that, of the two dimensions of OCB, only OCBI served as a mediator in this relationship. This means that experiencing pressure to contribute above and beyond does not affect team members to work more diligently for the organization, but it leads team members to invest extra efforts in assisting their colleagues, which in turn increases feelings of citizenship fatigue. Since citizenship pressure is usually top-down (e.g., Cates et al., 2010; Somech & Bogler, 2019), team members may feel obligated to comply, but may also choose to focus on citizenship behaviors that benefit their peers rather than the organization. Seeing as most studies, heretofore, have studied the impact of citizenship pressure on OCB without breaking down the construct’s dimension, (Bolino et al., 2010; Peng & Zhao, 2012), future research is needed to provide a more comprehensive picture regarding the differential links between citizenship pressure and the two dimensions of OCB.

The finding regarding the mediating role of team OCB contributes to the literature by uncovering the resources-based mechanism that intensifies the sense of citizenship fatigue among team members. In other words, team citizenship pressure leads to high levels of team citizenship fatigue because team OCB may drain resources and, consequently, lead to feelings of exhaustion (Bolino et al., 2015). Furthermore, the finding of the positive link between team OCB and team citizenship fatigue also emphasizes the complexity regarding the impact of OCB on the individual, the team, and/or the organization as a whole (Zeinabadi, 2010). Although most studies focused on the advantages of OCB in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, and innovation of both the team and the organization (e.g., Nadeem et al., 2019), scholars have recently begun to examine the potential dark sides of the employee’s willingness to invest above and beyond the call of duty (e.g., Bolino & Turnley, 2005). Our results not only provide additional support for the argument that investing in OCB is a stressful experience for team members, but they also clarify that those feelings of fatigue stem directly from the tendency of team members to contribute extra acts that are not part of their job obligations (Bolino et al., 2015).

Finally, the results support the overall model and demonstrate that the interaction between team citizenship pressure and PSS is related to team OCB, which in turn is positively related to team citizenship fatigue. However, regarding the moderating role of PSS, contrary to our hypothesis, the results indicate that the positive relationships between team citizenship pressure and the two dimensions of team OCB (OCBI, OCBO) occur when the level of PSS is low, and no link was found under high PSS. These findings imply that, when team members are expected to exhibit citizenship behaviors, they may feel that they must comply when they know that they cannot negotiate with a supervisor who will not provide emotional or instrumental support to help them cope with the stressful situation (Somech & Bogler, 2019). On the other hand, a supportive supervisor is more likely to create a friendly environment where team members can discuss and share their feelings with their supervisor and choose whether or not to comply with the demand to exhibit OCB. These findings may also support the claim that citizenship pressure serves as a resource for increasing team engagement in OCBs (Cates et al., 2010), and PSS may act as a resource-substitute to increase team OCBs when citizenship pressure is lacking.

To sum, the overall model suggests that team citizenship pressure is positively associated with the tendency of team members to invest in OCB, especially when the supervisor does not provide support. The pressure increases the potential costs for the team by elevating the levels of citizenship fatigue, directly, but also indirectly via the mediating impact of team OCB.

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite the study’s contribution, this research has several limitations. First, data were gathered using questionnaires, so there are potential biases such as subjectivity of responses. Although data were gathered from two different sources (i.e., teachers and team coordinators) to avoid one-source bias (Avolio et al., 1991), rating of level of citizenship pressure and citizenship fatigue were from the same source (i.e., teachers), which may explain the high correlation between the two variables and may raise a concern regarding the validity of the results of Hypothesis 1. Future research may do well to adopt a multi-method and/or multi-source approach when testing our model. Second, the cross-sectional design of the study precludes conclusions regarding the causal relations in our research model and raises the question of whether our data captured team dynamics in a single snapshot. Longitudinal studies are required to further explore the causal relationships, such as examining whether the positive link between team citizenship pressure and team OCB would last or change over time.

Third, OCB was assessed in the present study by team leaders, which may limit the construct validity. Future research may adopt a multi-source approach to depict complementary aspects of the construct. Fourth, the uniqueness of the sampled population raises a question of generalizability. The present research was conducted in an educational context, in which most employees are female. Future research may investigate the model in other organizational settings (e.g., business organizations) to assess the generalizability of the present findings. Fifth, the present model is based on the COR theory that tends to define resources as either loss or gain, but we suggest a less dichotomous approach to resources in future research. That is, since our findings suggest that citizenship pressure engenders more OCB at the team level, it is indicated that, although citizenship can be seen as a resource loss to the member that provides help, it may be considered a resource gain to the member who is being helped. In this study, we only theorized that OCB and citizenship pressure have a negative impact on employees (i.e., citizenship fatigue), which is consistent with existing findings in the literature (Germeys et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2017). Future studies should also explore the potential gains of investing extra efforts in work, such as a sense of competence or higher performance evaluations.

Finally, focusing on citizenship pressure as a team property provides the opportunity to examine a new set of variables as the antecedents and consequences of this construct. Team citizenship pressure is mainly shaped by the team’s shared work environment and influences team-level consequences (Molleman, 2005). To better understand how team citizenship pressure develops, future studies should identify team-level variables, such as team structures and processes, and/or intra-team relationships that encourage or discourage this phenomenon, as well as its impact on the team’s attitudes and behaviors (Ehrhart et al., 2014). Future research can also examine the interplay between individual level and team level constructs. For example, if the constructs interact independently, how does citizenship pressure at individual level influence the citizenship pressure at team level, and vice versa? This line of research may encourage a multilevel perspective for examining potential moderators and mediators to better understand the antecedents and consequences of citizenship pressure. One approach is identifying parallel or functionally similar structures that may impact citizenship pressure, as recommended by Santos and Eisenhardt (2005). For example, further research can examine the role of culture at team, organizational, and national levels. Identifying such parallelism can help generalize citizenship pressure theory from the individual level to higher levels, as well as provide a basis for explicitly comparing similarities and differences in the determinants and outcomes of citizenship pressure across levels.

Managerial Implications

From a practical perspective, teams constitute an important and meaningful entity in organizations. This research, which focuses on citizenship pressure, OCB, and citizenship fatigue as team-level phenomena, may provide management and HR units with several important practical implications. Since citizenship pressure is a phenomenon that exists in organizations but is seldom discussed, our findings may prompt managers to confront the challenges it poses to the individual, the team, and the organization as a whole. The team-level perspective emphasizes that the phenomenon, as well as its consequences, grow within a context. Our findings indicate that citizenship pressure indeed elevates the tendency of teams to invest in acts that are not part of their formal duty, and the investment in those extra-mile behaviors has the potential to harm the well-being of team members. Since OCB is an important component in the functioning and effectiveness of organizations, managers should, therefore, learn how they can enhance the positive effects of citizenship pressure while curtailing the negative effects of unwanted outcomes (Turnley et al., 2003). That is, leaders should create environments that encourage employees to exhibit OCB, but at the same time they should detect and address manifestations of stress and fatigue.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Anit Somech

Author Biographies

Anit Somech is a full professor in Organizational Psychology at the University of Haifa, Israel, Department of Educational Leadership & Policy. Her research interests include organizational citizenship behavior, participative leadership, and teamwork from a multilevel and cross-culture perspective.

Noy Eliyahu is a PhD student in the Department of Educational Leadership & Policy at the University of Haifa.

References

Alexandra Beauregard

(2012). Perfectionism, self-efficacy and OCB: The moderating role of gender. Personnel Review, 41(5), 590–608. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481211249120

Avolio

B. J.

Waldman

D. A.

Yammarino

F. J.

(1991). Leading in the 1990s: The four I′s of transformational leadership. Journal of European Industrial Training, 15(4), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599110143366

Bakker

A. B.

Hakanen

J. J.

Demerouti

Xanthopoulou

(2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Education & Psychology, 99(2), 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.274

Bandalos

D. L.

(2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(1), 78–102. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0901_5

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

Banwo

A. O.

(2020). When the good outweighs the bad: Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) in the workplace. Human Resource Development International, 23(1), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2018.1449546

Bergeron

D. M.

(2007). The potential paradox of organizational citizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1078–1095. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26585791

Bliese

P. D.

Halverson

R. R.

(1996). Individual and nomothetic models of job stress: An examination of work hours, cohesion, and well-being. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(13), 1171–1189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb02291.x

Bolino

M. C.

Hsiung

H. H.

Harvey

LePine

J. A.

(2015). “Well, I’m tired of tryin’!” organizational citizenship behavior and citizenship fatigue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037583

10.

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

11.

Bolino

M. C.

Turnley

W. H.

Gilstrap

J. B.

Suazo

M. M.

(2010). Citizenship under pressure: What’s a “good soldier” to do? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 835–855. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.635

12.

Bolino

M. C.

Turnley

W. H.

Niehoff

B. P.

(2004). The other side of the story: Reexamining prevailing assumptions about organizational citizenship behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 14(2), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.05.004

13.

Cannon-Bowers

J. A.

Salas

Converse

(1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In Castellan

N. J.

(Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 221–246). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

14.

Carpenter

N. C.

Whitman

D. S.

Amrhein

(2021). Unit-level counterproductive work behavior (CWB): A conceptual review and quantitative summary. Journal of Management, 47(6), 1498–1527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320978812

15.

Cates

D. A.

Mathis

C. J.

Randle

N. W.

(2010). A positive perspective of citizenship pressure among working adults. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22(3), 330–344. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/20798915

16.

Chi

S. C. S.

Liang

S. G.

(2013). When do subordinates’ emotion-regulation strategies matter? Abusive supervision, subordinates’ emotional exhaustion, and work withdrawal. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.08.006

17.

Cohen

Ben-Tura

Vashdi

D. R.

(2012). The relationship between social exchange variables, OCB, and performance. Personnel Review, 41(6), 705–731. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481211263638

18.

Cohen

Keren

(2010). Does climate matter? An examination of the relationship between organisational climate and OCB among Israeli teachers. Service Industries Journal, 30(2), 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642060802120158

19.

Cole

P. M.

Luby

Sullivan

M. W.

(2008). Emotions and the development of childhood depression: Bridging the gap. Child Development Perspectives, 2(3), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00056.x

20.

Dalakoura

(2010). Differentiating leader and leadership development. The Journal of Management Development, 29(5), 432–441. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711011039204

21.

De Bruin

G. P.

(2004). Problems with the factor analysis of items: Solutions based on item response theory and item parcelling. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 30(4), 16–26. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC89027

22.

de Clercq

Dietrich

Núñez Velasco

J. P.

de Winter

Happee

(2019). External human-machine interfaces on automated vehicles: Effects on pedestrian crossing decisions. Human Factors, 61(8), 1353–1370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819836343

23.

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B.

Nachreiner

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499

24.

Dormann

Zapf

(2004). Customer-related social stressors and burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(1), 61–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.9.1.61

25.

Drach-Zahavy

Somech

(2001). Understanding team innovation: The role of team processes and structures. Group Dynamics Theory Research and Practice, 5(2), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.5.2.111

26.

Drach-Zahavy

Somech

(2002). Team heterogeneity and its relationship with team support and team effectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(1), 44–66. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230210415643

27.

Ehrhart

M. G.

Naumann

S. E.

(2004). Organizational citizenship behavior in work groups: A group norms approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 960–974. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.960

28.

Ehrhart

M. G.

Schneider

Macey

W. H.

(2014). Organizational climate and culture: An introduction to theory, research and practice. Routledge.

29.

Eisenberger

Stinglhamber

Vandenberghe

Sucharski

I. L.

Rhoades

(2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.565

30.

Geldhof

G. J.

Preacher

K. J.

Zyphur

M. J.

(2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19(1), 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032138

31.

George

J. M.

(1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.107

32.

Germeys

Griep

De Gieter

(2019). Citizenship pressure as a predictor of daily enactment of autonomous and controlled organizational citizenship behavior: Differential spillover effects on the home domain. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 395. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00395

33.

Gupta

Singh

(2017). Predicting employee engagement, knowledge sharing & OCB. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 52(4), 675–689. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/26536427

34.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.44.3.513

35.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 337–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00062

36.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Shirom

(2001). Handbook of organizational behaviour, revised and expanded. Marcel Dekker.

37.

Horn

Mathis

C. J.

Robinson

S. L.

Randle

(2015). Is charismatic leadership effective when workers are pressured to be good citizens? The Journal of Psychology, 149(8), 751–774. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2014.978253

38.

Hox

J. J.

(2013). Multilevel regression and multilevel structural equation modeling. The Oxford Handbook of Quantitative Methods, 2(1), 281–294.

39.

Hülsheger

U. R.

Anderson

Salgado

J. F.

(2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015978

40.

James

L. R.

Demaree

R. G.

Wolf

(1993). R-sub(wg): An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 306–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306

41.

James

L. R.

Mulaik

S. A.

Brett

J. M.

(1982). Causal analysis: assumptions, models, and data. Sage Publications.

42.

Jehn

K. A.

Chadwick

Thatcher

S. M. B.

(1997). To agree or not to agree: The effects of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 8(4), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022799

43.

Kauffeld

Lehmann-Willenbrock

(2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43(2), 130–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496411429599

44.

Kidwell

R. E.

Mossholder

K. W.

Bennett

(1997). Cohesiveness and organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals. Journal of Management, 23(6), 775–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300605

45.

Klimoski

Mohammed

(1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20(2), 403–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639402000206

46.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

Klein

K. J.

(2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). Jossey-Bass.

47.

Lambert

S. J.

(2000). Added benefits: The link between work-life benefits and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 801–815. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556411

48.

Lam

L. W.

Lau

D. C.

(2008). Work climate and customer satisfaction: The role of trust in the retail context. Journal of Management & Organization, 14(2), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.5172/jmo.837.14.2.141

49.

Lim

B. C.

Klein

K. J.

(2006). Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.387

50.

Liu

Zhao

Sheard

(2017). Organizational citizenship pressure, compulsory citizenship behavior, and work–family conflict. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 45(4), 695–704. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6064

51.

Marks

M. A.

Mathieu

J. E.

Zaccaro

S. J.

(2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4845785

52.

Matsunaga

(2008). Item parceling in structural equation modeling: A primer. Communication Methods and Measures, 2(4), 260–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450802458935

53.

Molleman

(2005). Diversity in demographic characteristics, abilities and personality traits: Do faultlines affect team functioning? Group Decision and Negotiation, 14(3), 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-005-6490-7

54.

Morrison

E. W.

(1994). Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’s perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1543–1567. https://doi.org/10.5465/256798

55.

Muthén

Asparouhov

(2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026802

56.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2018). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

57.

Nadeem

Riaz

Danish

R. Q.

(2019). Influence of high-performance work system on employee service performance and OCB: The mediating role of resilience. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 9(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40497-018-0142-2

58.

Nohe

Michaelis

(2016). Team OCB, leader charisma, and organizational change: A multilevel study. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(6), 883–895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.05.006

59.

Organ

D. W.

(1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company.

60.

Paulin

Griffin

(2017). Team Incivility Climate Scale: Development and validation of the team-level incivility climate construct. Group & Organization Management, 42(3), 315–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115622100

61.

Peiró

J. M.

González-romá

Valcárcel

Ramos

(1992). The disenchantment of professionals in a new, implemented model of primary health care in Spain: A structural equations model. Work and Stress, 6(3), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678379208259957

62.

Peng

Zhao

(2012). Does organization citizenship behavior really benefit the organization? Nankai Business Review International, 3(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1108/20408741211201935

63.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

(1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestion for future research. Human Performance, 10(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_5

64.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Paine

J. B.

Bachrach

D. G.

(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600307

65.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2018). The Oxford handbook of organizational citizenship behavior. Oxford University Press.

66.

Preacher

K. J.

Zhang

Zyphur

M. J.

(2011). Alternative methods for assessing mediation in multilevel data: The advantages of multilevel SEM. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18(2), 161–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2011.557329

67.

Preacher

K. J.

Zyphur

M. J.

Zhang

(2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141

68.

Reynolds

C. A.

Shoss

M. K.

Jundt

D. K.

(2015). In the eye of the beholder: A multi-stakeholder perspective of organizational citizenship and counterproductive work behaviors. Human Resource Management Review, 25(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2014.06.002

69.

Santos

F. M.

Eisenhardt

K. M.

(2005). Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organization Science, 16(5), 491–508. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0152

70.

Shin

S. J.

Zhou

(2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 703–714. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040662

71.

Somech

(2016). The cost of going the extra mile: The relationship between teachers’ organizational citizenship behavior, role stressors, and strain with the buffering effect of job autonomy. Teachers and Teaching, 22(4), 426–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1082734

72.

Somech

Bogler

(2019). The pressure to go above and beyond the call of duty: Understanding the phenomenon of citizenship pressure among teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 83, 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.04.014

73.

Somech

Drach-Zahavy

(2013). Organizational citizenship behaviour and employee’s strain: Examining the buffering effects of leader support and participation in decision making. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(2), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2011.633702

74.

Somech

Khotaba

(2017). An integrative model for understanding team organizational citizenship behavior: Its antecedents and consequences for educational teams. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(6), 671–685. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2016-0104

75.

Tepper

B. J.

Duffy

M. K.

Hoobler

Ensley

M. D.

(2004). Moderators of the relationships between coworkers’ organizational citizenship behavior and fellow employees’ attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 455–465. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.455

76.

Turnley

W. H.

Bolino

M. C.

Lester

S. W.

Bloodgood

J. M.

(2003). The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29(2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630302900204

77.

van Dick

Grojean

M. W.

Christ

Wieseke

(2006). Identity and the extra mile: Relationships between organizational identification and organizational citizenship behaviour. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00520.x

78.

Vigoda-Gadot

(2006). Compulsory citizenship behavior: Theorizing some dark sides of the good soldier syndrome in organizations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 36(1), 77–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2006.00297.x

79.

Vigoda-Gadot

(2007). Redrawing the boundaries of OCB? An empirical examination of compulsory extra-role behavior in the workplace. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(3), 377–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-006-9034-5

80.

Vigoda-Gadot

Beeri

Birman-Shemesh

Somech

(2007). Group-level organizational citizenship behavior in the education system: A scale reconstruction and validation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(4), 462–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x07299435

81.

Viswesvaran

Sanchez

J. I.

Fisher

(1999). The role of social support in the process of work stress: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), 314–334. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1998.1661

82.

Wang

Huang

(2019). The dark side of feeling trusted for hospitality employees: An investigation in two service contexts. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 76(A), 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.04.001

83.

Watson

S. B.

Goh

Y. W.

Sawang

(2011). Gender influences on the work-related stress-coping process. Journal of Individual Differences, 32(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000033

84.

Williams

L. J.

Anderson

S. E.

(1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305

85.

Yildiz

Elibol

(2021). Turnover intention linking compulsory citizenship behaviours to social loafing in nurses: A mediation analysis. Journal of Nursing Management, 29(4), 653–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13200

86.

Youn

Kim

J. H.

Song

(2017). The leading causes and consequences of citizenship pressure in the hotel industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(6), 1541–1559. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-09-2015-0472

87.

Zeinabadi

(2010). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) of teachers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 5, 998–1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.225

88.

Zhao

Peng

Chen

H. K.

(2014). Compulsory citizenship behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of organizational identification and perceived interactional justice. The Journal of Psychology, 148(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2013.768591